City's Main Problem: Liberals

In the Sunday, February 21st, 2010 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer an article was published at the very top of page two titled "City's main problem: poverty" written by Karen Heller. In the article, Heller proceeds to lay every single ill that befalls the city of Philadelphia - and that's plenty of ills - at the very feat of this fearsome monster known as poverty.

Budget of the city shows 62% goes to fighting crime and social needs? Poverty is the culprit. Michelle Obama visits Philly to campaign against obesity because too many parents shove McDonald's down their kids throats? Poverty. Teachers are overworked? Poverty. School violence is tolerated? Poverty. Health rate is poor, kids don't take education seriously? Poverty.

The problem, not with the city but with Heller's article, is that she simply cries "poverty" at every opportunity, making the typical liberal mistake of never seeing the forest for the trees. The problem you see is not some general epidemic of poverty, it is an epidemic of liberalism.

That's right, little kids go without food because of the political philosophy and ideology of liberalism. Little kids get fat in some cases because of the exact same ideology. Kids don't stay in school, don't want to stay in school let alone advance further, because of it. Violence is greatly increased because of it, and health problems are magnified because of it.

But where Heller stops, I am going to plow on. She says that poverty is the problem and then makes only a couple of small general comments as to how to deal with the situation. The answer to her view of poverty as the problem is "the city must reduce the poverty rate in order to succeed."

Fine enough principle on it's own that I won't argue with it. Among the many symptoms of entrenched liberalism is more widespread poverty than need exist. So how to reduce that poverty rate? Her answers are to "attract new residents to revitalize neighborhoods" and "moving families..to self-sufficiency and security." She also states correctly that Philly needs to address it's dismal educational system.

What the obviously liberal herself Heller has basically written is what is known as a 'fluff' piece. It is full of statements and commentary that will have her co-workers at the Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the single most liberal newspapers in a country full of them, patting her on the back. It will have her friends and family saying things like "right on, Kar, you got that right. Good job!" It will make her feel better.

But it will have done nothing at all to address the problem, because the real problem has not even been identified in her piece. The city's main problem: liberals.

For decades now, liberal Democrats have been increasingly in charge of the city of Philadelphia. They have been the decision makers, the unchallenged and all-powerful ideologues whose programs, ideas, and policies have taken the city in the direction that it has gone - straight down.

Here are just a few of the things that Philadelphia does not need to be doing. It does not need to spend a dime on a homeless shelter. It does not need to spend a dime on feeding a hungry person. It does not need to indoctrinate students in the classroom in it's liberal ideology. It does not need to allow students who refuse to behave to continue in school. It does not need to provide free health care to anyone.

Wow, what an uncaring, unfeeling, insensitive, inhuman I must be in order to believe all of those things, right? Wrong, Mr. and Ms. Liberalism. My belief is not that man must stand by and watch the suffering of the inevitable folks who will fall between the cracks of opportunity do to reasons beyond their control, such as a physical or mental handicap or some sudden disaster. My belief is that it is not the city of Philadelphia's responsibility to address those issues.

When given the opportunity, mankind will respond charitably to his fellow man. The story has been told of a locality in Texas back in 1887 where a couple of consecutive seasons of drought had left the farmers in bad shape and facing poverty. The local government put out the call to Washington for some emergency subsidies for the farmers.

The plight of the poor farmers was passed by a misty-eyed congress before being vetoed by President Grover Cleveland (pictured). In one of the single greatest acts by any American President of all-time, Cleveland defended his veto in the exact same manner that must be embraced by Philadelphians today. Let me quote exactly a couple of key paragraphs of his veto speech:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."

"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

So President Grove Cleveland literally said what the liberal Democrats of Philadelphia and all over the country have no ability to say. He said what every parent learns is one of the single most valuable words that they must early on begin to say to their children. He said the very thing that many of us need to begin to say to ourselves. He simply said "No".

But he didn't just say that "no" to win some political battle, he said that "no" because frankly it was the right thing to say. What was the result of his decision? Dead farmers? Far from it. As he rightly predicted, the call went out around the nation for private donations to help the farmers. This call resulted in the appropriation of ten times the money that had been requested from congress. And not a dime of forced expense on the general American public, not a single tax levied.

Karen Heller is wrong. She has pointed at a symptom rather than the real problem. The problem is not poverty, it is liberalism. Philadelphia needs to have the strength to begin finally to say "no" to the Democratic Party as it is now constituted. It needs to begin to say "no" to the nanny state that has led to our inevitable and continued decline. If we don't have the strength to say "no", if leaders do not emerge who will stand up and then be supported in saying that "no", then Philadelphia will never, ever recover it's former greatness.

So specific answers start with stopping funding social welfare programs cold. If we are to spend any money on a social program, I would make it on an on-going publicity campaign with billboards, TV and radio ads, all positively encouraging people to make good choices in their lives, to stay in school, to turn away from drugs and drink, to go to church, to become or remain sexually responsible, and to keep their families intact.

I would do whatever is necessary to turn our schools around. That would first happen with security. Difficult decisions need to be made to eliminate the unrepentant criminals who commit assaults, robberies, and drug dealing on our school grounds, no matter their age. Expulsion for the absolute worst cases, transfer to disciplinary schools for those who may simply need a period of behavior modification before possibly returning to the general student population.

