Life in America today suddenly seems like a combination of a seriously illogical dream and being on the trip that Alice took to "Wonderland." It appears as if someone set off a device that has deprived almost everyone of any common sense or logic.
Dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of "Terrorism" is bad enough; the senseless killing of innocent individuals by Muslim Extremists, Mentally Ill individuals and a couple of Far-Right Fanatics is an unfortunate fact of life today. All violence or any sort, whether against persons or property, is to be condemned and punished no matter who the perpetrator.
But by what logic does this sudden desire to sanitize and/or revise History become a populist movement, seemingly endorsed by the Media, the Democrat Party (and its members) and the Republican Party (and its members)? Has the entire country become so narcissistically enthralled by a desire to "attack" something that such action a denial of historical truth will erase anything or improve life in America in 2017 for anyone? If this was the 1850's in our West, tomorrow the mob would wake up feeling guilty and avoiding looking each other in the eye out of embarrassment and guilt.
Our President condemns the violence in Virginia by all who took part in that violence, and goes on to condemn the attitudes of Racism as being "wrong" and "unacceptable" but the Media, the Democrat and Republican elected officials and anyone on the ideological Left insists on misinterpreting his comments as equating the beliefs of the Racists with the beliefs of those who declare that Racism is wrong. Instead of seeing the statement(s) as the plea and demand for non-violence by both sides, promising punishment for those who act violently, as the call for sanity that it clearly is, they incorrectly label his comments in an attempt to profit politically.
Seems as if there is a strong logical basis for suggesting that all of America...or, at least the media and the political establishment (all sides)...should properly be undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.
The only speech allowed these days seems to be Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Liberal and Fascist. All others are shouted down or prevented from speaking without being denigrated and insulted with the aid of the media. What is going on today is the over-turning of the Constitutional guarantee of "Free Speech."
For those who respond that the "speech" being quashed is "bad" speech, they might consider that if a group that disagrees with that definition gains power, the reversal will make it impossible for them to speak at all. The court held that the church that demonstrated at military funerals with a message that clearly was hurtful to the families involved had a Constitutional right to so demonstrate. There was emotional hurt but no violence.
How much more effective would it have been if the legal march in Virginia (they had a permit, after all) had simply been allowed to take place...BUT NO ONE ATTENDED OR REPORTED ON IT? After all, they were after publicity. Any intelligent person or group would have won the day by simply ignoring the matter...it is a fringe group with no significant support and that would have been clear is all had simply stayed away. But unfortunately today's attitude is that anyone with whom you disagree must be shouted down and "prevented" from saying anything. Why?
Politicians say a lot of things that I don't like. But they get to say them anyway. News reports are very often wrong on facts or incomplete and slanted...but I don't get to shut them down. But I don't want to shut them down. If I feel strongly enough about a matter, I can write letters, make calls, ask questions and made suggestions. But the actions of the last week suggest that my right to do so will not exist for long, because this feels like an attack on our very rights under the Constitution.
When History is being sanitized revised, and re-written...and mob rule replaces our Constitutional guarantees, we are in very big trouble.
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Friday, August 18, 2017
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
This Fall's election doesn't really matter...
It can be argued that this Fall's election is either the last chance to save America or that it is already too late. These two possibilities have absolutely nothing to do with ideology. They are based on simple financial considerations.
Consider that neither candidate likely to be elected in the Fall has spoken much, if at all, about the need to get our budget under control and to reduce the national deficit. Consider that no party, no campaign group and no significant organized group of citizens have spoken of spending as a problem. Note that no media outlet of any sort has mentioned anything about a need to get our finances under control.
All that one reads, hears or watches has to do with control and contributing more in the way of funds or benefits to those in our country...legally or otherwise.
One hears nothing about the constant flow of lies coming out of Washington, the clear failure of Justice to apply to those in power, and the lack of accountability of those in the Federal Government. You can even hear a reporter suggesting, in the form of a question to an elected official, if honesty is overrated in government.
One argument suggests that the last clear chance to save our nation in the form that it holds today was in the 2012 election. It was clear by then that our finances were out of control, that our government's elected officials were lying to its citizens, that the economy was not recovering at a pace that would provide needed jobs and that the upper echelons of government were failing to fulfill their administrative and oath of office duties.
