During the summer "lull" of the 2008 presidential election year, the candidates are beginning to, as they always do, shift their focus away from locking up primary votes to locking up general election ones. Historically, this has involved a move to the center, away from the more polarized voter base that participates in the selection of a party's nominee. But, as in many respects, this year has some exceptions.

John McCain's shift to the middle begin the day he entered politics. Since he was elected Arizona senator nearly 30 years ago, he has been both hailed (by Democrats and the media) and cursed (by Republicans and conservatives) as a "maverick." More recently, he has teamed with Democrats championing anything but conservative causes: campaign finance reform and amnesty for illegal immigrants. While unquestionable on the Iraq War and our soldiers, he used the New York Times to combat Bush's domestic surveillance program that has been an integral part of our national security. I have not seen him shift at all this summer: even in the midst of cries for cheaper gasoline, which conservative policy could easily provide, McCain is offering hundreds of millions of dollars for a battery! He has shifted on one thing I can find: tax cuts, where he has been proven wrong by a strong economy and an actually increased share of tax revenue by the wealthy. (Tax cuts for the rich? I think not!) The point? McCain is in the middle, and always has been.

What of the other? Barack Obama's shift to the center has come startlingly quickly and clumsily. It was so hasty that the New York Times cried for his head in an editorial titled "New and Not Improved." He is offering to "revise" his position on troop withdrawal in Iraq and contemplate offshore drilling. He is agreeing to continue allowing government grants flow to faith-based initiatives, a Bush policy deemed a violation of the separation of church and state by liberals. He expressed favor for the Supreme Court's overturning of the D.C. gun ban, while previously expressing his support for this very ban. The point here? Obama is now shifting to fight McCain for the middle.

Both candidates are now fighting over a single group of voters. But this battle is based on a fundamentally flawed concept, i.e., this group is the one that picks the president.

The polar ends of the electorate choose the president, not the idiots we see on NBC after a debate labeled as the "undecided voter." And this is historically true, even back to Carter. According to polling data, moderates have been forming a small and decreasing percentage of the general electorate since the early 70s, a key fact for Bush's campaign strategy. But more on that in a bit.

Jimmy Carter was elected for two main reasons: he was a liberal (and thus was voted for by liberals), and he was from the South, arguably the most important region for a candidate to win. (We can all agree that the South is right of center and will choose the Republican. After all, only two of the past seven presidents have been Democrats, and both were from the South.)

Ronald Reagan campaigned as a far-right conservative, and was able to inspire all Americans to vote for him. His conservative base guaranteed his victories; his Great Communicating that inspired moderates and liberals gave him his 44- and 49-state landslides. George H.W. Bush was elected on Reagan's immense popularity only.

Bill Clinton is a moderate, but on the left side of center. The reason he was able to win (never with a majority of popular votes) was by weak opponents: the unpopular tax-hiker George H.W. Bush and the lame Nixonian relic Bob Dole. His acceptance of conservatism from the Republican Congress and fallout from the Reagan tax cuts gave him a strong economy, and his ignorance of foreign threats gave him a peaceful decade. This resulted in his extensive popularity, almost enough to get his veep elected in 2000. But in that case, deep-pocket campaigning won again.

George W. Bush won in 2000 against nearly every single statistical odd possible (even the popular vote itself!). Bill Clinton was popular, despite the stains (no pun intended) of the Lewinsky scandal. Al Gore was heavily identified with the success of the 90s, not the kook global warming alarmist fringe he is today. Bush was a bold-headed Texas cowboy with an embarrassing past, little experience, a "threat" to the success of the Clinton legacy, and did I mention his daddy was a bad pwesident?

How does one change the White House's party after eight years of peace and prosperity? Karl Rove knew the answer: deep-pocket campaigning. Go for the base. And in 2000, it worked brilliantly.

Bush campaigned as an uncompromising conservative. He fought for nearly everything the GOP's base stood for, with minor exceptions like education and immigration reform. His conservatism was further contrasted with the "maverick," John McCain, his only serious contender for the nomination. The reason it was so close in the general was the remnants of Clinton's popularity. The base, however, overcame that deficit, albeit in an unconventional way.

2004 was textbook. Had Bush possessed Reagan's communication skills, he could have won by a much larger margin. But even with a minority of Americans approving of his job as president, he won re-election with 51% of the popular vote, the first time since his father's 1988 victory that a candidate got over 50% of the vote. And according to exit polls, the reason voters chose George W. Bush was "moral issues." His base, and thus his voters, identified with his idealogy and values as a conservative.

What does this have to do with 2008? Since 2004, the Bush administration's ideology has been marred or lost. Bush has approved budgets nearing and exceeding $3 trillion, wiping out the gains made in reducing the deficit by his 2003 tax cuts. His nomination of Harriet Miers, support of amnesty, and stubbornness on Iraq policy have caused his conservative base considerable grumbling and disdain. Right now, because of one man and certain circumstances, it is uncool to be a conservative.

This is why a moderate is on the GOP ticket. McCain coudl not be further from a Bush third term (I wish he were; I'd vote for Bush in a second if I could) and still be a Republican. But Obama knows that liberals cannot get elected as liberals, so he has to shift to the right.

Voters claim to be moderates, but I believe they are conservatives at heart alienated and confused by a poor three years of the Bush administration, which so heavily associated itself with conservatism. It is guilt by association. The middle is a ghost, and the sleeping giant of a conservative ideology will require only one man of charisma and patriotism to awaken it. Who is that man? I believe our first chance is Mitt Romney, our second Bobby Jindal. But it really doesn't matter who it is. He or she just needs to appear.

