Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Obama Wins Big

In another spectacular win, President Obama has evidently won over another well know humanitarian and leader in human rights. That would be none other than the great dictator and murderer of Christians, His Excellency Brother Leader Moammar Gaddafi, Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Our friends at the Washington Post have pointed out this rather dubious distinction, and suggest that Obama and his crowd are going to be embarrassed by this revelation. I suggest that if the shoe fits, then one should wear it.


Moammar goes on to say that: "'I really endorse and support the policies that he has adopted so far,' Brother Leader said Monday afternoon in a video teleconference arranged by the World Affairs Councils of America. Gaddafi referred affectionately to the president as "our son Barack Obama," helpfully translating Obama's name from the Arabic: 'Barakah -- blessing.'"

He is their son, they claim, and so we must be sure that we want to claim the same thing. His policies of American weakness, American culpability and American egregiousness have now finally taken root in the international stage, and the chickens, as they say, are coming home to roost. He recently promised third world dictators that we will limit our responses to aggression to a non-nuclear response. That's good isn't it? The fact that "Ahmadinnerjacket" of Iran just pissed all over Obama must not have a lot of meaning to this administration. The fact that North Korea did the same thing has evidently had no impact on the idiots in this White House. The fact that dictators and enemies of freedom all over the world both applaud his new approach and, at the same time, deride him for our weaknesses makes no impact. I fear what kind of impact that it will take to bring this country to our senses.

Obama is my FREENS!

Obama recently made the comment that the US is a superpower "whether we like it or not." Whether we like it or not?? Who does not like the US as a superpower? The Jews and others that we freed from the Nazi concentration camps fear the US as a super-power? The free people of eastern Europe that were liberated by a collapse of the Soviet Union? The people of the Soviet Union itself fear us? Who is so unhappy that after the Second World War that we fed Berlin? Who is so unhappy that the Pacific Ocean is not held by a dictatorship under the Imperial flag of Japan? Who, exactly, is terribly unhappy that this nation, which bled for freedom in this last century, is a super-power? I lost relatives in WWII, and most who read this post lost relatives in that conflict. Who mourns for the loss of Khrushchev and the old age of Fidel Castro? Who wants to support the animals that are the leadership of Argentina? Who hates the idea that the US is the place of freedom and opportunity?

I will tell you who it is, and the nexus of it lives in the White House at this moment. The religious left of this country and those that swallow their cool-aid are the Nancy Pelosi’s and the Harry Ried’s of this nation, and they are bathing us in the colors of shame, ineptitude and cowardice. They are disgracing the memories of our for-fathers that fought for freedom here and abroad. They are disgracing the ideals of the Constitution that our own blood flowed for. They are ashamed of our freedoms and our way of life because it conflicts with a true socialist ideal of what the whole planet should look like.

In their world-view, there should never be inequalities and there should never be economic advantages. It is the short reading of Marx and it is a short reading of economic reality. The short reading of Marx is the same thing that is happening with the short reading Adam Smith. Smith never promised a utopia, where Marx's reading should never read free society. There is, therefore, a choice that has to be made in a rational society.

I say ENOUGH! I say that we vote our minds and our conscience, and we vote. It makes no difference minding the political affiliation or the type of dog that they own or whether they drive a Toyota or not. I am saying vote your conscience. Vote that you do not desire the Federal Government as your Master and Owner, but that you desire to be free of them and all of their idiotic solutions to your every need and desire. If your local representative is a Democrat, and he/she has been a vocal opponent to Obama, then vote for them. This is not about party lines but about freedom. Find the people that represent you and represent freedom and vote for them. But, for the love of all that is good and desirable, vote!

Friday, April 9, 2010

Fine for Some but Not for Others

In a fine piece of irony, our friends at the Associated Press have discovered that the smarter future Republican candidates for 2012 are, in fact, listening to the Tea Party advocates rather than dismissing them as nutbags and racists. The nation-wide Tea Party movement, for certain, has its elements in radicalized people that are actually nuts and racists. So does the left in this country have its share of them.

Currently, in the national press, it is the vogue to portray ALL of the Tea Party people this way, but suggest that the moonbats on the left are now just fine to have in your presidential cabinet and in key positions in the House and Senate.

Your intrepid reporter and commentator, Phelonius, was myself at one of the earlier Tea Party rallies, and I saw nothing that suggested either racism or a radical agenda, unless you happen to believe that the US Constitution is a bad thing. If you believe that, then there were a LOT of radicals there. Radicals like housewives and their kids with picnic baskets in hand. Radicals like elderly veterans and businessmen in their suits, and radicals like me, who came to see what the fuss was all about. There were plenty of placards saying things like "Preserve the Constitution!" and "Don't Tread on Us!" (a really radical message for students of our history.) There were people shouting and chanting things like "get rid of Obama" and "remember to vote." I saw no burning cars, effigies or flags. I saw no rioting, no people being violent in any way whatsoever, and certainly no disrespect to law and order. In other words, I saw nothing there that you could not take your 5 year old to see, and there were a lot of kids around with their parents. There was a lot that I was proud to see our kids witnessing, such as the peaceful gathering of citizens voicing their concerns about the politics of this great nation.

Why would any politician in his or her right mind ignore the vast majority of people in this country that are really dismayed and concerned about our government's recent huge power-grab? The fact that these people are normally very quiet and fairly flexible in political debate is a disturbing element to the left, as they see themselves as the vox populi, in spite of the polls that argue very much to the contrary. It is noted in this article that "...the fastest-rising Republicans seem to be those most in synch with tea-partier's aversion to taxes and Washington-based programs and taxes."

I posit that the vast majority of this country still prefers that limited government is the best choice. I posit that the people in general see the so-called "centrists" of the Republican Party as being at least partially to blame for this most recent debacle in the House, Senate and Presidency. If a political party ceases to speak for its members, then the members either leave the party and form others, and that political party becomes irrelevant. The last time this happened was when the Whig party dissolved to make room for the Republican Party. The anti-Jackson elements of the Union were dismayed that some of the old Whig Party had stood with Jackson (later the Democrats of the old south) and the increasing tension between the north and south over issues like slavery and trade tariffs forced voters to look for a voice that agreed with what would later be Lincoln's party. Now, I ask you, was that the use of a "litmus test" that has the left so badgered about the tea partier's insistence on a political platform that reflects their views? Very much so, I would suggest, and very much needed and necessary.

Our current regime tolerates none of this kind of activity. If you disagree with the left, you can be attacked by the Presidency itself if you have a large enough following. They scalped their own following before the last presidential election, and if you were a Democrat bold enough to support the war on terror, for example, you could be driven out of the party on a rail. Ask Joe Lieberman how that works.

Let us examine just how that kind of attack works. If you are a Republican that perceives that his electorate is sick and tired of a socialist agenda and do not want a Republican in name only, then he or she moves to where at least most of the electorate are comfortable. That is called being intelligent. Republics work that way because the majority is SUPPOSED to rule. It is in the Constitution, read up on that. Elections are supposed to put people in representative places that represent the opinions of the majority. Now, if you do this and the opponents of the Republicans catch wind of it, then that person is labeled as a radical. They are obeying a "purity test" and are reacting out of fear. Of course the Republicans want to get back in sync with the majorities in their electorates, as in the last election a great many were not and they lost fearfully. It is the solemn duty of every representative and every senator to represent the interests and concerns of their constituents in Washington, DC, and those that do not fully deserve to lose to their opponents. If you wish to label that solemn duty as a kind of "litmus test" then do so, but realize that it is the way that elections work. Do not elect people that do not represent your views.

If this last Congress and Senate passed a bill or two that you find objectionable, do not listen to the populist cries of the Democratic Party while they go through their death throes, because what they claim to popular opinion is clearly not that. If they find it objectionable that you want representatives and senators tha actually reflect what you believe to be the truth, do not be ashamed to say it, and say it loudly. Let your friends and neighbors know. If nothing else, you will be enlightened by what they think, or perhaps they will.

That is what the freedom of speech means. You have the right to lawful assembly and lawful speech. The tea parties are lawful and healthy assemblies, and far less violent than many of the left-wing assemblies. Speak, show up, and vote. The more people that are interested and informed voters the healthier our Republic is going to be.

I beg all of you, dear readers, to do the exact thing being complained about in this article. LOOK at the voting record of the incumbent, and decide if that is what you want in Washington. LOOK at the opposition and see if that is what you want, but for the love of all that makes this nation great, vote along those lines. Vote in November, and do not let anyone that is eligible to vote 'slack off' and ignore this sacred and important duty.