About Me

Name: C. L. Palmer
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Palin vs. Romney for the Title

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, December 07, 2009 8:11:15 PM
   The only two real contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 are Palin and Romney. Each has his/her own pros and cons. Either would be a great conservative to have in office. Only one could win.
 
   First, let's look at Romney. He's a business leader, an ex-governor (who finished his term), a remarkable orator, and a known problem-solver. He was poised to win the last nomination until John McCain used a dirty trick to kill his momentum. Instead of  dragging things out, and thereby destroying any chances the Republican Party had to win the election, he bowed out graciously and threw his support behind the man whose handprint was still warm on the handle of the knife in his back. This showed a remarkable depth of character, and will not be soon forgotten by the party faithful. Finally, Romney is an intellect. Only Romney, in my view, would have the wherewithal to win a debate against Obama.
 
   The only real thing going against Romney is his religion, which is sad in a nation founded on religious liberty. Personally, I think this is a non-issue, but the media seize upon it as if America cares. It may be, however, that they do him more of a favor than not. Most people associate Mormonism with a straight-laced lifestyle. Considering that many Americans see politicians as slimy snakes-in-the-grass, a Mormon in the White House would be a refreshing change. As long as Romney can stay in the public spotlight, he has a chance to win. Perhaps a book deal... ?
 
   Another, more recent, help to Romney's candidacy is the ascendancy of Glenn Beck. Beck's acceptance as a valid conservative voice by even many of the most rabid anti-Mormons gets the door open for them to reconsider supporting a Romney nomination.
 
   Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a Republican dynamo in her own right. She brings crowds and energy. She's easily as telegenic as Romney. Her conservative ideals are just as pure. She speaks to the right wing in our language, straight off the cuff. We adore her.
 
   The independents, however, are not sold. They still remember the disastrous Katie Couric interview, the SNL skits, the anti-hype. They see her as an unsophisticated hayseed with an attitude. Many reading this right now are no doubt thinking, "Hell yes! That's what America needs right now!" Still that's us, the right wing, talking. We'll need to convince the middle that she's a capable leader, that her candor is an asset rather than a liability. Worse yet, she's shot herself in the foot, making the electoral waltz all the more difficult for her. All Obama needs to do is call her a "flake," and it's over. Even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives (like me) still cannot comprehend why she bailed out on the governorship.
 
   Doing the mental math, Romney seems the best bet. His Mormonism is out there, a known quantity, destined not to be as much of an issue should he run again as it's been dealt with already. He's been a successful governor, and proven that he can win even in liberal-leaning states like Massachusetts. My pick as his veep? Condoleeza Rice. Anyone who can put Barbara Boxer in her place is qualified for high office in my book. Romney/Rice 2012... I like it!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What to Do After Obamacare

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:51:54 PM
I'm glad that conservatives are finally finding a spine. It's been a while, and it's interesting that this is a bottom-up revolution rather than a Republican Party movement. I daresay that there are at least as many independents in this fight as GOP members, and it's sad. It's sad that the party that ushered in the conservative movement in this country has to be shown the way by others.
 
Still, stopping Obama is not enough. Halting his march to communism will not suffice. Even lowering taxes after he leaves office will only delay the onward tide of totalitarian government. America will have to search deep within her soul and find a leader with the balls (or ovaries, I'm not sexist) to march us back away from the precipice.
 
This is a difficult prospect. It is widely assumed that the reduction or elimination of any entitlement program is political suicide. We need a leader, indeed a whole set of leaders, who value the well-being of the country to their own political survival. Do we have anyone fitting this mold? Mitt Romney seems a likely candidate. He did, after all, leave the race when he might still have gained victory, preferring to sacrifice his own ambitions for the sake of the GOP and the country. It must have ticked him off to have been the butt of McCain's dirty campaigning: the false ads in Florida, asking his people to vote for Huckabee to steal a win from Romney. I know it made me ballistic. Mitt, however, handled the situation as only a true statesman could have. I don't see anyone else on the horizon who could have or would have done that.
 
