Bigotry and the Need for Conservative Focus

Donald Sterling

Donald Sterling learned very quickly that having racist views go public and gaining the label of being a “bigot” can cost a great deal. It’s the type of label that can destroy people and nobody in the public eye in America wants that hung around their neck.

This fear is one of the driving forces preventing people in power from speaking out against certain practices. Whether in Washington DC, Hollywood, or even from pulpits across the country, there is a mixed message being spread by conservatives and liberals alike who do not want to risk acquiring the “bigot” label. This problem is oddly being propelled by two opposing forces, much like two fingers squeezing a mustard package to push the condiment out of one end. Unfortunately, this isn’t the kind of stuff that you would want to put on your hotdog. It’s much more destructive and could end up being the downfall of the country if it isn’t fixed soon.

It’s a problem that’s getting in the way of accomplishing the goals of securing our borders, protecting our interests abroad, and working with our allies in Israel. It affects how we deal with North Korea, how we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities, and how we manage the flow of immigrants from Latin America.

We’ll discuss solutions a little later, but first we must gain an understanding of the two opposing forces.

The Bad Left and the Bad Right

The liberal movement has it easy. Having an all-inclusive ideology means having the power to control the vote and paint conservatives as bad guys. This is the easy opposing force to comprehend because it’s the one that has been around for decades. Since the glory of the civil rights movement made it possible for American’s to truly be equal, the left has systematically pushed the boundaries to take advantage of this righteous cause and turn it into something that it was never intended to be.

Even Martin Luther King Jr. would not have advocated the right for illegal immigrants to vote. He wanted equal rights for US citizens regardless of race. What he helped to achieve has been perverted to the point that today, one can be considered to be a bigot if they believe in protecting the rights of citizens by eliminating the rights of illegals.

The conservatives are not all in the right, either. Many have hidden their true nature of isolationism behind the facade of border security and stopping the release of people who have no right to be here. The cause is righteous. The motives are not. It is clear when you see the anger towards individuals rather than the practice itself. This is not an attack on any group in particular. There are mainstream Republicans, Tea Party members, and Libertarians that fall into this category. They use vitriol and hate to promote their agenda rather than clear and practical solutions based upon sound thinking based upon the desire to keep American citizens secure.

It’s difficult to separate out the conservatives who have the right motivations from the conservatives who have inappropriate agendas because they are often intermingled behind the same causes. It’s in how they identify the problems and propose the solutions that discernment between the two can be achieved.

It’s easy to see why the left poses a challenge to America and its citizens, but some might wonder why it’s important to understand the distinctions between the two types of conservatives. If they’re fighting for the same cause, what difference does it make if their motivations are different, right?

The truth is this: a proper conservative movement based upon the sound concepts of securing the border, securing our interests abroad, assisting our allies, and protecting against future threats from countries like North Korea and Iran cannot succeed when the motivations are not in lock step. Whether in words, actions, or even subtle nuances perceived on an unconscious level, those who promote secure borders and a secure world for the wrong reasons will derail the efforts unwittingly.

Unifying Under a True Conservative Movement

Rather than let this individual post become a book, I’ll focus only on the example of our insecure borders rather than discuss other pertinent areas of foreign policy and security. We’ll continue to tackle those issues later.

Changing the hearts and minds of people is nearly impossible. The concept has been overused to the point of being a cliche in modern politics and foreign relations. It’s handed out as a solution like candy on Halloween, but it’s not a valid strategy to achieve any goal. People believe what they believe.

With that understanding, how could it be possible to unify conservatives when so many of them have the wrong mindset or bigotry in their heart? Donald Sterling might be losing the LA Clippers, but he’s not going to suddenly view African Americans differently as a result.

The only way that we can secure the borders and fix our challenges abroad is if conservatives unite behind an idea of pure patriotism. It sounds like a sugar-coated concept, but it’s not. By pure patriotism, we mean that conservatives must learn to embrace modern America for what it is. The melting pot has achieved its goal. There are Americans from literally every race, creed, and nation of origin possible. That will not change. I was born in the Philippines and moved here when I was 8-months old but all I know is America and I am probably  more conservative than most Tea Party elite. The difference between my understanding and the understanding of those who are still driven by hidden or public views of bigotry is that I know that true patriotism means accepting a clear delineation between America and the rest of the world.

