Daylite Sun Archived Commentaries

Rush Limbaugh - The Conservative
Vs.
Bill O'Reilly - The Crusader

Commentary for Monday 10/01/2007 Limbaugh vs O'Reilly

Rush Limbaugh: There are no pretenses about neutrality with Rush Limbaugh. He espouses the Conservative Viewpoint, not party affiliation. Although the Republican Party is the largest of the national political parties with a conservative bent, Rush doesn't hesitate to passionately decry any departure from Conservatism. Reminiscent of William Buckley's articulate style of deductive reasoning, Rush drives home his point(s) using logical reasoning that is backed up by demonstrably accurate research.

Optimistic: Rush is never dour. His optimism and well articulated views acts as both foil and shield for his listeners to use against the endless stream of pessimism from the left. The listening audience feeds off of Rush's optimism and humor.

Not a Crusader: Crusades are not for Rush. He believes that empowerment of the people with reason and knowledge will accomplish more than emotional tirades. Emotionalism is the tool of the left that brings together unreasoned mobs to demonstrate for causes about which they have little real understanding. Rush realizes that demonstrations are fodder for the "drive-by media" (A Rush Limbaugh coined phrase.) to exploit.

Uses Reason: Rush has painted a bull's-eye on the intellect of the American people. His decision to inform by reason rather than incite with clichés and unfounded declarations is what endears him to the millions that tune in everyday to listen.

Braggadocio: Although I find his name-dropping and bragging a bit boring, the substance of his shows overcome these negatives. The perception of his being a person needing the center stage to brag about his acquaintances or that exclusive golf outing may be just his way of saying "I have arrived". I am certainly no psychoanalyst, but these excursions of braggadocio are so minor that overlooking them comes easy. If I were in the same position as Rush, I'm sure I would want to crow about it.

Bill O'Reilly: Bill O'Reilly is an independent commentator, adroit at fence straddling for the purpose of feigning neutrality. He is a crusader for populist ideas with a real knack at ferreting out those occurrences that support his crusade du jour.

Stirs the Pot: Quick to put the spotlight on the more outrageous events of our society, O'Reilly is the consummate pot stirrer. His research staff occasionally leaves him out on a limb without any depth of understanding about the subject he is debating. At times he is brilliant in the one on ones with guest, and at other times, clearly demonstrates a lack of preparation for such encounters.

Still a Fan: That being said, I don't want to give the impression that I am not a fan of O'Reilly. Some of the subjects he takes up are important and should be aired. And for this, I give kudos to O'Reilly. Where we part company and profoundly disagree with Bill is with his declarations. Declarations based on nothing more than Bill's interpretation of "what-ought-to-be" and makes the assumption that whatever Bill O'Reilly thinks is the end of the discussion. Often his declarations are emotional and derived in part on Bill's feel for what his audience wants to hear. Bill doesn't make his declarations in a vacuum. He gets a lot of feedback and knows what works and what doesn't. This feedback gives Bill insight as to the thinking of his audience and he often shapes his delivery to play to his listeners.

Flying High: Bill O'Reilly doesn't have the same talent for articulating an issue when compared to a Rush Limbaugh. It is far easier to make declarations than to justify them. Bill's ratings and stature are high at Fox News. It is the belief here at Daylite Sun that O'Reilly has let his importance inflate his ego. Some of the pronouncements made by Bill assume that he believes he has power beyond being a commentator. But who knows, maybe the fires he lights will actually result in helping our society.

Floundering Democrats

Commentary for Tuesday 10/23/2007 Floundering Democrats

New Lows: In their desperate attempt to prevent a victory for the United States in Iraq, the Democrats have sought to drive a wedge between Turkey and the U.S. Since the Democrats do not have the political courage to propose defunding the war, they have resorted to the subterfuge of creating yet another roadblock to success by inflaming the Turks with a resolution of condemnation for a massacre that occurred nearly a hundred years ago.

The Turks: The Turks have every reason to be upset. What happened a hundred years ago was the action of a different Turkish Government. At the present, Turkey is a good and reliable ally who has embraced Democracy. The Turks do not need the negative connotations implied with this type of resolution. A resolution that doesn't distinguish this regime from the one that committed the atrocities, or tell the other side of the story about the many thousands of Turks killed by the Armenians is meant to insult modern day Turkey.

Timing: Then there is the matter of timing. The Dems knew that this resolution would inflame the Turks and possibly get them to stop their support for the U.S. in Iraq. Turkey allows us to use their country to help keep our troops supplied. A large part of the materials our troops use currently comes through Turkey and an interruption of that supply line would severely handicap our efforts there.

It is Clear: The Democratic base wants an immediate end to the war in Iraq. Their emotional desire makes no allowance for the consequences of our not achieving a peace on our terms. Such a myopic view of the world puts the U.S. in real trouble. As bad as this war is, leaving Iraq before the fledgling Iraqi Government is strong enough to defend itself would endanger this country from several fronts. Not the least is the possibility of what an energized Iran and a major victory for Al Qaeda would bring. Both Iran and Al Qaeda are religiously motivated and in the name of Allah would not hesitate to continue their assaults on their neighbors. Diplomacy is a Western tool for the peaceful coexistence between nations, but diplomacy is not a reliable tool that can be employed effectively in the Middle East.

A Winning Strategy: Failure for Al Qaeda in Iraq would be a devastating blow to them. As long as they were perceived as winning, they had no trouble in recruiting Jihadist to their cause. But failure begets failure. As we are successful with the surge strategy, the foreign Al Qaeda recruits have been drying up. Osama bin Laden is issuing desperate appeals for unity of the different Al Qaeda entities in Iraq. But as the news of failure spreads throughout the Arab world, there is less inclination to join in the effort.

Shame on the Democrats: Instead of ginning up a lot of damaging emotional support against the war, the Democrats should have taken a position of support, which would have enabled them to take some of the credit for a victory in Iraq. After all, it will be an American victory and not a Republican victory. The Democrats are in a position to be disgraced by their opposition to our efforts to bring stability to the Middle East. Their opposition has emboldened our enemies and created a much longer and costly war than was necessary. Giving the enemy hope that we might give up and leave enabled them to recruit and expand the war to what we see today. For shame!