This election is void of a conservative. That means it will be a referendum on Obama and his ideology, which is decidedly liberal (as the electorate knows and will learn as the campaigns continue). Anyone can find common ground with a moderate, but a liberal will alienate a lot of Americans. If Obama cannot successfully fool voters into thinking he is a moderate, he will lose. This ghost of a middle is why Hillary Clinton was (or is) the more viable candidate for the Democrats. She, too, can easily get its vote, a senator with a very moderate voting record.

The phantom of a middle will decide this election, but will re-discover itself as conservatism once again with the right man as it did in 1980 and 2000. And we faithful few are waiting for that day with great anticipation.

I apologize for not posting in a great while, but my life has become quite busy. I want to take a moment to reflect on Independence Day. And I'm going to do the unthinkable: use this holiday to advance my conservative agenda.

I'm doing this because I believe Independence Day in America is the greatest celebration of conservatism in the world. It celebrates the day that a group of men decided to be free at any cost. The Founding Fathers were conservatives, no question. And I believe the modern government we have today is enough to make them turn in their graves, let alone what people like Barack Obama suggest for our future.

What happened 232 years ago was that a government encroached upon the freedoms of the colony. It was not given the same rights and privileges given to the homelands, and was treated with disrespect and disdain. It was used as a bludgeon against the French just years earlier, after which much of the land the colonists fought and died for was simply given right back to them in the peace treaty. They were taxed unfairly, forced to board troops, and were demanded a tribute.

The point is, the problem was the government. It was too big. It was too powerful. It was a moment where the government began to intrude upon the "certain unalienable rights" every human being has. And it was intolerable. Luckily for all of us, there was a group of men brilliant enough to recognize these crimes and demand justice.

What was the cost? It was steep. The cause of freedom resulted in a war with the most powerful nation in the world, with an army of great skill, technology, and numbers. At many points throughout the Revolution, one might say all hope was lost. But what Reagan would later describe as a "shining city on a hill" kept the colonists, or rather, the Americans, focused on their goal.

It was almost an act of God that the Americans won the war. Against a massive army of highly trained soldiers, a group of farmers, which Cornwallis would describe as a "rabble," was able to secure victory in the name of democracy, and defeat for tyranny. This epic struggle resulted in the greatest nation in history.

What makes America so great? It isn't its youth; it isn't its location; it isn't its geography. Sure, we're lucky to have so many natural resources, but I don't think that's it. I don't even think our Constitution is the reason. It is our people. It is what we have been shaped to believe about humanity and the world. A simple term can describe the source of our greatness: self-reliance.

The Constitution, the Declaration, and the Framers all helped shape our mentality of self-reliance, but it is that very concept that has kept our nation great. By working hard on our own behalf, by believing that we have to earn a good living, but yet that it is always within reach, is what has kept us going for over two centuries.

How does this apply to modern times? It is essential that this sentiment of self-reliance not be lost. What will happen if it does? We will end up like Europe, Canada, and many other nations. And we are not many other nations. We are America.

The USA has been different forever. This difference is why we rule the world.

Self-reliance is conservatism at its core. Privatizing social security, fighting national healthcare, keeping taxes low; these are all superficial details. The goal is to keep us free. Liberalism's goal is hardly this.

What liberalism seeks to do is change self-reliance to government-reliance. By depending on the government, liberals within it will gain power. They want to control the thought of citizens from day one: socialized hospitals to socialized day-care to socialized schools to socialized college to government-supplied jobs, while taxing you even beyond the grave. Liberalism is a crime against humanity. It seeks to infringe upon the very rights our Founders set in stone.

The recent Supreme Court decision about guns is an example. I will explore the ruling in more detail when I am finished analyzing the opinions. But the Second Amendment is very clear: The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This was designed to give us the ability to protect ourselves from the government should the time come that it becomes too powerful. That time will come if people like Barack Obama keep getting elected. We cannot let this happen. And the fact that four Supreme Court justices wanted to erase one of our rights, one of the main ways we have to protect ourselves from an overly powerful government, is proof that liberalism seeks to keep us from being free.

Independence Day is, as I said before, a celebration of conservatism. It is in memory of the self-reliance our Founders displayed when they made that difficult decision to go to war for freedom. And it embodies a concept that cannot be forgotten or cast aside lightly by those who wish to do so. Silver tongues and empty suits cannot trick their way into power in this country, and I am confidant freedom will be preserved in 2008. But beyond, who knows?

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are mandates of conservatism. So is the voting pattern of this country. It's about time we get a leader out there to recognize this and take up the charge against tyranny.

God bless conservatism, God bless America.

So I was discussing the gas prices with a friend today, and I said in passing "And now Congress is trying to pass a bill that will make gas even more expensive." Friend: "How?" Me: "Well, somehow, by charging a company more money, they will charge the consumer less." I don't understand this at all. This isn't logic; it's madness! Who comes up with this stuff?

Capitalism is incredibly simple. Anyone with a brainstem and a basic high school education of the economy should be able to get it: supply and demand. If something is needed, demand, then it is produced by someone, supply. The supply is priced by the amount a consumer is willing to pay for the good. In today's global economy, the price of oil is not quite as simple, but still remains within this basic framework. The difference is that "futures," a tool used to predict a commodity's worth in the future, allows speculators to basically bet on how much oil will be worth. This is currently causing prices to rise.