There are no African Americans, Hispanic Americas, or Filipino Americans. There are Americans and non-Americans.

Our fight must not be against the people trying to cross the border. We are not in a position to understand the individual circumstances behind any other human’s plight. Someone might be trying to cross the border because they will be killed if they stay where they are and America offers the only achievable refuge. They might be crossing the border because their child was taken across without their permission and they want to get them back. They might be crossing the border because they were told that they would be allowed to stay and become proper US citizens if they could only make it across, having the intention of contributing and living the American dream.

In all three cases, it would be hard for any American citizen to say, “I still wouldn’t do it.” If you would die if you didn’t get to safety in America, would you not try? If your child was taken from you, would you not do everything you could to get them back? If you truly believed based upon misinformation that you could become a great American yourself if you could only cross the border, would you let that dream go?

We cannot despise those trying to cross the border because we do not know what is motivating them. With that said, we still cannot allow them to do so. We have to hate the game, not the player. We have to deter the action, not the actor. It’s in unifying the motivations around the concept of pure patriotism that we could have any chance of getting support from the rest of the country.

When you view and communicate it from a position of empathetic yet pragmatic fortitude, it’s easier to get support from those who would normally fight against it. The reason for this is that it then becomes clear that it’s in every citizen’s best interests secure the border. Legal immigrants from Latin American countries should be supporting a secure border. They went through the proper steps and have worked to achieve their piece of America by doing it the right way. However, the conservative movement has never been able to get much of their support because they have focused on the people rather than the practice of illegally crossing the border.

For example, it might play well to a certain audience to point out the number of crimes perpetrated by illegals, but it does not resonate to the Hispanic community. Many Hispanics view it as a bigoted attack against their race. The right way to get support for securing the border from legal immigrants is to reward them for doing the right thing and deter those who do not. Unfortunately, it’s easier for illegal immigrants to get help from the government in many cases than for legal immigrants. We must embrace those, such as me, who are here because we went through the proper channels, and that means focusing on the problems that immigration can create without pointing to the people who are doing the crossing.

It’s a subtle shift but an important one.

This is not a fight against illegal immigrants, many of whom have family here that support them. This is a fight against illegal immigration, an act of entering the country by circumventing the system.

How hard would it be to buy air time on national television in Latin American countries alerting them to the fact that rumors of amnesty are false? How difficult would it be work with law enforcement in Mexico, even helping to fund it, in order for them to help stop people from crossing the border? We spend so much time and money fighting the war on drugs, yet securing the borders and assisting the Mexican government to stop trafficking could provide a viable solution to both drugs as well as illegal border crossings.

These may be impractical. I’m not a politician. However, the concept of facing the problem through pure patriotism can keep conservatives focused on achieving goals rather than pushing for victories in November. The funny part is that if they are able to make progress towards achieving these goals rather than spewing the standard rhetoric, we would likely do better in November as a result.

Democrats are Sticking their Heads in the Sand Over Recent Obama Follies

Benghazi Attacks

The IRS targeting of conservative groups falls under the category of, “duh.” The Justice Departments seizure of journalists’ communication records created a dangerous precedent that is already making sources dry up. The way the Obama administration handled the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11 was arguably the most masterful spin job in US political history. With all that is starting to come to light about this corrupt and destructive administration, the response so far from the left has been to stick their heads in the sand and hope the scenery is still cheery when the smoke clears.

Benghazi PollThat’s the takeaway from a recent Gallup poll that suggests the people just aren’t that interested in these types of news items. Republicans are more willing to follow them with 2/3rds claiming they are watching the IRS situation and the Benghazi investigation very or somewhat closely. Only 40% and 45% respectively of Democrats are doing the same.

Benghazi is the truly damaging one because of the implications it had. The administration knew that they would have a hard time winning the election if they were caught sleeping through a terrorist attack on the anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, particularly from a group that they have conveniently and quietly tried to remove from public consciousness. They spun it to appear as if it was a spontaneous action in response to a video.

