To paraphrase the wise and pithy P.J. O'Rourke, "I'm a registered Republican and consider foreign intervention a violation of the American principle that you shouldn't stick your nose in other people's business except to make a buck." -- P.J. O'Rourke (words in italics are mine)

I used to be all gung ho on spreading democracy.  I had the vision of Patton, McArthur, and Teddy Roosevelt charging the enemy and ridding the foreign lands of the bad guys and freeing the good peoples from tyranny. The good peoples who were freed would then start copying everything we did except that they would make the products better and smaller. But I digress. I realized that the new way of doing war is not to have winning as the goal but rather to conduct a civilized and humane war.  How ridiculous is that? 

I know this sounds shallow but the point really hit home as I watched The Hurt Locker.   More than one scene showed our guys risking their lives while the citizens of the Iraqui (?) town just stared like dumb animals or looked suspicious.  Why WERE we wasting blood and treasure for these lumps?  So I started re-evaluating how I thought and discovering what was sensible, logical and true.  I also examined my attitudes towards the oppressed peoples.

I've concluded:
1. Either we should go into war with the idea of wiping out the enemy and leaving or

2. Wiping out the enemy and colonizing.  I actually prefer this one.  The more places that are like Oregon, New Jersey and Tennessee - the better (relatively speaking) off all of us would be.

3. I'd been looking at foreigners like liberals look at some of their fellow countrymen:  I'd been patronizing them in thinking that they need our help or else.  If I were to be fair and consistent, I'd see that if we could do it they should be able to do it.

4. If the people want freedom they at least have to make the effort. They shouldn't expect us to go in and do it for them. 

Now, no way have I gone paleo.  Paleos believe in never going to war except if we've been attacked. They don't believe in any kind of intervention unless it's the kind where the French cut off Cornwallis and the Americans win. They also revere the Southern Cross which symbolized the Scots-Irish's Christian faith and honor and love for freedom for everyone. Well, except for slaves. 

I believe in not going to war if we can avoid it but I do believe in making as much trouble for our enemies as often as we can.  This includes political and economic pressure, speaking about freedom out loud (Obama are you listening?); arming rebels; taking out subalterns to send messages; and generally undermining all efforts of our enemies.  I also believe that we should make Congress vote on going to war each time just so they'll be on record and can't weasel out when the heat's on. They might also be more inclined to help win.

The original title for this entry was: "Hope for Repubs Afterall?"  But, as usual, the RNC wants to run away from success.  Here's what is happening:

The RNC, although slower than smoke off a turd, seems to be opening it's eyes to the fact that Americans are rejecting Leftist ideas vociferously.  They actually did a good thing and came up with two proposals that would keep money from being wasted by giving it to Repub candidates who are too moderate, that is to say, are liberal democrats in disguise. 

Quotes are from a CNN story.

The proposals are #1 - the "purity resolution" which would "... force GOP candidates to ascribe at least eight of 10 conservative principles, or else be cut off from RNC financial support."

and

 #2 the "accountability resolution" which would allow "... RNC Chairman Michael Steele to 'take into account the conservative bon fides of a candidate' before deciding whether to offer party support ... Unlike the 'purity resolution', it does not include a strict ten-plank platform for candidates to abide by. The newer measure would also require any Republican who switches parties or endorses a Democrat to return any money provided to them by the RNC."

Guess which one got rejected?  That's right, #1 natch.  The Stupid Party strikes again. It is highly unlikely that they will vote for it because the state reps in the RNC are whining that they won't be able to support "R"s who could win in their districts.  In other words, these jerks don't want to do their jobs and find and fund conservatives all across America because it is too hard.  This makes me sick.  I know two candidates down here in the Atlanta area, black conservatives who were ignored in the 2006 and 2008 elections by the RNC.  Does this sound like a party who wants to reach out to minorities like they claim?  Nah. Too hard. A conservative could NEVER win in a blue district, right?  (psst - don't tell 'em about Massachusetts).

Here are the Ten Conservative Principles as per the RNC:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.

(2) We support market-based healthcare reform and oppose Obama-style government-run healthcare.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation.

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing healthcare rationing and denial of healthcare and government funding of abortion.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Let's think about this: the RNC came up with these principles and now are undermining their credibility by admitting that they don't want to find candidates who are willing to agree with 8 of them!  That's like the Baseball Hall of Fame setting their bar for entry and then letting Dave Kingman in anyway, claiming they couldn't find worthy candidates.  This is why the Repubs frustrate so many voters.  

And which two principles would a real conservative have real problems with?  I can see that #6 might be iffy but only if we had not already gone to war.  We should decide to win or go home. Half-stepping is getting people killed unnecessarily.  And #8 should be left to states to vote on. No problemo.  But what the heck is wrong with the other eight principles?  Why should we want a Repub candidate who doesn't agree with most of these principles?  One answer, I suppose is that good ol' John McCain and his minion Lindsey Graham, can't or won't agree with #s1, 2, 3, and 5 and would be disqualified for funding.