The Republican Debates

Commentary for Tuesday 10/23/2007 The Republican Debates

Difficult Choice: Republicans everywhere are looking at this field of candidates. Most Republicans like this slate of candidates, contrary to the reports you hear. This slate of candidates is good. Republicans are faced with the difficult decision of choosing a single candidate to represent them in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. At the present, none of these candidates are overwhelming in the polls.

The Latest Debates: The latest Republican debate clearly demonstrated that the audience liked what they heard from all of the candidates. The perception of a candidate who can win in 2008 may be the only issue that creates unity among the voters.

Open Convention: The possibility exists that after the primaries; there will not be a consensus candidate. This situation does not reflect disenchantment about these candidates. The electorate actually likes this entire crop of presidential hopefuls. So many good candidates fragment the support that would normally go to a single person. The winning candidate will need 1230 delegates to win the party nomination, and with the republicans divided on the candidates, there is a good chance that there will be a floor fight for delegates at the upcoming convention.

Daylite Sun: Here at Daylite Sun, we have no problem supporting any of the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is more of a Libertarian than a Republican. Even though his positions are basically correct, they do not represent real world solutions to the problems we face as a nation.

Political Distractions

Commentary for Friday 10/11/2007 Political Distractions

Competing Ideologies: The pros and cons of Conservatism and Liberalism are never discussed as competing ideologies. Instead of a meeting of the minds between these competing political forces, we get distractions. Personal peccadilloes become the substance of the discussions. Just the fact that a member of a political party doesn't live up to public standards does not disqualify the ideology represented by the transgressor. Human failings come in all stripes and only represent a weakness of character for that particular individual.

The Low Road: The Liberals have adopted the philosophy of Saul Alinsky who advocated that the ends justify the means in the acquisition of power. Saul Alinsky wrote: "my aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it..." This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "...[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes." "that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments ... Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means."

Alinsky's Influence: Alinsky principally advocated usurping the power of the middle-class by whatever means available to radicals wanting to achieve power. The tactics advocated by Alinsky have become the model adopted by Democrats. Human failings are used against the Republicans to demoralize and discourage them from voting. Following Alinsky's strategy: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

No Defense: The Conservatives have no answer for these tactics. The erosion of Christianity has been disastrous to them. Although they advocate the 'high road', as individuals, they are a part of the culture that surrounds them and are as flawed from a character standpoint as the next person. Espousing high ideals and standards and living a private life contrary to those standards smacks of hypocrisy.

No More High Road? What is a Conservative to do? There are a lot of culturally repugnant activities that are becoming mainstream. Should the Conservatives just ignore them? Most people do not want to live in a cat box, and without some advocacy for decency, that is where we are heading.

All Around Us: Just take the time to look around at what is happening to our society. We now have to have police in schools, pornography is mainstream, business ethics are sorely lacking, we have very corrupt local governments, we have to live behind locked doors, and we can't hire enough police to keep the violence off our streets. There is a crisis in our schools because there is no discipline either in the schools or in the students' homes. Generally, there is no code of ethics being enforced. Liberals are against any type of moral judgmental declarations, preferring to rely on what ever is popular at the time with legislation. Passing laws piled on top of other laws is a recipe for the establishment of a Police State. Liberalism establishes no norms for the society to structure their lives by.

Police State? As improbable as it sounds, the police are going to be called upon to enforce whatever is popular and passed by the legislature at any given point in time. It's not just the legislators; there are the activist judges with their personal interpretations of the law. The morass of restrictions imposed on the society will affect everyone. Freedoms that you normally take for granted may no longer exist if the Liberals have their way. In the confusion, the only way to have order will be with the strong imposition of enforcement. Our society cannot exist in such chaos, and we as a people will become even more fractured. Eventually those fractures will become fissures and then the whole thing falls apart.

Dialogue: The distractions must come to an end and a real dialogue established between the competing forces. These distractions are so demoralizing that the disaffected party members are likely to stay home during the next election cycle. Running for president is not necessarily a statement of leadership. What the rank and file really wants is someone to step up to the plate and lead the party. Running these bland, milk toast candidates who can’t get out of their own way, and who are all over the board on the issues is a disaster in the making. Most GOP candidates are stuck defending their past, and as long as the party leaders think that name recognition is the golden ticket to success; the lesser-known candidates are shrugged off and given no chance.

Not Perfect: We have no opportunity to elect perfect people because they don't exist. All we can do is weed out the really stinky ones. Don't allow slander to side step the issues. Stay focused on those issues that the Conservatives hold dear. Allowing the distractions to become the issues is not way to beat the Liberals.
Robert Gross

Governing Rules of a Society

Commentary for Monday 09/24/2007 Society Rules

A Society: A voluntary association of individuals for common ends. An organized group working together because of common interests.

Government in Broad Terms: Servant and protector of the society. Settles differences between elements of the society, and enforces society's rules against incorrigibles. Government also enables the society to act as one, giving a singular voice to represent that society.

Religion In Broad Terms: Religion tends to the actions and morality of people. In the case of Christianity, paradise is offered to those who believe in Jesus and live a decent and moral life. Adherents to Christianity find comfort in their faith and strive for the peaceful negotiation of their lives with their eyes on the prize of eternal life. Christians are also taught to respect the Government. (Render unto Caesar)

Social Restraint: Rules are necessary to maintain a civil social structure. Lacks of personal restraint resulting in social upheavals are real. However, the evidence shows that when given a reason for behaving civilly, people do restrain themselves. The reference here is to the Christianized western cultures. Although the evidence is anecdotal, it is very convincing.

Absence of Christianity: Governing rules have to be present, even in a totally secular society. Enforcing rules, absent Christianity with its ability to reign in humanity's basic instincts, would take enough of the energy from that society to render it incapable of anything else. The loss of trust between the different segments of society would be enough to doom the experiment with a totally secularized society. Can you imagine the amount of policing it would take to prevent chaos in the United States without the voluntary adherence to the rules by Christians? Losing the glue that binds people to being good, would force the heavy hand of police enforcement to maintain the society. A police state would then result in a dictatorship. In a police state, whoever controls the police is in effect, a dictator. (After it is decided who is the strongest. Wars perhaps?)

