ConservativeTM is my personal blog on a variety of conservative political issues.

Please contact me at if you have any questions or comments. Thanks.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

20. Proud to Be

There are many differences between conservatives and liberals but the one I find, by far, to be the most interesting is how those on the left and right respond to being labeled by their political beliefs. Say to someone on the right, “You are a conservative!” and they will most likely respond in the affirmative and smile. But say to someone on the left, “You are a liberal” and they recoil in anger.

In a recent conversation, I referred to Obama as a socialist. The reaction from the liberals to whom I was speaking was as if I had just referred to Mother Teresa as a child molester. The look on their faces was a mix of horror and rage. They immediately responded with attacks on Bush. Clearly they were upset about the label and yet I cannot think of a label which more accurately describes Obama’s political leanings. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he wants to take money away from oil companies and from those making over $250,000 at year (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000?) and give it to those who earn less. He has also proposed a host of government programs, including government run health care, as a solution for what he sees as social ills and problems in the US. That is socialism. It certainly isn’t capitalism or libertarianism. Redistribution of wealth – the taking from those who earn money and giving it to those who have not, even under the guise of “those who need” – is socialism. What is the mantra of socialism/Marxism? “From each according to ability to each according to need.“ That is from Karl Marx as in Marxism – as in socialism.

Yet the left is appalled by anyone attaching a label to them that so clearly defines their beliefs. Why?

In observing my liberal acquaintances, I can only surmise that they themselves know that liberalism/socialism is a doomed and misguided ideal. In fact, that is all that it is – an ideal. We’ve see the results in the U.S.S.R., Cuba, North Korea and East Germany and none of these countries under the rule of socialism have caused throngs of immigrants to come knocking at their doors for economic salvation. Most liberals I know live a lifestyle of conservatism yet preach liberalism. It is as if they want to believe in their hearts that the earth is flat (for some reason) yet have seen the pictures from Apollo 11 and know in their minds that it is an illusion.

The next aspect of liberals which I find so fascinating is that to them, their belief system, as it applies to the world, is all or nothing. Everyone MUST follow and be under the control of liberalism, or as they like to say, politically correct thinking. At this point in our history, I would very much like to see the United States fracture into two countries. One being conservative/capitalist, the next being liberal/socialist. When I mention this idea to conservatives, they seem to feel it might not be a bad solution. Although they feel it would be sad to break apart our country, they also feel that those who strongly embrace a socialist ideal should be able to live under their belief system and those who embrace conservatism should also be able to live in peace under their ideal. But, when I mention this to liberals, once again they seem to fly into some sort of rage. They don’t want anyone living in a conservative/capitalist society, even if it is by their choice!!

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by their response, after all, isn’t it only socialist/communist countries that have erected walls and fences to keep people from fleeing their utopia? Conservative/capitalist countries, on the other hand, have had to consider ways to stop the flow of people, even those risking their own lives, who want to emigrate.

In spite of the empirical data showing economic ruin and elimination of personal freedom, many Americans still see salvation only through socialism and only if all people are forced under that one system.

Hmm… I thought the democrat party is the party which believes in freedom of choice!

Monday, December 1, 2008

19. Hawk v. Dove

    The leftist appeasers are celebrating that their new “messiah” is about to occupy the White House. They are reveling in a euphoria of “hope,” that the world will once again join hands and sing Kumbaya and peace will prevail among all people. War, they say, is an outdated paradigm, one from which we have “evolved.” Intellectuals see Hawks as backward hicks from the “flyover states.” They are “unenlightened” and “non-progressive.” Ah – those silly, ignorant fools who don’t believe that “negotiation” can solve any problem. How distressed and saddened these leftists have been over each solder killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as over this “senseless” war. The messiah, like his enlightened predecessors, Clinton and Carter, will surely lead us into a new era of peace and harmony. Hallelujah and Amen!

    Hmm…. let’s have a quick look at the record of appeasement under those two presidents before we anoint anyone.

    After taking office, Jimmy Carter announced that one of his top concerns was human rights and one of his targets was the Shah of Iran. He threatened to withdraw all US support of the Shah unless human rights violations ceased. Carter’s anti-Shah speeches blared from public address systems in downtown Tehran by those wanting to overthrow the Shah’s regime. Interestingly enough, once the Ayatollah Khomeini took power, he executed more people in his first year than the Shah’s SAVAK (secret police) had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years. No doubt that was “progress” of which Mr. Carter is still quite proud.

    The fall of the Shah was followed by the storming of our embassy in Tehran and the holding of our fifty-two American hostages for 444 days. Carter kept “negotiating” or, “showing weakness,” as such regimes see appeasement, and Khomeini just kept smiling and holding our citizens. Only when Ronald Reagan was sworn into office after almost two months of declaring he would immediately begin bombing Iran should the hostages not be released were they finally set free.

    The fall of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic state set the stage for the Taliban, al-Qaida and the jihadists to follow. Khomeini then introduced the idea of suicide bombers to Hezbollah and funded their operations. Hezzbollah later killed 241 US Marines in their barracks in Beirut in 1982.

    Carter continued his effective and enlightened program of appeasement in 1994 when he flew to North Korea to once again “negotiate” an end to their nuclear program. Considering they were given oil, fuel and nuclear technology in return for stopping such a program, something I thought was called “extortion,” is it any surprise that North Korea never did stop their program and has continued until today to develop nuclear energy and weapons? Yet, leftists still pine for the days of Clinton and Carter and their “workable” policies.

    Let’s move forward to the next enlightened, intellectual, evolved, progressive and correct-thinking president – Mr. Bill Clinton. What happened under his dovish presidency?

    1. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing which killed 6 and injured 1,000
    2. The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 5 US military personnel
    3. The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel
    4. The 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Africa which killed 224 and injured 5,000.
    5. The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole which killed 17 and injured 39 sailors..

    After each of these attacks, Mr. Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. Instead of attacking and killing those responsible and taking bin Laden when offered by Sudan, he appeased and he negotiated with the terrorists. After all, we aren’t animals are we? No, we are enlightened and evolved progressives! Instead, his inaction strengthened the resolve of bin Laden and his minions. They then planned 9/11 during his presidency and executed it in 2001. They killed an estimated 7,000 Americans in New York and Washington DC and injured thousands more. .

    The fact is that since Bush began his “war on terror,” American interests, both at home and abroad, have not been attacked. As much as those intellectuals warned us that we were “stirring up a hornet’s nest” and that “more attacks were eminent” history has instead shown that these Islamist were not as interested in standing before Allah as they would like us to believe. Force is necessary at certain times in history in dealing with certain people. Period.

    “The Messiah” is already putting out the message of appeasement and negotiation to the world. Bush’s “outmoded” paradigm of war is over. Is it really any surprise to anyone what just happened in India? The word is out, Obama is ending the War on Terror and so terrorists can now feel free to rise up and strike without being concerned about retribution. In fact, based on the Clinton and Carter models, they can probably expect future “appeasement” funding directly from the US of A.

    What I want is an “enlightened” intellectual to tell me how many Americans must die both at home and abroad under the Obama regime, before they acknowledge that sometimes war is the only solution. The left so desperately wanted the bodies and coffins of the dead soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan shown on television yet pushed to have all images of 9/11 banned from the media. In 2004 during the presidential race, they attacked Bush for re-playing such images in campaign ads. They wanted to believe it didn’t happen, that their policies of appeasement could never have led to such a tragedy. Of course, that is exactly where it led and it will lead there again under Messiah Obama.