Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A Different Perspective

What was said in the boiling pot? What were the key phrases? Were they plans of specificity, that the mind can critique? Or do they represent the vision, hope, motivation for a bright future? Let us examine two texts, where I have selected the hook phrasing:
"But we are all filled with unbounded confidence for we believe in our people and their imperishable virtues. Every class and every individual must help us to found the new Reich."

"The National Government intends to solve the problem of the reorganization of trade and commerce with two four-year plans:"

"The German farmer must be rescued in order that the nation may be supplied with the necessities of life...."

"A concerted and all-embracing attack must be made on unemployment in order that the German working class may be saved from ruin...."

"Within four years the German peasant must be rescued from the quagmire into which he has fallen."

"Within four years unemployment must be finally overcome. At the same time the conditions necessary for a revival in trade and commerce are provided."

"The securing of the necessities of life will include the performance of social duties to the sick and aged."

"Now, people of Germany, give us four years and then pass judgment upon us."
That from the "BERLIN: PROCLAMATION TO THE GERMAN NATION", Feb 1, 1933. All quotes come from the Hitler Historical Museum, a fine apolitical online reference for such material. The next group of quotes this from "BERLIN, CONGRESS OF THE GERMAN WORK FRONT", May 10, 1933:
"Not with any idea of helping the worker -what is the worker of any country to these apostles of internationalism? Nothing at all! They never see him! They themselves are no workers: they are alien litterateurs, an alien gang! . . ."

"There might have been something which could perhaps have opposed these millions and that something would have been the State, had it not been that this State had sunk so low that it had become the plaything of groups of interested parties."

"Bismarck once declared that liberalism was the pacemaker for social democracy. And I do not need in this place to say that social democracy is the pacemaker for communism. But communism is the pacemaker for death - the death of a people - downfall."

"It is the spirit from which efforts spring that helps to decide the issue. There must be no conquerors and no conquered; our people must be the only conqueror - conqueror over classes and castes, and conqueror over the interests of these single groups in our people!"

"I am an independent man, and I have set before myself no other goal than to serve, to the best of my power and ability, the German people, and above all to serve the millions who, thanks to their simple trust and ignorance and thanks to the baseness of their former leaders, have perhaps suffered more than any other class."

"I have always professed that there is nothing finer than to be the advocate of those who cannot easily defend themselves."

"Because I know this people better than any other, and at the same time know the rest of the people, I am not only ready in this case to undertake the role of an honest broker but I am glad that destiny can cast me for the part. I shall never in my life have any greater reason for pride than when at the end of my days I can say: I have won the German workingman for the German Reich."

My comments here are a bit ethereal. The flavor of these words is perhaps changed in translation, salted with English invective. But it is very evident how he has weaved his personal story into the "common thread", the collective experience of the audience, and used that to direct the perspective. It is brilliant, even without knowing the context of each speech, which I purposely left little of.

The scary thing is the systematic picture of the state as the answer. It is the wresting of control from the population, through gentle persuasion. It is the massaging of class envy, the isolation of the opposition, the direct coercion through emotion that strikes to the core of our consciousness. How is this different than the political populism of today? The techniques are the same, the words are similar. The socialist goals are identical, where is the difference?

I would say it is skill and intent. Hitler is gifted with the ability to elevate his story beyond 'rock star' status to verging on the messianic. And his intent does expose itself beyond the simple acquisition of political power. But, given this, the techniques are the same, and I would claim the results of these techniques will always lead to failure, weather world changing, or relatively benign.

The people are deceived and the bright future is not one of individual excellence. Without focusing on the fulfillment of the individual through personal betterment and effort, the approach is doomed to thrash against those who refuse to be suppressed. It is the inevitable result of socialism. The population may be eased into comfortable domination by the central government for a short time, but that is against the human spirit. By these quotes, and knowing the possible result of the government they represent, we should educate ourselves to those who would utilize the same methods.

A Litany of Change

I had to see for myself, "Does an Obama speech really consist of nothing?" So I grabbed one and chewed it up. This is for New Orleans, and is amazingly, full of absolutely nothing! Wow, so I went after the obvious hook lines, just to see them all together. Here you go:
"When I am President, I will start by restoring that most basic trust - that your government will do what it takes to keep you safe.

When I am President, the days of dysfunction and cronyism in Washington will be over.

All of this will cost money.

I promise you that when I'm in the White House I will commit myself every day to keeping up Washington's end of this trust.

That is what is possible if we can trust each other; and if we have the imagination to see the unseen, and the determination to work for it."

Well there you have it. Oh sure there was lots of local flavor in between, with the inevitable rhetoric and empty promises. Even a specific new 4k tax credit for college students. But for the most part, the above covers Obama's complete platform.

