How Liberal Is Obama?

Anyone who is familiar with Obama’s record the past 5 years knows he’s a partisan liberal. Obama claims not to be ideological, but then again, he said we could keep our insurance plans if we liked them.

A piece today from the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza looks at the question on how liberal Obama is, looking at analyses of both his absurdly short time in the U.S. Senate, and his horrible failure tenure in the White House.

The analysis of Obama’s presidential record comes from VoteView, a website you’ve never heard of, and probably won’t ever look at again. It comes this bizarre conclusion about Obama:

We find that President Obama is the most ideologically moderate Democratic president in the post-war period, with a first dimension DW-NOMINATE Common Space score of -0.329. President Lyndon Johnson, the second-most moderate Democratic president in this period, has a score of -0.345. President Obama’s ideological position is estimated from his “votes” (statements of support or opposition) on 282 congressional roll call votes. This amount is somewhat low; for example, President George W. Bush “voted” 453 times during his last term in office. However, it is adequate to recover his latent ideological score.

The following graph paints a visual picture of the ideological bents of each president since Truman:

presidential_square_waveSo, according to this analysis, we have to believe the following:

  • That Obama is more moderate than the tax-cutting, anti-Communist, strong on defense, “Ask not what your country can do for you,” JFK.
  • That Obama is more moderate than Bill Clinton, who actually worked with Republicans, even signed the balanced budget the Republican Congress passed.
  • That George W. Bush was actually more conservative than Ronald Reagan.
  • That Democrat presidents have remained roughly consistent ideologically, while Republican presidents have generally become more partisan

Yes, you would have to believe all of those things to swallow Voteview’s analysis. It would be easier for an adult to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I’m not really sure why there’s such a strong effort to paint Obama as a more moderate than he really is in spite of his real record.

I’m reminded of an oft repeated claim by liberal Democrats that Obamacare, as it is, is in fact, a conservative alternative to a truly left-wing single-payer healthcare system. Would they have similarly argued that Bush’s tax cuts were the liberal alternative to the bigger tax cuts signed by John F. Kennedy? I would highly doubt that.

64 thoughts on “How Liberal Is Obama?

  1. neocon01 November 26, 2013 / 8:28 am

    Anyone who is familiar with Obama’s record the past 5 years knows he’s a partisan liberal. MARXIST!!

    I read HIS book

    • canadianobserver11 November 27, 2013 / 8:20 am

      Well if the President is indeed a Socialist, Marxist, and proponent of Communism, he’s certainly doing a pi** poor job of implementing its policies. Still no universal health care, confiscation of firearms, big business, banks and financial institutions still operating and raking in profits, political foes and media free to express their opposition, citizens free to vote for whomever they please, no significant measures to bridge the gap between the have and the have-nots, With a record like that, he would be thrown out of the Party.

      Talk to someone who has lived under Communist rule and try to convince them that the United States voted twice to put a Communist in the White House and they will think you’ve lost your grip on reality.

      By the way, what do y’all think of the Pope’s attack on unfettered Capitalism; calling it ‘a new tyranny’ ? I wonder how long it will be before he is branded with the Communist label.

      • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 9:39 am

        what he is and what he has been able to implement are two different things, thankfully our fore fathers recognized tyranny and set up checks and balances to stop them, even though this one would wipe his azz with our constitution.

      • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 10:16 am

        I wonder how long it will be before he is branded with the Communist label.
        just as soon as you liberal loons can figure out how to discredit him with the label.

      • canadianobserver11 November 27, 2013 / 10:36 am

        “thankfully our fore fathers recognized tyranny and set up checks and balances to stop them”…neocon01
        If that’s the case, then there’s no need for all this worry, consternation and gnashing of teeth over the supposed Commie in the White House. Relax, it seems your country is safe and will survive this President just as it has all the ones before him and the ones still to come.

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 10:44 am

        As usual, our “observer” observes very little, and what he does manage to observe goes through so many knee-jerk unexamined Lefty filters it is unrecognizable when it emerges.

        I’ve spoken with many who have lived under radical Leftist rule and they think about half of the United States has lost its grip on reality. Try speaking to anyone who has had to live under such governance and fled it, to see how he or she sees Obama and his agendas. I have.

        I had a friend who had to flee his village to avoid being killed, at the age of 12, by terrorists because he refused to join them. He grew up with various family members in cities far from his own parents and sisters, in a nation sometimes ruled by Leftist thugs and always threatened by them, before he was able to come to the United States, and we had many many long conversations about politics. He was stunned to see such an obvious Leftist radical as Obama elected in this country and warned those of us who knew him of what would happen.

        I have friends who are political refugees, now citizens of the United States, who were also amazed to see this country ignore what Obama said he wanted to do here and elect him purely so they could say they elected a black man.

        I was very close to a woman who fled Hungary in the late 50s, walking through snow-covered forests to the Austrian border, being caught once and taken back to her village only to do it again. I have heard her talk about the economic misery under Communism, about going out with her young siblings to walk along the train tracks to pick up pieces of coal and sometimes a potato or two, thrown out by railroad employees when the Communist guards were not looking, in sympathy with the starving people in the countryside.