In 2012 the citizens of the United States chose more "free" stuff over taking for themselves and demanding of their elected officials the taking of responsibility to balance the budget and start down a path of fiscal responsibility. At that time they saw an out-of-control spending that was most of the way to the present almost 20 Trillion Dollars. All but several trillion was created in those first 4 years from 2008 to 2012...and much of that first one and a half trillion had been voted for by the person holding the office of President. Nonetheless, the voters approved another 4 years of more of the same fiscal insanity and lying and inept administration.
Certainly should Ms. Clinton be elected in November, it is unlikely that the nation will survive past 2020. Why? Well, interest rates cannot stay close to zero forever. As the National Debt rises toward 25 Trillion Dollars and interest rates also rise, the cost of the debt will meet or exceed the amount of tax revenue. leaving no money to actually run the government. Seniors will find their checks either not being honored or just not arriving. As payments to police, firemen and soldiers are first delayed and then not issued at all, public safety will cease to exist. If SCOTUS has approved laws allowing the confiscation of firearms in private ownership, there will be few, if any, to attempt to enforce those laws...and with the proof of the government's failure becoming so obvious, there will be actual revolt throughout the country...and those who will be positioned to be in power will be those who possess firearms, have planned for such a disaster and who have little respect for those who for decades have been belittling and insulting them. It will not be pretty.
But one thing will be for certain: who is President and who controls Congress or SCOTUS will no longer matter.
Consider that neither candidate likely to be elected in the Fall has spoken much, if at all, about the need to get our budget under control and to reduce the national deficit. Consider that no party, no campaign group and no significant organized group of citizens have spoken of spending as a problem. Note that no media outlet of any sort has mentioned anything about a need to get our finances under control.
All that one reads, hears or watches has to do with control and contributing more in the way of funds or benefits to those in our country...legally or otherwise.
One hears nothing about the constant flow of lies coming out of Washington, the clear failure of Justice to apply to those in power, and the lack of accountability of those in the Federal Government. You can even hear a reporter suggesting, in the form of a question to an elected official, if honesty is overrated in government.
One argument suggests that the last clear chance to save our nation in the form that it holds today was in the 2012 election. It was clear by then that our finances were out of control, that our government's elected officials were lying to its citizens, that the economy was not recovering at a pace that would provide needed jobs and that the upper echelons of government were failing to fulfill their administrative and oath of office duties.
In 2012 the citizens of the United States chose more "free" stuff over taking for themselves and demanding of their elected officials the taking of responsibility to balance the budget and start down a path of fiscal responsibility. At that time they saw an out-of-control spending that was most of the way to the present almost 20 Trillion Dollars. All but several trillion was created in those first 4 years from 2008 to 2012...and much of that first one and a half trillion had been voted for by the person holding the office of President. Nonetheless, the voters approved another 4 years of more of the same fiscal insanity and lying and inept administration.
Certainly should Ms. Clinton be elected in November, it is unlikely that the nation will survive past 2020. Why? Well, interest rates cannot stay close to zero forever. As the National Debt rises toward 25 Trillion Dollars and interest rates also rise, the cost of the debt will meet or exceed the amount of tax revenue. leaving no money to actually run the government. Seniors will find their checks either not being honored or just not arriving. As payments to police, firemen and soldiers are first delayed and then not issued at all, public safety will cease to exist. If SCOTUS has approved laws allowing the confiscation of firearms in private ownership, there will be few, if any, to attempt to enforce those laws...and with the proof of the government's failure becoming so obvious, there will be actual revolt throughout the country...and those who will be positioned to be in power will be those who possess firearms, have planned for such a disaster and who have little respect for those who for decades have been belittling and insulting them. It will not be pretty.
But one thing will be for certain: who is President and who controls Congress or SCOTUS will no longer matter.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Is Mr. Obama the reincarnation of LBJ?
Few politicians in the history of the world have been as successfully Machiavellian as was Lyndon Baines Johnson. Most citizens remember him as an accomplished politician that served in the House of Representatives, then in the Senate, and ran successfully as JFK's Vice-President, becoming the Thirty-fifth President of the United States on the occasion of the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The most enduring memory is of his unsuccessful oversight of the Viet Nam "War," and his decision not to run for re-election because of the unpopularity that he suffered as a result.
