Saturday, June 28, 2008
Rick Moran and Peter Beinhart have posted excellent commentaries on the distinction of conservative and liberal views on patriotism. While I find much to argue about, Rick is to be congratulated on this post, and Peter as well on his. Taken together they define a sound basis for agreement on the essential love of country, and the needs for veneration of the good in the past, critique of the present, and what our future should entail.
There is the rub, however! The ideals for the future between the conservative and the liberal are poles apart on so many issues—to name one: equal opportunity versus equal outcomes. These two concepts are fundamentally incompatible, resting as they do on reward for enterprise and initiative on the one hand, and economic and social leveling and collectivism on the other. Human nature is not so malleable.
So is it true for security of the nation in this time: treating Islamic terrorism as an external threat to the nation requiring bold action, versus treating terrorism as merely a police matter not causing us to entertain much of any action except after the fact of a terrorist attack!
So is it true for poverty, secularism, morals, and the other issues of abortion, same sex marriage, and certain limits of freedom for the common good.
Thus, the question arises strongly in the minds of conservatives as to the real, true patriotism of those who would take our future into regions of thought, action and situations that we do not understand, and do not believe to be right for America—or for any people.
It is one thing to critique the truly bad situations in the nation, but it another to use those situations as a wedge to realize a political objective such as serious movement of the nation further toward socialism or communism, neither of which any conservative could possibly stand or permit without a fight.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Attack on Iran
The time is short, and the Israelis are warming up.
Few believe the US intelligence report claiming that the Iranians have stopped their bomb preparations. This is especially true of the Israelis, who are in the direct line of attack by Iran. Their exercise last week underlines their capability to launch an an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities on which they have good information. This may not be entirely successful because of the dispersion and secrecy of Iran's installations.
Last year, I was convinced that we would launch an attack this Spring, or at least well before the November elections. Obviously a wrong opinion. I was equally convinced that Israel would attack first, which would force us to join them sooner or later, especially after Iranian counterattacks. This may well be borne out to be so in the not too distant future.
Is it possible that the Israelis are holding off until our election is over, so that they know early in November who will be in the White House after January 20th of 2009? An attack now would possibly throw the election in a uncertain direction, to the disadvantage of the Israelis. They would be in far better shape with McCain in the White House, I believe, and I also believe that the Israelis have a much clearer idea of how much time they have before they are compelled to attack than we do.
Thus, I believe that an Obama win would delay the Israeli attack until they could find out what support they would get from Obama. Any whiffle from Obama would precipitate the attack anyway, since the Isrealis only have their nation to lose if Iraq gets nuclear bombs. The Israelis would then be counting on Iran to attack US targets in retaliation, thus dragging us into the conflict anyway.
What we will have if Obama is elected is not only a total passivistic, neophyte President in war and foreign relations, but we also will have lost the coordination and preparation time with Israel for this new phase of the ME war. This could expose both us and the Israelis to serious losses from Iranian attacks before we contained the threat, or knocked Iran out of the running.
Do we always have to play catch up?
Labels: Iran, Israel, McCain, Nuclear Weapons, Obama
They are Jihadists!
Never mind the State Department! A Jihadist is a Jihadist!
Since by Islamic doctrine, Jihad is the proper name for the war against the Infidel, the proper name for one who fights in this war is a Jihadist. Since all Muslims are obliged to fight against the infidel, then all proper Muslims are Jihadists. If you aren't a Jihadist, then you are not a proper Muslim.
Labels: Islamofascists, Jihadists, Terrorists
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Obama Joke is Confounding!
The latest news from the election has Obama ahead of McCain by 50% to 44%. Are there really that many Snodgrasses in the nation? It is hard to comprehend the lack of simple common sense this demonstrates. It surely confounds the idea that the electorate is wise and correct, if these polls are proper and well-constructed.
Labels: McCain, Muslims, Obama, The Leftwing
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Can an Atheist be a True Conservative?
There are such people, even on the web, that claim to be conservative!
It has been stated by Russell Kirk and others that it isn't a prerequsite to believe in God to be a conservative. One merely has to skip the first item in my post below. To me, this means the individual atheist has created his own morality, and then aligned himself with the majority of conservative thought. Perhaps he has found a moral system to adopt somewhere in the philosophical world, and it just happens to agree with conservatism. Not that the conservative movement rejects these atheists immediately, since the movement needs all of the political support that it can find.
But, there is a gulf in this thought process between the atheist-conservative and the Christian-conservative, at least as I see it, if only because God has gone missing for the atheist. This creates a gap that cannot be breached in serious matters. The atheist does not believe in an after-life, hence his orientation on government legislation and decisions is strictly for here and now--heaven on earth today, as it were.
It is difficult to understand how the atheist would help the Christians to retain their place in the United States, their prayer in schools, their symbols of faith in the public square, such as are on most government buildings in the nation, or their allegiance to the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, founded as they are on the Creator. In fact, it is the atheist ACLU that has been fighting to secularize the nation for the last 30 years, which is a decidedly anti-conservative act if there ever was one.
How is it that one atheist can be ultra-liberal and secular, while another atheist can be, in his own mind, a conservative? The answer must lie in the moral code the atheist adopts, irrespective of religious moral codes. To try one example, the atheist could agree with the practical provisions of the Ten Commandments--thou shalt not: murder, steal, lie, covet, or commit adultery--and pass on the parts that relate to God. He then could go on to adopt the rest of the conservative principles, just passing when God is the subject.
This is where the problem lies! Will he pass, or will he vote with the rest of his brethren, or if in a position of power, will he opt to downgrade the Christian world? This is not evident from any external sign, since he professes perhaps 99% of the conservative dogma., with 1% held in secret for the occasion it is needed. Do we take him, an atheist, at his word in this day of attack on religion? It is not clear to me.
Labels: Atheism. Christianity, Conservatism
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Obama Resigns from Church
Here's a laugh! Obama and his wife have resigned from the Trinity church he was a member of for 20 years. Does anyone believe that this is an honest move?
Labels: Honesty, hypocrisy, Obama