[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Where is the C in CPAC? What are "conservatives" trying to conserve? At CPAC this year you could listen to Newt Gingrich, meet Grover Norquist, and learn about “Healthcare after Obamacare.” You could attend a lecture on “Why Conservatism is Right for Women, and listen to Erika Harold, Miss America 2003. But hardly anyone even talked about immigration. CPAC-ers seem to think the country can turn into a multi-culti hash and still be the United States. The one panel on immigration was rigged from the start. Its title was “Can there be meaningful immigration reform without citizenship?” Illegals obviously have to be legalized; the only question is whether they get citizenship. According to press reports, two of the panelists were Hispanic, and insisted that their now-legal pals would swarm into the Republican Party. “Latino voters are the Reagan Democrats of today,” claimed Alfonso Aguilar, who hosts El Show de Alfonso Aguilar on Univision America Radio. He was outdone by Reverend Luis Cortes, Jr. “I believe that the majority of them [Hispanics] can actually be members of CPAC in the future,” he said, explaining that “the Hispanic community is about less government, it is afraid of big government.” Rev. Cortes drums up speaking engagements through a Hispanics-only speakers bureau. Helen Krieble made a pitch for a huge guest-worker program, and the one dissident, Derrick Morgan of the Heritage Foundation, did not exactly strike a ringing blow for the West. “I respectfully disagree with the policy of legalization with or without citizenship,” he managed to say. The previous day, Donald Trump made a brief allusion to illegals—“we either have borders or we don’t”—but Ann Coulter was the one real man out of hundreds of speakers. In her Saturday appearance, she kept coming back to immigration. Republicans who favor amnesty, she insisted, are basically saying: “Screw the country! We want our low-wage workers!” Her final words were remarkable: "Amnesty is for ever, and you gotta vote for the Republicans one more time, but just make it clear, “If you pass amnesty, that’s it. It’s over. Then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.” CPAC, or the Conservative Political Action Committee, should change its name to RPAC, with “R” for Republican. To the extent that CPAC takes any real positions, they are the two branches of Republicanism. One is small government/low taxes, and the other is “social conservatism,” which means fighting homosexual marriage, women in combat, and abortion on demand. Gun rights are religion part of the package. Race, officially, doesn’t matter at all. Although no one at CPAC probably realizes this, there are several countries that practice their brand of conservatism almost perfectly. They have small governments, levy few taxes, and are socially conservative enough to suit Sarah Palin. They are also hell holes. Somalia and the eastern Congo are almost pure CPAC; Haiti and Eritrea come close, as do the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. In some of these places, it’s hard even to imagine smaller government or lower taxes, and they certainly don’t have homosexual marriage or women in combat. In Somalia and the Tribal Areas, abortion is unheard of, and there is a strong public affirmation of religious faith—CPAC-ers should love that. Those places are ideal by NRA standards, too. No Class-3 firearms licenses required; everyone goes full auto. You could probably pick up a 20-mm canon in Mogadishu or Peshawer. Somehow, though, I don’t think Wayne LaPierre is likely to move to either place. Republicans don’t seem to be attracted to these “conservative” paradises. What, by CPAC standards, would be the worst country to live in? Probably Denmark, Norway, or Sweden, with their high-tax nanny states, hatred of guns, and homo-lesbo-atheist decadence. But if any of the thousands of people who attended CPAC had to find a new home, these cloying tyrannies would probably look attractive. Why is it that countries that follow CPAC’s principles are miserable and getting worse, while countries that violate them are doing well and getting better? Doesn’t that utterly refute “conservative” politics? For anyone who officially agrees that race doesn’t matter, there is no way out of that box. The left could get a lot of mileage out of rubbing Republican noses in the difference between Haiti and Denmark, because today’s Republicans have neither the brains nor the backbone for the obvious reply: White people build nice places to live, and black people don’t. If CPAC-ers want to conserve anything they really care about, they first need to understand that they have to conserve a people. Without whites, nothing they think they are fighting for has a chance. Republicans could get Congress to pass every law they ever dreamed of, but it wouldn’t make any difference in an America that was a multi-culti hash. Immigration, of course, and the amnesty that even “conservatives” now endorse lead straight to multi-culti hash. Unless Republicans wake up to what really must be conserved, they will disappear along with the country. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: X-15, LOd (#0)
The word conservative has become a dirty word. One has to realize that presently there are republicans, democrats, liberals and conservatives all living together in the same bordello, in harmony and in incest. What is left for the rest????? White American is all that remains and 90 per cent of us are afraid to say so, to speak up.
Not sure at all what's left for US. Learn Spanish. Arm up. Pray constantly.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||