Archive for Democrats

The Obama Win: Come January

Posted in civil rights, Constitution, Economy, Elections, Energy, First Amendment, healthcare, John McCain, News, Obama, politics, taxes with tags , , on November 5, 2008 by Randy Streu

Congratulations to Barack Obama for a hard-won presidential election.  I won’t say it was well-played, because it was not — on either side.  But, the people have spoken and, sadly, it would appear they’ve grown weary of liberty, and have chosen instead to sacrifice it to the god of Financial Security.  History, it would seem, has not been as eloquent a teacher as Obama has been a communicator.  The irony is in how many of those voting for Obama were so very fond of paraphrasing Franklin: “those who would sacrifice liberty for security shall have none and deserve neither.”  And yet…

Does that sound bitter?  It isn’t.  I’m not even angry.  Just sad.

Democrat rhetoric during the last year or so has shown us, I think, the directions we’ll be looking as a nation, come January 2009.  In spite of the closeness of the election, there will be talk of “mandates,” and the Democrat win (aka the de facto ‘mandate of the people’) will be used as justification for more and more federal intrusion, higher taxes, and fewer freedoms.

People who sincerely love freedom, no matter who you voted for, I sincerely hope you watch this new administration closely.  I hope you watch for the erosion of our liberty — and I hope that, no matter who you voted for, you will fight to keep that freedom when the time comes.  This erosion is going to come in many small ways, from many directions.  It’s going to come as a gift — a trojan horse: in the form of healthcare, new entitlement benefits, new Social Security rules.  But these small intrusions will turn into larger ones.  These gifts will soon reveal their costs.  And, once the mistique wears off — once the thrill of making history has worn thin — we will perhaps begin, finally, to see what we have wrought.

Watch for a re-emergence of the so-called “fairness doctrine.”  The idea that freedom of speech only applies to private entities who willingly give up their podium to the opposition, in spite of the fact that the opposition controls the majority of the mass media, and suffers under no such requirement.  Make no mistake; this doctrine has nothing at all to do with fairness, and everything to do with silencing criticism of the establishment.  Congressional Democrats have long been vocal about their wishes in this matter, and Barack Obama will, given the chance, seek to abide by them.

Watch for unreasonable mandates to appear, with an aim toward crippling the energy industry as we know it.  And understand that, before those “evil” energy corporations go bankrupt, it will be you and I who first foot that bill.

Watch for “free healthcare” to become a mandate to business owners to pay beyond their means for employee benefits — benefits which were not negotiated between employer and employee, or even between employer and union, but instead introduced, coerced and enforced by federal government.  And watch the prices for simple goods and services skyrocket as business owners try to comply with federal law without going belly up.  And when the market finally ceases to be able to bear the burden, watch for the unemployment rate to acheive new highs.

Watch for the government to sieze control over your 401(k) as a means of alleviating the damage done by the collapsing economy, and place caps and limits on your retirement earning potential.

Will all of this happen under Barack Obama?  God willing, it will not.  But none of this is outside the realm of possibility, and, indeed, most of the policies listed are either direct interpretations of Obama’s own policies, or policy suggestions made within the Democrat Party.

This is History’s sad truth about handing over liberty for the sake of financial security: it doesn’t work.  It never has.  The most successful communist/socialist countries are either, like China, finding that they have to embrace some forms of Capitalism in order to stay afloat, or, like Cuba, are home to a vast population of the impoverished — but at least they have nice hospitals.   Most, however, either never make it out of third-world status or, like the USSR, finally kill off enough citizens to render itself unsustainable.

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.
-Benjamin Frankin, Poor Richard’s Almanac, 1738


Disdain, thy name is Democrat

Posted in Elections, politics with tags , , , on October 2, 2008 by nighttwister

How often we are reminded that it is those in the Democrat Party that care about women, minorities, and children, and those of us in the Republican Party are intolerant, bigoted, chauvinistic, child-haters. Those of us that have been around for a few years know that the Democrats have worked hard in concert with the media to paint this picture, and to a large degree have been successful. Fortunately for us, every so often the mask slips and we see what they really think.