They lied. They know it. They wanted to win the election at all costs, even if it meant desecrating the memories of the public servants that died as a result of the administrations ineffectiveness and unwillingness to protect them thoroughly. Now that it’s coming to light, the left seems unwilling to hear the truth. After all, it would mean that their chosen savior for the nation might actually be doing the wrong things for the country, that he’s more corrupt than even the Bush administration, and that he and his team intentionally misled the American people in order to keep hold of their power.

This is all disgusting on many levels, but the worst part is that many Democrats are gleefully willing to play the role of sheep. Conservatives were among the most vocal when Bush made poor choices. Why are liberals not willing to do the same when their guy turns out to be a manipulative scoundrel?

Enhanced by Zemanta

When We Go Over the Cliff, Will the GOP be Blamed?

John Boehner


Let’s put aside for a moment the concept that raising taxes is not the answer. Let’s forget for this discussion that dramatic cuts in spending is the only possible way to get out of the financial mess that this country is in. Let’s assume that bi-artisan understanding of economic responsibility is too hard for both sides to swallow and that it’s much easier to get re-elected by blaming others and opening up the purse-strings to “buy” votes. Let’s just look at the way that this is all being handled.

The left is pointing to the right and the right is pointing to the left as far as assigning blame for the impasse that is plunging us towards a cliff that will damage the country’s economy, reputation, and future. The difference is that the the left is making their points by positioning themselves well in front of the media and through social sites. The right, on the other hand, is simply pointing fingers. It’s not playing well to the people. It’s not playing well for the press. It’s definitely not playing well on social media.

When will the right realize that they have to protect themselves when times like these come about? In reality, they never will. It goes against the nature of the party and the conservative movement in general to garner public support through anything other than the truth. Unfortunately, the truth is very ugly as it pertains to the fiscal cliff and the left is masterfully spinning this to fall squarely on John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress.

Conservatives, it’s time to hope for the best but plan for the worst. If we do go over the cliff, it will be extremely important to make sure as many people as possible understand that the roadblocks were placed squarely there by the left, that the GOP attempted to compromise twice during negotiations without an inch given by the administration, and that it’s not about protecting the rich but rather about protecting the future of the country. Arm yourself with the facts and push forward towards better days. If we go over the cliff, we’ll need to buckle down to make sure that the right decisions are made in the future.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Time to Rebuild the Republican Party with Conservative Values

Half Mast

This was going to be a lengthy post, but I decided to keep it short. The signs are clear. History has pointed us in the right direction. For the country to head in the right direction, there can no longer be a leaning towards the middle. It simply doesn’t work.

At the state and congressional level, moderates can do well. There needs to be a mix of conservatives, liberals, and moderates to make sure that all people have someone standing up for them in government. At the executive level, this simply isn’t the case.

Let’s look at the GOP nominees over the last 3 decades:

  • 1980 – Reagan – Conservative – Victory
  • 1984 – Reagan – Conservative – Victory
  • 1988 – Bush – Moderate – Victory against a weak opponent and coming on the tail of a successful Reagan era
  • 1992 – Bush – Moderate – Defeat
  • 1996 – Dole – Moderate – Defeat
  • 2000 – Bush – Moderate, but ran on a conservative platform – Vicotry
  • 2004 – Bush – Moderate, but still ran on a conservative platform – Victory
  • 2008 – McCain – Moderate – Defeat
  • 2012 – Romney – Moderate – Defeat

The Bush presidencies were the only ones that were able to win as moderates. What is missed is that G.H.W. Bush won because he was Reagan’s VP. G.W. Bush won because he pretended to be a conservative.

The people want a strong conservative in office. That doesn’t mean that any strong conservative can win, but it takes extreme circumstances such as 9/11 or false pretenses to get  moderate into the White House. The Republican party has been partitioned for some time. The Tea Party and other conservative organizations are forced to push so far to the right because the perception of the leaders of the republican establishment always push too close to the middle.

For this country to thrive in the coming years, it’s necessary for moderate republicans to lean to the right. That doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone needs to push into ultra-conservative land. They simply need to emulate Ronald Reagan. It should be a rallying call. Whenever a politician or an individual needs to make a decision, they should ask themselves what Reagan would do. He wasn’t so far right that he put the country into deadlock turmoil, but he was conservative enough to keep the values upon which the country was formed at the forefront of his policies.

This is the future of the party. It’s the future of the country.