But futures are not a cause of prices, they are an indicator. While they can temporarily inflate prices, the market (and the supply/demand system) cannot support skyrocketing prices based purely on speculation. The reason oil is over $130/barrel is because people will pay that much for it. I realize gas is ludicrously expensive here, at $4.25 down the street in upstate New York, but I haven't noticed any less volume on the streets. People are still going to work; people are still going to sporting events and fairs; people are still going to see Indiana Jones, Sex and the City, and Ironman. Sure, everyone is making adjustments, but the market can support these high prices. Where will people stop driving altogether? My guess is when gas ends up costing more than people can afford with a paycheck. Then people will stop buying gas, and companies will stop buying oil. Prices will drop.

But how do we make prices drop now, for our convenience? Capitalism tells us to increase supply. And how can this be done? Easily. In fact, writing a simple piece of legislation would do the trick: Allow us to drill on American soil NOW! It is absolutely ridiculous that we cannot drill our own oil for our own people. There are no adverse consequences to be concerned about. Clinton/Gore said that drilling in ANWR back in the 90s wouldn't do any good, because it would take ten years to get into circulation. Well it's been ten years, and look at where we are! Maybe it will take ten years from now, but who's to say gas won't be $6, $7, or $10 per gallon by then?

If we drill here in the U.S., gas could (gradually) drop in price to mayabe under $3, or even (gasp!) $2 per gallon. It is such a simple solution. It will not ravage our landscape or destroy our planet. Oil is the only viable energy source we have right now, so let the companies drill it on their own dime and get it to us! It's a win-win-win-win.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to go after the oil futures, as I described above. But this will drive them to unregulated markets like Dubai, which is catching up to New York very quickly (due in no small part to its lack of rules). This would put crucial futures (vis a vis, oil) in the hands of a competitive Middle Eastern economy, one that Schumer himself claimed is a threat to the New York Stock Exchange.

The liberal solutions to the energy crisis are so complex and high-minded so as to confuse you into believing them. It isn't about fancy words like "commodity futures" or "windfall profits taxes," it's about supply and demand. Increase supply to match an increasing demand. That is a real solution to a very real problem. Liberals aren't about solving this energy crisis, they just want to scare you into more government dependence. And they want to use the political capital from this to force oil companies either out of business or into government dependence as well. That's what every liberal policy results in: more government in your pocket and your lives!

Vote conservative. Vote for real change. And vote for domestic drilling now!

Today is June 6 (or was, I suppose), the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. It has been 64 years to the day that this incredible event occurred.

I cannot sum up the meaning of this event in totality; that is something I will leave to those who experienced it, and to those with far greater skill in writing or speaking than I. Ronald Reagan's 40th anniversary speech that he delivered on the beach at Normandy is absolutely brilliant. You can read the entire speech here. But my favorite two paragraphs are as follows:
"The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

"You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you."

I will allow you to read Reagan's words, both these and the rest, to get the full effect of D-Day's symbolism as the epitome of a struggle between good and evil, freedom and tyranny, compassion and hatred.

I am about to compare WWII to the Iraq War. I want to stress that I am not, by any means, using D-Day or the emotional impact of it to further my political point. The first portion of this post is a tribute to D-Day; this portion is a political analysis separate, but related. It was the D-Day anniversary that got me thinking about the similarities between the two wars, and why I think the Iraq War is quite justified.

Very few people in this country, nearly 70 years afterward, will argue that we should not have entered the Second World War. I will also wager that a vast majority of those who oppose the Iraq War would agree that our entry into WWII was justified. Of course, there are some differences, but I believe that the cores of the ideology remain the same.

The main arguments I have heard against the Iraq action are as follows:

1. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
2. Saddam didn't pose a direct threat to the US.
3. Iraq was not tied to 9/11 at all. (There are arguments that Iraq was not tied to al Qaeda, which are known to be untrue.)

Another claim is that oil is the only reason we invaded. I do not believe this is true in the first place. I will concede the above three points are true, but I still agree with the decision to go to war.

In World War II, we did not declare war on anyone until December of 1941, well after the Germans had begun to invade Europe and the Japanese China. We responded to a direct attack on US soil. We deployed troops to both Europe and the Pacific in retaliation. We took the fight to them, away from our own borders and our own citizens.

Germany was not a threat to US security at the time. There was absolutely no way for it to attack us. U-boats of the time simply could not make it across the Atlantic without being easily spotted and stopped; they had no aircraft with the range to cross the Atlantic; they didn't even have a functioning nuclear device to use on anyone, let alone a country over 3000 miles of ocean away. Furthermore, Germany, while closely allied with Japan, was not involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor. It did not supply personnel, resources, equipment, or significant specific funding. (By specific funding, I mean money for the express purpose of attacking the United States.) But we still declared war on them anyways, and no one questioned it once the decision was made.

Iraq is quite similar. Saddam Hussein harbored and funded al Qaeda terrorists. That is why al Zarqawi was in Iraq; he was there well before our invasion. He was building an arsenal of nuclear weapons, as Germany intended to do, but was incapable of attacking us at the time. And there's even another similarity: both nations, Iraq and Germany, tried to invade their respective regions roughly 1-2 decades earlier, and were stopped by the United States.

The crucial point about fighting in Iraq was to take the front lines to the enemy, as we have always done. That is why US soil has remained relatively unscathed in the many wars we have fought. Even in the Civil War, nearly all of the battles were fought in the South, the Union taking it to them to protect the major Northern cities and population. It has been the modus operandi of the US military for centuries.

