About Me

Name: chris@conservativ...
Email: chris@conservativenationalist.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Chris Charles: Democratic Republic or Banana Republic?

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Monday, December 21, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Last time I checked we still live in a Republic, a form of representative democracy, which means that politicians govern on behalf and with the consent of the governed. Or at least that is what should be happening.

Americans are speaking loud and clear but our objections are ignored. Democrats are so eager to ‘fix’ the health care system they are simply disregarding the opinion of the American public.First there were the tea parties on tax day; they were dismissed by liberal Democrats as fringe right wing 'tea baggers'.

Next there were the hundreds (thousands in some cases) that showed up at congressional town hall meetings across the country to express their disapproval of certain policies, mainly socialized medicine. Instead of heeding the demands of those they represent, Congress instead chose to disregard the wishes of their constituents and cancel most remaining town hall meetings to avoid any more ‘unpleasantness’.

For months millions of Americans have inundated Congress with telephone calls and emails voicing their disapproval of a government take-over of the health care industry. At this point you might think that at least the Democratic controlled congress would slow the process down a bit, take some time to garner support outside of the socialist/communist community. Of course they did not do that either, instead the House approved a government takeover of health care late on a Saturday night, with only a single GOP vote. So much for bi-partisanship and transparency!

Not to be out done, the Senate also voted to begin debate on a health care bill late on a Saturday night (when they know nobody is paying attention). Except they were able to do so without a single GOP vote! Well done Mr Reid, you have outdone Nancy Pelosi and set a new low for partisanship.

But wait there’s more! In the Senate, Harry Reid and the Dems needed 60 votes to move the health care bill to the floor. Without Republicans, that meant they needed every single Democrat vote. No easy task given the fact that not all Democrats are from the ultra liberal Maoist wing of the Democratic Party, some are just regular leftists. Take Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu for example, Senator Landrieu wasn’t sure if she should vote to bring socialized medicine one step closer to reality, given the strenuous objects of millions of Americans. Reid and the Dems ‘helped’ to make up her mind by giving her home state up to $300 million in federal aid. Why not just buy her a new car or something? That would have been much cheaper. It is a good thing most Democrats are left wing socialists or else this ‘convincing’ could get VERY expensive for the tax payer.

When did it become okay to bribe Senators with public funds? I understand that lobbyists have been bribing Senators with private funds for years but at least the tax payer did not have to foot the bill for it! I do not think America can still be considered a Republic anymore. As long as Reid, Pelosi, and The President continue to disregard the wishes of the American public, I would have to say we are closer to a banana republic, than a democratic republic. And I have no clue what you would call a government that allows politicians to pay off other politicians with public funds, but it is most definitely not a representative government.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chris Charles: Rules To Live (And Die) By

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Since the start of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military has been hampered by rules of engagement. The US and coalition forces follow the rules; they go out of their way to help civilians. They do their best to respect the Islamic culture, and values held in that part of the world.

Contrast that with the enemy. The enemy, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, follows no rules. The enemy kills innocent people, and takes advantage of our militaries sensitivity for Islamic culture.

More recently, those rules have grown even more burdensome in Afghanistan with the addition of the Karzai 12. The Karzai 12 (named for the newly ‘reelected’ leader) is a new set of rules that the military must follow in addition to the standard ROE.

The Karzai 12 includes the following (with commentary):

No night or surprise searches.

It is really unfair of us to surprise the enemy, we should warn them ahead of time of any upcoming searches for bad guys (see rule #2).

Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

This way the friendly villagers can be armed and waiting for the oppressive occupying force.

ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches. 

Because, you never know when the US armed forces may start killing innocent women and children. Troops should also have an ACLU official present on all searches so that the terrorists can be advised of their legal rights.

U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

Why not wait until the enemy kills at least 3 US soldiers before opening fire, this way we can be absolutely sure they are actually the enemy.

U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

US soldiers should instead immediately surrender to the enemy if civilians are within a 3 square mile radius.

Only women can search women.

Even if the woman in question is really a man dressed in a burka with ten pounds of high explosive also hidden under the shroud.

Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

Soldiers should also have at least 2 eyewitnesses that saw the insurgent make the bomb that will testify before a judge in order to get special permission to engage the insurgent but if and only if he is actually placing the device not before, not after.

With all of the pussyfooting the military is forced to do over there, you might expect that the everyday Iraqi and the everyday Afghan would be grateful to the US military. Instead, many still provide aid and comfort to the enemy. The same enemy that murders innocent people, blows up Mosques, and would, if given the chance, return civilians to the oppression they lived in under Saddam and the Taliban.

It should be clear now why, in recent months the war in Afghanistan has become increasingly difficult to fight. Instead of looking for a quick way out the White House should allow our troops to fight without both arms tied behind their backs.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chris Charles: Uncommon Sense

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Political correctness has run amuck in society for many years, with the passing of time political correctness poses an ever growing threat.

On September 11th, 2001 terrorists hijacked 4 American airliners, using three as guided missiles, only the heroic actions of the passengers on the United 93 prevented the fourth from being used in a similar fashion. Each one of the nineteen hijackers were Islamic radicals, each one was from a Muslim nation, and each one was between the ages of 15 and 40. Using common sense, one could deduce that if men, of Islamic heritage or origin, between the ages of 15 and 40 were screened more closely by airport security, the odds of another attack could be greatly reduced.