First and foremost, your government is there to keep you safe. Then the glorious promise of a functioning D.C., from the most liberal senator currently serving. Something is missing in that one. Next, it will cost money, so "we need more of yours..." Then, he promises to spend that money, which I can believe. Can we see it? Oh yeah, we already have it. Change? What change?

Friday, February 08, 2008

A Discussion that Ends with "Liberal Optimism"

Ok, you know that is snarky sarcasm, and the folowing discussion is equally laced with invective. Don't be offended, it's a rough world. The key here is painting a picture of the political landscape. And what a result at the end... I begin things with this provocation:
Well, I was surfing around a bit, and I had completely forgoten Johny Mac's conservative fiscal roots. Ala Keating Five. It is a disgrace that, what I call conservative, and what the Party assumes is conservative, are two completely different things. John does one thing for the world, he assures a Obama victory in Nov. Baring some hideous screw up or evil Clinton plot against him. However, there was not much choice this year, same as the last .... twenty years. Oh, I voted against that idiot Kerry. But Bush was never my choice for leader, just better than your villiage buffoons. This time around, it is actually quite sad. Hunter is conservative, but no traction. Then give me Fred, but he had no desire or advisers. Rudy was acceptable simply on his executive record and talent, not aligned by the issues. And that's about all she wrote. Oh, I could have pulled the lever for Mitt, but he DOES NOT inspire confidence. And the Huckster, affable as he is, has revealed a severe lack of world comprehension.

Obama can win easily. But he has little skill, and even less experience. Doubtful he can grow up that fast. Going to be a rocky road..... At least the Clintons trust no one.... But they are evil. Possibly the best option now is to see Hillary get the nod. One bright spot, look for another '94 like conservative revolution in 2010. That's about all there is. You all on the left have even less hope. ZERO leadership, coupled with being in power, leads to disaster. You get the same lip service, and the same lobbyists who get what they want done, which has nothing to do with the concerns of the people. Unless it pertains to handouts for more votes, like "stimulus package", "citizenship", and "health care".
What will be the response I wonder?
Odd ain't it. No real conservatives and no real liberals. Wonder what that says about the state of politics in the USA? Well, actually, I like Obama. Great potential there if he isn't eaten up by the corrupt corporations and the criminal DOD bunch. Note how the tune from DOD is changing; less on 'the terrorists are coming' and more going back to the stock enemy, 'the Russians are coming'. Seems we just must have a boogieman or the warmongers won't get their inflated budgets.
Now that was down right placid. No excitement at all. So I tried to light up something a bit more direct:
Here is my question to you sages of the fever swamp. What is the read on Obama as regarding how he will handle lobbyists and corporate influence? He has steadfastly rejected K-Street money, but has gotten back door help in some areas. And the onslaught of 527 groups won't start for another month or so. How does he fair in that realm? It's an unknown, at least to me. With Hill and John, we will get the same old stuff, its completely damning, but so much retread that voters don't seem to care much. But Obama is a hidden target. I can not get any sense. When Hill and Bill went nasty on him, he came off kinda goofy, as if not sure of his own skin. But just the fact that he stayed ethereally positive made the clowns look old and bitter. What do you think?
So you would expect more insight, more politics, something fun. No, this is a strange day indeed. Here we have something with the definite flavor of conspiracy. End of the world nutterdom. Quite amazing that anyone could end up with this world view, but apparently this has become popular. See what you think:
Well. I think we are headed into an economic down turn that could really get nasty. I think we're heading into another rise in fighting and deaths in Iraq. I think we're going to see our purchased allies in Afghanistan drop out and the Taliban gain ground. I think that oil prices will continue to rise. I think that we will see a credit crunch, and soon. I think unemployment will begin to increase rather soon. I think we'll see Russia flex her muscles, and we can't do a damn thing about it. So, a year from now, we're going to see a Democratic President, a Democratic House, a 61+ Democratic Senate and have a lot of work to do to turn things around. As you saw in my list of a day or two ago, a lot of things have to be changed or we are going to lose our Republic and slip into 2ed nation if not 3 nation status.....broke, friendless, powerless, and on the rapid downhill slope. But, my best guess is that very little on my list will actually be accomplished, few even attempted, because the average American has yet to realize and feel what has happened; and by the time they do the disease will prove fatal. Some other people, somewhere else, some time in the future, will have to fight the good fight for freedom, independence, democracy and a republican form of government. We have become dull witted, sleepy, slow, unable to see the rising quagmire of indolence, debt, greed, ignorance and stupidity WE have built and become both the tool and the victim of. We will be remembered as are the Greek City States and the Roman Republic, elegant failures. Systems are, by their nature as systems, self-limiting if they do not adapt and change. a sort of 'social evolution' that is not genetic or biologic, but is intellectual, mental, political and economic. That is, based on man's ability to 'think'. Instead, we have allowed the evils of unrestrained capitalism, militarism, and religion to blind us to rational and progressive thought and ideas. Instead of looking forward our solutions are all looking backward, wanting to go back to a world that never was and can never be. That way lies a dead end. OK, so be it. Let the great Western civilization that arose from the 15th century decline and pass away. Some other people will adapt, change, and emerge as a new and dynamic civilization. Arnold Toynbee talked about civilizations in terms of cycles, tempered by 'crisis and response'. The West, particularly the US, is failing to respond in an adaptive manner to solve the 'crisis'. The outcome, as Oswald Spengler said, is The Decline of the West. We had a good run.
Well. This is the end result of the social humanist mentality. You can come to no other conclusion. Despair, failure, and destruction. The inevitable friend of the Godless. Don't you feel like a long hot shower after slipping into that swamp? A mental shower at least. Go now, and cleanse yourself.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The New Base: Pseudocons

There was a phenomena beginning in the seventies of democrats who had fiscal conservative (or perhaps libertarian) views voting for Republican candidates. Many were Democrats simply by culture and blood, not by brain power. Their parents held FDR in such high regard that party became part of life, not cognition. This was instilled from the womb, a immutable part of the family, "We're all Democrats..." But things changed, and by Reagan's second term, "Reagan Democrats" were a very large voting block. Reagan reached across the political divide and spread conservative views. His compromises forced liberals to sacrifice socialist ideals.

Jumping forward, there was a revolution in the Congress in '94, where conservative leadership convincingly moved into power. How did they do it? Did they compromise and become more moderate? No, they defined precisely what they stood for, and reached across the political divide to embrace likeminded voters. Conservative political philosophy is able to win politically, and coupled with dynamic personality and leadership (ala Reagan) is guaranteed to succeed.

But in the last ten years, a new force has swelled in the Republican womb. A purely political fetus, a genetic aberration with a seriously ugly head. Born from compromise and the idea that to win, you need the 'moderate' vote, this new movement, the Pseudocons, is sweeping the Republican party. What defines this new core? Populism is its exterior visage, with a murky, shifting interior of muddy values. The values were once clean, clear principals of conservatism. But they have been sullied through expedient arrangements design to "get things done".

By accomplishing objectives the insatiable populist beast is held at bay. But the cost has permanently severed the umbilical cord of this premature movement. Is it old enough to survive? Who can predict the future. Irregardless, for the health and welfare of the mother, it needs to be born now. Will it be a natural birth? Or does it need to be cut out... It appears that major conservative voices are calling for a C-section.

Yes, this 2008 Presidential primary is the context. McCain appears to be gathering support in the Republican primary. He is the de-facto leader of the Pseudocons, the model definition of the philosophy. There is no need to argue about specifics. It's the principal that fits even better than the bad legislation. What principal? That of reaching across the political divide to "work together" and "compromise" on things that are inherently not conservative in the first place.

Notice the difference? Successful conservative movements find ways to look to the future, see positive ways to get others to agree with conservative principals and go in that direction. Pseudocons take conservatism for granted, and move their own philosophy down the moderate road, hoping that the road is wide enough and well paved that the traditional conservative base will travel it by default. But we aren't going up hill. We are not reaching for a higher place. We are descending into the cesspool of populist socialism. There are no true political moderates, just a growing number of popular socialists.

What does this mean for those who are conservative? Should we compromise our principals and choose the "lesser of two evils" by supporting McCain if he is the Republican nominee? I would argue that it is fundamentally wrong in this case. Principal above party must come at some point. Don't sully your own hand, cleaning off the stain might be harder than you think. I realize there are many who will willingly support McCain from conservative ranks. But to those I would ask only one thing, will you re-evaluate you own conservative values? With McCain, you are joining a new movement, you are a Pseudocon voter. Fight against the thought all you want, rant and rail about all the reasons why "we" must win, but realize you have contributed to a illegitimate offspring. A mutant that is unlikely to survive.

cross posted at Red State

Friday, January 25, 2008

The Final Battle in Iraq?

I have been scouring the news lately for Iraq headlines. Thankless task now that the leftist nutter media has apparently conceded their propaganda defeat. Oh, there are the moonbats hard at work rekindling Bush Lied&trade to satisfy their seven years of emptiness, but the semi-sentient press has fallen silent. Check that, silent on Iraq. They have the glories of a year long primary election to salivate over, the economy to trash, vapid politicians to prop up, and other nefarious deeds. So it was quite a wonder to read this piece from Reuters:

Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda - PM

I am not familiar with Messrs Qusay and Mohammed, but I figure you can plug in any number of reporters and get the same result. The first twist comes not from the article, but from the link itself. Filed in a folder entitled "featuredCrisis", one would expect something more dramatic. Now, of course we can interpret the tone of the title and the quoted "final" as snarky sarcasm, what else would motivate? They loathe Maliki, and would love to get a "Mission Accomplished" moment. All of that aside (It meets our expectation, yes?), did you notice what they now take for granted? Amazing, the surge worked. The local leaders across the country have turned away from the Islamists and joined with the U.S. forces. Finally, and none the less startling, we find the majority of remaining fighters are now "foreign".

Ponder these assumptions for a moment. Each one was a rallying cry for antiwar nutters mere months ago! Remember these tirades? "The surge is a disaster!" "It's a full blown civil war!" "They don't want us there, get out!" I could go on, but it's a bit boring at this juncture. The nutjobs obsess over it, and must be getting very frustrated that no one is listening. If the mainstream press finds nothing horrible to pin on Bush regarding Iraq, they move on to something that at least has legs.

Finally, would they even been talking about a final battle just six months ago? Even dripping with sarcasm, just the words in context say volumes. If it is true, and the majority of hardcore Islamist fighters have escaped to the north, it would represent a last stand. What are they hoping for in the north? It's not a population that supports them, simply terrain more conducive to hiding. Yes, start getting out the "Mission Accomplished" flags. Looks like we might be flying them soon!

Thursday, January 24, 2008

McCain's not Abel

There is a hot debate within conservative ranks over what to do come November and Johny Mac is the ticket. I have the utmost respect for any man who gives everything for his country in service, and John has. But, that is as a man and a private individual. As a politician he is a divisive self aggrandizing ego with apparently a singleness of purpose in attaining fame and power. As a consequence, he has burned the conservative base multiple times with many issues. Furthermore, he has repeatedly played with the devil on the Sunday shows when he should have been finding a more consecrated path someplace else. All of these add up to many, many conservatives ready to forgo a chance at the White House for the next four years.

Where to go? Is it disloyal to close up the wallet, stay home in November, and look to the future? This is a question many are wrestling with. But lets get some perspective. I am a conservative politically. Why? My personal life philosophy is represented there. My education leads me to decide what economic policies are fruitfull to the country, and I find them echoed among conservatives. History is filled with lasting societies that exercised peace through power, so I side with the security moms in the conservative camp. These are all examples of what forms the "conservative base", yet how much success have we had in representation in the last two decades?

The '94 revolution curbed spending to some degree. There was some welfare reform. Bush's response to the threat of global jihad was correctly intentioned. We place two exceptional judges on the Supreme Court. There are a few more examples. But taken in the context of where this country has trended overall, its a few drops vs. a torrent of popular socialism. This reflects more the system of politics than the underlying views of the populace. Americans tend to love our representatives that go to Washington and get something for us. Otherwise, why elect them? We will be stuck in this trend for a long time, so as conservatives, we need to repackage our political philosophy in a way that clearly identifies the individual and group benefits of electing like minded representatives.

This is why Reagan was successful. He could communicate the positive vision of tax cuts, and how that would benefit everyone. He could unveil a world without the Cold War through real and perceived military strength. Conversely, this is where our more conservative candidates have failed. They have the right ideas, the correct policies, the fortitude and character to be good leaders and representatives. But they have failed at revealing a positive vision of the future. Not that some haven't tried. But those attempts have been generally ensnared in the war, economic rhetoric, or some other pessimistic popular perception.

Trapped in public perception, our clearest conservatives have been buried. What we are left with is varying degrees of standard politician. Fred Thompson was closest to a conservative candidate, yet still had a few missing pieces, and a complete washout of a campaign. But this is about McCain, and why he is such a quandary. One answer is that he has played public perception, rode the waves of opinion, sided up with populism for political gain. He brings forth a consistant offering, always to appease what is popular. Always to engender favor with money and power. Going after campaign money, yet leaving union contribution alone. Proposing immigration reform, to appeal to a voting block and garner corporate support in one devious backroom swoop.

There is a parable here. Cain offered up the yield of the field but was rejected. Abel made a sacrifice to God that was accepted. Cain became jealous and enraged and smote his brother. It seems that McCain has offered to us that which is popular, that which is from the field. Additionally, could his jealousy and anger from the 2000 primary sprouted into resentment? Could this be one of his core motivations in repeatedly stabbing at the conservative base for the last seven years?

I don't know all the answers, but I do know that the evidence points toward a disaster under McCain's leadership. We are looking for a conservative leader, a party leader. A bitter maverick is a poor fit. It would seem that finding a conservative leader would be more important than having a placeholder as president. Grasping for power through a particular party in disarray does nothing for our political philosophy. With this in mind, let us turn towards the future, find men of character who can see a bright future, and elect them.

The country is not headed towards conservative ideals, and when we ostensibly held complete power, we were disappointed to find that the party was not conservative. Whether Hillary or McCain is president probably won't result in vast differences. Loosing more seats in the House and Senate will be more important than the above choice. And if you argue simply court appointments, think of the judges appointed by Reagan and Bush Sr.

Abel was murdered, but the path he folowed is clear. Bring to God the acceptable sacrifice. Tend to the flock, the breathing things. Lets find a leader who will do likewise with our conservative ideals. Leave the inanimate ideals of socialism in the field. Don't stand with the son's of Cain. I jest in my metaphor, with kernels of truth.

Lest anyone be offended, I would stand for McCain's entrance, shake his hand anyday and thank him for his service to this country. And for those who take the alegory to far, no, I don't equate the conservative base with God. Lighten up. I ponder however, what is acceptable to the faithful should be reflected in their political allegiances, no?

Another Soros Robot (aka Sorobots)

So I get a little note extolling the virtues of a "great" website, which turns out to be a resurgent surprise. A resurgence of what? Yes! Its Bush Derangement Syndrome! I guess once you contract the disease, its really hard to not get your fix. Even when the whole world has moved on, these people can't 'move on' for some reason. What is even more amazing is how gullible these people are! Parroting Soros funded propaganda with more fervency than a Mormon missionary. Well, Michelle Malkin had a very amusing response to this 'new revelation' as trumpeted by decrepit fading media. Such a terse, tight synopsis deserves its own line, so go there and enjoy:

MSM tools spread Soros propaganda

I can hear the derision as she writes "tools", with emphasis. To move on (again), I responded to the provocation:
Subject: RE: A great web site

Great? More like insane pablum for the infantile mind. Please, if you can't see past that crap, you're toast. By the way, the truth that sets you free... Hmm, are you set free from your emotional bonds by that propaganda? What could free your mind from the cancerous tentacles of leftist nutterdom? Anyhow, getting kinda lonely over there in peacenik land. What happened to daily death counts, front page car bombs, and 'failed policies'? Where is Iraq? What happened to the civil war? Didn't you argue over and over about how there is a civil war going on in Iraq? From June '06 "... there already IS a civil war going on, and has been for some time." Still holding on to that? Even in the face of new knowledge that many more of the combatants were foreign than we thought?

Gee, it is easy to figure the world out, just do exactly the opposite of whatever you nutter libs suggest. We would be in a better place, and are! Oh wait, the surge was a huge mistake right? Oh, no, you've dumped that and want to go back to "The War is a lie!"

Yeah, why not just get to the real problem, and call for a recount in Florida! You might get somewhere, and satisfy the BDS itch. That's DERANGEMENT in all caps. At some point you have to accept defeat in order to move forward, its part of the healing process.

So, enough with the silly diversions. Truly that is what they are. How about your man Obama? The Clinton machine is ripping him a new one. What side are you falling down on? Neither one makes a very good candidate. B.O. is a political creampuf, and Hill & Bill are absolutely unelectable. Unless our fruitcakes nominate McCain or Huckabee. Or as is talked about, both. Can you imagine it? Hillary would be more divisive as a president than Bush! Incredible! Four years of acrimony on a grander scale than now. And McCain splits the pubs completely. No core support. Tends to not get you elected, but lets pretend. What kind of Pres would he be? Don't see his management style working very well.... And that is a understatement. Micromanager like Bush Sr., yet without the executive skills. Ouch. You can't be a maverick, a underdog, a outside voice when you are the leader. Bad news. So, it looks like we are in for four years of pain no matter where we go.

Have you seen the look in Bill's eyes? Scary. He wants to be the center again, and its pretty obvious. What happens when he becomes the focus of Hill's campaign? Strange world. The best way to ensure a heavy turnout on the right is to get Bill out of the closet. But Hill will already inspire increased turnout. It's a double bonus. However, the best way to get half of them to stay home is send up John. So the whole dynamic gets weird. What is really strange is under the other scenario. Obama is actually polling pretty well with the "Republican light", as in not the core.

He would probably beat a few of our selections, and easily beat McCain. Weird. Simply because he has no negatives, and is magnanimous and upbeat. As long as he doesn't talk about any actual policies, and continues on with the platitudes and fluff, he would fare well.

Hey, on a last note, how in the world do you get to the place where public works is economic stimulus? Is it just that politicians for the most part have zero economic knowledge? I heard a idea floating around, presidential elections are becoming a drain on the economy. Data seems to support this, so a real stimulus package would include shortening up the election cycle. Say three months max. This time around its over a year long, and that ain't good for the markets!
So I wasn't to provocative, and steered the dialog away from the BDS stupidity into something a bit more interesting, but do you think a dyed in the wool nutter can overcome the Sorobot condition? Of course not. Here is the response, each point pertaining to the line of dialog above.
Rant, rant, rant. Your not making a logical argument, but that’s not unusual from the head-in-the-sand right.

Ya, great website. Documents the actual lies of the Scrub far-right war-mongers. In their own words. They lied and lied and lied, and the cost is mover 2 TRILLION dollars. More than enough to rebuild the roads, schools, hospitals etc etc etc that we need but won’t get.

(re: civil war in Iraq) Yes, has been and still is a civil war. Death counts went down for three reasons:

a. the ethnic cleansing is complete…the walls separating the shia from the sunni in Baghdad are complete. And millions have either fled the country or fled to other regions of the country.

b. The Sauder (sp) army stood down to regroup. They are playing the time game.

c. The Americans are no longer risking forces in clearing operations. They are sticking closer to home.

But it’s not over is it. The puppet government of Iraq can’t agree on the time of day. The factions are unable to reach any agreement that will produce a stable government. The Brits see that and are almost out. Others are also withdrawing. Soon on the silly Americans will be there. And they can’t stay. Scrub HAS to take out 30,000 troops before July. He’ll claim that it’s a sign of ‘progress’. What it really is is that those troops will have put in their 12 to 15 months and have to rotated out, and there are no replacements. So, this summer we will see a re-surgence of the war. The American goal is permanent bases, control of the oil, and control of the region. That is not going to happen, not now, not tomorrow, not ever. The Americans have lost the war and they are the only ones who don’t know it, yet.

(re: foreign insurgent percentage) And the source for this assertion is, what?

(re: nutters obvious wrong assessment) Have not backed away from that at all. The surge was a huge mistake…it simply prolongs the inevitable outcome. And the war was a lie, top to bottom. Even the neo-cons have backed away from that one. Nobody still claims the WMD argument, not even Scrub, and Darth Vader has also finally shut-up because his party told him to…. Wanna guess how many appearances Scrub will make with the R Prez candidate? Z E R O. Scrub is the kiss of death for the R’s and they know it.

You might also notice that things continue to go down hill in Afghan. Now there are attacks in the capital. Drugs are plentiful. More of the country is under insurgent control. And Afghan is ‘vital’ to our defense, well, how? Of no importance in any way. How about your buddy General Mush. More of the country is pro-Islamist now than ever. Can’t control the NW provinces. And he resorts to murdering political opponents. Yessir, a real model of democracy!

(re: defeat and healling after Florida) Try to remember the above after November. I’m sure your support the new Democratic President, Democratic House and Democratic Senate. As part of the ‘healing process’. Ya, sure.

(re: Dem field) Well, I go for Senator Obama. No baggage, clearly anti-war, willing to think outside the Washington box.

So, which of the losers are you going to support, Rudi the liar and adulteror, Huck the crazy religious preacher? McCain the confused who still thinks there is a military solution in Iraq?

Consider those who are now the ‘core’ of the R party. Religious fruitloops, rapturists and faith healers on the one hand, deluded fearful American first’ers who think war solves everything on the other. Ain’t gunna win that way anymore!

Ya, President Obama. I like the sound of that.

(re: stimulus package) Now try and follow this. The role of government is NOT to ‘stimulate the economy’; no Republican would think that way. The so-called stimulus package is really just a way to get a. More money to big business. B. cut taxes for the rich C. try and buy votes (at about 500$ a vote. In fact, this is NOT the time to ‘stimulate’ the economy. What is needed is to stabilize the economy and shift to a sustainable economy. A ‘growing’ economy is not sustainable. It just uses up non-renewable resources (like the oceans, for example, considering how those resources are managed now). What’s the status of fishing, worldwide? How about pollutants in the sea? How about the destruction of coral?

What we need, for example, is a ‘one child per family’ policy world-wide. The earth cannot sustain 2+ children per family policy.

That, of course, requires ditching a lot of crazy religious practices….Jesus ain’t agunna save you….sorry about that.

We need to reduce consumption, not increase it.

We need to produce less ‘crap’ and conserve resources.

We need to eliminate welfare-monopoly-government-capitalism

And turn to the one try solution….

Well, I must comment in two parts. First the Iraq war perceptions. You have to be exceptionally delusional to think "the ethnic cleansing is complete". Confusing sectarian violence with ethnic cleansing is an egregious error. Ignoring the flood of Iraqis returning to Baghdad and other peacefull regions is just plain blind. Sadr's Mahdi army is not regrouping, it is splintering. Sadr called for a halt, yet Iranian backed elements of the "Mahdi Army" continue to operate. And those elements are being crushed. He wants power, and to get it, will align with whoever looks to promote his influence. Standard politician. Finally we have "Americans no longer risking forces in clearing operations." Right. It's little green men we hired from Prussia driving our Hummers and pounding sidewalks. How thick can you be to make a statement like that? So if we are just sitting on our butts, and its the Iraqi army out doing the clearing ops, it is an even bigger success! Nothing will pervert the course of Bush Lied. No fact can dislodge the antiwar nutter meme. For me, it has gone past amusement, I am genuinely worried about those Americans who are infected with BDS, what can cure it?

The remaining assertions are baseless and boring, no BDS nutter will be convinced that anything is working anywhere. Not a healthy place to exist mentally. Now, lets start with the fun stuff. First is the difference between nutter libs and sane conservatives. We actually do get over defeat pretty easily. For the most part, we loose so many battles to the current atmosphere of populist socialism that you have to remain personally positive and try to influence others with a bright future instead of a constant cancerous pessimism. Our fight is about ideas, and it primarily happens within the larger tent of Independents and Republicans who hold conservative views to varying degree. It matters little about specific wins or losses, unlike the liberal sycophants who are consumed by emotional arguments.

It is very funny to hear libs complain about our candidates in terms of adultery, religion, and war policies. Yet they have no problem apparently with Obama's black power church (I don't care either, no bigotry here), Hillary's war support, Bill's abuse of women, and the list goes on... Even better is the love they all seem to have, on the surface, yet there is NO discussion of actual policies, NO specifics about the war, NO specifics about the economy, just platitudes and class warfare. And now a little bit of dirty politics to amuse us. It's a traveling soap opera on the left. Quite entertaining! But not much to comment on of substance.

So that leaves this insane fusion of socialism and environmentalism. We could see this coming from the 80's. The Red became Green in Europe. And the elite wannabee liberals always looks to idyllic socialist democracies in Europe for the golden model. Nevermind the obvious failure of the welfare state, the lack of economic growth, and reliance on America for security. None of that matters to the nutter lib. They are infused with a bitterness toward their own country, and can not overcome it, irregardless of reality.

First thing to note as a direct comment is the psychotic notion of sustainability. Has any successful society ever stopped growing? Duh... It is in the definition of success. But for the insane lib, success is to be condemned. Government should be there to prevent success. Yeah, socialist government control has worked soooo well historically, why not try it again! Ingenuity, technology, the undaunted overcoming of obstacles is the definition of American dominance. Freedom from taxation, bureaucracy, and government intervention in the marketplace is the subhead. Libs can't take or even comprehend that, so desire to crush it.

Moving on, I love the one child per family people. What idiots! No comprehension of demographics. Fortunately, these people tend to have NO children, and will leave the gene pool to be dominated by my descendants. Everything boils down to a "zero-sum" game of emotional arguments. Craftily used by socialist power mongers to titillate the broken emotional state of the modern liberal. The king powermonger in our day is Soros, hence the perfect designation of Sorobot. Amazing how we can drift off topic, yet when it involves nutter libs, things just come back together no matter where you go.

Let us end with some "crazy religious practices" for good measure. We should carefully observe the blindness of an atheist lib proclaiming "Jesus ain't gonna save you." I don't think they know what needs to be saved. Jesus is alive, and saving me everyday. Saving me from emotional consumption. Saving me from a twisted reprobate mind. Freeing my vision, allowing the opportunity to see decisively, and make choices that lead to a fuller life. Ultimately, a life knowing God through Jesus is complete fulfillment, and a expansion of what man can experience. It is existence that breaks the confinement of the physical, natural realm.

Some are fearful of the apparent loss of control, or balk at the requirement of acknowledging a power that is beyond the self. Others simply have a defensive shell insulating themselves from confrontation at the core of their existence. It is painful to look inside, and find yourself lacking. Many build up a crutch, a support to justify the deficiency. They look to outside stimuli to maintain that crutch. A constant source of reinforcement. This ties in well with the Sorobots and BDS. It's a ready made fountain of emotional reinforcement. Belonging, self justification, emotional invigoration (even if its negative) are all to be found in the propaganda of the nutter left. It is EXACTLY like a cult. Fulfilling the needs of the damaged followers, while taking from them the power each has to decide the way forward.

March on Sorobots! Trudge toward your socialist destiny!

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Religion Will Influence My Choice

I realized something interesting... There is this debate about Romney, and whether we could elect a Mormon president. On one side, there are the liberal secularist, many constitutional conservatives, and independents saying there is no religious test for President, shouldn't matter at all. And, I agree. But who do we actually elect? Married Caucasian males of wider Christian faith exclusively. Now, there was a separate but similar debate I heard recently about appointing a Muslim to a cabinet post so we would 'understand' foreign policy better. Putting two and two together I realized something interesting. The country was founded by Protestant Christians predominantly, and the formation of the culture, government, whole society reflects that. Part of that is the strong respect of freedom. Now, if a religion is formed upon a different ethos, pushes a subservience to God that includes abdication of personal freedoms to the church, and that church pushes the concept of social and moral control through the state, would you consider actively opposing a candidate for governance based on that persons adherence to that faith?

I had to ask myself this, and I think the question is yes. Not in terms of bigotry, or opposition to any one individuals belief. But globals in a persons religion are unavoidable, and if that person makes the choice to agree with said religion, how can they support our constitution in full? A funny thing, as it is easy to believe that an atheist free market conservative will uphold the tenets of the constitution. Its easy to understand, even vote for, a Jew like Lieberman, knowing that his priority is foremost this countries safety, even when I disagree with most of his social views. And it is even possible to comprehend Rudy, who is not in line with his own church, but clearly states his position.

But that brings us to the big two. Even moderate Muslims are a question mark. There is little evidence that supports their (collective) endorsement of the separation of government and religion. Not that it is the paramount issue, but is not reflective of the majority in America, and would play into a voting decision. Again, I don't mean in terms of bigotry or any such, people are free to believe what they want. But when we know what they believe, and it does not fit with the open and free government system in the U.S., why can't that be used in consideration of a candidate?

Second, returning to Romney, how can I fully support someone to make correct decisions, when you know as a absolute certainty that they believe an obvious falsehood? I don't mean "are Mormons Christians" and what not. I mean the obvious phony history surrounding the whole origin of the religion (no hate here, its blatantly obvious to any, and extensively investigated by real anthropologists...). Hey, many very capable Christians believe in the whole ten thousand years since creation thing, but that is obvious ignorance, and someone who promoted such would by on the bottom of my list as well. Again, its not a bigotry thing, you can believe in fairies and frosty the snowman for all I care, but if I know you believe in that, and promote it as real, does that not give me grounds for questioning your decision making capabilities?

It is my right, in this country to decide who will lead us. Many religions do not have that same structure, that's ok. Even Catholics (not really the religion of choice in inspiring the foundation of this country) seem to abdicate freedom in the regards to leadership in the church. Here is where true liberals (old school), libertarians, and some conservatives are in agreement. Freedom of choice permeates the respective philosophies, even when in disagreement. Its a obvious tenet of the atheists, verging on nihilism. Its a huge cornerstone of Protestantism. And for those simply ruled by commerce, holds pretty well again.

Thus I stand, ones religion in the individual context can be a fine indicator for voting, and should not be a big deal. But in the age of PC, you can't disclose such. It come in as a modifier, after issues based decisions, and political platform. For instance, I don't care about Hillary's type of Methodist thinking. Many misguided Christians are swayed by socialist tendency's. I mean the intentions align in wanting to help your fellow many. They just can't see the unavoidable flaw of abdicating that responsibility to government. Socialism will always fail. So even though I agree with more of the values held by the United Methodists like Hillary, I would not vote for her based on that. And I would vote for Romney over any socialist, but I am not comfortable with any Mormon who I didn't know personally to lead us (again, its LEADERSHIP, not friends, family or acquaintance...). Personal knowledge reveals character, and anyone can be part of a religion simply by birth or for community association, and that shouldn't disqualify for office.

So, that leaves the hanging question of analyzing in a governmental context the compatibility of filling that government with individuals who believe in a religion that does not support fully that type of government...

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Cockroaches Skitter

It is a amazing twist of extreme deliciousness that MSNBC, a network of socialist stooges, has a reporter with a brain. Bill Dedman is his name, and in this article we can just call him the Orkin Man. It is such a incredible exposure of how shallow and narcissistic journalist are that I was fearfull the article would be pulled before I finished reading! Please go read for yourself, if its still there! The twisted responses from journos when asked about their political contributions reads like a clinical psychology text on denial. It definitely crosses party lines, as they all run for cover. What doesn't cross party lines is where the money is going. Can you guess? Did you say fair and balanced? Well, funny thing, Fox has on record five contributors, three to Dem causes and campaigns! How about the totals? What was your guess? Democrat contributors totaled 126, Republican 17. Gee, I can't see a bias in the media at all! So, less than 12% Republican. Still no bias of course.

Now, this is not a scientific study, and is no surprise to any honest observer. In fact, the true exposure is not the fact of mainstream media socialist tendencies. It is the state of mind these people have developed. The drink from the cup of feigned objectivity, pop the purple pill of "objective" reporting. At the root a Utopian higher morality, crafted from emotional responses, that supersedes the common man. For instance, when confronted with the obvious fact that the journo in question had made a political contribution, one representative response was:
"I asked for those contributions back," Amantharaman said. "I don't want to comment on this."
So, basically if the contribution could be made anonymously... Oh, and imagine a reporter not wanting to "comment" on the fact that they actually have a opinion, are a normal person, and support a certain point of view? All of these newsrooms have policies against complicity, the effect of which is a abstraction in the collective mentality, a virtual group schizophrenia.

What do we, the consumer, sense from such people? That they are crazy, and can't be trusted. Who would you want the news from? Someone who told you the truth about their personal opinions, and then told you their interpretation of news and events, along with the facts? Or someone who told you they were completely objective, yet would not disclose their personal opinions? What do they have to hide? It's denial on a massive scale, and has begun to fail with the public. We just don't trust the mainstream media at all. And winning back that trust is not going to be accomplished by restricting the individuals from comments and contributions. It will just alienate the twisted profession from the real world even further.