Binding Society to Rules: The moral compass, provided by Christianity cannot be underestimated. It has always been the gods of our societies which formed the glue that held them together. Whether it was Ra, Odin, Zeus and his family, Mohammed, a panoply of Asian Gods, or Jesus Christ, they all served the function of providing the glue that binds that society to virtue and provides a commonality of worship. To my chagrin, the liberal establishment wants to discredit Christianity in this country. Why? Can't these people see that they offer nothing but harm to our society?

Keep What Works: Even with the supposition that Christianity isn't built on the firmest of foundations, the balance scales tips to the 'does more good' than harm side. Liberals offer nothing to replace the belief system. They can only throw stones at something that works. What individuals should do is support their church and add moral strength to the population, not participate in harmful rhetoric. However, I am unalterably opposed to a 'Theocratic' type of government. Government and religion should remain symbiotic, they have different functions.

Utopia: Ideally, if people had adequate self discipline, they could interact on their own recognizance, and there wouldn't be a problem. While I am not particularly religious, I recognize that faith plays a huge part in controlling our actions. I have enormous regard for the power of faith. Faith is not just a belief in God, but the respect for life and the belief that there is a reward for being a decent respectful human. From a personal perspective, the reward I most seek is to leave a legacy which inspires my son and grand children to live decent useful lives. The laws which societies must enforce, to maintain the social order, should apply only to the incorrigibles, i.e. those without faith or self discipline, who must be forced into living civilly.

Today's Society: Observing today's society, it is getting coarser. The lines are blurring between what is right and wrong. Respect for anything seems to be a casualty. Acquiring wealth by whatever means is a credo being cultivated by patience intolerant people who have tossed ethics aside. Pornography is becoming mainstream. The actors in the movies say more profanity than most people do in everyday life. It is even embarrassing to watch some of the new movies with my wife. She is no prude, but we both think the unchecked vulgarity in the movies today is unnecessary for most plots. I fear that we are losing our faith (as a society) and also losing the self discipline which controls our actions. Lose of either one coarsens society.

Cultivating Sex: People gasp at the number of sexual predators and their crimes against our children, but fail to recognize the problem as being systemic. Hucksters, hawk their wares using near nude models suggesting sex, pornography is pervasive, sex has become recreational, and most people think the problem can be solved with stiffer laws and longer jail sentences for those who stray. It doesn't even enter their minds that we may be cultivating these individuals by our own activities. Someday, there will be a recognition that there are consequences to what we do.

Promiscuity: Men are equally to blame for the problems of promiscuity, but only in the sense that heterosexual promiscuity requires a male participant. Other than the occasional hard rape, the woman is acquiescent in all unforced sex acts. Therefore, she is really the decision maker as to whether or not a liaison will occur. She has been given this choice for the purpose of procreation of the human population. The child bearer for humans has the particular responsibility for choosing a partner who will help nourish a child. This is the part that is wired. However, women can, and do abuse this responsibility for a lot of reasons other than procreation. The men are also wired. As long as a man has functioning gonads, he will seek out a willing female.

Conclusion: Further weakening of Christianity in America will result in a chaos that we cannot easily recover from. Christian leaders can also do their part; quit soliciting money over the mass mediums, stop the faith healing and other theatrics that cheapen religion, and lastly, get out of politics.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.
Comment Here About Society, Thanks, Robert Gross Back

Validating Terrorists Tactics

Commentary for Monday 09/10/2007 Validating Terror Tactics
Leaving Iraq Has Consequences

Those Terror Tactics: Roadside Bombs, Car Bombs, Suicide Bombers, Mass Civilian Killings, and Beheading people, are tools of the trade for Terrorist. They use these tactics only because so far they have been effective. The Terrorists have not had to negotiate or come to any political settlement and why should they? So far these Terrorists have convinced an entire political party in the United States that abandoning the Iraqis and leaving the Terrorists all of the Middle East is the way to go. Is this a responsible position for an American Political Party to take?

Validating The Terrorists Tactics: By leaving Iraq before the Iraqis establish themselves and are able to protect themselves against the Terrorists, we automatically put the stamp of approval on these terrible tactics. Not only will we be giving the Terror groups in Iraq a great victory, we will have solidified their belief in these murderous tactics. Other dissatisfied groups around the world will take note and adopt the tactics that are successful. The war in Iraq is not fought in a vacuum. Proxy groups of legitimate governments may also take up the way of the roadside bomb. Unless we render this weapon as ineffective in disputes, we will continue to see it. Hundreds of thousands of lives lie in the balance.

Political Power Crazy: To the Democrats, leaving Iraq would only bring themselves political power. Democrats have no regard for the consequences that would follow our leaving Iraq. It is incredible that the Democrats want to force the President to leave Iraq before that country is stable. Such a move by the United States would not only give the Terrorists a great victory, but even worse, validate the use of the roadside bomb and suicide bombers. We give the Terrorists no reason to stop the killing of the innocent. To the contrary, we demonstrate by leaving, that their terrorist tactics are winners for them. Expect to see a lot more of such tactics.

Short Memories: The terrorists attacks did not start with our invasion of Iraq. Can any of you remember the Berlin Olympic killings of the Israeli athletes? How about all of those commercial American jet hijackings? The American carrier TWA carried the dubious moniker of "Travel With Arabs" and this was before the first Gulf war. We picked up and left Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked the U.S. Barracks in Beirut with a truck bomb and killed 241 Americans. Before that, a truck bomb was driven into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 49 and wounding over 100. These religious fanatics have been at war with us a long time. It wasn't George W. Bush who started this fight. And yet the Democrats are willing to yield to the Terrorists once more and further empower the Islamic fanatics.

Convert to Islam: Forced conversions to Islam is how that religion has spread. Please read the history of that religion. Forced conversions work because after a generation, the children are inculcated and become true believers. The Terrorists are not political, but instead are religious fanatics out to purge the world of the non-believers and ways that do not comport with Islam. They do not live in harmony with other religions unless they have no choice. If you want to become a Muslim, just keep feeding them victories. If you are not willing to stand up to these Terrorists, then get out of the way of those who will.

Conclusion: The Democrats are on a dangerous course for not only Americans, but for millions in the Middle East and Europe. They are blinded by political ambitions and hatred of George W. Bush. The Democrats have allowed, for political reasons, to let the idea that Bush was an illegitimate President to persist. Their failure to stop the incendiary rhetoric has unnecessarily divided this country.