We need a Congress that is united behind an agenda and is willing to see it through, the press be damned. We will have to pursue an agenda that will be seen as backward and reactionary. Hell, it will be, because being forward-thinking was sending the country right down the crapper. Plus, we are reacting, reacting to decades and decades of an ill-conceived welfare system that rewards sloth, reacting to social policies that have left us with myriad sexual diseases and one-third of our children being born out of wedlock, reacting to government infringement in the free market that causes it to break down, which is then used as an excuse to abandon it. We have been too slow to react; that's our problem.
 
Ah, but what is to be the agenda? Let me list it out concisely and clearly:
 
1. Convert the welfare system into a job agency.
2. Eliminate the federal income tax, and repeal the Constitutional amendment making it legal.
3. Replace it with a fifteen percent national sales tax, which places our companies on an even tax base with foreign competitors.
4. Match tariffs with our trading partners, using our power as consumers to break down overseas trade barriers.
5. Add three conservative, strict-constructionist justices to the Supreme Court, bringing the total to twelve, the same number as a jury. If no majority can be reached, the case is thrown out and the prior decision stands.
6. Undo every stupid executive order signed by liberal presidents. If they could enact it by executive order, we can undo it the same way.
7. Build a wall (not a fence) on each border, starting with the southern one because that's where the problem is greatest.
8. When the illegals inevitably protest, back buses into the area, load them up, and deport the whole lot of them. Any citizens we accidentally deport may return, assuming they have proper documentation.
9. Declare a moratorium on any and all immigration except for when the unemployment rate is less than two percent.
10. Amend the Constitution so that only children of at least one citizen are granted automatic citizenship when born on American soil.
 
Now, I realize that some readers may think I'm being facetious here or using hyperbole, but I'm dead serious. These things must be done if we are to regain the ground that common sense has lost since the drug-addled hippies took over the reigns of power. It is not sufficient to slow the trip to Armageddon; we must begin to travel back. I pray that we find a leader with the selfless will to accomplish the task. He'll be ridiculed, reviled, and politically destroyed, but if he's in it for the right reasons, that won't matter. Saving America will.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wow! We hoped for change, and now we hope he'll change!

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:31:50 PM
Obama reminds me of Alfalfa from the Little Rascals. He believes he's the star of the show. He's always been told he's got talent, charisma, good looks, and the right stuff. When the curtain is raised and he begins to sing, he is baffled by the public reaction. Why don't they love me? Can't they hear my melodic voice? Where did they get all the fruit?
 
Ah, it must be the audience. Someone must have loaded the audience with people of poor taste. Why, this unruly mob is unworthy of my talent! It can't be my lousy performance or the crudely-worded lyrics to my song. No, all of my friends tell me I'm doing great.
 
Poor, poor Obama. Surrounded by yes-men, showered with affection (and sometimes drool) by Chris Matthews and company, he is in no way ready to hear, much less to consider, real criticism. Nobody likes to be informed of a mistake, but at some point you've got to bite the bullet and swallow your pride. We don't want Commie-Care! We don't want to be coddled and treated as children. How is it that someone so personally successful believes that others can't achieve the same success?
 
Poor, poor Obama voters. Once the euphoria of breaking the racial barrier wore off, they awoke in Stalin's Russia. It's sad, really. Not just for them, but for America.
Tags: obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blaming Bush Limit

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, May 25, 2009 7:32:48 PM
Okay, what's Obama's time limit when it comes to blaming things on the Bush administration? How long does he get to pass the buck? He's spent over nine trillion dollars of our money, ended any form of interrogation more forceful than asking "pretty please," and kissed up to dictators and terrorists around the world. When the natural consequences of these actions come to pass (and rest assured that they will), will he get to blame them on Bush?
 
I say, anything that happens after year one is all Obama's. The reason I'm giving for this time limit is simply to avoid hypocrisy. We all realize that 9-11 happened largely due to Clinton's emasculation of our intelligence-gathering network and his refusal to act against Al-Qaida, even when offered Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9-11 happened less than nine months into Bush's first term, so I'll be generous and give Obama an extra three months of Bush-bashing. One year; that ought to be enough. Now, I realize that the MSM will allow him to get away with it for as long as he likes. Odds are, he'll be blaming the failures of his policies on Bush well into term two, if (God forbid) he gets one. Still, even as jaded as I am about the intellectual capacity of people these days, I have faith that America will see through the BS and hold Obama responsible when the bill comes due for his insane policies.
 