The RNC will most likely vote on the "accountability resolution".  This solution would be of practical use but only if you had a conservative RNC chairman with good sense and decision making skills instead of Michael Steel, a "me-too" type of politician.  As BrianR often says, this guy wants to jump in front of the parade.  Letting Michael Steel decide who is conservative enough is laughable. He can't even make up his mind which bandwagon to jump on and when.  One day he bashes Rush and then he is forced to apologize the next.  He tells the Tea Party people to settle down and then, after the success of the leaderless rallies, Steel wants to sing in the choir.  Going with option 2 will lead to more of the same which is not good for the future of America.  It is slow motion socialism. 

Looks like I'll be forced to vote third party again.  Sarah Palin has shown her true colors, endorsing McCain and now the RNC has backpeddled in a cowardly fashion from taking a stand on what they believe.  This is why we should take NO ONE at face value. 

Profiling for terrorists would work at airports (and most other places).  I believe most all terror attacks here have been by Muslem men between the ages of teen years to late 30s. Check with Ann Coulter for all the facts. I'm just saying it would work.  Look for swarthy dudes paying cash for one way tickets named Mohamed Muhammed Muhamed and you'll likely find a terrorist eventually. Plus, I could laugh at my brother in law and best friend who is half Egyptian. 

What I really want to address is the folks who automatically say, "What about if blond haired blue eyed men and women started blowing planes up?"  Right. Not that I trust Germans completely (never let them gather in large numbers to talk politics) but I'm pretty sure that the Imams would have to use a different bait.  Everyone other than Muslems has reasons to live: a loving God, DVR, air conditioning, pizza delivery in 30 minutes or less, art, music, toothpaste - basically all the things you need to be happy.  Try telling the average young dude that he'll get 72 Virgins AFTER he dies and he'll laugh in your face and explain what "hooking up" means. Try to get your average blond woman to give up L'Oreal products and manicures for the greater glory of God and she'll ask you what in the Hell you are talking about.  And I know for damn sure that most Americans would never give up barbecue for Allah. No offense.

Normally I take my time and edit myself as I write to produce something coherent for you, my fans. Today I'm going to wing it:

Michelle Bachmann appears to be separating herself from the pack of usual suspects in the Repub party.  If she keeps this up, she'll have a great shot at being nominated for President in 3 years.  She is serious and dedicated from what I can tell.  We on the Right don't like to bring sex, race or social standing into the subject at hand when discussing individuals (the Left is enthrall to that grouping POV) BUT politics does take that into account so any special aspect of a candidate counts. In this case, being a woman and a mom will certainly enhance her chances with women voters.  I believe she has a plan - it seems that daily she is putting her opinion out there on important subject matters.  Bachmann is responding to her customers and not pandering.  I like that. She is smart and methodical.

Palin is planning something, I guess.  A lot of people criticize her for quitting the Governorship of Alaska.  I didn't think it helped her chances much.  But, what IF she has a long range master plan?  Many people doubt her intelligence if not her cunning.  I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she looked ahead at neverending lawsuits from the Left aimed at taking her down as Gov. so she pre-emptively struck by resigning.  Her plan is to make a pile of cash, gather her own army, and make a run for Prez is 3 years.  She also is taking foreign affairs seriously and has new advisors: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2346199/posts. 

Bachmann and Palin will most likely run on a Repub ticket unless things go the way of my wildest dreams and they run as Conservative Party or Constitutional Party nominees.  I would prefer a powerful Conservative Party to emerge but I would derive great satisfaction in watching the Repub bigwigs surrender their swords to us cons.  I could live with cons running the Repub party again, I guess.  The next two elections will tell us something about whether the cons are serious and stick together to rid the party of the Lindsey Grahams.  There is no excuse whatsoever for a Southern State or a Western State to elect Olympia Snowe type Repubs.  As Will Ferrell would say, "It's mindbottling". 

I can't wait to watch for NY23 next week. Let's keep our fingers crossed. 

Michael Medved really irritates me.  I used to really enjoy him but he's really smug and obstinate on some matters.  He constantly reviles 3rd party candidates and 3rd party voters because he says it only wastes votes and hurts Repubs.  I will agree totally that it hurts Repubs.  I disagree that it wastes votes.  I also want him to know that hurting Repubs is not a bad thing. So he's just wrong on voting one's conscience.  Typical Party Loyalist.  Anyway, NOW he says that he likes it that Hoffman may win as a con.  Why?  Because Hoffman can win.  Huh?  Medved usually says that no one should vote 3rd party because no one will vote 3rd party therefore it is a waste.  Now that MANY people will vote 3rd party, Medved is on board because as he has said, "Hoffman can actually win".  You get it?  Don't vote for someone who will lose.  Wow. Brilliant and ethical that.

