Posted on 02/08/2005 1:00:11 PM PST by joyce11111
What's Wrong with These Democrats?
by Cary Eldred Posted Feb 8, 2005
There has been a common refrain around our house, for the last five years in particular--"What is wrong with these Democrats?" And if that has been our refrain, our chorus has been, "Who votes for these people?"
And listening to the President's State of the Union address and the Democrats' rebuttals delivered the other night; we were again singing our song. Who does vote for these people?
My daughter has been studying the American Revolution in her fifth-grade Social Studies class, and I can't help but compare the Democrats of today with the Patriots of yesterday. How does Harry Reid stack up against Thomas Jefferson or Paul Revere? How about John Kerry or Ted Kennedy against George Washington or Benjamin Franklin? Try comparing Hilary Clinton or Barbara Boxer to Alexander Hamilton or John Adams. Here's the scariest of all--Robert Byrd or Bill Clinton to John Hancock! We would be flying the Union Jack today, that's for sure.
So, after watching the State of the Union address and the stupefying re-rebuttals, our family has a new question for measuring a politician's worth--"Would they have voted for the War for Independence if they had been a representative to the Continental Congress?" Let's review. Senator Kerry and Barbara Boxer would have voted 'Nay' because they were sulking. Senator Byrd would have identified with a senile tyrant like King George. A Declaration of Independence written by Senator Kennedy would have been garbled and incoherent, not to mention meaningless. That's sobering isn't it? Let that one sit on you for a minute. Ted Kennedy writing the Declaration of Independence! Could Senator Reid have fueled the flame of freedom in the hearts of the patriots as did John Adams? Senator Hillary Clinton's shrill hysteria would not have smoothed the feathers of the delegates as did John Hancock's quiet diplomacy. Oh, Oh…how about Al Gore and Benjamin Franklin? Can you picture that wise man Benjamin Franklin enhancing his 'package' for women voters? Okay--I have to stop--it's just too ridiculous.
Our Founding Fathers, whatever their political persuasion, all had one thing in common--they all had an understanding of the human spirit. They understood that freedom, that inalienable right, is the defining force of mankind. That every human being yearns for freedom, and it must be defended at any cost. That without hope, the human spirit is quenched; and that without courage and the strength of character that comes from self-government, or self-discipline if you will, we would die.
I cannot find any evidence that the Democrats of today grasp the enormity of what it means to lead this country, let alone set an example for the rest of the world. Again, the question begs to be answered, "What is wrong with the Democrats?" They cannot see beyond their own jobs, or their own electoral control, or their own power. Weakness and vacillating hypocrisy rule their behavior and their decisions. Sadly and dangerously, courage that comes from the strength of conviction and righteousness is not their guiding compass. Democrats are afraid of freedom, because the freedom of others threatens their slothful status quo and their own grip of control.
There is one quote from the President's Inaugural speech that echoes in my mind, "In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character--on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of self." This truth is affirmed on every level of our existence. The success of a self-governing country depends on the ability of its citizens to practice self-discipline. Conversely, those without character--without the discipline of self-government or self-discipline or self-control--are the antithesis of freedom. The very enemy of freedom, which is the life blood of the human spirit. A lack of self-discipline is poison to a self-governing democracy.
Consider--the alcoholic cannot be free until he exercises self-control over his desire to take a drink (whether a behavioral choice or a matter of genetics, self-control still needs to be brought to bear). Without self-discipline throughout the course of his education, a student deprives himself of the freedom to choose from all possible career choices. The overeater is a slave to her desire for food--she can only be free when she can control her eating and exercising. The abuser, the murderer, the rapist, the 'road rager', the pregnant teen, the adulterer--all have chosen not to cultivate self-discipline. A lack of self-government or self-control is the burden of slavery, not freedom.
But the crux of the matter for the Democrats is that self-discipline is hard work. A weak character refuses to take on the task of character development, and consequently, public interest suffers. President Bush also said that "The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it." Democrats have not the strength of character to develop self-control, because self-interest is more rewarding in that it costs less and demands less. And if they have not the backbone to develop self-discipline, then others must not be allowed to either because who then would have the upper hand? It's almost as if President Bush knew the nature of the opposition and fired off in advance, "The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it."
Witness the Democrats reaction to Social Security reform. They are willing to espouse the empty rhetoric of reform as long as they aren't really required to work for reform. The Democrats are afraid to let us have control of our own money because then they lose control and power. They refuse to allow us our right to the self-government of our earnings and our financial future. They refuse us our right to the practice the freedom of self-discipline.
Only a soul rooted in the hope of its potential in its own destiny has the strength to forge ahead and to assist others in achieving their own appointment with freedom.
Only the men who had conquered the hardships of a New World would have had the strength of character required to declare and defend Independence. Only a heart that has struggled to control its baser instincts, its selfishness and self-interests is a heart that is privileged to discern and carry on the dream.
Our Founding Fathers had the courage and the strength and the self-discipline to lead the Colonists toward self-government. Likewise, President Bush has the courage and the strength and the self-discipline to lead this country, and the world, in the rewarding challenge of fostering the passion for nothing less than freedom. Can the same be said for the Democrats? Have they demonstrated the perseverance to stay the course in the face of the world's disapproval? Did John Adams? Have the Democrats exhibited the personal discipline of self-control to guide our military? Did George Washington? Have the Democrats consistently displayed wisdom and a lack of self-interest in their campaigning and their voting records? Did Thomas Jefferson? Have the Democrats held high the standards of integrity and honesty? Did John Hancock? Have the Democrats been willing to sacrifice everything--including their own best interests--for the sake of freedom no matter where it burns? Did John Paul Jones?
They don't understand the freedom of self-governing is the freedom of self-control. They are weak, and they are miserable in their weakness, so they make every effort to bring the country to their level. They can't see to help others to the oasis of freedom because their weaknesses hold them in bondage.
So…I'm asking you. What is wrong with these Democrats? Who votes for these people? Would they have supported the War for Independence? If History had seen fit to place Barbara Boxer and Hilary Clinton and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and John Edwards and the others in the Continental Congress, would there have been a Declaration of Independence, or an American Revolution, or a Constitution? I believe not. Why not? For the simple reason that these events required the best that mankind has to offer-- courage to stand alone for what is right, strength to withstand adversity, vision to hold to the purpose, faith in your fellow patriot, and integrity to admit when you were short-sighted. The Founding Fathers and President Bush have discovered the secret to keeping the passion of freedom alive. The Patriot of freedom, both yesterday and today, must be willing to sacrifice himself to serve the greater interests of the ideal--freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
I compare my Senator more favorably with The Incredible Mr. Limpett.
I about fell off my chair laughing at that part.
Just found this at du
Harry Reid is a REAL LIFE Shit Kicker...Let's get ready to RUMBLE
Posted by autorank
Added to homepage Tue Feb 08th 2005, 08:14 AM ET
The news has been so bad for so long, we're starting to believe the very sources that are there to make us disbelieve in our leaders and our future as a party.
Enough of this cry-baby crap. Here is some information about Reid that you may find highly encouraging. The guy kicks ass. He just does it from a controlled exsterior, which is fine in our times. Makes us look justifiably irate. Reid set the mark up, now it's time for the take down.
Just look at this and add to it.
Ed: This article is from December, but it's worth a read.
Harry Reid Is Not Boring
Has Scorsese fictionalized your U.S. senator?
By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2004, at 5:51 PM PT
Like flies to wanton boys are politicians to the press. We kill them for our sport. But rarely has a public figure been subject to a campaign of character assassination as unfair as the one that's targeted Harry Reid since the Nevada senator was chosen to replace Tom Daschle as Senate minority leader. A vast conspiracy has lacerated Reid as "plain," or worse, boring. "As dry as the martinis he never drinks," Las Vegas Review-Journal political columnist Steve Sebelius told Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard, though Continetti devised an even better insult for the Democratic leader's "soporific public persona": Reid "might be taken for the man in the gray flannel suit's shorter, quieter second cousin," he wrote. The attacks on Reid's charm deficit aren't new—Congressional Quarterly noted 10 years ago, "Even Reid's supporters call him 'colorless'"—but Charles Babington of the Washington Post took the rhetoric to a new low last month when he declared that Reid "lacks Daschle's flair."
There was a time when a remark like that—akin to saying that someone lacks Emmanuel Lewis's height—was considered out of the bounds of respectable Washington discourse. Granted, Reid compares poorly to say, Mary Lou Retton when it comes to charisma. But what congressional leader doesn't? The Republican leadership, after all, includes Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell.
Reid may not be the most colorful figure in Washington, but his career is far more interesting than that of the average senator. In politics, Nevada is the next best thing to Louisiana. To take just one example, is there another U.S. senator who has been part of the inspiration for a character in a Martin Scorsese film? (A character played by Dick Smothers, no less.) In Casino, Robert DeNiro's character melts down in front of the Nevada Gaming Commission after the commission denies him a license to operate a casino. The scene is loosely based on a December 1978 hearing when Reid was the commission's chairman, and some of the dialogue spoken by Smothers is taken directly from Reid's words during the hearing. (The rest of the scenes involving Smothers, who plays a composite politician known only as "Senator," have nothing to do with Reid.) OK, it's lackluster Scorsese, but at least it's not Gangs of New York. And there are other Reid echoes in Casino: Joe Pesci's character refers to a "Mr. Cleanface," which gangster Joe Agosto said was his nickname for an in-his-pocket Reid, but a five-month investigation of Agosto's claims cleared Reid of wrongdoing
More...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2111392
Good read, thanks for the post.
Best regards
Sergio
My computer doesn't have enough memory for a list like that.
Nothing is difficult, in the conceit of a liberal - provided that someone else is accountable. And in the conceit of a liberal, liberals are accountable for nothing.Liberals are all appetite for authority and aversion to responsibility. It is foolish for we-the-people to allow liberals to seperate the two; only the person who bears the consequences of a decision should make the decision.
I'm sorry. My answer will consume the better part of three decades. May I get back to you at that time? Thanks
What's wrong with the Democrats?
They're socialists. They have been out of power for so long, they are starting to show their true colors. They need to overhaul the party or they go the way of the Whigs.
"Would they have voted for the War for Independence if they had been a representative to the Continental Congress?"
We'd still be waiting for a UN mandate.
WOW!
This is filled with so many gems - I hardly know where to begin.
President Bush said: "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of self."
This is the basis of the dems problems. They don't want any rules or judgments - because they don't want to rule or judge their own selves.
But .. this statement by the author was priceless: "if they have not the backbone to develop self-discipline, then others must not be allowed to either because who then would have the upper hand?" This is so perceptive of how the dems operate .. and how they must demean Bush and call him a dunce - in order to cover up for their own lack.
This is a very good read.
VERY startling comparisons: in no manner are modern Democrats like our founding fathers (or mothers, for that matter). Thanks for posting this thought-provoking read.
Good article.
As to rpmjr, get an education, live a few more years, and try again.
Answer: People just like them!
During the revolution - there were 3 groups of people:
33% - wanted to fight for freedom from England
33% - didn't want to fight at all - they loved England and France
33% - didn't give a rip either way.
I do believe we still have the very same groups of people. The dems didn't want to fight for freedom in Iraq - the repubs did (and they did rebel against the King) - and the independents didn't give a rip either way.
If the founding fathers were "progressives" then the new progressives are missing the boat - because 90% the founding fathers were Christians who believed in GOD and were willing to pray in public.
You obviously haven't studied much history .. too bad.
"we would still be flying the Union Jack today.
You got that right.
Although I hesitate to make blanket statements about any group, one can only assume lack of thinking ability or lack of honesty as the reason anyone remains a Democrat. In today's information-rich environment lack of knowledge is certainly no excuse.
As human beings, most Democrats are sorry imposters. Their agenda as a national party is to gather ill-gotten gains for their pathetic hangers-on, who are as dishonest as they.
Am I too subtle?
What is wrong with democrats can be summarized by this simple statement.
Democrats are against voter fraud if Republicans are involved.
On the other hand, if democrats are involved a whole host of excuses arise.....or you simply hear silence. Like the old commies, the end justifies the means!
By the way, I cannot remember any Republican voter fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.