Why You Are A Conservative

Guns: A Winning Issue

2010-08-10T22:13:00.004-05:00

Over the last several decades our nation's moral compass has deteriorated. The prison population has steadily increased, drugs are more and more rampant, and, while there are some signs that the younger generations of Americans are increasingly likely to believe that abortion is morally wrong, abortions in America have not declined and are accepted by much of mainstream society. Conservatives have sought to stem America's cultural decline, but seem to be losing on many fronts. Yet there is one cultural issue that the right seems to be winning and winning big: the private ownership of guns.

Conservatives believe that allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns allows those same law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. Liberals, on the other hand believe a wholesale ban on all guns will make society safer. Yet, the highest gun murder rates in America can be found in those cities where guns, or at least handguns, are banned. Washington D.C.'s strict gun control ban did not keep it from becoming the murder capital of the world. Chicago and New York also have strict gun bans, but high murder rates. In fact crime has gotten so bad in Chicago that some leaders of that city have called for the national guard to come into the city and assist law enforcement. The relationship between Chicago's strict gun ban, put into place by Democrats and supported by liberals such as Chicago's own Barack Obama, and the high crime rate should be obvious; simply passing a law banning guns will strip law-abiding citizens of the right to protect themselves, while criminals, who could care less about the law, are able to arm themselves. In addition, criminals in places where guns are banned know that law abiding citizens will follow the law and disarm, making it safer for him to continue committing crimes.

The plight of many large American cities with gun bans is yet another example of the unintended consequences of liberal policies. The liberals that have been in charge of these big American cities for decades truly believe that if they ban guns, no one will have guns. Such a simplistic view does not take into account the reality that criminals ignore the laws of society. That is what makes them criminals. For instance, many drug dealers have to carry a gun regardless of what law is on the books in order to protect their product, their organization, and themselves. That calculation will not change whether or not some politicians have voted to ban guns altogether.

While the ineffectiveness of gun bans in large urbanized areas of America has continued for years, in the wake of Barack Obama's ascendancy to the presidency, gun ownership in America has skyrocketed. In fact, only until recently has the ammunition shortage seen in 2009 abated. This is clearly a reaction by a large percentage of the population concerned that Obama's policies will erode their Second Amendment rights. Fearing that Obama will try to restrict gun ownership and gun use as much as he can, many Americans are choosing to buy guns and ammunition now out of concern of what the future holds.

Yet politically, President Obama and other gun control advocates have seen some significant set-backs in recent years. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Washington D.C. handgun ban was unconsitutional and popular opinion has steadly become more and more supportive of the idea that the populace has the right to arm themselves. While conservatives still have an uphill climb when it comes to reversing the decline of morality in America, the acceptance of the idea that the citizenry has a right to arm itself seems to have become more and more entrenched in the America psyche. This is a winning issue for conservatives in the long run and is a bright spot for conservatives in the ongoing war over America's soul.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

A Message to My Fellow Americans

2010-03-28T22:39:00.003-05:00

I'm tired. My job is very demanding. It required a lot of education to obtain it and it takes tons of hard work to keep it. Many times I give up my entire weekend, on a moments notice, to do my job. But that is not why I am tired. I've worked hard my entire life and by now I am used to it. In fact, I like my job very much. It is fulfilling, challenging and pays well.

Simply put, I am tired of having to pay for your stuff. I am tired of subsidizing your education. I am tired of paying your social security. I am tired of paying the costs required to raise your children. I am tired of paying for the roads that you use. I am tired of paying for your food, shelter, and clothing. I am tired of paying you farming subsidies. And with a new massive health care entitlement on the horizon, I will quickly tire of having to pay for your health care and will be disgusted to pay for your abortions.

You see, I am tired of paying for all this stuff because you don't have the common decency to provide for yourself. Yet you elect politicians who force me to pay for all of this on your behalf through taxes and an increase in the national debt, which will force my children to pay even more in taxes. We are different because I am a part of the small minority in this country who pays more in taxes than they receive in benefits. You, on the other hand, are able to steal from me by electing politicians to do the deed for you.

Now I didn't go to a private school. I went to public school. My parents aren't rich. I don't have a trust fund. I got the same education many of you got. The difference is that I took advantage of it and worked hard, which is why I have a job that pays handsomely today. Yet instead of praising me and thanking me for providing all that I do for you by paying for the government that you insist on expanding, I am despised. I am labeled "rich" and "greedy" because my job pays me over $100,000 a year. Never mind that I must give 50% of my income to the federal, state, and local governments in the form of income, property, and sales taxes. Never mind that I had to take out tens of thousands of dollars in loans, or that instead of partying in college on the weekends like many of you did, I studied. Never mind that I pay more for everything I buy because you elect politicians that impose more and more costs on private industry, which then simply passes those costs onto me. Never mind all that. Apparently I should just pay more for the common good, even as it becomes more and more clear to me that most of the money I give to my government and, in essence to you, is wasted.

I have watched with much dismay the American government larger every year of my life. I have watched as many of you have loudly demanded something from me and the rest of productive society, whether it be more money, favorable treatment, or special rules. And like I said, I am tired.

And the day might soon arrive when I just say "Enough!." I'll decide that working this hard isn't worth it when I have to carry so many of you on my back. And when I decide to stop carrying you and providing for you, what will you do? What will happen to you when I shrug?

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Perry for Governor

2010-02-10T21:15:00.005-06:00

On Tuesday March 2, Texans will go to the polls to vote in either the Republican or Democrat primary. All conservatives should carefully consider their vote on March 2, especially in the race for governor. As many are aware the current governor, Rick Perry, is facing a challenge from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson for the right to be the Republican nominee for Governor. I urge every conservative to show up on March 2 and vote in the Republican primary for Rick Perry.

Bad government policies imposed by the federal government involving intervention in the housing, banking, and health care industries has led to the prolonged economic downturn we are dealing with in America today. Yet Texas is the leader in job growth and economic strength. In 2008, according to economists who analyzed the data, Texas created more jobs than all the other states combined. Why is that the case? What makes Texas so special? There are many reasons for the recent success of Texas in weathering the economic downturn, but one of the major ones has been the action, or lack thereof, of the state’s political leaders.

You may struggling to think of any major initiative or law that Perry has pursued that might have been the impetuous for the resilience of the Texas economy in the last few years. That is because there hasn’t been one. And that is the point. Economies do better when politicians stay out of the way and let the economy go through natural ups and downs. When taxes are raised and regulation is increased it becomes less profitable for businesses to operate. Less profitability means fewer jobs and fewer benefits. By not doing anything, while the federal government and most other states have been frantically trying to raise taxes and increase regulation, the politicians in Texas have allowed Texans to get back on their financial feet, instead of having to pay more taxes or deal with more regulation.

That is not to say that Perry has not down anything to improve the Texas economy. Small scale ideas implemented by Perry such as targeted tax cuts and the establishment of "Rainy Day" savings fund that can be used to fund the state government in the future were solid successes. But Perry's greatest success story is that he resisted the temptation most politicians in Washington D.C. and in other states around the country have to increase taxes and pass more laws in an attempt to "fix" the economy. As the liberal economic policies of Barack Obama have proven once again, government simply transfers wealth from one person to another, it cannot increase wealth, and it certainly cannot create private sector jobs. Texas is both creating wealth and creating jobs when most of the country is doing the opposite precisely because it getting out of the way.

Senator Hutchinson, on the other hand, is the epitome of a big-government Republican who has sent too much time in Washington D.C. I could spent all day citing examples of Senator Hutchinson's big government, big spending proclivities (for instance she has voted nine times to raise the federal debt ceiling), but one recent vote by Senator Hutchinson should dissuade anyone of believing she is a fiscal conservative. In October 2008 Senator Hutchinson voted to bail out large financial institutions, costing taxpayer $700 billion dollars. While the bill contemplated the banks that received this money would pay back the taxpayers with interest, as with most federal programs, the bailout has been fraught with fraud. In addition, the Obama administration is now attempting to use the money paid back by the banks for large new spending programs rather than reducing the national debt. As result, taxpayers stand to lose billions on a program that rewarded banks who made bad business choices. Senator Hutchinson, if she were truly a conservative, would have realized that the money spent bailing out banks will never be recovered. Instead of voting against the bailout, she embraced it.

Simply put, our nation is broke. We cannot keep spending money we do not have without severe consequences in the future. Senator Hutchinson's vote to add billions to the national debt to bail out private companies should disqualify her to lead Texas. The last thing Texas needs is to import the big spending ideals of Washington D.C. and California.

Now that is not to say the Governor Perry has not had his missteps. In 2007 Perry issued an executive order forcing all sixth grade girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer. It is not clear why Perry chose to require the vaccination instead of making the program voluntary to ensure that parents made the ultimate decision. Regardless of the vaccine’s value, quite a few Texas parents found the mandate to be a troubling overreach of government authority, and three months later, Perry accepted a law that reversed his mandate. Yet a minor misstep like this is forgivable to social conservatives in light of Senator Hutchinson's constant and consistent pro-choice stance, including supporting the Roe v. Wade decision.

This March the choice could not be more clear for conservatives. Governor Rick Perry deserves to be reelected as Governor of Texas.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Liberal Economy

2010-01-10T22:42:00.010-06:00

Over the last few months Americans have realized that the American economy will not be roaring back anytime soon. As as result, liberals in power and liberals who voted those liberals into power are quick to blame the Republican Party, especially George W. Bush, for the ills of today. Nevermind the Democrat party has controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate since the end of 2006.

Yet it should be clear that the policies of the left should bear the brunt of the blame for America's current situation. Barack Obama has been in power for a year and during that time has enjoyed a congressional majority of members from his own party rarely seen in American politics. The House of Representatives has 256 Democrats and only 178 Republicans. In addition, the U.S. Senate has 60 members who are either Democrats or are left-leaning independents, while only 40 members are Republican.

Such a power disparity has allowed the left to control economic policy. This control resulted in the $787 billion dollar "stimulus" plan, the cash-for-clunkers program, and bailouts of large banks and the automobile industry. Each of these programs has been an unmitigated disaster.

In February 2009 Congress and President Obama promised the stimulus would prevent American unemployment from reaching 8.0%. However, not only did unemployment race past 8.0% after the stimulus was passed, unemployment climbed to 10.0%. Now, almost one year since passage of the stimulus, unemployment has not improved and the country is $787 billion more in debt. The stimulus is yet another example in American history of failure by government to create and sustain jobs.

The cash-for-clunkers program gave a $4,500 subsidy for giving up a car that was fuel inefficient for a newer model that supposedly was more fuel efficient. The result was a boon for the car companies, at least in the short-term when consumers realized that they could use $4,500 from their neighbor (using the federal tax collectors as an intermediary) to buy a new car. However, Congress only allocated $1 billion for the program. That limit was met in a matter of days as consumers clamored to exchange their old cars for new ones using someone else's money. Congress, thinking this transfer of wealth a success, quickly allocated another $2 billion. The result was even further destruction of perfectly good cars and a complete waste of $3 billion.

But that failure was tiny compared to the decision by the Obama administration to bail out most of America's financial institutions and the formerly mighty car companies General Motors and Chrysler with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. This decision saved the companies in the short-term, but has done nothing to turn around the American economy. And, as usual, the American taxpayer is stuck with the bill.

Over the last year the members of the American governing elite, today dominated by the left, have demonstrated that their policies are not only ineffective but are destructive to the American economy. It should be clear by now that increasing government spending, expanding the federal debt by the trillions, and bailing out select companies does not serve to expand an economy. Until the American people understand that and start electing those who know that private enterprise, not government, is the best and only way to create lasting wealth, people like Barack Obama and Congressional liberals will continue to implement policies that erode the greatest economy in the history of mankind.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Ted Kennedy: Liberal to the End

2009-09-10T00:16:00.025-05:00

On August 25th Senator Ted Kennedy died of a brain tumor. As a Senator from Massachusetts who served from 1962-2009, Kennedy was the third-longest serving member of the Senate in American history. No one should ever personally attack a politician of either party when they die, but the political legacy of Ted Kennedy is important for conservatives to remember because during his time in the Senate Kennedy pushed and enacted hundreds of laws that have had disastrous consequences for America.

For instance, in 1965 Kennedy sponsored the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which set the stage for a flood of illegal immigrants coming to America. The bill loosened immigration laws, making it much easier for would be illegals to come and stay in America. Today, it is estimated that over 20 million illegal immigrants are in the United States.

In 2001 Senator Kennedy joined with President George W. Bush to enact the "No Child Left Behind" law that greatly expanded the federal government's role in the oversight of American public education. Not only that, but even though the bill has resulted in a 20% increase in federal education spending, American test scores have continued to plummet. As with most things, the more the federal government has become involved with education the worse education has become.

Senator Kennedy was also a rabid supporter of universal health care in the form of a government takeover of the health care system. Yet where did he go for treatment for his condition? Not Cuba, England, Canada or France; all countries whose health care systems he praised at one time or another. No, he got the best treatment available in America and it prolonged his life for over a year. If he was simply an ordinary man, under the government systems in other countries, he would have had to wait for months for any substantive treatment. In America he was treated right away.

Also of note, Senator Kennedy's presidential aspirations were dashed when, in 1969, Kennedy, vacationing on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts, got into a car with Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger. Kennedy was drunk at the time and he drove his car off a bridge. Kennedy swam to safety, but did not notify the police until hours after the incident, when the car was discovered. Kopechne drowned. The District Attorney, a political ally of Kennedy, did not pursue manslaughter charges. Then the people of Massachusetts, in their infinite wisdom, went on to re-elect Kennedy eight more times.

Ted Kennedy's political legacy will be that of hard-core liberalism. No one should wish another ill will. However, from a political perspective, the liberal ideals that Ted Kennedy championed in the United States Senate will not be missed.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~The Conservative Guy

Nationalizing Health Care

2009-08-26T22:04:00.025-05:00

It has become clear that President Obama and Democrats in Congress intend to completely change the health care system in America. While their exact plan is unclear, what is clear is that the federal government will have a much larger role in the American health care system. In the western world, America is unique in that the private sector, not the government, plays the majority role in providing health care. But those with power in Washington today want that to change. They want to make our system similar to those in England, France, and Canada where the government supposedly makes health care "free."

Yet, as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. While the health care systems in those countries are "free," those systems have resulted in rationing. Health care is rationed in those countries because there are not enough doctors, medical personnel, medical equipment, or drugs to meet the demand. Since governments only take in funds through taxes, their budgets are limited. These limited budgets mean some things can be provided for "free" but many goods and services simply are not available when the tax revenue runs out. For instance, millions of Canadians cannot find a family doctor and wait months, if not years, for simple surgeries. In France the supply of doctors is so limited that in the 2003 heat wave in that country 15,000 citizens died from a lack of care. In America's quasi-free market system, demand can be satisfied by profit seeking companies and hospitals that provide goods and services for a price.

Another factor to consider is the effect nationalizing health care will have on American medical innovation. The world is almost totally dependant on American medical innovations. Almost all the new drugs and medical equipment are created by American companies. The government run health care systems in the western world discourage innovation because there is no profit incentive to innovate. What company would spend millions of dollars developing the next cancer drug or a new surgical device if their government forces them to sell the product at a price so low costs cannot be recouped in order to provide everyone with "free" health care? In America pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Merck spend billions of each year developing new drugs because they can then turn around and sell those drugs for a profit. Those billions of dollars spent on research and development would not be spent under a government system since the government would inevitably set prices below costs, making any new development a money losing proposition. For instance the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas spends more on research and development than all of Canada.

To those who want to "be kind" and "help others" by having the government provide health care, you should ask yourself this question: What high quality good or service does the government provide at a low cost? There are none that come to mind. The postal service is broke and is chronically raising its prices as private sector companies UPS, Fed-Ex, and DHL have become masters at shipping packages all over the world at a low price. The government run rail service, Amtrak, has never turned a profit. In fact, in a glimpse of the future of American health care if the government takes control of it, one need only look at the government health care provided to wounded soldiers. In Veterans Affairs hospitals, the federal government provides "free" care to present and former soldiers. Yet those hospitals are in such horrid condition that the bureaucrats that run the hospitals have started to counsel some veterans that, rather than seeking additional care, they are better off dead. If the U.S. government cannot even provide decent care for military veterans, what makes anyone think they can provide care to the entire nation?

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Green Energy Fantasies

2009-07-14T19:16:00.025-05:00

As readers of this blog know, I do not believe that man-made carbon emissions pose any significant threat to the Earth's environment. However, environmentalists argue that America must cease using fossil fuels in order to prevent global warming, decrease carbon emissions and decrease pollution. Yet in order to make their wish a reality environmentalists must replace the energy generated by fossil fuels. America, as the most prosperous nation in human history, requires large amounts of energy to support American infrastructure, development, and comfort. For over 100 years fossil fuels have provided America with this energy. So what source of energy do environmentalists propose America start using? Wind power seems to be the choice that has gotten the most attention and makes some sense. America has vast amounts of open space and a "wind corridor" that stretches from Texas to North Dakota.

But like most liberal ideals, the generation of wind power in order to replace fossil fuels is seemingly great in theory, but utterly fails in practice. One of the centers of the environmentalist movement in America is Austin, Texas. Austin is a liberal city in the midst of a conservative state. Austin residents pride themselves on being a little odd and champions of the environment. Austin is full of hybrid cars covered in bumper stickers conveying various environmental messages. These voters elected a city council that was determined to turn Austin into the "green energy" capital of the world.

The result took the form of a program called GreenChoice, implemented in 2000. Under the plan, Austin Energy, the electricity provider for the Austin area, buys electricity from wind farms as a means to allow their customers the option of supporting alternative energy and to promote development of other green resources. Yet today over 99% of the electricity purchased by Austin Energy generated from wind farms remains unpurchased. Why? Simple. Since wind farms are far more expensive and less able to keep up with demand no one in Austin is willing to buy the higher priced energy. It seems that all those Prius owners and environmentalist crusaders in Austin will not back up their supposed beliefs with concrete action by actually buying higher priced "green" energy. GreenChoice was supposed to bring about a green energy revolution. Instead, it has resulted in higher energy prices that few people are actually willing to incur and the waste of millions of dollars invested by the city of Austin in the program.

Another green energy project that was supposed to bring about a revolution was the plan of T. Boone Pickens to massively expand wind farms across America. In a rollout that received an enormous amount of media attention Pickens proposed massive capital investments with the goal of building out the capacity to generate up to 22% of America's electricity demand from wind. Pickens has implemented a $58 million public relations campaign to sell his idea. Yet once again reality has demonstrated that green energy is nowhere close to replacing fossil fuels. The economic downturn and the realization that many more transmission lines, which would cost billions of dollars to build, are needed to make his dream a reality mean that Pickens has chosen to significantly scale back his goal. In fact, he might abandon his efforts altogether.

The take away from these two examples is that wind power is simply unable to generate enough electricity to make its use cost effective. The technology simply does not yet exist to replace fossil fuels with wind power at a price that makes sense. It does not matter how hard some may want to replace fossil fuels but it just is not feasible at this point in human history. Until the technology catches up, massive investment in wind power will just be a colossal waste of money.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Obama's Iran Weakness

2009-06-26T20:02:00.023-05:00

Earlier this month, the people of Iran went to the polls to select their president. The two main candidates were the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi seeks to reform Iran in a way that will take power away from the Islamic mullahs, who possess almost all of the political power in Iran and enforce Islamic law, and give that power to the citizens of Iran. The official results indicated that Ahmadinejad won a significant majority of the vote. The people of Iran, however, disagree strongly. Amid widespread allegations of electoral fraud, hundreds of thousands have taken to the street to protest what they believe is a stolen election.

Ahmadinejad has declared the elections free and fair, but few actually believe him. Polls before the election had Mousavi winning 55% to 45%, but the finally result was 63% for Ahmadinejad and 37% for Mousavi. Such a wild swing is inconceivable. In fact, Mousavi, according to the official results, lost his home district, which is simply unheard of in Iran. Ahmadinejad has responded to the protests with violence and oppression by ordering the Iranian military to use force to intimidate the protestors into staying silent.

So where is the leader of the free world on this issue? Obama declared himself "troubled" by the protests. He then proceeded to attack Mousavi, the reform candidate, by stating that "he may not be as great as advertised." There you have it, the supposed leader of the free world is not just sitting this one out and letting the chips fall where they may, he is attacking the candidate who offers Iran a step towards a true democratic future. No matter that the current Iranian regime is the single biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, pursues nuclear weapons, and wants to wipe Israel of the map. Think how much emotional support President Obama could give the protestors, as they are killed opposing an evil regime, if he simply declared that he recognized that the Iranian elections were fraudulent, called for a revote, and actively supported the Iranian protestors by offering them aid and protection?

Instead the President of the United States has chosen to sit on the sidelines while America's most threatening present day enemy struggles to maintain its grip on power in the face of an Iranian population struggling for what we in America have in spades: freedom. Obama's reaction to the protests in Iran is what conservatives warned America about when it became clear that Obama would be the favorite to win the presidential election of 2008. Conservatives pointed out that liberals such as Obama prefer to "talk" to America's enemies and "engage them" rather than apply political pressure. Engagement and discussion are great in theory but fail in practice when one is dealing with a totalitarian regime. There is not much to talk about with someone who wants to destroy your country and your way of life. Obama's weak response to Iran will only encourage other dictators around the world to consolidate and expand their power as Obama attempts to "reach out" and "find common ground."

The reaction of Barack Obama has made it much less likely that Iran's home grown revolution will succeed in the long-term. Ahmadinejad will most likely stay in power. Without support from the West the protests will continue to be put down by brute force and will eventually sputter out. Meanwhile Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons and fund terrorism. The world would be a better place if Iran was a free and open society that was not a threat to the free world. Hopefully someday it will be, yet if Iran is ever free it will be in spite of Barack Obama, not because of him. Unlike Ronald Reagan who will be remembered for helping to bring down the Soviet Union with his calls for freedom, Barack Obama will eventually be discarded to the dustbin of history as another weak leader who did not stand up for freedom.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Sotomayor Epitomizes Identity Politics

2009-05-29T16:07:00.024-05:00

President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is to replace Justice Souter, who recently retired from the nation's highest court. With a Democrat as president and Congress controlled by Democrats, Sotomayor will be confirmed barring some very damaging revelation. However, despite this inevitability, Sotomayor's selection to the Supreme Court reveals that today's judicial selection process is now based in large part on one's own race and gender, rather than on one's ability as a legal scholar. Democrats will inevitably focus on Sotomayor's personal story, which is no doubt compelling. She was part of a poor Puerto Rican family, but eventually went to Yale Law School and became a federal judge.

Yet Sotomayor is revered by the left more because she is a woman and a member of a minority racial group. Such a focus is disingenuous since Democrats have had not trouble attacking minority judges who are conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada being the most obvious. In fact, the racial attacks from the left on Clarence Thomas have, over the years, been vicious.

Today, in our identity focused culture, Sotomayor's race, and not her abilities as a judge, will be emphasized. Such emphasis will help ensure Sotomayor's confirmation. That is a shame because Sotomayor's judicial decision making has clearly been based, not in the law as it should be, but in racial identification.

Sotomayor is rightly coming under fire for the following statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Consider inverting the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative judge, or any conservative for that matter, say it. The white male would be labeled a racist and his career would be finished. But more importantly, such a comment indicates that Sotomayor sees justice through the lens of race. Interpreting the law based on either the defendant's or plaintiff's race is dangerous. Would a white plaintiff or defendant, who comes before the Supreme Court to argue his case, truly believe that such a person as Sotomayor would give him fair consideration?

Americans already have a good idea about how Sotomayor would decide cases where race has become an issue. In 2003, the City of New Haven Connecticut administered a test to determine which city firefighters would be promoted to captain and lieutenant positions. When 19 whites and 1 Hispanic achieved the required scores, but no blacks did so, the City threw out the test and denied those twenty individuals their promotions. Judge Sotomayor, who now sits on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the decision in Ricci vs. DeStefano. It was clear to at least one other member of the Second Circuit that Sotomayor simply ruled against the firefighters because they were white. The case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court.

There are even more examples that Sotomayor cares more about race than the law and U.S. Constitution. It is a shame that someone so poisonous will occupy a seat on the highest court in America. Every American citizen has the same rights, as the sins of slavery have long since become history. Yet this country will never be able to move past the issue of race if large numbers of Americans, represented by people such as Judge Sotomayor, continue to believe that one's success or plight is chiefly based on their race. As Chief Justice John Roberts so succinctly stated in Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District Number One, the "way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Only when affirmative action, and its insistence on favoring one class of citizens over another, is eliminated will the issue of race become moot. Judges such as Sonia Sotomayor only prolong racial conflict when they continue to consider one's race in determining how the law should be applied.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Want To Save the Environment? - Don't Buy A Prius

2009-04-29T12:08:00.023-05:00

In the quest to become “carbon neutral,” environmentalist Americans have celebrated the arrival of the Toyota Prius and other hybrid cars as the premier way to fight global warming. Hybrid cars have become the ultimate symbol of one's devotion to the environment. But is buying a hybrid even good for the environment? Such a question might seem laughable given the laudatory praise heaped upon hybrid cars and their ability to travel approximately 50 miles for every gallon of gasoline.

However, a recent report concluded that hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyata Prius and the Honda Accord Hybrid, are not all that kind to the environment. The report states that while hybrids certainly use less gas per mile than other cars, the manufacture of hybrids, the replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), and lighter weight materials associated with hybrids and the complexity of the hybrid power package mean that hybrids arguably do more damage to the environment than gas guzzling SUVs.

For instance, hybrids require a special battery which uses a substantial amount of the metal nickel. Nickel mining, which is often done in open cast mines with all the attendant pollution that goes along with excavating large holes in the ground, is very carbon intensive. Thus, the extra nickel required for hybrid batteries significantly offsets the carbon savings created by higher gas mileage.

In addition, hybrid cars require more parts and more repairs. The manufacture of these parts and the repair work associated with keeping hybrids on the road means that it takes more resources to keep a hybrid car in good condition. These are just some of the many factors that make hybrids unfriendly to the environment. If the environmentalists were honest with themselves they would admit that significant amounts of extra resources, which come at a large "carbon cost" (in their parlance), substantially reduce and, according to the report, eliminate the "carbon savings" hybrid cars generate.

The report's conclusion that hybrids are just as bad, if not worse, for the environment than SUVs does not sit well with the environmentalist movement, which has staked a large part of its reputation on convincing Americans that hybrid cars save the environment. But saving the environment is not as important to many people as getting others to think you are saving the environment. In today's world driving a hybrid is a statement that the driver wants to save the planet. However, if saving the environment was the goal, the environmentalist movement would emphasize the environmental downsides of hybrid cars. But they don't because such downsides do not fit into the narrative that SUVs are killing the planet.

Unfortunately environmental hypocrisy is everywhere and is not limited to the cars people drive. Consider Al Gore, the former vice president, who is now the world’s cheerleader for fighting global warming. But Al Gore certainly does not practice what he preaches. He jets around the world in carbon-spewing private jets and has a home that consumes 20 times the energy a normal American home consumes.

Even if one assumes that the environmentalists are correct about their theory that carbon dioxide drives climate (a theory I do not adhere to), the hybrid cars environmentalists champion do not, on average, reduce carbon emissions. Environmentalists should be judged on the results of their actions, not their supposed empathy for Mother Earth. They like to scold the rest of us for not doing enough for the environment while, in fact, they themselves are not doing much of anything, other than looking like they care more than everyone else.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

A Teaching Opportunity on Government Spending

2009-03-22T12:19:00.004-05:00

With the passage of the massive $787 billion "stimulus bill" and the proposed plan to spend an additional $75 billion to bail out homeowners who spent beyond their means, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have made clear they believe spending extraordinary sums of money and putting the country further into debt will bring the country out of recession. People that believe that government spending is the most effective way to stimulate the economy are labeled Keynesians, after the British economist who articulated the theory. "Keynesian economics," as it is called, has many adherents, especially in the Democrat party, but its success as an economic policy has been rocky at best.