If someone can come up with a true, reasonable objection to the Iraq War that cannot be compared to World War II, please let me know. I'd be happy to explore it. But I believe, with the list of objections I have been presented with, that it is a double standard to have no qualms about our involvement in WWII but to have many about the Iraq War.

I will discuss my unhappiness about how a political party is currently using losses and despair in Iraq for political gain (vis a vis 2006) but that is for the future.

Remember those that have died in the defense of our great nation and way of life, both 64 years ago at Normandy and presently in Iraq.

So I realized today that I haven't posted on here for a long time, and that I haven't really had any big political discussions or arguments in about a week. So I felt like writing a post, and what better than on a pressing issue of our time and the topic of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain's speech today: national security.

Ronald Reagan summed up what American national security should be in a simple phrase of three words: Peace through strength. This has been misconstrued by many liberals to mean a kind of "fake peace" constructed only by force and coercion. There was definitely peace in Auschwitz and the Soviet Union under Stalin. But this is not what Reagan meant; otherwise, he would have used the words "force" or "coercion" in place of "strength."

What Reagan meant was that the presence of enforcement will always ensure justice and peace. The United States is, and isn't, an international policeman. It is not in the sense that we do not have the responsibility (or the means) to resolve or become involved in every conflict throughout the world. But it is in a sense that virtually every conflict affects U.S. interests merely due to its huge size and tremendous influence. The Israel-Palestine conflict interests us; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons interests us; even a Chinese economic law can change our domestic stock markets. But I digress.

When the United States is subtly sitting in the background with a substantial, but fair, military force, it keeps the world in line. During the Somalia fiasco during Clinton's administration, we pulled out after eighteen casualties. Osama bin Laden pointed this out and described America as a "paper tiger." This single display of weakness set in motion the planning of a massive terrorist attack on American soil, eventually evolving into 9/11.

George W. Bush has responded to this in a way precisely the opposite of what the terrorists wanted or were expecting. In the 80s, while distracted with single-handedly toppling the evil empire of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's policy towards Islamofascism was going after only the individuals or organizations responsible. During the 90s, we ignored Islamofascism completely, including half a dozen attacks on U.S. soil such as the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 and several embassy bombings in the Persian Gulf region. In 2000, there was a direct attack on a U.S. naval vessel that went completely unaddressed.

Finally, in 2001, we got our policy right. We took the fight to the terrorists. George W. Bush appropriately used a horrible attack as an opportunity to wage a war on all terrorists, not just a few. He took the fight to the entire Taliban in Afghanistan rather than just Osama bin Laden. He took the fight to Iraq, a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny, not to mention a dictator who has been seeking weapons of mass destruction for over a decade and has been a U.S. military interest since the Reagan administration.

This policy has had the terrorists in complete disarray. They say that we have created terrorism; this is completely false and untrue. Terrorists have been flooding into Iraq to fight Americans, but they haven't been becoming new terrorists. This is the equivalent to the Union Army in the Civil War crossing into the South for almost all the battles. We took the fight to them. If we invaded North Carolina but all the Confederate Armies stayed in Georgia, would that do much good? Hardly. This is what is happening in Iraq. The terrorists know that if they can get us to leave and retreat as we did in Somalia (and as Obama would have us do next year), they will have a landmark victory and inspire more terrorism there and abroad.

It is the pressure Ronald Reagan exerted (via the U.S. military) that caused the Soviet collapse. It was the weakness of the Clinton administration that culminated in the weaknesses allowing for 9/11. And this will happen again if Obama is elected.

The Republican Party is not the only one in this century to have such an attitude. The Democratic Party was just as fine on foreign policy as the GOP during and after World War II. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wisely used Pearl Harbor as a reason to declare war on the entire Axis of Evil, including Japan and Germany. After winning WWII in Europe, his successor Harry S Truman smartly dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of American lives that could have been lost in an invasion and quickly ending the war in the Pacific. The civilian casualties were a tragedy, but it has ultimately led to the success of a capitalist Japan that is one of the most successful nations in the Far East.

When did this change? JFK was a bridge between the old and new Democrats. JFK was known to be weak on foreign policy. This is why Kruschev put a bunch of nukes 50 miles off our coastline. JFK held a tough stance, risking nuclear war but ultimately saving us from it. But after his assassination, Democrats embraced socialism rather than feared it. Lyndon Johnson made the New Deal permanent, something FDR did not intend or want, screwing every low-class worker into government dependence that is still a major problem in this country. Social security is falling apart and will be, according to one estimate, $53 trillion in debt in a few decades.

The point is, a strong national security is necessary for American safety and security. "Diplomacy" will only get us so far, and it also implies legitimacy. We cannot sit down with Ahmadenijad because it will legitimize his tyranny. We must pressure him through economic and social means, and, if necessary, military action. Yes, military action is a last resort, but diplomacy isn't even on the list of options, nor should it be.

There can be peace throughout the world. But it depends on the strength of America. America stands for justice and freedom. And that is the force that needs to have power in the world, not Iran or North Korea or Iraq which stand for oppression and tyranny.

"We will always be prepared so that we may always be free."

This week I got a chance to see Michael Moore's latest award-less documentary, SiCKO. It details the plight of American healthcare, calling for universal, government-paid healthcare for everyone. He spends the first half of his movie discussing the way insurance companies screw most of their applicants out of coverage, then the second half exploring foreign universal systems in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba.

