Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts

24 January 2009

The Real Problem with Liberals

I went to a restaurant the other day and was amused to find a car parked in a No Parking zone right on the curb in front of the eatery. Now, normally, I would be more irate than amused because I parked out in the parking lot, like we are all supposed to do. But, on this occasion I was amused because of what I saw on the car bumper and what it REALLY represents in the new, exciting, rarified atmosphere of American life and politics today.

You see, it was all okay because the car had an “OBAMA ‘08” bumper sticker.

Now, all through the campaign we heard all about “change” and that the days of “politics as usual” were over. I might have to assume that “change” meant the small metal pieces of money jangling in my pocket, and that “politics as usual” meant politics with Republicans in charge. Because, so far, what I have seen is standard operating procedure for liberals and Democrats. And this was never brought home so forcefully to me as when I saw that car parked in the No Parking zone.

I have been on this Earth nearly half-a-century. I still have a thirst for knowledge that rivals my curiosity as when I was a three-year-old. I still want to know and understand why things work and how they work. And in my time on this planet and all the inquiry I have made I have seen things and questioned and analyzed them over and over. And as I grow and grow older, one thing is painfully obvious. In the liberal world in which we live, liberals make laws and rules for everyone but themselves.

You may find that curious, but it angers me when the body of evidence increases daily. Now, while these sorts of things have a long history for liberals and democrats, the opposite is equally long on the conservative side. I will note only some of the most recent evidence to build my case, but they are stark and scream of a double standard.

The first example is Senatress Hillary Clinton’s cakewalk hearing in the Senate for her nomination as the Secretary of State for the incoming Obama administration. Clinton has a long list and litany of questionable issues that truly do make one wonder as to her ability to properly function as a true, unbiased representative of the United States. She and her husband’s myriad contacts and dealings with foreign nations having to do with MILLIONS of dollars going into their pockets and the pockets of their pet projects would quickly, undoubtedly and firmly derail any conservative in a similar circumstance. That nominee would be in the pocket of evil, Arab, oil barons.

Then there is Timothy Geithner, the man that President Obama wants for the new Secretary of the Treasury. This man blatantly evaded paying taxes, despite being told that by his employer, AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, that he was required to do so. He finally paid up when he learned he might be able to get a plumb political appointment. Would a non-liberal still be on the list? Much lesser things destroyed the nominations of Reagan and both Bush’s nominees.

New York 15th District Representative Charlie Rangel, a Democrat, after years of outrageous conduct and race-baiting, is suddenly found to have failed to report rental income on a beach house in the Dominican Republic, or even pay taxes on the income. He also claims to be living in at least three government-funded, rent-subsidized apartments in New York City, all while also claiming his primary home in Washington, DC for tax purposes. Additionally, he allegedly used congressional stationery to solicit donors for a City College public policy institute in his name, along with other alleged problems. Conversely, Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho was caught apparently attempting to solicit gay sex in a public bathroom. According to liberals, there is apparently nothing wrong with being gay. But, if you are Republican, conservative, white and gay, then there is a problem. He was skewered in the press and resigned. Rangel is still in congress, and has yet to be skewered by anyone in the press.

Bill Clinton pardoned felon Mark Rich. When all the truth came out, mostly that Rich had given money to certain Democrats, Clinton worked hard to explain it away. President George W. Bush on the other hand revoked a pardon he issued to Isaac Robert Toussie, whose father had donated money to certain Republicans. Bush REVOKED the pardon. Democrat patron Rich is no longer a felon. Toussie, whose father is a Republican patron, is still a felon.

Now that Barack Obama is the new president he promptly signed a new order establishing incredibly high standards for lobbying and government service. He then just as promptly was forced to consider a waiver for William J. Lynn III as the proposed Assistant Secretary of Defense. Were the standards just impossibly high? Perhaps, but more to the point, the idea that the new rule can be waived for a liberal administration.

Remember, liberal rules are really for non-liberals.

It would seem that liberals believe, with all their heart, that non-liberals (Republicans, conservatives, Christians, whatever they may be called) are evil, must be curbed and need rules. Liberals, on the other hand, don’t need such rules. They are kind, loving, good people who only want what is best.

So, if one of them breaks a little rule, like say parking in a No Parking zone or evading taxes that we must believe he really wanted to pay all along, it’s really okay. Really. It is. So, I guess I really should still be more amused than irate.

So how come I’m not?

30 June 2008

Could Obama Hurt Race Relations?

So, Barack Obama is the candidate of choice of the Democratic Party. All during the Democratic primary season, all I could think of was that the choices that the party had were unequivocated Evil (Hillary Clinton) and complete, total Naiveté (Obama). It’s a scary scenario, but what can you expect of a party that foisted the new Narcissus on America sixteen years ago?

Now a note on how I was raised. My father and mother were both Southerners born and bred. They came from a generation that still believed in the dignity, courage and righteousness of the Confederacy, and that believed blacks were a severe problem. Incredibly, though, my parents raised their three offspring that ALL people should be judged by nothing except their actions and character. I never heard them utter a single racist profanity during the time I was in their home, and was frankly surprised (maybe I was just naïve) at some of the actions I saw fellow Whites perform when I went to college.

It excited me to see General Colin Powell, a black man, become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because it showed me that Mom & Dad were right. And it distresses me to no end when we are continually bombarded today when such “firsts” as the recently-installed Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court being a black woman is considered newsworthy by the media. Why should it be? This is America, and the best person for the job should be placed in that job. Why should race be an issue today?

But, that is what has me worried. Barack Obama could very well become President of the United States. Yes, he is half-black (though in our Liberal nation that means he is “really” fully black), and he is considered by the Democrats to be the best person for the position. And that is part and parcel of what I find frightening. Why? you may ask.

Barack Obama is completely unprepared to perform the job. Except for less than one six-year term in the Senate, all his political background is local and populist. He has no military, foreign policy, administrative, or commercial experience of which to speak, except for “bringing home” the troops in Iraq. This does not bode well for a nation that leads the World in all those categories. Like President Jimmy Carter in 1980, he is running on nothing but rhetoric and sound bites. He has yet to elucidate a single sound policy on any issue, except to say that he will change America.

So, the problem? Every politician today touts “change.” And that is quite alright, though I’m pretty sure that “change” really means more of the same. What worries me is that a naïve populist, having not a single solid policy, being a “minority,” could be just as bad as President Carter and truly set back race relations in America twenty-to-thirty years.

A poor presidency by this man and you could have every racist kook and nutcase, egged on by a media who truly cares less about integrity than winning awards that they bestow upon themselves, gain some legitimacy and point to race as a factor. Can you see the next presidential race with a black candidate, regardless of party, being boiled down to what Obama did? That is not what America needs. It's not a good thing for our nation. What America needs is a capable, effective leader, regardless of race, who has vision, policies, moral integrity and the knowledge to do what the nation requires.

And I’m afraid Obama can’t do that today.