HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
At this time in my life, I have much to be thankful for. A beautiful wife, a wonderful daughter, and a new baby boy tops the list. Rounding out the top ten are, a job, health, two cars that still run despite assorted rust holes and oil leaks, a house, great neighbors, supportive family and a handful of trusting friends.
Being the night before Thanksgiving reminds me that even though I have less than optimistic view of the future, I need to remember that there are a lot of people who have it a lot worse than I/we do. My cars may be old and rusty, and my house may be small and in constant need of maintenance, but I know that there are people who can only dream of having such luxuries.
So I would like to take this time to wish all my fellow Americans a great Thanksgiving...even you liberals out there. Though I'm sure you libs wouldn't celebrate a holiday that commemorates the corruption and exploitation of Native Americans, I still hope you're able to enjoy a heaping helping of "Tofurkey" and bean sprouts. I wish you nothing but good tidings for your equally represented according to diversity studies and demographic research friends, and good cheer to your "formerly known as family" parental entities who probably oppressed you with their neo-con dogma.
I'm not sure what a liberal would be thankful for, or who they'd be thankful to, but here are some ideas:
1. Bush did not get re-elected to a third term.
2. A man with dark skin is President...because that really matters.
3. Women can still kill their babies.
4. Terrorists will no longer have to endure getting wet.
5. "Earning" money is becoming passe'.
6. That pesky constitution won't get in your way much longer.
7. Meth addicts won't have to fear being shot when they rob and rape your family members much longer.
8. Getting up in the morning to go to work will not be an issue pretty soon.
9. Those evil rich people are finally going to be "getting their's".
10. You can catch up with old friends while standing in the unemployment line.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
UNHOLY UNIONS
Once upon a time, our nation was smack in the middle of an economic revolution. New inventions, and technologies were developing practically by the hour. Couple that with a mass influx of immigrant labor to meet the increasing demand and the end result was an industrial community that was virtually un-regulated and a labor force that was ripe for exploitation. With no labor laws or regulations to protect the worker, the American worker had little-to-no way to obtain justice in the event they were injured or taken advantage of by employers.
To remedy this, the labor force organized and formed unions to give them leverage and a political voice. Eventually, the work of unions lead to legislation that provided safety regulations and a whole host of laws and agencies that provided the worker with some recourse for justice and a generally better work environment. This of coarse is a very basic explanation of the original purpose of labor unions.
In the year 2008, now that the American worker has the luxury of a list of options to find justice in the workplace, unions have all but run out of legitimate things to complain about. In stead, today they spend much of their time bullying corporations into giving them yet another week of vacation per year or adding aroma therapy treatment to their health care plan. Essentially, unions have gone from providing workers with a sorely needed path to justice, to transforming the once proud American work force into a bunch of cry-babies that think bullying is a legitimate method of problem solving.
Personally, I think it boils down to differing philosophies. One philosophy tells us that when a man opens a business, it is his business. He is the one who makes the daily decisions of how the business is operated. Who to hire, and who to fire... How much to pay, and why... And what benefits (if any) are supposed to be the decision of the owner. An employee has the right to work for that individual and the right to quit as well. As far as "collective bargaining" is concerned, the employee has the right to accept the wage offered under the terms presented or go else wear to work. Considering that the employer has to abide by the labor laws of the land, and the employee has the right to quit, file charges or litigate in the event of a dispute, this philosophy puts the prerogatives in their proper place.
The free market likes this philosophy because it provides it's own natural boundaries. If an employer treats his workers too poorly, he will find it hard to keep his doors open due to being sued, prosecuted, or plagued by bad publicity.
The union philosophy is much different. After having NOT taken the financial, and personal risks and sacrifices involved in starting a company, unions seem to be under the impression that they are entitled to make the business decisions at that company. If the owner of that company disagrees, the unions simply strike until they get what they want. Much like a baby throwing a tantrum until they get a bowl of gummy bears for breakfast, unions see no problem with irrational behavior or even good old fashioned bullying to get their way.
If an employer has enough and hires outside of the union, he runs the risk of litigation and even violent confrontations on the picket line. On his own property no less!
Probably the most frustrating thing about unions is the irony of their existence. The present day purpose of unions is to gain higher wages and more benefits from the employer. The problem is that the end result of union intervention commonly leads to what we see today in the auto industry...failure.
You see, the point of owning a business is to make money. When that is no longer possible, there is no longer a reason to keep the doors open. Part of making money is finding the correct balance between your cost of operating and your profit. Here comes the irony.
Unions tend to drive up the cost of operating the business while simultaneously driving down quality and production.
Think about it. How long can any company expect to remain profitable when unions continually force them to pay out more in benefits and wages, while demanding that the employees do ONLY what their contracts call for? It is not unusual for a typical union worker to have a minimum of five weeks vacation per year and pension plan that allows them to retire five to ten years earlier than employees of non union companies. This is all hashed out in negotiations between labor and management, all at great legal expense to the company. Yet union workers are always the most surprised when the company they work for ends up shutting down or going out of business all together. Basically, they end up "demanding" themselves right out of a job.
Then there is the general mediocrity that union labor generates. When you know getting fired will require your boss to jump over a whole marathon of legal and procedural hurdles, you tend to not worry so much about the quality or quantity of your production responsibilities. Compound that attitude company wide and your product can only suffer. Plus, with more money going to union demanded benfits and wages, there is less money to be put into research and development of the company product. Pretty good deal for the competition huh?
Let's not forget the political angle. Unions can always be counted on to support Democrat candidates, regardless of how the union worker or employer happens to feel. Did I mention that unions support these candidates with the dues these workers pay and by propagandising them in the workplace? That's fine as long as you're a union worker that happens to be a liberal Democrat. That's also fine as long as these union supported candidates don't draft legislation that will harm your company's profitability. You know, like higher taxes or more regulations. There's nothing like having union dues taken out of your pocket, only to have them given to the guy who is going to take more money out of your pocket via taxation. That's kinda like paying someone to rob you every two weeks.
These are just some of the finer bullet points of why unions are ruining industry in this nation, but trust me, there are plenty more where they came from. For now, remember to look for the union label. That way you'll know what products not to buy.
Once upon a time, our nation was smack in the middle of an economic revolution. New inventions, and technologies were developing practically by the hour. Couple that with a mass influx of immigrant labor to meet the increasing demand and the end result was an industrial community that was virtually un-regulated and a labor force that was ripe for exploitation. With no labor laws or regulations to protect the worker, the American worker had little-to-no way to obtain justice in the event they were injured or taken advantage of by employers.
To remedy this, the labor force organized and formed unions to give them leverage and a political voice. Eventually, the work of unions lead to legislation that provided safety regulations and a whole host of laws and agencies that provided the worker with some recourse for justice and a generally better work environment. This of coarse is a very basic explanation of the original purpose of labor unions.