Was this done? Absolutely not. On the contrary, the TSA went out of their way not to use common sense when screening airline passengers, for fear of offending the sensibilities of Muslims and the hyper-sensibilities of liberals. Normal Americans understand that profiling is necessary to protect ourselves, at least as long a Radical Muslims want to use airplanes to murder thousands of Americans. How is strip searching a blond hair, blue eyed grandmother advancing the cause of airline security? How many old Irish grannies have committed jihad in recent memory? The fact that no airplanes have been hijacked since 9/11 has little to do with airline security and more to do with a lack of available jihadists thanks to the men and women of the US armed services finding and killing them where they live.  

This kind of illogical thinking is not contained within the walls of airports. Unfortunately, the US Army is finding out firsthand the damage that political correctness can inflict. Army leaders, for years, have been preoccupied with creating a more ‘diverse’ and ‘multi-cultural’ Army. In their zeal for cosmetic harmony, they have forgotten that a soldier must first and foremost be a warrior devoted to protecting the United States of America. Any and all Americans that are able and willing to take up that task should be allowed to do so, regardless of their appearance.

In the case of Major Hasan, he was allowed to continue in the Army, despite warning signs that his dedication to the Army and the United States was in question. It is clear to us now that Major Hasan was not loyal to the Army or the US; he was loyal to radical Islam. Evidence that Hasan was at best sympathetic to the enemy and at worst the enemy himself, was overlooked. Was the US army merely incompetent? Given the sterling record of the US Army, in terms of competence, I find that highly unlikely. Is the Army desirous of ‘diverse’ troops, especially those from the Muslim faith? Absolutely. The problem is when the desire for diversity and political correctness clouds the judgment of Army officers. Officers whose job it is to maintain a superior army, not to maintain good diversity numbers. How long would a white soldier that sympathized with the enemy and held anti-American beliefs last in the Army? Not very long, and neither should any servicemen regardless of their level of ‘diverseness’.

The loss of American lives to violence is always sad. The loss of American soldiers to violence is sadder yet, but the loss of American soldiers on American soil to terrorism is intolerable. Hopefully the deaths of brave Americans at Fort Hood will cause the America and the Government to reconsider the folly that is extreme political correctness. I fear though, that the culture of multiculturalism above all else, is too well entrenched into the system. As evidenced by Army General George Casey stating that, a loss of diversity in the Army would be worse than the tragedy at Fort Hood. Can he be serious? I wouldn’t care is our Army were all Martians, if it saved lives and protected Americans. Isn’t that the point? A diverse army is an admirable trait to a certain point. That said, when an army is diverse to the point that it is inclusive and tolerant of the enemy, that army cannot survive and neither can that army’s state.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chris Charles: You Won’t Really Die If You Don’t Vote

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Friday, November 13, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Every year around this time, we are all told to get out and vote.  Everyone from politicians to celebrities encourages everybody over 18 to ‘do their civic duty’. I am not one of those people; I don’t want everybody to vote. I’m sorry, I just don’t think that people that have exactly zero knowledge of what or who they are voting for, should vote at all.

The government is always trying to make it easier to vote; polls open early in the morning and stay open until late at night. Polling places are widespread and easy to find. There is no ID necessary to vote. Voting books are published in just about every language known to man, and if all of this was not convenient enough you can always just mail in your ballot from home. It is much harder to smog check your car than it is to vote in the United States.

Why is voting made so easy? I think it should be harder to vote, if voting was not so easy most of the disengaged would simply stay home and watch ‘American Idol’. Do we as a nation really want people voting that cannot remember who the Vice President is but could list for you, in order, the names of the kids from ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8’?

I am not proposing taking voting rights away from anyone, but people should at least have some knowledge of what they are doing. If you are uninterested in political issues 364 days a year, you are not in great position to judge what is best for the country. 
The following is list of questions all potential voters should have to answer prior to getting a ballot.

Are you a US Citizen?
If so, please show your identification. If voting is the most important civic duty Americans do; shouldn’t we make sure the people voting are really Americans?

How many times have you voted today?
Because MTV says ‘vote or die’ some might what to be extra sure they won’t die and vote more than once.

Are you here because P Diddy told you to come?
Anybody voting because a celebrity told them to should have their voting rights revoked, and held on a 48 hour psychiatric hold.

Who is the Vice President currently?
Voters must possess at least basic knowledge current events, it not as if I am asking who is the Representative from the 7th district in Mississippi.

Do you speak English?
Sin voto, a menos que usted habla Inglés, how can you make decisions on candidates and issues if you do not understand the language?  

Most Americans simply do not pay attention, that’s fine, just please do not vote! Stop cancelling out the rest of us informed voters. In the New York 23rd Congressional race, the GOP candidate dropped out of the race but because her name was still on the ballot she received 5 percent of the vote. That means over 7,000 New York voters in the 23rd district are completely clueless. There have even been instances where candidates have died before an election and have still won! I would hate to be the guy that lost, “sure they guy is dead but he would still be a better representative than that other guy”.

I have more respect for die-hard communist liberals voting, over uninformed, uninterested, and unqualified voters, because at least they know for what and who they are voting.  

There is a reason how a candidate speaks and what a candidate looks like is so important. That is all many voters will ever know about that candidate.  

“Hey Jessica, what do you think of the Smith campaign and their support of legalizing all drugs?” 

“I don’t know, but he’s kinda cute and has nice hair so I’m voting for him!” 

I am not exaggerating here; many ‘undecided’ voters make up their minds based on superficial reasons because they do not have any substantive reasons. Let this be a lesson to all politicians, if you are in a close race make sure you wear nice suits and have a good tan.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chris Charles: Forgotten Heroes No More

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:00:00 AM

This is usually where I rip President Obama and his administration for taking the country radically to the left. This week is different. I want to give him credit.  I do not hate the President; I just wish he was not such a left winger. 

Last week President Obama honored a group of Vietnam War heroes from Alpha troop. In 1970, the young enlisted men volunteered to risk their lives to rescue an infantry company that had stumbled upon a Vietnamese strong hold. Charlie Company was outnumbered 4 to 1 but thanks to the heroic actions of Alpha Troop, 100 members of Charlie Company were rescued.Instead of being recognized by the government for their bravery and welcomed home as heroes by the American public, they were overlooked for recognition and shunned by an ungrateful, anti-war culture.

Anti-war protesters spit on Vietnam War vets. Instead of receiving a hero’s welcome upon their return home from they were called ‘baby killers’, ‘murderers’, and ‘rapists’ by the protesters. Most Americans didn’t feel that way but those that spewed hate toward the brave soldiers had the loudest voices. To the servicemen returning, it was as if everyone in the country despised them. Many were ashamed of being American soldiers.

I’m ashamed my country could betray her bravest in such a despicable manner. I am ashamed to even live in the same country as those that would attack troops returning home from battle. Those boys had just gone through a living hell in the jungles of South East Asia. They risked life and limb, literally; many of their brothers never made it home. Yet, the leftist scum of the earth lined up at airports to harass returning soldiers.

Now, nearly 40 years later, the men of Alpha Troop have finally been recognized. Last week President Obama bestowed upon them the Presidential Unit Citation, the highest honor for a military unit.



President Obama did the right thing last week. Though he is an anti-war liberal, the President understands that US servicemen should be honored, even if you do not agree with a war. For at least one day last week, politics were put aside. Conservatives could stand with the President and say ‘thank you’ to a group of men that represent the best our country has to offer. They stand between the enemy and us, they fight and die for us, the least we can do is buy them a beer at the airport upon their safe return, not protest them.

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

The MAObama White House

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:00:00 AM

I thought radio talk show host Michael Savage was only being satirical when he dubbed President Obama, ‘Chairman MAObama’. No doubt liberals were offended by that statement, but come to find out Dr Savage was right!
 
Anita Dunn is the latest Obama Administration official to self identify as a radical Marxist (Maoist is this case). Not that this is surprising, finding a radical communist inside the Obama White House is like finding a nerd at a Star Trek convention. You do not have to look very hard.   

Even for an Obama staffer, Anita Dunn is over the top. Earlier this year she boasted about how she and the Obama campaign ‘controlled the media’ during the 2008 election. Normal people associate a controlled media with a totalitarian or authoritarian state; Anita Dunn associates it with a well run political campaign.  

More recently Miss Dunn announced in a speech that Mao Tse-tung was one of her favorite philosophers of all time. Who are the others? Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin? Never mind the fact that Mao was a communist revolutionary a kin to Marx and Lenin, Mao’s ‘philosophies’ killed as many as 65 million people! Even Hitler didn’t kill that many, heck I bet most who lived under Mao in Red China would welcome a more ‘benevolent’ dictator like Hitler. 

It used to be that if someone compared a liberal to Mao or Marx  they would angrily deny such outlandish claims. Today, liberals like Anita Dunn would just say, ‘thanks’.     

I love how these leftists think Mao Tse-tung was such a great guy but George Bush and Rush Limbaugh are the anti-Christ. They should really get some professional help; does the White House offer free psychiatric counseling to their employees? I’m sure The White House has a good insurance program, right?  

Maybe Anita Dunn was just kidding, maybe Fox News made up the quote like the way liberals made up the quotes about Rush Limbaugh. Please tell me Anita Dunn does not really look up to a mass murdering dictator! Does Anita Dunn support torturing and killing political opponents? This is scary stuff here but at least Anita Dunn is not in a powerful position of authority, oh wait. Better get your Barack Obama portraits ready to hang just in case.

chairman_maobama.jpg
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chris Charles: N'O'bel Peace Prize

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:00:00 AM

People are shocked today that Barack Obama, after nine months in office, has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Not why did President Obama win. Why are people shocked? If Vegas had run odds on it, Barack Obama would have been a 5 to 2 favorite, followed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at 5 to 1, with George W Bush the long shot at 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. I would have been surprised if President Obama didn’t win, just look at his resume…

·         Replaced George W Bush
·         Doesn’t want America to be a super power
·         Seeks to work with despots and dictators
·         Pulled troops out of Iraq
·         Bad mouths the US
·         Loves to spend time outside the US
·         Thinks global warming will kill us all
·         Favors open borders
·         Wants socialist style health care in the US
·         Blames Bush for everything wrong with the world
·         Is ‘diverse’
·         Grew up overseas

I will be shocked if the President does not win the prize every year he is in office, well maybe not every year, you never know when a Yasser Arafat might come along. Yes Yasser Arafat the Jew hater and former terrorist won the prize. Former head of the UN Kofi Annan also won it; you’ll remember Annan from the Iraq oil for food scandal. Annan’s son received money from a company that won a lucrative contract from the UN. Just the kind of upstanding people you would expect to receive such a prestigious honor.

After the cold war Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize. What about Ronald Reagan? He was the man most responsible for bringing down the iron curtain. President Reagan won the cold war, defeated communism, defeated tyranny, enacted fiscal policies that allow citizens to prosper throughout the 1980’s, and was also an eloquent speaker. And he didn’t get a sniff of the Nobel Prize. President Obama is here nine months, talks about hope and change and he wins it straight away! I can see why people are shocked but they shouldn’t be.

Despite his ‘impressive record’ since taking office, President Obama did not have to actually do anything to win, literally. Nobel Prize nominations were due by February 1st 2009; just days after President Obama took office. The President did not even have time to get the water bill put into his name before international elites were nominating him to for the Nobel Peace Prize. I highly doubt this is what Alfred Nobel had in mind when he established the Peace Prize. This would be like handing out the NFL MVP award before the season. By definition, awards are given for achievements, not achievements one might do sometime in the future. This the Nobel Prize for crying out loud, not a high school ‘most likely to succeed’ contest. 

If I were in charge, the US military would win the Nobel Peace Prize. Think about it, what group does more to prevent radical Muslim terrorists and other evil doers from killing innocent people? Certainly not the UN or amnesty international, perhaps President Obama was given the prize because he is the commander-in-chief of the US military.  

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

Chris Charles: Nobel Health Care

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Despite the fact that America has an inferior health care system when compared to more ‘civilized’ countries that have socialized medicine, 3 Americans are sharing this year’s Nobel Prize for medicine. Pretty good for the 37th ranked health care system by the World Health Organization.   

President Obama and the left in this country constantly harp on how bad the US health care system is. It can’t be that bad if our medical scientists are winning Nobel Prizes. Liberals bash our private sector health care system because it is profit driven; what they fail to realize is profit provides incentives for American health care companies to provide better care.

What medical advancements have been made in any of the 3rd world countries ranked ahead of the US in the WHO study? At least Cuba was ranked behind the US, they were 39th! Are you kidding me? The WHO expects us to believe that Castro’s Cuba provides medical care on par with the United States of America! Who runs WHO, Michael Moore? There is a reason people from all over the world come to the US for medical treatment. Its better! Simple as that, the US system of health care, while not perfect, is the best in the world and utopian liberals want to radically alter it.

What is so bad about profit? Profit is a good thing. People earn money in exchange for services rendered; what is wrong with earning more money for better service? A monetary incentive motivates health care providers to provide great medical care. In the US, the best providers profit because Americans are free to choose their health care providers and when given a choice people will choose the best possible provider for them. Without an incentive there would be no reason for health care providers to provide Americans with the best health care. The same principal holds true for drug companies. Drug companies not only use profit as an incentive, they use profits to fund research and development of new drugs that will ultimately save lives.

The main knock on the US health care system is the cost. Yes, the cost is high but you get what you pay for. Good health care costs money, free health care costs lives. ‘If it’s free, there’s a line’, with so called free health care there is always a line. Just look at the Canadian and British health care systems where 6 month waiting lists to see doctors are not uncommon. One reason the lines are so long is that people are not personally responsible for the cost of treatment; the cost is paid for by the population collectively. Because health care is essentially free, people use the health care system more, thus creating artificial demand.

Socialized medicine is a lot like people that leave out a bowl of candy on their front porch on Halloween, instead of answering the door and the patients are like the trick-or-treaters that empty the entire bowl of candy into their pillow cases. The trick-or-treaters don’t really need or want that much candy but it’s free; so why not take it?

Health care in the US could be made more affordable by legislating tort reform for malpractice lawsuits or by allowing consumers purchase medical insurance outside of their home state to drive competition. Instead, the President and Congress want to do away with free market medicine, the same system that has made the US the worldwide leader in medicine. If you really believe that Cuba has a comparable health care system, then support socialized medicine. But you should ask yourself, how many Cubans are winning the Nobel Prize for medicine?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chris Charles: Bush Tried, Liberals Cried Part II

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:00:00 AM
 
Part II: I Voted For The War, Before I Voted Against It
 
 

The Iraq War is the main reason why George W Bush is hated by liberals more than Richard Nixon, Osama Bin Laden, and Satin combined. In their minds, the left imagines that Bush and the vast right wing conspiracy hatched an evil plan to start a war and steal Iraqi oil so that Bush’s oil company friends could make an easy buck.

No war for oil? Where is all that oil? If we went to war for oil, why was gas five dollars a gallon not too long ago? We should have taken Iraqi oil in exchange for our blood spilt and treasure spent liberating Iraq. Liberals love to revise history, so for those interested in what really happened, pay attention.

In August 1990, Iraq invades the tiny Gulf nation of Kuwait. The UN imposes sanctions, which do nothing; finally 34 nations lead by the US expelled Iraq from Kuwait by force.

To avoid losing power Saddam Hussein Surrendered to the Coalition in 1991. He agreed to 12 UN resolutions that limited the Iraqi military and prohibited them from possessing WMD’s.

Throughout the 1990’s Saddam defied the resolutions agreed to in the Gulf War cease fire. Occasionally, Bill Clinton would fire cruise missiles into Iraq when he needed a distraction (allegedly). Despite this, Iraq continued to disobey UN sanctions. They continued to develop both banned conventional weapons, as well as weapons of mass destruction.

To be fair, President Clinton was somewhat tough with Iraq during the 1990’s, but on September 11th, 2001 everything changed, no longer could we afford to sanction and occasionally target Iraq with cruise missiles.  We could no longer risk allowing a rogue radical Islamic nation to develop WMD’s, WMD’s that could find their way into the hands of murderous Muslim terrorists.

Because no WMD’s were found after the Liberation of Iraq, liberals think this means that Iraq never had and never wanted to have WMD’s.  They forget, Iraq had developed WMD’s in the past and nearly everyone in the world believed Iraq possessed them in 2003.

