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, September 30, 2009

31. Depraved

Depraved: Marked by evil.

I don't know why I am still surprised when liberals expose their hypocrisy. It's nothing new. Al Gore preaches global climate gloom and doom then zips around the world in private jets. Ted Kennedy loves high inheritance taxes, except when it comes to his family whose family trust sits in Fiji, far away from US tax laws. I've written more about this in my essay Who You Calling Rhetorical? But in the last couple of days, I've seen liberals sink to new lows, so low that it can only be called depravity.

Roman Polanski was recently arrested in Switzerland and is being held for deportation to the US for raping a 13 year-old girl in 1977. Shortly after pleading guilty, Polanski fled the country before he could be sentenced and sent to prison. He has remained a fugitive ever since.

I remember reading that Polanski didn't realize he was doing anything wrong at the time of the rape. In France, Polanski's home country, the age of consent was much younger than 18, as it is here in the US. I did not research the situation further and believed that although that might be true, isn't "ignorance of the law" still no excuse?

Years later, I read the full account of the charges against Polanski. In no way was sex with this young girl consensual. In a hot tub, Mr. Polanski gave her alcohol, drugs and took nude pictures of her. According to testimony, the girl resisted his advances and told him repeatedly to stop. Mr. Polanski ignored her pleas and proceeded to rape and sodomize her.

I would think that liberals would be cheering his capture. But then, as I said earlier, I still apparently think that liberals have a soul or at least some sort of conscience. But no, they are pounding their fists and signing petitions for Polanski's immediate release. The National Organization of Women doesn't seem to care, Hollywood clearly doesn't care, neither of the Obamas, parents of two small girls, are saying much. Whoopi Goldberg even said this wasn't really "rape-rape, it was something else." Ms. Goldberg was unable to define, however, what that "something else" actually was.

Roman Polanski is one of them, one of the elite left - Someone above the law, above punishment, above accountability. The pattern of the left is to marginalize women who stand in their way, should they inconveniently get raped. It was "consensual" as was reported regarding Clinton and Lewinsky. She was "a bimbo" as was reported regarding Clinton and Paula Jones. Also regarding Clinton and Paula Jones was James Carville's lovely comment, "If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." There is also the Kennedy family rape in Florida where the woman was marginalized. No liberal women's group came to the victim's aid and the Kennedy boy, much like others in his family, was set free. The women you see, are chattel, bimbos, idiots. So somehow, to liberals, these women all deserved it - right? This isn't coming from rednecks in some southern state often distained by the left, this is coming from Hollywood power brokers and leaders in the democratic party. Like they said about Clinton and any one of the women who accused him of rape - "Hey, forget about it and just Move On!"

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Woody Allen supports Polanski's release, or maybe even Martin Scorsese or Harvey Weinstein. But what does surprise me is the number of women, from Whoopi to Debra Winger to Monica Bellucci who see nothing wrong with what Polanski did and are protesting for his release. Ms. Winger said, "it is a three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities." Sick, Ms. Winger, sick.

I don't have children, but I cannot be around the children of my friends and family without feeling fiercely protective. When I am with them, especially the girls, and am in public with them, my eyes are darting back and forth looking for any sign of trouble. I know my body is tense as I prepare to engage any yet unseen enemy of these children. Any man who drugs and sodomizes a child should be sent to prison for the rest of his life. There should be no questions, no middle ground, no "well what about this or that." I know if any child in my charge was raped and sodomized as Polanski did to this girl I would do everything possible to ensure that the beast never saw another sunrise.

I cannot believe that any human, regardless of their political beliefs, could for one moment support the release of Polanski. But Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Debra Winger, Harvey Weinstein, Monica Bellucci, Pedro Almodovar, Woody Allen, John Landis and over one hundred others of Hollywood's liberal elite, don't agree with me. After all, they say, it was a long time ago and besides, we like his movies!

It has been reported that the girl, now 45, hopes the case is dropped. On the other hand, the woman was also paid off in a civil suit against Polanski. So, I guess if you are a liberal, can flee the country and pay off your victims, even child rape is okay.

There is almost no political issue in which I support Obama. In fact, I see him as the worst possible thing that could have happened to America. In spite of this, if any man drugged, raped and sodomized one of his two little girls, I would hope that all of America would join me in ensuring the perpetrator be sent to jail forever. But then, I know now that my hopes would likely be dashed. For if that man was Roman Polanski, Hollywood would probably just shrug their shoulders and say, "hey - just move on. After all, it wasn't really a rape-rape, was it?"

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

30. A Modest Proposal

It has been 280 years since Jonathan Swift penned his proposal, and now it is my turn. I've decided to stop fighting the enlightened, intellectual progressives. In fact, I'm picking up their mantle with the exuberance of a zealot. I agree with their vision, their hope of a better future for all. They want healthcare for all Americans. I say great!! But I also say, "Why stop there? Why not guarantee a comfortable and safe future for all Americans?"

So, here is my modest proposal. The US government will give each American $1 million to secure their future. In addition, $500,000 will be given to each family to purchase a home. Health care will be provided, regardless of cost, to each and every citizen of this great country. No American shall ever go without a safe home, a warm bed, a full belly and the best medical care possible. Upon the birth of a child, the government will issue a check for another $1 million to ensure that child's future.

How can any caring, loving, concerned, compassionate American not agree with me? To disagree with this proposal would doubtlessly be because of hate and/or racism. No other reason could possibly be valid. Don't we all want the best for each and every one of us?

What, you say? This proposal is too much? Too extreme? Too generous? I'll ignore for a moment your obvious greed and selfishness and try to be open to debate and negotiation. How about we reduce the amount to only $750,000 per American and only $400,000 for a home. The health care, though, is not negotiable. Unlike so many non-progressives, I have a heart, a soul, a conscience.


Just as Swift's essay was satirical, so, of course is mine. Sadly, many of the progressive left would almost agree with such a proposal. Since their make-believe world has no limits or boundries, this proposal, or some variation of it, certainly is possible. Isn't it?

I do agree with socialist progressives that it would be wonderful if healthcare could be provided to every American, even every person on this planet. It would be great if the world worked in such a way that every person could live without want. But this is not reality. We've seen the results of countries trying to ensure "fairness" and the results have been nothing more than common misery for all. No American ever flew to the USSR to avail themselves of their excellent medical care. No wall was erected around the prior communist eastern bloc countries to keep people out, only to keep people in. No one has ever risked their life swimming from Florida to reach a supposed paradise in Cuba.

The issue with Obama's healthcare is its cost. It isn't about racism, or greed or hate. Let's look at my modest proposal and its cost. The US would have to print almost $1 quadrillion. What would be the result? First of all, those dollars would basically be worthless, inflation would drive the cost of every product to stratospheric heights. Even if inflation could be avoided, most Americans would stop working and live off their windfall. If no one is working, who is producing the goods and services we need to live? Someone owning chickens would quickly find a market for his eggs at $1,000 each!

If you, Mr. Progressive, think this is ridiculous and Obamacare isn't, explain to me why the left accused then President Bush of bankrupting our country when the national debt hit $1 trillion yet you see nothing wrong with Obama tripling that debt in his first six months in office. The projections are that should all of Obama's programs be implemented, the debt will rise rapidly over the next ten years to $10 to $20 trillion. How can that possibly make sense to you? On Sunday, Obama shockingly stated that the only way to reduce federal spending, at this point, is to implement this healthcare program. Ignoring the data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which stated that the cost would actually rise, Obama still stands up and makes such a statement. Even worse, there are those that believe him.

Yes, it would be nice to give everyone, everything they want or need, but life simply doesn't work that way. Our founding fathers were wise beyond their time. We can provide opportunity and nothing more. It is up to each individual to succeed.

I have written before in my essay America The Prejudiced of immigrants from all over the world who have found success in this country. We provided opportunity and they came, they worked hard, they went to college, they saved, they invested, they bought homes and they made lives for themselves and for their families. Something not possible in the socialistic countries from which they fled.

Yet through some fantasy delusion, the progressive left sees a socialistic utopia as possible here in the US. Yet in spite of the fact - the fact - that it has never worked anywhere else in the world at any time in history, they still believe somehow, some way, it will work here.

My proposal is satire. To the left, it is sadly somehow real.

(Special thanks to Roger Massengale)

Thursday, September 3, 2009

29. The Party of Parrots

Yesterday I read an opinion piece regarding Obama's recent troubles getting legislation through Congress, especially his health care bill. After completing the article, I continued on and read many of the comments posted by other readers. Not surprisingly I read the same comments I've read many times before from other articles. The comments come from what I now call "The Parrots." A parrot, usually a leftist, is one who continually repeats the same phrase over and over without understanding what he or she says or even why he or she says it. Yet, repeat it they do.

