Four years ago, the Democrat Party tried to sell the American people a candidate that they said was better able to conduct a war than President Bush. They presented John F. Kerry as an American hero, a veteran of distinguished service who would not only bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but would fight a smarter, more effective war on terror.
The American people almost bought it. But, despite more unfounded claims of voter fraud and ‘disenfranchisement’, the Democrats lost, again, to George W. Bush, a man they have claimed is too stupid to be entrusted with leading this country, yet apparently smart enough to defeat them every time they try to stop him.
But the Democrats had some success, winning enough seats in Congress to give them hope that they could gain control of both Houses in the next election. In the interim, they created enough political turmoil to hinder the war effort, frighten the public with doom and gloom environmental claims, and discourage the people about the economy. Those tactics worked, and the Democrats did indeed win control of both Houses, promising to do all those things that Mr. Kerry was never given the chance to do.
Unfortunately, the Democrats only proved themselves incapable of living up to their promises; they were unable to pass any meaningful legislation, which resulted in the most ineffectual congressional year in recent memory. As a result, the Democrats are looking to ‘change’ whatever it is they believe is broken in America, with presidential aspirants promising ‘change’. They’ve yet to define what is broken, but they promise a lot of ‘changes’. Of course, it’s not their Congress that is broken, so it must be something else.
Is the war on terror broken? How can it be, as we haven’t had a foreign terrorist attack executed on American soil since 9/11? Apparently, the Democrats way of changing the war on terror is to deny that such a war exist; they no longer speak of it, they don’t seem to think it’s important anymore.
Are the battles in Iraq or Afghanistan failing? At one time, yes, when the Democrats were in their most vocal and irrational state, gleefully documenting every death of an American soldier in Iraq, preaching for an exit strategy to run away from the fight, and making daily claims of the President’s failure to conduct the war properly. President Bush’s response, finally, was to send to Iraq more troops. After successfully disabling the networks of terror operating in Iraq, only a reversal of our effort could destroy the impending liberation of Iraq from the terrorists’ presence. Is that the kind of change the Democrats propose?
Neither Mrs. Clinton’s nor Mr. Obama’s lack of experience in the military is worth mentioning to the Democrats, just four years after it was of vital importance in the John F. Kerry campaign effort. But how can that be? If George Bush’s lack of military experience led to his mishandling of the war, how can we expect either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama to do any better? One can only assume that their intention is once again to run from the fight, abandon Iraq to the terrorists and flee from the war on terror. You know, that war that doesn’t exist anymore, except in the small minds of the conservatives who don’t know anything about war.
Being unable to convince America that they are capable of waging war (in fact virtually proving the historical fact that they cannot), they have returned to the fear-mongering of classic liberal programs: Health care, political, business and industrial complex corruption, class envy, and education. (They’ve tried to avoid race, but now find themselves bickering amongst themselves over it; as Mr. Obama has proven a threat to Mrs. Clinton, they have been unable to conceal their own prejudices from the American public, and resorted to sniping at each other, essentially about who better understands the needs of the average black American.) No specifics are given as to the changes they will make, other than proposals that will require increasing taxes, hinder business and development, and weaken the nation’s military, but a lot of promises to ‘change’ things.
But what exactly are they hoping to change? Their solution to corruption in the private sector is to increase taxes, increase regulation, and punish violators out of existence with the threat of government control. For education, it’s more of the same programs that destroyed our education system during the previous forty years the Democrats controlled the Congress. To enforce equality, they propose increasing the taxes on the rich individuals and businesses without being honest with the people that such increases will be passed on to them in the form of higher cost. This is not ‘change’ for them, it’s the same concepts they’ve lied about for decades.
They want universal health care for all Americans. Why? There is no Constitutional right to a healthy life. Our Declaration of Independence holds that people have the right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, but there is no Constitutional guarantees that your life will be happy, or that what you envision happiness to be will ever be achieved by you. And certainly there are no promises of the government providing it for you.
But, if there were, how will Democrats continue to grant women the ‘right’ to an abortion, particularly after the life inside her becomes viable outside the womb. Consider this; we have a legal system in which every person is guaranteed legal representation. With a universal healthcare system operated by the government, it is entirely conceivable that any attempt to abort a child could be stopped by the necessity that legal counsel be present in order to protect the human and civil rights of the potential person.
Where will the right to individual liberty go if the government has a data base of every physical ailment or affliction the individual might have at one time suffered from? The Democrats have made the enactment of the Patriot Act sound like the first step towards a fascist state in America, yet they see no problem with the government knowing, or at least having access to, the most intimate details of every American’s life. They seem incapable of conceiving thoughts on how such information could be abused by a government in complete control of every aspect of their lives, yet monitoring terrorist activities somehow violates their freedom.
How can someone be free to pursue a happy life if they are unable to improve their financial status because of a government that confiscates their earnings to provide universal healthcare and other government programs to those who cannot or will not provide for themselves? Clearly, as raising taxes is the standard solution to all problems, the Democrats have no real concern for how one might pursue happiness, or whether one even has the opportunity to.
What the Democrats speak of is not ‘change’, but ‘hope’ for change. They want the people to believe in their hopes for a better America, when in reality, their ‘hope’ is to be given the power once again, and that is the only ‘change’ they care about… nothing else matters to them.
marantAZ on Jan 15
Four years ago, the Democrat Party tried to sell the American people a candidate that they said was better able to conduct a war than President Bush. They presented John F. Kerry as an American hero, a veteran of distinguished service who would not only bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but would fight a smarter, more effective war on terror.
Neither Mrs. Clinton’s nor Mr. Obama’s lack of experience in the military is worth mentioning to the Democrats, just four years after it was of vital importance in the John F. Kerry campaign effort. But how can that be? If George Bush’s lack of military experience led to his mishandling of the war, how can we expect either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama to do any better? One can only assume that their intention is once again to run from the fight, abandon Iraq to the terrorists and flee from the war on terror. You know, that war that doesn’t exist anymore, except in the small minds of the conservatives who don’t know anything about war.
They want universal health care for all Americans. Why? There is no Constitutional right to a healthy life. Our Declaration of Independence holds that people have the right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, but there is no Constitutional guarantees that your life will be happy, or that what you envision happiness to be will ever be achieved by you. And certainly there are no promises of the government providing it for you.
Where will the right to individual liberty go if the government has a data base of every physical ailment or affliction the individual might have at one time suffered from? The Democrats have made the enactment of the Patriot Act sound like the first step towards a fascist state in America, yet they see no problem with the government knowing, or at least having access to, the most intimate details of every American’s life. They seem incapable of conceiving thoughts on how such information could be abused by a government in complete control of every aspect of their lives, yet monitoring terrorist activities somehow violates their freedom.
How can someone be free to pursue a happy life if they are unable to improve their financial status because of a government that confiscates their earnings to provide universal healthcare and other government programs to those who cannot or will not provide for themselves? Clearly, as raising taxes is the standard solution to all problems, the Democrats have no real concern for how one might pursue happiness, or whether one even has the opportunity to.