All the pundits agree that now is a great time to change direction. The wonder is which direction and what changes might be best. It is certainly true that George Bush has been a disappointment to Republicans and Democrats alike. The Democrats of course have become pyschotic about Bush while Republicans are merely worn out.
Bush has done a yeoman's job in holding back the Islamofascists, this of course may change with the Democrat ascendancy, still the public does not seem to appreciate the fact that no attacks have been successful since 2001. There are now many young people who have lived in peace and have no memory of the World Trade Center. The general public now has the belief that if good will is shown to those who would destroy Western Civilization that no harm will come.
Will Hillary or Obama really protect the nation? How can they be expected to protect against a threat they don't think exists? Is this the kind of change that will produce the best result? The main worry is that the Democrats actually believe their rhetoric and that the United States is solely to blame for the world's difficulties. Should that be the case the next four years will be difficult to say the least. Any damage will be temporary but still may take a long time to recover from or to change thinking enough to rectify.
The apparent inevitable Democrat electoral success will be ushered in on a theme of celebratory revenge against the hated Republicans. All will be able to witness some really outlandish comments and promises. Once reality sets in there will be the normal electoral remorse, too late.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
John McCain Why Not?
The better question is "How long will it be until another old white man is elected President?". The relevancy of conservative support for John McCain is a mere sideshow, it is unlikely that any Republican will be elected to the presidency until there is a woman or some minority male candidate on offer. Why should this be the case? In one sense the Clinton's have had a major impact on American society: without Bill there would be no Hillary. What this means is that a tipping point has been reached where those who want and expect the government to run their lives are ascendant.
There is a constant reminder that women are more than fifty percent of the US electorate so why hasn't a woman reached the pinnacle? That question will soon fade as Hillary takes the reins. The likelihood of another white male being elected depends entirely on how Hillary handles the job. Should she stumble and outrage or frighten the population (two distinct possibilities) the damage to the female cause will be significant. The reverse is true if her term is judged as successful.
The United States ideal of "rugged individualism" is irretrievably lost. Those desirous of a "Nanny State" are going to have their wish granted and will probably enjoy it. Since World War II the rush to socialism in the US has been gaining momentum. Three generations have been indoctrinated by government schools to expect care and feeding from the government. No one should rise above the crowd, no one should be wealthier than anyone else (except the ruling class of course), no one should be happier or more miserable than anyone else. These tenents are obvious to those who don't want to be dependent on government but to no one else.
Take the example of Katrina. Why did the population, including government, fail to save themselves? Warnings were given, but mobilization was not ordered. The entitled waited for action by the leaders; when none came they drowned. The leadership, having rejected Federal intervention, then blamed the Feds for lack of help. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were paralysed they failed their charges, but in the tradition of liberalism no one can be blamed except the hated conservatives. The assumption being that conservatives want to eliminate all people of "color". A one dimensional picture of any human being is of course self limiting but allows venting of fear and frustration.
There is an apparent genetic or at least evolutionary need for females to seek out a male that will care for her and her offspring in terms of protection and provisions. This need is the basis of the Nanny State. No female can be expected to place herself or her children in harm's way and be considered to be in the mainstream. All so-called matchmakers use this premise, all socialist governments are rooted in this theory, no male political candidate can go against this tendency.
The goal of today's Democrat Party is to place the United States in decline so that by getting in touch with its femine side it will not offend any other countries. Bill Clinton, in his new role of Hillary surrogate, has recently stated that the US economy must be slowed to do its part in curing global warming. It is doubtful that the liberal leadership's "carbon footprint" will be reduced as they are fighting the good fight to subdue the rest of the population.
To be successful in future elections Republicans must, and most likely will, adapt to the situation of providing what the public wants rather than providing the leadership the public needs. For the past 15 years the Republicans in Washington have become lap dogs of the Democrat Party.
Hillary Clinton will be elected for a few reasons : 1) novelty, 2)Party Leadership has it planned, 3)white male Democrats will not vote for Obama, 4)Latino leadership will not support Obama, 5) white women are transferring their desires to Hillary's success.
The only hope, and it's a slim one, is that Conservatives will allow themselves to be disconnected from the Nanny State and begin a resistance movement and endure all the hardships that will entail. Perhaps such action will stir the dormant natural urges of their fellow citizens who will begin to long for freedom and liberty even though such urges will be frightening.
There is a constant reminder that women are more than fifty percent of the US electorate so why hasn't a woman reached the pinnacle? That question will soon fade as Hillary takes the reins. The likelihood of another white male being elected depends entirely on how Hillary handles the job. Should she stumble and outrage or frighten the population (two distinct possibilities) the damage to the female cause will be significant. The reverse is true if her term is judged as successful.
The United States ideal of "rugged individualism" is irretrievably lost. Those desirous of a "Nanny State" are going to have their wish granted and will probably enjoy it. Since World War II the rush to socialism in the US has been gaining momentum. Three generations have been indoctrinated by government schools to expect care and feeding from the government. No one should rise above the crowd, no one should be wealthier than anyone else (except the ruling class of course), no one should be happier or more miserable than anyone else. These tenents are obvious to those who don't want to be dependent on government but to no one else.
Take the example of Katrina. Why did the population, including government, fail to save themselves? Warnings were given, but mobilization was not ordered. The entitled waited for action by the leaders; when none came they drowned. The leadership, having rejected Federal intervention, then blamed the Feds for lack of help. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were paralysed they failed their charges, but in the tradition of liberalism no one can be blamed except the hated conservatives. The assumption being that conservatives want to eliminate all people of "color". A one dimensional picture of any human being is of course self limiting but allows venting of fear and frustration.
There is an apparent genetic or at least evolutionary need for females to seek out a male that will care for her and her offspring in terms of protection and provisions. This need is the basis of the Nanny State. No female can be expected to place herself or her children in harm's way and be considered to be in the mainstream. All so-called matchmakers use this premise, all socialist governments are rooted in this theory, no male political candidate can go against this tendency.
The goal of today's Democrat Party is to place the United States in decline so that by getting in touch with its femine side it will not offend any other countries. Bill Clinton, in his new role of Hillary surrogate, has recently stated that the US economy must be slowed to do its part in curing global warming. It is doubtful that the liberal leadership's "carbon footprint" will be reduced as they are fighting the good fight to subdue the rest of the population.
To be successful in future elections Republicans must, and most likely will, adapt to the situation of providing what the public wants rather than providing the leadership the public needs. For the past 15 years the Republicans in Washington have become lap dogs of the Democrat Party.
Hillary Clinton will be elected for a few reasons : 1) novelty, 2)Party Leadership has it planned, 3)white male Democrats will not vote for Obama, 4)Latino leadership will not support Obama, 5) white women are transferring their desires to Hillary's success.
The only hope, and it's a slim one, is that Conservatives will allow themselves to be disconnected from the Nanny State and begin a resistance movement and endure all the hardships that will entail. Perhaps such action will stir the dormant natural urges of their fellow citizens who will begin to long for freedom and liberty even though such urges will be frightening.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Democrats (neo-comms) a shoo in
The Neo-Comms, formerly known as the Democrat Party are going to increase their power in congress and win the White House; no matter which candidate wins the election. John McCain has always been a closet Democrat and a destroyer of individual rights. Hillary and Obama are not in the closet, they are telling the citizens what is going to happen. Neo-Comms are the New Communists and they are determined to make the United States pay for its economic and social success. The desired outcome is to have all the poor and middle class citizens working for the government while the wealthy continue to enjoy their privileges.
Every time you hear Howard Dean or a surrogate speak about how the "hard right" is taking away the rights of Americans remember that the Democrats are merely projecting their intended behavior on others to distract attention. The United States under the NeoComms will be a place that involves a tremendous amount of government intervention in every day life. This will be accepted because the majority of Americans are already so poorly educated and so well indoctrinated that the concept of liberty and freedom is essentially lost or at best misunderstood.
While the surge in Iraq has had a very positive impact on the violence and chance for victory a closer look might tell a different story. The Islamofacists are biding their time. The attacks on US and Iraqi forces are mere pin-pricks at the moment because our enemies know that the NeoComms will not resist once they take power. There is a good chance that military and anti-terror measures will be reduced. The simple fact is that liberals in America do not believe that their is a threat from Muslim extremists; and if there is it is only one of revenge. The revenge motive is assumed to be limited in scope and that after only a few thousand more Americans are killed by terrorists the whole situation will be satisfied and come to an end.
The central fact that is missed by liberals and other deniers is that the Wahabbists goal is simply complete conversion to Islam or death. Take it or leave it, they don't care.
The excitement over the budget deficit is misplaced and misleading. In 1961 the budget deficit was 286 billion dollars; forty-seven years later it is expected to rise to 350 billion dollars; making the actual deficit about 150 billion in 1960 dollars. What's the problem?
The essentially feudal outlook of the Democrat leadership should be a warning to their followers; it already is to right thinking citizens. The wealthy will have their privileges, the rest of the population will have their minimum safety guaranteed against any risk or danger in exchange for compliance and conformity. The Mark Cubans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, et al will not give up anything much compared to everyone else. Suppose a person had accumulated a savings of 100000 dollars; the NeoComms are proposing a "one-time" social security bailout tax that will confiscate 15% of those savings to give to those who had not saved. The natural conclusion is don't save for the future.
The NeoComms will force a person to purchase medical insurance or else have their wages garnished to make the payments. No choice only acceptance of medicore medical care.
A citizenery deserves the government it elects. Maybe there will be another chance to change.
Every time you hear Howard Dean or a surrogate speak about how the "hard right" is taking away the rights of Americans remember that the Democrats are merely projecting their intended behavior on others to distract attention. The United States under the NeoComms will be a place that involves a tremendous amount of government intervention in every day life. This will be accepted because the majority of Americans are already so poorly educated and so well indoctrinated that the concept of liberty and freedom is essentially lost or at best misunderstood.
While the surge in Iraq has had a very positive impact on the violence and chance for victory a closer look might tell a different story. The Islamofacists are biding their time. The attacks on US and Iraqi forces are mere pin-pricks at the moment because our enemies know that the NeoComms will not resist once they take power. There is a good chance that military and anti-terror measures will be reduced. The simple fact is that liberals in America do not believe that their is a threat from Muslim extremists; and if there is it is only one of revenge. The revenge motive is assumed to be limited in scope and that after only a few thousand more Americans are killed by terrorists the whole situation will be satisfied and come to an end.
The central fact that is missed by liberals and other deniers is that the Wahabbists goal is simply complete conversion to Islam or death. Take it or leave it, they don't care.
The excitement over the budget deficit is misplaced and misleading. In 1961 the budget deficit was 286 billion dollars; forty-seven years later it is expected to rise to 350 billion dollars; making the actual deficit about 150 billion in 1960 dollars. What's the problem?
The essentially feudal outlook of the Democrat leadership should be a warning to their followers; it already is to right thinking citizens. The wealthy will have their privileges, the rest of the population will have their minimum safety guaranteed against any risk or danger in exchange for compliance and conformity. The Mark Cubans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, et al will not give up anything much compared to everyone else. Suppose a person had accumulated a savings of 100000 dollars; the NeoComms are proposing a "one-time" social security bailout tax that will confiscate 15% of those savings to give to those who had not saved. The natural conclusion is don't save for the future.
The NeoComms will force a person to purchase medical insurance or else have their wages garnished to make the payments. No choice only acceptance of medicore medical care.
A citizenery deserves the government it elects. Maybe there will be another chance to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