Of course, it is the Republican Party's fault for this disaster: Richard Nixon's administration started the HMO system in which companies have a financial incentive not to insure people; George W. Bush signed a prescription drug bill that resulted in costlier pills.

I'm not going to argue that our healthcare system is fine. It is a mess. No hospital should have to turn away a patient with a sawed-off finger or a tumor just because they don't have coverage. But in today's system, they have to, because there is no way to be sure they will be able to pay for their treatments. But I do not believe a universal system is a viable answer in American society.

I admit, universal healthcare systems are amazing. I like them. I wish we had one. Just imagine, walking into a hospital for anything for free at any time of day. But the thing is, we can't afford it in this country.

In Europe, people get taxed obscene amounts of their salary, rarely blow 50% and usually around 60-70%. Furthermore, their populations are a fraction of the U.S.'s, so to guarantee their people healthcare is much easier. If America taxed that much, our healthcare system would be absolutely incredible. But I do not want the government taking that much money, and most Americans agree with me. No one will get elected if they campaign on raising the taxes enough to pay for a universal healthcare system.

I believe the solution, as it always has been in the U.S., is capitalism. Look at dentists. Dentists are not in the HMO world. Granted, they don't deal with life-threatening diagnoses or treatments, but it is an interesting case study. Dentists are free to set whatever price they feel is fair and charge it. You give them your credit card and you pay. It's like buying anything else. (Insurance will cover dentistry in some cases, but they simply sign a check; you are free to choose any dentist.) Dentists have to compete for customers, and therefore price accordingly.

Doctors do not have this luxury. They are told which patients they will get by insurance companies, and to go to a specialist requires time-consuming referrals and other paperwork. Care is costly and inefficient. I see no reason why we can't have a free enterprise system in healthcare like we do in all of our other industries.

When you are only taxing the public between 20-30% of over 300 million people, there is no way to afford a healthcare system that will be on par with private doctors as far as care quality. I see nothing wrong with a healthcare system for people who can't afford care, much like a type of welfare, but to guarantee free healthcare for everyone is just impractical.

I also do not understand this conclusion that the government must guarantee healthcare. What makes it different from other necessities? The government doesn't guarantee housing or food for every American. These are just as essential to life in this country. The idea that this is necessary I believe is just wrong.

Liberals know they cannot set up a healthcare system right now with the tax dollars coming in. The goal is not decent care, it's more control. Call me a selfish jerk, but I do not want my tax money paying for some idiot who skateboards off the side of a building. Would I want my tax money paying for a hard working American family father who has a tumor? Probably. But it's not the government's place to tell me that I have to. And believe you me, once universal healthcare is created, the road will begin toward the elimination of free enterprise and, as the goal always is with liberal government, higher taxes.

As far as prescription drugs go, I think it's troubling when drugs here are hundreds of dollars for 30 pills, but any quantity of any pill is £6.65 in the U.K. Yes, I believe in competition, but pharmaceutical companies don't compete. They race to find a drug first, then sell it for as much as they can. This is not fair, and it is not competition. I believe drug patents should be dropped to 1-2 years, so that they have that much time to be rewarded for the invention of a drug. After that, all companies should have access to the formula, be able to produce it, and compete for the lowest cost. Seems like a reasonable solution to me, and gasp! It means changing an existing law rather than adding ten new ones.

The system sucks. There is a problem. But universal healthcare is not the answer. In the end, Moore's film isn't about healthcare, it's about government control. It's about how America sucks. And his anti-Americanism makes me sick. Our country has problems, but they can all be solved with less government rather than more.

Let's sit down and make some common-sense solutions with the money we have, rather than try to expand the government so much that it collapses upon itself and becomes the failures of Medicaid and Medical in New York and California, which have forced both states into billions of dollars in debt.

Let's put real competition back into the healthcare system.

I took a little walk earlier this week to clear my head about some things, and as always, my brain took me to politics. When confused about something abstract, like a relationship or emotions, the mind will almost invariably settle on something that, to you, makes perfect sense. For me, that is politics; it gave me something concrete to hold on to in the middle of some confusion.

As I was walking around the campus at night, I noticed all of the orange lights they have lighting the paths. The new area, however, has white lights. Personally, I think white lights look a lot better than orange ones, but orange ones are far more common. I was thinking to myself, why? They may be cheaper, use less energy, something like that, but I jokingly thought, "It's probably just another liberal conspiracy."

But as I thought this, I began to explore this sentiment a bit more seriously. Obviously, the orange lights themselves (I don't think) are a liberal conspiracy, but how many things have liberals forced us out of or into using?

Liberals are the ones telling us what light bulbs we can use; what cars to drive; what to set our thermostat at; what pesticides we can use (DDT was banned, resulting in the deaths of millions around the world); how to dry our hands in the bathroom (I don't know one person who enjoys using an air drier); what textbooks to use; where we can or cannot smoke; what pictures we can have in our lockers; how much money you're allowed to make; what healthcare provider you're allowed to have; what type of gun you can own, and where you can own it; what size toilets we need to have; how much you should pay your employees; the necessity to wear a seat belt in your own car; how a town can punish its criminals. I am all for sensible regulation: I agree with speed limits (or at least their concept, they are too low because of liberals who wanted to limit gas usage during the oil crisis 30 years ago), prevention of monopolies, and monitoring of the workplace. But liberals have forced so much upon us, and wish to force more.