In the 1930s Franklin Delano Roosevelt embarked on a massive spending spree designed to wipe out unemployment in America. Reacting to the stock market crash in 1929, Roosevelt poured billions into the economy under his "New Deal." Federal spending had more than doubled by the time Roosevelt was re-elected in 1936, but economic growth was so small that the size of the economy in 1936 was smaller than the size of the economy in 1929. The New Deal spending programs were given lots of publicity but achieved few results. Five years into the New Deal, in the winter of 1937-1938, the unemployment rate in America was 20%. The stock market didn't get back to its 1929 level until the 1950s.

In the 1990s Japan implemented its own version of the New Deal. Beginning in 1991, Japan embarked on a massive nationwide spending program, focused on infrastructure investment. Hundreds of billions of dollars were spend on airports, roads, and bridges. The infrastructure focus was similar to focus on infrastructure of the recent stimulus passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by President Obama. Yet the billions in spending by Japan did little. In fact, many Japanese consider the 1990s to be a lost decade. During that decade, the unemployment rate more than doubled and surpassed the U.S. rate. The Nikkei stayed down and the country's standard of living failed to keep pace with the rest of the world's. But even worse, today Japan has the highest debt burden of any industrialized economy.

In addition, today, the state of California is seeing the culmination of 15 years of massive government spending. The state is constantly in a fiscal crisis. The state, under both Democrat and Republican governors, has seen government spending skyrocket. Yet the state has little to show for all its spending. It has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and has had to issue billions in new debt.

Last summer saw the failure of the "stimulus" passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by President Bush. Both that stimulus and the current stimulus tried to do what the Keynesians think a government should do during an economic downturn: attempt to jump-start the economy by increasing government spending and issuing more government debt. Obviously the stimulus last summer failed, just like the New Deal failed in the 1930s, the Japanese infrastructure spending failed, and the California spending spree of recent years failed. Such history indicates that recent $787 billion stimulus will fail as well. The lesson from all of this is simple. The government does a poor job of bringing a country out of a recession. Increasing debt in order to spend money does not create jobs in the long-term because the government, unlike the private sector, does not know how to create wealth. While the tax cuts and deregulation that allow the private sector to succeed are opposed on ideological grounds by most politicians, they are what is best for a capitalist country. Until the voters of America learn this lesson and elect those who will allow the private sector to flourish, American economic power will continue to wane.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: Saratoga - Turning Point of America's Revolutionary War

2009-02-24T18:26:00.009-06:00

By: Richard M. Ketchum

The history of the American Revolutionary War against Britain has been well documented in both writing and film throughout the life of the United States. Fighting for independence was costly both in terms of lives and money for the 13 colonies, but military victory and political unification gave birth to today's world superpower. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, the leadership of George Washington, and the English surrender at Yorktown have all been rightfully immortalized in American lore.

Yet the battle of Saratoga, fought in the state of New York, is a largely unknown battle. It did not involve a larger than life historical figure such as George Washington nor involve the drama of the outset of hostilities as did the skirmishes of Lexington and Concord. It has not been given the attention bestowed on the plight of American forces at Valley Forge. However, an American defeat at Saratoga would almost certainly have meant the loss of the entire revolution.

General John Burgoyne of the British Army was tasked with sailing to British Canada and up the St. Lawrence River to eventually engage American forces in New England. The ultimate goal was to isolate New England from the rest of the colonies. Since American Revolutionary forces derived much of their men and material from the more industrialized colonies of New England, such an outcome would have devastated the entire war effort.

In Saratoga: Turning Point of America's Revolutionary War, author Richard M. Ketchum chronicles both the British army, led by Burgoyne, and the American forces arrayed against him in the British quest to split the American colonies in two. Ketchum initially focuses on the politics behind Burgoyne's appointment as leader of the British army while also exploring the flamboyant personality of Burgoyne. He also chronicles Burgoyne's hiring of Indians to terrorize the civilian population and the early British victories against the outmanned American resistance.

Ketchum also takes the reader back to the harsh times of America in the late 18th century. Through written first hand accounts of the events leading up to the battle and the battle itself, Ketchum recounts the eventual American victory. Letters written by the barely literate American fighters, British and Hessian troops, and the commanders on both sides are used to give the reader a sense of the state of mind of those involved.

From the outset of Burgoyne's campaign, American forces were disorganized to say the least. Burgoyne easily marched south down the Hudson river, encountering almost no resistance until he reached Fort Ticonderoga. The fort was considered the most important military asset in the northern colonies but was in disrepair from years of neglect. The resulting American retreat from the fort, with little resistance, was met with amazement by the Continental Congress who heavily criticized the fort's commander Arthur St. Clair and eventually removed the American military commander in the north, Philip Schuyler.

However, Ketchum concludes that St. Clair's decision was a major reason for Burgoyne's eventual defeat. The retreat from the run-down Fort Ticonderoga bought the Americans much needed time and allowed the limited American military forces to fight another day. After taking Fort Ticonderoga, Burgoyne was forced to chase the Americans south through land neither he nor his officers knew anything about. During their retreat the Americans made sure that the British would not find food or supplies by burning crops, destroying roads and securing all the useful supplies in the area. As a result while Burgoyne's supply line became hopelessly extended, more and more New Englanders rallied to the fight. In addition George Washington was able to send reinforcements from the south.

On September 18, 1777 and October 7, 1777 Burgoyne suffered two critical defeats near the town of Saratoga, New York and was forced to surrender his entire 6,000 man army after becoming surrounded by American forces. The capture of the entire British army secured the northern American states from further attack via Canada and prevented the British from splitting the other American colonies from their economic and military heart in New England. Freed from fighting in the north, American troops were able to re-engage other British forces further south.

Saratoga: Turning Point of America's Revolutionary War is a great read for those who want "fill-in-the-blanks" of their American Revolutionary War history. The book captures the humanity of those fighting and gives the reader a complete military analysis of the engagement as a whole. The Battle of Saratoga is not a well known engagement but this book will shed light on how truly important it was that America won it.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Legacy of George W. Bush

2009-01-20T12:33:00.017-06:00

Do the times make the man or does the man make the times? Such a question is especially important to contemplate when thinking of the legacy of George W. Bush as he leaves office today. There is no doubt that the 43rd president was reviled by many during his eight years in office. Yet most of the foreign policy decisions that made Bush so hated were implemented in response to the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor: the 9/11 Twin Towers attack.

After that attack, the President stated in no uncertain terms that things had changed. No longer would America simply react to terrorist acts as it did to the bombings of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, the American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. In response to the 9/11 attacks the President ordered the U.S. military to Afghanistan where it defeated the Taliban and installed a democratic regime. In addition, the U.S. invaded Iraq after President Bush determined that it was a threat to American security. Also as a result of the 9/11 attacks, suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield were jailed in Guantanamo Bay and surveillance of terrorist communications and financing was enhanced. Many of these decisions were unpopular, but were born out of necessity. While people may disagree with some or all of Bush's responses to the attacks on the Twin Towers, few can suggest plausible alternatives to fighting the war on terror.

Finally, it is clear that Bush's "surge" in Iraq was a huge success. Bush decided to send more troops to Iraq in spite of opposition from within the military and massive opposition from the media and the American left. The influx of additional American troops has stabilized the country, decreased American and Iraqi deaths, and wiped out large parts of the Al-Qaeda infrastructure in that country. Iraq now has a great chance to be a peaceful and prosperous nation. Bush should be given significant credit for making the tough decisions necessary to bring peace to Iraq.

While the times certainly seem to have made the foreign policy part of George W. Bush's presidency, it is equally apparent that Bush himself defined the domestic part of his presidency. Bush had a few domestic successes during his eight-year tenure, including two quality Supreme Court appointments, several free trade agreements and tax cuts that greatly expanded federal revenues.

However, from a conservative prospective, his domestic policy has been disastrous. The size of government has increased astronomically, spurned by massive increases in education, agriculture, and health care spending, with few results. He added a new entitlement program, Medicare Part D (prescription drugs for seniors), that will add billions to the federal deficit in the next several decades, imposed ineffective steel tariffs that almost started a trade war, and created a new federal bureaucracy in the Homeland Security Department. Most recently Bush abandoned his supposedly conservative principles to bail-out American banks that made bad business decisions. He also supported bailing out the Big Three cars manufacturers, Ford, GM, and Chrysler for equally bad decisions. In addition, Bush failed to stand up to big spending Republicans during his eight years when he could have vetoed dozens of large spending bills. All of these decisions have left the country more in debt than it has ever been. These and other mistakes will leave the Bush legacy severely tarnished. While Bush should be commended for keeping the country safe from foreign threats, his domestic decision making has left the economic stability of America in serious doubt.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Blagojevich: The Governor Illinois Voters Deserve

2009-01-12T13:51:00.004-06:00

The last several weeks have seen scandal unfold in Illinois. Governor Blagojevich was indicted by federal prosecutors for allegedly selling Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. The governor was in such a position because, under Illinois law, the governor has the power to fill vacancies in United States Senate seats when the holder of the seat vacates the position or dies before finishing the term. In this case Obama must vacate his Senate seat in order to assume the presidency. Therefore, Governor Blagojevich has to power to select the next United States Senator.

But apparently the Governor was caught on tape attempting to extract favors and money from surrogates of potential appointees in return for naming those potential appointees to the Senate. Such an accusation and the subsequent indictment of the Governor has obviously become national news. There is no doubt that, unless the indictment falls apart, Blagojevich will be stripped of his governorship. In addition, a heated argument took place as to whether the Governor could even appoint the next Senator at all because he was indicted. The argument was settled and it seems certain that Blagojevich's eventual appointee, Roland Burris, will be the next Senator from Illinois.

Yet lost in the scandal is the choice Illinois voters made in re-electing the Blagojevich in 2006. In 2006 the people of Illinois had a choice between Blagojevich and a moderate Republican, Judy Baar Topinka, the Illinois state treasurer at the time. While Topinka was not an exciting candidate, she was untainted by scandal. Now Illinois is a liberal state and the fact that Blagojevich was re-elected would not be much of a surprise under normal circumstances. However, at the time, the Governor was under investigation for bribery and corruption. Yet the people of Illinois re-elected him anyway, by a wide margin (10 points).

Such a decision by the voters of Illinois brings one to conclude either the people of Illinois didn’t care about the investigations, or didn’t take the time to learn that their Governor was under investigation for bribery and corruption. Either conclusion does not put the voters in a favorable light. Clearly many in Illinois blindly voted for the Democrat Blagojevich simply because he was a Democrat. Yet the signs of corruption were a clear warning to the voters. They chose to ignore that warning and now their state is much worse for it. The political upheaval that has occurred will leave the state paralyzed for some time. Some might be sympathetic to the people of Illinois due to the dire political situation in their state, but I say the people got what they voted for. Maybe next time the voters of Illinois will pay attention to the signs of corruption before they step into the voting booth.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict...Again

2008-12-30T22:59:00.018-06:00

Conflict in the Middle East has once again become front page news. This time the Saudi-backed terrorist group, Hamas, has ignited tensions in the region by firing a barrage of rockets into Israeli territory. This is not the first attack Israel has had to endure in its history. Ever since its founding after the World War II, it has been under constant siege from all of its neighbors. Most recently, in 2006, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into Israel, provoking a military response. Today, as Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets into civilian population centers, Israel has again been forced to respond with airstrikes and possibly, in the future, ground operations.

These conflicts have occurred so often that most people in the Western world no longer care to follow the events. And who can blame them? The story is always the same. Some Palestinian or Islamic group attacks and kills Israeli civilians. Israel is forced to respond and targets the groups responsible, who hide in Palestinian civilian areas where Palestinian civilians are collateral damage in the military response. The conflict eventually ends, only to repeat itself months or years later.

Many politicians and academics insist that bringing the Palestinians and Israelis together for a peace agreement is the only way to end conflict in the region. They also insist that any peace agreement must result in a Palestinian nation. Such arguments are not only simple talking points but are short-sided and accomplish nothing as evidenced by the fact that all of these suggestions have already been tried by Israel. Every Israeli president has either held peace talks or worked toward them. Yet no agreement has ever brought lasting peace for Israel. For instance, during Bill Clinton's presidency Yasser Arafat, representing the Palestinians, and Ehud Barak, the president of Israel, sat down for peace talks. Barak agreed to cede 97% of the disputed territory for the creation of a Palestinian state. Arafat decided not to accept the terms and proceeded to order sustained attacks against Israel. Negotiations will never work if one side is not willing to compromise at all.

"Proportionate responses" to attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah is also needed, the experts say. Implicit in that argument is that Israel must only kill the same amount of Palestinians as there are Israelis killed. Such an argument is illogical because, on those terms, the conflict would be no different than the continuous cycle of violence that it is today as each side kills members of the other. In reality, an Israeli military response will never be "proportional" because it will attempt, at least in the near-term, to eliminate the current threat to its civilians.

Unfortunately the only way to end the conflict is for Israel, America, and the Jewish people worldwide to join forces and sustain the political will to defeat the various terror groups that continuously threaten Israel. The individual members of these groups hide amongst civilians. Therefore, military attacks will result in innocent blood being shed. However, the conflict will never cease as long as organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who have sworn to wipe Israel off the map, exist and have the capacity to kill Israeli civilians. Until these organizations are defeated militarily, Israel will never be at peace. While such a solution seems crude and simple for a seemingly complex issue, all the negotiations and diplomacy in the world cannot change the minds of those who want to bring about another Holocaust of the Jewish people.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

A Reality Check for Obama

2008-11-30T13:38:00.012-06:00

With Barack Obama as America's president-elect, focus turns from the rigors of producing sound bites for the campaign trail to actually crafting policies that have real consequences. Obama has already learned that it is much easier to stand for something while campaigning than to deal with the consequences of actually following through on your promises. Throughout the campaign, Obama and the Democrat party insisted that the rich in America were not paying their fair share in taxes. Obama called for the immediate repeal of the "Bush tax cuts" that favored the wealthy. That position got a lot of support from class warriors who believe government spending is the solution to all problems and the rich and big corporations should pay more taxes.

But with America facing a recession, Obama and his advisors are backing off of their calls for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Implicit in their silence is the realization that the "rich" businessmen in America provide millions of high-paying jobs. Increased taxes mean decreasing economic activity, less jobs, and more poverty. That reality does not sell with Obama voters who want even further increases in wealth distribution from some Americans to others. Yet Obama does not want to be blamed for a prolonged recession and realizes that raising taxes, despite his position on the campaign trail, is bad for the economy.

In addition, Obama is no longer loudly calling for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. He and his advisors are smart enough to realize such a withdrawal would weaken the Iraqi government to a point where it could be overthrown. Such a transfer of power from a democratically elected government to an Islamist regime would, of course, be blamed on the withdrawal of troops. That failure would in turn fall directly into Obama's lap. The anti-war left demanded troop withdrawals and Obama promised those withdrawals in exchange for votes. However, the political reality today means troops will not be withdrawn on a significant scale anytime soon because Obama does not want the bad press that comes with a foreign policy failure.

Obama, like most politicians, made many promises in order to win a political campaign. Many of his positions sounded sweet to liberals. Yet massive wealth distribution and weakened military might have never been very popular in America. If Obama is, as many contend, a pragmatist, he will not be able to follow his liberal campaign promises. But if he wants to try and change the fundamental foundations of American capitalism and military strength by following his liberal desires, Americans will quickly wake up and realize what a mistake they made on November 4th.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Bailout and Its Big Lesson

2008-10-31T22:17:00.009-05:00

To understand why the federal government spent 700 billion dollars to “bail out” banks in the United States, one first has to understand how the financial crisis came about. The crisis has its roots in the home mortgage loan industry. In most industries in America, private companies owned by private individuals function in the free marketplace to provide consumers with good and services. But not the home mortgage industry. In the name of ensuring “home ownership” for every American the federal government created the entities of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

These entities distorted the mortgage market in two ways. First, they directly loaned money to individuals that simply could not afford to make their mortgage payments. Second they “packaged” these loans into securities and sold them to financial institutions as investments.

The financial institutions obviously made, for lack of a better word, idiotic decisions when they invested heavily in these securities. However, part of the reason they chose to invest in these securities was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac advertised them as “risk-less.” That is, the government entities claimed that investors shouldn’t worry if some of the debtors could not pay their loans back because, as government entities, the return on the securities was guaranteed because the federal government would simply pay any shortfall.

But when the number of delinquent debtors was greater than expected, a domino effect took place that threatened to bankrupt the entire banking sector. When banks and other financial institutions realized the securities were worth much less than previously thought they were forced to write down those investments on their balance sheet. The enormous write downs decreased the value of the large banks in America. This decease in value forced the banks to refrain from taking further risks by loaning money to businesses and individuals. In effect, lending came close to stopping. Therefore the federal government stepped in with “the bailout” providing the money to keep the banks afloat. Now I believe the bailout was not the right move in the long-term because the government influences the banking sector more than ever. However, there is no question that America would have suffered significant short-term pain if the federal government had not acted.

So what can one conclude from the implosion of the mortgage market and the market’s subsequent rescue by the federal government? In essence, this is an expensive example of the failure of government involvement in commerce. Markets are efficient, sometimes brutally so, and they are designed to maximize efficiency and wealth. Governmental entities have very different goals. Their primary goal is to support constituencies that will, in turn, vote to keep elected officials in power. So while it made no economic sense to loan money to individuals who could not pay the money back, it made a lot of political sense to do so. Those individuals who received the loans were happy they received a nice house, at least for a time, and were happy to vote for the politicians that allowed them access to the loans, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When your goal is not to create wealth and make money, but to maximize votes it becomes very tempting to distort the market for political gain. Distortions eventually must be equalized and the collapse of the mortgage industry is the first, painful step in the correction of the mortgage market. Over time, the market will return to normal but not after great destruction of wealth and livelihood. Politics and the marketplace don’t mix, and when politicians begin to use an industry for the maximization of votes instead of allowing the free market to function as it should, bad, and this case, disastrous consequences are the result.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Sarah Palin and Feminist Hypocrisy

2008-09-27T12:26:00.005-05:00

The selection of Governor Sarah Palin by John McCain to be his presidential running mate has been a great success. She has energized Republicans and helped McCain gain in the presidential polls. But her selection has also revealed the blatant hypocrisy of the feminist movement. Palin has come under vicious attacks from liberal women who supposedly value the empowerment and advancement of women.

Take Gloria Steniem. She is one of the founders of the modern day feminist movement in America. She has spent her life arguing for the equality of women. So you would think she would be supportive, if not excited, that a woman has a real chance to be the Vice President of the United States? Nope. Steniem thinks Sarah Palin is unqualified to be president, though she is a Governor. Yet she supports Barack Obama for president who has been a Senator for little more time than Sarah Palin has been a Governor. Steniem clearly wants to undermine Sarah Palin because her success reveals that women can and are successful without having to be feminists.

Then consider Eleanor Clift of Newsweek Magazine. After the John McCain selected Palin to be his running mate she said “[i]f the media reaction has been anything, it’s been literally laughter in many places…in many, many newsrooms.” Or consider that Salon magazine Cintra Wilson labeled Palin a “Type A, hyper-conservative, Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume.” Many others, including Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe joined in belittling the female Governor. Wendy Doniger, a Divinity professor at the University of Chicago, even claimed that Sarah Palin’s “greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.” Yet the selection by Walter Mondale of Geraldine Ferraro to be his running mate in the 1984 presidential election was hailed by liberal women as a breakthrough in American politics.

And Sarah Palin represents what liberal women have always claimed modern women should be: successful and independent, with the ability to raise a family if they so choose. Why such vitriol? The obvious and simple explanation is liberal women will only have praise for those successful political women who are, in fact, liberals. Conservative women such as Sarah Palin are judged under a different set of rules. The selection of Sarah Palin has revealed the hypocrisy of the feminist movement. A woman is to be praised for succeeding in politics, but only if she is a liberal.

If one had to focus on the one issue that drives the feminist hatred of Sarah Palin it would certainly be abortion. Those feminists in America who do not see an unborn baby as a human life, but as an easily disposable clump of cells realize what the threat a strong pro-life women is to them and their push to normalize the act of abortion. Governor Palin clearly holds the moral high ground on this issue. She chose to give birth to her son Trig, even though she knew he would have Down syndrome. Her choice of life infuriates liberal women because they constantly insist having an abortion is no big deal and should be mainstreamed into American society.

But Governor Palin also represents a threat to the broader concept of liberalism. For years, liberals have insisted that they alone represent the American woman. Yet Sarah Palin shows women they can succeed without believing in the liberal orthodoxy of abortion on demand, larger government and weakness abroad. Many American women believe in the same ideals Sarah Palin believes in and that scares liberal women, who now fear their hold on the definition of feminine success is slipping away.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Atomic Bombing of Japan

2008-08-06T10:41:00.017-05:00

Today, August 6th, is the 63rd anniversary of the atomic bombing of the city of Hiroshima, Japan. That strike was followed three days later by the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. The blasts inflicted heavy casualties as approximately 66,000 were killed and 69,000 were injured at Hiroshima and 39,000 were killed and 25,000 injured at Nagasaki. In both cities the blast totally destroyed everything with a radius of one mile from the center of the explosion.

After the rise of modern liberalism in the 1970s, many have come to denounce the bombings as "terrorist attacks," and "war crimes." Such simplistic arguments ignore the situation in 1945. While Germany had been defeated and American military aircraft dominated the skies above Japan, the Emperor of Japan would not unconditionally surrender to the Allies. Over six million Japanese were still in various parts of Asia and many Japanese leaders hoped to kill enough Americans during an invasion to convince them that the cost was too high to continue. A relentless "Die for the Emperor" propaganda campaign had motivated many Japanese civilians to fight to the death and volunteers lined up for kamikaze "Divine Wind" suicide missions.

Faced with the daunting task of completely defeating the Japanese, President Truman realized he needed to "break the will" of the Japanese Emperor and convince him that unconditional surrender was the only option. An invasion would have been slow and cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. While the total casualties from the atomic bombs were expected to be high, they were nothing in comparison to costs in lives an invasion would have entailed. In fact American military leaders estimated that total American deaths alone would have been between 400,000 and 800,000 as a result of such an invasion. The option that minimized the number of total casualties was clearly to drop the atomic bombs on Japan and force an unconditional surrender.

Others might concede these points but insist that America could have negotiated a slightly less favorable surrender and ended the war without unleashing the power of the atomic bomb. Such arguments seemingly do not realize the stakes in 1945. America and her allies had expended much blood and treasure in the world-wide fight between totalitarianism and democracy. Anything less than an unconditional surrender would have left the Japanese military in control of the country and would have given long-term credibility to the Japanese military regime. Can one honestly believe Japan would have been better off in the long-term under the boot of its dictatorial military?

War is ugly and every country, including the United States, makes mistakes that result in the loss of innocent life. But the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved the lives of thousands of America soldiers and Japanese civilians. The bombings forced a complete surrender which allowed democracy to slowly take root in Asia and which, in turn, led to the development of the great and peaceful nation of Japan today. President Truman's decision to destroy the Japanese cities was surely a difficult one, but it was necessary to bring complete closure to the devastating chapter in history that was World War II.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: The Appeal

2008-07-08T14:23:00.008-05:00

By: John Grisham

Note: I have attempted to leave out any significant spoilers.

John Grisham is renown for his ability to deeply develop his characters without having to use many words. And in that respect he does not disappoint in The Appeal. Readers will quickly connect with the lawyers, judges, and “regular” folk created by Grisham. Within the first thirty-two pages the reader will sympathize with the hard-working lawyers committed to justice, resent the billionaire and his trophy wife, and suffer with the widow who lost her family to cancer.

Yet if one looks past the brilliant prose used by Grisham one might realize the traits of the main characters are mostly clichéd stereotypes of the liberal viewpoint of the players in America’s justice system. The central judge portrayed in The Appeal, a Democrat, is a made out to be a level-headed thinker, while the forces behind the candidacy of the Republican are ruthless ideologues who have the narrow agenda of gods, guns, and gays. In Grisham’s world, the Republican candidate is backed by a right-wing machine that stretches the truth and conducts dirty campaigns, while the judge is just a good-natured, normal person who is blindsided by attacks from the right. Given the tone of the novel, it seems Grisham would find it laughable to consider the fact that perhaps reality is, at least sometimes if not most times, the other way around.

The plaintiff’s lawyers portrayed as the heroes in the book have given their careers to the case, worked without compensation, and live lower-middle class lives. Grisham clearly wants his audience to fall in love with the sympathetic trail lawyers. In reality however, trial attorneys have created major problems for America. The plaintiffs attorneys in America are one of the richest class of citizens and have raked in billions of dollars for themselves through tobacco and pharmaceutical litigation. These lawyers do not create any products or wealth. They simply sue large corporations on behalf of consumers and take a lion’s share of the judgments as payment for their services. Because of the large judgments against the defendant corporations, the cost of doing business rises and those cost increases make it harder for business to expand, create jobs, and offer low-cost products.

Such an argument is long-winded and hard to explain but the story of down and out lawyers fighting for the poor makes for a more interesting and emotional tale. And in that sense, it is difficult to blame Grisham for the story he weaves. One of the key differences between liberalism and conservatism is the emphasis put on emotion. Liberals think with their heart, but conservatives think with their head. So it is no wonder that psychologists, teachers, and novelists are overwhelmingly liberal. They place a great emphasis on emotion, while conservatives do not. So one can understand why Grisham the liberal frames The Appeal the way he does: emotion sells books.

Another vivid character created by Grisham is the billionaire CEO. Like every liberal stereotype of the American businessman, he is loud, obnoxious, a womanizer, and became rich at the expense of others, specifically by operating a pesticide plant that dumped chemicals into the nearby drinking water. Surely some businessmen have gotten rich by doing bad things, but overall the American businessman is an enormous boon to the country. He creates jobs and opportunity not previously available and provides goods and services to the population. Such enormous benefits are largely ignored by Grisham. But again, it is easy to understand why The Appeal is written from such a point of view. Every novel needs a villain and the greedy businessman is an easy target.

Grisham’s novel clearly reveals his liberalism and, while he does not completely ignore the point-of-view of the other side, he dismisses it, as most liberals do, as short-sited, stupid or mean. If you want a great story The Appeal does not disappoint, but the political propaganda is a big turnoff.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Big Oil, Big Profits

2008-06-25T11:02:00.006-05:00

With the arrival of record gasoline prices, America has finally turned its attention to the problem it faces when it comes to energy. America is a growing country and is the engine of the world's economy. In order to continue to grow and prosper, America needs energy. Today's technology makes it possible for energy to be generated from the wind, the sun, nuclear reactions, and other sources. Yet today, by far the most cost-effective and efficient source of energy comes from the hydrocarbons oil and natural gas. But with the high cost of such commodities today, the large companies that supply oil and gas have come under fire for the record profits they are generating.

Congress's response has been predictable. Senator Obama has called for a "windfall profits tax" on "Big Oil" companies and other Democrats in Congress have suggested that the federal government nationalize and run the oil refineries in America. Such "solutions," while resonating with Americans who love to hate big business, will not solve the problem of high energy prices. In fact, they will make them worse. Simple logic and economic principles dictate that if one taxes something, in this case oil and energy, one will receive less of it. If it becomes more expensive to create and buy energy because more taxes are imposed or the federal government starts to intercede, supply will decrease and prices will rise. The law of supply and demand is basic economics, no amount of tax or regulation can get around it.

What is lost in this debate is a sense of perspective on what "Big Oil" does, how they make their money and the consequences of their financial success. Oil companies such as Exxon and Chevron are constantly accused of "gouging" consumers at the gas pump by charging higher prices. Such arguments ignore the basic business principle that profits are the difference between revenue, the amount of money taken it by the seller, and costs, the amount of money needed to produce the product, in this case gasoline, and sell it on the market. While the revenue the oil companies receive from selling gasoline is certainly on the rise so are the costs associated with delivering gasoline to the market. When the cost of oil, the most significant ingredient in gasoline, is at a record level the price of getting gasoline to market is obviously higher as well. The actual profit on the sale of a gallon of gas the oil companies receive is quite small.

Compare the costs of a gallon of bottled water and a gallon of gasoline. A gallon of water, the most plentiful resource on the planet, costs about $3.35 while gasoline now costs about $4.00 per gallon. But think of the costs involved in bringing the respective products to market. Water only has to be filtered, bottled, and transported. In order to bring gasoline to market oil companies must first find oil, drill for it, transport the oil, refine in into gasoline, and transport it to gas stations. The costs associated with this process are must higher than those associated with bottling water, yet the cost difference is only $0.50-$0.75 per gallon.

