Friday, November 7, 2008

Rebuilding the Conservative Movement

Well, we have been down before and have arose.

In our united effort to consolidate, organize and rebuild, one of our starting points needs to include looking at one of the Conservative movement's original and stellar, yet little-known personalities. If you have not heard of Phyllis Schlafly yet, well, consider yourself enlightened today.

Here is a link to her blog: http://www.eagleforum.org/blog/.

We need to follow along with her insights and perspective now, read up on her, and listen to what she has to say as she describes what she thinks is the path on which to proceed from this point on.

She also has the Phyllis Schlafly Report here: http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/

Her main website, which links to her blog and report is this: http://www.phyllisschlafly.com/

Lets follow her ideological lead as we begin to rebuild.

Let's also plan on sticking together and keep ourselves organized and moving forward.

28 comments:

Ema Nymton said...

.

Have fun.

Being a right wing Conservative has been about winning. Lie, cheat, steal, say and do whatever it takes to win.

May I make a suggestion? Try starting out with positive statements about for which you stand.

Your blog is crystal clear about what you stand against. Your writings make it clear you are against truth, justice and Islam.

Good luck.
.

Ema Nymton said...

.

When you make your statement of values, avoid the word 'not'. Tell the people that you at "Right Hooks" is for ...

Give us why we should join you and the rest of the wingnuts as you rebuild the Conservative Movement.

Let us face it, you have followed professional liars out into a wilderness. You find yourself having been used by professional liars for _their_ benefits. You are left with cleaning up the trash left behind by the professional liars you followed and their debts.

Now what??

You do see what I am saying? Right?
.

RightHooks said...

Uh, the blog is called Right Hooks. The tag line is Beating Down Liberalism and Islam with the Truth. The top pictures show a guy, representative of a liberal, getting a right hook to the chin in a boxing match. The other picture shows a representative muslim getting a right hook to the chin in a boxing match. This is a slam blog. It is a blog that pounds liberalism and Islam, exposing both of them for the lies that they are.

This blog is written for those who haven't heard the truth but are willing to learn; it is not written as a debate forum or to try to convince relativist liberals, who know no truth, or Muslims, who know false truth.

So I have no interest in making 'positive statements for which [I] stand' on this blog because to the relativist liberal, it is all 'just your opinion', and they will dismiss it offhand or just start an argument. And the Muslim will dismiss it because the Qu'ran says something else. So there is nothing to gain by having a 'debate' with either. So why state what I stand for when relativist liberals and Muslims will simply dismiss it? I have gone round and round with both for YEARS. I can take the quran and SLAM a Muslim, proving to him from his quran that he is obligated to kill the infidel, etc, etc. Been there done that. And with relativist liberals, well, I have come to learn that it is simply futile to try to discuss anything with them due to their extreme moral confusion/delusion. So I don't negotiate with liberals any longer.

The people who this blog is written for already understand where I am coming from and are people who do not have the inner confusion and moral hypocrisy of the humanistic, relativist liberal, or the absolute, but wrong, conviction of the Muslim. It is written for people who can see the delusion of both camps, but simply need more information.

Ema Nymton said...

.

I guess understanding the subtlety of the English language is not your long suit.

When I read your original post "Rebuilding the Conservative Movement", I took it for a cry for help. It appeared you had come to realized your effete threats and flaccid bullying had gotten you no where.

"... The people who this blog is written for already understand where I am coming from and are people who do not have the inner confusion and moral hypocrisy of the humanistic, relativist liberal, or the absolute, but wrong, conviction of the Muslim. It is written for people who can see the delusion of both camps, but simply need more information."

And how has this been working for you?

"... making 'positive statements for which [I] stand' ..." is for _your_ benefit; not mine.

You recognize the need to rebuild. Try establishing a solid base constructed on your concept of truth.

I know you celebrate your ignorance with belligerent flair, but really. Bullying and violence has gotten you where you are today, frustrated and bitter.

Try a new approach.

Ciao
.

RightHooks said...

Frustrated and bitter? Ha. Ha. You haven't got a clue about me.

And though I appreciate your efforts for me to improve myself, I am hardly desperate or in need of your guidance.

As described before, this is a rant blog. It is not my only blog. I have mentioned one other to you, but these are hardly all I am up to. I have various pseudonyms and write various blogs for various purposes. This blog is not the blog where I expand on what I personally believe. Like I said earlier, this is a blog that hammers liberals and Muslims because their world views are dangerous and wrong.

But just for fun, let me ask you this...what is truth?

RightHooks said...

Post #2,

And no, the post was not a cry for help. It was a call to regroup that was written for a conservative audience on another blog that I cross-posted to this blog. In that closed community, I do have a solid base and support from some of the main voices in one wing of the internet conservative movement. They share my beliefs and are also PASSIONATE about what we believe in. If things progress the way we think it will, we will soon be moving that movement underground, so to speak. What you see is only a shadow of what is going on.

RightHooks said...

Post #3

And if you will notice through the feedjit visitor reacker near the bottom of the blog, there are visitors from all over the country and all over the world to this blog. If you click on Watch Live, you can see what search terms people are using to find the site. All of these terms people are actively seeking. This blog has information that they are looking for. If it conflicts with your own personal ideologies, well, that is too bad, because there are many others with different ideologies who want answers, that you don't. You could perhaps start your own personal mission of change to these people if you would like, but they seem content with the values they hold as do I myself.

Ema Nymton said...

.

Now you are getting somewhere.

You wrote, "... seem content with the values they hold as do I myself."

Fine. Now to help "Rebuilding the Conservative Movement", write out what your values are. Open up your closed group.

Tell the world why people should join you and your idea of the Conservative Movement. It helps when you avoid using the word 'not' in your positive statements.

.

RightHooks said...

Ema, Although I appreciate your advice for me to write out my values, those in the Conservative movement already know their values and do not need me to build values for them by telling them what my values are. Again, this is not a debate platform, or a place where I share my values which the relativist lib will just say is only my "opinion" and the argument is on. I don't argue with liberals. Been there done that. It is futile. Either people have a moral center or they don't. If they don't, they do not have the ears to hear anything form me. But I am currently working on something that I may post on this blog which is more of an in-depth, philosophical look at things. It is, however, weeks or months away. Who knows, maybe I'll make it into a book instead.

So why are you interested in 'tutoring' me on 'reaching my audience' so to speak, anyway?

Ema Nymton said...

.

"... So why are you interested in 'tutoring' me on 'reaching my audience' so to speak, anyway?"

This is a fair question. Honestly, I do it for the entertainment value.

I found your blog by accident. I stay for the laughs. I'd like to think that eventually you will come to the realization, that your points of view are simple, simplistic, and shallow. (This I expect will never happen.) But by carrying on a dialog, people learn that there only one absolute and life is made up of shades of gray.

So when you post that you think you and your side are absolutely right and those who do not agree with you are absolutely wrong, I like to let you know I do not agree with you. I can imagine your head must be imploding when you see the _real American_ people of USA chose to vote for Mr Obama. Democracy works.

.

RightHooks said...

OK, fair enough. But is my head exploding because the American people voted in a socialist? Yeah, pretty much. Does it prove that democracy works? No. Democracy killed Christ, didn't it? The founding fathers knew that it would take a moral people, people of integrity, for the republic to work. That's not what we have now. The election of Obama proves it. We are a morally bankrupt people who have lost their ethical compass. The election of Obama by those with relativist values is symptomatic evidence. Apparently you are not alone in denying absolutes and seeing only shades of gray. So tell, me, which shade of gray created the world?

RightHooks said...

{{{{{{ crickets chirping }}}}}}

Ema Nymton said...

.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

With all due respect, you seem to be showing a loss of your faith.

“…Democracy killed Christ, didn't it? …”

No. Christ, his teachings, and his messages have nothing to fear from society. Faith does not need society to force people to believe. Society does not need faith to succeed.

One does not need government to keep Christ alive.

“… The founding fathers knew that it would take a moral people, people of integrity, for the republic to work. …”

The founding fathers knew and the past two hundred plus years have proven that for the republic to work, a society needs the ‘rule of law.’


You do agree, don’t you, that people can be moral and have integrity without following the teachings of Christ? (Are Jews moral?) Additionally, just because a person claims to follow the teachings of Christ does not mean that person is moral nor has integrity? (George W Bush and Co all claim to be Christians.)


What does, “relativist values” mean?

.

RightHooks said...

Ema,

You didn't answer the question...

but in the mean time, what are 'relativist values'? Relativist values are that which a person holds who says there are no absolutes, rather truth is 'relative' to each individual. In other words, as liberals like to say, "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." A relativist says that there are no moral absolutes.

So you said, faith does not need to fear society...which is very true because society is unfit to even unlace the sandal of faith's originator, and can do nothing to threaten it. But why does 'society' fear Christ so much???