Being (I hope) a well-rounded political analyst, I of course turned to the conservative side. When have we ever tried to force things upon the American public? I can think of two things: making abortion illegal and preventing gay marriage. I can also think of a liberal citing the Iraq War, which I'll discuss momentarily. As far as abortion and gay marriage, these are specifically defined by our Constitution and law as wrong. The Constitution guarantees life to every citizen; by condoning abortion, the government violates this most important right given from God. Marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman by the Defense of Marriage Act, passed with bipartisan (shudder) support in the 1990s (this isn't some "archaic" concept from hundreds of years ago that needs to adapt, it is a modern perspective).

As far as the Iraq War, the idea that liberating 40 million people from the grip of a power-hungry dictator is "force" is just wrong. "Forcing democracy" is an oxymoron: people naturally want to be free and govern themselves. By giving them democracy, we are giving them the ability to be self-sustaining. It was Saddam Hussein torturing dissidents, his brothers torturing the Olympic teams for losing; we're building them a Parliament building so that they can express their views and govern together! If that's not freedom, and if that's force, the world really doesn't make sense to me anymore. (Why we chose Iraq over other nations is another argument for another day.)

So what's my point? Liberalism is about force. It is about knowing what's better for you, and therefore making you do it. If you think about it, it is elitist in nature. By banning smoking in entire cities, they are saying they know what's better for you. They are trying to ban it in your house to protect your children: We know how to raise your children better than you. They know how much a worker deserves to be paid, and can judge that better than you. They know you'll be better off with your seatbelt on, so they pass a law saying what you must do inside your own car. (Many might point and shout at me, "But you are!" Yes, maybe so. But it's not your job to tell me that. I can decide for myself.) If you're rich, you should either give your money to charity or the government, because making hundreds of millions a year is just "unfair." If you're poor, you shouldn't have to work, the government will take care of you. Liberals know what's better for the planet, and are saying that all car companies in the U.S. should have average fuel economies above 30 mpg in the next five to ten years (INSANITY!). In related news, trust us, CFL's are better than incandescents, we're going to make them illegal.

Conservatism is about freedom. We don't pretend to know what's better for you. The reason we want to "force" the banning of abortion and gay marriage is because these are things deemed completely illegal and just wrong by U.S. law and the morals we were founded on. (As a federalist, however, I believe it is up to the individual states to decide these issues via public referendum.) What you want to do in your own house or car is your business: as conservatives, we trust American individuals as good people that will make the smart choice. Of course, not everyone will, and once harm is inflicted on another it is the duty of the government to intervene. But every individual deserves that chance. Regulation is one thing; stepping in and forcing someone's hand is another. Conservatives seek to elevate the individual at the bottom, not take down the individual at the top. By cutting taxes on the wealthy, a stronger economy will present more opportunities for those below. We give the people more freedom, less government.

America was founded on conservatism. The entire purpose of creating our nation was to rid ourselves of a tyrranous, liberal government. Liberalism, to a certain degree, is un-American in that it seeks to use the government to control multiple aspects of people's lives. That is why I'm a conservative, and that is why I believe conservatism will always prevail in this country. All it takes is a good leader and speaker to state the obvious: America is the greatest country in the world, and I want to continue the tradition of greatness. People like John Kerry can't beat people like George Bush by insulting America; the same goes for Barack Obama. None of the current candidates are saying that, and it's a problem that people like me have to deal with. Hopefully soon another man like Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush will return and say, America is great. America is conservative. And only then, will America be truly free.

I am not lacking in extraordinary Easter break vacations. Because it is the time we have the most time off from school and the weather in Buffalo is not worth staying for, those two weeks are usually the ones my family use to get out of town and travel. We are a huge family for travel, and have had some simply amazing trips. I have spent three breaks in Europe, three in California, two in Hawaii, and one in Australia/New Zealand. We have also gone down to our family in Philadelphia once or twice and, more commonly, to our family in Florida.

Florida pales in comparison to any of those other exotic locales. I'm not a particular fan of Florida; in fact, I have a legitimate dislike for this state and resent having to spend too much time here. If it weren't for the following reasons, I would never come. But this break was special in a variety of ways.

The first parts of the break were just plain fun. I flew into Atlanta to see one of my best friends, and I stayed with her Friday night. The following Saturday we painted the city red and then I took a bus (NEVER again) at midnight to meet my family in Columbia, SC. We continued the drive down to Amelia Island, a small island on the Atlantic coast north of Jacksonville. Here we checked into the Ritz-Carlton to spend Sunday night, and as always, the stay at the Ritz was surreal. It's so classy everywhere you look, it almost grows tiring and irritating ("How can any hotel be so damn perfect in every way?!"). I'm exaggerating of course; it was an incredible 2 days.

But the real trip began that afternoon when we left for Winter Park, a small "suburb" of Orlando. My mom's cousin and her British husband have a small home here, where we all stayed. The branch of my family that lives down in Florida is just awesome: they are extremely kind, welcoming, happy, and friendly. As they were preparing dinner for us Monday night, with my uncle saying such things as "tip top" and "done and dusted," I just had an experience. As we all know, Obama's pastor had some unkind words for the US in some of his sermons. But as I watched this combination of family doing something as simple as making a meal, I was moved. This is America. This is what life is all about. The love of family is a bond nothing can break, and America is what protects that bond greater than any other country on earth.