Some have suggested that Mr. Obama's legacy will suffer a similar fate as a result of his lying about the effect on citizens of the passing of the "Affordable Healthcare Act," the false narratives used to conclude a treaty with Iran on limiting the production of Nuclear arms by Iran, and his readiness to govern through Executive Orders, rather than negotiating with Congress. Be that as it may...and only history and time will reveal what the public wishes to see as the truth...it is worth some time to compare the manner in which these two politicians operated.
Time has revealed much about Johnson that was generally unknown to a majority of Americans until less than a decade ago. He was a tyrant to his staff and his wife...and, actually, to anyone who did not have the power to advance his success...behind closed doors. And in many ways he was a vulgar man by standards (today, perhaps discarded) of the time. He was a genius in detecting the needs of those in power around him and in playing to those needs; he was seen by all as being on "their" side and who thought like "them" even when each of those people were on opposite sides of the spectrum. It is easy to come to the conclusion that Johnson actually had no ideological belief...his ideology was his own success and rapid progression to positions of power.
There is a three volume study of LBJ written by Mr. Robert Allan Caro that, for the student of history and politics, is an essential read.
It is questionable that LBJ could have operated in the manner that provided some much personal and professional success today; the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras coupled with the pressure to fill a 24/7/365 news cycle makes creating different personas for different people and groups impossible.
However, to even a casual observer, there seem to be immense similarities between the approach to professional goals displayed by LBJ and by President Obama.
Let us start by eliminating any discussion of where they are different. Mr. Obama seems to have a firm ideological point of view that is consistent and constant; LBJ did not seem to have any inherent ideology, shifting his public positions as was politically convenient. LBJ was a master at manipulating his fellow politicians and seemed to enjoy the process if not the necessity; Mr. Obama has shown himself to not play with others well, ignoring Congress as much as possible and depending on Executive Orders and an obsequious Supreme Court to accomplish his goals.
Both had very clear goals. LBJ wanted to become President of the United States. Otherwise, his interest was in preserving his own power and reputation as a master of the political craft. Mr. Obama also wanted to become President, but his over-arching desire was and is to move the governance of the United States of America to the Left of the political spectrum, seeking to adopt and establish a democratic socialist norm in Washington, and providing rigid governmental oversight of what has been a primary dependence on Capitalism as the basis for the United States of America.
Both saw deception as legitimate in accomplishing their aims. LBJ would encourage his colleagues and others in power to see him as an ally regardless of his true purpose, hiding the truth until the very last moment, or supplying a rationale to opponents that caused them to not realize how they had been manipulated. His deception was totally successful in that if discovered at all, it was after his goals had been accomplished or after his death.
Mr. Obama's skill was oratorical. When planned carefully and followed meticulously by utilizing the teleprompter, Mr. Obama's use of the English language was matched in the modern era only by President Reagan. The language was nuanced in a manner that every listener or viewer could interpret the words used to be a reflection of each listeners beliefs and desires, much as was done in personal interactions by LBJ. The listener was able...actually encouraged...to hear what they wanted to hear. This was particularly true when Mr. Obama was campaigning...and even after a successful election he continued to campaign, leaving the drudgery of actually administering the government to his trusted assistants.
The spotlight of modern communications prevented Mr. Obama from achieving the level of success LBJ enjoyed in hiding conflicting positions taken with different groups and individuals...but Mr. Obama took what can arguably be called the "Goebbels approach" to that challenge; when lying, do it consistently, never acknowledge it as a lie and imply that those who insist on claiming that a lie was told are doing so because of personal animus or racial animus. As did LBJ, Mr. Obama was able to keep the media on his side by providing "leaks" and interviews to those media outlets that presented him in the most favorable light.
Both surrounded themselves with people who served them, placing family, country and mores far below their dedication to his success.