I am the Problem with the Republican Party

Image Credit: runluaurun

Ever since the GOP primary season started, I’ve been very displeased with Mitt Romney as the Republican Establishment’s anointed choice. He is not a conservative, but perhaps more importantly his health care record with Romneycare will absolutely prohibit him from being able to defeat Barack Obama in November. Conservatives don’t like him. Moderates don’t trust him. The only people who seem to like him are liberals because they see what the Republican Establishment is unwilling to see, that Mitt Romney is a fraud that will be exposed by the tremendous campaigning machine the Obama’s team will unleash on him if he is indeed the nominee.

The reason that he hasn’t been knocked off his pedestal thus far is me. That’s not a statement exemplifying delusions of grandeur.  It’s what I represent as that loud but unconsolidated group of conservatives who are so strongly opposed to Romney that we are looking to Santorum or Gingrich (or even Paul) to step up. I have “pulled a Romney” several times in the last few months casting my support to the Conservative du jour who seems to have a chance.

That’s the problem.

Any of the candidates other than Herman Cain had a chance if only we would have united around one of them. It was Bachmann. Then it was Perry. Then it was Cain. Then it was Gingrich. Then it was Santorum. Then it was Gingrich again. Then it was Santorum again.

My indecision and the indecision of people like me have propelled Romney to the likely victory he is now clawing his way towards. In the end, he may be better for the country than Obama and that’s another part of the indecision that is haunting the party. Many who have voted or plan to vote for Romney are doing so reluctantly because we want the fighting to end and for the party to concentrate on the true foe. We want to prize. We want the presidency.

Right here, right now, I’m drawing the unpopular line. I will not vote for Romney. Many will say that it’s a statement and position that further damages the party. They are right. Unfortunately, they are also wrong. Voting for Mitt Romney will hurt the Republican party and the country more than another 4 years of Obama. His chances are mathematically lighter than either Santorum or Gingrich to be able to beat Obama simply because he cannot win the important states.

If he is able to win somehow in November (anything is possible in politics, particularly when Obama is involved), he will do damage to the party in ways that will take at least 8 years to fix much in the same way that Bush Sr. did in 1988-1992. He will hurt what has been built up recently in congress by pulling us away from the possibility of a majority in both the House and the Senate. He will put a Democrat back in the White House in 2016 and likely again in 2020 because of the debacle that his presidency would be.

Ron Paul, for all of his good ideas and intentions, is also in the same boat. His foreign policy ideas are impossible to support.

This leaves Santorum and Gingrich. The line in the sand has been drawn. Who will step up and earn my support from now until the end?

Mitt Romney is not a Conservative

Ronald Reagan Flag

American politicians are supposed to be guided by the will of the people through an electorate that decides who will best represent their goals and fill the needs required of office. It can be said that going with what the people want is an asset and should be considered a strength. There are times, however, when personal passion and unwavering convictions are more important than the willingness to change.

Voters know this instinctively, which is why Mitt Romney hasn’t taken the commanding lead that his money and the support he receives from the Republican Establishment should be giving him. When someone’s voiced opinions change based upon the audience at the time, it means that either the opinions their voicing are false part of the time (you can’t live on both sides of any particular fence) or that the ability of a person to form opinions that make sense to them (and therefore the electorate) is missing.

Mitt Romney’s flips and flops are well documented, but that’s politics. A candidate must often put their words through a filter to fit the situation and actions tend to speak louder than words. However, there’s a statement that should disqualify Romney from ever being able to call himself a conservative. It’s one thing to change over time and become more conservative, but to go from an independent to moderate Republican and now to a conservative as he is claiming is simply not feasible. To claim to have changed that much over the years is either a lie or alarming if it’s true. America does not need a President with such weak convictions that they are able to tumble so easily.

We don’t need Mitt Romney.

The Drudge Report is Doing Whatever it can to Give Obama a Second Term

Drudge Report

For a “conservative” news aggregator, the Drudge Report is doing its best impersonation of a liberal mainstream media opinion-sculptor as the clear lean towards the “Republican Establishment Candidacy” of Mitt Romney. This goes against the what the largest chunk of Republican voters want and it’s only one piece of the anti-Newt puzzle.

