Log in

No account? Create an account


A different kind of conservative community!

In the spring of 2005 I found myself in the position of having more money then sense.

As often happens to young Sailors and Marines returning to the US from thier first deployment with 6+ months (tax-free) back-pay in their pocket I was approached by a man with an “investment opportunity”. He was plausible and I, having more money then sense, signed up.

It was a con.

Thinking back over our conversations I realized that the con-man had tipped his hand but I had been too trusting and too greedy to notice. At one point when I was already pretty sure I was going to give him the money I said, “Okay, let me think it over". Rather than accept this as the end of the conversation he re-doubled his efforts to make the sale. In hind-sight it was obvious, he didn't want me thinking it over because if I had, I may have realised I was being conned.

My grandad used to say that the more someone protests thier honorable intentions the tighter you should hold onto your wallet. Someone who knows that they are in the right won't feel the need to justify themselves.

It doesn't matter if the deal looks legit the fact that someone the would feel the need to resort to obfuscation or ad hominem in the first place should tell you everything you need to know.

Afterall what purpose is there to silencing the opposition except to obscure the possibility that they may have a valid point?

Ideals that are truly worthy will endure and grow in face of criticism. People who vilify or refuse to entertain dissent are simply trying to cover for their own weakness.

Why We (Conservatives) Suck
magical me
There are a lot of great things about being conservative, but there are some major downsides as well....

Read more...Collapse )

Obama's Folly
From an opinion piece Did Obama betray a Chinese Hero? 

I am sure most of you have been following the story of Chin, the blind Chinese activist served up as the current victim du jour in the Human Rights Wars™.

Here is the basic liberal's point:

Frankly, I was not surprised that the US would turn him over to the Chinese and then lie about him wanting to go back. After all, the ChiComs practically own us. Who wants to piss off the Landlord?

Obama has forgotten his grass roots as an activist. He now plays with his children on a well manicured lawn.

I am too old to learn Mandarin. We are the 99, etc...

However, lets look at the conservative point of view...Collapse )

Should the POTUS personally apologize to the Chinese government for giving a blind guy some shelter? What did we do anyway that deserves a forced bow to Zog?
Tags: ,

When I first read "Pournelle's Law" it was as if Occam's Razor had gone snicker-snack! and explained every counter-intuitive self-destructive decsion ever made by a political organization.

For me it is a basic axiom on which my political positions are based.

That said I am at a loss to provide any evidence to back my position and as such I pose these questions to the community...

Is there anyone here who would disagree with the proposition that...
...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.???

And does anyone have any ideas about how one could go about empiracally testing this hypothesis?

It seems to me that being able to prove Pournelle's Law would be of great interest to conservative thinkers as doing so would systematically invalidate much of the so-called progressive agenda.

Trial over the book which tells people the truth on April 24th
People are watching the trial of the book, "Is all power to the people?"
On Tuesday, April 24, at the Vladimir Regional Court there will be a session held where representatives of the Svetlana Peunova will challenge re-examination of the Svetlana Peunova’s book "Is all power to the people?"

The day before, an appeal of Svetlana Peunova was handed to Chairman of the Regional Court A. Malyshkin, which states:
The reason for the appeal to the regional court is the fact that the trial over my book in the district court is being unreasonably delayed for over a year. In judicial practice, it is called "abuse of procedural law", and in arbitration practice parties are even being fined for that. But the most alerting thing is that the case of recognizing my book “Is all power to the people? Confessions of a contemporary” an extremist material is being delayed by the judge, showing a clear loyalty to the prosecution side.

The judge, M. Sysoeva has every reason for the delivery of a judgment, already for a long time, but she does not do it.

There are four examinations enclosed in the case, three of which, including court expertise, unequivocally state that there are no calls for extremist activities in the book.
These three examinations were conducted by professionals with high qualifications and academic degrees in linguistics, psychology, law and sociology, and only one examination was made by Nabukina, an ordinary school teacher in the Vladimir city gymnasium # 23M.

Conclusions of school teacher came into conflict with the findings of several candidates and doctors of science, but for some reason, the judge favored her arguments, suspended the proceedings and appointed an absolutely unnecessary re-examination.

The party, that the judge favors, is unfamiliar with the subject of court proceedings, and did not even read the book, that she tries to recognize an extremist. The representative of the prosecutor's office S. Babukina does not prepare for litigation, cannot answer any questions, concerning her own claims.

All this is confirmed by the video and audio recordings of past trials.