        And I have spoken with others, as well, in South America, in Europe, and here in my own country where they fled to escape the horrors of Leftist governance. So don’t you dare act all smug and throw out something like your snotty comment. You never sound like you know what you are talking about, but sometimes you go beyond mere ignorance into outright offensiveness, and this is one of them.

        The Pope (whose”infallibilty” BTW is limited to matters of Church doctrine—otherwise he is just a nice old man) speaks of UNFETTERED capitalism. Do you not have dictionaries up there? In our nation, capitalism has always been “fettered” by basic rules to protect people, just as we have been “fettered” by laws regarding theft, murder, etc. Duh. You are in such a frantic hurry to try to make a point, yet the only point you can make is that you are determined to show off your bias and your ignorance.

        And another BTW—–the word “capitalism” has been redefined so often that it, like “socialist”, no longer has much meaning. Particularly in South America, it has been so closely associated in the minds of people with oppression, with the image of building vast fortunes on the backs of unfortunate peasants, etc. that it is impossible to know what the Pope means when he says “capitalism”. We are talking about this time, and this country. We are talking about the progress that resulted from American capitalism, under American governance, when American governance was the rule of law of the Constitution.

        And he modified the term with “unfettered”—–you quoted that word, so why did you ignore it?

        So take a nice deep cleansing and calming breath and repeat—–“We are talking about politics and economics in 21st Century United States. Terms, concepts and definitions applicable to other times and/or other countries, are not relevant”.”

      • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 10:46 am

        well as an ignorant foreigner and left wing fruit cake you have no comprehension of the harm he has inflicted, But yes we will survive even a cretin like the kenyan howerver it may take decades or a complete economic crash to rid our selves of the stink of this man and his regime.

      • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 10:54 am

        this man would know
        The president, his chief operative Valerie Jarrett and his chief political strategist David Axelrod all came out of the same Communist left and the same radical new left as I did, and all have remained heart and soul a part of it. As someone who turned his back on that destructive movement, I can say with confidence that they have not. If a person belongs to an organization or is the supporter of an idea that they come to see as destructive or evil, the first thing they will want to do when they leave is to warn others against it, to warn them of the dangers it represents. If a person does not do this – that tells me that he or she hasn’t left the destructive movement or abandoned the pernicious idea but has just put another face on them. Instead of calling themselves communists or socialists they call themselves liberals and progressives. This camouflage is very old. I never once heard my parents and their party friends refer to themselves as Communists. They were progressives – and registered Democrats.

      • Retired Spook November 27, 2013 / 10:55 am

        it may take decades or a complete economic crash to rid our selves of the stink of this man and his regime.

        Or a war — don’t forget how much Democrats love war to end economic downturns.

      • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 11:05 am

        a war is a distinct probability, I believe that will be part of the economic collapse….

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 11:13 am

        ” Still no universal health care…” Thanks to the valiant fight to halt it in its tracks. The foundation for universal health care was supposed to be Obamacare, which was designed from the get-go to force people into a single-payer system. But you are right in noting that Obama’s efforts in this direction have been clumsy and not very productive. This is due to an unfortunate (for him) combination of ego, hubris, incompetence, and wildly inflated perception of his ability to make things happen merely by being him and wanting them to happen. Believe me, we are grateful that he is not good at what he tries to do openly. But we are very aware of what he has accomplished through sneakier means.

        “…confiscation of firearms…” Are you arguing that overt confiscation is the standard? In a huge nation of people who still like the idea of liberty even though they are fuzzy about how it can be lost, and which is well-armed, even the most ardent Leftist is smart enough to know an overt gun-grab would fail. But, just as we slipped into radical Leftist governance one step at a time, gun control has marched along. So firearms have not been CONFISCATED—but they are merely clumsy clubs when the owners have no ammunition. So the government has bought up billions of rounds of ammunition, keeping it out of the market and the hands of citizens. It has imposed draconian regulations, via the vastly empowered EPA, on all aspects of production of materials needed to make ammunition. Recently the EPA has forced the last lead foundry in the United States to close, meaning all lead (an essential component of ammunition) will have to be imported, limiting access and running up prices.

        “…big business, banks and financial institutions still operating….”under crippling and often punitive regulations, shifting real if not symbolic control to the government in increasing measures, while even the pretense of independent ownership and control is eroding.

        “…and raking in profits…” which are, in increasing proportions, confiscated by the State for redistribution to groups that will then increase the power of the State….

        “…..political foes and media free to express their opposition…” if they can find a medium in which to do so. Driven out of mainstream television, political opposition fled to radio and the internet, and have been fighting efforts to interfere with these media outlets as well. There has even been an effort to drag the United States into the formal, federal, muzzling of free speech practiced in Canada, under the pretense that it is really about limiting “hate speech”. (“Hate speech”being pretty freely defined, and tending toward meaning anything the government doesn’t want to hear.) Or have you not noticed that one of the political opinion writers you smugly explain has the right to express his ideas here is banned from your own country because of his exercise of free speech there?

