Right News and Views

Protestors who’ve never read the Diary of Anne Frank march in support of allowing genocide in Iraq. The real message of their march is to let the Iraqis die because they don’t care. What little of their already feeble minds they have left to expand stop at Americas borders- and at abortion clinic doors (but that’s a different evil they indulge in).

There is a subcategory of liberals that some fall into that includes even more closed-minded, blind, and dangerous dogmas than your average garden variety liberal holds. They are known as peaceniks, members of the anti-war movement, peace activists, and, to thinking Americans, misguided, though admittedly well-meaning, nitwits.

I just read Eli Lake’s piece on the subject and enjoyed it immensely. Well worth the read. The most telling passage is the following:

In 2006, writing about how the antiwar movement was conducting its own diplomacy in London and Amman to meet members of the “Sunni Resistance,” anti-war writer Robert Dreyfuss summed up the moral equivalency that afflicts so many in his quarter.

“Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in Iraq?” he asked. “Are the good guys the U.S. troops fighting to impose American hegemony in the Gulf? Are the good guys the American forces who have installed a murderous Shiite theocracy in Baghdad? Are the good guys the Marines who murdered children and babies in Haditha in cold blood?”

For those who have trouble understanding what is as obvious as the fact that water is wet let me just say that the US forces are the good guys. Obviously no sane person likes war. No sane person wants war. No sane person is insensitive to the suffering of our soldiers and their families. Conversely, no sane person fails to realize that removing a brutal mass murderer from a position of absolute power will ultimately save lives. But to these morons Hitler should have been left to do whatever he wanted.

To the misguided peace activist it’s not what the bad guy does but rather how the good guys respond. The mass murderer can annihilate millions of human lives and they will sadly shake their heads, perhaps, they may even speak out. But let the good guys move in to take out the monster and suddenly there have to be marches, protests, letter writings to Congress, morons dripping in fake blood, etc. Funny how they won’t lift a finger against someone like, say, Saddam but are quick to attack American soldiers. Kind of like the way many of our congressmen try to harm the troops, isn’t it? It’s mind-numbing lunacy- courtesy of the liberal Left.

Unfortunately, there is no reasoning with these people. They are utterly, completely, and - most likely forever - deranged. They simply do not grasp not only the dynamics of world events, of cause and effect, but even basic reasoning skills which would allow them to conclude that killing 1evil person to save 100 innocents is a net gain on the side of life. But they are so stepped in their mindless mantra that you could sooner get blood from a turnip than to force one of them to use reason.

The destination severe crimes should lead to…

As I have noted before, Thomas Sowell is always right on target. This time, Sowell further emphasizes the errors of an already completely discredited idea (well, to thinking people, anyway)- that the cause of crime is “injustices and inequities.”

The cause of crime is actually the result of a combination of factors- usually, though not always, originating in parents who fail to both love and discipline their children.

We’ve all suffered injustice and inequities, after all. I’m not a rich as Bill Gates but you don’t see me robbing him. But, because we’ve not poured even more money into the problem (i.e. committed a crime of our own by robbing taxpayers to fund redistribution schemes) we’ve got worse crime. Sowell explains the fallacy of this belief.

As with the majority of problems the United States faces today, this belief is championed by liberals who feel that if they can just steal a little bit more from all our paychecks they can solve any problem society faces. The fact of the matter is that some problems just don’t have a solution. We’ll always have crime.

But here is a way to reduce it. Liberals will scream and whine even more at this suggestion but you’ve got to understand- with liberals it is not about results- it is about intentions. So just ignore them when possible. But I digress.

If you are interested in results:

1. Punish criminals swiftly and harshly. In other words, prisons should not be country clubs. They should be, rather, fearful places that nobody in their right mind would want to find themselves in- ever. That way, when one criminal gets out he can give graphic details of the horrors awaiting other would-be criminals.

2. Make frequent and highly visible use of the death penalty and open up all serious crimes to its possibility- pedophiles, for example. By showing people what a frying body looks like as it shakes and jerks in the electric chair just might make a lasting impression on would-be criminals.

3. Prisoners should be forced to pay for their own keep. Any assets they have should be taken to pay for their incarceration expenses.

4. If not put to death, the criminal should serve his time and then, after release, enter society with his name cleared- a fresh start before him. But if he breaks the law again for an offense normally warranting more prison time, this time he should be put to death.

Presto- the crime rate will dramatically drop. Liberals will argue that there is no evidence that the harshness of punishment is related to the decision to commit a crime. But this colossal bit of ignorance is easily discredited. In a world without consequences for ones actions people will do whatever they wish- the “utopia” liberals are working for - as the increase in crime clearly proves. But it’s time we started protecting people and putting the rights of true victims ahead of the predators.

And that’s the way it is.

America is a land of traditions, of great historical customs. And Hillary Clinton threatens one of those traditions. How? Simply be being female.

Ever since our founding, for over 200 years, a white male has occupied the position of the presidency. And it would be a real shame- a tragedy, in fact, if Clinton broke that tradition.

If you can’t believe what you just read above I don’t blame you. It makes just as much sense as the argument that one should vote for Hillary simply because she would be the first female president.

According to this piece on Brietbart.com:

“If you hear someone saying that America can’t elect a woman president … tell them to come with me,” Clinton told a service employees union here in September, saying she hears parents point to her and tell their young daughters ’see, honey, you can do whatever you want to do in life.”

Lower taxes? Let people run their own lives? Expect accountability??? You must be joking! Bawhahahahahah……

I would point to Hillary as an example of what I would not want my daughter to be. But yeah, you can be anything you want in America. Unfortunately, Democrats – and especially Hillary – don’t play well to the crowd that actually wants to accomplish things. To continue to have votes cast in their favor, Democrats are happy to practice the soft bigotry of low expectations, are happy to allow human misery to continue by keeping people on government assistance, and are happy to punish those who excel by rewarding to those who do not. To a Democrat you can be anything- anything that doesn’t demand accountability or responsibility for your own actions.

Don’t get me wrong. A qualified woman would, I’m sure, make a good president. But just as an unqualified man would make a poor president, so, too, will Hillary make a poor president.

Her socialistic views on healthcare, her liberal “values,” and her near-communistic view of the role government should play in our lives is not the America our Founders envisioned nor is it an America that can remain strong, both economically and militarily.

As I recently pointed out, Hillary is ready to sink her teeth into your paycheck. But she’s also ready to do a lot more harm that that. First female president or not, she would be a disaster for our country.

No fuzzy math here- Social Security is a pathetic return on your investment. This is one ceremony I would love to see held in the Rose Garden!

In A path to reform, The San Diego Union-Tribune suggests that there are “two promising bipartisan proposals” in reforming Social Security. One is from Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. and the other is from Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. Without some sort of reform the piece contends that entitlements will bankrupt the federal government.

They correctly point out that those who ignore the coming “crisis” or claim it is part of a conservative plot ignore significant questions. As the piece puts it:

“Never explained is how – without wrenching change – we can go from a nation where there are four people working and paying payroll taxes for every retiree reliant on Social Security and Medicare to a nation where the ratio is 2-to-1. Never explained is how the federal government will pay for national defense or children’s health coverage or any of hundreds of other worthy programs in 2030 when entitlement costs and interest on the debt will gobble up 75 percent of incoming revenue.”

The answer is staring us right in the face but, unfortunately, the Union-Tribune wants government to come up with a solution. Here is what really needs to happen.

People need to be accountable for themselves and stop looking to government to provide for them in their golden years.

Social Security – as a retirement plan – needs to be wiped from the face of the earth for all but those currently on it and those so close to being on it that they have no way to escape being on the doll without suffering dire consequences. This would not bother me too much: if you put your faith in government you get what you disserve. But, I admit, that would be wrong. Government promised Social Security and those too ignorant to plan ahead for themselves would be left out to dry.

But for anyone, say, around forty years old or younger the program is nothing more than an outdated dinosaur. It is not only a poor but a pathetic return on your investment. Don’t believe this? Let’s assume I earned minimum wage my entire life and never received a wage increase. If I took both what I and my employer contributed in SS taxes and invested it at a rate of return that was half the Stock Market average rate of return, I would have about half a million dollars at age 67. To collect that much out of Social Security I would have to live to be 106. Now, let’s say I die at 66. Social Security gives me nothing to leave to my family but in my plan I would have that nearly half a million that could go to my grandchildren’s education or whatever else my family needed or wanted.

Worried about the non-retirement aspect of Social Security- the disability portion? A tax hike of just 3.7% would cover that portion of Social Security- well worth it for what you would gain by having the rest of it under your control.

Like I point out here, government has no business taking money from one group and giving it to another. Government is not the answer to your retirement – you are. Work, plan, and save and you can have a truly great retirement. Or, we can stick with Social Security and live off the labor of younger people who could be using the money you take from them for their own families needs. Think about it.

Check out Rush Limbaugh’s auction for the smear letter he received from the Usual Suspects in the Senate. This letter, built upon the lie that Limbaugh insulted our troops, was signed by 41 Democratic Senators to denounce the commentator for something he clearly did not do and has the evidence to prove it. The Senators hate Limbaugh and talk radio so much that they are foaming at the mouth for any excuse to pound on them, especially so in their spiteful rage against the damage the vicious MoveOn.org ad (General Betray Us) did them.

I commend Limbaugh for finding a way to take this lie, turn it around, and actually do something the Senators don’t seem too interested in doing themselves- supporting our troops. Were I serving in the Marines and had children at home, it would comfort me to know that, if I were to fall in the line of duty, a scholarship would be available for my child when he or she went to college.

The Democratic Senators must be just sick that their smear has blown up in their face and is actually going to be used to help our troops rather than hinder them. To which I say- good! Reid has done everything he can to try and force an American defeat in Iraq- and as I’ve noted before, he believes only in the white flag of surrender.

Once the winner of the auction takes possession of the letter he should hold a ceremony and burn the filthy lie. He’s done his part in paying for it and helping the families of our troops. Limbaugh did his part in offering it and, through his celebrity, creating such interest in raising funds for this worthy charity. And, completely unwillingly, the Senators did their part, too.

Democrats can actually accomplish something good for America after all. Who would have thought?

According to this piece in Sydney Morning Herald, not just “a meteorologist” but “one of the world’s foremost meteorologists” thinks Al Gore’s theory that won him the Nobel Peace Prize is “ridiculous.”

”I know what I’m talking about- that’s why we’ve got to put our economy in a Global Warming lockbox.”

This meteorologist is Dr. William Gray, whom the article claimed is a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts and whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicized. In other words, he knows what he’s talking about.

Or maybe not. After all, Al Gore has a Bachelor of Arts degree in government (imagine, a Democrat with a degree in government- that’s almost too rich!). I’m sure the coursework for his degree was very heavily tilted to meteorology and climatology but I had no idea it would have prepared Gore to become an environmental whiz.

Sarcasm aside, as I pointed out last week Gore is stretching his credibility incredibly thin. And were I a betting man I would put my money on the expert and not a politician any day. That’s the thing, though- Gore has everything to gain by proclaiming gloom and doom – another shot at the White House – whereas Gray, who is 78 and no longer needs grants (which would be denied him if he did not lie about how much humans have to do with changes in the environment) can tell what his considered, expert opinion really is.

As Dr. Gray said, “we’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was.”

Yep, in 15 years we’ll all be singing “Al Gore lied, the earth didn’t die!”

”And as you can see here in this large representation of the earth, my energy efficient mansion is actually visible from space. So stop consuming so much energy because I need it.”

“What has Al Gore done for world peace” asks Damian Thompson in this piece from the UK Telegraph. An excellent question- and one with a simple, one-word answer- “nothing.” Mark Jabo also has the right take on what would, in a sane world, be a joke.

Though that might not be entirely true- and here are some reasons why.

By not becoming president of the United States, we’ve had one and only one day of terror on American soil. Who knows how many more terrorist attacks we would have had if this liberal were in power, waving a white flag from the White House? So we’ve had peace on our soil.

By not becoming president of the United States, Saddam was finally taken out. That’s a real plus for peace as there won’t be any more mass graves of innocent Iraqis. Gore would not have had the guts to take out that butcher.

By not becoming president the Supreme Court has moved slightly right (in both a political as well as moral sense). Had Gore become president he surely would have sent liberals where they have no business being (in power). And with this move right we’re that much closer to ending a holocaust that’s been occurring on our soil since Roe was wrongly decided. Stepping closer to putting an end to this slaughter certainly sounds like peace to me.

Perhaps they just felt sorry for Al and figured he deserved some sort of consolation prize. And that I can truly understand. He came so very, very close to holding the most powerful position on the planet and, sadly for him but so very fortunately for the rest of us, it slipped through his fingers.

As Thompson points out the fact remains that “An Inconvenient Truth” – quotation marks added for the sake of accuracy- is “full of errors and unsubstantiated claims.” Could Gore be right on some things? Maybe, but I doubt it. And it is stretching credibility very thin to imagine it is as serious as he thinks it is. This isn’t Hollywood, afterall.

Still, I wonder… In 30 years will anyone care to join me in a chorus of “Al lied, the earth didn’t die!”?

The above photo, from http://www.amightywind.com/abortion/pleaseno.htm, is without question the most evil and illegitimate portion of all in the liberal agenda; abortion.

Daniel Henninger’s Hillary Talks About ‘It’ is an excellent read and discusses the Right vs. Wrong (Left) partisanship that permeates much of modern politics in America.

The most interesting passage of his column contained the following:
“Prof. Fish has an alternative to traditions of tolerance, and to anyone awash in American politics today it will sound familiar: “That is to say, and Marcuse says it, anything the right does is bad and should not be tolerated; anything the left does is good and should be welcomed.” This would explain the emotional intensity and animosity in politics now: The other side no longer deserves minimal respect.”

He continues by observing that “it’s not enough to disagree with conservative viewpoints; one has to undermine and delegitimize them. Mock them. Put them beyond the pale.”

How Liberals could accomplish this where thinking Americans are concerned is quite beyond me. “Anything” the right does is not bad, nor is “everything” they do good. The preceding is a completely true statement but not, if you can accept this paradox, near as true as the following is false; that “anything” the left does is good. Indeed, very little the left does is good. The vast majority of what they do is incredibly harmful, in fact.

But to examine this issue farther, the left does indeed attempt to delegitimize conservative viewpoints. Conversely, conservatives reveal the truth about the illegitimate viewpoints of the Left. These viewpoints include the murder of the unborn, the protection of any speech as free no matter how vile- such as any defense in any way for any point concerning groups like NAMBLA, “helping” people by trapping them in poverty and dependency, and socialism. Only some of the most vile and evil of liberal ideas, these are positions that do not need to be put beyond the pale- they are already there. These do not need to be undermined as they are not credible to begin with. If one believes they are it only illustrates how sadly successful the liberal propaganda machine has rotted the minds of Americans.

It is perfectly legitimate to be intolerant of liberalism. As one would be intolerant of a pedophile because they wish to defend children from harm then one would also be intolerant of an action that would not only harm but murder children; abortion. As one would be intolerant of those who would protect pedophiles, one would be intolerant of an ACLU that, despite claiming they disagree with NAMBLA’s views, still defended NAMBLA in court. As one would be intolerant of those that profess to love their neighbor but then work to keep them down one would be intolerant of those who would lock human beings in a cycle of dependency on government. As one would be intolerant of communism – an ideology that has led to more mass graves than any other horror in human history – then one would be intolerant of socialism.

To sum up, conservatives do not delegitimize liberal views, liberal views are already illegitimate. It’s just up to conservatives to reveal the truth. As I recently pointed out in Our new national divide, conservatives must tell the truth and must use all honorable means to expose the depraved and abominable goals of liberals.

Harry Reid discusses how much he and his fellow Democrats believe a worker should get to keep out of their paycheck. Or, maybe he’s discussing how much responsibility he thinks people should have left after government takes over their lives.

That Harry Reid is not pleased right now is cause for all freedom-loving Americans to celebrate. I just love it when their lies are exposed and they go into fits of frothing rage.

As I have repeatedly stated, SCHIP is scam and more power to Bush for vetoing it. Now, Michelle Malkin has added some new facts to the case against the lying Democrats and their socialist dream (fantasy, really) of a utopia where the lazy and/or irresponsible get a free ride off of the hard-working.

Seems as if the two children the Democrats decided to use as an example/excuse to steal even more out of our paychecks are not as financially bad off as they would have us believe. As Malkin correctly points out, “the public trough is not Halsey Frost’s last and only resort. The accident was horrible. The children deserve much sympathy and compassion. But this family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them.”

As you will learn by reading her op-ed, that choice was to not purchase insurance. But to the Democrats choices should not have consequences (unless you’re a taxpayer that had nothing to do with the choice- then you should be made to pay for it). To Democrats, it is all about burring your head in the sand to the reality around you and forcing the responsible to suffer for mistakes of the irresponsible.

It’s truly frightening that Democrats are breeding and raising children with no sense of accountability or even right and wrong. Sure, it is hard to imagine the next generation of liberals being even worse than the current one but how could they not? Presumably, even though modern liberals threw out the window whatever instruction they received from their parents about duty, responsibility, honor, and accountability they at least heard those lessons as children. But they surely aren’t teaching that to their own young.

With that in mind, expect the Democrats to become even more rabid to restrict your freedoms and control your lives. And unless you think socialism is the way to go, vote independent, vote Republican, or don’t vote at all. Casting your ballot for a Democrat is the same as taking small but certainly very real steps towards communism.

Her sign ought to read “Bush demands accountability from parents” or, “If Democrats weren’t rolling in pork, I could visit the doctor”
(Photo from the 11 Alive Website)

This is a very interesting photo. The little girls name is Sophie Black and she’s four years old. Now, how is it that she is out there protesting? She did not drive herself out there, that’s for sure. I know, somebody must have brought her there. And maybe if that person was working today rather than wasting their time at a protest the little girl might not need government insurance. I certainly don’t know the situation- but I know I’ve never attended a protest because I’ve never had the time to leave my job and go whine about what somebody is not giving to me because I mistakenly think I’m owed something.

Besides, why not blame the folks truly responsible for the SCHIPS veto rather than Bush? As this AP report on the 11 Alive site points out, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said it is the Democrats out of control spending that threatens the so-called “children’s insurance” entitlement.

Republicans certainly aren’t helping the spending crisis themselves. But the real question is what will happen to all those children if this new entitlement is prevented from raping the taxpayers even further?

I don’t know- but what I do know is that it is not governments place to do anything about it. As I pointed out yesterday, this is a scam. Unfortunately, a Wall Street Journal/Harris Poll seems to indicate that Americans supported the SCHIPS proposal by a margin of four to one. This only demonstrates, of course, that the majority can be wrong. Anyone who believes government should take care of children by releasing the parent or parents from the responsibility is a socialist.

But most people are sheep anyway. I remember high school and how if certain students did things then you, too, would want to do them. It’s the herd mentality, I suppose. To be cool, you have to fit in and care what other people think about you. Fortunately, I’ve not had that problem since I grew out of adolescences. Oh, sure- from time to time anyone can fall to peer pressure. And, usually, there are innocent enough results. But in government that’s just not a viable option.

Oftentimes you will hear about the latest poll and how this many Americans feel this way or that way. Politicians (Bill Clinton in particularly, justly or unjustly so viewed) will seek out this info and blow whatever way is popular and to the devil with whatever personal moral values they have that tell them to resist. I have no idea what it is like to be able to sit aside your values and follow a crowd but clearly many people do. They don’t realize that sheep and cows belong in pastures, not in the halls of Congress or in the White House.

That’s one thing I admire about Bush. He’s made his share of mistakes by, for example, allowing Social Security to continue to exist as is, by presiding over an ever expanding government, by not shutting our borders down, etc. But despite these mistakes I still admire him because he doesn’t blow around like a feather in the wind. He remains constant and doesn’t really care what others think of him.

If only everyone had the wisdom to understand that a thing is not right, like SCHIPS, just because a majority feels that it is right. So don’t quote polls to me- I don’t care. Again, I don’t care. I repeat yet again- polls a meaningless to me. Got it yet, POLLS DON’T MATTER TO ME.

What’s right matters, period.

Hillary Clinton contemplating with frustration the freedoms Americans enjoy

“President Bush had the good sense to veto the Democrats’ dramatic increase in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program,” writes Phil Valentine. I couldn’t have put it better myself. His analysis of SCHIP is dead on- had Bush not had the foresight to veto this $35 billion entitlement then even more freeloaders would have abandoned their own insurance programs and decided that the taxpayers should take care of their children’s health for them- even families earning $80,000 a year.

So, this “for the children” nonsense is a scam. What Democrats want is control of your money. They even keep telling the voters this and, amazingly, many voters keep electing them.

Further, Valentine also correctly pegs Hillary Clinton as a socialist- though he doesn’t actually use that word. He reveals Hillary’s illogical claim that, because health care is a necessity it is also a right. Nonsense.

First of all, healthcare is not a necessity. It’s a wonderful thing to have, make no mistake, but it is not like air, water, and food- true must haves for your immediate or near immediate survival. And as with anything man needs- if it is really important he’ll find a way to get it. Like, say, a job that provides benefits. Or a job that provides a salary so that you can buy a private plan. Secondly, Hillary’s real goal, as I’ve explained before, is the destruction of our current healthcare system in favor of her communistic dream of the village.

I know someone who works in human resources for a large, local manufacturing plant. The many guests to our country, illegal or otherwise, opt not to purchase insurance through their employer because they know they don’t need it. Why? Because those idiots in our government force the taxpayers to foot the bill for their healthcare. And this is just one example of what is wrong with out of control liberalism.

Ultimately, the key point of Valentine’s column is that rights come from God, not government. Government must protect our rights- but when they think they are the ones giving us our rights then they think they can control those rights.

Two characters that live in a fantasy world.

Remember Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? Superman decided he would rid the world of all nuclear weapons. If you do not recall it, don’t feel bad. The movie… bombed (no pun intended).

At any rate, as reported in this New York Times piece,it appears as if Obama has decided to pursue the same misguided pipedream. In doing so he’s just became even scarier than Hillary – and that’s scary.

Here’s the thing: ridding the world of nuclear weapons is just that- a Hollywood fantasy. If Obama is so inexperienced and so hopelessly trapped in his liberal mantra of good intentions makes good policy then he will put not just a few of our cities in greater danger of terrorism but our entire nation in peril of annihilation.

Here is a real brief history lesson: Carter talked peace and weakened our military; we got the hostage crisis. Reagan toughened our military up and talked tough; the Berlin Wall fell, then the Soviet Union itself.

Granted, the Bush administration is reducing the number of our nukes. I don’t see what the point of this is as we will retain enough to wipe out all life on this planet. Does it really matter that it only takes a certain number to do this and we have 10 times the amount needed?

But the difference is, as the Times piece further notes, that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism.” But how does this lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, exactly? Is Obama suggesting that our having less nukes would make it less likely the terrorists would use any they can get their hands on through other powers? That’s like saying that reducing the number of policemen with guns will lower the crime rate!

After all, just because we lessen the number of nukes we have does not mean other nations will.

If this is his answer to fighting terrorism then only a liberal would vote for him. He’s just toasted his chances of obtaining the votes of any thinking person. Sadly, though, there are still plenty of liberals out there that will vote for him!

Our next president

I believe the reasons Peter Mulhern gives as to why Fred Thompson Will Win are sound, if not so much for Mr. Thompson’s good points but rather for his rivals (fellow Republicans) and enemies (the liberal nut jobs offered by the Democrats) bad points.

This is not to say Thompson is not an excellent choice for president. It is just that all the others choices have so much working against them.

His rivals either lack strong conservative values (McCain, Giuliani) or have no hope of winning (most of the rest). Only Romney falls outside these two groups but Mulhern has him pegged correctly as well: he just can’t connect with the average Joe.

Thompson’s enemies have the same failings shared by most other liberals; lack of sound judgment, a desire to tax the living daylights out of every paycheck in sight, the belief that more government is the answer to any problem, and a serious disconnect between the moral reality and their infantile daydreams.

Of course, much of the population shares this warped sense of right and wrong- preferring intentions to results and dependency to responsibility. But such is the reality of children, not adults. Democrats will never realize this and this is why they should never be trusted with power.

Indeed, all the Democratic hopefuls are frightening. The common man picked up on that during the last two presidential elections- and, despite how the media has pounded the lie into many peoples head that Iraq is a disaster, the common man will yet again rises up and deal another defeat to liberalism.

The common man does this because he knows what he earns belongs to him and that outrageous taxes, the not only pathetic but often even negative investment Social Security offers, and creeping socialism are supported by either fools or tyrants. He does this because he knows the future of his children is not secure under liberals who would not recognize a dangerous enemy even if one blew up a couple of our skyscrapers and attacked our military command center. But above all he does this because his liberty and the liberty of all those he loves and holds dear is in constant peril from those that, according to the poster girl for socialism (Hillary Clinton), will have to take more from us for the greater good.

The greater good is when government leaves me the devil alone and does what it is supposed to do: provide for the common defense, protect our freedom, and insure the general welfare (i.e. things that benefit practically everybody like roads and the FDA) and not the specific welfare (i.e. redistribution of my earnings to those who some bleeding-heart liberal thinks should have more than they do).

Consider this my official endorsement of Fred Thompson.

Hillary ready to sink her teeth into your paycheck?
(Image from www.judiciaryreport.com)

After much favorable press (which tells you what side the MSM is on), Hillary Clinton’s good fortune with the media seems to at last be at an end. In this piece by Mike Allen and John F. Harris, the authors site what they call a “deep and mutual skepticism between the Clintons and the elite media” as responsible for Clinton’s sudden turn in fortune where the media is concerned.

Of course, skepticism is healthy concerning any politician but especially so for one that freely reveals her communist tendencies. The “we’re going to have to take more from you to give it to the common good,” remark made by Clinton in San Francisco is only a single obvious example of the danger simmering beneath the cool, collected surface of the Senator “from New York.”

Americans need to wake up to the fact that any liberal- not just Hillary Clinton – is a danger to the basic freedoms our government is supposed to guarantee us. After all, how can we expect our freedoms to be safe when the engine that drives our ability to make many choices and exercise our freedom as we see fit is so fundamentally threatened by liberal-influenced government?

I am referring to your paycheck. How big or how small it is directly impacts your ability to make choices on where you live, what kind of transportation you take, what schools your children may attend, when and where you may retire, and so many other choices that government has been quietly taking away from you.

Your salary is just not safe so long as liberals are around. I think of my own home- which could (and actually would) be completely paid off now if not for government stealing so much out of my paycheck every week. I think of the books and other aids to the development and happiness of children that were not purchased by parents because so much of their salary went to pay for the retirements of others. These people, having their whole lives to prepare, still failed to plan ahead and instead use their Social Security as a retirement plan – and so they live off the labor of others. I think of individual accountability and personal responsibility and wonder why these qualities are no longer valued by so many Americans on the Left.

This is not how our nation is supposed to be; the good intentions of others do not give them the right to force those intentions onto me. And the theft of my resources to support these schemes of helping others is just that; theft. Hillary Clinton embodies all these failings in the American character. She would control, she would dominate, she would tax, and she would spend. And she therefore cannot become president.

As someone with a pre-existing medical condition the thought of government forcing insurance companies to sell me insurance directly (as opposed to buying it through an employer) seems appealing- and I guess that is what Hillary Clinton is proposing. As someone who would like to be self-employed but opts against doing so solely because I must have that health insurance (and buying it individually is not an option as I have been declined by every company I’ve contacted due to said pre-existing condition) government healthcare sounds like the answer to my prayers.

But what a thing looks like and what it is can sometimes be two entirely different things. One has but to look at the healthcare of the more socialist leaning governments of the world to see that if you are sick you want to be in the United States (unless you buy into the gibbering fictions of Michael Moore). But government can, and most likely will if Hillary has her way, change that distinction.

Of course, I could just opt to do without insurance and hope Hillary doesn’t catch me. My pre-existing condition is nothing more than a predisposition for my blood to clot more readily than the average persons. Without taking blood thinners I would have to be more cautious; I would have to watch my diet a bit more carefully (no leafy green veggies, believe it or not) and exercise more frequently.

Perhaps that’s next on Hillary’s list: forcing me to adhere to a government endorsed diet regiment and exercise program. Perhaps she will also tax us on 100% of our earnings and redistribute out the fruits of the efforts of the motivated to the often lazy negligence of the slothful. Should such a possibility be derided? Not concerning one who once said that government would have to take more from us to insure fairness. Who decides what is fair? Why, Hillary of course.

If the destruction of our health care system troubles you and the thought of even heaver subjugation under the chains of much higher taxes, Social Security, and an even more Socialist/Liberal government causes you to shudder- then do all you can to make sure Hillary Clinton is not elected president.

No Democrat is a rational choice (and, sadly, I’ve seen no Republicans yet that would be a great choice), but Hillary is perhaps the most dangerous of the whole pack. She must be stopped- and it is up to people who do not want to see America turn further to the Left to do it. Because HillaryHarm - be it healthcare or anything else she can get her socialist hands on - is just not an option.