In the year 2008, now that the American worker has the luxury of a list of options to find justice in the workplace, unions have all but run out of legitimate things to complain about. In stead, today they spend much of their time bullying corporations into giving them yet another week of vacation per year or adding aroma therapy treatment to their health care plan. Essentially, unions have gone from providing workers with a sorely needed path to justice, to transforming the once proud American work force into a bunch of cry-babies that think bullying is a legitimate method of problem solving.
Personally, I think it boils down to differing philosophies. One philosophy tells us that when a man opens a business, it is his business. He is the one who makes the daily decisions of how the business is operated. Who to hire, and who to fire... How much to pay, and why... And what benefits (if any) are supposed to be the decision of the owner. An employee has the right to work for that individual and the right to quit as well. As far as "collective bargaining" is concerned, the employee has the right to accept the wage offered under the terms presented or go else wear to work. Considering that the employer has to abide by the labor laws of the land, and the employee has the right to quit, file charges or litigate in the event of a dispute, this philosophy puts the prerogatives in their proper place.
The free market likes this philosophy because it provides it's own natural boundaries. If an employer treats his workers too poorly, he will find it hard to keep his doors open due to being sued, prosecuted, or plagued by bad publicity.
The union philosophy is much different. After having NOT taken the financial, and personal risks and sacrifices involved in starting a company, unions seem to be under the impression that they are entitled to make the business decisions at that company. If the owner of that company disagrees, the unions simply strike until they get what they want. Much like a baby throwing a tantrum until they get a bowl of gummy bears for breakfast, unions see no problem with irrational behavior or even good old fashioned bullying to get their way.
If an employer has enough and hires outside of the union, he runs the risk of litigation and even violent confrontations on the picket line. On his own property no less!
Probably the most frustrating thing about unions is the irony of their existence. The present day purpose of unions is to gain higher wages and more benefits from the employer. The problem is that the end result of union intervention commonly leads to what we see today in the auto industry...failure.
You see, the point of owning a business is to make money. When that is no longer possible, there is no longer a reason to keep the doors open. Part of making money is finding the correct balance between your cost of operating and your profit. Here comes the irony.
Unions tend to drive up the cost of operating the business while simultaneously driving down quality and production.
Think about it. How long can any company expect to remain profitable when unions continually force them to pay out more in benefits and wages, while demanding that the employees do ONLY what their contracts call for? It is not unusual for a typical union worker to have a minimum of five weeks vacation per year and pension plan that allows them to retire five to ten years earlier than employees of non union companies. This is all hashed out in negotiations between labor and management, all at great legal expense to the company. Yet union workers are always the most surprised when the company they work for ends up shutting down or going out of business all together. Basically, they end up "demanding" themselves right out of a job.
Then there is the general mediocrity that union labor generates. When you know getting fired will require your boss to jump over a whole marathon of legal and procedural hurdles, you tend to not worry so much about the quality or quantity of your production responsibilities. Compound that attitude company wide and your product can only suffer. Plus, with more money going to union demanded benfits and wages, there is less money to be put into research and development of the company product. Pretty good deal for the competition huh?
Let's not forget the political angle. Unions can always be counted on to support Democrat candidates, regardless of how the union worker or employer happens to feel. Did I mention that unions support these candidates with the dues these workers pay and by propagandising them in the workplace? That's fine as long as you're a union worker that happens to be a liberal Democrat. That's also fine as long as these union supported candidates don't draft legislation that will harm your company's profitability. You know, like higher taxes or more regulations. There's nothing like having union dues taken out of your pocket, only to have them given to the guy who is going to take more money out of your pocket via taxation. That's kinda like paying someone to rob you every two weeks.
These are just some of the finer bullet points of why unions are ruining industry in this nation, but trust me, there are plenty more where they came from. For now, remember to look for the union label. That way you'll know what products not to buy.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
WHERE'S MY BAIL OUT?
As the Democrat controlled Congress and rhino White House contemplate the best way to waste our hard earned dollars,we conservatives are again left with no other options but to watch and laugh, or cry, depending on your mood. If ever there were a better case against government intervention into financial matters, I have not been able to find it. On the up side, the current economic crises is a better real world example of the failure of liberalism than any hypothetical I could have created.
Follow along, because I am going to make this as simple and easy to understand as possible.
Years ago, the liberal policy of loaning money to those who were known credit risks under the red herring of "fairness" was legislatively forced onto the lending community. The inevitable result was the chaos we see today.
To "fix" this chaos, our government decides to impose the liberal policy of "bailing out" companies that they caused to fail in the first place. All at tax payer expense of coarse. Like all liberal solutions, this one came with unintended consequences.
Now that another liberal boondoggle known as "organized labor" has all but destroyed the American auto industry, the next logical progression is a long line of industries and institutions lining up to get a piece of the pie. Did I just take a verbal swipe at labor unions? You bet your over-extended hiney I did. In fact, my next article will explain in detail how unions are major players in the destruction of America.
As I watch the auto industry beg for money from our government, a wild thought occurred to me. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I think it's entirely possible that there is a hidden agenda among the Big Three in their attempts to raid our wallets. This is only a theory so don't hold me to this.
What if Detroit isn't really trying to get our money? What if they are really trying to show the American people the devastating effects that unions have had on their industry? Could this actually be a ploy to recruit legislative help and public outcry in order to bust the union? Think about it. Legally, car makers are stuck with unions. This does not change the fact that unions are like cancer on their bottom line. So now that selling cars is no longer profitable due to the high cost of labor and excessive government regulation, this bail out could be a "hail Mary pass" to plead their case in front of the government without actually blaming them...as they should.
Though I wish this were the case, I know better. Besides, labor unions hold the pink slip on the Democrat party, so it would be a conflict of interest for a Democrat Congress to do anything that would harm the unions in any way. In fact, you wouldn't have to go to great lengths to say that Barak Obama & company are making yet another payment to the extortionist unions in exchange for their political support. I guess that's what counts for "change" in the minds of some people.
As the Democrat controlled Congress and rhino White House contemplate the best way to waste our hard earned dollars,we conservatives are again left with no other options but to watch and laugh, or cry, depending on your mood. If ever there were a better case against government intervention into financial matters, I have not been able to find it. On the up side, the current economic crises is a better real world example of the failure of liberalism than any hypothetical I could have created.
Follow along, because I am going to make this as simple and easy to understand as possible.
Years ago, the liberal policy of loaning money to those who were known credit risks under the red herring of "fairness" was legislatively forced onto the lending community. The inevitable result was the chaos we see today.
To "fix" this chaos, our government decides to impose the liberal policy of "bailing out" companies that they caused to fail in the first place. All at tax payer expense of coarse. Like all liberal solutions, this one came with unintended consequences.
Now that another liberal boondoggle known as "organized labor" has all but destroyed the American auto industry, the next logical progression is a long line of industries and institutions lining up to get a piece of the pie. Did I just take a verbal swipe at labor unions? You bet your over-extended hiney I did. In fact, my next article will explain in detail how unions are major players in the destruction of America.
As I watch the auto industry beg for money from our government, a wild thought occurred to me. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I think it's entirely possible that there is a hidden agenda among the Big Three in their attempts to raid our wallets. This is only a theory so don't hold me to this.
What if Detroit isn't really trying to get our money? What if they are really trying to show the American people the devastating effects that unions have had on their industry? Could this actually be a ploy to recruit legislative help and public outcry in order to bust the union? Think about it. Legally, car makers are stuck with unions. This does not change the fact that unions are like cancer on their bottom line. So now that selling cars is no longer profitable due to the high cost of labor and excessive government regulation, this bail out could be a "hail Mary pass" to plead their case in front of the government without actually blaming them...as they should.
Though I wish this were the case, I know better. Besides, labor unions hold the pink slip on the Democrat party, so it would be a conflict of interest for a Democrat Congress to do anything that would harm the unions in any way. In fact, you wouldn't have to go to great lengths to say that Barak Obama & company are making yet another payment to the extortionist unions in exchange for their political support. I guess that's what counts for "change" in the minds of some people.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
PLEASE USE SPARINGLY
There will be many lessons learned over the next four years. How to prepare macaroni with government cheese. How to stop home intruders with course language and dirty looks. How to spend your free time without spending money after you get layed-off. And how to trade food stamps. But the most important lesson that we will need to learn starting right now is personal self discipline.
No, not spending discipline or child discipline, but something much more noble...learning not to over-use the phrase "I told you so".
I know, I know. Your thinking, "But Roadhouse, Obama is already stocking his administration with career politicians and Clinton people after months on end of reciting the "change" mantra". This is very true, and we all saw it coming (Obama voters not withstanding), but that's no reason to ruin one of the best comeback phrases ever spoken.
I told you so is one of those replies that people have a hard time responding to. That's because it's designed to both verify something that the user implies, while back-handedly demonstrating the short-sitedness and mis-guidedness of the one it's directed at.
My point is that it's going to be a long four years. I would hate to see the power of "I told you so" diminished due to being used too often. Like the phrases "I love you" or "Gee, you look pretty tonight", if you say it too much, "I told you so" starts to lose it's effectiveness and becomes just another common saying.
So this word of caution goes out to my fellow conservatives. Keep it in your pants. Fight the daily urge to give your Obama voting co-workers a big fat "Told Ya!" every time he does what we had predicted and tried to warn them about months ago. Save that particular phrase for the bigger and more important Obama predictions. Instead, switch it up a bit. Use phrases like, "What? You didn't see that coming?" or "What do ya think of him now?" Other good ones would be, "Well, you wanted change didn't you?" and my personal favorite, "Where's your messiah now?" (apologies to the late Edward G. Robinson).
Using these quality substitutes and even making up your own will help to get you through the next four years without diluting the meaning of a timeless classic.
Also consider timing. This is a very important factor in deciding when to use I told you so. If your neighbor happens to be an Obama supporter, don't say "I told you so" when you see him out front raking leaves. Wait till the next day when you see him on the un-employment line, or when he comes over to see if you have any canned goods you'd like to trade. Maybe wait till he's screaming out his window for your help in subdueing a meth addict that breaks into his house, after his second ammendment rights were struck down by Obama's Supreme court appointees. Definately an "I told ya so" moment.
There will be many lessons learned over the next four years. How to prepare macaroni with government cheese. How to stop home intruders with course language and dirty looks. How to spend your free time without spending money after you get layed-off. And how to trade food stamps. But the most important lesson that we will need to learn starting right now is personal self discipline.
No, not spending discipline or child discipline, but something much more noble...learning not to over-use the phrase "I told you so".
I know, I know. Your thinking, "But Roadhouse, Obama is already stocking his administration with career politicians and Clinton people after months on end of reciting the "change" mantra". This is very true, and we all saw it coming (Obama voters not withstanding), but that's no reason to ruin one of the best comeback phrases ever spoken.
I told you so is one of those replies that people have a hard time responding to. That's because it's designed to both verify something that the user implies, while back-handedly demonstrating the short-sitedness and mis-guidedness of the one it's directed at.
My point is that it's going to be a long four years. I would hate to see the power of "I told you so" diminished due to being used too often. Like the phrases "I love you" or "Gee, you look pretty tonight", if you say it too much, "I told you so" starts to lose it's effectiveness and becomes just another common saying.
So this word of caution goes out to my fellow conservatives. Keep it in your pants. Fight the daily urge to give your Obama voting co-workers a big fat "Told Ya!" every time he does what we had predicted and tried to warn them about months ago. Save that particular phrase for the bigger and more important Obama predictions. Instead, switch it up a bit. Use phrases like, "What? You didn't see that coming?" or "What do ya think of him now?" Other good ones would be, "Well, you wanted change didn't you?" and my personal favorite, "Where's your messiah now?" (apologies to the late Edward G. Robinson).
Using these quality substitutes and even making up your own will help to get you through the next four years without diluting the meaning of a timeless classic.
Also consider timing. This is a very important factor in deciding when to use I told you so. If your neighbor happens to be an Obama supporter, don't say "I told you so" when you see him out front raking leaves. Wait till the next day when you see him on the un-employment line, or when he comes over to see if you have any canned goods you'd like to trade. Maybe wait till he's screaming out his window for your help in subdueing a meth addict that breaks into his house, after his second ammendment rights were struck down by Obama's Supreme court appointees. Definately an "I told ya so" moment.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
SO NOW WHAT?
Now that the election is over, and our collective asses are in a sling, (though fewer than half of the electorate realizes it) our side of the isle is currently contemplating what went wrong. Unfortunately for the powers that be, no one has bothered to ask me.
This is not rocket science. What went wrong was a short list of bad decisions and poor leadership. Too many people trying to please too many people. Our strategy was dead on arrival.
First, let me say that I do not blame the Obama camp for our loss. They did as anyone interested in victory would. They played to win, and they did. We can sit around and complain about media bias and dirty tricks till the cows come home, but in the end, we were more interested in getting votes that winning an election. Yes, there is a difference.
Rather than waste time dwelling on our mistakes, I would like to move forward with the "Roadhouse plan to whoop some liberal hineys in 2012". Those not interested in saving our country from socialism should just go ahead and click on outta here now.
THE PLAN
1. Stop taking the "black vote" for granted. We've been doing this for decades. It's no wonder blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat. We can no longer write off an entire population of Americans and then cry when they vote for the other guy. The anti-gay marriage referendum in California should have been a clue to Republicans everywhere. The black community came out in force to elect Barak Obama, as is their right. When they did, they also took the opportunity to vote against gay marriage. I see that as evidence that there could be conservative gold in dem dar hills. Apparently, the Republican leadership has always assumed that blacks must be liberal because they always vote Democrat. That seems to be a tad short-sighted and seriously presumptuous if you ask me.
Be they liberal or conservative, they are Americans like you and me. They are entitled to the same opportunity to hear the other side of the story as anyone else. But rather than go to them, we brag about our "big tent" and wait for them to come to us. This is no longer an option.
If we are truly a "big tent" party, we need to go them and show their community what we have to offer. We have a superior product, but no one knows it because we're not there giving the demonstrations and making the pitch. Instead, the competition displays their wares in the black community everyday with no one else there to offer "the Pepsi challenge".
Will we be accused of pandering? Maybe, but we won't be accused of ignoring an entire community. Should we got to black communities because they are "black" communities? No. We should go there because they are American communities that are usually just written off for no real good reason. From now on, if our future campaigns do not include rallies, appearances and scheduled debates in the most urban of urban sections of major cities, then we deserve to lose.
2. Make education the catalyst for a real conservative agenda. This dovetails well with engaging the black community. For decades, Americans have been telling us that our education system is failing us, especially but not limited to the urban areas of the nation. This election was proof positive of exactly that. From prestigious colleges to inner city public schools, our education system is churning out ignorant, un-informed children by the thousands...maybe millions. These children then grow up to be citizens, and voters.
Think about it. If a diploma today was worth the paper it was printed on, then more than half of the voting electorate would NOT be so quick to accept socialism as a viable form of government. These people don't even recognize socialism, let alone fear it as they should. Lessons learned from history are virtually non-existant now. When half the electorate believes that raising taxes is good for the economy, you know you have a problem.
As a party, we should be calling out those guilty of destroying our schools. And we should be doing it in a very loud and public way. Which brings me to the next part of the plan to save the Republican party.
3. Be aggressive. Once, we were trusted with the keys to the castle, and we blew it. We squandered the public trust and fell for the stupid ideas of "compassionate conservatism" and bi-partisanship. First of all, conservatism is compassionate by definition. It needs no qualifier. And bi-partisanship is a myth that only Republicans fall for. Like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, our party never fails to reach a hand across the isle, only to pull back a bloody stump. Our unwillingness to see the opposition for what they are - the OPPOSITION, has done more to destroy our party than any scandal or attack add ever could.
We need to stop trying to work with the other party, and start putting them on the defensive for a change. Sure, we don't have the luxury of help from the media, but then again, what have we done lately that's news worthy? Did we demand investigations or hold hearings when Democrats are found to have done something shady? No. We don't even mention it in most cases. Democrats can leak intelligence secrets to the media, and denigrate our troops on the Senate floor, but what do we do? We sit on our hands and let it happen rather than give these "statesmen" a verbal beat-down.
4. Stop feeling guilty. The Republican party acts as if the first thing we do as part of our morning routine is to try to convince people that we're not some sort of monsters. By doing this, we just end up looking weak and spineless. What do we need to feel guilty about? Is it our doctrine that says it's OK to kill babies? Is it our doctrine that demands we give constitutional rights to terrorists from other countries? Is it our doctrine that says a law abiding citizen does not have the right to protect their family? Is it our doctrine that seeks to make doing business harder in America? Are we the ones who constantly want to raise taxes on everyone?
You see, that's the whole point. If Republicans would just stick with the conservative ideology that the party was founded on, we wouldn't be wandering around like a bunch of lost children right now. Would it be a cakewalk? No. But it would give us direction, unity and a definable identity. When it was decided that our principals were going to be defined by whatever is popular on any particular week according to any particular poll, we pretty much sealed the party's fate. That reminds me.
5. Enough with polls and focus groups! In times of crises, people do not need popularity contests sanctioned by people with hidden agendas and designed to have specific outcomes. They need people of character and principal. They need a rock, not a mound of clay. Our leadership should not need a poll or focus group to know right from wrong. Right and wrong are not opinion based paradigms. That brings us to...
6. Stop pandering. I don't care who you are or where you're from, you are never going to make everyone happy. So don't try. The right decision is not always popular and not always easy. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right decision. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of the Congressional Black Caucus and explain why affirmative action is racist. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of a women's group and explain why a woman does NOT have the right to kill her baby. Where is the candidate who can stand in front of a group of auto workers and tell them how unions have ruined the American auto business? Maybe there is no such person, but we should be actively trying to find or groom such a guy/gal.
Over the next four years, how Republicans react to the liberal agenda that's coming down the road will decide whether they are going to ever be relevant again. If we lose again in 2012, it will probably be because of our reluctance to stand up for our own principals. Will we nominate a conservative "rock" or another lump of clay?
Now that the election is over, and our collective asses are in a sling, (though fewer than half of the electorate realizes it) our side of the isle is currently contemplating what went wrong. Unfortunately for the powers that be, no one has bothered to ask me.
This is not rocket science. What went wrong was a short list of bad decisions and poor leadership. Too many people trying to please too many people. Our strategy was dead on arrival.
First, let me say that I do not blame the Obama camp for our loss. They did as anyone interested in victory would. They played to win, and they did. We can sit around and complain about media bias and dirty tricks till the cows come home, but in the end, we were more interested in getting votes that winning an election. Yes, there is a difference.
Rather than waste time dwelling on our mistakes, I would like to move forward with the "Roadhouse plan to whoop some liberal hineys in 2012". Those not interested in saving our country from socialism should just go ahead and click on outta here now.
THE PLAN
1. Stop taking the "black vote" for granted. We've been doing this for decades. It's no wonder blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat. We can no longer write off an entire population of Americans and then cry when they vote for the other guy. The anti-gay marriage referendum in California should have been a clue to Republicans everywhere. The black community came out in force to elect Barak Obama, as is their right. When they did, they also took the opportunity to vote against gay marriage. I see that as evidence that there could be conservative gold in dem dar hills. Apparently, the Republican leadership has always assumed that blacks must be liberal because they always vote Democrat. That seems to be a tad short-sighted and seriously presumptuous if you ask me.
Be they liberal or conservative, they are Americans like you and me. They are entitled to the same opportunity to hear the other side of the story as anyone else. But rather than go to them, we brag about our "big tent" and wait for them to come to us. This is no longer an option.
If we are truly a "big tent" party, we need to go them and show their community what we have to offer. We have a superior product, but no one knows it because we're not there giving the demonstrations and making the pitch. Instead, the competition displays their wares in the black community everyday with no one else there to offer "the Pepsi challenge".
Will we be accused of pandering? Maybe, but we won't be accused of ignoring an entire community. Should we got to black communities because they are "black" communities? No. We should go there because they are American communities that are usually just written off for no real good reason. From now on, if our future campaigns do not include rallies, appearances and scheduled debates in the most urban of urban sections of major cities, then we deserve to lose.
2. Make education the catalyst for a real conservative agenda. This dovetails well with engaging the black community. For decades, Americans have been telling us that our education system is failing us, especially but not limited to the urban areas of the nation. This election was proof positive of exactly that. From prestigious colleges to inner city public schools, our education system is churning out ignorant, un-informed children by the thousands...maybe millions. These children then grow up to be citizens, and voters.
Think about it. If a diploma today was worth the paper it was printed on, then more than half of the voting electorate would NOT be so quick to accept socialism as a viable form of government. These people don't even recognize socialism, let alone fear it as they should. Lessons learned from history are virtually non-existant now. When half the electorate believes that raising taxes is good for the economy, you know you have a problem.
As a party, we should be calling out those guilty of destroying our schools. And we should be doing it in a very loud and public way. Which brings me to the next part of the plan to save the Republican party.
3. Be aggressive. Once, we were trusted with the keys to the castle, and we blew it. We squandered the public trust and fell for the stupid ideas of "compassionate conservatism" and bi-partisanship. First of all, conservatism is compassionate by definition. It needs no qualifier. And bi-partisanship is a myth that only Republicans fall for. Like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, our party never fails to reach a hand across the isle, only to pull back a bloody stump. Our unwillingness to see the opposition for what they are - the OPPOSITION, has done more to destroy our party than any scandal or attack add ever could.
We need to stop trying to work with the other party, and start putting them on the defensive for a change. Sure, we don't have the luxury of help from the media, but then again, what have we done lately that's news worthy? Did we demand investigations or hold hearings when Democrats are found to have done something shady? No. We don't even mention it in most cases. Democrats can leak intelligence secrets to the media, and denigrate our troops on the Senate floor, but what do we do? We sit on our hands and let it happen rather than give these "statesmen" a verbal beat-down.
4. Stop feeling guilty. The Republican party acts as if the first thing we do as part of our morning routine is to try to convince people that we're not some sort of monsters. By doing this, we just end up looking weak and spineless. What do we need to feel guilty about? Is it our doctrine that says it's OK to kill babies? Is it our doctrine that demands we give constitutional rights to terrorists from other countries? Is it our doctrine that says a law abiding citizen does not have the right to protect their family? Is it our doctrine that seeks to make doing business harder in America? Are we the ones who constantly want to raise taxes on everyone?
You see, that's the whole point. If Republicans would just stick with the conservative ideology that the party was founded on, we wouldn't be wandering around like a bunch of lost children right now. Would it be a cakewalk? No. But it would give us direction, unity and a definable identity. When it was decided that our principals were going to be defined by whatever is popular on any particular week according to any particular poll, we pretty much sealed the party's fate. That reminds me.
5. Enough with polls and focus groups! In times of crises, people do not need popularity contests sanctioned by people with hidden agendas and designed to have specific outcomes. They need people of character and principal. They need a rock, not a mound of clay. Our leadership should not need a poll or focus group to know right from wrong. Right and wrong are not opinion based paradigms. That brings us to...
6. Stop pandering. I don't care who you are or where you're from, you are never going to make everyone happy. So don't try. The right decision is not always popular and not always easy. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right decision. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of the Congressional Black Caucus and explain why affirmative action is racist. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of a women's group and explain why a woman does NOT have the right to kill her baby. Where is the candidate who can stand in front of a group of auto workers and tell them how unions have ruined the American auto business? Maybe there is no such person, but we should be actively trying to find or groom such a guy/gal.
Over the next four years, how Republicans react to the liberal agenda that's coming down the road will decide whether they are going to ever be relevant again. If we lose again in 2012, it will probably be because of our reluctance to stand up for our own principals. Will we nominate a conservative "rock" or another lump of clay?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
THE DAY AFTER
I've had to do alot of soul searching in the past 24 hours. Granted, though I knew there could be no other outcome to this election, the one thing I had forgotten to factor-in was my own reaction to this tragedy. But as the reality of an Obama Presidency and it's consequences set in, I found myself getting more and more depressed. For those who don't follow politics or understand the dynamics of freedom and liberty, my reaction may seem irrational. In fact, South Park did a pretty funny episode about that tonight. But for the rest of you, I'm sure you can relate.
As I told an equally depressed co-worker today, if this had happened when I was younger I suspect that I would be far less fearfull today. I'm sure that after a few beers, I probably wouldn't have given a crap at all. But today, things are different. Now I'm a father and a husband. I have responsibilities. Now I have a family that depends on me to maintain a level head.
So as the daunting reality of our nation electing a socialist, anti-business, anti-defense President hits home, I realize that I have a decision to make. I can spiral into a depression that would render me useless as a father and a husband, or I can be a man about it. I've chosen the latter.
Though the incremental destruction of America will bring much "change" for the worse, I know that in my heart and mind, other things will be as true as ever...regardless of who resides in the White House.
I know that babies will still have the basic human right to live. I know that raising taxes will still not create prosperity. I know that terrorism is still not a legitimate method of resolving grievances. I know that people still have the right to defend themselves against the criminal element. The fact that Barak Obama disagrees with each of those truths, will not change the fact that they are truths.
If ever there was a time that I wish I were wrong about someone, it is now. But if history and Obama's own words and deeds are any indication, I fear that I'm not.
Being a Christian man demands that I take a long hard look at myself from time to time. Today, I see that I need to let go of my anger and disappointment in my fellow citizens. I also need to find forgiveness. For now, all I can do is pray that God will grant President-elect Obama wisdom, and humility before he implements his destructive policies. I pray that those who voted for him will have the good sense to carefully watch his actions and hold him accountable before he can harm the nation. I pray that people (ALL people) learn the lessons of history. But most of all, I pray that I am wrong about President Barak Obama.
I've had to do alot of soul searching in the past 24 hours. Granted, though I knew there could be no other outcome to this election, the one thing I had forgotten to factor-in was my own reaction to this tragedy. But as the reality of an Obama Presidency and it's consequences set in, I found myself getting more and more depressed. For those who don't follow politics or understand the dynamics of freedom and liberty, my reaction may seem irrational. In fact, South Park did a pretty funny episode about that tonight. But for the rest of you, I'm sure you can relate.
As I told an equally depressed co-worker today, if this had happened when I was younger I suspect that I would be far less fearfull today. I'm sure that after a few beers, I probably wouldn't have given a crap at all. But today, things are different. Now I'm a father and a husband. I have responsibilities. Now I have a family that depends on me to maintain a level head.
So as the daunting reality of our nation electing a socialist, anti-business, anti-defense President hits home, I realize that I have a decision to make. I can spiral into a depression that would render me useless as a father and a husband, or I can be a man about it. I've chosen the latter.
Though the incremental destruction of America will bring much "change" for the worse, I know that in my heart and mind, other things will be as true as ever...regardless of who resides in the White House.
I know that babies will still have the basic human right to live. I know that raising taxes will still not create prosperity. I know that terrorism is still not a legitimate method of resolving grievances. I know that people still have the right to defend themselves against the criminal element. The fact that Barak Obama disagrees with each of those truths, will not change the fact that they are truths.
If ever there was a time that I wish I were wrong about someone, it is now. But if history and Obama's own words and deeds are any indication, I fear that I'm not.
Being a Christian man demands that I take a long hard look at myself from time to time. Today, I see that I need to let go of my anger and disappointment in my fellow citizens. I also need to find forgiveness. For now, all I can do is pray that God will grant President-elect Obama wisdom, and humility before he implements his destructive policies. I pray that those who voted for him will have the good sense to carefully watch his actions and hold him accountable before he can harm the nation. I pray that people (ALL people) learn the lessons of history. But most of all, I pray that I am wrong about President Barak Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
THE RULES
To all my Obama supporting readers that occasionally check in with my blog. If Obama wins the election tomorrow (and he probably will), I plan to be as magnanimous as possible if you still continue to frequent my humble forum. That being said, there are going to be a few closely enforced ground rules regarding any future comments you might leave here. The rules are as follows, and apply to Obama supporters only:
1. When the stock market crashes due to anticipated taxation and inflation, you will not be allowed to complain.
2. When corporations leave in droves taking their jobs with them, in order to avoid Obama's tax policies, this will be a "no complaint zone" for you.
3. If you happen to get layed-off from your job when your boss has to make cuts to pay Obama's taxes, complaints will not be tolerated.
4. Don't even think about complaining when the Iraqi people are slaughtered in mass by Iran, Syria or any other terrorist organization after Obama pulls us out.
5. I know there better be no complaints when terrorist "feel their oats" and start bombing schools and malls here in America.
6. Complaints about terrorism being legitimized and emboldened by virtue of "talks without pre-conditions" will be met with deletion by me.
7. When our constitution is rendered obsolete by Obama's liberal Supreme Court Justices, there better not be any complaining.
8. When the price of everything you purchase goes up thanks to Obama's inflation growing policies, I better not hear one complaint.
9. When it takes your child three months to get an MRI and have it diagnosed due to Obama's nationalized health care, just take your complaints somewhere else.
10. When crime increases ten fold due to the repeal of the Second Amendment, complain you will not.
11. When we are left defenseless by Obama's cuts to military and intelligence spending, complain to the hand.
12. When "eminent domain" is used to take your property so that it may be given to someone else, I would highly suggest you not complain.
13. When your union votes are no longer private, complain to someone who gives a crap.
14. When your thirteen year old daughter is allowed by law to have an abortion without your notification, just complain about it...NOT!
15. When the natural ends of socialism finally arrive at your doorstep (poverty, bread lines, martial law, political persecution, etc. etc.), complaining would be ill advised.
16. When you eventually realize that Obama's "rob Peter to pay Paul when Peter is a hard worker and Paul is a total slacker" policies are actually hurting everyone, your complaints will fall on deaf ears.
17. When you figure out that "hope" and "change" are not accepted as legal tender at the grocery store, you can put your complaints where the sun don't shine.
18. When it finally dawns on you that Obama does not actually have a magic wand that he can use to create jobs, your complaints won't be worth a bucket of warm spit here.
Please be aware that any deviation from these guidelines will result in me shouting "I told you so you gullible, naive, mis-informed, Moveon.org reading, Micheal Moore movie watching, non-history reading, non-deductive reasoning using, easily seduced by catch phrases and marketing gimmicks, non-Roadhouse believing idiot!!!" at my computer screen. As well as a a hearty Nelson Muntz "HA HA" from yours truly.
To all my Obama supporting readers that occasionally check in with my blog. If Obama wins the election tomorrow (and he probably will), I plan to be as magnanimous as possible if you still continue to frequent my humble forum. That being said, there are going to be a few closely enforced ground rules regarding any future comments you might leave here. The rules are as follows, and apply to Obama supporters only:
1. When the stock market crashes due to anticipated taxation and inflation, you will not be allowed to complain.
2. When corporations leave in droves taking their jobs with them, in order to avoid Obama's tax policies, this will be a "no complaint zone" for you.
3. If you happen to get layed-off from your job when your boss has to make cuts to pay Obama's taxes, complaints will not be tolerated.
4. Don't even think about complaining when the Iraqi people are slaughtered in mass by Iran, Syria or any other terrorist organization after Obama pulls us out.
5. I know there better be no complaints when terrorist "feel their oats" and start bombing schools and malls here in America.
6. Complaints about terrorism being legitimized and emboldened by virtue of "talks without pre-conditions" will be met with deletion by me.
7. When our constitution is rendered obsolete by Obama's liberal Supreme Court Justices, there better not be any complaining.
8. When the price of everything you purchase goes up thanks to Obama's inflation growing policies, I better not hear one complaint.
9. When it takes your child three months to get an MRI and have it diagnosed due to Obama's nationalized health care, just take your complaints somewhere else.
10. When crime increases ten fold due to the repeal of the Second Amendment, complain you will not.
11. When we are left defenseless by Obama's cuts to military and intelligence spending, complain to the hand.
12. When "eminent domain" is used to take your property so that it may be given to someone else, I would highly suggest you not complain.
13. When your union votes are no longer private, complain to someone who gives a crap.
14. When your thirteen year old daughter is allowed by law to have an abortion without your notification, just complain about it...NOT!
15. When the natural ends of socialism finally arrive at your doorstep (poverty, bread lines, martial law, political persecution, etc. etc.), complaining would be ill advised.
16. When you eventually realize that Obama's "rob Peter to pay Paul when Peter is a hard worker and Paul is a total slacker" policies are actually hurting everyone, your complaints will fall on deaf ears.
17. When you figure out that "hope" and "change" are not accepted as legal tender at the grocery store, you can put your complaints where the sun don't shine.
18. When it finally dawns on you that Obama does not actually have a magic wand that he can use to create jobs, your complaints won't be worth a bucket of warm spit here.
Please be aware that any deviation from these guidelines will result in me shouting "I told you so you gullible, naive, mis-informed, Moveon.org reading, Micheal Moore movie watching, non-history reading, non-deductive reasoning using, easily seduced by catch phrases and marketing gimmicks, non-Roadhouse believing idiot!!!" at my computer screen. As well as a a hearty Nelson Muntz "HA HA" from yours truly.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
I DIDN'T WRITE THIS, BUT I WISH I HAD
“…generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Here is a brief history of Communism, and it‘s negative effect on the citizenry who have had to live under it’s oppression. It is vital to understand how dangerous it would be to allow any form of Marxism to attain a foothold in The United States of America.Let us be clear here, lest some take exception to my characterization of the Soviet Union’s governmental system as Communism. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are varying extremes of the same concept.A rose, by any other name…If you know of anyone who needs to be educated about this evil, please share this post with them. Edit it accordingly if you feel the need. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”, a book which has since become more or less the Socialist’s Bible. In it, Marx and Engels envisioned a society which would be, for all intents and purposes, truly equal. This profoundly idealistic system of government is best encapsulated in the famous quotation by Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. "The society which Marx and Engels advocated proposed to eliminate the “divide” between the bourgeois and the proletariat, that is, the ruling class and the labor class. According to the Manifesto, capitalism creates classes among the citizens, and leads to the oppression and exploitation of the lower classes.
Communism, and socialism in general, is designed to cultivate a classless society in which everyone is truly equal, and such social problems as racism, sexism and oppression are eliminated. The core belief of Socialism hinges upon the idea that no man should be independent, but instead part of a “cooperative” group that wholly depends upon each other to accomplish the goals of the “Collective“.
Let me add here, also, that God has no place in Marx’s concept of Communism. Communism is a necessarily atheistic system.It is a noble idea, and, were it possible, would be a Utopian form of Government. A Government in which all citizens would have equal opportunity to become self sufficient. However, as was soon discovered, the Utopia of Socialism proved to be, and always will be, virtually impossible. Indeed, it was self sufficiency itself that was most problematic to this Utopian ideology.
In 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin took the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and bastardized them, creating through force, a Socialist government in Russia. This emergence of Communism, as a “legitimate” government, was accomplished during what is known as the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Lenin led a revolution against the czar, Queen Alexandra, catching the monarchy off guard during World War One.
After three years of struggle, Lenin finally took control. The revolution itself costs thousands of lives, but the following years proved to be much more deadly to Russia’s citizens. During the ensuing years, an increasingly paranoid Lenin instigated what is known as “The Purge”, in which thousands of Russian citizens were rounded up and placed in gulags (also known as “re-education camps“) in Siberia, where they were tortured, sometimes for decades and often resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Others were lucky by comparison. They were simply executed, often times without the formality of a trial, or even any evidence of wrong doing. People were routinely executed and tortured for very minor offenses. Naturally, what misgivings the Russian people may have had about this new system of government were effectively squelched. It became life threatening to complain about the government’s policies.
In all, it has been estimated that Lenin and his successor, Josef Stalin, exterminated 20 million or more Russian citizens, often for the crime of merely thinking negative thoughts about the ruling Politburo, which was by that time, a devastatingly repressive dictatorship. The Communist government was characterized by repression, oppression, and depression, both economic and physical. In the schools, students were indoctrinated into the Socialist theory of Government, and were instructed not to doubt the party’s stated intentions.
Eventually, any student that departed from the party line could have been punished, often by torture or death, depending on the severity of the perceived offense. In an effort to eliminate any possible dissent, citizens were encouraged to report any suspicious talk or activity by their neighbors and friends to the police, and were rewarded if they did, and often punished if there were any suspicions by the Government police that they knew about said offense but failed to report them. Newspapers were expressly forbidden to write about anything without approval of the state, under penalty of law. Citizens were forbidden to listen to radio and television programs that originated outside the Soviet union, and if discovered, were subject to be sentenced to abnormally long prison sentences. National Elections did not offer a choice of candidates. The only choice citizens had was between yes, do you affirm this candidate or no, you don’t. Ballots were open so election officials knew how one voted. Voting was potentially dangerous.
Children were trained for whatever occupation the ruling party deemed appropriate, regardless of the child’s aptitude or desire. For instance, a child may be blessed with a talent for art, but if the party decided the child should be a bricklayer, the child’s aspiration to art would be squelched in favor of creating a career as a productive bricklayer. Citizens were told what to do, what not to do, how much they were allowed to earn, where they could or could not go, and in many cases, with whom they could associate. And they were threatened with punishment if they failed to comply.
Every aspect of life in Communist Russia was intensely monitored and scrutinized. One could not trust friends, neighbors, or even family to keep secret anything expressly forbidden by the Communist party. No one was allowed to own property. No one was allowed to have more money than his neighbors. Anyone who was found to be hoarding any money, food, or goods not approved by the state had their money or property confiscated, and were often imprisoned. The people of Russia soon became ensconced in poverty, mostly because the Government leaders took more money from them through excessive taxation than they could afford to part with, and used the ill gotten gains to lead exceedingly extravagant lifestyles. Each person, whether educated or not, skilled or not, lived on a limited income. All people earned the same amount of income regardless of their abilities. And this income was not adequate to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the Russian leaders lived sumptuously off the labor of the ordinary citizens.
Karl Marx's concept of equality was ignored by those in power. This resulted in a lack of incentive and an apathetic attitude towards industriousness.And a pervading feeling of hopelessness.
In short, freedoms were limited to the point of absurdity in the interest of maintaining order. Other repressive Socialist systems of government, some better, some worse, still exist in some countries in the world, such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Like the USSR, all have failed to create a successful working model of Marx’s idealistic vision of Utopia.
In China there is currently mandatory abortion. That's not choice. None can duplicate, or even come close to the freedoms we enjoy as free Americans. There are several schools of thought on the eventual cause of the failure of Socialism to live up to the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, but in the end, I would have to say that the root cause of Socialism’s failure is the fact that people are simply not wired to be equal. It is unfortunate, but true. While some people are ambitious, others are complacent. While some are hard working, others are lazy. Some people are content with things as they are, while others are continually striving for bigger and better opportunities.
All men are created equal, but no man can be coerced into equality. It is not the government’s right to dictate the dispersal of wealth to the people. Nor is it their right to deny basic human rights to any individual based on class distinctions and level of wealth.
Man has the inherent right to be what he can be, and no entity, regardless of intent, may usurp that right. And yet, this type of Government is exactly the type of government Barack Hussein Obama has in mind for the people of the United States of America. The words and phrases he himself has used in his speeches and interviews are damning evidence of his true vision for an American utopia. Words such as “redistribution” and “middle class” and phrases such as “Spreading the wealth” and “social and economic justice” are indicative of the kind of language employed by what I call “closeted Socialists“. Those are Obama’s words. He may win the election for President, and if he has the benefit of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, many of the freedoms we now take for granted may be suppressed. He desires control, above everything else. He places utmost importance on personal power, rather than the power of a free society.
Indeed, a free society is in direct juxtaposition to Obama‘s aspirations. He wants you to be subservient to the state. The state, according to the typical Marxist, is to be your God. Mr. Obama may try to control our people, but he cannot control our minds. He may break our backs, but he will never break our spirit. Regardless, whatever transpires in the coming Presidential election, one positive remains: Americans will rise to the occasion. Despite being bruised, battered, and bloody, tyranny shall be defeated, and this nation, under God, will emerge victorious.
by Mark from "Casting Pearls Before Swine" blog
“…generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Here is a brief history of Communism, and it‘s negative effect on the citizenry who have had to live under it’s oppression. It is vital to understand how dangerous it would be to allow any form of Marxism to attain a foothold in The United States of America.Let us be clear here, lest some take exception to my characterization of the Soviet Union’s governmental system as Communism. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are varying extremes of the same concept.A rose, by any other name…If you know of anyone who needs to be educated about this evil, please share this post with them. Edit it accordingly if you feel the need. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”, a book which has since become more or less the Socialist’s Bible. In it, Marx and Engels envisioned a society which would be, for all intents and purposes, truly equal. This profoundly idealistic system of government is best encapsulated in the famous quotation by Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. "The society which Marx and Engels advocated proposed to eliminate the “divide” between the bourgeois and the proletariat, that is, the ruling class and the labor class. According to the Manifesto, capitalism creates classes among the citizens, and leads to the oppression and exploitation of the lower classes.
