Today is Tax Day, time to have Tea Parties

Tax Day has finally come. And as the WSJ points out, nationwide there are more than 300 tea parties being organized. Each state of the union will have one:

Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies -- dubbed "tea parties" -- to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org.

The most revealing aspect of these tea parties is that it's not led by a political party, labor union, or organization. It is purely a grassroots movement of ordinary Americans who want to give the government a piece of their mind. Of course, liberals are making snarky comments at these protesters, and the mainstream media joins the chorus. They label the tea party movement as "AstroTurf," claiming it is not a real grassroots movement. (Liberals would like to trademark "grassroots" if it were legal to do so.)

Whatever. Nobody really cares what the liberals think anyway. Look back at their rallies and you'll notice something oddly similar. They're often coordinated and led by organizations such as ACORN, MoveOn, Code Pink, NOW, etc. In their case, the protesters are mindless followers.

Today's tea parties, the protesters are leaders. Everyday citizens who work hard to feed their families, make payments on mortgages, and have a simple message: We want more of our own money kept in our wallets. They are not gathering because a political party or activist organization tells them to. In fact, many conservative organizations are the followers of the movement.

Look at this map. This is the real change we can believe in.

It's official: Administration sees conservatives as "rightwing extremists"

This is unbelievable. Michelle Malkin confirms the validity of this DHS report about "rightwing extremism" after Obama's historic election. Check out this footnote on page 2:

(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Now you may close your jaws and take deep breaths. No kidding about the "broadly divided" categorization! This pretty much sums up how this liberal administration sees its conservative opposition.

It gets better! Big Brother is watching and listening on the Internet (page 3):

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

Conservative bloggers, radio show hosts, Twitter users, or even visitors of conservative Websites who like to leave comments -- be warned! Especially if you like to criticize the White House's economic policies.

With the revelation of this DHS report, I'm going to assume that federal agents will be present at the tea parties in major cities. That's a reasonable assumption now. I'm also going to assume that federal agencies will compile reports about these mass demonstrations, too.

Obama's economic policies pave way for America's indebted future. What future awaits us now we know how serious his administration views the opposition?

Thank you for a blog milestone!

Dear Readers,

I want to write a quick note to thank you for pushing this blog's pageviews to over 1,000 since its inception in September 2008. Compared to other conservative blogs out there this is nothing as they command thousands of visitors per hour, but to us this is kind of a big deal...

We are definitely encouraged by your continued support. We are glad to be doing our part in the growing conservative revolution! As always, your comments and feedback are welcomed, and please help us spread the word, too.

We're now on Twitter!

Oh yes, it was bound to happen.

AsianConservatives.com blog is now on Twitter. Follow us here.

Looking forward to the new interactions!

Criticizing GOP RFP is counterproductive

A few days ago the GOP released an RFP asking for bids to revamp its website. Since the RFP's release, the blogosphere -- both left and right -- is filled with criticisms about the effort. Erick Ericson of RedState thinks it's "RNC Fail" and predicts GOP's "Technology Death"; The Next Right has its share of disapprovals. Hooray! More juicy stuff for the Leftobloggers to write about!

Okay guys, I know you and people you know can do a much better job with the RFP and with creating a kick-ass GOP site. So can the high school student who lives across the street. That's beside the point...

The Republican Party realizes it is behind in today's technologies and from the RFP, at least it knows what's out there. Are we helping it to get there? Or are we just pounding its face some more? The GOP doesn't need any more embarrassing blog posts. It's already been through the valley of embarrassment after the 2006 and 2008 elections. And with the election of Steele to chair the RNC, selection of Gov. Jindal to rebuke President Obama's address, and putting out this RFP, we know the GOP is serious about regaining influence and power. Let's help it get there constructively, online.

But my opinion is that it has to take much more than a fancy new website. The conservative movement is alive and well. The GOP must understand that it needs to reach out to the pundits and bloggers supporting the conservative movement. Show that the party cares about the ordinary citizens who spend their own money, energy, and time to spread the conservative word. The party is not alone.