Mr. Obama's accomplishments prior to being elected to public office have been sealed. When they become available, it would not be surprising to see some evidence of an intense study by Mr. Obama of LBJ's life and the means used to gain power. They both show more than the average level of vanity, temper (and the need to hide that most of the time), high opinion of themselves, looked down on others as "less than" and were ready to sacrifice everything to the accomplishment of their goals.
It is too bad that our public schools have virtually abandoned teaching anything remotely resembling perceptive history or even current events, much less in anything like an objective manner.
Some have suggested that Mr. Obama's legacy will suffer a similar fate as a result of his lying about the effect on citizens of the passing of the "Affordable Healthcare Act," the false narratives used to conclude a treaty with Iran on limiting the production of Nuclear arms by Iran, and his readiness to govern through Executive Orders, rather than negotiating with Congress. Be that as it may...and only history and time will reveal what the public wishes to see as the truth...it is worth some time to compare the manner in which these two politicians operated.
Time has revealed much about Johnson that was generally unknown to a majority of Americans until less than a decade ago. He was a tyrant to his staff and his wife...and, actually, to anyone who did not have the power to advance his success...behind closed doors. And in many ways he was a vulgar man by standards (today, perhaps discarded) of the time. He was a genius in detecting the needs of those in power around him and in playing to those needs; he was seen by all as being on "their" side and who thought like "them" even when each of those people were on opposite sides of the spectrum. It is easy to come to the conclusion that Johnson actually had no ideological belief...his ideology was his own success and rapid progression to positions of power.
There is a three volume study of LBJ written by Mr. Robert Allan Caro that, for the student of history and politics, is an essential read.
It is questionable that LBJ could have operated in the manner that provided some much personal and professional success today; the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras coupled with the pressure to fill a 24/7/365 news cycle makes creating different personas for different people and groups impossible.
However, to even a casual observer, there seem to be immense similarities between the approach to professional goals displayed by LBJ and by President Obama.
Let us start by eliminating any discussion of where they are different. Mr. Obama seems to have a firm ideological point of view that is consistent and constant; LBJ did not seem to have any inherent ideology, shifting his public positions as was politically convenient. LBJ was a master at manipulating his fellow politicians and seemed to enjoy the process if not the necessity; Mr. Obama has shown himself to not play with others well, ignoring Congress as much as possible and depending on Executive Orders and an obsequious Supreme Court to accomplish his goals.
Both had very clear goals. LBJ wanted to become President of the United States. Otherwise, his interest was in preserving his own power and reputation as a master of the political craft. Mr. Obama also wanted to become President, but his over-arching desire was and is to move the governance of the United States of America to the Left of the political spectrum, seeking to adopt and establish a democratic socialist norm in Washington, and providing rigid governmental oversight of what has been a primary dependence on Capitalism as the basis for the United States of America.
Both saw deception as legitimate in accomplishing their aims. LBJ would encourage his colleagues and others in power to see him as an ally regardless of his true purpose, hiding the truth until the very last moment, or supplying a rationale to opponents that caused them to not realize how they had been manipulated. His deception was totally successful in that if discovered at all, it was after his goals had been accomplished or after his death.
Mr. Obama's skill was oratorical. When planned carefully and followed meticulously by utilizing the teleprompter, Mr. Obama's use of the English language was matched in the modern era only by President Reagan. The language was nuanced in a manner that every listener or viewer could interpret the words used to be a reflection of each listeners beliefs and desires, much as was done in personal interactions by LBJ. The listener was able...actually encouraged...to hear what they wanted to hear. This was particularly true when Mr. Obama was campaigning...and even after a successful election he continued to campaign, leaving the drudgery of actually administering the government to his trusted assistants.
The spotlight of modern communications prevented Mr. Obama from achieving the level of success LBJ enjoyed in hiding conflicting positions taken with different groups and individuals...but Mr. Obama took what can arguably be called the "Goebbels approach" to that challenge; when lying, do it consistently, never acknowledge it as a lie and imply that those who insist on claiming that a lie was told are doing so because of personal animus or racial animus. As did LBJ, Mr. Obama was able to keep the media on his side by providing "leaks" and interviews to those media outlets that presented him in the most favorable light.
Both surrounded themselves with people who served them, placing family, country and mores far below their dedication to his success.
