Candidly Conservative

Never Say Never, Again

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:04:00 +0000

Hello Friends and Visitors,

Some may be wondering why I haven't posted anything in over a month. Well, it's because I didn't want to burn myself out, so-to-speak.

I spend much of my time watching political programs, listening to political radio talkshows and reading political books. Yes, it can get overwhelming at times. But politics is what I am passionate about and will continue to follow this path in life.

However, this is why I have decided to suspend my blog entries (at least for the time being); I felt constrained by time. After a day of watching, listening, and reading about politics, it became difficult to concentrate on writing at night for this blog. I am also preparing for an internship in D.C. this coming fall.

But I see that I still have a constant stream of visitors to this blog, and for that, I am thankful to everyone who has taken time out of their day to read my postings because I am only one of the tens of thousands of other bloggers out there. Also, thank you to all who have left comments that have added to our interesting and spirited debates on this blog.

I hope to be able to come back to writing for this blog. In the meantime, I will continue to visit all of your blogs and continue to be part of the blogging community.

-The Candid Conservative (and Hurricane74)

Surrounded By Libs

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:38:00 +0000

I assumed that summer courses would offer a pleasant environment of unbiased education.

Unfortunately, 'tis not the case.

I've now found myself in a situation where I'm surrounded by a lib hackademic professor and lib students for two hours a day for a whole month.

There are about 9 students in the class, all libs, except for the one lone conservative- me.

And after only two classes, I can already tell this class will cause my blood pressure to rise.

Day one consisted of the lib students embracing the notion of having Obama-style meetings with leaders of foreign countries who are enemies of the United States. I objected and said as President, I would continue the Bush foreign policy plan (as well as the plan of just about every President before him) which meant NOT talking (without "preconditions" of course) to sworn enemies. I wondered how as President I could have fruitful discussions with a leader, like Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the map. It would be foolish to think that I would make a compromise with that man since the UN and EU have yet to deter him from his current course of action: continuing Iran's nuclear program.

The lib students also wanted to renew relations with allies that "we have lost". I don't know of any allies that "we have lost", do you?

Then we moved onto energy. One girl regurgitated the old phrase that "The US is only 3% of the population but uses 25% of the world's resources".

I'm sorry, but should the US not continue to buy resources on the free market to sustain its growing economy? As I understand it, spending money on resources fuels other economies and jobs around the world. If other countries need the resources, they can buy them, too.

The girl then mentioned how the US is taking too much of the global "pie" of resources. Now this is just a Socialist viewpoint. Instead of wanting the US economy to grow, those that buy into this Socialist ideology want the US economy to regress instead of progress. They want the US to become part of the poorer third world.

Everyone seemed to support eco-friendly this and that even if it meant weakening individual liberty. They wanted the government to "mandate" the use of eco-friendly devices like solar or wind power.

I objected and said that the people do not want the government to dictate to them how to power their home or what car to use. That this type of government intervention was tyranny. The professor looked surprised and said, "Oh, so you believe that seat belt laws are tyranny?" I said no, but I'm sure Libertarians do.

Lastly, another lib said that the government could mandate eco-friendly measures if only it had the money that is all being used for Iraq.

I guess that lib would rather NO money go to Iraq so as to prevent US soldiers from doing their job and getting the food and armor and supplies they need. In any event, the CBO shows that outlays like Social Security and Medicare (among others) account for OVER 10% of GDP!

These libs are so poorly educated, its almost too easy.

The Koran Criminal

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Mon, 19 May 2008 00:48:00 +0000

Greetings all. The Candid Conservative is BACK! Also, a special thank you to those who wished me well on my tests.

Now, back to the good stuff!

For starters, I am a firm believer in the Constitution. I support freedom of speech even if its offensive, too. But, for years there has been a silent war on our freedoms- it's called political correctness.

The PC crowd has brought us the canning of Imus and Bob Grant. Being PC has removed the term "islamofascist" from the government lexicon. It also prevented the publishing of those cartoons that depicted Mohammed in a way that Islamists found offensive.

And now, the latest PC attack:

An American sniper was removed from Iraq after he used a copy of the Quran for target practice, the military said Sunday, a day after a U.S. commander held a formal ceremony apologizing to Sunni tribal leaders.

Major Jeffery Hammond had this to say:

The actions of one soldier were nothing more than criminal behavior," he added. "I've come to this land to protect you, to support you — not to harm you — and the behavior of this soldier was nothing short of wrong and unacceptable.

But the Major has forgotten that while he has come to protect Iraqis, so has the soldier he has smeared as a criminal. This volunteer soldier has been thrown under the bus in the name of political correctness!

Yes, maybe he shouldn't have done it, but it was in no way necessary for the military to respond in the way that it had.

Have the terrorists apologized once for any of their ruthless, neanderthal-like murders of our soldiers and innocent civilians? Well, we know what that answer is.

In this country, it is art to throw urine and human wastes on the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. It is also acceptable to mock religious people. In the UK, it is OK to throw the Bible in the trash, but not the Koran (see article HERE).

When are we going to stand up against this politically correct bias?

Article referenced can be found HERE.

Off The Bandwagon

noreply@blogger.com (Hurricane74) — Mon, 19 May 2008 00:13:00 +0000

Is it possible that we are wrong about global warming ruining the world? Tom Knutson a research meteorologist for the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration thinks so.

Let me start this off by saying that I have been a hardcore supporter of action against the climate change we seem to have increased with carbon emissions and such, however I am no expert... and this researcher is. Tom Knutson's home page can be found here and the article surprisingly enough was seen on the extreme liberal AOL website, though reported from the AP who aren't exactly very conservative themselves. You can find the article yourself here.

According to the research, global warming is not the cause of the jump in hurricanes around the Atlantic. Surprisingly enough it is suggested that warmer weather actually reduces the number of hurricanes to make landfall.