Comment HereAbout any of the above topics, Thanks, Robert Gross Back

Presenting the News

Commentary for Thursday 09/07/2007 Shaping the News

Lesson 1: The news is not necessarily packaged to inform.

The News You See and Hear: Whether the news is presented on television, over the radio, or what you read in the newspaper, the decision as to what you read or hear is not decided by 'The News' but rather what the editors think you should or want to see and hear.

Agenda Driven? Not necessarily from a political perspective, but certainly from a ratings perspective. It is the ratings perspective that yields Anna Nichole Smith and Paris Hilton ad-nauseam.

Editors Decide: Editors making the choices of what you see and hear are certainly making those decisions based on their opinion of what their audiences want. There are only two conclusions that can be drawn or inferred from what the editors present to their audience. The first conclusion is that the editors choices are a reflection of their opinion of the interests of their audience. So if you get Paris Hilton or Anna Nichole all day you can bet that the editors don't feel as though they have an obligation to inform you of the day's events, only to have high ratings. To make matters worse, as long as the ratings are good, you justify the decisions made by the editors. When the main topic of the day is whether Britney Spears had her baby strapped in while driving, or that Lindsay Lohan went into another rehab center, the editors are banking that you are not interested in the more important events of the day.

Shaping Opinion: News cast can also shape opinion. For illustration purposes lets assume that X and Y had a race and that Y won. The News in Y town would read "We Won" while the news in X town would read "X comes in second while Y was next to last". Both are truthful, but the implication in X town is that they did better than Y. If you didn't know that Y won the race you would have to assume that Y really screwed up. This illustration shows how news can be manipulated. No matter what has actually happened, truthful viewpoints can be written to yield different impressions.

Multiple Sources: Because news is 'shaped', a well informed person must use multiple sources for information. Context is extremely important. To present the context to a subject that suits their ideas, editors often use omissions. The term "spin the news" is often used to describe how parties with a vested interest in a particular issue will shape the subject.

Daylite Sun: Here at Daylite Sun, we feel strongly about getting multiple sources on all issues that we write about. We don't claim to be unbiased, but we won't omit pertinant facts to aid our point of view. When we are wrong, we will write a retraction and admit our error. We also would like to see more of the news consuming public to look at issues from multiple sources. If your only source is talk radio, then your going to get a skewed and possibly inaccurate viewpoint. The same goes for the reliance on the major network news outlets. When a particular subject interests you, then try and get all sides of the issue before forming an opinion. The reward for your research gaines you respect, and will put you in a better position to defend your opinion.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.
Comment Here About News Presentation, Thanks, Robert Gross Back

Tribute to Diana

Commentary for Friday 08/31/2007 Princess Diana

Princess Diana: I, like most everyone else was shocked to hear of Diana's untimely death on this morning ten years ago. I believed at the time that she died because of an accident, and I haven't changed my mind in spite of the uproar over the possibility of foul play. I am positive that conspiracy's exist, but this is not one of them. The princess bled to death because of the extent of her injuries. The attending physician testified that had the accident happened at a hospital she would still have bled to death. A torn pulmonary artery doesn't give anyone much time. So to all of you conspiracy theorist out there, get over it. The girl is dead because of an accident. However, there are issues that need to be aired.

An Out of Control Press: The marriage of Prince Charles to Diana Spencer was sold to the public as a love story. A "Prince Charming marries Cinderella" -if you will. When the marriage fell apart, the dreamy eyed romantics were aghast. It was after the marriage broke up that the press went into high gear. They printed every salacious rumor that they heard. We were bombarded about how bad Charles was and how he ignored and was mean to Diana. Prince Charles was the worst thing since Satan. His dalliance with long time consort Camilla had broken Diana's heart.

Ten Years Later: The press is still making money from the storied Diana. But now they fill their pages with details of her private life. Do we really need the press to accent the fact that she was human? These cheap, tawdry public airings about Diana are beyond comtempt. All of you perfect people out there stand up! How many charities did you travel the world to support? How many land mines that were injuring hundreds did you help remove? Think about it, the scales of balance between good and bad definitely tilts to the good for Diana.

No Attempt to Disparage Diana: At Daylite Sun we feel that Diana was a goodwill ambassador without equal. Everywhere she went, she gained admirers. Her affection for the people was real and they responded in kind. It was Diana who brought the worlds attention to the problem of land mines leftover from conflicts that were injuring and maiming people. Diana demonstrated an honest love for humanity and in their droves they fell in love with Diana. But Diana was also human.

Royal Heirs: After Diana had produced heirs to the throne, her function as far as the marriage was concerned was over. But keeping up appearances and pretending everything was alright was asking too much of a vibrant young lady like Diana. The Royal Family was mistaken if they thought she would just retire from the human race and turn into a castle decoration. Instead of rotting in the splendor of Royalty, Diana decided to have a life. If she couldn't have a husband's attention, she would seek attention elsewhere.

Dirt Diggers: The press hounded this young woman to death. With these guys constantly around, photographing and logging her every move, privacy was hard to come by. Even after her death, the press hounded those who knew Diana privately to surrender any details of Diana's private life so they could broadcast it to the world. Diana's private life became big business. The hypocrits of the world acted shocked that Diana would dare have a private life that included trysts. What would have been abnormal would have been for a pretty young lady such as Diana to have turned into a recluse. Being the mother of Britain's future king was an added burden that made having anything like a normal life impossible.

Not Forgotten: We miss Diana, she brought a little sparkle to an otherwise drab world. To the press, I want you to know that because of you I know more about Diana than was necessary. No one among us can withstand a microscopic inspection of our lives. Fairness requires we be judged from the perspective of whether we do more good than harm in the brief time we have on this earth. The public airing of our failings, and we all fail during our life, is a disservice to any individual. One can only hope that you Dirt Diggers will reap a special reward someday.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.
Comment Here About Princess Diana, Thanks, Robert Gross Back

Disappointing Politicians

Commentary for Tuesday 08/28/2007 Tainting the Party

Disappointing Politicians

The Daily News: Everyday it seems that there is news of another Republican politician who is either corrupt, arrested for lewd conduct, trying to entice the congressional pages or misuse of funds. When will these guys learn? Has the National Republican Party forgot how to screen these guys?

