Original timestamp 2006.10.01.13:09. The webmaster is postdating this item to give it more exposure than it might otherwise get after being posted on a slow Sunday afternoon.

In an epiphany as monumental as the discovery of the “Rosetta Stone,” I have stumbled upon the common link within liberal logic (alliterative oxymoron intended) that supports their notion, that fighting terrorism is actually propagating more terrorists.  Now, of course, I am not accusing the Democrats of actually fighting terrorism, an enterprise for which they are ill-equipped.  It just occurred to me that the Libs are practicing psycho-babble methodologies, such as transference, to superimpose the results of their past and current policies upon the Republicans.  Convoluted as it may be, I now understand the rationale used by the left to insist that Republicans are increasing the terrorist threat to our nation by fighting it.  The liberal left for the past several decades has mastered the art of delivering consequences opposite of their stated goals.  The question that needs to be asked is; “Are these failures merely the unintended results of flawed but well intentioned policies, or were the results a strategic success which continues to propagate the victim class; a voting bloc vital to Democratic success?”

Liberal Democratic policies to eliminate poverty increase poverty.

Starting in the sixties with Lyndon Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty,’ liberals institutionalized welfare as a birthright instead of the temporary assistance it was originally designed to be.  Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) encouraged impoverished single mothers to become baby mills while low cost subsidized housing became their virtual prisons.  While clearly a failed policy, it continues to be a program of pacification that breeds not only poverty, but Democrats as well.

Let’s face facts.  We may all be created equal in the eyes of our Creator, but from the moment of birth additional factors come into play.  There will always be those who are brighter, more driven, more skilled or just plain lucky.  These are but a few of the determinators that will dictate one’s position in the grand scale of American life.  Wishing for, hoping for or expecting a government handout will not elevate anyone from poverty.  Education, a desire to succeed and a strong economy will take you farther than any liberal band-aid. 

Liberal Democratic policies on taxation and revenue ultimately reduce revenue and produce a stagnant economy.

Raising taxes on business and wealthy individuals is always foremost on the liberal agenda.  Their stated intention is to raise additional revenues for additional social programs.  It doesn’t matter that the programs fail or that the short term revenue gains soon disappear as a result of lower personal savings and corporate investments, both essential for economic growth and job creation.  It is enough for the liberal constituency to feel good about the noble efforts of their elected Democratic officials.  An economic downturn has no effect for those receiving monthly checks from the government.

The liberal stand on the taxation of the rich is just a tired effort to “stick it to the Man.”  Individuals with any real desire to succeed financially should rather “join the Man” or “be the Man.”  But it is not a free ride. 

Liberal Democratic policies on education produce lower test scores and achievement.

Social engineering that started with cross-district bussing of school children to achieve balanced racial integration, and culminated in Affirmative Action programs that were more concerned with quotas than quality, has utterly failed to reverse the trend of lower test scores and achievement for minorities.  However, it has created a growing number of indoctrinated voters, who faithfully show up at the polls to give grateful thanks to their Democratic benefactors.

Speaking of indoctrination, the consummate bastion of liberal thought, the NEA, has turned the public school system into liberal orientation camps.  The ‘Three R’s” have been replaced by bashing Bush, learning the nuance of supporting the troops but not the war, and chanting the Gore mantra of global warming.  As our children advance to high school they can receive free condoms in biology class, and a free ride from their counselors to the local abortion clinic. I guess it is fair to say that I support our good teachers, but not their union.  I also wonder how many inner-city educators would not want their own children to attend the schools they teach in, yet support the NEA’s resistance to school voucher programs in an effort to protect their jobs. 

Liberal Democratic energy policies produce pseudo-science and disaster (and less energy.)

From the laboratories of liberal academics in search of funds, to the preservationists’ misguided and uninformed concern for the plight of a stray herd of Alaskan caribou, the pseudo-science of man made global warming and the virtual elimination of new oil exploration on or off shore, has led America to the precipice of an energy disaster.  Additionally, liberal policies have been successful in ensuring that no new nuclear facilities have been placed online since 1996, while several have been decommissioned.  Even a founding whacko of Greenpeace recognizes the folly of his past ways.  In an April 16, 2006 article in the Washington Post titled, “Going Nuclear; A Green Makes the Case,” Patrick Moore writes:

“More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.”

It would appear that Mr. Moore’s use of the threat of Global Warming does have some positive consequences, purely unintended by the liberals.  And while it may be amusing to watch liberals utilize their own folly to undermine other liberal policies, the only fuel currently provided by liberal energy policies is the one they use to burn George W. Bush and ‘Big Oil’ executives in effigy.

Secular liberal Democratic policies regarding Church and State leave no room for a Church in the State.

Fueled by the miscreants at the ACLU, liberal initiatives which challenge all things Christian in the name of separation of church and state have relegated the religion of our founding fathers and a majority of Americans to a seat at the back of the bus.  School Christmas concerts, became Holiday concerts, which then became seasonal or winter concerts.  Songs about the birth of Christ have been replaced by poetic readings from the Koran. While many Democrats profess to have deep religious beliefs, their level of conviction dwindles submissively in the face of their enlightened outreach to their Muslim brothers and sisters and is conveniently checked at the front desk of abortion clinics.

I will make a disclosure that is difficult for a conservative.  I am an atheist. It is neither a political cause nor a banner I wear on my sleeve.  It is simply a personal philosophical conclusion I arrived at many years ago.  However, my morals and attitudes are derived from the Christian principles I was taught as a child.  I do not scorn Christians, I envy their faith and I share their outrage when others use atheism as a cause to attack their beliefs and their rights to practice that faith. 

Attacks on Christianity are attacks on the very fiber and essence of what America was founded upon.  Eliminating “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and calling for the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court are not the righteous concerns of minority religions seeking equal treatment under the law.  Instead they are lightly veiled attempts to erode the values of a moral nation.  So, I ask my conservative and Christian friends, would you rather associate with a Christian Liberal Democrat or a Conservative Atheist? 

Liberal Democratic immigration policies foster more illegal immigration.

What part of ‘illegal’ does anyone not understand?  This is one area where the liberals do not masquerade.  They are blatantly advocating open borders for the very purpose of adding numbers, read voters, to America’s impoverished class.  They are not concerned with criminals, terrorists or opportunists that cross, just so long as they can build upon a minority underclass they hope to add to the liberal dole.  Their justification that Mexicans come to America to do the jobs Americans won’t do is the most bigoted outrage imaginable. It acknowledges the liberal eagerness to exploit virtual slaves solely to increase their power base.  The very liberals who purportedly take up the cause of minorities are now advocating the need for a permanent underclass.  Of course the liberal solution to this dilemma will be to raise additional taxes from the rest of us so that they can elevate the servile workers from the fields to the welfare roles.  This is the liberal version of upward mobility.

Liberal Democratic social policies create America’s “New Nobility.”

Noblesse Oblige, literally translated means ‘nobility obligates.’ This phrase describes the progressive attitude of the noble class: That the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate. Or as defined in the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary: “the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with rank or birth.”

On the surface this is a high-minded philosophy that “once upon a time in a universe far, far away” was in fact a noble ideal.  In one brilliant stroke, it is a concept that eased the conscience of the “upper class” while helping to alleviate at some minimal level the stress and difficulties of being in the ‘lower class’.  This was well and good in eighteenth century Europe where all people knew their place.  For better or worse your position in society was determined at birth.

But, to have “Champions of the People” there must be people willing to subject themselves to the champion’s rule.  Once you believe that the liberal Democratic candidates are there to look out for your personal best interest, you cede to them the control of your interests.  You not only create America’s “New Nobility,” you present yourselves to them on the proverbial bended knee which is an acknowledgement that they are your superiors.

Nobility as a station or title cannot exist without a willing lower class populace to rule.  The nobility know this.  Their existence requires keeping the populace dependent upon their alms.  Are the mild gains in your comfort worth the sacrifice of your opportunities to succeed?  Do you really believe that the liberals feel your pain? Or, do they need your pain to gain their power and nobility?  Are you willing to have as your legacy, the acceptance of a station in life that pre-limits your children’s right to aspire to rise above the limits imposed by their welfare status?

This is the twenty-first century.  This is America!  We live in a country that believes in the possibility that anyone can achieve his or her own dreams.  It is a country that was founded upon the rejection of nobility.  Are there people born into wealth in this country? Of course there are, just as there are individuals born into poverty!  This has been the reality of all societies throughout all human history.  There is no promise of living the American dream, only the potential.  The greatness of America is that you are not predestined to remain in the station of your birth.  You do have the opportunity to change your lot in life.  Or you can humbly submit to the geo-political expertise and largesse of Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn. 

The Liberal Democratic policy on the War on Terror

< As soon as one is announced, insert here >

Lacking a policy on the war leaves liberal Democrats with only obstructionism as a political tool.  But, it is that very obstructionism that foretells what the outcome of any stated policy would result in; more terrorists attacks upon America. 

Liberal Democrats do not want the War on Terror to be the central theme in next month’s mid-term elections.  Lacking any policy on terror leaves them vulnerable and exposed as a feckless group of opportunist.  Given the track record on all liberal Democrat policies of the past five decades that lead to opposite consequences, unintended or otherwise, leaves me to wonder just what issues they have to campaign on.  The record shows that the policies of Liberal Democrats do not serve America.  The consequence of liberal leadership (once again alliterative oxymoron intended) leaves no doubt that liberals exist only to serve themselves. 

On November 7, 2006, Americans will go to the polls to determine which party will lead the next congress.  I count myself among the many conservatives who have recently expressed frustration with the current administration’s policies on Iraq and the wider global war.  I don’t believe we are doing enough to defeat the fanatical Islamists that want nothing less than our destruction.  But, however imperfect this president and this congress may be, I shudder to think of a liberal Democratic alternative.  The very thought of a House Speaker Pelosi or a Senate Majority Leader Reid, should be sufficient reason to rally conservatives, Republicans, moderates and even Democrats that care about their children’s future, no, their very existence to vote for the only party that has a policy for defeating America’s greatest threat; The Republican Party.

Contributed by The Gray Dog on October 2, 2006 at 12:18 AM in Current Affairs, Dem Dumbness, G W Bush, Islamism Delenda Est, Politics, Religion, Science, The Gray Dog | Permalink

Comments

Posted by: Bill Faith

Excellent, Mike. I've quit doing the "Best of ..." thing but I will bump the timestamp so this is higher on the site for Monday morning.

Posted by: Bill Faith | Oct 1, 2006 2:26:19 PM

Posted by: Jim Bartimus

Nice job Gray Dog! You just covered all of the bases my friend, and put the ball way out in left field for those of us that can still see where it's all headed.
I'm getting real tired of the ankle biter's myself. The Liberal agenda only subscribes to itself and is not good for us as a nation.
When it comes to America the clowns and fools need not apply. They'd just F$%k up a good rodeo and blame it on the cowboy's.
But then again, every rodeo needs a clown right?

Posted by: Jim Bartimus | Oct 1, 2006 9:40:59 PM

Posted by: Rurik

Brilliant from start to finish, but best of all was your demystification of "The New Nobility". As far as I am concerned, I'd be glad to send all the noble social workers to the guillotine.

Posted by: Rurik | Oct 2, 2006 9:48:55 AM