The Rocky Mountain Right blog has picked up a story from Face The State about a behind-the-scenes effort to increase liberal influence in the state via an organization known as the Colorado Democracy Alliance (CoDA). A series of memos has been slowly leaked to Face The State (who’s website is currently down for some reason) showing the involvement of the highest levels of Colorado Government.

An internal confidential memo from the CoDA strategy group shows just what these high-level democrats in Colorado think of the very people they insist they care about.

Minimum Wage: wedge issue management – increasing CO union power: “Educate the Idiots” campaign,
Target: minorities, GED’s, drop-outs…..

They are of course making it known that this is their strategy, right? Well, not exactly. Apparently, for the CoDA, their main focus right now is their:


The internal memo says this is already ACTIVATED.

You’ll find other interesting things in the memo such as legal maneuvering and distraction lawsuits.

There is no honor, no dignity, no ethics left in government among Democrats. The end always justifies the means. Their policies are a complete failure, and they loathe the very people they say they represent. Dick Wadhams, Chairman of the Colorado Republican Committee responds correctly:

It is incredible that the state’s top-level Democrats hold everyday Coloradans in such a low regard that they feel it appropriate to refer to them as idiots in their internal documents. These are the people who work hard everyday to put food on the table; they do not deserve to be referred to as idiots by those who wish to exploit them for their votes.

One has to wonder why the people on the list thought this was ok. This type of behavior is acceptable from no one, let alone so many who now hold leadership positions in our state government. The right thing for them to do is apologize at once, and return all tainted campaign donations they may have received.

What is a “New Democrat?”

Posted in civil rights, Constitution, Economy, Elections, healthcare, national defense, Obama, politics with tags , , , , , on June 25, 2008 by Randy Streu

The Democrat movement of old is pretty well a corpse now.  Gone are the days of John F. Kennedy.  Gone are the days of those Democrats who, though they were wrong, at least used words that made some level of sense when discussing economics or foreign policy.  The kind of Democrat with whom you could respectfully disagree without being called a fascist, a racist, a bigot, a misogynist or a neanderthal — and for whom the conservative has his own list of less-than-flattering epithets.  No… sadly, this is the time of the “New Democrat.”  As the Republican Party slides further Leftward, so, too, does Democrat culture.  Both parties are now so far removed from their own pasts that I’ve heard it said JFK himself would be a Moderate Republican, were he alive today.

The “New Democrat” is like a younger, more extreme version of the Old Democrat.  Where the Old Democrat favored tighter federal regulation over what was still a largely free-market system, the New Democrat, the Obama Democrat, favors something closer to full-blown socialism.  Where the Old Democrat, though as unwilling to change his stripes as the old Republican, could be approached rationally, the New Democrat relies largely on emotion for policy, and on name-calling for opposition.

The key identifier for the New Democrat is, I think, irrationalism.  Either an unwillingness or inability to see the irony in their positions:

The New Democrat sees an Orwellian “Big Brother” in the government’s attempts to keep tabs on known terrorists and associates through wiretaps — but has no problem with income penalties or wage garnishments for government programs.

The New Democrat believes abortion should be legal because “It’s a woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body” — but thinks seatbelt laws, smoking bans and federally mandated healthcare are A-Okay.

The New Democrat thinks people who do nothing all day are entitled to tax-payer money, but believes people who invest time, money, risk and effort into a successful product ought to be forced to bear the burden for those who don’t.

The New Democrat defines “Racist” as somebody who opposes giving preferential status to a job or college applicant based on race or gender — rather than on the “content of their character.”

The New Democrat believes the Government should be kept out of the Bedroom — but not out of the Board Room.

In short, if it increases Government, the New Democrat is all for it.  If it increases individual freedom, initiative and responsibility, it is anathema to the New — the Obama — Democrat. 

Hillary Clinton and the Socialization of Energy

Posted in Constitution, Economy, Elections, Hillary, News, politics, taxes with tags , , , , , , on March 15, 2008 by Randy Streu

Hillary Clinton stopped off at a gas station on Friday to talk about her energy proposals, purporting to lessen the burden on Americans.  As usual, her proposals sound like they make sense, until you understand that what she’s talking about will cost money, which will raise taxes, which will, ultimately, increase the burden on American taxpayers.

This time, though, she claims to have a way around that: make the big, bad oil companies pay for it.  According to Reuters, Clinton would mandate that oil companies either invest in alternative energy research and development, or be forced to pay out some of their profit toward such research.  In other words, either you invest, or else we’ll make you invest.  This is actually the gist of most of Hillary Clinton’s plans: either do what I say, or I’ll make you.  But she’s not a socialist.  Honest.

Now, no sane person would deny that it would be intelligent and responsible for an oil company to diversify into alternative energy sources.  Certainly, doing such research and making such investments could do much to further profits, as diversification often does.  Companies that do so, such as BP, increase not only profits, but their chances of being a viable energy company in the futre.

However, such investments must be the decision of the individual companies, based not on government mandates, but on their own business plans, profit margins, etc.  Because these businesses know their own resources better than Hillary Clinton (or anyone in government, for that matter), they themselves would best know if, when, where and how much to invest. 

Further, when private companies do the research and make the investments, there is greater incentive to do it right.  Right now, many alternative fuels are just as expensive, or more so, or perhaps just as harmful to the environment, or more so, as petroleum.  When the government mandates a minimum investment of time and resources, they get the minimum.  There is no incentive for companies to provide more. Because of this, a government-based program will fall short of perfection.  If there is an end-product, it will be more expensive and less useful than what was hoped for.  When companies are allowed to make the decisions for themselves, however, competiton breeds excellence.  Cleaner, cheaper more abundant fuels can be found by allowing the market to work, and businesses to lead.  Historically speaking, adherence to this approach made us a world power and a production leader.  Our drift away from these values and toward socialism has, perhaps in spite of the “best intentions” of those responsible, resulted in the decline over time of our economic superiority.

Beyond these obvious considerations, though, you have the even more obvious fact that this is the United States of America, a Constitutional Democratic Republic built on a free market economy.  You may not like what some of these companies do.  To you I would say, buy from BP.  You make your purchasing decsions based on these things.  If enough people do, maybe some of those companies who have been slower to look to alternative fuels will take it a bit more seriously.  And if not, then at least you have the satisfaction of knowing your money is being reinvested into something you care about.

Every time Clinton speaks, she proves herself a socialist.  For those with a brain to understand, socialism is and always has been a failure; it is antithetical to the values of personal and financial liberty; it is fodder for corruption.  These are historically verifiable facts about socialism.  Hillary’s determined backstroke toward this system ought to be a wake-up call; not a rallying cry.


What I Want in a Party

Posted in abortion, civil rights, Constitution, Economy, Elections, First Amendment, immigration, My Government, national defense, politics, Second Amendment, taxes with tags , , , , on January 21, 2008 by Randy Streu

As the elections continue to draw near, it becomes more and more clear to me that the Republican Party has lost its identity.  That, or it’s finally coming into its own.  Either way, the party is seemingly becoming something with which I can no longer proudly associate myself. 

To avoid being disingenuous, I’ll point out for those who aren’t as familiar with my personal politics that, though I am a registered Republican and most often vote that way, I have generally identified myself as Libertarian since around 1996 or so (yeah, I voted for Perot — I got over it, so should you).  I have my own reasons for not registering myself as Libertarian, and more still for voting Republican, generally speaking.

But, as the Republican party — that with which I am registered and have associated — appears to be undergoing a redefinition away from the Goldwater/Reagan policies that first drew me in, I’ve decided this is a good time for me, also, to examine what it is I really want for my country — and therefore what I really want in a political party.

First, I want a party that understands liberty is not ‘granted’ by government.  Freedom cannot be given; it can only be limited, regulated or taken.  Liberty is granted by God.  It is the natural state.  Laws, in a democracy — or Democratic Republic, as more accurately describes the US — are intended to govern human decency; to establish a means of living with one another and forming a society.  Such laws are enacted with the limited purpose of providing a means of restitution for doing harm to another’s life, liberty or property.

I want a party that understands the primary role of government to be the protection of her constituency against harm to life, liberty or property by both domestic and foreign enemies.  This includes the security of our borders, protection of our sovereignty and watchfulness over national interests abroad.  When it comes to immigration, this would include, as Fred Thompson has said, tall fences with wide gates.  Immigration is and always has been important to the foundation and continuation of this country — but so has assimilation of such immigrants.  As Thompson also noted, we as a sovereign nation get to decided when, to whom and for how long that wide gate is opened.  My party would recognize that this is fundamental to national security.

I want a party who recognizes that a government who seeks to “equalize” the monetary position of the citizenry through taxation, redistribution and regulation will succeed in making everybody equally poor.  The party who recognizes this will also see it as a moot point: the right to keep what you make (or earn) is fundamental — the right to what somebody else makes or earns is nonexistent.  The government that grants a person this second, nonexistent right does so to the detriment of this fundamental and actual right.

I want a party that will protect the right to life — even for the unborn.  Primary to all other rights is this simple liberty: to live.  To deprive the life of an innocent human being for the sake of convenience, cosmetics or any consideration beyond (perhaps) to save the life of the mother is beyond immoral; it is barbaric and fascist — and out of keeping with the type of free society envisioned by our forefathers.

I want a party that understands the economics of Freedom.  Such a party realizes that market freedom has built this country into the greatest on earth, and that other nations have evolved and improved not by regulation, but when they have chosen to allow free and independent thinkers the ability to work toward their own betterment — and thus better the lives of those around them.

I want a party that will fight for the preservation of our Constitution; one that would amendment our Founding Document for clarification, and to further maintain freedom — rather than to diminish it.

If a party, a president, or a government will start here — how can they go wrong?


Are We Watching Conservative Republicanism Die?

Posted in Constitution, Economy, Elections, Fred(!), Giuliani, healthcare, immigration, Mike Huckabee, national defense, News, politics, Ron Paul, Second Amendment, Stupid Media, taxes with tags , , , , , on January 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

I’m beginning to think the liberals and the media (but, as some would say, I repeat myself) have finally won.  Or, perhaps, are about to.  When I look at polls, when I listen to people talk (both of which are horrible, horrible methods with which to gain information — and I understand that) it seems people actually want the government to do their thinking for them.  They want the government to deny them liberty and force charity, or health insurance, or social security — or whatever.  They are truly beginning to believe that the average citizen, perhaps, shouldn’t be trusted with weapons — Second Amendment be damned.

This is what happens when you stop thinking with your brain.

What’s been really demoralizing to me personally is that this disease of liberal stupidity (to risk being redundant again) is striking in the Republican party — even harder than in the past.  I’m demoralized because, frankly, I don’t have the strength to start a new party which will stick to Goldwater conservative principles, the Constitution — and not force us to retreat from a war that we’re winning.

For example, as we move along in the primaries, we start looking at what sort of impact the Republican candidates are going to have in New Hampshire.  Why?  More importantly, why would conservatives wish to use a traditionally blue state (in which even many of the Republicans are liberal) to gauge the outcome of the Republican ballot?  Fred(!) Thompson has wisely chosen to skip this state altogether and move along to SC.  Why?  Simply put, because that’s when the Republican race begins.  I’m not going to harp on this point — Limbaugh touched on it today, and better than I could.

My point is that the Republican party seems to be under the impression that pandering to the Left, that producing a liberal candidate and winning the election is, in fact, winning.  Folks, I’m here to tell you, giving up liberty is not winning.  Period. 

Allowing the government to have any control over your personal life, including whether or not you and your family are covered by health insurance, is a loss of liberty.

Allowing your tax dollars to subsidize abortion, welfare, amnesty (even in the form of educational aid) or whatever, instead of those thing for which the federal government was actually formed is, in fact, loss of liberty.

And for what, Republicans?  To get a president with the (R) next to his name?  What good will that do, if the choice simply brings us further down the Left, after all?  Just what the hell is the point of having a Republican president if he governs like a Democrat?

I’ll close with words of wisdom from Fred Thompson.  “I believe conservatives beat liberals only when they challenge their outdated positions — not embrace them.”