Communism, and socialism in general, is designed to cultivate a classless society in which everyone is truly equal, and such social problems as racism, sexism and oppression are eliminated. The core belief of Socialism hinges upon the idea that no man should be independent, but instead part of a “cooperative” group that wholly depends upon each other to accomplish the goals of the “Collective“.
Let me add here, also, that God has no place in Marx’s concept of Communism. Communism is a necessarily atheistic system.It is a noble idea, and, were it possible, would be a Utopian form of Government. A Government in which all citizens would have equal opportunity to become self sufficient. However, as was soon discovered, the Utopia of Socialism proved to be, and always will be, virtually impossible. Indeed, it was self sufficiency itself that was most problematic to this Utopian ideology.
In 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin took the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and bastardized them, creating through force, a Socialist government in Russia. This emergence of Communism, as a “legitimate” government, was accomplished during what is known as the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Lenin led a revolution against the czar, Queen Alexandra, catching the monarchy off guard during World War One.
After three years of struggle, Lenin finally took control. The revolution itself costs thousands of lives, but the following years proved to be much more deadly to Russia’s citizens. During the ensuing years, an increasingly paranoid Lenin instigated what is known as “The Purge”, in which thousands of Russian citizens were rounded up and placed in gulags (also known as “re-education camps“) in Siberia, where they were tortured, sometimes for decades and often resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Others were lucky by comparison. They were simply executed, often times without the formality of a trial, or even any evidence of wrong doing. People were routinely executed and tortured for very minor offenses. Naturally, what misgivings the Russian people may have had about this new system of government were effectively squelched. It became life threatening to complain about the government’s policies.
In all, it has been estimated that Lenin and his successor, Josef Stalin, exterminated 20 million or more Russian citizens, often for the crime of merely thinking negative thoughts about the ruling Politburo, which was by that time, a devastatingly repressive dictatorship. The Communist government was characterized by repression, oppression, and depression, both economic and physical. In the schools, students were indoctrinated into the Socialist theory of Government, and were instructed not to doubt the party’s stated intentions.
Eventually, any student that departed from the party line could have been punished, often by torture or death, depending on the severity of the perceived offense. In an effort to eliminate any possible dissent, citizens were encouraged to report any suspicious talk or activity by their neighbors and friends to the police, and were rewarded if they did, and often punished if there were any suspicions by the Government police that they knew about said offense but failed to report them. Newspapers were expressly forbidden to write about anything without approval of the state, under penalty of law. Citizens were forbidden to listen to radio and television programs that originated outside the Soviet union, and if discovered, were subject to be sentenced to abnormally long prison sentences. National Elections did not offer a choice of candidates. The only choice citizens had was between yes, do you affirm this candidate or no, you don’t. Ballots were open so election officials knew how one voted. Voting was potentially dangerous.
Children were trained for whatever occupation the ruling party deemed appropriate, regardless of the child’s aptitude or desire. For instance, a child may be blessed with a talent for art, but if the party decided the child should be a bricklayer, the child’s aspiration to art would be squelched in favor of creating a career as a productive bricklayer. Citizens were told what to do, what not to do, how much they were allowed to earn, where they could or could not go, and in many cases, with whom they could associate. And they were threatened with punishment if they failed to comply.
Every aspect of life in Communist Russia was intensely monitored and scrutinized. One could not trust friends, neighbors, or even family to keep secret anything expressly forbidden by the Communist party. No one was allowed to own property. No one was allowed to have more money than his neighbors. Anyone who was found to be hoarding any money, food, or goods not approved by the state had their money or property confiscated, and were often imprisoned. The people of Russia soon became ensconced in poverty, mostly because the Government leaders took more money from them through excessive taxation than they could afford to part with, and used the ill gotten gains to lead exceedingly extravagant lifestyles. Each person, whether educated or not, skilled or not, lived on a limited income. All people earned the same amount of income regardless of their abilities. And this income was not adequate to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the Russian leaders lived sumptuously off the labor of the ordinary citizens.
Karl Marx's concept of equality was ignored by those in power. This resulted in a lack of incentive and an apathetic attitude towards industriousness.And a pervading feeling of hopelessness.
In short, freedoms were limited to the point of absurdity in the interest of maintaining order. Other repressive Socialist systems of government, some better, some worse, still exist in some countries in the world, such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Like the USSR, all have failed to create a successful working model of Marx’s idealistic vision of Utopia.
In China there is currently mandatory abortion. That's not choice. None can duplicate, or even come close to the freedoms we enjoy as free Americans. There are several schools of thought on the eventual cause of the failure of Socialism to live up to the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, but in the end, I would have to say that the root cause of Socialism’s failure is the fact that people are simply not wired to be equal. It is unfortunate, but true. While some people are ambitious, others are complacent. While some are hard working, others are lazy. Some people are content with things as they are, while others are continually striving for bigger and better opportunities.
All men are created equal, but no man can be coerced into equality. It is not the government’s right to dictate the dispersal of wealth to the people. Nor is it their right to deny basic human rights to any individual based on class distinctions and level of wealth.
Man has the inherent right to be what he can be, and no entity, regardless of intent, may usurp that right. And yet, this type of Government is exactly the type of government Barack Hussein Obama has in mind for the people of the United States of America. The words and phrases he himself has used in his speeches and interviews are damning evidence of his true vision for an American utopia. Words such as “redistribution” and “middle class” and phrases such as “Spreading the wealth” and “social and economic justice” are indicative of the kind of language employed by what I call “closeted Socialists“. Those are Obama’s words. He may win the election for President, and if he has the benefit of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, many of the freedoms we now take for granted may be suppressed. He desires control, above everything else. He places utmost importance on personal power, rather than the power of a free society.
Indeed, a free society is in direct juxtaposition to Obama‘s aspirations. He wants you to be subservient to the state. The state, according to the typical Marxist, is to be your God. Mr. Obama may try to control our people, but he cannot control our minds. He may break our backs, but he will never break our spirit. Regardless, whatever transpires in the coming Presidential election, one positive remains: Americans will rise to the occasion. Despite being bruised, battered, and bloody, tyranny shall be defeated, and this nation, under God, will emerge victorious.
by Mark from "Casting Pearls Before Swine" blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