What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J. He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming. He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

According to this study in fact, by the end of the century hurricanes in the Atlantic
will fall by 18%! The downfall however is that according to many other experts this model is poor because it does not take into account storms with winds greater than 112 mph. According to many such as Kevin Trenberth who is the Climate Analysis Chief of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado it is not the amount of hurricanes we should worry about but the intensity of them.

A side note here, living in debatably the worst area for hurricanes... including the fact that it is indeed the name of the athletic teams at my university, hurricanes are nothing to mess around with. However when thinking of hurricanes we think of Katrina which had a max wind of 175 mph. Hurricanes like this cause damage, sure... but much of the damage caused in New Orleans was from faulty levees. Lt. General Carl Strock, Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers admitted that the pre-Katrina levees were insufficient: “We have now concluded we had problems with the design of the structure. We had hoped that wasn’t the case, but we recognize it is the reality.” Source. The damage caused by hurricanes is not to be discredited; however the damage in New Orleans was greatly caused by poor engineering.

There is an average of 5 hurricanes per year in the US, will this season show us more? I suppose we'll have to wait to find out. AOL however did provide a section with pictures and quotes from those who would benefit from climate change. Wow, I think that's the first time I've heard that stated.

A few of the benefits they have given according to AOL:

Fisherman in Greenland where much of the ice is melting are thrilled by the return of cod, and farmers are showing higher yield.
A NY Apple grower has diversified his farm with peach, apricot, and plum trees to prepare for warmer weather.
Warmer weather could reduce the oil dependency for northerners in the winter.
Foreign tourism in Canada would increase 220%

So, where can we stand on this issue? It is a known fact that we have sped up the natural process of warming. It is however less certain as to what this really means. Many predict that certain areas such as parts of Manhattan and South Florida will be under water fairly soon. Many also predict that this is the #1 greatest cause for concern above Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear threats... Maybe we all need to wait for more brave scientists to do their research and hope that they submit it even if it goes against the norm.

Be Back Soon!

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:13:00 +0000

Hello Readers,

The Candid Conservative will return with new posts next week when final are over.

Take Care and thank you for reading.

-TCC

No More Conservative Professors

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Fri, 09 May 2008 03:06:00 +0000

My last bastion of hope for conservatism on campus has died today: the only conservative political science professor I have ever had has turned into a McCain Republican.

And we all know that McCain Republicans are moderates or centrists at best and liberals at worst.

He calls himself a "card-carrying Conservative" but took a completely liberal stance on my paper about illegal immigration. His remarks included: "the sentiment against illegal immigrants comes from xenophobes and racists" and "industries will suffer" if illegal immigrations are deported. Also, "7-20 million illegal immigrants is a gargantuan number. How can we possible deport them?"

Firstly, the argument against illegal immigration is not from being xenophobic or racist. Conservatives are against illegal immigration because it runs counter to the rule of law and national sovereignty.

Secondly, I believe industries won't suffer if illegal immigrants are forced to return to their country of origin. My reasoning comes from an article (read the article here) that wrote that when INS raided a meat-packing plant and removed illegal immigrants, scores of legal citizens lined up for jobs.

Lastly, the way to fix illegal immigration is to close the border- period. With that wound bandaged-up the US can focus on cleaning up the blood. If the federal government can control our healthcare system, then they sure as hell could be able figure out a way to remove the millions of illegals. One way to get the ball rolling is to have the federal government remove funding for states that have sanctuary cities. Then, like the government did with "Operation Wetback", send hundreds (if not thousands) of security agents to track and remove illegal immigrants.

Republicans want to preserve their support from large businesses and corporations and gain support from the Hispanic community by endorsing “comprehensive reform” but do not want to alienate their conservative constituents who liken that to amnesty. Similarly, Democrats want to preserve their support from the Hispanic community by advocating comprehensive reform but do not want to alienate the “working-class” who face competition from cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants. But unless both parties can put this country before their political expediency, this problem cannot be solved

The Protestors Have Come And Gone

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:27:00 +0000

Two years ago, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and their sympathizers took to the streets to protest the United States. They showed their disgust of America by burning its flag and waving the flag of Mexico. Immigration law, it seemed, was subject to debate by those who didn't even have a right to be here in the first place.

These illegal immigrants (henceforth referred to as criminals) protested against the same country that has allowed them to prosper in ways they could never have dreamed of in their country of origin.

But they didn't care.

The fact that politicians attempted to tackle the immigration crisis (yes it is a crisis) was reason enough to stage boycotts and riots. Words like "racist" and "xenophobe" were thrown around to any person who was against illegal immigration on the basis of the fact that it is exactly that: illegal.

So two years later and still no immigration reform, the criminals have come out again, only in lesser numbers. This year, only several thousand have participated in public protests, much less than the estimated million+ in 2006. This was blamed on aggressive enforcement by Border Patrol and police (Kudos, to you men and women). According to Margot Veranes, a volunteer organizer:

"People have been stopped and deported in the last week. This is a community living in fear," said Veranes, a researcher for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. "You never know when you're going to be stopped by Border Patrol and now the police."

Gee, if only these criminals crossed the border legally, they wouldn't have to live in fear.

But it is the sense of entitlment that these criminals have that angers me the most. They have disobeyed the law and feel they should be granted citizenship in return. According to Newsday:

From Washington to Miami to Los Angeles, activists demanded citizenship opportunities for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and an end to raids and deportations.

Eric Molina, a criminal himself even said, "We come here to fight for legalization. We're people. We have rights."

But what rights are he referring to?

And just to show how skewed people's thinking really is, student Vicente Campos said, "Immigrants come here to support their families in Mexico. They're not all here to do crimes."

I guess entering illegally doesn't count.

On another note, here is a quite saddening video about the murders of American citizens by illegal immigrants:

Article referenced can be found HERE.