In fact, an oil company makes $0.08-$0.10 per gallon of gasoline in profit. Such a profit margin is paltry compared with other American companies such as Coca-Cola and 3M. The oil companies are big in shear size, but they "gouge" their consumers a lot less than other companies.

It should also be noted that while oil companies make about $0.10 in profit from each gallon of gas sold, the federal government takes $0.18 per gallon of gas in taxes and the average state gasoline tax is about $0.28 per gallon. Therefore, the government makes a total of almost $0.50 per gallon of gasoline sold without incurring any costs. One should ask whether it is the oil companies or the government who are gouging consumers.

Big oil companies also bear a tremendous tax burden in America. In fact Exxon's 2007 tax bill was over $30 billion dollars. For a little perspective, the lower half of all taxpayers in this country paid a total of $27 billion in taxes in 2007. In other words, Exxon paid more federal taxes to the government than the total federal taxes paid by half of all Americans.

Big oil provides the hydrocarbons necessary to heat and cool homes, drive to work, and go about our daily lives. Taxing and regulating them may make some feel good for "sticking it to big business," but the result will be less energy and higher prices. Americans should appreciate the big oil companies for the products they provide, the high paying jobs they create, and the taxes they pay, not demagogue them.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Conservative Criticism of Barack Obama

2008-05-31T10:30:00.010-05:00

Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democrat party in the upcoming presidential elections. Many, drawn by his charisma, will vote for him, not because they really know what he stands for, but because he has positioned himself to be the celebrity candidate of "hope and change." If voters want a president who is more like a celebrity than a leader, I truly fear for the future of America. Deciding who will be leader of the free world is a serious proposition and I would encourage all Americans to take the time and learn about the issues. For those voters who do truly look at the where the candidates stand on the issues, they should consider what the repercussions of an Obama presidency would be for America and the world. As such, here is an overview of some of the issues and the conservative criticism of Barack Obama on those issues.

The Message: Obama's message of hope and change is easy to criticize because it is typical empty political rhetoric. While the message may make some "feel good," it means little because it lacks any substance. What is everyone hoping to change to? Such questions are left unanswered probably because the answers are ones that, in general, the American people will not like.

Iraq and Terrorism: Obama and most of the Democrat party have painted themselves into a corner on Iraq. They have to oppose the war because their left-wing base is always against the use of American military force, but they cannot look weak and uninformed if they do not acknowledge the situation in Iraq has improved considerably. Unfortunately Obama seeks to withdraw American troops from Iraq and cede it to the Islamic fundamentalists that will surely take over the country if American troops were to leave. Simply put, Obama and the Democrats want to retreat in the face of America's enemies.

Iran: Obama wants unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the political leader of Iran. Iran is the single greatest threat to American interests worldwide. It oppresses its people, threatens Israel's destruction, pursues nuclear weapons, funds the terrorist group Hezbollah, and supplies men and materials to the insurgency in Iraq killing American soldiers. All in all it is safe to conclude that Iran is a total enemy of the United States. Yet Obama is willing to talk, without preconditions, with its President. If the leader of the free world were to meet with Ahmadinejad, the state of Iran would most assuredly say to the people of Iran "see even America realizes that we are in charge." This allows the leaders of Iran to consolidate their power and continue working toward their goal of bringing down America. In addition, such a message severely damages the efforts of Iranian dissents attempting to undermine and overthrow the regime.

Universal Health Care: Barack Obama wants the government to run the health care system. He wants the people that brought America such successful government programs as the Postal Service and Amtrak to be in charge of life and death decisions for all Americans. Many Americans are mad that health care and health insurance are so expensive today. Yet they do not take the time to realize the expense is the result of government mandates and red-tape which make providing health care expensive. These mandates reduce the supply of medical care because they raise the costs of providing it. If the rules and regulations in place now were eliminated the doctors and insurance companies would respond to the needs of their customers instead of the regulations, the price of medical care would decrease, and the supply would expand. Obama and the Democrats are opposed to such a solution because it bypasses the government, the one thing in which they truly believe. If you think government-run health care is a good idea, ask yourself of all the products the government provides today, which are you satisfied with? No doubt the list will be small. Ask yourself, do you really believe that the government will provide a better product than the health care we enjoy today?

Race: While Barack Obama himself has gone to some lengths to insist that he is not a "racial" candidate, several of his allies and surrogates have wasted little time is seeing any criticism of Obama as evidence of racism. Obama cannot have it both ways on this. Either he is a racial candidate or he isn't. Obama should insist that any criticism of him not be classified as racist, but instead answer those criticisms in turn on their merit.

Yet more troubling to many Americans is Obama's association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. When it came to light that the Reverend repeatedly damned American on the pulpit, accused the United States government of creating the AIDS virus to devastate black society, and concluded that the 9/11 attacks were justified because America had it coming, many began to ask why Obama was a member of Wright's church for 20 years, why he did not challenge Wright when he publicly made the statements he did, and why did Obama view Wright as a mentor and father figure for so long. Obviously no presidential candidate can publicly agree with such extreme positions, but given the closeness of Obama to Wright and Obama's refusal to distance himself from Wright before he became a candidate for President, it seems more than fair to ask whether or not Obama really believes what Wright believes. The anger and hatred toward America, especially white America, the Reverend possesses is unfounded in the eyes of most Americans. Obama says that he is not a racial candidate, but his associations with those that believe everything is about race are more than troubling.

Taxes: Obama, just like almost all Democrats, wants to raise taxes. The reason conservatives oppose taxes is not that we seek to eliminate government in its entirety, but we believe the government already taxes the people too much and that money is wasted on programs and ideas that just do not work. In 2007, the United States Federal Government took in $2.5 trillion in taxes, but spent $2.7 trillion. That is trillion, with a "t." The numbers involved are so large they are really unfathomable to the human mind. Yet what does the average American get for that money? Sure the money provides for national defense and other necessary expenditures, but a large amount of the money is wasted on special interests and ineffective government programs. Conservatives simply want the government to use the money it already receives in an effective manner before politicians force America to give away more of their own money.

Conservatives disagree with Obama on almost every major issue: free trade, school vouchers, missile defense, guns etc. The list is long. An Obama presidency would be dangerous for America and the world. The failed liberal ideas Obama seeks to implement will not make this country better, but lead it more quickly down the path of socialism at home and weakness abroad. Obama's message may make many Americans "feel good," but the actual policies he supports have been proven by history to fail time and again.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Coming Downfall of Protestantism

2008-04-29T20:47:00.018-05:00

The last several years have brought political controversy to the Protestant churches in America. Specifically, the leadership of the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches have made statements and decisions that, in the long-term, may lead to the downfall of the Protestant movement.

The Protestant movement has a proud beginning as the Christian alternative to the corrupt Catholic Church of the 16th century. Fed up with the selling of indulgences, Martin Luther started a revolution that eventually, though not after much unintended bloodshed, brought most of Christianity, including the Catholic Church, back to teaching morality and the word of God rather that focusing on the monetary enrichment of a few.

Yet the principled beginning of Protestantism is threatened today by the willingness of many church leaders to abandon the tenants of Christianity in favor of political correctness.

The Anglican, or Episcopal Church as it is called in America, has gone to the brink of splitting in recent years over the issue of gay clergy. Especially in America, the gay movement has pushed for the recognition of gay bishops and, in 2003, it succeeded when Gene Robinson became the first openly gay priest to be ordained. In fact in 2008, Robinson entered into a civil union with his longtime partner. The majority of the worldwide Anglican Church objected on principle, and a split in the Church was contemplated.

Whatever one's position on homosexuality, Christianity has always believed that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. Of course, every person is guilty of some sin, but the acceptance of openly and, more importantly, unapologetic gay clergy indicates that many Protestants today favor open acceptance of homosexuality rather than criticizing it and the lifestyle it tends to encourage. Consider whether Protestant ministers should be allowed to openly gamble or cheat on their wives or steal from others. All of these actions are sins and few, if any, Protestants would accept their ministers if they openly and repeatedly engaged in such sins. Yet today many Protestants are willing to allow ministers to openly practice the sin of homosexuality.

If the Anglican Church is so willing to allow ministers to openly and unapologetically practice homosexuality, which sin will they "accept" next? The message coming from the Anglican Church on this issue is not a positive sign that, in the future, Protestant churches will have the moral principles the Protestant movement has historically enjoyed.

The leadership of the Presbyterian Church has also created controversy when it recently denounced the state of Israel and the actions Israel takes to protect itself from the forces bent on its destruction. Specifically, PC(USA), the leadership body of the Presbyterian Church, voted in 2005 to divest its investment holdings of several companies that did business with Israel. In addition to that vote, PC(USA) issued a statement that criticized the nation of Israel for Israel's "punishment of the entire people of Palestine." Nevermind the fact that the terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad openly seek the destruction of Israel and directly target civilians, or the fact that Israel uses sophisticated equipment and targeted military strikes specifically to minimize civilian casualties while striking back at terrorists.

What the Presbyterian Church inexplicably failed to realize was the moral inequivalency of targeting your enemy on the battlefield while hoping to minimize civilian casualties and the direct targeting of civilian homes, buses, and marketplaces by Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. There is a clear moral difference when Hamas sends a suicide bomber onto an Israeli bus and kills men and women on their way to work and the death of a Palestinian who was unlucky to be near a known terrorist that Israel targets militarily.

The actions of PC(USA) were met with disbelief by its membership and Jewish leaders. The backlash from both forced the Church to backtrack a bit. Yet simply the fact that the Church took the actions it did in first place shows how many in the Presbyterian Church have lost their moral bearings and bought into the politically correct notion that the actions of Israel and its terrorist enemies are morally identical.

The decisions by the leaders in the Protestant movement to abandon the traditional beliefs of their parishioners in favor of more "progressive" or "understanding" positions threaten to destroy the Protestant movement. Without principles and beliefs and the fortitude to hold to them, the moral foundation of Christianity will disappear. Over the years the Catholic Church has been much more courageous in its insistence that the historical moral foundation of Christianity remain intact through its strong and unwavering opposition to abortion and embryonic steam cells, among other positions. The Protestant movement better learn from the Vatican if it hopes to remain a relevant moral and spiritual compass for mankind rather than fade into irrelevance.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Overrated Presidency of LBJ

2008-03-24T22:40:00.022-05:00

Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) was the thirty-sixth President of the United States and became President after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. His Presidency is defined by his implementation of the Great Society, his massive escalation of the Vietnam War, and the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. While LBJ is not considered a great president by many, most do not think of his Presidency as particularly bad for the country. Yet the legacies he left, both in creating the Great Society and fighting the Vietnam War, were disastrous, and his efforts in passing civil rights legislation are overrated.

First, the Great Society. The Great Society was a set of policies implemented by LBJ and the Democrat Congress of his time which were designed to fight American poverty. While massive in scope, the policies were simple to understand. Design and create large new governmental agencies that distribute money to certain segments of the American population. Under these auspices LBJ created the Head Start program, the Food Stamp program, Medicaid and Medicare, among others.

Medicaid and Medicare, together with Social Security, have become so enormous that today they take up 6%, 11%, and 22% (see Chart 2-6) of the federal budget respectively as of the year 2000. Now it is difficult to argue against giving money to poor people or to old people. In fact, it seems downright mean to do so. Yet looking at the results of these programs, one can only conclude that they have failed dismally at their intended purpose.

The Great Society programs were intended especially to help inner-city blacks. Yet the massive transfer of wealth has changed the inner-cities little. Drugs are even more rampant than they were and the black family, once the cornerstone of black America, has been destroyed. In addition, more and more Americans find it easier to accept government handouts than to provide for themselves and their family. The Great Society programs have done little to fight systematic poverty and have left part of America in a state of permanent governmental dependence.

In addition, LBJ massively increased troop deployment in Vietnam. While that in and of itself is not a reason to criticize Johnson, the way in which he fought the war is surely worthy of reproach. From the outset of the Vietnam War, the American Navy and Air Force had almost complete air superiority over Vietnam. Yet Johnson implemented rules of engagement (ROEs) that handicapped American forces so severely that the Vietcong forces were continually reinforced and re-supplied by their surrogates, the Soviet Union and China.

The ROEs in place for the air campaign over North Vietnam included restrictions on where aircraft could fly, what conditions aircraft could attack enemy forces, and what degree of force could be used both in self-defense and attack. Other ROEs restricted pilots from attacking certain types of targets that were off limits. Some of these were enemy airfields, SAM sites, power plants, naval craft in some areas, and a 30 mile area around Hanoi, the center of Vietcong activity.

The inability to attack certain targets made it difficult to stop the flow of men and material into South Vietnam. As a result, the American military was forced to try and win the war on the ground where the Vietcong seamlessly mixed with the civilian population and retained the advantage of knowing the battlefield. Not only did America lose a war that it had no business losing, but thousands of American lives were lost in an attempt to fight a "nicer and safer" war.

Lastly, LBJ is given all the credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed segregation in American schools and public places. While he certainly pushed for the bill's passage, it was in fact President John F. Kennedy who first proposed the bill, only to be assassinated before it was passed.

In addition more Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia Robert C. Byrd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of former Vice President Al Gore. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Many on the left praise LBJ for his work on civil rights, yet ignore the fact that the Civil Rights Act was his predecessor's idea and an initiative that he simply completed. In addition, LBJ's massive entitlement programs have ensured that the United States will be in debt for the foreseeable future. His handling of the Vietnam War was disastrous and led to America's defeat against a weaker opponent. His Presidency was not a success. It is an example of how not to lead the greatest country on Earth.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Why This Conservative Will Not Vote For John McCain

2008-02-29T21:49:00.013-06:00

Now that John McCain has become the Republican nominee for president, conservatives will have to ask themselves whether they will vote for party or for principle. Of the Republican nominees running for president, John McCain was arguably the most liberal of them. McCain's candidacy is problematic because he can fundamentally change the underlying principles of the Republican Party on several issues.

Tax Cuts: While McCain now says that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 should be extended, he voted against both of them. Even worse he used the same class warfare rhetoric employed by liberals by declaring that the tax cuts were "for the rich." Since the election of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has been the party of tax cuts. Under a President McCain, conservatives will see little, if any, push for the lowering of tax rates.

Immigration: John McCain has long been a proponent of extending legal status to those individuals who have come into America illegally. In fact, he was a primary sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that would have eventually legalized approximately 12 million illegal aliens. Conservatives who believe in the rule of law should also be troubled by McCain's recent refusal to state that he has learned his lesson from the downfall of his immigration bill and will veto any similar legislation as president.

Global Warming: McCain has stated that he believes man-made global warming is real and is doing serious damage to the environment. His problem to the solution comes right out of the Democrat playbook: more regulation of American business. Not only do true conservatives realize that the Earth's temperature is well within the recent temperature ranges it has experienced over thousands of years, but that the best way to deal with such a problem (even if you do not believe it exists) is with the free market.

Free Speech: McCain was the primary sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill which was, we were told, supposed to get the money out of politics. In fact, the money flowing into the coffers of politicians is at an all time high and 527 orgainizations that operate outside the bill's parameters increase the amount of campaign money exponentially. In addition, the bill restricts free speech by preventing Americans from running political ads 30 days before an election. The McCain-Feingold bill is yet another example of politicians believing that simply passing a law will fix a problem, when in fact, more often than not, the problem becomes worse.

Judges: One of the most important decisions presidents must make is who they will nominate to the Supreme Court. Conservatives got an indication of who McCain would nominate to the Supreme Court when it was reported that McCain said that he would not nominate a justice such as Samuel Alito, a mainstream and reasonable conservative by any measure, because he was too conservative. In addition, McCain was a member of the Gang of 14 Senators who were instrumental in killing the nominations of several conservatives to federal judgeships. President George Bush has been good on judges, but there is little indication that a President McCain would nominate conservatives to the bench.

Just because McCain is a Republican does not mean he will advance conservative ideals and principles. In fact on the issues mentioned above McCain will redefine the Republican Party and make it harder for conservatives to eventually rise to power. This voter is unwilling to sacrifice his principles simply because the de facto leader of the Republican Party says he is a conservative. McCain's past actions reveal that he is at best a moderate and at worst a liberal. Just because he has an "R" next to his name does not mean he is worthy of the vote of conservatives.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

A Conservative's Guide to the Republican Primary

2008-01-09T23:17:00.000-06:00

It is time for both parties to select their presidential nominees. Given the significant tilt to the left that the Democrat party has experienced in recent years, conservatives should vote for the Republican presidential nominee in the general election. So today, conservatives should make every effort to ensure that the most conservative, yet electable, individual is the Republican presidential nominee. Unfortunately, no clear, conservative choice exists within the current slate of Republican candidates. So here are my observations on each of the candidates and whether I think conservatives should support their candidacies.

Rudy Giuliani: Having been the frontrunner for much of the year, his inability to become competitive in any of the first three primary states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) has seriously endangered his candidacy. His record as mayor of New York City is impressive, especially on economic issues. He reduced the size of the bloated New York City bureaucracy. Although he raised some taxes, overall he reduced them. And most impressively, he reduced the crime rate and cleaned up many of the troubled areas in the city. Based on his past, I feel confident that Giuliani would be an economic conservative in the White House. However, he clearly is a social liberal. He is pro-abortion and supports gay marriage. While this is troubling, I am willing to look past his deficiencies. There are clearly more conservative candidates, but a Giuliani nomination would be acceptable. For a more in-depth look at his economic record click here.

Mike Huckabee: With his win in the Iowa caucuses, the former Arkansas governor is now a top tier candidate. This is bad news not only for the Republican Party, but for the conservative movement as a whole. Huckabee is articulate and likable on the stump, but his record as governor of Arkansas is troubling to say the least. He increased taxes on multiple occasions and increased spending on government programs on almost every occasion. While he is a social conservative and opposes gay marriage and abortion, presidents have little to no power over those issues. In my opinion, Huckabee is an economic liberal who would be a disaster for the conservative movement. For a more in-depth look at his economic record click here.

Duncan Hunter: He is a former California congressman who has a very conservative record, especially on immigration. He was the driving force in expanding the fence along the border. However, he has little support in the polls and is simply not a viable candidate.

John McCain: A senator from Arizona who lost the Republican nomination to George W. Bush in 2000, was not taken seriously earlier in the campaign season. Now he has gotten a second wind and is surging in the polls especially after his win in the New Hampshire primary. Unfortunately, this is bad news for conservatism. McCain opposed the 2001 Bush tax cuts, was the author of the horrible McCain-Feingold bill which brought more money into politics and believes that the federal government should impose rules to combat "man-made" global warming. For a more in-depth look at his economic record click here.

Ron Paul: This longtime Texas congressman has run a surprisingly effective campaign, at least if you believe the polls. Paul has a libertarian streak (he ran as the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988) and therefore is solidly conservative on economic issues. However, he has made a name for himself by becoming the only Republican presidential candidate to support a complete and immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Obviously I believe that such a move would be disastrous not only for Iraq, but for America as well. His views on Iraq alone should be enough for any conservative to conclude that he is not the best Republican candidate. For a more in-depth look at his economic record click here.

Mitt Romney: The former Governor of Massachusetts is an articulate politician who has a tracks record of getting things done (he is widely credited with successfully organizing the disorganized 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City) He opposed the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, and closed a $3 billion budget gap without imposing any new taxes (although he did increase many fees). In my opinion Romney is the most electable yet conservative Republican candidate. He is not a perfect candidate (he used to be pro-abortion and has few conservative economic accomplishments), but is certainly a better choice for conservatives than Huckabee or McCain. For a more in-depth look at his economic record click here.

Fred Thompson: Personally Thompson is my favorite candidate. Even though he is soft on McCain-Feingold, he is a consistent social and economic conservative with a voting record in the U.S. Senate to back it up. However, he is not a proficient campaigner and does not have the money or the support to win. I hope I am wrong, but I just do not think Thompson is the right candidate for Republicans. For a more in-depth look at his economic record click here.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Hillary Clinton's Secrecy

2007-12-31T14:52:00.001-06:00

President George W. Bush has been accused of having the most secret administration in American history. Hillary Clinton has even gotten into the act and criticized the President for his secrecy. Such a charge seems laughable coming from her, given the past actions of both herself and her husband.

Hillary, now that she is running for president, contends that she has experience that others do not possess. Specifically, she says that her time as the First Lady of Arkansas and of America allowed her to be intimately involved in the policy making decisions of her husband. If this were true there would be extensive evidence of her involvement. There would be, and are, documents proving this, both in Arkansas and in the Clinton Presidential Library.

There is just one problem. The Clintons will not release any documents detailing Hillary's involvement, or lack thereof, in the executive decisions of her husband. So either the Hillary wasn't as involved as she says she was or the documents are not flattering.

I personally think it is the later. The two public examples of Hillary Clinton taking the lead in policy matters were her attempt to improve education in Arkansas and her attempt to nationalize health care when her husband was president. Both were unmitigated disasters. By the time Hillary Clinton moved to the White House with her husband in 1993, Arkansas was still one of the fifth worst states for education and once people realized that the federal government would be in charge of their health and well-being they quickly rejected the idea.

Hillary Clinton says that she has the experience to lead this country, but she cannot produce any evidence of that claim. A start would be releasing the documents that detail her involvement in her husband's administrations. Everybody wants open government. But those who criticize others shouldn't throw stones from their glass houses.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Armenian Genocide and the Iraq War

2007-10-30T15:47:00.000-05:00

Recently Congressional Democrats made a push to hold a vote on a resolution condemning the massacre of Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman Empire, the remnants of which constitute modern day Turkey. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she decided to advance the legislation because the United States has a moral obligation to take a stand and declare the World War I-era killings of 1.5 million Armenians a genocide. But back in the 1980s Congress passed a resolution setting April 24 as a day of remembrance of the Armenian genocide. So you see America is already on record as condemning the 1915 killings.

So why did a new resolution warrant consideration? Simple, it is all about Iraq war politics. In fact, two-thirds of American supplies to troops in Iraq flow through Turkey and the question of Armenian genocide is a touchy subject with Turkey’s ruling political elite. If such a resolution were to pass, immediate repercussions, such as shutting off necessary supply lines, would be carried out by the Turkish government. Thankfully, due to the outrage expressed by Republicans and some clear thinking Democrats, Speaker Pelosi was forced to withdraw the resolution before it came to a vote.

Clearly the Democrats, after becoming unable to get the troops out of Iraq as they promised their base last year, and being complete failures in attempting to cut funding for the war in Iraq, tried to undermine the Iraq mission. Right now, the left in this country cannot afford for America to win in Iraq. They have invested too much time and effort in opposing the war that an American victory there would be politically devastating. Therefore, the Democrats in Congress have to find a way to keep American troops from winning in Iraq. Luckily sanity prevailed in this instance, but don’t think that this will be that last time the Democrat party will use its newfound power to try and force an American defeat.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

SCHIP: Another Step Towards Socialism

2007-09-30T15:51:00.000-05:00

What about the children? That will be the response coming from the Democrat Party and the majority of the media when President Bush vetoes the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) shortly.

What is SCHIP? It is a federally provided insurance program that pays the health insurance costs for poor children, specifically those whose families are living at 200% and below of the poverty line.

The program was created by the Republican Congress in 1997 with one and only purpose: to subsidize, with federal funds, health insurance for poor children ineligible for Medicaid but unable to afford private insurance.

Yet the initial bill only authorized the program for 10 years. Now it is time for reauthorization, but the Democrats in Congress want to massively expand the program (never mind the possibly of eliminating the program since once a government program is created it never dies).

Today, the SCHIP program costs about $5 billion per year and covers about 6.6 million kids. However, the new program proposed by Congressional Democrats raises the number covered to approximately 9 million, at more than double the cost. Such an expansion would cover those children whose families earn up to $83,000. That is not poor, that is upper-middle class. This new bill is not for poor kids, it is a new middle-class entitlement.

In addition, the new bill does not just cover children, it covers hundreds of thousands of adults. Far from being "for the children," SCHIP already covers 670,000 adults. The new law will increase that. And by the way, illegal aliens are eligible too, due to large loopholes.

But the worst part of the bill is that it will crowd out the private sector that is already providing health insurance to the majority of poor and middle-class citizens. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study (Footnote 39) revealed 77% of children affected by this expansion already have personal health insurance. Expanding SCHIP will serve as a taxpayer funded substitute to these personal insurance plans. The result will be that many children who already have health insurance will leave the private sector and taxpayers will be stuck with the bills.

Ultimately, Republicans and President Bush have no one to blame but themselves. This is yet another example of how the Democrat Party in this country will expand the reach and size of government at every opportunity. Republicans have given up their free-market, small-government credentials under President Bush and the country and the private sector are much worse off for it. If Republicans do not stop surrendering on the issues of the expansion of the federal government and continue to support and implement more and more entitlement programs such as SCHIP and the Medicare prescription drug bill, then America’s economy will soon become as socialist as those in Western Europe. That bodes ill for the next generation of Americans. Their opportunities for becoming successful will be greatly diminished by the inefficiency and wastefulness of government.

Americans better wake up. It is easy to say that the federal government should pay for the health care of children, but this proposal by the Democrats is a clear precursor to a federal takeover of the health care system in America. If you want the government deciding when and how you get medical attention, then you should support this bill. But for those who realize that federally controlled health care will be a disaster know better. I, and many other Americans, are weary of paying for the goods and services that everyone else should have to pay for themselves. Sooner than most realize, the federal government will run out of money to pay for all the “freebies” everyone demands they have a right to possess.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Fear the Communists of China

2007-08-31T14:15:00.000-05:00

While America takes the lead in combating Islamic fundamentalism around the world, the Communist government of China is biding its time in hopes of becoming the world's next superpower.

Today, the United States enjoys the status as the world’s only true superpower, but the Chinese government thinks that China not only can become a superpower, but that it is destined to be one. The Chinese people have historically thought of themselves as, in a sense, better than other nations and cultures. This psyche drives them to become a dominant country both militarily and economically. While the economic trade that America and China bilaterally engage in is beneficial to both countries, the frantic build-up of the Chinese military destabilizes Asia in the short-term and represents an outright challenge to American military superiority in the long-term.

Central to China's strategy is catching up to the United States in technology, especially military technology. Like the Russians during the Cold War, the Chinese know that they cannot create cutting-edge military technology within China, so they focus on using spies to steal American military technology. China’s vast networks of spies steal industrial and military secrets from American business and the United States government. The technology is then reverse engineered by the Chinese government. This has allowed China to become a more industrialized nation much more quickly than anyone would have anticipated.

In turn China uses its money to influence countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. For instance, such payments have allowed China to gain access to military and oil assets in Venezuela and the Sudan, two countries that are openly hostile to the United States.

But the most pressing problem created by China’s rising influence is that it threatens to conquer Taiwan. The tensions between China and Taiwan find their roots in the 1949 Chinese revolution, when communists led by Chairman Mao claimed control of the mainland. However, the island of Taiwan was and has been protected from invasion by the United States. Yet China’s increased military prowess threatens the island nation and its military buildup has concentrated on the expansion of satellite, submarine and anti-carrier technology, three facets of modern warfare that would be essential in any conflict with America over Taiwan.

The more naïve among us may ask, so what? Why should it matter that China wants to increase its prestige? The answer is that unlike America, which has never wanted to be an empire (even now we discuss when we are going to leave Iraq), China has always harbored imperialistic goals. Now that it finally has the economy and the military capable of dominating Asia, America and its allies should harbor no illusion that the Chinese government is a friend.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Don’t Nationalize Health Care

2007-07-14T14:55:00.000-05:00

Now that Michael Moore’s “documentary,” Sicko, has been released, there are more and more calls for politicians in America to nationalize, or take over, the health care system. Moore and others assert the other western countries that have adopted a nationalized system have much better health care than America.

Yet, as usual, when it comes to Moore and others who insist on more government control of health care, the facts do not back up their assertions. A central critique by Moore and others of our health care system is that we have millions of uninsured citizens. While that is true, the vast majority of those people are under 25 and likely will not need any significant health care treatment. It is not that the millions of uninsured cannot pay for health insurance. It is that they make the choice not to pay for something they simply will not need. Other countries that provide universal health care waste billions of tax dollars to insure young adults who will not need any treatment.

Moore and others also insist that people are “entitled to health care.” This kind of thinking sounds good in theory, but like most of the ideals of socialism, is fatal in practice. If everyone is entitled to all their health care, then why should anyone take care of themselves, if someone else will pay to make them better?

It is undisputed that America has the most advanced health care technology and creates almost every single new drug. This is the result of America adopting a (relatively) capitalist health care system that rewards individuals who discover cures and health care solutions. If the government were to take over the system, the doctors and businesses that are in the health care industry to make money will flee the system resulting in less new technology and new life-saving drugs.

Socialists also insist that other services, such as education, should never be privatized and should be provided “free” by the government. But such logic ignores reality. Education in this country, or anywhere else for that matter, is not free. Americans are taxed heavily, mainly through state property taxes, so that the government can provide education. In fact, America spends more money per pupil than any country on earth, but our children rank towards the bottom in achievement. Are the proponents of socialized medicine seriously going to use our education system as an example of how successful government control can be? I ask if the free market can provide a better product at a lower cost to society, why not let it rule?

The more government interferes with any part of the economy, the lower quality of the product produced. America needs less government interference in the health care system, not more. Just ask airline customers, parents of public school students, and any citizen of the high-tax countries that have embraced socialized medicine if they think they are getting their money’s worth.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

John Edwards - Hypocrite Extraordinaire

2007-07-05T13:26:00.000-05:00

In case you didn’t notice, former Democrat Senator and former Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards is running for president. Edwards has been able to tap into the jealously many people have towards others that make more money than they do. His campaign theme has been that there are two Americas; in his words there is “one America that does the work [and] another America that reaps the rewards.”

Such statements are a not too subtle way of saying that the government needs to take money and wealth from “rich Americans” and give it to less wealthy ones. But, like many Democrat politicians, Edwards believes that while some Americans should give up more money to the government to pay for more bureaucracy in Washington D.C., he himself should not or will not make the same sacrifices.

Edwards made millions as a trial lawyer in North Carolina suing doctors when an operation they performed did not succeed or complications arose. In many instances he took more of the damage award home than his client did. In other words, Edwards got rich by convincing juries to bankrupt doctors, while taking most of the spoils for himself. Such is common among liberal democrats. Those who cannot create wealth on their own find ways to take it from others.

Today, a closer look at the way Edwards lives his own life reveals that while he may talk like he is a champion of the poor, he certainly does not act like it.

First, Edwards lives in a 28,000 square foot house (roughly 80% of the size of a football field) in North Carolina. The main home has five bedrooms and six-and-a-half baths. It's connected by a covered walkway to an extension of the house that includes a handball court, an indoor pool and an indoor basketball court with a stage at one end. Nearby, the family has cleared space for a soccer field.

With a current building value of $4.3 million, the unfinished Edwards estate is already about $1 million more expensive than any other house in the county, according to tax records. It sits on land worth about $1.1 million.

No telling how much energy a house like that consumes on a daily basis, but that does not stop Edwards from presenting himself as a champion of global warming. But global warming hypocrisy aside, if Edwards believes that the rich and/or the government should give more to the poor, then why doesn’t he sell his ridiculously large house move into a modest apartment and donate the money from the sale to the poor? The reason he does not do that is because he does not particularly care about the poor, he just wants them to vote for him.

Second, Edwards has admitted he worked at a hedge fund to learn about poverty. That’s right; the self styled champion of the poor got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a hedge fund so that he could learn about the plight of the poor. Working at a hedge fund means you will learn a lot of things, but getting to know or even laying eyes on a poor person, is not one of them.

Third, when it finally came time for the Edwards family to actually interact with one of those Americans who is less well off, they showed their true colors. The story goes that one of John Edwards’ neighbors, a Republican, criticized, among other things, the size of Edwards’ home. In response John and his wife Elizabeth called the man’s property "slummy." So here is a presidential candidate who is claiming to be a champion of the people attacking his own neighbor who does not have the resources to build a “nice” (by Edwards’ standard) home. I guess the family does not want their friends to come over, look out the window, and not see other mansions surrounding the property.

Finally, this champion of the poor also spends $1,250 on a haircut. Now, under normal circumstances I would have no problem if someone wanted to pay that much for a haircut. That is their business. But when that same person is telling me I should pay more in taxes because the poor are suffering, I marvel at the hypocrisy.

John Edwards’ hypocrisy is yet another example of how rich liberals (like this guy, remember him?), having already made their millions, have no problem preventing others from making theirs or belittling others because they are not as rich as them. Raising taxes to pay for more failed government programs that seemingly help the poor, but in fact just make them dependant on government, is what Democrats want to accomplish. John Edwards is ultimately no different, even though his hypocrisy is second to none.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Most Underrated President

2007-07-01T19:05:00.000-05:00

Almost everyone agrees that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, were three of our greatest presidents. Less clear is who was the worst American president, (my opinion was that it was this guy) though Herbert Hoover, James Madison, and Andrew Johnson would certainty receive votes.

But the question of who is the most underrated president is rarely considered. However, my vote for that distinction is Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge became president in 1923 after the death of President Warren Harding and served until 1929. This period of time was known as the Roaring Twenties as the American economy grew steadily.

Coolidge kept us out of war and presided over times of peace, security and soaring prosperity. In my opinion the reason the country attained so much success during Coolidge’s presidency was his desire to prevent the government from medaling in people’s lives.

He was deeply suspicious of government’s ability to improve things. He wanted a smaller government and lower taxes. His most famous public utterance may well be that "the chief business of the American people is business.”

Some of his other utterances reveal his wit and explain his philosophy. Examples include:

“Self-government means self-support.”

“Large profits mean large payrolls.”

“When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you.”

“Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my Administration has been minding my own business."

In 1924 and 1926, Coolidge and a sympathetic Congress cut taxes that had been imposed during World War I. As a result, in true supply-side fashion, more revenue flowed into the treasury and the size of the government debt was sharply reduced as large and sustaining surpluses were realized.

Even more impressive, Coolidge held government spending down and in the five years that he was president total government outlays were essentially flat. In fact, government expenditures totaled only 77% of receipts. Coolidge actually ran an average of a 23% surplus over 5 years. Never since has the U.S. government run a surplus even close to that magnitude.

That is not to say Coolidge was totally adverse to government per se. He did believe that certain government activities were necessary. Providing law and order, the administration of justice, the government’s defense of the peaceful enjoyment of property were all, in his opinion, legitimate efforts on government’s part to assist commerce.

All politicians today would do well to learn from the example of President Coolidge. In a capitalistic society such as America, economic success and prosperity can easily be achieved. Only when massive regulations, high taxes, and government control of the economy are imposed does the affluence subside. Most of the time it is better if the government just stays out of the way.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Reason 14,287 No One Takes the U.N. Seriously

2007-06-24T10:57:00.000-05:00

For years now the Muslim government of the African nation of Sudan has terrorized and slaughtered the Sudanese Christian minority. The death and destruction is well known as the Islamic government tries to impose its religion by force upon those who want to live in peace.

The United States and a handful of Western governments have tried to get the United Nations to intervene. Proposals have been introduced, much debate has occurred, but like some many problems the U.N. talks about, nothing has bee done about it. No troops, humanitarian aid or any significant assistance from the U.N. has been forthcoming.

Naive politicians and celebrities believe that the United Nations has the moral strength, courage, and convictions to do what it right and de-legitimize the Sudanese government and use force to destroy the Islamic threat of the Muslim government of Sudan. But those of us who remember the United Nations lack of response to the genocide in Rwanda, the lack of will to hold Iraq to account, and it inability to recognize the danger Islamic terrorism poses to the free world, know not to expect much from the United Nations, other than to find a way to blame the world's problems on America.

True to form the United Nations has given the reasons it thinks the Darfur conflict is ongoing.

So what does it believe is the cause of the genocide in Darfur?

Islamic fundamentalism? - No

Lack of support from other countries? - Nope

Its climate change. That's right, the United Nations believes that the reason the Muslim government of Sudan is slaughtering thousands of innocents is because the Earth has possibly warmed slightly over the last ten years.

If the United Nations ever wants to be taken seriously, it needs to stop making excuses for genocide and focus on the worldwide threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Immigration Mess

2007-06-19T08:20:00.000-05:00

Congress is now trying to pass legislation to deal with the immigration mess our country finds itself in. Our immigration system has been broken for decades because our government does not have the political courage to enforce our immigration laws and prosecute and deport some of the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants that currently reside within the borders of the United States of America. Individuals from around the world who wait patiently to come to America cannot do so because the immigration bureaucracy takes years to process their applications. Meanwhile, illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, Central America, and South America cross our borders illegally and strain our welfare, health care, and education services. The problem is a big one, but the legislation that is currently being considered by Congress should be rejected as inadequate and insulting on its face.

One of the proposals in the current immigration bill is the granting of a “Z-visa” to all the illegal immigrants in this country. This, in essence, gives immediate legal status to all illegal immigrants without any real consequences. Supporters of the bill and the Z-visa contend that it is not amnesty because a fine of $5,000 must be paid. Yet if you actually read the bill you will discover that in order to receive Z-visa status no payment is necessary. The fine is only required if the immigrant wants to become a U.S. citizen. In other words to the 10 to 20 million lawbreakers that are in this country illegal will be given legal status without penalty. That is amnesty, pure and simple.

The bill contains no border security measures, other than those that are already the law and are not currently enforced. It is an attempt to grant legal status to those who did not show America the common courtesy by respecting its laws and to those who believe it is their right to be recognized as “de-facto” American citizens.

If you are interested in getting more information on this legislation, I recommend this video and this article. Both with explain in detail why this legislation should be defeated.

In addition these studies lay out the frightening effects and costs that the current immigration bill will have if it is passed.

The solution to this problem is simple: deploy the armed forces to the border, fine employers who employ non-legal citizens, and work to deport those who do not have a right to be in this country. Only after those steps have been completed can the country begin to discuss how to bring in potential workers. Once the border is secure, America can have an orderly process by which those who want to work in this country can do so.

But the political class in this country, including President Bush, most of the Democratic Party and a large number of Republicans, simply do not understand that the American people will not accept amnesty and are demanding that the border be secured before any legal status is granted to illegal immigrants. This legislation is an insult to all the legal immigrants who came to this country by playing by the rules and to every other American who pays for the costs illegal immigration.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Want Lower Gas Prices?

2007-06-03T22:56:00.000-05:00

With the passing of the Memorial Day holiday and the beginning of June, the country is now officially in the summer driving season. Just like years previous, gas prices have surpassed the $3.00 a gallon mark at the outset of the summer. Predictably the media, as well as politicians from both parties, have begun to rail against price gouging on the part of "Big Oil." The successful oil companies are an easy target, especially when the public is uninformed as to how and why the price of gasoline fluctuates.

Higher prices at the pump today are a matter of simple economics. American refiners can bring 17 million barrels of gasoline to the market every day, but demand in the summer is around 22 million barrels per day. To make up the 5 million barrel difference, America imports gasoline from foreign refiners. Since the demand is greater than the supply, pump prices are controlled by the foreign governments that set the import prices. Put another way, if foreign supply is squeezed, then part of the 5 million barrel difference will be unavailable, thus increasing prices. When import prices increase, Big Oil simply raises prices to retain their profit margin (profits minus expenses).

And what is that profit margin? Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that when the average price of unleaded regular peaked at about $3 a gallon in the middle of 2006, major companies make a profit of about 10 cents a gallon. So when you buy 10 gallons of gas at the pump the oil company that is selling it to you makes one dollar. That seems more than reasonable when you consider that in order to bring the gasoline to market, the company (or someone else) must find oil in the ground, drill for it, extract it, transport it to a refinery, refine it into gasoline, and finally ship it to the gas station.

Now compare how much the government taxes you for every gallon. The gasoline federal tax alone is 18.4 cents per gallon, while state and local taxes vary from 8 cents in Alaska to nearly 50 cents per gallon in New York, California, Nevada and Hawaii. In Texas the state gas tax is 20 cents per gallon. So the federal and state governments take in between 2 and 7 times what the oil companies themselves take in. That money is pure profit to them because they did not have to do anything to bring it to market. So if Big Oil is price gouging, what is our government doing?
The U.S. government has investigated gasoline prices about 30 times over the last 20 years but oil companies were never found to have “fixed” prices. Most recently, in 2006, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) completed an exhaustive study of alleged market manipulation to increase gasoline prices and could not find one instance of price gouging.

The fact is that today there is plenty of crude oil in the world's pipelines, but a scarcity of gasoline and America has not built a new refinery in 20 years. All the oil in the world is irrelevant if it cannot be converted into gasoline. Environmental regulations have made it simply unprofitable to refine oil into gasoline. If you do not want to pay so much at the pump then direct you anger where it belongs, at the hypocritical politicians and the environmentalists who refuse to allow America’s refining capacity to expand.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Why the Left Fears Faith

2007-05-27T23:02:00.000-05:00

No matter what others may claim, the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and a belief that God would be a central part in the lives of Americans. The words and actions of the founders leave little doubt to that assertion. Our Constitution, currency, and capital city all recognize and praise Christianity’s God.

Today, many Democratic politicians insist that they are just as religious as their Republican counterparts. Yet many in the Democratic Party actively work to undermine religion in America. While Democrats are quick to defend themselves against these charges, they “doth protest too much.” For instance, the left is actively trying to remove “In God We Trust” from the United States currency, has tried, sometimes successfully, to prevent to recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance because it uses the phrase “Under God,” and has attacked religious leaders, especially those adamantly opposed to abortion, as bigots. If the Democratic Party was a friend of religion, it would not hesitate to purge those who seek to undermine the religious foundations of our country from their ranks. But they do not. As usual actions are more important than words.

Yet this opposition should not be surprising. Leftist movements such as communism and socialism have a long history of oppressing religion and faith. The father of Communism, Karl Marx, saw religion as an evil that existed in society. Marx said that, “It [religion] is the opium of the people.” In Communist Russia, where Marxist found its most ardent advocates, continuous persecution of the Orthodox Church resulted in its near-extinction. Many churches were leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. As Alexander Yakovlev notes in his A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937-38. Today, the Communist Chinese government continues this oppression as it actively persecutes the followers of Falun Gong and forces the Catholic Church to operate in secret within its borders.

Why this reflexive and powerful opposition to religion from the left? Part of the answer lies in the fact that many religious teachings are diametrically opposed to the goals of liberalism. Religion teaches that there is such a thing as right and wrong or good and evil. Democrats and liberals do not think the world is “so simple” and fear faith, because its teachings make judgments upon people. When you are teaching morality and how to treat your fellow man, you have to make judgments. Committing murder is bad, so is drinking to excess, and so is stealing. Therefore, while those that commit those acts can be saved, their actions cannot be excused simply because they, for instance, had a disadvantageous upbringing.

More importantly, the left finds itself at odds with religion because religion recognizes a higher power whose teachings and doctrines serve as a guide to how one should lead their lives. For liberals and, it seems today, most of the Democratic Party, that higher power is government. Liberals want more and more control over an individual’s life. They want people to pay more taxes, to send their children to the school the government chooses, and to be beholden to a health care system controlled by the government. Religion, especially Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that one should serve God, not the government.

The growth of faith and religion is dangerous to the continued existence of the left’s ideology. Therefore, the left will actively seek to undermine it every chance they get. It is sad, but true that they think the government should be more important than faith.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

America Went to War for Iraq's Oil

2007-04-06T22:26:00.000-05:00

Check it out.

Oh, wait - I meant America went to war so that Asia could get Iraq's oil.

Yet more evidence that those "No Blood for Oil" conspiracy theorists are morons.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Feminist at Home, Submissive Abroad

2007-04-06T21:57:00.000-05:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fancies herself a feminist. After her election she emphasized that her promotion to Speaker was a monumental breakthrough for women. She explained, "For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. To our daughters and our granddaughters, the sky is the limit." She apparently thinks that her election validates the notion that women can do anything. I don't disagree that women can do anything they want, but then again I, and most people, thought that before she became Speaker.

Whatever. If she wants to believe her election changed the destiny of women everywhere, fine.

But I find it hypocritical for someone who is a self-styled champion of women to go abroad to Syria, a Muslim country that gives no power to women, and wear this.

Women throughout the Muslim world are forced every day to wear veils. In addition, many Muslim societies execute women after they are ganged raped, stone women for premarital sex, force women into marriage, and deny education to girls and young women. All of these wrongs are carried out in the name of Islam.

Pelosi could have stood up for the women's rights she seemingly supports by not wearing a veil, thus making a statement that as a free person she should not have to submit to the religious will of others. Instead, she opted to sacrifice her own rights so as to not upset Islam or her guests.

American feminists, if they were intellectually honest, should be criticizing Pelosi. In fact, American feminists should be loudly decrying the treatment Muslim women receive. But no such criticism is forthcoming because Pelosi is a political ally and American feminists think, like most people on the left, that Islam should be appeased rather than forced to change. Apparently principles are flexible when politics are involved.

Oh by the way, Syria is a public enemy of the United States, is a state sponsor of terrorism, and continues to undermine the new Iraqi government. A visit by the third most powerful politician in America gives international legitimacy to a brutal regime and allows it to stay in power longer. Yet another example of how Democrats are quick to support America's enemies when they believe it will score them political points. Typical.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-03-10T16:08:00.000-06:00

Global warming is real. Since 1975 scientists have documented that the earth's average temperature has risen about 1/2 a degree Celsius. But the cause of that temperature rise is not due to man-made causes, as Al Gore would have you believe.

Need convincing? Then watch this. If you take the time to watch all 75 minutes of this documentary, I basically guarantee you will conclude that the global warming hysteria today is beyond ridiculous.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

UPDATE: Not surprisingly the link is no longer active. Perhaps the reason is due to copyright concerns, but I suspect enough people (i.e. radical environmentalists) complained and Google removed the link. But here is the program's website. If you get a chance to watch the entire documentary it will be worth your time.

Salute to Senator Santorum

2007-01-16T00:46:00.000-06:00

As the Democrats continue to flex their majority power in Washington after the last election, it should be noted that one of the conservative movement's greatest senators is no longer in D.C. For reasons that totally escape me, the people of the state of Pennsylvania did not re-elect Senator Rick Santorum to another term. During his tenure as an elected official, the Senator was a true conservative how stood up for the rights of the unborn, took every opportunity to lower taxes, and was a voice of strength and reason when it came to the war on terrorism.

Before he left office, the Senator did the country one more favor by dismissing the Jim Baker-led Iraq Study Group as worthless. Specifically he said "it is my opinion after reading the summary that it was not worth reading. It was a bunch of contradictory suggestions, no clear plan other than the fact that we have to get out, and that means to surrender."

On the Iraq war itself, Mr. Santorum added: "If World War II was covered like this (by the media) war, I really, very seriously doubt that we would have ever won that war. Certainly, we might have been willing, when the losses got so high, to negotiate a compromise or negotiate some sort of surrender. The death that went on -- I always remind people that we lost more people in a couple of hours on D-Day than we have in the entire war [in Iraq]."

Finally he added, "all you (the media) do is accomplish exactly what the terrorists want you to do, which is to weary the American public of this war -- and eventually cause us to stop fighting it." Exactly.

What a shame that Mr. Santorum is no longer Senator Santorum.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Does America Have the Will to Stay in Iraq?

2007-01-12T00:16:00.000-06:00

As much as I would like to think the answer is yes, I am beginning to think that it is no. Consider this quote about the current situation in Iraq - "When is it going to stop? We're losing a lot of youngsters," says former tanker Ed Collins, 82, of Hicksville, N.Y., who survived the assault on Normandy's beaches in World War II. "I went in when I was 18; that was young, too. But we fought for something. Now we have no idea who we're fighting for and what we're fighting for."

Apparently Mr. Collins doesn't realize that we are fighting the next greatest threat to civilization. In his day it was Nazi totalitarianism, today it is Islamic fascism. Just like the Nazis, today Islamic militants give the West two choices: submit or die. Luckily, today we have a President and a political party that realizes the threat exists and want to eliminate it before it becomes powerful enough to dominate the world.

If nothing else, the lesson the world should have learned after all the blood spilled in World War II is that, while evil can be appeased, the longer it is ignored, the harder it is to overcome. Hitler was dangerously close to changing mankind’s destiny. Islamic fundamentalism, in the long-term, can defeat the West if the West refuses to confront it. Europe didn’t confront Hitler until it was too late, and again today most countries around the world refuse to confront the danger Islamic fundamentalism poses even as expands its reach into Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America.

As American casualties approach 3,000 in Iraq it is becoming increasingly clear that the American public is growing weary of the war. Americans may question this war for many reasons, but their doubts often center around the count of military deaths. An overwhelming majority, 84 percent, worry that the war is causing too many casualties. Public approval of the war has dropped into the 20% range and calls from liberals to cut and run from Iraq are becoming louder.

It is hard to believe that the West would have won World War II with the resolve America shows today. The Allied forces lost 2,500 men in a few hours on D-Day. If today's weakness were characteristic of America back then, President Roosevelt would have been forced to sue for peace with Hitler and the world would be a much darker place.

The war in Vietnam was not lost because the enemy defeated America on the battlefield. The war was lost because the American people and naive politicians handcuffed our military to the point where victory was impossible. History reveals what happened to the millions of innocents in South Vietnam and Cambodia after America left; they were slaughtered by the communists that America was fighting. History is now on the verge of repeating itself in Iraq. A vocal minority in America, liberal politicians, and a sympathetic media call for our withdrawal. What do you suppose will happen to the people of Iraq once America surrenders it to Islamic militants and Iran?

The American military, in the long-term, cannot be defeated on the battlefield. It can only be defeated if it is not allowed to fight. Sadly, it is looking more and more likely that the American people's lack of will and resolve will force America to withdraw from Iraq before it can stand up to the Islamic terrorists that threaten its stability.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Idiocy of the Cult of Che

2006-12-22T12:27:00.000-06:00

Ernesto "Che" Guevara is a popular icon these days. Even though he has be dead for about four decades he has inspired a market of goods, is praised as a revolutionary and is used as an inspiration by leftists around the world. He is upheld as a symbol of rebellion and non-conformity by those that buy his shirts and hang his posters. He is thought of as a freedom fighter who championed the poor and his image symbolizes a rejection of bourgeoisie capitalism.

Unsurprisingly, most of those that praise or revere Che know little or nothing about his life. Ask those that sport his image who exactly he was and you probably won't get much of an answer. Some more informed individuals might say that he is a symbol of rebellion against the greedy capitalism of today's world. Others might just insist that he fought "for the people."

But when it came to the basics of helping "the people," such as not killing them, he was less than stellar. Che was not a harmless revolutionary as many today think of him. He was a devoted Marxist who insisted on worldwide change and he let nothing stand in his way, especially those that disagreed with him. He was a mass murderer who signed the death warrants of 600 people and executed his political opponents, and their children, using firing squads.

Che despised the United States. While alive he said "Let us sum up our hopes for victory: total destruction of imperialism by eliminating its firmest bulwark, the oppression exercised by the United States of America." I encourage anyone to read his speeches to get a sense as to the kind of world he wanted to create and ask yourself if that world would be better than what we have now.

Che was a central figure in the 1961 Cuban revolution that brought dictator-for-life Fidel Castro to power. That revolution was so popular that 20% of the Cuban population fled the island. Che was an important ally of Castro and the real world effects of Che's Marxist worldview can be seen most directly by looking at the plight of the Cuban people today. Cuba has a totalitarian government, a state-directed command economy, a captive labor force, and few exports. The government consistently restricts basic human rights and regularly arrests and tortures political opponents. Little independent data on the economy is available, but the best jobs in Cuba are government jobs and those pay average only $15 to $20 per month.

Forget the hypocrisy of people with a leftist ideology profiting from selling Che paraphernalia for profit. What is troubling is the reverence many in our society give to Che. Killing your political enemies in order to advance your ideology has never been accepted in a civilized society, but yet the left, both in America and worldwide, seem to endorse, or at the very least contemplate, such actions.

An acclaimed movie was made that presented the assassination of President Bush, pundits regularly call for the death of the President, and more than once political opponents of Dick Cheney have openly wished for his weak heart to fail. Never mind that if any of these types of comments had been used by a Republican or a conservative the media would have demanded an apology, but the thought of wishing death upon your opponents (or in Che's case actually killing them) never seems to be a problem for left-leaning individuals.

The truth about Che Guevara is that he was a murderous ideologue who slaughtered innocents to advance his idea of a perfect world. A man like Che should be remembered by history in the same way as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Instead, Che is revered and praised many and that is a tragedy.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Democrats Take Over Congress

2006-11-15T21:06:00.000-06:00

On November 7th, the American people voted in Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

While it is useful to ponder what the future Democratic Congress will bring, it is just as useful to examine why Republicans lost their majorities. Certainly Iraq was a factor, but no American patriot wants America to lose in Iraq by pulling up and leaving. Hopefully, the Democratic party will not support leaving Iraq, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

Corruption was a big factor as well. After 12 years in the majority Republicans became comfortable using the same tactics (i.e. doling out favors to allies, spending government money recklessly, and getting cozy with lobbyists) that convinced America to vote in a Republican Congress in 1994. I don't believe that the Democrats will be any better, but I hope I'm wrong.

Also, the difference between when Republicans lose elections and when Democrats lose is worth noting. When Democrats lost in 2000, 2002, and 2004 they came up with conspiracy theories. Karl Rove stole the election, President Bush manipulated gas prices, etc.

But notice now how Republicans and conservatives act when we lose. They don't blame the voting machines or concoct crazy theories. We will regroup, analyze what went wrong, and learn from our mistakes, and make our case to the American people. Americans want lower taxes and to win in Iraq. They want America to succeed and prosper. I know that the Republican Party and conservatism is the avenue to accomplish these goals. Last week, the majority of voters did not agree with me, but I tomorrow I will try and convince them otherwise.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Decision '06

2006-10-30T23:04:00.000-06:00

Any honest evaluation of the upcoming elections will conclude that the Republicans are going to lose seats in Congress this year. However, the question remains whether the Democrats will take over the House of Representatives and/or the Senate. I think it is very possible that Republicans could lose the House and possibly the Senate. It this happens then San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker of the House, Democrats will attempt to raise taxes, the military effort in Iraq will be undermined, and the war on terrorism will suffer.

Notice that the Democrats are not running an issue oriented campaign. Ask any Democrat politician what their goals are or what bills they will pass and the usual response will be something like this; "George Bush is leading this country in the wrong direction and we need a change."

That is not a plan, that's just complaining. Do the Democrats support more or less troops in Iraq? Are they going to raise taxes? What will they do differently in order to win the war on terror? Informed individuals know the answers to these questions (cut and run from Iraq, yes, and nothing since there isn't a war on terror), but the Democrats cannot run a campaign based on what they actually want to do because they know no one will vote for them. So all they can do is say "Bush sucks."

So, if the Democrats win control of Congress this election cycle it will not be because of their ideas (they don't have any), but because Republicans have performed so poorly, especially in the last 2 years.

Although I obviously want Republicans to win the election, I think a Republican loss might do this country some good. While President Bush and his Republican allies have accomplished some conservative goals in the past 6 years (confirmation of two conservative Supreme Court Justices, significant tax cuts, and a strengthening of the military), in many respects Republicans have abandoned the small government principles that got them elected in the first place. Republicans have vastly expanded the size and reach of government by increasing government and entitlement spending, passed a bill that restricts the free speech of all Americans, and are close to siding with Democrats in supporting an increase in the minimum wage.

When Republicans start acting like Democrats, the American people will vote in the real thing. While I hope that does not happen, I will not be surprised if Nancy Pelosi will be referred to as "Madame Speaker" come November 7th.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Supply-Side Economics 101

2006-09-30T18:08:00.000-05:00

Supply-side economics is a school of economic thought. Its heyday was in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. It centers around what is called the Laffer curve. Theorized by Arthur Laffer, it postulates that government revenue can be maximized by setting tax rates at an optimum point. Specifically, it theorizes that setting tax rates too high can decrease revenue because higher tax rates decrease the incentives of citizens to earn money. That is, when something is taxed more heavily, you will get less of it. To understand this "decreasing incentives" idea think about if you had a job that paid $100 an hour. If the government took $95 for every $100 you made would you be more or less likely to work than if the government only took $10 for every dollar you made? Obviously in the former scenario, you would work much less than the latter scenario.

