Replies

Clinton was a dedicated Fabian Socialist. He cut back on spending only because in the post-Reagan period, that was pragmatic politics. But he allowed a flood of migrants over the Southern border, the vast majority of whom would be from the very lowest classes; people who could well become part of a future Marxist Proletariat, changing the fundamental character of this predominantly middle-class Republic, and making the continuation of institutions which reflect our basic nature, impossible in the long run. In his final State of the Union, he was bold enough even to taunt us with this acomplishment.

Clinton also mocked George Washington's Farewell Address, with one of his own, which paraphrased Washington in Clinton's denial of Washingtonian values. His War on Serbia was a major step towards establishing the Fabian Socialist dream of an Atlantic Union, which was no accident. His use of the American Military to impose a Marxist regime in Haiti, and to promote an asexual value system, was Leftwing beyond anything comparable in American History.

Bush has supported a lot of stupid "Liberal" programs, but I think that at heart he has the Conservative instincts that Clinton's whole life is a denial of. Bush's problem is that he is getting some very, very poor advice.

Our answer is, of course, to rally Conservatives to speak out on matters of principle with a firm assurance; to let those on both sides of the aisle in Washington know that we are awake, and looking for opportunities; that we will rally around any stand for real principle; but we will never blindly endorse what we know to be fundamentally wrong, however much we may like the mistaken ones who propose it.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

In a certain sense politicians are the ultimate followers. If conservatives make enough noise, the pols will come-a-runnin'.

This requires specific actions on the part of conservatives that want to make sure their views are heard. One recommendation is to support these folks. They are well-organized and are making a difference. Plus, you gotta love the anti-Daschle attack ad they ran in South Dakota.

That statement somewhat reminds me of the excuses given by the mothers of convicted criminals ....for example: Josh may have been implicated in this abhorable rape/murder ....but at heart he has always been a good boy and even spent weekends with his grandma helping with the laundry! He just got very poor social development in public school.

Basically i would not have a bleeding heart for Josh ....why? Because he may have had 'poor advice' and may have 'at heart' been wanting to help his granny when he was cutting up his victims, BUT he still did the crime! Same thign with Bush .....he may 'at heart' be a conservative president, and he may 'at heart' be meaning to keep his electoral promises, but he is not! I do not know what is in his 'heart', but i do see what is being done and how he has done things like expanding govt (more in 2 yrs than Klington did in 8), establishing programs that are so anti-constitution and socialist they make me cringe (eg TIPS ....which seems to make the USA into the USSA) and an apparent ignorance of the economy (i say apparent because he is not ignoring it, but the 'common voter' losing his 401K will see it as White House ignorance).

Thus it really does not matter what is in his heart! It is what is done that matters.

A crude analogy is that if i ever had a pet being swept by a flood i would rather have a bloody murderer save my pet than to have a glorious preacher watch it drown but have 'thoughts in his heart' of saving it. Action takes precedence over intention. I would rather have good actions by a person with bad intentions than bad actions from a person with good intentions.