Less Beer? Blame Global Warming!

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:49:00 +0000

To us regular Americans, the evidence behind rising food prices is clear: the increase in demand for more corn products needed for ethanol production is forcing food away from the dinner table in order to be turned into fuel for cars. This raises prices of food because supply of corn products is limited.

But, even during this food crisis that is causing global riots, the lib media and eco-thugs reject this fact and blame the problem on the most widespread scam in the history of civilization: global warming.

According to activists and beer-makers, "As global temperatures rise, radical shifts in weather and more parched lands are making it harder to grow grains and hops."

Similarly, the European Parliament said, "World population growth, poor growing conditions linked to climate change; loss of agricultural land for industrial use; commodities speculation; and changing eating habits all contribute to the current crisis."

But if global temperatures are declining, how can the libs get away with this spin?

It's because they value the environment over human life. Libs will do whatever is necessary even if it means skewing the facts. People are hungry, stores are rationing grains, riots are occuring, and gas prices are rising astronomically; but this is the Liberal dream. They will keep pushing ethanol no matter the devastation it brings. Before we know it, this hysteria will lead to Socialism as the libs continue to enforce their eco-agenda (they already want to limit how many times we can flush the toilet, how much toilet paper we can use, what fuel to use, what lightbulbs to use, what cars to use...this can only get worse).

Interestingly, however, Barley's Brewing Company has a different take on the shortage of the grains and hops needed to produce beer. On their website they write:

The US initiative to step up production of ethanol had many hop farmers plow under their vines to grow corn instead. Did you know that a year ago, corn sold for $2 a bushel, and now fetches $4? The ethanol industry in the US consumed one third of the entire worldwide corn supply! That explains why food costs you more at the grocery store, but we digress. For us, it means fewer hops are being grown.

Hm, seems like Barley's got the facts down.

I think I'll buy their beer next time.

Websites referenced can be found
HERE and HERE.

Blogs For Borders

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:44:00 +0000

Being the strong Conservative that I am, I support a strong national defense which includes border security.

Thusly, I've joined and registered Candidly Conservative at Blogs For Borders to support their movement.

They have posted a great weekly video that would benefit anyone who supports stricter illegal immigration/legal immigration laws:

The Maverick Factor

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:33:00 +0000

The candidates for President are all disappointments. We can have our pick of either one Marxist or one confused Conservative and there are no "lesser of two evils" here: whichever party takes office next year will lead this country into four years of darkness.

I do not think I could bring myself to vote for McCain, regardless of who his running mate will be. He prides himself in being that "maverick" and that is why us Conservatives cannot trust him.

He is a panderer and does not have strict Conservative morals; he is a phony Conservahack politician who tells real Conservatives that he is one of them. And then he goes in front of another crowd and proclaims how he is a "different kind of Conservative".

Well, he surely is; McCain will throw mud at his fellow Conservatives before he would any Liberals and this is a cause of worriment.

We all know about his latest move against Republicans with his rebuke of a North Carolina Republican Party ad for being "racist". Before that he blasted Bill Cunningham for saying Barack's middle name.

While there are a host of other moments, these in particular are important because he sided with Liberals on both of these issues and left his Conseratives in the dust. McCain represents the new breed of Republicans: a party that is centrist, liberal, and hardly Conservative (think Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mike Bloomberg, etc...). This new breed is signaling the end of the once-great GOP (think Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, etc...).

Some other reasons not to support McCain are:

1) McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

2) McCain supports ethanol use and has joined the global warming bandwagon:

McCain in a speech in Grinnell, Iowa in August 2006:
"I support ethanol, and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects." (Associated Press via Fortune Magazine).

Meet the Press with Tim Russert on May 13, 2007:
RUSSERT: In 2007 you go to Iowa and say this: ‘I support ethanol. I think it's a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects.’

Is the switch because you're entering the Iowa caucus?

MCCAIN: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense.

RUSSERT: So you've changed your mind.

MCCAIN: No, I haven't. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today.

3) Membership in the Gang of 14, which has compromised President Bush's attempts to nominate true conservative justices onto the Supreme Court.

4) The McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.

5) Until recently, had a dismal record on 2nd Amendment rights.

Article referenced can be found HERE.

NFL or War

noreply@blogger.com (Hurricane74) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:23:00 +0000

Well by now you've likely heard of the popular case of Caleb Campbell, the West Point student and football player who was in the NFL draft. The case involves an army policy that allows those in special circumstances to forego their war duty and participate in whatever activity is under question. In this particular case this means that Campbell, a safety for the Army football team will participate in the National Football League as a member of the Detroit Lions while acting for the army as a recruiter. This however has been stated that it could be used outside sports as well (for example if an army student were on American Idol they too could forego war to participate in this highly publicized activity) but is it right?

According to NBC Sports, "Campbell will still be on active duty. He’ll serve as a recruiter, spending his Tuesday off days from the Lions visiting high schools and working. If his career lasts more than two seasons, he will have the option of buying out the last three years of his active-duty commitment in exchange for six years in the reserves."

If you would like to see an excellent report on this please click here courtesy of ESPN's E:60.

Now is it right for this special treatment to exist for talented individuals? Roger Staubach who didn't get to play until he was 28 after serving in the armed services has said he would've certainly considered this if it had existed. For those who don't know the process of gaining admission to West Point please click here for that information. These are some of the brightest men and woman in the country and you can't just apply like at other schools, you must obtain a nomination from a member of congress! This is not just any school either, while the academics are tough you must also pass six physical tests and be of extraordinary moral standards. It shouldn't be of surprise to anybody that there are some extremely talented individuals within our armed services. It is understandable that there are those who feel as if it is unfair for these special circumstances to exist because when you sign up for the military you do have these certain obligations, like fighting a war should there be one. (Campbell is still on active duty however so some of these concerns are a bit overstretched)

Regardless of your position on the war or if you feel like this soldier will now have to be "replaced" in order for him to play in the NFL, the soldier is not doing anything against the rules. I am in support of our soldiers in all situations and I feel that having a professional athlete as a recruiter will indeed help recruitment efforts. At the end of the day I don't know that this is a "conservative vs. liberal" argument but I would certainly love to hear what you think about it. I see both sides of the issue but I cannot disagree with the decision to play professional football while still helping out the country and I salute Caleb Campbell just as much as any of our soldiers.