Psychologically, it makes sense for Obama to pass the blame, especially to George W. Bush, a white guy. You can't go to Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty-plus years and not absorb that tendency into your psyche to at least some degree. The reason people listen to the Wrights, Sharptons, and Jesse Jacksons of the world is precisely because they have failed to accept personal responsibility for their own circumstances. Obama is part of this mindset, make no mistake about it. Nothing that goes wrong during his administration will be his fault, because he is a victim- of racism, of Bush, of the media, etcetera ad nauseum. The fact that he's simply playing out of the same old, dog-eared liberal playbook won't matter, even though those tactics have all been proven failures time and again. Somehow, it will be Bush's fault.
 
But I, for one, won't be buying it. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What we can learn from Democrats...

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Friday, April 24, 2009 11:09:29 AM
   I realize now more than ever that we are losing the Culture War. We may be holding on for dear life on the gay "marriage" issue, but even there the pressure from the Left is starting to break down the walls of common sense. What can we do? After much thought and analysis, I've decided that we need to begin to adopt the enemy's tactics. Here is a series of lessons on how we need to change.
 
1. Don't compromise. The Left never does. They're always pushing, nudging, tugging the rest of us in their direction, but they themselves never move. They pretend to, sure. However, this is generally accomplished by saying one thing and then doing another.
 
Obama out of office: "I'm a moderate. I'm no socialist!"
Obama in office: "Fund abortions! Grovel to dictators! Long live Fidel!"
 
We, too, can use such tactics. Who would be the best positioned for this? Mitt Romney. Lots of conservatives think he's soft on abortion, although his actions as governor don't tell such a story. We can portray Romney as a softie, then let his real roots come out. What roots? He's a Mormon! With a few rare exceptions (okay, one- Harry Reid) Mormons are as conservative as you get. Utah was the only state where Ross Perot got more votes than Bill Clinton. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.
 
2. When you have power, use it. We're generally very hesitant to use power once we have obtained it. We actually play nice with liberals in the vain hope that they'll do the same at some unforseen moment in the future. Has this ever paid off? No. The next time we take the Congress and White House, let's actually implement the agenda- all of it! Look at Obama. Is he taking his time in ramming Marxism down our throats? Of course not! Within four months he's already taking over the entire financial system! He knows what we've never learned; it does no good to acquire power if you will not use it. Why did things shift in 2006? Republicans had no agenda save the preservation of their seats in Congress. The People want to see some action, some movement. They want... Change. If we won't give it to them, they'll take it from whomever, even if the changes in question are stupid ones.
 
3. Own the media. I mean this literally. Every conservative ought to invest in Disney, General Electric, and Time/ Warner. After obtaining a majority share, we sell the stock to a conservative holding company, which will then direct the coverage of events, the cultural content of entertainment programming, and, basically, do everything the Left now does except reversing the direction of the slant. Imagine a sitcom without the mandatory gay person. Imagine news programming that recited all relevant facts in a neutral context, excluding no one. Imagine a Disney film that didn't insert some liberal message into its theme somewhere. We have the power to accomplish this!
 
4. Incrementalism. If the pendulum can swing one way, it can swing the other. I hate to use the following example, but it's an apt one. The religious elements in the Muslim world took back their culture, for better or for worse. This wasn't simply accomplished by death threats and terrorism. It took many years for this tidal change to spread through that part of the world. You can change outward actions by force, but the heart must be changed by slow and patient effort. The Left keeps pushing until it gets its way, a little here and a little there. Could any of us have forseen in 1980 that gays would be marrying each other legally within thirty years? Yet here we are. Let's use this same tactic to reverse the damage.
 
5. Finally, get out there! If the Tea Parties taught us one thing, it's that we can make a difference if we put our voices together. Let's not make this a once-in-a-lifetime event. We need bumper stickers, tee shirts, and billboards. We need to get our faces and voices in the media. We need a Traditional Marriage Parade in every big city. A recent study showed that, even in San Francisco, only about 3% of households are headed by a gay couple. That's in Gay Mecca! Why are we letting these people shove their sexual tendencies into our faces constantly? Why aren't we fighting back. Why are we losing the Culture War? Because, for the most part, we're not fighting back.
 
