A Reason for hope?

I just finished reading an article at reason.com (and also at Townhall.com), by Steve Chapman that gave me a little bit of hope for the Republican party. Go read it and see what you think. I was unaware of some of the information I found in it.

SOURCE: Reason Magazine article
SOURCE: Townhall.com article

Hold on to your money and your gas

In January, you can probably wave goodbye to the lower gas prices that we have experienced over the past several weeks. When the Democrats take a bigger slice of Congress and Barack Obama moves into the Oval Office the promises of domestic oil exploration will evaporate like so many gas fumes. The Dems are already talking about reinstating the offshore oil drilling ban. But why is it, you may think, that gas prices have dropped by almost half throughout most of the country? It was the furor that the American people raised at paying $4.00 a gallon over the summer. They demanded that domestic oil reserves be tapped regardless of where they were located. The oil speculators and the OPEC nations were scared that their only source of income would completely dry up. Now that the election is won and the prices have dropped so low, you will see all of the platitudes that the Liberals in Congress made disappear and your gas prices go up. And this time they will say that higher gas prices are good because it will force America to find "more sustainable" energy.

How ignorant are Barack Obama's fans?

There is a new documentary out that questions the wisdom of Barack Obama's supporters (fans) as well as the complicity of the mainstream news media. The film, How Obama Got Elected, looks at twelve people who voted for Obama on November 4th. The answers that these twelve individuals gave to various political questions are telling about the intelligence of the American people, specifically those identifying themselves as Democrats, and the voracity of the information disseminated to the public by the news media.

Though I have not seen the doc I have seen comparison-contrast clips on Hannity and Colmes. One of the questions was “Which party is in control of Congress?”. Inevitably, they either claimed not to know or that the Republicans were in charge. Those that claimed not to know “guessed” that the Republicans were in the majority. This despite the fact that Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress for the past two years.

Another question was, “Which candidate claimed that they had visited 57 states during the campaign?”. Most answered “Sarah Palin”. The correct answer is of course, Barack Obama, the man they voted for. In fact, this was one of the gaffes that Republicans tried to use against Obama to show his naiveté and inexperience. The MSM repeatedly defend Obama regarding this gaffe by saying that anyone that had been campaigning as long and hard as Senator Obama would make similar mistakes. However, when Sarah Palin had similar problems with Africa being a continent and not a nation, the mainstreamers jump on it like ravenous wolves. Even though Palin was the vice-presidential choice, rather than on top of the ticket.

Now much of this ignorance is of course the result of that Democrat darling, government education. For nearly a hundred years the Liberals in the U.S. have pushed the compulsory government education agenda, as well as forcing liberal dogma down the throats of children. And when the results are inevitably horrid they simply claim that all they need is more money for programs, more teachers for the schools and more money to pay the teachers. The teachers unions, just like every other union in this country has the Democrat party tied around their little fingers. They're the only ones that benefit from this tax and throw down a deep dark pit strategy. The students are simply warehoused for eight hours a day for around fourteen years of their lives. And, of course, Liberals continue to try and make compulsory education the law for younger children every year. But the horrendous education system is not the only culprit in the debacle of this year's election.

The Mainstream Media's job is ostensibly educating the American people about the candidates and the option that they have as voters. Unfortunately, during previous elections the MSM has consistently augured for the Democrat. And this election was the most blatant attempt to mold the electorate as the media elites saw fit. Even the Washington Post admitted that they had unfairly given positive coverage to Barack Obama, when compared to John McCain. But why not admit it now; their guy won.

And of course let us not forget that Liberals love to claim that Conservatives are the stupid ones. But after hearing the people who supported Obama I believe that there is more than enough proof that the Dems aim at the lowest common denominator when seeking votes. For the past eight years Republicans have had to listen to the derisive jokes aimed at George W. Bush by those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome. I guess they spent so much time hating W. and lamenting the past that they forgot to learn about their own candidates and the current election.

It should really be no surprise in a nation that gets its “news” mostly from The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report, as well as Entertainment Tonight and Extra that people are politically ignorant.

What's in a name?

Fascist, communist and socialist. These are all familiar epithets that are used in political discourse. This has been especially true in this country over the past two decades, with the Right calling members of the Left communists or socialists and the Left calling Conservatives, fascist. And every now and then you'll hear the dreaded “n” word: Nazi. The fact of the matter is that these are all slightly different flavors of the same philosophies. The core of all of these political systems is the supremacy of the State.

During the early part of the 20th century governments and philosophers began to break away from the monarchies and empires of the past. They felt that royalty and oligarchs always put the people, the proletariat on the bottom of the totem pole. Socialists and others felt that the way to end this was to put the control of the government into the hands of the people. Something similar had been tried before with republican forms of government, first with the Greeks, and more recently with the United States of America and the French Republic.

However, the political philosophers saw what they felt was a flaw in the republican model. They knew that some would achieve more than others. Some would be richer, smarter, wiser. The socialists believed—and still believe—that all men are equal, not just in the basic rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but also in every way. They believed that no one should have more than another. That regardless of whether a person works hard they should be given room, board and food, that everyone should drive a similar model of car or live in a similar house. Socialists believed that it was the duty of the State to provide an equalizer for all citizens. This is antithetical to what it means to live in a free society.

However, what Liberals don't tell you is that Nazism started in the same way. Nazi stood for the “National Socialist Workers Party” in Germany. The like all fascists believed in government control of private business. Now this differs slightly from socialism as it was envisioned by Marx, Engels and other founders of socialism in that they believed that the government should not only control businesses but that they should also own all businesses. But with modern socialism this has been modified more in keeping with fascist principles of private ownership, with heavy government regulation. Perhaps the fall of communism throughout the world has led to this modification of core principles. One need look no further than China, which has a communist government with much of the businesses being owned by private individuals. Both fascism and socialism believe that utilities and transportation, as well other services, should be owned and operated by the government.

In the final analysis, the names and terms that people use for the various political groups in this country are more similar than politicians and pundits—particularly Liberals—would have you believe. Instead of being an accurate description of the opposing side, they are simply different names than the standard “Republican” and “Democrat”. The Left uses “fascist” and “Nazi” against those on the Right, even though those terms have very little difference in meaning from Left-oriented “socialist”. While the Right uses the “socialist” tag for the Left even though there are elements to the neo-conservative movement that are firmly entrenched in socialist beliefs.

So, what is in a name?