Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The two party system
"As President, I have no eyes but constitutional eyes; I cannot see you." --Abraham Lincoln
There is so much that can be said in this blog with the recent Republican debate, and the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race. However, I feel it is important to build a foundation before jumping into the issues of the candidates, their records, and what they stand for.
Many people wonder, why, in the United States, most people are polarized to the two major parties, Democrat or Republican. Other Democratic nations, (by the way, we are NOT a Democracy, we are a Democratic-Republic), tend to have 6-10 significant parties. However, in this nation, 3rd party candidates have a difficult time gaining credibility and votes. It's not that there CAN'T be more than two parties, it is just that other parties such as Libertarians or the Green Party just can't seem to gain enough support to do anything significant.
The United States has had two major political parties since approximately 1800. There were parties of credibility such as the Wigs that have faded into the background, and now we have the two major parties of Democrat and Republican. There are reasons for this polarization which are complex, but sensible.
There are historical foundations of two parties. The founding fathers of our nation were divided between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists tended to represent the Eastern states interests of manufacturing and merchants. The Anti-Federalists tended to represent the farmers and agricultural communities.
These two differing parties began to represent two distinct set of interests. The Anti-Federalists, which eventually became the Democrat party represented the frontier interests in the west and the agricultural interests of farmers in the South. The Federalists, which eventually evolved into the Republican party tended to support many of the commercial interests involving trade and ports in the East.
Because of the different representations certain areas of our early nation voted almost exclusively for one party. As time went on, the two political parties tended to polarizing their support with geographic and frequently financial divisions.
The most significant reason for the perpetuation of the two party system is that for the most part Americans have common goals. There may be differences of opinion on how to obtain those goals, but the goals are similar. This is why highly socialist parties such as the Green Party, and the Communists have a hard time gaining much of a foot hold in this nation. Although in our despair we may feel that no one cares about freedom or patriotism anymore, deep down they do. This was exemplified in the September 11th terrorist attacks. People stood in line to give blood, they waved their flags, they mourned as a nation. It seemed like the entire nation changed, even if for only a few weeks, and the fundamental ideas of freedom and liberty were at the forefront of everyone's mind. There is still hope for this nation, even though it is often complacent. If others overtly try to usurp our freedom, we will rise up to the challenge as a nation. Today is September 11th, and I will be doing a separate post about this day of remembrance.
The problem however, is when our freedom secretly, quietly slips away. If people don't get involved, or if the people are too divided in many directions, any crazy doctrine or idea can be passed off as truth. Harry S. Truman once said, "The combined thought and action of the whole people of any race, creed, or nationality, will always point in the right direction." It is important that the MASS of people are involved in elections and that they are generally united for the same cause.
Further, although this is a very religious nation, the distinction separating the government from religion with "No State Religion" has kept various religions from creating their own parties. It is not necessary in this country because most people can identify with one party or the other. An example of religious political parties would be the current situation in Iraq; there are the Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis, all fighting to gain control of the government. Religiously sponsored political parties can be very dangerous and devastating to a nation.
The divisions between the two parties tend to be based upon economic strategies, belief in world involvement, and positions of morality. Most Americans can find most of their beliefs with one of the major platforms, although they might not, and usually do not, agree completely with the party platform.
With the exception of ME and NE, the electoral college creates a "winner takes all" system. If the majority of one state agrees on one party, that party is represented with their states entire populus in Washington D.C. A state is always carried by only one candidate. That candidate gets all the votes for that state. This is why a person can win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral vote and not become president.
Although many Americans complain about the Electoral College system, preferring a popular vote system, the electoral college provides a large degree of protection for the nation. The electoral college makes it very difficult, but not impossible, for a third party to get a member elected to any position of real significance. Further, many state laws require fewer signatures for the two major parties than signatures for the minor parties to get on the ballot for office. This may seem like a bad thing, but think of the crack-pots it helps to keep from muddying the election.
