Right News and Views

This is the second in a series of columns concerning great presidents and how the modern contenders for the office simply do not measure up. Part two discusses George Washington (part 1 covered Abraham Lincoln) and his great leadership ability.

A real leader

It is to our great misfortune that we no longer have such leaders. Rather than understanding freedoms of, which the Founders gave us, they want to give us freedoms from- which is what Karl Marx tried to give us but instead only created vast grave yards under the nightmare of communism.

Washington truly had it all - he was a statesman when today we have only politicians.

Not the enemies of white men, but the enemies of any who believes in the individual over the collective, who believes in personal accountability, and who believes in logic over liberal emotion.

This piece by Gary Hubbell is truly an interesting read. I don’t agree with every part of it but Hubbell gets a lot right- and well articulates much of my ow anger at those who oppress me, raid my paycheck, and want me to be something less than a man.

“His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field.” I can certainly understand where Hubbell is coming from with this statement. I want government out of my way for more than any other organization they stand in the way of my success. It isn’t my boss for not letting me get more overtime or promoting me- it’s my job to either work harder to get a promotion or find another, better job. I have less because government takes more. I could retire at 45 if government weren’t in my way. But since I have to pay for the retirements of all those others that refused to plan for their own future I won’t be able to do that.

“When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers.” This, too, makes sense. We live in America. If you can’t live well here you wouldn’t live well anywhere else. Well, maybe that is not true. Most other places you would know you have to work and would not be able to survive off of what government steals from the working folks to pay for your lazy lifestyle. The color of your skin doesn’t matter- I’ve seen folks of all sorts of different backgrounds who are, where work ethic is concerned, worthless. The world owes you something? Yeah, a good hefty kick in the pants.

And concerning Hillary? “Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.”

Dead on. I could care less that she is a woman. What bothers me is her cry of victim. What bothers me is her attitude that the collective is better than the individual. What bothers me is her class envy mantra. What bothers me is her obvious fake-ness.

It is the same for Obama. It is not that he is African American but that he believes much the way Hillary does; he is liberal and therefore unfit to command the armies of the US or lead its government.

Will angry white men keep either of them out of office? Lets hope so.

Hillary and Bill want to be back in the White House so bad that they do what Democrats always do; stir up class envy and lie.

Oh, don’t ask me any hard questions- I just want do to the reverse of what Bush has done as president. Where he lowered taxes, I want to raise them. Where he defended us from terror I want to weaken our ability to fight this war. You know, that kind of stuff…

In this, a brand new ad script for New Hampshire, she reveals her true self:

CLINTON: We’ve got to get serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil. We could create millions of new jobs through new energy.
CLINTON: Let’s start investing in what I’ve called a strategic energy fund that will put 50 billion dollars to work with wind and solar and biofuels.
CLINTON: And where would I get the money? I would take away the tax subsidies from the oil companies. They don’t need your tax dollars anymore.
ANNOUNCER: If you’re ready for change, she’s ready to lead.
CLINTON: I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

Point 1: If she really believed we have to get serious about ending our dependence of foreign oil she would support drilling in the Arctic Preserve and in the Gulf. But that might upset the environmental folks who put trees above human interests. And who is this “we” she is talking about? Businesses create jobs, not Hillary (unless she ever decides to do something productive with here life and opens a business of her own she’ll never create jobs). Otherwise, she is too liberal to even help create an atmosphere that helps businesses create jobs.

Point 2: Where does the money come from for this strategic energy fund? Is that $50 billion dollars out of our pockets for government research? It would be vastly better used by businesses to find alternatives to oil because they have an incentive to succeed: that evil word, profit, that Hillary wants to take away from them anyway.

Point 3: Ah, and here we are- the class envy mantra. Take tax subsidies away from oil companies? Sounds good to me, actually, but my problem is this- she says “they don’t need your tax dollars anymore.” No, I need my tax dollars. What’s she going to do about that? Is she going to lower our taxes now? No, of course not- though big oil may not need our tax dollars, Hillary sure thinks she does.

Point 4: Ready for change? Sure, I’m ready for all liberals to go away and for common sense to return to our government and our society. Is Hillary the harbinger of that change? Hardly- she’s rather a symbol for that insanity and rank liberalism that plagues our nation. To her, change means moving even deeper into the self-loathing, guilty, taxing, gutless Code Pinkness, amoral pit that is liberalism.

McCain, bad as he is, is vastly better than Hillary or Obama (who is just as liberal as she is).

If we only all presidents were as good as the handful of truly great ones we’ve had. Bush has been good and, perhaps, history will even judge him as great. But he has let government get even larger and has done little to directly combat and destroy the liberal agenda. Unlike Lincoln, who used his tremendous leadership ability to hold our nation together and, more importantly, end the evil of slavery, Bush (and most modern presidents) have let the perpetual motion machine that is government expansion, corruption, and intrusion to the detriment and not benefit of our lives grow ever more out of control.

This may sound like a contradiction when many in Lincoln’s own day called him a tyrant. But Lincoln correctly identified an evil and dealt with it. Bust has identified terrorism and has, thankfully, fought it just as strongly as Lincoln stood to hold the Union together and thus end slavery. But Bush has more problems to deal with that he has failed to address successfully. What are the?

For one, Social Security (a “program” the American people have been successfully fooled into believing works and is actually good for them (do some quick math to see how much personal wealth can be accumulated over a working lifetime if one could invest that money themselves). It must at least be privatized fully or destroyed utterly. But of course there are other evils Bush as either not bothered to address or has not addressed successfully: the attack upon traditional values, the attack upon the family, our failure to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Preserve and expand our drilling in the gulf, to expand our nuclear energy facilities, and, for some unknown reason, he has failed to directly attack liberalism as the degrading and dangerous agenda it is.

He is of course not a total flop like Clinton and Carter - and he is vastly superior to his father - but there were so many great opportunities that, unlike Lincoln, Bush missed.

In Hate Springs Eternal Paul Krugman notes that:

“Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.”

Though his overall theme that either Democrat would be a good choice for president is mistaken, Krugman is right on this point. We do not want to distract voters from the issues. After all, it’s not Hillary or Obama that we hate- it’s their support of the murder of the unborn. It’s not Hillary or Obama that we hate – it’s there unreasoned if unintentional support of genocide in Iraq. It is not Hillary or Obama that we hate- it is their belief in socialism and the collective.

We should not assassinate their character but rather expose their hostility towards capitalism. We should not assassinate their character but rather expose their blind belief of and faith in government. We should not assassinate their character but rather expose their arrogant presumption that we the people are too ignorant to survive without their overreaching “benevolence.”

We should not distract voters from these issues- we should rather clearly proclaim the dangers radical liberal schemes pose to our nation. The decay in moral and social standing that result from never-ending handouts is as destructive to the individual human soul as to the society at large. The cost of government dependency to ourselves and our children and their children’s future is incalculable. The bigotry of low expatiations traps many - be they white, black or any other race - into a never-ending, debilitating degradation of hope to fear or, worse, hate. The attack on the family and its traditional roll and morals darkens the dreams of the decent and sensible.

This is Liberal Land- where the Lefts lies and arrogance heap upon the backs of decent Americans heavy chains forged from the massacred bodies of the unborn, forged from heavy taxes that trap families from bettering their future, forged from the bitter attacks by “freedom” and “peace” loving Americans upon those who stand to defend freedom and fight for peace.

Hate the people? No- as Christ commands we must love them. But hate the ghastly and repellent results of their failed policies. Hate the appalling and grisly body count of the American holocaust: abortion. Hate the hopelessness they parade around as a viable future. Hate their sheer, undeniable, and obvious lack of even a semblance of good sense and common decency.

A rant, a tirade? Call the truth what you will- by any other name it is still the truth.

I’ve often thought of liberals as long on heart (a sincere complement) but short on brains (a sad reality). Now I’m beginning to wonder about the heart part. According to this piece on Politico Nancy Pelosi says Iraq is a failure.

Should those not be white flags behind Pelosi?

Really? World War II would have been a failure, too, had we left after the Battle of the Bulge. German concentration camps would have remained factories of death and the war lost not because of a failure of our troops but because of a failure of the hearts of those at home.

In the piece she says our troops “deserve better than the policy of a war without end.” And what do the Iraqis deserve? Mass graves without end? If we leave before true stability occurs we very likely look into another such abyss as the holocaust or killing fields where mass numbers of people die at the hands of barbarous monsters.

So where is the heart for Iraqis? Do liberals say they should suck it up and just get the job done? Oh, would that they felt that way about the so-called poor here. Shouldn’t they suck it up and get jobs and off welfare? Oh, no- it’s okay to redistribute the wealth of others in a war on poverty “without end” but to heck with Iraqis facing a real genocide. Again I ask, where is the heart in that?

No, Pelosi is wrong. Just because this arch liberal has called it quits doesn’t make Iraq a failure. Only her actions that may (but hopefully will not) end the just fight for liberty for Iraq will make it a failure.

Iraq can be - and will be if we but keep our courage- a glittering jewel in the crown of democracy.

Or we can abandon Iraq to become once again a bloody hole in the nightmare of tyranny and genocide.

Here is a question I’ve been thinking about about all week: do some have the right to force others to be charitable? Well, it has actually been on my mind ever since I received my first paycheck. At that moment I remember wondering what I did wrong. I knew how many hours I worked, I knew what I earned for each of those hours, so why was my check so much smaller than what I had expected?

Poverty is caused by greedy corporations, Edwards believes. Whatever. Jobs are created by “greedy” corporations. So are the benefits that come with many of those jobs.

Oh, I knew of course that some taxes would be taken out. But the number I was looking at couldn’t be right. Well, of course, it was. And ever since then I’ve known that they do not have that right.

To be sure they take the liberty (your liberty, actually) to reach into your paycheck to fund what they believe is a worthy cause. They deeply believe in the collective (much like the Borg collective on Star Trek: The Next Generation). They don’t care how much suffering they spread so long as they are doing what they believe is just. Take their stance on helping the poor. It doesn’t matter if they are trapped in a never ending cycle of government dependency. I suppose that is why the “War on Poverty” is so very wrongly named. Using the word “war” suggests that there will at some point be some sort of victory and that poverty will go away. Some lefty attack puppy will will now start sputtering about the “War on Terror.” Check Iraq- the surge is working (I know, I’m sorry for you libs but Bush isn’t a total flop after all).

But back to the misnamed “War on Poverty.” It should be called the “pipe dream.” Poverty will always be with us. Granted, it can be lowered but it will not go away.

And how do we lower poverty? The best way to lower it is not through hand outs but through hands off. Think of how many jobs could be created for those currently in a state of poverty if we would just expand our nuclear energy program and drill in the arctic preserve and offshore in the gulf. Think how many jobs could be created if we deregulated business and lowered their taxes so they could hire more people and do more research and development to grow their business.

Business seek profit. The best way to get profit is to grow your business. You grow your business by hiring people, investing in new technologies (which help other companies hire new employees of their own) and being competitive. Think of it: job growth. Jobs for people who what them!

But that is not a liberal enough solution for many. “What, make people work?” That sounds too much like accountability for a liberal. And if there is one thing liberals hate, it is having to take responsibility for their actions or holding people to task for there’s.

It is all pointless musings, though. Government will continue to enslave its citizens that work to provide perpetual free rides to those who don’t. Liberals will continue to be totalitarian, ripping my freedoms away from me to enjoy the fruits of my own labors by demanding through coercion that I help them fund their feel-good schemes. Lets just hope all those poor working slobs like me and so many others don’t loose their own pride and decide that the American dream is not their own home and a brighter future for their children but government housing and dependent future for their progeny.

In closing I want to note that charity is a very good thing. It is just not governments place- it is my place and your place. In other words, people must help people- not some department in a far off capitol city that has no ability to love and show human compassion for the person in need nor the ability to expect accountability and an eventual end to their current state of need. In sum, a hand up- never a hand out.

By now, I’m sure most people are aware of this nonsense. Berkeley has gone over the edge with its anti-military lunacy in telling US Marines they are not welcome in their town. It staggers the mind, really. Liberals have never been ones for much thought beyond their fantasy land daydreams but you would think they at least realize that it takes real men to defend the freedoms we all enjoy. Without a military we would be overrun. How long before some nut job would come along and do in the Unites States what is pictured below?

Holocaust victims

The Holocaust is one of the worst events in human history. Without a military to stop Nazi Germany, how many more would have found their way into the ovens and mass graves of Hitler’s Europe?

The most pitiful victims of the Holocaust

How many more children would have starved to death? And remember, these children made it out of the womb alive- so liberals are supposed to care about them.

This is what happens to innocent people when good people do nothing

And how many did we allow to die, like this man probably did, and allow to suffer in the horrors of Pol Pot’s mad dream of a communist utopia? This is the real legacy of Vietnam.

Pol Pot’s Legacy

Here is but a very partial answer to that. This pile of bones is from the Killing Fields. Over a million died because “peace loving” Americans lacked the basic understanding that there is evil in the world and it must be confronted. They believed Walter Cronkite over this basic truth.

Victims of Saddam’s evil

And today? Obama and Clinton, despite clear, obvious, and overwhelming proof that we have turned the tide in Iraq in favor of the Iraqis and our troops, compete to see who will pull the troops out faster if elected. What a message to the enemy- “just wait a little longer- we’ll give up soon!”

More of Saddam’s evil

Here family members search among the dead, those butchered at Saddam’s command, for a sign that any given body is that of their loved one.

Berkeley slaps our troops in the face - the best of our country who bring nightmares like this to an end - when it shows its petty and colossal stupidity in telling Marines they are not welcome.

Would liberals stand for this if it were African Americans being told they were not welcome somewhere? Would liberals stand for this if it were women being told they were not welcome somewhere? Would liberals stand for this if it were anybody else but the men and women who protect or freedom and fight to spread that freedom to others under a tyrants boot?

Of course not. Remember, for liberals it is all about intent; not results.

Unlike Rome, America may still be shiny and new looking on the outside. But how long before the decay on the inside begins to show?

That any votes were cast at all for Hillary and Obama is deeply disturbing; further proof that our society is degenerating into a government dependent collective.

McCain, obviously, is far better than either of the two front runners in the Socialist Party (read: Democratic Party). But his success last night only demonstrates that conservatives are themselves drifting towards bigger government and more “entitlements” for all.

Well, if history teaches us anything it is that all nations rise, decline, and eventually fall. We may still be the most powerful country on earth, but we’re in decline. Perhaps not obviously, but when the majority of people vote for goodies for themselves over the values of the candidates you know the slide has begun.

You gotta be kidding me!

I ran across this image and was just stunned at the ignorance of whoever put it together. If it refers to modern liberals it has it all wrong. Let’s take it point by point.

1. Tolerant? Only if you agree with their deranged view of the world. Put a fact in front of them and they get downright nasty.

2. Generous? Yeah, with other peoples money.

3. Enlightened? As in enlightened enough to leave Saddam in power in Iraq and let many more millions die at his, and later his sons, hands? Yeah, real enlightened.

4. Broadminded? Broadminded enough to reject military recruiters on college campuses but invite a holocaust denying, genocide promoting Iranian president to speak at one of our colleges? Wow, that’s broadminded.

5. Lavish? What does this mean, anyway? I suppose it means lavish with the tax dollars they steal out of working Americans paychecks.

6. Charitable? This is getting repetitious. Charitable with other peoples money.

How it ought to read is:

LIBERAL -

Softly bigoted, wealth redistributing, morally ambivalent, small minded, thieving, arrogant, ignorant.

As to the Conservative, it ought to read:

Demanding, prepared, brave, strong, world-wise, moral, intelligent.

But liberals probably do see us the way that silly image contends. Expecting others to take care of themselves is not bigoted. Being stingy is not wishing to keep most of your paycheck to benefit your own family and help your own children. I could go on and on but liberals don’t want to understand us. They want to live in their happy little fantasy world. Fortunately, we’re here to do the heavy lifting and the real work.

Indeed, they ought to be thankful for us. Or lives make their lives possible. War protesters cannot protest if they do not have the freedom our military protects. Nanny state lovers cannot hand out other peoples money without big business generating all that wealth. Ah, liberals must lead a happy life. Ignorance, they say, is bliss.

A few of those who just don’t get it

I’ve always respected Thomas Sowell and faithfully read his columns. And I can’t wait to get my hands on a copy of “Economic Facts and Fallacies.” As Heather Wilhelm observes the book “dismantles many of the pervasive fallacies running rampant in politics today, broken into categories of urban life, gender, academia, income, race, and the problems of the third world.”

But liberals won’t let the facts get in the way of their mission to make the world how they think it should to be rather than how reality dictates it is. In failed idea after failed idea many of them stick to the belief that more government is the answer be it redistribution of wealth to other forms of government intrusion like Social Security, rent controls, dictating what restaurants may or may not serve, too-heavily regulating businesses, and so on.

Wilhelm points out that “for many, it seems, beliefs in economic fallacies take on a quasi-religious significance, fueled by a fervent belief in the way things ought to be or in a worldview soaked in victimization. Sowell suggests that certain “evidence is too dangerous–politically, financially, and psychologically–for some people to allow it to become a threat to their interests or to their own sense of themselves.”

I would call this weak-mindedness. And if you are liberal that pretty much sums up your problem. Take San Francisco, for example. The military protects their freedom to hate the military. The military protects their right denounce others for holding traditional moral values. Homosexuality would be one of the many things Islamic terrorists would seek to suppress or wipe out if they took over- a fact that seems to escape the bashers of those who protect San Francisco and the rest of the US from invasion.

How do we get the truth out and “sell” it so that people will act upon their newfound knowledge? I’ve seen a few liberals become conservative (Dennis Miller and Dick Morris come to mind) though I don’t know of any conservatives that have become liberal. I suppose as one gets older a form of dementia can set in and one may become liberal but for the most part those that “get it” maintain their understanding. But back to the point- I’ve seen some liberals become conservative. So I know it is possible. The only thing I know to do is keep pounding them with the facts or just run over them in the quest to strengthen and improve our country. Maybe one day they’ll catch up.