Thursday, January 6, 2011


Conservatives and liberals are always calling each other names, which I find funny. I am not sure that any one philosophy is correct for every situation. There are times when acting conservatively is prudent (for example, when walking across an Interstate during rush hour) and times when liberal is the way to go (like a liberal serving of ice cream!).

Unfortunately, the definition of liberal has been perverted. Liberal means "favorable to progress or reform," which I am sure most conservatives would consider themselves to be.

In the United States, "Liberal" has become synonomous with "Socialist," which is not too far off from "Marxist."

When the American colonies were still part of the British empire, and later when they declared their independence,the capitalistic system, as we know it today, did not exist. Modern capitalism developed after the Civil War, but while we were still colonies, the ideas of capitalism were governing the British and Colonial economies. The Founding Fathers favored "capitalism" in that they disliked and fought against the British Empire enforcing strict taxation of and control over American products and trade. The Founding Fathers favored merchants, farmers and anyone else who worked for their own profit.

Make no mistake about it, America was founded as a Capitalist and Christian nation.

Modern liberals seek to change this, but instead of simply living freely, the way our society allows them to, they want to legislate the change to deny others the right to live freely.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless
it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

And so on.

The other problem I have with modern liberalism is the elitist attitude of the liberals. Many of the liberals in America today are celebrity entertainers (actors, atheletes and musicians). They have achieved financial success through a God-given talent, and thrived in our capitalist system. After achieving that success, they want to now impose their Marxist views on the world.

The problem is, just because you can act does not mean you are smarter than the average bear. If you play the President in a movie, you're not really the President. Now in the case of the last several administrations, an actor may have been an improvement. But my point is, financial success does not necessarily equate to intelligence.

The same goes for musicians and atheletes. What qualifies Bruce Springsteen or as experts in whether a national healthcare plan is in order?

Maybe they could take the fortunes they've amassed and provide healthcare for the needly, like modern day Robin Hoods with guitars and digital sampling machines.

Which brings me to my other problem.... It's sham!

Remember John Lennon?

"Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing for the world"

It’s a shame how poor he was when he died, huh?

From giving away all of his posessions?

Oh that's right-HE DIDN'T!

Modern liberals are for redistributing wealth, as long as that wealth belongs to OTHER PEOPLE.

This narrative is from one of those e-mails that winds its way through cyberspace, but I found it well-written enough to want to post it. It's a very good illustration of how modern liberal views fall apart when push comes to shove.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct
1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off! "

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

Recognizing all of it's faults, our capitalist system allowed a high school dropout from Freehold, New Jersey to become one of the most celebrated rock and roll singers of his era. It has made millionaires out of street kids playing basketball around a hoop with no net, and household names out of high school misfits who acted in school plays.

And it is all predicated upon the concepts of "private property" and "reaping what you sow." 

Maybe instead of fighting to change American into a Marxist country, modern day liberals can move to one of  the countries they hold out as Utopia: Canada or France.

I'll help ya load the truck!


  1. >>.....Maybe instead of fighting to change American into a Marxist country, modern day liberals can move to one of the countries they hold out as Utopia: Canada or France. I'll help ya load the truck!

    Ha! That reminds me of something I wrote in one of my pro-JOE pieces:

    'HANOI JANE' [Fonda] said: "If you understood what Communism was you would pray on your knees that we would someday become communists." But you didn't see her move to Moscow, Beijing, or even Hanoi, did you?

    STANISLAW MIKOLAJCZYK, former Prime Minister of Poland said: "Communism is an evil which is embraced only by fools and idealists not under the actual heel of such rule."

    ` D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  2. Again with the broad generalizations, you must be listening to right-winged radio/TV etc.

    Liberals don't want to prohibit all guns--that's just a crazy broad general statement. Would I, being a liberal, want to control some weapons, hell yes. Do I want to see people buying rocket launcher, grenades, more automatic weapons, machine guns etc. No I don't really. But that doesn't mean I want to prohibit all weapons. Sheesh. The religious statement also I think applies to a few, not all. And the gay rights statement is homophobic, anti-gay? If you were gay wouldn't you want equal rights too? If you were living with someone, wouldn't you want the same benefits as a hetrosexual couple? I think so...

  3. EV-

    Well I'm reading this comment after one on a newer post, but we're both a little guilty of broad generalizations. After all, you seem to be saying that NO liberals want to ban all guns, and I know a few that would prove you wrong.

    And to assume homophobia, you could not be further from the truth. As you probably know by now from reading my replies, I'm against the benefits the hetero couples are getting, too! They are unconstitutional! And our government is broke! We can't afford to extend benefits to gay couples.

    In my mind, it's a long way from not being persecuted for your sexual orientation to being recognized as a political group. Gays already have the same rights as heterosexuals. What they seem to want is to call everyone who may not want to kiss their ass (no pun intended) a homophobe.

    I guess since I liked Italian girls (gotta have the attitude) from South Philly, I was a North Philly-phobe.

    I saved the best for last. Is the religion comment an exaggeration. When I was in public high school, back in the Carter administration, schools had to stop allowing a moment of silence for prayer. They had to call it a moment of silence.

    Any mention of Christ is consider a first amendment violation. However, in the name of diversity, they cater the Muslim faith, and even Kwanza. But you're a criminal if you break out a crucifix.

    So yes, EV-I do exaggerate to make a point. My point is, this country was founded with a motto that was basically live and let live.

    The way liberalism is practiced in polictics is more like live as we say or let die.

    I am not damning liberals who are true liberals. To be liberal is to be open to new ideas. That is not how it is practiced in America, any more than what the so-called conservatives practice is true conservatism.

    Ever see what a Republican can do to a budget deficit?