   We'll never win if we keep doing things the way we are. We must adopt successful tactics, and the most successful are those which are winning- namely, the liberal ones. This whole water-boarding fracas reminds me greatly of the Culture War. The enemy is cutting off heads with rusty scimitars, and we can't even bear to pour some water on their faces. No wonder progress is slow!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Future of the Republican Party

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:10:02 AM
I had really, really hoped we Republicans had learned our lessons from the last two election cycles. We started to forget our roots, act (and spend) like Democrats, and so we had our bags packed by the American people. Now the Democrats have firm control over the government. If one Strict-Constructionist retires from the Supreme Court, it's all over. Actually, Obama could appoint two dyed-in-the-wool radicals right now, and no one could stop him. (There's no set number, Constitutionally, for seats in the Supreme Court.) It looks like the Republican Party is through.
 
We can serve as opposition, I suppose, but that isn't likely to change the situation. We've become so used to sitting on the bench that we act like a minority party even when we're the majority. Right now we have "moderates" telling us we have to be more liberal. Isn't that what put us in this situation? We got control of Congress by offering a tangible, conservative agenda. We gained more control as we strove to implement that agenda. As soon as America realized that we'd forgotten why they elected us, we were relieved of our duties. No, the course the moderates wish to take is a quick way to pointlessness. The idea of a two-party system is that there should be two distinct points of view represented. Once we embrace the paradigms of the other side, we have no purpose. We cannot survive as the party that is slightly less liberal than the Democrats.
 
We need to re-establish ourselves as the party of Lincoln, in the real sense of who Lincoln really was. Lincoln was an absolute moralist. He didn't apologize for wanting to end slavery; he fought a war over it. (Now, historians may quibble about the cause of the war being states' rights, but specifically which was the right in dispute?) Lincoln didn't wimp out when the military sustained losses or caused collateral damage. Collateral damage was one of the major strategies in the war! Lincoln was a man of faith, who referred to God in every speech. He stood up to the Supreme Court, maintaining that it had no jurisdiction over the Executive Branch (which, technically, it doesn't). In his time, he was a radical, a liberal. We should aspire to such a liberalism!
 
We must assert our values if we are to regain our place in the political spectrum. We must stand for real fiscal discipline, traditional morality, a strong military, and national sovereignty. Let me propose a few ideas to get us started:
 
1. Build a wall along the Mexican border-- all of it. Americans agree that we need to solve the illegal immigration problem. If we present this in economic terms, especially with unemployment being as high as it is, we can't lose.
 
2. Pass a bill tying the salaries of Congress to the average wage of a full time job in America each year. That is, if this number goes up, Congress gets a raise. If this goes down, they get a pay cut. To me, this is real accountability.
 
3. Push for the Marriage Amendment. Gay versus traditional marriage is a winning issue for us, even in California. Why are we so reticent to use it?
 
4. Push for a tariff equalization bill. We ought to match the tariffs that other nations place on our goods. Eventually, this would lead to real free trade, as opposed to the unilateral variety we now "enjoy." Unilateral free trade is about as smart as unilateral pacifism; they're both a good way to get your butt kicked.
 
5. Push for a line-item veto, and, in the bill, exclude it from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Congress has the right to do this; check your Constitution.) Even if we give it to Obama, how does that change anything? Now might be the best and only opportunity to pass such a measure.
 
If we publicly and repeatedly push this agenda, we'll become a viable force in politics. We'll finally have a sense of purpose, something we've lacked for quite some time as a party. I pray this happens.
 
But I'm not holding my breath...
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dream Made Real... Almost

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:23:58 PM
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream, a vision of a day when men would be judged by the content of their character, when the issue of race would finally be left behind, when we would all see ourselves as part of one conglomerate people rather than a jumble of divergent races and cultures. The Obama nomination, and the subsequent debate, represents a near-realization of that vision. Republicans from John McCain to Rush Limbaugh have not criticized Barack Obama for his race, but only for his words and actions. Frankly, the issue of race has only been raised in response to charges of racism on the part of the Obama camp. That, in brief, is the problem. It isn't the white racists who carry the torch of racial differentiation these days; it's the descendants of those who were once victims.
 