        “…. citizens free to vote for whomever they please…” unless they want to vote in locations protected by black thugs intent on interfering with their right and ability to vote, under the protection of the United States Department of “Justice”. And casting a vote is hardly the same as having it counted—just ask our overseas military about that—-and then there is the practice of the Left “finding” just the necessary amount of votes in car trunks, etc. to override the vote of real people.

        “… significant measures to bridge the gap between the have and the have-nots…” which is a stated goal of the Left, stated to drag in the historically ignorant and those who think they will benefit by the redistribution of OPM. However, it is the “have-nots” who form the critical voting bloc needed to shore up Leftist power, so the Left, while paying lip service to “bridging the gap” will always, as we have seen, depend on that gap because it is the source of their power. They use it to goad their human herds of impoverished into voting for them by promising that they, the Left, WILL “bridge this gap” and at the same time they do everything in their power to treat them like cattle, feeding them just enough to keep them alive and herding them wherever they are needed to support the Cause. Surely you, the self-styled Observer, have not failed to be aware of the plantation mentality fostered by the Left as it callously expands its Dependent Class.

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 11:24 am

        … he or she hasn’t left the destructive movement or abandoned the pernicious idea but has just put another face on them. Instead of calling themselves communists or socialists they call themselves liberals and progressives. This camouflage is very old. I never once heard my parents and their party friends refer to themselves as Communists. They were progressives – and registered Democrats.

        In case you are not familiar with David Horowitz—he was what was called a “red diaper baby”, born to parents who were both registered Communists, brought up in the heart of American Communism, a racial Leftist activist when he grew up, the editor of a radical Leftist newspaper ( a real one, not an imaginary one in Hell..) and in general was a dutiful foot soldier of the radical Left. When he saw the reality of the movement he had been supporting, he became its most vocal enemy, and the Left treats him as such, trying at every opportunity to silence him when he tries to speak. You know that freedom of speech you were so smug about in your post? Talk to David Horowitz about that. When he goes to college campuses he is met with organized efforts to silence him, ranging from efforts to intimidate the administrations to cancel his appearances to efforts to organize boycotts to harassment of people trying to go in to hear him speak to heckling while he is speaking to overt violence when he does speak, including rushing the stage to physically attack him.

      • canadianobserver11 November 27, 2013 / 12:07 pm

        “And he modified the term with “unfettered”—–you quoted that word, so why did you ignore it?”…Amazona.


        Not ignoring it at all, Amazona. I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that “unfettered capitalism” was what the Right Wing element strives for. All those pesky rules and regulations are just there to hamper businesses and make it that much harder to make a profit, right?

      • Retired Spook November 27, 2013 / 12:56 pm

        Surely you, the self-styled Observer, have not failed to be aware of the plantation mentality fostered by the Left as it callously expands its Dependent Class.

        And let there be no doubt that the Dependent Class has expanded under Obama’s supervision; record number of people on food stamps and the poverty rate at a multi-decade high.

      • canadianobserver11 November 27, 2013 / 1:19 pm

        “record number of people on food stamps and the poverty rate at a multi-decade high”…Spook

        That’s a disheartening thing to hear, Spook, and a sad state for a country as rich as the U.S. to be in. If the next administration is Republican, do you think it could bring the number of food stamp recipients down and bridge the gap between those living in poverty and those who are not?

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 2:01 pm

        ” I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that “unfettered capitalism” was what the Right Wing element strives for. All those pesky rules and regulations are just there to hamper businesses and make it that much harder to make a profit, right?”

        Of course you were mistaken. That is a given, when you post.

        In this case you are willfully “mistaken” as we have said, over and over and over again, time after time, that regulation is necessary in any endeavor, and of course it is necessary to protect people in business transactions.

        What you sneeringly refer to as “the Right Wing element” objects to is onerous regulation that is designed not to protect people in business transactions but to promote Leftist collectivist and redistributionist agendas.

        As for the second sentence in the quote, above, you are simply being snide and silly, and looking like a fool while doing so.

        But I do detect contempt for the profit motive. Why do you think anyone SHOULD go into business? Why should anyone invest time and energy and thought, and risk his own capital, to embark upon a business? What would you feel is an acceptable motive if profit is deemed by you to be a shameful goal?

        You see, it is these simpering mindless little snipes of yours that brand you as a knee-jerk intellectual and political lightweight, whose mental droppings are viewed with such disdain.

        But, as you have chosen to lurch back onto the blog, are you ready to explain your own political philosophy? That is, as you are so contemptuous of the profit motive, of capitalism, and evidently of the United States Constitutional mandate that the federal government must be severely restricted as to size, scope and power with the bulk of all authority remaining with the States, or with the People, please do explain what you think would be preferable form of governance for this country (which is not even your country) and why.

