As a companion to the earlier post, I was thinking about my memories of JFK and Ronald Reagan.  Specifically, the pride I felt in America and a sense of hope for the future.

How is this different than what we see with Barack Obama?  I think of it as a matter of style over substance.  With JFK and Reagan, there were specific reasons and policies that engendered those good feelings.  Based in reality, they were healthy and developmentally sound.

I don't get the same feeling when I hear Obama.  He's a nanny-stater who has not been very specific in what his vision of the future might be, other than Hope and Change.  The Democratic nomination is (IMHO) still very much up for grabs.  Obama has an almost cultish following with swooning fans.  Hillary has a political machine and a "scorched-Earth" mentality that historically she has used without compunction.

This is Democratic Party politics at its finest.  Identity trumps platform, race and gender are more significant than policy.  "Chickens coming home to roost" is the order of the day and there will be screeching no matter who comes out on top.  If leaving the Republican Party was preferable to supporting a candidate that I can't trust, why would I even consider a political philosophy that is anathema to me?

I've mentioned to my parents more than once, "This is not the Democratic Party you grew up with."  I'm glad to say that they're starting to see the light.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 19:19:19 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Since the National Elections in 2000, has there been any election in the world that has escaped accusations of corruption?  In Mexico, Pakistan, the former Soviet Republic in Georgia, Iraq, Armenia, Russia, Kenya, our own elections in 2004 and 2006, among many others, there have been accompanying cries of “foul”.  While a few accusations may appear credible (or at least sincere), most accusations of fraud or corruption seem to be made without a shred of evidence.  Sometimes these accusations even come before the actual election.  Is this becoming standard practice just because the losing side wants to disrupt or discredit the results?  Do they hope to win concessions from the winners or the courts?  Or is there something more?

Two major systems that hate democracy are the Socialists and the Radical Islamists.  Both are failed systems that promote misery and consolidate power in a select few who have no regard for the freedoms of others.  Is it possible that one (or both) of these groups routinely contest election results in order to undermine democracy as a system?  I believe this is already happening. 

After creating controversy where none rightly exists, Socialists and Radical Islamists then point to that manufactured controversy as proof that Democracy is unworkable.  The other thing we keep seeing is attacks on voters during elections.  Terror, death, and discord all to undermine Democracy.  We will see more and more of all this over the next few years as they continue to attack our government and way of life.  The Socialist and Islamic Radical systems cannot outperform Democracy at any level.  They can only try to tear it down hoping to fill the resulting power vacuum.  Creating discord and lowering confidence in the Democratic process is just one more way of attacking their much-stronger enemies… us.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01:27:00 | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.

Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness," makes the case for extreme liberalism being a mental disorder.

I have no problem with that.

Via The Jawa Report

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 18:27:00 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.