“Occupy” This

Hey there. Just wanted to do a quick bit of ranting as I watch the St. Louis Blues hopefully mount a comeback against the Toronto Maple Leafs.

As I may have explained on here before, I attend a Liberal Arts University in a very rural town in Northeastern Missouri (Truman State University; Kirksville, MO). This school is in a county which is more than fifty percent below the poverty rate. Let me tell you, nothing screams capitalist greed like Kirksville, MO. (In case the sarcasm didn’t come through to well, let me be clear, I’M BEING SARCASTIC!!)

A few days ago, they held an “Occupy Kirksville” event on the campus quad. I didn’t care much, other than my amusement at their thinking Kirksville was a city deserving of Occupation, and my incredible amusement at the rainy, cold night they decided to do it on. Then I walked past their “campsite” the morning after and saw a sign that read thus:

“If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance.”

I was stunned. I was shocked. I was brought to laughter by the incredible hypocrisy. As I understand it, one of the few things many Occupants have been clear about wanting is free higher education. After all, they’ve done nothing productive in their life, so why shouldn’t the government they’ve never paid taxes to take money from the rich to give them free college? And then I read this sign and thought to myself: “how could they be so hypocritical.”

Yes, education is expensive. Even at a notoriously inexpensive state university, I wish I paid less for college. But that’s just the thing… I still pay for it. College isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. For the same reason someone who got a twelve on their ACT shouldn’t get into Harvard, no one should go to college for free unless they deserve it through merit. Ignorance is not more expensive than education, actually, it’s absolutely free. I should know, because these Occupants were full of it. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have that sign in front of their tents, and they wouldn’t be Occupying a city with more people who wear overalls to work than business suits.

This is my basic problem with Occupy movements. They’ve got all these problems, and no answers. America has plenty of problems right now, we don’t need ignorant citizens adding more. Perhaps the rich don’t pay enough taxes, but should they be punished for success in a capitalist system? I understand that in the eyes of the Occupants, they should, but it’s a ludicrous proposition. If you want to raise taxes (which I’m not condoning) raise them on everyone. Don’t punish the rich because they have been successful. This is America. We wouldn’t be the great nation we are without the influence of capitalism and entrepreneurship.

We need answers. We don’t need more complaints. If ignorance is so expensive, you should have no qualms paying for your education, but that’s just the thing about Occupants, their entitled to everything without having to work for anything. The ignorance of these Occupants is overwhelming, and it far outweighs that of the so-called “1%.” At least they had to work for what they’ve got in life.

Misusing the “N” Word (And it’s not the one you think)

Preamble: Let me state quickly that I originally wrote this post to tackle both sides use of this word, and I just got carried away with my emotions and focused on Glenn Beck. I apologize for this. Liberals are just as guilty of using this word in reference to things like the Arizona Immigration Law as conservatives are of using it to describe policy. Please keep this disclaimer in mind as you read

We’ve all heard somebody say it. Somewhere, maybe on the playground at school when you were a kid, maybe discussing politics with your friends, maybe from a popular talk show host, we’ve all heard the word thrown around. Often, it is associated with the inferiority of minority races, but it can be extrapolated to represent a more major form of classism, or even a government structure leaning towards profiling for purposes of its own gain, but anyway we use it, the word is inappropriate. The word I am talking about, of course, is “Nazi.”

Oh sure, everyone’s said it. Sometimes, we shoot it off as a joke. Maybe your friend told you a new rule and you call him a Nazi for his overbearing behavior. I’m not saying I’m saintly here, either. I’ve done it before. I’ve even laughed at it before. But the idea that we can even begin to imply that states of affairs or occurrences in this country come anywhere close to the horrors of Nazi Germany is not only ludicrous, but insulting beyond my ability to describe it.

Glenn Beck, I’m looking at you.

Now, as the name of this blog implies, I consider myself strongly conservative. That said, I try to be the very first in line to call one of our own on his or her mistake. As a political policy, I feel it makes one look stronger to be able to distinguish those who rightly agree with him from those who wrongly agree with him. Not to mention, I’ve no small disdain for most conservative talk show hosts (and I’ve made note of that historically on this blog). That said, I’m sure the earlier linked video blew things out of proportion. The fact that Beck has used the word “Nazi” to refer to the Obama administration is abhorrent, though, and I feel it is a trend, not just among Beck, which must be extinguished.

