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?

 

 

 

Maybe If We Took A Piece Of This One And...

Am I the only one with this problem?  I would like to play Dr. Frankenstein and take pieces from each Republican candidate and make one good choice.  There are pieces of each one that I like, but each one has fatal flaws that make it almost impossible for me to truly get behind him.

Ron Paul is the one that is closest to my beliefs regarding the Constitution and the proper role of government.  In fact, I don't think that any of the other candidates understand the proper role of government.  Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn't understand that we are in a clash of civilizations, a struggle to the death with Islamofascism.  He believes that we can retreat into our isolationist shell and the world will leave us alone.

Mike Huckabee is good on social issues and supports the FAIR tax, but he wants us to grovel to Europe, the United Nations and stop being an "arrogant" superpower.  If that is his belief, then he is truly too naive to be commander in chief at a time when it is us against the world.

Rudy Giuliani is a liberal.  He has no clue about the Constitution, original intent or the proper role of government.  He thinks the Second Amendment  is unimportant and that unborn children are merely parasitic cells that are subject to the whim of the pregnant woman.  Yet, he, more than anyone else in the campaign wants to win this war for our survival with radical political Islam.

Mitt Romney looks good, sounds good, and says all the right things.  However, he sounded good to the Chomskyites that populate the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts too.  As a result, I don't trust him.  Particularly if you recall that in 2005 Human Events magazine called him a RINO (Republican in name only).  Further, he has done nothing to make me believe that winning this war is a priority for him.

John McCain has a military background and has stated his determination to win the war, but he's the same John McCain that has spent the last eight years pandering to the mainstream media, siding with the Left seemingly more than the Right in the Senate, and most unforgiveable; he flipped the bird to the Constitution with his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold limit free speech bill.

Fred Thompson is a good Tennessee boy who seems to be truly conservative, but he looks tired and old.  Remember, this is the visual information age.  People don't read, don't listen, they LOOK.  Fred looks like he's ready to sit on the front porch and drink iced tea, not march and fight to victory.

I'm not dumb enough to think that a perfect candidate will appear.  I realize that I will have differences with anybody who might run.  Right now, though, each candidate's flaws are slapping me in the face.  None of them seem to be interested in leading a conservative movement to take us back to the Constitution and take us to victory against our enemies.  In fact, I'm not sure that any of them would even understand what I'm talking about.

 

 

Ford, Webb and Shuler conservative. So what?

If one more idiot tells me that Harold Ford, Jim Webb and Heath Shuler are conservatives  I'm gonna scream. 

My simple answer, though, is "so what if they are?"

People like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel and Alcee Hastings run the Democrat party.  THEY are liberals.  No, they are anti-American leftists who are invested in America's defeat.

Candidates like Harold Ford, Jim Webb and Heath Shuler can claim to be conservative all day long, but the fact of the matter is that, EVEN IF ELECTED, they will have no power and be told to shut the f*ck up and follow their liberal masters. 

THAT is why what John Kerry said and what he repeatedly has shown he believes is so important.  Kerry was perfectly espousing the leftist elitist position of the leaders of the Democrat party.  Leaders that CANNOT be put in charge of our government during a time of war.

 

Liberals like Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Durbin, Frank et al hate our military and alternately view them as victims or predators depending on what benefits their political goals.  They hate the idea of the United States fighting its enemies and create artificially narrow justifications for war.  They love to point out supposed war crimes and hope the American public is fooled into believing they are only talking about the Administration and not the troops they accuse. 

If leftists were only socialists, they could, at least be tolerated in a time of war.  They aren't.  They also want to see America defeated.  They talk about "arrogance" and "unilateralism" as if the United States were an enemy state.  Perhaps, to the Left, it is.

Sin and the Left

The American Left is giddy.  In fact, leftists haven't smiled like this since 1998 when the electorate spanked Newt and the Republicans for their half hearted attempt at impeachment.

To them, Mark Foley being exposed as a sanctimonious hypocrite is victory for tolerance and liberalism.  No, I'm not just talking about its significance to the possibility of a Democrat takeover of the House.  I'm talking about it being an affirmation, in their eyes, of everything Progressives, Leftists, Liberals believe.

Leftism has, as one of its core principles, hedonism.  Well, leftists believe in hedonistic behavior as long as it doesn't result in profits for big tobacco, big oil or big fast food. 

Traditional mores are considered repressive and discriminatory in the eyes of liberals and any mention of good vs. evil is enough to send them into fits of "enlightened" rage.

To see a champion of traditional morals fall, in the eyes of the liberals, is to PROVE that the values themselves are flawed.  To them, Mark Foley isn't merely a sinner or someone with a disease; he is evidence that the American Right has no moral authority to demand anything of anyone.

If a conservative commits adultery, then it isn't just the conservative who sins that is wrong; it is the entire conservative movement and its belief in sin that is wrong.  If a conservative has an abortion, then that proves, to leftists, that opposition to abortion is laughable.  To leftists, you are not permitted to moralize unless you are perfect and all those you associate with are perfect.

This leftist attitude isn't merely limited to domestic social issues such as abortion and homosexuality.  It permeates how left wingers view the United States and its place in the world.  The idea of American exceptionalism is an anathema to the Left.  How dare we, as a nation, be so arrogant as to believe that some ideologies or belief systems are evil.

You've seen the litany of sins and crimes that the Left recites in order to claim that the United States has no moral authority to stand up to evil regimes throughout the world.  Since we aren't perfect we lack the authority, in the eyes of the Left, to call other nations, ideologies, belief systems and regimes dangerous, evil or unacceptable.

The Left hates absolutes, except where global warming is concerned.  They hate the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong.  Such beliefs are simplistic and don't allow for nuance.

Sinners love to see a preacher fall.  It makes them feel better about themselves without requiring any self examination on their part.  The analogy requires no explanation.

Communism In Kindergarten

My daughter starts to kindergarten this year. I have worried about putting her in the public school system for some time, but we had some hope since we know most of the teachers at her school. Surely the government would hold off a year or two before they began assaulting our values, beliefs and ideals. What could they do in kindergarten to begin the brainwashing? That was before we got the supply list.

After listing the usual, pencils, paper, binders and crayons; there was a note on the bottom of the page: "All supplies will be shared by all students." In other words all the supplies we buy for our daughter become the property of the collective to be shared with every other student. Yes, my friends, the public school system is now teaching communism. I think Lenin himself said something about controlling the education system and controlling society.

Instead of teaching personal responsibility and the importance of private ownership, my daughter’s school is teaching children to believe that all property belongs to the government and is distributed "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

My daughter’s teacher had a reasonable benign reason for doing this. Something about controlling what is used during class time. The bottom line, though, is it teaches communism. It teaches government dependence. It discourages self reliance. It teaches that a forced equality should be the norm.

After a few years of this, European style socialism will seem like a good thing. Young malleable brains will be convinced that they should feel guilty if they have more than their neighbor. Pretty soon libertarian capitalism and individualism will be concepts as foreign to most students as Latin.

I quickly remembered why I hate government schools.

Has War Become Obsolete?

 

I truly believe that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.  I believe that the United States should do what is necessary to defeat its enemies.  I also believe that, after 9/11, if there is a one percent chance that a nation or group is a threat then we treat them as if that threat is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Having said that, though, I am questioning my view of war in the modern world.

A liberal friend of mine says repeatedly that aggressive war is obsolete in the modern world.  I'm beginning to wonder if that is true.  The American Civil War was won by the North when they began employing tactics that "civilized" countries today would consider war crimes.  Sherman's march through Georgia was less a battle than it was a rape.  By the same token, World War II was won because by the end of the war, Germany and Japan were incapable of fighting back.  The Allies were more interested in winning and exacting revenge against the Axis than they were in avoiding civilian casualties.  Not only did we crush their armies, we so devastated their nations that they lost their will to fight.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though, I'm not sure that's possible.  We pride ourselves on avoiding civilian casualties.  We engage in measured responses rather than "total war".  We attempt to be politically correct against enemies that blend into the scenery and do not share our concern for human life.

As a result, we put our own fighting men and women at more risk than they would be otherwise.  Such an approach to war makes complete victory almost impossible.  How do you achieve complete victory when you cannot, for fear of public opinion, crush your enemy?  Limited war only serves to further motivate our enemy and get our troops killed a few at a time.  It causes war to be neverending and the public loses patience.

 

However, the alternative is to engage in acts that would result in outrage here and abroad.  The United States has the military might to defeat any nation on the planet even without resorting to nuclear weapons.  We will never use that power, though.

 

Some may say that's a good thing.  I don't necessarily agree.  The point, though, remains.  Perhaps, in the modern world, for a nation that strives to be politically correct, war is obsolete.