      • canadianobserver11 November 27, 2013 / 2:21 pm

        “But, as you have chosen to lurch back onto the blog, are you ready to explain your own political philosophy?”…Amazona


        I hesitate to feed this weird obsession you have with a person’s political philosophy, Amazona, but I’ll humour you by saying that it is in direct opposition to yours. I’m surprised that being a former Liberal, yourself, that you need to have an explanation of what constitutes Liberal philosophy. Surely, the reason you became a Right Wing fanatic in the first place was because you could no longer adhere to Liberal ideals, or, then again, perhaps the reason was of a more personal nature.

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 2:24 pm

        ” If the next administration is Republican, do you think it could bring the number of food stamp recipients down and bridge the gap between those living in poverty and those who are not?”

        Seriously? Are these supposed to be serious questions? (I think we know the answer to that. Of course they are not serious questions. They are simpering, querulous, self-congratulatory efforts at sarcasm which really only illustrate a small mind.)

        But…let’s pretend for a moment that you are serious.

        Take the second question first. Why is it the responsibility for any party or administration to “bridge the gap between those living in poverty and those who are not”? I contend that it is not only NOT the responsibility of government to do this, to even try would be to defy our own Constitution. It is the responsibility of the government to provide basic protections for citizens, to engage in whatever is necessary to allow the federal government to function as such (international diplomacy, a national currency) to oversee interstate commerce to make sure the nation functions as a unified nation while not interfering with matters in the purview of state authority, and then to get out of the way.

        Ever read our Constitution? Ever study the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government? Ever take a look at the 10th Amendment? I didn’t think so. Until you have, shut the hell up. You’re nothing but noise.

        Now, back to the first.

        Do you know why people are on food stamps? Do you understand that the system was designed to make sure that even impoverished citizens have enough to eat? Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that the numbers have ballooned because of abuses of the system, expansion of those who are eligible, inclusion of non-citizens, recruitment of people who had never found it necessary to apply, and the political agenda of followers of Cloward and Piven. Let’s just pretend that the number reflects only people who can now not afford to buy food.

        Ever wonder why they can’t buy food with their own money? Let’s drag Occam’s Razor into this and say it is because they don’t have jobs that pay them money they can then spend on food. Let’s focus on that one area, OK?

        So that would lead us to examine the job market. Why are there not enough jobs to make it possible for people to be employed? I doubt that you are ready to examine the intricacies of job creation or retention, and given your attitude toward being in business to make money I doubt that you would accept it any of the facts anyway. Suffice it to say that onerous and punitive, selective and subjective, taxation hampers economic health. (That is, the creation of jobs.) Then you can factor in other government activities, such as union support and the emergence of a government agency, the EPA, as a branch of government with nearly unlimited power.

        Once we have begun to understand the impact of things such as erratic and unpredictable taxation strategy likely only to impose more hardship on business, and union demands, and excessive restrictions on industry through EPA demands, and the additional costs to employers of things like health care plans, as well as excessive regulation designed to promote social schemes, as basic beginnings, we can shift over to other government policies such as setting up our system to make unemployment, with its attendant economic government benefits, preferable and more profitable than working for a living.

        So, if you can begin to understand even a fraction of this, you can understand why a Constitutional government, which would keep the feds out of areas where they are not directed to be by the Constitution, coupled with reasonable tax policy, and reasonable regulation on areas such as industry and finance, would vastly improve the job market. Add in a rational approach to government assistance, administered by states and not the feds, and allowing it only to those who cannot work through no fault of their own, and suddenly you have a dramatically different profile of our welfare system.

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 2:57 pm

        Ohhh, I see the non-observant “Observer” got his toes stepped on here. At least the claws are out. Meeeeow!!

        “I hesitate to feed this weird obsession you have with a person’s political philosophy, Amazona, but I’ll humour you by saying that it is in direct opposition to yours. I’m surprised that being a former Liberal, yourself, that you need to have an explanation of what constitutes Liberal philosophy. Surely, the reason you became a Right Wing fanatic in the first place was because you could no longer adhere to Liberal ”

        Well, starting at the beginning of your peevish little snit, this is at heart a political blog. Therefore, discussions of political philosophy are quite relevant here.

        I ask because I have observed, in my many years of participation here, that the so-called Libs who lurch in here to take potshots at imperfectly understood and often wholly invented “conservatism” are completely ignorant of the actual ideology of the system they support by attacking its opposition.

        I enjoy pointing this out to people like you, who are so smug in what you wrongly assume are your political positions but which are, upon even cursory examination, nothing more than spasms of emotional pushback against what someone else has told you is wrong and should be attacked.

        To put this another way, you (plural you…) are not here to advocate, explain or defend an actual system of government, because your “thinking” has never gotten that far. Or even gone there at all.

        As for me, as I always say, I was what I have come to call an “unexamined Liberal”—that is, exactly what I just described. A callow youth smug in the assumption that being young gave me a fresher and more accurate view of life, one who accepted what I was told about the vague but serious evils of the Right. I had no clue as to the system of governance I was supporting by sneering at and attacking a poorly understood and mostly invented Other.

        It took the hypocrisy of the Left, when it savaged accusers of Bill Clinton with terms like “she’s too ugly to rape” and “what can you expect when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park”, to make me take another look at it. And it took marrying an amateur historian and being exposed to war history to start to understand what lay beneath the mechanics of the world wars—the conflict of visions of governance.

        Unlike you I had the integrity and courage to examine, honestly, what I had previously simply scorned without thinking. Unlike you, I developed the idea that if I was going to take a side, I had damned well better understand what that side IS, and what the other side is, as well. I had better make such serious decisions based on knowledge, not on being emotionally manipulated.

        So I do know where you are, and why you are there. And this is why I have no respect for it. Because I knew, even before you tried to duck out of answering my question with that dodge of using a non-answer to try to shift the focus from your ignorance to an alleged weakness of mine in even asking the question.

        I now base my political beliefs on knowledge and fact, and a conscious decision about what I objectively believe to be the better form of government for this nation. And I still believe, a belief reinforced by your efforts to evade answering my question, that wherever it is that you are it is not based on any such knowledge or conviction.

      • canadianobserver11 November 27, 2013 / 5:10 pm

        Haha, you’re nothing if not predictable, Amazona. No matter what the subject, you can be counted on to respond in the same tired old manner. How many times, for instance, have you resorted to name calling using words that start with the letter ‘S’? Let’s list some of the ones you’ve posted on this thread alone:- sneering, snide, silly, snipes, simpering, snit, smug. I can visualize you combing the dictionary in desperation, looking for more insults with which to pepper your posts. Perhaps if you were to drop the ‘my sh**t don’t stink’ attitude and stop with the disparaging remarks it would be possible for a person to read your comments without laughing out loud.

        Probably too much to ask of you, I know, and I expect you’ll respond, as usual, with more of the same.

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 3:03 pm

        I do understand Liberal political philosophy. Now I do. I didn’t, when I was one of the pseudo-Liberal sheeple who unthinkingly went along with what I was told.

        I also understand the mishmash of hyperemotional reaction that passes for Liberal philosophy with people like you, who remain steadfastly ignorant of the true political philosophy of the system you blindly support.

        I contend that you are abjectly ignorant of the actual system of governance represented by Liberalism/Progressivism. I contend that you have not gone farther in your political journey than absorbing some vague claptrap about profit and capitalism and fairness and inequality.

        Go study the foundations of your system, and its history of relentless failure, resulting in economic misery and loss of personal liberty. Tell us why you think this is a superior system and why you think it will work, finally, now, this time.

        Or go away and shut the hell up because without that foundation of actual political knowledge and belief, and the ability and willingness to explain it and defend it, you are merely a mindless tool and a lot of meaningless noise.

      • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 3:45 pm

        In matters of the Catholic church the Pope is the absolute leader.
        In matters of state he has an OPINION which may be correct or may be 100% wrong, There is NO obligation of Catholics to pay attention to him if they chose not to.
        so nice try on throwing the poop on the wall sorry yours does not stick as it as usual has NO substance.

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 7:05 pm

        November 27, 2013 at 5:10 pm

        I’M predictable? Pot, meet kettle.

        I predicted that you either cannot or will not explain why you support Leftism, what it is about this system that you find preferable for this nation rather than the Constitutional model supported by 21st Century American conservatives. And, of course, I was right.

        You duck, you dodge, you dither, you divert, you distract, you dissemble (I thought I would give you another letter to obsess over…) but none of this hides the simple fact that you are either totally ignorant of the system you support by attacking its opposition, or you do understand and support it but you also understand that it is indefensible and any effort to do so will result in you being torn into even tinier shreds than has this last exchange.

        You do understand, don’t you, that when one side doesn’t even show up it is an automatic win for the other? I knew I could and would take you on points, given the strength of the arguments for the type of government I understand, support, and define and defend on a regular basis. It is not much of a victory to win by default because you just gave up.

        But this is the totally predictable pattern of you pseudo-Libs, you hair-on-fire attackers of what you do not understand. Not once in what? about 6 years? 7? has any Lib been able or willing to step up and say “This is the architecture of a political system I believe is better than the Constitutional model, this is why I think it is better, and here are examples of when it has had better results”.

        Personally, given the shallow and superficial (looky—–some more S’s !) nature of the complaints of the Libs I have seen trying to argue politics, I have no reason to think any of them/you have the slightest idea of the system you support. You foolishly trail along after your minders, echoing their chatter, thinking politics is about ISSUES, blissfully unaware (and uncaring) of the fact that when you vote for a favorite ISSUE you are really voting for a political system of governance you not only do not understand, you’re not even fully aware that it exists.

        There is a reason that you fall so soundly in “S” territory. What words could better describe the depth of understanding and the quality of your “arguments” than silly, shallow, superficial, simpering, sneering, smug…? No, I don’t have to comb any dictionary or thesaurus for those words. They are what automatically come to mind when reading your drivel.

        I’d say thanks for playing but you didn’t even get on the field. You hung around on the sidelines and tossed out snot nuggets, but when it came to suiting up and getting into the game you wimped out, because while you don’t know much, you do know you don’t got game.

      • canadianobserver11 November 27, 2013 / 8:03 pm

        November 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm

        OK, even though you are quite aware of what constitutes Liberal philosophy, Amazona, I’ll play along.

        I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. Not sure if our philosophy is exactly the same as Liberals in the U.S., but if you go to this link – – you can read exactly what our Party stands for. Everything you see written there explains why I’ve embraced the Liberal cause.

        As proud as you are of your Conservative beliefs, Amazona, I am just as proud of my Liberal views and make no apologies for being so.

        You may not be aware of this but Liberal leadership in the 1990’s was responsible for restoring balanced budgets here in Canada. The myth that Liberals are fiscally irresponsible is just that; a myth.

        I realize that we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum and will never be in agreement over issues, but, hopefully, we can agree to stop with the hyperbole and insults.

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 10:07 pm

        Oh, quit whining and quit trying to get me to do your homework. What a cop-out. You get challenged, you scurry online to find something that tells you what you think, and then you expect me to do the research for you.

        If you came to this blog with a coherent political philosophy which guided you all along, you would have been able to explain it and defend it. You clearly didn’t. You tried to weasel out of answering, you tried to set up some goofy scenario in which there was something wrong with me because I asked a supposedly political observer to actually talk about politics, and you finally had to go find something that outlined what you, as a Liberal, ought to have known and believed all along.

        You are a fraud and a phony, and dishonest to boot. You have no standing here and your “opinions” are fluff, recycled garbage from a variety of assorted Liberal mouthpieces who no doubt operate from the same emotion-based reactionary negativity that marks your own posts.

        So you should just slope off and pretend that you could have bested me in any discussion if you only wanted to, but because I am just a big meanie and “insult” you you don’t happen to feel like it.

        Yeah, right. You just keep telling yourself that.

        And, BTW, whatever crapola the Liberal Party of Canada or whatever it calls itself may say about its philosophy, it has nothing to do with what goes on in this country. You seem to have a real hard time with that concept. I also have a feeling that if I do check out your site I will find a lot of platitudinous pap about “fairness” and “leveling the playing field” and “bridging the gap….” and so on, and damned little about the core structure of Liberal governance—-because the true ideologues know that that kind of honesty will drive off the touchy-feely types who operate on pure emotion. I’ll bet it is all ISSUES and no substance.

        I asked about the architecture of Liberal governance and I can tell you are still bumfuddled by that concept. Come back when you figure it out.

      • canadianobserver11 November 28, 2013 / 7:22 am

        I do hope the anger & bitterness you harbour in your heart can be put aside for one day, Amazona, and that you & yours enjoy a very happy Thanksgiving.

        Happy Thanksgiving to everyone at Blogs for Victory!

      • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 11:55 pm

        Well, I have proved that I do know what to expect from a Leftist explanation of Leftism. I couldn’t help myself—I had to look at that link to see how accurate my prediction was. And it was spot on. I speculated it would be full of, consist of, platitudinous crap, and so it does. What isn’t platitudinous crap is plain old lies.

        Take this, for example: ” Liberals believe, first of all, that
        the rights of the individual are paramount to those of the state – any
        state. We believe all individuals must be accorded the opportunity to
        fashion their own lives and grow to the limit of their own potential. ”

        Yeah—except in execution, not so much. Liberalism, which is just a word the Left dredged up out of a dictionary to try to put a happier and more acceptable name on plain old socialist/fascist/communist Leftism, is really all about all rights being subject to the whims and rules of the State. And it is the antithesis of “…the opportunity to fashion their own lives and grow to the limit of their own potential..”

        You guys are so funny. You are completely incapable of seeing what is in front of your faces, choosing to accept what you are told instead of the reality that you live with every day.

        And, as I predicted, this overwrought slightly hysterical exposition of platitudes, cliches and falsehoods is completely lacking in any explanation of the actual structure of Leftist governance. Which is, as I explained, necessary, because its only appeal to the squishy emoters can be to their emotions, and even they might object to the reality of actual Leftist ideology.

        I notice that the non-observant “Observer” has been unable to analyze Leftist governance where it has been put in place to see for himself the reality of the alleged “..rights of the individual…” being “…paramount to those of the state..” From the restrictions on free speech in Leftward-sliding Canada to the full exposition of true Leftist ideology in paradises such as Cuba or the former USSR, the rights of the individual are always subject to the rule of the State. The Ruling Elite are always given the power to determine what freedoms the people are allowed to have, and to what extent. When Leftist governance is fully implemented, under any of the various names used to disguise the true nature of the movement, these freedoms are nonexistent, to the point where the people are actually imprisoned in their own countries.

        Actually, if you had not provided this link, I would have thought it a savage though accurate parody of self-congratulatory Leftist pap.