History has many lessons to teach on this subject. The Nazis rise to power would have probably never happened had their not been so many parties and factions. Dividing up the votes in so many different directions can allow for "evil"-yes I do believe in evil, to slip through unnoticed. There were so many political parties in pre-Nazi Germany that the people's votes were divided sufficiently to allow the Nazis to rise to prominent positions of power.
The founders of this nation, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, agreed on one thing: that a Republic could only be maintained by both government structure combined with the virtue of the people. My research shows that nearly all the Founders agreed that if public virtue failed, so would the Republic. As Edmund Burke once said, "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." Madison also stated that ""The less virtue . . .possessed by the people, the more government they needed. The less able able they were to exercise their rights and liberties in moderation, the greater need there would be for government coercion and limitations on individual actions."
Virtue is a word that has been highly misunderstood, especially by constitutional revisionists. These are those who feel that the constitution is "outdated", and should be more flexible to fit the times. These revisionists of the constitution have failed to recognize the tremendous thought and sophisticated understanding of human nature that was held by the Founders. These revisionists have not understood that virtue can evolve with time. It is capable of adapting to current self-interest, the complexity of modern human existence, and the potential effects of the concept of the "common good" with acceptance of spirited public mindedness. The founders expected that virtue would come from people voluntarily tempering their own selfish demands and desires enough so that liberty could flourish. It also meant that those who sought for political office would temper their pride, rise above their selfish concerns, and would wish to maintain their positive reputation by representing the people honorably.
So the founders considered virtue to simply mean one thing: a means to assure individual liberty and self-government by putting the good of the whole above the good of the individual or a small group of individuals. Therefore, you can see how this idea of virtue can transcend through hundreds of years despite changes in technology, society, and a variety of religious and moral ideals.
From the beginning of our constitution, the Founders feared that if there was insufficient public virtue then order would have to be imposed by coercion and force. The founders saw virtue as a form of restraint against corruption and, at the same time, as a stimulator of positive moral action.
This is something very important to keep in mind over the next 14 months leading to the presidential election. "Virtue", what is it, and who has it. Are those seeking this office able to rise above their selfish desires for grandiosity and fame to take care of the public good. Will the future president understand his/her role in government and the powers that do and do not come with the office? Above all, the President of the United States takes an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. Will the next president honor this oath? These are all things to consider as we look at the candidates aiming for office.
There is so much that can be said in this blog with the recent Republican debate, and the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race. However, I feel it is important to build a foundation before jumping into the issues of the candidates, their records, and what they stand for.
Many people wonder, why, in the United States, most people are polarized to the two major parties, Democrat or Republican. Other Democratic nations, (by the way, we are NOT a Democracy, we are a Democratic-Republic), tend to have 6-10 significant parties. However, in this nation, 3rd party candidates have a difficult time gaining credibility and votes. It's not that there CAN'T be more than two parties, it is just that other parties such as Libertarians or the Green Party just can't seem to gain enough support to do anything significant.
The United States has had two major political parties since approximately 1800. There were parties of credibility such as the Wigs that have faded into the background, and now we have the two major parties of Democrat and Republican. There are reasons for this polarization which are complex, but sensible.
There are historical foundations of two parties. The founding fathers of our nation were divided between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists tended to represent the Eastern states interests of manufacturing and merchants. The Anti-Federalists tended to represent the farmers and agricultural communities.
These two differing parties began to represent two distinct set of interests. The Anti-Federalists, which eventually became the Democrat party represented the frontier interests in the west and the agricultural interests of farmers in the South. The Federalists, which eventually evolved into the Republican party tended to support many of the commercial interests involving trade and ports in the East.
Because of the different representations certain areas of our early nation voted almost exclusively for one party. As time went on, the two political parties tended to polarizing their support with geographic and frequently financial divisions.
