April 28, 2009

Is Dissension Still Patriotic in the Age of Obama?


When I posted my "Burning Questions for Liberals", I should have included a follow up question to "Where are all the war protesters?". Recent events have me considering a related question: Whatever happened to 'dissension is patriotic'?
Liberals defended their anti-war and anti-administration protests as being 'patriotic'. For their part, the media defended their one-sided criticisms and character assassinations also as 'patriotic'. As if they were fulfilling their duty as good citizens, we watched 8 years of endless rallies, 'news' reports, and documentaries.
Most of us, however, were not so naive to think that the majority of the Bush-era "dissenters" were true patriots with the best interests of the United States at heart. And certainly we were not going to buy the notion that folks like Michael Moore were patriotic in the way say, most of America, or the dictionary defines patriotism.

clearly 'patriotic' kids at a Bush-era protest:

But assuming there was an element of the Left which honestly believed that dissension is patriotic, why does that no longer hold true now that Obama is in power?

Recently, we have seen several organized protests called "Tea Parties", which, in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party, are folks exercising their right as American citizens to speak out against increasingly excessive taxation. Is it peaceful dissension? Absolutely. Yet suddenly, dissension is no longer considered patriotic by the Mainstream Media, who covered the events with contempt and ridicule.
The little coverage that NPR gave the April 15th rallies, for instance, characterized them as rained-out failures. (Had it been an anti-war or pro-abortion protest, they would have spoke of "the brave souls who withstood treacherous weather conditions").

The entertainment segment of the media either ignored the grass-roots movement or made jokes of a high school locker-room nature...Somehow, the humor in oppressive taxation and a historically unprecedented deficit escapes me, and I don't remember similar jokes about the liberal protest circus.

Obama himself, could hardly disguise his contempt for these peaceful protests. When he spoke about the Tea Parties recently, his tone was paternalistic condescension and he blabbered something irrelevant about Healthcare. My, my how power changes those who condemned it.

When prepping for this blog piece, I reviewed dozens and dozens of Bush administration protests images. I was struck by the signs and costuming that was simply disrespectful to anyone who held the office of President, Vice President, or Secretary of State. They burned in effigy, they mocked with foul language, all the while treated seriously by the media. Yet, I had a difficult time finding anything similar in the Tea Party events. There was no hatred, just serious concern about where we are headed and our children's future... evidently that kind of thing is not patriotic according to the Left.

another 'unsuccessful' Tea Party protest:

The Tea Parties are very inclusive, but generally speaking it is a middle class phenomena. They are made up of working people and small business owners, who unlike the typical Liberal activist, are usually too busy working and taking care of their families to protest at the drop of a hat or text message. Cutting class is much easier than skipping a day of work.
There was even a predictable attempt by the left to tarnish the tax protesters as a racist group, to which one angry black man and Tea Party organizer said on a talk radio show, if they wanted to know where the black people are "...Here I am! Right Here!"

The best I can figure is that to the Liberals, and in the best tradition of Stalinist "double-speak", dissension is patriotic when it is convenient to say so. According to them, their dissension is patriotic and the opposition's dissension is merely obstructive. At the very least protest is not "cool" anymore.
The left demands that we protect their right to assemble and protect their freedom of speech, even though we disagree, but we cannot expect the same from them. (Since the Left controls congress and the White House, they can even take measures Bush would never have dared to attempt to silence criticism). The Liberal activists have always cloaked themselves with 'patriotism' and the protection of our Constitution, yet they work tirelessly to undermine our nation. Yet, when we march to protect our liberty, we are the fly in the ointment of their vision...Well I will accept that, and I hope it continues. Perhaps it is time that us conservatives got radical...

(don't) save the whales:



April 22, 2009

Burning Questions For Liberals

Can one of you Liberals please help me out here? I don't want to freak you out, so I have a lot of 'feeling' questions. So anyways,... maybe it's me, but I can not for the life of me figure out things like...


1) Where are all the war protesters? Is the war, which you heaped such scorn on, suddenly acceptable because your man Barack is president? When Bush was president you chanted "END THE WAR NOW!" - because war is immoral and we are killing innocent people. But I am starting to believe that it wasn't about morality or people. Who am I kidding? I never thought it was about anything other than protesting George Bush...oh and maybe impressing that chick who stays in the dorm across campus. There is still a war going on and unfortunately, innocent people are still getting hurt -but since that no longer concerns you - why not protest something worthwhile? Like the crushing taxation or the catastrophic deficit spending our new president is planning?

BONUS: When Barack recently spoke about his plan for conducting the war in Afghanistan, he actually used the Bush phrase - "Make No Mistake...". If it sounded cliche when "W" said it, it sounded absolutely trite coming from Obama. My bonus question to liberals is: How does it make you feel when Obama mimics George Bush in syntax?

Dude, that was so last administration...

2)How do you feel about Obama lying to the American people? He promised to prohibit lobbyists from high office...he quickly signed a waiver to appoint William Lynn as Deputy Defense Secretary. In case you missed this, Lynn was senior vice president at Raytheon, the company responsible for the Patriot and Tomahawk missile systems. As far as players in a military-industrial complex go...this would be the guy. Obama said, "We need earmark reform and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely”, and 9000 earmarks showed up in his very unwise omnibus spending package.

Obama also promised to post all important legislation five days before signing them to give the "American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website" in order to "...(introduce) more sunlight into the lawmaking process." He signed at least three major bills without doing what he promised...legislation that will have consequences for generations to come. These are just a few of many campaign lies that went out the window. I am a little confused here because I thought he was the candidate of change...unless that means a change from the Washington practice of at least waiting a little while before breaking promises or at least being ashamed of it!

CAVEAT: The question is in regards to Obama specifically. Answers saying that 'politicians always lie' or this or that president 'also lied' will NOT be accepted!


3)After decades of cultivating an image of being the vanguard of the counterculture and 'unfairly' persecuted by the 'MAN", how does it feel to have the mass media, Hollywood, and other pop culture outlets openly on your side? When I was younger, any punk-rocker worth his salt had a "Kill Your TV" sticker on their hatchback. Now, with the exception of Fox News, all the major networks are solidly in the Obama camp and most are openly liberal. In college, I remember taking a class where we went line by line through fictional news pieces with the object of underlining sentences and phrases of bias - which (I assumed)was considered a bad thing. The 'hard' news channels have given up on even attempting to appear objective. Outside of the news, shows from Law and Order to The Family Guy operate with a left of center bias. With a few generations of kids raised on media like this, society will be totally inculcated. I wonder how it feels for these old counter-culture types to share their belief system with corporate rockers, artists, and blockbuster movie stars.

OBSERVATION: The Prime Time TV show boogieman was often the expansion of executive branch powers and subjects like the Patriot Act. Since Obama came into office, these subjects seem to have gone away. Apparently we have no reason to fear our government anymore...ya!

Imagine waking up to this face everyday...

Stay tuned....

April 20, 2009

What I Believe (part one)

These are a few of my beliefs as a Conservative. We are a diverse group - you might see some of your own beliefs listed here or in the next posting. You may not even realize you had conservative ideals! Naturally, these beliefs are the result of constructs which far exceed the few sentences I put down. Some are the culmination of personal experience, historical and economic research, or just plain common sense.

* I believe in God – the Judeo-Christian God you may have heard about in the Bible. I don’t care if you don’t believe in Him – that is your business. But be thankful that the Founding Fathers of our nation did believe in Him. It was their belief that we all have certain unalienable rights which are God given. The state exists to protect those rights of which we are naturally endowed and has no legal basis to take away what it did not give.

* I believe in the Free Market. Considering the imperfect nature of humans Capitalism is the most democratic, efficient, and successful economic system. History is all the proof that is needed. Command economies, by contrast, have produced nothing but unparalleled genocide, corruption, and stagnation. The key is to balance Capitalism with Judea-Christian values to safe guard against excess, greed, and callousness potentially present in any human endeavor. Unfortunately, and particularly in the last 60 years, America has operated under a mixed system which has handicapped our progress. The people who claim that our recent economic troubles are proof that capitalism is a failure are incorrect. It is in fact our socialistic elements that have been a failure. And recent events prove that even elements of a command economy are harmful.


* I believe in legal immigration. Our country should continue to accept and assimilate people from all over the world. However, with resources influenced by supply and demand, perhaps it is time we accepted the best and brightest the world has to offer. There was a time when the poor, huddled masses were an important factor in this nation’s growth. But then again, those ‘huddled masses’ worked incessantly hard. They accepted that English was the official language. They asked for no handouts – only for the opportunity to live in relative safety and peace. They appreciated the freedom this country offered. They ignored prejudice. They were the quintessential ‘bootstrappers’. Many of the immigrants today don’t bother becoming legal or naturalized. They often pay no taxes yet receive food stamps and health care. They have little use for the English language as they are accommodated in their own. They want drivers’ licenses and entitlements with no thought of assimilation. They are like a nation within our nation with American citizens and legal immigrants paying the bill.


* The “Drug War”, as has been conducted the last 80 years or so, has been an unmitigated disaster. From a fiscally conservative viewpoint, the Drug War has been a horrendous waste of taxpayer funds – a black hole where good money is sucked in to yield negligible results. The criminalization of Marijuana is the superstar of this folly. Releasing rapists and murderers to make room, in already overcrowded prisons, for those convicted of marijuana possession defies reason.


* I am against abortion. Our constitution protects the right to life. The pro-abortion lobby claims to be concerned with the rights of women, yet female babies do not factor into their platform. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund any organization associated with this tragic practice. On a personal level, I have never known a woman, who has had an abortion to not deeply regret her decision and carry a painful emotional burden. None of them had parents who would not have supported their decision to pursue other options, or parents who would have thrown them out on the street as a result of an unplanned pregnancy. None of them had been raped. All of them were victims of a culture which deceived them into believing that termination was a just another birth control option and then left them to suffer the emotional consequences alone.


Stay tuned....

What I Believe (part two)

Here is Part Two:

* Governmental racism exists right now in Affirmative Action. The institution implies that minorities need to have standards lowered and debased in order to succeed. It is offensive to minorities who are able to succeed through their own ambition, intelligence, and force of will. Affirmative action divides society and creates resentment. It is all the more ironic with an African-American occupying the highest office in our nation. If color, gender, creed, etc, is irrelevant, then remove all “self-identification” questions from federal applications. End any kind of preferential treatment, grant or contract awards, and/or subsidies based on those clearly discriminatory criteria.While we are at it,remove any “Hate-Crime” laws that value victims of the same crime differently.

* I believe that there is an inverse relationship between the size of government and its efficiency in governing. Its inefficiency requires more oversight and growth which perpetuates inefficiency and more growth ad infinitum. Big government is inherently intrusive in the lives of its citizens in order to justify its existence. It diverts and consumes more and more resources. Big government is the enemy of the individual.

* I believe marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I really don’t care what or who consenting adults do in their homes. Have at it. American tolerance is a blessing to all but do not expect people to consider same sex unions or homosexual relationships as normal. If it was normal, or occurred with the frequency the gay lobby suggests, homosexuality would be a non-issue. The fact is that it is abnormal in nature - human or otherwise. Mandates to teach children that same-sex relationships are normal or a casual choice is wrong. Forcing a child to grow up having to explain why he or she has two fathers or mothers is unfair. And in regards to recent events, the woman who became a man and then gave birth is an affront to both womanhood and motherhood. Oprah may find this “father” acceptable but these people have put their confused sexual identity ahead of this innocent child – who will have to shoulder a confusing burden.

* I believe in respect for different cultures but multiculturalism is nonsense. Today, multiculturalism means respect for any other culture except the brilliant culture of the “West” which is European and Christian. Although flawed like any human phenomena, this Western culture is responsible for the creation of our nation – an unrivaled example of liberty and achievement. That white men of European decent (primarily Anglo and Protestant), could establish the foundations of a nation of universal liberty, proves the value of that culture. As a Catholic with only slight Anglo roots, I am grateful. The desire of multiculturalists to demonize, minimize, or ignore Western culture is not only counter factual and short-sighted, but a threat to civilization.


* I believe in the freedom of expression but if taxpayers are funding your ‘art’ it better be something the public can enjoy. If you want to urinate on crucifixes and otherwise defile religious symbols and call it art – do it with your own money. If you want to denigrate women or our nation and call it art – do it with your own money. If you think obscenity is self-expression - than you can self-finance and if enough people think you’re talented, you may even get rich.

Stay tuned....

April 3, 2009

The Big Deal About God

In honor of Easter, I am posting this piece from the Diary's sister-site on Myspace dated 7/13/2008.

Happy Easter, Friends!

Setting aside all the overwhelming arguments that prove, by word and deed, the original intent of the framers of our Constitution to keep God in our government – the march towards the removal of Him continues. That there should be no federal church and that the freedom of worship should be maintained was also clearly the Framers intent, making the separation of church and state a precept that protects the churches as much as it protects the state. But with each passing victory of the Left in the removal of God and His words from federal institutions, one may ask- What's the big deal about God in Government anyway? How can we reconcile the inclusion of God as well as the separation of church and state?..

Consider the two great totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. In the Third Reich, Martin Bormann exclaimed publicly, "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable". The Nazi leaderships plan was to replace the Bible with Mein Kampf and "the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches…" The Soviets attitude of religion being the 'Opiate of the masses' lead to their version of a 'drug war' from the Red Terror onward with mass murder of priests of all denominations in both Russia proper and the post-WWII territories they acquired. We have only recently learned about Stalin's plan to liquidate the Jews a la the 'Doctors Plot', thus completing Hitler's work.

In the First case the Nazis sought to create a "National Reich Church" but the Judeo-Christian "God" was not to be found in this institution. In the case of the Communists, with so many enemies of the state and counter-revolutionaries to eliminate, they found it prudent to control the remaining shell of the accepted churches and use them for state propaganda.

But doesn't all this only reinforce the need FOR clear separation of Church and State, particularly when we find our current enemies among the Islamic Theocracies? Absolutely. And that is why this principle should be protected - but this has nothing to do with God- this has to do with Religion. The First Amendment is there to prevent the establishment of a state church and prevent one church from becoming supreme through federal power over another thereby protecting the freedom of worship.

The crux of the issue is clear…In the Declaration of Independence it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We as Americans are given our rights not by any government, committee, or person but by God. And these rights are unalienable and unassailable so that no government, politburo, or dictator can ever take them away from us.

In fact, the purpose of the Government is to protect these rights. If we remove God from the equation, as we are slowly doing, then our right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is derived through the State- a creation of Man by constitution or whim. What can be given by Man can also be taken away by Man. What can be given by a State can also be taken away by a State. So where do you want to derive your basic rights from? From Man or from the omnipotent, and yes, Judeo-Christian God?

Happy Easter - Chrystus zmartwychwstał! -Христос воскрес!

stay tuned...I have a lot of great new stuff when I return soon!