The average white Conservative would much rather forget the issue of race as a whole. To begin with, the very concept of racial division is becoming somewhat obsolete. Many, if not most, of us are of mixed racial heritage. I myself am part Cherokee. My children are Pomo Indian and Hispanic. My neice is white, black, and Philipino. In my family, race is simply a moot point. I notice the same trend occurring all over the country. Let's face it: despite the fervent wishes of Liberals everywhere, the Melting Pot still exists and is doing its job.
 
Moreover,  those of the thirty-something generation and younger have never lived in a time when racism was viewed as tolerable. We have a hard time conceptualizing just what everyone is so upset about. I, for one, don't carry around anger because banks forced my grandfather off his land during the Dust Bowl. By the same token, I have little sympathy for those who blame their indigence and lack of success on slavery and past racism. Those things didn't happen to you! Aside from the ever-depleting population who experienced segregation first-hand, most African-Americans have never experienced legally enforced racism. Few have experienced even acts of explicit, overt racism either. Thus we constantly hear of "code words," "looks," and the "you can just tell" variety of experiences which often tell more about the percipient than the accused racist.
 
In short, it's time we got over the issue of race. The Republicans have. Someday, if they see it as politically expedient, even Democrats may. Only when a black candidate can run without anyone, especially the candidate himself, even thinking of race as a factor will Dr. King's dream have come true. We're halfway there. Barack and friends, the ball is in your court.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

With no Conservative, It's a Popularity Contest

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, October 20, 2008 9:15:19 PM
Let's face the music. John McCain is a political nerd. He can't express himself clearly. His mannerisms are stiff and nervous. He grins self-consciously, as if afraid someone might notice.
 
Barry Obama, on the other hand, is a jock. He's self-confident and assured. He is smooth. He says what he means with such suave grace that we'd fain ignore the content in favor of the presentation. Sure, he's a Marxist, but he's cool!
 
The content of Obama's message would be enough to give the race to McCain if McCain's message were significantly different. It's not, though. Obama wants to socialize health care. McCain wants to socialize the mortgage business. They're both socialists; the key difference is not how much but how fast. Frankly, I'm somewhat more afraid of the slow descent into communist hell than a quick dunk. A full plunge might generate some outrage. I've seen society slide gently down the crap-hole long enough to realize that incrementalism is far more dangerous than extremism. If you can change the definition of normal by slow alterations of the social fabric, you'll eventually get where you're headed. McCain would continue the slow slide, while Obama would dive into the deep end.
 
At the end of the day, with no clear distinction (in spite of the demonization by both parties), we're stuck deciding between a nerdy semi-socialist and a cool Marxist. Either way, we're screwed!  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tom Brokaw Chose the Questions

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:19:17 AM
I know this sounds a bit cynical, but am I the only one who noticed just how alien the questions seemed to the people reading them? One woman literally had trouble pronouncing her own words. Excuse me? Isn't the point of a "town hall" forum that people get to choose their own questions and raise the kinds of issues that may not be getting a lot of attention? Wouldn't you have liked to hear about immigration, tariffs, and paying off the national debt? Wouldn't you have liked to hear about what kind of criteria each candidate would have for nominating someone to the Supreme Court? There would actually be some meat to that conversation. This debate seemed like a conversation not about whether or not we should be socialists, but just how fast we ought to travel in that direction. Even if Brokaw didn't write the questions, he certainly seemed to have picked the safest ones for Obama. It almost seems as if Barack had given him a pre-approved list of issues from which to choose, and he stuck to it. I mean, in any crowd you'll get some safe questions for Obama, but I'm sure at least one person asked about Jeremiah Wright. Somehow, I imagine Brokaw blowing his nose into that sheet of paper, or perhaps bringing it into the restroom with him.
 
McCain wants the government to buy up individual housing? Is he crazy? I know this runs contrary to most ofthe coventional wisdom, but low housing values are good for America. They make buying a home affordable for the rising generations. This artificial crest of home prices necesitated the kinds of idiots-only loans that got us into this whole mess. If we can keep housing affordable, well, people can afford it. Why are gas prices too high, but house prices too low? Yes, the banks were screwed over by the regulations and government policies that encouraged stupid loan practices (by the way, McCain should have taken that angle in the debate), but the net result, once we bail out the banks, is affordable housing. That's not really such a bad thing.
 
This debate only made me more confused as to whom I want to win. I'm afrid of what Obama might do, but more afraid that we'll never notice just how much over the precipice we are sliding until we hit bottom. Last night, McCain had the historic opportunity to explain how and why command economies (like Obama's health care plans would produce) have failed and always will. He opted instead for obscure finger pointing about votes no one really cares about or understands. And sadly, Sarah Palin wasn't there to bail him out. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palmer to Obama: I un-endorse you!

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, September 22, 2008 11:38:52 AM
Those of you who have read my blog before will know that some weeks ago I officially endorsed Barack Obama for president. I'm now officially taking that back. I refuse to endorse McCain, but I'd like to suggest to any and all conservatives that we'd better get over ourselves, swallow our disgust, and vote for him anyway.
 
I endorsed Obama based on the supposition that America has fallen asleep, and only a real punch-to-the-gut would awaken her. I realize now that I was wrong, for two reasons. First, we're far worse off than merely asleep. Second, Sarah Palin has awakened the conservative lion from its long hibernation. All conservatism needs to win votes is someone who can and will forcefully express it.
 
There is a vast pool of idiots from which the Democrats can draw votes. This is the lazy class, the class (consisting both of rich and poor) who would rather have someone else do things. The lazy rich would rather have government fight poverty than do it themselves. Even though every non-profit, non-government attempt to help the poor has been significantly more successful than government's attempts, these deluded fools see federal control and redistribution as the best means of solving poverty. Many of these people themselves came from poverty, but never mind. What worked for them couldn't possibly be the solution for everyone else. Hard work and education only help the fortunate few; the rest need to suck leech-like from the underbelly of society. Could Ted Turner have spent his billions developing a low-cost healthcare system, privately owned but not for profit? Could he have used the same business savvy that developed cable television to solve this crisis without Uncle Sam?  Sure, but then how would that expand the scope and power of government? Turner, and others like him, would rather write the occasional huge check to the U.N. and Democrats than take the initiative to solve these problems themselves. If they spent all of the time and money that they so willingly give to liberalism on eradicating poverty directly, they'd have done it by now.
 
The lazy poor need no explanation. They are the whiny minority who spend more time complaining that they don't get enough welfare than they do looking for a decent job. These are the morons who blame racism for their problems instead of looking in the mirror. They've always been the same, and will be until we stop coddling them. Our "generosity" has robbed them of initiative and direction over their own lives. They have no dignity because they have never accomplished anything to inspire true pride. This is our fault, as a nation. We have come to accept this state of affairs. Our low expectations for certain groups of people amounts to an implicit racism, a racism to which even the professional race-baiters are blind. I say racism, but what I mean is disdain. After all, this group is not defined in terms of color. The lazy poor constitute a smudgy rainbow over our slums and ghettoes.
 
Too many of us fall into these groups, or at least accept the basic premises that define them. The excitement over the Palin nomination, however, promises to change that. For too long, the same wrinkled faces have expressed words with which we have become all too familiar. Directness of speech has been severely wanting. Candor has been seen as a liablilty. The tone of expression heard from Washington "conservatives" has been that of a tired old man, largely because that's who we've had in Washington. Palin adds a note of sincerity, of vigor, and of excitement that we really ahven't heard since Reagan. She inspires the same optimism that Reagan did. I want to go back to being an optimistic conservative, not a sad old windbag shaking his cane at the world as it passes him by. That's what we've become. Palin, and the new generation of true-blue conservatives behind her, promise to change that.
 
I don't think we need an Obama to get a Palin. We may just get one without him.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism's True Colors: Red and Yellow

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, September 15, 2008 10:44:29 AM
I've always found it interesting that the media have assigned red to Republican states and blue to Democrat ones. Don't they have it backward? Think about it. Red has always been the symbol of communism, which is (now officially, thanks to Barry Obama) the party platform of the Democrats. Shouldn't their map color be red as well, to avoid confusion? Isn't New York more of a red state, communism-wise, than Indiana? It must be a purposeful obfuscation of the truth. The media tycoons who came up with the color scheme must have been aware that if they made the Democrat states red, everyone would get the symbolism, so they went the other way. Still, every election cycle, I find this incredibly confusing. Am I alone in this?
 
If the media want to avoid the confusion of the red/blue state colors, they might go white/yellow. The Republicans could be the white states (which, at least considering the racial stereotypes most liberals maintain, would make sense to the media), and the Democrats could be yellow. I doubt even the Democrats themselves could mount much of an objection; they themselves admit to being anti-war in most every case. If they objected too much, we could always threaten to take the disagreement physical, which would both cause them to acquiesce and prove our point in the bargain.
 
I realize that the red/blue color scheme is designed to evoke a certain sense of patriotism, but let's be realistic. To most of the media, patriotism is another word for nationalism, and nationalism is evil. I doubt they'll really care much, although they might flinch at the notion that their attempts at misrepresenting the characteristics of the two parties have failed. They really do see themselves as much more sophisticated than the rest of us, and thus able to manipulate our feeble minds with relative ease. That's why they despise talk radio so much; its success reveals that we are able to think for ourselves, that we don't need a bunch of pointy-headed idiots to tell us what the facts mean. We are capable of assimilating data on our own, thank you very much.
 
Okay, I realize that my suggestions to change the color schemes of the state-by-state maps on election night will go unheeded. Still, someone had to say what we were all thinking. Let the Reds be red! Who do you think you're fooling, NB-AB-CBS?
 
Only yourselves.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Camel and the (Republican Party) Tent

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:41:26 PM
If you are one of the unfortunate few who are unfamiliar with this allegory, allow me to sum it up for you:
 
An Arab merchant is travelling across the desert on his camel. He notices that a sandstorm is coming, so he quickly pitches his tent and shelters beneath it, leaving his thickly-furred camel outside as the tent is barely large enough for one. As the storm rages, the camel sticks its nose inside the flap. The merchant thinks, "How can I deny him this? It must surely be difficult to breath out there in the storm."
 
A few minutes later, the camel puts its entire head in the tent. The merchant doesn't object, as he understands that the sand must surely sting the eyes and ears of the poor beast. A few minutes later, the camel puts its neck inside as well. This, too, is allowed. Later, the camel's front two feet make their way into the tent. By this time, the merchant has curled himself into a ball to make room for the camel. He is quite uncomfortable, but knows that it would take a lot of effort to make the camel back out. He decides just to live with it.
 
By the time the storm is over, the camel is completely inside the tent. The merchant lies buried in sand outside.
 
Fellow conservatives, we are the merchants here. The "big tent" of the Republican Party is making many of us feel uncomfortable. The nomination of John McCain was like the camel inserting its feet into the tent. Now we, the true backbone of the party, find ourselves having to curl up and endure. Face it: We have lost control of our own party.
 
Now we are faced with a Faustian dilemma if ever there were one. Do we simply go with the flow, and accept irrelevance in the future of the Republican power structure? Or, do we stay home in November and allow a rabid socialist to run the country? Neither option is particularly attractive. I am the last person to say that we ought to elect Obama. McCain is certainly the lesser of the two evils with which we are presented. Just for that, he has my vote. Why? Not voting is voting for Obama. I can't do that. But part of me, a big part of me, wants to see Obama win. Perhaps, as Poe described it, I've fallen victim to "The Imp of the Perverse." Maybe, seeing us contemplating the view from the precipice, part of me is simply tempted to take a flying leap. I don't believe that's it, though. I have faith in the average American. We've been Slouching Towards Gomorrah for so long that few would notice the few steps McCain would take us in that direction. Obama, on the other hand, has some shock value. I have enough faith in America to believe that once we see what liberals really want to accomplish, the pendulum will finally start to swing in the right direction, which is the Right direction.
 
Best case scenario, for America? McCain wins, Palin governs, and yes, I know that's a horrible thought. I am ashamed already for thinking it. But... am I wrong? 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain to Dems: Check! But is the match won?

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, September 01, 2008 2:41:10 PM
The surprise appointment of the female governor of Alaska as the Republican vice-presidential nominee sent shock waves through the media and the Republican base last week. As strategy, it's a no-brainer. Hillary supporters are angry with Obama and the DNC for rejecting their girl; McCain appoints a female, hoping to sop up some of those voters.Will it work?

