Last Friday I was making small talk with my niece, who thinks she's far more mature than she truly is.  You know the type...  11 years old, and thinks that she knows so much more than the adults around her.  She bristles when you call her a kid, and gives you the correct title of "Pre-Teen".  I don't remember ever talking like that to my uncles or aunts, as she treads dangerously close to the line of disrespect...  but enough about her attitude.  I indulged her, and tried to engage her in some conversation to show her that her uncle is a thoughtful deep guy.  Some how we arrived at a topic of history, and I enriched her with a little fact about our national history, to which she replied "History is boring... I'm all about the future and the now".  This struck a chord with me and made me ponder a bit.

Sadly, my niece is not abnormal in that attitude.  I know many adults that know very little of history and worse yet are proud of their historical ignorance.  I went to see the movie Atonement this weekend with my lovely wife, who I find to be very intelligent, and she had never heard of Dunkirk before.  Dunkirk was a fairly significant historical event!  It's not like I was expecting her to remember President Truman's election opponent, or name the Pope in 1940?  We're talking about the largest scale naval evacuation ever!

What is behind this ignorance, and even disinterest in history?  Based on the symptoms and personalities of those who say history is "boring", or prefer to live in the "now" or the "future" - I see alot of the selfishness of our society causing this.  We shower our children with toys, gifts, and everything else they want.  We want them to have a "better life than we did".  When I look at my children, who have less than many of their friends, I still see far more material possessions than they need.  They have more toys than they could ever possibly play with, and still they want more.  And like I said, my kids don't get everything they want - unlike most of their friends and cousins.  It has become an expectation to most kids, to get everything they want - breeding greed, laziness, ingratitude, and the expectation of privilege - all dangerous characteristics of the selfish individual.

In other cases, mostly the adults I know - though some are selfish too - their ignorance is based on the desire to relieve their stress by not thinking about serious topics.  There is very little history on TV, and they just want to unwind at the end of a hard day and forget about their stress.  They are also so focused on making progress and moving forward that they don't care about what is in the past.  And God forbid having a serious conversation with a friend - let's keep it light and non-political, so no-one gets uncomfortable, or feels stupid.

What truly concerns me is the times we are in and how there seems to be so many parallels to the past.  As General Santayanna said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".  I see the parallels between Radical Islam and Nazism, and how many in this country want to ignore the global threat as "not our problem", much like the US in the 1930s.  I see the economic troubles our country faces, the debt we are all in, and beginnings of a media driven panic.  I see a government that wants to propose more government spending to solve these problems, which seems like it would only make things worse. 

Perhaps if more people paid attention to our history they'd be able to understand the mistakes of the past and prevent them, or at least take care of them while they were still minor problems. 

I just read this article quoting the Archbishop of Canterbury.  He was calling for Islamic Law (sharia) to be recognized in Britain.  Does he have any idea what sort of "laws" sharia entails in say Iran, Saudi Arabia, or other middle-eastern countries?  Does he know what an "honor killing" is? Is he aware of the punishment for theft or apostasy?  How can you have one set of laws for a certain portion of the population and a different set for another?

For the life of me, I do not understand this romance progressives and liberals have with tolerance.  Tolerance does not mean turning a blind eye to the clear difference between right and wrong.  We can not dismiss barbarism as "part of their culture".  If we welcome that behavior into our culture we are bringing our enemies closer and weakening ourselves.  We are also setting ourselves up for murder protected by law.  Britain is an old country, and their laws have been tested and accepted by their citizens.  Sharia is not voted on by their entire citizenry, because women are not allowed to vote and voting is not an option - they are theocracies!

Has the Archbishop of Canterbury gone completely Mad????

Like many conservatives, after the results of Super Tuesday, I've come to the realization that the Republican presidential nominee will probably not be a conservative.  That realization greatly concerns me and is causing a great deal of soul searching.  The question that runs through my head is, "Would you prefer the frying pan, or the fire?"

We conservatives, contrary to the liberal media stereotype, are not the mindless sheep of talk radio, but rather serious informed thinkers that tend to weigh out the various sides of each issue. Sure we listen to talk radio, but we dig deeper by reading articles from many sources - on the chance that we'll get an opportunity to offer up a contrary opinion to a liberal during our daily travels.  After Super Tuesday, I've been examining various opinions and facts available to me, and I'm 90% sure of my course of action.  

First, how did I get here?  I've been a Romney guy from the start.  I like his attitude, his professionalism, his family values, and his conservative views.  Has he changed his positions on certain conservative tenets? Yes, but so have all of the remaining Republican candidates.  His character is no more questionable than any other Republican candidate.  I believe his change is genuine, as supported by his actions.  In my own personal prioritization of the issues, his questionable positions are lower in priority to his non-questionable positions.  However, for a host of reasons, (including some Mormon bigotry that still exists in this country) he is falling behind John McCain. 

I find that I disagree with John McCain on far more issues than I agree with him - the largest being Illegal Immigration, where he claims to have changed but his actions (hiring Juan Hernandez) do not support his stated position.

So where does this leave us conservatives?  For now we keep supporting our favorite candidates, as nothing is final yet, but we do need to prepare ourselves for the ultimate ballot for the general election.  The question that we are all facing is: Do we support a Republican candidate that doesn't agree with the vast majority of our conservative views (ie. the Frying Pan), or do we stay home on election day and allow a Democrat that doesn't agree with ANY of our views to become the next president (ie. the Fire)?  If we opt for the Fire, we sell out our military and our children completely.  If we opt for the Frying Pan, we sell out our conscience and our children at a slower rate.  

I'd like to make the case for supporting the Republican nominee regardless, as the results are not completely hopeless - nor are they as difficult to reverse.  First, all we've been hearing since 2003 is "the war, the war, the war".  This was the rallying cry of the 2004 election on both sides.  If we believe that radical islamists are truly an existential threat to Western Civilization, does it make sense to ignore it now - when it looks like we're winning? As we've learned already, it is far too soon to be proclaiming "Mission Accomplished".  Second, liberals in this country have been very creative in finding ways enforce their views and legislation on this country in spite of the wishes of the voting public.  One of these creative ways is through our court system, in particular the Supreme Court.  It is a fact that Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats are politically liberal and believe that our Constitution is a dynamic document open to interpretations applicable to the "progressive" view.  With 6 supreme court justices over 60 years old (John Paul Stevens is 87!), the next president will have at least one appointment, but most likely more.  A Democratic president and Democratic congress, will almost certainly mean extremely liberal supreme court justice appointees, and potentially open the floodgates of judicial retirements.  With a liberal court system in place to support their agenda, Democratic socialists in this country would have all the tools to change this country irreversibly, without regard for the voting public, and securing future Democratic office holders.

These 2 points alone, are enough to secure my decision.  Thinking of my country, our military, and my children, I will feel much better supporting whomever the eventual Republican nominee is.  But is that it?  Just give up and except it?  Our job is not finished.  

We conservatives need to become much more involved at the grassroots level, to help support true conservative candidates that will be the future leaders of the Republican party.  It is due to apathy and corruption that we have liberals in the Republican ranks today, and we conservatives have no one to blame but ourselves.  We need to get involved and make our voices heard.  We need to expose RINOs and debate them.  We have the strength of facts and ideas on our side, and we should be touting those ideas from a position of strength rather than waiting on the sidelines for elections in "reactive mode".  By the time an election comes around, our objections are too late and too weak.  We all need to do our part to strengthen the conservative movement, and not be afraid to debate others with conviction.