Is the White House wise to target Limbaugh?

The Democrats think they've got Rush Limbaugh where they want him. Apparently this all started when James Carville and Stanley Greenberg ran an poll in October to discover that Limbaugh was hugely unpopular among the younger voters. The conservative talk show host continued his criticisms against Obama even after his election, and now top Democrats and the White House see a golden opporunity to paint him as the leader of the GOP, while brushing aside RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

First I got to ask: Why are the Democrats marginalizing Mr. Steele, a fine black politician who's worked his way up to earn the respect of his peers to lead the Republicans during these troublesome years for the party? The Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves!

While the Leftosphere is cheering on the latest assaults on Limbaugh, the Rightosphere is welcoming this classic battle of Liberalism vs. Conservatism. On the liberal corner of the ring, there is the mainstream media, the White House, the Democratic Congressmen and Senators, and all the crazies who start their day with coffee and Huffington Post. The other corner of the ring sits one of radio's giants, commanding an audience of millions on a daily basis, and not to mention his great contribution to the conservative movement.

Will it be a fair fight? Of course not. But that doesn't matter. Battles are never fought fairly, and only the strong will survive.

Most conservative bloggers are betting on Limbaugh crushing the opposition like an ant. If the Obama White House was a business, then it'd probably suffer the same fate as Air America. To me this pick-on-Rush strategy is a miscalculation on the White House's part, and the Democrats are just going to convert more folks into Rush's army. The economy hasn't gotten better and probably won't get any better during the Obama presidency, and people are going to realize that perhaps wanting Obama to fail was a valid point...

White House picks a fight with Limbaugh

The fact that W.H. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is commenting on Rush's remarks at CPAC shows that the Obama team is still afraid of the conservative radio talk show host. Okay, either that or Gibbs is trying to stir up the liberals and their media outlets to paint conservatives as hardcore anti-Obama nuts.

Yes, we are!

Obama the socialist

Is there still any doubt? Actions speak louder than words, and the 30 days that Obama's sat in the White House he's shown us his far left philosophy in government and taken America a step closer to socialism than ever before.

His mortgage bailout plan is just another entitlement program to redistribute income of the responsible home owners to the irresponsible ones who moved into a house they cannot afford. Per Larry Kudlow, and I agree completely:

Team Obama is rewarding bad behavior. It is enlarging moral hazard. It is expanding its welfarist approach to economic policy. And with a huge expansion of government-owned zombie lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Team Obama is taking a giant step toward nationalizing the mortgage market.

The creation of Fannie and Freddie was bad enough, and with this proposed mortgage bailout, the government will indeed reward bad behavior. Life is a series of decisions and their consequences. Make good decisions to be rewarded. Choose poorly and suffer the negative consequences. Where in the Constitution does it say for the federal government to bail us out in cases of irresponsible personal decisions? That's all it is. Poor decision making.

Okay, some folks will blame their employers: My company laid me off and now I have no income to pay for mortgage. First of all, why didn't you save money for the "rainy days," an emergency fund? Secondly, you can't possibly expect to live the same lifestyle without regular income, so start Plan B -- move out! Find a cheaper place or become a renter. Don't wait for the government to help you.

Or blame the health care: I got really ill and had to pay for medical expenses, falling behind on mortgage payments. Health care is a high priority. Each paycheck should have some set aside for health care, whether from the employer or other means. If you cannot pay for health care and a house, then you should live in another place or find another job which has better benefits. Again, where's that rainy day fund? Don't wait for the government to take care of you!

To a socialist, the current economic meltdown is the perfect storm to expand government control of citizens' lives. Strike fear in the hearts of certain individuals -- those without the will or perseverance to dig themselves out of a hole -- to achieve control of their lives through more bloated entitlement programs. Let the responsible neighbor tap into his or her emergency fund (or kids' college tuition fund or retirement fund) to indirectly pay for my mistakes in the form of them paying higher taxes.