Islamofascism In Question

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:23:00 +0000

In today's world, the most difficult task of many hackademic libs seems to be keeping their political agenda to themselves.

And the most difficult task of being a young Conservative today is listening to their blatant indoctrintation.

Now, with that said, us Conservatives are fully aware that the prospect of finding just one lib who is supportive on the war against terror thugs in Iraq (and maybe Iran in the future) is bleak. So when Professor Stephanie Nanes brought into question the validity of the term "Islamofascist", I wasn't surprised.

She maintains that the term "Islamfascist" is both inaccurate (based on history) and offensive. But what I dont understand is why she is concerned with being politically correct to our enemy. What's more, the students agree overwhelmingly!

In the (essentially) socialist magazine, The Nation, writer Katha Pollitt wrote an article titled (unsurprisingly), "Wrong War, Wrong Word" (you can read the article HERE). However, if you don't feel like torturing yourself with reading this liberal nonsense, the article served mainly to paint a brighter picture of our enemy and to throw digs at "neocons" and the Bush Administration. This article was assigned as reading in my class with a discussion afterwards.

While my professor and many of her students agreed with Pollitt, I think they are all wrong. For one, those libs are against the term "Islamofascist" because they say it embodies the whole religion. Yet, they are not against using the terms "German Nazism" and "Italian Fascism". They are against the term because it is not historically accurate. But I say that it is because Fascism is a totalitarian ideology that is militant. Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda: al three are militant, terrorist, and Islamic fascists. As many will attest to, these Islamofascists are perverting a religion, killing in the name of a God, and rewarding those who kill "infidels". A video of the the liberal Alan Colmes from Fox New's Hannity and Colmes debating Steve Emerson on the term can be found HERE (I recommend watching the video because it shows how weak the Liberal argument against using the term really is).

This term isn't being used to incite fear, as Pollitt accuses. It is used to accurately describe our enemy. Norman Podhoretz, the "father of modern neoconservatism" agrees with my sentiment.I wrote about him and his views and you can read about them HERE and HERE.

We seem to be in a time when there is absolutely no unified defensive in the US against our enemy in this war. Since WW2, we have divided ourselves between those who want to win and those who are afraid to committ to win. We are the Conservatives and they are Liberals because we are not afraid to label, identify, and defeat our enemy.

Gore's Mess Ten Years Later

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:41:00 +0000

In a speech during the Third Annual Farm Conference in 1998, Al Gore said the following:

I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be.

Boy, how wrong was he?!

This "home-grown fuel" is hurting the United States and the rest of the world! According to an AFP news report:

In recent months, rising food costs have sparked violent protests in Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritania, the Philippines and other countries.

In Pakistan and Thailand, troops have been deployed to avoid the seizure of food from fields and warehouses, while price increases fuelled a general strike in Burkina Faso.

But that won't change the minds of the eco-thugs in Europe who are spearheading their "climate change package": The EU Commission on Monday rejected claims that producing biofuels is a "crime against humanity" that threatens food supplies, and vowed to stick to its goals as part of a climate change package.

Meanwhile, UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told German radio Monday that the production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices.

Thanks to Mark Levin for posting the link on his website to the articles referenced in this posting. They can be found Here and Here.

Liberal Is As Liberal Does

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:30:00 +0000

The Democratic debate last week only served to reinforce the similarities between Senators Clinton and Obama.

There's hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two: both prioritize decreasing troop levels in Iraq and support universal health care programs (that vary by so little). Both have plans to increase government spending by $800+ billion over four years (And do I dare mention both have no real experience? It's astonishing that Democratic supporters actually view the candidates' relatively little experience as a benefit).

Just let simple math do the work to find out that there is no way just increasing taxes on people earning $200,000+ annually will be able to pay for all of the spending increases.

What else is similar about these two candidates?

Both have been associated with questionable people: Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Norman Hsu, blah blah..

These associations will serve to help McCain in winning the election. While the two Democrat candidates whine over who has links to worse people, the fact is is that McCain has remained uncontroversial. As of now, I predict the "straight talk express" to roll right into the White House in '08.

So what is different about Senator Clinton and Obama?

Well, the only difference between the two candidates that I have noticed is that Obama is more liberal than Clinton (while they both are pretty liberal to begin with).

After being in the United States Senate for only three years, Obama has succeeded in becoming the most liberal senator, with a rating from the National Journal of 95.5%!. Yes, in his very short career he has even surpassed Senators Ed Kennedy and Barbara Boxer!

As for Clinton, well, she's only a Liberal 82.8% of the time.

After losing in 2001, The Democratic party has had a habit of pushing candidates that are so far left. In 2003, Senator Kerry had a rating of 97% and Edwards had a rating of 95%!

Don't the Democrats understand that these polarizing Senators are not in tune with the public?

When Senator Lieberman ran as V.P. with Al Gore in 2001, he had a liberal rating of 67%. Today, his rating is even lower, at 57.5%. Similarly, McCain has an equally low Conservative rating of 56.7% (in 2006). And now that Lieberman has endorsed McCain, should us conservatives worry that McCain may be considering Lieberman as his V.P. pick?

Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick

noreply@blogger.com (Hurricane74) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:31:00 +0000

Ah yes, the genius of Theodore Roosevelt as he spoke of foreign policy. This however has been the ultimate tactic of John McCain recently and it is working remarkably.

