The American Spectator

Michael Roush| 10.23.08 @ 10:22AM

Mr. Dooley, According to Jonah Goldberg, we are all fascist now. McCain rants about socialists. Fascist, socialist whatever. When the right decides what to label those who question their ideology, please let me know.

Thomas Donley| 10.23.08 @ 11:23AM

"Fascist, socialist whatever".

Likewise, "the right" is also just another label.

Indeed, political labels do matter little for, in the final analysis, the history of government is still, for the most part, the history of the oppression of mankind. Given the observable uniqueness inherent in each and every human being, one either supports their right to pursue this uniqueness largely unimpeded or one supports the right of a collective body, through the imposition of governmental authority, to impose it's will to in some way control, modify and ultimately suppress individuality. It also matters little whether this imposition of collective will is, in fact, authoritarian or benevolent in nature, for the end result is always still the same - the diminishment of one's ability to pursue their inherent uniqueness. Therein lies the wisdom behind the philosophy which states "that government governs best which governs least". If the flower of mankind is ever to bloom to it's most beautiful potential, each individual petal thereon must be allowed to fully unfold.

Michael Tobias| 10.23.08 @ 4:10PM

Mr. Donley writes beautiful prose, but the substance of his post is a bit unsettling. If I wish to become a serial killer, or a violent rapist, or a pedophile or a thief, or whatever other petal I may be on the flower of mankind, then I should be allowed to unfold and realize this potential? Balderdash. Government exists for a very simple purpose; to provide for the physical safety of the lives and property of the governed through the imposition of the least number of restrictions consistent with that goal. As soon as government begins to worm its tentacles into areas of economy, morals, and religion; the society served by the government declines. When people learn this and structure governments accordingly, then the benevolent flowers of mankind will unfold to their potential.

Quartermaster| 10.23.08 @ 8:32PM

Roush seems to be in a quandary about what label applies to him. A fascist is a type of socialist that hates other brands, but arrogates power to itself. Much like Obama and his spiritual forebears Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin. If Mr. Roush needs more tutelage, he can consult any good Poli Sci text written 50 to 60 years ago - a time before the academy dumbed itself down to ignorance and irrelevance.

The right on the other hand, knows what he and his cohorts in crime actually are. McCain and Bush are actually two men of much the same socialist mindset as he. He just doesn't like their brand. About like Mussolini and Gramsci, two others of like mindset.

Thomas Donley| 10.23.08 @ 9:11PM

Mr. Tobias' statement that "government exists for a very simple purpose; to provide for the physical safety of the lives and property of the governed through the imposition of the least number of restrictions consistent with that goal" is absolutely correct. A more careful reading of my missive might have noted the statement that one's right's to pursue one's uniqueness should be "largely", not totally, impeded by the collective dominion of government. Of course there must be government restraint on individual behavior, for the lack thereof constitutes the soci0-political state of anarchy, something which, in my humble opinion, no sane, compassionate and rational- thinking person would ever advocate. Heinous behavior such as Mr. Tobias delineates, and many other types as well, must be restrained by government because these behaviors impugn the liberty of those who are victimized by it. Likewise, such regulations as are necessary to safeguard the right to own property must also be in place, for the right to own private property is the foundation upon which individual liberty stands. Given the self-indulgent nature of the human species, anything less would likely result in a flowering of mankind that was unsightly, unfragrant and fully encompassed by thorns.

Mr. Tobias is also correct in his assessment that individual liberty is usurped the very moment "government begins to worm it's tentacles into areas of economy, morals and religion". Left unsaid is the fact that government must be as local in nature as possible, lest individual liberty be diminished by it's single gravest threat - the concentration of political power. As the burgeoning federal bureaucracy in Washington so aptly and disgustingly displays, government that is not primarily local in nature soon becomes unaccountable to it's citizenry. Thus is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, whose constitutional restrictions contained the intention of delegating the preponderance of political power to the states.

After warning that "as government begins to worm it's tentacles into areas of economy, morals and religion, the society served by the government declines", Mr. Tobias states that "when people learn this and structure governments accordingly", "the benevolent flowers of mankind will unfold to their potential".
In actuality, people learned that back around 1776 and, subsequent thereto, the unfolding of their individual petals collectively culminated in the freest, most prosperous and most successful civilization the world has ever known. The real problem is that they forgot it sometime in the 1930's by embracing self-indulgence and supporting the New Deal. Sadly, they have been using the apparatus of government to expropriate money from their neighbors ever since.

I thank you, sincerely, Mr. Tobias, for your gracious comment pursuant to my prose.

ed bertolas| 10.24.08 @ 12:22PM

Dear Friends and Family,

You know I do not usually forward stuff. And yes, I am guilty of not "...sending
within the next thirty seconds to four gazillion friends or your foot will fall
off." Furthermore I have refrained from political comment to all but those
immediately around me. This one, however is too important to ignore. PLEASE
CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW.

Remember, I lived in a country who's policies have no recognizable differences
from those espoused by the current Democratic candidate...and I lived there for
over 14 years. Nearly no one in Belgium has any sense of patriotism. A country
the size of NJ has 10 million people...60% don't like the other 40% based solely
along their linguistic divide. I could go on and on about Belgium but that is
not the issue. The issue IS we need to do everything possible NOT to become
another European-style country.

For those of you I may have been offended by sending this...I apologize.

I cannot personally vouch for the total accuracy of this piece...however..if
even some of it is true...can we afford that chance? The Ayers-Wright-Rezko
stuff has always concerned me.

Finally, I am convinced to the depth of my soul that if we elect Obama we will
change in ways that will completely alter our great country forever. Friends
this may be a scare tactic but I follow politics closely and I have to tell you
I AM SCARED!

God Bless you all and may God continue to Bless our great Country!

PLEASE WATCH THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://oldbluewebdesigns.com/USSA.htm

ed bertolas| 10.24.08 @ 12:43PM

Dear Friends:

I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are "two Americas" but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.

The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hardworking, taxpaying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.

We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?

I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it "change".

"Change what?" I ask.

"Well, we're going to change America ", they say.

"In what way?" I query.

"We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they exclaim.

"So, someone who's not a politician?", I say. "

Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama", they state.

"So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all wrong?"

"No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot of change."

And so it goes. "Change we can believe in."

Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff "Change, change, change." I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.

We've all seen the e-mail about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, "What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?"

CHANGE WHAT?

Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Nonexistent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.

For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

Here's a question - "Where were you five and a half years ago; around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days; 2,000 nights of sleep. 6,000 meals, give or take."

John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.

When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.

Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.

Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or nonexistent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change."

I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.

Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them than "trust". Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.

Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.

There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.

I want a President who's qualified to lead.

I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.

stewertlaw| 11.10.08 @ 8:01PM

:) Check out this Credit Solutions of America page for more!