The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

This is a conundrum whose unwinding has been attempted by people much smarter than I. However, that will not stop my attempt at the same:

Personal freedom and economic equality; it seems that Conservatives and Liberals want both, however much in differing quantities.

Liberals are enthralled with “communitarianism”; this is a warm-and-fuzzy buzzword among Liberal-Elitists that means ‘community over individualism’. This concept is evident in such literary mole-hills as Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village”, in which she muses that the ‘community’ is better suited to raising children that the individual family. This philosophy has turned our public schools and institutions of higher learning into social laboratories of liberal indoctrination over the last half-century.

Liberals are very keen on individual freedoms when it comes to sexuality and related social matters, but will sacrifice the individual when it comes to economic equality and seem to want the government to ensure both. On the other hand, Conservatives strive for a balance between freedom and social conscience with an emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility.

This dichotomy would seem to be the difference in whether you believe that human actions are primarily dictated by the “system”, or whether the way the system works is due to how the people within the system act. Is society a thing in and of itself, or is it the sum of human interactions? It is, of course, a little of both but most people tend to think of it as primarily one or the other.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian of the mid-1800’s, pointed out that equality and liberty (freedom) are two inherently opposite goals. Since men are not all equal in abilities, liberty will allow the better to outstrip the less talented, and give a head start to their offspring, resulting in greater and greater inequality. Therefore, Liberals, being loathe to admit that those who do better are more talented, will increasingly tend to restrict liberty in favor of equality. It is this contradiction that is behind dictatorial “equality,” such as Communism and Socialism. How odd it is that Liberals, as a whole, will espouse support of Darwinism (survival of the fittest) in the development of the species, but shun the same concept when it comes to socio-economic development.

Liberals tend to want heavy doses of both equality and freedom, without much thought to how the two can co-exist while Conservatives try to balance the two, with an emphasis on liberty and personal responsibility over socialist equality. This difference in evidenced by the belief of Liberals in the malleability of human nature. They believe that if they can manipulate society in the right way, they can have both near-absolute freedom (a lack of personal responsibility) and near-absolute equality (economic and social). Whereas Conservatives believe in the relatively fixed state of human nature and are more willing to accept compromise in certain areas, realizing a modicum of freedom must be given up for the good of the community in terms of national defense but do not wish to give up liberty when it comes to such things as economics and child-raising.

So, the battle continues. Gird well; fight bravely; return victorious!

Hillary's "Chinese Take-Out" Problem

The Los Angeles Times reports that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been raking in money from New York’s Chinatown from poverty stricken dishwashers, waiters and busboys. Their jobs and dilapidated home addresses (the ones that can be verified) seem to make it improbable they could afford the $1,000 and $2,000 contributions finding their way into Clinton’s coffers.

The paper tries to figure out who these people are and how they can afford to write big checks to Hillary – all without much success:

Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment. . . .

The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.

In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.

A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.

Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee's name there; they knocked on one another's doors in a futile effort to find him.

Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.

Many of these donors admit they were pressured by so-called Chinese Neighborhood Associations to make these donations or were given money to do so. At least one of these “associations” has had a shadowy past involving organized crime, gambling and human trafficking and exert enormous influence over immigrants.

The Clintons have always been very cozy with the Chinese and others with Far East connections. The result has been bagmen like Charlie Trie and, most recently, Norman Hsu. Hillary had to return almost $ 1 million in “questionable” donations from the Paw family on the West Coast - another set of donors whose contributions did not jive with their incomes.

Folks, this is just another in a long list of examples where Hillary will operate without any moral or legal consideration and acts shocked when she gets caught. This has and continues to stink to high heaven!

My Presidential Candidate

All the sound and fury over the presidential primaries is enough to overwhelm anyone. I have not yet made up my mind whom I will support (other than anybody but Hillary, a liberal or a democrat). However, I have a platform in mind that I would like someone to adopt. That would be my candidate.

Term Limits – Absolutely! If term limits are good for the presidency, then they are better for Congress-critters. While I am at it, Congress would be in session only 30 days per year, with a salary paid only for those 30 days. They would have to pick up all their travel and health insurance as well as pay Social Security like the rest of us. The rest of the year, they go back home and work in real jobs, live by the laws they pass, and pay the taxes they impose. That should solve most of our problems in the first year!

There should also be an IQ Test with a minimum score somewhere above room temperature in order to be in Congress. That would immediately eliminate 99% of the current crop and we could have a fresh start.

