iPandora

Michael Medved opened my eyes.

On his radio show he was trying to explain on “Disagreement Day” to disheartened conservatives that trying to “purify” the Republican is not the correct course of action. The root of his argument:

You win by making your group bigger, not smaller.

First: you should not win by selling out. A win bought at so dear a price may not be worthwhile.

Second: you should not compromise your deepest principles either.

But, in my stands and beliefs there is a hierarchy: Abortion is one of my strongest concerns, to not value life is to not value life, there is no grey area. The issue of homosexual privilege is strong, though not as strong as abortion. Abortion is more external and more obviously a violation of laws and human rights and can be dealt with more legislatively than homosexual privilege.

The economy is a matter of principle: free market economics benefit the most people in a way most conducive to supporting Free Will as divised by God. But we can witness to people regardless of thier economic station and a faulty economy is less of a harm to people’s souls than abortion or homosexuality.

By balancing the hierarchy of beliefs and convictions and principles I can find ways to include people who I may have less in common with in reaching my goals.

I have no qualms working with members of the Mormon church to work for significant reinforcement of traditional marriage and the preventing of special privilege for homosexuals beyond the privilege accorded to heterosexuals, despite my serious disagreements with their beliefs.

I have no qualms working with Catholics to further the protection of the innocent unborn despite my belief that most Catholics are decieved and not Christians.

I have no problem working with athiests in pursuit of a libertarian economic policy despite serious disagreements on probably every other issue due to our differences in root beliefs.

The point is: Being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, I will work with any I can to achieve the ends which follow my convictions. I will be accepting and friendly to all as people so that none will have reason to say that I’m not for them as they could be for me.

With the devious I will be devious, with the narrow I will be narrow. The goal being that by any and all means, except those which violate my conscience and God’s law, we can advance the cause of physical and economic freedom here on earth for as many as possible, and hope and eternal freedom in the life hereafter for as many as will believe.

Refining this ideal is the fact that people follow a leader with a vision. It does not have to be a clearly defined vision so much as a stirring vision (or at least one spoken of stirringly, see Barack Obama). Reagan was the “Great Communicator” and people followed his visions. Barack Obama has a way with words, a visible empathy that stirs people to want to believe what he says.

Individually, we need to be ready and willing and able to act in concert with all kinds of people, making the “big tent” an actual Big Tent. Seek common ground more than ideological purity within the bounds of our own individual abilities to accept differences. Instead of finding people most like us, find people most able to bring most of us along with them in a path headed towards truth.

As a group we need to find those people who have strong and principled stands we can agree with mostly who are also strong communicators and vibrant individuals. Vision and passion have few foes who can stand against them working together.

That is my plan for real change.

From today’s column:

Reagan conservatives (and Libertarians) recognize that conservatism through liberal means is still liberalism. They strongly reject that they must abandon their fealty to fundamental constitutional restraints on government.

From Doug Ross: Gomer Melts Down – Huckabee claims there’s a conspiracy against him, and proceeds to lose the facts left and right. Such as the fact that Clear Channel and Sean Hannity are not affiliated. Hannity is syndicated by ABC Radio.

Come on Huck, give it up already. You’ve damaged God, America, Arkansas (on top of the damage the Clintons have done to that (otherwise) fine state), and now you’re just hurting yourself.

WorldMagBlog asks Christian liberals to reexamine the nature of their belief: Evangelical Liberals Rejection Of Reality (link invalid):

If you set government policy based on bad economics — i.e. policies based on economic principles that do not correspond to the way God created the world to operate — they will be counterproductive and bring unhappy results. They won’t “work.”

Hugh sees Romney surging and talk radio leading:

Once the score was clear after Florida –a McCain or Romney nomination– the Republican base quickly began to rally to Romney because the Republican base cares deeply about the issues that bind the Reagan coalition –tax cuts, originalist judges, free markets, and of course the value of unborn life and traditional marriage.

