"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Thursday, January 28, 2010

They Don't Know How to do Anything Else

Oh, great: Now it's $8 billion in "stimulus" money for "high-speed rail," for which there is no market. Have these socialists ever heard of Amtrak? Hmmm. . . query for you: Does AMTRAK compete with private rail systems? Oh, and don't forget force-funneling money to private banks so they can lend it to small business. Why do we need an incompetent, wasteful government as a middle-man? These guys only know one way to operate: Tax money away from the productive sectors of society, launder it through their union-organized bureaucracy, then pay it out to favored, wasteful sectors, which inevitably become money pits. Of course, they'd rather die than cut taxes on the same small businesses they profess to want to help. Let's hope people don't buy this nonsense any more than they buy health care "reform."

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

How conservative?

I will rain - just a little bit - on the Scott Brown parade.

I find it interesting and telling that in his victory remarks (and for that matter, throughout his campaign), he has emphasized the "independent majority" in Massachusetts. That appeal obviously proved to be very smart and effective politics.

To be sure, Brown's positions sound to me like they classify him as more conservative than otherwise - at least on fiscal and security matters. But it's my guess that you're not going to see him appearing on the same platform with Sarah Palin, not buddying around with Glen Beck and Rush. He will keep a arm's length from movement Conservatives; he won't do anything to alienate them, but won't want to seen to be associated with them too closely, either.

He's tapped into a potent political force - that independent majority - and I expect he'll work that angle pretty vigorously.

He may be a guy on the white horse, in other words.

No media bias, no, none.

I find it fascinating that the lead story this morning on CNN.com reads, "Democrats distanced themselves from Martha Coakley, and blamed her lackluster campaign for her stunning loss in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts." Scott Brown's name cannot even be found on the home page. So if I have this right, the real story this morning is that Coakley blew it, not that Brown won it. That is such typical liberal spin. It had nothing to do with what the candidates stood for, but only which candidate ran the worst campaign. I think everyone in Massachusettes knew exactly what both candidates stood for and if they didn't before, they certainly did after our articulate president's visit on Sunday. I mean, once the teleprompter has spoken, everything is made clear, is it not.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Legislative Process

Our congress at work...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8

This clip causes me to feel embarrassed to live in Pennsylvania, home state of the lead character in this pathetic display.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Full-body scanners?

In light of the terrorist threat, what should the Conservative position be concerning the use of these full-body scanners at airports and elsewhere? How do we maintain consistency in our values yet protect ourselves as best as possible from terrorism?

Monday, January 4, 2010

A Liberal by any Other Name…

[Note: This piece was written by my good friend, Christian D. Malesic. Brian.]

Those on the Left side of the political spectrum have always wrestled with labels, wearing them proudly until they become dirty words and then throwing them quickly to the curb. Nonetheless, in order to communicate with one another, our language needs a term that describes the political views of those who oppose the Conservatives of the Right.

Historically speaking, they were ‘Progressives’ then ‘Liberals’ now they want to be ‘Progressives’ again. Around the start of the 20th century (circa 1900), the term Progressive came into popularity and common use. It was used proudly by many on the left to describe their political ideology until sometime in the 1940s when it began to fade away. Essentially, the Progressives themselves showed the American public what it was that a Progressive believed through President Woodrow Wilson’s anti-Capitalism and pro-Socialism stances on to which President Franklin D. Roosevelt placed an exclamation point with his New Deal.

As politics played out in the ‘40s and early ‘50s it was clear that the term ‘Progressive’ invoked negative thoughts in the minds of the public. Meanwhile, the word ‘liberal’, derived from the Latin word liberalis, had been floating around since at least the 14th century and carried with it a very positive meaning. Before the 1960s, in very simple layman’s terms the common usage of ‘liberal’ meant “free from restraint to study, to think, to speak” as in ‘Liberal Arts Degree’. As the 1960s came into full swing, the American Leftists stole the term ‘Liberal’ to describe themselves, knowing full well that they stood for the exact opposite of the freedom that the word ‘liberal’ represented. They then allowed ‘Progressive’ to die a slow death.

It didn’t take long for the common man to realize that a Liberal was a re-packaged Progressive who stood against the values and historical traditions that made America great. President Lyndon Johnson made that message clear with his Great Society, forever ruining the term Liberal.

In the last few decades, ‘Liberal’ became the “L-word” and politicians ran from the label as fast as their doublespeak could carry them. They were a political ideology without a name. Often they would don their most sheepish face and attempt to ask innocently “why do we have to use labels at all.” Conservatives continued to call them Liberals, not understanding that the word had become a modern day insult. After all, Conservatives were proud of their label and the principles & values that their label represented.

On 23 Jul 07, then Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton let out the battle cry heard around the world – we will begin to re-use the term ‘Progressive’ to define ourselves – in the CNN-YouTube Democratic Debate. In her words, when asked straight up, “How would you define the word ‘liberal’ and would you use this word to define yourself?” she replied, “… I prefer the word ‘progressive’ which has a real American meaning going back to the Progressive Era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a Modern Progressive…”

So there it is! A Progressive is a Liberal is a Progressive again. But, since the Left would have you forget history and the words of our Founding Fathers, they don’t want you to make that connection. Somehow, they want you to think that they are not Liberal which is seen as a bad word. They are something different - Progressives, a new and good word. Sure, we may argue the differences between a Mallard and a Pochard in a college classroom; but, to many of us common folk out here – If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

We’ll just call them Liberal Progressives so that everyone clearly makes the connection.

[Christian D. Malesic holds Bachelors degrees in Political Science and Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University and Business Management from Elizabethtown College. He currently serves the citizens of the Central Dauphin (Pa.) School District as the President of the School Board. He is the President and CEO of CM Squared, Inc., an electrical contracting firm.]