Just Why Does The Democrat Party Have Socialism In Mind For Us?

A friend of mine alerted me to a post, on a co-worker's blog that he thought was very inciteful. So, I checked it out. As it turns out, my friend was right. This guy has hit the nail on the head when it comes to the shortfalls of socialism and the absurdity of our nation ever even considering adopting it in place of our democratic republic form of government.

Those nations in Europe and around the world who have adopted "communist lite", socialist democratic forms of government are slowly but surely fading from healthy existence. A government can only tax its productive citizens but so much to pay for it's lazy, non-productive citizens' health & life-style needs. Eventually, the gig is up, and the socialist' ideal that "the government can solve your every need" house of cards argument comes crashing down, leaving a wake of destruction and personal loss in its wake.

FDR introduced the Democratic Party to this nonsense, and unfortunately, from LBJ's "Great Society" expansion towards more and more socialism in the 60's, to the communist Move on.org's influence prevelant in the party today, the Democratic Party has sold out to ideologies that are enemies to the Constitution and to our democratic republican form of government.

The sad thing is that the party's followers don't see that, but rather instead, are sold on the erroneous notion that theirs is the mission that will make America even greater.

All of this despite the fact that communism has continued to fail every empire that adopts it, and that it's twin ideology, socialism, hasn't fared any better.

But then, reason is not always as important as how a concept "feels" to some.

What a shame.

Should the sacrifices made in 1776 be tossed aside for the empty promises of socialism?

I don't think so. How about you?

Happy Presidents Day!

When I was a kid, we celebrated George Washington’s birthday as a holiday. We also celebrated Abraham Lincoln’s birthday earlier in the month. Of course, now we celebrate “Presidents Day”. Even though we no longer set aside these two great Americans birthdays, it is important to point out that both of these men, held office in landmark, trying times when the people of this nation were split.

George Washington, of course served as General of the Continental Army in The Revolutionary War, or as it is also sometimes called “The War for American Independence”, before becoming President. Prior to, and during the war against Britain, Americans were split. Some wanted independence from the tyranny of King George. Others, however, remained loyal to England, providing comfort and aid to British soldiers and didn’t have any desire to exist as a nation free and clear of the King’s rule. Of course we all know who won out in the end, those Americans who wanted freedom.

Abraham Lincoln served as President at a time our country was so badly split, that it threatened to dissolve the Union. The North was against slavery, and wanted to dominate industry, and keep the South agrarian. The South, was for state’s rights, and, for the most part for slavery, (although not all Southerners were for slavery),but also didn’t just want to remain agrarian in commerce but become industrialized to. The reasons for the split are far too numerous to outline in this post, suffice to say, those who think that the Civil War was fought over just slavery, are mislead. It was a much more complicated problem than just that.

Today, our current President, George W. Bush is serving in another landmark time in our nation’s history. We were threatened on our own soil on 9/11 by an army of murderous, hate-filled Islamic terrorists who pose a new danger to our security as a nation, an asymmetric one. If we don’t maintain a high level of alertness, al Qaeda will bring even more violence to our home streets. Homicide bombers could begin making a trip to the store or the mall a dangerous proposition.

Today, our nation is split once again. Some, those from the liberal left, are more concerned with theoretically having their overseas phone calls to areas in the world that inhabit terrorists, or phone calls to terrorists directly, tapped by the government, than they are from making any attempt by these terrorists to strike us again here on our soil impotent, useless. They are also the peace crowd. An anti-war, conscientious objector bunch who think nothing is worth committing the evil act of combat to deter any threat to their security in freedom whatsoever. To them war is evil. Things can always be settled by other means. If nations will just pull together, and the U.S. will submit it’s future to the UN, and world opinion, then the UN will provide the world a peaceable solution to the al Qaeda threat. This is the Neville Chamberlain crowd who, if given full reigns will only have any change of heart when it is too late and too much of the nation has been lost. They only wait for the crocodile to eat them last, as Winston Churchill was fond of putting it. They never learn from history’s lessons when it comes to confronting evil men and evil empires.