And WorldMagBlog tells us what to watch (link invalid):

Super Tuesday will be key to deciding the presidential nominees but don’t expect the race for the nomination to end today — especially for the Democrats. McCain’s lead over Romney is widening, and if he captures the most states and delegates tonight he should emerge the clear victor. Obama has narrowed Clinton’s once-wide lead and Democrats award victory based on a combination of popular vote, delegates won, and states won. Expect some spin once the votes come in.

Now, stop reading and GO VOTE!

David Limbaugh, in his January 3rd column, contemplates the foundations of the American Experiment and the assaults against those foundations by ignorant yet usually well-meaning people of all stripes.

He asks whether or not conservatives have that “fire in the belly” necessary to motivate the country into entrusting its direction to their hands again.

Before Reagan was elected, there was much more for conservatives to be concerned over, the country had bought into massive economic and social lies and was being led by its nose down a path of recession. But Reagan led on ideas and hope, and with solid economic principles he allowed the country to see the truth in his dreams.

Have we now forgotten the strengths of America are not magic or unassailable permanent fixtures of our corner of the world?

We expect liberals to believe: We can punish the producers in this nation without reducing overall output and hurting all economic groups; we can socialize health care without destroying its quality, quantity and affordability; we can assault our traditional values and cultural institutions without eroding the nation’s character; unbridled, illegal immigration without assimilation will lead to multicultural Nirvana; and we will be secure at home if we’ll just be nicer to foreign nations and more sensitive to the terrorists’ concerns.

But what about conservatives? Do we also need a reminder that free nations are the exception in world history and that our liberty was purchased with the greatest sacrifices and will ultimately disappear without a rededication to our founding principles?

Read it all. Then tell Fred Thompson to get some fire in his belly.

His greatest strength is that he doesn’t need to be president. But his greatest failure is that he doesn’t recognize the necessity of at least acting as though we need him to be president. If the strength of his own convictions is this weak, what is there to entrust to him?

“Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he’ll eat you last.” – Ronald Reagan

The Center For Individual Freedom posted this quiz:

Who are the only two U.S. Presidents to date who did not grant any pardons during their terms of office?

George Washington and John Adams
James Garfield and William H. Harrison
Woodrow Wilson and Harry S. Truman
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

The Answer:

Presidents James Garfield and William Henry Harrison executed not a single presidential clemency action while in office, both having died before serving even one year of their terms.

Washington and Adams granted 16 and 21, respectively; Wilson and Truman’s pardons each topped 2,000; Reagan granted 406 and Clinton, 456.

Source: University of Pittsburgh School of Law

And some people are complaining about the communtation of one sentence? Don’t get me wrong. There are no excuses for obstruction of justice and perjury, but these figures from the records of other presidents put the situation in perspective.

Bonus question:
Which President signed the most clemency actions?

Answer:
Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 3687 clemency actions during his 12 years as President.

Three stories caught my attention today, and for this reason: That conservative values of individual responsibility, recognition of absolute truth, and consistency of conviction in the face of repeated attack, always resonate, always work (even if they seem to fail in the short term), and always get their reward.

Reagan repealed what is known as the “Fairness Doctrine”, a policy which required that all publicly broadcasting media channels give “equal time” to all viewpoints on any issue or risk losing their licenses. This allowed the growth of Talk Radio, which has blossomed in a way quite without precedent among the conservative mainstream. There have been attempts by private liberal interest groups to duplicate the successes of conservative talk radio, but they have, without exception, failed miserably. Most recently Air America, a Soros-funded venture filed for bankruptcy protection. Only NPR, the federally-funded broadcasting corporation which would appear to be a thinly veiled arm of the American Communist Party.

Now, Pelosi, et al. wish to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine to force broadcast stations to do allow both sides of an argument regardless of monetary feasibility. The idea behind the success of conservative political talk radio is that people enjoy listening to it, they buy the products advertised on it, they support the stations who broadcast it. This is not a wild guess that people like to listen to conservative political talk, it’s a concrete, incontrovertible fact. If the fairness doctrine were reenacted, there would be backlash and then disinterest, lethargy and apathy would kick in. Stations would close and people would lose their jobs. Pelosi likes this idea, she wants Rush to lose his job so badly she’s willing for hundreds and thousands of small-town DJ’s and radio station personnel to lose theirs as well.