Contentious Politics: In the real world, national politics are so contentious, if the Republicans want to run their campaigns from the high ground, then their candidates are going to have to reflect that moral stand. Damage control has to be more than words. Republicans are going to have to select candidates with a moral conviction. I for one am tired of supporting candidates that turn out to be just same old - same old politicians.

Bad Apples: It doesn't take but one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel. Would you drink apple juice that you knew rotten apples were used? Even with a lot of good apples thrown in, the mixture is still tainted. Politics are interpreted by the electorate the same way. Myself being one of the electorate, feel as though I have been sold a bill of goods on some of our politicians and I'm tired of it. If all we can nominate to represent us in the elections is a smooth-talking, rich lawyer, then we have lost our way as a party.

Democrats Different: The Dems are different in this regard. They don't claim any moral high ground. They claim a big tent that includes anybody who will vote for them, any lifestyle, and any moral stripe. So when their people get caught with a hand in the cookie jar, it doesn't have the same effect as when a Republican gets caught. We more or less expect immorality from Democrats. They are perfectly positioned to throw stones because the Democrats do not claim any of the high ground. Even when caught red-handed like the Congressman from Louisiana Mr. Jefferson, the Democrats circled the wagons to defend him. Any Republican in the same position would have been excoriated.

Republican Presidential Hopefuls: Finding a conservative in this bunch that is both moral and electable is a lost cause. Any honest appraisal will yield candidates that do not represent the best we can nominate.

Rudy Giuliani: Abortion advocate, womanizing cost him his marriage, but has good leadership qualities. Electable - maybe, but he doesn't represent conservative values.

John McCain: Grudge holder, hasn't supported tax cuts, and embarrassed President Bush with every chance he had. Electable - no, Republicans will not pardon his efforts to skewer Bush, nor forgive his stance on immigration.

Mitt Romney: Sounds conservative but past actions say otherwise. Some are finding his religion objectionable, which is sad, but it hurts his electability. Electable - probably not, he has too many vulnerabilities.

Newt Gingrich: Too much baggage. Resigned the Speaker's seat over dalliance with office worker, and a bad reputation for the way he treated his wife. Both hurt his chances of winning. Opposition will make the most of his weak spots.

Fred Thompson: Reputation for being lazy and his reticence to declare his candidacy just reinforces the lazy notion. Electable - probably, if he gets with it and starts running like he was serious about wanting the nomination.

Wannabes: Second tier candidates with the exception of Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Mike is a solid conservative with a chance to grab the brass ring. Because he is less well known than the top tier candidates, he may have skeletons lurking that we don't know about. But if he keeps improving his position, the press will smell out any weaknesses.

Conclusion: We need honorable candidates. Don't follow the hype and nominate someone who doesn't share your morality or political views. If you have to make concessions, do it in the political view department but don't compromise on the moral issues.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.

Comment Here About any of the above topics, Thanks, Robert Gross Home Page

THE STORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Commentary for Friday 08/24/2007 Social Security Story

Democrats turned the Federal Insurance Contributions Act program (FICA) into a burdensome welfare program. The Democrats have managed to turn normal self sufficient people into dependents of the National Government by the continual expansion of this program. With the understanding that the program is too pervasive to do away with, I resent the characterization of Republicans by Democrats as wanting to "Take away Social Security Benefits". The Democratic party has been solely responsible for watering down the benefits of Social Security, and making it the tax hungry monster that exists today. The Democrats tinkering with the FICA program is detailed in this email I received from a friend.

I received this email. The author is unknown, but his facts are accurate.

THE STORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain.

During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about Elliott's parents ( President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his parents returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs they would have burned all of them in hell.

Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments. I Hope you will read this and think about it.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

How Things Have Changed!

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote, as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the USA .

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
This is MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course! Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not!.. many Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so!! But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. Forward this E-mail to others so that they can be informed of the truth.

"THE ONLY THING NEEDED FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING" Edmund Burke .. A preview of things to come if the Democrats regain the White House !

I Have Questions

Commentary for Monday 08/20/2007 Questions

Questions that Need Asking

Pit Bull Terriers My Question: I have nothing against Pit Bulls, but my question is why do city dwellers want to own one? These are muscular, athletic dogs more associated with fighting than a family pet. Most people do not have the training to own a Pit Bull. They can be vicious, aggressive animals under the right circumstances. They are large enough and athletic enough to cause real harm to their victims if they do decide to attack. The odds of a Pit Bull Terrier being aggressive are increased if not properly trained or the owner does not have sufficient knowledge about the proper treatment of this animal.

Michael Vick: My question: Do we really want to put Michael Vick in prison for what he did? I don't agreee with the mistreatment of any animal, but I also don't agree with criminalizing what he did. No amount of punishment will undo his misdeeds. Public awareness of his foolish disregard for humane treatment of animals will in of itself prevent any further episodes. But just think about what we as a society are about to do -- criminalize the act of killing dogs. He didn't kill or mistreat a treasured pet, he killed dogs bred and trained to kill other dogs. This may be distastful behavior, but putting the man in prison for what he did is twisted justice. He was into dog-fighting. Perhaps the activity is reprehensible, but they are dogs. The 'S.P.C.A.' would have destroyed the dogs anyway if they would have had possession of them. The only difference is that they would have killed them 'humanely'.

Democrats: My Question: Why are the Democrats so Hell-Bent on a defeat in Iraq? A united front from this country would probably already have garnered success there. So why have the Democrats insisted on the path that is, at the least demoralizing to both our troops and our citizens? The Democrats strategic plan is to discredit George Bush at any cost. It is a remake of the old saying, "If I make somebody look like an idiot, it makes me look like a hero." A lot of people play this game. It is especially prevalent in office politics. But it is faulty logic and will backfire on the Democrats in the long run. The cherished goal of the Democrats is to regain power in Washington, no matter the damage to this country. For shame.

Education: My Question: Why do we accept a third rate education system? What has been lost in our schools is the one indispensible item that makes the learning process a learning process; and that is discipline in our schools. Oh sure, there are a lot of reasons for this, but discipline is the one necessary ingredient that yields an educated kid. Discipline doesn't mean torturing our kids. A student needs to retake any course that can't he/she can't pass with at least 70% of the information in that course. Non-achieving students should not be given a graduation degree if they have not met the minimum of a grade of 70%. A teacher should be given the authority to make a class sit down and shut up without recriminations. Likewise, a school should retain the right to expell troublemakers without the fear of lawsuits. Immediatly we need to give the schools the tools they need to educate our kids. All schools are held hostage to the federal dollars they receive and if they don't toe the line as dictated by the politicians, the school district can loose their Federal aid. I am asking the Government, Lawyers, and Special interest groups like Unions to let the schools do their work. Support the schools by getting the hell out of the way.

Sex and Minors: My Question: Why is puberty not puberty? Traditionally, in most societies, puberty is the demarcation line of becoming an adult. But in our society, the magic age for consent is 18. What is magical about the age of 18? The simple answer is that parents can be held liable for the misdeeds of the raucous young. The other is that women do not want the competition of the younger post-puberty girls. Men are notorious in their quest of the young. But the young aren't doing without sex. Condoms are freely dispensed in schools, and our young are freely sexually engaging each other without criminalization of what the are doing. Minors are allowed sex with each other in this society. But just let someone older than 18 engage in the same act with a minor and it is as if murder has been committed. The vast majority of the ladies in this society lost their virginity before the age of 18. Would it really matter if the event was with a man over the age of 18? Society rules in this matter, but the logic of making the post-puberty girls wait until they are 18 to engage in sexual activity with a person older than 18, while allowing sex with fellow juveniles smacks of hypocrisy.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.
Comment Here About these questions, Thanks, Robert Gross Home

Conservative Short Notes

Commentary for tuesday 08/21/2007 Political Comments

Barely Enough: They call this a "Do Nothing" Congress. At Daylite Sun we couldn't be happier about it. As a country, we have been spared most of the goofy legislation proposed by the Democrats. We came very close to giving 12-16 million illegal aliens legal status and opening the doorway to millions more by accepting family members of these illegals. It was only a strong grassroots effort that saved us from that fiasco. Then there was the Democrat's efforts to attach all manner of restrictions on the war effort. There were a lot of forgettable proposals that would have hurt this country that didn't make it because there were just enough Republicans to thwart the big tax and spend Democrats.

Infrastructure Woes: After the bridge collapse in Minnesota, the rest of the states were scrambling to look at their bridges. Most states, it was discovered have several 'at-risk' bridges, some critical. All blamed the sorry state of repair on lack of funds. There was even a Democrat proposal to increase the gas tax to pay for repairs. The Democrats answer to all problems seems to be a tax increase. One state, Texas, trotted their DOT representative out on national television to decry lack of money as the reason for the sorry state of our bridges. His statement was particularly insulting. This is a quote from The Texas State News : .. "After all those obligations are paid off," said Dewhurst, "the state will be left with $2.5 billion in surplus money." Money is not now or ever has been an issue in Texas. It is a matter of priorities. The legislature would rather fund their pet projects than take care of the infrastructure. What the lawmakers want is to not have to spend the money they already have on infrastructure. They want outside money so they can save their pet projects. It is a double whammy to all taxpayers. Especially in light of the fact that all states need repairs. Taxes have already been collected to fix the roads and bridges, the politicians just need to get on with it.

Electable Republicans: None of the declared Republicans excite me. Even if the undeclared candidates Gingrich and Thompson decide to enter the fray, they bring a lot of negatives.
Negatives:
Rudy Giuliani: Family problems. As unfair as scrutinizing a mans family is, a lot can still be gleaned about a person by looking at his family situation. Rudy failed at holding his family together, so it hangs out there as a question about his leadership and his solemn word to remain loyal. Although divorce is accepted as normal, anytime a divorce happens, there was a breakdown in either loyalty, or self-discipline with one of the partners.
Mitt Romney: Whether is is fair or unfair, Mitt's religion has become an issue. A lot of Christians are not charitable to the Mormons whom they consider to not be Christians. The Book of Mormon is far different from the Bible that they use.
John McCain: McCain has been on the wrong side of many of the issues that were important to conservatives. Namely the tax cuts, Immigration, campaign finance reform that penalized free speech, and lastly the bill he championed about torture. He has been very weak in support of the President. He appeared as someone who was trying to undercut President Bush every chance he got. It all smacked of being a bad loser from his campaign for the presidency in 2000.
Fred Thompson: Just being an undeclared candidate at this juncture reinforces his reputation for being lazy. At Daylite Sun we like Sen. Thompson, but his refusal to commit himself is wearing thin.
Newt Gingrich: We would support Newt if we thought he could overcome his negatives. His being forced to resign the Speakers Chair is certainly no great recommendation. Then there are is moral lapses, and the rumors of the bad way he treated his ex-wife. All of these negatives would haunt him throughout any campaign.

The Global Warming Hoax: Getting the public to accept a theory that blamed the activity of humans for global warming was relatively easy. The general public already had experiences with man made pollution, so it was easy to accept that burning fossil fuels was causing global warming by the discharge of CO2. I was also convinced of the idea that man was responsible for the problem. I even wrote an article for 'Amazines.com' about the hazards of CO2. I penned another article for my sister website robfg.com.

Learning Can Be Painful: After a lot of research that included a lot of the world's preeminent scientists, I was prompted to write several articles on this website about CO2, Venus, and Mars. There is only one conclusion a reasonable person can make. Global warming is not from any efforts of mankind. You can read my rewrite of the article of global warming here: robfg.com.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.

Comment HereAbout any of the above topics, Thanks, Robert Gross Home

America the Successful

Commentary for Monday 08/06/2007 American Success

Freedom a Simple Concept: Simply put; "Freedom is the opportunity to rise to the level of your ambition without interference from the governing process."

Motivation: The drive to achieve wealth is the regulator that manages a person's station in life. This drive can be so strong that no amount of wealth or power can be satisfying to an individual, or the drive so weak that a person languishes at the bottom of the heap, struggling day to day just to get by.

The Top of the Heap: Experience has shown that the naked ambition of some has had little regard for those with less ambition. Our historical past has been witness to the corruption and total disregard for humanity as a result of unbridled ambition. It has taken Government intervention to regulate business with regard to labor and monopolies. These regulations were meant only to stem the abuse of power without stifling the ambition to achieve wealth. This delicate balance of regulations versus ambition draws mixed reviews. Domestic application of rules to businesses has helped create a large middle class, and a safety net for those on the bottom. However, with a high earning middleclass, globally, we were at risk in the market place competing with foreign products.

Competition: Those developing countries were starting to produce quality products cheaper than the United States. The general working class in these developing countries made only a tenth of what our domestic workers were making. Our domestic companies couldn't compete without stiff import tariffs put on these foreign goods, but tariffs were not a solution that could be sustained. Answering the challenge posed by these foreign imports meant modernizing and automating our production plants. Those businesses that didn't have the money to upgrade began closing down domestic operations and moving their operations into those countries where production cost would be lower.

The Service Economy: It was obvious that the U.S. was not going to be able to maintain its high standard of living by depending on a faltering manufacturing base. What we needed was a solution that would maintain our liberties and living standard. Enter the 'Service Economy'. Basically, the service economy would allow the outsourcing of our manufacturing needs, and at the same time establishing a retail consumer based economy. Integral to the new economy was credit. Usury laws in most states were either abolished or re-written to enable credit providers to charge high enough interest rates to compensate them for the high risk of extending consumer credit to almost everyone.

Credit Ratings: How much 'stuff' a person can buy depends on his credit rating. And, a high credit rating depends on the ambition of the individual. The system protects freedom because it is still up to an individual's motivation to decide how far up the scale he wants to go. The United States is one of the few countries where a person has the freedom to make the choices that dictates his standing. This freedom is not limited to any particular group of people but to all with the motivation to decide that they want better for themselves and their family.

Shortcuts: Those who take shortcuts, i.e. thieves, cheaters, drug dealers and other such minded individuals are not welcome. These are the ones with 'the wants' but lack the patience to satisfy their needs. Our jails and prisons are brimming with those who chose to take the shortcut to wealth.

Political Tinkering: One of the greatest threats to the freedom we enjoy is 'Political Tinkering'. Our politicians are influenced by lobbyist and in turn pass legislation that favors one business over another. It is so bad that many businesses are forced to hire lobbyist just to protect their interest. The main tool used by the Lobbyist is the campaign contribution. When that isn't enough, the Lobbyists pay for trips, exotic golf outings, and some even resort to bribes. The cagy politicians work the lobbyist by letting it be known that he/she is undecided on an issue. This is the cue for a lobbyist to try and persuade the politician into voting the issue in their favor. The tighter a vote on an issue, the more a particular vote is worth. Politicians are our voice in what happens in this republic. Those who are only interested in satisfying their ambitions and acquiring wealth at the expense of governing should be exposed and booted. They more than anybody are an internal threat to our freedom.

The Labor Force: Not everybody is motivated to acquire riches. This group is satisfied with the security of their jobs. Our labor force looks forward to 'beer-thirty' in the afternoon and on weekends cooking out and watching their favorite sports team. All they ask is for employment and a reliable social structure including schools, fire and police protection, and responsible government. They are not the climbers who dance to any tune for a promotion. They are intensely patriotic and Christian whether or not they attend a church. They spend their spare income for personal pleasures that may include a new pick-up, evenings at the local bar, a boat, and whatever electronics that suits their fancy. They are the consumers that keep this economy going. They also make up the largest group in this country. They work in McDonalds, retail stores, as office clerks, construction workers, farming, and industry.

The Professionals: The college graduates that make up our engineers, doctors, lawyers, and business professionals make up this group. They run things generally speaking. They have their eyes on the prize, consume higher quality goods, and try to impress each other with their 'stuff'. A lot of this crowd lives above their means in order to look more important than what they are. Most are totally dependent on the labor force for their living. The leaders of tomorrow will emerge from this group. From our professionals will come the politicians, and business leaders. With any luck, before they assume their responsible roles as heads of the society, experience will be gained, and their idealism will be replaced with the practicality needed to be effective leaders.

The Economy: Our economy will remain vibrant as long as we maintain the freedom that enables everybody that choice of what to do with his or her life. It is that freedom of choice that makes America the envy of the world.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.

Comment Here About The Economy, Thanks, Robert GrossHome

That Great Mac Haik Feeling

Commentary for Thursday 07/19/2007 Car Dealer Failings

Car Repair Woes :

Not an Indictment: For the past fifteen years I have always thought of Mac Haik Chevrolet in Houston on the Katy Freeway as a trusted place to both buy a car and a good place to go for my car repairs. Over the years I have purchased 2 new Astro Vans, a new conversion Van, a new S-10 Pick-up, a Subaru Program Car, 1 Used S-10 Pick-Up truck, and a used Mazda (kids first car) all from Mac Haik Chevrolet. Their service was always top of the line. They have rescued me off the highway when I was stranded, and came to my home when I couldn't get my Astro Van started. So what has happened to change my mind?

Routine Car Repair: Monday on 07/16 I brought my Astro Van into the service department to have an electric window that wouldn't work repaired. I was given an estimate, and agreed to the repair. An hour later the Servicec Representative informs me that G.M. had upgraded the window mechanism for my model vehicle, but before they could install it, I had to purcahse an adapter to make it work. The adapter cost $106.00 extra. The Service Rep brought out the adapter for me to see, and I couldn't believe what I was looking at. It was no more than 2 wires about 8 inches long with a small plastic plug on each end. For that they wanted $106.00.

G.M.'s Upgrade: From my perspective, I was being asked to pay for a factory upgrade that wouldn't fit my vehicle. Factory parts are suppopsed to fit the vehicles they are made for without forcing someone to pay for an adapter. The new drive motor for the electric window (the upgraded part), was made with a different plug on it than the original. That different plug would not mate with the plug on the original wiring harness. To remedy the plug difference, they made a little 8 inch piece with a plug that would match the new motor on one end and a plug to match the wiring harness on the other. No more than that, two wires hooked to two small plastic 2 wire plugs. But to be charged $106.00 for what should have been a $4.00 part at the most was insulting.

Dumping Mac Haik: This was clearly a G.M. goof, so why am I so down on Mac Haik? Car dealerships are our link to the manufacturers. They have an obligation to their customers to stand up to the manufacturer when they see that their customers are being abused. But that wasn't what happened in this case. The $106 for a nothing part meant more to Mac Haik than my business. There are other car dealers and I will find one to buy my future cars from.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.
Comment Here    About Car Dealers, Thanks, Robert Gross   Home

Behind Those High Medical Bills

Commentary for Thursday 07/19/2007 Medical Billing Questions

High Price of Medical Help:

Very Confused: In a previous commentary I spoke of a brief hospital stay to get my A-Fib under control. I am doing fine thank you, but my statement from my insurance provider has me confused. I was billed $17,034.25 for services rendered in my brief 2 day stint at the hospital. My plan only paid $5,353.29, and I am only responsible for $774.51. My question is what about the missing $10,906.20? Did the hospital get screwed? Of course they didn't, they just padded the hell out of their charges to me.

The Bigger Picture: Hypothetical's are sometimes useful, so indulge me for a moment. What if I didn't have insurance? Would I have been liable for the entire amount? I certainly don't have the resources to contest those billings. Do you think that if I just waltzed into the hospital and offered 1/3 of the bill that they would let me off the hook? It brings up another question. Why are the charges for my hospital stay different for the insurance company than what I would be charged without insurance? As necessary as hospitals are, they shouldn't be allowed to charge one entity one price and another entity a different price for the same service.

Negotiated Prices: Insurance companies negotiate the prices for the different services offered by a health provider before they ever issue a policy. If they didn't, they would never have a handle on how much they expect to have to pay out vs. how much they would have to charge for the policy. For the policy holders it is a good thing, but what about the rest of the people who don't have insurance? They are at the mercy of whatever the hospital wants to charge. Without those negotiated prices for services, a hospital can charge what ever they think you can pay.

The Uninsured: The uninsured who pay for their health care in full are a minority of the patients that come through our hospital system. Most uninsured persons are either the poor, the unemployed, or the invincible young working in low paying jobs. A few are rich and choose to pay for those services out of pocket. With the exception of those fortunate enough to pay for their health care, who pays for the rest of those without insurance?

State or Public Hospitals: The answer of course is that you do. Your tax dollars go into funding the many Public Hospitals in the different states. Most states have enacted laws that mandate that a hospital has to treat a person regardless of his/her ability to pay the bill. The public hospitals will receive the indigent patients that require services beyond that of the emergency room treatment mandated for other hospitals. It is a large burden on the taxpayers to care for these people, but in a civilized society, it would be criminal to deny basic services to these people.

Nothing is Free: Starting with the wages that must be paid to health workers to the equipment and medical supplies, it all cost money. I point this out because I want to convey the point that I understand the plight of our hospitals.

Fair Charge to Everyone: I write this piece because I want to see equitable pricing. It is unreasonable to charge an insurance provider 1/3 of the cost that the taxpayers have to pay through their state systems and privately. If a procedure cost X dollars including expenses, then charge that much to everyone. Quit the discrimination against those without insurance. An honest hospital bill might even improve collection efforts against those that evade paying.

Prescription Medicine: The same situation exists with our prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies enter into agreements with insurance companies for drug prices. Everyone else is charged out the whazoo for the same prescriptions. When a pharmaceutical company makes a pill, they need to charge the same price for that pill to everyone. Instead they negotiate discounts with different providers and then make up for it by charging everyone else astronomical prices. If the pricing were equitable, there wouldn't be a need to pad the middlemen at the insurance companies. What a concept, if you make a pill, then figure out what you need to charge, then give everyone the same price for your product. The discounts that are given insurance companies are partly responsible for the high cost of drugs.

Your Experiences: Let me know about the experiences you have had with charges for your health care.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.
Comment Here    About Health Care, Thanks, Robert Gross   Home

Liberalism Hurts

Commentary for Monday 07/09/2007 Victims Needed

So the war goes on: The difference between now and the late 1800's through early 1900's is the emergence of modern Liberalism and Conservatism.

The Secular Left: Liberals tend to be more secular, disdaining religion or code of right or wrong. They would govern all human activity from a strong central government. Only those in government would wield any power. Order would be maintained in a similar way as the modern totalitarian states. Interpreted to say, “A strong police force.” The liberal hierarchy has at its top an elite group who would not deign to live as an ordinary citizen but rather as someone above the fray.

Liberalism thrives with the indigent and those blaming others for their lack of success. Liberals portray themselves, as saviors of the 'downtrodden', but in reality, keeping the downtrodden down is the goal of liberals. Liberals cannot remain in power without victims. The elite classes of liberals remain on their lofty perch only with the democratic support of those people who are indigent, or those who blame others for their misfortune. That is why liberals employ 'class warfare' as a weapon.

Class Warfare: Class warfare helps the liberal cause by creating the illusion of being a champion against those who are 'mean spirited' and successful. Liberal followers are led to thinking that those who are successful get that way at their expense. In other words, they were cheated! Another myth created by liberals is that most of the successful people are lazy bums who inherited their wealth. They don't deserve it. That wealth should be distributed!

Keeping the Poor, Poor: Liberal tactics are directed toward keeping the poor in poor conditions. Liberals are well aware of the past, and what happens to political loyalties when people are allowed to succeed. Success must be thwarted at all cost. Maintaining victims as victims is the only way that liberals can keep their political power.

Mollifying their victims: Since the liberal establishment is working to prevent their constituency from succeeding, they define happiness in other ways. One of the obstacles that get in the way is religion. Religion teaches a strict code of right and wrong, and also personal responsibility.

Religion an Obstacle: Why is religion an obstacle to liberalism? In a word, sex. Not that sex is something new, but with religion out of the way, and with abortion on the ready to cure any accidents, there is no reason to not just enjoy sex in any flavor that suits you. Without religion or the fear of pregnancy, who is to say that indiscriminate sex is bad? By destroying the global principles of right and wrong, liberals calculate that you as a people would rather sin than succeed. And logically it follows, if your life is one distraction after the next, you aren't going to be able to succeed.

Blame Somebody: If you are a Liberal, then blame your lack of success on those who are successful. After all, your lack of success can’t be your fault.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my daily commentaries.
Comment Here    About Liberalism, Thanks, Robert Gross   Home

Unique Visitors