The most significant reason for the perpetuation of the two party system is that for the most part Americans have common goals. There may be differences of opinion on how to obtain those goals, but the goals are similar. This is why highly socialist parties such as the Green Party, and the Communists have a hard time gaining much of a foot hold in this nation. Although in our despair we may feel that no one cares about freedom or patriotism anymore, deep down they do. This was exemplified in the September 11th terrorist attacks. People stood in line to give blood, they waved their flags, they mourned as a nation. It seemed like the entire nation changed, even if for only a few weeks, and the fundamental ideas of freedom and liberty were at the forefront of everyone's mind. There is still hope for this nation, even though it is often complacent. If others overtly try to usurp our freedom, we will rise up to the challenge as a nation. Today is September 11th, and I will be doing a separate post about this day of remembrance.
The problem however, is when our freedom secretly, quietly slips away. If people don't get involved, or if the people are too divided in many directions, any crazy doctrine or idea can be passed off as truth. Harry S. Truman once said, "The combined thought and action of the whole people of any race, creed, or nationality, will always point in the right direction." It is important that the MASS of people are involved in elections and that they are generally united for the same cause.
Further, although this is a very religious nation, the distinction separating the government from religion with "No State Religion" has kept various religions from creating their own parties. It is not necessary in this country because most people can identify with one party or the other. An example of religious political parties would be the current situation in Iraq; there are the Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis, all fighting to gain control of the government. Religiously sponsored political parties can be very dangerous and devastating to a nation.
The divisions between the two parties tend to be based upon economic strategies, belief in world involvement, and positions of morality. Most Americans can find most of their beliefs with one of the major platforms, although they might not, and usually do not, agree completely with the party platform.
With the exception of ME and NE, the electoral college creates a "winner takes all" system. If the majority of one state agrees on one party, that party is represented with their states entire populus in Washington D.C. A state is always carried by only one candidate. That candidate gets all the votes for that state. This is why a person can win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral vote and not become president.
Although many Americans complain about the Electoral College system, preferring a popular vote system, the electoral college provides a large degree of protection for the nation. The electoral college makes it very difficult, but not impossible, for a third party to get a member elected to any position of real significance. Further, many state laws require fewer signatures for the two major parties than signatures for the minor parties to get on the ballot for office. This may seem like a bad thing, but think of the crack-pots it helps to keep from muddying the election.
History has many lessons to teach on this subject. The Nazis rise to power would have probably never happened had their not been so many parties and factions. Dividing up the votes in so many different directions can allow for "evil"-yes I do believe in evil, to slip through unnoticed. There were so many political parties in pre-Nazi Germany that the people's votes were divided sufficiently to allow the Nazis to rise to prominent positions of power.
The founders of this nation, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, agreed on one thing: that a Republic could only be maintained by both government structure combined with the virtue of the people. My research shows that nearly all the Founders agreed that if public virtue failed, so would the Republic. As Edmund Burke once said, "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." Madison also stated that ""The less virtue . . .possessed by the people, the more government they needed. The less able able they were to exercise their rights and liberties in moderation, the greater need there would be for government coercion and limitations on individual actions."
Virtue is a word that has been highly misunderstood, especially by constitutional revisionists. These are those who feel that the constitution is "outdated", and should be more flexible to fit the times. These revisionists of the constitution have failed to recognize the tremendous thought and sophisticated understanding of human nature that was held by the Founders. These revisionists have not understood that virtue can evolve with time. It is capable of adapting to current self-interest, the complexity of modern human existence, and the potential effects of the concept of the "common good" with acceptance of spirited public mindedness. The founders expected that virtue would come from people voluntarily tempering their own selfish demands and desires enough so that liberty could flourish. It also meant that those who sought for political office would temper their pride, rise above their selfish concerns, and would wish to maintain their positive reputation by representing the people honorably.
So the founders considered virtue to simply mean one thing: a means to assure individual liberty and self-government by putting the good of the whole above the good of the individual or a small group of individuals. Therefore, you can see how this idea of virtue can transcend through hundreds of years despite changes in technology, society, and a variety of religious and moral ideals.
