Sunday, May 01, 2011
What It Means To Be A Democrat
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
It's Time To Fix The Blame

Most everyone knows that Congress is considering a 700 billion dollar bail out bill. What most everyone seems to be ignoring is that we stand on the precipice of a nationalized credit market. The short title of the bill grants authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure domestic prosperity—an unprecedented assumption of power. The United States Constitution provides for the promotion of the general welfare but, in no wise, assumes a duty to ensure economic prosperity for all of its citizens. This distinction may seem trivial. But, to the observant, it is a shift in political doctrine of vast proportions. In these troubled days, the principals of free enterprise and capitalism seem remote and antiquated. It seems expedient to trade a bit of freedom for security. And so, the dread slide down the slippery slope begins. Only capitalism can provide the fuel to power democracy. Apart from capitalism, we are doomed to plod down the road to serfdom, as F.A. Hayek would say.
Other nations have pursued political models different from ours, based on philosophical models that are the antipodes of American capitalism. The left has assumed a socialist model, a watered down version of Karl Marx’s collectivism. For the uninformed, Marx is the father of Communist theory. Economic, political, and religious thought is inextricably intertwined and interdependent. Therefore, the economic ideas of collectivism, centralized planning, and state control of the means of production necessitate a particular political structure to bring to realization collectivist economic theory. That political structure is, by necessity, hostile to religious thought. In particular, Christian theology is uniquely intellectual and, therefore, poses a threat to collectivist secularism. The commonality in collectivist societies is striking—note the monolithic nature of the arts in collectivist cultures. It is by nature anti-intellectual, since the free expression of ideas is corrosive to the enforcement of social and political uniformity. One need only look to Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea to understand the ramifications of communal political and economic dogma. Why then does the left, represented by the Democratic Party, propose to adopt a bill whose sole purpose is the socialization of our credit markets? Interestingly, Marx’s Communist Manifesto presses for just such a state of affairs, “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The similarity of the liberal left’s tactics to those employed in totalitarian states is chilling. The left is enamored of socialist dogma and seeks to crush any competing arguments as hostile to the enforcement of their collectivist goals. The left responds with rabid fury to any bold enough to question their dogma, since open political debate threatens the weakness of their intellectual totalitarianism. This is why many Hollywood play actors and clowns foam and gnash with rolling eyes when challenged, and the mainstream media pundits sputter with rage when ignored by conservative politicians. The left replaces honest reporting and debate with propagandizing. Any notion of truth is readily sacrificed in support of socialist dogma. And, social strife and destabilization are sought by the propagation of class envy. “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class.” (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto) Finally, the position of the liberal left mirrors collectivist ideology on taxation where a “heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is sought. (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto)
So, the issues surrounding the supposed mortgage and credit crisis are shrouded in a cloud of revisionist rhetoric, propounded in torrents by the liberal left (read--Democrats). In 2006, the Dow Jones Industrial Average sat at 12,400 as the Democratic Party took power in Congress. Today the DOW hovers at 10,000. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been presided over by liberal democrats (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd), which were used as a tool of liberal social engineering, creating the debacle in the credit market today. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has fought to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thwarted at every turn by the stern opposition of liberal democrats, seeking to impose their socialist agenda. Currently the Republicans in congress are fighting to block the socialization of our nation’s economy. Interestingly, while the country is in such an allegedly precarious position, Congress is taking a couple of days off. This current debacle would never have occurred without the presence of ill-informed, socialist government policies. Some finger pointing needs to take place, so we can accurately assess where our government went wrong. The failed policies of the socialist left are responsible for the flood of sub prime mortgages, which were doled out to individuals based on ethnic criteria and not based on credit worthiness. Barney Frank (House head of the Banking Committee) and Chris Dodd (Senate head of the Banking Committee), both Democrats, shoulder the burden for this socialist disaster. At every turn, Democrats, with their failed socialist policy, bear the blame for our current economic difficulties.
The solution is for the people to speak, to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin who will bring real change to Washington. The change we need involves the destruction of the left’s liberal socialist policy and a reapplication of conservative ideals. Those who oppose the destruction of liberal socialism are, by definition, un-patriotic. The following roll of shame assigns the blame for our current debacle on the parties who properly bear the responsibility.
Roll of Shame:
- Bill Clinton (Democrat): Enabled the propagation of liberal economic policy on an unprecedented scale
- Janet Reno (Democrat): Threatened banking industry with investigation for not making enough sub prime loans to minorities
- Chris Dodd (Democrat): Senate head of Banking Committee, directly responsible for oversight
- Barney Frank (Democrat): House head of Banking Committee, directly responsible for oversight
- Nancy Pelosi (Democrat): House majority leader
- “Dingy” Harry Reid (Democrat): Senate majority leader. Also, stated to his everlasting shame: “this war is lost.”
- Franklin Raines (Democrat): Ran Fannie Mae into the ground and left with a 90 million dollar "golden parachute". This guy now advises Barack Hussein Obama on financial matters.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama Threatening to Prosecute Those Who Criticize Him
Bailout Agreement Reached?

Friday, September 26, 2008
For Those Who Leave Comments
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Real Issue

"The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...." These words were immortalized on July 4, 1776 by the Second Continental Congress in the Declaration of Independence. Two hundred and thirty two years later, we are confronted by choices that will determine the future character of our nation. One choice will lead us on a path parallel to that laid forth by our forefathers, the other will draw us down a divergent path, littered with history's political detritus. The political choices that we are confronted with are embodied in the Republican and Democratic parties of the 2008 Presidential election. The Republican model pays homage to the principals that underlie our political heritage and the personal rights we have come to enjoy so freely. In general terms, the Republican party supports the ideals of limited government, capitalism, and religious tolerance that form the backbone of the American tradition. This tradition is based on Biblical principles: the presupposition that God is and that He has spoken. On this critical assumption, the entire structure of our Republic stands. Without this foundation the Republic will totter and crumble into the dust of history. Apart from its Christian foundations, no conceptualization of personal rights can withstand the humanist onslaught of totalitarian intellectual homogeneity. This dependence on intellectual uniformity is at the heart of liberal hysteria and hate: evidenced in the brutalization of Sarah Palin's character. Liberal theory has no viable answer to the conservative model. So, the hate mongers resort to ad hominem attacks, spurred by their desperation and intellectual impotency. The Democratic party IS the embodiment of humanistic ideals, invested in the expansion of human government, which necessitates socialist control over matters economic. At the heart of humanistic socialism is the idea that human government is the ultimate authority and, as history proves, tends to devolve into totalitarianism. As the internal controls of conscience are slowly eroded, democracies tend toward anarchy. Without the constraining influence of a religiously informed conscience, the state is forced to encroach further upon liberties to ensure public safety. This is the root of tyranny. This is the legacy of the modern Democratic party, rooted in humanism's principals. The choice is clear. The Republican candidates represent the traditions and ideas that have granted us over two hundred years of freedom. The Democratic party's candidates represent the humanistic socialism that will continue to erode our freedoms until there are none left, giving way to an eventual tyranny. These are the real issues in this election year. We must decide this year if we will continue to "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Or, will we barter away our birth right for a slick liberalism, promising a golden utopia shaped in the image of man?
by John
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Democrats Play the Race Card

I know, this is a forbidden subject...but if Tyra Banks and Oprah can talk about race and racism then so can this “lazy housewife”. (as I’ve been referred to in the media)
From the beginning of this presidential election process, Barack Obama has played the race card. Bill and Hillary Clinton have played the race card. DEMOCRATS have played the race card. Up until now, I would hear the garbage being spewed on this subject, and just roll my eyes considering the source. However, today when I heard it suggested that if “they” do not vote for Obama, it’s because he’s black, that sent me right on over the edge! (I suppose "they" refers to anyone either not a Democrat or not of the same color as Obama)
Let me tell you something. If I think you’re an idiot, it has nothing to do with your skin color. You could have purple skin and you might be the nicest person alive or, in Barack Obama’s case, he has black skin and he’s a disgrace, a political thug, and an elitist pig. There, I said it. It has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. I base my opinion solely on the merits, and his don’t measure up.
What they are suggesting is that there are two options for voters in November: vote for Obama because you’re not racist, or don’t vote for him and you’re a racist. They are simply trying to bully the American people into voting for Obama based on race. It is insulting, and if he’d ever been someone I considered voting for, he would have lost my vote after the rhetoric I've heard the last few months, and primarily the last few days.
"Obama is stoking racism", says Rush Limbaugh, after Obama ran an ad that took comments about Mexicans by Rush completely out of context. Now Rush Limbaugh may not be your cup of tea, but I can tell you this after listening to the man for 20 years, he is no racist. I heard the two shows that Obama misrepresented in those spanish only ads, and I can tell you for sure that the Obama camp is lying and trying to bait the Hispanic population. His campaign is trying to pit the many races of the American people against each other. He cannot talk about himself based on the facts, so instead, he rips others to shreds and has yet to answer questions about many of his associations, many of the “bills” he says he wrote but didn’t, and so on.
This may come as a huge surprise, but I am NOT voting for Obama/Biden on November 4th. I am NOT a racist. I will NOT vote for Obama because he is a socialist. I will NOT vote for Obama because he will raise taxes. I will NOT vote for Obama because he believes not only in abortion, but infanticide. I will NOT vote for Obama because he chooses to associate with the likes of William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, and his notorious racist former Pastor Jeremiah Wright. I will NOT vote FOR Barack Obama, and as much as they'd like to blame it on race, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the color of his skin.

More about the AP Poll on race.
For an interesting take on how the media is treating Palin, see this link. (**Please note: I don't endorse the language used, but the point is well taken)