What Conservatism REALLY Is! Part II

To the average American Conservative the concept of competition is not evil; it is our innate human condition. We rail against the concept that "everyone is a winner," or "everyone deserves a trophy, plaque or ribbon, so they won't feel less valued" than the leading competitor.

We get grades in school for a reason - to measure our abilities compared to the standards of proficiency and/or excellence. When ya get a job you are rated by the standards of the employer. Life is a non-stop competition in everything we do. How are we serving and correctly raising our progeny by not getting them used to the concept of competition? Competition is one of the fundamental concepts of Americanism.

As Vince Lombardi once stated "Get used to the pain of discipline or get used to the pain of disappointment."

This nation was built on the concept of each person free to excel in whatever they choose, thus to try to remove that right from us is to remove our right to life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness. Such is un-American.

We do not refuse to accept that Man may be contributing to Global Warming, but we are absolutely intolerant at your ideas that Man is the sole cause and we reject the concept that there may be much we can do about it. We also flatly reject the concept that even were we the cause, we refuse to accept that we can buy or way out of it through worldwide taxation,, and we are painfully aware that the concept of Man paying for his evil global warming, is code for bankrupting the US and forcing us to conform to international laws and UN mandates. Sorry, not buying it.

Additionally with regard to climate change, has anyone else noticed how the global warmers are falling silent? It's because in the last few months the scientific data are clearly demonstrating that the planet is cooling from its high in 1998. How many know that 1934 was the warmest year on record for the US?

We see foreign nations like the neighbor that covets what I have. That neighbor cannot deny that what I have is mine by right of earning it, but that neighbor can try to convince everyone else in the neighborhood in my earning and acquiring I have in some way disadvantaged someone else. That's not even remotely true, accurate or factual.

We are not blind to the possibility of influence peddling, but we generally wait until some evidence of unlawfulness is discovered. Conservatives generally loathe the throwing around of unsubstantiated allegations of corruption unless and until a credible and provable allegation is uncovered. For the average Conservative "the seriousness of the allegation" doesn't cut it.

Conservatives are not war mongers, but we are not ostriches with our heads in the sand. When someone who has repeatedly attacked us and we did little, and then they really hit us hard, we figure they have signed their own death warrants. We figure, based on our enemies' actions, words and stated intentions of their radical ideologies that they, our enemies indeed mean what the Hell they say.

Conservatism is the concept that we are in charge of our own destiny and not subject to the will of others, especially government, and most especially foreign governments, the UN or our own American naysayers.

Conservatives look at ethanol and ask "What the Hell were you people thinking when you came up with this idea?" The end results are skyrocketing food prices, additional pollution and costs in the foolish and ill-advised process of using food to make fuel.

We find the Chinese drilling for oil off the coast of Florida to be insane in the extreme. We see this and ask "So, we can't drill there because of the miniscule risk of environmental disaster, yet now the Chinese are there drilling the oil that is rightfully ours by proximity?" Then we ask "Are the Chinese less likely to cause an environmental disaster?" If the answer is no, then please explain so that we can understand this from a practical and rational position.

We ask "why are we not drilling our own oil? Why are we not employing coal gasification, as was done by the Third Reich in the 1940's?" We have more coal in the US than the Saudis have oil, and at present prices using coal to make fuel is cost effective. So why? Why are we paying $110 per barrel for foreign oil and not using our own coal? Why are we not building atomic power plants? Why is Ted Kennedy all for alternative energy, but not if it's a wind farm in Massachusetts?

We reject the need to do something just to say we are. We favor using all the tools at our disposal to weigh a problem and search every avenue for the BEST answer, not just the first possible solution for the trumped up sake of immediacy. Haste does indeed make waste, and ethanol is a glaring example of such.

We look at the compact fluorescent bulb as another example of leaping before looking. They use mercury in them suckers, and if one breaks we have an environmental issue on our hands. Everyone breaks light bulbs accidentally. So now when Susie drops one of these new and fantabulous inventions she has to call HAZMAT and the EPA, as well as evacuating her dwelling or workplace. And Conservatives ask "What the Hell is that?" It would seem that these new bulbs will cost the environment and the treasuries as well. Nice plan! Good thinking!

Finally, Conservatives are all about personal responsibility. We are dead set against any concept of victim hood, or that we do not hold our own destines in each of our own hands. Hell will freeze over before a Conservative ever swallows this concept.

We are keenly cognizant of our history as we look to the future. And in that history we see an eerie correlation between the late 70's and today. In case you don't know, after the fiasco of Nixon and Watergate the nation elected an ill-prepared and ill-suited person to the Presidency in order to "just make all the pain go away." What did it get us?

I will not be disingenuous and blame Carter for every ill at that time - he inherited a lousy economy and high inflation and interest rates. But I will point out that the radical Leftist element left over from the McGovern run in '72 got what they wanted - a brand new and un-heralded Democrat at the helm. And what did that experience wrought?

The Iranian Islamic Revolution and the real beginnings of this worldwide Islamic fundamentalist primacy were one of the first results from a wishy-washy foreign policy, something the president is constitutionally charged to direct.

And here's the eerie part - Reaganism and the neo-con revolution came into being due to disaffected Democrats asking themselves "Why did the Democrat Party abandon us?" The answer to their question is they discovered that the radicals from the 60's and 70's finally grasped enough power within the Party to affect policy, just like today, and in so doing put off the mainstream Democrat, thus leading to the supremacy of Conservatism.

I can guarantee the reader that mainstream Democrats will not tolerate the radicals co-opting their Party and as a result will abandon the Democrat Party in droves. They know the radicals used mainstream Democrats to add a false weight to their, the radicals, numbers. And in so doing the radicals call themselves a majority.

Wait 'til regular Dems step up and express their anger at the radicals' seizure of a formerly great political entity. The mainstream Dem may not say so now, but let the reality of a radical at the helm sink in, and I guarantee you they will not let slide the radical usurping of the Democrat Party. They already see the radicals throwing the mainstream under the bus. And their anger will rise to the fore. History is our best teacher, and the history of this is a severe backlash at the usurpers.

So if Conservative ideology is defeated in this election, and that is by no means a given, we will be back with a vengeance, just like in 1980. And more mainstream Dems will abandon their allegiance to them and join Conservatism, just like in 1980. My only question is will the new neo-cons be called "neo neo-cons?" That rocks Friends!