About Me

Name: Allen Caeden
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

A question for all of you.

This is a question only for those who have seen the movie "The Godfather". I am curious as to what most people would choose. If you had to choose between working for the mafia leader Don Vito Corleone or Barak Obama whom would you choose? For myself I would choose to work for Don Corleone, but what about all of you?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A new Sarah Palin poll.

This was reported by Reuters, a poll was conducted about which famous person would you like to be your neighbor and Sarah Palin won. Here is the article:
 

Sarah Palin most desirable celebrity neighbor: poll

Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:02pm EST
 
[-] Text [+]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - If they had to live next door to a celebrity, American adults would most like to be neighbors with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and chat show host Oprah Winfrey.

But trouble-prone pop star Britney Spears would be the worst celebrity neighbor, according to a survey published on Tuesday of the most and least desirable well-known faces Americans would have in their backyard.

Republican vice presidential candidate Palin topped the poll of most desirable celebrity neighbors with 14 percent, closely followed by Winfrey, who was particularly popular with women.

Olympic champion swimmer Michael Phelps was heavily favored by men but came in third with 9 percent overall.

Paparazzi-magnets such as Spears, actress Lindsay Lohan and British couple David and Victoria Beckham apparently don't make the best neighbors.

Spears, who was followed day and night by packs of photographers for much of 2008, was voted the least desirable neighbor by 19 percent of adults, followed by Rosie O'Donnell (18 percent), Joe the Plumber (8 percent), who made headlines in the final stages of the U.S. presidential elections, and Lohan (7 percent).

Only two per cent of those asked wanted to live next door to soccer player Beckham and his singer wife Victoria.

The poll was commissioned by real estate Web site Zillow.com between Dec 15-17 with 2,196 Americans aged over 18.

(Reporting by Jill Serjeant, editing by Dan Whitcomb)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Republicans betrayed Reagan

The following quote is from Michael Reagan President Reagan's son on how the Republicans killed the Reagan Revolution. This quote can be found in the current issue of Newsmax. Here is the quote:
 
"The media don't tell you who killed the Reagan Era, so I will. It was the Republican Party that demolished the shining city on a hill my father built. It was the Republican Party that was 100% resposible for the end of the Reagan revolution. They forgot who he was. And having forgotten who he was, they stopped following his path toward smaller, less-intrusive government and restrained government spending. It was the GOP that began to undermine the sturdy foundation my father built."
 
So what is Michael Reagan's answer as to how to get back to a new Ronald Reaga? He wrote who the new Ronald Reagan is in an article, here is what he wrote:
 
Welcome Back, Dad
 
By Michael Reagan

I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.

I was wrong!

Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she.And what a she!

In one blockbuster of a speech, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resurrected my Dad’s indomitable spirit and sent it soaring above the convention center, shooting shock waves through the cynical media’s assigned spaces and electrifying the huge audience with the kind of inspiring rhetoric we haven’t heard since my Dad left the scene.

This was Ronald Reagan at his best -- the same Ronald Reagan who made the address known now solely as “The Speech,” which during the Goldwater campaign set the tone and the agenda for the rebirth of the traditional conservative movement that later sent him to the White House for eight years and revived the moribund GOP.

Last night was an extraordinary event. Widely seen beforehand as a make-or-break effort -- either an opportunity for Sarah Palin to show that she was the happy warrior that John McCain assured us she was, or a disaster that would dash McCain’s presidential hopes and send her back to Alaska, sadder but wiser.

Obviously un-intimidated by either the savage onslaught to which the left-leaning media had subjected her, or the incredible challenge she faced -- and oozing with confidence -- she strode defiantly to the podium and proved she was everything and even more than John McCain told us.

Much has been made of the fact that she is a woman. What we saw last night, however, was something much more than a just a woman accomplishing something no Republican woman has ever achieved. What we saw was a red-blooded American with that rare, God-given ability to rally her dispirited fellow Republicans and take up the daunting task of leading them -- and all her fellow Americans -- on a pilgrimage to that shining city on the hill my father envisioned as our nation’s real destination.