The idea of the Laffer curve is clearest at the two extremes. If the tax rate was 0% obviously the government would not take in any revenue, but if it was 100% the government would not take in any revenue either since no one would work. Somewhere between 0% and 100% lies the optimum tax rate that maximizes revenue for the government.

With this framework in mind, the liberal mantra of "tax cuts for the rich" can be challenged and refuted. "Tax cuts for the rich" is a catchy slogan, but its success in persuading the American public is a risky proposition because it relies on the economic illiteracy of the country.

Since George W. Bush became President of the United States, Congress has passed two major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. If you are to believe in liberal economic theories then you would expect the amount money coming into the treasury to decrease, since all those "evil, rich people" got to keep more of their money. In fact, the opposite has happened. Since 2003 tax revenues coming into the U.S. Treasury have increased by 20%. In 2005, federal tax receipts were $2.15 trillion, the highest of all time (see here and click on the graph).

This is not a historical fluke either. After President John F. Kennedy cut marginal tax rates from 90% to 70%, actual tax revenues rose from 94 billion dollars in 1961 to 153 billion dollars in 1968. In addition, overall tax revenues increased from $599 billion in 1981 to $909 billion in 1988 after President Reagan cut the tax rates for all Americans.

Critics of supply-side economics are always surprised that cutting taxes increases revenue to the federal treasury, but that is because they believe in a static worldview. They do not realize that lower taxes means more opportunities, and a bigger economy. This in turn leads to more revenue for the government. The fact of the matter is that rich Americans provide opportunities for poorer Americans through the businesses they run. The less the government takes from the "rich", the more people rich Americans can hire and the more money they can pay.

So why do we have large deficits today? The reason is the failure of all politicians to cut spending. Federal spending has exploded over the past several years and entitlements (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) continue to grow and grow. The problem is not that enough money is not coming into the government. The problem is that it is being wasted by those with who we entrust it. Spending must be curtailed if the deficit is to be tamed, but tax cuts will always help increase the revenue the federal government receives.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Underachievement of Louie Gohmert

2006-08-22T00:48:00.000-05:00

Louie Gohmert represents the 1st Congressional District of Texas. He was elected in 2004 with help from the Club For Growth, a group that works to elect fiscally conservative politicians. Now, one of the best ways to show you truly care about America's budget deficit is to eliminate the wasteful spending found in congressional earmarks. For my previous explanation of earmarks and the performance of other Texas congressmen related to earmarks, see here, here, and here.

In 2004 Congressman Gohmert became the first Republican to be elected from the 1st Congressional District of Texas since Reconstruction. Like most Republicans, he ran on a platform of cutting government spending and cutting taxes. Yet when Congressman Jeff Flake offered 19 amendments eliminating wasteful earmarks, Congressman Gohmert only voted for 6, either not voting or voting no on the other 13. For instance, he voted for spending $229,000 on dairy education in Iowa and voted for spending $100,000 on "facilities" in Weirton, West Virginia.

It is these kinds of voting patterns that make conservatives crazy. Here we have conservatives investing hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect what they think is a true fiscal conservative, only to see him vote for higher spending on dubious projects more than half the time. If and when Republicans lose the House this November, they better do some serious sole searching if they want to continue to be the party of limited government.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Is Making Money Evil?

2006-08-21T21:27:00.000-05:00

A few months ago, a friend of mine mentioned in passing that making money was an evil, but a necessary one. I did not think much of the comment at the time, but after pondering it for a moment I realized how dangerous this kind of thinking is to a free and capitalistic society such as the United States.

America is one of the youngest countries on the planet, but is far and away the richest and most successful. China, India, and most of the countries of Europe have been around for many centuries, but America is only 230 years old. Much of the world still does not enjoy the basic freedoms that we take for granted in America.

How did the United States accomplish so much in such a short period of time? Part of the answer is that America, more than any other country, embraced the Adam Smith theory of economics, that acting in one's own self-interest, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others, will be in society's best interest. Smith put it is these terms "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but of their regard for their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their own advantages." What has this decision to allow citizens to pursue their own self-interest wrought? It has created the most prosperous country in the history of mankind.

Take one of the necessities of life, food. Food is so abundant in America that the number one health problem for the poorest in America is being overweight. This situation did not come about because of government intervention, high taxes or regulation, but because thousands of businesses are involved in bringing food to market. This competition has lowered prices dramatically as these business try to sell more and more food. By pursuing their self-interest to make more money, these businesses have made food plentiful and cheap. This scenario has played itself out in many facets of American life; housing, entertainment, transportation, etc... Making money is not evil. In fact, it is virtuous.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Lloyd Doggett - Fiscal Conservative?

2006-08-19T14:59:00.000-05:00

Since I recently moved to Austin, I figured I would comment on my new Congressman, Lloyd Doggett, and his commitment, or lack thereof, to bringing down the federal deficit by eliminating earmarks. Thanks to Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 anti-pork amendments citizens can now truthfully analyze how committed their Congressman is to eliminating wasteful spending. For my previous comments on how other Congressman voted on these amendments see here and here.

Surprisingly, Congressman Doggett voted against 3 of 19 wasteful earmarks. I say surprisingly because Congressman Doggett is a left-wing Democrat and the average Democratic vote was only 0.55 votes out of 19. For whatever reason Congressman Doggett is against spending $229,000 on dairy education in Iowa, spending $180,000 for hydroponic tomato production in Ohio, and spending $1,000,000 on the Jason Foundation in Virginia (whatever that is) but, for instance, is for spending $500,000 on a swimming pool and giving $20,000,000 to a wood research institute. So Congressman Doggett, even though I will never vote for you, let me at least give you a bit of praise for voting against more of these earmarks than the majority of the Republican House delegation.

As to that point, as a conservative, it is disheartening to see 111 Republican (that is the party of small government, right?) House members vote against all 19 anti-pork amendments. What a disgrace.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Problem of Enforcement

2006-08-18T20:16:00.000-05:00

Many people insist that America should talk and negotiate with all the countries and entities with which it has an issue. For instance, Democrats in America say that the United States should sit down and negotiate with terrorist entities around the globe. These types of people claim that if only we could talk and come to some kind of agreement, no matter what the issue, then the world would be a better place. The problem with this rationale is that is assumes the rest of the world respects the rule of law and plays by the rules widely accepted in America.

Take the nuclear ambitions of North Korea. In the 1994 the Clinton administration signed a nuclear accord with North Korea that gave that country technology to build nuclear power plants in exchange for only a promise that the technology would not be used to build nuclear weapons. But the agreement was not enforced, North Korea used the technology to ramp up its nuclear weapons program, voided the 1994 agreement, and is now believed to have a functional nuclear weapon.

In his first term, President Bush refused to sign the United States onto the Kyoto Protocol that would have imposed mandatory targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Leftists were beside themselves, claiming that the United States was alienating its friends. In explaining his decision, the President stated that one of the reasons he did not allow America to join the protocol was that the agreement did not have any significant enforcement mechanisms that would punish offending nations. Knowing that America would honor the agreement once it signed on and knowing that others would simply ignore the rules, the President concluded that the treaty would just end up harming America economically, especially since India and China did not sign the treaty. Oh by the way, the European countries that did sign the accord and continually lecture America on global warming will not meet their emissions targets. What will happen to them for their failure? Nothing.

The internationally imposed cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah in the Middle East will be another lesson in the problem of enforcement. The agreement stopped the fighting, but fails to deal with the real problem that a terrorist organization, Hezbollah, will not be disarmed. Hezbollah is committed to the destruction of Israel, nothing less is acceptable to them. Therefore, no cease-fire or agreement with them will bring about lasting peace.

Agreements and treaties do not mean anything if the party you sign with simply ignores the rules. As Ronald Reagan said "Trust, but verify." In today's world the left and much of the international community seem to ooze trust, but are totally indifferent to verification.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Henry Cuellar: Not a Moderate Spender

2006-08-17T19:07:00.000-05:00

Henry Cuellar is a "moderate" Democrat from Texas. Congressman Cuellar currently represents the 28th district and models himself a middle of the road Democrat who wants to control spending.

If you follow politics, you hear the members of the Democratic party, such as Congressman Cuellar, claim they are the party of fiscally conservatism in America. They insist that they can eliminate the federal budget deficit if only you would vote for them in November. Never mind that the Democratic fix for the deficit is always to raise taxes. Of course they always say that they will not raise taxes (or if they do it's always going to be on those evil rich people) even though they end up raising them anyway. So if you take the Democrats at their word (a risky proposition) then the obvious solution is to cut government spending. It is simple math: the less you spend, the smaller the deficit. And since no one wants to cut entitlement (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) spending, the simplest way to cut spending is by eliminating earmarks. For my previous discussion on earmarks, click here.

So when Congressman Cuellar got 19 chances, courtesy of Congressman Flake of Arizona, to strip out earmarks for such things as a $1,000,000 for the Tourism Development Association in Kentucky, how many times did he vote for lower spending? Not a one. If fact, the Congressman's "Newsroom" section of his website is dominated by press releases calling to attention his success in spending your tax money, such as $300,000 for sidewalks. This just more evidence of hypocrisy from so-called fiscally conservative politicians. Just remember this the next time you are about to vote; just because someone says they will not waste your money, does not mean they will actually do it.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

School Vouchers

2006-07-31T15:20:00.000-05:00

Americans value a good education. We realize that education is the key to getting a better job, increasing our wages, and improving our lives. We also know that a good education gives our children an advantage when they grow up. Unfortunately the public school system in America has become inefficient, unaccountable, and large in size. Total federal, state, and local spending for education passed the $400 billion a year mark in the last few years. On average, public schools now spend close to $7,000 per student per year. In some inner-city public schools districts, such as Hartford, Connecticut, Washington D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland an annual outlay of about $9,000 per pupil is not enough as schools in those areas are falling apart. America spends more money per student than any nation on earth. Yet academic achievement scores have not improved. In fact, over the past 20 years, scores have remained flat and American students are lagging behind most of their international peers on worldwide math and science tests. If you don't believe American public schools are this bad, then watch this.

Liberalism's solution for falling education standards is more money. When education policy is discussed liberals will always emphasize their talking point that our public schools are under-funded and more tax money is needed to fix the problem. In simplistic terms this is a popular stance. Of course Americans will support spending more money on education because it is commonly believed that spending more money will make the public schools better. But if more money is the solution why are American public schools so bad?

America is in this situation because we have allowed the public school system to become unaccountable and wasteful. Teacher unions demand higher and higher salaries, but oppose any kind of performance-based solutions that are emphasized overseas. Today, the vast majority of children are simply assigned to a public school, and have little choice in the matter. If you happen to live near a good school, that is ok, but many students, especially inner-city children, are forced to attend failing schools.

In order to improve that quality of education, choice and competition should be introduced into the system through the use of school vouchers. School vouchers redirect the flow of education funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to school districts. Vouchers can be funded and administered by the government, by private organizations, or by some combination of both. Once a school voucher is dispersed the parents can choose to send their child to the public and private school of their choice. Parental choice and competition between schools will improve education for all children because schools will have to compete for funding. If the school does not perform, it will not survive as children flock to other schools.

Teacher's unions oppose vouchers because fewer public school students would mean a need for fewer public school teachers, fewer union jobs, and performance-based accountability. While teacher's unions will oppose all efforts to introduce competition into America's educational system, individual teachers should welcome competition. If you are a good teacher you will be able to command a higher salary because parents will gladly pay more for your services.

Many view vouchers as a radical plan. Most Americans are used to sending their children to public school and there is an inherent skepticism about managing a child's education because many feel they are unable to make these important decisions. They believe they should defer to local government bureaucrats with more "experience." However, it is these same bureaucrats that have made our public schools so bad today. Radical change is needed, and quickly, before American public schools become even worse.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Mac Thornberry and Pork

2006-07-30T17:53:00.000-05:00

Recently Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake offered 19 amendments (all of which failed to garner majorities) to a variety of major spending bills that must be passed by Congress every year. These amendments were designed to eliminate what are called pork projects. In politics, a so-called "pork-barrel" project is government spending that benefits a small constituency of voters in a Congressman's district, but whose cost is picked up by all taxpayers. For instance, one Flake's amendments would have eliminated $500,000 for a swimming pool in Banning, CA, another would have eliminated $229,000 for dairy education in Iowa, and another would have cut $4,000,000 in funding for the Mystic Aquarium in New London, CT. It is hard to understand when the U.S. government is running large deficits and is run by Republicans, who laughably still claim they are the party of small government, why we as a country are spending millions of dollars on these kinds of projects.

Fortunately the Club For Growth, my favorite political organization, summarized the votes on all of the Flake amendments. Enter my Congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry, the representative of the 13th Congressional district of Texas who only voted for 6 of Flake's 19 amendments. Now it should be noted that I like Mac and have voted for him many times. He gets a lifetime 95 rating from the American Conservative Union and even voted against the ridiculous Transportation spending bill last year that funded the "Bridge to Nowhere."

However, like many of his colleagues (the Republican average was 5.5 anti-pork votes and the Democratic average was 0.55) Mac seems to have embraced the "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" philosophy of politics. Mac voted against the first five Flake amendments, which dealt with agriculture. That was not surprising since agriculture is very important to the 13th district, and Mac probably did not want any retaliation to the pork that I am sure he put into the agriculture bill.

I expected to see a higher rate of anti-pork votes from Mac. I guess I can take a small amount of comfort that he at least voted against 6 of these pork projects, but his votes for such things as "hydroponic tomato production in Ohio," a science museum in Virginia, and that swimming pool in California undercut his contention that he is a fiscal conservative. On the bright side, Mac voted for the last 5 anti-pork amendments that Flake offered. Maybe Mac has seen the light and will vote against pork-barrel projects every time from here on out. I am not holding my breath though.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: Patton - Ordeal and Triumph

2006-07-30T17:46:00.000-05:00

By: Ladislas Farago

America always seems to turn to the right men in time of great need. George Washington almost single handedly saved a fledgling country through force of will and inspired leadership. Abraham Lincoln sacrificed his mind, body, and soul in an attempt to save the United States from destroying itself over slavery. Many would argue today that George Bush is the right president to lead America in its fight against terrorism. It is also true that during the dark times of the 1939 and 1940 when the world was in jeopardy of being conquered by German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese totalitarianism, America turned to a group of military leaders to lead and inspire thousands of young Americans on the field of battle. One such man, whose name will forever be associated with the American fighting spirit, was General George Smith Patton, Jr.

In Ordeal and Triumph by Ladislas Farago, the reader learns about Patton’s upbringing and his family’s military background. His grandfather, a Confederate colonel in the American Civil War, was killed by Union cavalry troops and Patton felt that he was carrying on the family tradition by joining the military at a young age. In the twilight days of World War I, when then Major Patton was one of the Americans charged with creating the first American tank division, he realized that the tank was the future of land warfare. He marveled at the tank’s ability to bypass fixed fortifications and engage in lighting quick strikes deep into enemy territory. However, after the war the resistance to change within the U.S. Army prevented America from modernizing into a tank based military. During the two and a half decades between the first two World Wars, Patton pushed his superiors to emphasize the tank rather than infantry troops. His views, while ignored in peacetime, were vindicated when Germany used its tanks to quickly overrun most of Europe.

After the American military realized that World War II would depend largely on tank warfare, Patton, as the most knowledgeable American general in the area, was one of the first military leaders dispatched to the European theater. Throughout the war Patton’s troops were constantly advancing, whether in North Africa, Sicily, or France and Patton quickly became regarded by the Germans as the best tactical field commander of the Allied forces.

However, Farago is quick to emphasize that Patton was not a perfect general. As indispensable as Patton was in the conflict against the Nazis, he was not without his faults. He was a brilliant military strategist, but he was deficient in dealing with the political and administrative duties that were required after the battles had been fought. For instance, Patton was heavily criticized by many for the influence he allowed Vichy France to wield in North Africa after his military victories there. Patton, who no doubt loved the spotlight and public recognition, also developed a rivalry with Britain’s number one army commander, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. They clashed over strategy and their competition complicated the Allied war plans.

Farago paints a picture of an astute and forward thinking military leader whose brilliance was diminished by politics and the commanders above him. Many bold initiatives suggested by Patton, that some argue would have ended the European war much sooner, were rejected by his much more conservative superiors, Dwight Eisenhower and General Omar Bradley.

Ordeal and Triumph relies on first-hand accounts of Patton’s closest confidants to gain insight into a complex man. An especially telling observation comes from Corporal Joe Rosevich, Patton’s general secretary throughout the war. Rosevich summed up his service to Patton in this quote. “I had occasion to see that I was serving two men rather than one. General Patton was the fusion of two men who lived in different worlds. One was his own world of calm efficiency, discipline and order. The other was the world of his immediate environment – our world of extreme tension and nervous strain.”

What makes Ordeal and Triumph one of the preeminent Patton biographies is the unbiased perspective of Farago. Many Patton biographies suffer from either being written soon after war without significant information that was classified at the time, or being written by prejudiced amateurs who were friends or worked for or with Patton during World War II. Farago sums up Patton’s contribution to the American war effort in Europe by analogy, comparing the American commanders to the Roman triumvirate. Eisenhower was the coordinator, General Bradley was the thinking-machine, but Patton was the fighter who new how to actually win the war on the ground. Ordeal and Triumph centers on the broad strategy decisions made during the European campaign. Pure military historians and simply curious readers can both appreciate this and the insight it gives into one of the greatest American military leaders.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The False Allure of the Minimum Wage

2006-07-09T16:24:00.000-05:00

If you follow politics closely you notice that increasing the minimum wage is one of the premier goals of the Democratic Party. To a certain extent that is logical. The Democratic Party insists it is the political party that believes in helping the poor and the downtrodden and it claims that conservatives who oppose increasing the minimum wage are mean-spirited and want to keep the poor in poverty. However, like many issues, the truth is more complicated and like the majority of Democratic policy recommendations, raising the minimum wage ends up hurting those it intends to help.

Liberals argue that increasing the minimum wage will force corporations and businesses to increase the take-home pay of the poorest Americans. They contend that passing state or federal laws mandating a higher minimum wage will allow the poor to leave the clutches of poverty. But if passing a law is all it takes, why stop there? Why not raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour? For that matter, why not raise it to $50 an hour, assuring every working person a very comfortable living? Or even better, why not raise the minimum wage to $500 an hour and make everyone a millionaire?

What would really happen if the minimum wage was $500 an hour? No one would hire anyone. Businesses would not be able to accumulate enough of a profit to make their employees millionaires because the employees' time is not worth $500 an hour. The same logic applies to mandating a minimum wage of $5.15, which is the current federal minimum wage. If your labor is worth only $3 an hour because you have no work experience, education, or valuable skills then businesses will simply not hire you because it would be illegal to do so.

The alternative would be to hire you for the minimum wage and give you, in the form of charity, the extra $2.15. There is nothing wrong with charity but the vast majority of businesses cannot afford to engage in charity. So instead of being able to work a job for $3 an hour, learn a skill, and increase your wages over time, you simply become unemployable. The first rung of the ladder is gone, and there is no place to start. This will be the case nationwide so overall unemployment and poverty will rise. This phenomenon becomes clear when you consider the fact that teenagers are the greatest unemployed group. Their skills do not justify a wage below the minimum and so few jobs exist for them.

High minimum wage policies are being attempted in large parts of Western Europe with devastating results. The French minimum wage is 8.03 (EUR) per hour or $10.15 an hour in U.S. dollars. This is about twice America's federal minimum wage, and the result has not been greater prosperity. The unemployment rate in France, as well as in all of Western Europe, is about 9.5%, twice the American rate. The high minimum wage is preventing companies from hiring low skilled workers because their time is not worth $10.15 an hour. As a result, unemployment for young, low skilled workers is close to 40%. The reason France experienced a nationwide riot in 2005 was due, in part, to the fact that the majority of the poor simply could not, and still cannot, find work.

In reality, minimum wage employees usually do not earn the minimum wage for an extended period of time. As they build their job skills and prove their worth and reliability, their pay increases. Of minimum wage earners, over 60% receive raises in their first year of employment. But by pricing unskilled labor out of entry-level jobs through a mandated minimum wage the raises will not be realized because the jobs will not exist in the first place.

The number one way to get a poor person out of poverty is to get them a job. Entry-level jobs allow the poor to get a foothold in life. Therefore, it is puzzling why one of the major political parties in America insists on a law that eliminates job opportunities for the poorest Americans. Many reasons contribute to the insistence by liberals to increase the minimum wage. Liberals are allied with labor unions whose wages increase every time the federal minimum wage goes up and liberals also like to paint conservatives as evil people who want to punish the poor.

However, liberals support minimum wage increases mainly because they believe that any problem can be solved by the government. Conservatives understand that the most of the time government is the problem, not the solution. If liberals really wanted to help the poor, they would repeal the minimum wage mandates and let free-market capitalism work its magic.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Greatness of the American Military

2006-06-23T23:06:00.000-05:00

America is the only remaining world superpower and it is undeniable that it is the most prosperous and free country in the history of mankind. There are many factors that have contributed to this success and at the top of that list is the greatness of the United States Armed Forces. Yet, many Americans, especially those in the media, are quick to condemn the military for the mistakes it makes. Front page coverage is devoted to blunders such as Abu Ghraib, accidental civilian deaths on the battlefield, errant bombs in Afghanistan, and the recent purported Marine killings. Yet the atrocities of America’s Islamist enemies are downplayed. TV networks will not show 9/11 victims at the World Trade Center being burned alive as they plummet to their deaths. The innocent civilian blood shed by suicide bombers and the gruesome nature of terrorist beheaders is rarely emphasized. It is these actions by the worldwide Islamic terrorist movement that force the American military to conduct a campaign not of diplomatic niceties, but of war. The detractors of the military seem to forget that war is brutal and you cannot win a war with a brutal enemy by being polite.

In America it is easy to forget how unique democracy is around the world. Americans have enjoyed continuous democracy for over two centuries. The vast majority of Europeans cannot make this claim due to the effects of Nazism and Communism in the past 75 years. The entire continent of Africa is shrouded in incompetent totalitarianism and South America and Asia still rely, in large part, on dictatorships and repressive regimes. Many countries that are lucky enough to have self-rule have America to thank for their freedom. Japan, Europe, Central America, South Korea, Columbia, and now Iraq all have the distinction of being protected or liberated by the America.

Today the American military is shouldering most of the burden in fighting Muslim fanaticism around the world. Europe, the historic America ally, simply doesn’t want to engage in the fight. The old wealth of old Europe has allowed it to grow complacent. It enjoys the fruits of freedom, but is unwilling to sacrifice anything for it. Conversely, Americans are willing to die to preserve their way of life because they realize how special and rare true freedom has been over the course of human history. Although it seems that America is increasingly alone in this fight, this position is not new to America. In all the major wars of the 20th century, America gave the most in defense of freedom. America was the deciding factor against German nationalism in World War I, led the Allied powers against German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese imperialism in World War II, battled communism in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and finally defeated communism in the Cold War. In every one of these conflicts the American people gave up blood and treasure to ensure that freedom would not only be preserved, but expanded in the world.

Today, the United States has overwhelming military superiority over any country in the world. No one even comes close. All the enemies of America know that they cannot win either a nuclear or conventional conflict against the United States. As a result, they must wage asymmetrical warfare by using terrorist tactics. These tactics increase the burden on America because it has rules of engagement that others will not respect. Terrorists in Iraq and around the world realize that they will enjoy most of the protections of the Geneva Convention while violating all of its provisions. They can kidnap civilians, behead captives, and torture innocents without facing any significant repercussions, while the American military cannot even make a mistake without it becoming the focus of the worldwide media.

As a result, terrorists have come to realize that the way to defeat America is too kill its will to fight. Their logic is based on the premise that America is more concerned about suffering than inflicting losses and more worried about what others think of it. They cannot deal with American tanks, fighter planes, and Marines, so they try to win by convincing the American public the fight is not worthwhile, so American politicians will, in turn, lose the war by not allowing the military to fight it.

Since America is a free society that seeks to maintain the moral high ground, American military power is defined by how it is constrained. While the Islamic fanatics actively seek to inflict causalities on civilians, America spends billions on advanced equipment designed to minimize collateral damage. Despite the enormous burden America places on itself when it goes to war, international organizations and others on the left condemn any attempt by America to fight a war at all. Coerced interrogations are criticized as torture and calls for the closing of the Guantanomo Bay detention facility are continuous. However, no plausible alternative means for fighting terror around the world are offered. Meanwhile, Middle East terrorists attack innocent civilians and behead their captives with impunity without any denunciation by the same people that insist America fight a perfect war.

War is messy and it should be remembered that the mistakes of the American military are not morally equivalent to the ruthlessness of the terrorist movement. The troops fighting the war on terror today deserve the unconditional support of every free human being alive and the greatness of the American military should never be forgotten even though it is easy to take for granted.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Abortion and Roe v. Wade

2006-05-19T23:05:00.000-05:00

The legality and regulation of abortion is one of the most heated and emotional topics in America today and it is not hard to understand why. The decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy is one that many women fear because of the enormous emotional and moral questions raised.

Unfortunately, the abortion debate has gotten so out of hand that abortion supporters even dispute the fact that a fetus is an actual human being. They claim it is merely a clump of cells that, over time, will become a human. No honest scientist will support that position, especially as the technology has developed to allow scientists, doctors, and parents to monitor the growth of an unborn child almost from the time of conception. Abortion supporters must deny that a fetus is a child, because they will lose the moral high ground if they concede the point. If a fetus is accepted simply as a human that has yet to reach maturity, then very few people would morally support the premature termination of a pregnancy.

To fully understand this issue, as it applies to politics, a short history lesson is needed. In 1973 the Supreme Court, in the case Roe v. Wade, ruled that most state laws restricting or outlawing abortion were unconstitutional. The ruling was controversial, not just because it stuck down state laws regulating abortion, but because it relied on an implicit right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution. Roe v. Wade is the classic example of what many call an activist judicial decision. This means that judges create law based on their own personal beliefs rather than interpreting the law. The Constitution says nothing about a "right to privacy” and certainly does not address abortion, but a majority of the Supreme Court Justices in 1973 concluded that the constitution guarantees the right of a woman to have an abortion for any reason she chooses. Conservatives oppose Roe v. Wade and want it overturned because they are opposed to abortion in principle and view Roe as an activist decision that has no constitutional basis.

In recent months, President Bush nominated and, the U.S. Senate confirmed, two justices to the United States Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Even if these two new justices are inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is widely acknowledged that a majority of the Supreme Court justices would not be so inclined. However, it is plausible that one day it will be struck down.

Abortion supporters have succeeded in confusing most Americans about the implications of overturning Roe v. Wade. They claim that a Supreme Court decision striking down Roe will outlaw abortion completely. This is simply untrue. What such a decision will do is allow each individual state to regulate abortion, as was the case before 1973. It is true that some pro-life states, such as South Dakota and South Carolina, would most likely vote to outlaw abortion within their borders, but it is also true that pro-abortion states, such as California and New York, would surely allow abortion on demand and might even go so far as to subsidize the procedure.

There is circumstantial evidence, such as polls and the election of pro-life politicians, that the American public has become increasingly skeptical of abortion over the past 20 years. Explanations for this trend are many, including the expansion of ultrasound technology and increased disclosure of the mental and physical effects of abortion. If this trend continues, America may see a time when Roe is overturned. If and when that happens, Americans need to understand the implications of such a decision. An overturning of Roe would simply scatter the political battle between abortion supporters and detractors to all the states, instead of concentrating the debate on the federal level. This, in turn, will diffuse the emotions associated with this issue and allow more constructive debate.

On a basic level, this issue is clear cut. When a woman becomes pregnant, she is carrying a living, growing human being inside her. Abortion supporters such as Planned Parenthood will strongly dispute this because their basis for supporting abortion depends on convincing others that an unborn child is less than human. Unfortunately the crux of this debate shifted to the courtroom when the Supreme Court handed down its Roe decision. America should realize that Roe is flawed and that striking it down will allow states and millions of pro-life Americans to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Stop Worrying About The Trade Deficit

2006-05-07T23:04:00.000-05:00

For the past few years, media outlets and TV news networks have given significant amounts of coverage to America’s trade deficit. Usually the stories and headlines give the news consumer a sense that the growing trade deficit is something to fear (see here, here, and here). Many politicians, other critics of free trade, and most Americans for that matter, believe large trade deficits are evidence that American companies are failing to compete in global markets or that U.S. exporters face "unfair" trade barriers abroad, or both. Solutions for this supposed problem include large tariffs or subsidies for manufacturing industries that cannot compete with cheap imports. However, the trade deficit is one of the most misunderstood phenomenons in economics.

