EXACTLY WHAT IS A POLITICAL "CONSERVATIVE"?

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values. According to my dictionary a political conservative is one who is:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate; avoiding unnecessary risk taking.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit; conservative in speech or actions.
Now that I have defined the term for us, and we're all on the same page intellectually speaking, let's look at what makes a political conservative "tick". Everything from here on down is my personal world view, which may or may not be in agreement with the world view of anybody else... and it doesn't have to in order to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative is one who believes that our culture, traditions and Constitutional guarantees are invaluable (that word means priceless - it does not mean without value, Bubba). The conservative believes that change may become necessary in many things, but holds culture, tradition, and the Constitution to be sacrosanct (consult Webster's). He believes that it is a personal responsibility for all true Americans to preserve those things so that future generations may enjoy them. Yes, you read that correctly. The conservative considers anyone who does not hold those same values in the highest esteem to be something less than a true American. The good news is that conservatives do not see those people as subhuman... just as terribly misguided and irrevocably ignorant.

Conservatives attempt to choose their words with reasonable care, so as not to unwittingly offend another person. They also see offending the sensitivities of others as acceptable when the ignorance of those "others" cannot be overcome by pure reason.

Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, perhaps to a fault. This belief includes all human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of unavoidable death . At the same time, they believe in the penalty of death for those who have committed crimes deserving of that penalty against others. A conservative's sympathies are with the victims of crime, not those who commit the crimes. They also believe that there are those among us whose characters are not salvageable, and therefore unfit to live among civilized persons. And why should one who has taken a life, other than in self-defense or in defense of the life of another, be allowed to live out their life to its natural conclusion at the expense of the honest citizen? A swift application of Mosaic Law (that's the "eye-for-an-eye" thing) would make the world a safer, better place. A lawful death sentence in the USA takes an average of 17 years to reach its conclusion.

Conservatives understand that children, who are the most innocent and defenseless among us, should be protected to the "nth degree" of the law, yet our liberal courts are (for the most-part) issuing judicial slaps upon the wrist to those who molest and murder children. We are not happy about that.

Conservatives believe that personal satisfaction comes from a job well done, and that a person should be able to reap the rewards of their own labors, skills and talents without having to support those who choose not to labor for the rewards our society can provide. Those who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way should be required to do so. There is no birthright to success. Just a birthright to be afforded an opportunity to become successful through personal effort. You have no right to ask anybody to give you some of what they have earned because you are too lazy to work. The world owes you absolutely nothing. The fact that you are simply present on this planet is not a particular blessing to the rest of the occupants until you apply yourself, and become a productive member of the society in which you live.

Conservatives support energy conservation - and, by and large, we think that Political Correctness is a ridiculous waste of energy. How did Americans ever let it become incorrect to speak one's mind using the normal everyday words of the English language - including idiom, cant, colloquialisms and jargon? Why should we have to search our entire vocabulary inventory to avoid the possibility of offending somebody? Nowhere is it written that we have the right to go through life without ever being offended. If you should find yourself offended tell the other party "I find that offensive." (Then either stand your ground and prepare to argue against whatever it was that offended you, or turn on your heel and leave the area. After which you should just suck it up and get on with your life.) Other than that, we also support the conservative management of our natural energy resources! The natural transition from this point would be to explore...

"Hate crimes". Hatred is not a "crime" in the real world. Hatred is an emotion... an attitude... a state of mind... the end result of a thought process. It is the physical expression of that emotion, in some otherwise illegal manner, that may constitute a crime. Hatred is at the extreme negative end of the love-hate emotional continuum, and is a particularly unsatisfactory - but natural - emotion. Hatred is a learned emotion, and hatred of a person or thing may be learned from a very negative personal experience, or it may be unintentionally - or intentionally - taught. (Neo-Nazi's teach their children to hate "niggers and Jews" from an age that predates reason and the ability to fully understand. The children, seeking the approval and love of their parents, learn and recite these mantras of hate by rote.) The terrorist attack of 9-11 generated a significantly strong and wide-spread dislike for anything Muslim among the people of the United States. In some it instilled fear, in others anger, and in many it instilled hatred of the Muslim culture, all things Islamic, and anyone who even appeared to be of middle eastern descent. But, in almost all Americans, 9-11 instilled some degree of distrust! Human beings tend to be distrustful of anything out of the ordinary... especially if they can easily identify those "things" from their size, shape, manner of dress, speech, or color. Look upon that distrust as a survival mechanism.

Conservatives had a self-imposed "vow of silence". Until recently conservatives were the fabled "silent majority". You did not see conservatives rioting in the 1950s and 1960s. You did not see conservatives "dropping out" and running off to join the drug infested liberal "hippie" communes of the 1960s and '70s. However, in 2009, the "silent majority" realized they were not being heard over the tumultuous clamor of the socialist/Marxist liberals. The cacophonous whining of the "entitlement whores" (those who think the government owes them something for simply existing) and their "pimps" (the bleeding heart, liberal politicians who wish to increase their voter base by giving the first group anything they ask for) echo through the halls of the Congress, reverberating almost as loudly as the big money of corporate America and labor unions. We know that "money talks while....". Seeing the direction in which the NObama Administration was taking the country with bailouts, stimulus packages, increased entitlement programs, amnesty for illegal aliens, B.O.'s Global Apology Tour, and mortgaging the country to China (of all people), conservatives organized, mobilized, and gave birth to the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party. For those of you who have never attended a Tea Party, it is a non-violent demonstration of the people's frustration with gargantuan government continuing to grow, and consuming everything in sight in order to keep the beast moving. There have been no calls for a revolution, or even a coup d'etat... yet. We are not happy with the government, and we see nothing on the horizon that might mollify us. We are, in typical conservative fashion, expressing our displeasure peacefully.

Conservatives generally accept and support everybody's religious beliefs, but without internalizing those beliefs or adopting them as their own... as long as there is no harm to man or beast in their "worship services". Conservatives may disagree with the practice of "Religion X", but they will not try to stop anybody else from the practice of that religion. Conservatives may believe that anyone without a religion is foolish, but they won't try to force their beliefs on others. If you have chosen to be an atheist, and someone approaches you to proselytize for "The First Church of XYZ", a simple "No thank you." should suffice. A loudly yelled "Get outta my face, Buttlips!" should work equally well, but that approach is a bloody nose looking for a place to happen... and may even initiate some hard feelings. You do not have a right to never see or hear something religious, but if you find it offensive you do have the right not to look or listen. Conservatives also don't believe that you have a right to try to ruin the holidays of those who do have religious convictions.

Conservatives are the folks who will literally stand up for the Constitution, when the left-wingers try to repeal it. Being conservative doesn't mean you have an insatiable desire to consume the seemingly interminable supply of male bovine excrement that political Washington D.C. keeps feeding the nation. We are not mushrooms... if we are kept in the dark and fed BS long enough we will turn bad!

Conservatives believe that our Constitution is the oldest "living" document in the world. But it is fully mature, and needs no further "growth". It is complete and perfect the way it reads today, just as it was 233 years ago. The bad news is that there hasn't been a true conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan!

That may not be, as my heading claims, "exactly" what a conservative is, but it's close enough to get you thinking about conservatism!

OBAMA DICTATES KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED TO BE TRIED IN NYC!

Barack Hussein Obama, as part of the "change" he promised, chose to ignore 2000 years of history and determined that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed must be tried in a civilian court for acts of war against the United States. This self-professed, mass-murdering, terrorist scumbag is in New York City awaiting trial, rather than facing a military tribunal - as those who commit acts of war against a sovereign have for millennia. Never before in the course of history has there been an instance recorded where a known enemy combatant was given a civilian trial! Acts of a military nature are - and always have been - subject to military law and military justice.

First of all, why is Obama even involved in the process of determining where and how this coward will be tried? Because he chose to insinuate himself into it. Only Obama understands the warped reasoning behind that choice. This is the one instance where he really should have just voted "present". His role as "Commander in Chief" is laughable inasmuch as he has never had any military training, much less worn a uniform. How does one "command" that which he has never experienced himself? Obama isn't qualified to lead an orchestra! Why did all you left-wing, bleeding-heart, pinko liberal-"progressives" put him in charge of our nation's security?

Perhaps Obama involved himself in this military issue to placate his Muslim pals, and maybe he has assured them that all will be forgiven, and that their terrorist minions will all be returned home (at U.S. taxpayer expense, of course) alive and well... and a few pounds heavier than when they left. The only thing he's accomplished since elected is to vacation around the world while apologizing for the USA at every stop!

"Reality TV": It's More than Just An Oxy... Moron!

Big Brother... Survivor... The Great Race! Interesting, somewhat entertaining concepts being presented to television audiences as "Reality TV". Everybody that believes there's such a thing as "Reality Television" please raise your hand. (Put your hand back down, Billy Jim-Bob! Y'all ain't been right in the head since you peed on that electric fence.) Okay, the short bus will be along to pick you 4 people up tomorrow morning. (Strangely, these shows - for the most-part - have been quite successful, with repeated renewal contracts for several consecutive seasons.)

There's as much "reality" in Reality TV, as there is in professional wrestling. Why do you think the "World Wrestling Federation" had to change its name to "World Wrestling Entertainment"? There's probably more reality in a Spongebob Squarepants cartoon than there is in "Reality TV"! Anybody who hasn't figured out, after how long now - 5 years? - of "Reality TV", that the programs are fully scripted and choreographed should be made a ward of the courts.

Personally, I watched the first episode of Big Brother and Survivor, and haven't watched another show of that type since. Perhaps they should rename that genre of entertainment to something like "Simulated Reality TV", or "Pseudo-Reality TV". But don't give me a bowl of BS and tell me it's ice cream!

Unpleasant as it may have been to watch, "Reality TV" is what was broadcast on September 11, 2001, live, from New York City. THAT was reality! Even our documentaries are modified to meet the expectations of the producer, just as our news is adjusted to support the political views of the publisher or station owner. That which we call "reality" is our own personal perception of the interaction between man and his environment. If your reality includes a hopping rodent with large floppy ears and a basket full of goodies, or a fat man in a red suit whose M.O. is to enter homes under cover of darkness via the chimney, then you are a prime candidate for "Reality TV". I have no quarrel with entertainment television. In fact, I LOVE entertainment TV! But, let's call a spade a spade - it's not a manually operated personal soil removal and entrenchment device - regardless of what it says on the US Government Bill of Lading!

I usually end by saying, "I could be wrong about this..." but, there's not a snowball's chance this time.

Obama Supports Saudi Royals Immunity in 9/11 Lawsuit

In another one of his trademark "I have no idea what I'm doing." moves, the Obama administration - shortly after his last visit to Saudi Arabia, and just prior to another scheduled meeting with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah during his upcoming Middle East visit, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States!

Through its solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the Obama administration has asked that the Saudis be held immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, even though there is ample U.S. evidence of complicity by the Saudi government and the named princes in support of al-Qaida's attack. This action would deny American survivors of those 3,000+ killed in the attacks on the Twin Towers the right to seek court remedies for their losses.

Is there any sign of justice in this action? Is there any indication that Obama has the best interests of Americans in any of his executive actions thus far? Is it any wonder that Iran and North Korea are testing Obama's ability to lead, and that the test results continue to show his failure of those tests? "Strongly worded letter to follow" is not much a deterrent to mentally unbalanced foreign leaders. Unfortunately, Obama's failure to take immediate and strong action will also be the failure of the United States of America.

I could be wrong about this, but only if the sun fails to raise in the morning.

Motive For Ill. Church Killing Suspect Elusive

It's their job, I'm sure we all realize that. After the commission of a crime, it's the function of law enforcement to look for an understandable explanation of why the crime occurred in the first place. However, the more heinous the crime, the less likely there is to be any explanation. In the case cited in my title for this post, and any other case where people kill other people that they don't even know, and who presented no perceived threat to them, there are only two possible motivations:

1. Mental illness, or

2. the doer is the personification of evil

Mental illness - as a concept - is understood by most lay persons. What is not totally understood is the root causes of many kinds of mental illness. Most mental distress isn't the result of some physical illness or bacterial infection. It stems from a series of perceived wrongs or inequities, and their accumulation and storage. Frequently that is the result of chemical imbalances in the brain. The inability to discard such perceptions, after objectively evaluating and processing them, eventually creates more psychological "weight" than the individual can bear, resulting in mental collapse.

"Objectivity" is skewed in the mentally ill, and therefore perceptions are distorted, which results in skewed objectivity, which distorts perceptions, ad infinitum. We could easily get hung up on the "chicken-egg" argument here, but it really makes no difference in the outcome. We must also understand that perception creates our "personal reality." When several people witness the same event, they each process it in their own fashion and may perceive it as totally different events. Some processing is intellectual, but all processing is colored by cultural, emotional, political and spiritual influences. Thus is our personal reality formed.

An example of this would be the so-called "Extreme Fighting" matches. To most people from civilized backgrounds these physical confrontations - for the sake of feeding egos - are seen as barbarism. Two people enter a cage and proceed to beat one another senseless (my assumption here is that they had some sense to begin with). These matches always result in the victor injuring, sometimes in maiming, and, on rare occasions, killing their opponent. There are those others who see the same event as entertainment, fun, a test of skills, heroic personal combat, etc..

The key words in the preceding two paragraphs are "perceived" and "accumulation and storage". Most people are capable of observing, processing, evaluating, and then compartmentalizing events. Some compartments are for the purpose of recall at a later time, while others are for discards - things that the person has witnessed that are either neutral influences, or negative influences. These are events that have little or no positive influence on their life, and are otherwise just burdensome.

There is disagreement within the medical and psychological communities over the possibility of somebody being evil by nature. Arguments against an "evil nature" would fall short of explaining the "motives" of people like Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, Richard Speck, the 9-11 terrorists, et al.

The motives behind the actions of others are not always visible to others, simply because others do not share the actors' personal reality - it's as foreign to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics would be to the vast majority of the worlds' people. Searching for motives created by a deranged mind, beyond the elimination of what the "normal mind" might see as motive, is generally a waste of time, effort and resources.

The willful taking of a human life, one that is otherwise unknown to you and presents no apparent threat to your life, is either an act of severe mental illness ... or evil personified.

I could be wrong about this, I suppose ... but you'd have to be insane to think so!