There are those like Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic who doesn't see it this way, but rather:

The most discouraging surprise of Barack Obama's early days in office, days of emergency, was the new administration's shirking of clarity, its reluctance to attach the grandeur of its initiatives to the grandeur of liberalism. Instead the president's distaste for division, and his Chicago practicality, set the tone. How came it to be that in the aftermath of the greatest liberal victory in our lifetime John Boehner held the stage? Of course the views of the Republicans must be respected, not least when a few of their votes may be needed to do the work of rescue and reform; but political respect must not be confused with intellectual respect. The response of the right to the crisis in America was to flee to its catechism. The Republicans propose to bail out the economy with doctrine. Unemployment is 7.6 percent and rising, and they say: let them eat Friedman. When billions and billions of dollars are needed for the Pentagon (fine with me) and for Wall Street, it is damn the zeroes, full speed ahead--but when the prospect of relief for ordinary Americans in trouble rears its fair and compassionate head, the deficit desperately matters again. The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically. These are the people who would have privatized, that is, destroyed, Social Security: how can their protests not be met vehemently? This vehemence is not "partisanship," it is analysis. It is not "populism," it is liberalism.

Liberals love to bring up "relief for ordinary Americans," as if responsible, financially sound, hard working Americans aren't "ordinary." It's a sad trend that if you are not in credit card debt, pay your mortgage on time, and have no car payment, then you are not ordinary in today's economic categorization. Never mind labeling Republicans as heartless and hypocritical as well, and blaming all the economic problems on conservatives' insistence and embrace of capitalism. Just ask: Which socialist countries thrive to become leaders of the world economy?

Conservatives have long questioned Obama's "change" when he was campaigning: change for the better or for worse? Unfortunately, ever since he entered the White House, most people are predicting the latter: change for worse.

New blog on blogroll: Keen To Convene

Dear Readers, I want to invite you to visit Keen To Convene, a conservative blog by two fine young bloggers, Lisa and Aaron. Why am I highlighting their particular blog? First, I am very impressed by the content. They write well, their posts are good essays about their ideology and experiences. Second, they deserve some attention because they represent a rare voice: Generation X Asian conservatives in southern California. It's re-assuring to know that in deep blue California there are young people who stand firm in their conservative principles.

Please take time to visit Lisa and Aaron's blog regularly or subscribe to it. You will not be disappointed!

Imagine what took place in Obama's meetings with columnists

Obama had dinner with several prominent conservative columnists a few days ago, and followed up with a meeting with the liberals (of course he had to). Nobody's leaking details of these events, honoring the off-the-record agreement. Larry Kudlow shares some opinion of PEBO. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic isn't talking. No juicy stuff (heck, Kudlow can't even remember what food was served)!

My guess is that during the dinner with the "crazy" conservatives, the conversations were about the economy, Washington war stories, and lots of exchanged pleasantries. Congratulations. How's the family? Thank you. What delicious food! Here's a toast to our new President...

And what of the meeting with liberals? I bet they complained about not having dinner -- not even refreshments! Are we not as important as the right-wing nuts?! And after a brief exchange of pleasantries, they probably treated the meeting like a BDS support group, whining and moaning about Bush's stupidity and Cheney's dishonesty, and Palin's family. These liberal columnists probably hinted to PEBO that it was their words and leftist colleagues in the media that helped him to the White House. Take good care of us. Don't let us down. We can't believe you invited Rick Warren...

Best of luck to PEBO. As Kudlow pointed out, there's a lot of things to deal with already...

Coulter banned on NBC

According to the Drudge Report, controversial conservative author Ann Coulter is banned from appearing on NBC:

"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now. It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

That's probably true. Whoever watches NBC probably isn't interested in Coulter's criticism of liberals. But a complete ban based on the reasoning that she's critical of our president-elect? NBC ought to be ashamed! Why didn't they ban those who were highly critical of President Bush? The elite media double standard at its best.

Happy New Year!

Goodbye, 2008. Hello, 2009! Although we enter the new year with a liberal Congress and president, I am still optimistic of our conservative causes in 2009. Thank you for your support!

The GOP big government (failed) experiment

Richard A. Viguerie writes a good piece in the L.A. Times about Republicans' path and acceptance of Big Government:

Over the last eight years, President Bush sought to tame Big Government and turn it to conservative ends. The administration experimented with the belief -- as expressed by Huckabee, Gerson and Kristol -- that Republicans and conservatives would do better by rejecting small-government conservatism and accepting Big Government. For generations, Democrats had bribed people to vote for them with one Big Government program after another, so Republicans did the same (No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, endless deficits and, finally, the bailouts). The results of the experiment are now in: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, President-elect Barack Obama.

Indeed. Look where the Republicans are now, and look how disgruntled the conservatives are. Is there hope in reversing the Big Government trend? History tells a pessimistic story, that often government does not shrink. It all boils down to indirect vote buying. The Republicans thought they could pull such Democrat-inspired moves to win voters, but the maneuvers backfired big time. Seriously, the Republicans have nothing even close to Democrats' social programs, so what makes them think they could compete against Democrats in government programs? (Okay, maybe President Bush came close.) Do Republicans want to blur the lines between them and the Democrats? I sure hope not.

The GOP should embrace Small Government once again as Ronald Reagan did. It's also a way for the new GOP to distinguish itself from the old and from the liberals. The party may not win the fight, but as Viguerie points out "if we do not fight, we guarantee defeat."

So being religious doesn't make one compassionate

That seems to be what Ezra Klein of The American Prospect is implying in his argument about a study showing conservative households give 30 percent more to charity than liberal households. To him, conservatives only donate because they're not really "compassionate," but just "religious":

But the difference can be explained in one word, and it's not "compassion." It's "religion." A recent survey from Google similarly found that self-identified conservatives gave more to charity than did self-identified liberals. But they also found that "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." Indeed, religious congregations are far and away the largest recipients of charitable gifts: In 2006, they made up 32.8 percent of all giving. But is that charity, at least charity as Kristof and Brooks are defining it? For instance: Utah is among the most Republican states in the nation, largely because of its heavily conservative Mormon population. Mormons tithe 10 percent a week to their church. But is that charitable giving? Or is it a membership fee? How much of it goes to anti-poverty programming? How much to church administration?

Notice how liberals like to bring religion into the picture about conservatism. They like to paint the picture that conservatives are all narrow-minded religious nuts. He singles out the great state of Utah for its Mormon population and questions the act of tithing, even having the audacity to label it "membership fee." I'm willing to bet that the Mormon Church has done more good to the world than whatever foundation Al Gore or George Soros have set up.

Liberals also suffer from wealth-envy, as evident in Klein's writing:

...And what of income? As a class, the rich tilt right, and they also give more to charity, both because they have more, and because they benefit from the tax break. What happens when you control for income?

He couldn't just stop at "the rich give more because they have more," but had to include the "tax break" in it, as if these charitable givings weren't really charitable but just to circumvent paying higher taxes. Yes, the rich deserve to pay more taxes because they can!

Imagine a world where only liberals are charitable... Cool the Earth before feeding the poor! Save the animals before saving people! Legalize gay marriage or shut down the city!

Thank God for religious conservatives.

Academic debates about conservatism are useless

All right, enough is enough. Why are conservatives still debating their future? Why is there still talk about how Republicans failed in the past two elections? The future is now, and it'll be over in a blink of an eye.

It's really simple why Democrats are in power now. They got more votes. They registered more new voters. They increased their base significantly. Young people, old people, women, minorities, and even white males are voting blue like never before! Why? Because the Democrats promise to take care of them: college education, medical care, child care, affirmative action, and job security.

