Random Political Thoughts

New Bumper Stickers

Hillary/Obama/Edwards:
Not George Bush since 1776

Guliani/McCain/Romney:
Not George Bush since 1776

Er... wait...

Those who don't trust anyone else cannot be trusted

I think I've figured out the Left/Progressives. I've been trying to figure out what exactly is the core of the Left's belief system and until now, it's mostly boggled me. But I think I've got it now.

Trust. The Left doesn't trust the Average American. Yes, that's scathing. Yes, it's a blanket statement, but walk with me for a minute as I explore this line of thinking.

Let's go with Gun Control first. The Right generally supports the Second Amendment. There are some that want everyone to have guns. They are idiots. Not everyone (criminals, mentally ill, underage, etc.) should have guns. But the more level-headed realize that it is our right to have guns and that "an armed society is a polite society." (Thank you, Robert Heinlein!) The Left, from what I can generally gather is the polar opposite. No one (except for the military and police) should have guns. Period. There is plenty of research out there that confirms that guns do not cause crime. In fact, that same research explicitly proves that if the citizenry is armed, crime is reduced, and if the citizenry is disarmed, crime increases. It's like magic! This is proven over and over again. So, what's the deal?

Well, I've already made my major point in that it's a matter of trust. The Left doesn't trust "other people" with guns. Right after the VA Tech massacre, there was a short debate about gun control and basically as soon as it was demonstrated that a single student with a gun would have stopped the whole thing, the conversation was pretty much dropped from the news. I was listening to someone talk about gun control and they stated, "I don't think I would feel safe if an entire major American city's population was armed." Er... why? Because they'd all be violent, crime-loving barbarians as soon as they bought the firearm? Hardly. It's because he didn't trust anyone but himself. Rest assured that more people carry concealed weapons than you probably realize.

This is kind of like how, for a long while, pretty much everyone believed that everyone else on the internet was some kind of homosexual, child-stalking, porn-watching pervert or something.

Let's move on to another topic: Poverty and the welfare state. What's the deal with the Left always wanting to raise the minimum wage and put more folks on welfare? Remember, welfare was supposed to eliminate poverty. I guess in one way, it did. Our poor have more stuff/money/resources than the rest of the world's poor. So, we have the richest poor in the world. But it's all relative. The poor (and the Left) measure their "poorness" against the "rich" and their "richness." The average family in poverty has a microwave, TV, cell phone and a car. The average rich family? Well, I don't know. But I can use my imagination and choose to believe that they have a better microwave, a larger TV, more minutes per month on their cell phone plan and better and more cars. Whether that's true... I don't know.

But, getting back to the point, the massive expansion of our welfare state was caused by the Left. Why? Because they didn't trust the Average American to take care of the Less Than Average American. Now, I don't know if that is really true. But what does it matter? The Left scored a huge voting block because of this. However, I am inclined to think that if The Church (yes, the Christian Church) spent more time taking care of the poor then, we wouldn't have so much of a poverty problem now. Basically, and I have no facts to back this up, I believe that The Church fell down on the job and that is why the Government decided to step up. Now, I concede that it is possible that The Church could possibly have been doing very well at caring for the poor and the government just wanted to score that big voting block, but I guess we'll never know.

Next topic: Affirmative Action. In short, the government doesn't trust the private sector to hire enough people of race (whether they are qualified or not) so the government stepped in and dictated how many of every race you must hire. Or else.

Abortion: Well, I haven't quite figured this one out. I do know, however, that calling it a "women's rights issue" is bogus. It's all about the money. Sure, it may have started as a women's rights issue, but that's not the case any more.

So, now that I've given you a prism through which to view politics of the Left, see if you can take an issue and break it down this way. See if you don't get as ticked off as I do about it.

My Dream Republican Ticket

Romney/Gingrich or Gingrich/Romney

Gingrich totally excites me. He's the most intellectual person I think I've ever seen on television. Check out the Contract with America to see some of his handiwork.

Romney is smart, looks good, has great Christian values and doesn't say "nuk-u-lar," at least I haven't heard him say it.

50% of something is better than 100% of nothing

I heard someone say that today on the radio. He was referring to Guliani, and how he is pro-choice, and how many conservatives won't vote for him because of that. Sad, really. Put it this way, you don't have to vote for Guliani in the Primaries, but you had better vote for him the general if he's the nominee. What would you want more:

Guliani, a pro-choice Republican who shares a few of our values, will be strong on terror and crime and will be a strong presence in the White House

Hillary/Obama/Edwards, pro-choice Democrats who share none of our values and will appease and attempt to negotiate with terrorists (including probably passing laws to make it illegal to detonate a nuk-u-lar weapon inside a U.S. city)

What do you get if you don't vote for Guliani because he's pro-choice? A Democrat who is pro-choice. You lose.

If you don't vote, we will lose.