The Movement You Need…

Sometimes life gets in the way of things like this blog.  I’ve had plenty to write about, but we had a flood, business has been hectic and I’ve been disturbed by the state of affairs in my nation.  I simply can’t stand either of the insufficient boobs nominated by our two parties.

It is a travesty that what we have this lose-lose situation being played out today thanks to eight years of conservatism being misrepresented by the GOP.  It’s sad for me to realize there is no prominent, decent, honorable, traditional right-conservatism in any public spotlight.  All the public knows as conservatism these days are ideologies espoused by neoconservatives and “compassionate” conservatives, people who aren’t conservative at all.  Conservatism is not ideological.  It is a starting point for thought that requires a mindful reverence for the past as an informative guide, a commitment to stewardship for future generations and that seeks the wisdom to apply both for the betterment of the nation.

There was no legitimate choice for me today.  Sure, the Constitution Party is just about right for me, but I had a point to make.  Here it is:

Tags: barack obama, election, john mccain, Politics, state of affairs

There was a post at RedState in which a new member questioned why so many discussions refer to Ronald Reagan. She wanted to know, since she was too young during his time, what it is that conservatives keep gravitating toward twenty years after he left office.

I replied:

What Reagan Means to Me

I have a personal story about President Reagan that I believe might help you understand his power to affect people as individuals. (Continued)

Tags: Conservatism, ronald reagan

I consider my personal brand of Conservatism to be descended from that of Edmund Burke and informed in large part by Russell Kirk. Like James Madison, I have a rather dim view of my fellow man when his actions are not voluntarily shackled by moral imperative backed by law.

What is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on the government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. — James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

For quite some time I’ve been wondering how post-Reagan Revolution Conservatism has morphed into “big government Conservatism.” Yesterday, a column by George will pointed to a potential answer that I need to think on a bit.

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: George Will :: Yes, Reagan was great, but it’s time to move on

If the defining doctrine of the Republican Party is limited government, the party must move up from nostalgia and leaven its reverence for Reagan with respect for Madison. As Diggins says, Reaganism tells people comforting and flattering things that they want to hear; the Madisonian persuasion tells them sobering truths that they need to know.

I think it is important to note that at Reagan’s time, this nation was suffering from dual malignancies brought on by the corruptions of Watergate and destruction of faith in American exceptionalism fomented by Jimmy Carter’s milquetoast platitudes that projected his personal malaise upon us all. Carter proved not only to be a literal peanut farmer but an idealogical one, too. This nation needed Reagan’s optimism in 1980. Perhaps his place, his time and his ideology was Providential; but, we are not at that time and place today. A different set of guiding principles are probably needed for today’s Conservatism: Older ones.

If there was ever a time in which we need a reality check about who we are and who they are, it is today. My distrust in the core of my fellow man is, I think, most prudent considering the threats that confront us. It is becoming my political dogma that multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness endanger us because they all blind us to the more base potentialities of human nature.

I was doing a bit of Googling on these topics and ran across this:

We need to learn some lessons from the tolerance-fomented decline of Lebanon. I wonder whether or not our current PC indoctrination will let us. Will we break free from socially-Marxist constraints in time to save ourselves from the fate that looms?

My pessimism about human nature conflicts with my optimism about Americanism on this.

Tags: american exceptionalism, Conservatism, russell kirk

I can’t decide if this is more funny than it is pathetic or vice-versa:

I don’t know if I want anyone who is so ignorant about tones and notes to be President of the United States. One of my voice coaches insisted that there is no such thing as “tone deafness.” I’m inclined to believe it. That’s strike two. Take your pick for strike one: she married Bill; she’s a liberal; she’s a Democrat.

Strike three: If you don’t know the words to our national anthem, then you don’t deserve to be President. Heck, if she were an alien applying for citizenship, I’d disqualify her for making this error.

Tags: Conservatism

When I was in the eighth grade (circa 1973) I wrote a science paper on “global cooling” that got an “A” from my rather hippie science teacher (Ironically, Mr. Reagan). Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy of that today, but I do have a copy of a literary digest from my seventh grade english class in which I wrote a rather alarming poem about what man was doing to the earth that would brighten the mood of today’s Green Party members.

Fortunately I survived to shrug off early attempts by “educators” to yoke me via indoctrination. And Kermit taught me that it ain’t easy being Green.

It seems that science, perhaps particularly the fraternity of science educators, has had and freely wielded its political agenda for quite some time. Considering the “global cooling” hysteria from 30 years ago coupled with todays “global warming” fear mongering, I boldly predict that the next great meteorological con game will be “global tepiding.” Once the funding for research into the current climatological snipe hunt is exhausted, I prophesy there will be a clamor because some scientific model will be developed to show that the planet’s temperature is not varying enough. Of course, Global Tepiding would decimate the fashion industry; who would buy the seasonal clothing lines if, thanks to mans mere presence, the earth becomes so tepid that there is no discernible change of seasons! And something, something very expensive, will surely have to be done about it!

Along this same vein, I’ve noted both with amusement and concern the controversy ignited by the Weather Channel’s resident global warming doge, Dr. Heidi Cullen. She recently blogged the suggestion that the American Meteorological Society strip certification from anyone who “can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change.”

Did you get that? Is it the official position of the Weather Channel that man-caused global warming is fact?

Why, dagummit, it is!

For me, this raises the question: What’s in it for the Weather Channel to be in league with Al Gore? I know the surest ways to find the answer to a political question, which the dogma of man-caused global warming surely is, is to follow the money. Fortunately, there are AMS members willing to speak out and lead us to it:

ABC 33/40 Weather Blog » “The Weather Channel” Mess

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh? I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.

The linked article lists the funding sources most sought by scientists with dreams of Global Warming paydays. What astounds me most in all of this is that I know too many supposedly intelligent and educated people who simply cannot think this sort of stuff through clearly. Some members of my own family drone on and on about global warming so assuredly I wonder if they’ve taken up residence in Al Gore’s pants.

The bottom line for me is this: Global warming may be true; global cooling may be true; my Grand Theory of Global Tepiding may be true. In fact, they all may be true simultaneously. And I’ll even grant that mankind may have had an effect on the planet’s climate, particularly in the past half-century. But I also consider it asinine and hubristic to assume that man can do anything to significantly change the weather…aside from the voluntary culling of about half the world’s population.

People are going to burn stuff. More people? More stuff burned. Less people? Less stuff burned. We can all do our part to save the planet by dying. But I want to see all of the disciples of phony altruism on the left show their commitment by going first, OK? Take our word for it that we’ll go next.

We promise.

Tags: climate change, global cooling, global warming scam