4 posts tagged “republican”

Barry G- Lone Conservative in a Liberal World

“Bad News” and “The Angry Republic” present:

The NEW adventures of Barry Goldwater

(A modern “re- telling” of a man born 50 years ahead of his time.)

We enter a world that is not much different then our own world, today.

People are people, after all.

The people of both worlds want the same thing: A place where you are free to make your dreams a reality. A place where you can meet someone to love. A decent place to raise a family. A place where you do not fear growing old.

In this respect, our worlds are not much different.

However, in the form of government rule, we would not recognize the world in which Barry Goldwater lived. It would be totally alien to us.

Democrats ruled the land for twenty years. And Democrats would have ruled for another twenty years more, if it had not been for a couple of men.

In this parallel world, it was a totally “alien” democratic party. A democratic party that locked away thousands of Americans in internment camps. Americans, who’s only crime was that they were “different.” (Japanese, German, Italian)

A democratic party that pushed the “proverbial” BUTTON, that unleashed nuclear weapons. The ONLY time that nuclear weapons have ever been used by anyone, to kill people.

In Barry G’s world, these were the days of the brutal democrat. They called themselves: “New Dealers.”

Some Americans began to quip: “New Deal my ass. It is the democrat’s way, or you go to jail. That’s the New Deal.”

But change was in the air.

The year was 1953.

There was no “Fox News Channel.”

No “Rush Limbaugh” broadcasting for three hours a day.

There wasn’t even a conservative magazine called: “National Review.”

In 1953, conservatives exchanged ideas mostly by word of mouth, on the streets.

It was your neighbor who shared your vision of America, with a smaller government and MORE personal freedom.

It was the occasional editorial in the Chicago Tribune that warned of the dangers of communism, which was spreading around the world.

Conservatism could be found in a quaint story about a “small town America” where you didn’t have to lock your doors, and people helped each other. These people didn’t need the government to pull money out of their pockets, by taxation, to help the poor. People helped people because they wanted to. You could find these stories in “Readers Digest” and “The Saturday Evening Post”.

There were conservatives out there. But it could hardly be called: “A movement.”

That is, until Barry Goldwater.

The date- January 3rd, 1953.

Barry Goldwater is about to be sworn in as an American Senator from Arizona.

We are about to peek into Goldwater’s personal journal, and learn from our republican past.

An alien world, far-far away.

Goldwater writes:

“...There were a few conservatives in congress during those days. Although Dwight D. Eisenhower had just become the first republican president in twenty years, the nation was still moving left.

Liberalism dominated not only the country’s political and educational lives...

Liberalism dominated the media.

It was extremely difficult for a conservative to be heard, much less understood.

From my early days, I never accepted the notion that conservatism was a primer for the past- that we didn’t have a vision of or faith in the future.

We (conservatives) saw the future of America in the hands of the MANY, not the self-anointed few.

For forty years, the nations liberals had conjured up false conservative, capitalistic stereotypes- of selfish people with inordinate wealth, intellectually rooted in a ‘dead yesterday.’

(On the contrary,) liberals offered to plan your life out for you.

Liberals would plan out your whole life under (the rule of HUGE) Democratic administrations, complete with “Great Societies” and “New Dealers.”

Behind all of the promise of the (liberal) planners lay a cynical contempt for the individual freedoms which make America different. (Individual freedoms which have driven millions of people, from everywhere on this earth, to make it to America, or DIE trying.)

My political mission is to restore those individual freedoms, despite the welfare state.

(While raising my hand and becoming a Senator), I took comfort in the oath to support and defend the Constitution of these United States. I was at home with the Constitution. I told myself that enterprising America, in the surge of new nations around the globe, was a good representation of rising expectations.

We ARE the world’s REAL revolutionaries.

Our principals, (contained in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution) are lighting political fires never dreamed of by Lenin or world communism.

(My political goals...)

I have little interest in streamlining government, or in making it MORE efficient, for I mean to reduce government’s size.

I will not undertake the promotion of welfare, for I propose to extend freedom.

My aim is NOT to pass NEW laws, but to repeal them.