By now it is apparent that you have indeed logged onto the internet so this means you are inevitably aware of the battles of Obama and Clinton. While the controversies and scandals continue to occur between these Democrats where has McCain been? The campaign tactic he is choosing could not have worked out better as it is evident that continuous negative media is bound to get on people's nerves. The two media celebrities Hillary and Barack have been absolutely crushing each other with negativity. For example, while Obama faces controversy with many of his connections Hillary is claimed to take a grandiose amount of lobbyist money for her campaign. During this slew of negative campaigning at a time of war in an economy that is low, where are the positive messages from our leaders?

So, where has McCain been? McCain's recent ad in pure intelligent fashion can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

In this ad McCain gives all positive messages about the future of America. Of course in typical YouTube commenter fashion there is a negative reaction to these positive messages. Are all liberal-minded people so negative? I certainly cannot answer that question but I can tell you that there is a clear best choice for our leader and that is John McCain.

In the words of John McCain in this campaign ad:

Keep That Faith
Keep Your Courage
Stick Together
Stay Strong
Do Not Yield
Stand Up
We're American's and We'll Never Surrender

Legalize L.A.- Deport Illegal Immigrants

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:16:00 +0000

As I was researching information for a paper on illegal immigration, I stumbled upon the website of the clothing company American Apparel.

Apparently, American Apparel advocates amnesty for the estimated 7-20 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

This is a complete disregard for United States law and sovereignty. Illegal immigration also has many negative effects, ranging from the economy to crime and to our culture.

For example, illegal immigrants cost taxpayers billions because they use our hospitals and education system. They take jobs away from lower-skilled Americans and in effect, decrease American wages by thousands. They also bring diseases that were previously eradicated, like tuberculosis and leprosy. Finally, illegal immigrants bring crime and gangs through the border.

And this is just a heavily downsized outline of the implications of illegal immigration.

This is why I urge everyone to visit BoycottAmericanApparel.com and BOYCOTT AMERICAN APPAREL!

$oaring Food Prices

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:50:00 +0000

There are food riots throughout the world and it is due to the increasing demand for basic foodstuffs needed for the "environmental friendly" (but really "wallet-deadly") bio-fuels:

...the riots in Egypt, rising food costs have been blamed for violent unrest in Haiti, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal. Protests have also occurred in Uzbekistan, Yemen, Bolivia and Indonesia.

China, India, Pakistan, Cambodia and Vietnam have curbed rice exports to ensure there is enough for their own people.

President Bush ordered $200 million in food aid to quell these riots. But this short-term subsidy to poorer nations will not outlast this long-term food inflation.

According to a New York Post article on 4/16, Ephriam Leibtag, a USDA economist, stated, "We are not expecting food prices to slow down in 2008."

In the U.S., food prices have increased 4% over the past year and its being called the "worst food inflation...in 17 years...The demand for enthanol products ramped up over the past year and a half. Corn prices have doubled in the last year.."

The AP reported that, "...exports of U.S. products, such as corn, have set records as the weak dollar has made them cheaper. That's lowered the supply of corn available for sale in the U.S., raising prices here. Ethanol production has also diverted corn from dinner tables and into fuel tanks." An estimated 20% of the U.S. corn production is now destined for ethanol distilleries.

And with oil prices hovering around $114 a barrel, everyone will be affected. Trucking costs are passed on to the consumer and many are forced to make a decision between buying food for their families or buying other necessities like medicine (the same quandary Democrats said the elderly were in when they wanted prescription medicare overhaul a few years ago).

So what do the Libs want to do about this?

During last night's debate, both Clinton and Obama agreed that putting together investigative committees to determine whether there has been price-gouging by the oil companies and adding "windfall taxes" onto oil companies will help.

But as I've discussed in previous posts, these oil companies already pay high corporate taxes and earn only 9 cents for every dollar! They pay corporate taxes and then the employees pay their personal income taxes. Essentially, there are no "windfall" profits. The reason that a gallon of gas is so expensive is because of the regulatory taxes on oil companies and other taxes imposed by the state and federal government.

They also want to increase the use of ethanol in cars for the future.

But that's already been done! And look at the damage it has caused!

Articles referenced in this post can be found Here, Here, and Here.

Global Warming: The Transcending Issue Of Our Time?

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:59:00 +0000

The Left always likes to say how us Americans live in a society where the government uses fear as a political tool.

And they are absolutely right.

Global warming has become a tool of the government to scare us into believing that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But the fact is is that global warming has been more of a farce than fact. If it were fact, why can't all scientists agree on its existance. Thirty-five years ago, many scientists convinced the world that we were headed towards another ice age!

Global warming has been embraced by the left like some kind of cult, especially within the elite Hollywood Lib crowd. But those libs have absolutely no scientific clout that puts them in any type of power position over me to try and force me to ride my bike while they fly their jets and drive their Bentleys.

And this embracement of global warming has done little more than take our liberty and make our lives more dangerous.

The government requires that all automobiles must be able to acheive a certain (high) number of miles per gallon. But one of the only ways to do that is to make cars with lighter materials which makes them more dangerous to drive because they are certain to be destroyed in an accident that may not be that serious in the first place.

The government wants us to drive smaller cars, too, because they would pollute less. I can foresee a tax on all SUVs and a tax break on all small, easily destoyable, less-safe vehicles. This is just one way in which the government will try to limit our liberty in choosing what vehicle we want to buy with our money.

This is already being done in Europe. In Italy, the government has placed such a high tax on gasoline that its citizens are practically forced to buy a small vehicle.

But our chances of dying in an accident are much greater when driving those small, light-wieght vehicles!

Next the government wants to tell us what lightbulbs we have to use in our own homes! But what the government fails to tell us is that those lightbulbs are full of mercury and poses great danger to our families if they are broken!