Pelosi’s friend, Mr. Chavez down in Venezuela has been enacting the fairness doctrine recently. The most popular radio station in Venezuela, which was critical of Hugo and his policies, was shut down recently amid massive protests. Students have led the protests claiming an affront to their rights as citizens of Venezuela. Students have led many protests and revolutions in recent times, and not always to their benefit. There were the drugged out protests of the rich, lazy, uncaring youth of the 60′s in America. There were the idealistic but misinformed and ultimately evil revolutions in Russia in the early 20th century which brought in the terrible times of communism, of which Hugo Chavez is either a willfully and evilly ignorant blind follower or an evil, knowing proponent. Sometimes, the proposed change is so much more radical than the actual need that in itself it is evil, such as many of the protested things of the 60s. A whole country is enslaved to communism, a whole generation is nearly wiped out, the American flag cannot fly proudly in a section of the world because of the self-interested pursuits of a privileged and drugged generation here in America.

But sometimes it is the courage and strength, the energy of youth which stands up for the right against the tyrannical likes of Mr. Chavez, the evil. Laying down their own bright futures in hopes of a brighter future, if not for themselves, for those who follow.

John Berlau at HumanEvents.com has written a response to the fawning Mr. Gore is receiving at the hands of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. In his article he submits that Mr. Rush Limbaugh is more deserving of a peace prize as through his works of education and confrontation peoples lives have been saved around the world. Mr. Gore, on the other hand, has only globally broadcasted misinformation, personal ideological greed, and terminal stupidity contained in a corpulent animated corpse to lay to his name. An idol of Mr. Gores’ is the author of Silent Spring, which can be directly blamed for causing the shift in public opinion against DDT which has allowed the resurgence of malaria around the world, and the resulting multitude of deaths, nearly all preventable by use of the tiniest amount of DDT.

Andrew McCarthy at NationalReview.com has written an article detailing the multitude of reasons which Bush has been, is, and continues to be right concerning the war on terror, and how those who disagree with him cannot help but follow him if only for self-preservation. While they wish they could pull out, liberals with any sense know they cannot, and therefore they will do nothing more than push mindless and useless “symbolic” and “non-binding” resolutions recommending pull out by certain arbitrary dates (I really should write about how meaningless words can be). Bush’s problem isn’t that he isn’t right, it’s that he’s not the communicator he should be. Reagan was a great communicator, Kennedy was a great communicator, Roosevelt (Franklin) was a great communicator. They communicated the needs and demands of a higher calling effectively and with words powerful and frequent. Bush has repeatedly failed to capture the ideas of the nation and draw them in the direction of his plans of America’s moral projectionism.

What is so difficult about understanding the intentions of Iran? The London Free Press, in an article on the Prime Ministers statements regarding the act of war committed by Iran by seizing 15 British soldiers who were in Iraqi waters, makes some statements which are telling in their implication.

Tough talk in the last century involved phrases of specific and undeniable purpose and intent:

Reagan

Tear down this wall

Khrushchev

We will bury you

MacArthur

It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it

Consider then the tough words uttered by Mr. Blair, an undeniably able communicator on the purpose and intent of this war:

I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase.

The paper does report that Mr. Blair stated he was willing to, if necessary, use means other than diplomacy to achieve the release of Great Britain’s service men and women. The reporter then, apparently all a-tizzy over the chance that the UK may be opening new fronts against arrogant dangerous and insane tyrants, finds a Blair spokesperson who ‘clarified’, patting the anxious reporter on the head and saying: “there, there, it’s alright, Mr. Blair doesn’t mean we’ll try military solutions or kick the Iranian diplomats out of London, don’t worry your little head about it.”

Ah, the courageous media in action.

What this war needs is a lot more tough talk and tough actions backing up that talk. Where are the Churchills or Thatchers, Reagans and Lees, brave men and women who see what must be done and do it, damning the consequences. Admiral Farragut in the civil war when faced with a particularly dangerous stretch of the Mississippi river that had been mined by the Confederate defenders famously said

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead