Montag's World: Conservatives

Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts

Friday, July 10, 2009

The Fascists of the Left

So, what does Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg think about Roe v. Wade? In her own words:

"Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Yes, Folks! You read that right. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once believed that abortion on demand was legalized to rid ourselves of undesirable people. In an interview to be published in the Sunday New York Times Magazine she, in fact, expands upon this theme:

"...Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the Court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”

This is absolutely stunning! A veritable demi-goddess of the American Left has actually come out and stated unequivocally that the original intent for Roe v. Wade was to actually pay poor and other undesirable women to kill their babies, thereby reducing the populations of those "that we don’t want to have too many of."

Of course, anyone familiar with Montag's World would know that this was the original intention of Planned Parenthood, as evidenced by the writings of its founder, Margaret Sanger. For the full details, please see Real Racism and its Lethal Consequences. Reading the writings of Ms. Sanger and her compatriot, Lothrop Stoddard, one cannot escape the conclusion that Justice Ginsberg really wasn't all that far from the mark.

There really are no two ways about it: Planned Parenthood and Justice Ginsberg are all about ridding the world of the minderwertig -- German for "shoddy" or "inferior" or those "that we don't want to have too many of."

And what was the McRae decision that Justice Ginsberg lamented? This decision upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid funding for abortion. So, what she has a problem with is that folks who have fundamental moral and ethical difficulties with abortion don't have to pay for the abortions for poor women -- women among those "that we don't want to have too many of".

Yes, you see, those morally priggish Pro-Lifers who don't want to be a party to wholesale slaughter have made abortion available only to the wealthy! Basically, what Justice Ginsberg is saying is that, despite your moral or ethical qualms about abortion, you should still have to pay for it.

The modern Left is all about choice, you know. So long as that choice is the death of innocents. They don't believe in choice when it comes to smoking, guns, driving your car, managing your own land, what "charity" you want your taxes to go to, what radio show to listen to, how much carbon you consume, etc.

It is even getting to the point where if you merely disagree with a Liberal you are engaging in "hate speech"

Global warming skeptics are called "deniers", as if disagreeing with a questionable prediction was tantamount to defending the Reiche.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, an example of misleading advertising, would make the sermons of conservative preachers criminal, while offering protection to all types of sexual deviancies listed by the American Psychiatric Association. Democrats in Congress flatly refused to omit pedophiles from the protections of the bill. Indeed, Attorney General Eric Holder testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that ministers, priests, soldiers and most other Americans would get no such protections. What is being legislated is speech and thought.
Although there is no formal effort to reinstate the much maligned Fairness Doctrine in its original form, there is a big push to empower local activist groups, almost exclusively on the Left, to implement "community standards" and encourage "diversity in ownership". In true Orwellian fashion, these innocuous sounding policies would force radio stations to give up their most profitable and popular programming: Conservative talk radio. In short, we have censorship without ever using the word.

What is truly ironic about all of this is that it is the Left that keeps accusing Conservatives of fascism. Truth be told, their policy ideas are far more in tune with fascism than anything from the Right. And can you imagine the breathless outrage and gnashing of the teeth were Justice Ginsberg a Conservative? I can just imagine Keith Olberman's head exploding!

Apparently, though, even Eugenics is part of their agenda! Could the American Left be indulging in projection?

copyright July 11, 2009 by Gregory Indelicato

Monday, March 31, 2008

LIBERAL VERSUS CONSERVATIVE.

Recently, my e-mail address was added on to some sort of mailing list for Liberals. Each day, would bring me the latest Leftist screeds. Occasionally, I'd ask these people, who were they and how did they get my e-mail address? But they'd just ignore my queries.

But then, I did something that they could not just let stand. I responded to their harangues and their polemics. None of them actually rebutted my points. No, that would not be playing by the rules of the Angry Left. What I got back were accusations, obscenities, vitriol, invective, and virulent denunciation.

In short, they responded the way a monkey in the zoo would to provocation: they hurled their own feces at me.

One of these Liberals thought to ask me what I thought a Liberal was. I'm sure she was trying to make some point about my ignorance or something, but I took the challenge and made a list of some twenty five points describing a Liberal.

This was promptly followed by a challenge to define a Conservative, with the smug suggestion that I would be unable to do so. Within a few minutes, I fired off twenty five points describing a Conservative.

I now await the monkeys and their hurled feces. Good thing I've got a good rain coat!

At any rate, I'd thought my readers might enjoy a glimpse into the workings of my thoughts. Therefore, listed below, are the twenty-five definitions of a Liberal and of a Conservative, with my thanks to Jeff Foxworthy, since I sort of borrowed his style. Enjoy!

You might be a Liberal if:

You believe that woman's right to choose trumps a baby's right to live.
You believe that the only choice to allow an individual is to kill an unborn child or to choose a sexually deviant lifestyle.
You do not believe in the right to choose to keep and bear arms.
You do not believe in the right for an individual to keep the money he earns without it being confiscated through the tax system and redistributed through the welfare system.
You believe that government is the answer to all mankind's problems, not the source of most of them.
You believe that Marxism has gotten a bad rap.
You believe that the only reason Islamo-fascists hate us is because we support Israel.
You believe that Islam is a "religion of peace" but Christians are murderous cretins.
You believe that Democrats never lose elections, they have them stolen from them.
You believe that the only rational response to someone who disagrees with you is to curse him out, question his motives, or call him a fascist.
You think that limited government equals fascism.
You believe that government should stay out of the bedroom, except to mandate what light bulbs and what toilets we can use.
You believe that there is no difference between an animal and a human being.
You believe that your ideology automatically makes you a better person.
You believe that guns and poverty cause crime, rather than immorality, criminal coddling courts and unarmed citizens.
You believe it is charitable to confiscate property and wealth from those who've earned it and who own it in order to give it to those who have done neither.
You believe that it is morally superior to clone aborted babies for their stem cells rather than to use adult stem cells, even though the only cures discovered thus far came from adult stem cells with no dead babies.
You believe it is more proper to send our troops into places that have no national interests at stake than to actually defend American interests. Oil, by the way is the engine of our prosperity and, therefore, a national interest.
You think that the ideal population of the world should be about 1/5th what it is, and that the rest should die, leaving enlightened Liberals to live as they think they should.
You think that the Pope and Evangelical Christians are more of a threat than the Islamo-fascists who want to bring us back to the 6th or 7th Century through rape murder and intimidation, all with the approval of the Qu'ran.
.
You think that Muslim terrorists are freedom fighters on a par with George Washington, even though they reject every aspect of freedom.
You actually believe that John Kerry was a war hero, and that Ted Kennedy has the moral authority to condemn waterboarding. Here's a little joke for you: What's the difference between John Kerry and Ted Kennedy? Ted Kennedy has a confirmed kill!
You think that No Child Left Behind was a Conservative scam, even though it was largely written by Ted Kennedy.
You think that Bill Clinton was railroaded, but Larry Craig should be hung.
You think that the Constitution really doesn't mean what it says, that we can make it say whatever we (by "we" I mean Liberals) want it to say. This is otherwise known as "The Living Constitution". Try playing a game of Monopoly, for instance, if the rule book is suddenly "living". You won't get very far, would you?

Now then, what does it mean to be a Conservative?

You might be a Conservative if:

You read the Constitution in the plain English it was written in, rather than the legalese preferred by folks like Souter, Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsberg.
You think that government is far too big and intrusive, and mostly in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
You believe charity is only virtuous when it is with your own money and voluntary, rather than someone else's confiscated through the tax code.
You look at America, recognize its faults and the errors of its ways, and still believe that America is the best damn country to have ever appeared on this good Earth.
You believe that the only proper gun control law is the one that repeals all gun control laws.
You believe that keeping the government out of the bedroom doesn't mean we have to give equal time to deviant sexual behavior.
You believe that health care is a product, not a right, and that the free market is the only way to bring down health care costs.
You look to real scientists (Robert Felix, Roy Spencer and Tim Ball come to mind) for information about climate change, rather than the bitter loser of a very close election who tried to use the courts to steal the White House.
You understand exactly why the Constitution provides for the Electoral College, and you approve.
You know the difference between amending the Constitution and violating it through creative readings by the Supreme Court.
You look at a tax rate (anyone's, at any income level) and think it's just too high.
You understand that bureaucrats serve the same role in society that parasites do in Nature. The suck of the life essence of the host and return nothing -- NOTHING -- of value.
You hear Chuck Schumer talk about his "passion to legislate" and all you hear are your Liberties going down the tubes.
You know that the things Liberals think are torture are only things that many people derive deviant sexual pleasure from, and you don't understand why one is torture and the other is merely a "lifestyle choice".
You believe that an unborn child has more claim to the right to life than a condemned murderer.
You recognize that there is, indeed, a difference between "killing" and "murdering", and that one is immoral and the other is sometimes necessary.
You look at America's meat industry, and marvel that it is able to feed so many millions of people for so little expense.
You know that mankind is just not big enough to impact the Earth in any serious fashion, and, even if we can, we're not doing anything different than any other species that evolved on Earth: change the environment, wipe out some species, make new homes for other newer species.
You know that, if you want to save an endangered species, advertise that it tastes good. (See "America's meat industry")
You truly believe in choice: choice of what light bulb to use, choice of what to eat, where to live, what to drive, how much energy you use, what to own and use to defend yourself, what to do with your own property, where to send your kids to school, what your schools teach your kids, what charities you want to give to, what to listen to on the radio, what to read, etc.
You believe that Freedom also means you have to put up with things you don't like -- Liberals, for instance. Liberals, on the other hand, think that disagreeing with them is hate speech and should be made illegal.
You know that racism is both wrong and stupid, and that's why you oppose affirmative action.
You know that "separation of church and state" really isn't in the Constitution and that the Establishment Clause was meant to protect religion from government, rather than to protect government from religion.
You don't confuse the Boy Scouts with a right wing paramilitary group with tendencies toward fascism.
You can actually have a debate with a Liberal without once cursing him out, questioning his motives, or calling him a fascist.

Well, that's it for tonight, folks! Who knows what tomorrow will bring. As you know, we here at Montag's World pride ourselves at goring more sacred cows than a drunken cab driver in Mumbai!

Copyright March 31st, 2008

Friday, February 8, 2008

NO COUNTRY FOR CONSERVATIVES?

This is going to be one difficult column to write, since I tend to be rather optimistic. Unfortunately, I try to be honest, and this election cycle's prospects don't look too good.

With the nomination of John McCain all but a done deal, Conservatives are left with a serious dilemma. What are we to do, now that our input into the primary process was ignored yet our support for the obviously flawed McCain is demanded?

Time and again, it seems, Conservatives are told by the Republican establishment "Shut up and vote for our candidate". It's bad enough when we are given inferior choices. George W. Bush might not have been our ideal, but he was still a better choice than McCain. This time, we were denied, by the Party bosses, the superior candidate, Mitt Romney, with the collusion of an also- ran, Mike Huckabee.

We've seen this script before. Goldwater was shut out -- too Conservative. Reagan had to be shunted aside in favor of blueblood pick, Gerald Ford. Bush the Elder had to be the guy, because he'd been Vice President. How many times must we Conservatives hold our noses and choose "the lesser of two evils"?

This time around, I am not all that convinced that McCain is "the lesser of two evils", for the reasons I listed yesterday in No Comparison. When you really examine the issues, we are faced with the choice between full-steam-ahead Socialism or Let's-take-our-time Socialism.

There is one school of thought that says we have to support McCain, since failure to do so would result in a Hillary or Obama victory. Given the current Democrat majority in Congress, they would be up to no end of mishief. Even a flawed RINO in the White House would put the brakes on the worst abuses.

But how can we know? After all, McCain has sided with the Democrats on so many issues. Indeed, he even flirted with leaving the Republicans to become John Kerry's running mate in 2004. What would keep him from showing his true Liberal colors once in office.

At this point, the Establishment types would say "Oh! But the Republicans in Congress would work to minimize that sort of collusion." Really? The way they stopped President Bush from foisting a massive new entitlement on us? The way the Republican leadership stopped the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill? Or the way that, despite their opposition, the McCain-Feingold Bill became law?

The fact of the matter is, members of Congress are beholden to the White House when it is held by a member of their own party. This is why so many Republicans went along with President Bush's Liberal apostacies. Failure to support the Party's President is often met with the punishment of witheld Pary support. With John McCain in the White House, siding with the Democrats on so many issues, they would perforce support his ideas. Conservatism, that ideological bedrock upon which the Republican successes of the last thirty years were built, will be all but abandoned.

So! Do we Conservatives, as Ann Coulter suggested, vote for the Democratic candidate? That is unsatisfactory since it would prove to the Establishment RINO's that there really isn't such a great divide between the Right and the Left. It would also be an exercise in hypocrisy (no offense, Ann!) that I, at least, would prefer not to commit.

Of course, we Conservatives could, in good conscience, sit the election out. This would, of course, guarantee a Democrat victory, but we can at least claim noncooperation. Many Conservatives will probably do just that, as we have seen time and again in the past. Even the RINO's know that they can't win elections without Conservative support. Witness McCain's speech yesterday pleading with the members of C-PAK that he really is a Conservative, despite his abysmal track record. Many Conservatives will simply withold their votes, with the result of a Democrat victory.

Here we have the problem that we aren't driving our agenda forward, letting the Left have full control, once again, of our government. Any gains we have seen regarding the make up of the courts will be undone all at once. The eldest, and the coincidentally the most Liberal, members of the Supreme Court, for instance, are holding on to their seats only in hopes of a Democrat victory in November. Once either Hillary or Obama are in the White House, they are going to retire and we get clones of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.

Perhaps we Conservatives should bolt from the Republican Party all together forming a new Conservative Party and letting the RINO's join the Democrats for real. This would be very satisfying on a personal level, but would leave the Democrats uncontested for a period of years while we build up our party strength. Would the Democrats still allow the New Media its freedom, which we Conservatives have enjoyed for twenty years? That is doubtful, since the Left has been trying to shut down the New Media, calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. That could blow up in the Democrats' collective face, since it might fire up an otherwise disheartened Conservative mainstream.

For myself, I am going to change my party registration to the New York State Conservative Party, not that it has always been a good fit for my own philosophies. It's just that the New York Republicans have left me, becoming "me too" Democrats in the mistaken belief that Liberalism Lite works better than Conservatism. By changing my party affiliation, I intend to send the message that I am not OK with the Leftward tilt of the Republicans.

But what of November? What should I do with my own precious vote. While anything can happen between now and then, and in politics anything usually does, I think I might actually vote for John McCain, as much as it pains me to say it. I doubt that he can win in the general election. After all, "Given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the Democrat always wins." My apologies to the shade of Harry Truman!

However, I still believe in miracles, even if the one I'd hoped for wasn't meant to be. McCain might pull it off. And if he pulls it off, he might even govern as a Conservative. I won't hold my breath on either of these possibilities, though.

If McCain were to succumb to his worst tendencies, perhaps the Conservative faithful could hold his feet to the fire, so to speak, and bring him back around. That's also a longshot, but we're talking about miracles, so please forgive me.

Doubts about McCain's orthodoxy aside, he is still going to be marginally better on judicial picks, although don't expect McCain-Feingold to be overturned in the near future. And he is slightly better on the War on Terror. Just don't pay too close attention to the courts handling the Guantanamo detainees.

All in all, there isn't much to like about the picks for the presidency. But I'm still going to vote and I'm still going to change my party affiliation.

Electile Dysfunction, anyone?

Copyright Feb. 8th, 2008

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

MITT ROMNEY

Well! What can I say about Mitt Romney now that he has lost the Florida primary to John McCain? Until this evening, Romney had a strong lead in the delegate count for the national convention. But with McCain picking up 57 delegates, that puts the pressure on Romney.

Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, who has a track record of taking over failing businesses and turning them around. Like Giuliani and Bill Richardson, he's had executive experience in both the private and the public sector. He was the man who turned the 2002 Summer Olympics in Salt Lake City into a successful venture, although it was on the brink of collapse amid mismanagement and scandal. As governor of Massachusetts, he reversed the state's fiscal decline and created budget surpluses where none had existed before.

If the economy is to be the defining issue of the 2008 presidential race, then Romney is the candidate for the Republicans. His success in business and as governor put him head and shoulders above all the other candidates. On the issues, only Fred Thompson was stronger, although Mitt looks more like a president. Granted, that was superficial, but that is also part of what voters look at.

Romney is the epitome of that old saying, "If at twenty you are not a Liberal, you have no heart -- if at forty you are not a Conservative, you have no brain." Romney's political career has moved him steadily to the Right. In 1994, he was the closest of any Republicans to unseat Ted Kennedy, failing only because he moved to the Left in a misguided effort to "moderate" his tone for Liberal Massachusetts.

As a candidate for governor, he left behind these youthful indiscretions to run as a more mainstream Conservative. True to my observations yesterday, in The McCain Mutiny, Romney won.

Romney's campaign seems to have earned the enmity of the Liberal Legacy Media, despite his past Liberal leanings and his Hollywood-style presidential looks. My suspicion is that he is the one candidate that can actually unite the Republicans and beat either Hillary or Obama. As such, they are shilling for McCain as much as they can, telling us that he is the only candidate worthy of being called a Conservative. As if the Legacy Media has any real idea of what a Conservative is.

In service to this agenda, the Legacy Media has made much of Romney's Mormon faith. There has been a lot of attention given to Mormon history and to alleged mistrust of Mormons by the evangelical Christians who make up such a large part of the Conservative base. Of course, the simple fact that Mormonism is, in essence, a Christian faith gets left out of these examinations.

Questions have arisen about the Mormon practice, abandoned a century ago by mainstream Mormons, of polygamy. But that doesn't wash since, of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney is the only one who is still married to his first --and only -- wife!

Curiously, none of these issues were raised when Harry Reid, the "Dingy One" from Nevada who is currently the Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats, was opining as to how "the war is lost" and calling President Bush "a loser". For some reason, the Legacy Media doesn't see the Mormon faith as problematic for a Democrat.

The religion question became so extreme that Romney had to blunt the attacks. On Dec. 6th, 2007, he gave a speech (you can see it here) about his Mormon faith and his ideals as a presidential candidate. Entitled Faith in America, he answered and shut down all his critics, and did so in a way that enhanced his stature as a man and as a prospective president.

Romney, as noted above, has grown into his Conservative principles. Hence, he is tagged by McCain and the Legacy Media as a "flip-flopper". Well, Paul Compos of the Scripps Howard New Service has already demonstrated that it is McCain, not Romney, who is positionally challenged.

The stands Romney has taken in this campaign are the tried and true Conservative views. He seeks an overturn of Roe v. Wade, turning the issue of abortion back to the states and the people, where it belongs. He has vowed tax cuts and private sector solutions to various social problems, rather than the Nanny State of the Democrats. And he has stood solidly for America in the War on Terror, supporting President Bush and our troops.

Indeed, Romney and Fred Thompson are the only candidates I've heard actually defend American businesses, rightfully praising them for our unprecedented standard of living. All the other candidates, and especially John McCain, have criticized and belittled our corporations, threatening them with ever more onerous taxes and regulations.

So here is what we have with Mitt Romney:

An impeccable and successful resume of executive experience both in the private and the public spheres.

A genuinely decent man, without the personal baggage of most of the other candidates.

A man who has grown into his Conservatism, learning from the past and applying it to the present, while not pandering to the base.

And a man who, when unjustly maligned for his faith, stood up to the bigots without demeaning either them or himself.

Mitt Romney is my candidate of choice for the Republican nomination. A perfect candidate? No, and never has a perfect candidate ever existed. Yet Romney is the man who most epitomizes the ideals of Conservatism. He has the fewest skeletons of all the other candidates. He has the most experience.

Mitt Romney is the man for the White House, hands down, out of all the candidates that we have examined here in these columns. He has a tough battle ahead of him. But there is the one thing the philosopher got right out all he got wrong: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

Romney is the man!

Copyright Jan. 29th, 2008

Monday, January 28, 2008

THE McCAIN MUTINY

I know, it's an overworked, unoriginal title. But I just like the phrase. Today, we examine John McCain, the one Republican who is actually liked in the mainstream Legacy Media.

John McCain has the kind of story that John Kerry wishes he had. Yes, Kerry was in Viet Nam, and yes, he received several Purple Heart awards. But John McCain actually served some real time there. In fact, he was a guest at the infamous Hanoi Hilton, beaten and tortured on a regular basis by the North Viet Namese. While Kerry supporters try to claim he was a war hero, McCain is the real deal.

But that is only one of the reasons the Legacy Media are so enamoured with John McCain. For the Legacy Media know a simple fact that many Republicans fail to remember: Conservatism wins every time you run on it. For all of McCain's excellent pedigree and proven courage in Viet Nam, he is far, far from Conservative. Furthermore, McCain seems to have a thin skin and an uneven temperament. And he can hold a grudge on a scale worthy of either Bill or Hillary.

Why is McCain not a Conservative? A simple look at his record should suffice. He has been a staunch opponent of tax cuts, garnering the sobriquet of "fiscal conservative", among the media elites, but leaving the true Conservative activists a bit cold. Indeed, when asked why he opposed the Bush tax cuts, he used rhetoric right out of the Democratic Party handbook, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".

Then there was McCain-Feingold. This atrocious assault on the First Amendment criminalizes certain examples of political speech at certain times of the election cycle. It empowers the Legacy Media and labor unions, while emasculating private citizens and their organizations. Should John McCain become president, it is very doubtful that he would appoint any Supreme Court justices who would overturn his pet project.

And he seems to have bought into the Left's shibboleth of man made Global Warmism, while using the debates to attack America's pharmaceutical companies. If the conventional wisdom that we are headed into a recession is correct -- an opinion that I, for one, do not share -- then this is the last guy we want in the White House.

McCain gets a lot of high marks for his Pro-Life positions. But is this warranted? Paul F. Campos, of the Scripps-Howard News Service, last week noted his shifting stances regarding abortions. In fact, it was only until the past year, running for the presidency, that John McCain became reliably Pro-Life. He now wants to outlaw almost all abortions and he claims he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. But can he be relied on?

Let's get back to the issue of judges. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade would be to appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court. Yet, when the Democrat minority in Congress used the fillerbuster to block such appointments, John McCain organized the so-called "Gang of 14" to prevent the Republican majority from exercising their Constitutional duty to stop these unconstitutional fillerbusters. How can we be sure he won't side with the Democrats and appoint more Liberal, "living document" judges to the Bench? Simply put, we can't.

McCain gets praise for being tough on the War on Terror. But just how tough is he? He's already proposed closing down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorist suspects to American soil where they would presumably get rights to attorneys and appeals that no enemy combatants in the past ever had. He has used his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton to oppose enhanced interrogation techniques that have made America safer, as if waterboarding and loud music were real torture.

Let me take a moment to discuss waterboarding. This is a technique in which a suspect is laid on his back, his face covered with a towel. Water is then poured onto the towel so as to make the suspect think he is drowning. Many folks think this is torture, with Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy being one of the most outspoken critics. The fact of the matter is, waterboarding is used on our own soldiers and pilots as part of their training. Anti-war protesters routinely volunteer to be waterboarded at protests, as have several journalists. In fact, when I had researched waterboarding through Google, I stumbled on a pornography site that featured folks being waterboarded for recreational purposes! I humbly submit that, given the above fact, coupled with the fact that it works, waterboarding is not torture!

Then there is the matter of the Geneva Conventions. John McCain favors an expansive reading of the articles so that even enemy combatants -- a group that the Conventions specifically single out for exclusion -- should be treated the exact same way that criminals or POW's are treated. Again, this is something that America has never done in the past. We are faced with an enemy that doesn't even pay lip service to the Geneva Conventions. It's as if McCain wants to get tough with an asymmetrical enemy with one hand tied behind our back.

Speaking of national security, McCain has made a mockery of our borders and our concern for illegal immigration. The McCain-Kennedy Bill, which thankfully failed due to an overwhelming public outcry, would, despite McCain's preposterous claims to the contrary, have granted amnesty to 12 to 22 million folks who have violated our borders, stolen identities, and continue to flout our immigration laws. Of course, he had a lot of help from President Bush, but that is yet another reason why the Democrats are in the majority in Congress, along with big spending and failure to make the tax cuts permanent. Conservatives just stayed home in 2006, rather than vote for folks who failed to live up to their ideals.

And what about a consistent political philosophy? Isn't it important that a prospective president be absolutely clear on his positions and be firm in his resolve to govern by them? Well, McCain seems to think that his opponent, Mitt Romney doesn't measure up in this respect. Paul F. Campos's clearly lays out the inconsistencies in McCain's record. Of course, Mr. Campos was arguing from a Liberal perspective, but the fact remains: John McCain is the flip flopper, not Mitt Romney.

Let's not forget, either, that in the 2000 primaries, McCain described Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" yet spoke at his university last year, and is actively courting evangelicals in this election. So what does he really think? Who knows? He's certainly not telling!

We Conservatives are constantly being told that we must support John McCain, that he is the only candidate that could defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. We are told that examining McCain's actual record, rather than parroting what he says is his record, would lead to the destruction of the Republican Party. But there's a problem with this. Historically, we need only look back to the Truman administration, which tired of Democrats siding with Republicans too often in Congress. President Truman once famously remarked, "Given a choice between a 'Republican' and a Republican, the voters would take the Republican every time."

Change the party name, and the same could be said about "moderate" Republicans like John McCain: Given a choice between a "Democrat" and a Democrat, the Democrat wins every time. Dennis Vacco, once New York State's attorney general, learned that the hard way when he refused the Right to Life Party's endorsement in protest of an abortion doctor's murder. Al Damato, once holding Chuck Schumer's New York Senate seat, also lost after moving to the Left on Life issues and letting Clinton slide in his Senate Banking Committee investigations. Even Mitt Romney learned after he lost to Ted Kennedy, after swinging to the Left to "moderate" his tone for Massachusetts's voters. Recall also that the Republicans who lost their congressional seats in 2006 did so against Democrats that ran as Conservatives, although those Democrats swung to the Left once in office.

There are two reasons why Republican candidates who run as Democrat-lite fail to win. First, is Truman's maxim: why vote for the pseudo Democrat when you can vote for the real thing. The second is that Conservative voters will not get excited about a RINO (Republican In Name Only)candidate. They see no reason to vote for said RINO since, win or lose, the RINO will vote just like a Democrat.

This is precisely why John McCain's candidacy is doomed to failure. The only states that McCain has won were states that allowed Democrats and Independents vote in Republican primaries. Conservatives have very good reasons not to like or trust John McCain. And one of the best reasons is that the Legacy Media likes him so much.

Or, at least, until or if he gets the Republican nomination. Then the Legacy Media will revert to form and trash John McCain like any other Republican nominee. They only want McCain because he would stand no chance at all against any Democratic candidate. The Legacy Media is trying to pick our nominee to blunt our drive to keep the White House.

The question then is, who will I support in November? Obviously, the Republican candidate, since, even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice. But then I think of the joke that's been going around the Internet lately, the one about "Electile Dysfunction": the inability to get excited about any of the candidates in the presidential race.

But fear not, folks! I haven't talked about Mitt Romney yet!

Copyright Jan. 28th, 2008

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

A HYMN FOR HUCKABEE

OK! I've got to write this fast since he might drop out of the presidential race at any minute. At last look, Mike Huckabee was in deep financial trouble, having only won one primary vote and heading into Florida and Super Tuesday.

What can we say about Mike Huckabee? Well, the former Baptist minister who turned politician in 1992, is the Legacy Media's second favorite Republican candidate, right behind John McCain. He has authored several books and he was the governor of Arkansas from 1992 until 2007. Time Magazine named him, in 2005, one of the five best governors in America, while the CATO Institute gave him a grade of "F" for his spending and tax policies.

Mike Huckabee is betting on his ministry in the Church to bolster his electability with evangelical Christians. Unfortunately for him, I doubt evangelical Christians are as one dimensional as they'd need to be to vote for him. Huckabee is, for instance, quite strong on the Life issue, calling for an amendment to the Constitution to ban abortion. Yet he allowed a convicted rapist to be released, only to find said rapist went on to rape and murder another woman in Missouri.

He tries to talk tough on immigration, yet he, for all intents and purposes, tried to turn Arkansas into a sanctuary state.

He cites Ronald Reagan and touts his own tax cuts, but the simple fact is, under his stewardship Arkansas spending went up 65.3%, according to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, while taxes rose more than half a billion dollars.

Mike Huckabee poses a number of problems for Conservatives, of which evangelical Christians form a subset. He is trying to remake the Republican Party in his own, more moderate image. Unfortunately for Huckabee, Conservatism is the bedrock of the GOP. Without Conservatism, Republican candidates tend to lose, and lose big.

Examples of this abound in elections past: Al Damato, in New York, was reelected like clock-work, until he moved away from his Pro-Life stances. George H.W. Bush lost his presidency by moving to the Left on taxes. Even Mitt Romney lost a Senate race to Ted Kennedy only when he tried to move to the Left. The Democrats that got elected to Congress in 2006 were running to the Right of the Republican candidates.

Conservatism wins every time it is run on. Which will also serve to explain why Mike Huckabee is the second favorite Republican candidate of the Legacy Media.

First, the Legacy Media likes Huckabee for his Liberal stances on some issues: taxes and spending, social programs, immigration, and the like. The Legacy Media has been in the tank for these Leftist causes for decades, and, despite the inroads made by the New Media, show little sign of changing their minds.

Second, the Legacy Media knows that, should Huckabee get the nomination, they and their allies in the Democratic Party, can portray him as a religious nut, who is out of touch even with his own constituency, the evangelical Christians.

Would some evangelicals like to see an antiabortion amendment to the Constitutions? Sure, they would. But would most of them? Not likely, folks! The Pro-Life Movement will be happy with merely overturning Roe v. Wade and turning the matter back to the states, where it belongs. Besides, the Pro-Life Movement wants real solutions, not pie-in-the-sky proposals that will never garner the supermajority they need in Congress, let alone among the state legislatures. A Right to Life Amendment stands no chance of approval at either the congressional or the state level.

And they would certainly be opposed to opening our borders to anybody who can walk across from Mexico. With polling ranging from 60% to 75% opposed to open borders and sanctuary cities and states, I doubt few folks will go along with a Huckabee presidency.

And then there's the issue of health and the government's role in protecting it. Mike Huckabee used to be overweight, until just a few years ago. Upon losing his weight, quitting smoking and going on an exercise regime (all admirable endeavors, to be sure) he decided that he would do for everyone what he had done for himself. Unfortunately, that means a highly intrusive government. He would legislate against fatty foods, smoking, sedentary lifestyles, and anything else he thinks is unhealthy. He has been noted in the media to have proposed banning tobacco everywhere in the United States. These are not at all Conservative ideas.

Taxes and spending, alone, ought to finish Mike off. The Conservative base is looking for someone to wear the Reagan mantle. Huckabee is definitely not that guy.

All in all, while I believe that Huckabee is superior to anyone in the Democratic field, I would hope he is defeated for the Republican nomination. He agrees with the Democrats on far too many issues. And, as has been observed in the past: "When given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the people will take the Democrat every time!" Of course, that was said by Harry Truman about Conservative Democrats voting with the Republicans, but you get my drift.

You can't beat the Left by moving to the Left. Mike Huckabee is just a bit too Leftish and, as such, deserves to lose the nomination in the Republican Party.

Copyright Jan. 23rd, 2008

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

A POLITICAL REQUIEM FOR FRED THOMPSON

Ah, Fred! You just underestimated the challenge.

Fred Thompson was one of the only Republican candidates who could shoulder the mantle of Ronald Reagan. In spite of a couple of lapses -- he did vote for McCain-Feingold -- he was the true Conservative's Conservative.

We all know about Thompson's various careers. He was an accomplished attorney, working in Washington DC during the Watergate days. He was also a fine character actor, playing many side roles in Hollywood movies, as well as his most famous role, the crusty, laconic, Southern-born district attorney in TV's Law and Order.

And, in 1994, he was elected to the Senate, taking Al Gore's seat from Tennessee. True to the promises of the Contract With America, he term limited himself, leaving after only two terms to go back to acting.

This year, Thompson decided he was needed. He announced his candidacy for the White House.

Fred Thompson's campaign, however, was a bit odd. He didn't campaign as actively as other candidates. He kept an unusually low profile. It was almost as if he really didn't care if he won or lost the nomination. In fact, one news report actually claimed that he'd said he really didn't care.

Regardless, whatever he was looking to do in the primaries, he dropped out of the race. Now, the question is, who does he throw his support to?

Watching earlier debates, I was impressed with the way he stood forthright for his principals, never wavering, never equivocating. He spoke with a Southern charm and directness that was refreshing in this age of "packaged" candidates. One wag referred to him as "A Southern fried Reagan".

Fred Thompson, like Reagan, spoke, not to the pundits or the press, but directly to the American people. He stated his case for Conservatism in plain, unadorned language. And he had little time for the flip flopping, populism, or Big Government Republicanism of his opponents.

His best quote from the campaign was about the flip flops of other candidates: "I'm a firm believer in conversion, but they're wearing out the Road to Damascus."

Thompson wouldn't let Rudy Giuliani claim that New York City wasn't a "sanctuary city", pointing out that Giuliani fought to have a law banning that practice unconstitutional. He called Mike Huckabee out on his tax and immigration policies as governor of Arkansas. And John McCain wasn't allowed to white wash his record either. Firm, direct, polite, and to the point, Thompson gently flayed them all for their pretensions.

Among true Conservatives, Fred Thompson was the only true heir to Reagan. He was a staunch defender of Life, national security, our border's integrity, and the capitalist system that has made America the single best country in the history of the world.

All that said, he ran a lackluster, at best, campaign. His appearances were too few, his fund-raising anemic and his style too non-confrontational. Although he had the respect and loyalty of the Conservative faithful, he failed to capitalize on it. The complaint seemed to be "He just doesn't have that fire in his belly."

Then there were the early primary states. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were tailor made for Huckabee and McCain. These states have open primaries, allowing Democrats and Independents to vote for Republicans. With these states all but guaranteeing a Thompson loss, his campaign, already sputtering, just died out from lack of interest.

Fred Thompson earned his place among the also-rans, but not because of his small stature. Fred is a man of substance and style.

I guess that news report was right: He really didn't want the job badly enough!

Copyright Jan. 22nd, 2008

Saturday, January 19, 2008

FIRST, THE ALSO-RANS

My look at the candidates for the 2008 presidential race will start with those who are least likely to win their nominations. Let's just get the also-rans out of the way and get to main players. In particular let's examine Ron Paul and John Edwards.

First, let's look at Ron Paul. OK! Who's next? Just kidding!

Ron Paul is a long time Libertarian who was elected to Congress in the party that is most closely aligned with Libertarian ideology, the GOP. On economics, I have to like the guy. He's in favor of lower taxes, fewer regulations etc. But on foreign policy, he will ruin us. Paul is an isolationist. He, like many on the Left, thinks that if we just get out of the Middle East, the Islamo-fascists will suddenly like us again. He confuses military bases in countries such as Saudi Arabia with military occupation. This, in my mind, is not just silly, but is in complete denial of simple facts. Furthermore, it will only embolden our enemies. After all, Ossama bin Ladin himself said that our retreat from Somalia (Thanks, Bill!) was a sign that we can be beaten.

Other than his harebrained foreign policy ideas, he just comes across as a grouchy old man. Worse, he looks like he might be insane. This, of course, is purely superficial, but we are looking for the next president of the United States. Is this what we want? Then again, do we want a president who was endorsed by transvestites and strippers?

Ah! John Edwards! He of the silky locks and $1500 haircuts. What a piece of work this guy is!

John Edwards is campaigning on behalf of that other America. Not those in the neighborhood he lives in, although he did succeed in ridding himself of a poor Republican, gun-toting neighbor who couldn't afford to fix up his property. No, he's out to help the poor, not with his own money but with yours. He gets credit from many on the Left for not being beholden to any special interests. As if trial lawyers weren't one of the most expensive special interests burdening America.

Yes, folks! Trial Lawyers, Those same happy people who brought us the $4 million cup of coffee and the idea that a dry cleaner can be sued out of business for ruining a pair of pants. What has John Edwards done to further the cause? Well, he "worked" his way out of the America he wants to represent into the ranks of the rich America by suing obstetricians for failing to perform C-sections. This was despite the fact that there was no proof that C-sections would prevent cerebral palsy. If that weren't loopy enough, he did it by "channeling" the spirits of these poor kids, in utero no less, giving them "voice" in the court rooms. Not only was he responsible for reducing the number of obstetricians available to pregnant women around the country, he also put those women's lives at risk because those obstetricians still in business performed more C-sections than necessary, all to avoid a lawsuit from the likes of John Edwards.

John Edwards wants, along with the other two Democratic candidates, to nationalize healthcare. Imagine: all the efficiency of the DMV with all the compassion of the IRS. I feel healthier already! If that weren't enough, he has also proposed that folks be mandated for certain tests and procedures. I wonder if that means C-sections for all, whether they need them or not?

Don't forget higher taxes! Not to be out taxed by Obama and Hillary, Edwards is right out there with taxes on anything he can imagine. Naturally, he couches it in the class warfare rhetoric of his "Two Americas". But never doubt that both Americas are going to get C-sections on their wallets. It's the way it's always done by the Left.

Let's recall why, in yesterday's column, I considered him to be one half a candidate: in the 2004 election, he couldn't even carry his own state. Obviously, if the people who know him best don't want him, then he is needed in the White House!

Also from 2004, remember when, in his finest preacher's voice, he declared that Christopher Reeves will walk again if he and Kerry were elected? Who writes his stuff? He could get a job writing for Saturday Night Live -- at least whenever the writers' strike ends.

Not to leave Edwards out of the gratuitous criticism leveled at Ron Paul, let's also mention that, besides his silky hair and his womanly virtues ( Remember when his wife tried to make the case that he was more of a woman than Hillary?) he also blinks continuously. It's annoying. Most people who blink like that are pegged as liars.

Again, purely superficial, I know. But many vote on appearances alone, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Essentially, I believe, Edwards is vying for the position of king maker. He's going to drop out sooner or later and see what kind of a deal he can get from either Obama or Hillary. Who ever gives him the most, in policy perks and the vice presidency candidacy, will get John Edwards' pitiful number of supporters.

Honorable mentions also go out to Bill Richardson, for best supporting role to the Hillary campaign; Dennis Kucinich, for representing the terrorists and the UFO community; Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, for pushing the immigration issue; and a very special mention of Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes deserves a few words more than the other honorable mentions. He is a man of undeniable faith, both in God and in Constitutional governance. What he brings to the table is profound respect for life, finding in the Constitution one of the most perfect arguments against abortion and euthanasia. I like his stances and his take-no-prisoners style. Had he more time to run a better campaign for the Illinois Senate seat, Barak Obama would have been in this column as an also ran. Unfortunately, he does not resonate with the majority of voters and does not get anywhere near the media attention he deserves. So it is with deep regret that I grant Alan Keyes this place, however special the mention, in this list of the runners up.

We'll talk more about the leading candidates tomorrow.

Copyright January 19th, 2008

Friday, January 18, 2008

THE RACE THUS FAR

The 2008 presidential race seems far more bizarre than those in past election cycles. For one thing, it seems like it's been going on for a year. Actually, it has been going on for year. And for some, like Hillary Clinton, it's been going on since at least 2000.

On the other hand, if the Hillary camp's opposition research is to be believed, Barak Mohammed Hussein Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in kindergarten. This must be something of a record, although a record of what, precisely, isn't all too clear.

However, there are certain gleanings to be made from the rhetoric of the Democrats and the Republicans. In this first article about the race, I'd like to posit some observations about the overall party differences between the two fields in this primary season.

On the Democrat side, we can be fairly certain that taxes will go up. None of the two and half leading candidates (Edwards' quixotic run only merits the half) make no bones about what they want to do. Hillary wants to "take those excessive profits from the oil companies" to fund research into alternative energy sources. Obama (all two and a half, for that matter) wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, which means that sooner than you think, a $20K annual income will be considered rich. And Edwards, when he is not combing his silky locks, wants to "bridge the gap between the two Americas" -- code speak for wealth redistribution with the resultant higher taxes to pay for it.

Obama and Hillary are claiming that the election has nothing to do with gender or race, while constantly injecting both every chance they get. The accusations flying back and forth between the two camps is stunning. Yet no one calls them on their misanthropy because, let's face it: to the Politically Correct, only white Conservative males discriminate on the basis of gender and race, not us Liberals!

All two and a half of the Democratic leaders will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, differing only in how fast and how thorough their retreats from the war zone will be. Obama, to his credit, will attack another country for terrorism. Unfortunately, that country is Pakistan, one of our allies in the region. The sense I get from them all is that they'd like to see the War on Terror turned back into a law enforcement matter, rather than the all out war it really is.

The one overarching theme of all the Democrats is this: America is filled with victims and victimizers. Americans, of either status, are children who need these enlightened Liberals to tame their excesses and protect the victims from those excesses. Hillary had the famous ad wherein she was wrapping all her socialist programs up as Christmas presents to be placed under the tree for us. Obama keeps talking about hope, even invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, while offering little by way of substance. And Edwards flips his hair, bats his eyelashes, and talks about the one time the insurance companies fell down on the job, allowing a young girl to die before they would cover her liver transplant.

Speaking of health insurance, all two and a half candidates promise to nationalize our healthcare industry, turning America into an eleventh province of Canada. This will, needless to say, mean even more tax hikes, cutting down the profits of the drug companies, rationing healthcare, and even, in the case of Edwards, mandates on individuals to undergo certain tests and procedures.

No one of them is saying much about immigration, although they seem to be supported strongly by those who oppose enforcing our borders or ending the practice of sanctuary cities. Hillary was laughable when confronted with her own words regarding New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. And then Obama, not learning from her mistake, fell for the same question in a later debate. The reason they aren't saying too much, when they aren't sticking their feet in their mouths that is, is that they know that open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities are losing political stands to take. Hey! They can read polls better than the Bush Administration and John McCain!

In short, the Democrats are talking about wholesale abrogation of American Liberty.

And what of the Republicans?

John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudi Giulianis all talk about lowering the tax burden on all Americans, regardless of income. They are also standing against the worst of Hillarycare (or any of the other onerous schemes put forth) trying to use the free market to solve issues involving coverage and healthcare. Medical savings accounts are making something of a comeback in Republican circles, but no where near the CATO plan, which would cover everyone with just the money from Medicare taxes while eliminating most of the bureacracy.

All the Republican candidates will stand stronger on terror than any of the Democrats, although Huckabee leaves me a little "underwhelmed". Still, they all want to persue terrorists far more enthusiastically than the Democrats, so I guess we can't complain.

And the transcendent thing about the Republican field? With the notable exceptions of McCain and Huckabee -- more on all the candidates individually in later columns -- the other Republicans do not look at Americans as victims and victimizers. All of them have far more faith in America and its people. At the very worst, none of them will expand government as fast and as intrusively as the Democrats.

Watching the New Hampshire debates, I was struck by the difference between the two fields. The Democrats all wanted to "save Americans from themselves", while the Republicans were more concerned with getting government out of the way domestically while beating back the Islamo-fascists where they live, rather than arresting them here in America.

The difference was stark: on the one hand, we had enlightened, superior Liberals trying to save the children (Americans) from their own inadequacies: on the other, we had a faith in the abilities of free men and women, able to make the world a better place, starting right at home, on their own, without the Nanny State to hold their hands.

Where do you stand?

DOLLARS AND NONSENSE

Apparently, the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress are going to get serious about the possibility of an impending recession. UPI reports that President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson conference called congressional leaders to discuss plans "to boost the economy". Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hailed these opening negotiations, saying, "we are hopeful that we will agree on legislation that provides timely, targeted and temporary assistance to America's middle class."

OK! Now let's get serious. The economics have been proven time and again: Bush in '01, Bush the Elder in '90, Reagan in the '80's, Kennedy in '63. Raising taxes will only slow the economy, since higher taxes mean less money in the hands of the people who actually make the economy run -- ie. the private sector.

Any doubt? Consider the following:

JFK, in 1963, pushed for tax cuts to boost the economy. With his assassination, Congress and LBJ passed his proposed tax cuts. The economy blossomed, despite the fact that the Viet Nam War was heating up.

Ronald Reagan, following on the heels of the disastrous Nixon and Carter administration (Gerald Ford really didn't do all that much) cut tax rates and created one of the longest periods of economic growth in American history. In fact, the case can be make that this growth survived both Bush the Elder and the Clinton administration.

Bush the Elder was fired after one term. His famous promise, "Read my lips...", broken, he signed tax hikes into law. Besides losing his Conservative base, his tax hike succeeded in creating a brief recession, which the Liberal Legacy Media dutifully exaggerated to allow Bill Clinton (today, by the way, marks the tenth anniversary of the infamous "blue dress") to be elected with a plurality. It was only weeks after the election that the Legacy Media admitted that they were wrong about the recession, and that Bush the Elder was telling the truth all along that the economy was rebounding.

Bill Clinton, breaking his campaign promise for a middle class tax cut, promptly hiked taxes, starting at incomes of $20,000, and, worse, made them retroactive to the beginning of 1993. However, so strong was the economy bequeathed upon succeeding administrations by Reagan, the rebound of late 1992 continued through to the election of Republican majorities in Congress. At the time, the Republicans were serious about Conservative values, so they held the line on government spending, allowing the economy some breathing room. Unfortunately, that didn't stop the Clinton/Gore recession of 2000.

President Bush came into office a little late, thanks to Al Gore's ridiculous and petty lawsuits trying to overturn the election. But he jumped on the economy, cutting tax rates across the boards and, in a deliberate jab at the Left, made them retroactive. Along came 9/11, and a tremendous slam on America's financial center. Yet the American people, with more of their hard earned cash in their hands, proved far more resilient. Larry Kudlow calls the Bush economy "the greatest story never told". For the last seven years, every bit of good economic news has been reported in the Legacy Media as "surprising", "despite fears to the contrary", or, more to the point, simply ignored.

Now, apparently, the economy seems to be headed into another recession. So what are the White House and Congressional leaders talking about? Compromise.

There's a very big problem with compromising with Liberals and Democrats. It seems that they never have to give up any of their Liberal principals, while Conservative principals are left by the wayside. This story in the UPI is a point in case. They write:

"Congressional leaders of both parties have indicated a willingness to compromise. To move discussions of the stimulus package along, Democrats have decided to pursue their "pay as you go" rules, while Republicans shelved their plans to make Bush's 2001 tax cuts permanent."

Now, the Democrats were touting their "pay as you go" rules for several years, so they aren't really giving anything up. But the Republicans are going to let the Bush tax cuts lapse? Isn't that the same thing as a tax hike? And this as we allegedly move into a recession?

Read back up to the history of taxes and economic growth. I want to know just how a tax hike makes the economy grow.

Ah! But it isn't all about hiking taxes! Oh, no! We're going to get one time tax rebates! That's right, folks! Although your taxes will go back up to Clintonian heights, you will get a check for a few hundred dollars, just this once!

There is a reason some people call such a plan "helicopter money". It's like some fanciful rich guy flying over your neighborhood, throwing hands full of cash out the window. It might even boost the economy for a little while, as all the grateful peons spend their sudden, albeit small windfall. But then? What happens next?

"Helicopter money" is nothing but a bribe, trying to buy our votes with our own money. It only has a very limited effect and does nothing to improve the dynamics of the economy. It will create no new jobs, no new businesses, no new innovations. Any gains will be small and short lived. In fact, it is worse than leaving the economy alone to find its own feet again.

The "compromise" will also probably contain new government spending, in the form of increased unemployment benefits. And they might also nickle-n-dime the deductions for some types of insurance. Be still my beating heart!

So, in effect, we have Republicans, who having already lost their majority for going native and spending like drunken Democrats, are caving even further by abandoning the lessons of history and, essentially, giving the Democrats everything they want.

And this is a good idea why?

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Liberal Dysfunction

It never ceases to amaze me, the depth of Liberal hate, anger and intolerance. It shouldn't really surprise me -- I've often been the target of vitriol and obscenity as well as charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, etc. Yet, I always seem to be stopped short at the bile, the rage, the incoherence. It's really quite stunning.

As an example, I recently engaged in a dialogue, for lack of a better term, with an individual in the comments column on YouTube. The video in question was a speech by Evan Sayet to the Heritage Foundation entitled How Modern Liberals Think . Drop by this site, watch the video and scroll down to read the comments. You'll know my comments by the screen name, Montagsworld.

The Liberals made some of the most outrageous claims. One of the most recent posts came from one Bikegirl1983: "god you arericans are so stupid.... long live china savuour of the human race... death to the usa... composery abortions hear we come..lol" Now, put aside, for the moment, the sheer illiteracy of this glittering jewel of insanity. Look at what this young lady is advocating. And this is only the latest.

ManhattanMC sparred with me for a week or so but, when I threw his own words back at him, he went all into a hissy fit: "now you've finally pissed me off-america racist and sexist-no-only the rednecks and the plutes-you have provided no non-anecdotal evidence of social mobility-is it necessary to believe a bunch of mythical bull about america to love it "I think not"

And this was actually one of the more sensible Liberals on the boards. One gentleman from the Netherlands, whom I'll decline to quote, spewed nothing but obscenity for post after post, calling everyone who disagreed with him "retarded"

But back to ManhattanMC. He demanded that I back up my arguments with sources. Yet, each time I cited my source, he had a reason not to credit it. None of his reasons had anything to do with the evidence presented, it was purely an ad hominem attack on the source itself. "Thomas Sowell is nothing but a race puppet, along with Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas", "Dixie Lee Rae cannot be credible because she was the Secretary of the Atomic Energy Commission under Richard Nixon". these are all paraphrases, but you get the point. Not one source that disagrees with his worldview can ever possibly be believed.

Even very Liberal news outlets -- The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the like -- are "nothing but organs of the corporate fascists that are really running the country".

I don't know anyone who could make this stuff up!

But, less you think that they are nothing but hate, let's let ManhattanMC put a little perspective on the War on Terror: "I am more afraid of Bush and his pseudo-cons and other fascists than I am of a bunch of Muslim goat herders." In other words, we were not at all at risk until George W. Bush stole the elections of 2000 and 2004!

This also illustrates why the Left today cannot be taken seriously regarding the defense of America. Besides considering terrorism a law enforcement, rather than a military matter -- which ManhattanMC also stated should be the focus -- he thinks that these poor, backward "Muslim goat herders" are no real threat.

Let's see: 9/11 wasn't really those incapable "Muslim goat herders"?

Alright! Try this one: How many goat herders, Muslim or otherwise, have you ever heard of using the Internet to further the cause of Jihad? This just in from the Daily Mail in Great Britain: Computer geek, son of diplomat, revealed as Al Qaeda's top cyber terrorist... Now that's what I call a really savvy goat herder!

What is the problem with Liberals like these? How do they become so consumed with rage, to the point of spewing talking points from the Tin Hat Brigade?

Perhaps Michael Savage is correct: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

And how is America ever to bridge the gap, the polarization between Conservatives and Liberals, when even the Liberals can't admit that America has, for the most part, been a force for good in the world?

I don't pretend tho know the answers to these questions. But I do have to admit: Liberals are awfully funny, aren't they?

Copyright

Jan16th, 2008

Montag's World