I'm getting the sinking feeling that Obama and 'em are dedicated to overwhelming the system and devaluing the dollar so bad that the weak Americans will turn to any form of govt that promises relief and security.  I was hoping that it was just that they sincerely wanted to transfer wealth and were too stupid to know what would happen but I don't think so anymore.

The election of a black man to the office of President of the United States of America was supposed to bring racial healing, a new way of politics, and lots of hugs amongst people who differ on myriad social issues.  After only ten months racial tension is as high as it was during the civil rights struggles in the late 50's and into the 60's.  On the Right there are those who lack respect for Mr. Obama from the get-go.  Some Republicans are just bigots and some are Birthers.  But they are surely a small percentage - the same unwelcome bunch that is part of every group.  Conservatives always criticize anyone who espouses socialist, marxist, communist, fascist ideals for America.  They feel strongly that capitalism and a democratic republic should not be dismantled.  So their beef with Mr. Obama, who just happens to be black, is legitimate. The members of the Republican party object to President Obama on purely political grounds.  They don't really care about ideals but they know enough to point to the President and yell, "See?! He'll get us all killed!  Vote for us instead!"  So even their objections are legitimate.  They don't care what color a politician's skin is - they just want to win offices. 

 It is the Left that loves to inject race into political, business, or social issues.  They name call the Republicans and conservatives "racists", "bigots", "rednecks" and worse when the Right tries to argue or debate about the direction the country is being taken.  The Left does this all the time so it's nothing new.  There are bigots and racists on the Left of course, ever been to Philly or West Virginia?  But these are just the publicly racist folk.  The Left is made up mostly of members who suffer from soft-bigotry.  They are Liberals - black, white, hispanic, asian, etc who have low standards for blacks at any level, including President.  They believe that blacks, unlike everyone else, cannot stand up to criticism and don't have the wherewithal to make it in America without the Left's generosity. They figuratively pat black folk on the head when blacks do little more than show up.  Most on the Left don't realize they're racist but they have been going out of their way in 2009 to project their hatred onto those on the Right. 

The Left continuously claims that we should all have a nice long dialogue to heal racial wounds.  However, once the conversation gets started it soon gets stopped cold by calling the folk on the Right a derogatory name.  Then its back to square one.  Black on black racial hatred rears its ugly head as well.  Juan Williams was told to get back on the porch by Warren Ballentine on Bill O'Reilly's show.  Ballentine went on to brag about it on Twitter and his radio show.  Ironically, Ballantine had been debating Williams about whether Rush Limbaugh uses race to stir things up.  Ballentine, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Sheila Jackson Lee, quite a few members of the DinoMedia and the other usual suspects are working hard for Big Race and business is booming.  They are making sure the racial fire stays stoked rather than take advantage of this historical time to actually move forward for good.  Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were two of the first "authentic" blacks to question the authenticity of Mr. Obama in the first place. Once they realized which way the wind was blowing they made Mr. Obama Soul Brother Number 2 (James Brown being eternally Number 1). Now, any objection to President Obama is automatically a racial problem.  Mr. Obama being elected has made race relations worse than ever.

As far as the Right should be concerned, the time for talking and reaching out should be over.  It is a waste of time to try to "heal" racial issues with people who have a paranoid point of view and are vested in NEVER reconciling.  It's like the Israelis constantly being forced to work with Palestinians and other Muslem nations. The best way to garner more support from minorities is the same way that the Right appeals to whites - just stick to the principles of individual freedom, self-determination, personal responsibility, and charity that comes from the people and not the government. 

I claim this term, "shape shifting" in the name of Queen Isabella!  Just kidding.  For the record I do claim to be the first human to refer to evolution theory as "shape shifting".  Yes, yes, I know it's clever and catchy.  Feel free to use it but just remember whence it came.  Do I NOT believe in evolution?  Oh the HORROR.  Do I think that evolution and God cannot coexist?  Eh.  I don't really care.  On the one hand, I would think that God, being God, could finish the job of making man in his Image right quick.  Unless He was a caveman at some point?  Well.  On the other hand, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that man has gotten better over the years, excepting Bill Maher.  It's just that changing from one animal to another without Dr. 90210's skills is difficult to swallow with my smaller than our ape ancestors' jaw. Now, they tell me I don't understand evolution.  The current explanation is that just because a man came from a slimeball does not mean that he changed shapes.  Huh?  Ok. So we evolved from one thing to another but it's not the same as changing from one thing to another?  Right. Clear as mud, Spanky.  I'm really just yanking the prehensil tails of the Christian-bashing smug folks who think they believe and understand science but can't figure out cycles in nature or when life begins for humans.  Enjoy peppering your debates with the monkeys by using the term "shape shifting".  It will drive them bananas.