0 comment Tuesday, November 11, 2014 | admin
I didn't see the Tim Russert interview of Ron Paul on Sunday. Truth be told, I don't enjoy such programs; I don't care for the open bias of most of the interviewers and anchor people. When these shows are on, I am usually doing something else and cannot sit down for the length of the show. And I have little patience for watching the whole thing but for those who are interested, here is the YouTube link.
I prefer to read the transcript, although a transcript omits the nuances of the spoken word, body language, and all those other things which give us information about the conversation. But sometimes the written word is more reliable and it is easier to go back and re-read where needed.
Below I've excerpted the parts of the transcript that I found most salient to me. Obviously immigration and sovereignty issues are of paramount importance from my point of view, so these exchanges are of interest:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.
REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed. And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred. Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in? So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.''
Personally, I would like to see Dr. Paul take a harder line on immigration, and I would like him to say he favors limiting or decreasing legal immigration. But I think his approach of ending benefits to immigrants (he doesn't specify legal or illegal immigrants here) is a practical one, and if implemented, would discourage immigration and encourage many illegals to go home of their own volition. Does any other candidate propose anything like this?
It's good that Dr. Paul points out that he is not an 'orthodox' libertarian on this issue; if he were an open-borders libertarian I would not dream of voting for him. But he is a practical man, and his views are more conservative than libertarian.
The next question by Russert has to do with the 'birthright citizenship' or 'anchor baby' issue. Russert obtusely challenges Dr. Paul's constructionist bonafides because he wants to amend the Constitution on this issue:
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it. ''
This is an important issue, and Dr. Paul has been consistent in his statements over the years on it, unlike Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson.
And then in this exchange, Dr. Paul shows that he is not just another politically correct panderer. He also makes valid points about the loss of individual liberty which resulted from the Civil Rights Act, and in that sense he is absolutely in sync with the more traditional American view on these issues. It takes courage to say these things, and in a time when political correctness is a real threat to the survival of our culture and our nation, Dr. Paul's willingness to speak the truth is rare, and should be commended. Which of the other 'conservative' candidates would say what he says? Not a one.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...
REP. PAUL: So it's...
MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?
REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.''
The fact that Dr. Paul bases his views on the Constitution and private property rights is consistent with his principles. His opposition to the social engineering inherent in the Civil Rights Act is principled, and it's consistent, as he says, with the old-style Goldwater Republicanism. Only in our modern politically correct age would his views be considered beyond the pale.
And the next question was about the Civil War. I happen to agree that there was a better way to solve the slavery issue than by invading the South, sacrificing so many American lives, and leaving permanent scars on the nation. These days most people consider that war a sacred cause, and Lincoln a near-saint. From a conservative point of view, the war and the subsequent hypertrophy of the federal government have led to a deviation from the original intention of the Founders for this Republic.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Dr. Paul is obviously his own man; even his many and vehement detractors recognize this, but they try to make that into a negative; he is 'out of step' or a 'kook' or an 'ideologue' or whatever, and above all, he 'can't win.'
I think the people who say he can't win are just wishful-thinking or whistling in the dark. As much as many people are clamoring for a change, and lamenting the corruption of our political system, along comes a man who represents real change, and a return to Constitutional principles, and some shy away. I think we are seeing who is really serious about wanting change and getting the country back on track. Most people are inclined to prefer the 'devil they know', business as usual, even if they know deep down that more of the same may be fatal.
I sense that some are absolutely closed-minded towards Dr. Paul, and nothing can change their minds.
However for those who are open-minded and truly concerned to pick the right candidate, I urge you to take another look at Ron Paul. And don't accept second-hand information on what Dr. Paul stands for, or his record in Congress. It's so easy, in this age of the Internet, to search out these things for yourselves. There are a lot of incorrect statements being made about Dr. Paul.
I'll make it easy: here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, which I've posted before. I encourage the open-minded to read his archives, wherein you will see his positions on various issues, in his own words.
Watch the Meet the Press interview at the YouTube link or read the transcript if you prefer.
I will probably have more to say about the misconceptions about Dr. Paul in a later entry, but for now, it's almost Christmas and I plan to take a couple of days away from all this and turn my attention away from politics and the crises in our country to lighter and more comforting matters, like friends, family, faith, home.
It's the time of year to reestablish our ties to the really important and lasting things; that's what anchors us. And that's ultimately what all this is about: preserving those things.
I prefer to read the transcript, although a transcript omits the nuances of the spoken word, body language, and all those other things which give us information about the conversation. But sometimes the written word is more reliable and it is easier to go back and re-read where needed.
Below I've excerpted the parts of the transcript that I found most salient to me. Obviously immigration and sovereignty issues are of paramount importance from my point of view, so these exchanges are of interest:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.
REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed. And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred. Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in? So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.''
Personally, I would like to see Dr. Paul take a harder line on immigration, and I would like him to say he favors limiting or decreasing legal immigration. But I think his approach of ending benefits to immigrants (he doesn't specify legal or illegal immigrants here) is a practical one, and if implemented, would discourage immigration and encourage many illegals to go home of their own volition. Does any other candidate propose anything like this?
It's good that Dr. Paul points out that he is not an 'orthodox' libertarian on this issue; if he were an open-borders libertarian I would not dream of voting for him. But he is a practical man, and his views are more conservative than libertarian.
The next question by Russert has to do with the 'birthright citizenship' or 'anchor baby' issue. Russert obtusely challenges Dr. Paul's constructionist bonafides because he wants to amend the Constitution on this issue:
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it. ''
This is an important issue, and Dr. Paul has been consistent in his statements over the years on it, unlike Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson.
And then in this exchange, Dr. Paul shows that he is not just another politically correct panderer. He also makes valid points about the loss of individual liberty which resulted from the Civil Rights Act, and in that sense he is absolutely in sync with the more traditional American view on these issues. It takes courage to say these things, and in a time when political correctness is a real threat to the survival of our culture and our nation, Dr. Paul's willingness to speak the truth is rare, and should be commended. Which of the other 'conservative' candidates would say what he says? Not a one.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...
REP. PAUL: So it's...
MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?
REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.''
The fact that Dr. Paul bases his views on the Constitution and private property rights is consistent with his principles. His opposition to the social engineering inherent in the Civil Rights Act is principled, and it's consistent, as he says, with the old-style Goldwater Republicanism. Only in our modern politically correct age would his views be considered beyond the pale.
And the next question was about the Civil War. I happen to agree that there was a better way to solve the slavery issue than by invading the South, sacrificing so many American lives, and leaving permanent scars on the nation. These days most people consider that war a sacred cause, and Lincoln a near-saint. From a conservative point of view, the war and the subsequent hypertrophy of the federal government have led to a deviation from the original intention of the Founders for this Republic.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Dr. Paul is obviously his own man; even his many and vehement detractors recognize this, but they try to make that into a negative; he is 'out of step' or a 'kook' or an 'ideologue' or whatever, and above all, he 'can't win.'
I think the people who say he can't win are just wishful-thinking or whistling in the dark. As much as many people are clamoring for a change, and lamenting the corruption of our political system, along comes a man who represents real change, and a return to Constitutional principles, and some shy away. I think we are seeing who is really serious about wanting change and getting the country back on track. Most people are inclined to prefer the 'devil they know', business as usual, even if they know deep down that more of the same may be fatal.
I sense that some are absolutely closed-minded towards Dr. Paul, and nothing can change their minds.
However for those who are open-minded and truly concerned to pick the right candidate, I urge you to take another look at Ron Paul. And don't accept second-hand information on what Dr. Paul stands for, or his record in Congress. It's so easy, in this age of the Internet, to search out these things for yourselves. There are a lot of incorrect statements being made about Dr. Paul.
I'll make it easy: here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, which I've posted before. I encourage the open-minded to read his archives, wherein you will see his positions on various issues, in his own words.
Watch the Meet the Press interview at the YouTube link or read the transcript if you prefer.
I will probably have more to say about the misconceptions about Dr. Paul in a later entry, but for now, it's almost Christmas and I plan to take a couple of days away from all this and turn my attention away from politics and the crises in our country to lighter and more comforting matters, like friends, family, faith, home.
It's the time of year to reestablish our ties to the really important and lasting things; that's what anchors us. And that's ultimately what all this is about: preserving those things.
Labels: Immigration, Political Campaigns, Republicans, Ron Paul
0 comment Tuesday, November 4, 2014 | admin
I cast my vote today. After a lot of soul-searching about what choice to make, it is something of a relief to have the voting process done and over with, for myself at least. Now I can be at peace about it, knowing that I made a conscientious choice that seemed, given the available choices, the best one.
I see that The Economist editors have decreed that ''It's Time". Time for Obama to be President. He's earned it, they inform us.
In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.''
It's not as though this is surprising, coming from The Economist. They are not conservative, but globalist/corporatist in their overall philosophy. I let my subscription lapse some time ago because I got tired of their always pontificating about the Third World or "the poor world" vs. "the rich world", the latter being us, of course. It's clear they favor mass immigration to the 'rich world' and they favor the globalist agenda generally. There is nothing conservative about that.
But the idea that Obama has earned the presidency is absurd. They say the way he has conducted his campaign is persuasive.
What I think they are really saying is the same thing that Obama fans have said: ''it's time." The idea is that "it's time" for a black President. Like Hillary's female followers said, "it's time" for a woman President.
What kind of idiocy is this "it's time" mantra? If we choose our Presidents that way, why have elections, why have requirements for holding the office? Let's just pick one of every kind, every race, creed, nationality, sexual preference, gender (don't let's leave out 'transgendered' people!) and language. Why not? Take turns, now, children. It sounds like kindergarten: everybody gets a turn. So now it's blacks' turn.
A modest proposal: I propose we just throw some names into a big barrel, like in a raffle or lottery, and draw them out at random. It would save enormous amounts of money that is now squandered on these overblown 'campaigns', which are tiresome, dishonest, and generally useless. It would be eminently 'fair' if all you care about is giving people of every race, nationality, and so on a ''turn" at running the country. For example since somebody somewhere has decided "it's time" for a black President, we could just throw a lot of black people's names into the barrel and draw one out at random. We might want to discard all the requirements for the Presidency, too, They are probably racist and they certainly are 'discriminatory.' After all, allowing only citizens to be President is unfair, isn't it? Oh, wait: it looks as though that requirement is now being ignored anyway, suspended so as not to 'discriminate' against Obama, who refuses to prove his citizenship.
After we have a black president, will it ever be "time" for a White President again, especially a White male president? Somehow I have doubts about that. A precedent will be established, and then the Republicans will have to run a nonwhite candidate. I am sure they have somebody in mind, even now. And in the future, Hispanics, by sheer numerical superiority, will be in the drivers' seat.
I don't know which way the election will go; I did my (small) part as a citizen and we will have to wait until Tuesday (at least) to learn the outcome. I hope people will vote for the best (among the less-than-stellar choices) and not vote out of spite against fellow Americans, or vote for the worst in hopes of a backlash. Too much is at stake to take chances or gamble on extremely long shots.
The Economist says:
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world.''
I prefer not to gamble with the future of this country; my family, like a lot of American families, has a great deal invested in this country. At great risk and cost to themselves, our forefathers settled, created, and sustained this country for centuries (since the early 1600s, in the case of many of us). To roll the dice with the future of this land, to risk our progeny's future is not a chance we should want to take.
I see that The Economist editors have decreed that ''It's Time". Time for Obama to be President. He's earned it, they inform us.
In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.''
It's not as though this is surprising, coming from The Economist. They are not conservative, but globalist/corporatist in their overall philosophy. I let my subscription lapse some time ago because I got tired of their always pontificating about the Third World or "the poor world" vs. "the rich world", the latter being us, of course. It's clear they favor mass immigration to the 'rich world' and they favor the globalist agenda generally. There is nothing conservative about that.
But the idea that Obama has earned the presidency is absurd. They say the way he has conducted his campaign is persuasive.
What I think they are really saying is the same thing that Obama fans have said: ''it's time." The idea is that "it's time" for a black President. Like Hillary's female followers said, "it's time" for a woman President.
What kind of idiocy is this "it's time" mantra? If we choose our Presidents that way, why have elections, why have requirements for holding the office? Let's just pick one of every kind, every race, creed, nationality, sexual preference, gender (don't let's leave out 'transgendered' people!) and language. Why not? Take turns, now, children. It sounds like kindergarten: everybody gets a turn. So now it's blacks' turn.
A modest proposal: I propose we just throw some names into a big barrel, like in a raffle or lottery, and draw them out at random. It would save enormous amounts of money that is now squandered on these overblown 'campaigns', which are tiresome, dishonest, and generally useless. It would be eminently 'fair' if all you care about is giving people of every race, nationality, and so on a ''turn" at running the country. For example since somebody somewhere has decided "it's time" for a black President, we could just throw a lot of black people's names into the barrel and draw one out at random. We might want to discard all the requirements for the Presidency, too, They are probably racist and they certainly are 'discriminatory.' After all, allowing only citizens to be President is unfair, isn't it? Oh, wait: it looks as though that requirement is now being ignored anyway, suspended so as not to 'discriminate' against Obama, who refuses to prove his citizenship.
After we have a black president, will it ever be "time" for a White President again, especially a White male president? Somehow I have doubts about that. A precedent will be established, and then the Republicans will have to run a nonwhite candidate. I am sure they have somebody in mind, even now. And in the future, Hispanics, by sheer numerical superiority, will be in the drivers' seat.
I don't know which way the election will go; I did my (small) part as a citizen and we will have to wait until Tuesday (at least) to learn the outcome. I hope people will vote for the best (among the less-than-stellar choices) and not vote out of spite against fellow Americans, or vote for the worst in hopes of a backlash. Too much is at stake to take chances or gamble on extremely long shots.
The Economist says:
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world.''
I prefer not to gamble with the future of this country; my family, like a lot of American families, has a great deal invested in this country. At great risk and cost to themselves, our forefathers settled, created, and sustained this country for centuries (since the early 1600s, in the case of many of us). To roll the dice with the future of this land, to risk our progeny's future is not a chance we should want to take.
Labels: Political Campaigns, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Wednesday, August 20, 2014 | admin
Is the idea of ''worse is better'' still floating around out there? It seems to be, judging by some of the discussions I read in certain forums.
How does this idea persist? It's always been misguided, to view it charitably, or downright treasonous, to take a less charitable view of it.
I've written about it before, and I presented my reasons for thinking that an Obama presidency will not ''wake people up" or ''galvanize the right" or bring about some kind of conservative epiphany and restoration.
There have been so many events over the last ten or twen years that should have been wake-up calls, but were not. We've all become, to some extent, jaded over the steady move leftward and the transformation of America right under our noses. Going back to the early 90s, we saw the L.A riots, the O.J. Simpson acquittal and the jubilation of blacks following that. In more recent years, we've seen the lawlessness and shocking behavior in New Orleans following Katrina, and then the Knoxville murders, (ignored by our mainstream media, as the Katrina atrocities have been airbrushed away or denied) and the daily spectacle of the mass invasion of our country and the brazen marching by the invaders in our cities and towns.
Through all these events, there may have been isolated grumblings or flashes of resentment on the part of the majority, but ultimately people go back to sleep or back to their toys and distractions, while Change marches on.
When I pointed this out in the past, I was told that I was being negative, denying the possibility of an awakening on our part. I would love to believe that THIS time it will be different, that an Obama presidency will be the one galvanizing event. Why should it be, though?
Most presidencies have a 'honeymoon period' in which the new President is given some latitude and enjoys the goodwill of a majority of the people. Obama will coast on that goodwill for a time, but be sure that the very pro-Obama media will provide a permanent honeymoon for their guy. All criticism will be treated as examples of racism and bigotry.
Americans may well become lulled by the initial 'honeymoon' period and even those who did not vote for Obama will grudgingly say 'he's not too bad" or perhaps be taken in by this vaunted 'charisma' which I am told he has. Many Americans who are not troubled by anything resembling political philosophies or moral principles will accept whatever Obama proposes to do. Many Americans are not politically savvy, so they will see nothing wrong with most of the more radical leftist ideas he will promote.
Ever try to explain to an apolitical person, in very basic terms, why leftism and socialism are bad for America? When Obama says we need to 'spread the wealth around', that sounds good to many non-thinking Americans. Who can object to "wealth-spreading"? I've tried to explain why that idea is wrong, but my words don't penetrate through the fog in some cases.
Political illiterates, people who have no idea of our founding principles, or people who vote based on how nice a guy or gal the candidate appears to be, are not swayed by logical arguments or arguments based on principle.
They will not see how Obama is making things worse; they tend to believe whatever they hear on NBC Nightly News or what they hear on The View or Oprah or from Katie Couric.
As to the conservatives who think 'worse is better', I would like to hear specifics regarding how long it will take for worse to become measurably better? And how much worse will it have to get?
The biggest question I have is: how do the 'worse is better' proponents have so much faith that little lasting damage can be done by a Democrat President, plus a Democrat Congress, aided and abetted by a liberal media? The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever harm is done can be easily undone, but yet, when was the last time any incoming Republican administration undid what the Democrats did while in office? Did even the Reagan administration, which most Republicans consider the zenith of conservatism in modern America, undo the liberalism so entrenched from the New Deal and 'Great Society"? To my knowledge, nothing much was undone that had been wrought by a very busy left during those earlier reigns.
When our current President was elected, some were certain he would 'clean house' but he never did, instead choosing not only to abstain from criticizing his predecessor, but to buddy up to Clinton publicly.
And are the worse-is-better advocates confident that Obama will not institute a radical agenda when in office? Who will oppose him? Certainly not a majority Democrat Congress and a lot of supine, spineless Republicans who will be scared spitless of being called bigots.
Over at Red State there is an entry and a discussion on what an Obama administration might do.
This CNN transcript from a while back has Obama discussing his plans for a 'civilian national security force' which he says will be just as strong, powerful, and well-funded as the military. Imagine his followers mobilized into some kind of 'national security force.'
Can we embrace the idea of such a 'civilian national security force'? Or universal national service?
He has said he would like to institute a draft, which would involve young women as well as men. He says if some of us are going to war, all of us should be going.
Would these kinds of things cause this mass awakening? I doubt it; his followers, though usually the military-loathing types, would probably gladly don uniforms for their idol. They would also not oppose a draft if Obama proposed it.
But will these things wake up the 'conservatives'? Or will they just grumble and gripe and eventually accept it and get used to it, as with just about every liberal/radical idea that has been pushed through over the last few decades?
Will we see a return of the ''Fairness Doctrine" or the passing of 'hate speech' laws, which have been attempted in the past? These things could seriously stifle free speech.
I think an enormous amount of damage could be done in a very short time, more than in a typical Democrat administration, because any real opposition would be silenced, neutered.
In recent days and weeks there have been a number of articles in the media hinting at riots and mass civil unrest should Obama lose the election. And I guarantee that there WILL be anger, and charges of 'election stealing' and worse if the election is close and Obama loses. We've seen a preview of that in the past couple of elections, with the Democrats pulling out all the stops. The 2000 election debacle, which seemed to drag on forever, was very dispiriting and infuriating. It would be worse if this election goes to McCain in a close race.
Could it not be that unrest following a McCain victory might be enough to 'wake people up? Why do we have to hope for the absolute worst case scenario to 'wake people up'? To me, the whole concept is like torching your house in hopes of rebuilding a better one.
I still say, although I've yet to have anyone agree unequivocally with me, that an Obama presidency would set a precedent. It would be a symbolic changing of the guard, a handover of power to the 'new America', the post-European America. Once that precedent is set, will we ever be able to return to majority dominance again? Or will there be cries of 'racism' and 'going backward' if the parties don't run nonwhite candidates the next time around. I feel sure the Republicans have their choice waiting in the wings, and I have my ideas of who it will be. But a precedent will be set, and with an increasingly nonwhite America, we as a people will be on the wane, permanently. Why hasten this day? Why hurry it along? It may be an irreversible step.
The old saying that breaking eggs is necessary to make an omelette is true, but how much would it take to irreparably shatter our country? And speaking of breaking eggs, we know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put him back together again.
I suspect that the people who insist on the "worse is better" strategy have convinced themselves that our country is already beyond repair, and that we have little to lose by gambling it all. But for those of us who believe that there is still something worth saving, why break what is left purposely in hopes that we might be able to put the pieces back together again?
How does this idea persist? It's always been misguided, to view it charitably, or downright treasonous, to take a less charitable view of it.
I've written about it before, and I presented my reasons for thinking that an Obama presidency will not ''wake people up" or ''galvanize the right" or bring about some kind of conservative epiphany and restoration.
There have been so many events over the last ten or twen years that should have been wake-up calls, but were not. We've all become, to some extent, jaded over the steady move leftward and the transformation of America right under our noses. Going back to the early 90s, we saw the L.A riots, the O.J. Simpson acquittal and the jubilation of blacks following that. In more recent years, we've seen the lawlessness and shocking behavior in New Orleans following Katrina, and then the Knoxville murders, (ignored by our mainstream media, as the Katrina atrocities have been airbrushed away or denied) and the daily spectacle of the mass invasion of our country and the brazen marching by the invaders in our cities and towns.
Through all these events, there may have been isolated grumblings or flashes of resentment on the part of the majority, but ultimately people go back to sleep or back to their toys and distractions, while Change marches on.
When I pointed this out in the past, I was told that I was being negative, denying the possibility of an awakening on our part. I would love to believe that THIS time it will be different, that an Obama presidency will be the one galvanizing event. Why should it be, though?
Most presidencies have a 'honeymoon period' in which the new President is given some latitude and enjoys the goodwill of a majority of the people. Obama will coast on that goodwill for a time, but be sure that the very pro-Obama media will provide a permanent honeymoon for their guy. All criticism will be treated as examples of racism and bigotry.
Americans may well become lulled by the initial 'honeymoon' period and even those who did not vote for Obama will grudgingly say 'he's not too bad" or perhaps be taken in by this vaunted 'charisma' which I am told he has. Many Americans who are not troubled by anything resembling political philosophies or moral principles will accept whatever Obama proposes to do. Many Americans are not politically savvy, so they will see nothing wrong with most of the more radical leftist ideas he will promote.
Ever try to explain to an apolitical person, in very basic terms, why leftism and socialism are bad for America? When Obama says we need to 'spread the wealth around', that sounds good to many non-thinking Americans. Who can object to "wealth-spreading"? I've tried to explain why that idea is wrong, but my words don't penetrate through the fog in some cases.
Political illiterates, people who have no idea of our founding principles, or people who vote based on how nice a guy or gal the candidate appears to be, are not swayed by logical arguments or arguments based on principle.
They will not see how Obama is making things worse; they tend to believe whatever they hear on NBC Nightly News or what they hear on The View or Oprah or from Katie Couric.
As to the conservatives who think 'worse is better', I would like to hear specifics regarding how long it will take for worse to become measurably better? And how much worse will it have to get?
The biggest question I have is: how do the 'worse is better' proponents have so much faith that little lasting damage can be done by a Democrat President, plus a Democrat Congress, aided and abetted by a liberal media? The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever harm is done can be easily undone, but yet, when was the last time any incoming Republican administration undid what the Democrats did while in office? Did even the Reagan administration, which most Republicans consider the zenith of conservatism in modern America, undo the liberalism so entrenched from the New Deal and 'Great Society"? To my knowledge, nothing much was undone that had been wrought by a very busy left during those earlier reigns.
When our current President was elected, some were certain he would 'clean house' but he never did, instead choosing not only to abstain from criticizing his predecessor, but to buddy up to Clinton publicly.
And are the worse-is-better advocates confident that Obama will not institute a radical agenda when in office? Who will oppose him? Certainly not a majority Democrat Congress and a lot of supine, spineless Republicans who will be scared spitless of being called bigots.
Over at Red State there is an entry and a discussion on what an Obama administration might do.
This CNN transcript from a while back has Obama discussing his plans for a 'civilian national security force' which he says will be just as strong, powerful, and well-funded as the military. Imagine his followers mobilized into some kind of 'national security force.'
Can we embrace the idea of such a 'civilian national security force'? Or universal national service?
He has said he would like to institute a draft, which would involve young women as well as men. He says if some of us are going to war, all of us should be going.
Would these kinds of things cause this mass awakening? I doubt it; his followers, though usually the military-loathing types, would probably gladly don uniforms for their idol. They would also not oppose a draft if Obama proposed it.
But will these things wake up the 'conservatives'? Or will they just grumble and gripe and eventually accept it and get used to it, as with just about every liberal/radical idea that has been pushed through over the last few decades?
Will we see a return of the ''Fairness Doctrine" or the passing of 'hate speech' laws, which have been attempted in the past? These things could seriously stifle free speech.
I think an enormous amount of damage could be done in a very short time, more than in a typical Democrat administration, because any real opposition would be silenced, neutered.
In recent days and weeks there have been a number of articles in the media hinting at riots and mass civil unrest should Obama lose the election. And I guarantee that there WILL be anger, and charges of 'election stealing' and worse if the election is close and Obama loses. We've seen a preview of that in the past couple of elections, with the Democrats pulling out all the stops. The 2000 election debacle, which seemed to drag on forever, was very dispiriting and infuriating. It would be worse if this election goes to McCain in a close race.
Could it not be that unrest following a McCain victory might be enough to 'wake people up? Why do we have to hope for the absolute worst case scenario to 'wake people up'? To me, the whole concept is like torching your house in hopes of rebuilding a better one.
I still say, although I've yet to have anyone agree unequivocally with me, that an Obama presidency would set a precedent. It would be a symbolic changing of the guard, a handover of power to the 'new America', the post-European America. Once that precedent is set, will we ever be able to return to majority dominance again? Or will there be cries of 'racism' and 'going backward' if the parties don't run nonwhite candidates the next time around. I feel sure the Republicans have their choice waiting in the wings, and I have my ideas of who it will be. But a precedent will be set, and with an increasingly nonwhite America, we as a people will be on the wane, permanently. Why hasten this day? Why hurry it along? It may be an irreversible step.
The old saying that breaking eggs is necessary to make an omelette is true, but how much would it take to irreparably shatter our country? And speaking of breaking eggs, we know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put him back together again.
I suspect that the people who insist on the "worse is better" strategy have convinced themselves that our country is already beyond repair, and that we have little to lose by gambling it all. But for those of us who believe that there is still something worth saving, why break what is left purposely in hopes that we might be able to put the pieces back together again?
Labels: Ethnic Conflicts, Party Politics, Political Campaigns, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Thursday, July 17, 2014 | admin
The omens are not looking good for Hillary Clinton's campaign, and in the past, several years ago, I would have found that much more of an occasion to rejoice, as most of those on the mainstream 'right' are doing now. Why do I not feel that way now? Because unlike a few years ago, I now see that there are worse candidates than Hillary.
Does anybody really think her allusion to the RFK assassination was a 'threat' to Obama? I mean, would she be that stupid, even if she were as evil as those who loathe her believe she is?
She denies, (of course), that the comment was intended as a threat or a 'warning', and the Obama campaign (of course) is making what hay it can with the comment, though they may pretend to take the high ground and to be magnanimous about her gaffe.
But really: this woman is being abandoned by everybody that matters in the Democrat Party, it seems; Carter is telling her to give up, she's got the Kennedys incensed about her infelicitous remark.
Things don't look good for her, so where is the invincibility that many conservatives ascribed to her? Much of the semi-hysterical rhetoric about her on the right hinged on her almost superhuman ruthlessness and power. I have thought for some time now that Hillary's enemies on the right were exaggerating her supposedly formidable nature way beyond all reason.
When the Clintons first emerged onto the national stage in 1992, I had an immediate distrust of and antipathy towards Bill Clinton, so much so that it was the beginning of the end of my association with liberalism and the Democrat Party. However, I quickly noticed, early on, that Hillary inspired a much fiercer animus than did Bill among most on the right. Why was this so?
I certainly didn't like her; I still considered myself a feminist and I thought she was a fraud as a feminist; after all, she stupidly defended her husband's adulterous behavior and later on, when it was evident that she had political aspirations of her own, I saw her as riding on his coattails, and not relying on her own achievements.
But why did Hillary evoke such bitter hatred? People on the right coined various derogatory nicknames for Bill, most of them simply ridiculing him and his satyr-like inclinations. By contrast, most of the nicknames for Hillary were based on her supposed inhuman, evil nature: 'Hitlery' or 'Hellary' or 'HillZilla' or 'The Lizard Queen.'
Was the visceral dislike of her based on negative feelings toward domineering females? Did she remind many people of punitive schoolteachers they had as children, or overbearing mothers-in-law? I noticed that a lot of people called her 'Nurse Ratched'. I never saw the movie or read the book that character appeared in, but I understand the antipathy to that stereotype. I suppose there is something primally repellent about a cruel, ruthless, cold-blooded woman, given that the true feminine nature is supposed to have some nurturing, gentle qualities. For whatever reason, Hillary inspires a strong, negative reaction among many people, and she has definitely not won any friends lately.
The belief was she was inevitable as a presidential candidate, and that she had the whole Democrat Party in the palm of her hand, and was fully in command. There was no stopping her, so they said. There was this general idea that she was superhumanly powerful, unstoppable, a force of nature. Few believed that she was just a human being, and that she put her pant(suit) on one leg at a time like anybody else. No; she was the Witch Queen, like a character out of a horror movie. This still seems to be the consensus over at Free Republic and such places, and there seems to be little thought given to the idea that there may be worse than Hillary in store for us, while the Republican faithful are busy celebrating her impending political demise.
Just look at the nature of this latest kerfuffle: she supposedly made a veiled threat against Obama.
I said when Obama first began his campaign that he would be treated with kid gloves, and that any and all criticism of him would be closely scrutinized. I said that it would be all race, all the time, and so far that's not been too far wrong. Did the supposed 'threat' have a racial element to it? Remember that the Obama campaign, and the sympathetic media, have fretted about the possibilities of somebody making an attempt on the candidate's life. Surely that was in the back of such people's minds if not in the forefront when they overreacted to the comments.
Granted, it was a bizarre thing for Hillary to say; she seems to be lacking in tact and she seems to have a tin ear when choosing her words but I am doubtful that she is stupid enough to make threats in public, even those of a very ambiguous nature. If she was consciously doing that, she is evil, but if so, her evil is balanced out by her stupidity.
Evil is always more dangerous when accompanied by intelligence, and charm, the latter of which Hillary completely lacks, unlike her husband.
In that sense, I don't believe she is this menace to us all that she is cracked up to be; she might be a power-hungry woman and an ambitious woman, but she is so transparent that she is just not that good at duping most people. Beware of the charming people; they are much better at camouflaging their intentions.
Does anybody really think her allusion to the RFK assassination was a 'threat' to Obama? I mean, would she be that stupid, even if she were as evil as those who loathe her believe she is?
She denies, (of course), that the comment was intended as a threat or a 'warning', and the Obama campaign (of course) is making what hay it can with the comment, though they may pretend to take the high ground and to be magnanimous about her gaffe.
But really: this woman is being abandoned by everybody that matters in the Democrat Party, it seems; Carter is telling her to give up, she's got the Kennedys incensed about her infelicitous remark.
Things don't look good for her, so where is the invincibility that many conservatives ascribed to her? Much of the semi-hysterical rhetoric about her on the right hinged on her almost superhuman ruthlessness and power. I have thought for some time now that Hillary's enemies on the right were exaggerating her supposedly formidable nature way beyond all reason.
When the Clintons first emerged onto the national stage in 1992, I had an immediate distrust of and antipathy towards Bill Clinton, so much so that it was the beginning of the end of my association with liberalism and the Democrat Party. However, I quickly noticed, early on, that Hillary inspired a much fiercer animus than did Bill among most on the right. Why was this so?
I certainly didn't like her; I still considered myself a feminist and I thought she was a fraud as a feminist; after all, she stupidly defended her husband's adulterous behavior and later on, when it was evident that she had political aspirations of her own, I saw her as riding on his coattails, and not relying on her own achievements.
But why did Hillary evoke such bitter hatred? People on the right coined various derogatory nicknames for Bill, most of them simply ridiculing him and his satyr-like inclinations. By contrast, most of the nicknames for Hillary were based on her supposed inhuman, evil nature: 'Hitlery' or 'Hellary' or 'HillZilla' or 'The Lizard Queen.'
Was the visceral dislike of her based on negative feelings toward domineering females? Did she remind many people of punitive schoolteachers they had as children, or overbearing mothers-in-law? I noticed that a lot of people called her 'Nurse Ratched'. I never saw the movie or read the book that character appeared in, but I understand the antipathy to that stereotype. I suppose there is something primally repellent about a cruel, ruthless, cold-blooded woman, given that the true feminine nature is supposed to have some nurturing, gentle qualities. For whatever reason, Hillary inspires a strong, negative reaction among many people, and she has definitely not won any friends lately.
The belief was she was inevitable as a presidential candidate, and that she had the whole Democrat Party in the palm of her hand, and was fully in command. There was no stopping her, so they said. There was this general idea that she was superhumanly powerful, unstoppable, a force of nature. Few believed that she was just a human being, and that she put her pant(suit) on one leg at a time like anybody else. No; she was the Witch Queen, like a character out of a horror movie. This still seems to be the consensus over at Free Republic and such places, and there seems to be little thought given to the idea that there may be worse than Hillary in store for us, while the Republican faithful are busy celebrating her impending political demise.
Just look at the nature of this latest kerfuffle: she supposedly made a veiled threat against Obama.
I said when Obama first began his campaign that he would be treated with kid gloves, and that any and all criticism of him would be closely scrutinized. I said that it would be all race, all the time, and so far that's not been too far wrong. Did the supposed 'threat' have a racial element to it? Remember that the Obama campaign, and the sympathetic media, have fretted about the possibilities of somebody making an attempt on the candidate's life. Surely that was in the back of such people's minds if not in the forefront when they overreacted to the comments.
Granted, it was a bizarre thing for Hillary to say; she seems to be lacking in tact and she seems to have a tin ear when choosing her words but I am doubtful that she is stupid enough to make threats in public, even those of a very ambiguous nature. If she was consciously doing that, she is evil, but if so, her evil is balanced out by her stupidity.
Evil is always more dangerous when accompanied by intelligence, and charm, the latter of which Hillary completely lacks, unlike her husband.
In that sense, I don't believe she is this menace to us all that she is cracked up to be; she might be a power-hungry woman and an ambitious woman, but she is so transparent that she is just not that good at duping most people. Beware of the charming people; they are much better at camouflaging their intentions.
Labels: Political Campaigns, Presidential Candidates, Republicans