But the Left doesn't care that liberty is being sacrificed for the environment. And it's happening in the name of some farce cooked-up by kooky libs and embraced by the likes of Al Gore. Then the media shoves global warming down our throats. Finally, it permeates colleges across the nation as hackademic lib professors indoctrinate the students with this unsubstantiated fear.

But I suppose this is to be expected nowadays from my generation. They blindly follow what the media say, what their professors say, and what people like Gore, Clinton and Obama have to say (and I might as well include McCain in this too). They don't have independent minds.

So when a poll was taken in two of my classes and found that a majority of students believe that global warming is a transcending issue of our time, I was not surprised. Even a few others believed that global warming is more important than terrorism! I was ashamed of my fellow classmates.

Please remind me again as to how many innocent people have died from global warming?

Why Gas Prices Are So High

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:50:00 +0000

Have you ever wondered why gas prices are rising well above the rate of inflation?

Well, I have. But I also know why and I want everyone out there to know the reasons, too.

For one, let's remember that every time we go to the pump, we pay hidden fees. These fees include federal and state taxes. Here, in New York, WE PAY 62.9 cents OF TAXES PER GALLON (one of the highest in the nation).

Thanks to the heavy hand of our government, us oil consumers pay much more than we need to. The oil companies are NOT getting rich off of us- THE GOVERNMENT IS! In fact, the oil industry makes about 9 cents profit per every dollar earned. The so-called "windfall profits" of these companies are non-existent.

The oil companies have to abide by numerous regulations enforced by our government so as to comply with environmental standards. The environmental lobby is preventing oil industries from transporting and drilling the way it needs to be in order to lower prices. And you can all thank your Democratic congressmen because they are beholden to these interest groups.

So, what's the big deal, you ask?

Well, when oil prices go up, so does the price of food. Has anyone noticed that pizza is upwards of $2 a slice these days? In Jericho, NY, pizzerias are charging $22 a pie! Trucking companies pass the increased fuel costs of transportation to the consumer which means that us consumers get less for every dollar we spend. But it doesn't stop there: all other goods will increase in price, as well. I've been told that a bottle of Listerine is now $7!

What's more, the Left's attachment to the environmental lobby has pushed the use of "bio-fuels" to an all-time high. The problem with that is that now there is an increase in the quantity demanded for bio-fuel components like wheat and corn, but without the necessary increase in the quantity supplied in order to prevent the price of food from further increasing.

The only way to stop this squeeze on our wallets is through LESS REGULATION! And that is what us Conservatives are all about.

With less regulations on the oil companies, they are free to transport and drill as they desire. We need to drill off the coasts of this great country to help our poorer citizens afford the oil and food they need.

We also need to focus on nuclear power.

But we will never hear this from the Left. They claim to care about the poor and middle-class families, yet those are the same people who are having trouble affording the necessities of life. So why do the Democrats allow this to happen?

Well, it's because they care more about the environment than you.

You can thank the hysteria from Al Gore for that.

Charlton Heston: Candidly Conservative

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:37:00 +0000

Actor Charlton Heston has passed away today amidst his battle with Alzheimer's Disease.

It's a shame. And our prayers go out to his family.

However, I want to use this time to raise a point with the media. The problem is that almost any article googled on Heston has the word "controversial" in it.

Why, you may ask?

Well, Heston became one of the few outspoken Conservatives in Hollywood. And that is why he is branded "controversial".

Last time I checked, this country held a center-right plurality. That's right. The conservatives outweigh the libs! So how could he be considered controversial? The following Wikipedia excerpts show that Heston was far more compassionate than he was controversial:

During the civil rights march held in Washington, D.C. in 1963, he accompanied Martin Luther King Jr. In later speeches, Heston said he helped the civil rights cause "long before Hollywood found it fashionable."[11]

By the 1980s, Heston opposed affirmative action, supported gun rights and changed his political affiliation from Democratic to Republican.[15] He campaigned for Republicans and Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan,[16] George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.[17]

Heston resigned from Actors Equity, claiming the union's refusal to allow a white actor to play a Eurasian role in "Miss Saigon" was "obscenely racist."[18] He said CNN's telecasts from Baghdad were "sowing doubts" about the allied effort in the 1990-91 Gulf War.[18]

According to his autobiography In the Arena, Heston recognized the right of freedom of speech exercised by others. In a 1997 speech, he rhetorically deplored a culture war he said was being conducted by a generation of media, educators, entertainers, and politicians against:

"...the God fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle- class Protestant-or even worse, evangelical Christian, Midwestern or Southern- or even worse, rural, apparently straight-or even worse, admitted heterosexuals, gun-owning-or even worse, NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff-or even worse, male working stiff-because, not only don’t you count, you are a down-right obstacle to social progress. Your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly, mister, you need to wake up, wise up, and learn a little something from your new-America and until you do, would you mind shutting up?"[20]

In an address to students at Harvard Law School entitled Winning the Cultural War, Heston said, "If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown."[21] He went on to say that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride. He later stated, "Political correctness is tyranny with manners."[22]

At the 2000 NRA convention, he raised a rifle over his head and declared that the Bill Clinton administration would take away his Second Amendment rights "from my cold, dead hands."[23]

Heston opposed abortion and gave the introduction to a 1987 pro-life documentary by Bernard Nathanson called Eclipse of Reason which focuses on late-term abortions. Heston served on the Advisory Board of Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog group founded by Reed Irvine.[30]

The Fascist Fabrication

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:41:00 +0000

What is it with these hackademic liberal professors?

They love to hate George Bush. And they love to brand this country as a Fascist state! And they don't even know what they are talking about more than half of the time!

Today, I'm calling out professor Stephanie Nanes and some of the students in her Comparative Politics class because they think that sending illegal immigrants back to their home country demonstrates ethnocentrism/xenophobia, which is a component of Fascism.