In a few words she managed to rip the mask from the faces of her Democratic rivals and reveal them for what they are -- a pair of old-fashioned liberals making promises that cannot be kept without bankrupting the nation and reducing most Americans to the status of mendicants begging for their daily bread at the feet of an all-powerful government.

Most important, by comparing her own stunning record of achievement with his, she showed Barack Obama for the sham that he is, a man without any solid accomplishments beyond conspicuous self-aggrandizement.

Like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin is one of us. She knows how most of us live because that’s the way she lives. She shares our homespun values and our beliefs, and she glories in her status as a small-town woman who put her shoulder to the wheel and made life better for her neighbors.

Her astonishing rise up from the grass-roots, her total lack of self-importance, and her ordinary American values and modest lifestyle reveal her to be the kind of hard-working, optimistic, ordinary American who made this country the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

As hard as you might try, you won’t find that kind of plain-spoken, down-to-earth, self-reliant American in the upper ranks of the liberal-infested, elitist Democratic Party, or in the Obama campaign.

Sarah Palin didn’t go to Harvard, or fiddle around in urban neighborhood leftist activism while engaging in opportunism within the ranks of one of the nation’s most corrupt political machines, never challenging it and going along to get along, like Barack Obama.

Instead she took on the corrupt establishment in Alaska and beat it, rising to the governorship while bringing reforms to every level of government she served in on her way up the ladder.

Welcome back, Dad, even if you’re wearing a dress and bearing children this time around.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My New Year's resolution is simple

I will never vote for another semi-liberal Neo-Conservative again! If the Republicans do not nominate a Traditionalist Conservative Republican like former President Ronald Reagan, then screw them I'll stay home! No more voting for the lesser of two evils for this conservative.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Townhall & Sarah Palin

There was a recent event which should have caught the attention of Townhall's Blog but did not and I am wondering why? Sarah Palin recently won Human Event's "Conservative of the Year Award" but there was no mention of it. I am also concerned that some talk show hosts seemed to have cast her aside such as Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt. What I also find interesting is that when there is a blog about her the amount of posted comments go through the roof, most of them being positive in nature. This goes to show me that there is a disconect between grassroot conservatives and the establishment. Remember that Michael Medved supported John Mccain from the start and we all know how that worked out! Hugh Hewitt backed Mitt Romney a former very socially liberal governor who flipped on his social stances when he wanted to be president you know how that worked out as well. My friends the conservative grassroots are angry and the republicans can no longer simply nominate semi-conservatives and expect to win. The old game is over.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin and America

This article was taken from CNN of all places. Sarah Palin deeply connects to small town America, which is the heart and soul of American conservativism. The article can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/24/navarrette.palin.smalltown/?iref=mpstoryview but I will paste it here:
 

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- During the presidential election, some Democrats demanded to know how I could defend Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Simply put, Palin is my people. She's small-town folk who wound up in the big leagues.

Because I grew up in a small town with a population of less than 15,000 people, I was disgusted by the insults and condescension coming from those who think of themselves as the enlightened elite. Meanwhile, in small towns, I detected great affection for Palin. People talked about how she was "a real person" who "reflected their values."

The most significant divide in America isn't Red State vs. Blue State, it's rural vs. urban. The country mouse and the city mouse are still slugging it out.

In 1982, New York Mayor Ed Koch ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York. Some say the deciding factor was when Koch described life in upstate New York as "sterile" and said he dreaded living in the "small town" of Albany, if elected. That didn't play well in rural areas.

Now comes Powell. During a recent appearance on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Powell attempted an autopsy on the Republican Party's failed presidential bid. He went after Palin, accusing her of pushing the party so far to the right that it went over a cliff.

"I think [Palin] had something of a polarizing effect when she talked about how small-town values are good," Powell said. "Well, most of us don't live in small towns. And I was raised in the South Bronx, and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx."

You'd think the presidential campaign was about conservatives picking on urbanites. It wasn't. Sure, some Republicans probably made a mistake by using phrases such as "real America" or "real Americans" as a rallying cry for the base. Americans who live in cities might have thought they were being slighted.

But those phrases referred as much to people's politics and values as it did their zip code. I live in a city with a population of more than a million people and I never thought the GOP singled me out as not being a "real American."

If anything, it appeared that big-city liberals were tapping into prejudices about small-town America to belittle the governor of Alaska

After Powell attacked Palin, one of the governor's most vocal defenders, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, returned the favor by attacking Powell.

"What is this hatred for conservatives and small-town people and Sarah Palin?" Limbaugh asked on his radio show. "I know a lot of people that are from the Bronx, Gen. Powell, and if you think the values there in the Bronx today reflect the ones you grew up with, take a trip back and see if the street corners and the activities there are the same as when you were growing up."

Limbaugh got it. When people use phrases such as "small-town values," it's as much about time as it is place. The idea isn't that people who live in small towns have better values than people who live in cities. It's simply an attempt to recall, with nostalgia, what life was like when more Americans lived in small towns.

It used to be that more families ate dinner together and high school students worked summers and after school. It used to be that our schools didn't make excuses for why some kids don't learn because they were too busy trying to teach them.

It used to be that parents weren't interested in being their kids' best friends, only good parents. And it used to be that people pulled their own weight and would never dare ask for a handout.

During a recent interview with the conservative newspaper, Human Events, Palin was asked if she thought her humble background accounted for some of the flak she got from the media. Palin acknowledged that she didn't come from elite stock, but said that she was grateful for that.

"I got my education from the University of Idaho because that's what I could afford," she said. "No, I don't come from the self-proclaimed 'movers and shakers' group and that's fine with me. It's caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pull myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am."

Sarah Palin understands a lot about America. Too bad many Americans don't understand Sarah Palin. No worries. They may get another chance to acquaint themselves with her -- in say, four years.

 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

10 Principles of Traditional Conservatism

The following was taken from the Russell Kirk Center. Russell Kirk is widely accepted to be one of the founding fathers (if not the chief founding father) of Traditional Conservatism. I think it would be good for all Republicans,as we battle to establish what the Republican Party stands for to go back and take a second look at those who founded the conservative movement. It might shock you but conservatism did not begin, with nor shall it end with President Ronald Reagan. Here are the principles:
 
Russell Kirk's 10 Principles:
 

(1) Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human—in divine justice. At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems. The wise statesman tries to apprehend the moral law and govern his conduct accordingly. We have a moral debt to our ancestors, who bestowed upon us our civilization, and a moral obligation to the generations who will come after us. This debt is ordained of God. We have no right, therefore, to tamper impudently with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order.

(2) Variety and diversity are the characteristics of a high civilization. Uniformity and absolute equality are the death of all real vigor and freedom in existence. Conservatives resist with impartial strength the uniformity of a tyrant or an oligarchy, and the uniformity of what Tocqueville called “democratic despotism.”

(3) Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own—to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and their personality. Civilized society requires that all men and women have equal rights before the law, but that equality should not extend to equality of condition: that is, society is a great partnership, in which all have equal rights—but not to equal things. The just society requires sound leadership, different rewards for different abilities, and a sense of respect and duty.

(4) Property and freedom are inseparably connected; economic leveling is not economic progress. Conservatives value property for its own sake, of course; but they value it even more because without it all men and women are at the mercy of an omnipotent government.

(5) Power is full of danger; therefore the good state is one in which power is checked and balanced, restricted by sound constitutions and customs. So far as possible, political power ought to be kept in the hands of private persons and local institutions. Centralization is ordinarily a sign of social decadence.

(6) The past is a great storehouse of wisdom; as Burke said, “the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.” The conservative believes that we need to guide ourselves by the moral traditions, the social experience, and the whole complex body of knowledge bequeathed to us by our ancestors. The conservative appeals beyond the rash opinion of the hour to what Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead”—that is, the considered opinions of the wise men and women who died before our time, the experience of the race. The conservative, in short, knows he was not born yesterday.

(7) Modern society urgently needs true community: and true community is a world away from collectivism. Real community is governed by love and charity, not by compulsion. Through churches, voluntary associations, local governments, and a variety of institutions, conservatives strive to keep community healthy. Conservatives are not selfish, but public-spirited. They know that collectivism means the end of real community, substituting uniformity for variety and force for willing cooperation.

(8) In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else—even above its own life—its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization.

(9) Men and women are not perfectible, conservatives know; and neither are political institutions. We cannot make a heaven on earth, though we may make a hell. We all are creatures of mingled good and evil; and, good institutions neglected and ancient moral principles ignored, the evil in us tends to predominate. Therefore the conservative is suspicious of all utopian schemes. He does not believe that, by power of positive law, we can solve all the problems of humanity. We can hope to make our world tolerable, but we cannot make it perfect. When progress is achieved, it is through prudent recognition of the limitations of human nature.

(10) Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical: moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial; and if innovation is undertaken in a spirit of presumption and enthusiasm, probably it will be disastrous. All human institutions alter to some extent from age to age, for slow change is the means of conserving society, just as it is the means for renewing the human body. But American conservatives endeavor to reconcile the growth and alteration essential to our life with the strength of our social and moral traditions. With Lord Falkland, they say, “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” They understand that men and women are best content when they can feel that they live in a stable world of enduring values.

Conservatism, then, is not simply the concern of the people who have much property and influence; it is not simply the defense of privilege and status. Most conservatives are neither rich nor powerful. But they do, even the most humble of them, derive great benefits from our established Republic. They have liberty, security of person and home, equal protection of the laws, the right to the fruits of their industry, and opportunity to do the best that is in them. They have a right to personality in life, and a right to consolation in death. Conservative principles shelter the hopes of everyone in society. And conservatism is a social concept important to everyone who desires equal justice and personal freedom and all the lovable old ways of humanity. Conservatism is not simply a defense of “capitalism.” (“Capitalism,” indeed, is a word coined by Karl Marx, intended from the beginning to imply that the only thing conservatives defend is vast accumulations of private capital.) But the true conservative does stoutly defend private property and a free economy, both for their own sake and because these are means to great ends.

Those great ends are more than economic and more than political. They involve human dignity, human personality, human happiness. They involve even the relationship between God and man. For the radical collectivism of our age is fiercely hostile to any other authority: modern radicalism detests religious faith, private virtue, traditional personality, and the life of simple satisfactions. Everything worth conserving is menaced in our generation. Mere unthinking negative opposition to the current of events, clutching in despair at what we still retain, will not suffice in this age. A conservatism of instinct must be reinforced by a conservatism of thought and imagination.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ann Coulter on Sarah Palin

Ann Coulter wrote a piece on Sarah Palin when Sarah was given the Conservative of the Year Award by Human Events. It can be found here but I will copy it for you. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29995#continueA
Ann Coulter
Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Most recent Palin interview with Human Events on 12/22/08

Here is a recent interview between Sarah Palin and Human Events, Palin had just been named Human Events, "Conservative of the Year". The article can be found here but I copied so that you can read it. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29994
 
EXCLUSIVE Interview With Sarah Palin

Read Ann Coulter's EXCLUSIVE HUMAN EVENTS column, Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin a bestseller!

Yesterday I was checking the news and I usually check to see what headlines exist for Sarah Palin, because as many of you know I am a Sarah Palin supporter. I have to admit that the Wall Street Journal broke a story that even took me by surprise, and this is that the most popular calendar that was sold was the 2009 Sarah Palin calendar. To be honest I was not ever aware that such a calendar existed. So I checked Amazon.com and sure enough it was sale ranked as #1, and they are completely sold out. Now my friends think about this for a minute. Sarah Palin is a governor and a former VP candidate on the Republican ticket, and yet her calendars are sale ranked as #1 on Amazon.com? Folks there is no precident for this in the history of politics and whether you are a Palin supporter or not, one has to be awe struck at the Palinmania that exist out there. This woman has absolute star power, and a charisma that has not been seen since Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher. One thing is certain and that is this: both Democrats and some Republicans who want to run in 2012 will take notice of this because it is bad news for both camps. At the end of the day one has to ask: what is it about Palinmania?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Savage or Pat Buchanan?

   Who is the leading voice for Paleo-Conservatism: Pat Buchanan or Michael Savage? While I have never heard Michael Savage use the term Paleo-Conservative, his views seem to be totally compatible with Paleo-Conservativism and Savage is certainly quite vocal in his disgust with “Bush Republicans”. Why is this important? Paleo-Conservatism needs a new face other than Pat Buchanan and while Pat Buchanan has been seriously marginalized over the years (mostly due to his own actions), Michael Savage has the third most popular talk radio show and his books are always bestsellers. So who do you think is the better face for the Traditionalist/ Paleo-Conservative movement?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The future of Conservativism.

In the battle for the Republican Party I have been doing some soul searching and trying to identify which brand of conservatism I most attracted to. I would have to say that I agree with Traditionalist Conservatism the most and Paleo-Conservatism in many ways but not all. Some argue that Traditional Conservatism as espoused by Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and others is more of a cultural movement than a specific political ideology and that Paleo-Conservatism is the political wing of the Traditionalist Conservative movement. I think there may be some truth to this. Yet I have some concerns.

It is claimed by almost everyone that the leading figure of the Paleo- Conservative movement is Pat Buchanan (and now Ron Paul) and I think this is destructive to the Paleo cause. Back in the 1990’s I was a supporter of Pat Buchanan and I had even met him at a fundraiser, but the guy on a personal basis is a total jerk. The man does not have a likable personality in any way and comes off as always being angry, and this is not a good means of marketing your political views. Also, his view on immigration comes off as xenophobia and his views on Israel smell of anti-Semitism. Lastly, his isolationist policies are too extreme and while I agree with him that we should not try to force democracy on the rest of the world, I think the policies of Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan where the motto was “speak softly and carry a big stick” works better in the modern world.

If Pat Buchanan really wants to help the Paleo-Conservative cause, he would fade to the background. We need a new generation of fresh and younger Paleo-Conservatives to advocate the views of both the Traditionalist and the Paleo-Conservative movement. I would look to men like Rod Dreher or people from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI); it is time for Pat Buchanan to exit the stage.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin vs. John Mccain?

   I have noticed something, which is that after Sarah Palin went to Georgia and campaigned for Senator Chambliss; John Mccain publically asked Sarah Palin to support his bid for re-election. What was Sarah Palin's response to Mccain's request? Nothing, and I mean nothing. I searched the web and I could not find on any news source that Palin responded in any way which would point to her helping Mccain out. Then something happened again! Two weeks later John Mccain said that he would not necessarily support Sarah Palin in 2012. Umm...I think there is some issue going on here. If there is indeed a break between Sarah Palin and John Mccain, it would be to Sarah Palin's benefit. How so? John Mccain is deeply unpopular with the base and if her eyes are indeed on the 2012 primaries then a break with him would be to her benefit.    
   Also, I know that Sarah Palin opposed John Mccain's vote for the bailout. She said as much at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Florida. She refered to government money being spent by Bush as politicians being addicted to the drug OPM (other peoples' money). I also noticed that during the campaign she never openly endorsed Mccain's position on the bailout. Since the bailout money is off the charts unpopular with the Republican base and even with most Americans, Palin would do well to deeply attack it as an issue. Unfortunately for Mccain she cannot attack this issue without taking a swipe at him as well. Yet, in the end it will show Sarah Palin as being both independent of John Mccain and more conservative then either Mccain or Bush. Palin will also score points by her opposition to bailout money across the political spectrum because of its deep unpopularity with pretty much everyone save hardcore leftist socialists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Good news for Sarah Palin.

   Sarah Palin is making news again. She was the fourth runner up for Time Magzine's "Person of the Year". Also, she also won Eagle Forum's Human Events' "Conservative of the Year" award. It should be noted that Eagle Forum was a favorite traditionalist conservative political organization of President Ronald Reagan who always read their publication "Human Events". The award was endorsed by the popular political pundit Ann Coulter. Guys and gals, Sarah Palin is not going away any time soon.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Return to conservative "roots"? Which one?