Most people, if they understand the trade deficit at all, realize that a trade surplus is created by exporting more goods to foreign countries than are imported from foreign countries, while a trade deficit occurs when a country imports more than it exports. Today, and for most of the past several decades, America has run a trade deficit. To take a recent example, the trade deficit for the month of February in 2006 was $65.7 billion. In other words, Americans spent $65.7 billion more on goods and services produced by foreign countries than the rest of the world spent on American goods and services.

The reason that most Americans freak out over large trade deficit numbers such as these is because they perceive the American economy as a large bank vault with a fixed supply of money. They believe that if more money is going out of the vault to buy things from other countries than is going back in from sales to foreign consumers, then eventually the vault will become empty and America will be bankrupt.

However, this reasoning is extremely faulty. Most importantly, it does not take into account the savings American businesses reap by importing cheap goods. A simple illustration is helpful here. Consider a large construction company that needs massive amounts of steel to build buildings and houses. American steel suppliers cannot accommodate the needs of all American consumers, so steel must be imported from other countries. This action obviously increases the trade deficit, but it allows the construction company to erect buildings. These buildings not only expand and enrich its business, but allow other American companies to do the same. The construction company doesn’t export anything to decrease the trade deficit, but its business decision increases the size of the American economy significantly. By using cheap imports that American suppliers cannot provide, American wealth is expanded.

On a larger scale, cheap imports from abroad allow America to produce the technology and financial services jobs that are needed within America. In addition, American consumers get the benefit of low-priced products overseas and these savings can be used to raise the standard of living or reinvest in the American economy.

Therefore, a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing for a country and it can be a sign of a strong economy. Every year for the past 20 years America has run a trade deficit, but over the same period of time the American economy has more than doubled in size. In addition, there is a significant positive correlation between the size of the trade deficit and the rate of economic growth. In essence, the trade deficit has risen when the economy has grown and receded when the economy has faltered. In fact, the lowest annual U.S. trade deficit in recent times was recorded in 1991, a recession year. This is evidence that by importing cheap goods from abroad and, as a result, increasing the trade deficit, the internal American economy is able to grow at an impressive rate.

Concern over the trade deficit is often linked to the rise of China’s economy and its ability to import cheap goods and services due to its inexpensive labor costs. Yet, as a factual matter, concern over Chinese imports is overblown. Chinese imports remain modest in the context of overall trade and the U.S. economy. In 2005, China accounted for less than 15 percent of our overall imports and Americans spent only 2 percent of what they earned on imports from China. This is no cause for alarm, even if trade deficits were, in concept, significant.

In the late 1920s, the American government became concerned about cheap imports and “unfair labor” practices abroad and implemented the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This increased tariffs on foreign imports dramatically and is widely recognized as one of the main reasons for the Great Depression. As the trite saying goes, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Today, the American economy is growing a phenomenal rate. It is a $12 trillion economy and increases in size $600 billion every year. This economic activity is roughly the equivalent of adding one whole new Brazil or Australia to global economic activity every year. The last thing America needs is to implement high tariffs or other protectionist measures in an attempt to solve a phantom crisis. The trade deficit is a symptom of a healthy economy, so stop worrying about it.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Illegal Immigration and the Problem of Assimilation

2006-04-14T23:03:00.000-05:00

America has an immigration problem. It is estimated today that 10 to 12 million people in this country are here illegally. Late last year the House of Representatives passed new laws that dealt with this growing problem. Its bill would, among other things, create 700 miles of border fences on the southern border with Mexico, end the practice of "catch and release," where federal officials sometimes instruct local law enforcement to release detained illegal aliens because resources to prosecute them are not available, and increase penalties for employing illegal aliens.

The passage of the House bill has sparked marches by illegal immigrants opposing the bill and demanding rights as American citizens. Over the past month, hundreds of thousands have marched in cities across America. Unbeknownst to most Americans, the marches were organized by the Spanish-language media. Now the United States Senate is considering immigration reform as well. The Senate bill is called the McCain-Kennedy bill and was introduced by senators of the same name. It is also nominally supported by President Bush. The bill has minimal enforcement measures, but requires all illegal immigrants to register with the government, pay a $2,000 fine, and wait several years before to applying for citizenship.

The problem with this approach is that it rewards millions of people that broke American immigration law with citizenship and insults the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who want to or have become American citizens legally. Does it make sense to reward, in any way, people who have broken the law to get here? As every parent with children knows, rewarding bad behavior only encourages more of it. In 1986 President Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegals with the promise that illegal immigration would stop. Unsurprisingly, that action didn’t stop illegal immigration, it encouraged more of it. Now we have about 11 million illegal aliens and the proposal by senators McCain and Kennedy will encourage even more to come.

In this debate many claim that America simply cannot deport 11 million people because the logistics are too complex. Instead of trying to deport them, they say, we should grant them some type of legal status. It is true that America does not have the resources to deport millions of people in mass, but it is very simple to create incentives to encourage illegal immigrants to leave this country of their own free will. First, make it difficult to get a job as an illegal by leveling massive fines for employers who use illegal labor. Second, make sure that people in America illegally have no access to public education, welfare benefits, free health care and other social services. By eliminating incentives and making it difficult, if not impossible, to remain in America illegally, the situation will improve.

Another facet of this debate is the assimilation of immigrants into American culture. America has many virtues, but one of the most overlooked is its ability to assimilate or “Americanize” its immigrants. In most parts of the world, when people emigrate from their homelands, they retain the customs, language, and culture of their native country and, to a very large degree, their loyalties remain with their country of origin. However, throughout American history, the United States has taken millions of immigrants from around the globe and successfully convinced them to buy into the American system of government, to speak English, and to fight and die for America by enlisting in the military. America used to be almost entirely populated by people in politics, education, business, and religion who insisted that new immigrants Americanize.

But that is not the reality today. Many in this country insist on multiculturalism and actually undermine American assimilation efforts. Politicians in charge of public education insist that Latino and Hispanic children be taught in Spanish rather than learn English. Mexico is promoting dual nationality for American children of Mexican ancestry, and in many schools, American students of Latino descent are taught by Mexicans in Spanish and use Mexican textbooks. As a result, many parts of the Southwest are becoming de facto Mexican states. The immigrant rights marches mentioned above should scare every American. The vast majority of the flags flown in those rallies were Mexican, not American. Is there any doubt where the loyalties of these people lie? Americans have always welcomed immigrants, but that openness has always come with strings attached. If we do not insist that immigrants assimilate, then America will fracture along political, cultural, and racial lines.

We as Americans cannot allow the Mexican government to pass its poverty problem onto us. Mexico has vast wealth in oil and natural resources, in addition to a very lucrative tourism industry, but it is unable to provide for its own people because of rampant corruption and waste. As a result, the Mexican government actively assists its poor citizens in breaking U.S. immigration law. Once an illegal alien is in this country, our welfare and medical services will be forced to support him, absolving the Mexican government of any responsibility. American medical and educational resources are already stretched thin without this influx of illegal immigration. We simply cannot provide for ourselves and millions of additional people from other countries.

It is past time to solve this immigrant fiasco. Measures such as building walls, increasing border patrol agents, deploying the military to the border, and eliminating incentives for illegals will solve the problem. Once the border is secure, we can start an orderly process of allowing more and more people into America and helping them to assimilate. It is not a lack of ideas, but a lack of political willpower that is allowing this problem to grow. Hopefully, American politicians will come to realize the advantages of emphasizing border security over rewarding law breakers, but don’t count on it.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Deafening Silence of Moderate Muslims

2006-03-16T23:02:00.000-06:00

President Bush and many Muslim leaders insist that Islam is a religion of peace. There are one billion Muslims in the world, yet few have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. We always hear that only a small minority of Muslims (10% is usually the number quoted) that are radicalized enough to participate in or support acts of terrorism or civil unrest. Whether that number is correct or not, it is clear that the radicalized Muslims are responsible for the Western perception of Islam today because they dominate the headlines. Countless acts of terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks, are committed by Muslims, but consider just a few other examples.

Islamists in Iraq regularly kidnap and behead Westerners in the name of Islam. One of these beheadings that received a lot of attention was the execution of Matt Berg, an American civilian working in Iraq, in May 2004.

Disenchanted Muslims started a massive riot centered in Paris, France that quickly spread out to all parts of the country. The rioters torched thousands of cars and were responsible for tens of millions of dollars in property damage after two youths were accidentally electrocuted when French law enforcement authorities attempted to detain them.

Violent protests erupted throughout the Muslim world when Danish cartoonists published drawings depicting the Prophet Muhammad and some of the teachings of Islam in a negative light.

In addition, almost every month we see Muslims in Palestine killing innocent Israeli men and women in the name of Islam. In any of these instances did America or other countries in Western civilization hear from moderate Muslims denouncing these acts? The answer is “not really.” We may hear the standard well-used response from Muslim leaders of “of course we condemn the latest act of violence in the name of Islam.” However, the vast majority of time that line is followed by a “but.” Often this mainstream Muslim spokesman implicitly defends terrorism on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands or some other reason based in moral equivalency. It should be the responsibility of Muslims worldwide to police their own religion, and by excusing violence they ensure that it will continue. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah. The West, which has its foundations rooted in Christianity, has little or no moral authority over the Muslim religion. Therefore, if Islam does not take radical action to purge itself of its violent members it will continue to be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a religion centered on violence.

The persecution of other religions by Muslim countries also needs to be addressed by Muslim leaders worldwide. Saudi Arabia does not allow churches or synagogues to be built inside its borders and practicing Christianity inside Saudi Arabia can, and has been in the past, punishable by death. In Afghanistan, the Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. The Islamic regime of Sudan continues to murder thousands of Christians every year in the southern region of Darfur. Yet, instead of confronting these problems, the Muslim world as a whole ignores them.

The continued silence and moral equivocation of many Muslims today is partially due to fear of reprisal from the more radicalized elements of Islam. However, if moderate Muslims continue to allow acts of violence to occur in the name of their religion, the West and the Islamic world will continue to move closer to all out war with each other. No Western country wants to fight that war, but eventually it will have to be fought to preserve Western civilization in the face of Islamic force. Preventing the escalation of violence between the West and Islam is a heavy burden for moderate Muslims to bear, but they must do it for the continued peace and security of the world.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Case Against Affirmative Action

2006-02-28T23:01:00.000-06:00

Over the years affirmative action has come to mean many things. Affirmative action was originally a means to assure the genuine equality of opportunity. Its advocates usually presented it as a special effort to recruit more minority applicants. The presumption was that affirmative action would be a form of outreach, that minority applicants would be held to the same standard as non-minority applicants and that any program would be temporary.

However, affirmative action supporters want more than equal opportunity. Today affirmative action means adopting racial preferences. It means giving preference in university admissions, job hiring, promotions, and government contracts to less qualified black and Hispanic applicants over more qualified white and Asian American candidates. Many advocates of affirmative action say that preferences should be used to compensate for the wrongs of the past, usually presented in the context of slavery. But who decides when those wrongs are righted? Affirmative action programs of all kinds have been in place for over thirty years. How much longer are they going to last?

Consider two virtually identical scenarios. A white guy and a black guy apply for a position. In the first scenario, the black guy is better qualified; the white guy gets the position. In today’s world that is correctly called racism. In the second scenario the white guy is better qualified; the black guy gets the position. In today’s world that is called affirmative action. Is the second scenario intellectually different than the first? Of course not, both are instances of racism, but political correctness forces our society to emphasize the first scenario while ignoring the second.

In addition, the success of these affirmative action programs has been lukewarm, at best. Proponents of these programs insist that they are indispensable to bringing blacks on a par with whites, and that without them income and occupational disparities will persist As a result, billions of dollars in spending and thousands of regulations have been implemented to bring blacks to the same starting line as whites. Yet today black Americans still are less educated, much more likely to live below the poverty line, and much more likely to be incarcerated than white Americans even after three decades of affirmative action. In the media we constantly here about the plight of poor blacks and Hispanics in America. In fact, more often that not, we are told that the problems are getting worse, not better. If that is true, then the status quo needs to change and the leaders of minority communities should focus on educating people for success in America, rather than insisting on a culture of victimization and preferences that discriminate against others.

Black Americans and other minorities need education and opportunity, not preferences and quotas that reward them with jobs and other advantages over more qualified candidates. The solution has to start in America’s education system. Today, the public school system in America is atrocious. It is beholden to labor unions that spend massive amounts of money on bureaucracy and an ever shrinking amount on children in the classroom.

In 1999–2000, the 50 states and the District of Columbia spent an average of $6,911 in current expenditures for every student in public education. This represents a 6.2 percent increase in current expenditures per pupil from the previous school year. Three states—New Jersey ($10,337), New York ($9,846), and Connecticut ($9,753)—expended more than $9,000 per pupil. Yet despite spending more money on education than any other nation, the American education system is one of the worst in the developed world and we are far behind other nations in the increasingly important fields of math and science. Scores have continued to plummet and too many black Americans are stuck sending their kids to failing schools. In essence, massive reform is needed and the supporters of affirmative action would address the root of the problem by putting their efforts into this reform rather than insisting on racial preferences.

Affirmative action has not helped black Americans or other minorities succeed and has only created a stigma where minorities are always victims. The elimination of preferences will create a truly equal society where everyone will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Big Government: The Failure of the Modern Republican Party

2006-01-30T23:00:00.000-06:00

There is a big difference between Republicans and conservatives. Most people and almost all of the mainstream media in America believe that the terms are synonymous, but there are serious differences. That has become even more apparent due to the growth of the size of government ever since George W. Bush became president in 2001.

One of the central tenets of conservatism is its belief in small government. Conservatives believe that individuals, not elected politicians or career bureaucrats, are best at determining what is good for themselves and their families. Liberals, in contrast, believe that most parts of an individual’s life should be filtered through some kind of government program: i.e. retirement (Social Security), health care (Medicare), and education (Department of Education). In essence, liberals want the government to grow while conservative want it to shrink.

That is why it is disturbing that the size of government has grown so rapidly with Republicans, who call themselves conservatives, in control of large parts of the federal government. It took nearly 200 years for Congress to reach a $1 trillion budget (yes that’s trillion with a T), but in just the last ten years, the budget has expanded by another $1 trillion. America now runs deficits up to half a trillion dollars a year. Almost half of the budget is eaten up by entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In light of this you would think that the federal government would do what all individual Americans do when they spend more than they earn – they would cut costs. However, here you will see that instead of cutting costs, President Bush and a Republican Congress have increased spending by about 20% per year. That increase doesn’t even factor in the new prescription drug entitlement passed in 2003 that will cost the federal government an addition $1.2 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

President Bush and Republicans, on the campaign trail, insist that they are the party of and small government. In truth, those words are just that: words. Overall, the size of the federal government has grown so rapidly and the financial soundness of America has deteriorated so much under the leadership of President Bush that Republicans have lost any moral high ground when it comes to small government.

However, this problem does not mean Americans should fall prey to joining liberal calls to increase taxes to eliminate the deficit. When analyzing the deficit there are two numbers to consider: federal receipts and federal expenditures. Federal receipts are the money that flows into the government from the myriad of income, estate, corporate, and sales taxes it imposes on Americans, while federal expenditures are the checks the governments writes for all its costs. The difference between the two creates a yearly federal surplus or a yearly federal deficit. Since America is running a deficit, federal expenditures are outstripping federal receipts.

The perception is that the tax cuts passed in recent years have decreased the revenue coming into the government and, therefore, are the cause of the budget deficits. But if you look at the numbers, federal receipts have actually become significantly larger. That is, billions of more dollars are coming into the Treasury now than came in before the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Historically, tax cutting increases federal receipts because of the economic incentives and growth they create. More economic activity means the federal tax base grows larger and more revenue flows to the government. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in the Ronald Reagan tax cutting years of 1980 to 1988, federal receipts grew from 517 billion dollars to 909 billion dollars: an increase of almost 100%. The tax cuts implemented by President Kennedy of the early 1960s also increased federal receipts significantly. The reason for the deficits we are experiencing now have nothing to do with tax cutting, but have everything to do with the large increases in spending.

Republicans have done a horrendous job of controlling spending. So should conservatives start looking to support Democrats instead of Republicans in elections? The short answer is no because Democratic budget proposals almost always entail even more expenditures than the proposals of their Republican counterparts. But establishment Republican politicians who insist on allowing the federal budget to swell should realize that spending increases are not only bad policy, but bad politics. In the long run, Americans will not accept the ever-increasing reach of the federal government that coincides with enormous governmental budgets and Republicans might find themselves in the political wilderness because of it.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Winning In Iraq

2005-12-25T22:59:00.000-06:00

What is the easiest way to lose a war? Simple. Quit. That seems to be the strategy of the leadership of today’s Democratic Party when is comes to the fighting in Iraq. Long gone are the days of Democrat national security hawks such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. All rational people realize that abandoning Iraq now would insure nation-wide chaos. Whatever government would emerge from that chaos would undoubtedly be hostile to America. Leaving Iraq is a losing strategy. Some Democrats, to their credit, want the U.S. to win the war and want democracy in Iraq to succeed. Others do not. If you think that this is an overstatement consider the following quotes from the current leadership of the Democratic Party in recent weeks and decide for yourself.

The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong. - Howard
Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of US troops – John Murtha Democratic Congressman
from Pennsylvania

The withdrawal [of American troops in Iraq] ought to start now, right after the elections, December
15th - Barbara Boxer, Democratic Senator from California

These people are not stupid. They know that leaving Iraq would be devastating and it is this knowledge that makes their position so troubling.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, America has become the world’s last remaining military superpower. On the field of battle, in the long run, we simply cannot be defeated. Our weapons are too advanced, our resources too vast, our military leaders too smart, and our soldiers too effective to be defeated in a way that wars are conventionally fought. However, America is not an empire. We do not conquer other countries and impose our will. When we defeat an enemy we attempt to create and free and open society responsible to its people. Then we leave (think Germany and Japan after World War II or South Korea after the Korean War). Because of our desire to see freedom and democracy spread to all corners of the world and our open society that allows all kinds of dissent, we are vulnerable to losing a war politically. America was defeated in Vietnam, not because of the superiority of our Communist enemies, but because we lost the propaganda war at home. We refused to use enough troops, we didn’t support our South Vietnamese allies militarily or politically, and we didn’t use the full force of our military because of domestic pressure. The 1960s saw the rise of the anti-war left, its success in turning the American public against the war and that movement’s attachment to Democratic Party we know today. Many in the Democratic Party are trying to turn the fight in Iraq into a repeat of Vietnam. They know that the American military, if given time and support, will eliminate all remnants of the terrorist operations in Iraq and, therefore, they need to turn the American people against the war to force a premature pullout.

On December 15th, Iraqis went to the polls for the third time in 12 months to freely elect their politicians. If the Democratic Party would have had its way on Iraq, the world would still be talking about Saddam Hussein at the United Nations and he would still be oppressing his own people. We can't lose the war over there. The American military is just too dominating and effective. The only place we can lose in Iraq is in Washington, D.C.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com . Please feel free to contact me if you would like to be added to a list that receives these blogs via e-mail.

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: The Real Environmental Crisis

2005-12-21T15:22:00.000-06:00

Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment’s Number One Enemy

By: Jack M. Hollander

In today’s political forum, the damage the United States and other developed countries are inflicting upon the environment is constantly cited as the main reason for a multitude of global initiatives and programs. However, are worldwide treaties and agreements the most effective way to preserve the environment? Is the American economic system to blame for the world’s biggest environmental problems? What is the best way to preserve and protect our environment while growing the world economy in order to lift millions out of poverty? Jack M. Hollander, a professor at the University of California, Berkley, explores these complex questions and gives some much needed perspective when it comes to the environment in The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment’s Number One Enemy.

Hollander’s thesis, which he supports with varying degrees of success, is easy to understand. In his own words, “Poverty is the world’s most critical environmental problem. Reducing poverty throughout the world should be a top priority for environmentalists…affluence and the technological innovation it enables are among the most important ingredients for achieving a future sustainable global environment.” These contentions directly contradict the views of most of the worldwide environmental movement that it is the wealth and over consumption of rich counties, especially the United States, that endanger the worldwide environment.

Hollander points out that the enormous amount of American economic growth in last half-century has made it possible to reverse the negative environmental impact of industrialization. In the United States, the air and water are cleaner than they have been in the last fifty years, the forested area is the highest in three hundred years, and technological innovation has allowed Americans to restore previously polluted lakes and streams. The wealth of America has enabled its citizens to devote significant resources to preserving the environment because the vast majority of Americans can provide themselves with the necessities of life without harming the environment.

A citizen of a Third World country may care about the environment, but they have the more important short-term goal of feeding their families and bringing themselves out of poverty. As a result, the environment suffers in these countries while developed nations such as Japan and the United States can afford to invest or spend billions on environmental improvements and conservation. Hardly anyone in Sub-Saharan Africa or South America puts environmental preservation as a priority in their lives. However, in America, the richest country on the planet, billions of dollars are raised and spent every year for a dizzying array of environmental causes.

One of the examples Hollander uses to support his thesis is the highly publicized environmental problem of the destruction of the South American rain forest, especially the rain forest surrounding the Amazon River in Brazil. Farmers in Brazil, while aware that clear-cutting will destroy the rain forest in the long-run, must grow crops in order to provide for their families. The soil found in the rain forest is not fertile enough to grow, for extended periods of time, commercial crops, so poor Brazilians quickly clear-cut vast tracts of rain forest. This problem does not exist in America because American farmers have the wealth to purchase and invest in methods and machinery that enables more crops to be grown on small pieces of land.

While most conservatives will agree with Hollander on his overriding conclusion that environmental problems can be successfully combated by creating wealth and affluence, some of his praise for big government solutions and expanded involvement by The United Nations in the decision making process of poor countries will give some pause. For example, his solution to the lack of transportation infrastructure in the developing world is a larger international aid budget. Left out of this discussion is the propensity for Third World dictators to take international aid and use it to strengthen their hold on power, rather than make the lives of their people better.

Hollander also has a tendency to go off on tangents that seem to undermine his own conclusions. For instance, while claiming that wealth creation is the best way to save the environment, Hollander, in his discussion on energy, states that “several billion people remain without basic energy services they need and to which they have a human right.” This kind of rhetoric is usually attributed to socialist or communist ideals that keep the average person poor, rather than opening up opportunities for him or her to create wealth. Conservatives and other free-market supporters realize that the most effective way to create wealth in the long term is a capitalist system that allows people to provide for their own energy needs. Redistribution by enforcing a “right to energy” will keep people poor, not allow them to accumulate the wealth needed to preserve and sustain the environment. Hollander does not seem to recognize that the only proven way to create the long-term wealth necessary to provide for the poor is a capitalist system.

Nevertheless, The Real Environmental Crisis is an informative read and a breath of fresh air when compared to doomsday predictions put forth by liberals and the mainstream media. The world is not on the verge of disaster, but it will take a concerted effort from both the developed and Third World nations to make sure that everyone on the planet is rich enough to become an environmentalist.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com . Please feel free to contact me if you would like to be added to a list that receives these blogs via e-mail.

~ The Conservative Guy

Is Wal-Mart Bad For America?

2005-12-11T22:57:00.000-06:00

The widespread success of retail giant Wal-Mart has generated criticism of its business practices. In the past several years many around the country have begun to attack Wal-Mart as a greedy corporation that pays its employees minuscule wages and forces smaller competitors out of business. However, these criticisms are a product of the lack of understanding (or extreme dislike) of basic capitalist principles that have allowed the United States to become the greatest economic force on the planet. Wal-Mart's successful history as one of the biggest American corporations and its place as the most influential company in the U.S. retail sector has made it an easy target for those in America and around the world that loathe capitalism..

The biggest criticism of Wal-Mart is that it pays its employees low wages. While on the surface this would seem to be true, the argument is shallow at best. For instance, a critical article of Wal-Mart had this to say: “The average pay of a sales clerk at Wal-Mart was $8.50 an hour or about $14,000 a year, $1,000 below the government's definition of the poverty level for a family of three.” Despite the fact that Wal-Mart often offers jobs in places where not enough are available, what is missing from this analysis is that sales clerks at Wal-Mart tend to be uneducated 20-somethings without a complete family who are often working part-time. Also unmentioned in this analysis is that $8.50 an hour is $3.35 an hour higher than the federal minimum wage of $5.15.

Wal-Mart’s wages and benefits are competitive in the retail industry. If they were not, the company would not be able to maintain a workforce of 1.2 million people, fill 100,000 new positions a year, or routinely attract thousands of applicants for hundreds of positions when new stores open. For instance, when Wal-Mart opened a store in Glendale, AZ., last year, it received 8,000 applications for 525 jobs. Obviously not everyone finds the opportunities at Wal-Mart unattractive.

Wal-Mart has also been labeled as a destroyer of small-town business. It is claimed that when Wal-Mart moves into small communities it wipes out the smaller mom-and-pop retailers that can no longer compete with Wal-Mart’s discounted prices and everyone ends up worse off for it. This kind of argument appeals to many people, but the "Wal-Mart destroys the community" argument is, again, superficial. Consumers faced with more choices and lower prices that they had not previously enjoyed, freely choose to patronize the new Wal-Mart. No one is forcing them to take their business elsewhere and those consumers save real money that they can use on other expenditures. While the owner of the smaller store has suffered a loss of income, everyone else has gained by saving money. Furthermore, if the employees of the smaller store go to work at Wal-Mart, more likely than not they will be offered better wages and benefits than they previously enjoyed working for the smaller retailer, who would not have been able to offer the raises or promotion opportunities available at Wal-Mart.

So what are the good things that Wal-Mart does for America? First off, Wal-Mart directly employs 1.2 million people and supports 3 million American supplier jobs by buying goods direct from manufacturing firms. In addition, Wal-Mart paid $5.5 billion in taxes to federal, state, and local governments in 2004 and is the largest corporate donor to charitable causes in the United States, giving away more than $170 million last year.

However, the biggest benefit that Wal-Mart brings to the American economy is low prices. With its innovative worldwide distribution system, Wal-Mart is able to buy vast quantities of goods from a multitude of suppliers for low prices and pass on those savings onto the American consumer. A 2005 Global Insight study found that the direct and indirect cumulative downward pressure on pricing exerted by Wal-Mart is now saving U.S. consumers $263 billion a year, or $2,329 per household. A UBS Walberg study found that a cart of groceries was 17 to 40 percent cheaper at Wal-Mart than it was elsewhere. Wal-Mart’s discounting on food alone saves American shoppers at least $50 billion dollars a year and the overwhelming beneficiaries of those savings are poor Americans. For comparison, the American Food Stamp Program cost $27.2 billion dollars in 2004. As a force for poverty relief, it is hard to argue Wal-Mart’s success in allowing millions of low income Americans to buy cheap food.

Is Wal-Mart bad for America? Hardly, but you wouldn’t know it from amount of noise emanating from the American left on the subject. Wal-Mart’s critics may be loud, but people tend to vote with their feet as evidenced by the fact that, worldwide, 100 million people a week shop at Wal-Mart. That is capitalism at work and Wal-Mart’s success is evidence of the phenomenal potential of free-market competition. Wal-Mart’s continued growth helps to ensure that capitalism will continue to reign and that is unacceptable to the liberal establishment here in America and around the world. So don’t feel guilty about shopping at Wal-Mart. In fact, be thankful that you live in a country whose economic system has produced such a dynamic company that, in turn, gives you the ability to save thousands of dollars on a multitude of necessity and luxury goods.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Iran's Nuclear Program

2005-11-19T22:53:00.000-06:00

The spread of nuclear weapons has been an issue that is prominent in today’s political forum. It was a major campaign issue in the last presidential election and has been labeled by many as the single greatest national security issue facing America today. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush called out three countries, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, labeled them an “axis of evil,” and warned that they would pursue weapons of mass destruction to attack or blackmail the United States and its allies. That part of his speech was widely derided by the liberal press as overly confrontational. However, almost four years after that speech it is obvious that President Bush was correct in his assessment. North Korea has apparently become the newest member of the world’s nuclear community, while Iran is positioning itself to become a nuclear power by developing the needed infrastructure and training people in the necessary skills to create and maintain nuclear weapons.

Unlike the case of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, there is not yet evidence that Iran has acquired the nuclear material necessary to build a bomb. It seems that Iran will not be in a position to construct a nuclear weapon for a few years, but it is moving as fast as it can.

On February 9, 2003, Iran's program for building facilities that would eventually produce enriched uranium, which is the most important ingredient to create a nuclear weapon, was revealed. In late February, Dr. Mohammad El Baradei, the head of the United Nations mandated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), visited Iran to confirm. For the next several months the IAEA's experts and inspectors visited Iran several more times. In September 2003, the IAEA gave Iran an ultimatum to reveal all the details of its nuclear activities by the end of October 2003. Not surprisingly, Iran ignored the ultimatum because it was not backed up by any threat of force.

While Iran insists that its construction of a nuclear plant is purely for energy related purposes, it is clear that this explanation is just a smoke screen. Iran wants nuclear weapon capability in order to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East and to deter a possible U.S. or Israeli attack. Russia, with its vast nuclear knowledge and need for money and oil, has been more than happy to assist the Iranians expand their nuclear capability and will continue to do so unless enormous diplomatic pressure is pushed upon it.

The core of this debate is trust. That is, is the world willing to trust a nuclear Iran? The Iranian dictatorship continues to support the international terrorist organization Hezbollah, wants to wipe Israel “off the map,” represses its people’s call for freedom, and deems America as “The Great Satan.” Iran wants nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and to make it difficult for the United States to conduct military strikes against it in the future for fear of nuclear retaliation upon our Mid-East ally Israel. Obviously, this is not the kind of regime the free world should allow to control the most powerful destructive force created by man.

What is also painfully clear is the inability of Europe and the United Nations to do anything of substance to solve this problem. This is the Iraq and Saddam Hussein situation all over again. The politicians of Europe and the bureaucrats of the United Nations will once again dither like they did with Saddam Hussein. The United States and Israel will have to literally drag the world community to condemn Iran, but will be unable to convince them to do anything about it. Resolutions will be passed, leaders will “strongly warn” Iran that their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will have “serious consequences,” but in the end, after Iran ignores all these warnings, nothing will be done. When it comes time to act (and in my opinion that time has long passed) Europe and the United Nations will delay and call for more talks and more diplomacy. Diplomacy has been tried over and over with Iran and diplomacy’s time has passed.

Since Iran is only a few years away from becoming a nuclear power, the United States must take the necessary preventative steps now. Harsh economic sanctions and even precision military strikes must be considered in order to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. If no other country is willing to join America in this effort, then so be it. The Europeans and the United Nations with their weak and ineffectual bluffing, disguised as diplomacy, have failed once again when it comes to enhancing the security of the world. Yet again, it is time for the United States to step up and do the right thing.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Hurricanes, Gas Prices, and Market Economics

2005-10-21T22:52:00.000-05:00

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have devastated the Gulf Coast region and now Hurricane Wilma is threatening Florida. Cities have been wiped off the face of the earth in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, while New Orleans is experiencing the worst natural disaster on American soil in decades. Behind the devastation and tragedy lies another story that effects all of us: gas prices. Hurricane season has wrecked havoc on prices at the pump nationwide. As prices approach, and in some places exceed, $3 a gallon, Americans are looking for someone to blame. Many blame the big-oil companies, while others believe that the individual gas stations are price gouging and reaping extraordinary profits.

These criticisms are misguided at best and idiotic at worst because they ignore simple supply and demand economics. Think about it, how many gas stations do you pass on the way to work or to the grocery store. Five? Ten? Do you honestly think that one gas station owner could get away with charging $3 a gallon if it only costs him $1 a gallon to bring the product to market? Of course not, because the guy across the street would buy the $1 a gallon gasoline from the same suppliers and charge $2 a gallon. At that point every customer would stop at the second gas station and the first station wouldn't sell any gas and would be forced to bring his price down to $2 a gallon. It's simple supply and demand capitalism. So what's the problem? Why does gasoline cost so much and why did Hurricanes Katrina and Rita result in a huge price spike in gasoline prices?

What the hurricanes did was expose America's oil supply problem. We as a country can't seem to get enough gasoline to the people that need it and the problem is two-fold. First, America does not have enough oil refining capacity and second we aren't allowing ourselves to bring enough oil to market. The crude oil that comes from the ground cannot be converted into gasoline without refining it. Unfortunately, American companies have not built a major new refinery for decades because of government regulations. Companies have to jump through so many hoops to build a refinery that the vast majority of the time it simply becomes too much trouble. As a result, America's refining capacity has simply not kept up with our energy needs. Since a large part of the country's refining capacity is located in Gulf Region, the hurricanes shut down a large portion of America's already limited refining capacity and not enough gasoline is entering the marketplace. It doesn't matter how much oil you have if you can't refine it and turn into gasoline. The solution is simple. Eliminate the vast network of government requirements necessary to build a refinery and make it profitable again to turn oil into gasoline. When more suppliers enter the market, more gasoline will be available and, through simple supply and demand economics, gas prices at the pump will go down.

The second problem, not bringing enough oil to market, is also easy to solve. Drill for more of it. Again government regulations, supported by environmentalists, have prevented businesses from looking and drilling for oil in large areas of the country. Both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are off limits, as are the deep energy reserves off the coast of Florida. But perhaps the biggest area where oil is readily found in America is in Alaska within the Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). The US Geological Survey (USGS) figures the amount of "technically recoverable" crude oil is at least 5.7 billion barrels and could be up to 16 billion barrels. Since the United States consumes about 20.4 millions barrels of oil per day these Alaskan oil reserves could greatly increase the amount of domestic supply and, over the long-run, bring prices down significantly. These billions of barrels of oil are found on just 2,000 acres of land in Northern Alaska. To put that into perspective the state of Rhode Island is 66,600 acres. Nowhere in North America is so much oil concentrated in such a small area.

The another form of energy that Americans rely heavily upon is natural gas. Natural gas is primarily used to heat homes. In the winter, as electric bills rise throughout the country, citizens will be demanding to know why. Once again the problem is that not enough natural gas is being delivered to market. The environmental lobby in the United States has helped maintain a federal moratorium that puts 85% of known American natural gas reserves off limits. The Gulf of Mexico alone is sitting on 232 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alaska another 122 trillion cubic feet. Again, with U.S. yearly consumption at 22 trillion cubic feet a year, these reserves would greatly increase the supply of natural gas available in the marketplace and therefore greatly decrease the price of heating one's home.

For years conservatives in Congress have tried to provide free market solutions to this country's energy problems, such as opening up the small 2,000 acres of wilderness in ANWR, but have been prevented from doing so by environmentalists and their Democrat allies in Congress. Government regulations and bureaucratic red tape have not allowed American companies to expand this country's energy output to keep pace with the country's growing energy needs. Drilling rigs and oil equipment have become much more environmentally friendly in the past decade, but the government has simply made it difficult and, sometimes completely unprofitable, to bring more energy to market. Even nuclear energy plants have gotten exponentially safer and more efficient, but a new plant has not been built on American soil in almost three decades. Why? Unsurprisingly, federal government regulations are so onerous that its takes ten years worth of due diligence and approval for a company to even begin to build a nuclear power plant. It's unfortunate that the price of gasoline is making it harder for Americans to make ends meet. But it's even more unfortunate that the government is preventing the simple laws of supply and demand to solve the problem because they work every time they are tried.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: Jefferson's War

2005-10-04T17:04:00.000-05:00

America’s First War on Terror (1801-1805)

By: Joseph Wheelan

After Islamic terrorists brought down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 our political leaders declared that we were at war with terrorism. Yet many Americans are unaware that the 21st century war on terror is not the first time the United States has gone to war to combat Muslim terrorism. In fact, America’s first war on terrorism was conducted at the dawn of 19th century, when America was but a fledgling nation, dwarfed by the great European empires of the time. Author Joseph Wheelan maps out the so called “Barbary Wars” between America and the North African Barbary States battle by battle and skirmish by skirmish, while exploring the root causes of the conflict in Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terrorism (1801-1805).

By the beginning of the American experiment in 1776, the North African Barbary States of Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco were old hands at state sponsored terrorism and were well entrenched as political and military powers in the Mediterranean Sea. For 200 years the Barbary States had preyed on the Christian powers of Europe by raiding coastal towns, pirating trading ships, and extracting protection money. Over time they had convinced the countries of Europe that tribute, bribes, and negotiation were much more palpable than an all-out war in North Africa, especially since the Europeans were usually at war with themselves.

When America became a sovereign country, the Barbary States treated it just like a European power by raiding American shipping and demanding protection money. However, they quickly found out that Americans had little patience for terrorism and tribute. The undoing of the Barbary States began in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson, the man many consider to be a president with pacifist leanings, was inaugurated as America’s third president. It was Jefferson’s determination to destroy the Barbary States militarily that ultimately insured America’s victory.

In Jefferson’s War, Wheelan focuses on the causes of Jefferson’s declaration of war on the Barbary States while also devoting much of his volume to detailing its battles. In the end, American resolve and overwhelming naval power destroyed the Barbary fleets and effectively ended the centuries old threat from North Africa.

Not only did America’s victory in the Barbary War greatly increase the prestige of its military in the eyes of Europe, but the conflict taught America how to wage a distant war by operating from foreign bases, making short-term alliances, and using local troops. In four short years, and with almost no help from the European powers, Thomas Jefferson and the American military conducted a naval war on the other side of the Atlantic that rid the western world of the Muslim scourge that was the Barbary nations.

Interestingly, while not the primary focus of his work, Wheelan considers the similarities between the Barbary War and today’s war on terror. Since both conflicts deal with Muslim use of terror to advocate and support a political agenda, terror prosecuted in the name of “jihad” and America’s decision to repel force by force, readers may find insight into the war on terror conducted today. In Jefferson’s War, Joseph Wheelan reminds everyone of the little known conflict that was America’s first operation against the forces of terrorism. Let us hope that America’s present war on terrorism is as successful as the first.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Back Again for the First Time: Hillary Clinton in 2008

2005-08-28T22:52:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton is running for president. I have no doubt about it, and will bet anyone large amounts of money that she will be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in 2008. While the 2008 presidential election is three years away, the possibility of another Clinton in the White House is, well, intriguing. Today many Republicans and conservatives fear that Hillary will not only get the Democratic nomination, but will win the election and become America's 44th president.

Results from one recent poll showed that six in 10 voters believe that the United States is ready for a female president, and 53 percent thought Hillary Clinton should try for the job. No one can argue that she is a celebrity politician who can and will raise lots of money and, not surprisingly, early polls put her ahead of Kerry and other Democratic presidential hopefuls. With high name recognition and political skills that are immense by any measurement, Hillary Clinton will be tough to beat.

I, however, want to point out the advantages for conservatives of Hillary being at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2008. First, Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing politician. Either you love her or you hate her. This ensures that, if nominated, Hillary cannot count on any support at all from about 45% of the electorate. While she will have rabid support among Democrats, America right now is an increasingly Republican country. She will have to find some way to appeal to Republicans in order to win and, given her husband’s history, it seems unlikely that many Republicans will vote for her. Second, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee for president, political opponents can relive all of her husband’s scandals. From Monica to pardons for well-connected Democratic fundraisers, there is no shortage of bad memories (for her) to relive. Finally, a Hillary nomination ensures that the failures of her husband’s administration will be revisited, specifically its inability to combat terrorism. All of these debates favor conservatives and the 2008 Republican presidential nominee (whoever that may be).

On the other hand there is an inherent danger that Hillary can overcome all of this and actually be elected. Both Clintons are skilled at political repositioning. Bill Clinton ensured his re-election in 1996 by finally signing landmark welfare reform pushed by conservatives in Congress and angered many in his party by implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Similarly, Hillary is trying to highlight her moderate credentials. Hillary supporters point to her vote to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, her labeling abortion as a "tragic choice,” her increasingly use of the language of faith and morality, and her recent vocal opposition to illegal immigration as proof that she is not as radical as some portray her. Americans need to realize that Hillary’s moves to the middle are just words. Ambitious politicians like Hillary will say what they think will get votes. Whether they actually believe what they say is another matter. Don't fall for it.

To blunt this move to the middle, conservatives must be ready to remind the rest of America that this is the same woman who tried to bring one-seventh of the U.S. economy under government control by nationalizing the health care system, who is ranked as one of the most liberal senators in the country, and who, when proposing to roll back the Bush tax cuts said “We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” The old Hillary's love affair with socialism is summed up in the opening of P.J. O’Rourke’s review of Hillary’s It Takes A Village To Raise A Child: “The village is Washington. You are the child.” The new Hillary is the same as the old with the dangerous difference being that the new Hillary is able to put on a cloak of moderation to hide her true beliefs.

Hillary Clinton’s move to the middle is all talk and no substance. Be sure to consider that come 2008, and remember, actions speak louder than words.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

France: America's Adversary

2005-07-18T22:51:00.000-05:00

If you listen to many of the modern-day historians or to the mainstream media about the relations between France and America much of the conversation starts with the premise that France is America’s oldest friend. Many people assume that the United States and France share a 200-year history of goodwill that began with French military assistance in the American Revolutionary War. However, Franco-American history is really more about hostility and opposition rather than friendship.

First, let's start with the myth that France was instrumental in helping America gain her independence. At the time of the Revolution, France and the American colonies were not friends. Many American colonists deeply resented the part France played in inciting Indian tribes to attack and plunder colonial settlements in the French and Indian wars in the 1760s. During the American Revolution France offered minimal help to the American revolutionaries and the help that did come was received only after America had achieved significant victories that would have been much easier with French assistance. The reason France even offered any help at all was to weaken the British Empire that they were constantly in conflict with at the time.

In fact, if you look deeply at the history of French-American relations one theme emerges consistently. France's national interest and well-being has been the overriding factor in every French foreign policy decision that relates to America. Friends help out others in need even if that help doesn't advance that particular country's interest. If France were America’s oldest ally it wouldn't have sought to split our nation in two during the Civil War by selling arms to both the North and the South, collaborated with Nazi Germany in World War II by setting up the Vichy regime, provided intellectual support for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or quit NATO in the 1960s. French president Francois Mitterrand even went so far, in 1996, as to declare a "permanent war" with the U.S. to limit our influence in the world.

In addition, throughout the mid-20th century France was able to sell billions of dollars of arms to Iraq and gained billions more through oil contracts with Saddam Hussein. After studying the historical record in detail it becomes clear that French opposition to the Iraq war was to be expected, since it was in their national interest to do so. Not only did the French oppose the war in Iraq, they actively helped Saddam Hussein and his regime. France assisted Saddam Hussein in many ways, but the two most egregious violations by our supposed friend were helping officials of Saddam's regime acquire French passports for easy escape before coalition forces went into Iraq and actively selling French weaponry to Iraq during the run-up to the war. French government officials looked the other way when French companies negotiated illegal arms deals with Saddam. As a result Iraq was able to acquire sophisticated weaponry, including Mirage F-1 fighter jets (made by France's Dassault Aviation), Gazelle attack helicopters (made by France's Aerospatiale), and Roland-2 missiles that were all used against American and Coalition forces in the Iraq war. For instance, on April 8th, 2003 Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter was downed over Baghdad by a French-made Roland missile. A week later an Army search team found a cache of 51 Roland missiles nearby that had been produced only months before. This article can give you a deeper analysis.

Three hundred years ago, France ruled a globe-spanning empire, but ever since it has been caught in a downward spiral towards irrelevance. At the same time, the French have watched the United States grow in power to become to superpower that we are today. Despite the fact that America has bailed France out of three world wars (if you count the Cold War, and I do), France has consistently opposed the United States' foreign policy initiatives. I've come to the conclusion that French anti-Americanism is ultimately based in French resentment of American power. France believes that it should be the superpower of the world, not the United States. Therefore, out of spite, jealousy and a bad case of wounded pride, France has worked against America at every opportunity even if America implements a foreign policy that expands freedom and democracy throughout the world. Simply put France has become very dangerous, not because it is an adversary of the United States, but because it is an adversary that pretends to be a friend.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Myth of Global Warming

2005-06-28T22:49:00.000-05:00

From Hollywood with its "The Day After Tomorrow" plot line to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's assertion that climate change is the biggest threat to civilization, we constantly hear that global warming is a fact of life. When also hear that Americans, with their gas guzzling SUVs and polluting power plants, are mostly to blame for the increase in the Earth's surface temperature over the last 50 or so years. But these dire warnings ignore simple scientific facts, for there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.

Human induced global warming is simply a myth, pure and simple. Supporters of the global warming hypothesis contend that the carbon dioxide automobiles and power plants emit when they consume fossil fuels enters the atmosphere and prevents solar energy from escaping into space once it is reflected off the Earth's surface. This, in turn, warms the planet and will eventually result in the melting of the polar ice caps, a significant rise in sea levels, and catastrophic weather around the globe. The global-warming hypothesis makes sense on the surface and global warming supporters point to the rise in global temperatures over the past few decades as their primary evidence in support of their claim. However, scientists have been able to test the hypothesis carefully, and it does not hold up to scrutiny. During the past 50 years scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur. The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range and is affected by many factors including, most significantly, solar activity.

During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average and many scientists explain this increase in temperature, especially in the last 50 years, to an increase in solar activity on the Sun's surface. However, green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First use their money and public platform persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner.

These groups have been very successful in getting their views on the environment widely accepted in the western world. They contend that humans are solely responsible for global warming. However, nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted in 1994, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tons of sulphur dioxide. That is almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States emit in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tons. One-hundred million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have even concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't affect climate at all.

However, these facts haven't stopped environmentalists and political leaders from around the world declaring that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are the single biggest threat to mankind today. Why such hyperbole? Why do influential people push so hard for counterproductive environmental regulations that decrease economic growth and costs jobs? The simple explanation is that environmentalism is a backdoor way to implement socialism around the globe. More stringent environmental rules mean more government bureaucrats, bigger government, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

The crown jewel of the global warming movement today is the Kyoto Treaty. It commits industrialized nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. Drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the agreement needs to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world's carbon emissions in 1990 to come into force. The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President Bush announced that the United States would never sign it. Al Gore's (yes that Al Gore - remember him?) top climate adviser, Tom Wigley, estimated that Kyoto, if fully implemented, would avert just 0.07 Celsius of a degree of warming by 2050.

So how much will implementing the Kyoto Treaty here in the United States cost? One can't be sure but follow this link to find out how much Kyoto has already cost other nations in the world : (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm)

You make the determination on whether the billions of dollars of costs are worth the "benefits" of marginally decreasing the Earth's temperature.

In addition, follow this link for some visual graphs and charts to further illustrate the myth of global warming: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Blair.htm

As a professor of political science at Berkeley, has quipped, "global warming" is the mother of all environmental scares. Global warming is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit and the left, with its unending quest to regulate the economy and increase the size of government, has seized on the global warming scare to convince us that we must address this issue now or face dire consequences. If only the facts backed this claim up.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The Judiciary and The Filibuster

2005-04-30T22:46:00.000-05:00

Much of the political news of late has centered around Democrats in the Senate "filibustering" President Bush's judicial nominations to the federal courts. A filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. In essence, a minority of senators can prevent a vote on the Senate floor by refusing to stop talking about the issue, bill, or nomination in question. Historically, the filibuster has been used very sparingly. It was famously used by Southern Democratic Senators to stop or stall civil rights legislation passed in the 1950s and 1960s. Never in the history of the Senate has a judge that has the support of a 51 vote majority of senators been denied an up or down vote. However, we currently have many Democrats in the United States Senate using the filibuster on a regular basis. They are preventing votes on ten judges that have been nominated by President Bush to be on Federal Circuit Courts around the country. Some nominees have been waiting up to two years to get a simple "yeah" or "nay" vote on the Senate floor. Since the Republicans hold a 55-seat majority in the Senate, the Democrats know that all of these nominees will get confirmed by at least a 51 vote majority, so in order to prevent these judges from getting confirmed they must resort to an unprecedented use of the filibuster.

Which brings us to what the media is calling the "nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is the Republican solution to ending the filibuster of judicial nominations. In essence, the Republicans, with a simple 51 majority vote can change the Senate rules to prevent the filibustering of judicial nominations. First off, let me object to the term used by most of the press. The "nuclear option" implies radical or significant change. In reality, this should be called the "constitutional option." As we all know from paying close attention in Mr. Studer's government class the Senate has an advise and consent power. That is, the president nominates someone to fill a government post, in this case a judge, and the Senate debates the nomination (advise) and votes on whether that person should be confirmed (consent). So really what the press is describing as "the nuclear option" is just a way to ensure that a simple vote is allowed to occur and that, ultimately, the majority decides. Is that radical? Is that extreme? Certainly not.

You may be asking yourself why liberals are expending so much time and effort filibustering judicial nominations that are not even for the Supreme Court. Why do they really care that much about ten judges that most people have never heard of and most people never will? The answer is that the court system is the most important branch of government for liberals today. Again, as we all know from Mr. Studer's class, the United States federal government is made up of three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Liberals are basically out of power in two of the three branches. Elections in the past several years have given control of the White House, U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives to Republicans and so in order to enact any part of their agenda Democrats must resort to the courts.

Liberals have often turned to the courts to impose there agenda when they cannot get elected legislatures and presidents to go along. Conservatives have always pointed to the Roe vs. Wade decision, which upheld a woman's right to have an abortion, as a perfect example of how liberals, who could not get elected members of Congress or any president to pass such legislation, were able to get the courts to impose their belief system on the whole of America.

A more recent example of how the left used an activist court to create law is found by looking at the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision, in November of 2003, to allow gay marriages. The court said that the Massachusetts state constitution (written in the late eighteenth century by the way) somehow guaranteed the right of gay couples to marry. No vote was taken, it was not debated in the Massachusetts state capitol, and the elected representatives of the people of Massachusetts did not decide the issue. The court simply said that gay marriages have to be allowed. Period.

I hate to keep coming back to Mr. Studer's government class, but again knowledge of the basic structure of our government is essential to understanding this issue. As I already mentioned, our political system divides power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is the role of the legislature to make laws, the executive to provide for their implementation and enforcement and the judiciary to interpret (not make) the law. Constitutionally, judges cannot overturn laws they disagree with on policy grounds and replace them with something closer to their own views; to do so would be to overstep the legitimate powers of the judiciary and usurp those properly belonging to the legislature. Yet this is precisely what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did. A majority of judges made their ruling on the basis of their own personal opinions, substituting their policy preferences for the rule of law. Courts are not tasked with deciding the merits of political arguments, but instead are charged with interpreting and upholding laws they did not themselves make.

This is why the fight over judges is so crucial. Liberals need judges that will overturn laws they disagree with and impose their own beliefs on the rest of us. President Bush's filibustered nominees are strict constitutionalists and will not put their personal policy preferences above the law. Liberalism's agenda for America, abortion on demand, the legalization of gay marriage, higher taxes, and more government involvement in our lives, in general, cannot be implemented via the ballot box. There are simply not enough elected government representatives that will support liberalism's agenda, and as a result, the left is becoming more and more dependent on the judiciary to institute policy that cannot and will not be approved by a majority of Americans.

The filibustering of President Bush's nominations to the federal judiciary must stop and so it is time for the Republican leadership to exercise the "constitutional option." These good judges will fairly interpret the law, not create it. The left keeps losing elections, but can and will use sympathic judges to make us a more "progressive" country. That is why this fight is so important.

If you are interested, here are some informative links with additional background:

http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/confirmations/

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050414-090344-7389r.htm

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/news_lz1e11rappapo.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/118bpwmh.asp

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0420/p01s02-uspo.html

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

The United Nations, Moral Equivalency, and the Oil-for-Food Scandal

2005-02-13T22:43:00.000-06:00

First off let me put all my cards on the table. I'm not a fan of the United Nations. I, and most conservatives in America, believe the international organization is biased against Israel, is run by incompetents, is a inefficient bureaucracy, and is anti-American at its core. I believe that the people that run the U.N. are more interested in talking about helping the world than actually working to make the world better. To support my contention I present two very troubling examples of how the United Nations is counterproductive in the on-going effort to improve the lives of people around the globe.

The United Nations is great at moral equivalency, and a prime example of this is the United Nation's Council on Human Rights. Here is the mission statement of the Council taken off of the UN's website; The.. "Commission on Human Rights procedures and mechanisms are mandated to examine, monitor and publicly report either on human rights situations in specific countries or territories." In other words it is supposed to examine and report on human rights abuses from around the globe. However, a quick look at the members of the Council is extremely revealing. In 2004 Communist China, where political dissidents are routinely jailed without a trail, Saudi Arabia, where Christianity is outlawed, and Zimbabwe, where blacks murder land-owning whites at the behest of the its dictator and whose government uses food as a political weapon, were all members. Even more astonishing is that in 2003 Libya, run by the dictator Momar Kadafi, chaired the Council. Do you think the Council actually helped to spread human rights around the world with these members? This is just one example of how the U.N. is good at talking a good game, but when it comes down to actually pressuring countries to respect human rights it would rather give that country a seat on the Council of Human Rights than bother with actually making a real difference. (See this for more)

All this makes the recent revelations about the oil-for-food scandal unsurprising. Nonetheless, it is important to understand what happened in order to show that the U.N. is a corrupt organization that eagerly helped a brutal dictator in order to turn a profit; all at the expense of the Iraqi people. Now since the oil-for-food scandal is a little tricky to understand I'm going to try to touch the high points in a few sentences. However, keep in mind that this was a complex scheme involving many layers of bureaucracy and a massive attempt to conceal what was really going on.

After the 1991 Gulf War a program was conceived to allow Iraq's vast oil wealth help improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. In essence, the Saddam Hussein's Iraq would sell oil on the open market and that money would be put directly into a fund. Money from that fund would then be used to buy food, clothing, and medicine for the Iraqi people. In theory this was a great idea to help alleviate the suffering of Iraq. America, which came up with the idea in the first place (of course), wanted to administer the program but the international community led by left-wing politicians in Western Europe insisted that the United Nations should control the operation since it would be viewed as having more "international authority." The program was then instituted and Saddam, while under United Nations sanctions, was allowed to sell a portion of his oil for food and medicine for the Iraqi people as a humanitarian gesture.

Instead, Hussein gave out vouchers as kickbacks to businessmen and government officials across the Middle East and Europe, including members of the Russian Parliament and a former Interior Minister of France. Saddam's dictatorship was able to siphon off an estimated $10 to $20 billion from the program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, by demanding illegal payments from companies buying Iraqi oil, and through kickbacks from those selling goods to Iraq--all under the noses of U.N. bureaucrats. What is even more troubling is that many high ranking U.N. officials, including the Secretary General Kofi Annan, are suspected of personally profiting from the scam. For a more in depth explanation see this. For other background information and opinions on the oil-for-food scandal I recommend these articles:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/459pqvob.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004801

This oil-for-food episode further supports the contention of conservatives like myself that the United Nations is does not hold the moral high ground when it comes to determining the fate of the human race. In essence, the U.N. is an organization out to enrich itself at the expense of others, while claiming it knows what is best for the world. The United States has been by far the largest financial contributor to the U.N. even since its creation in 1945, and as Americans we need to rethink our support of an organization that is not effective and even works to undermine American influence and power worldwide. We need to also keep in mind the membership of the Council on Human Rights and the oil-for-food scandal the next time the United Nations portrays itself as the moral arbiter of the world.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

"If You Voted For Bush, You're An Idiot"

2005-01-15T22:42:00.000-06:00

The left has always characterized Republicans and Republican presidents as morons, especially conservatives like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But the left keeps losing elections to these idiots, so how stupid can Republicans really be? The left and the Democratic party will have a hard time coming back into power unless they admit the exceptionalism of America. It should not be debatable that America has freed and promoted democracy for millions of people, has allowed people of all races and ethnicities to prosper, has raised the standard of living for everyone around the globe, and is the single greatest force for good on the planet. But the left and the Democratic party in general simply does not believe that is true. They simply don't like America and want to see it fail. Disagree? Then do you think Michael Moore likes America? He obviously doesn't and yet he was invited to the Democratic National Convention, was greeted as a rock star, and sat next to a former Democratic president of the United States, Jimmy Carter. He was embraced by the Democratic party, not shunned.