"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Who said that? Not George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, or Halliburton. It was none other than Clinton Administration official Robert Einhorn in 2002. (1)

George W Bush was not the only one with the opinion that Iraq possessed WMD’s and that they posed a clear and present danger to other countries. The CIA along with intelligence agencies from Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, and Israel all agreed that Saddam possessed WMD’s. Even UN inspector Hans Blix believed Iraq had huge stockpiles of weapons hidden. Shortly before the invasion, UN inspectors found a stockpile of chemical warheads in a bunker 100 miles southwest of Baghdad. It was the opinion of Hans Blix that, because the bunker was relatively new, that stockpile might be the tip of a much larger iceberg. (2)

Due to the mountain of evidence the US Senate, in 2002, authorized the use of military force to disarm Iraq and enforce the Gulf War cease fire treaty. Senators voting to go to war with Iraq included John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein. Only 23 Senators voted against the resolution, mostly a who’s who of the radical left that would have opposed entering WWII after Pearl Harbor.

Finally, after 12 years of Iraq ignoring UN threats and sanctions, after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, the US lead a coalition of 40 nations to disarm Iraq and depose tyrannical dictator Saddam Hussein.

No WMD’s were found after the invasion of Iraq. Does that mean Iraq never had WMD? If that was the case, why would Saddam not consent to UN inspections? The fact is Saddam did have weapons before the invasion, the questions is what happened to the weapons? Either he destroyed them prior to the 2003 invasion or shipped them to friendly neighbors like Syria or Iran. Either way the invasion was more than justified given all of the evidence.

The mistake Bush made was in conducting the war too much like a police action after the initial ‘shock and awe’. Liberal rules of engagement and low troop levels hamstrung the US and coalition forces. Once General Petraeus and President Bush implemented the surge, the situation in Iraq was quickly brought under control.

People now opposed to the war say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and we should be focused on Al-Qaeda. We were not attacked by a country on 9-11; we were attacked by radical Islam. Just who do anti war liberals think we were fighting in Iraq? The Iraqi boy scouts?   The Muslim terrorists we are fighting over there are the same Muslim terrorists that would be plotting another 9-11 if they were not so busy fighting our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What should we have done? That is the question for all of the people opposed to the war in Iraq. Rewind back to 2003, less than two years after 9-11, mountains of evidence, 12 years of UN resolutions, what would the right thing to do be? George W Bush tried to do the right thing and liberals hate him for it. Instead, liberals should just be thankful that George W Bush did something to fight radical Islam and make the world a safer place.

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

Chris Charles: Bush Tried, Liberals Cried Part I

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Part 1: George W Bush a Very Liberal Conservative

Nowadays, there is little tolerance from the left for those who disagree with the President of the United States on matters of politics or policy. You see, liberals have a great reverence and respect for the commander in chief. Americans, they say, should not publically oppose the leader of the free world, especially in these troubled times. Liberals have had a great respect for the President since all the way back in late 2008, before that it was perfectly acceptable to not only oppose the President but call him a war criminal, a Nazi, Hitler, a fascist, a liar, a drunk, a coke head, an idiot, the devil, a cheater, a traitor, and a deserter among other things, many of which involve expletives. 

Why? Why did liberals, that hold the office of the President in such high regard, attack President Bush so viciously, so mercilessly? President Bush was a Republican, but he was not a hard core conservative. Bush was abandoned by many conservatives that felt he was too liberal, especially in his second term. To his credit, the former President was very conservative on issues of national security, gay marriage, and stem cell research. He was somewhat conservative on issues of taxes, energy, and the judiciary. In many other areas Bush was fairly liberal, not the kind of Leninist liberalism most Democrats subscribe to, but definitely left of center. Here are a few examples.

Immigration- Bush pushed for amnesty for illegals, and a guest worker program. Not even President Obama has gone this far, yet.

African Aid- In 2003, he committed $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. Don’t liberals support AIDS funding?

Bailouts- Bush started the bank and Wall Street bailouts near the end of his second term. Conservatives want smaller government, not a massive government takeover of industry.

Spending- President Bush presided over record setting deficits. The deficit doubled under Bush, that doesn’t sound very conservative.

Clean Energy- In 2008 Bush committed $2 billion for clean energy research to combat global warming. Right out of the Al Gore playbook, nothing says ‘right winger’ more than pumping billions into the global warming racket.

Dubai Ports- Would have allowed an Arabic company from Dubai to control US ports. You’d think a President that is big on national security would not let an Islamic company control US ports in the middle of a war with radical Islam.

Why all the hate toward the 43 President of the United States from the left? He was a relatively moderate president.  Calling President Bush a radical conservative is like calling The Beatles a hard rock band. There can be only two reasons why liberals hate George W Bush as much as they do.

Number 1: They think he’s a red necked hick from the south, whose loose grasp on the English language means he is stupid.

This argument does not hold much water, because his predecessor was southern hick as well, only with a propensity for womanizing subordinates and anyone else for that matter! And liberals loved him! As to the second point, Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard, he can’t be that stupid.

Number 2: He Invaded Iraq.

DING! DING! DING! Winner, winner, winner! At last we’ve figured it out, liberals hate George W Bush because he started a war with Iraq. Bush lied, kids died. War for oil and all that, but was President Bush so wrong to invade Iraq, given all the facts?

Tune in next week for the answers, same bat time, same bat channel.