The immigrants they referred to were also in jail on charges unrelated to being in the U.S. illegally, including murder and larceny.

What's more, some other dope dumocrat jumped in and complained that building a Southern border is yet another reason the U.S. under Bush is now a fascist country.

I'm sick and tired of this!

How can deporting criminals who are here illegally be considered fascist? And how is it fascist to believe in obeying laws and protecting the U.S's sovereignty and security by building a Southern border?

These libs don't know what it's like to live under a totalitarian, fascist regime. Nazi Germany was fascist. Italy's government under Mussolini was fascist.

Those regimes killed people mercilessly by the millions just because they were not of the "national" heritage. They exercised extreme dominance over every aspect of peoples' lives!

How can these libs compare the U.S. to that barbarism?

It is sick and offensive.

Blame the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:58:00 +0000

The following is an extra credit assignment (written by me) after listening to Paul Krugman's speech at my University.

In keeping with its practice of offering balanced viewpoints on campus, Hofstra University has invited yet another liberal to make our university a pulpit for liberalism.

Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, spoke about the growing wealth gap in America. The culprits, he said, are the “vast right-wing conspiracy” and increased partisanship. Keep in mind, though, that this claim is coming from the author of the book, The Conscience of a Liberal. Maybe Krugman is adding to this partisanship with his own partisanship? Well, it’s just a thought. But more importantly, the fact that Krugman is a conspiracy kook was reason enough for me to leave. However, I decided to test my will power and I remained seated for the remainder of his speech.

Krugman went on to argue that the United States is in another “gilded-age” (the first one occurred between the 1920s-1930s) in which only one percent of the population is increasing its wealth while the rest of the population is hardly advancing. To illustrate this claim, he drew a comparison between the yearly salaries of hedge-fund and oil company CEOs to that of high school teachers. According to Krugman’s statistics, the CEOs will earn a higher salary per year than high school teachers will earn over the course of three years. Now, assuming Krugman is referring to the government-employed high school teachers, he’s made a wonderful argument for why the private sector is an important and beneficial aspect of America. Sorry Paul, but the government can never offer the individual what the private sector can.

Krugman also implied that inequality is at its worst when there is a Republican Administration in power. For example, Krugman explained that President Roosevelt lessened inequality with the implementation of Social Security and a mimimum wage (Krugman then digressed so he could fantasize about building a shrine for Roosevelt, his favorite Socialist, who happened to be as much anti-Semitic as he was Socialist. I hope Krugman is aware of that.). He also stated that the growth of inequality slowed during the Clinton Administration. I guess he forgot to add that it was because the Clinton Administration presided over a period of "soak-the-rich" taxes on personal income. But even after the Bush tax cuts, the top wage earners still footed a whopping 39.38% of the income tax bill.

Now, let's put that into perspective. In 2007, Exxon earned about $70 Billion before taxes. After taxes, Exxon's profit was about $40.6 Billion. Relating this to the oil and gas industry as a whole, economist Dr. Robert Murphy said that, "The industry’s net profit per dollar of revenue was just under 9 cents." In other words, these companies are paying far more than their fair share. And this is only after the corporate tax! The CEOs still have yet to pay a 35% income taxes on their salary.

Next, he praised the era of the 1960s as one when great wealth didn’t exist and everyone lived the same and shared a commonality (a statement that smacks of Communism). What’s more, he echoed the writings in Marx and Engles’ Communist Manifesto when he declared that “wealth is power”. Finally, realizing that his time was coming to an end, Krugman added that the United States is slowly becoming a better society because the electorate is "less white". Essentially, Krugman is nothing more than a Marxist and a racist.

Unfortunately, after listening to Krugman for about an hour, I’ve learned about as much as I did when I read his economics textbook for macro and micro, which was nothing. He offered nothing that I haven't heard before and used the tired and old Liberal mantra of rich vs. poor and white vs. black. It was baseless and somewhat offensive, too.

But I could go on for pages about Krugman's liberal delusions. The problem is that he had touched on so many topics (including healthcare, the housing market and "global climate change") that I'm forced to forfeit depth for brevity.

A Neocon's Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:07:00 +0000

The following was written as an extra-credit assignment (by me) regarding Norman Podhoretz's speech last week.

According to Norman Podhoretz, the United States is engaged in “World War IV” and as much as forty years may pass before the enemy is defeated. This current war, however, is much like the Cold War (World War III) in that it is an ideological war.

On the one side the United States is still a force for good in promoting democracy. But on the other a perverted extremist ideology called “Islamo-Fascism” (a word used by Podhoretz but not coined by him) is using violence to prevent this spread of democracy and peace. This war can be seen within Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and much of the rest of the Middle East.

Islamo-fascism is a bi-fold ideology: it contains elements of religion and politics. According to Podhoretz, Extremist Muslims have “refashioned” Islam into a dangerous religion that draws ideas heavily from Nazism and the Soviets. This ideology is resourceful and uses 21st century technology to appeal to many Muslims regardless of age or economic class.

But this enemy can be defeated, says Podhoretz. However, the U.S. must let the rest of the world know that it is the “strong horse.” In other words, the Bush Doctrine must be continued as part of U.S. foreign policy.

This means that the U.S. must not wave the white flag of defeat in Iraq and continue to fight in Afghanistan. It also means that a preemptive strike on the underground nuclear facilities in Iran (a hopeful hegemonic power in the Middle East) is essential because Iran has publicly announced that it wants Israel to be “wiped off the map.” A nuclear war between Iran and Israel or Iran and the U.S. poses a grave threat to international stability because of the sheer amount of destruction it would cause (in terms of oil distribution/prices and death).

That is why Podhoretz is supporting a man like Senator John McCain for president because he is committed to defeating the enemy by using any military means necessary, and I tend to agree with him.