I am as the leader of the opposition party and a public figure well aware of the political character of this case, and that is why I am even surer that it must be solved in full accordance with international law and the Russian Constitution.

The relationship of the Russian and international public, that watches the proceedings, toward the judicial system, justice in general and toward how it ensures the protection of the rights of citizens against unfounded accusations, depends on the decision on this case.
I really hope for an objective decision of the regional court concerning my submitted complaint of unjustified appointment of another expertise, delaying the trial, prepossession of the judge Sisoeva to this case, the one- sided assessment of the available evidences in the case.

With respect and hope for your objectivity, the leader of the “VOLYA” (WILL) party, Svetlana Peunova.

221 signatures in support of the complaint, collected on the pickets in the Vladimir city are enclosed. In addition, several hundred signatures in support of the appeal are sent to the chairman of the Vladimir city Regional Court from 45 Russian cities.

We invite members of the media, human rights organizations and all concerned citizens to come to the Vladimir Regional Court for a hearing on the complaint of Svetlana Peunova. The meeting is scheduled for April 24, at 11.10 at the address: 55 Streletskaya Str.

We urge representatives from media, human rights organizations and all citizens to participate in the distribution of information about this process and not to allow the power to convict people's opposition secretly from public, to stand up in defense of freedom of speech and constitutional rights of citizens in Russia.
Detailed information is on the volya-naroda.com and on the hotline 8-800-200-15-20, telephone number in the Vladimir city: 8-961-252-10-81


Another loaded question...
So after 400+ comments I'm back for more, things like "Human rights" and "moral imperative" get thrown around an awful lot but nobody really seems to agree on what such things actually entail so with that in mind I ask...

What exactly are we all entitled to?

I freely admit that my own answer is bleaker than most. In my mind anything beyond conscious and ambulatory tends to get logged in the bonus column. As a result, I find it difficult discuss things like "Health-Care" and the so-called "Living Wage" because my concept of "neccesity" is pretty much limited to oxygen, water, food, and a place to sleep (in that order). As far as the moral imperetive aspect is concerned the only real entitlement I recognize is the right to be left alone if you so desire.


Ron Paul
Do Republicans really want to defeat Obama?

In order to win the general election, the Republicans need independents and Democrats. They also need a media narrative that shows a clear contrast between their candidate and Obama. They get all of this with Paul and none of it with Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.

I challenge you to find fault with the points raised in this article. And this doesn't even touch the polls that show Ron Paul having better (or at least as good) odds against Obama.

And I'll throw in an article from the San Diego Reader that has interviews with 5 local Ron Paul supporters that you might find interesting.

Are we all just children?
So there seems to be a growing number of people that believe that the government is obligated to provide for us from the day we're born to the day we die. It must also insulate us from the consequences of or descisions because as experts the world over agree, the general population is too stupid to take care of themselves (After all if an Ivy League professor says it, it must be true).

So here's question, if we do succesfully create a society wherein nobody wants for anything and the hardest choice you'll ever be allowed to make is which pre-approved organically nutritious selection from the tax-payer funded cafe to have for breakfast, do we have a utopia or a distopia?

Me? I moved out of my parent's house for a reason.

I like being able to make my own choices and live my own life (even I fuck it up) and I have no real interest in outsourcing my decision making process (or my fuck ups) to someone else.

In my mind being able to handle life/responsibility is what separates a child from an adult.

So if you by chance are one of those who've professed the opinions in the opening paragraph, is there anything that you consider to be "off limits"? (even in the name of protecting people?) Do you draw a line? If so, where? Is it hard and fast, or kinda squishy?

I'm legitimately curious.

Conservatives are better at empathy :P
Conservatives Understand Liberals, But Liberals don’t get Conservatives.

In a recent study published by the University of Virginia, Dr.s Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, and Jonathan Haidt, attempted to assess the moral priorities of self-identified Liberals and Conservatives. They also asked those same Liberals and Conservatives how they thought their opposite number would respond to similar questions.

Their initial hypothesis was that moderates would be best at predicting the behavior of partisans from either side followed by Liberals. What they found was that Liberal partisans were infact the least able to predict how a Moderate or Conservative would react in a given scenario, while Moderates and Conservatives achieved a near parity.

Despite the typical stereotype of Liberals advocating the "greater good" and Conservatives advocating individualism they found that ...In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do.