The first parrot phrase I've found is that the Republican Party is the "Party of 'No'." Since conservatives reject Obama's socialistic agenda they have been encouraging their Congress men and women to vote against these policies. Of course, that vote would be "No." Do these same parrots see Democrats as the party of "Yes?" Hmmm.... Whenever conservatives try to push legislation for choice in education, allowing poorer parents the same priveleges to send their children to private schools as the rich, what does the left say? "No, No, No, No, No!!!"

What about privatization of Social Security? If you read my article "Jack Makes An Investment" you'll discover that privatization would conservatively lead to retirement benefits five to ten times greater than the current government controlled program. What has the left said about such a change? "No, No, No, No, No!"

These are just two examples of the supposed "Yes Party" stomping their feet, taking their shoes off, beating them on their tables and shouting, "No, No, No!" But does that stop the parrots from assigning that label to conservatives? Well, um... no, it doesn't.

The second label used against conservatives is that we are the "Haters." Hate, hate, hate - that's all we do on the right, we hate everyone and everything, well, at least according to the parrots. If anyone disagrees with any policy in any way of Obama's - they are a hater. No discussion, no debate, no give and take - just hate. Hmmm...... let me think, what did the left call George W. Bush? Nazi, Stupid, Racist...... I guess I just don't feel the love there. Sounds like hate to me.

Jesse Jackson has made a career spewing hate by calling people racists. Harvard professor Henry Gates was quick to decry his arresting officer as a racist. What about Obama's "Green Czar" Van Jones, saying "they [Republicans] are a**holes?" He's also made racially charged statements referring to "white polluters and the white environmentalists steering poison to minority communities." More hate. On any day of the week, visit the DailyKos and read the postings or check out the HuffingtonPost and read what the bloggers say about anyone who disagrees with the policies of the left. How any rational person can read that crap and see love and compassion is beyond me. It's hate - vitriolic hate. I don't know how many times I've been in a room with leftists and someone makes a political comment to which all I do is simply question their position, asking them to give supporting evidence for their views, and I am met with a litany of name-calling and hate. Hate, hate, hate. Hate and more parrot phrases.

The third parrot example is to me, the most interesting. I first heard this parrot line from MSNBCs Rachel Maddow. Ms. Maddow went to Stanford University yet she too is nothing more than a parrot. She was ranting on about conservatives standing up against Obama and Pelosi's push to ramp up this countries run to socialism. Her exceedingly brilliant parrot phrase was, "if these people hate socialism so much, why do they still draw Social Security and Medicare?" Wow, Rachel, you got me there. Ok, Rachel and the rest of you parrots - are you listening? I'll try to take this one slowly. Yes, as much as I would love to see both Social Security and Medicare phased out, I can't blame anyone, conservative or liberal, for expecting the government to live up to their promises. If I'm 65 years old and have been forced all my life to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars into both Social Security and Medicare, yes, I do expect a return, pitifully small though it may be. If I had been given a choice to contribute to Social Security or to a private program and chose the private program, no, I would not then expect to draw from the public option. The same is true for Medicare. For what I and my employer have paid into the system over my lifetime, I could secure private insurance for my retirement years. But, it didn't go into a private account, it went to the government. So, I do expect them, regardless of my belief in the program, to pony up. Just as I would expect the same from any organization, public or private, into which I've paid and who has guaranteed me a product or service in return. Rachel, let me opt out of these programs and put that same money into a private fund and you'll never hear me ask for government assistance. Is that fair? Are you ok with that? But the supposed "Party of Choice" has repeatedly said, "NO, NO, NO!! NO Choice for YOU!"

But if Rachel sees this as hypocrisy, let's take a closer look at the left. In 2001, the state Democrats in Arkansas wanted to raise taxes. Then Governor Mike Huckabee said "no." But, he did respect those that wished for such an increase and created the "Tax Me More Fund." This fund allowed those leftists who believed in the "public option" and higher taxes to put their money where their mouth was and voluntarily contribute to this fund. The result? Six months later the fund had only raised $1,900. I wonder how much Rachel contributed.

I'm all for the "public option" as long as the public who demands that option also pays for it. Obama and his followers want health care for an additional 50 million people. Great - tax them more!! Set up a fund to which they can contribute. Then use that money to purchase health insurance for all of the uninsured. What do you think Rachel?

I'm guessing Rachel and the rest of the parrots will say, "No, No, No!"