Connecticut Conservatives

Some random thoughts

2006-05-24T22:08:00.000-05:00

First and foremost, I am not a Republican, I am a conservative who is forced to vote Republican cause the alternative is worse. I don't love Bush. Hell, I don't even think Bush is doing that great of a job. Also, I might be just a little bit too trigger happy, so never, NEVER, brake into my house, I WILL shoot you. So unless you want to test my aim, and I advise against it, stay out of my house.
1. I hate to say this, but I don't doubt the fact that it is most likely that the Democrats will win Congress back in 2006. And does everyone know who's fault that is??? Every freakin RINO in Congress. Then again, with how conservative I am, that might be the majority of congresspeople. Although both the House and the Senate have liberal republicans, the House is the better of the two. Here we actually get solutions. Congresspeople talk of balancing the budget, stopping Illegal Immigration, and putting America first. The Senate just......well.....I'm not really sure. The Senate appears to just be the club in which everybody talks about doing stuff, but then just avoids it, except for those guys you wish would just stop showing up. "I'm looking at you Mr. Kennedy.......No I can't give you any of that whiskey......Oh great, hey guys Teddy passed out again." Which leads me to Why I Don't Like Liberals #23 - They're hypocrites. Trent Lott made a statement praising a racist for something unrelated to racism!!!! Oh no! Republicans are at it again! Its like when they opposed civil rights! *Aide whispers* What do you mean more a greater percentage of Republican's voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats!?!? And while we're here, does anyone know why Republicans who are black are verbally assaulted by "tolerant" liberals. Its as if blacks are not allowed to be conservative. Must be one of those unwritten rules I missed. Someone better warn Bri though.
2. Okay, since I wrote so much random stuff there, I'm going to slow down here and say just a couple things. First, Bush really.....really.....really needs to do conservative stuff. Conservatives didn't vote for Bush to give Illegal Immigrants amnesty. I want mass deportations of anyone here Illegally. Unless they're from a totalitarian state (Cuba) I want them out of here. If they're from Canada, put them on the Maple Syrup Express. Brazil, give them a one way ticket on Rio de Janeiro Airlines. I hate people think its racism that causes conservatives to want to end illegal immigration. However, it is intolerance. We are intolerant of people breaking the law. You break the law, you should pay the penalty. You break the law, say goodbye to any chance of coming back. I also want a wall. Nothing says, "stay the fuck out" like a 40 foot wall with barbed wire. Which leads to Rules of History 863: Democracies build walls to keep people out while Communist countries build walls to keep them in.
3. I was told today that if someone broke into my house and I shot them I could go to jail. Really. I'm not kidding. Let that sink in. Someone breaks into my house with the intent to commit more crimes. I do not know what those intentions are. So I shoot them. Who's fault is that? Am I supposed to assume as to why they're there? Or should I inherently know this? What if they have a weapon? Is it hidden? I mean really, if someone breaks into my house, how do I know if they're armed or not? Its most likely dark out. They're gun might be polymer, so I sure as hell am not going to see it. They could have it holstered or otherwise secured. So if I merely threaten them, then end up getting shot. I will most likely end up dead. And since I don't want to risk dying. I will shoot first, shoot second, shoot third, and keep shooting, until i'm sure I won't be shot. Cause as a general rule, I think criminals deserve to be shot more than law abiding citizens, but apparantly those crazy north-eastern liberals don't agree with me.

Remember, Remember, The 5th of November!

2006-03-20T12:20:00.000-05:00

V for Vendetta
Seeing as though this movie has gotten a lot of hype and a lot of people think its awesome, I have to comment on it. First though, some backstory on Alan Moore and the writing of the original V for Vendetta, the graphic novel. Moore was concerned that Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party government would lose to the socialist-leaning Labour Party in the early 1980s. The leader of the Labour Party, Michael Foote, was a was a militant socialist whose policies included unilateral nuclear disarmament, nationalisation of industry, strong union power, and heavy progressive taxation. In Moore's story, a Labour victory led to a deeper recession and the withdrawal of American missles from Europe. Seeing this weekness, the Soviet Union invades Poland and America attempts to bluff with the threat of Nuclear War. However, this time, unlike the Cuban Missle Crisis, nuclear war actually takes place. An isolated Great Britan is left, the government is disbanded and "Norsefire" a Nazi like party takes power. Moore's V was not a patriotic democracy loving freedom fighter, as portrayed in the movie. He was a psychotic mass murderer. He accepted it with a certain degree of vigor. V did not want democracy, he wanted anarchy. He saw Fascism and Anarchy as polar opposites with no middle ground and chose anarchy.
As well, the movie is less of Alan Moore's ideas than Michael Moore's politics.