After a decade of losing elections to the Republican party, the left and the Democratic party are at a cross-roads and it seems they have decided to do the intelligent and sophisticated thing: they're going to name-call. Instead of re-examining their political positions or trying to convince Americans that they have better ideas, they call the 60 million people who voted for Bush uninformed, stupid, or just plain mean. Some examples:

Jane Smiley: Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue: The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

"Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence."

Brian Reade in the Mirror, a British newspaper, calls Bush voters:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14832124%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=god%2dhelp%2damerica-name_page.html

"the frightened and clueless...self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks...who hijack the word patriot and liken compassion to child-molesting."

Liberal hate speech has become prominent, even cool, in liberal circles. Former Vice President Al Gore referred to GOP activists as "brown shirts." Newsday columnist Hugh Pearson likened the Republican National Convention to the "Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolph Hitler." Linda Ronstadt said that the Republican victory on Election Day meant "we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Chuck Turner, a Boston city councilor, smeared National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as "a tool of white leaders," like "a Jewish person working for Hitler." Chevy Chase, hosting a People for the American Way awards slammed Bush as "an uneducated, real, lying schmuck." A cartoon by the syndicated Ted Rall described Pat Tillman, who gave up his NFL career to enlist in the Army and was then killed in Afghanistan, as a "sap" and an "idiot." A political flier in Tennessee, depicting Bush as a mentally disabled sprinter, bore the message: "Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." The St. Petersburg, Fla., Democratic Club took out an ad calling for the death of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, `We have our good days and our bad days,' " the ad read. "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, `This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."

I could give you 100 more examples of leftist hate speech, but on a higher level (if that's possible) their message is simple: we lost, but we only lost because Bush voters are too stupid to vote for Democrats. But I won't waste your time because there is something more important at issue here and that is the inability of Democrats to convert people to their cause.

You might be surprised to know that I encourage these rants. I think they are good because they show how little the left and the Democratic party in America have left to say. They aren't trying to persuade people with their ideas, they don't engage the American people in a dialogue to bring them over to their side: they just insult the people that they disagree with. But why is this? Why do Democrats insult the people that they need to win elections?

For one thing, it is hard to make the case to Americans that they should have more abortions, endorse gay marriage, let the government confiscate 50% of their earnings, or claim that United Nations is the best hope for freedom and democracy around the world. But more importantly the insults show that the American left is losing to conservatives in the marketplace of ideas. The Democratic party has been reduced to name calling, while conservatives have a solution to the problems facing America. Whether it's Social Security or the war on terrorism the Republican party has a proposal. You personally may not agree with the solution, but conservatives have more to say on the matter other than hurling insults. Social Security going bankrupt? Let younger workers have their own private accounts. Islamic terrorists threatening to destroy America? Take the fight to them in the Middle East. Democrats on the other hand have become the do-nothing party. Social Security going bankrupt? Don't change a thing. Islamic terrorists threatening to destroy America? Pay no mind. It is a sad state of affairs when, on most issues, one political party's response to the other after hearing their proposals is "You're an idiot."

The liberal media is at a loss for real worlds to describe the reasons for the outcome of the 2004 elections. The bastion of the liberal media, The New York Times, has turned to its writers to articulate that the election results diminish the greatness of America. Some examples; Garry Wills: “We now resemble [Europe] less than we do our putative enemies . . . al Qaeda [and] Saddam Hussein’s Sunni loyalists.” Thomas Friedman: The Bush people “have used . . . religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad.” Maureen Dowd: “jihad in America. . . . One party controls all power. . . . One nation dominates the world.”

In academia liberals are also trying to find reasons to why liberalism lost in 2004. George Lakoff, a linguistics professors from the University of California at Berkley, says that "conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there." In other words it is the language that conservatives use that allow them to be elected, not the positions that they hold that allow then to succeed in politics. This is amazing and is just another example of how little respect liberals have for the intelligence of the ordinary American. They refuse to believe that Americans are not liberals. They think that Americans vote for Republicans because they are being tricked by provocative language and are too stupid to realize it.

I am encouraged by the election results but I am even more encouraged by the reaction of "progressive America" to said results. That is why when I hear Hollywood or a college professor insult conservatism or America, I laugh; because I know that they have nothing better to say.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: Bullish on Bush

2005-01-02T17:00:00.000-06:00

How George W. Bush’s Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger

By: Stephen Moore – President, The Club for Growth

George W. Bush’s second term has many economic conservatives salivating. The prospect of real Social Security and tax reform that has eluded conservatives in the past is now feasible with the re-election of President Bush and Republican gains in the House and Senate. In Bullish on Bush, the President of the Club for Growth, Stephen Moore, provides a comprehensive analysis of what George W. Bush has described as the American ownership society. Moore outlines and explains what the pillars of this ownership society would be, for example private Social Security accounts and a flatter income tax, and how Congress can successfully turn America into a true ownership society. Moore also gives the reader easy to understand explanations of supply-side economics and uses a variety of charts and grafts to emphasize his points.

The first half of his book analyzes George W. Bush’s three tax cuts in his first term. He takes the reader through a step-by-step analysis of the effects the tax cuts have had on the American economy. For instance, Moore presents the dividend tax cut as the “jewel of Bush’s tax program” and uses charts and graphs to prove what all supply-sider economic believers already know: that when you tax more of something, you get less of it; and when you tax something less you get more of it. By lowering the effective tax on dividends Bush enticed companies to pay more cash dividends to their shareholders. In 2003 cash dividend payments to shareholders increased by $40 billion over 2002 payments, and 2004 dividend payments rose by about $80 billion over 2002 levels. Moore also makes clear that all of these tax cuts have lead to increased tax revenues for the federal government, proving once again the effectiveness of supply-side economics.

Moore then goes on to detail the massive problems our Social Security system will soon face and presents private social security accounts as the long term solution to massive Social Security deficits. Moore, while supporting Bush’s tax policy, takes the President and congressional Republicans to task (and rightfully so) for massive spending increases on their watch. Citing the 2002 farm bill that increased farm subsidies by billions of dollars and the budget busting Medicare prescription drug bill as examples of Republicans abandoning their small government principles, Moore warns that unless the federal spending is brought under control America will drown in a sea of entitlement spending.

The final chapter of Bullish on Bush is full of optimism about the future of the world. Moore points out that around the world totalitarian governments are falling, political freedom is expanding and “the free market is winning out over central planning.” He is also encouraged that a re-elected President Bush may finally start to turn American into an ownership society. Moore and most conservatives concede that the ownership society agenda for George W. Bush’s second term is audacious and even revolutionary, but if Bush’s pro-growth reforms are enacted, Moore believes that these policies will have a greater and longer lasting impact than the New Deal reforms of FDR. After half a century of economic liberalism, George W. Bush and the Republican Party may finally answer the prayers of economic conservatives like Moore by giving all Americans a chance to own their own piece of America.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Free Trade

2004-12-19T22:41:00.000-06:00

An issue that has traditionally flown "under the radar" of most Americans is the trade policy of the United States. Our trade policy in America and the trade policies of foreign governments have an enormous effect on the worldwide economy. In addition, this issue is one of the few that divides both political parties in America. There are both free and anti-trade Republicans and Democrats, but the political constituency group that most adamantly opposes free trade, unions, is clearly allied with the Democratic party in America.

This issue, on the surface, is actually very simple. Should the American government interfere with the free flow of goods and services in and out of the United States through tariffs and domestic subsidies of certain industries? The anti-trade forces contend that American companies are "outsourcing" jobs overseas where labor is cheaper and so the federal government should punish these companies, impose tariffs on imported goods shipped from overseas, and subsidize industries that are losing jobs. But if this is such a problem, then why is the unemployment rate in America at a historical low of 5.4%? And why, as America continues to lower trade barriers, does the economy continue to grow and create more jobs for Americans? These questions remain unanswered by the anti-trade forces, but there is a bigger issue here.

Free trade is good for America, and for a very simple reason: It allows American workers to specialize in goods and services that they produce more efficiently than the rest of the world and then to exchange them for goods and services that other countries produce at higher quality and lower cost. Take the car manufacturing industry. Before the 1980s General Motors, Ford, and other American manufacturers had an 80 to 90 percent market share of the American car market as the vast majority of Americans bought their cars from American manufacturers. But in the 1980s Japanese car manufacturers started to offer higher quality cars at lower prices. When Americans started to buy the foreign imports, GM and Ford called on Congress to intervene. In some ways they did, but in general the importation of Japanese cars continued. As a result, the American car manufacturers realized that they would have to compete in the free market and had to improve their own cars and offer them for a lower price. The beneficiaries of all of this were of course the American people since better cars started to become available at lower prices. In addition, the foreign car manufacturers, buoyed by their success in America, have over the past 20 years built dozens of factories in America, employing tens of thousands of Americans. So not only did foreign manufacturers lower the price of buying a car, but they created more jobs for America.

A few months back, the Wall Street Journal reported on a situation that highlights the pitfalls of protectionism instead of free trade. The sugar industry is a highly protected industry in America. The federal government imposes extremely high tariffs on imported sugar and this has the obvious consequence of making sugar cost much more in America than it should in a true free market. But it also has another consequence that protectionist anti-traders rarely talk about. It forces many companies that buy sugar to use in the production of their own products to move overseas. In Ohio a candy manufacturing factory employing hundreds of workers shut down and moved overseas. Why? Because in America it was costing them sometimes 50% more to buy their number one ingredient, sugar, than if they were able buy it on the open market. So they just packed up and left. This is just a small example of the counterproductive nature of tariffs and subsidies. They simply shift the burden from industries that are politically connected to those that are not and in the process stymie economic growth. If the government would have eliminated the special protection it affords to the sugar industry, the candy manufacturer would not only have stayed in America, but it would have been profitable and able to expand its business.

The outcries over "outsourcing" are disingenuous because they are initiated by the few politically connected industries and organized labor groups that stand to lose the most from free trade, while the vast majority of Americans stand to gain higher quality and cheaper goods and services. The lower price of foreign goods or services allows Americans to, say, buy more TVs at Best Buy or save for their kids college education, or improve their house. In essence, free trade improves our own standard of living. It encourages labor force specialization and the exchange of goods and services that other countries do better and at lower cost. Specialization leads to competition and innovation, providing new technologies that allow Americans to produce more goods and services, cure more diseases, pollute less, get better education, and choose from a wider range of investment options. As the economy grows, people enjoy higher standards of living and gain a greater appreciation of the benefits of living in a peaceful society.

In the free trade debate, it is important to keep in mind that while some jobs may get outsourced to other countries, the lower costs realized by the outsourcing companies are used to re-invest in America, and in the long-run, create more and higher paying jobs for Americans while providing consumers with better, cheaper products. Free trade capitalism has produced trillions of dollars of wealth for American citizens over the history of our country and is one of the main reasons that we are the most powerful nation on earth. Don't let the protectionists tell you otherwise.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: Final Days

2004-11-23T17:11:00.000-06:00

The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House

By: Barbara Olsen

Who wants to go back to the Clinton years? Conservatives certainly don’t, and with the re-election of President Bush, it doesn’t appear that we will be going back anytime soon. However, the corruption of the Clinton White House should always be remembered, if for no other reason than to remind America how far some Democrats will go to retain power. The late Barbara Olsen, who died on a hijacked airplane in the 9/11 attacks, outlines the abuses of authority Bill and Hillary Clinton committed toward the end of their co-presidency in The Final Days. Olsen methodically presents facts that expose the actions of the Clintons as questionable at best and criminal at worst. While she can’t help but provide some pithy personal comments throughout, The Final Days is essentially a straightforward, if damning, indictment of Bill and Hillary’s last days in the Oval Office.

In the last few months of his presidency, Bill Clinton used executive orders to dole out favors to organized labor, environmentalists, and virtually all the other constituencies of the Democratic Party. He bypassed Congress and created dozens of national monuments, federalized millions of acres of land, committed the United States to several major international treaties, and added thousands of new government regulations.

After observing the actions of Bill Clinton in his last year as president, Olsen concludes that President Clinton used his presidential power to pardon criminals with the right Democratic connections and even to ensure that Hillary would become the next United States Senator from New York. In 1999 Bill Clinton pardoned several members of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nancional (FALN), a Marxist terrorist group from Puerto Rico. The decision was popular with Puerto Ricans in America, many of who happened to live in New York State. No matter that the families of the victims were not consulted and that the Justice Department, the FBI Director, and the U.S. attorney’s offices in Illinois and Connecticut opposed their release. All that mattered was that Hillary Clinton got votes.

By far the most outrageous abuse of his presidential power was Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, the man who committed the largest tax fraud in the history of the United States. How did one of America’s most wanted fugitives manage to secure a pardon from the President of the United States without Justice Department approval? Olsen, after studying the Clintons for years, concludes that if one simply looks at the political history of the Clintons, the answer is obvious: money and influence. Denise Rich, the former wife of Marc Rich, had both. After her divorce from Marc Rich, Denise used her money to establish connections in Democratic circles. She gave at least $1.5 million to causes related to the Clintons alone. As Bill Clinton’s presidency wound down she collected by securing Marc Rich a pardon from the United States government.

In his final days as the leader of the free world, there is no doubt that President Clinton abdicated his responsibilities of being a president for all the American people. He chose to give out favors to his political allies instead of making decisions based on what was best for the country and America became a lesser nation for it. The late Barbara Olsen’s The Final Days will help us all remember that forever.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Taxes

2004-11-13T22:39:00.000-06:00

Taxes are always at the center of the domestic policy debate in the United States and for good reason. People don't particularly like being forced to give large portions of their hard earned dollars to the government, especially if their money is wasted on bureaucratic red tape and programs that don't work.

The Democrats, as it pertains to tax policy, are class warriors. They think that if you have achieved wealth that you are somehow lucky and that you "owe" the country more in taxes because of your good fortune. During any tax policy debate, they will insist that the "rich don't pay enough in taxes." John Kerry, on every campaign stop, called for more taxes on the people that make over $200,000 per year. I have attached an excel file that shows who paid what in taxes through the year 2001. The information has been compiled by the IRS, so it is save to say that it is non-partisan. The most interesting line in the file is the last one, line 161. In 2001 the top fifty percent of taxpayers paid 96.03% of all federal income taxes and the much maligned rich, the top 5%, paid a whopping 53.25% of all federal income taxes. So essentially the bottom 50% of income earners in America pay no federal taxes! They do however, receive all the benefits that the federal government provides; national security, health care services, building of interstate highways, etc for free. The rich, the top 5% percent of income earners, paid HALF of all federal income taxes. Is this fair? Is this even American? That is for you to decide, but I believe that the rich are taxed enough. They are paying more than their fair share and asking them to pay more just reduces the incentive for someone to work hard enough to become rich. Ask yourself how hard you would work if more than 50% of your paycheck was immediately seized by the federal government.

Kerry also insisted, unabashedly, that he would champion new tax cuts for the middle class. Never mind that the Democratic party hasn't cut the tax rates in America since the days of John Kennedy in the 1960s. Never mind that Senator Kerry himself voted hundreds of times to increase Social Security taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, and basically any other tax that exists. Never mind that George W. Bush actually cut taxes on the middle class through rate reductions and the expansion of the child tax credit. John Kerry still insisted that the Democrats, not the Republicans would cut your taxes. The simple fact of the matter is that national Democrats are simply not credible on tax policy and that is one of the major reasons they lost across the board on November 2nd. It is real easy to say that you will cut taxes, actually supporting tax cuts and helping them pass Congress is another matter. Campaign rhetoric tells people who you want them to think you are, while how you vote tells people what you really believe.

When Democrats and liberals are in control of the government they want more tax revenue to make the government bigger and bigger, but they want you to pay the taxes to fund it, not them. Exhibit A of this hypocrisy is Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of John Kerry. This woman inherited hundreds of millions of dollars. She didn't earn it, she didn't work for it, she just inherited it after the passing of her husband. Her newly released tax returns are quite revealing. While the actual amount of money that Teresa Heinz Kerry earned in 2003 is a mystery, there is no doubt that was in the millions of dollars. What we do know is that her effective tax rate was 12% because she used a series of tax avoidance strategies to pay less in taxes. Next time you see your paycheck calculate the percentage of your money that goes to the federal government in federal taxes. Most likely you pay more than 12% of your money to the federal government. So Teresa Heinz Kerry, who didn't work for her hundreds of millions, is paying a smaller percentage in taxes than you and me. Yet she and her husband champion a larger and more expansive government which costs you and me more and more in taxes. So keep that in mind the next time you hear a rich liberal call for another government program.

Conservatives on the other hand want government to be smaller. We believe that you know what is best for you. Instead of taking your money and running it through Washington D.C., we want you to keep more of your money. Then you can decide if you need more health insurance or if you should start saving for a house, of if you want to just blow it on Twinkies and beer. It's your money, you should decide how to spend it. Liberals on the other hand don't think you are smart enough to manage your own affairs. That is essentially what the debate over taxes is about. Do you want to keep your own money and decide how to spend it or do you want some politician in Washington D.C. or a state capital deciding how your money is spent?

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

2004-10-24T22:37:00.000-05:00

The number one campaign issue in the presidential campaign is Iraq and the war on terrorism. The key difference between the political parties and liberals and conservatives today is whether the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror or whether they are two separate issues.

Liberals in this country claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a direct supporter of Al Qaeda and therefore President Bush's decision to go into Iraq was a distraction at best. They think that since only Al Qaeda attacked us that we should only attack Al Qaeda. Now I, and many other conservatives, think that Iraq was connected to and supported Al Qaeda (read this, to learn about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda and if you are more interested, read this book). However, that is not central to the position of many conservatives about terrorism. Conservatives think that we must fight all terrorism, no matter what form it comes in and that not only do we have to confront terrorists groups with force, but we must also use military force against state sponsors of terrorism. These two positions tell you all you need to know about the differences between the political parties when it comes to terrorism.

Before engaging going further in this debate some definitions are in order. A terrorist is, by definition, someone who employs violence as a political weapon. By this definition, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist himself, at least as it applies to the treatment of his own countrymen. It is unchallenged that he used chemical weapons to gas the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq, continuously used his secret police forces to spy, torture, and kill Iraqis that did not adhere to his political power, and, unprovoked, invaded Kuwait. These are the actions of someone who uses terror to advance political goals.

Furthermore, Iraq had continuously defied the United Nations, by refusing to come clean on its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq ignored or flaunted no less than 18 United Nations security council resolutions and still that international body refused to do anything about it. So Bush was faced with a choice. He could have continued on same path that President Clinton rode, by continuing to attempt to contain Iraq through sanctions and UN resolutions. However, he chose to start enforcing the UN resolutions. His thinking was that what good are resolutions if you don't enforce them and can we take the chance, after September 11th, that Saddam, who used chemical weapons on his own people, would not be a threat to the American people? So after Resolution 1441 was passed (you can read the resolution here) and Saddam ignored it, President Bush decided to use force to remove him.

The reaction from the worldwide political left, and the media, was astonishing to me. They flat out opposed liberating over 20 million people from a brutal dictator who had used terror and chemical weapons on his own people, who invaded Kuwait, and who ignored the Untied Nations, their crown jewel of international organizations, for years. Why was that? I don't know exactly, but I'm sure that the left's continuous hesitance to use force and the fact the Saddam was paying off high ranking UN, French, and Russian officials through the oil-for-food program (more information found here, here, and here) were major reasons. After the debate over the past three years on Iraq and terrorism I have come to the conclusion that liberals and the majority of the Democratic party here in America simply do not want to confront the threats of today's world.

Everyone in America knows George Bush's policy on terrorism: kill or capture them if you can and confront, with military force, state sponsors of terrorism. Can anyone tell me John Kerry's position on Iraq and the war on terrorism? He voted for the authorization to go to war, but now says that it was the wrong war at the wrong time. He voted to fund the cost of the Iraq war before he voted against it. Eight years ago he was against the death penalty for terrorists, now he is for it. He has voted to cut or eliminate dozens of weapons systems that are now fighting the war on terrorism. I could go on and on. Can you trust someone that simply can't make up his mind about how to best protect the American people?

It's simple. If you are a liberal you want to figure out why these terrorists hate us, but don't want to use any force against them. If you are a conservative you want to kill the terrorists first and then figure out why they hated us.

On a side note, you might have seen Michael Moore debate Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor. Obviously, I disagree with Michael Moore on almost everything, but I particularly take issue with his argument on The O'Reilly Factor that everyone who supports the war in Iraq, and isn't there himself, is a hypocrite. Everyone in our Armed Forces is a volunteer. No one, especially not President Bush, ordered them into the military. They are there because they want to serve their country, not because someone forced them to serve in Iraq. I think that is very important to keep that in mind during this debate.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Book Review: Raid on the Sun

2004-10-08T17:08:00.000-05:00

By: Rodger W. Claire

On June 7, 1981 eight highly trained Israeli pilots flew American-made F-16 fighter planes into the heart of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and successfully destroyed Osirak, that country’s nuclear reactor. The details of the mission, which set the Iraqi nuclear weapons program back decades, remained highly classified by the Israeli government. Even the names of the pilots were kept secret for fear that Iraqi assassination squads would target them or their families. However, in 2001 and 2002 journalist Rodger W. Claire became the first person ever allowed to see the classified Israeli documents that detail the raid and interview the pilots who executed it. In Raid on the Sun Claire recounts the recruitment of the pilots, the months of preparation and training, and, finally a detailed description of the bombing run itself through the eyes of the pilots, all the while outlining the political and military factors the Israeli government dealt with in the run-up to the raid.

Throughout his tale Claire documents the political infighting in Prime Minister Menachem Began’s cabinet and the tensions between the pilots as mission training and planning occurred. Raid on the Sun also gives an hour-by-hour account of the actual raid. From takeoff the pilots were in grave danger. Not only did they have to hope they would avoid radar and fighter patrols, but they had to deal with an incredible amount of anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missiles during their bombing run.

The book also provides insight into Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions though second-hand accounts of Iraqi scientists that defected to the West. Saddam offered extremely lucrative oil contracts to the French government in exchange for the Osirak nuclear reactor, and did everything in his power, from threatening the Iraqi scientists to deceiving the international community, to make his nuclear dream become a reality.

Perhaps the most interesting chapter of the book, especially for the modern day politico, is the epilogue. It briefly recounts the world’s reaction to the raid and the raid’ long term consequences. However, Claire seems more interested in the objective detailing of facts rather than addressing the relatively subjective subject of politics. For someone interested in the history and facts of the recently top-secret mission, this book will not disappoint. On the other hand, if you looking for insight into the short-term and long-term political considerations and effects of the raid, this volume is lacking.

Claire also considers that many regard the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor as the precursor to America’s modern day preemptive strike strategy. In fact, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle holds the raid as the prototypical example of a first-strike defensive action that should be used by America to prevent nuclear weapons from being acquired by rogue states.

Despite the worldwide condemnation of the raid at the time, there is no doubt that the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor was good for the free world. A short story sums up how many people view the raid today. General David Ivry, the head of the Israeli Air Force during the raid on Osirak, retired in 1998 after a stint as Israeli Ambassador to the United States. After a long and distinguished career he has many mementos, but one postcard-sized photograph holds special meaning. It is a satellite picture of the remains of the Osirak reactor days after the Israeli attack. A handwritten note at the bottom reads “With thanks and appreciation. You made our job easier in Desert Storm.” It is signed “Dick Cheney.”

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Social Security

2004-10-07T22:21:00.000-05:00

This first topic is one that most people will find minded-numbingly boring: Social Security. Yes, if you are bored with politics then you are most definitely bored with how Social Security works and how it affects you. That, is a mistake of the highest caliber because all of us with a job pay Social Security taxes. To see how much you pay in Social Security taxes take a look at your next paycheck. See that line that says "FICA withholding": multiply that number by the number of paychecks you get in a year and you have your yearly Social Security taxes or as they are commonly known; payroll taxes. Yep, that mysterious FICA person is actually the U.S. government taking money away from you, putting it into a "lockbox," and promising you Social Security checks when you retire. The retirement age for Social Security is 65. So when someone hits the age of 65 and decides to retire from work, the government will start sending checks to them. In theory the program would work if throughout the working lives of retirees the government had saved and invested their FICA payments over time. However, the U.S. government has never done that instead choosing to spend that money immediately on other government programs.

In addition, government has promised too many benefits to retirees. Since the government immediately uses the money they get out of your paycheck to pay the benefits of current retirees, they don't put that money away and save it to pay you when you retire. In less than 15 years, Social Security's retirement program will begin to spend more in benefits annually than it receives in taxes and therefore will be broke.

For a more articulate overview of the system see:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm143.cfm

So if the system is going to be broke in 15 years do you think that you will get any Social Security checks when you retire in 35-45+ years? No way. So what is the solution? It's easy, private accounts. Let younger workers, such as ourselves, invest part of our Social Security account in stock market, government bonds, or anything else that will provide at least some return on our money. Some of you might be asking yourself, what about those little old widows that live from Social Security check to Social Security check? Won't your plan leave them without a means to buy food and clothing? That will not happen. Only part of our FICA taxes would be put into a private account. The other part would be used to pay the benefits promised to current retirees. It's a win-win situation. No retirees have their benefits cut and younger workers like ourselves get to keep and save more of our hard earned money so that we can save for our own retirement instead of relying on the government for Social Security checks that will not be available when we retire.

Here a neat tool to put all of this into practice:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/

To see how dramatic your savings could be simply enter your age and gender to calculate what an American worker of your same age and gender could expect to receive from Social Security. By providing additional data, such as ZIP Code, earnings, and other information, you'll be able to generate more, detailed information. I put my New York zip code and my yearly earnings and came back with some amazing results. If the current system remains unchanged over my lifetime I will pay $631,099 into the system. Now that will supposedly come back to me when I retire in the form of monthly checks, but that assumes the system will not go bankrupt by the time I retire and I think I have already made a strong case that Social Security will be bankrupt some time before that. However, if my money had been in a personal retirement account, that account would be worth almost $2 million. The dramatic difference has to do with the rate of return of your money. Payroll taxes earn no interest, but a private social security account would be able to invest in the stock and bond markets and earn a significant rate of return.

As a conservative, I want private social security accounts to become a reality for several reasons. First, since I know that the Social Security system will be bankrupt by the time I reach retirement age, I want a way that I can save for myself at least some of the payroll taxes that will I pay over my lifetime instead of losing it all when the system becomes bankrupt. Second, I know that private social security accounts will allow many Americans to invest in the stock market and increase their wealth exponentially. Finally, the number 1 reason that I favor private social security accounts is that they will allow the average American to become more self-sufficient instead of dependent on the government in their old age. Liberals need people to be dependent on government in order to justify their worldview. Government is never efficient, but liberals need more and more government, and therefore more and more money (through, taxes like the payroll tax) to run all of their proposed programs. Private social security accounts will greatly lessen our dependence on the Social Security system and government and that is a very good thing.

For more information on the fascinating world of social security and plans to reform the system see these sites:
http://www.townhall.com/issues/Issue.aspx?id=8
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy

Why You Are A Conservative

2004-10-07T22:13:00.000-05:00

(this blog is a series of e-mails written by myself dating back to the Bush/Kerry Election. I have recently received an opportunity to put these e-mails online for others - not just the people I send the e-mails to - to read. The following statement is what I have posted at the bottom of each e-mail.)

My reason for doing this is to influence your votes but, more importantly, to influence your outlook on the world. Some of you may disagree with conclusions that I come to and the beliefs that I hold, and I encourage you to challenge me if you so desire. If I can't back up my argument, then I don't deserve to hold any sway over you. Over time I'm sure I will touch on a variety of topics and I will deal not only with the political but also the theoretical. I will try to do this every month, but since the election is coming up I might be able to churn out a couple more emails before November 2. Feel free to forward or distribute this blog to others you think would be interested. I only ask that my positions not be taken out of context or to receive hateful email from others.

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com . Please feel free to contact me if you would like to be added to a list that receives these blogs via e-mail.

~ The Conservative Guy