Conservative vs Liberal view points

What to do about our growing mountain of debt
We are running a 1 trillion per year deficit and our debt is 15.2 trillion and climbing. If we cut expenses by 1 trillion a year, our debt just continues growing. If we cut 2 trillion per year, and allocate the 1 trillion saved to paying off the debt then it will take is 15 or more years to pay it off. This also means our budget is frozen at current levels but it needs to reversed.

pics on Sodahead

We need to get the spending trajectory onto a descending glide slope and hold it there for the next 5 years until we reach 3% of GDP. Will it hurt? You bet, but not as much as what we’re getting ready to experience if we don’t reverse this spending insanity. In addition, I don’t care what social program gets hurt or obliterated in the process. It’s going to happen either way. Today, we have a position where we can choose. If we do nothing, that position will be lost along with our future.

Once on this glide slope, we must reverse the evisceration of our military budget. I don’t believe in compromising our defensive posture just because we’ve overspent on social programs and giving money to our enemies under the name of Foreign Assistance programs The free world is getting ready to dance with Iran and reducing our defense capability is asinine.

If we don’t start correcting this soon, I believe that what is in store for the American people – our society in general – won’t be a positive and uplifting experience. I believe we will see hardship bordering on post depression experiences, or worse.

We have allowed Socialist values to subvert America’s
Because I have lost faith in the wisdom of our gov’t, I am not preparing for a bright and wonderful future and I have already begun feeling sorry for my son knowing the experience he will have to endure with little likelihood he will experience a life better than the one I have enjoyed.

I blame this on swing voters and those who have no capacity to fear the consequences of liberal i.e. “progressive” ideologies which grant voters access to the treasury, promised to them by those seeking office who stay longer than they should once they get in there. I also blame the RNC, infiltrated by liberals and moderates, who have guided the party away from its conservative principles, ignoring conservatives in this country who outnumber liberals by a 2-1 margin.

Reexamining my distaste for a 3-party system
I have been told by a French-American, France has well over a dozen political parties. It is guaranteed that anyone who gets elected will automatically be an unpopular president. In spite of that, France, often viewed to be liberal and bent toward socialism and communism, has elected Sarkozy of a right wing party positioned in “conservatism, liberal-conservatism, also libertarianism and nationalism”.

It serves to make me wonder about a 3-party system in America composed of

  • the fucking left with Obama and Hillary minions,
  • the old right, Republican Party, comprised of unguided and unprincipled center, moderates, libertarians and swing voters
  • and a new party – call it the Tea Party for now – which holds fast to conservative ideologies which implies the belief in small gov’t and which abhors social engineering and unions, believes in walking softly while carrying a big stick, believes in the old-school values that caused this country to become an immigrant magnet, but has the borders with enough integrity to keep them out, letting only those we want to come in.

So, the question I’ve been kicking around is “If France can vote in a conservative in a mega-multi-party system, and in light of the fact that conservatives in America outnumber liberals by 2 to 1, could conservatives be galvanized under a 3-party system to reverse America’s socialist trend?”

The Left, Center and a New Right
Lately I have arrived at a new point in my never ending analysis of America’s political evolution. I have been driven there by a an unpleasant understanding that there are people in our country who have a deep rooted need to be coddled and driven by the need to feel protected. They are the ones who look to gov’t to fulfill this need. They are the ones who believe more in gov’t than they do themselves. These are the ranks of the fucking confused.

There are others who think along the idea gov’t serves at the convenience of its people and that no one is better at figuring out what they need than themselves. They don’t want gov’t in their faces and crotch all day long from cradle to grave. They want to be left alone and not feel like their freedoms are being stolen from them while feeling powerless to do anything about it. They want a better future for their kids, not the future the loony left wants.

Problem is, special interests have gotten involved and pissed in the cereal. Our elected officials don’t listen to the “little people” anymore. They have whored themselves to special interests, the PACs, big business.

All of a sudden, I’m now singing songs of the “Occupiers”


Last week, businessman Bob Turner (R) defeated state Assemblyman David Weprin (D) in the special election for the House seat held by former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (D).

To get his win into some kind of perspective, Weiner won this seat with an 11 point lead while Turner won it with a 7 point lead. That’s an 18 point swing from one end of the political spectrum to the other. This, in a district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1. Huge.

The win is often described this way:

“New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in a statement after Turner’s win.

While the win is partly being attributed to Obama’s anti-Isreal stance not in agreement with the district’s Jewish segment, the National Jewish Democratic Council disputed the idea that Israel was a major factor.

That leaves the current state of the economy as the culprit behind the Democratic loss. If this is the case, can the defeat then be attributed to the fact that the policies of the DNC have come back around to bite the hands that feed it?

It appears that Democrats believe in and support their principles right up to the point where they start to personally feel their effects. THEN they don’t like them.

A full year and a half after watching the left demonstrate their inherent inability to engage in critical thinking and to look beyond the campaign hyperbole of our now community organizer for president, we are now starting to see their inability to stick to their own principles, flawed as they are.

We watched in amazement as the left, whipped into a froth by a national media which has resembled Pravda or Tass for for some time, rushed like lemmings to the voting booths to elect a shallow orator into the most powerful position on the planet.

Now we watch in disgust as the Obama supporters come out of their drunken-like stupor and sober up to the truth the rest of us already know; socialism is repressive and it doesn’t work to provide the conditions needed for a successful society. It never has. It never will.

But the left demonstrate another inability. They can’t recognize truth when it stares them in the face. As young college students, their minds have been corrupted by the liberal and socialist ideologies which has been pumped into their soft, mushy heads by professors and other corrupted elements coming from the left-wing.

These legions of liberal minded graduates which some call “progressives” are now captains of industry. They are media moguls, teachers and politicians and for several decades they have been very busy subverting our institutions and core values of our country. It’s no wonder our country is in shambles today, a product of their “sick-think” which turns traditional values and thinking on its ear by their belief that our country is broken and only they can fix it. The A.C.L.U. and activist judges are their tools.

Think about this one; California’s fiscal crisis is the product of a generation of leadership produced by the ’60s. I there was any era which represented a wholesale rejection of traditional values, it would be the ’60s. Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi come from that generation. Collectively, they’ve made a shambles of California and now they’re in Washington, D.C. and they’re well on their way to applying their sick-think to make a wreck out of our nation.

The liberal loves to label the Republican Party as “the party of no” which suggests they are “the party of yes.” Based upon their lack of convictions when it comes to traditional values, patriotism and national sovereignty, one might agree. They have established a clear record of saying –

  • “yes” to same-sex marriages,
  • “yes” to open borders,
  • “yes” to granting constitutional rights to non-citizens, especially to our enemies,
  • “yes” to tax policies creating economic uncertainty for businesses and denying economic freedom of consumers all of which lead to stagnant economic conditions and double digit unemployment rates,
  • “yes” to spending policies creating debt levels which threatens our national security,
  • “yes” to granting illegal immigrants the right to vote, especially when it benefits the Democrat party,
  • “yes” to a national media which advances their agenda
  • “yes” to emaciating our military
  • “yes” to large government
  • “yes” to policies reflecting those of socialism i.e. nationalizing large corporations and majority ownership
  • “yes” to allowing heads of foreign states the opportunity to address congress and then giving them standing ovations when they speak about how wrong we are to want to preserve our sovereignty by incarcerating and deporting immigrants who have come into our country illegally,
  • “yes” to blaming Republicans and conservatives alike for the affects of their failed policies administered by their own, such as Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and who clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about the will of the people or democratic process,

Clearly, this list could go on for a long time, but the above items serve to illustrate the destructive characteristics of their belief systems which they embed into their policies and laws, all of which conservatives and those in the Republican party disagree with, leaving them labeled as belonging to “the party of no”.

However, it’s easy to see those of the left haven’t got a clue about what it means to do the right thing for our country, which is to say those on the right actually belong to “the party of know”.

Upon taking office, each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If a president works against the Constitution of the United States (COTUS), specifically, if he instructs the DOJ to sue states which have passed local law to pursue and fulfill its obligation to defend its borders as mandated by Article IV, Section 4 of the COTUS …

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

… it raises questions about the president being seen as an enemy of the Constitution.

If that argument were not convincing, on June 24, Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen had this to say about the nation’s mounting debt:

“I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.”

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warned in June of 2010 that in order to find $100 billion in savings, Pentagon leaders, working with the military services, will have to identify “lower-priority programs” that are not going to be part of future budgets.

Already this year, we have seen this president slash NASA’s Constellation program to a mere pittance of its initial mission design resulting in an estimated 20,000 jobs lost in the space exploration sector. In addition, we have seen Obama’s critical thinking lead to banning off-shore oil drilling leading to thousands of more jobs being lost in the industry.

Pulling all of this together and reflecting upon the impact his decisions have on industry, the country’s diminishing lead in space exploration and now demonstrating an overt willingness to work against the Constitution by suing states who have passed laws in pursuit of their Constitutional obligation to defend their borders, we can safely surmise that the president’s policies are placing the country’s overall security into jeopardy and should be viewed as an enemy of the state.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk,” or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

The Scenario

A man (or woman), of any race, robs a bank (breaking the law). In the act of getting away the person runs through a red light while being observed by a police officer. The police officer, aware of the bank robbery and aware this might be the suspect gives chase and pulls the driver, now guilty of breaking a second law, over to the side of the curb.

After arresting the offender, the officer suspects the person might not be a legal citizen and asks for the appropriate papers to substantiate foreign citizenship which itself has been a law for over 70 years.

So the question is, how can the request for the citizenship documents (required by law to be on the person) be an act of racism?

Furthermore, if asking for citizenship papers is racism, is it not also racism to arrest the offender for robbing the bank?

I’ll advance this notion; those who advance the argument Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 is based on racism are themselves racists.

Under Federal law, federal law enforcement officials are not prevented from asking anyone for citizenship papers and may do it without an established reasonable doubt. In fact, federal law enforcement officials may pull over anyone for any reason and ask for name, date and place of birth. However, Arizona state law enforcement officials are prevented by law from asking the same questions. In the first place, they must have legal reason for pull anyone over before obtaining a legal footing to ask any questions at all.

One final thing; the United State Constitution obligates states to protect the borders from foreign invasion. That means every state carries that obligation. Even Arizona.

So to the critics of this bill….. STFU or get out of the United States.

Recently, I was reading a comment posted by a blogger who was lamenting about the rising costs of our government-run social programs. The owner of the comment said,

“the cash for clunkers cost $3B after we were told $1B. This year’s deficit was under-estimated by how much? … tell me why anyone would believe the government can manage health care and especially do so efficiently?

Are Americans really certifiably stupid?”

Not able to help myself, I responded by saying,

If you are to believe the theories about the dumbing down of Americans through our failed (government managed) education system, then the answer is “Yes!”

I went on to say anyone who believes our government should be in the business of being in business effectively waives their right to complain about resulting waste of our tax dollars used to run that business.

As a sidebar topic, Article I., Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is explicit about what it should be involved in and national health care is nowhere in the list. Neither is Social Security for that matter.

The other day, a Republican congressman pointed to the fact that Congress is controlled by the Dems and that the Republicans couldn’t muster the votes required to stop a 1 car parade. He went on to say that in spite of that glaring fact, Nancy Pelosi’s health care initiative can’t get the votes needed to pass because the ultra-wacky Democrats can’t get the “normal” Democrats to agree to it. In the end, he simply labeled the bill as “wacky”.

Back to the question, a recent Pew political IQ poll indicates Republicans to be consistently more knowledgeable about our government than Democrats.

This video certainly supports the results of that poll.

Whoa… did I just suggest that when it comes to issues critical to the health of this country, the left is basically ignorant and should waive their rights to vote unless they take their responsibilities seriously?

If that offends anyone, maybe it should.

Recently I had a “blog-conversation” with an East coast liberal about a somewhat famous video which focuses upon the words spoken by a very excited woman after she attended an Obama-Biden campaign rally.

The conversation lead to a friendly disagreement about what she says, i.e. her words versus what she actually meant; that her words are an allegory. The conversation lead to the idea that depending upon your political polarity, the viewer’s interpretation of those words may even reveal that polarity, which in turn advances the idea that based upon some pre-established wiring of the brain, conservatives are predisposed to hear one thing while liberals hear another.

I contend it isn’t that complicated.

Those of a conservative leaning hear this:

“I’m not gonna have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage.”

which is to say her words are to be taken literally.

Those of a liberal mindset hear this:

“Obama will lower taxes and make it easier for her to pay her bills.”

Here is the video containing the woman’s statement.

The argument from the conservative side

To build the case about why her her words are to be taken literally, we look at the history of Obama’s campaign and the many promises Obama made along the way.

It’s no news that Obama frequently spoke about his intent to redistribute wealth. It was a message planted firmly in the heads of many, including the woman in the video above. It’s because of these messages that she mistakenly believes she and others like her will be “taken care of” through Obama’s social programs.

For example, Obama’s pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000 is known as “redistribution of wealth” and is understood by most thinking Americans as “stealing from the rich and giving to the poor”. Revealing a socialist mentality, Obama says it’s simply being “neighborly”. Obama explains this to Bill O’Reilly on September 8, 2008.

If I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m going to pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness. – Barack Obama, Sept. 8, Fox News interview with Bill O’Reilly

Obama further reinforced the notion of great social change, of “flipping around” the long established social order when he said,

My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it. – Barack Obama

Since his inauguration, we have had a taste of what he had in mind. We’ve seen the Cash-for-Clunkers program and other spending programs which are supposed to help the economy. So far, they aren’t.

We have heard Obama’s message about the potential for success of little people being minimized and oppressed by big, bad business.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. – Barack Obama

With a carefully established foundation of expectations firmly laid down by Obama, it is not a stretch to understand how it is possible for the woman to believe in what Obama is saying and therefore, enable the listener to take the woman’s statement literally. Clearly, the woman genuinely believes in Obama’s intent of moving money out of the Treasury and into the hands of the “little people”.

As a reality update, judging by the looming tax increases we’re staring at to pay for a bunch of social programs which will compromise America’s future and oppress us even more, I’m sure that lady has already received that rude slap in the face that she “ain’t gettin’ nothin’”.

I wonder how excited she is now. No matter.

To underscore further about how the woman gets her ideas, take a look at the video below. It was made by a very frustrated guy after Obama’s inauguration and during the early phases of the mortgage crisis. The guy has just heard about Obama’s plan to bail out the homeowners who can’t pay their mortgages. This speaks directly to the point of the woman in the video who states,

“I’m not gonna have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage.”

“We gonna flip it around. We’re not gonna have to pay no bills”

From the left, or perhaps from some who appear to be on the left, who parody the left’s mindset see it in a similar light. It’s a skit, but it serves to underline the message planted into the heads of those who believe in entitlements put there by Obama.


After review of the history of Obama’s campaign promises and his careful explanations about his policy beliefs it is easy to see how the woman spoke the words she did. It is also easy to believe she meant what she said.

What do you say?

Next Page »