Let me paint you a picture. Imagine you are on a train car, stuffed shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of other men and women, no heat save each others’ bodies to protect you from the blistering cold outside. You’re filled far beyond capacity, hungry, tired, and scared. You’ve been separated from your family, and rumor has it that you’re being shipped to your death. At best case, however, you’ll be sent to a camp to be starved and overworked, isolated and possibly tortured, all because you possess certain features or belief that one man believes is not part of his “master race.”

I bet you can’t do it. I certainly can’t. I can’t even imagine what it felt like to be a German Jew in the Holocaust. My mother, of entirely German ancestry, was born in America. She is not Jewish, nor is anyone in her family Jewish. She was born in 1948, after Hitler’s atrocities had been stopped. Mention the Holocaust to her, however, and she twinges with guilt. That’s right, guilt. She feels the atrocities of the Nazi’s were so strong that she, in even sharing a bloodline with their race, is somehow remotely responsible. Jews (and other so-called “lesser human beings” in Hitler’s eyes) were isolated, punished, and slain in the millions for the slanted utopian philosophies of one crazed dictator. The word “Nazi” is synonymous with this man’s policies. Is this really a word we ought to be using to describe the policies of Barack Obama.

Let me make this real simple for you: no. The word “Nazi” should not be taken lightly. Dropping it in the political arena should be akin to shouting “bomb” in an airport. Anyone linking someone’s policies to those of the Nazi’s (given of course that said figure is not racially profiling by the millions, and slaying those he isolates) ought to be completely stripped of their credibility. I am not lending my support to President Obama with this argument. I certainly believe he has some questionable, even down-right wrong policies, but President Obama is not a Nazi.

Glenn Beck has every right to speak his mind. He has a First Amendment right to go on live television and adduce Barack Obama’s “Nazi” policies. He is absolutely entitled to this right, and I do not wish to take it away from me. All I can do is use my right not to listen, and hope others start to do the same.

That’s all for now, folks. Good night, and have a great rest of the week.

“Right to Work”: A Right We All Deserve

Do me a favor. The next time you’re driving down the highway for, let’s say, more than ten minutes, make sure you examine the bumpers of the cars around you. Then, take a mental note of how many of those bumpers have stickers defaming “Right to Work” legislation. If you count less than five, I’ll buy you a soda*. Now perhaps my vision is skewed. Living in Missouri, a state that currently has Right to Work legislation being discussed in its senate, I’m sure I see an inflated percentage of people lobbying against the legislation as it is a hot topic right now. Or do I? After all, “Right to Work” is legislation which steps on the toes of labor unions, and if there is one thing labor unions are good at, and you’ve got to give the devils their due on this one, it’s, well, uniting. In the interest of full disclosure, I myself have been a member of a union for four plus years. As a grocery worker, I was forced (spoiler alert: because my state did not have Right to Work legislation) to join the UFCW, conditional to my employment. I never participated in any event, nor did I ever attend a meeting (at the cost of a $50 refund on initial union dues to myself). I did, however, pay a certain amount of union dues which escapes me at the moment, which were subtracted weekly from my paycheck without any more permission from me than that I continued to work there. It is my belief that Right to Work legislation would disallow this sort of situation, and thus would be a fair and appropriate step in labor fairness legislation.

Let me first state one thing. As a conservative, I am fairly thoroughly against the concept of labor unions in the modern day, but that is not to say that they did not at one point serve a purpose. Certainly, during the Industrial Revolution and the horrifically poor working conditions that came with it, there was a definite need for workers to band together to ensure not only a decent work environment, but their own safety. If you don’t believe (and I know many hardnosed conservatives may not) take a moment to read about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. My argument here, however, is not as to whether labor unions once served a purpose, nor is it to even argue their purpose now. I simply aim to examine Right to Work legislation and its validity and usefulness to the labor worker.

For those unfamiliar with Right to Work legislation, allow me to give a very short, admittedly oversimplified definition. Right to Work is a type of law along a line of legislation some fifty or sixty years in the works which calls for the forced involvement of laborers in labor unions to be abolished. Currently, fewer than half of the states of the Union have Right to Work type legislation. Just to clarify, that’s the big “U” Union. Now arguments both in favor and against right to work legislation are many, and I cannot begin to document them all here, but for a good argument for the laws, look here, and an equally valid argument against here. These are each just one argument, but they are solid arguments, now let me give mine.

Conditional of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, modern businesses have little option but to negotiate with unions, and while there may once have been many unions fighting for the rights of the same body of laborers, given the very nature of unions, there is now generally one per field. This is because once a union has established itself, and has majority support, it is very unlikely that another will overthrow it. As mentioned in the argument for Right to Work laws I linked to earlier, laws about the formation, continuance, and existence of unions have been federally created. This gives states little power over unions or how they treat members. Therefore, my argument is largely one of federalism. I believe states ought to be allowed to govern many things, particularly commerce within their own borders. Right to Work legislation gives them some power to regulate unions, and it is a power they need.

Beyond that, however, I believe that each individual has the right to choose what groups he joins, who he associates with, etc. As someone who has been forced to join a labor union, particularly as a conservative, I know the frustrations of being forced into association with a group with which you do not agree, and being the minority voice in that party. I ask you to think of another situation where that is the case? Where else in this great country can someone be forced to join in with a group that does not share his political beliefs, and then be part of so distinct a minority that he has no voice whatsoever? Then, on top of that, this person with no voice is forced, I reiterate, forced to pay dues to this union which will then use his money to support causes against his political beliefs. This is another major problem with unions in the modern age. They are now equal parts labor federations and political lobbies, and if you disagree with their political causes, yet are forced to pay them dues, you are forced transitively to support political causes against your leanings. That is completely and utterly un-American. I know for a fact that the union I was a member of donated to the campaign of Barack Obama for President in 2008, a campaign I was staunchly opposed to, and I gave them money, through no choice of my own, so that they could afford that support. That does not sit well with me, nor does it sit well with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Finally, I realize that this is a divisive issue. I realize that for every union member that disagrees with their politics, there are probably five or six members that agree. It should be their right to associate with the union just as much as it should be anyone else’s right to disassociate with the union, and while I realize that they would argue this creates free-riders, they themselves would have the choice to not join the union. And we also cannot argue that those that don’t wish to join a union can simply get another job. First of all, with unemployment hovering around %9, no one can afford to just “get another job,” and secondly, I can hardly think of a blue collar level field which does not have a major union it associates with. Many people cannot get jobs that don’t go with unions, and some cannot afford to join those unions. Unions, once the voice of the voiceless, an army for the individual to join and protect his rights, now force involvement and stamp out the minority just as viciously as employers once did. Right to Work can help destroy this trend in American labor, and I hope for all those voiceless blue collar workers that it does just that.

That’s all for now, folks. Have a wonderful week.

Preposterous Prosperity

It is being widely discussed today that Warren Buffett, considered to be one of the richest men in the world (not counting, of course, dictators and the like) has come out saying he’d gladly pay more taxes to help ease the National Debt Crisis. Now Warren Buffett is one of the most successful businessmen in history, there’s no doubt about it. Born less than a year after the stock emarket crash of the Great Depression, he built himself up from very little to become one of the richest men in the world. He is brilliant, successful, philanthropic, and his business-savvy inspires millions (myself included). Now let’s look at why he’s a fool.

I want to discuss some statistics here, and since I try to be a fair journalist, I’ll even cite my sources. First of all, let’s discuss Warren Buffett’s personal wealth. This is coming from Forbes.com, which has Buffett listed as the third richest billionaire with a net worth of $50 billion. Now three years ago he was the richest with a net worth of $62 billion. I guess the economy affects us all (poor soul).

Buffett achieved his wealth primarily from shrewd investment and owning Berkshire Hathaway. That’s right, I said Berkshire Hathaway. For those of you who don’t know, Berkshire Hathaway is one of the largest, most successful companies in the world. It is, according to Forbes.com, the eighth largest public company… on earth. Owning Berkshire Hathaway stock is similar to owning a Rolls Royce Phantom: you pay a ridiculous amount for it, to have it as a status symbol, so that occasionally on a Sunday afternoon you can bust it out for a spin and make all other stock feel small and incompetent.

Now that we’ve thoroughly discussed the wealth of Mr. Buffett, let’s touch on the terrible shape of the U.S. Economy. The U.S. debt right now (simplified, as it’s ever increasing) is about $14,600,000,000.00 dollars. That is, of course, rounding off the almost meaningless hundreds of millions of dollars (he said in jest). To put that in perspective, that’s about 32,444,444 of those Phantoms I discussed earlier, which would be enough cars to give one to each resident of New York City proper AND the entire metro areas of Chicago and Los Angeles (give or take a few Phantoms, of course).  Perhaps more importantly, though, it is 292 Warren Buffett’s. Consider that: Warren Buffett would have to hand over his entire net worth 292 times to bring the U.S. Government back to almost zero, a point from which, of course, it would begin gathering more debt.

That is the real problem with the debt crisis, however, and perhaps the one least discussed: IT’S ALWAYS GROWING! To prove my point, let’s take a fun little field trip, shall we. Alright, go here: http://www.usdebtclock.org/  Now, look at that number in the top left corner. The one that’s moving really, really fast? Yeah, that one. Now, here’s the fun part. The next time that million dollar column changes, start counting. 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi. Wait until that million dollar number changes again. You just watched your country gain a million dollars of debt. How long did it take you? 25 Mississippi? That’s what it took me. 25 seconds for the nation to accrue a million dollars more debt. This, perhaps more than anything, is indicative of Buffett’s foolishness. Let’s disregard the fact that increasing taxes on the rich would increase unemployment, and therefore in the long run create less revenue. Even if we taxed everyone in the United States making annually above $400,000 dollars at a %50 tax rate (which of course we’d never do) we would generate just under 5 trillion dollars (which, in layman’s terms, is less than 14 trillion). And of course, the deficit is ever increasing.

To summarize, there is no quick fix to this debt crisis. Fixing the debt will be a long, arduous process. I, being 20, know that this debt will affect my parents generation, my generation, and my children’s generation (if not many generations beyond that) greatly. As I think I’ve demonstrated fairly in this blog, however, taxing the rich is not the solution to this problem. But if Mr. Buffett is so insistent on his holier-than-thou, I’ll pay more approach; let’s have him put his money where his mouth is. There is a wonderful site, www.pay.gov , where those that wish to give the government money can do so outright. Let’s get the word out so we can see if Mr. Buffett and other rich liberals mean what they say or are just all talk. If you truly wish to impress me, Mr. Buffett, toss a few billion dollars at the U.S. debt. Heck, you probably won’t even notice it’s missing.

With that said, good afternoon, and have a fantastic week.

Why I Love America

In times like these, it’s hard to remember why we love America. When the national deficit is nauseatingly high and the proposed solutions are all but non-existent, it’s easy to lose sight of what makes this nation great. But on this, her 235^th birthday, it’s important to remember why we should all be proud to be Americans.

I love America because it is the greatest country in the world.

I love America because it is England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Turkey, Greece, Russia, China, Japan, Nigeria, Kenya, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and every other country and nationality on earth rolled into one.

I love America because it’s the eleventh inning on a school night.

I love America because it’s the only place movies about penguins in New York, talking cars in Italy, and transforming, alien Robots in Los Angeles can all be dominant in theatres… at the same time.

I love America because for every Wal-Mart or McDonald’s, there’s a Bratcher’s grocery and an Uncle Bill’s.

I love America because Red, White, and Blue is the coolest combination of colors on earth.

I love America because that flag was still flying in the dawn’s early light, and I love America because there was a poet there to write about it.

I love America because only here could James Carville and Mary Matalin be happily married for almost twenty years.

I love America because, hey, Rocky Balboa’s from there!

I love America because only she could go from Jim Crow to Barack Obama in fifty years.

Most of all, however, I love America because you love America. I love America because even though no two of us agree on almost everything, we agree on the glory of this country. I love America because every year on this date, her birthday, we buy charcoal and fireworks, set fire the each, and sit back with beer, bratwurst, and bottle rockets and sing America the Beautiful. I love America because you love America, and you love America because we all love America. When push comes to shove, America is the most united country in the world, and the greatest country in the world.

Happy birthday to the country you and I love.

Not the American DREAM

I’ve got an idea. Instead of a fence in the South, let’s put a giant banner that says: “Welcome to America: Home of White Guilt, find yourself a high school and we’ll make you a citizen!” That is what America has become. I should rephrase. That is what America will become, if congress passes the DREAM act.

In case you haven’t heard of our new, American DREAM, let’s go over the basics, shall we?

If you are an illegal immigrant who:

1.) Entered the U.S. before the age of sixteen

2.) Have resided in the U.S. for at least five consecutive years

3.) have attained a high school diploma OR GED (in the U.S.)

and (because every single United States Congressional Act must have some absurdly vague loophole)

4.) be of “Good moral character”

You can receive “permanent resident status” IF you either:

1.) Complete two years in the armed forces

OR

2.) Find yourself a nice little four year college and spend two years there

Now, I have long thought that one of the biggest problems for U.S. Immigration was that becoming a citizen was probably too difficult, but this is not the way to fix this. In a country whose high schools are already overcrowded, and whose colleges ALREADY deny perfectly better qualified students the right to enter college over a less qualified minority student, a bill which guarantees more crowded schools and more minorities applying for college is the last thing we need.

That last comment may have seemed a little racist, so let me be clear that I have no problem with as many minorities as are qualified entering college. My problem lies in the fact that they are somehow naturally more qualified because of the color of their skin. That is a kind of reverse racism which I think is disgusting.

Back to the DREAM. With illegal immigration in the sorry, uncontrolled state it already is, the DREAM can only make things worse. Picture this:

You send a Facebook invitation to all of your Facebook friends to a little house party at your house. After all, there’s SOME reason you’ve associated with these people so long, and it’s high time, in your opinion, that you see them and let them know they are appreciated. Still, you send the invitation hoping that only a few people will be able to accept.

Every one of your friends accepts the invitation.

Suddenly, it’s the day of the party, and you’re little home is filled with five hundred people, some of whom you barely know.

This is how I see the DREAM act playing out. Sure, it may aid some immigrants who truly are worthy of help and will make great American citizens. In the meantime, however, it creates EVEN MORE incentive for those who have not already crossed the border to do so. It will, by necessity, create a huge government bureaucracy to deal with these government programs, a bureaucracy which this American Government, which is already in the blinding, LED, blood still dripping from the wound red cannot possibly afford. And it will, most of all, welcome hundreds and thousands of illegal immigrants, some who might not even be of (GASP, dare I say it?) “Good moral character” to our country.

Now that’s not the American Dream I know about.

 

The Outrageous Concept of an Official Language

There is a trend that is sweeping America. It is one based as much in bigotry as it is in lunacy. 28 states already have laws supporting it. These laws make English the Official Language of their state.

I understand the argument for Official Languages. Some will say “many nations have official languages, why can’t America?” “Others will say “English as the official language will force immigrants to learn English, and that’s good for everybody.” I see these arguments, and I see their validity. I also see their flaws.

America is a nation notorious for its linguistic monotony. In a world where so many nations are forced by no more than proximity to teach several languages to their children, America has taught only one because America need only teach one. English is the, as it stands, the world’s most widely spoken language. It is the default language of most international meetings. Americans overseas speak English because the people they are speaking with know it. That is because they have learned it. It is necessary for them to learn English to be successful internationally. English is expected of the international “other” simply because bilingualism is not expected of the English speaker.

This needs to change.

In a nation where Caucasians will soon be in the minority, it is simply foolishness that keeps Spanish out of our elementary schools and “Official Language” ideals in our legislatures.

This is not, in my mind, an issue of illegal immigration. Whether or not Spanish speakers have by and large gotten here legally or illegally is a moot point in this argument. They are here. They are not leaving. Not in large enough numbers to make this a non-problem, anyway.

We’d like to think that it is the immigrant’s job to learn English to get along in America. This is an ideal I have no problem with. If they want to be successful in this country, by all means they ought to learn the country’s prominent language. But to force them to learn the country’s “official language” is to clearly say, “you and your culture are not welcome  here.” Not nice words to print on the side of an increasingly hypocritical “Melting Pot.”

Official Language amendments accomplish nothing, practically. All business at all levels of government are already done in English. If they are not, it is in a situation where the natives are so efficient in a foreign language that it would be absurd to expect them to speak English. And don’t just picture a group of illegal immigrants in some west Texas village’s town hall meeting. I’m not even talking about them.

Which of you would travel to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and tell the Amish there to conduct their business in English, rather than the dialectic German many of them prefer? You wouldn’t dare spit on the Constitution to do such a thing. And while there is no amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of culture, aren’t there a few guaranteeing things like Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Expression? It’s been a little under a year since my last class which dealt heavily in Constitutional affairs, but I remember something like that.

I guess what it boils down to for these “Official Language” supporters is that you absolutely, positively have the freedom of speech, as long as you speak in English. To me that is an idea that is offensive to the American ideal, the American Dream.  But I guess we all have our different ideas on what it means to be “inherently equal.”

 

They Keep Talking, and I Keep Ignoring Them

Let’s face it. There are people in the Republican Party that are dumb. There are A LOT of people in the Republican Party that are dumb. Now this is true of any organization of the size of this party. There are just as many dumb people in the Democratic party, the communist party of China, the protestant church, and the fan base of the New York Yankees. Okay there are more in that last one. But either way, there is one thing which distinctly seperates the Republican Party from these groups, and it leads me to this one question.