As the trip continued, these feelings only grew. We spent an afternoon at Disneyworld (courtesy free all-access passes), enjoying the incredible rides and laughing at the fat people decked out in Mickey Mouse gear. Afterward, we met up with the family friends that got us the passes and got big burgers at a local alehouse, watching basketball, hockey, and catching up on old times.

On Thursday, we piled into the car with my aunt to drive down to Bradenton, a small town about 30 miles south of Tampa. My mom's other cousin (my aunt's sister) lives here with her family of four. We remained in Bradenton for the rest of the trip. On Friday, we went to a Pittsburgh Pirates spring training game (my uncle works for them), which was really fun and just a good few hours. It was a small stadium, about 6000 people, and it felt like we were in an old movie at an old-fashioned baseball park. It was very intimate and relaxed, just a pure American atmosphere. The smell of Cracker Jacks and hot dogs filled the seating area.

But probably the most emotional moment of the entire trip was Easter mass this morning. This was the first Easter since my grandma passed away, my mom's mom, who was very close to this side of the family. Even though we didn't visit Florida with her before, it was still hard to go to a mass I know she would have loved with a group of family that she adored. As the choir sang the Hallelujah Chorus as the Gospel Acclamation, I sang the baritone part remembering the long drives to Philadelphia when we'd play it in the car and sing along. While it was sad, it was happy to see what an amazing family she helped shape, and I know she is proud of these relationships. We proceeded to pack up our feast of ham and potato salad and drove out to the Gulf Coast beach for a beautiful afternoon in the sun. What a day.

The point of this little digression is that this country isn't about how much money we have. It's not about how good the dollar is, how many troops died today, how much the Dow dropped by. It's not about the Fortune 500, about Barack Obama's passport, about where we're drilling for oil. All crucial issues just the same, what this country is about is relationships, family, and most of all, freedom. No other country experiences what we experience everyday, even if their currency is higher or their healthcare system superior. What makes America the best country in the world is our ability to be free, and to be able to love and express that love in any way we see fit. The rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright is so shocking because it trivializes that right, nay, that privilege to exercise our right, to something base and needless. It didn't matter that I was only 1400 miles from home instead of 11,000; that I was in the US instead of Italy; that I flew on a regional jet instead of a 747. I had an incredible break because of my ability to love and be loved by the people that really matter in our lives. It moved me, this year more than ever, and I hope that you take a minute to appreciate it too.

I have two quotes from Ronald Reagan that I feel encapsulate both my theme and what we need to realize in these times of desperate struggles for freedom.

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Of course, as these types of speeches so often do, I conclude with the obligatory:

God bless America.

"Put that shotgun away, this is a gun-free zone!"

Something tells me that shouting these words at a crazed lunatic pointing a firearm at your face would not be very effective. But unfortunately, this is really the only defense teachers and students have against any armed offender on most college campuses.

After a sexual assault of a SLU student, I wrote an article in our University News making the case for concealed-carry on campus. It received mixed results: people I barely knew bothered to look me up on Facebook and send me messages of approval, while some friends came to think of me as a psycho advocate of violence. One of the arguments against my case is that our Department of Public Safety (basically campus security) should be the only individuals allowed to carry guns on campus because of their "experience" and training. Since then, there was an armed robbery literally in the parking lot of an on-campus apartment building and a mugging; the bank in the middle of our crowded student center was robbed as well.

DPS does not have the presence to protect students at all times. It simply does not have an adequate force. SLU is a university of over 10,000 students; hundreds of classes are going on all day. Unsecured buildings with thousands of individuals all within a few blocks of each other, and everyone knows not ONE of them has a way to protect themselves: sounds like a good target for a psychopath to me.

These college shootings are an incredible tragedy, but the real tragedy is that they could be so easily prevented. If one in ten students here at SLU legally owned a handgun (which is legal under state law at age 21) and had the proper training to use it, no one would have anything to fear of a shootout like this. These shooters have time to reload their weapons! They just stand in one place and pull the trigger; the only thing the victims can do is run or hide.

I get so angry and frustrated when this happens, because it is so easily prevented. It is such a cliche that is made fun of all the time, but it is most certainly true: guns do not kill people. People do. And guns are one of the most effective tools we have to protect ourselves. This "feel-good" policy of banning every gun from campus is unrealistic, absurd, illegal, but most importantly, dangerous.

The day every gun is removed from the evil people in our society that wish to do us harm, then I'll consider supporting gun control. But that is not the reality: putting guns in the hands of law-abiding students will only make campuses safer.

George W. Bush was termed a lame duck in November 2006, after the Democrats seized a decisive majority over the House and a narrow majority in the Senate. And maybe after his State of the Union 2007, you would have agreed. But that was not the case tonight.

I am in the progress of reading Dead Certain, a book about Bush's presidency from its foundations in his youth and his governorship up to his modern crusade against detractors throughout the nation and Washington. This book provides an incredible glimpse into Bush's personality and the way he runs things in his circle, and I can't imagine his reaction to people calling him a "lame duck." His speech tonight exposed the Bush I'm reading about: he is in charge, convicted, decisive, and gets what he wants.

Are you going to raise taxes? I'm going to veto. You increased earmarks by $15 billion since I asked you to lower them last year? I'm going to issue an executive order. You want to pay taxes? Send in a check to the IRS yourself. It was the cowboy we loyalists love but missed over the past few years.

In a focus group, FoxNews analyst Frank Luntz demonstrated how positive the response was to this speech. Of about 20, 6 indicated walking in with a positive attitude about Bush. But every single one raised their hand indicating a positive opinion of his speech.