Conservatives understand that these government programs will be implemented at the cost of higher taxes, a bloated government, depressed economy, and inflation. But you know what? Voters don't care. If young people are getting free college tuition from Washington, then the young mothers want free daycare.

The question is, Why aren't the voters keen on conservative ideas? The answer is straight forward: education. The teachers unions are destroying the nation's education system. Unionized labor has endangered airlines and automakers. Our education system is in need of serious help just like General Motors. Schools and academia are filled with liberal "educators" and activists. Children aren't being educated, they are being indoctrinated. Worse yet, indoctrinated with liberalism. They learn to be less of an individual, less independent, less driven, and less intelligent.

And when voters are dumbed down, guess who wins? The political party that promises to help them in any way, shape, or form! There is a generation of young voters who graduated from these schools, and they want their piece of the government pie. This is also a generation of instant fame, where one can become famous with a viral video on YouTube. They do not see Obama as a leftist. They see Obama as a celebrity, and they love him, just like how they idolize other Hollywood entertainers.

If conservatives are serious about turning the tide, the movement has to start with re-education. Major efforts should be aimed at countering the grip of teachers' unions and the Department of Education. The failures of the education system should be exposed constantly. More conservative material has to enter the schools, be it textbooks or after-school programs. Something has to be done so our children understand that government does not make America great.

So forget all the talk about Traditionalist and Reformist and Neocons. Each and every conservative is important. Each and every conservative needs to educate the next generation on the ideals which founded this great country. Only then can conservatives retake power and steer the nation to the right path.

History is made - Obama is president-elect

There's no need to count California's votes... The state's 55 electoral votes will go to Obama. (As well Oregon's seven, Hawaii's four, and Washington's 11.)

That puts Obama over the 270 electoral votes necessary to become the next president, and history is made as America will have her first black president.

Congratulations to Obama and his well-run campaign. As much as I don't agree with his platform, I think it is a well-deserved finish to his historic presidential campaign. Congratulations.

This is beyond a wake-up call for the GOP. The wake-up call was two years ago when the party lost control of Congress. Now there will be a Democratic president in January, not to mention more Democratic senators and House representatives. The GOP has to completely turn itself inside out and return to its true conservative roots.

True. Conservative. Roots.

It's now or never.

Rights that are not

Bill Whittle from the National Review says it perfectly:

Simply this: Constitutional rights protect us from things: intimidation, illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and so on. The revolutionary idea of our Founding Fathers was that people had a God-given right to live as they saw fit. Our constitutional rights protect us from the power of government.

But these new so-called “rights” are about the government — who the Founders saw as the enemy — giving us things: food, health care, education... And when we have a right to be given stuff that previously we had to work for, then there is no reason — none — to go and work for them. The goody bag has no bottom, except bankruptcy and ruin.

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. There is always one thing to remember: What the government gives, the government can take it away.

Economic downturn, conservatism downturn

The current economic crisis is hurting McCain/Palin big time. It's not surprising -- throughout history whenever the economy's gone sour, so did the incumbent party's approval.

There's also a lot of gloomy talk about conservatism. John Harwood of the NYT writes:

The first stirrings of conservative ascendance came in the 1950s, after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Coalition won five straight elections. The cultural divisions of the 1960s lent new force to Republican candidates.

But it was stagnating incomes in the 1970s that allowed Ronald Reagan to knit free-market economic policies with cultural and foreign policy conservatism into a Republican revolution. In 1994, Newt Gingrich matched his achievement in Congressional elections. Democratic politicians like Bill Clinton adapted, ending the federal welfare entitlement and declaring the era of big government over.

With the collapse of the markets, the party traditionally identified with big government — the Democrats — has reason to wonder if public sentiment has decisively shifted in its direction. “Are we looking at another inflection point today?” Michael Barone, a political analyst and historian, wrote in National Review last week. “Maybe so.”

He has a point. History doesn't lie, and history is on Obama's side for now.