From the beginning of our constitution, the Founders feared that if there was insufficient public virtue then order would have to be imposed by coercion and force. The founders saw virtue as a form of restraint against corruption and, at the same time, as a stimulator of positive moral action.
This is something very important to keep in mind over the next 14 months leading to the presidential election. "Virtue", what is it, and who has it. Are those seeking this office able to rise above their selfish desires for grandiosity and fame to take care of the public good. Will the future president understand his/her role in government and the powers that do and do not come with the office? Above all, the President of the United States takes an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. Will the next president honor this oath? These are all things to consider as we look at the candidates aiming for office.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The great importance of the 2008 presidential race.
"I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take power from them, but to inform them by education"--Thomas Jefferson
In previous elections, most candidates would start their campaign on or shortly after Labor Day. This year however, the only candidate who followed tradition was Fred Thompson, who is to announce his candidacy on Thursday September sixth. It is hard to say why Thompson has waited so long to throw his hat in the ring, but that will be discussed in another blog about him. My point is, the powers that be started this race VERY early. The first primaries will be held in January 2008! They know how much is on the line. The differences in the candidates represent a huge ideological divide. When you examine what each one believes and stands for you realize that the issues they commit to are as different as black and white. Many are outspoken and highly visible, others are less so. As Edmund Burke once said, "Ambition can creep as well as soar." Some candidates wish to serve the people, and others seek to serve themselves.
Consider the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. For a very long time during the race no one even took him seriously. Ross Perot had more credibility than Bill Clinton did. Then, almost over night, Clinton was being inaugurated as President. He did not soar in, he crept in while many weren't looking and became popular, quickly. In this election, the main-stream media would have it appear that this race for the Democrats is only between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. But there are others who are gaining popularity and slithering their way up the polls. On the Republican side, the media has been considerably broader, although there are a number of candidates that they have barely acknowledged. Generally, journalism has lost most of its integrity. If you are getting most of your information from mainstream media such as cable news and newspapers you are probably being misled. Not to say newspapers are all bad. I enjoy reading the paper because it is one of the rare opportunities I have to read fiction. Finding a variety of sources for information is important. If you have the internet, you can look at every candidates voting record, financial records, and biographical information. There is no reason, in this age of technology, to be ignorant.
Let me list several issues of major importance that will be affected by our next president. The war on terror, border control, taxes, stem-cell research, judge appointments, health care, and social security funding--to name a few. In my opinion, the issue of greatest importance is terrorism. If we do not fight the terrorists in the Middle-East, then the terrorists will come to fight their war here. On July 7, 2005, radical Islamists attacked the trains of London. At that time, Condoleezza Rice said, "These terrorists attacked without warning on September 11, 2001. They have attacked in Madrid, in Jakarta, in Morocco. This is a worldwide war against ideals. There is no separate peace to be made with terrorism. They are after our way of life and we have to deal with them. There is no other way than with strength." CNN Headline News is running a special next week called "The Perfect Day". This title was taken from the chatter of the radical Islamists. They refer to September 11th as the perfect day. They delight in bloodshed. They have no conscience about killing innocent men,women and children. Most frightening of all is the fact that our enemy has no fear of death. This war is unlike any other ever fought. For example, the cold war was easier to deal with because the Soviet Union did not want a nuclear war any more than the United States. They were sane--they had a desire to preserve their own lives. In World War II, after the U.S. bombed Japan, they decided that they didn't want more of their people to die either, and thus surrendered. But an enemy who doesn't fear death is capable of any atrocity imaginable in the darkest mind of a criminal sociopath. Not only do they have no fear of death, but they are convinced that they are assuring their salvation by doing what is "right". There is only one way to deal with someone who will murder because he believes it is right, they have to die. If they don't die, then countless innocent people will.
If you are one who does not like the war in Iraq, consider this; when you lie down in bed tonight you don't have to worry about a bomb tearing through your roof. You don't wonder if you will get blown up if you eat in a restaurant. You don't concern yourself with the possibility of radicals breaking in your door and torturing or killing you for owning a Bible. If you are a woman, you won't have the experience of a recent Pakistani woman who spoke to a man who was not her husband. She was buried in sand up to her neck, her head was covered with honey, and she was slowly eaten alive. No, when you lay down at night you think about paying the electric bill, why your son is failing math, or if your house will ever sell. You aren't consumed with a constant fear of death because of our men and women in uniform keeping terrorism at bay. Yes, it is a tragedy that our soldiers sometimes die, but let me remind you that this is a volunteer military, it is not a draft. The men and women fighting this war chose to become soldiers. Although it has been said many times, I will say it again, "Freedom isn't free." We have our freedoms because of the bravery of our forefathers. From the founding fathers of the Revolutionary war, and every war thereafter, the price of freedom was blood. They died to give us this gift. What gift will we give to our posterity? My husband was enlisted in the U.S. Army for nearly 8 years, and although he had a desk job, he was keenly aware that he was first and foremost a soldier. If that meant firing an M-16, throwing grenades, and sleeping in fox holes he was prepared to do his duty. Every American who enjoys the blessings of freedom should be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder, even if armed only with rocks and shovels, to preserve our Constitution, our freedoms, and our way of life. A candidate who is a wimp on the subjects of terrorism, national security and border control will open up our nation for radical attacks, and these terrorists will not stop until they achieve their goal; to convert the world to Islam and force us to live under their radical ideology. Do we want another September 11th?
If we lose the war on terrorism no other debate really matters. Stem-cell research, abortion, social security reform, taxes and free speech won't be issues anymore. There will be no debate on these subjects if we are over-run by Al-Qaeda. We won't have time to worry about those subjects if we are constantly being bombed or shot at. Our world would change as drastically as England's did when Hitler began attacking their nation during World War II. Winston Churchill warned Parliament repeatedly about the danger of Germany and was ignored and treated as a fool. It can even be argued that his predecessor, Prime Minister Chamberlain, helped the Nazis in their rise to power. We have been warned about the dangers of the Middle-East instability, will we ignore it, throw in the towel, and be at the mercy of radicals? Will history say that "the invasion of the U.S. could have been avoided if President ____________ had not been weak on the problem of terrorism"?
On the first anniversary of the terrorist murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, his father Judea Pearl released this statement. "The murder weapon in Danny's case was aimed not at a faceless enemy or institution, but at a gentle human being--one whose face is now familiar to millions of people around the world. Danny's murderers spent a week with him; they must have seen his radiating humanity. Killing him so brutally, and in front of a video camera, marked a new low in man's inhumanity to man. People of all faiths were thus shocked to realize that mankind can still be dragged to such depths by certain myths and ideologies." Mr. Pearl continues, "Danny was killed because he represented us, namely the ideals that every civilized person aspires to uphold--modernity, openness, pluralism, freedom of inquiry, truth, honesty and respect for all people. Decent people of all backgrounds have consequently felt personally targeted in this crime, and have been motivated to carry on Danny's spirit."
This is just one of many examples that we are not dealing with a typical enemy. The enemy does not live in one country that we can just bomb into submission. They spread their radical theology throughout the world. It is not a war on a religion, it is a war on radical ideologies. Even Hilary Clinton, who now supposedly regrets voting in favor of the invasion of Iraq, has admitted that Saddam Hussein and his regime harbored, gave aid, comfort, and financial support to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. This is a very complicated war involving people spread throughout the world, and it will take a very brilliant President to manage the complexities of this problem.
This is not to say that the other issues are of no import. They are very significant, but they are secondary to us maintaining our country as a free and sovereign nation. It is important to know each candidate, what they stand for, what they believe in, and what they consider to be significant. It is imperative that each of us decide which side of the ideological divide we are on and choose the candidate that suits us best. Many people do not know the real difference between the Democrat's platform and the Republican's platform. Others, try to please everyone by being "moderate". In my opinion a moderate is a person who refuses to stand for anything. People who walk down the middle of the road get run over, that is a fact. The days of fence sitting are over. This is too important.
To help you in your understanding and decisions I will soon explain why a two party system really is good for this nation. I will also explain the differences between the Republican and Democratic platforms. Then, in the days following, I will write about each candidate individually so that we can get a picture of the ideals they represent. We must choose carefully. In the words of the great President Abraham Lincoln, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." We need a president who will maintain his character even while he is the leader of the free world.
In previous elections, most candidates would start their campaign on or shortly after Labor Day. This year however, the only candidate who followed tradition was Fred Thompson, who is to announce his candidacy on Thursday September sixth. It is hard to say why Thompson has waited so long to throw his hat in the ring, but that will be discussed in another blog about him. My point is, the powers that be started this race VERY early. The first primaries will be held in January 2008! They know how much is on the line. The differences in the candidates represent a huge ideological divide. When you examine what each one believes and stands for you realize that the issues they commit to are as different as black and white. Many are outspoken and highly visible, others are less so. As Edmund Burke once said, "Ambition can creep as well as soar." Some candidates wish to serve the people, and others seek to serve themselves.
Consider the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. For a very long time during the race no one even took him seriously. Ross Perot had more credibility than Bill Clinton did. Then, almost over night, Clinton was being inaugurated as President. He did not soar in, he crept in while many weren't looking and became popular, quickly. In this election, the main-stream media would have it appear that this race for the Democrats is only between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. But there are others who are gaining popularity and slithering their way up the polls. On the Republican side, the media has been considerably broader, although there are a number of candidates that they have barely acknowledged. Generally, journalism has lost most of its integrity. If you are getting most of your information from mainstream media such as cable news and newspapers you are probably being misled. Not to say newspapers are all bad. I enjoy reading the paper because it is one of the rare opportunities I have to read fiction. Finding a variety of sources for information is important. If you have the internet, you can look at every candidates voting record, financial records, and biographical information. There is no reason, in this age of technology, to be ignorant.
Let me list several issues of major importance that will be affected by our next president. The war on terror, border control, taxes, stem-cell research, judge appointments, health care, and social security funding--to name a few. In my opinion, the issue of greatest importance is terrorism. If we do not fight the terrorists in the Middle-East, then the terrorists will come to fight their war here. On July 7, 2005, radical Islamists attacked the trains of London. At that time, Condoleezza Rice said, "These terrorists attacked without warning on September 11, 2001. They have attacked in Madrid, in Jakarta, in Morocco. This is a worldwide war against ideals. There is no separate peace to be made with terrorism. They are after our way of life and we have to deal with them. There is no other way than with strength." CNN Headline News is running a special next week called "The Perfect Day". This title was taken from the chatter of the radical Islamists. They refer to September 11th as the perfect day. They delight in bloodshed. They have no conscience about killing innocent men,women and children. Most frightening of all is the fact that our enemy has no fear of death. This war is unlike any other ever fought. For example, the cold war was easier to deal with because the Soviet Union did not want a nuclear war any more than the United States. They were sane--they had a desire to preserve their own lives. In World War II, after the U.S. bombed Japan, they decided that they didn't want more of their people to die either, and thus surrendered. But an enemy who doesn't fear death is capable of any atrocity imaginable in the darkest mind of a criminal sociopath. Not only do they have no fear of death, but they are convinced that they are assuring their salvation by doing what is "right". There is only one way to deal with someone who will murder because he believes it is right, they have to die. If they don't die, then countless innocent people will.
If you are one who does not like the war in Iraq, consider this; when you lie down in bed tonight you don't have to worry about a bomb tearing through your roof. You don't wonder if you will get blown up if you eat in a restaurant. You don't concern yourself with the possibility of radicals breaking in your door and torturing or killing you for owning a Bible. If you are a woman, you won't have the experience of a recent Pakistani woman who spoke to a man who was not her husband. She was buried in sand up to her neck, her head was covered with honey, and she was slowly eaten alive. No, when you lay down at night you think about paying the electric bill, why your son is failing math, or if your house will ever sell. You aren't consumed with a constant fear of death because of our men and women in uniform keeping terrorism at bay. Yes, it is a tragedy that our soldiers sometimes die, but let me remind you that this is a volunteer military, it is not a draft. The men and women fighting this war chose to become soldiers. Although it has been said many times, I will say it again, "Freedom isn't free." We have our freedoms because of the bravery of our forefathers. From the founding fathers of the Revolutionary war, and every war thereafter, the price of freedom was blood. They died to give us this gift. What gift will we give to our posterity? My husband was enlisted in the U.S. Army for nearly 8 years, and although he had a desk job, he was keenly aware that he was first and foremost a soldier. If that meant firing an M-16, throwing grenades, and sleeping in fox holes he was prepared to do his duty. Every American who enjoys the blessings of freedom should be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder, even if armed only with rocks and shovels, to preserve our Constitution, our freedoms, and our way of life. A candidate who is a wimp on the subjects of terrorism, national security and border control will open up our nation for radical attacks, and these terrorists will not stop until they achieve their goal; to convert the world to Islam and force us to live under their radical ideology. Do we want another September 11th?
If we lose the war on terrorism no other debate really matters. Stem-cell research, abortion, social security reform, taxes and free speech won't be issues anymore. There will be no debate on these subjects if we are over-run by Al-Qaeda. We won't have time to worry about those subjects if we are constantly being bombed or shot at. Our world would change as drastically as England's did when Hitler began attacking their nation during World War II. Winston Churchill warned Parliament repeatedly about the danger of Germany and was ignored and treated as a fool. It can even be argued that his predecessor, Prime Minister Chamberlain, helped the Nazis in their rise to power. We have been warned about the dangers of the Middle-East instability, will we ignore it, throw in the towel, and be at the mercy of radicals? Will history say that "the invasion of the U.S. could have been avoided if President ____________ had not been weak on the problem of terrorism"?
On the first anniversary of the terrorist murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, his father Judea Pearl released this statement. "The murder weapon in Danny's case was aimed not at a faceless enemy or institution, but at a gentle human being--one whose face is now familiar to millions of people around the world. Danny's murderers spent a week with him; they must have seen his radiating humanity. Killing him so brutally, and in front of a video camera, marked a new low in man's inhumanity to man. People of all faiths were thus shocked to realize that mankind can still be dragged to such depths by certain myths and ideologies." Mr. Pearl continues, "Danny was killed because he represented us, namely the ideals that every civilized person aspires to uphold--modernity, openness, pluralism, freedom of inquiry, truth, honesty and respect for all people. Decent people of all backgrounds have consequently felt personally targeted in this crime, and have been motivated to carry on Danny's spirit."
This is just one of many examples that we are not dealing with a typical enemy. The enemy does not live in one country that we can just bomb into submission. They spread their radical theology throughout the world. It is not a war on a religion, it is a war on radical ideologies. Even Hilary Clinton, who now supposedly regrets voting in favor of the invasion of Iraq, has admitted that Saddam Hussein and his regime harbored, gave aid, comfort, and financial support to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. This is a very complicated war involving people spread throughout the world, and it will take a very brilliant President to manage the complexities of this problem.
This is not to say that the other issues are of no import. They are very significant, but they are secondary to us maintaining our country as a free and sovereign nation. It is important to know each candidate, what they stand for, what they believe in, and what they consider to be significant. It is imperative that each of us decide which side of the ideological divide we are on and choose the candidate that suits us best. Many people do not know the real difference between the Democrat's platform and the Republican's platform. Others, try to please everyone by being "moderate". In my opinion a moderate is a person who refuses to stand for anything. People who walk down the middle of the road get run over, that is a fact. The days of fence sitting are over. This is too important.
To help you in your understanding and decisions I will soon explain why a two party system really is good for this nation. I will also explain the differences between the Republican and Democratic platforms. Then, in the days following, I will write about each candidate individually so that we can get a picture of the ideals they represent. We must choose carefully. In the words of the great President Abraham Lincoln, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." We need a president who will maintain his character even while he is the leader of the free world.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Why does it matter anyway?
This is my first blog. I decided to write this so that I have a place to put my opinions and ideas, where people who are interested can read them. I am not a genius, a political strategist or a politician. I am a wife, a mom, and a citizen of the United States. I love this country. I love our constitution and our bill of rights. I am frustrated as I see how many people just don't care about anything anymore. I speak with friends and associates and they refuse to even vote. They ask me why it matters, and what difference their vote can make. I hope that I can answer those questions in these blogs. We can't give up if we fail in our first attempts, we must keep fighting. As Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Britain once said, "You may have to fight a battle more than once to win." I consider this a battle: of ideals, of values, and of our freedoms.
I refuse to lie down and do nothing as I watch our country flush down the toilet. Edmund Burke once said, "It is necessary only for the good man [or woman] to do nothing for evil to triumph." If those of us who care about our children, the future of this nation, and the condition of our freedoms don't try to make the world better, then evil will prevail. Surely, we will have to answer to God for wasting this beautiful gift of freedom he has given us. At the very least, even if no one reads my blogs, I will be able to vent my frustrations.
If you are on top of current events, then more power to you. My blog might add to your information, and it will give you my opinion, if you care. If you don't know much about what is happening in this nation and how it affects you, I hope that this blog will help to inform you. I am unashamedly conservative, but I will always try to write the truth; even if it shows my preferences unfavorably. However, I am conservative for a reason; I have learned, studied, and chosen my side. So, regardless of how unbiased I will try to be, I believe by nature that a conservative position will show more favorably.
If I get something wrong, I ask in advance for your forgiveness. As George Washington said, "When a man does all he can, though it succeeds not well, blame not him that did it." This is my small attempt to make a difference in the world. I hope this will give you ideas about what you can do to help change the world. In the blogs that follow over the next week or so, I will be discussing the candidates for President of the United States. This race is of tremendous importance. I hope that those who read this will make the decision to vote and take action for what they believe is right. You see, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." --Thomas Jefferson
I refuse to lie down and do nothing as I watch our country flush down the toilet. Edmund Burke once said, "It is necessary only for the good man [or woman] to do nothing for evil to triumph." If those of us who care about our children, the future of this nation, and the condition of our freedoms don't try to make the world better, then evil will prevail. Surely, we will have to answer to God for wasting this beautiful gift of freedom he has given us. At the very least, even if no one reads my blogs, I will be able to vent my frustrations.
If you are on top of current events, then more power to you. My blog might add to your information, and it will give you my opinion, if you care. If you don't know much about what is happening in this nation and how it affects you, I hope that this blog will help to inform you. I am unashamedly conservative, but I will always try to write the truth; even if it shows my preferences unfavorably. However, I am conservative for a reason; I have learned, studied, and chosen my side. So, regardless of how unbiased I will try to be, I believe by nature that a conservative position will show more favorably.
If I get something wrong, I ask in advance for your forgiveness. As George Washington said, "When a man does all he can, though it succeeds not well, blame not him that did it." This is my small attempt to make a difference in the world. I hope this will give you ideas about what you can do to help change the world. In the blogs that follow over the next week or so, I will be discussing the candidates for President of the United States. This race is of tremendous importance. I hope that those who read this will make the decision to vote and take action for what they believe is right. You see, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." --Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)