Monday, June 30, 2008

F---ing For Virginity

I read a sign today with what appears to be a common sense form of wisdom. “Bombing for peace is like f---ing for virginity!” At first, this sounds entirely reasonable. Indeed, a bombing run is by definition an act of war, which happens to be the exact opposite of peace. The problem is that, like many truths, the truths of war and peace can be counter-intuitive.

We start with a truth written by an ancient Roman. “Let him who desires peace, prepare for war.” This is much closer to our conservative ideals than the idea of “bombing for peace.” If we are not prepared for war, our enemies will attack us. We are a nation of vast wealth and many resources (even huge amounts of oil which the democrats make sure we can’t use). On top of that, we are a Christian nation, whether we want to be or not. Even if most of us aren’t Christians, we will always be viewed as Christians. This means that our enemies have plenty of material reasons, but even more powerful religious reasons for wiping us out. In addition, we have great influence around the world, which irritates those who already hate us for our religion and wealth. I could go on for a long time, citing reasons that we will have enemies forever, and even demonstrating that adopting Obama’s plan of taking everything up the @$$ won’t pacify them.

What can we do then? We must be powerful. We must be prepared. We must have the most powerful military in the world by far and not depend on allies. (Remember the military maxim; trust an ally weaker than you, but never an ally more powerful than you). We must be prepared to back our words with force. President Bush did exactly that. He tried diplomacy with Saddam Hussein and was patient, but when Hussein mocked us instead of demonstrating that we had no cause for fear, Bush backed his words with force. We had tried for well over a decade to deal with Iraq diplomatically but our failure to back that with force emboldened our enemies. Bush wisely put an end to this by demonstrating that we mean what we say.

War doesn’t produce peace the next day, but backing our words with force will show our enemies that they can’t toy with us like Hussein did. More importantly, it tells our enemies that we will defend ourselves against attack and that it’s not worth the risk to murder our people, like they have countless times, such as on 9/11.

I would contend that one of the main reasons we are not more secure than we are against our enemies is that we keep electing pushover democrats like Bill Clinton or potentially Barak Obama, who wish to make a clear statement to all our enemies that we will not finish what we start, and will pave the way for the Iraqi government to be overthrown by terrorists who can establish another Iran, or who spent almost a decade telling Hussein that we really don’t care whether or not he plans to annihilate us and Israel. We need to counter this by electing a strong man who, while not a lover of war, is not afraid of it. We need a man who is willing to back his words with action to the point that our enemies will take his words seriously. In this upcoming election, who do you think that man is?

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Conservatism and Mental Illness

In almost all ways, I love conservatism and conservative values. In almost anything I love talking with conservatives and discussing with those who are wise, the truths of politics and what our nation needs. However, there is one area in which many conservatives seem to be sorely lacking. The issue is mental illness.

I have far too many members of my family suffering from mental illness, so I have come to be a major advocate in favour of supporting mental health issues and ending the stigma against them. In my efforts to help those suffering from these often genetic diseases, I have met liberals and only liberals. Not once have I met someone even remotely conservative who takes up these issues except for my own parents. Instead I see conservatives say evil things about the mentally ill. Yesterday, I listened to a conservative pundit use “mental illness” as the ultimate intellectual insult to hurl at the liberals. Hearing him speak in such a way made me want to hit the bugger.

How are we so wise in almost everything, but so foolish in this issue? Why do I see so many conservatives treat the mentally ill as subhuman? We are better! If we know the truth about economics, and proper size of government, and tax policy and so many other issues, how can we not know the truth about mental illness?

My friends, the liberals are enslaving the mentally ill to their system just like they do to the poor. The liberals take up the cause of the mentally ill, but royally screw them over just like they do to everyone else. Even issues that are very good to fight for are fought for in entirely the wrong way. Take the issue of parity. Bigotry against the mentally ill means that there is no insurance company out there that will cover mental health as well as physical health. The mentally ill desperately need the same coverage for terribly expensive medical costs. How do we solve the problem? Well the liberals want regulations. They want to shove parity down the industry’s throat. Talk about a good cause fought for in a bad way! We need to give tax breaks to industries that rise above petty anti mental illness bigotry. Encourage them, rather than regulate them. There may be an even better solution. But only we conservatives can find it.