This State of the Union was one of the best speeches of his presidency. Journalist and Beltway expert Mort Kondracke said that it was on par with his post-9/11 speech and his second inaugural. It was definitely in his top 5 of all time, which is saying a lot with the presidency he has had and the times we have experienced.

As troops come home from Iraq and the stimulus package helps rejuvenate the economy, this speech will also have positive fallout for the Republicans in November. It may even help re-orient many Republicans that have sided with McCain or Huckabee, sacrificing conservative ideals in the name of electability or momentum.


Well done, Mr. Bush. You have sealed your place in my pantheon of our nation's greatest leaders.

Being a very opinionated and proud conservative (as you all know and love me), I like to post certain examples of conservative writing (by both myself and authors far greater than I) on my door. Like the point of this blog, it is to simply get my points out there; if one person reads it and even has a spark of new thought, I think it's worth it.

But coming back from class today, I was greeted by my articles torn and crumpled on the floor in the hallway around my door. And it was that moment that I truly experienced the essence of a liberal.

I often read articles by uber-conservatives, more for fun than anything else, like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. Oftentimes, these articles are high on exaggeration and low on fact (although, of course, not always). One of Coulter's fortes is to generalize liberals into a bunch of scheming, idiotic little brats that will silence intelligent debate at any opportunity. Of course, this is far from accurate, but today I found it to be much closer than previously thought.

When minutemen (vigilante border patrolmen) from Arizona were speaking at Columbia University, they were shouted off the stage in the middle of the speech by the liberal student crowd. In Arizona, Ann Coulter had a pie thrown at her by a student (whom, she fondly remembers, threw like a girl). In the days preceding the Republican National Convention in 2004, a high-ranking official in New York City government encouraged New Yorkers to participate in (and forewarned convention-goers of) misleading directions, verbal abuse, and even "garbage thrown in their direction".

I realize that this is hardly indicative of all liberals. I have a great friend, just as educated in general and in politics as I am, with very liberal viewpoints. But he is exactly like me in that his debates or coherent, calm, intelligent, and well-thought-out. It is not liberals like him tearing articles off of doors.

But as my experiences grow beyond my little wealthy suburban/private school sphere, I find that the majority of liberals are this way. It is a shame, ruining the credibility of both their own views and the intelligent people that defend them.

I have not decided if I should continue posting articles or if I should post a sign, or leave it blank altogether. Why waste paper when my mouth, the University News, and this very site are all ample opportunities for me to get my points out there?

Long live free speech, and long live conservatism.

While I was distracted from the South Carolina Republican debate Thursday night by an incredible Sabres game, I was left in shock and awe when I read some of the excerpts and recaps from it. I wish I hadn't missed it, because it appears that the candidates appeared for what they truly are.

There are two candidates that caught my eye in this debate, and definitely for the better. They are Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee exposed himself as the liberal, anti-Reagan that he is. Here is one excerpt in particular:

"The Reagan coalition certainly has not seen those same middle class, working-class Republicans feeling a part of the Republican Party as they should. Over the years, sometimes Republicans have thought that one part of the coalition was more important than the other. I think they're all important, and we need to recapture them. But we need to make sure that we can communicate that our party is just as interested in helping the people who are single moms, who are working two jobs, and still just barely paying the rent; as we are the people at the top of the economy."

What is the theme of that speech? Classes. Class warfare. The difference between the classes. The failure of the "coalition," an allusion right there to what became known as the Reagan Coalition. That monologue essentially exposed Huckabee as someone who does not believe in the success of what Reagan stood for, who does not believe in the success of conservatism. His Arkansas record is hardly conservative, and his campaign is populist rather than conservative (which is a veiled form of liberalism: using big government to help the individual).

This provides a nice segue to the other distinguished individual from last night: Fred Dalton Thompson. He's been proclaimed by pundits as the Reagan in this race, but he hasn't really been able to prove it. He hasn't campaigned, and his depth has not allowed the opportunity for him to provide 30 seconds sound bites to the media (resulting in his being underplayed). He has never shown fire or passion. But last night, he was on fire. He was a conservative. He was Reagan, and he called out Huckabee. Here's what he said:

"Governor Huckabee's campaign manager said it accurately in terms of what they believe. They believe that it is over. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and its future. On the one hand, you have a Reagan revolution; you have the Reagan coalition of limited government, and strong national security. On the other hand, you have the direction that Governor Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies. He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy in the tradition of "blame America first." He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that banned smoking nationwide. So much for federalism, so much for states' rights, so much for individual rights. That's not the model of the Reagan coalition, that's the model of the Democratic Party."

BAM! Thompson: 1, Huckabee: 0. This is what America and Republicans especially needed to hear. This was excellent PR for conservatism: Thompson proved to be one, and he proved Huckabee not to be one.

In a previous post, I stated that Thompson is an irrelevant factor in this race because of his lack of energy and campaigning. But this moment is what he needs, and it provides that energy and passion. I really hope he can build off of this, and I hope Republicans start to consider him more seriously.

I will be greatly disappointed if Huckabee is nominated. In fact, I will be angry. Huckabee makes me angry. I wish he knew the damage he is doing to the conservative movement and to the future of this great party that has maintained control in at least one branch in Washington every year (except 92-93) since 1980.

Thompson is officially my favorite candidate, and depending on his success over the next 3 weeks, he may just get my vote.