Mr. Obama's accomplishments prior to being elected to public office have been sealed. When they become available, it would not be surprising to see some evidence of an intense study by Mr. Obama of LBJ's life and the means used to gain power. They both show more than the average level of vanity, temper (and the need to hide that most of the time), high opinion of themselves, looked down on others as "less than" and were ready to sacrifice everything to the accomplishment of their goals.
It is too bad that our public schools have virtually abandoned teaching anything remotely resembling perceptive history or even current events, much less in anything like an objective manner.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Is the Ideological Right cannibalistic?
Noticed a new story today that Rand Paul was running an advertisement on the internet criticizing Jeb Bush for running for the office of the Presidency. Now, ignoring for the moment that Bush has NOT yet decided to run (although it IS likely), how do you feel about one member of the right side of the aisle attacking ( not disagreeing) with another from the same side?
I don't like this stuff one little bit. Yeah...I am so conservative that I have come to consider myself an anarchist. But that is an ideological point of view, not a physical one...that is, I have no intention of going out an harming anyone or interfering with their lives.
Given that, people on the right side of the aisle have gotten into the bad habit of not being able to compromise with those on our side. We all want the same thing, I think: good fiscal responsible government kept as small as is possible. After that, we spin off into our little favorite niches. And that is fine, too. EXCEPT that we do it publicly. It is like immature brothers fighting in the front yard...out there for everyone to see and it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Independents and even some of those in our own ideological family. Are we so stupid as to think that one side can totally annihilate the other? Or should? We should by now realize that we need to stop acting stupidly,,,at least in public. I am a member of a local Tea Party. But that doesn't mean that I automatically brand anyone who is fiscally conservative but less so on the social issues as an enemy. I NEED THE BUDGET BALANCED. I NEED THE DEFICIT TO START TO COME DOWN. If that is being worked on, no matter at what speed, I can live with that. I CANNOT live with another Progressive, Socialist, Liberal Democrat in the White House. The whole idological right needs to be made to take a time-out, made to sit in the corner and get their collective heads on straight...or you are going to find yourselves living in a European Socialist type country with absolutely no opportunity to change it. Wake up....Please!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Ideology: The Yellow Brick Road...to nowhere
ALL proponents of government in any form are voluntarily deluding themselves. Each suggests that their ideology "serves the people' best. Nonsense. Once formed, government serves itself only. At a superficial level, there is no doubt in my mind that Conservative governing principles serve the individual best, but only at an unacceptable price.
Individual Freedom alone is responsible for individual success. Absent a personal benefit, of what purpose is taking what one person earns to care for another that has NOT earned enough? It is one thing to chose to do that, but another to be MADE to do that...by anyone.
When you take from "doers" to give to "non-doers" you begin the process of destroying incentive for anyone to do anything...because it is inherently unfair and unjust. Leftists, by whatever name they use to fly under the radar today, believe that some should contribute to those who do not produce. They cowardly wish to accomplish their idea of good deeds with other people's money. Those on the Right chose to act to protect individual rights (so they say) but they charge their own form of vigorish to protect that. In both cases, government serves it's own end: the accumulation and preservation of power over others.
The Founding Fathers recognized this in the Preamble. And it is becoming time to take those words to heart again and recognize that our own government has become exactly what the English Government was at the time of our first Revolution.
Stop fighting over what form of governmental plantation you want to preserve, and recognize that we need to re-establish the concept of individual personal freedom and self-reliance that government, by it's very nature, steals and destroys.
Individual Freedom alone is responsible for individual success. Absent a personal benefit, of what purpose is taking what one person earns to care for another that has NOT earned enough? It is one thing to chose to do that, but another to be MADE to do that...by anyone.
When you take from "doers" to give to "non-doers" you begin the process of destroying incentive for anyone to do anything...because it is inherently unfair and unjust. Leftists, by whatever name they use to fly under the radar today, believe that some should contribute to those who do not produce. They cowardly wish to accomplish their idea of good deeds with other people's money. Those on the Right chose to act to protect individual rights (so they say) but they charge their own form of vigorish to protect that. In both cases, government serves it's own end: the accumulation and preservation of power over others.
