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