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

Chris Charles: DC Gets an ‘F’

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:00:00 AM
 

It’s that time of year again, back to school time! It’s the time of year when we sent the youth of our nation, the future of our civilization, to failing institutions of lower learning. To be fair, not all public schools are failing, some are quite good; unfortunately, many are quite bad. Most failing schools are located in big metropolitan or urban areas, when big metropolitan bureaucracies mismanage everything. Despite armies of government workers compensated handsomely with good salaries, benefits, and pensions, government run schools continue to fail miserably.

You might think that public schools underperform because mean old conservatives cut their funding to lower taxes. This is simply not the case. Public schools are funded better than ever, public schools outspend private schools nearly 2 to 1. (1) In 2004-05 the District of Columbia spent over $15,000 per student! DC could send every kid in public school to the University of Maryland for half the price. Maryland’s tuition is $8,000 per year, that $7,000 less for a University! (2) Public schools in Utah spend only $5,200 per student per year. Where is all the money going? (3)

Judging from the test scores in Washington, it’s not going to education. Student’s proficiency in each of the three major education groups’( math, reading and science) are below 50% in DC. (4) That was an improvement from previous years; so what do DC public school kids and parents get for $15,000 a year? A really good daycare service?

Unfortunately, DC public schools don’t do that well either. During the 2007-2008 school year, there were 912 incidents of violent crime at DC schools, including one homicide. Compared with DC private schools where there were only 28 incidents during the same period. Gun shots were reported 49 times at public schools, there were 1338 incidents of property crime, and 446 reports of theft. (5) Your kids would be safer in prison! You would think for 15 grand they could invest in some rent-a-cop’s or surveillance cameras. Heck, for $15,000 a head they could hire the entire 7th Calvary to patrol the schools with M-16’s and artillery.

To review, DC tax payers spend $8.25 billion annually on public schools and for their billions they get schools that not only fail to educate kids in core subjects, but also fail to protect kids from violence and crime. Why not just let the children of DC roam the streets during the day? It would be safer.

So what is it that DC public school kids do all day, besides assaulting people, stealing from one another, shooting firearms, or partaking in general mayhem? Unlike those backward, academics obsessed private schools, DC schools ensure their students are well versed in all things sexual. By 5th grade students know all about STD’s and how to prevent them. (6)By 6th grade students are taught about ‘sexuality’ and reproduction (including contraceptives). In 7th and 8th grade the same kids that do not understand core subjects are taught about sexual orientation, including the proper terminology.  Finally, by 9th grade students are taught about contraceptive practices and the availability of abortions. (7)

At least they’re covering the basics, but colleges usually require at least some knowledge of standard academics as a prerequisite. Here’s an idea, try blending subjects that schools do well with, with subjects schools don’t do so well with. For example, sex education and math. Teachers could prepare lesson plans that deal with both subjects simultaneously.

Math XXX

1.      If you have sex 4 days a week, two times each, for 8 weeks, how many condoms do you need?

2.      If you have 34 sexual partners, and 2 have a sexually transmitted disease, what percentage of your partners carries an STD?

3.      Jane is traveling 36 miles at 45mph to the Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion, Suzie is traveling 51 miles at 65mph to the clinic, if they leave at the same time, who will arrive first?   

Some students in DC have the option to attend private school under a federal pilot program for school vouchers, or at least they did. In March, Congressional Democrats moved to eliminate the program, thus returning kids to their failing public schools. This insanity is compounded by the fact that 44% of Senators and 36% of Representatives in Congress either send or have sent a child to private school. Apparently, what’s good for the goose is not so good for the gander.

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

Chris Charles: Never Forget, Always Remember

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:00:00 AM

The events of the 11th of September 2001 was an enormous shock for most Americans. The horror of that day made most of us realize that we are in a fight to the death with Muslim radicals. That choice was made very clear that day; it is either us or them. The evil that is islamo-terrorism will never quit, will never surrender, will never show mercy, will never cease until every last ‘infidel’ (that’s you and me) is dead.

As September 11th 2009 approaches the memories burned into our consciousness fade slightly. As the years pass, lessons learned that day are forgot, our resolve is weakened. We can never forget what happened to our country on 9-11, we must always remember. We must pass the story on to future generations because it teaches us many important lessons.

A few of the lessons learned on September 11, 2001

·         We were attacked without warning and without provocation by a cowardly enemy that kills innocent men, women, and children in horrific fashion.

·         That enemy hates us for our very way of life; no amount of diplomacy will stop them from their global jihad.  

·         3,000 Americans were murdered, some were disintegrated, some were burned alive, some were forced to jump to their death from a 110 story building, some were stabbed to death by Muslim hijackers, and some were crushed to death by collapsing buildings.

·         3,000 American families lost a member. 3000 husbands, wives, moms, dads, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, partners, teachers, classmates, co-workers, and friends lost.

·         The Muslim terrorists took advantage of our faulty immigration system to gain access to our country.

·         Radical Muslims danced in the streets of the Middle East after hearing that America was attacked.

·         Islamo-fascists chanted ‘Allah Akbar’ as they slammed fully fueled passenger jets into the sides of the WTC in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC.

·         Since 2001, the American military has taken the fight to the terrorists, engaging them overseas, thus preventing future attacks on our homeland.

·         The attacks unified our country; liberals and conservatives saw eye to eye, for a brief moment.

·         Thousands enlisted in the US military because they felt a sense of duty, and they have help keep us all safe the past 8 years.

·         While people were running out of the doomed twin towers, hundreds of hero firefighters ran into the inferno to rescue as many people as possible, knowing they would never make it out.

·         Passengers on United flight 93 prevented their 757 from being flown into the White House or the Capitol building; the heroes forced the aircraft down in a field in Pennsylvania saving an untold number of lives while losing their own in the process.