The Founding Fathers recognized this in the Preamble. And it is becoming time to take those words to heart again and recognize that our own government has become exactly what the English Government was at the time of our first Revolution.
Stop fighting over what form of governmental plantation you want to preserve, and recognize that we need to re-establish the concept of individual personal freedom and self-reliance that government, by it's very nature, steals and destroys.
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Danger to America is not Ideological...
Jefferson once said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
We have been proving the truth of that statement for almost 235 years now. Mr. Obama's ideal of government isn't to be faulted for it's ideology. That is immaterial. It is not the ideology of government that destroys us, it is it's totalitarian nature.
The nature of government is to control. It eats away at individual freedom, sometimes painfully but often inexorably quiet, taking a small freedom here, an insignificant one there until the individual is left only with the decision of whether to live or die...and even that disappears over time.
It is politically incorrect for the Left to acknowledge openly that they believe in such totalitarian control, preferring to quote the mantra of "the common good"...but ask them who is to define that term. Whether a one person dictatorship, or a dictatorship by committee or ideology or religion, or by any other name...the result is a totalitarian government that eliminates personal Freedoms. And those on the Right argue that small government is the answer....the same logic as jumbo shrimp, it is a logistical oxymoron. It is like trying to be just a little bit pregnant.
I must allow that I believe in a totalitarian government...as long as I was the Dictator, since I believe in the practice of benign neglect. But I lack the desire or the ego to want the job, and everyone else, whether in the form of one person or a group going by different titles, such as Senator or Congressman, is just totalitarian government no matter what it's title.
We allow our captors to focus our unhappiness on the strawment of ideology or religion or form of government, allowing them to continue the business of taking our freedoms and ruling us all.
We have been proving the truth of that statement for almost 235 years now. Mr. Obama's ideal of government isn't to be faulted for it's ideology. That is immaterial. It is not the ideology of government that destroys us, it is it's totalitarian nature.
The nature of government is to control. It eats away at individual freedom, sometimes painfully but often inexorably quiet, taking a small freedom here, an insignificant one there until the individual is left only with the decision of whether to live or die...and even that disappears over time.
It is politically incorrect for the Left to acknowledge openly that they believe in such totalitarian control, preferring to quote the mantra of "the common good"...but ask them who is to define that term. Whether a one person dictatorship, or a dictatorship by committee or ideology or religion, or by any other name...the result is a totalitarian government that eliminates personal Freedoms. And those on the Right argue that small government is the answer....the same logic as jumbo shrimp, it is a logistical oxymoron. It is like trying to be just a little bit pregnant.
I must allow that I believe in a totalitarian government...as long as I was the Dictator, since I believe in the practice of benign neglect. But I lack the desire or the ego to want the job, and everyone else, whether in the form of one person or a group going by different titles, such as Senator or Congressman, is just totalitarian government no matter what it's title.
We allow our captors to focus our unhappiness on the strawment of ideology or religion or form of government, allowing them to continue the business of taking our freedoms and ruling us all.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
I'll miss Ed Rendell
Every once in a while you find yourself surprised by your own reaction to something or someone. And it almost always, if I find the time to mull on my surprise, leads to a self-teaching moment. I saw an article a few days ago about the fact that Ed Rendell, the outgoing Governor of Pennsylvania, is about to be out of public office for the first time in quite awhile. Now, I do not agree with much of what Rendell's writings and comments say that he believes...not at all. But I found myself feeling a loss at his departure...and that was a real surprise.
Like Bill Bradley, Rendell was on the other side of the political table and I did not like their policies. So I leaned back and thought about it for a bit...and discovered that I thought they were both "Good Guys."
Let me define who I consider to be "Good Guys."
To me, a good guy in politics is a candidate and office holder who believes in the United States of America as a just and dependable entity...a country they think of as did the founding fathers: an imperfect experiment in trying to protect individual freedom (to succeed, to fail, to suffer, to conquer) by protecting that freedom from danger from both other countries and saboteurs within.
Sure, Rendell and Bradley wanted to encourage helping the disadvantaged; they felt some people need more help than others to succeed and believed that the government should provide that help. In that sense, they had less confidence in the American people than I do, but their heart was in the right place. They wanted to help the deserving, not support the ne'er-do-wells that would live off of the public teat for as long as it would be allowed.
But they believed in the essence of America, of the United States of America, of an assimilated group of citizens that believed as one even as they argued and fought over the details...Good Guys. They, and others like them didn't believe in ignoring our borders, throwing citizens to the wolves of illegal invaders, foregoing their constitutional duty to protect us. They listened to their constituents most of the time...and when the didn't, and the elections proved it, they didn't deny the lesson of those elections...Good Guys.
Wish there were more "Good Guys" out there today. I miss them. And I'll miss my imaginary arguments with Ed Rendell, too.
Like Bill Bradley, Rendell was on the other side of the political table and I did not like their policies. So I leaned back and thought about it for a bit...and discovered that I thought they were both "Good Guys."
Let me define who I consider to be "Good Guys."
To me, a good guy in politics is a candidate and office holder who believes in the United States of America as a just and dependable entity...a country they think of as did the founding fathers: an imperfect experiment in trying to protect individual freedom (to succeed, to fail, to suffer, to conquer) by protecting that freedom from danger from both other countries and saboteurs within.
Sure, Rendell and Bradley wanted to encourage helping the disadvantaged; they felt some people need more help than others to succeed and believed that the government should provide that help. In that sense, they had less confidence in the American people than I do, but their heart was in the right place. They wanted to help the deserving, not support the ne'er-do-wells that would live off of the public teat for as long as it would be allowed.
But they believed in the essence of America, of the United States of America, of an assimilated group of citizens that believed as one even as they argued and fought over the details...Good Guys. They, and others like them didn't believe in ignoring our borders, throwing citizens to the wolves of illegal invaders, foregoing their constitutional duty to protect us. They listened to their constituents most of the time...and when the didn't, and the elections proved it, they didn't deny the lesson of those elections...Good Guys.
Wish there were more "Good Guys" out there today. I miss them. And I'll miss my imaginary arguments with Ed Rendell, too.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Palin hatred revisited...with a bit of perspective
The Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite exist with the belief that those who do NOT believe as they do are stupid, un-educated, and suffer from an inability to appreciate the "nuances" of life that they themselves hold so dear to their (sometimes) bleeding hearts. They see Palin as a threat because she succeeded while demonstrating the antithesis of what they believe deserves success.
Consider:
1. she did not have a power base from which to start;
2. she began in politics to get something done, instead of just grousing about it;
3. she didn't try to pander to a power-elite, but ran against it utilizing (horrors) a grass-roots movement;
4 she did not see her job as an entitlement, but as an obligation...and followed through;
5. and when Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Elite groups threatened to cost her state millions and a proper response would have interfered with doing her job as Governor, she resigned to take care of business rather than make her state and it's citizens pay for defending her against the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist groups.
She did not achieve her goals by being a "token" or an affirmative action hire...she did it the old fashioned way...by earning it. No payoffs, no promises, except to do her job.
That kind of success is impossible according to Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite lore...just cannot happen. That it did happen needs to be hidden by them in a blizzard of lies and attacks...and that is just what they have done. And it is why they continue even after apparently accomplishing their goal...because if the corpse ever rises, the see their own Armageddon. To prevent that, there is no such thing as overkill.
Consider:
1. she did not have a power base from which to start;
2. she began in politics to get something done, instead of just grousing about it;
3. she didn't try to pander to a power-elite, but ran against it utilizing (horrors) a grass-roots movement;
4 she did not see her job as an entitlement, but as an obligation...and followed through;
5. and when Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Elite groups threatened to cost her state millions and a proper response would have interfered with doing her job as Governor, she resigned to take care of business rather than make her state and it's citizens pay for defending her against the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist groups.
She did not achieve her goals by being a "token" or an affirmative action hire...she did it the old fashioned way...by earning it. No payoffs, no promises, except to do her job.
That kind of success is impossible according to Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite lore...just cannot happen. That it did happen needs to be hidden by them in a blizzard of lies and attacks...and that is just what they have done. And it is why they continue even after apparently accomplishing their goal...because if the corpse ever rises, the see their own Armageddon. To prevent that, there is no such thing as overkill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)