Democrat/Liberal Hold on the Voter

I’m still fascinated and depressed at the hold Democrats/Liberals have over people.  They have a history of involving us in most of our Wars [the Gulf Wars excepted]: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and many minor skirmishes: Bosnia, Serbia, African aspirin factories.  They define themselves with higher taxes, ever-greater spending of our money, over-spending on social programs to the result of bloated, poorly working efforts, reduction of appropriate defense spending and operation, and an excessive ‘pork’ or ‘earmark’ policy to keep the voters loyal to them.  And then they top it off by claiming to be anti-war.

Democrat/Liberal Lyndon Johnson micro-managed a excursion to Vietnam, thus insuring a loss.  Jimmy Carter promised hope, blamed Americans for the national malaise, couldn’t free the hostages in Iran, and both went to the bottom of the Presidential list.  Neither one was particularly religious in outlook, either.

There are, of course, some exceptions to the Democrat = Liberal equation.  And there is a difference between today’s Democrat/Liberal and those from the past.  In the past, the Liberal was for personal freedom—especially about personal effort and wealth accumulation—appropriate religious influence [i.e. Founding Fathers], individual parenting, accurate education—you know, truth and morality.  The revered Democrat, St John F Kennedy, would never have considered himself a Liberal within the modern definition.  He knew that reducing taxes increases federal tax collections.  But despite the definitive history of this knowledge, Democrats/Liberals continue to want higher taxes to cover the costs of their social policies.

But the modern Democrat/Liberal is different: high taxes, unequal wealth re-distribution from one group to another, thus an attempt to negate the concept of personal effort to gain wealth; throwing money at problems, resulting in more and more money for less and less success; the removal of faith and religious influence from anything remotely the ‘state’ or group politics; more and more of the ‘nanny’ state involvement in a personal life; biased and inaccurate education, sometimes akin to Liberal brainwashing.

So, the involvement of the Liberal in ‘faith outreach’ is not only hypocritical to the real nature of the Liberal, but quite laughable in it’s obvious political use.

The Democrats/Liberals are interested in votes, power, and personal aggrandizement.  They’ll use anything to defeat and destroy their opponents.  [Consider Al Gore and Al Frankenstein] Faith outreach is just one more arena in which the Democrat/Liberal will try to mislead the public.  While it may work on some people, the citizens of the US who understand the real nature of the Democrats/Liberals will see through their hypocritical and dangerous efforts.

These politicians and power brokers know it’s important for the votes and theoretical political backing for them to pursue policies perpetuating moral and economic decline seen in single motherhood, gay ‘marriage’, over-burdened small business [taxes and regulations], racial preferences, and liberal bias in all areas of culture.

All voters should read between the lines with politicians and hold them to a standard of faith, morality, and truthfulness.  Unfortunately, I don’t know any of them who could stand up to a real ‘Faith Outreach.’  Consequently, I expect their efforts to be faithfully futile.

Our president-elect is one of these Liberals, perhaps even a devout socialist.  His choices for cabinet positions and other government offices show his socialist bent—and his ‘change’ is one that brings back many from the Clinton administration.  His other announced and ‘secret’ efforts will fritter away family oriented-religious-free society as we used to know it.  PCism and Liberal thought police are turning us into a Country of penned sheep who will believe what Liberals say instead of what they do—not that the latter is particularly good for us.

How blacks can continue to vote Democrat all the time is beyond me.  The Democrats have hurt them and promoted selfish attitudes and policies to keep their votes for years, and the Liberal press remains quiet.  Racial preferences do little more than provide a fish bowl existence for the blacks and other ‘minorities’, and harm their potential acceptance as real doers and achievers.  But these Democrat/Liberal race and ‘minority’preferences, and the use of the ‘race card’ wherever possible are the bane of our modern culture.  Does anyone really think Governor Blagojevich picked Roland Burris for his exceptional talent worthy of Senatorship?

And the Liberal NY Times is not the only part of the media blaming George Bush for just about everything.  I expect we’ll be hearing a President Obama echoing the sentiment for many years.  [Please God!  Don't let him and the Democrats get voted in again.]  As anyone knows, this present economic debacle was many many years and decades in the making, and the Democrat Congresses can shoulder a lot of blame—though the Liberal media wouldn’t even report such truths.  It’s easier to blame the Republicans.  And all this money [debt] being thrown about is a disgrace for the free enterprise system.  You can’t save all companies and firms and individuals from ruin.  It’s economically and morally wrong.  And it’s a continuing effort that will lead to national bankruptcy and moral ruin.

Well, gird yourself and get ready for the next four years [or two years, depending on how much damage the Democrats can do.]  It’s likely to be a real free-for-all.

Random Thoughts Late October

Has anyone really considered why Obama is so popular in Europe?  Let me offer a few items for consideration.

Europe has for years been traveling down the socialist trail, to it’s own detriment and suffering.  Many of the European countries simply can’t rehabilitate themselves anymore.  Their citizens are too accustomed to the nanny states, even though the taxes to pay for them are increasingly sending these same citizens to the poorhouse, thus increasing the calls for more nanny statism.  The neverending vicious circle.

So naturally, these countries will favor Obama because he’d try to lead the US down the slippery slope of socialism.  This will give the European leaders ‘chills and tingling up their legs’ because they won’t feel so left out with America.  With this scenario, all Western countries can go downhill together.

Another reason for the warm reception is that socialism will be expected to drain the US of much World prestige, perhaps enough to allow the European leaders to regain some World leadership positions.  They are anxious to improve on the World stage despite their countries’ bungling of their economies and military prowess.  Remember the British, French, German and Austro-Hungarian Empires of the past?  Such thoughts are still within the European hearts.