It is natural to want to forget a traumatic event; these memories hurt us, haunt us, and sadden us, and they should. These memories are what can prevent another 9-11; that bitter taste in our mouths will remind us that Islamic extremists cannot be reasoned with they do not feel pity, they must be exterminated like the vermin they are.

The events of September 11th, 2001 is an example of the worst mankind has to offer to be sure, however, it is also an example of the best. Hundreds of firefighters in New York gave their lives trying to save others. Average citizens on United 93 gave their lives as well to prevent more innocent people from dying. These brave American heroes gave the ultimate sacrifice to save their fellow Americans from death, for that we are eternally grateful.

Never ever forget what happened that day, those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it. Always remember men and women that lost their lives that day, and the heroes gave theirs to save others. Never forget who we are fighting, vicious, blood thirty mad men who will kill us all, or die trying. I prefer the later.

Never forget, always remember.

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

Chris Charles: Health Care Tort Reform

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 12:00:00 AM
  
Health Care Tort Reform
 
A man was on holiday in Hawaii, he ran into an old friend that happened to be a lawyer. The man asked, “Why are you here?” The lawyer replied,” I invested in some lousy real estate and the whole place burned to the ground and I’m here with the insurance settlement”. The lawyer then asked the man what he was doing there. The man answered, “I too invested in some lousy real estate but I lost everything in a flood and I’m here with the insurance settlement”. “Really?” Said the lawyer, “How’d you start the flood?”

Supporters of socialized medicine in the United States have cleverly used the term ‘health care reform’ to describe creating a massive new entitlement program. In politics, semantics can go a long way to garner public support. People overwhelming reject a government takeover of the health care industry but ‘reform’ sounds like such a good thing.

Since liberals want to reform health care, how about starting with tort reform in the medical industry? Doctors and hospitals have to pay massive insurance premiums to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. In most malpractice cases there is no limit to the judgment which a plaintiff can receive, which in turn forces insurers to charge higher and higher premiums. The costs are in turn passed on to patients. Obviously, we need to protect patients from medical negligence and incompetence, but we also need to protect patients (and the rest of us) from sky rocketing medical insurance premiums.

A man calls his attorneys office and is told that his lawyer had died.

The next day he calls back, and again is told his lawyer had died.

The next day he calls again, and the receptionist tells the man for the third time he is dead.

“Why do you keep calling? I’ve told you repeatedly that your attorney is dead!” she said.

He replies, “I know, I just love hearing it”.

Tort reform does not mean that patents cannot receive compensation for damages caused by malpractice; it only limits the monetary amount they can receive. Instead of juries awarding arbitrary judgments were emotion can cloud reasonable monetary amounts; tort reform would create guidelines by which juries would rule.

Because incidents of medical malpractice are relatively rare, greedy lawyers had to invent new and creative ways to win huge judgments from juries. No one was better at this than former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards. Edwards made a fortune suing doctors for causing cerebral palsy, even going so far as to ‘channel’ the spirit of a child that was born with cerebral palsy in the court room. For families affected by cerebral palsy, it is natural to be angry and feel the need to blame someone. However, according to leading physicians in the field, cases of medical practitioners causing CP are exceedingly rare.1 Despite this, Edwards sued 63 Doctors for CP related malpractice and won judgments totaling $152 million.2 Don’t think Edwards is motivated to do this by an overwhelming need to help grief stricken families affected by CP, for Edwards it is about the money. Edwards’ palatial Chapel Hill estate includes an indoor pool, indoor basketball court, and private soccer field. Wow! Talk about two Americas, one for millionaire trial lawyers and one for the rest of us.

What do you call a retired lawyer?

A politician.

Of course trial lawyers are opposed to tort reform, but who cares? Nobody likes lawyers, right? Wrong. Democrats apparently love lawyers; many of them are former trail lawyers themselves. According to DNC head Howard Dean, health care reform would not include tort reform because Dems are unwilling to go against trail lawyer groups. It goes without saying that trial lawyers are major democratic donors. The American Association for Justice, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association, gave $2.8 million to Democrats in 2008. To contrast, the AAJ gave the GOP just $140 thousand in the same year, if you are keeping score that’s 95% Dems, 5% GOP.

In addition to the high cost of medical malpractice insurance, doctors, many times perform unnecessary tests and procedures to lessen their exposure to possible lawsuit.

Patent: Doc I gotta sore throat.

Doctor: OK I’m scheduling some blood work and a chest x-ray.

Patent: I said a sore throat; nothing is wrong with my chest!

Doctor: Never can be too careful with these things, better schedule a CT scan as well.

Not only does this practice raise patents costs, it also waists valuable medical resources that could have been used for a more legitimate purpose.

Tort reform would reduce the cost of medical insurance, thereby making it more accessible to more Americans. It would reduce the cost of medical insurance for people that currently have it. It would allow doctors to practice better more efficient medicine. It would not allow trail lawyers to get rich on the backs of victims of medical accidents or error, and that is why Democrats will never agree to it.

Liberals want more Americans to have health insurance, right? They want to reduce costs and improve care. It’s true they do want all of these things; just not as much as they want to keep trial lawyers happy.

What’s the difference between a lawyer and a terrorist?

You can negotiate with a terrorist.