Podhoretz quoted John McCain as saying that the threat of Islamo-Fascism is the “transcendent issue of the 21st century.” McCain also said that war in Iraq is part of the “broader struggle against the multi-headed enemy.” Lastly, the U.S. has a moral obligation to Iraq because all of the “ingredients” needed for another terrorist-run state are there. This is something that the Democrats fail to understand, unlike Podhoretz, McCain, and me.

All of the history and facts that Podhoretz had laid out proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the dangers Islamo-Fascism poses to America (and its freedoms) are more than just a “criminal nuisance” that merely requires a form of law enforcement in order to be eradicated (like many Democrats such as Senator John Kerry believe).

I agree with Podhoretz that if the U.S. removes its troops from Iraq under a President Clinton or Obama that it would be perceived as a “cowardly retreat” which would only embolden the enemy.

Podhoretz concluded that if a Democrat President does remove troops from Iraq, that this so-called “George Bush’s War” will soon become “America’s War” because the terrorists will cause greater harm in years to come. However, if the U.S. continues to fight the good fight, it will eventually culminate with the elimination of the great threat of Islamo-Fascism.

Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Life

noreply@blogger.com (Hurricane74) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:04:00 +0000

As a pre-med student, ex emergency medical services worker, vice president of an emergency response team and a person who has seen many of Americas healthcare issues first-hand, you're right.

However... the fact that your statistics show illegal immigrants make up 20% of 47 million would mean that we are in fact aware of 9,400,000 illegal immigrants. This just cannot be a true statistic and if it is we need to arrest the illegal immigrants... not give them a health care survey to fill out.

I recall driving ambulances up to hospitals and taking patients in only to find out they would be waiting much longer than an hour due to overload. The only difference is that of being in a waiting room over being in an ambulance. While this is a toss up in my mind for being in an ambulance grants you round the clock care, being in an emergency waiting room does not. The real question may be why so many people are going to the hospital but I suppose that's another question entirely.

As far as your statistics go again... where are the other 27%? If 20% are illegal, 33% choose not to get it, 20% make $50,000 gross... are the other 27% missing? If so, we should look for them because that's a whole lot of people you're not accounting for.

An article from England really does little to convey me however as it contains so much smaller of an area than the US does. However... if the UK is truly having problems on their island how in the world would America deal with it?

A great book that I suggest for anybody to read is called "Waking Up in America" by Dr. Pedro Greer. After meeting and speaking with this remarkable man I learned it is possible to be a doctor and help those in need. Building one of the biggest free clinics in Miami and working under the last two presidents' this man has learned a lot. The fact is that as doctors even the lowest paid will still be in the top percentages of income. If there are abilities to help those less fortunate they should always be taken. The reason I want to be a doctor is simply to help people. Medicine is a highly restrictive business to achieve entry to and so important for any community. Health should certainly be considered based on need, not wealth.

With that being said, a bankrupt government will also do us no good. Having a group of very healthy people with no government will likely lead us into a "state of nature" as the famed social contract theory states from Thomas Hobbes in or around the year of 1651. This is not someplace we should be and with a growing national debt this must be addressed. John McCain is the only candidate in this race with experience, conservative values, and the mind of a hero. Maybe economics aren't his "strong point" but I can bet you that his administration would do a much better job than that of Obama. Putting Hillary in office will not grant you the economic prosperity seen with Bill; and in the latest poll she was voted as being thought of in a negative way more so than Obama or McCain.

This is posted rather than commented for I feel my viewpoint on this issue is strong being in the field. I wish that all the people who required help got help, so long as it does not prove destructive for America. I think in everyone's mind this is a major point, and while the candidates make no mention of the failing social security system they suggest we make these drastic healthcare changes. How is a country with a dropping economy and a high national debt going to afford to pay for these things? I have a feeling that Clinton will be a huge threat to our country's future. Stopping the war stops spending, that money will go to healthcare. The healthcare idea which is clearly not a bi-partisan idea will cause many to be outraged. The fact that we are continuing to spend on things that do not benefit us as a country will ultimately continue the "recession" or put us into one if you don't believe we are in one.

When our country is in hard times and President Hillary Clinton is impeached everyone will be regretting the day they believed in this democrat.

Healthcare "Crisis"?

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Conservative) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:52:00 +0000

I've been looking over some information about our "healthcare crisis" and thought I should share it with you all:

1. There are approximately 47 million uninsured in the U.S. (about 16% of population)

2. The number of uninsured has hovered around 16% for the past 20 years.

3. Liberals say that the number of uninsured is increasing. It is true, but only in absolute terms. Yes, more people are increasingly becoming uninsured, but only because the population is growing (like I said, the percentage of uninsured has remained stable around 16% for many years now).

4. Of those 47 million uninsured:
a. 20% are illegal or not citizens
b. 33% are entitled to medicare but do not sign up
c. 20% have a gross income of $50,000 per year.

5. Typically, those who lose insurance gain it back within 5 months. Only 1/6 actually lack coverage for 2+ years.

6. Some people (usually the more wealthy ones) simply don't want to buy healthcare because it is an extra expense and they can afford to pay for health treatments out-of-pocket.

7. No one in this country is denied healthcare. Anyone is allowed to go a hospital emergency room for care (and that includes illegals).

Simply put: no health insurance does not mean no health care.

In the UK, their socialized health insurance is wreaking havoc:

Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets.

Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour pledge.

The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 999 calls.

Is this the type of situation you libs want? Do you want the heavy hand of the government to decide who shall live, who shall die, who shall see a doctor and when?

I think we should privatize health care completely. The components of supply and demand, and competition would drive the price down, just like it has with plastic surgery, which is not covered under any health insurance plan.

Mark Levin asked, "Where in the Constitution does it say I must subsidize everyone else's health care?"

The answer is: no where.

For the rest of the article I quoted regarding the UK, click HERE