I have a mentally ill conservative friend who refuses to take up the cause of mental health because everyone else in that cause is liberal. We must not give in! We must take this issue from the liberals and do it right! Mental illness is a real issue being very badly handled by liberals and ignored by conservatives. Let us right this wrong.

Gentle Readers, I have great faith in conservatism. I don’t mean to slam our ways, so much as call you to action. The first action is to educate yourselves on mental illness, and I’ll provide a link or two for that. Next we must find solutions to the stigma problem and help the mentally ill to help themselves, rather than enslave them to the government systems like the liberals are doing. I believe in you, my friends. I know we can do this!


NAMI: - look for information about the different mental illnesses
Mental illnesses page:

I’ll post more links later

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

$4,000,000 Signatures?!

Over the last few weeks I have been out an about running my errands. I make a stop at the bank, maybe get a little take out, and pick up a new release from blockbuster.

While making my rounds I have been stopped more than once and asked to sign a petition.

Me being the political junkie that I am, of course I have to know the details of such a petition. So I ask, “For what cause am I supporting by signing such a petition?”

Of course, the usual broad answer is only spat out after a few stumbling words are uttered. You know if they are stumbling terribly they really have no idea what the petition is for, so they begin to make up the cause.

I was told that the petition I would be signing is one that police officers, firefighters, and nurses have all sponsored in order to make sure Congress does not pass a pay raise. So to get this straight, if I signed the petition, I asked, I would be signing in order to stop Congress from raising their salary?

“Oh, yes,” the gentleman responded, without looking me directly in the eyes.

After finding out he had been getting paid a couple bucks per signature and listening to his dumb hollow responses, I realized he was in it for the bling bling and not the cause.

That is only one example over the many occasions over the last couple weeks that I have been asked to sign the same petition. Of course every person I have encountered had a different tale for me. I was even offered a job at one point to help circulate petitions. How absurd!

After doing a little digging and getting a little help from Nick De Leeuw we discovered what the real cause is behind the petition. And know, it has nothing to do with the aforementioned hoax and outright lies from the circulators.

The following dictation is taken from Nick at and the following describes the proposed Constitutional Amendment of which the petition is really for.

· Two (2) seats on the Supreme Court would be eliminated. It targets those with the least seniority, Justices Young and Markman, both Republicans re-elected in recent years by overwhelming margins. They'd lose their jobs as of December 20, 2008.

· All seven (7) Court of Appeals seats up for grabs in 2010 would also be eliminated as of this December, cutting short by two years the terms of previously elected judges. Six of the Court of Appeals judges being targeted are generally considered to be "GOP." The seventh, Helene White, has been nominated by President Bush to take a seat on the federal bench and will be moving on anyways.

· All judges would be subject to a pay cut beginning in 2009 that would reduce compensation to what the position garnered in the year 2000. Judges who took the bench before 1997 have their pensions calculated on their final salary. The paycut, in essence, would force these judges to chose between early retirement and significant long-term financial penalties. One judicial insider who spoke on condition of anonymity claims that in theory up to half the judgeships in the state could suddenly go vacant. While that could create major delays and case back logs it would also provide Jennifer Granholm with the ability, in one sweeping set of action, to appoint half the bench in the State of Michigan.

· The Judicial Tenure Commission would be rebuilt including an affirmative action provision mandating the makeup of reflect the population of the State of Michigan.

· The House of Representatives would be reduced to eighty-two (82) members. The Senate to twenty-eight (28). New district lines would be drawn according to strange provisions requiring "competitive" apportionment. Half would be drawn with a majority Dem base, half with a majority GOP base while four (4) Senate seats and nine (9) House seats would be restricted to a maximum 53% base from either political party.

· A new redistricting commission would be created with four (4) Democrats and four (4) Republicans and a ninth "non-partisan" member serving as chair. The ninth member would be selected by no fewer than six of the other eight members. If an agreement on the ninth cannot be reached each Party would submit a name and then toss a coin.

· The redistricting plans also require six of nine votes for passage. Without the requisite number each Party submits its own redistricting plan for approval of the "non-partisan" chair. The "non-partisan" chair who may actually be a Democrat selected by the flip of a coin. Once this "non-partisan" chair approves plans from each side another coin is tossed deciding district boundaries statewide.

What a scary world we live in when Looney leftists have to lie to get what they want passed. Though, it comes as no surprise.

-Chaz Oswald