"If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're older and still a liberal, you have no brain."
was young and foolish when I started college. I believed that government could solve every problem in our and other peoples' societies—world strife, overpopulation, hunger, disease, declining quality of life, rising health-care costs, you name it. If only it could come up with a good enough program to solve each one. I was also very arrogant, thinking everyone outside of government was either too weak or too ignorant, or both, to get together with others to explore possible solutions and discover and implement ones that would be best for them. I was confident that people in government were way smarter than anyone else and therefore should step in and take over practically everything so everyone's life would be "better." I trusted the seemingly smart candidates who promised to give government such wide-ranging control and power, and voted for them.
I was a Democrat, a progressive. I registered to vote in 1988, right before my state's presidential preference primary. The first candidate for president I ever voted for was Al Gore! I thought he was intelligent and suave and had a lot of good answers. However, he didn't get his party's nomination. So after deciding that Governor Dukakis would only turn our country into a basket case like his Massachusetts, I wound up "switching parties" and voting for Vice President Bush. But I still voted for Democrats in other races.
Nearly four years later there emerged another presidential candidate whom I thought was equally intelligent and suave. He was going to "Put People First." Plus he picked Al Gore as his running mate! After having been mad about how the new "real world" I was seeing around me wasn't all rosebeds and government programs, I cast my vote for Governor Clinton. Now the people were at last going to be put first and were no longer going to "get it on the chin."
Then the alarm clock went off less than a month into the Clinton presidency. He said he tried and tried and tried but couldn't give us the middle-class tax cut he promised. He had to pay for all those glorious programs he wanted to help us with and just couldn't "afford" a cut right now. I tried pushing the snooze button, but the clock kept buzzing. Like when he signed NAFTA or gave North Korea essentially a pass on its nuclear-weapons program or tried to nominate Loni "Quota Queen" Ganier for attorney general or signed the largest tax increase in human history. He wasn't putting our people first. I felt betrayed by him and his party, too. I vowed never to vote for another Republicrat or Democran ever again, seeing how they were now practically two factions of the same party.
Since then I've voted for just third parties and independents, even writing in names in general elections when there was only a choice between a D and an R. I never bought that "lesser of two evils" argument or any of its "hold your nose" or "don't waste your vote" derivatives.
Now, however, I have seen one party grow so excessively evil that I can no longer reasonably view it as half of some national über-party. It has violated the people's trust over and over on such an extreme scale that I consider it to be purely evil, unequaled in that pure evilness by any other major party we've ever had in our nation's history.
Only twice following the Revolutionary War has any of our states been successfully attacked by a foreign enemy determined to destroy our freedoms. The first burnt our nation's Capitol to the ground, the second one tried (stopped only by the self-sacrifice of courageous citizens). Both brought death and tremendous destruction elsewhere in our country. In the case of the first attacks, the Federalists opposed "Mr. Madison's War" (at one point calling for the northeastern states' secession), our economy fell into the crapper, and our military forces initially suffered many defeats. In the case of the second attacks, Democrats opposed "Mr. Bush's War" (with several of its leading members seriously discussing impeachment of our president), our economy fell into the crapper but is now recovering stronger than anyone ever expected, while our military forces are defeating America's enemies on all fronts. In the presidential election following those first attacks, the Federalists were so discredited they never again ran another candidate for that office and died—then and there—as a national party.
President Bush and his party, on the other hand, have kept the faith and delivered on their promises to win this war completely and decisively, cut our taxes, improve our economy, and protect our homeland. He and it have demonstrated a dedication to and love of this country the likes of which I haven't witnessed since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
For all this, the monolithically liberal "news" media have viciously assailed our country's president at every opportunity on the most nonsubstantive bases, in effect siding with his opponents who belong to the most evil major American party ever.
That media did so again Tuesday at the President's joint press conference with Afghanistan's interim president Hamid Karzai. Besides throwing innumerable-part questions at him, each jumbling together as many unrelated subjects as they could, none of which bearing even remotely on the results or purposes of the two leaders' just-concluded meeting, the correspondents—with one or two exceptions—went at our president like any "good" Dhimmicratic opposition-research team would with these kinds of helpful, poignant bons mots: "[Regarding terrorists and thugs we captured in Iraq] by what authority does the United States continue to hold the citizens of a sovereign country?"; "If I could just pick up on that, sir, about pessimism....could the case not be made that over the longer-term of your administration, that you're still operating at an economic deficit?"; "Why is it that you're having trouble pulling ahead of your opponent, John Kerry?"; "after the deadly bombing, car bombing, that Iraqi police, as crowds gathered against the United States, just stood around and didn't do anything. Why is that happening?"; "Mr. President, there are signs that inflation may be on the horizon...do you think this might slow down the recovery that you've been so happy about?"; "Ron Reagan's remarks at the former President's funeral....He said that politicians should not wear religious faith on their sleeve. And a lot of Republicans interpreted those remarks as being critical of you and your position on stem cell...."; "Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat statement?"; etc. Even so, the president's answers were firm, optimistic, comforting and, most important, believable.
For me, this was the last straw. On both any doubts I ever had that the Drippocratic party and its media enablers are totally against any country that isn't completely ruled of, by, and for themselves, and any that our president is, both personally and as a leader, a man of unswerving honor and exceptional integrity. It is now my solid conviction that each one has been proven—beyond any reasonable doubt—true.
Because of President George W. Bush, his party has re-earned my trust. I will be voting for him to serve our country a second term; and will likely go further by voting, for the first time ever, a straight party ticket.
The article below only reinforces my convictions. Because it has the same, standard flavor of inaccuracy as the libstream media's "Tenet Resignation Setback for Bush" smearjob ("Plus for Bush" is more like it), or their "Bush Holds Off on Speedy Saddam Transfer" take on the above news conference (the president actually said we're "working with" Iraq's government to make sure Saddam wouldn't be broken out of jail
before the deposed dictator's trial—despite how much liberals and terrorists want that), I'm asking—in a similar spirit of distortion and fantasy—that arrogant know-it-all "progressive" I once was to do the honors of fisking this moonbattiness.
Heinz Kerry Tells Why She Joined Democrats
[Asshaturated Press/AOL Spews, Sarasota Herald-Tribune]
By EMILY FREDRIX, AP
WASHINGTON (June 14) - Teresa Heinz Kerry says anger, not ideology, prompted her to become a Democrat. The wife of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, says her emotion stemmed from the way the Republican Party, to which she had pledged allegiance, treated Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002.
|Teresa Heinz Kerry was a registered Republican until her husband announced his White House bid.|
She didn't say "under 'god'" when she pledged her allegiance
to that Republican flag, so it's not like anyone could ever hold her to it. Even had she done so, as everyone knows there's a wall of separation between church and state enshrined in our living constitution, so it wouldn't have counted anyway.
Just like Republicans to demand that people pledge things "under 'god'" so they feel they have to keep their pledges. Is changing one's mind some form of "sacrilege" then? Geesh.
Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm as an Army captain during the Vietnam War, lost his re-election bid in a bitter campaign against then-Rep. Saxby Chambliss. The GOP had raised questions about Cleland's patriotism because of his position on legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. Cleland supported the concept behind the department, but insisted that a workers' rights provision be part of the bill.
No president, even in time of national emergency, should ever be allowed to "just fire" anyone who works for our government. There are Civil Service protections and procedures that make sure every employee is treated fairly, such as his or her periodic job-performance ratings. No civil servant may be subject to a termination notice, even for cause, unless they have received at least three consecutive "poor" ratings, and even then they're entitled to appeal those ratings to the Office of Personnel Management, and from there to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and from there to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They even have the right to appeal that last court's rulings to our U.S. Supreme Court. Only then may a dedicated government employee be judged incompetent and subject to any firing.
A civil servant should never lose those rights, regardless what department or agency they work for. Patriotism means making sure they retain these rights no matter how threatened our country is.
Heinz Kerry, in an interview to be broadcast Tuesday on the "CBS Evening News," says Cleland's status as a triple amputee is enough to prove his patriotism.
|Whose Side Are You On?|
|If the election were held today, who would you vote for?|
|George W. Bush||51%|
|I don't know||5%|
|Total Votes: 533,537|
"Three limbs and all I could think was, 'What does the Republican party need, a fourth limb to make a person a hero?' And this coming from people who have not served. I was really offended by that. Unscrupulous and disgusting," she said, her reference being an indirect one to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
That's right. We should wheel out
Saint Senator Cleland on stage every chance we get. Forget whether the Republicans say we're using him as a prop. This is too important. If they're going to question our patriotism, we'll question theirs. That will show them. They'll know better than to do such dastardly questioning of people's patriotism again.
I like that idea of a "fourth limb," however. Maybe he could, you know, like "accidentally" break it in a fall while sitting too close to the edge of the stage. Then we can say, "You satisfied, Republicans! Now he's given his fourth limb for his country, too, and you're still questing his patriotism." I like the photo-op potential of that one. Great idea, there, Ter!
If only those backwards, stupid voters in Georgia hadn't been so retarded as to fall for all that patriotism bashing, he'd still be a senator today. But what do you expect from people who marry their sisters. (Not that I'm not saying they should be discriminated against if they want to marry them, or be denied that fundamental right or anything.)
Neither Republican served in Vietnam. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, and Cheney received five student deferments from service during the war.
I know of a lot of guys who served in Vietnam who had bad tickers. So there's no excuse there either. As far as our
elected selected leader misleader, who cares whether he could've been killed "serving our country" while training in all those fighter combat jets? It's not like he was doing anything worthwhile in them like flying around delivering food to our starving children. Just using them for a bunch of warmongering stuff.
Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts, and Silver and Bronze stars for his efforts commanding a swift boat on the Mekong Delta. Earlier in the campaign, opponents of Kerry had raised questions about his military service and whether he deserved the military honors.
Hey, one Band-Aid® on a wound doesn't mean it didn't require a full bandage or a tourniquet. Maybe that's all the military doctor had at the time and told the future junior senator to wait until he could get some more supplies. After all, there was a war going on, you know. It's not like he could go to the hospital supply room somewhere in downtown Tokyo and grab any when he ran out. Didn't the Republicans ever think of that? Oh, that's right, they wouldn't know. They never "served." (chorkle, chorkle)
Same as they wouldn't know that a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong enemy is much more dangerous than a healthy, fighting one. Republicans probably never heard that old saying about "a wounded animal," either. (Not that any Viet Cong freedom fighter ever was an "animal" or anything. I'm just saying that for illustration purposes.)
Heinz Kerry had been a registered Republican until Kerry, her second husband, announced his bid for the White House. Her first husband, Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania and the Heinz prepared foods heir, was killed in a plane crash in 1991. She inherited a fortune estimated at more than $500 million.
Which she's using to help the needy, and the poor, and The Children, for crying out loud. She's not a Halliburton BushCheneyCo exec, you know.
And her foundations have indirectly (understandable that Republicans don't understand the nuance of such a word) supported 9/11 victims groups that are trying to get the message out that Bush Knew! about the attacks before they happened. Criminy, he and Condi Rice had that memo that said, "Bin Laden hates us and wants to attack us here." How much more proof does anyone need! A fifth limb?
In the interview, John Kerry is asked about criticism of his wife, who has a reputation for being blunt and outspoken.
"When it's silly stuff, and a lot of it is incredibly unfactual, I get angry about it," he said.
Yeah, all we hear all the time is "blunt, blunt" this and "outspoken, outspoken" that. The unfactualness of it all is enough to drive actual thinking people crazy. It's so unfactual, you know, all that stuff. I even saw some stuff on the other day that was real unfactual. You know, like the last stuff everyone saw. That was so incredibly unfactual, too, and silly. Silly Republicans, I suppose you want all your women to be librarians and stuff and not immigrants of mixed Portuguese, Italian, Swiss, German and French decent with a British passport who can marry an upper-class senator and inherit a fortune after he dies and marry another upper-class senator. How narrow-minded.
Asked for three words to describe his 65-year-old wife, who is five years his senior, Kerry said: "Saucy, sexy, brilliant."
She responded: "I'm cheeky, I'm sexy, whatever. You know, I've got a lot of life inside."
That's so cute. Isn't it wonderful that a man is willing to marry a woman who's half a decade older than him. Now that's progressive.
A liberal interest group will begin airing a new television commercial Tuesday in four battleground states that calls President Bush "a failure of leadership"
Oh, yeah. This administration has failed on, on...well, everything. Don't leave that one out.
and criticizes Vice President Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton.
MoveOn.org's political action committee will spend about $1 million over a week, a hefty amount, to run the 30-second ad in Missouri, Nevada, Ohio and Oregon.
The ad accuses Bush's administration of giving Cheney's former company no-bid contracts to work in Iraq "on a silver platter."
"Then," the ad says, "the Pentagon caught Halliburton overcharging $61 million for gasoline. Worse, they billed over $100 million dollars for meals for our troops that they never delivered. And George Bush is still doing business with them."
Wow, I'm speechless. I just knew Dennis Kucinich was right all along about those deals. I don't care that Clinton also awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton (those were just part of the Clinton-Gore reforms), or that it was the only company that could "get the job done" (there were a bunch of French companies just waiting to go back in), or that these allegations are over seven months old, or that there was nowhere near "$100 million dollars" in overcharges, or that another company (Tamimi) has the food contract now, or even that Cheney's former company Halliburton has been "cleared" of any wrongdoing regarding that gasoline. These things still don't make it right. No corporation should be in it just for the profit. They should all get only "below-cost only" contracts.
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign, said: "This is another incredibly misleading ad from an organization completely outside of the mainstream of American politics."
Like that organization's major financier, George Soros, isn't mainstream? Just look at all the good he's done for Europe and the Russian ruble and ask me again if he isn't. He's just trying to help us out like he's helped them, that's all. It's why he's backing ads that show Halliburton is a profit-oriented corporation.
Separately, The Media Fund, another Democratic group, ran new radio and newspaper ads in Kansas City, Mo., criticizing his record on health care and prescription drug costs. Bush visited the state Monday.
Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti contributed to this report.
06/14/04 20:46 EDT
Updated: 09:54 AM EDT
Oh, that reminds me. If the president doesn't have to resign in order to go campaigning around the country, why should his opponent have to resign from the Senate? That's such a double standard. Who cares whether Bob Dole felt he had to do that? It wasn't like a rule or anything.
Back to reality now.
I can't believe how deluded I was back then. While my wanting to help people and empathy for them basically hasn't changed, my belief that those in government could do and have it far better than other citizens has. It was a cop out in a way. I could act as a great helper and empathizer vicariously through my government. The more far-reaching and powerful I let it become by my votes, the better I believed I was being helpful and empathetic myself. I didn't really look to see how, and therefore didn't trust that we the people were even more capable of being so ourselves. Thus I looked down on anyone who wanted less government, thinking they were just being selfish or mean-spirited, or both. Because I assumed that only government could make lives better, my so-called logic told me that advocates for lesser government didn't want people to have better lives. I even considered myself more enlightened and more caring than those advocates since I was for bigger government. I personally had no means and therefore no power to offer everyone the exorbitant amount of help and empathy I wanted them all to have, except through such government. Moreover, I assumed everyone else was as powerless as I, compared to the absolute beneficence of an all-encompassing government.
Fortunately I learned that there was nothing absolute about it. The dispirited stares of persons dependent on government assistance, the inability of businesses to offer more people jobs, hope and a future because of overly complex and counterproductive regulations, the special privileges and exemptions which elected officials afford themselves in the laws they pass, power-hungry tyrants turning to unelected, sympathetic judges to bypass the consent of the governed and impose their own will on everyone. These taught me that government is the last place to look for any real benefits.
Where I consistently found sources of actual help and empathy were among private organizations and individuals. Ten years ago, for example, my brother and I went to help a relative of ours who had lost her home in a devastating flood. She was not alone. Homes in half the city where she lived were damaged, many beyond repair. Arriving on the scene, we came upon a checkpoint set up by National Guardsmen whose duty was to keep out looters and curiosity seekers. After my brother explained about our relative, they let us pass. What we saw as we proceeded farther in was heartbreaking. Debris was everywhere. All the houses had been completely submerged for days and were now completely uninhabitable. One had belonged to an elderly couple who lost their lives after the fast-rising waters caught them in their sleep. When we reached our relative's home, we could tell how high the waterline rose by observing the mud rings—thirty feet up—caked around the trunks of the tallest trees. Despite the nearly overpowering smell, we got to work trying to salvage what we could and piling the rest in heaps up and down the roadside.
There were no soldiers or government social workers or welfare officials helping us out with that difficult task or comforting us when it got too rough. For the most part we had just each other and our families pitching in to clean up the entire mess. Once a day a Red Cross van passed through offering people water, bandages and tetanus shots. But that was about it. Then, during our third day inside this ravaged area, a miracle came.
A group of about twenty members from an out-of-town church—I don't know if it was even in the same state—walked up to us and asked if they could help. Not too long before, one of the nearby houses we had tried cleaning out proved too much for us to handle because it was in even a worse mess. We told this group about it and they immediately descended on that house, removing soaked furniture and limbs, ripping out rugs, pulling off sheetrock, and sweeping out mud until, about three hours later, it was in much better shape than the other houses we were working on. After they were done one of my cousins asked if she could pay them something for all that hard work, but they politely declined. Then she asked if she could at least have an address where she could send a card thanking them. They declined that too before heading down the road to the next houses.
To this day I don't know who they were or where they came from. They could have been angels. Their altruism surely was an unexpected answer to our prayers.
Regular citizens helping each other out in time of need is not an uncommon occurrence in this generous country. They don't require you to fill out forms or wait for approval before they offer you that help. It's just "What do you need done?" and they get right to it. Where it counts, they're much better at helping people and having empathy for them than any government employee who's supposedly paid for it. No amount of laws or funding or special programs are able to solve people's problems or make their lives better than the way we keep doing it ourselves.
To liberals this would be considered radical, a word they often recite but whose true meaning they obviously don't understand.
Radical connotes a driving force that fiercely opposes prevailing ways of thinking so it can break through reluctance and usher in new thoughts roused by necessity. An impenitent intolerance of stilted manners that have been holding back real progress. In this sense the concepts of our Founding Fathers are radical. They brook no blind servitude to the tyrant, circumscribed only by his whims, but require open obedience to the law of the land, properly enacted with the voluntary, competent and knowledgeable consent of the citizens inhabiting that land. Two hundred and twenty-eight years ago, such ideas were extremely radical. Given the state of almost all of the earth's countries, they still are.
Every acolyte of liberalism wants to convey the notion that its ideas are also radical. That they are not only utterly new but urgently necessary. But they're as old and discarded as any Grecian potshard. Even that obsolescent national party to which a vast majority of these acolytes still flock bears the name of liberalism's most pontificated form of government: Democratic. The same one ancient Greece tried to adopt but couldn't maintain longer than two centuries.
The radical notion is that people themselves, not their governments, are in the best position, have the best knowledge, and have access to the best resources for finding and fixing their own problems. Government may try, as liberals want, to be a substitute for that, but it's always a poor one. When someone comes up to you and says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," you can count on not getting any which could actually do you some good. It will either be much more trouble than it's worth or leave you worse off than you were before you heard some N-word Byrd tell you "help is on the way!" Such DemoKKKrats believe government should have all your power so it can always say in every conceivable circumstance, "I'm here to help you." It's really all about power for them—and we don't need that kind of helping.
When I was a "progressive," I believed that the Democratic Party was the real deal, an actual alternative to the Republican party. I then progressed to the belief that they were both essentially the same. After Gore's attempted coup d'état in 2000, I began to realize that for Dodocrats it was all about power—nothing more, nothing less. The straws of that realization kept piling up, especially after seeing Senator Wellstone's
memorial service We Will Win! pep rally, SadTom obstructionists in the Senate, the scratch-n-switch Jeffords power grab, Dean's name-the-states primal power scream, the attempt to delay Gray "Skies" Davis' recall, the Ninth Circuit's outlawing "under God" throughout the western states, al-Qerry's Massachusetts supreme court turning marriage into a meaningless farce, the 9+1 Against Bush Commission, "Bushless-Life or Death" Soros' 527 BCRA end-around, anytime GoreBot's back in the news, the libstream media/al-Qaeda joint propaganda project to put "free Abu Grabass pictures inside!" on every cereal box, "I voted for it before I voted against it," and the uncontrolled salivating at the mouth every time another point on the one-sided "Troops Killed" giant liberal scoreboard is added. Tuesday's "Mr. President, have you stopped beating your wife?" grain of reporters' America's backstabbers' questions was, for me, the one that broke every doubt's back.
Dhimmicrats and their media enablers have systematically marginalized themselves with a steady stream of propaganda that would insult even an amoeba's intelligence. "Anyone But Bush" and "Anything To Win," and now Qlinton's "Because I Could," will be carved in big block letters on that party's headstone.
The party of Ted "Good News Is I Saved $$$ By Switching to GEICO" Kennedy, Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry, Hilldabeast, SadTom Daschle, Goreknob & Gorelick, The Racebaiting Jessie Jackson, al-Sharptongue, Rep. Corrine "They All Look Alike To Me" Brown, Terry GlobalCro$$ing McAuliffe, Bob Byrd (D-KKK), the Not Wortha Dime, BiIsIs Qlinton, James Hurl al-Qarter, Michael Tanked Dukakis, Janet Waconflagration Reno, francophiles, porous borders, If It Feels Good, Do It™, et al., has failed miserably in its duty to offer the American people sensible, viable alternatives. There's no loyalty to America in its opposition at all anymore. Their distortions and grandstanding for power are weakening support for our troops and our troops' mission and emboldening our enemies, inviting more attacks against all of us.
Fortunately, once our nation rids herself once and for all of any further threat from this Diseasocratic petulance, we can work on establishing a second party that's much better for our country.
Then we can let America be America again.
Comments (registered users)
Post a Comment