The second thing that needs to happen is that curriculum needs to be addressed. Philadelphia school children need to be taught the fundamentals of education as the primary goal of our school. Math, science, reading, writing, and wait for it - civics. They need to learn and understand our history as a nation, the good and the bad with an emphasis on the incredible good that America has been and done since it's founding.

Next I would empower teachers to take charge of their classrooms again, having their backs when they need it in controlling the room and maintaining that control. I would also ensure that those teachers are allowed and encouraged to emphasize their role as educators, not social workers and not substitute parents. But at the same time, I would not tolerate the small number of teachers who simply will not or do not enthusiastically do their jobs. Out on their cans, union or no.

Where violence and other crime occurs on the streets, deal with it. Support our law enforcement officers and officials in any way possible. Zero tolerance. Let's face it, some sections of the city are simply out of control, and you cannot begin to rebuild them and, as Heller says "attract new residents" without gaining that control and maintaining it.

Arrest criminals, put them in jail, if they get out, put them back in. If we are unwilling to fight this fight on a daily basis, to win this war over time, and spend what it takes to at least keep up with it year after year, then we will lose. Any alleged 'war on crime' or 'war on drugs' will never end. But we need to fight it every hour of every day. Just as with the teachers, if some cops don't know professional limits and abuse their power, out on their cans. The good ones will be happy to see them go.

Finally, emphasize parental and familial responsibility in public. From the stump speeches of politicians to the teaching in our classrooms to our public service announcements and community outreach, strengthening and maintaining our families and the responsibility level of parents has got to become paramount.

You can never force someone to become a good parent. But you can tap them on the shoulder and let them know that it is just as easy to hand their kid a celery stick as it is a cupcake. It is just as far a walk to the supermarket for some soup, vegetables, fruit as it is to McDonald's for some fries and a Big Mac. Obesity is not the result of poverty, it is in most cases the result of bad decisions.

Those same bad decisions are the reasons for the vast majority of other childhood problems, many of which in a large portion of Philadelphia's communities lies directly at the feet of non-existent or irresponsible fathers. Men need to begin to take their familial responsibilities seriously. Women need to respect themselves more and develop more of a sense of self-worth. Most of this comes from your own strong family situation.

The city needs to find a way to encourage it's residents to return to church, return to the basic values and teachings that God gave all of mankind in the Bible. The long-held liberal notion of a "separation of church and state" is a crock. In fact, America has shown that it has been our embracing of Judeo-Christian values that has separated us from other nations and governments in history. We need to return to that root strength, not run from it, and we need to embrace and advertise that resource, not hold it at arms length.

Liberals will see my ideas resulting in armies of homeless people, drug addicts, and student truants roaming the streets, exploding the crime rates, and only adding to the problems of Philadelphia. They have cried this cry for decades, and their own answers have proven both soft and ineffective, as anyone with a spine could have predicted. It is time we began to walk a hard, straight line here in Philadelphia.

While we slice social programs and increase law and quality of life enforcement measures we need to also decrease the Philadelphia tax burden. We need to drastically overhaul our overall tax policies with the stated goal of making the city of Philadelphia the single most attractive place in the entire nation for a business to locate itself. We then need to aggressively market that new-found status and begin to bring business, and thus jobs, back into Philadelphia.

Lower taxes and increasing the quality of life here in the city. These are the things that will accomplish what Heller calls for. They will never, ever be accomplished by appropriating more money from Philadelphia's already overburdened tax payers, or from the already overburdened Commonwealth, or from the already over-socialized federal government.

These general ideas that I have put forward today go far beyond what the simplistic approach and siren's call made by Heller and the Inquirer. There is zero chance that my ideas would ever be supported by Philadelphia's talking head politicians or it's liberal media, so the only way that such a change would be possible would be for some distinctly charismatic and articulate individual to step forward and lead Philadelphia in this direction.

I guess in short what Philadelphia really needs is an effective alternative to the liberal Democratic Party that has ruled the crumbling roost for this last half century. It needs an effective, strong, threatening, alternative, conservative Republican Party to emerge and become a realistic challenger. That has to start from the grass roots, but it also needs an effective leadership with an uncompromising alternative vision that is a true alternative to the city's main problem: liberals.

You Lie!

Congressman Joe Wilson had enough of the lies, and could no longer contain himself. The Republican from South Carolina had sat patiently in his chair while trying to endure 45 minutes of President Barack Obama droning on about extending his Socialist vision of America into the health care industry.

But then Obama told one lie too many for Wilson during last night's nationally televised attempt at indoctrination and bullying. The President let slip that his proposed government option would not cover illegal aliens. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back for the Congressman.

"You Lie!" shouted Wilson.

If you were watching on television, you heard it plain as day. The uproar in response was immediate and boisterous as various members of Congress either gasped in astonishment, hollered their disapproval, or mildly cheered the outburst. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, seated immediately over Obama's left shoulder, shot an icy stare in Wilson's direction.

Obama was also stunned by the outburst and momentarily glanced away from his teleprompter, causing him to stumble and mumble a weak "That's not true" as a response. Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats, particularly the ultra-liberals on the far left who are pushing the President further and further towards that Socialist disaster, Joe Wilson was the only one actually speaking truth.

On the issue that caused Wilson's outburst, Obama has repeatedly rebuffed calls for individuals to provide proof of citizenship in order to receive health care under the proposed government option. This will undoubtedly result in illegals receiving such care, and increased numbers of them as Mexicans and others stream across our southern borders to receive better medical care here at no cost.

Well, it's at no cost to the illegal aliens. It will, however, cost every single taxpaying American as money is sucked from our paychecks in order to provide health care for people who are not even citizens of our country.

The funding for this project is another of it's controversial elements, and was addressed last night with another of Obama's lies. He spoke of increasing costs by $900 billion over the next decade, and compared that amount to the same amount to fund the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His point was that it is affordable if we choose to take care of uninsured sick Americans instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy or going to war.

As usual, Obama was lying. The $900 billion dollars over the next decade figure comes from adding up to 18 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. But that is just the rock bottom basic cost. Everyone involved knows that costs will rise and that the plan would end up costing at least hundreds of billions of more dollars. And then there is the fact that the plan doesn't go away after a decade.

Harsh to say that Obama is lying? Not at all. I am going to give Barack Obama credit where liberals were unwilling to give George W. Bush credit by saying that Obama is smart. Fact is, so was Bush, but you'll never convince most libs of that notion. But they would definitely agree with me that Obama is both intelligent and informed.

To even contemplate that Obama does not know all of the facts involving his health plan would be ludicrous. So when he tells you that it will be affordable, that there will be no increase in the federal deficit, that illegal aliens won't be covered, and that abortions won't be covered he is quite simply not telling the truth as he knows it to be. The word we all use for such a person is 'liar' in other instances, and it applies here as well, whether you like the sound of Obama being called one or not.

As to the controversial abortion topic, for instance, the President claims that the language of his health bill is 'neutral' on the issue. Fair enough, but fact is that most Americans have already spoken their minds that they do not want a publicly funded abortion option as part of any taxpayer funded plan. So Republicans tried to insert amendments that would specifically prohibit the plan from covering abortions. The amendments were voted down by the Democrats. So much for the President' bill being 'neutral' on abortion. What is to keep it from covering the procedure, Mr. President?

Mr. President, it might make Nance Pelosi cringe, your fellow Democrats bellow, and even moderate Republicans feign public indignance, but the facts are the facts and the American public deserves more than you and your administration are giving us on issue after issue. A 'Change' to Socialism was not what they voted for last November. I can't blame Joe Wilson for his outburst because frankly, Mr. President, he simply was telling the frustrating truth when he shouted "You Lie!"

How to Deprogram a Liberal in One Year or Less

So what do you do when you realize that everything you've ever thought and believed no longer worked for you? Where do you go when the bubble of progressive politics bursts in your face and you're left in the leftist place on earth? It seems that the choices are as follows: either you cling to your beliefs even more zealously and attack anyone who dares to disagree. Or, if you're like me, you embark on a journey of discovery and recovery.

I wrote another piece recently for American Thinker, a letter of amends to conservatives. In it I described why I transformed from a Berkeley leftist to a talk radio loving conservative the last 1 1/2 years. I realized the Democratic Party wasn't what I thought, that it had mutated into something mean and rough, and that I had probably been living in a fantasy world all along. I very much appreciated the outpouring of support, wisdom, and forgiveness from American Thinker readers.

Many said something to the effect of: Robin, congrats, but what in the world took you so long? So let me explain. I wasn't just your garden variety liberal who voted Democrat and that was about it. I was a true believer. A zealot. Like many leftists who had abandoned Judeo-Christian religion, I worshipped at the altar of liberalism. For instance, I never missed watching the Democratic National Convention. I watched every speech, with tissue box handy. (What kind of a freak was I anyway?) The Democratic Party symbolized hope, love, compassion, promise, everything that was good and holy in the world. I gave money, my time, my heart, my soul. I cried with joy when Democrats won; I was distraught when they lost.

I was programmed from birth to be a devout liberal. My dad, a hard working first generation Russian Jew, would lecture me on a regular basis, "The Democrats are the party of the little people. The Republicans are the party of the rich guy." He would also get a little weepy when he watched the DNC (so that must be where I got it from). One of our rare moments of bonding was reading the newspapers together on opposite ends of the couch, interrupting each other with stories about the bad Republicans and the heroic Democrats.

When I was in high school in the early 70's in New York, I wrote impassioned essays on civil rights and on feminism. In college, in the days before universities became indoctrination factories, I searched for politically left classes, and took every one I could find. I spent years in consciousness raising groups lambasting male oppression with other angry feminists, and yelled "Two Four Six Eight, Pornography is Woman Hate," at numerous marches.

When I was 26, I parked myself in the People's Republic of Berkeley, CA, the epicenter of the far left. I came as a liberal but soon morphed into a leftist as most people here do. In Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and the outlying towns, there is no Republican Party. Literally. There are only Democrats running against other Democrats. I recall years ago going to vote at a time when there were separate lines for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats' line was a mile long. The Republican's was free and clear. After we all stood there waiting for 45 minutes, a brave young man walked up to the Republican booth and quickly voted. I still recall the cackles and giggles as we pointed and stared at this odd, exotic bird that had come to perch for a brief while.

