The Quiet Conservative April 15, 2008
Selling Yourself Short
When a presidential candidate felt comfortable with like minded people he let his guard down. Mr.
Obama gave a peek behind the curtain to show his elitist disdain for the people in fly over country
with his most recent gaff: "it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a
way to explain their frustrations."
Because the two sides of the mainstream press- liberals for Obama verses liberals for Clinton- are in
conflict, this story actually made the papers. Normally such a story would have been buried by
liberal editors covering for liberal candidates. When Senator Obama described people as bitter and
clinging to guns and religion and bigotry he wasn't talking about anything he had knowledge of. He
was talking about his own prejudice. Liberals don’t believe in the ‘little people‘. It is why they have
always assaulted the Second Amendment. It is why they want to swell government programs. They
want to be in charge. They want to be in charge of your lives. They want the power you could give
them and then they want to make sure you can never take it back. The press agrees with them. But
who to choose? There are two liberals duking it out in the primaries.
On the other side of the liberal press war we have the gaffs from Senator Clinton. Her dodging
sniper fire comments in an effort to pretend to have foreign policy experience landed with a thud on
the tarmac. Not to be dismayed, she bounced back by downing boilermakers in a Pennsylvania bar
while stating how much she is a gun loving God fearing down home kind of gal. Not bad for
someone who along with her disbarred husband has raked in over 100 million dollars in under eight
years. I’m sure it is all legit. Just as I’m sure she is quite comfortable with downing shots and
trading stock tips in a bar with the plumber from Scranton.
We have seen this fight before. If you study the history books there has been a similar match up.
It was between Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin. On one hand you have the popular socialist Trotsky
pushing forward on the popularist front, while Stalin had a well advanced administrative machine. In
the end it was the machine which was more effective. By the convention we will see which of the
modern American socialists will be triumphant. Will it also follow history’s script? And, make no
mistake, both Democrat candidates are socialists.
Taxes are raised to support a local, state, or national government so they may fulfill only those
needs of the common good that cannot be provided any other way. They are also the ones to
impartially impose laws of an ordered and just society. At least that was the plan. Limited
government held in check by the people. Instead, you have two competing modern philosophies
battling it out. One is the limited government and personal responsibility model made popular by
Reagan in the founding tradition. The other is the soak the rich and raise taxes and nationalize health
care model on the other side from the Marxist school. (08/02)
When you examine the candidates positions you find that Obama and Clinton are not fighting over
competing ideals. They aren't in opposition at all. They are fighting over who gets to implement the
philosophy they share. In the Trotsky and Stalin conflict, both believed in Communism and both
sought to crush the individual on behalf of the group. Stalin won with the more thuggish execution
of his plans. In modern American Socialism you have a centralized model promoted by Mrs. Clinton
verses the more chaotic Marxism of Obama. But neither wants you as the individual to have a
choice. Both candidates want to raise taxes and destroy the economy with income redistribution.
Both want to raid corporations and confiscate the money. (Before you cheer that little move you
might want to look at Venezuela and how that country went down the corporate raiding sewer.)
Both want to place government in charge of your lives from health care to energy.
Over the last seven years the pundits on the left have decried the loss of civil liberties from the
Patriot Act. Self righteous liberals have claimed that true patriotism is the protesting of the loss of
our liberties in listening in on terrorists who want to kill us. (02/22). However, these same people are
championing our march into the ranks of socialism where the individual takes a back seat to the
group. For you see, the people who promote this system always see themselves in charge of the
group.
Don’t sell yourself short. For every vote you punch on the ticket for progressive policies or liberal
candidates is a vote for less freedom. The government isn't taking away your liberties, you are
forming a line to turn them in! In Massachusetts there is mandatory health care. If you don’t sign
up, you are fined. Nationalize health care and you take away your choices of where to go and who
to see. Your daughter has an asthma attack? We can see her in six weeks. Need a hip replacement?
We can squeeze you in in six months. All hail the state. Vote for more control, more regulation,
more taxes, less business friendly energy policies; vote for less control over your life.
We can all agree to soak the rich though. That is sound economic policy isn't it? Or, is it? Put
yourself in a wealthy person’s custom designed loafers imported from Spain. Your state, say
Maryland or New York, just passed a tax especially to soak the rich. In New York they did it to
fund transportation. In Maryland they did it to make up a budget shortfall. Now, as a person who
can actually pull up stakes and move at will, that is exactly what you will do. The rich take their
money elsewhere. They take their businesses and revenues too. They even take them overseas.
Which state’s are growing? Which states are in good shape? Those with lower taxes and business
friendly environments. If you had a choice to stay where people around you voted to take your stuff
just because they wanted it, would you stay? And when they go, the need for the taxes remain.
When have you ever heard of a government reducing taxes outside of a Republican administration?
Speaking of which, what about the other side of the political philosophy, the one with limited
government? They don’t have a candidate in the race this year. Just like a complete absence from
the media outside of talk radio and FOX News, conservatives have abdicated the field. They have
told themselves they have lost. They, who should be the most vocal, have sold themselves short.
They are sitting it out and watching from the sidelines as the two socialists fight it out in the
primaries. Then they will go to the voting booth in the general election and vote for the Democrat
John McCain. At least he is a conservative Democrat.
So the question remains, will you sell yourself short? Will you vote for less control over your lives
and more taken from your paycheck? Will you seek to take from others simply because they have
more? Isn't that the philosophy of a parasite? Or will you stand for individual liberty, limited
government, and the pursuit of prosperity? Please, don't sell yourself short.