My goal is not to create NEW government programs, but to cancel old programs that do violence to the Constitution, or have failed in their purpose, or programs that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is needed, BEFORE I determine if this legislation is constitutionally permissible.

And if in the future I am attacked by a constituent for not minding his interests, I will remind him that I was charged with protecting his liberty.

In that cause, I have done my very best.

Today, these are respectable political views. However, in 1953 when I started in the Senate, these ideas were revolutionary...”

Barry Goldwater

Will Barry Goldwater find his voice within the HUGE liberal Senate..??

Can Goldwater start the conservative movement..??

The only way to know for sure is to tune in for another exciting episode of:

Barry G- Lone Conservative in a Liberal World

Our next exciting episode is titled:

“Barry G- The attack of the Slush Fund Liberals”

Can Barry G survive the “Slush Fund Liberals”? Or will this story be over before it begins?

Tune in next time..!!

DVD extras and editorial “special features”:

“The making of: Barry G- Lone Conservative in a Liberal World”

“Barry G: Fact-toids:” Facts about Barry Goldwater.

Some people have asked me if I was making fun of Barry Goldwater with this promo picture that we used to promote our editorials on Barry Goldwater.

People love you when you are getting the crap beat out of you. When your face is being pushed into the muck, that is when people care.

For example: People seemed to tolerate Israel when Hamas rockets rained down into this tiny State; day after day.
However, the minute that Israel retaliated against Hamas, they lost all compassion from the world.

The United States also found this to be true...
Just after 9/11 when we were at our lowest, the world poured out sympathy for us. (I believe France even send us 2,000 beds. Or, maybe that was during Katrina?)
However, the minute we lashed out at Afghanistan and pulled Saddam from a hole in the ground, we lost sympathy from the world. We become "the hated."
So, if we use this analogy, the answer would be to keep getting your ass handed to you- FOREVER, until the day you die. Then, and only then, the world will love you.
(Note) You are dead. Your ass was kicked every single day of your life by "someone." However, the world LOVES you.

So, I’m trying to figure out where this concept came from? (Because, usually; the "good guy" is justified regardless if he is winning or losing a battle.)
Did it come from Hollywood..??
Name one movie where the "good guy" gets his ass kicked AND NEVER retaliates near the end of the movie?
I can’t think of one?
(My first thought was Clint Eastwood’s "The Unforgiven." Where the "good guy" was actually bad. The "Bad guy" was actually fighting for a good reason. However, near the end of this movie; the "bad" GOOD guy does take revenge and is respected in this old western town.)
Could you imagine Batman, Rambo, or James Bond getting slapped around AND NOT seeking some sort of revenge?
Even Hollywood movies teach people to fight for what they believe, so this idea that "losing is GOOD" doesn’t necessarily come from Hollywood.

The Bible teaches people to "turn the other cheek" and to love your enemies. However, the people who are pushing the "good guy must lose" idea probably do not read the Bible.
This idea that "winning is bad" could come from the school system. I seem to remember the idealism being taught that there may not be a "right and wrong", (or good and bad) because of a "gray area" where the BAD guy might be a good guy to someone else.

So if you were taught (and you believe) that right could be wrong and "bad" could be good, then you wouldn’t want to see America or Israel win a war. (Because of the gray area where right could be wrong and good could be bad.)
OK, I understand that. (I do not agree with it, but I can understand it.) But, then how could these same people go to the movies and watch a "hero" beat up the bad guys..??
Somehow, they are able to turn off this "gray area" idealism long enough to watch the movie?
Maybe we have found our answer...
I believe that every person instinctively understands right from wrong. (They just pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.) In school, or maybe through parents, children learn of a "gray area" between right and wrong. This causes these people to rethink what they knew to be true.

Here is a great example:

The democratic mayor of Baltimore (Sheila Dixon) was just indicted for stealing Christmas gift cards for the poor and using them on herself to buy video games and furs. She was having sex in her office, (with a guy who wasn’t her husband). And she took many gifts in exchange for city contracts awarded to the gift givers.
At this point: it doesn’t matter if you are a democrat or a republican; if you are White or Black, you KNOW what Sheila Dixon did was wrong.

So right now, your "gray area" idealism is turned off, and you can tell right from wrong.
However, in the weeks to come; you will be bombarded with "extra" information about Ms. Dixon. Maybe you will learn that she grew up in a tough situation. You might learn that there are many other politicians doing about the same thing, so why pick on the Baltimore Mayor?
(These are things that shouldn’t matter..!! She committed a crime.)
Your "gray area" idealism will kick in and you will no longer be able to tell right from wrong and a criminal will get away with a crime.

Take Illinois Governor Blago; when we first heard the audio tape of Blago trying to sell Barack Obama’s senate seat, we all knew that he was a criminal. (No gray area.)
However, in the weeks that followed; the spin started that "Blago hadn’t really committed a crime yet. He just TALKED about selling Obama’s senate seat. Blago didn’t actually sell it yet.."
(Would that be like a terrorist who TALKED about blowing up the White House. But he is OK because he didn’t actually blow it up yet..??)
Republicans even began to speak highly of Blago because "he made the democratic party look bad."
In this last example, republicans are using the gray area idealism to allow a crook (Blago) to stay in office, (because democrats put Blago there and the people need to see what the democrats have done.)
A crook is a crook, and Blago should have been made to step down long time ago.
Lets take one more look at today’s news:
A video tape of Britain’s Prince Harry calling an Afghan tribesman a "raghead" surfaced this weekend. He also called a fellow Pakistan soldier his: "Paki friend."
Now, most of us know that during a war, soldiers talk tough to "toughen" each other up. Prince Harry was serving in the British military and during a war, you may not always be politically correct.
However, in the next few days; depending on which side of the political fence you dwell on- you will look at this statement by Prince Harry different.
If you are for the war in Iraq, you will believe that we always call the enemy names. Hell, terrorists call us names like "western dogs" and "pigs." So what if Prince Harry called a terrorist a "raghead?"
However, if you are against the War in Iraq, you will believe that what Prince Harry said was the worst possible thing ANYONE could have said. You will believe that statements like this are causing Arab people not to like us.
"Gray area" idealism is a fun way to debate in the safety of a school. It gives a person representing an unfavorable position a chance to win the debate. However, it is a terrible way to send a child into the real world.
People MUST know the difference between right and wrong.

Every car thief could argue the "gray area" of why they should have a car.
Every rapist could point out the "gray area" of why the girl was "asking for it."

"Gray area" idealism is a great debating trick, but that is as far as it should go.
Radical Islam is USING the gray area idealism to win your mind over to their side. Terrorists have you convinced that right could be wrong and that bombing a restaurant full of innocent people is OK- because... (Well, they have many reasons. "We killed innocent people because you buy oil." Or- "Israel sits on land that was ours, so instead of talking- we shoot rockets into Israel because of the gray area and you have no freaking clue of what is right and wrong..")

Gray area idealism causes you to fall for political spin and not recognize an enemy (until it is too late.)
I have to fight very hard to shut down my "gray area" idealism (that was forced into my brain as a child), or I find myself falling victim to the spin doctors.
You begin to believe that:
It’s OK to blow up innocent people and retaliation is the evil.
It is OK to steal gift cards from the poor because your life was bad and everyone is doing it. (Or because you think republicans do worse.)
When you think about it; how could "right" ever be wrong..??

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic

Purging the Republican Party

This is an editorial that I never wanted to write.

I truly believe that having John McCain as president is better than the other two choices.

However, I look to the right of me and see conservatives claiming they will NEVER vote for John McCain.

When I look to the left, I am NOT seeing wacky liberals with some far out plan for the future of America. I see John McCain proposing global warming laws and wanting to build government programs.

I am a conservative, but somehow I am stuck in the middle?

Stuck somewhere between John McCain and President Reagan. My only goal with this web site was to promote conservative ideas and warn of the dangers of socialism.

I have been picking on Barack Obama, and will continue to point out his opinions because I believe Obama is the most dangerous man in America. He is the most liberal senator in DC. He has the most socialistic ideas of any of the candidates running, and people in Washington DC are afraid to oppose him. Having fear that they could be called "racist."

Hillary has done her best, but she cannot win. My party is in no shape to win against Barack Obama. I'm not really sure that conservatives want McCain to win.

Peggy Noonan, from the Wall Street Journal, says it best.

She wrote an editorial about the situation within the republican party. Noonan tells us that the chairman of the RNC- Robert Duncan, said- "We can't let the democrats take our issues. We can't let them pretend to be conservative.."

Peggy Noonan writes: "..Why not? Republicans ACT like conservatives everyday.."

In one sentence, Peggy Noonan has described the problem within the republican party.

Republicans feel the only way to win this election is to explore some of the liberal issues of the day. Conservatives do not want to win that way and would rather lose.

I became a conservative because I believe it is the perfect place between the two big "L's". (Liberalism and Libertarianism.)

Liberals today, want the government to control medicine. They want the government to control what car you can drive and how warm or cold your house can be. Like the American people are children and big daddy government must force you to conserve. (As if the high cost of fuel isn't forcing you to conserve already.)

Libertarians want to CUT EVERYTHING and head back to 1886. How do you tell a young person, who has paid thousands into Social Security, that you are shutting it down. "Sorry about your luck, pal..!!" How do you tell the millions of government workers- "We are shutting down, go find a job in the private sector."

Conservatives have always been there to fix the social programs that liberals create and then liberals abandon- when things go wrong. (Welfare, Social Security, and the future National Health Plan.) Conservatives usually kept taxes lower and spending under control. This is why I have been a conservative since 1980.

I have listened to some conservatives talk about a "purging of the Republican Party" and they sound gleeful about the prospect.

Sure, once we have weeded out all of the "democratic light" people from our party we will be back to basics. But the road to that goal is a bumpy ride.

We will lose more seats in the house and senate. We will not be able to stop the wacky left wing ideas that will pass by congress.

We will not be able to pick judicial nominees for 4 or 8 years.

We will lose the White House.

It is not going to be easy, however I have always tried to be optimistic about the future. I feel we can find some positives in this situation.

Here is a list that may help you cope with America's political future:

No matter what Obama does, everyone in Europe will be too afraid to say anything bad President Obama, in fear that they may offend the "political correct" Gods.

Magically, without Obama signing any bill, global warming and the health care crisis will disappear. (Remember how the "homeless crisis" and the "health care crisis" of 1993 went away without President Clinton lifting a pen to sign anything..??)

Liberals will tune out of politics with a President Obama. They will again love their country. All of the "cut and paste" stories of how mean US soldiers are, how evil America is, and how terrible all of us are to the environment, to other people, etc- these stories will all go away.

How much fun it will be watching late night comics "walk on eggs" while trying to make a joke about President Obama." David Letterman, Jay Leno, Saturday Night Live, Jon Stewart, etc- all use tons of political humor. However, all of these comedians are stuck inside a politically correct box when it comes to White and Black issues. Maybe they will all stick to the safe- "Bush is stupid" and "Clinton is a pervert" type humor. (No one is offended when you make fun of a White man.)

We will have 4 years of "Obama-isms." (Things Obama can say, but no other person can.) Like when Obama thought the United States had 57 states. (If Bush said that, people would be all over it.)

You will be able to bet on whether today will be a "flag pin day." Remember, Obama only wears his flag pin on special days. If Obama is speaking in San Francisco, you will not see a flag pin. However, if Obama is speaking to blue collar people in Michigan, you will see Obama's flag pin. In the future, with a President Obama, you will be able to head to InTrade and bet on whether Obama will wear his flag pin during speeches. (For example: if there is a tragedy in West Virginia and President Obama is heading there to speak, you have a 70% chance that Obama will wear his flag pin. Betting against the odds could make you some serious buck..!!"

With a President Obama, liberals will not be able to blame everything on Republicans- Hurricanes, tornados, high food costs, wild fires, high gas prices, etc...

OK, that last one was a joke.

We all know that liberals will still blame republicans for everything, even when they control the Congress and the White House.

Sen. Ted Kennedy is rushed to a Cape Cod hospital. I have no details while writing this. I hope Kennedy will be OK..!! ABC News has that story.

Sea weed and algae could be made into bio-fuel. Which would not compete with food crops. Instapundit (dot) com has that story.