The other side of the split are those who believe that we should do everything in our power to crush the threat that Islamic terrorists pose to this nation and freedom everywhere, by taking and keeping the fight on the terrorists’ grounds, and ensuring we don’t let them use our freedom and liberty against us through careful, controlled, and necessary means as the Patriot Act. The people on this side are not war mongers, people who falsely glorify war, but who know that unfortunately war is often inevitable. Especially when the threat to our freedom and the security of our way of life comes in the form of ravenous, hot heads guided by hatred and rage, and will not listen to reason, nor diplomacy. When an angry bear is charging you, you can either shoot it and end its life, or be prepared to be mauled to pieces.

While the first bunch may prefer being mauled to pieces in order to stay faithful to their ideological notion of peace at all costs, I stand with the second group of Americans, who know that peace always comes with a price, and that too many of our ancestors have paid the price to give us our freedom and have paid the ultimate price to guard it every time it was threatened.

God bless our men and women of the Armed Forces who are risking it all, far away from family and friends to stand up to the terrorist threat to America, and the rest of the free world. God bless our President who has had the courage to take a tough, non-compromising stance against al Qaeda, and has assured we keep thwarting their twisted, satanic goal for not only America but the rest of the free world.

Our country may be unfortunately split at this important time in our history, but, thank God we have another man in office capable of confronting the threat, and who will do whatever it takes to ensure that we all arise from this a stronger nation who continues to protect, not only ourselves, but other free nations around the world. As a super power that is our duty.

Once again, we have the right man in office. Thank God. We almost didn’t. Twice.

Dick Cheney Had A Hunting Accident. Which Proves Bush Is Evil!!!

The democrats are once again making asses of themselves in the public spectrum. Apparently for these sore losers, the Vice President’s accidental shooting of his friend during a hunting trip is proof positive that Bush and his henchmen are evil. That’s right. “My hair is on fire” loons like Nancy Pelosi even got in front of the cameras and ranted along the lines of, “See! Bush and his cronies think that they are above the law. Do you finally see just how dangerous they are?!”

Perhaps, these hypocrites, ought to remember that one of their own icons, the ruddy cheeked, fat, drunk Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, drove his date into Chappaquiddick river, saved himself, and stalled until he could sober up and come up with a lie to cover his crime, (Psst. For those who have been indoctrinated by the left, letting a young woman die the horrible death of drowning in dark waters and then covering the whole thing up to protect his reputation is a crime).

But, of course, the democrats aren’t really known for minding the board in their own eye while they hyperventilate about the speck in a republican’s eye. Especially if that republican happens to be that evil, Hitler, aka Bush’s number two in command, Dick Chaney.

I, for one, hope they keep this up. It helps catch the attention of those sleepy, lazy voters who have been voting for them without a second thought all these decades. They are slowly, but surely bound to wake up to the fact that the party they have been supporting is nothing but a bunch of bloated, whining people who could care less about defeating the terrorists who hit us badly on 9/ll, but more on getting back into power.

Hopefully, the vast sea of apathetic citizens out there will finally be riled up into action. Maybe, now they will begin to see the democratic party (at least in its present, liberal socialist/communist anti-American, pro “let the UN decide America’s fate”) as a threat to our American way of life.

The only hope for the democrat party is to purge itself of the parasitic communists and socialists who have over run the party and adopt a Zell Miller type of stance. Then, they would stand a good chance of giving the mealy mouth Republicans a run for their money.

Until that time occurs, it will remain the party whose vision for America is to subjugate her to the opinion of socialist Europe, and appease the Islamic terrorists in fear and hopes that al Qaeda will just, somehow, go away and learn to “play nice”.

Pathetic Liberal Tactics When You Dare To Challenge Their Viewpoint

In my short time in the blogosphere, I have experienced discourse with several liberal bloggers. Below is an enumeration of some of what I have learned from my discussions with them thus far. This list is not all inclusive, as I'm sure that I have just begun to crack the surface when it comes to the shenanigans of liberal bloggers. I will update this list as I go along.

First let me say, that it is quite possible that there are liberal bloggers out there who are capable of well reasoned, civilized dialogue even though, I haven't found too many yet. That being said, you can pretty much count on about 99.0 % of the liberal blogosphere being comprised of moonbats that have a fan following of mal-adjusted individuals (everything from persons struggling with depression and bipolar psychological maladies to "metaphysical ministers" in search of the "god in everyone"). It's sad actually.

All of this being said, let's go beyond the preamble and proceed to the list:

1. Spin. They will try to change the subject – do anything other than answer your question. After all, to answer the questions your counter-argument poses would expose the absurdity of their argument

2. Lie. Some liberals seem to have no scruples when it comes to telling outright lies. In fact, most liberal slander directed against President Bush, turns out to be carefully constructed lies that don't tell the whole truth, just the spin that they want to make on any given issue. This has a two fold purpose. First, it is used to cover up an exposed hole in the logic of their own argument, and secondly, they will brazenly tell a lie hoping that gullible people who don’t possess the skill of critical thinking, (i.e. those who will stop and examine the veracity of their claim), will just accept it as truth, based solely on its emotional appeal.

3. Arrogantly insinuate that you haven’t done enough research to come to the correct conclusion. [Note: While thorough research into a matter is always a good thing, it should be pointed out that until your research results in you abandoning your point of view and taking up the liberal view point, you haven’t researched the topic enough. This is pure arrogance on their part and should in most cases be ignored.]

4. Another arrogant tactic of the “tolerant” left is to point out that you need to consult a dictionary to ensure that you understand the meaning of whatever word that you have used that threatens to expose the hollowness of their argument. You might also encounter criticisms of any misspelled words, or grammatically incomplete or incorrect sentences. Although, the average person would understand that one can make mistakes when they are putting down their response, the particularly whiny type of liberal will home in on these mistakes in hopes that it provides a distraction which will stall the examination of the obvious lies and absurdity of their liberal view point.

5. Name Calling. This is perhaps the most common tactic that you will encounter. Once they know they can’t really defend their flimsy viewpoint they will, like spoiled children, resort to name calling. Don’t let it get you down. It’s actually amusing, and the more they do this the more they destroy their own reputation and the impression that they actually have anything of value to say. [One liberal blogger, started off the comments section to one of his posts with the statement that all opinions were always welcome in his blog, but then later resorted to name calling when I offered an opinion different to his. I believe I was called a “sap”, and then later in another comment from him a “sad sap”. So, all opinons are not necessarily welcome in the environment of the "tolerant" left].

6. Censorship (aka “moderation of comments” allowed on their site). A particular liberal blogger I have engaged with likes to use the “delete the opponents comments so that you can have the last word" technique so that he can convince himself, and his gullible fans, that he has won the argument. This liberal went so far as to delete all of my comments that presented counter arguments to his position, then add his own last comment where he lied, claiming he deleted my comments due to foul language, which he uses frequently on his blog. In other words the hypocrite exposed himself as... well... a hypocrite. Silly liberal! He now only allows comments to post after he has approved of them. Of course he claims that even though he is trying to avoid spam, and “right wing nuts” (i.e. anyone who disagrees with his point of view) that he is in no way intending censorship. [To use a liberal tactic against a liberal I wonder if pointing out point 4 above would be useful?]

This is what I have encountered so far. I can't wait to see what other lame tactics the left has left to expose. It will no doubt be entertaining. I'll do my best to keep anyone who visits my blog informed.

Until then, I'll do my part in perserving the Constitution by squashing anti-American, communist/socialist liberal arguments one at at time.

State of the Union? How About the Ugly State of the Democrat Party?

The democrats have been on a roll since the 2000 Presidential Elections. That is, on a roll on demonstrating to the American voting public just how much they can whine, and complain because they were voted out of power. Let’s face it, the democratic party has become the party with a permanent case of colic. Apart from being a party of political cry babies, the democrat party’s love affair with liberalism and the radical left has allowed the American public to witness them make fools of themselves in the atmosphere of a bizarre circus show of their own creation all throughout the media.

Every time another Hollywood idiot opens there mouth, every time Harry Bellafonte calls Bush a Hitler while rubbing elbows with evil men like Hugo Chavez, and every time we have to endure yet another al Qaeda PSYOP message from the mouth of the left’s leading moonbat, Cindy Sheehan, it just goes to show how anti-American and ridiculous the democrat party really is.

The obvious lies and antics of Senator John Kerry, the foaming at the mouth lies and pure hatred of Bush tirade that issue forth from the mouths of Howard Dean and Al Gore and other democrats may just be a godsend. The more liberals foam at the mouth, and work themselves into temper tantrums, the more it opens the eyes of the voting public as to what the democrats are really all about.

Yesterday the democrats yet again demonstrated their true colors during the President’s State of the Union speech. All one had to do was watch the democrat reaction. The sneers on Hillary Clinton’s face, when they didn’t applaud and especially when they did tells all anyone needs to know about what the democrat party is all about. Bush reports his resolve to continue to take the fight to the murderous terrorist and eliminate their threat to free societies everywhere and republicans stand and applaud while democrat’s sneer and sit on their hands. Bush reports the robust health of our economy and democrats remain seated. Bush reports that he tried to help reform and save Social Security but his efforts were blocked in Congress, the democrats stand and clap.

Think about it. Which party introduced the socialist, failed idea of Social Security to the American workers in the first place? The democrats did. Yet yesterday they stood to their feet and applauded their success in sabotaging any effort to save it. They duped generations of hard working Americans into believing in the worth of their socialist retirement program (with a pension to guarantee your retirement years are spent on the brink of poverty) and then did everything they could to stab those contributors to the Social Security fund in the back and leave them high and dry all because they hate President Bush and the fact that they have been voted out of power.

FDR and his “New Deal” started the democratic love affair with the idea of a big nanny government in favor of the minimal federal government of the Constitution. Nothing makes a democrat more happy than having the American public be slaves of the government standing in long lines with their hands held out to receive whatever crumbs the government decides to dole out to the masses. From FDR and ever after the democratic party has become less for American values, less for the Constitution and more and more Communist and Socialist in its nature. They have also become more anti-American and pro globalist in their stances.

When it comes to nominees to the Supreme Court such as Alito, the democrats have demonstrated in their Kennedy led protests of outrage that they are the party of pro-abortion.

When it comes to issues of national security they would much rather hundreds of 9/11s occur rather than have something like the Patriot Act enacted to help the government stop terrorists like Mohamed Atta al Sayed from flying one of our own planes into the one of our national monuments.

When it comes to the War on Terror the democrats would rather try and appease al Qaeda than confront them.

President Bush made the statement in a speech today that went something like this:

“Some people look at the world the way they want it to be, but it is my job to look at the world the way it is.”

When its time for the American people to vote they will have a choice. They can vote for the democrats, who look at the world through communist/socialist idealistic eyes that think if we are just nice enough there will be peace on earth, or they can vote for republicans who see the terrorist threat for what it is: a very real, immediate and deadly threat to freedom everywhere.

I agree with Bush. Freedom leads to peace. I disagree with the democratic notion that appeasement to the terrorists will lead to peace. I refuse to bow to Mecca or the terrorist dreary vision of a world devoid of liberty and all lock step in a Taliban regime style of living. That is perhaps the best reason to explain why I stand against the democrat liberal view point which, if given the reigns, would most certainly ensure that that very outcome would be America’s fate.

I hope the democrats keep up the hysteria. It just might guarantee that they are voted out of existance forever. If we get that lucky then the next two party system here in America would probably be the Republicans vs Conservatives.