What is it about Romney that makes so many conservative publications, influencers, and analysts support him? Is the Republican Establishment really that scared of their own ideas that they are willing to support someone who hasn’t pushed for them in the past? Are they serious about attacking Obamacare, something that Romney has zero credibility to accomplish? Is the vote of moderates so important to them that they’ll turn their back on the conservative base?

Drudge WivesTo the right, you’ll see a carefully-crafted and impeccably-placed set of two articles that declare “news” of the wives in play. Even the images are well-chosen to give the impression that one candidate is moving up and one candidate is on his way out. It’s a despicable display of lack of journalistic standards from a publication that makes its money influencing the very base that it has turned its back on.

Florida is the last hope for the country. With little chance of Santorum or Paul breaking through to the top, Gingrich is the last conservative who has a chance to win the GOP nomination. Despite 32% of Republican voters supporting him nationwide versus 24% supporting Romney, the Republican Establishment led by Drudge, Fox News, and Romney’s cronies in Washington are trying to shift the balance of power over to the Massachusetts moderate. They aren’t interested in running with someone who displays the type of leadership that Republican voters want. They are only interested in trying once again to put a John McCain or a Bob Dole up as their horse of the year.

It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Newt Gingrich is the only GOP candidate who has what it takes to beat Obama as well as a chance to win the nomination. Romney has neither the skills nor the track record to win in November, assuring a 2nd term for Obama.

Newt Gingrich is the Only Candidate that can Beat Obama

South Carolina Primary

South Carolina Republicans, take note before the upcoming primary. Newt Gingrich is the only candidate that can beat Barack Obama. This isn’t a statement that has been building up based upon continuous, unwavering approval from a passionate supporter. This comes from someone who has been studying every debate, as many speaking engagements as possible, previous history, Obama’s campaign strategies, and the path that the nominee must travel before facing Barack Obama.

Romney cannot win. He showed during the debate on January 16th a few things that make him a weaker candidate than many originally thought. First, he received more boos than anyone from the crowd, one that was most likely made up of conservatives. Without the adamant support of conservatives (particularly financial support in the coming months), Romney will not be able to fight against the barrage of attacks that will come towards him from both sides.

Second, Romney may lead in the polls but it is apparent that his support is based upon Republicans “settling” for who they believe can win rather who they really want. The lack of passionate support following him cannot turn into a victory in November. Even Ron Paul, whose floor is the strongest but whose ceiling is the lowest, would have a better chance than Romney because of the very passion of his supporters that Romney’s lack.

Third, he’s too rich. Estimates put him at a quarter of billion dollars networth. Others say he may be worth closer to a billion. In a world of Occupy Wall Street, that level of wealth will not play well during the campaign.

Finally, the man cannot debate. He doesn’t do well when put on the spot and there is zero doubt that he will be put on the spot by Obama and the media. How he handles situations is poor at best.

Newt Gingrich has the ability to take on Obama in the war of words. More so than Santorum or Paul, Gingrich has answers to questions that resonate with the population. He is the true “Reagan Conservative” that many have hoped for since 1988 and has a track record of being able to work with the other side to make things happen. His personal issues are minor compared to his ability to solve the country’s problems. People will see this.

They’ll vote for Gingrich. They won’t vote for Romney.

Here’s what they think of Gingrich, on the other hand.

* * *

JD RuckerJD is the voice of technology and social media for Conservative Haven and is Editor at Soshable, a Social Media Blog. He is a husband and father of 3 living in Southern California.

Gingrich: “I like where we are now”

Gingrich Think

One of the most asinine attacks currently being levied upon Newt Gingrich is that he is not a true conservative. It’s a desperate move by his GOP competitors, Mitt Romney in particular, as way to try to derail the momentum he has been building up the last couple of weeks ahead of the Iowa caucus.

As he points out while answering questions in Iowa, he has had a 90% American Conservative Union voting record for two decades. It’s a record that few in his party can claim and one that clearly tips his conservative hand when it come to policy. Trying to deny this is, as Gingrich puts it, a lie.

When asked about the polls that are showing him behind President Obama in a head-to-head race, Gingrich reminds us that Ronald Reagan was in a similar position against Jimmy Carter in 1979 and that “I like where we are now.”

Here’s the video from CBS News: