This section will feature editorials by contributing conservative authors, ranging from all topics that concern the political and social debates of our time.

IF YOUR ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING YOUR WORK POSTED, please send an email to: info@californiaconservative.org

The criteria for selection will be based solely on the quality of writing and the relevance of the subject matter. If you are an unpublished writer, that’s great. Here’s your opportunity to get published.

Pondering the ‘08 presidential candidates this week, with the primaries finally underway, I find that recent changes in the Democrat strategy are most telling.

Whatever happened to the Left’s relentless protests about Operation Iraqi Freedom—you know, the quagmire in Mesopotamia? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who never let a media minute pass a few months back without condemning OIF, have been all but silent on the conflict.

Why, it’s almost as if their traitorous use of OIF sound bites for campaign cannon fodder has decreased as the success rate of our military campaign in the region has increased.

Could it be?

Indeed, the inverse relationship between the frequency of the Left’s objections to OIF, and our successes in the region, is painfully clear. As our combat forces have proven the value of General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy, “the surge,” they have also reduced the Democrats’ political objections to campaign-trail rubble.

Of course, when pressed for answers on OIF, as they were at last week’s debates in New Hampshire, Clinton and Obama provide answers that will keep linguists and contortionists busy for years.

Clinton, who infamously complained to General Petraeus that only a “willing suspension of disbelief” would lead one to conclude the surge was working, says now that her assessment is still right and that that there is no justification that our troops “should remain beyond, you know, today.”

Obama, for his part, repeated the tired Demo mantra that “we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence” of OIF—which explains all the terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. He then insisted that the real reason for any success in Iraq is that “the Democrats were elected in 2006” —no doubt because the specter of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent chills up and down the spines of all those wonkish Sunni insurgents. (continue reading post »)

Thus far in the 2008 presidential campaign cycle, “religion” has played a far bigger role than in any recent elections. This does not necessarily translate to actual issues of importance to one religious constituency or another, but rather that the religion of individual candidates themselves is a major topic. And as this pattern continues, a glaring hypocrisy is emerging. In short, all religions are to be beyond criticism or question, with the sole exception of Biblical Christianity.

At the slightest suggestion that a candidate’s religion might call his or her judgment or fitness for office into question, the instant and universal response from across the political spectrum is a chorus of accusations of “religious bigotry” and intolerance. No less an icon of punditry than Robert Novak made essentially that case in his October 4, 2007 column. Unless, of course, the religion in question is Southern Baptist and the principal involved is Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, at which point the preacher becomes fair game.

To be sure, Mike Huckabee has his political liabilities. His record on taxes is abysmal, and past philosophies on border control and illegal immigration are completely out of sync with mainstream America. Yet this is not the basis on which some of his loudest critics assail him, but rather on matters of faith. And the situation is particularly discouraging since such castigation now comes at him from the right.

In his December 11 article, nationally syndicated columnist Rich Lowry, editor of the monumental conservative publication National Review, asserts that primarily as a result of Huckabee’s religious beliefs, Republican support for the Arkansas Governor, would amount to party “suicide.” Lowry then proceeds to deride Huckabee on several issues, including his belief in the Biblical account of creation.

It needs to be recalled here that at the recent CNN/Youtube debate, when Republican candidates were asked to explain their views on the significance of the Bible, all who were allowed to answer asserted, in one form or another, that they regarded it as the Word of God. (continue reading post »)

It’s easy to understand why feminists across the country are elated with the prospect of electing the first woman president. Over the years, women here and throughout the world have achieved enormous success in such diverse fields as politics, business, entertainment, education, and the military. Most would agree, however, that they have not yet achieved parity with their male counterparts. Men still outnumber women in leadership roles, and generally receive higher pay for the same work. So the women’s rights movement, and women in general, see the election of a female president as the next and greatest milestone on the road to equality.

But is the public at large ready to elect a woman to lead the country?

Over the past few years, polling data on the subject have been inconsistent, but research does suggest that a large number of voters are at least willing to consider it. It is no longer such a stretch of the imagination.

After all, women now serve as elected heads of state in many countries throughout the world, including Chile, Finland, Ireland, and Liberia. Margaret Thatcher served three consecutive and successful terms as British prime minister, and Angela Merkel now serves as the first woman chancellor of Germany.

So now, during this current presidential campaign, the focus is on Hillary Clinton, and while she has clearly established herself as the Democratic frontrunner, two other things are equally clear: she is no Margaret Thatcher, and her road to the Oval Office will not be an easy one.

Her critics oppose her for various reasons. Many see her as calculating and manipulative, turning a blind eye to her husband’s serial abuse of women over the years in the interest of her own political ambitions. Some see her as completely untrustworthy, an absolute master of doublespeak. They question her ethics, reflecting on her involvement in the many scandals that erupted during her husband’s administration, and going back even further, her phenomenally profitable and highly suspicious trading in cattle futures. In fact, to many, she epitomizes everything that is wrong with politics today.

Character issues aside, they also have serious doubts about her resume, which amounts to little more than eight years as a first lady and seven years as a senator, a position she attained largely through her marriage to Bill. (continue reading post »)

The Thanksgiving holiday has passed and now we move into the celebration of the Christmas holiday season.

With it will come the usual litany of criticisms against the Christian connections associated with this time of year. They will be repeated like the repertoire of a pull-string talking doll.

I am well aware of the pagan traditions behind numerous aspects of Christmas, such as, the Christmas tree, the significance of the date December 25th, and numerous other objections that contentious folks may want to throw out there, thinking they are providing arcane information.
But my argument heads in a different direction.

Three renown leaders of the neo-skeptical/atheist movement, have written tomes in the past year or so, reviving old canards about belief in The Almighty being tantamount to belief in Zeus, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the new triumvirate representing the Village Atheist nation, in their contemporary battle against the “superstitious” throes of Christianity.

Since Christmas is less than a month away, let’s look at the comparison with Santa Claus and the Almighty. Without getting into a lengthy analysis, we might quickly observe one obvious distinction: Most people quit believing in Santa Claus in their childhood, while some people profess a belief in God for the first time in adulthood.

I am sure they will say that there is no need to offer such a rebuttal because nobody actually believes in Santa. But we should keep in mind the following: (continue reading post »)

Well, we’ve been listening to you for months now—Ms. Clinton, John Edwards, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy and all the rest—about how bad President Bush is, the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan and how wonderful each of you are. And how great it will be for us when you win it all.

Let’s see. You’re going to socialize medicine with Ms. Clinton’s schemes, give every “poor” kid who’s daddy makes 80 grand a year free insurance, end the “wars” in central Asia and Middle East, quit fighting and bring the troops home, but support the troops anyway and give them all new battle gear. You intend to appoint a new Attorney General who will close ol’ Gitmo, give all the bad boys there new ditty bags to get them back home without punishment for attacking and killing American G.I’s.

Am I right so far?

You’re going to “fix” everything the current administration (and VP Cheney and AG Gonzales) did wrong, bring “spy” Valerie Plame in from the cold, raise taxes and fund a bundle of new “programs”. You’re going to stop the slide of new home sales, make the dollar good again and send all government contracts for equipment and weapons to the good ol’ boys in China to build for us (and outlaw recalls).

Immigration and illegal aliens will no longer be a problem because you’ll open the borders and give the folks already here citizenship and free social, legal and food services. Bring everybody up here for free goodies if they want to be Yankees.

Besa ma Mucho!

Castro and Hugo will be big brothers to us all, the ding in N. Korea will get a free ride, and the dong in Iran will get his, er, nukes. And you’ll see to it Mr. Putin will never again get his feelings hurt by mean Americans who want to protect Europeans and themselves from the bad boys in Iran by building new missile defenses there. (continue reading post »)

Despite the fact that US citizens have repeatedly told both states and federal governments not to do it, illegals are now to be given a huge step towards US citizenship. Illegals are to be given drivers licenses in New York State. In a joint Saturday news conference, Democrat NY Governor Eliot Spitzer and Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff were all smiles. It appears that Congressional Democrats and the pro-illegals Bush administration have found yet another way to bypass We-the-People.

