Unashamably weighing in on the political debates

Well, it’s another presidential election year, and once again the US is drowning in political rhetoric. Nothing shows the diametrically opposed political sides in the US more then the spewing of ideals over the airwaves on a primary night. Now that I’ve listened to several nights of speeches and promises, I’m ready to air some of my own frustrations with the party lines.

Are Democrats democratic or socialistic?

I have to ask this question because it seems like most of the democratic party lines are socialist to the core: universal health care, eliminating poverty and other such things. I believe that their hearts are in the right place, but they seem to be incapable of learning from our neighbors who have already instituted such programs, much to the detriment of the tax-paying labor classes. Perhaps they have missed the reality of socialism. When a government tries to reduce or eliminate poverty, it usually does it on the backs of the laboring middle class on behalf of those who do not contribute to the economy or the tax base. This means that you end up taxing the middle class into poverty while rewarding the poor for being poor. In the end, you spread poverty around rather than reduce or eliminate it.

I agree that the high cost of health care needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed without the government because the government resides at the root of the problem that we already have. I hate paying for insurance as much as the next person, but I would hate paying the government for it even more. If the private insurance companies are considered bureaucratic and difficult, can you even imagine the problems you’ll have with a government agency, whose middle name is bureaucracy? I will be blunt. You have to be insane to think that is a viable option to a real problem.  Throwing tax dollars after something like that will only exacerbate the problem.  Have any of these people ever been to a VA hospital?

I guess the part that worries me the most is the idea that we as a country should just bring all our troops home and let the world take care of itself.  That kind of attitude was what led to the two World Wars.  I really don’t want another one of those.  The thing is that the rest of the world is never going to let us sit here unmolested–we’re the richest, most free nation in the world.  If we don’t stay involved in the world scene and keep the fight for freedom and democracy safely outside our borders, it will come here, and the fighting and the bombs and the terrorists will be on our doorsteps.  They don’t like us, and patting them on the head and turning our backs on them is what got us 911 (and Pearl Harbor, if you remember).  And some empty headed politician thinks that withdrawing troops is the answer?  These people think they are sane?

What’s with the Republicans this year?

I make no apologies for being a far-to-the-right conservative, but I’m hard pressed to find a candidate to get behind this election year.  I know I don’t want any of the Democrats, and I shudder to think of Hussein O’Bama in the White House, but the options on the other side are not very promising.

The only candidate that I was remotely willing to support has now dropped from the race (Fred Thompson), and I think Ron Paul is a joke.  Huckabee is my next choice, but he lacks greatly in foreign policy.  I don’t trust Romney at all, and McCain supports things like embryonic stem cell research and takes some liberal environmental stands, which really put my back up.  I’d like McCain better if the only issue that mattered was the war on terror, but I very much fear that he’s a closet liberal on many important social/domestic issues.  I may be voting for him this fall, but it will only be because the other option (four years of liberal lunacy) is so unpalatable.

Red vs blue states

I’ve been interested in the red versus blue division for several years now.  Being all the way to the right doesn’t keep me from trying to understand the other side.  But while I don’t like vilifying them, they make it hard not to.

When people stand so firmly on the belief that babies are refuse, morals are relative, HIV is the biggest tragedy in our current society, the poor deserve to be pampered in their poverty, criminals have more rights than victims, guns should only belong to the bad guys and the good guys must lie down and be victims, the government can choose a doctor better than I can, the government can raise my children better than I can, that peace can be negotiated in the Middle East (they obviously have never read a history book) and that humans are endlessly good yet somehow at the same time so bad that the environment must be protected from them, one has to stagger theatrically over the inconsistencies and outright contradictions in the liberal agenda.

Yet while I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that their hearts are in the right place, I also see that liberals are soft-hearted and soft-headed, and they have a really warped understanding of human nature. They are incapable of learning from the examples of other governments who have already tried and failed miserably at the programs they support so enthusiastically.  They are incapable of learning from history about world affairs and how human nature really works. And they are adamantly trying to destroy what made this nation what it is–the home of the free and the brave.  The liberal national anthem: Home of the regulated and the victims!  I have problems understanding how anyone can proudly call themselves a liberal.

That the red/blue divide is mostly rural vs urban is an interesting phenomenon.  Maybe one of these expensive government environmental studies should look into the effects of city smog on brain cells.