Foreign Policy - Mess with us and you are toast! No pussyfooting around anymore. Do away with the State Department and replace it with the Department of Kick Ass. Call all the parking tickets of UN Diplomats due and payable immediately. That would bankrupt the UN and we could have our real estate in New York back and have it generate revenue. At the very least, charge the UN rent in an amount equal to what they charge us for dues. If that is not acceptable to them, move the UN to Baghdad!

National Health Care – If socializing the health care industry is good, then doing the same to the legal profession is better. Government sponsored legal services for all with attorney fees capped at minimum wage. That should put an end to the idea of socializing ANYTHING!

This would also solve the unskilled labor shortage in America. There is no one more unskilled at anything than an ex-lawyer.

English as the Official Language of the US – If you do not speak English don’t talk to me!

The War On Terror – Git-R-Done! Send every one of those Islamo-Terrorists off to meet their 72 virgins (may they all look like Madeline Albright and cackle like Hillary Clinton)!

Illegal Immigration – Why do we need a “policy” to deal with something that we already have laws for (note the word ‘Illegal’)? Just enforce the laws on the books, strictly; secure or borders (north and south); and end this “invasion” of our country!

Gays in the Military – Who cares as long as they can kill people and break things (the primary job of the military). Also, see the first item under “Foreign Policy.”

Abortion – Against it! With the possible exception of retro-active abortion for select liberals.

Taxes – Against those too! Institute the Fair Tax and eliminate the IRS (another source of unskilled labor).

There! If there is a candidate out there that can adopt this platform, then he has my vote. If not? GMWinslow in 2008!

The Coward’s Way Out

Democrat House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and her hen-pecked fellow idiots, are frustrated by their inability to muster a veto-proof majority for legislation to set a firm date for a disastrous retreat from Iraq. However, that has not stopped them from undermining, at every opportunity, any chance of success in this front in the War on Terror. Their latest ploy is the most cowardly and the most dangerous!

Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey is the trans-shipment conduit for about 70% of all air cargo (including 33% of the fuel) going to supply our US Troops in Iraq. This also includes about 95% of the new “MRAP” (Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected) vehicles designed to save the lives of American Troops.

Turkey’s government has indicated that if the US House of Representatives takes action on a non-binding resolution being pushed by Speaker Pelosi and her useless idiots, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a waypoint for supplies headed to our Troops in Iraq.

This non-binding resolution, passed on October 10^th by the Democrat controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee, labels the 1915-1923 massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire a genocide. Just in case you did not read this right, a non-binding resolution on something that happened almost 100 years ago, is going to potentially put our Troops in Iraq in mortal danger because of a lack of supplies.

One would have to ask, if one was disposed to rational thought, just what is the overriding urgency and import of such a resolution that it has to be brought up now, in the middle of a war, that has the risk of jeopardizing our relationship with a major ally in that war?

This resolution is gratuitous and the Democrat’s timing is certainly suspicious. It is gratuitous because, in 1981, President Reagan referred to the Armenian massacre as genocide in a proclamation condemning the Nazi Holocaust. If Democrat Pelosi is so concerned about condemning genocide, why aren’t she the Senate Democrat leaders doing something about the ongoing genocide in Darfur or the massacres of protesters in Burma?

The timing of the resolution is suspicious because it could not come at a worse time. Not only are we dependent upon Turkey for our principal supply line into Iraq, we are on the verge of a crisis with Turkey and their desire to attack Kurdish terrorist forces in Iraq that have been raiding into southeastern Turkey for years.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) told Jed Babbin of Human Events, “We are a nation at war, and our first concern must always be the brave men and women of our armed forces, who I believe are done a great disservice by this symbolic House vote. This is just one more example of Democrats in the House being either oblivious or indifferent to the welfare of American forces serving in harm’s way.”

After the House committee vote, Turkish Ambassador to the United States Nabi Sensoy was recalled to Ankara for consultations. In diplomatic terms, the recall of an ambassador is a very serious matter, indicating a near-break in relations between the nations involved.

House Republican leaders are very concerned about the effects the Democrats’ resolution could have. House Minority Leader John Boehner, again to Mr. Babbin, said, “If the Turks cut off our ability to use Incirlik, there’s no question that this could jeopardize our troops on the ground in Iraq. And frankly, if this is just the latest in the Democrats’ string of back-door attempts to force a retreat from the war against al Qaeda, it’s certainly the most dangerous.”

Speaker Pelosi, and her Democrat co-traitors, are apparently so intent on forcing an end to American involvement in Iraq that she is willing to interfere with our tenuous relationship with a war ally, Turkey. When she does, it will be an historic event: the House of Representatives will be responsible for alienating a key ally in a time of war and possibly putting our troops at greater risk; all for the purpose of preventing a success in Iraq prior to the 2008 US elections. Once again, Democrats put our troops at risk for their own political agenda.

Cowardly! Treasonous! Despicable!

Leave No Crook Behind!

Hillary is, once again, showing her true colors if only anyone would pay attention. Her hiring of Sandy (Burglar) Berger, Bill’s former National Security Adviser and admitted thief, as a national-security adviser to her campaign is a sure sign that the old gang will be together again and up to their old shenanigans. In 2003, Berger took several highly classified documents about the Clinton-era Millennium terror plot from the National Archives with “aiding” (hiding them from) the September 11 commission. After being caught on video tape spiriting away, what can only be deduced as incriminating evidence of Clinton errors, top-secret papers stuffed in his pants and socks (and who knows where else) his Clintonista lawyers negotiated a “slap on the wrist” plea agreement. Two years probation, along with a security clearance suspension (not a revocation) and a $50,000 fine where anyone else would be in prison for years and years. $50,000 fine?; A small sum for any number of Chinese fund-raising scam artists employed by the Clinton machine. And guess what? His security clearance ‘suspension’ will be over just in time for him to become National Security Advisor for a President (gag) Hillary with access, once again, to all the little inconvenient top-secret documents that might come to cause distress to the Queen.

In a rational and just world, there is no question that Berger should be finished in Washington national-security circles and any other career that requires trust. The Clintonistas continue to dismiss the Berger thievery as just another crazy caper in the story or a eccentric and sloppy Sandy. It could not have been that, since the theft was planned, deliberate and elaborate.

Berger ferreted the highly classified documents out of the Archives and put them under a construction trailer adjacent to the building. He returned to retrieve them later and then destroyed the documents at his office in his home. This is not a simple case of an overworked, absent-minded, bumbling sloppy good-ole boy as defended by the Clintons.

This was an attempt, and probably successful one, to alter the historical record of the Clinton administration in the lead up to 9-11. A technique that is often employed by the Clintonistas; if the facts are inconvenient, just ignore, alter or destroy them.

Leave No Child Behind? The Clinton version is Leave No Crook Behind!

Queen Hillary – Queen of Federal Pork

Democrat hypocrisy is, once again, on full display. Democrats lied their way into power this year promising a reform of the ‘earmark’ system and make it more transparent to the taxpaying public rightly disgusted with Congress’s free-spending of our money. Let’s call earmarks exactly what they are: Bribes! They are that which Congress-critters, in the form of expensive projects of questionable public worth, use to buy the votes of their home districts so the Congress-critter can stay in Washington and spend more of our money. It is a long disgusting and corrupt practice engaged in by both parties but now elevated to high art by the current crop of thieves. As a result, the Democrat Congress is now even less popular in national polls than the Republican one before it. That is no small feat!

Using the earmark issue to pummel Republics in the 2006 election, Democrats made great theater of passing an ‘earmarks reform’ bill. Now all earmarks are supposed to be publicized in an online record which, most importantly, identifies the name of the member who submitted each request. Not surprisingly, this transparency has had a big effect on the Republican presidential candidates, but not on the Democrats!

Among the presidential candidates, many Republicans currently holding office have responded to media requests to make public all their earmarks. They presumably have done so because they have nothing to hide, but not the Democrats whose candidates have been much less forthright. (feigned shock and surprise).

Only Barack Obama has voluntarily made his earmark information publicly available. The others are covering their tracks. Senator Joe Biden's spokeswoman explained, ``We don't release them until the committee has had the opportunity to review the requests.'' A spokeswoman for the Dennis Kucinich campaign argued, ``We never have made our earmarks public.''

A little digging shows why they are so evasive. In fiscal year 2006, Chris Dodd and fellow Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman were jointly responsible for more than $100 million worth of earmarks for their home state, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Clinton campaign refused to respond at all to requests that she identify her earmarks.

The numbers speak for themselves. Ever since flouncing into Washington, Her Hilliaryness has worked tirelessly to bring pork (bribes) home to her politically adopted state, New York.

Clinton, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, placed $2.2 billion worth of earmarks in spending bills from 2002-2006. One would have to concede that she is good at it. In the fiscal 2008 defense-spending bill alone, Clinton successfully attached 26 earmarks worth $148 million, which was the most of any Democrat except Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who is now chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

The earmark game is a treacherous one because it is so easy to find specific instances, like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, that are repulsive to voters. With such a successful track record, this will be a genuine liability for Clinton. That probably explains why she's trying to bury her record. But even digging through the limited list of earmarks that could be acquire suggested that Clinton has deftly spread federal taxpayers' money around to parochial projects of questionable public value, sending, for example, $250,000 to the Seneca Knitting Mill, and $200,000 to the Buffalo Urban Arts Center.

Such spending projects might be great local politics, but they produce national outrage as our federal dollars are bled away from health care and national security. Each one may seem small, but collectively they are not.

The Democrat Party and their sycophants in Main Stream Media have been so busy preparing for the coronation of Queen Hillary that they have purposely failed to take a critical look at her record on this subject (as well as many others that would have buried a conservative candidate).

Will her hypocrisy be questions in the months ahead? Time will tell.

Phony Politicians

This past week has produced one of the strangest (and frightening) spectacles in the long and sordid history of the US Congress. The Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and the US Senate have the lowest job approval rating in the history of the United States, and for good reason. The latest in a series of ever lower lows manifested itself in the haranguing of a talk radio show host, a private citizen, from the once hallowed floor of the US Senate.

Lead by Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, forty-one Democrat Senators and a mob of wild-eyed, foaming mouthed anti-war activists tried to silence talk show host Rush Limbaugh because of his reference to “phony” anti-war soldiers. Limbaugh’s comments, taken in context, referred to one Jesse Macbeth, a confessed and convicted phony, who’s faked war crimes confessions, received wide media coverage. Much more coverage than his conviction. He claimed to be an Army Ranger who had served in Iraq, when in truth, he was never an Army Ranger nor had he ever been in Iraq. He washed out of boot camp after only forty days! Senator Reid (of questionable ethics involving land deals in Nevada) purposely took Limbaugh’s comments out of context and tried to apply the “phony soldiers” phrase to all military who criticize the Iraq War. Smearing Mr. Limbaugh as unpatriotic and claiming a long history of disparaging the troops, Reid engaged in one of the most outrageous examples of personal destruction against a private citizen in history. All from the floor of the US Senate! Reid had to know he was lying for the truth was out there, on tape and transcript, for anyone to hear and read. Something the Democrats were obviously not interested in doing.

The use of ‘phony soldiers” to advance the liberal Democrat agenda is a long and disgraceful tradition of the party to slander the service of our troops. For example, Micah Ian Wright, author of the 2003 anti-war best seller “You Back the Attack,” was feted at the USC’s Annenberg School as an Army Ranger and Combat Veteran until he was finally exposed as a complete fake! Many similar examples of “phony soldiers” used by the Left and their Democrat puppets for war crimes confessions are documented in B.G. Burkett’s bestseller “Stolen Valor.” Indeed, the problem was so endemic that Republican Congress in 2005, at the urging of many veterans, passed ‘The Stolen Valor Act” finally criminalizing the activities such as those of Macbeth.

There is no one more injured by “phony” war crimes charges lodged by “phony soldiers” than veterans themselves whose service is dishonored by the slander of these pieces of human debris. We heard this slander from John Kerry in 1971 falsely compare our forces in Viet Nam to “the Army of Jhengiz Khan.” Kerry appeared several times with a man named Al Hubbard in such forums as Meet the Press and before Congress confess to war crimes such as bombing innocent villages. Hubbard was an Air Force pilot, who appeared on national television wearing the Distinguished Flying Cross and many other medals while confessing our guilt in Viet Nam. Except he was none of these things, having left the Air Force as a Sergeant, never serving in Viet Nam at all! Of course, we all know that John Kerry himself had a problem with exaggerating his military credentials.

US Military personnel all over the world thank God for men like Rush Limbaugh steadfastly defending our military from these fakes. Mr. Limbaugh has a twenty year history of supporting our troops by shining the light of truth on the Left and their attempts to destroy the America we love and by raising and donating millions to charities benefiting the families of our fallen Heroes.

It is not the likes of Rush Limbaugh that should be condemned from the floor of the Senate, but the Senate itself and its Democrat leaders. It is a body whose failure to condemn Hubbard’s and Kerry’s 1971 libels is deafening. It is also a place on whose floor active duty soldiers have been compared to the assassins of the Khmer Rough by Senator Dick Durbin (d) of Illinois; people who terrorize women and children in the dark of night by Senator John Kerry (d) of Mass.; and called cold blooded murderers by Representative John Murtha (d). Hypocrisy and cowardice are terms too kind for those who demean our soldiers without regard to the consequences; all to advance their own personal political agenda. This conduct, when coupled with the effort to silence Limbaugh, a steadfast defender of the troops, can be best described with two words” Phony Politicians."