Although federal law provisions are quoted in order to stop states from enforcing illegal immigration laws (you know—the ‘only the feds have the right to enforce stopping illegals’), now Chertoff is saying that he can (or will) do nothing to stop any US State from issuing drivers licenses to anyone—which essentially make illegals legal. Apparently, issuing said licenses to illegals, gang-bangers and terrorists is also not an issue for our US government “leaders.” This way the pro-illegals/pro-North American Union contingents can have their cakes and eat them too!

US citizens told their Senators and Representatives they didn’t want and wouldn’t accept any illegals’ amnesty bill. So, our state and federal leaders have apparently decided to avoid passing any laws, in order to bypass the US legal electorate, and just do it! Note: It would strongly appear that members of our government have learned a great deal from Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez. Or, perhaps they were the ones who taught him. (continue reading post »)

Showing once again that the will of the American people and the laws of the United States of America mean less than nothing to them, liberals and leftists have found a viable way to accomplish their continuing planned destruction of America—without the pesky practice of including the voting electorate. They have declared and established “sanctuary cities”, where the rule of law is no longer practiced or even encouraged. In fact, if certain laws are followed, said law-followers are subject to firing—if not arrest. New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco*, Denver, Cambridge, Baltimore and a growing number of other liberal and leftist-run cities have now been joined by the defiant pro-illegals faction in New Haven, Connecticut. And no one from the federal government appears to be doing anything—whatsoever—about these growing lawless and anarchistic hordes. In fact, as many members of the current administration seem to strongly support the illegals’ position, it is the illegals—not US citizens—who are given special considerations to not be required to uphold the laws of this country.

Note: When lawmakers and law enforcers refuse to adhere to and support the laws of a country, said country’s very existence will not long be an issue. Instead, it will fail and fall into the dusty pages of history as a ‘once-was’ entry.

Due to the unchecked and growing revolutionary contingents within our midst getting away with all manner of law-breaking, the chances of the United States of America surviving as a nation has—once again—taken a very large step backwards. As an example, speaking of the recent New Haven succession from sanity, Immigration Attorney Susan Church said of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement): “…ICE is an agency that’s under funded, that’s irrational, that when they deal with immigration, they deal with it in an irrational and incompetent manner!” Because Ms. Church and others of her ilk believe that ICE is “incompetent and irrational”, they do not feel bound to uphold laws against the illegal multitudes’ entry into the USA. That’s their excuse and they’re sticking to it. Liberals believe—and are now very vocal about it—that if they don’t like and don’t agree with a law, they don’t have to follow it. Even those in the legal community—like Ms. Church—seem to believe they can now disobey the laws of the land rather than working to change them. (continue reading post »)

Real America’s dread of a “President Hillary,” though understandable, is not sufficient to get any Republican elected on that basis alone. Yet time and again, the standard reaction of GOP insiders to Hillary’s candidacy is to attempt to form and mold their field of candidates in direct response to her.

First we were told that Condoleezza Rice was the only viable candidate, since only a woman could possibly compete against another woman. In the aftermath of Rice’s flat refusal to consider running, the new mantra within Republican circles has been the “only a moderate can win.”

Ironically, this very response, itself a reflection of neither leadership nor boldness but of fear and capitulation, holds the greatest potential to torpedo Republican hopes for ’08.

If such thinking prevails, it will all but guarantee a “lose/lose” scenario for conservative America. This portends a particularly unfortunate possibility since all previous experience has shown the exact opposite to be true. And from the terror war to private property rights to the invasion of illegals, far too much is at stake for it to be allowed to ensue.

Nor is such a dismal scenario inevitable. Whether at the Presidential level or in the Congress, the demonstration of a stark and defining contrast between the ever-more leftist Democrats and an intransigent conservative GOP could completely turn the tides on the current momentum of the liberals. To the degree that Republicans have remained steadfast on the terror war, this case is made.

Some amazing news stories emerged this past weekend, asserting that the Iraq War is indeed winnable, and that cutting and running would be a disaster both for America, Iraq, and the rest of the free world. Still, key Democrats remain wedded to their “strategy” of pursuing defeat.

It is likely that their words may well be nothing but political posturing in order to garner the fringe leftist vote in next year’s election. Yet even if this is the case, having operated from a position of such profound weakness, they would then have great difficulty prosecuting the magnitude of war necessary to drive back the forces of terrorism, having ascended from such staunchly pacifist backgrounds. (continue reading post »)

Just when I thought politics in New Mexico could not possibly become any more bizarre—they did. The police department for the state capitol—Santa Fe—has made the decision to hire Mexican Nationals (NOT US citizens) as “law enforcement” officers. In this way, the new Mexican (not US) police officers can ensure that illegal immigrants are given the special privileges the anarchistic hordes have decided they deserve. And, New Mexico has begun the secession from the US, in order to no longer have to adhere to its pesky laws.

Considering US Senators and Congressional members’ penchant for flouting any and all US immigration laws, why shouldn’t individual states begin doing the same? Santa Fe Police Sgt. Marvin Paulk reinforced the “we don’t need no stinkin’ immigration laws” attitude, when he stated: “I know that there are state and federal laws that prohibit hiring officers who aren’t U.S. citizens, but I think that we should consider the possibility of changing these rules! A high percentage of our community is made up of Mexican citizens [note that these are not US citizens but, beholden to their Mexican citizenship], men and women who have lived a large part of their lives in this country. I don’t see why they can’t be good candidates to become police officers.” In other words, who cares about US law? An individual who has been given the responsibility of upholding the law [Police Sergeant Paulk] openly voices that he no longer cares about following the law of the land. After all, the new and improved leftist way of thinking and addressing any and all US laws is to follow them only if you agree with them—then ignore them when you don’t. Note: When law enforcement officials say they will not uphold laws, doesn’t complete chaos follow? It does.

After this new policy is adopted and passed—with the current illegals-have-more-rights-than-US-citizens position held by our “leaders” there is nothing to suggest that it won’t be—New Mexico will have taken the first official step toward ceding a US state back to Mexico and becoming its first official colony. Mexican Presidents Fox and Calderon, La Raza, MEChA, the Mexica Movement and all of the other “the United States belongs to us” foreign groups should be dancing in the streets over this proposal. Perhaps the Santa Fe PD is considering hiring MS-13 gang members. After all, they entered the US illegally—via its southern border—too. But, MS-13 members were originally from El Salvador. Will only Mexican nationals and Mexican gang members be considered? (continue reading post »)

“I’ll see you at the bill signing,” Bush said confidently about an immigration bill that has run into deep trouble on Capitol Hill.
– Bush says immigration bill will survive, AP, 06/11/07

On Friday, globalist and pro-illegal immigrants US senators were still licking their wounds over having to acquiesce to the demands of the American people. Despite the outcry of US citizens against the illegal immigration bill that was patently racist and promoted blanket amnesty for all illegals—including terrorists and criminals—many US senators are now vowing to push a new amnesty bill down the throats of the American public by July. Contrary to the will of US citizens, the National Council of La Raza (“the race”)—the racist organization that was heavily (and initially secretly) involved in the provision of input for the drafting of the now-failed amnesty-for-illegals bill—is furious that US senators did not ram the bill through.

Note: La Raza is also at the forefront of the “Reconquista Movement”—the ‘reconquering’ of the US for Mexico and its ‘indigenous people’. La Raza has also been linked to the funding of separatist schools, including the highly controversial and revolutionary Academia Semillas del Pueblo.

La Raza and other racist groups are now having a heavy influence on US lawmakers. And, this time it’s not just the usual Democrat suspects. Democrats have a long and rich history of identifying “victim classes” within society. They then appeal to said victims and promise them vast amounts of money if they 1. Vote Democrat and 2. Agree to maintain their victim and sub-standard class status. The DNC has helped to elect and even given leadership positions to members of these groups—as long as said members continue to keep their “communities” suppressed. For multiple decades, this process—which includes the near-absolute vilification of all dissenters—has worked extremely well for Democrats. But, proving once again that power [or the hopes thereof] corrupts, now Republicans have actively joined the “vote-for-me-and-I’ll-give-you-whatever-you-want” Democrat throngs. (continue reading post »)