So maybe you get now how hard it was, how disorienting and destabilizing and crazy making it was, when I realized about 1 1/2 years ago that I no longer believed in liberalism. I walked around in a confused state for weeks. Being a Democrat, a liberal, a far left radical from Berkeley was a big part of my identity. So who the heck was I if I weren't a leftist? And what in the world would I do, given that my husband, all my friends, and all my psychotherapist clients were liberal and I would be public enemy #1 if I told anyone? Converting from Islam to Judaism, yet still hanging out in front of the old mosque in Kabul, probably would have been easier.

After weeks of shuffling around like a zombie, it was time to do something about it. The first step, I decided, was deprogramming myself from decades of liberal propaganda. Out went books by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and various 9/11 conspiracy books. In came Mark Levin, Ben Stein, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand. I heard something vaguely about Talk Radio, so I scanned my AM dial, and found Michael Savage. I was shocked and offended by his diatribes -- but also oddly intrigued. I found many others: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Boortz, Medved, all of whom became my "sponsors" in recovery this last year. I found wonderfully insightful websites like American Thinker.

To my disbelief, the more I listened and read, the more these folks made sense. For instance, at first I couldn't understand why so many conservatives expressed concern about morality issues, like gay marriage. Berkeley is Lesbian Central, and I know many good hearted gay people. But the more I learned, the more I started getting the larger picture; that conservatives were not necessarily impugning the character of gay people, but they were alarmed at the breakdown of traditional values. If the basic structure of society goes, e.g., traditional marriage, religion, patriotism, common language, what remains? If everything becomes fluid, what is there to hold onto? Without any moral structure and traditions, a society descends into anarchy and mob rule, as it is clearly doing today.

As I educated myself, I started thinking and rethinking. I'd wake up in the middle of the night with the sudden realization that deeply held beliefs made no sense. Take the anti war stance of the left. Noble and sanctimonious and all that. But how easy it is to sit back and preach peace when you have an army defending you; to rail against the U.S. when you are protected by free speech laws; to demonize Israel, when you've never lived through the murderous pogroms of Tsarist Russia or the Holocaust. How hypocritical to lambast Big Business while you are making money from their stocks in your mutual fund portfolio (that is, until Obama took over). And how ludicrous to admire Chavez, Castro and all things socialist, when the closest experience you've had to standing on a bread line is queuing up for goat cheese/arugula pizza at Whole Foods.

And this love affair with Radical Islam -- what's up with that? I had previously thought of Islam as a quaint, folksy religion. But when I started actually reading about it, especially Dr. Phyllis Chesler's illuminating books and web site, I realized extremist Muslims were advocating some seriously scary stuff, like destroying Israel and the West. I had been oblivious of the horrendous treatment of women: the honor killings, beheadings, genital mutilation. It now seemed like the height of naivety, if not masochism, to embrace with open arms people who want to kill you. While as a liberal I was socialized to believe everyone was good, all cultures were the same, and We Are The World, We Are The Children, I began to understand that evil exists. The emergence of evil always offers warnings signs, and we ignore them at our peril.

Though exhausted from lack of sleep, I also started waking up. I realized, to my utter incredulity, that conservatives made sense, and that I was one of them. I recalled Mark Twain's quip about his father: When Twain was a teenager, he thought his father was the stupidest man in the world; but when he became a young man in his 20's, his father had many intelligent things to say. Twain couldn't believe how much his father had learned in those years! Like Twain, I grew up and saw the world as it is. Yes it would be nice to save the planet, to eliminate hunger, and to make everyone good and righteous. But humans don't have the power to do that. To walk around, as I did, with utopian images that didn't match reality was to view life through the eyes of a child. An adult understands that civility matters, people need to be held accountable for their behavior, and protecting yourself and your country are moral imperatives.

So it took about a year, but my deprogramming has been successful. I'm comfortable in my own skin, feel more alive than I have in years, and am excited by all I'm learning and becoming. Now when I listen to Sean Hannity's theme song, "Let Freedom Ring," I get a little misty eyed (some things never change). I only hope and pray (yes I'm doing that more too) that the US survives when the Democrats are done "changing" it. But if this lifelong left winger from Berkeley can wake up, hopefully others will also do so before it's too late.

WRITTEN by Robin of Berkeley at AmericanThinker.com on May 21st, 2009

Religion and Politics Don't Mix?

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." --Thomas Jefferson

For all of our nation's history, there have been tactical battles between opposing political ideologies -- liberals (leftists) who want to liberate us from constitutional rule of law, and conservatives who strive to conserve rule of law. Great political capital has been, and continues to be, expended by the Left in order to offend our Constitution, and by the Right in order to defend it.

Amid the din and rhetoric of the current lineup of tactical contests, I ask that you venture up to the strategic level and consider a primal issue that transcends all the political noise.

How many times have you heard the rejoinder, "Religion and politics don't mix"?

Most Americans have, for generations now, been inculcated (read: "dumbed down") by the spurious "wall of separation" metaphor and believe that it is a legitimate barrier between government and religion. So effective has been this false indoctrination that even some otherwise erudite conservatives fail to recall that religion and politics not only mix, but are inseparable.

Recall that our Founders affirmed in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In other words, our Creator bestowed the rights enumerated in our Declaration and, by extension, as codified in its subordinate guidance, our Constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights; they are not gifts from government.

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

But the Left has, for many decades, made its primary objective the eradication of God from every public quarter, and routinely relied on judicial activism to undermine constitutional rule of law and, thus, the natural rights of man.

The intended consequence of this artificial barrier between church and state is to remove knowledge of our Creator from all public forums and, thus, over time, to disabuse belief in a sovereign God and the natural rights He has endowed.

This erosion of knowledge about the origin of our rights has dire implications for the future of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

As the author of our Declaration of Independence makes clear, we should all tremble that man has adulterated the gifts of God.

Ironically, it was Jefferson who penned the words "wall of separation between church and state" in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Jefferson was responding to a letter the Association wrote to him objecting to Connecticut's establishment of Congregationalism as its state church. Jefferson responded that the First Amendment prohibited the national (federal) government from establishing a "national church."

After all, the controlling language (Amendment I) reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Jefferson concluded rightly that the Constitution's 10th Amendment federalism provision prohibited the national government from interfering with matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will, between the federal government and state governments.

Among all our Founders, Jefferson was most adamant in his objection to the construct of the Judicial Branch of government in the proposed Constitution, writing, "The Constitution [would become] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Jefferson warned: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... It has long been my opinion ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

But Jefferson was correct in his apprehension about our Constitution being treated as "a mere thing of wax" by what he called the "despotic branch," who would do the bidding of their special-interest constituencies rather than interpret the plain language of the Constitution.

In 1947, Justice Hugo Black perverted Jefferson's words when Black speciously opined in the majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education that the First Amendment created a "wall of separation" between religion and government, thus opening the floodgates for subsequent opinions abolishing religious education and expression in all public forums.

John Adams wrote, "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

It may not be in the power of man to alienate the gift of liberty, but it will certainly take the power of men, guided by our Creator, to defend it. To that end, religion and politics are inseparable.

WRITTEN by Mark Alexander and presented in his Federalist Society emailing dated May 14th, 2009

What a Hateful Liberal Bigot Looks Like

They have always existed, but they have become more emboldened with the recent leftward lurch in American political direction. I am talking today about liberal bigots, those lefties who are not only obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, but who also regard and treat those who disagree with them with vitriolic hatred. You frequently hear them harping about wanting freedom of speech, the right to express their opinions and viewpoints publicly, even the right to have their alternative lifestyles accepted by the mainstream public as 'normal' or at least 'acceptable'. But this freedom of speech, this right to express opinions and viewpoints, can never, ever extend to those who disagree with them. Perfect case in point came this past weekend with the Miss USA pageant questioning incident. As I previously discussed in another recent post, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a contestant in the pageant. She is a beauty queen, a model, and she had a simple goal, to win a beauty pageant title. She wasn't looking to change the world on Sunday night, and certainly when it came to the question-answer stage she did not expect a controversial question on an epic hot-button sociological and moral topic. In any event, that is exactly what she received from pageant judge Mario Lavandeira, who goes by the professional name of 'Perez Hilton'. Lavandeira is a gay activist and celebrity blogger, and basically asked Prejean whether she supported 'gay marriage', and to give the reasons behind whatever her feelings were on the issue. Carrie Prejean simply replied from her heart, basically saying that she did not support the idea, that she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that basically this was how she was raised, taught, and now fundamentally believed. In the immediate aftermath of the pageant, at which she nearly won, finishing as the first runner-up, Hilton said that Prejean was a 'cunt', and then took to the internet and video-blogged that Hilton lost because she was "a dumb bitch." So in other words, Hilton as a gay activist has a right to voice his opinion on the issue, and the mainstream American public is supposed to tolerate not only that viewpoint, but also his public expression of it. But the same right is not extended to Carrie Prejean. Because she disagrees with Hilton on this issue, and because she had the audacity to answer his question with honesty, she is pilloried as some sort of bigot and neanderthal thinker, and then called names as well? How far does this freedom of expression, this right to your own viewpoints go, Mr. Hilton? And it wasn't just Perez Hilton, but also most of the 'gay rights' movement, and in fact most liberals as well, who ganged up on Carrie Prejean. In doing so they exposed themselves publicly for what they really are, a group of hateful bigots, everything that they claim to be against. This is the United States of America, and we are supposed to celebrate, support, and grow from the expression of differing opinions, not denounce them with hatred, ignorance, and profanity. It isn't as if Carrie Prejean said that any gay who actually got married should go to hell. She didn't say they should be arrested, tortured, or even publicly embarrassed if they tried to marry. She did not express that she didn't like gay people in general, and didn't call them any names. In short, she said nothing that would incite hatred or intolerance of gays. She simply answered the question put to her regarding the issue of marriage, stating that it should be between a man and a woman, which it should. Not an opinion, but a fact since the early days of man, and one that has only gained any public forum at all since the fringe gay element of society began imposing it's radical views on the vast mainstream 'straight' majority just a few decades ago. Carrie Prejean simply answered a direct question without lambasting or profaning anyone, but the response that she received in reply has been what we have come to typically expect from the liberal community. We conservatives love an open debate, love ideas expressed in public, and embrace the notion of having them put to the test of a vote. That is the true spirit of American freedom and diversity and exceptionalism at work. There are groups who have wanted that freedom of speech repressed in the past: Nazis, Communists, and brutal dictators of all stripes go this way. Add now to that group the ultra-liberal bigots who want anyone shut up and shut down who does not agree with them, from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Carrie Prejean. For anyone out there who agreed with Perez Hilton's response to Carrie Prejean, not his view on the topic of gay marriage, but with his response to Sunday night's question-answer session, then you can count yourself in that group of liberal bigots. NOTE: As with every entry at this Blog, there is a 'Comments' button below. You can do so anonymously, but it would be appreciated if you had the courage of your convictions to add at least a real name.

Too Big For His Britches

When I was a kid our older relatives used to have a saying for when someone got too full of themselves, or got too arrogant, or when someone was constantly pushing the limits too far. They would say that this person was 'too big for his britches', an analogy relating to someone who got so big they were about to burst out of their pants. This would often be followed by an admonition that the person was going to 'get what they had coming to them' one of these days when the 'chickens come home to roost'. Well, the far-too-big-for-his-britches Vince Fumo finally welcomed home the chickens yesterday. After decades of shady backroom politics, the former State Senator and political giant was found guilty yesterday on 137 counts including fraud, obstruction of justice, tax offenses, and conspiracy. When the time comes for sentencing, prosecutors will be seeking to send the now 65-year old Fumo away to prison for more than a decade, meaning that the once mighty kingpin could spend the rest of his life behind bars. Just a day earlier, with the jury holding its deliberations, his typically slimy but skilled defense lawyers attempted one final bit of legal tap-dancing in an effort to free their client. They tried to have a juror thrown off the case and possibly a mistrial declared that would at least temporarily free their client. The reasoning? One of the jurors potentially posted on Facebook that there would be a "big announcement on Monday" in regards to the case. Oh no, the entirety of a lengthy criminal court case with numerous witnesses and mountains of evidence tossed out because one juror made an innocuous comment on a social networking website! The horror of this violation of prudential conduct! Why perhaps because of this simple remark which revealed nothing more than the possible day on which some unknown announcement might be made that possibly involves some event in the juror's life which may or may not involve the trial the justice system should come grinding to a halt? The court should not only halt the deliberations, remove the juror, ignore the evidence, and free the defendant, but perhaps even publicly disgrace the juror, and maybe even fine them or toss them behind bars for contempt? Yet another ridiculous move by the defense team in an effort to toss some 11th-hour Hail Mary in a desperate attempt to delay the inevitable. And boy was this verdict ever inevitable. When interviewed afterwards the comments from the jurors signified that they tried to find a way to acquit Fumo, but that "The evidence was so clear", and that like many disgraced politicians before him that "greed" was his motivation. To list the length and breadth and depth of Vince Fumo's political power and influence would take a full-length book, which someone will inevitably one day write. Suffice it to say, however, that this power did not come from honest political work over the decades. It came from the accumulation of power that itself came from the sale of his office and from political patronage. Vince Fumo is the poster boy for everything that is wrong with Philadelphia politics. The only thing that the vast majority of politicians in the city care about is retaining their power at the cost of service to their constituents and what began as conscience in their dealings. Philadelphia's one-party system invites corruption as politicians feel they must be registered and run as a Democrat or have little to no chance of election. This then causes them to become dependent on the Democratic election machine and money in order to retain their elected positions. This dependency comes at the cost of thier voting for liberal causes that perpetuate the tax-and-spend policies that have driven residents and businesses from the city by the hundreds of thousands over the past few decades. The power that Fumo wielded was from or near the very top of the political power pyramid of this Democratic Party domination process. The FBI may have been concerned with illegalities, misappropriations of funds, and abuse of office, but there is a bigger fish to fry here. The City of Philadelphia is in desperate need of a true conservative political power presence, and I believe that many of Philly's people and pols actually share those tendencies at heart. With a competitive political system that forced elected officials to truly be accountable to the people, the city would be far better off than it is currently under the system which holds it hostage to the Democratic Party alone. It will take a group of political, social, community, and business people to have courage and to organize and drive this effort, but it is an effort that must be made if Philadelphia is to reverse course and again become a world-class city. Fumo is certainly not the only politician at the state or local levels using his power and influence in these ways, and perhaps there are more who are under investigation right now without even knowing it. Shaking ourselves free of political corruption, greed, and scandal is a good beginning. Vince Fumo got too big for his britches a long, long time ago. With the chickens now home to roost, he will finally get what he has coming to him. Hopefully it doesn't result simply in someone else stepping in to fill a power vacuum, but instead marks the beginning of major changes in Philadelphia politics which are necessary and long overdue.

Obama's Partisans Go After Limbaugh, Specter

There is a new political radio commercial airing frequently on local stations, particularly those with news and news talk formats. In the commercial a smarmy female voice sulks at the audacity of Republicans and in particular the popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh to oppose President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package. The commercial highlights that every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the package. It also plays a clip from Limbaugh's show wherein Rush says "I hope he fails!", in relation to the Obama stimulus bill. The commercial equates opposition to the Obama stimulus bill with being against jobs. The evil, rich Republicans with their 'big business' allies lining up against the 'little guy' to keep him down. Do Democrats really believe that most people are as shallow as to believe that Republicans don't care about people having jobs? About people having the 'American dream' of home ownership and security? Here is what Obama and his liberal Democratic Party partisans want done. They won the election, and so they want Republicans to roll over and take it. They want Republicans in the House and Senate, all of whom were freely elected by their constituents in their home communities, to throw away their own values and beliefs and just cave in to the Obama-mania. Unfortunately for President Obama the simple fact is that while he won the election comfortably, almost 60 million Americans voted against him. Large sections of the country in no way support the radical liberal agenda that he wants to pursue. In fact, millions of Americans stated that they cast their ballot as a protest against the George W. Bush administration as much as for Obama and his plans. The Democrats and their media allies are incensed at Limbaugh for his stand. Why should they be surprised? People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and many others are diametrically opposed to everything that liberals stand for, and these people's names are known to everyone who reads this for a reason. That reason is because almost every single one of those 60 million who voted against Obama, and some of those who voted for him as a protest, see these talk show hosts and authors as their own voice. They have made these people popular by agreeing with and supporting their programs, articles, and books. Of course Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama to fail, and for the exact same reasons that I want Barack Obama to fail, and fail miserably. Because we understand that Obama and the liberals solution to every problem is more government. Create a new agency, a new level of bureaucracy. Create a new department. Finance some new project. All of these things will create new jobs. Sure they will, but who is paying for those new jobs? Those salaries, those benefits? We the people, that's who. And these jobs won't last. They are partisan jobs set up by a partisan liberal administration. The next time that a conservative Republican administration comes to power, and trust me that will be in our lifetimes (possibly as soon as four years from now), those jobs will go out the window. We understand that the real key to significant, long term job creation comes from keeping taxes low, reducing spending in certain areas, keeping the size and scope of Federal government to a minimal level, and allowing the market to create lasting jobs. Making businesses strong results in their expanding and hiring new workers with jobs that last, and that are paid for by those businesses, not we the people. In the political commercials now airing, the real target is Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. The commercial asks whether Specter is going to 'support Rush Limbaugh' and vote his way when the Obama stimulus package goes to the Senate. It is an obvious threat to Specter: vote against us, and you will pay the next time you are up for election. The fact is that Pennsylvania Republicans would be far better off with Specter out and a real, true, conservative-leaning Republican in office. Specter has been called a 'RINO' (Republican In Name Only) for years, and for good reason. The American Conservative Union (ACU) tracks and rates all members of the Congress on their actual voting records. Senator Specter is consistently one of the 2-3 lowest rated Republicans in the entire Senate. He already votes with the Democrats about half the time. For them to threaten him after all the support that he has given them over the decades is political partisanship at its worst. But that appears to be what the Obama folks want. President Obama speaks of breaking down barriers, reaching across the aisle, being inclusive, wanting bipartisanship, ending the political rancor. Then he accuses any Republican who does not support his programs of exactly that. How about this, President Obama? How about you and all of your liberal allies supporting the Republican plans instead? That would show a bipartisan spirit and end political rancor. But it isn't realistic, is it President Obama? The fact of the matter is that the United States remains a divided country. Divided between those who see capitalism and the free market as the best solution, and those who believe that government should be a 'nanny' who takes care of us all. Those who believe that America is the greatest power and force for good that mankind has ever seen, and those who believe that we should be more 'European' and gentile. Those who believe that life is important at every stage and age, and those who believe we should have the choice to selfishly kill another human being when it doesn't suit our lifestyle. Those who believe that the Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. Those who don't believe in throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of tax-payers hard-earned money at every problem and burdening our grandchildren with paying off that debt, and those who are trying to force this exact 'stimulus' program down our throats. Those who dare to take up the mantle of American greatness, and those who fear and even loath its responsibilities. President Obama and his political partisans can go right on attacking Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans in Congress, and conservatives in general. Go ahead, give it your best shot. We're big boys, we can take it. But count on the one thing we absolutely will not do, and that is roll over for the President when we whole-heartedly believe that he is wrong and his program will ultimately hurt America. Barack Obama is overplaying his hand and resorting to the very political partisanship that he claims he is trying to put to an end. As with most people who overplay their hands in any contest, he will find in the end that he wasted a valuable opportunity.

Ann Coulter is Guilty as Charged

For over a decade now, conservative writer Ann Coulter has been directing her sharp wit and keen mind as well as her biting sense of humor at everything that liberals hold dear. She has emerged as the single most articulate and beloved voice of the far right in American politics, and the honesty and clarity of her works has gained her fans across the vast conservative Republican populace. Her latest book titled "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America" generally covers just what it says in that title. "Guilty" speaks of the 'victim mentality' prevalent in all liberal quarters, and that has been particularly embraced by the Democratic Party over the past few decades. The libs and the Dems take segments of society that feel they have been victimized by the American culture and government, embrace them, and tell them that they, the Dems, will take care of all of their problems. They care about the 'victims', and will make sure that these 'lowly' have a 'voice' if elected. What the liberal Dems never mention, of course, is that the vast majority of these 'victims' have created or exacerbated their own situations. The 'culture' or 'government' or 'the man' or 'the system' had absolutely nothing to do with it. Did 'the government' stick that needle in their arm, or that crack pipe in their mouth, or that pill down their throats? No. Did 'the man' force them to buy that bottle and drink it down? No. Did 'the system' distract them in school and keep them from going to classes, paying attention, studying, and doing their homework? No. Did the 'culture' get them pregnant? No. If you are poor and have little or nothing as you are being raised, why on earth would you want to continue that into your adulthood and for your entire life? That is exactly what you are asking for when you don't emphasize school and instead turn to drugs, booze, and sex as a way out. Fact is, those are no ways out, they are road blocks and in some cases life enders. They are also choices, things that the 'victims' never, ever want to admit. Then you have the 'enablers' as well. These are the people who may recognize that people are victims of their own choices and decisions, but ask the question of "now what?" Do we throw these people away, or do we help them come back? That is indeed a complex question that these 'victims' have made even more so over the years as the vast majority have either abused or misused or turned away what help has been offered. Their perpetual cycles of self-destruction leave those of us who are politically and culturally in the center and on the right throwing up our hands in frustration. But there is no stopping those on the left and their continued romance with the 'victims', and this is the eloquent target of Ann Coulter's "Guilty" work. Coulter's previous books are an endless barrage of clever quips, elegant prose, and sometimes over-the-top comments against all that is Left. In "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" she looks closely at the crimes and immorality of the Clinton White House. In "Slander" she points out the attacks on conservatism by the left-controlled former mainstream media, and highlights the lies they perpetuate. In "Treason" she shows how liberalism has consistently undermined traditional American values in recent decades. In "How to Talk to a Liberal" she speaks their language in a way that only a conservative could love. In "Godless", Coulter hits hard in defending one of the left's biggest targets - God Himself - and takes on their own church-like causes. "If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans" is a strong political statement for conservative causes highlighting the pure lack of common sense in liberalism. This new work in "Guilty" is another in this incomparable string of modern conservative political and cultural thought. As with all other Coulter works it both sings and bites, sometimes in the same paragraph. Ann Coulter was born just three weeks after me, so maybe there was something in the air or water here in the northeastern United States back then. I find her extremely attractive, humorous, and articulate, and I challenge anyone who believes they are in the 'center' politically to actually fully read a couple of her books, especially "Godless" and "How to Talk to a Liberal", and see if you still feel that way afterwards. Try to point out instances where Coulter goes over some imaginary 'line' in her descriptions of certain people or circumstances, and you will find them easily. Try to find instances where Coulter actually lies about something and your job will be impossible. Ann Coulter's critics charge her with being ultra-right win in her orthodoxy and approach, and to that I say, and she would undoubtedly be proud to say, that she is guilty as charged.

Welcome to Diversity Lane

A couple of weeks back, I was approached by the developer of a new editorial comic series in regards to possibly incorporating their artistic, comedic, and social commentary efforts here at my website. Zack Rawsthorne is the creator of 'Diversity Lane: A Liberal Family Saga' presented as editorial cartoons and with further graphics and audio at the website http://www.diversitylane.com/. As Rawsthorne explains, 'Diversity Lane' "chronicles the chaotic lives of an American family fully engulfed in modern liberalism. As such, they are self-destructive, tormented, and a menace to society - a kind of modern-day Addams Family in a never-ending battle with common sense." It stars little Diversity, the 8-year old daughter of Allison and Alex Lane, who somehow has thus far managed to remain 'normal' despite the liberal chaos all around her. Poor little Diversity has even been called racist for preferring white bread. Her little 6-year old brother Jayson has never been exposed to the good in America, but is instead also bombarded by mom and dad's far-left mantras. These two defenseless children are being indoctrinated by their mommy and daddy, or at least mom and dad are trying their best to get the kids batting lefty. Dad is Alex Lane, an ACLU lawyer who still thinks that Che Guevara is someone to be admired even now, a quarter century after graduating from college. The mom is Allison, a 4th-grade teacher who is described as 'a walking lexicon of PC terminology'. Allison is also a lesbian, and has both current and ex-girlfriends in the series. Mom's ex-girlfriend, Sierra, is a Woodstock throwback, global warming alarmist, and a Wiccan. Her current girlfriend, Devon, is the quintessential angry intellectual lesbian, and is constantly either in or out of therapy. Not only does Alex put up with all of this, he encourages it, and poor little Diversity isn't even sure of which of her "mommy's" is the real birth mother of her brother Jayson. What a mess, huh? Not when you are dealing with ultra-liberals, because this is their life. Rawsthorne presents it with intelligent, biting humor and sarcasm, often through the eyes of one bright, young, and still somewhat innocent little girl who unfortunately has a particularly heavy sociological crutch to bear with her family unit. I am happy to add the editorial comic series 'Diversity Lane' as a regular feature of the website, which will appear just below these main blog story entries and will be updated approximately once per week on the weekends. You can always reach the 'Diversity Lane' website by clicking directly on the comic as well.

Economic turmoil impacts Liberal Party

Bad News Kids. Looks like we may lose the house.

.

Economic turmoil impacts Liberal Party

Bad News Kids. Looks like we may lose the house.

.