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

Chris Charles: Race(ing) For Votes Part V

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Part V: A Wise Latino

Liberals love minorities in power, (as long as the minority in power is a liberal). Conventional wisdom says President Obama chose Justice Sotomayor because she was a Latina woman.  According to liberals, that makes her a great choice for the High Court, not because of her record as a judge! If race should be a determining factor in judicial appointments, why did the Dems reject President Bush’s appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada?  Republican George W Bush nominated a wise Latino in 2001, and he was rejected! Why? According to Congressional memos, the DNC did not want a strong Latino Supreme Court candidate for Bush to nominate in the coming years because it would hurt the DNC’s monopoly on minority voters. To be fair, Estrada was not rejected by the Senate; the Democrats simply refused to give Estrada an up or down vote. Just to be clear, conservatives oppose Sotomayor because there was some question as to her objectivity on race and gender issues. Liberals refused to vote on Miguel Estrada because of his race, and its conservatives who are racist? Come on!

Liberals don’t really want to promote minorities; they want to appear as if they promote minorities in high office. The reality is liberals promote liberalism. Judge Sotomayor was chosen first and foremost because she is a liberal that will advance the liberal agenda from the bench. The fact that she is a Latina is just icing on the cake. Liberals do not support minorities in power, they support liberals in power. If diversity on the Supreme Court was so important to liberals, why did they fight so hard to block Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the High Court? Not only do liberals oppose conservative and ‘originalist’ judges, they strenuously object to any minority that does not carry water for the DNC. Non-liberal minorities are bad for the Dems ‘race baiting’ business. When Republicans or conservatives appoint minorities to high office, it proves they are in fact not racists, a fact that liberals don’t want people to know.


An added bonus for liberals in choosing a minority is that anyone that is critical of the nominee can be hit with the racist label, obviously a favorite of the liberal. The only good minority is a liberal minority. The liberal hatred of non liberal minorities is not exclusive to judicial nominees; just ask Bush Administration minorities Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales, Carlos Gutierrez, Elaine Chao, Mel Martinez, Alphonso Jackson, and Norman Mineta. Condi Rice served throughout the Bush Presidency and was attacked more than most. Rice, among other racial slurs, was called Aunt Jemima (as in the feminine form of Uncle Tom). Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took a great deal of liberal heat because it was believed he was in line for a Supreme Court appointment. In 2007 Democratic Senators and Congressmen called for a vote of no confidence in AG Gonzales.  Even the moderate to liberal Colin Powell had to endure vile attacks because of his race. In 2002, Harry Bellefonte called Colin Powell a ‘house slave’, a derogatory term that means a person is not ‘authentically black’. Is this what liberals call diversity and inclusiveness? Conservative minorities need not apply?

This is very confusing and it may be a little hard for non liberals to comprehend this liberal insanity. To make things easier see chart below:

Liberal Non-Minority = Good

Liberal Minority = Better

Conservative Minority = Uncle Tom

Conservative Non-Minority = Racist

Got it? Good.

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

Chris Charles: Race(ing) For Votes Part IV

Posted by chris@conservativenationalist.com on Monday, August 24, 2009 12:00:00 AM
 
Part IV: Sense and Sensitivity
 
Liberals, particularly white liberals, are hypersensitive when it comes to race. In a nation that elected a black president, liberals see racism everywhere. Any misstatement by a conservative politician will result in that person’s political death. The same cannot be said for liberals; the left never turns their super sensing ‘RACEDAR’ on themselves.

The comments made by soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor are a glaring example of the double standard that currently exists in America. Her statement that a wise Latina could make better decisions than could a white male is at best misguided and at worst racist. Lindsey Graham made the point during the confirmation hearings that, if he (a white male) had made similar comments, his career would be over. Sotomayor even admitted as much; why is it acceptable for minorities to make reckless, insensitive, stupid, or racist comments?

When former Senate majority leader Trent Lott praised former segregationist Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, he was labeled a racist and was forced to resign his leadership role in the Senate. Saying something nice about an old man on his 100th birthday is a far cry from saying that a particular race or gender is better or wiser than another!

Other examples of a double standard include…

NAACP- What if there was a NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People)?

Congressional Black Caucus- Why is there no Congressional White Caucus?

LA Raza- Would there be any objection to a white group calling themselves “The Race”?

What would happen if John McCain had won the election with 90% of the “white vote”?

To be fair, not all white males are held to this double standard, Democrats also get a pass if they say or do racist or racially insensitive things. Trent Lott was nearly tarred and feathered for what is said; meantime Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a decorated member of the Ku Klux Klan, rising to the ranks of ‘Exalted Cyclopes’ (whatever that is). Byrd as a young man wrote that he would rather die than fight side by side with a (black person). As a US Senator he tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he also opposed the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. In recent years, Byrd has tried to back away from his racist past. In an interview with the late Tony Snow in 2001 Byrd said,

“…My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white n******. I've seen a lot of white n****** in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much”.

Yes, Robert Byrd is still a Democratic member of the United States Senate. Too bad for Trent Lott that he wasn’t a Democrat!

The irony is that liberals are so race sensitive most of the time. If you are a liberal feel free to join the Klan, but if you are a conservative expect to be labeled a racist for just about everything. If a conservative opposes affirmative action, they are called racist. If a conservative does not support the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it is because she is a Latina. Any condemnation of rappers or other hip-hop figures by a conservative will undoubtedly lead to accusations of racial prejudice. A friend of mine, who is a standup comic, did not want to drive through a bad neighborhood at night. His friends said that he was racist because that neighborhood was predominantly black. He replied, “I’m not scared of black people, I’m scared of criminals with guns. I don’t care if their hot pink, if they gotta hot pink gun tucked into their waist band, I’m outta there!”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »