Taking Ownership

Conservatism did not lose this election. Conservatives did. Let me repeat. Conservatism did not lose this election. Conservatives did. The timeless principles of conservatism are right and remain right regardless of what the mainstream media, David Brooks or Peggy Noonan might tell you. This election was ten years in the making and it had nothing to do with Republicans being TOO conservative.

In 1998, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in Washington forgot about advancing conservatism in order to engage in National Enquirer attacks on Bill Clinton. They had forced Clinton to the right after the 1994 election. They had achieved welfare reform and some fiscal responsibility. Even after the government shutdown of 1995, they still had the opportunity to set the agenda, and they chose Monica Lewinsky.

Don't get me wrong. Bill Clinton is a lecherous piece of garbage. Even his supporters know this. But he's a likable lecherous piece of garbage. After twenty years of practicing law, the one thing I've learned is that juries like people who are likable. Combine that with the fact that juries have an unsettling tendency to blame the victim in sex cases and the esteemed lawyers that made up a large part of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate back then should have known better than to risk everything on impeachment. They took the risk and, as a result, we lost Newt instead of getting rid of Bill.

In 2000, George W. Bush introduced us to "compassionate conservatism". I hated the phrase then and I hate it now. Basically, it was used to describe a belief that government could use conservative principles to solve life's problems for citizens. My friends (eww, I'm beginning to sound like McCain) that ain't conservatism. Ronald Reagan said many years ago and it is STILL true, "government is not the solution, it's the problem." The Republican party needs to require that NO ONE be given a qualifying petition to run for office as a Republican unless they swear an oath to that principle. One more time, "government is not the solution, it's the problem."

People criticize Karl Rove for implementing slash and burn politics. Those people are wrong. Slash and burn politics have been around ever since Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel was called a "whore", if not before. Karl Rove should be criticized for following the path of Dick Morris and the strategy of "triangulation". Triangulation works for Democrats. It doesn't make sense for Republicans, excuse me, conservatives.

Liberals cannot run and win as liberals except in San Francisco and Washington DC. Therefore, they have to pretend to be moderates. The American people believe in conservative principles. Don't doubt me on that. However, they LIKE Democrats and the vague concept of "centrism". Therefore, liberals have to triangulate.

Karl Rove and George W. Bush forgot that, "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." Yes, that's Ronald Reagan again. Folks, these are undeniable principles, not just campaign slogans. Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education and RESTORE the power over education to localities. Accountability occurs when local citizens control what their children are taught and how they are taught, not with mandates from the Great White Father in Washington. Reagan would have been outraged at the idea of No Child Left Behind. Hello! No Child Left Behind expanded the power of the Federal government increased the education budget by over 50%. That AIN'T conservatism.

I won't bore you with a complete list of Republican backed idiocy over the past eight years that bore no resemblance to conservatism, but suffice it to say that McCain-Feingold, cap and trade, and the bailout are NOT conservatism. Let me make this clear, there is no such thing as conservative statism.

Try as he might, John McCain couldn't run as a conservative when he had spent the past eight years trampling on conservatism. Why should anyone trust the Republicans to govern as conservatives when they didn't? Something happens to people when they become entrenched in Washington DC and live among the denizens of the Beltway. Somehow they become brainwashed and begin believing that government has the answers and that people need government nannies. That AIN'T conservatism.

Peggy Noonan and David Brooks can tell us to forget Reagan and to believe that the world is now too complex for simple conservatism to work. That AIN'T conservatism.

Did you know that according to Rasmussen Reports and the Battleground/Tarrance Group polls, a majority of Americans still believe in conservative PRINCIPLES and the FACT that government is the problem not the solution? Did you know that the internals of the exit polls show that people believed that Barack Obama was the fiscal conservative in the race?

Some principles are true and timeless. "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." Once again, I'm quoting Ronald Reagan. Society has to recognize cohesive universal values of right and wrong. THEN freedom can expand. Conservatism recognizes that. We conservatives seem to have forgotten that. Supposed conservative media elites keep telling us to jettison the Religious Right. That AIN'T conservatism.

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." Ronald Wilson Reagan again. Free people don't need a nanny. Free people don't need government managing their retirement accounts or their insurance. Free people don't expect to be bailed out by Mama Washington when they screw up.

Allow me to quote Reagan one more time. "Man is not free unless government is limited." The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you what kind of car you can drive. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to micromanage your healthcare decisions.

The American people still believe in morality. The American people still believe in limited government. The American people still believe in property rights. The American people still believe in low taxes. The American people still believe in strong national defense. The American people still believe in secure national borders. Regardless of what the mainstream media tells you and regardless of what so-called conservative intellectuals tell you, the American people still believe in conservatism.

Conservatism didn't lose this election. Conservatives lost this election by a decade long abandonment of conservatism. We have to recognize this, take ownership of this and do what is right. "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." Do I have to tell you who said that?

It Doesn't Matter

If the polls and pundits are right, less than 48 hours from now, the United States of America will have the most historic election result in its history. No, not because we will have elected an African American as President, but because we will have elected someone with a paper thin resume who has, throughout his history, associated with those who view America in fundamentally different ways than the vast majority of Americans. Further, we will have elected a man who, by his very words and deeds, distrusts capitalism, believes in Marxist redistribution and considers small town and rural Americans to be bitter, clingy racists. Apparently, though none of this matters.

There's no question that Barack Obama said that small town and rural Americans were bitter because (he believes) government hasn't done enough to take care of us. This bitterness (he believes) has caused us to "...cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them...." That statement alone should guarantee that 90% of those who live in small towns or rural areas or take their religion seriously or believe in the Second Amendment would vote against him. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama spent twenty years in Reverend Wright's racist America hating church. He used Reverend Wright's words in his book title. After twenty years, he claimed that he didn't hear the incendiary remarks Wright made, and expressed shock after learning them. Of course, that's ridiculous. No one with even a single brain cell believes that. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama, as a youth, was mentored by admitted communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was important enough to young Obama to deserve mention in his memoirs. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

William Ayers is a Marxist. William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. William Ayers considered Barack Obama to be enough of a kindred spirit to have him dole out money to meet Ayers' education goals. Ayers has praised Hugo Chavez' education system and has never changed his belief in Marxism. There was something about Barack Obama that Ayers liked. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama believes that GOVERNMENT forcibly taking more money from those who earn more in order for the GOVERNMENT to redistribute it to those who earn less is no different than sharing a peanut butter sandwich. Never mind that sharing is a voluntary act and government force is actually a taking. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama demands that we help the poor by having our money forcibly taken from us, but he doesn't even GIVE to help his own family who is living in poverty. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama believes that wealth redistribution is a proper function of the tax code. "Spreading the wealth" he calls it. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama believes that bankrupting the coal industry to curb greenhouse gases is good for the nation. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama believes that our enemies will make nice with us if we talk to them and become more international in our thinking. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama is convinced that his presidency will "change the world". No one ever asks him how the world will be changed and if that change will benefit the United States of America. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

From his days in college, those who hear Barack Obama speak talk about how his vague eloquence leaves everyone with the impression that he agrees with them. This is a scary attribute that is more akin to Juan Peron or Benito Mussolini than it is a principled statesman. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

Repeatedly, throughout this election, Barack Obama and his team have taken steps to silence those who dare to criticize him. Joe the Plumber gets investigated. TV stations that ask tough questions get blackballed and newspapers that refuse to endorse him get thrown off the plane. Private citizens like Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor who is openly critical of Obama's record on abortion, are subject to silencing efforts by Obama's campaign. Combined with the efforts of ACORN and you have a modern version of the Gestapo in action. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.

If you poll the American people on each one of the issues I've raised, and leave out the names and political affiliations, you will find that most Americans would not support Politician X who has such connections and has made such statements. Somehow, though, when the politician is Barack Obama all can be excused or forgiven or ignored.

Regardless of your opinions of President Bush, or the wars, or the economy, it is hard to see America changing its fundamental nature the way an Obama presidency would with the help of huge Democrat majorities in Congress.

What kind of nation have we become, if it doesn't matter?

Nancy Does Congress

Grover Norquist once said, "bipartisanship is like date rape." Many people find that statement offensive, but when dealing with liberals it tends to be true. Rush Limbaugh has stated that when Democrats talk about bipartisanship they actually mean when conservatives compromise their principles and do what the liberals want. Love him or hate him, Nancy Pelosi has proving El Rushbo correct. In a recent campaign stop, Speaker Pelosi made the following statement, "...if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan...."



Saturday Night Live must be writing her material. First, the statement makes no sense. If the Democrats have bullet proof majorities in Congress, THEY, the Democrats, decide what legislation passes and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. Of course, the more I think about it, in the eyes of Democrats, and especially leftist Democrats (is that a redundancy?)that is bipartisanship.



Leftists don't view conservatives as equals. In the eyes of liberals, liberalism isn't a belief system. It is THE belief system. In their eyes, anyone who doesn't agree with liberalism is no different than Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Nazi Germany. Libertarianism is fascism and conservatism is more dangerous fascism and social conservatism is a demand to return to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.



That is why leftists don't debate ideology. Try to debate economic liberty and property rights with a liberal and they will either call you a nasty name or say something about economic liberty being an excuse to keep the poor people poor. In other words, leftists take the Scarlett O'Hara attitude about philosophies that challenge their prejudices. They dismiss them with a wave of the hand and a "Fiddle-dee-dee!"



If conservatives favor making the Bush tax cuts permanent, they aren't being "bipartisan". The philosophical arguments don't matter. If conservatives support a ban on partial birth abortion, they aren't being "bipartisan". The reasons why don't matter. The facts about the procedure don't matter.



If conservatives oppose raising the minimum wage on the grounds that it increases consumer prices, costs jobs etc.; Democrats scream about the need for "bipartisanship". If a Democrat president appoints judges, "bipartisanship" demands that Republicans vote to consent to the appointment of those judges. If a Republican president appoints judges, then "bipartisanship" means that half the moderate ones and none of the conservative ones are approved.

I'm sure Speaker Nancy means it when she says that with huge leftist majorities, Congress will be more bipartisan, as long as the Republicans lie there, take it without a fight and don't scream.

Yep, bipartisanship is like date rape.

A Transformational Election

While this election represents a crossroads between capitalism and socialism, liberty and collectivism; just as important and even more clear this election represents almost a point of no return concerning the place of religion in general, and the Christian religion in particular, in the public discourse.

For decades, the media and the urban, sophisticated elites have taken a condescending view of traditional Christianity. By traditional Christianity I mean the belief that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God and the Savior of the world, an ultimate battle between good and evil and moral values connected with such beliefs. In this election year, though, "devout Christian" has become synonymous in the mainstream media with "kook", "backward", "homophobic" and "racist". Attacks on Governor Sarah Palin and, more recently, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann use their religious beliefs to claim that they hold frightening prejudices that need to be relegated to fringe.

Pundits who dislike Governor Palin are horrified to learn that she belongs to a church that believes in a "literal" Rapture. That is a frightening prospect to the secular sophisticates because, as a an article at Counterpunch.org stated, "A believer in the Rapture with his or her fingers on the nuclear trigger might even be tempted to bring on the Rapture." In other words, anyone crazy enough to believe in the Rapture of believers is crazy enough to try to start a nuclear war to make it happen quicker.

Never mind that nowhere in the Bible are Christians urged to do anything to try to bring on the Rapture. In fact, the Apostle Paul took Christians to task who stopped living their lives and working in hopes that the Rapture was right around the corner. In II Thessalonians 3:6 he said, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us."

Christians who believe in the Rapture also believe that those left behind when the Rapture occurs are almost certainly damned for eternity. Therefore, if they have any family members or friends that are unbelievers, Christians aren't likely to try to rush the Rapture because of the consequences to their loved ones. Of course, the secular sophisticated elites don't think about that. They would rather look at Christians as no different than Jim Jones' or David Koresh's followers. That is the view perpetrated by the mainstream media with barely more subtlety than one would expect from Bill Maher.

Another false claim that the sophisticated elites make against Christians is that they want to keep women subjugated, "barefoot and pregnant" if you will. Of course, that makes no sense since two of the most outspoken Christians running for office also happen to be women. I'm sorry, a woman isn't much of a woman who believes that she needs the "right" to kill her unborn child in order to feel liberated. The Left, though, and the secular world is committed to abortion. Nancy Pelosi has even gone so far as to lie about Catholic teaching in order to justify legalized abortion.

If McCain/Palin loses, the media elites will claim that Governor Palin's views are so far out of the mainstream that she harmed the ticket. By the same token, Barack Obama's religious views of "tolerance" and collectivism will be hailed as the new standard.

Barack Obama spent twenty years in a church led by a pastor who subscribes to "black liberation theology". Black Liberation Theology is an offshoot of Marxist liberation theology that sprang up in Latin America in the 1960s. Marxist theologians created a Jesus who was no longer divine, but was a homeless, proto-Marxist activist. The biblical teachings of individuals providing charity to other individuals was replaced with empowering government to TAKE, by force, from one class to give to another, supposedly more deserving, class.

James Cone, the architect of black liberation theology carried it even further. He said:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the
goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people,
then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is
to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will
accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white
enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the
power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at
their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must
reject his love.

We are to believe that Barack Obama sat under this theology for twenty years, and yet, absorbed nor believed any of it. The mainstream media accepts that answer. Millions of voters seem to accept that answer. Sarah Palin's potential belief in a literal Rapture is scary, but these beliefs are irrelevant.

Conservative Christians are castigated for supposedly wanting to set up a "theocracy", yet from day one, Barack Obama has been praised in messianic tones as a "transformational figure" someone who can "change the world", photographed in every imaginable divine position, with halos while seeming to ascend above the crowd. Even he has said that we would look back on his ascendancy as the moment, “...oceans stopped rising and the planet began to heal”.

Kids sing about Obama changing the world while wearing shirts emblazoned with the word "Hope". Yet, it is we, the conservative Christians, who are treated as cultists.

If Barack Obama wins, it will be an affirmation of a secular socialist messiah who believes that government can save mankind. After the attacks that we have seen on Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann, Christians will be extremely reluctant to step out on the national stage.

I'm sure Bill Maher and the New York Times think that's a good thing. Do you?

The Rise Of The Elites

For a long time, smart (in their own eyes) leftists and even some conservatives have said that my anti-elitist views are irrational and "paranoid". Leftists like elites. I understand that. There are only two reasons to be a leftist. Either your think you're smarter and more noble than everyone else and, thus, should make the benevolent rules for the masses to follow; or you think you're a powerless victim in need of a benevolent all powerful champion to save you from the excesses of capitalism.

Leftists have always viewed us in the Heartland as merely potential Jerry Springer guests, trying to decide whether to pay the rent on our trailer or pay for new dentures. They don't believe we're smart enough to live our own lives or to know what is good for us in terms of national policy. Well I take that back. Leftists do believe that our fourteen year old daughters are capable of deciding to kill their unborn children without telling their parents. Beyond that, though, they believe that we, in flyover country, are clueless.

This election, though, has seen the resurgence of Republican elitists. These are the people who never really liked Reagan, were always uncomfortable around pro-lifers and think the Religious Right is a bunch of snake handling inbred hypocrites. David Brooks, the "conservative" columnist for the New York Times (yeah right), absolutely detests Sarah Palin. He has said that she "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party". This is the same guy who said, "Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they’re not models for the future".

The bottom line is that elitists, both left and right, want government by oligarchy, or should I say aristocracy. Both sides believe in a ruling class and that we shouldn't challenge that natural order of things. These elites believe that because of going to a particular school, having a certain degree of "sophistication" or traveling in the correct circles that they have been ordained to make policy for us, the great unwashed. They don't believe government is the problem. They simply believe that government needs to be run by their club. The masses, in their eyes, are incapable of living as free and independent individuals.

Take the current media and left wing attacks on Joe the Plumber. Compare that to the pony tail guy in the 1992 townhall debate between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The pony tail guy was the one who asked, "how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs...?". The pony tail guy was hailed as someone who gets it. The media loved the question, loved Bill Clinton's response and loved the entire attitude. In the eyes of elitists, the masses should think of themselves as children who need a benevolent imperial government to meet their needs.

Joe, on the other hand, doesn't want his "needs" met. He simply wants government to take less. He'll achieve or fail on his own. Because his question didn't recognize the need for a ruling class he is pilloried. In twenty four hours, more investigation was done on his background than has EVER been done on either Barack Obama, Bill Ayers or ACORN.

We now know that Joe owes taxes, his first name isn't Joe, he's been divorced, he's been involved in various businesses, he doesn't currently having a license as a plumber, and horror of horrors; he voted in the Republican primary. The Chosen One being mentored by a pervert communist in Hawaii is irrelevant, but no detail is too small to be missed about Joe.

The reaction by the elites to Governor Palin and Joe should be a lesson for all of us. America has a ruling class that desires to protect its own. Left or right, Republican or Democrat, they all consider us to be "bitter, (clinging) to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...."

The elites have no problem with a society where people like Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg and Madonna have "relevant" political opinions; but people like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber need to know their role and shut their mouths, unless they get invited to appear on Jerry Springer.

Where Did We Go Wrong

At the dawn of our Republic, Samuel Adams stated, "If you love wealth more than liberty, and the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us..." Patrick Henry famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The United States of America was founded upon the belief that an all powerful government, even a benevolent one, was by its very nature a tyrannical one. One of our guiding principles has always been that a dependent people cannot be a free people.

Even the architect of the modern welfare state said as much. Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated in 1935, "The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

Shocking, isn't it. The man who did more to create dependency in the American people recognized the fact that dependence destroys morality and human desire to achieve.

As late as the 1960s, Democrat, John Kennedy urged that we "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Barry Goldwater, the conservative conscience, said that he had no interest in streamlining government, instead he wanted to make it smaller and eliminate programs, saying, "And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Ronald Reagan famously said that government is the problem, not the solution.

In our current climate, though, terms like "liberty", "self reliance", "limited government" are as archaic as "thee", "thou" and "forsooth". Our economic worries have caused us to want to replace the independent eagle as our national symbol and replace it with a litter of piglets sucking at the teats of a sow.

We have two presidential candidates who are trying to outdo each other with money to the masses. Barack Obama is a naive socialist fool. He has no concept of personal liberty except to protect terrorists and abortions. Unfortunately, though, in spite of his claims to be a Reagan conservative, John McCain isn't much better. Senator McCain wrongly claims that too little regulation caused our current situation. He wants to spend $300 billion to buy up risky mortgages. If it weren't for Sarah Palin, no one, no one, would be proclaiming the values of federalism, limited government and freedom.

Who's at fault, though? Not the politicians. We don't have statesmen. We have politicians who want to get elected and re-elected and maintain their power. They understand human nature. Politicians are no different than Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, "In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"

We are too quick to trade liberty for security. Life is hard. Life has struggles. Life has risks. I know it sounds trite, but those struggles and risks build character. I have often said that the United States was founded by mutts. Our forbears were the misfits of the world. A good example is the Scotch-Irish that populated my part of this country.

The Scotch-Irish were unwelcome anywhere in Great Britain. They were the wrong religion. They had the wrong political views and they wanted to be left alone. They viewed the government with distrust because their history had taught them that anytime the government showed up, it was only to rape and pillage. They believed that they could take care of themselves, their family and their community. They didn't want or need a powerful national bureaucracy to meet their needs.

Their story is somewhat unique, but not the underlying belief. We are a nation of pioneers. Our ancestors didn't wait for the government to build a bridge across the Mississippi River. We have historically loved freedom and accepted the risks that came with it. In fact, when FDR began formulating the New Deal one of his aides told him that his biggest obstacle would be that the notion of self reliance was almost a religion in this nation. Not anymore.

Each successive generation in the 20th Century has expected more and more from the Federal government. Academics argue that self reliance was a myth anyway. They argue that urbanization has made it necessary to become more communal in our outlook. Politicians have successfully pitted taxpayers against benefit receivers.

We are fast approaching a time where the benefit receivers actually outumber the taxpayers. Withholding has created a view that we aren't paying taxes. We look forward to rebate checks where the Federal government is nice enough to give us back OUR money. We willingly give more and more power to Federal bureaucracies in hopes that we won't have to worry about sickness, joblessness, homelessness and hunger.

We, foolishly, believe the same government that gave us Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Department of Education will competently manage our healthcare system. We ignorantly believe that we can give the Federal government more power and not lose freedom.

As I write this, I really don't think that many people care. Freedom is a precious gift. However, like the frog in the pot of warming water, if freedom is taken away a little at a time, we'll never notice our destruction.

The Death of Truth

It's no secret that the mainstream media is leftist.  Excuse me, progressive.  Polls have shown since the 1980s that around 80 percent of journalists vote Democrat.  Conservative Christians have long been viewed by the mainstream media the way jihadists should be viewed.  I say "should be viewed" because the media makes excuses for the behavior of jihadists.  Remember when the news media took umbrage with Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" statement?  The mainstream media is leftist and most of us on the right have learned to live with that.

This election cycle, though, truth and journalism have completely disappeared.  The mainstream media, in 2008, has outGoebbels Joseph Goebbels himself.  Remember the Soviet newspaper, Pravda?  "Pravda" is the Russian word for "truth".  Of course the paper printed nothing but Communist propaganda, but hey, it still claimed it was the "truth".  That's what we have now.  The mainstream media doesn't care about the truth.  It has become the propaganda arm of the Messiah, Barry "Dear Leader" Obama.

Imagine if a white Republican had burst on to the political stage seeking the presidency with a resume as thin as the Dear Leader's.  The media would be filled with story after story about whether this person was fit, ready, competent.  If you don't believe me, look at how they've gone after Governor Palin and she actually has executive experience and real world experience other than as a street agitator or a leftist guest lecturer.  Yet, even when Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden tried to bring up Barry's thin resume, the media passed on it with barely a comment.

Imagine if a Republican had been mentored, as a young boy, by a member of the American Nazi Party.  ABC, MSNBC et al would lead every night for weeks with that Nazi's writings, statements, etc.  Barack Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis.  Davis was a Communist Party member who was very open about his beliefs.  Does the mainstream media care?  Not in the least. 

Imagine if a Republican attended a church for TWENTY years where the pastor preached racism, treated "middleclassness" as a vice, cursed America and expressed obvious glee over the United States being attacked by Islamists.  Well, you know what would happen. All Barry O'Messiah had to say was "I wasn't there.  I didn't hear that.  He's not the man I thought he was."  Hello!!!  Barry used phrases from sermons by Reverend Jermiah Wright all the time.  Michelle even talked about rejecting "middleclassness" on the stump.  The mainstream media doesn't care.  Actually, they do care.  They are actively suppressing this information in order to protect the "Dear Leader".

I could go on and on.  William Ayers is ignored by the media.  The influence of Saul Alinsky on Barry's view of the masses and what that really means is never discussed.  The mainstream media is determined to get Barack Hussein Obama elected President, Fuhrer, Dear Leader, Messiah or whatever. 

The media coverage of the financial crisis is the latest example.  Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines (big Obama adivsors) are neck deep in the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac mess, but the media is more interested in Rick Davis who is McCain's campaign manager.  Even after the New York Times story on Davis was debunked, the Obama Propaganda Service, otherwise known as ABC, MSNBC et al, still won't mention Raines' or Johnson's role in this scandal.

That's another thing.  The leftist media continues to portray this as a scandal of free market greed.  Have you internet junkies seen the video of Democrat House members actively protecting Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from scrutiny in 2004?  Here it is? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

If Republicans had engaged in such blatant cronyism, the media would have had them all completely discredited in the press.  If you aren't an internet junkie or a listener to conservative talk radio, you wouldn't know about this.  The media is ACTIVELY covering up for the Democrats.  Why?  Because they are determined to help the Messiah get elected.

This is a scandal created by government FORCE.  Leftists, not conservatives, LEFTISTS forced lenders to give money to deadbeats.  All in the name of "fairness".  No, the Republicans didn't have the balls to stop it, but Leftists used Republican weakness and created this mess.

Now, the Ministry of "Truth" is actively trying to blame this idiocy on capitalism and Republicans.  It pisses me off that McCain, Bush and many of the inside the Beltway "conservatives" are letting them get away with it, but the fact is that JOURNALISTS should be looking into this.  They aren't.  They are in the tank, no, up the rear, of Barry and the leftists.

Liberal journalists want to blame the end of journalism on talk radio and FoxNews.  That's garbage.  All Rush, Hannity and FoxNews have done is give us a voice.  They don't pretend to be without opinion.  The Leftist Ministry of "Truth" claims to be objective.  The mainstream media hasn't been objective for decades.  They've finally reached the point where they don't care even about pretense.

If Barry gets elected, it will be because of an effective propaganda campaign and a media that actively suppresses the truth in order to achieve their desired result.  As Lenin said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."  The only truth the mainstream media has is that Barry is the Savior.

 

 

Tags: politics, media, obama, democrats, republicans

Of Greed And Do Gooders

Leftists view conservatives as selfish and greedy.  Conservatives view leftists as pompous do gooders who think the masses are too stupid to take care of themselves.  The current economic crisis has enough greedy  fingerprints and do gooder DNA on it to keep a crime scene investigator busy for a long long time.

Just to be honest, few of us here in small town America understand this mess.  It makes no sense to those of us in the Heartland.  We understand that we have to pay our bills; our mortgage payments, our car payments, our credit card bills or we will lose our homes, cars etc.  We understand that if our law office, convenience store, hardware store, farm, car dealership etc. can't pay its bills then we will have to shut the doors or at least file bankruptcy.  Asking the Federal government to bail us out?  Yeah right.  We wouldn't even consider such a ridiculous idea. 

Another  thing that makes no sense to us is the idea of  the GSE.  Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were known as government sponsored entities.  Supposedly, that means they were privately run but with a guarantee, implicit perhaps, that the Federal government would protect them.  Either a company is privately held or it isn't.  If you splice a duck with a pig all you get is a bunch of muddy feathers.  Private businesses have inherent risks associated with their actions.  Apparently, the big dogs at these two CSEs weren't worried about the inherent risks because of the sponsorship of the Federal government.  The closest analogy my unsophisticated small town mind can draw is there is no reason for Paris Hilton to worry about driving her car into a telephone pole because Daddy Hilton will cover the bill for any mess.

Another puzzling aspect of all this is the pressure that do gooder groups like ACORN put on do gooder liberals to demand that people with no assets or incomes be eligible for home loans.  Here in small town America, we believed that in order to buy or build a home we had to be able to afford that home.  Apparently, that is a parochial narrow minded view.

Starting with the Jimmy Carter administration, there has been a move afoot to expand homeownership to deadbeats.  Excuse me, lower class individuals who have been denied the American dream by discrimination.  There, does that make it sound better? 

Do you remember the newspaper headlines about "redlining" from the 1990s?  Lending institutions were viewed as discriminatory because they expected to only loan money to those who had enough money to pay the payments.  Politicians began getting pressure from community activist groups (ACORN was one of those) and as a result, the Clinton Administration's Justice Department threatened to sue these lending institutions if they refused to change their lending policies.  During the Clinton Administration, the Federal Reserve demanded that banks and other sources of loans look at unemployment payments and SSI checks as "income" for purposes of home loans.

What did they think would happen to those loans?  Of course these people defaulted.  Now, the sophisticated and powerful are shocked.  Of course Claude Rains was "shocked" to find gambling going on at Rick's Place in the movie "Casablanca" too.

Now, they want us, small town America, to bail them out.  I say "small town America" because a study in 2000 showed that over half of us still live in communities under 25,000 in population.  They want us to provide cover for the businesses.  They want us to give cover to the deadbeats who didn't pay their bills. 

The establishment elites, both right and left, are constantly arguing that small town America isn't bright enough or sophisticated enough to run this country.  If you don't believe me check out how similarly a supposed conservative like David Brooks and a kook leftist like Paul Krugman express their disdain for Sarah Palin.  The sophisticated elites, both the greedy Wall Street conservatives and the do gooder Northeastern liberals, believe they are smarter than us.

We weren't the ones who made this mess, though, the elites did.  It's time for small town America to shake up Washington and inject some small town common sense into their "sophisticated" world.

 

Tags: economy, bailout, politics, elites, elections

Hey Leftists! I Get It!

I resent the condescending tone leftists use toward conservatives in arguments as if we had experienced the "wisdom" and "compassion" of leftism we wouldn't be so strident. I'm sure you have seen it too.  If you would step out of your narrow minded bigoted cocoon you would enter into the light.

No, I haven't lived in a commune.  I have avoided living in cities, except when I went to college, and it was my parents, who first preached the evils of leftism.  My brother served in Vietnam, and while my parents were Republicans even before Vietnam; the Viet Cong flags, open drugs and sex of the VISIBLE portion of the anti-war movement made them even stronger against leftism.  Like I've said before, where I come from, even Democrats aren't leftists.

I use the term leftism because people like Barack Obama aren't liberals in the sense of classical liberalism.  They are leftists.

My first real exposure to leftism was when I was a freshman in college.  It was a small Methodist junior college in my home county, but the tenured religion professor was a borderline Marxist and actually denied the deity of Jesus.  Yep, that was a culture shock.  I stood toe to toe with him in class for a couple of years.  The discussions became pretty heated at times.  I know,  that shocks you.  I was the only kid in class that would challenge him and he had a couple of students in there that were just as far left as he and as vocal as me.  Still, my belief wasn't shaken.  It simply made me study harder in order to answer each challenge.

When I got to the University of Tennessee, as a political science major, the professor that was assigned to me  as faculty advisor turned out to be the most committed leftist on campus.  I mean protests, arrests the whole nine yards.  His parents were loaded and he had been a rebel since he was a kid.

Guess what?  I actually liked him.  He and I got along well.  When he found out how conservative I was, he asked if I wanted a different advisor and I told him "no".  This was the early to mid 1980s.  I was a poli sci major and usually the only vocal conservative in my classes.  The arguments went the gamut, from affirmative action to the Contras to campaign financing to speech to prayer in school to abortion.  Like I said, I was usually the only vocal conservative in my classes.  Even that didn't change my views.  I became more convinced in the wisdom of conservative principles.

Things didn't change in law school.  Again I found myself in the minority.  Again I remained conservative and remained vocal.

And yes, I understand leftism. 

Leftism, at its most benign, believes in governmental power over the economy rather than corporate power over the economy.  Leftists believe that as long as there are fair elections then the government will make sure that the economy is more fair.  Whereas corporations aren't interested in fairness.

That may be all well and good, but it's naive.  Politicians and bureaucrats are only interested in maintaining their own POWER.  They aren't more noble than corporate CEOs and if you guys really believe they are then YOU are the ones who need more experience, not me.  Additionally, bureaucrats aren't elected.  Finally, government has the power of the sword and prison.  Corporations don't.  Therefore, corporate power is less scary to me than government power.

Leftism doesn't believe that economic liberty is as important as freedom of speech etc.  Leftists believe that property rights should be sacrificed for the good of the collective.  That's a view that, if not kept in check, heads us down a slippery slope to where property rights mean nothing.  As a result, as long as you keep advocating for more government control over how I can use my property, I will fight you.

Leftism believes in using taxation for wealth redistribution.  If you don't believe me, read some of Jim McDermott's speeches about the death tax.  He is one of the few in the American Left who isn't afraid to admit that he believes wealth redistribution is a laudible goal.  Personally, I believe my accumulation of wealth and the ability to pass it to my kids is none of your business.

Leftism wants to rewrite history to focus on the warts of our great leaders of the past.  Simply being honest is the reason given.  In truth, the idea is promote a Howard Zinn view of history where the nation state only exists to serve the wealthy and the masses are oppressed and have no country.  I find that view to be repulsive.  No, our Founders weren't perfect.  Yes, this nation, through its leaders, has done some bad things.  But all in all the balance sheet is positive.  Leftism undermines that view by promoting the negatives as somehow diminishing our moral superiority.  Yes, I want to believe that the US is morally superior and I resent leftists trying to change that view.

Leftism wants to redefine morality in such a way where intolerance is the greatest sin, as long as intolerance is defined by leftists.  Traditional morality is viewed as narrow mindedness.  And anything less than a full embrace of nontraditional lifestyles is viewed as bigotry.  You're wrong.  There is no other way to say it.  And don't use the lack of experience canard with me.  I have worked with and for gay people and been friends with others, one of whom is now dead from AIDS.  They were great folks.  I don't deny they had a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but their lifestyle was wrong and I'm not going to change my view.

Leftism opposes corporate globalism, but favors a more open world where all cultures and beliefs are given equal weight and validity.  EXCEPT traditional Christianity.  Don't say it I'm wrong.  I'm not.  I've had too many discussions with people on your side about this very issue.  They would never attack Hinduism or Islam, or even Mayan human sacrifice the way they attack Christianity.

Leftism equates American dominance with imperialism.  I disagree, but so what.  You should be Americans first and leftists second.  If your team is number one, don't gripe.

Leftism is interested in "saving the planet".  A laudible goal, I suppose, if you believe it needs saving in a physical sense.  However, you want to save it at the expense of consumerism.  That I can't accept.

Leftists claim I'm wrong about how elitist leftism is.  Diane Feinstein supported a handgun ban in San Francisco while keeping a handgun herself.  Ted Kennedy supports alternative energy while opposing  windmills where he might see them.  Barack Obama calls us "bitter clingers" who wouldn't have to cling if our government took care of us.

You claim I don't get leftism.  You're wrong.  I get it.  I hate it.  It will eventually destroy this nation.  I'm fighting against a tide that is too great.  People claim to like freedom, but most really don't.  It's too scary.  Leftism provides some measure of security.

BUT AT WHAT COST?

 

 

 

 

Tags: politics, leftism, ideology, elites

Trailer Trash For McCain-Palin

Today, I learned that the BBC has conducted a poll that indicates that the citizens of 22 countries that were polled favor Barack Obama in the Presidential election.  The mainstream media reported this because they believe, along with most enlightened liberals, that this should show us that Obama is who we need to elect.  The media, most college educated liberals, academics all admire modern Western Europe.  They admire Europeans' supposed sophistication.  They admire their ability to separate their religion from their day to day decision making.  They admire their aversion to war and they admire their commitment to socialist ideals.

Liberals, and most media members are liberal, believe that the United States would be better off if we emulated those above described attitudes.  Peace and fairness are the Holy (if I can use that word) Grails of liberal elitism and those goals require the diluting of religious belief and an increase of governmental control over "selfish" capitalist impulses.

Liberals believe that they know what is best for the masses.  They want (sincerely I believe) to improve the lives of ignorant trailer trash.  Ignorant?  Look at the social programs devised by leftists.  Go back to the beginning of socialism in America.  Social Security was based upon the belief by leftist elites that the average American was too stupid, too oppressed and incapable of planning for his own seniority.  Gun control laws are based upon the belief that we are children who shouldn't be allowed to play with dangerous toys.  The Department of Education was based upon the belief that Washington DC elites knew better than local parents and educators what our children needed.

Leftists do care about us in Red State America, but they think we're trailer trash.  Barack Obama admitted as much when talking to fellow elites in San Francisco.  He believes we're bitter.  He believes that bitterness is due to the fact that we don't have our needs met by an enlightened benevolent government.  He believes that bitterness causes us to "cling" to unsophisticated things like religion, guns and patriotism.  In his eyes, enlightened people don't cling to those things and content happy masses don't need to cling to those things.

I'm one of those "bitter clingers".  I'm part of trailer trash America.  I was born, raised and live in rural East Tennessee.  My Daddy (yes I really called him "Daddy") only had an eighth grade education.  He raised my brother and me on a farm while also working in a factory.  My mother taught Sunday School for decades.  I learned to shoot before I was eight.  My first experience with wine was with the homeade variety.  My first car was a truck.  In fact I even lived in a mobile home for two years.  I'm the folks that the liberal elites want to help and I'm the folks that don't want their help. 

I actually believe in God and believe the Bible is the Word of God.  (Ewww!  Did he really say that?)  I'm a flag waving patriot that believes that the United States is the greatest nation on Earth and has been specially blessed by God.  (He's one of them!)  I don't immediately look to Washington DC when trouble comes.  (Well now, that's just dumb.)  I actually believe that the right to keep and bear arms is just as important as any other right.  (Gun nut!)

The media is shocked that so many people in small town America have identified with Sarah Palin.  The media is less than thrilled that so many people in small town America have been humbled by John McCain's personal story.  They are convinced we must be simpletons.  They don't get it.  Sarah Palin is one of us.  Of course we identify with her.  Senator McCain's story exhibits the patriotism, honor, and self sacrifice we admire.

We aren't Europe.  We don't want to be Europe.  I know that is horrifying to the elites, but it's the truth.  That's the one thing that liberals don't get.  We may be trailer trash, but we are American trailer trash.  And there's more of us than there are of the "enlightened" media and the "enlightened" liberal elites.  And for most of us, Jesus is the only Messiah we need.  Sorry, Barry.

 

Tags: election, europe, obama, palin, mccain, messiah, trailer trash

Falling In Love With McCain

It's no secret, John McCain was not my first choice for President.  He wasn't my second choice and probably wasn't my third or fourth.  Senator McCain alienated me on two issues, campaign finance reform and his willingness to compromise with Democrats regarding the confirmation of originalist judges.  The First Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."  Either the sentence means what it says or it doesn't, and I want judges who believe it means what it says. 

I knew John McCain's story and was thankful for his  service and heroism, but that wasn't enough.  I believe in limited government.  I mean really limited government, and while I was disappointed with President Bush for not fighting for limited government, I didn't and don't believe McCain truly understands the benefits of limited government.

Last night, though, as I listened to Senator McCain's acceptance speech, the contrasts in this election hit me like a sledgehammer.  "Country first".  "Service".  "This Country saved me".  "Stand up".  "Fight".  Those were the key phrases from a powerful speech by a remarkable man.  Hokey?  Perhaps.  Parochial?  Of course.  However, John McCain isn't running for President of the World.  He isn't trying to be the leader of a Gene Roddenberry dream world wide utopia.  He is running for President of what he believes is the greatest country on earth.

Unlike Michelle Obama, John McCain didn't have to wait until 2008 to be proud of his country.  Unlike Michelle Obama, John McCain doesn't believe this is a "downright mean country".  Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain doesn't believe that America isn't what it once was.  John McCain believes, "In America, we change things that need to be changed.  Each generation makes its contribution to our greatness."  That is a stark contrast.

Another stark contrast is the fact that John McCain showed himself as a man of principle who isn't afraid to take on the power.  Leftist Democrats like to use the phrase, "speak truth to power".  A confusing statement that implies that the powerful are lying to you and they must be confronted.  Senator Obama, though, got where is today, by being part of the most corrupt political machine in American history.  He has never challenged the Cook County Democratic party.  He has been a loyal lap dog of that party.  Senator Obama has never stood up to the Daily Kos, Moveon.org left wing kooks who want to see this country ruined. 

John McCain, though, does not owe his allegiance to party or machine.  His allegiance is to the country he fell in love with while in agony in a box in Hanoi.  Even when you disagree with him, you have acknowledge that John McCain is a man of principle who truly does love the United States of America.

John McCain is right when he says that when conservative Republicans took power in Washington since 1994,  they allowed Washington to change them instead of changing Washington.  They became addicted to the power and the pork and the parties and the compulsive need to spend the people's money.  At least, though, conservative Republicans never stopped being patriots.

Leftists deride those of us who bleed red, white and blue as fascists.  They take our love of country and make fun of it using phrases "my mother drunk or sober", implying that we conservatives are willfully blind to our country's faults.  They are the ones who are willfully blind.  We know the United States, through its citizens and its government, have made mistakes.  We also know, though, that no nation in the history of the earth has used its power for good like the United States.

Another thing the left doesn't understand is that a majority of Americans feel the way we do.  We aren't a nation of "bitter clingers".  We embrace our nation.  We embrace our God.  We embrace our freedoms.  I'm not saying that conservatives make up a majority on every issue.  I'm saying that a large majority of Americans believe this is the greatest country on earth.  Leftist elites, of which Obama is one, are uncomfortable with this belief.  John McCain shares our belief in the greatness of America.

Can you ever picture Barack Obama, the man who has made a career of associating with people who dislike this nation, ever talking about "falling in love with my country"?  No way.

I still don't agree with John McCain on every policy point.  Last night, though, it became obviously clear.  Barack Obama isn't worthy to be mentioned in the same sentence with John McCain.  This election shouldn't even be close.  Only one candidate for President is in love with his country.  Why would we even consider the other one?

 

Tags: country first, service, politics, election, obama, mccain

In Touch With America

The Leftist Democratic party in this country has preached for years that Republicans are "out of touch" with the common people.  In fact, Bill Clinton took this attitude and focused on a previously undefined group called "soccer moms".  It's not just Bill Clinton, though.  If you listened to the speeches at the Mount of Transfiguration in Denver, nearly all of them talked about how Democrats are in touch and that the Messiah cares about real Americans.

 

What is the truth, though?  Quite frankly, real Americans don't like losing wars.  Real Americans don't consider themselves bitter, even though God is important to them, the Second Amendment is important to them and securing the border is important to them.

 

Few "real" Americans associate regularly with convicted terrorists who now teach our young people.  Few "real" Americans attend churches where the pastor wants God to "damn America".  Few "real" Americans, even those who call themselves pro-choice favor partial birth abortion and even fewer would support legislative action that permits aborted infants who are born alive to be tossed in a closet trash can to die.  Few "real" Americans want to see Wal Mart punished causing their prices to rise and few "real" Americans want to be forced to give up driving automobiles with internal combustion engines.

 

That brings us to Governor Sarah Palin.  The Leftist Democrats are attacking Senator McCain's choice for vice president with a viciousness that is usually reserved for Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.  This is a woman who has  achieved in spite of not having a well connected family, not going to an Ivy League school nor being part of the good old boy network.

 

She's raising five kids, one of whom is deploying to Iraq, one of whom has Down's Syndrome and one of whom is having a baby.  She has a husband who isn't rich, had a DUI when he was twenty two, and who races snowmobiles.  She's fought tax increases.  She's led her local PTA.  She's had to make choices related to having a child, meeting a family budget and has actually shopped at Wal Mart.  She isn't jaded by either K Street, Wall Street or Capitol Hill.

 

As governor, she's actually dealt with energy issues in a way that none of the other candidates have.  She understands the need to balance environmental issues with energy needs, something that "real" Americans want, as opposed to the environmental ideologues in the Leftist Democrat party who would take us back to huddling in caves if it would "save the planet".

 

Having her oldest child in the military, she certainly doesn't take issues of war and peace lightly and has a perspective that is absolutely the perspective of "real" Americans.  Unless you think that she wants to see her son killed, then you cannot claim that she willing to let soldiers die in a "war based upon lies".

 

Having a child that is going through an unplanned pregnancy, she knows what it's like to have your child give you the news that changes all your hopes and plans for that child.  She also knows, though, that you cannot allow that news to become the end of the world.  She knows that you deal with the issue, pull together as a family and do not view the baby as her daughter being "punished".

 

The Leftist Democrats can claim they are "in touch with America" all they want.  However, they are the party that actually considers people in small town heartland America to be racists, religious bigots and the great unwashed.  Their only interest in "real" Americans is to claim we're victims.  Victims of our own ignorance and victims of nefarious corporate conspiracies.  They tell us that we need the benevolent ruling class of leftist elites to protect us from corporations and ourselves.

 

Real Americans aren't victims.  Yes, they have struggles.  Yes, they face challenges.  Your average American deals with  those challenges and does the best they can to make a better life for them and their family.  Their first thought isn't to abdicate their lives to a governmental agency.  Your average American looks to himself or herself, family and community before they ever think about handing over the reins to Washington.

 

  Sarah Palin is a real American and is truly in touch with the issues of real Americans in a way that few national politicians have ever been.

 

 

 

Tags: politics, Palin, real, soccer moms

Definitely Not One Party

I have forced myself to watch bits and pieces of the Democrats' convention.  It's hard listening to "enlightened" leftist elites trying to act like normal patriotic Americans but occasionally I'm overcome by morbid curiosity.  One thing that is clear is that there is no such thing as THE Democratic Party.  If you look on the floor of the convention in the State delegations you will see what I mean.

Let me preface this by stating that I already knew some of what I'm about to say.  My business partner is a lifelong Democrat, although no liberal by any stretch of the imagination.  She is pro-America, pro-gun ownership, pro-capitalism, pro-God and while pro-choice opposes partial birth abortion and infanticide.  Her politics are very similar to our Circuit Court Clerk who is a client of ours and also a Democrat.  Both have said that Obama is too liberal for them.  They are Democrats because their parents were Democrats and they were raised to believe that Republicans are the party of the rich.

Most rank and file Democrats between the ages of 45 and 80 fall into this category.  If they are Southerners, they have always been Democrats for the same reasons that Robert Byrd has always been a Democrat.  If they are Northerners, then more than likely their families became Democrats because of and during the Great Depression.  It isn't policy driven, it's based upon an emotional belief that has been handed down to them.  Most of their individual views are very conservative, but they can't break away from that emotional attachment to the name "Democrat".

If you look at the young people in the Democrat party, they tend to be naive, spoiled children who have few core values but are convinced that the world needs to be "changed" and have believed their professors when they said that if they fight against corporations and nationalism they can create a world where the lion will lie down with the lamb and no one will ever be hungry.

The elites of the party, though, tend to be unrepentent 60's radicals.  They see little wrong with William Ayers because they agree that the Pentagon is a genocidal tool of malevolent corporate interests.  Privately, they agree with Jeremiah Wright that the United States brought 9/11 on itself.  Michael Moore is considered normal.  Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are considered to be geniuses.  They agree with John Kerry that the United States should submit itself to a "global test" before acting in its self interest.  They agree with Nancy Pelosi that "trying to save the world" is more important than becoming more energy independent.  They agree with Michelle Obama that this is a "downright mean" country.

These are the elite radicals that Barack Obama was talking to in San Francisco when he talked about average Americans "clinging" to guns, God and racism.  These are the elite radicals who claim to be for the common people, but who actually look down their noses at them and in many cases despise them.  These are the elite radicals who actually have power in the Democratic party.  These are the elite radicals who actually make policy.  They are the ones who wink and nod when Barack Obama talks about change.

That should scare all of us.

 

 

 

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. ... it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.  Frederick Bastiat

 

Proud for the first time?

"...and let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country..."- Michelle Obama, February 18, 2008.

Michelle Obama was born in January, 1964.  She graduated from high school in 1981, and she's only now really proud of her country.  I'm only a little more than a year older than her, so I think I have much the same frame of reference, but apparently she and I haven't lived in the same country.

I remember 1980 and being proud to be an American the day that the United States hockey team beat the Soviets.  I can still see Jim Craig wrapped in the American flag.  Apparently, that memory didn't evoke the same emotion in 16 year old Michelle Robinson from Chicago.

Also, in 1980, how could anyone hear one of Ronald Reagan's speeches and not be proud to be an American?  Reagan's speeches were all about the greatness of America and her people.  Reagan truly saw the United States as that "shining city on a hill".  Michelle Robinson Obama, though, is a liberal.  THAT is the difference between our memories and our pride.

Liberals don't see America as the shining city.  They don't see America as great.  They don't see her as exceptional.  Liberals see America as a land of corporate greed, racism, sexism.  Liberals see America as the tool of corporate globalists who exist to oppress Third World countries.

Liberals were aghast when Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire.  Most Americans, though, nodded in agreement with the President.  Liberals said "who does he think he is?" When Reagan demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

I didn't intend for this screed to be about Ronald Reagan, but it's fitting that is has become so.  No one in my lifetime embodied pride in America and a positive outlook for his nation the way our 40th President did.  Reagan wasn't a Pollyanna that saw America as perfect and without flaws, but he sure didn't let her warts hide her beauty.

Liberals like Michelle Obama, see the warts, pick at the warts and deny that there is any redeeming quality in this nation.  I would love to sit down with Mrs. Obama and ask her what she felt when she saw the following:

1981- Sandra Day O'Connor becomes the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court.

1983- Sally Ride becomes the first American woman in space.

1989- Berlin Wall falls.

1991- The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan saw optimism and inspiration when he looked out over this country.  When we saw America through his eyes, it only confirmed the pride we already felt in this nation.  There was no reason to be trapped in a malaise.  We were Americans. 

No other nation on the planet has used its power for good the way the United States has.  No other nation has championed the cause of freedom and individual liberty the way the United States has.  No other nation has sought to break the chains of bondage throughout the world the way the United States has.  None of this has made Michelle Obama "really proud", though.

Why  would anyone want to be around a liberal, let alone vote for one?