Read More...Collapse )

Will Obamacare Be Upheld By "Conservative" Justice Traitors?
There is currently speculation that while conservative Justices hold the majority on the Supreme Court, they may hold up the thoroughly unconstitutional and dictatorial Obamacare. While most of this is due to whispers from SCOTUS, also weighing in are the decisions of Jeffrey Sutton and Laurence Silberman, both of whom are federal appellate judges that sided with the Obamunists. These so-called judges were noted Republican-appointed conservatives who, until the Obamacare decisions, had maintained their loyalty to conservative. In deciding for the Obama administration, they have obviously defected to the Liberal enemy.

[Spoiler (click to open)]If Supreme Court maintains Obama's "respect" for the individual mandate of Obamacare, then the United States as we know it will be gone. Although the article says that the judges were interviewed professors "across the ideological spectrum," we know that this is typical jargon targeting the common man and assuming the interviews really were across the whole spectrum. The reality is that they were likely ranged between so-called "soft" liberals and avowed communists, without as single conservative bearing. If conservative lower court judges can "vote" for Obamacare, betraying conservative principles, then how can we trust the so-called conservative justices of the Supreme Court to do the right thing? We still have to reckon with Anthony Kennedy. He is a man who would eventually be the tie-breaker. Is not it scary to think that the decision on the future of this country depends on the coin tosses did he do?

Let's look at the facts we have ascertained concerning Obamacare:
* Obamacare was not properly read and signed in Congress and is therefore illegal.
* Even though a 2700+ legislative bill was signed into law, the Obama Administration is still writing in "mandates", like the recent contraception command.
* Obamacare has started a war against the Catholic Church and Christian values
* Obamacare reduces competition and therefore illegal under the anti-trust laws.
* Obamacare is a state monopoly without competition, the nationalization of the health care industry.
* Obamacare is also illegal under the US Constitution because it violates our freedom of choice.

Does the Supreme Court deign to recognize these disorders? With the ongoing liberalization of the country, I can not speak for them. The impeachment of Bill Clinton proved that a Leftist President resides above the federal laws, so all that President Obama wants, he will get. And here's another reason why SCOTUS could betray conservatism and uphold Obamacare: accusations of racism. They do not want to be accused of being "mighty whitey" and destroying Obama's pet project.

And that's exactly what will happen: the violation of federal laws that Obama has broken. In addition, if they uphold Obamacare, in order to avoid controversy, our freedom is long past dead. The leftist propagandist who wrote this article is apparently assuming that judges care about politics, the standard assumption of Liberalism. Those who sit on the highest bench of the nation are supposed to be those who care about the law, who act in the interests of the Constitution...but do they really? Even Scalia and Thomas have kowtowed to liberal decisions in the past. The briefs submitted by Obamacare challengers have highlighted the unconstitutionality of this legal abomination, certainly. The only real question is whether the judges do their job and protect the Constitution? Or do they side with the nonsensical "Living Constitution" garbage created by Liberals?

It is possible that the "conservative" justices of the Supreme Court will "lie the bones" and strike the individual mandate, but argue that separability implies compliance with the provisions of tax law allowed for by the 16th Amendment. It is this tax authority which will cause the de facto authority of an individual mandate later. If separability is assumed, then the Obamacare survives without an individual mandate. Health plans and income will be taxed to support the expansion of state Medicaid programs. Obamacare survives and lives to expand like a cancer into American freedom another day.

The way we get rid of the cancer for good is to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace our tax code with a fair one compatible with pre-16th tax law. When the new Congress meets in 2013, the first bill should repeal Obamacare, and this should be done in both houses. It is no exaggeration to note that the availability of personal freedom and independence, brought to the world by the founders of the United States, depends on the monster will be defeated. See the bureaucracy this Obamination will produce!

There is no constitutional grounds for non-elected bureaucrats to write the law, then judge that law, and then be law enforcement for that law. Let's call it by it's true name: Liberal Fascism. I think that accurately describes the Leftists who support Obamacare, who support the impressive complexity of this disease, this horrifying machine of fraud and waste. Obamacare has not even been implemented and the CBO has already doubled its 10-year-old cost estimate. Liberals do what they always do, slowly conditioning people to accept a budget that is completely out of control by portraying it as inevitable. Why not go ahead and triple the cost while you're at it and completely ruin the USA, Obama? That is, if we do not break down in the first place. Our "Minister of Health" Sebelius will be able to tell us how the whole bureaucratic Obanightmare works, so long as "I do not know" is the correct answer.

This is definitely the time to specify how the Declaration of Independence will be dusted off and rewritten for the modern age if Obamacare is allowed to remain in existence. If Obamacare and the individual mandate is decided to be constitutional, it will be Dred Scott decision of our time. There is no doubt as to the result of the last time such a decision was held.