How did all the dumb people become the voices of this party?

I mean it, I have yet to find a Republican Political pundit or talk show host who did not annoy me to my wits end. Their double standards of what is acceptable between the politicians of the two parties, their unwillingness to research facts in the face of a “good story,” their pursuit of rediculous concepts when the obvious flaws of the opposition are right in front of them (please, let’s give fifteen minutes to a story about Obama’s shady birth origins and fifteen seconds to the flaws in his town hall meeting), all of these things annoy me to no end.

I know the arguments I will hear for this. I know people will tell me that the Democrats do the exact same thing. I know people will say that the slanted media stops at nothing to tear apart the credibility of the Republican Party. Here is my response:

You’re right!

So if this is such a big problem for them, then why are you accepting of Republican Pundits who EMULATE THEM IN EVERY WAY! It makes no sense! You wouldn’t say that you can’t eat at burger king because you don’t like fast food and then get a big mac a week later. Think it through.

The flaws in the Republican Party are many. I have made no bones about my distaste for the partisan system as a whole, and the fact that I will never say Republican, but rather “conservative,” when someone asks me my political preference. There are double standards and direct oppositions in the party platform that sicken me (this is, however, a topic for another time). But the one thing that seperates me the very most from this party is the rediculous pundits we follow. You know the names. Beck. O’Reilly. RUSH. I am sure many of you agree with them on many things. But as for me, I’ll get my opinions from myself, and my news from the onion!

The Politics of Pigskin

Hello again. Today we are one week and five days from the NFL’s  Super Bowl. The Super Bowl brings images quickly to mind of tough football teams, finger foods, and exciting commercials. What it doesn’t bring to mind very quickly is politics, but let me tell you, there are certainly politics involved as well.

I’m not talking about your typical American partisan politics, but when you flip on ESPN and see New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin on the station, you know it’s a strange event.

What was Nagin doing there? Well, Mayor Nagin’s city’s football team, the New Orleans Saints, are one of the competitors in the upcoming super bowl. Everyone knows the story of Nagin, New Orleans, and Katrina, so I will not go into it here, but the fact is that more this season than any other, there are very strong politics involved in this Super Bowl.

The politics, in this case, is the politics of money.

The fact is that the team that wins the super bowl, and the city in turn, receive large amounts of money from merchandise, tickets, and concession sales. Over the next week and a half, you’ll hear a lot about how badly New Orleans as a city needs this victory. The team that was once the ‘Aints, they’ll say, has now become a beacon of hope for this destitute city.

Well I’ve been to New Orleans, and it’s not as bad as they’ll make it out to be, but quite frankly, New Orleans does need this win. And it’s not because they need a beacon of hope. It’s not because the Saints have never won it before. It’s because New Orleans could truly use the revenue they would receive from this win.

That said, let’s hope it’s a good game.

A Word on a Word

I’ve been wanting to write a little something for a while which was intended to explain my political stance to an extent.

As is made clear by my name, and the tittle of the blog, I consider myself a republican. Today, for the first time in a long time, I can truly say that I am proud to be one.

For several years, especially since I entered college, I would identify myself politically with the sentence, “I am a conservative, but I’m not a big fan of the republican party.” In fact, I only really chose the name Republicanrambler because I had been using the word rambler in my pseudonyms for quite some time and decided that the alliteration would be catchy.

There is certainly a difference between what it is to be a conservative and what it is to be a republican. Conservatives hold a certain set of beliefs that define them. These beliefs do, in fact, tend to line up most closely with the Republican party in America. Still, not all Conservatives are Republican (and many argue that not all Republicans are truly conservative. This is certainly an arguable point, but one I will not get into here).  For a long time I have been somewhat of a closet conservative. This will be true no more.

With the election of Senator Brown from Massachusetts, I see a sea change in the Republican party. It is not unfair to say that the public opinion of both the Obama administration and the Health Care Bill strongly influenced this man’s election, but to rule out party politics completely as a factor is truly slanderous. The fact is that the Republicans elected a Republican to replace TED KENNEDY. Brown had to run a strong campaign to even get serious consideration, much less to win by five percent. The party that won Senator Brown the election is not the same party that ran the Presidential campaign  of  Senator John McCain. It is a fresher, newer party which is eager to overcome the reputation it has built of late. Truly, this ain’t your Grand Old Grand Old Party. It is not long now until the next elections. All I can say is that the Democrats better be ready, because WE republicans are coming.

With that said, good night, and have a fantastic rest of the week.