You said a society needs just 'the rule of law;' ah, but what is 'law' based upon?

Can 'people be moral without following the teachings of Christ'? Well, that depends on what one's definition of 'moral' is; is it moral to behead a man for not being a Muslim? Mohammed thought so. So the first question is what is the standard of morality; the second question is what is the difference between being 'moral' and being righteous? And the third question is CAN morality make you righteous or not?

And, no because one follows the teachings of Christ does not make him moral...if he follows the teachings of Christ, he is in agreement that NOBODY is moral - hence the need for a Savior.

But I am not going to let you off the hook, so I ask again, which shade of gray created the world?

Ema Nymton said...

.

So who is being relativist now?

"... Well, that depends on what one's definition of 'moral' is; is it moral to behead a man for not being a Muslim? Mohammad thought so. ..." I do not know what Mohammad thought and neither do you.)

"... So the first question is what is the standard of morality; the second question is what is the difference between being 'moral' and being righteous? And the third question is CAN morality make you righteous or not? ..."

"... But why does 'society' fear Christ so much??? ..."
An open constitutional secular society allows you the freedom chose to worship however you want. Why are Christians so insecure in their beliefs that they feel that they have to force others to submit to their faith? (Much like you say Muslims do in their societies.)

"...You said a society needs just 'the rule of law;' ah, but what is 'law' based upon? ..."
A written constitution is always a good place to start. USA has a good constitution. The 'Bill Of Rights" is strong and clear.

Can a Muslim be moral, righteous?

"... But I am not going to let you off the hook, so I ask again, which shade of gray created the world?"

Science shows the world has not been created. Does this mean I am not moral, righteous?

.

RightHooks said...

Alas, you gave an answer. Thank you.

You said, "'which shade of gray created the world?'Science shows the world has not been created."

If the world was not created, if it 'happened' or 'came about randomly,' or was 'big-banged,' then it does not matter if you are moral or righteous because those things can not exist if life came from a meaningless beginning.

There is no other logical end to your line of thinking or reasoning other than life is meaningless if you hold that life was not created.

So if life is meaningless, then there is no standard for morality. That means you believe that it is alright for your neighbor to break in to your house tonight and kill you and your family. You cannot stand on one thing (life was not created) and the other (life has meaning, morality has a standard) at the same time; they are logical impossibilities...

You said, "I do not know what Mohammad thought and neither do you." Well, actually the qu'ran and other authoritative Muslim works that recount Mohammed's words and actions and are considered as 'holy' as the qu'ran itself.

Can a Muslim be moral or righteous? NOBODY is moral or righteous.

Ema Nymton said...

.

What people do in the name of their religion is equal for _all_ religions. God made me do it! Using the words of god to justify barbarism sure has helped the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus; take your pick, they have all slaughtered in the name of their deity.

Remember, there is only one god. As long as you believe that there is only one god, it truly does not matter how you pray to god; even if you do not pray to god, it does not matter. So stop trying to show how bad you are with all the verbal bullying bullsh!t.

As you say you want to "Rebuilding the Conservative Movement," try basing your efforts on the Constitution of USA. It is the law of the land, easy to read and allows the people to live peacefully in tolerance.

_________

"... You cannot stand on one thing (life was not created) and the other (life has meaning, morality has a standard) at the same time; they are logical impossibilities..."
Rubbish. Sure you can. Are not the RW Conservatives like yourself, "Pro Life" (anti woman's choice to have a medical procedure) all the while supporting the death penalty for liberals and Muslims?

Life is not an either/or proposition.

"...Can a Muslim be moral or righteous? NOBODY is moral or righteous."
Sounds like you hold 'relativist values'.

.

RightHooks said...

Now you see why I don't negotiate with liberals...

Ema Nymton said...

.

"Now you see why I don't negotiate with liberals..."

You make no sense.

.

RightHooks said...

Alright, I have some time...

You said, "Remember, there is only one god. As long as you believe that there is only one god, it truly does not matter how you pray to god; even if you do not pray to god, it does not matter." Ema, you can not just say this. For would not GOD decide how one should approach Him instead of man? And if a person is praying to a false god, one that does not exist, or not believing at all, how is it that such 'does not matter?' According to you, perhaps, but it most certainly would matter to the God who created the universe. Unfortunately you and I do not get to write the rules. Denial of absolute truth has no affect on the truth itself; only on one ignorant enough to deny it.

Then you said, ""... You cannot stand on one thing (life was not created) and the other (life has meaning, morality has a standard) at the same time; they are logical impossibilities..."
Rubbish. Sure you can. Are not the RW Conservatives like yourself, "Pro Life" (anti woman's choice to have a medical procedure) all the while supporting the death penalty for liberals and Muslims?Life is not an either/or proposition. " What you are missing is the concept of JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS, which, actually, is the same thing. Is it just for an innocent baby to be tortured and horribly killed, having its limbs torn from its body by an abortion doctor? Or is it just to kill enemy combatants who have or are seeking to kill Americans? You have NO CONCEPT of justice...you think that abortion is right because it is what someone wants...what one WANTS does not determine right or wrong.

You said, "It is the law of the land, easy to read and allows the people to live peacefully in tolerance." You have forgotten what Thomas Mann said: 'Tolerance is a crime when applied to evil.' The law is not the highest standard that we are accountable to. True right and wrong is what we are accountable to which supercedes US law.

You said, "So stop trying to show how bad you are with all the verbal bullying bullsh!t." Dude, get a grip. Is that how you respond to a reasoned argument?

Again, such tactics are why it is futile to negotiate with liberals...they (you) have no concept of good and evil, right or wrong, so they just get all emotional and rage on you.

Whatever.

Ema Nymton said...

.

There is one god. (This is an absolute I'd think you would agree. Right?) Every person (Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, etc.) who believes in god, prays to the same god.

God is great. I doubt god cares, one way or another, if people believe or not. How man approaches (prays to) god is a minor difference of society.

___________

"... The law is not the highest standard that we are accountable to. True right and wrong is what we are accountable to which supercedes US law. ..."


It is funny, I am sure you agree; here a godless, socialist liberal like me advocating 'law and order' to a 'might makes right' god fearing- gun loving type of person like you. Really, the irony is too much.

Give me man's law, openly and honestly administered.

.

Ema Nymton said...

.

Part II

"...For would not GOD decide how one should approach Him instead of man? ..."
____ Ah, no. Have no fear of god. God is good and knows what is in the heart of people.

"... And if a person is praying to a false god, one that does not exist, or not believing at all, how is it that such 'does not matter?'..."
_____ Should not your god make this judgment? Does not God know what is in a person's heart before the person does?

'... According to you, perhaps, but it most certainly would matter to the God who created the universe. Unfortunately you and I do not get to write the rules...."
_______ Yes people do. People write (and change) the rules all the time to suit the needs of the rulers.

"... Denial of absolute truth has no affect on the truth itself; only on one ignorant enough to deny it. ..."
_____ Again I say, judge not; let god sit in judgment.

Good and evil, right and wrong? Sure I know the difference for me, I just do not try to force my judgments on others.

.

RightHooks said...

Ema, your words are the classical liberal [whacked] drivel that is so inconsistent, hypocritical and contrary to itself that its idiocy is beyond self-evident...I just don't have the time right now to respond, but hope to get some time this weekend. I've got to go cut some wood right now. But my failure to respond today is in no way an indication that I assent to what you said.

Ema Nymton said...

.

One learns in life that just because one does not understand something, it does not mean it is not understandable. Perhaps you should trying to look within yourself to understand.

That which you call, "... [whacked] drivel that is so inconsistent, hypocritical and contrary to itself that its idiocy is beyond self-evident..", may be easily understandable. Just try.

I will type this slower so you may be able to understand what I write.

1. There is one god. (Let me know if you do not agree.)

2. God is great. (Let me know if you do not agree.)

3. God knows what is in a person's heart. (Let me know if you do not agree.)

4. God is good. (Let me know if you do not agree.)

5. God cannot lose to evil. (Let me know if you do not agree.)

_______

So much for the spiritual side of the issues. As for the law and order issues, the Conservative Movement seems to have lost sight of the value of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Or do you consider these as "...[whacked] drivel that is so inconsistent, hypocritical and contrary to itself that its idiocy is beyond self-evident.."?

How the wood chopping go?

.

RightHooks said...

Wood cutting wasn't bad, it was the getting it to the truck part that was the hard part.

OK, back to the post I wanted to comment on...before your attempt to simplify, assuming that I am an idiot.

You said, "There is one god. (This is an absolute I'd think you would agree. Right?) Every person (Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, etc.) who believes in god, prays to the same god.

Absolutely NOT! There is one God, yes, but that everyone prays to the same God is preposterous. Buddhists are not even sure what God is, Hindus think there are millions of them, and Islam's god is a blood-thirsty, murdering bully who doesn't exist. Yes, there is one God, but He is not the god of the Qu'ran; there is no resemblance in character of Mohammed's 'Allah' and the God of Israel. As represented in their 'holy books', these are two completely different animals, so to speak.

You said, "God is great. I doubt god cares, one way or another, if people believe or not. How man approaches (prays to) god is a minor difference of society."

You 'doubt god cares one way or another if people believe or not'??? Your concept of God is completely absent of or ignorant of His love. Do you have children? Do you doubt that you would care one way or another if your child had a relationship with you or not? If you think that God does not care about the hearts of His children, you could not be more wrong. Because a person does not care about God does not make it an appropriate projection to assume that God is similarly apathetic. Absolutely wrong.

Then you went on to say, "It is funny, I am sure you agree; here a godless, socialist liberal like me advocating 'law and order' to a 'might makes right' god fearing- gun loving type of person like you. Really, the irony is too much" Wrong again. What I meant by the comment that a higher law supersedes man's law is this: just because something is legal, does not make it right. You tried to paint a picture that I was promoting lawlessness; I was not. I was saying that the true standard is even higher than man's law...it may be legal to get stumbling drunk every night, but that does not make it right. Neither does abortion's supposed legality make it right.

Then you had to continue in your next post,

"I will type this slower so you may be able to understand what I write."

You're hilarious.

"1. There is one god. (Let me know if you do not agree.)" Yes I agree that there is. Unfortunately He decides terms and conditions, not us. Also the God of Israel is God, and allah is not the same, or any relation to the one God.

"2. God is great. (Let me know if you do not agree.)" Great, yes. And righteous. And pure and holy; and loving. And merciful. And just. And He is not allah.

"3. God knows what is in a person's heart. (Let me know if you do not agree.)" Yes, He does, He knows that sin is in a person's heart. And unless a person agrees with the holy God, to whom every person is accountable to, that he, the person, is a guilty, condemned sinner (compared to the standard of right and wrong revealed in God's Word) worthy of death, and standing before a God Who has every right to annihilate the person, only then is that person eligible to receive God's mercy.

"4. God is good. (Let me know if you do not agree.)" Of course. He is also just. And merciful. And holy. And not allah.

"5. God cannot lose to evil. (Let me know if you do not agree.)" Correct. He cannot. But, again, what is evil? Who defines evil? It cannot be both Moses of the Old Testament and Mohammed, for their messages contradict one another. Grossly. So unless you recognize evil, how can it even be confronted, not to mention defeated???

And finally you said, this: "So much for the spiritual side of the issues. As for the law and order issues, the Conservative Movement seems to have lost sight of the value of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Or do you consider these as "...[whacked] drivel that is so inconsistent, hypocritical and contrary to itself that its idiocy is beyond self-evident.."?
Conservative movement lost sight of Constitution and BOR? Not even close. I especially, these days, like the part of the Constitution that says that in order to be eligible to be POTUS, one must be BORN IN THE USA....unlike Barack Obama, who was born in Kenya. And being the great Constitution-lover that you are, you will fully endorse his removal from the installation as POTUS process here in a few weeks when it is demonstrated that he was not born here, won't you?

Ema Nymton said...

.
"Rebuilding the Conservative Movement" will take knowing what the law actually says.

"...like the part of the Constitution that says that in order to be eligible to be POTUS, one must be BORN IN THE USA...."

Wrong. No where does the Constitution say BORN IN THE USA. Please show your work.

Article. II. Section. 1. (US Constitution)reads:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

AMENDMENT XIV Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ..."

Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401

"... defines a citizen of the United States at birth a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States..."
_______

Nice try. You have been willing to follow an unqualified incompetent for the past eight years. Why not try something new?

Mr Obama is qualified, capable and won the election fairly. The next couple of years will require serious efforts to pull USA back from the disasters of Mr Bush's administration.

.

RightHooks said...

But where is your comment on the REST of what was posted, besides teh afterthought of Obama's usurping of the throne??

Ema Nymton said...

.

"But where is your comment on the REST of what was posted, besides teh afterthought of Obama's usurping of the throne??"

Out of respect to you and your beliefs, it is better to drop the whole line of discussion. You and your approach to god are diametrically opposite of mine.

I do not fear god. The teachings and messages of Jesus are positive, loving, caring, and giving. I am comforted and have no problem living by these principles.

(This may come as a surprise to the RW, USA does not have a monarchy nor a throne.)

.