   Since the election I have heard every Republican under the sun saying that our party needs to return to its conservative "roots". I have heard this from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, Katon Dawson, and etc. They all claim that the Republican Party has left its conservative "roots", yet how can this be since we have had a Republican President for eight years and even a Republican Congress from 1994-2006? My friends we have been living under conservative rule, but it has been the policies of what is known as Neo-Conservatism. It is easy to fall under the belief that all "conservatives" believe the same thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are basically two streams of conservatism.
 
   The battle that is going on is between: Traditionalist/ Paleo-Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism. So what is the difference? Let me point out what each camp believes.
 
Neo-Conservatives on the issues:
 
1.) Their origins- Neo-Conservatism began in the 1970's and they were semi-conservative pro-government Democrats who left the Democratic Party because of its move toward extreme socialistic liberalism and they joined the Republican Party (and brought their semi-liberalism with them).
 
2.) Their foreign policy- Is to convert the world to democracy, even in places where democracy will never work because of the cultural barriers to democracy.
 
3.) Government- They support big government and have a low opinion of states' rights.
 
4.) Spending- They are big spenders on social programs and believe in deficits. Balancing the budget is not a priority.
 
5.) Welfare- They generally support it.
 
6.) Social issues- Generally give lip servive to conservative social issues, but rarely pursue them when in office.
 
7.) Economic issues- Very extreme in free trade and globalization. Supporters of big buisnesses.
 
8.) Immigration- Believe in open boreders and have done nothing to secure the borders and they support general amnesty.
 
9.) Education- The federal government must regulate it and support it.
 
Faces of neo-conservitism: Both Bushes, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, and John Mccain.
 
Traditional/ Paleo-Conservatism on the issues:
 
1.) Their origins: Thomas Jefferson Republicanism, Andrew Jackson's Popularism, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and finally Ronald Reagan
 
2.) Foreign policy- Use force to protect American intrests but it is not our job to always build and save nations and police the world in every particular circumstance. It is not the job of the United States to convert the world to democracy. It is our job to intervene when human rights are being completely trampled by evil tyrants.
 
3.) Government- Government is the problem not the solution. Cut government programs. Strongly protect states' rights.
 
4.) Spending- Strongly believe in cutting government programs and radically reducing spending. Balancing budgets should be a goal. Primary spending should be on the military.
 
5.) Welfare: Oppose it.
 
6.) Social issues: Takes social issues seriously. The root of most problems in the country are the result of immoral behavior. Welfare and social programs is simply the goverment bailing people out of the consequences of their actions. A virtuous and prudent people has little need for government.
 
7.) Economics- Tax cuts across the borad, but a watchful eye must be kept on Wall Street. Favors small buisnesses over big buisnesses because a big buisness can cause as much a problem as a big government can.
 
8.) Immigration- Supports securing the border and limited amnesty.
 
9.) Education- Is not the job of the federal government but is a state and local issue. Support vouchers or tax credits at most.
 
The most famous Tradtionalist/ Paleo-Conservative is President Ronald Reagan, and most Southern Republicans.
 
My friends we must support the traditionalist/paleo-conservatives, because the neo-conservatives have been killing our party. We have not had a decent Republican President since President Reagan and we all know it. Bush senior led to Bill Clinton, Bob Dole was a dud and led to 4 more years of Clinton, and Bush junior (along with John Mccain) has led us to a radical Democratic Congress and BO (Barak Obama). It is time to reclaim our party. The Republican elites are all neo-conservatives and the base is mostly traditionalist/ paleo-conservatives, and we need to reclaim our party from the neo-conservatives. This is why it is so important to pay attention in selecting the RNC Chairman and in selecting true traditional conservatives during the primaries: both on a local level and a national level. The last thing we need is another government growing neo-conservative. My friends throw the Republican neo-conservatives overboard and put traditional conservatives back in power and things will change for the better!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »