Saturday, October 21, 2006

 

Vote!...and keep Nancy Pelosi away from that gavel


The midterm elections are less than a month away and the media and their opinion polls are telling us that the Republicans are about to have their power wrested from them by America's new party of socialist statism (the neo-Comm. Democrat Party). Some say it would serve their right. Even many conservatives are disappointed, to say the least, in the Republican Party. Libertarians – many who opposed the action in Iraq – are equally dissatisfied with a party that has historically been more free market than their redistribute the wealth collectivist opposition. In some ways I'd have to agree with many of these points of concern. The Republican Party has hardly lived up to prior values espoused. Many in the Republican Party can still talk the talk (the Reagan / Goldwater legacy) but definitely can't walk the walk.

Republicans, including their party's head – the current president – have spent recklessly, are hardly a party of small decentralized government, and they seem to care little that a massive portion of the country is actively being overtaken by illegal immigrants whose contributions are little in comparison to their demand for "rights" they are clearly not entitled to as illegals. (This issue has nothing to do with legal immigrants who have always, ultimately, contributed to America's progress).

The Republicans, as a party (there are rare exceptions within the party of course), are indeed due to be tossed out of office. A couple of decades ago this would have meant a few years of a more "liberal" public policy. 'Definitely not the case this time. The Democrats have been heisted by a dominant wing of socialist fanatics. They are now the party of George Soros, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, et al. Some of the Democrats' most prominent figureheads are 9/11 conspiracy theorists and admirers of Fidel Castro (hardly -- John F. -- "Kennedy Democrats"). It is not completely fanciful to say that they want America to lose in Iraq if not the general confrontation with Islamo-fascism itself. To many of these socialists, America is a bad country, its citizens undeserving of the prosperity they themselves have produced and ripe for reigning in by a bureaucratic authority that impels allegiance to "the common good" (their favorite meaningless euphemism of late).

Be assured, a Republican victory in the coming election would mean virtually nothing in the way of change or rolling back the authority of centralized intrusive government. But, be equally assured that the Democrats gaining control would be a new era of Euro-style socialism and anti-free market dogma made into law, with accompanying lower levels of prosperity and individual freedom, not to mention prostrating the country before the forces of Islamic terrorism and states run by ideologies of radical authoritarianism.

The national security issue is a problem that shouldn't be taken lightly. For all their clownishness, there is no question that the Republican Party has a clearer view of how to confront an axis of evil (firstly, by acknowledging that there is indeed such a thing). We – the civilized world as a whole – are at war again with a totalitarian mindset. Islamo-fascism and its allies in various strains of radical socialism are determined to bring down the American "hegemon" that has sought to spread the concept of open, free, constitutional society. Hugo Chavez (and assorted Latin American friends), North Korea, Iran, and Al Queda (to name a few) are clear and vocal about their desire to finish off the fortunate historical circumstance of a society that is both free and powerful. The rabble of fascist / socialist sentiment has active facilitators in media, "education," and entertainment, and in one of America's prominent political parties – the Democrats.

Anyone with genuine libertarian views regarding the values of diverse open society and freedom will not look favorably upon the Republican Party, but the other choice is definitely far worse; appeasement with dictators, active pursuit of a more intrusive bureaucratic monolith, and war against the values of individualism and free commerce.

The mainstream media will continue to paint a dire image of the Republicans' chances of retaining power in congress and to hype insignificant "scandals" like the Foley e-mails to pages comedy (a similar "scandal" by Democrats would be spun as an issue of "persecuting" a gay congressman). Of late, a clear scandal involving Harry Reid's financial transactions has been all but swept under the rug by the mainstream media.

The media's response to a potentially looming switch in power between parties is the opposite of what they had done when it was the Republicans who stood to unseat a 40 year long Democrat majority congress. It was then that the media concocted the idea of the "angry white male" voter. In the current instance, a supposedly insightful public rebels against corrupt Republican legislators, in the mid 90's it was the public itself that was depicted as flawed, choosing to end Democrat power merely (supposedly) because passionate voters were "angry," "white," and "male."

Current opinion polls may not be entirely accurate (the same polls constantly saw a serious challenge from John Kerry in the last presidential election). The media is actively facilitating the cause of the Democrat party (as it always has) in the hopes of at least discouraging Republican voters from bothering to vote.

A Democrat victory would ensure that congressional committees would be headed by some very left wing fools and idealistic control freaks. The majority leader of the House of Representatives would be Nancy Pelosi ("rhymes with witch") – a millionaire socialist (not a new concept). It's no secret that one of the first lines of business in a Democrat dominated legislature would be to clog the apparatus of government with a frivolous attempt to impeach George Bush, Vice President Cheney, and of course to remove the left's much hated secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. These critics are the very people who also earlier uttered the same words of concern regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction as the Bush administration did. They voted to hold the Hussein regime accountable to numerous U.N. resolutions, and twice voted to not remove forces from Iraq! These are the same people who call interception of suspected terrorist communications, "spying on Americans" and daily show greater concern for the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay than the citizens of America.

However one may view George Bush, the constructed reputation he's been given by intellectuals, media snobs, and elitists socialists in education and entertainment is hardly an accurate appraisal of the guy who clearly acknowledges who our enemies are and how they must be confronted.

The economy is doing very well, though one would never know it from press accounts. The war with fundamentalist fascist Islam is being fought with at least awareness that they're the enemy.

If you want higher taxes, punitive laws against the production of new, cheaper, and more efficient products, and active appeasement and sympathy for totalitarian ideologies, by all means vote for Democrats, they'll definitely give you all that and then some.

If you realize at this important juncture in history that you must support the "lesser of two evils," then hold your breath and vote for the Republican candidates, at least then you'll be demonstrating a resistance to an elite clique of social planners who already dominate too much of our society and our lives – leftland's "philosophers, "aritistes," and academics who seek to once more build a new world, with them in charge, all a far cry from the more banal and infinitely less harmful epitaph, "pro-business."


Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?