The movie is filled with liberal-paranoia on the state of America. Swastika's on the American and British flags with "Coalition of the Willing" is not that subtle. This movie was not created to entertain, cause it certainly didn't, but to attack. Hollywood seems to have it out for conservatives. Its getting to the point in which I am seriously doubting Hollywoods ability to make a good movie that does not portray oil company's assassinating people (Syriana) and Bush as a Nazi (V for Vendetta).

RSC proposed budget

2006-03-18T12:19:00.000-05:00

Not enough noise is being made over the plan outlined by the RSC. I think that most people can agree on the principals behind the proposal, and, were there not political partys, would probably agree on the specifics.

Limiting discretionary spending. The RSC budget sets priorities by fully funding the President'Ã’s defense and homeland security requests, while calling for a 1 percent reduction in the rest of the discretionary budget. With discretionary spending up 39 percent since 2001, many of these programs can afford to tighten their belts. This proposal would save $6.1 billion in the first year alone.
Reforming entitlements. The RSC budget includes instructions to reduce non-Social Security mandatory spending by a modest 1 percent. Given that the government'Ã’s own auditors have identified over $100 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse in entitlement programs, lawmakers should not consider unreasonable these savings of $7.7 billion in the first year.
Protecting and expanding tax relief. Unless Congress takes direct action, recent tax cuts for working families, parents, and married couples will expire this year. The RSC budget provides instructions to extend the current expiring tax cuts and also to provide new tax relief that is necessary to strengthen the economic recovery.
Fixing the federal budget process. Budget process reform is perhaps the most important aspect of the RSC budget. The current budget process is in such shambles that budget decisions are rarely enforced, loopholes are routinely abused, and no real spending limits exist. In order to assure real enforcement, the RSC budget would require a stand-alone vote to bypass any of its restrictions. It would also make it more difficult for lawmakers to bypass their spending ceilings by labeling regular spending as "“emergencies." Finally, it would allow lawmakers to apply appropriations savings to tax relief or deficit reduction, rather than automatically redirecting it to other spending.

The problem with the government today is that it is a bureaucracy, which by definition can not operate efficiently. This plan attacks what most people, agree are the major problems with the government, it spends too much, unnecessary pet projects, and taxes.

When the United States of America was formed, taxes were not a given, as they are today. As nice as that idea is, Americans, will always be taxed, unless we resort to war treasures, such as if Iraq would have to pay us for liberating them. But I digress. The issue is taxes, if you can accept that you will always be paying them, then the next natural act would be to limit them, right? The way I see it is that if we have to pay taxes we might as well make the amount as small as possible. So if we make it that the government has less influence over our lives, then they need less money. For example, if the sole purpose of government was national defense, than significantly less money would be required from taxes. As it is, the government is far more expansive than ever intended by the framers. When we split from the british, our founding fathers, desired a very limited federal government, so limited in fact, that the first one failed. America was initially a confederacy, the reason that we are not one today, was that a confederacy is incapapble of national defense. So they endowed the federal government with the powers necessary to defend the people. The idea being that private citizens should valued above the government. We currently live in a country where people are afraid of the power the national government has over us, rather than us over them. It is our duty as Americans to make sure the the government works for us, and that we don't work for them.

The plan formed by the RSC limits the governments spending, and therefore their power. The less they spend, the more we get to keep, the more money that the citizens have the better the economy. Thus making our lives better. All in all, lets make the proposal into law, its a good first step and hopefully the republicans can return to their base, and the country can continue to be a beacon of properity to the rest of the world.

*#1-4 taken from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm452.cfm

Human Events

2006-03-17T22:10:00.000-05:00

I was recently reading an article on humaneventsonline.com where the author was talking about the same issue Eric and I were, earlier today. I though I would share some highlights.

But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child... Finally NOW understands: It's about the rights of the child!

Apparently she believes that men ought to practice responsible sex, and if they don't, if a pregnancy occurs, that's too bad...Why can't this be said for women, too? Sexual behavior has a predictable consequence, and if pregnancy results, well, at that point "it's about the rights of the child" who, by the way, has no "choice" in the matter.

This case not only exemplifies the shallow logic of the pro-choice position, but it also reminds us of a terrible problem in America: irresponsible men. In the pro-life movement we must never forget that for every woman who chooses abortion there is a man who fathered a child. Sometimes the men involved are heartbroken, sometimes they desperately want to keep the baby, but all too often these men are either entirely indifferent, or they pressure the mother to have an abortion.

Here's a news flash: it takes both a man and a woman to create a baby. Over the last thirty-three years since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion men have been all too quick to abdicate their parental responsibilities. In a just society real men take responsibility for their actions... and their children.

Full article here

I'm NEVER wrong

2006-03-17T20:29:00.000-05:00

In response to eric's post on my roe v wade article, I would like to clarify something. I have absolutely no problem with adoption. I think one of the worst things in the world is an unwanted child. My sister is adopted and I have the utmost respect for people who adopt children. When I said that people should be obligated to raise the child to the best of your ability I in no way meant for someone to keep a child that either they will not take care of, or are not capable of taking care of. I am just pissed that the people in our country can't take responsibilty for their actions. I can not justify the death of an unborn fetus because of money. The idea that someone would kill another person, which is how I see it, because they would have to pay 500 dollars a month is asinine, and, should be illegal. As in anything there are extenuating circumstances, but as a moral person, I can not in anyway see fit to kill one being so that another doesn't have to keep a job. I think that the decision to give a child up for adoption is one of the most selfless acts a person can proform. The idea that a person would sacrifice their relationship with someone who is part of them, that came from them, so that that child might have a better life is amazing. So I say this to you, people who would kill their child, or are faced with this decision, think about what will happen if u decide to abort your, can you look into a childs eyes and say "You do not deserve to live" if anyone can say this, than do me a favor, leave your name and address in the comments and you will be shortly visited by a .50 Cal BMG round.

Have a great St. Patty's day!!! Remember, Everybody's Irish on Saint Patty's Day!!!

Artic National Wild"life" Reserve

2006-03-17T20:13:00.000-05:00

ANWR:
What beautiful...desolation?
this is what we have to protect from drilling? I may not be much of an environmentalist, but doesn't there have to be something there in order for it to be an "environment"?

oooooohhhh this time theres grass, god help us if we drill in grassy areas rather than sandy ones

More nothing

Oh...and, Yup more nothing

[1mc]'s Wrong

2006-03-17T18:30:00.000-05:00

Despite my conservativeness, I have to disagree with [1mc] here:

"once you have sex, you should be obligated to raise the child to the best of your ability. If somehow it could be argued that the potential child endangers the life of the mother, than I'd say, fine, abort it. However, if it is just a fiscal hardship, then SUCK IT UP."

No one should ever be "obligated" to raise a child. I don't know if [1mc] was merely not thinking about it or something. But we have adoption for a reason. Frankly, adopting a child is one of the greatest things a person can do. If anyone is wondering why I think this, it is because I am adopted. Yes, at some points I get sort of depressed because of it, but all in all, I am EXTREMELY grateful at how God has given me a loving family and the greatest friends in the world. However, every day I thank my birth mother for not taking an easy way out and having an abortion. To me, the strongest argument against abortion is ME. My birth mother said that "attempting to raise this child would cause extreme economic and physcalogical strain" on herself and her family. Sound familiar? You can hear it everyday from supporters of abortion. So I ask them one question. "So you think I should never have existed?" That usually shuts them up for ever.

Eric P's Political Platform

2006-03-17T17:41:00.000-05:00

Here is my basic political platform:

ANWR- The sooner we start drilling in that god-forsaken wasteland the better. Has anyone seen a real picture of the place? It looks like the freaking moon.

Abortion- I am against almost all cases of abortion (except for cases in which the birth would cause a physical problem with the mother). I'll get into this a little more in depth later.

Controling Spending- I'd love to see a Balanced Budget Amendment be passed and some social spending and government beauracracy be cut.

Education: "The key to improving education in this country is introducing competition into the system via vouchers. Give us a real voucher program and we can have the best school system in the Western world in 20 years." From John Hawkins of RWN

Illegal Immigration - I'd like to see dramatic increases in border security, along with stiffer penalties for businesses that hire illegal workers and a lifetime ban that prevents any illegal immigrant to gain US citizenship.

Iran- There is no job that a goal of the Leader of Iran is the destruction of Israel, therefore, we must do everything in our power not to allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

Iraq- In order to help Iraq become a functioning democratic society, we must train Iraqi security forces to fight the insurgency and as quickly as possible. Leave as few troops as possible to function as advisors and when the country is able to stand on its own, we will stand down.

McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform: I'd like to see it repealed because this blatantly pisses on the 1st Amendment.

"Protection of Marriage"- To be quite frank, as of now I really don't care, it might change as I get older, but right now, its a split down the middle. The only thing I oppose is using the name "marriage". Equal rights are fine, but leave marriage be.

Social Security: Optional private accounts up to 6%, Raise the age to 68 in 2025, index Social Security payments to prices, instead of wages. That would go a long way towards helping to fix the problems with the program.

Taxes: Ideally, I'd like to see us switch to a flat tax or a national sales tax. If that's not politically possible, I'd settle for simplifying and flattening the tax code.

Term Limits: 4 terms for Congressmen & 2 terms for Senators.

The United Nations: I'm in favor of building a competing organization filled with likeminded Democracies. Then we'll eventually do everything that matters there and treat the UN as a toothless debating society.
(Last 4 Done by John Hawkins of RWN again. Not my fault the guy is right on the money.)

Well thats it. Comments? Questions? If so then just shoot.

Connecticut Conservative #2

2006-03-17T17:27:00.000-05:00

Howdy, I'm Eric. [1mc] apparently decided that he couldn't single handedly run a blog of this magnitude, so he called me in. While me and [1mc] share the same basic beliefs of Small Government, a color-blind society and killing terrorists, he is more of a social conservative than myself. While I do not support abortion (of course except in EXTREME circumstances) on issues such as Gay Marriage, I am largely, well, indifferent. Well that's about it, I'm Eric, I'm conservative, and I'm proud of it.

Roe v Wade (for men)

2006-03-17T09:33:00.000-05:00

I don't know if any of you have heard of the roe wade for men court case. The first I have heard of it was on rightwingnews.com today. I think that the idea that a man has the same rights as a women, or vice versa, is essential in our society. Though it isn't as simple as giving a man the same choices as a women. First of all, I am against abortion, so I think roe wade should be abolished anyhow...But as long as we have it we are going to have weird court cases such as this one. Its a nice idea that men would have the same rights as women, but that's not feasible. For a women to decide to end her pregnancy after conception is wrong, but she currently has that right. But how can men be held accountable for pregnancy that they don't want? I've got the perfect, fool proof solution:
if you are a man, and don't want a child, don't have sex!!!
There, I solved all the problems with the roe vs wade decision in about 3 seconds.

once you have sex, you should be obligated to raise the child to the best of your ability. If somehow it could be argued that the potential child endangers the life of the mother, than I'd say, fine, abort it. However, if it is just a fiscal hardship, then SUCK IT UP.

as a country we need to grow up and accept some freaking responsibility.

An idea/l

2006-03-16T20:21:00.000-05:00

Hopefully i can get this blog off of the ground. My dream for this blog is for it to be composed by conservatives for conservatives. While I self identify as a republican, I do not toe the party line. I am against abortion, it is killing, I dont care how it is spun, there is a being which is alive, and is then ended, how is that not killing? I am against homosexual marriage because I find it disgusting. Ideally there would be no homosexual acts, but i refuse to enourse national legislation on marriage, and definately on relationships because i do not feel that is the business of congress. I do however endourse state legislation on marriage. I feel states can do what ever the hell they want, as long as it does not directly contradict the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe that the government should be small, as it tends to cause more problems than it solves. It's main purpose should be national defense. I value human life, and therefore I do not think war should be the first option. HOWEVER, this does not mean that when their is an impase that we should just go home. Some issues can not be resolved diplomatically, this is when we go to war. I would have voted for Bush had I been old enough at the time. I do support him and just because he is not the most articulate man, I do not think he is stupid by any means.
God willing this will be only the first of many posts

BTW my spelling sucks, I will try my best, but bear with me