The cream will no longer rise to the top because America will no longer have any cream.  Socialism stifles economic progress, inventiveness and material success for a country’s citizens.  Socialism destroys all that is great in America.  It destroys the vital parts of our society that created the strength of America in the first place.  I, for one, am not ready to allow a ‘change’ to a socialistic society to reign for my children and their children.  A future little T N probably won’t appreciate it.

‘Tax breaks for 95% of Americans’ is not only wrong—almost half of us pay little or no income tax—but the concept entails giving money to those who pay no taxes [funded by those who do.]  As Obama says ‘spread the wealth around.’  And that is a major tenet to the practice of socialism.

Thank goodness Europeans can’t vote in our elections.  We only allow dead goldfish, dead people, Mickey Mouse, and the Dallas Cowboys [wrong state] to register and vote Democrat.  Joe the Plumber is Republican.
***
Now, I’m sure most of us know Sheryl Crowe, even if we haven’t listened to her music.  [I tried to, but I couldn't keep my mind off the probable dirty guitar strings.]  These quotes surfaced a while ago, but they remain ‘fresh’ in one’s mind.

Newsbusters [noted the arrival of Sheryl Crowe and {Inconvenient Truth producer} Laurie David to the noisy environmental train---electric of course; maybe made by Lionel.]

‘Here is [Sheryl] Crow’s “easy way” to be part of the solution to anthropogenic global warming:

“Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who’s judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, “how bout just washing the one square out.”

[Don't snicker and grimace in disgust just yet.  Sheryl went on:]

“I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what’s called a “dining sleeve.” The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another “dining sleeve,” after usage. The design will offer the “diner” the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.”

Newsbusters again:  ‘I’d like to say she was kidding, but based on other global warming “solutions,” it is hard to tell. Wacky ideas abound. A man-made volcano shooting sulfur into the air, giant ‘space umbrellas’ and even getting rid of toilets so we can compost our own waste in a box underneath the sink.’
*
[Amen]
***
According to Simon Romero, Michael Slackman and Clifford J Levy:
*
‘President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela used it to jump-start a socialist-inspired revolution in his country and to back a cadre of like-minded leaders in Latin America who were intent on eroding once-dominant American influence.

Iran extended its influence across the Middle East, promoted itself as the leader of the Islamic world and used its petrodollars to help defy the West’s efforts to block its nuclear program.

Russia, which suffered a humiliating economic collapse in the 1990s after the fall of communism, recaptured some of its former standing in the world. It began rebuilding its military, wrested control of oil and gas pipelines and pushed back against Western encroachment in the former Soviet empire.’
*
And yet, the Liberals still create roadblocks and nay-saying against more drilling and other needed energy resource use to wean us off these oil hungry barons of the World.  They claim that America has only 3% of the World’s oil reserves, so more drilling won’t do anything.  What they fail to say is that more oil and natural gas than in all the Arab States and Venezuela is off the American coast and in that small part of Alaska’s ANWR that we more sensible Americans want to use.  [and not part of that crowed 3%]

The Alaska Pipeline has harmed NO wildlife or environment.  Neither will oil drilling and removal from a tiny part of the ANWR part of Alaska.  We are grown-ups you know.  We have fine technology in these sorts of things.

Furthermore, if the environmentalists and Liberals would stop blocking the construction and use of coal and nuclear plants and gasoline refineries, we’d have more than enough energy production and availability to become energy independent and off the enemy nipples!  With energy independence, these international oil barons will no longer have the funds or abilities to strut around messing things up for the rest of us.

No one has ever died from radiation from a nuclear power plant in the US.  And consider the Navy where thousands have served on nuclear vessels with no death either.

I continue to be amazed at why Liberals fight these energy resource actualities and want to join the Obama bandwagon of lofty rhetoric with no substance.  When asked, none of you knows anything substantial about him.  His past is shady and he hides it.  He voted ‘present’ in the Illinois Senate so many times that one has to wonder why he wanted the job in the first place.  Oh wait, I know!  He didn’t want much of a record for others to use against him as he aspired to the next level, the US Senate where he’s accomplished nothing of note: no real bills, no leadership, nothing!—except, I suppose, running for the Presidency.

Actually, he’s now announced for the Phillies and Rays in the World Series.  He can’t even make a decision there.

And yes, you believers of the appointed one, expect change in Washington.  As some New Yorkers say: ‘fugeddaboutit.’  All you’d see is more socialism ‘spreading the wealth of those who earn it to those who want it’ from the emboldened Democrats, and more rhetoric blaming George Bush for his [Obama's] every mistake.  But, hey, Obama has gained a new job.  Now he must position himself for something higher.  He probably thinks that Secretary General of the UN is a higher position.  Then he can become ‘Big Brother’ and rule the socialist World.  Then what?  Pope? Demigod?  Zeus!  Call your office!

And Joe Biden is part of ‘change’?  Ha! Thirty six years of gumming up the works in Washington is hardly an impressive record, especially to promote ‘change.’  And his bumbling speech pattern with all the half truths and surprisingly naive statements would make him a subject of mockery throughout the World—not just Washington.

No folks.  There’s no positive change.  Only misery for we citizens who work for a living to better our lives.  Obama wants to take that and spread it around to others.  What’s so pathetic is that even with the truth apparent and available, many of you lemmings will still follow ‘the one’ over the cliff.
***
Another thought on Obama from Ken Blackwell, a columnist from Townhall.

‘Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.’
***
I predict that that is the only way Obama can win a sash as Mr [un?]United States.  I also predict that Susan Sarandon—who promised ‘..if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada…’—will not move as promised.  She and husband Tim Robbins will continue their attempts to increase the Liberalism of Hollywood.  Oh, it’s so nice to be outspoken about a disastrous political system when you have a few million in the bank backing your play, isn’t it?