I don't think so. Republicans aren't particular about the gender of their candidates. We tend to vote issues over personality. Leaving aside the fact that John McCain was even elected the nominee (a feat largely made possible by the existence of open ballots in many key states), we will admire the savvy behind the choice, but it won't be enough to get us to the polls for McCain. He knows this. He didn't nominate her for us. He did so for Democrats. They, not us, are his target audience.

If he was after the Republican base, he would have nominated Romney. Sarah Palin is a good choice. Don't get me wrong. As far as I can tell, she would make a fine president if such became necessary. Her Conservative credentials are solid. However, a Romney nomination would have locked in the votes of all of us who felt that McCain was nominated largely because of a couple of dirty tricks.

McCain has a similar problem to Obama's. A significant number of Republicans were backing the other horse, passionately so. His nomination doused our hopes, quenching the flame that had ignited so much excitement during the early stages of the primary. We were hoping for another Reagan, but we got a Dole. That fact alone may well affect Republican turnout this November. McCain can get all of the Hillary voters he wants, but without the support of the base, he's toast.

I have said before and I'll say again that I think the nation needs an Obama victory. We need someone to wake us up to the realities of Left-Wing extremism. We have forgotten where that road leads. It will be painful, but it will lead us to a brighter future. We're a bit like addicts, we Americans. We're addicted to pork and deficit spending, addicted to our entitlements. We'll never get around to weaning ourselves without hitting bottom. Thus, I support Obama. He is the rock bottom we need so we can bounce back into sanity and common sense.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Speech: The Promise of America is Communism

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Friday, August 29, 2008 11:09:57 AM
I have to admit that I was moved by Barack Obama's speech last night. He sounded like a patriot. His oratory was eloquent and powerful. His ideas sounded like they just might be feasible. Then my brain kicked in.
 
My first thought was, "This man has never played Sim City."
 
You see, in Sim City, you have to run a town. You establish taxes, hoping to provide enough services to keep up the infrastructure while keeping the city an attractive place for business. Businesses can leave. Hence, when you raise taxes too much you often end up with less revenue. Obama's plan, taxing "the hell out of" business, will send even more of them overseas. Unless he's willing to put up massive trade barriers with China, who owns the bulk of our national debt and could presumably sink the dollar by calling it in, his ideas will result in a loss of jobs, more Americans on welfare, and a real recession. Have we learned nothing from Europe? Having government take the role of parent leads to bankrupcy. Look at France.
 
I don't doubt that Obama loves America, or at least what he thinks America should be. He wants to improve the lot of the average Joe; that's a good thing. The problem is that, like most Liberal initiatives, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Has welfare ended poverty in our lifetime? Did the amnesty of the 1980's end illegal immigration? Are there fewer pot smokers in Caifornia now that it's quasi-legal? No. Liberal ideas reflect an ignorance of both economics and human nature. Liberals, in general, are not bad people. They're just hopelessly naive.
 
My health care plan? I would Wal-Martify health care. Wal Mart has, single-handedly, made prescription drugs affordable again. Let's see them do the same with doctor visits. What is the government's role in all of this? Pass a law to establish more medical schools and graduate more doctors and nurses. This will drive costs down. We gradutate approximately the same number of doctors today as we did thirty years ago, thus creating a supply scarcity which raises costs to the consumer. Another idea is to get together a task force of businessmen to come up with a non-profit medical plan, regulated and inspected by a business efficiency team on a regular basis, to see just how cheap health coverage can possibly be. The government covers only the start-up costs, then backs off. If we could get the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Lee Iacoca to head up the team, I think amazing things could happen.
 
Those are some of my ideas. Notice that they are not, by and large, funded by the taxpayer. We've got enough to worry about. On that issue, Barack was dead on.
Tags: speech   obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama bounces... straight down!

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:24:59 AM
Despite all of the media adulation (or perhaps because of it), Barack Obama's poll numbers are down behind John McCain in both of the major opinion polls. Why? Is it Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright? Nope! Go to my blogspot post to find out:
 
 
If you like it, bookmark the page. My goal is to post here once a week (at least) and there once a week. It's the same blog, but different sites and different posts. Weird, but I hope you enjoy it.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »