Tag Archives: Conservatism

So many conservative principles being proved true!

As if you didn’t have enough evidence already, Conservatism is vastly superior to Leftism.  This pandemic made that painfully clear.

  1. We need to have guns.  The police in some cities quit responding to certain crimes and were setting prisoners free.  And if there would have been food shortages then things would have gotten even uglier.  One of the great bits of news I’ve seen is how some Leftists are getting mugged by reality when trying to buy a gun for themselves: Virus-Panicked Liberal Gun Buyers Are Getting Angry When They Discover Their Own Gun Control Laws.  Hopefully lots of people are re-thinking their stereotypes about guns, gun owners and gun laws – among other Leftist thoughts!  This should be a great campaign issue for Republicans.
  2. Borders count!  You already had to be malicious or ignorant to be for open borders, but now even Leftists have a tough time pushing for those with a straight face.
  3. Maybe people should spend less and tats, partying, clothes, iPhones, etc. and save some money for emergencies!
  4. A totalitarian Communist government caused the most expensive and deadly crisis in history and exacerbated it with their predictable lies and destruction of dissenters.  Capitalistic countries helped solve it.
  5. On balance, conservatives have been much more respectful towards professions like truckers and grocers.  Now the Left realizes you need them more than you do celebrities and sports stars (not that they should be paid the same . . . supply and demand still rules).  I hope that change lasts.
  6. Public schools are outdated and full of time-wasting activities and Leftist propaganda.  I was surprised at some of the people noting how little of their children’s days are spent actually learning in school.
  7. Now that we have real problems, micro-aggressions are being exposed for the nonsense that they are.  Hey, they even told us in the name that they are micro.  So why did anyone ever take them seriously?
  8. The free market solved the toilet paper situation quickly.  We should share that example often and remind people of how it works in Venezuela.
  9. Globalism is not a winning strategy.
  10. You need limited government.  It didn’t take long for governments to trample basic rights, fining people for things like parking their car by the beach while ignoring unsafe encounters at farmer’s markets and such.

To be continued . . .

And enjoy this list:

By the time the pandemic is over, everyone will be convinced that…

  1. Open borders are a menace.

  2. Globalization is a menace.

  3. Public transportation is a menace, while private cars keep families safe.

  4. Public schools are a menace.

  5. Homeschooling is great.

  6. Gun owners have fewer anxieties to deal with during a crisis.

  7. Hollywood is a bunch of nincompoops.

  8. The mainstream media is a useless menace.

  9. Communists can’t be trusted and are a menace.

  10. Capitalist enterprise reacts to emergencies faster and more efficiently, while the obstructionist bureaucracy is a menace.

  11. All essentials must be manufactured within our own borders.

  12. A businessman makes a better president than a career politician.

ACLU, Democrats and media blast Obama for forcing his religious views on us

OK, everyone knows the title is bogus.  The Left — including the religious Left — are determined to put the Onion out of business with their self-parodies.  They leave nothing for the rest of us!

Case in point: Why didn’t the usual suspects go wild when Barack “the church is not his thing” Obama flipped back to his pro-“same-sex marriage” position and blamed Jesus for it?  Presumably Obama’s Jesus was for it in 1996, then against it for 16 years, and then for it again now.  As the link below notes, “even when Obama changes his views, Jesus somehow comes around to agreeing with him.”

If this was just about Obama’s personal views, no one would have cared. But the Left cheered triumphantly, knowing that Obama has no intention to leave it to the States.  If the President changes religious views on infant baptism then it doesn’t generate big news, because everyone knows it won’t impact the populace.  But we all knew this had huge political ramifications.

It is the same kind of hypocrisy and short-term thinking that made the Left cheer when Obama refused to back the Defense of Marriage Act because it “might” not be defensible in court (uh, even though it had been successfully defended multiple times).  Hey guys, would you have applauded the same leadership if Bush had decided that Roe v. Wade couldn’t be defended?  Didn’t think so.  Therefore, please think 15 minutes into the future before validating such dangerous precedents.

The Ambivalent Theocrat makes some excellent points (hat tip: Pastor Timothy).

There are legitimate theological arguments on both sides of our political divide, but they are not equally well received. In America, it seems, one man’s moral teacher is another’s Torquemada — the difference is usually determined by party registration — and the returns on overt religiosity are mixed at best. As president, George W. Bush was repeatedly and pejoratively labeled “theocrat” for acknowledging his faith, and even the slightest intimation that his religious belief informed his political vantage point was perceived by the Left as symptomatic of an almost treasonous disrespect for the separation of church and state.

Bush talked less about his faith than most Presidents — including Clinton and Obama — but people had the feeling that Bush actually meant it.  (Fair and balanced reporting note: I must mention here that Bush’s “Muslims worship the same God as Christians” line was a superfluous political move and horrific theology.)

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama, too, has marshaled religious argument and imagery to his cause when politically expedient, but nary a whisper has followed his proclamations — even when his pastor of 20 years was exposed as an unreconstructed bigot. Obama’s appeals to religion and his claim to be “doing the Lord’s work” are cynical and mercurial enough to have pushed Michael Gerson amusingly to quip that, “even when Obama changes his views, Jesus somehow comes around to agreeing with him.”

. . .

There was no greater example of this than Obama’s 2007 speech at the general synod of the United Church of Christ. After admonishing the Christian Right for talking about religion and warning that faith leaders use the Bible to “exploit what divides us,” Obama proceeded to push for climate-change legislation on the basis that “the Bible tells us that when God created the earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that earth.”

While still a senator in 2006, Barack Obama claimed that “not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation — context matters.” Perhaps so. But to judge from his record, it appears to be a context driven solely by political consideration.

It is ironic that the false teachers consider themselves to be generous and loving when they push their religious beliefs on others and ask the government to do what they think their god wants. You’d expect the ACLU to get litigious over that, but the ACLU and the rest of the Left just go after religious views they disagree with, which means the issue isn’t religion at all, but the disingenuous and hypocritical suppression of freedom of speech.

More importantly, Christians need to use better discernment when following any politician.  Just listen to these Jeremiah Wright clips about Obama and ask yourself if you should really look to the President for your religious views.


Also see Audacity of a lie: timeline of Barack Obama’s false religious life .

Who is most gullible about bad science?

Surprise!  Via Liberals”more resemble the uneducated conservatives” in gullibility about science.

Gauchat himself never asked why the liberals seem relatively impervious to change over time — they are today at about the same place as they were in 1974 — and why the liberals more resemble the uneducated conservatives and moderates in his cohort, who have also been relatively resistant to change. That is a mystery worth delving into.

This helps explain why.  If you agree with the bad science you are more likely to cling to it and lose your healthy skepticism.

It may be relevant that in recent years there has been a number of well-publicized science frauds and much embarrassing politicization of science. One would expect better educated people to be more aware of these problems than less educated ones.

As for why liberals continue to believe, many of the frauds ( Diedrik Stapel comes to mind here) appeared to support their views (indeed, in many cases, that was precisely the point of the temptation for the fraudsters). So it may not be that much of a mystery.

More from Ann on Liberal “giving”

See Liberals Give ‘Til It Hurts (You) – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative, where Ann continues her analysis of Liberal “giving.”

Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced “God” with “Government” in scriptural phrases such as “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

This week, we’ll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In 2009, the Obamas gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity, about the same as they gave in 2006 and 2007. In the eight years before he became president, Obama gave an average of 3.5 percent of his income to charity, upping that to 6.5 percent in 2008.

. . .

Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.


Read the whole thing for details on Biden, Kennedy and other “champions of the poor” who are incredibly stingy by any measure.  These are the people that false teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistributionWallis and race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie consider to be generous.

Ann Coulter on giving

See Scrooge Was a Liberal – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative, where Ann does a nice job highlighting some facts about giving.

Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity — $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in “charities” that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children’s elite private schools.

Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, “are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way.”

Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.

They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.

On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more — and 50 times more to secular charities — than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.

Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as “insufferable blowhards.”) These “bleeding-heart tightwads,” as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.

Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent, less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also “significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.” (Count Nancy Pelosi’s change carefully!)

Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That’s up 7 percent from last year!)

Needless to say, “religious liberals” made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population (for more on this, see my book, “Godless”).

How radical is the “radical” right?


Given that the political season is in full swing, I’m noticing an increase in the number of “extremist” labels hurled at conservatives in general and Tea Partiers in particular.  Apparently that is easier then addressing the issues and arguments themselves, but it seems more like a concession speech to me.

Those who hyperventilate about the “radical right” (or “extremists,” “fundie nutjobs,” “wacky fundies,” or other eloquent terms of endearment) are either disingenuous or really bad at math, because the majority of Americans share our views on the most controversial topics.  Consider this by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason:

A poll of readers of the L.A. Times once showed that, in the area of abortion, prayer, in school, homosexuality and traditional family values, the majority of Americans agree with so-called “extreme fundamentalists.” 70% of Americans believe that the traditional family structure is always best; 76% favor prayer in public schools; 55% are against legalized abortion; 61% think that homosexual relations are always wrong. These are the views of the “radical right,” but these are also the views of a majority of rank and file Americans.

Let that bolster your confidence, the next time you’re being marginalized for your conservative moral values. The “radical right” isn’t so radical. It’s actually mainstream.

If they think we’re so extreme, why don’t they just use their faux majority to elect legislators to legalize partial-birth abortion and such?  Then they wouldn’t need judges to ignore their duties and make up their own laws.

It appears to me like the “radical” label is just a cheap way to attack the person and not the arguments, just like they do with the passive-aggressive “intolerant” label (Because whoever yells intolerant first must be the kind, tolerant one – right?).

I submit that if the media, entertainment and education establishments weren’t so outrageously biased the numbers would shift even further to the right.  For example, consider that 90% or more of the media are die-hard pro-choicers and they do everything in their power to spin stories in their favor.  Yet the population is still split pretty evenly on the topic, and the more clearly survey questions are worded the more pro-life the results are.

The only way you can categorize majority views as the radical right is if you are perched comfortably on the radical left.