How the Left has Forfeited the Democrats’ Right to Political Power

Politics of Division

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” ―Sen Lindsey Graham. This fiery rant from a normally mild-mannered senator crystallized for many on the right their thoughts on the Democrats’ unbridled lust for political power at seemingly any expense.

It used to be “which party has the better ideas”, now it’s “which party deserves political power”. That’s the question we must ask ourselves this November. Do we reward the Party that represents the Leftist ideology, one that is obsessed with race, sexual orientation, and power, or the one that represents people who believe in limited government power, and are not obsessed with dividing Americans into grievance groups? Do we give power to those who make outlandish claims of being stripped of their rights, while exercising those same, exact rights? Should people who don’t believe in the fundamental legal tenant that everyone is innocent until proven guilty control the courts? Should a party aligned with people who chant “What do we want? Dead cops! And when do we want them? Now!” be in charge of the nation’s law enforcement apparatus?

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system in the history of the world. Socialism and communism have killed over 100 million people in the last hundred years and have destroyed the economies of many a nation. Socialists should not be given more economic power.

The U.S. Military has been a force for good for over two hundred years, freeing oppressed people in every corner of the globe. People who would diminish its might should not be given more power.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” People obsessed with the color of people’s skin and not the content of their character should not be given political power.

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington Groups like Antifa are for taking away free speech hoping to accomplish just this.  They are modern-day fascists. Those who support them either actively or passively by their silence should not be given power. The mob should not be given power.

The United States is an exceptional nation. Though imperfect, it has overcome its original sin of slavery to become a beacon of freedom for oppressed people around the world.  Its people have achieved some of the greatest military, humanitarian, and technological achievements in the history of the world. It is still the only nation to have sent humans to the moon. From building the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, and rebuilding Europe after WWII, Americans have literally changed the world. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world, contributing more to charity than any other country. People who don’t believe in American exceptionalism should not be given more political power.

It used to be that both the major parties, Republicans and Democrats both wanted to do what is best for America within the framework of the Constitution and guided by the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. They only varied on how best to accomplish this and how fast a pace we should take in changing things. In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that the Democrat party lead by a small but exceedingly vocal minority of leftists has abandoned those common values and replaced them with ones foreign to our shores, and diametrically opposed to those of our Founding Fathers. They have contempt for the basic tenets of our democratic republic namely, free speech, free trade, nonviolent protests, and the rule of law. Some of the party leaders give tacit approval of mob violence to change policy, while others have explicitly called for incivility. That party, having strayed so far from the moral, economic, and legal principals that make up the norms of a Judaeo-Christian, capitalist, libertarian nation has forfeited its authority under those principals to govern.

Advertisements

A tough job Americans will do.

 

JP Mac’s Armed Forces Day Rant:

This we'll defend colorWe hear all the time in seems about tough jobs that supposedly, American’s won’t do.  I don’t believe it, mainly because I’ve worked in several of those jobs myself. Thank God there is one really tough job that for centuries, so far enough Americans have wanted to do.  One where the pay and living conditions aren’t always the best, one that calls for huge sacrifices on the part of those who volunteer to do it and their families:  Serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Americans are supposedly too soft to do some jobs.  No American would take a job filling sandbags in 110 degree heat, right?  Surely no one living in the greatest nation in world history would slog through a mosquito infested swamp, walk for half a day though the forest, or climb a mountain just to get to the job-site.  Who from this country would choose a job that makes you long for things things like warm food, hot water, a bed?  Of course no self -respecting, video game playing, social media obsessed American would ever want to stay out in sub-freezing weather for hours watching an empty field or patch of sea right?  Yet somehow for generations, by the tens of thousands, Americans have volunteered to for jobs that entail doing all of these things and more– and by the way, sometimes while people are trying hard to kill them.

Thank God for such men and women.  For some reason,  (rarely the great pay) they have decided to, at least temporarily, forgo many of comforts that come with so many other jobs.  For some, it’s the promise of adventure, or having that “hero” switch, or protector gene.  Other just want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It may be that they realize that they live in a country– more that many others, that is worth fighting for. They, in put the ‘exceptionalism’ in American Exceptionalism.  Whatever the reason, these men and women have chosen a vocation that routinely requires sacrifice, sometime of the ultimate kind.  That is why today is their day, a day for them to be proud, and the rest of America to be proud of them.

Thank you!

-JP Mac

 

 

Time to rant again.

No laptop today, so no long, well thought out article.  Instead, random thoughts on the situation in Europe.  Maybe a few discussion topics to boot.  So here goes:

Obama just can’t resist belittling those he disagrees with.  I guess he’s given up on trying to sound like a statesman.  I would pay good money to see him debate Ted Cruz on the refugee issue.  Pay per view guys?

Speaking of refugees, since when is it wrong to actually vet refugees who came from a part of the world controlled by people who want to kill us?  Why does it make sense to commit to taking in a specific number of people?  Would it not make sense to say only the maximum number of refugees we’ll take in, like maybe the first ten thousand that can be properly vetted?  It doesn’t matter how many we can take in, it’s how many up to a certain number that we can trust  walking our streets.

After Paris, we find  ourselves at a crossroads.  We have to decide whether  to  lead, follow, or get out of the way.  The only choice that does not lead to our humiliation is leading.  If we allow Russia to lead, we’ll  have to be willing to do things their way.  Their way is the heavy hand. We might call it “winning ugly”, they just call it winning.

USA Behind France Ally
Vive la France!

Maybe we don’t  have to become Russia, but if France is willing  to bomb a target, we should be willing also.  We won’t  win if we’re not wiling to get our hands dirty.

First and foremost, we need to commit to defeating, not containing, but defeating ISIL.  A good way to do that would be a good old-fashioned  declaration of war.  Once you make such a clear statement of intent, there is no going  back, you have to follow up by taking massive action.  While we’re declaring war, we should invoke article five of the NATO treaty. Certainly all the criteria have been met with the Paris attacks.

Maybe you have different ideas, maybe you’d like to vent in your own special, literary way.  Maybe you agree with most or all on this page.   Hopefully though,  you’re not indifferent.

 

 

 

Let’s have a discussion about “national discussions”.

It seems like every time America experiences a traumatic incident such as the shootings in South Carolina, every time there is an important political decision to be made, every time we face any difficult situation of any sort there is one constant, an increasingly predictable response on the part of our leaders and their supporters.  The President has called for them, the press demands them, politicians propose them.  We bloggers fancy that we engage in them, they’re called ‘national discussions’, and the concept is so overused as to be almost meaningless.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have national discussions, it’s just that the phrase itself has become so tired as to become meaningless.  Sometimes it is a subtle sign of in intellectually impoverished argument.  If you can’t prove your point, call for a discussion on it. Pundits and politicians sometimes call for them as a substitute for real action, as if a problem could just be talked to death. We were supposed to have a ‘national discussion’ about gun control after the massacre in Charleston, race relations after Ferguson, and so on.

What if I wanted to have a national discussion on climate change?  If my position is that the whole thing is an overblown scare campaign meant as an excuse to redistribute wealth, will I be engaged in a substantive way, or will I be called a “Flat-earther” and roundly condemned.  What kind of discussion is that?  If in the interest of engaging in a national discussion on gay marriage I were to simply suggest that such a thing at very least would require us to alter our definition of the term, even if I don’t stake a position on its actual morality, I’d almost certainly be called a bigot or homophobe.

And just how do we have them?  Blogs?  Social media?  Can a meaningful conversation be held in 150 character increments?  How much is actual discussion and how much of it is just collective monologue.  Even this essay is a monologue, until someone comments on it.

Much preferable in my opinion would be to bring back national declarations.  Imagine a president or other leader truly speaking on our behalf.  It’s been done before; Churchill throughout WWII, Kennedy stating we would land a man on the moon within a decade, Dr. Martin Luther KIng’s “I have a dream” speech.  Imagine an American president declaring we will send astronauts to Mars within the next fifteen years.  What if our president were to declare that ISIS would be defeated before he leaves office, whatever it took.  How great would it be to hear Israel would be supported in plain, unequivocal, non-apologetic language.  Even Khrushchev said “we will bury you”.  thankfully he was wrong, but I bet he didn’t call for a national discussion.  Reagan didn’t call for a national dialogue on the merits of the Iron Curtin, he called instead for Mr. Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall!”  If your principles are clear and your values not muddled, you can say that sort of thing.

We can have a dialogue on some things.  Sometimes meaningful debate is the only way to come upon a solution, our Constitution was the subject to great debate. On some issues though, we ought to be able to easily forego discussion and resolve to speak with one voice.  We don’t need to discuss the merits of banishing ISIS from the earth, we just need to decide to do it.  When our leaders do call for a national discussion on something, they should be prepared to listen to the other side and not attempt to marginalize them. Don’t call for discussion when you really mean monologue.  Don’t confuse talk for real action.

That’s my opinion, OK go ahead and discuss!