      • Amazona November 28, 2013 / 10:16 am

        Time to learn the Rule of Holes, “Observer”—that is, to know when to quit digging.

        You’ve tried many times to pretend that my analysis of Leftist ideology does not point out the fatal flaws in it but is really just indicative of something wrong with ME. You constantly try to shift focus away from the fact that don’t even know what this ideology is, and that you blindly support it by attacking its opposition because you foolishly think it is really all about some giddy love-fest of peace, love, harmony for all, so that is left is for you to point a finger and squeal “It’s not me, it’s HER!!!! SHE’S the one with the problem!!”

        Now you try again. You are transparent, and you are just digging yourself in deeper. You know, this pious simpering of claimed hope I find happiness and peace of mind is not fooling anyone. You are not happy about being outed as a mindless tool, so you try to redefine yourself as one deeply concerned about my alleged misery, so sweet, so kind of you, blah blah blah.

        The reality of actual Leftist governance is there for anyone to see. It is part of history. Millions of people can testify to its dehumanization of its subjects, its brutality, its inherent ugliness. Tens upon tens of millions of people have been slaughtered in attempts to maintain the power of the Ruling Elites in various countries subjected to its rule. Because while the excruciatingly gullible are quite happy to be dazzled by the glitter sprayed over the ugly reality of the system, no one who has been subjected to it is so easily distracted from its harsh truths. You fall for the packaging, and just ignore the reality inside. That airy-fairy fantasy you linked to is just slick packaging, just feeding the sheeple what they need to hear so they can feel good about supporting a brutal and dehumanizing political system.

        Anyone with integrity, intellectual curiosity, a desire for objective truth, can easily find out the architecture of Leftist ideology. It is not a secret. Its true ideologues talk about it. They are true believers, ardent in their beliefs, and they come right out with statements referring to the collectivist, redistributionist, all-powerful Central Authority they believe is the best way to run a country. They believe they are among the Anointed Ones, the Ones who know what is best for the proles, who should rightly be in charge of making decisions for people they don’t think are capable of making decisions for themselves.

        Or at least not the Right Decisions.

        No, that has to be left up to the Ruling Elite—-in your country, the people who are so threatened by the point of view of Mark Steyn that they have actually banned him from being in the country, for fear that the people might be exposed to a different perspective. Canadians can’t be trusted, in the eyes of its own Ruling Elite, to listen to various ideas and make their own decisions—-they need their own Big Brother to sort out information so they are not exposed to anything that might confuse them.

        In our country, it is Liberals who fight to implement what is so bizarrely called the Fairness Doctrine, which is really just an effort to control the free speech of people driven to other media, such as radio and the internet, after seeing television fall to fake journalists using it to advance Leftist agendas. It is Liberals who devote themselves to silencing people like David Hororwitz and Ann Coulter, infiltrating their speeches to heckle them and hurl invective and try to drown out their voices, charging the stages to intimidate and threaten and sometimes actually engage in violence, when they have failed to intimidate administrations into canceling their speeches or to frighten students into staying away. It is Liberals who try to silence Fox News because it dares to present both sides of stories instead of the heavily censored Liberal version of events.

        And it is you, a Liberal, who tries to impugn my honesty and state of mind, in a sad and pathetic effort to redefine your embarrassment here as proof of a disturbed mental state in the one who showed you up.

    • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 11:31 am

      There is no question that his history is one of Communist sympathizer. He has been careful to avoid making statements, in his political career, that might identify him as being that far to the Left, but his views on redistribution of the wealth of others and the role of the federal government as taking over all, or nearly all, of the power and authority in the nation have been clear.

      If his true goal has always been the pursuit of actual Communism and not just moving leftward along that spectrum this is good to know.

  2. M. Noonan November 26, 2013 / 5:17 pm

    Just another one of those “studies” which purport to show that liberals are just moderates…the flip side is that conservatives are racist extremists.

    • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 10:08 am

      OT, but Woo Hoo!!
      LAS VEGAS (AP) – A judge in Las Vegas rejected O.J. Simpson’s bid for a new trial on Tuesday, dashing the former football star’s bid for freedom based on the claim that his original lawyer botched his armed robbery and kidnapping trial in Las Vegas more than five years ago.

      “All grounds in the petition lack merit and, consequently, are denied,” Clark County District Judge Linda Marie Bell said.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 28, 2013 / 10:43 am

        What does that have to do with the topic?

      • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 1:13 pm

        Who made you the Blog Police?

        But thanks for the insight. The reason people like you like the idea of a Ruling Elite is because at heart you think you will be part of this cadre of the Anointed.

        You are fine with having someone tell other people what they can and cannot do, as long as you get to be one of the bosses.

        Where the Left falls apart is when all of you who supported the concept of a Ruling Elite find that you are not part of it, but are stuck with the masses, being herded like cattle and voting to keep your masters in power because they have promised to feed you.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 29, 2013 / 2:36 pm

        I don’t care for ruling elites either. It just happens that this is the system America has had for more than 100 years. Reagan was a member of that elite just as every President in your lifetime either by virtue of wealth or being anointed by the Corporate Lords. It is funny that you deride the proletariat while singing the praises of hard work and self reliance.

      • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 3:50 pm

        F/D/MP et al, you are, as usual, stunningly confused.

        For most of the history of the United States many of our presidents have come from the higher echelons of education and wealth. There are, of course, exceptions—Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan (who was not particularly wealthy nor well educated). There are and always have been political elites, people who have risen to the top of their political parties, such as Dick Cheney, a union electrician from Casper Wyoming whose intellect and talent moved him quickly up the political ladder.

        But this is not the Ruling Elite. I have a feeling you know this, and are just trying to reframe the term by trying to link with, as you put it, “… wealth or being anointed by the Corporate Lords….”

        No, the Ruling Elite are those who set themselves up as the Anointed Ones charged with the duty and the power to make decisions for others. The Constitution was designed to make this impossible, but when it is subverted or simply ignored the Ruling Elite/Central Committee model of the Left gets its toe in the door, and soon it is in charge.

        Look at the Ruling Elite in this country now. We have the many radical Leftist “czars” appointed by Obama without the slightest oversight or approval from the people or from Congress, vested with power and authority to make decisions for others. How many can you name? What are their political backgrounds or qualifications What do they do and what do they get paid? How much money do they control? What is the extent of their authority? We don’t know—-they are anointed by one person, without any public oversight. They are the core of our Ruling Elites.

        We have what was once an agency of the government and what is now part of the Ruling Elite, appointed EPA officials, making decisions for others. We have a very small majority of Congress responsible for taking over one-sixth of the American economy, and handing it over to the Ruling Elite, to be run by appointed officials, all making serious and sometimes even life-or-death decisions for others, taking away even highly personal decisions regarding health care.

        We have Constitutional protections eroded and weakened, with the excuse that this is for our own good, we just need to leave these decisions up to the Anointed Ones and their infinite wisdom regarding what they think is best for us. We now have Homeland Security with the power to take into custody, indefinitely, American citizens on American soil. We now have government agencies spying on it, often in collusion with corporations which cooperate with the government, and which tell us, as Google recently did, that we should have no expectations of privacy regarding any communication that goes through their system. We have a drone system which can kill from a distance, and official approval to use them on anyone deemed to be a threat to the United States—-and this hard on the heels of statements from people near the top of government identifying those who believe in our Constitution as “domestic terrorists” and “anarchists”.

        The concept of “by the people, for the people” has been replaced by “by some people, for some people” and the authority is increasingly unlimited.

        And none of this has the slightest thing to do with your bogey-men of wealth and corporate lords, though it is wealth and corporate lords which have funded the establishment of the Leftist Ruling Elite.

    • neocon01 November 27, 2013 / 3:48 pm

      the flip side is that conservatives are racist extremists.

      AND dont forget homophobes, bigots and we ALL absolutely HAAATE women.
      except arent most of gay men donks?? puzzling indeed.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 28, 2013 / 10:51 am

        I think some conservatives, not all or even a large minority, do harbor bigotries against the LGBT community just as some progressives have bigotries against the religious and gun owners. Politics will never change these feelings that individuals hold but time will.

      • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 4:46 pm

        Actually, most conservatives see people as people, as individuals. Not being of a collective mindset, we don’t lump people together into demographics, or “communities”. So when and if we dislike a person who is also gay, etc., it is usually because that person is not very likable.

        But you just keep clinging to the defense that it is because of your sexual deviations, whatever and however numerous they may be. I’m sure that has given you a lot of comfort.

  3. Mark Moser November 27, 2013 / 5:52 pm

    Amazona, you are amazing and, I’d bet, a little bit scary for those entertaing the thought of arguing with you! I’d imagine the Observer will not, however, explain his political philosophies, which as you have explained, he does not understand. I wish I could write like you do!

    • Amazona November 27, 2013 / 7:15 pm

      Mark, you are very kind. It’s really not that hard to argue with the pseudo-Left once you understand them.

      This is why I think the Republicans should completely ignore ISSUES in the next election cycles and focus solely on government. We have seen here, over many years, the panic experienced by the Left when challenged on government. They squeal, they run, they try to hide, they try to change the subject, they frantically try to divert the discourse into something—-ANYTHING—-but an objective comparison of the two opposing models of government.

      And what scares their minders even more is having the sheeple learn that they have not really been voting for the warm-fuzzy, ain’t-I-so-much-better-than-they-are, I’d-like-to-give-the-world-a-hug, let’s-just-make-everything-FAAIIRRRR!!!!! issues that have drawn them to the dark side, they are really voting for a specific model of government that has never succeeded, and when fully implemented has resulted in economic misery and loss of individual liberty.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 29, 2013 / 2:40 pm

      Mark Amazona is not a skilled debator she is simply unwilling to consider that any alternative to her chosen path is viable because it is in conflict with her beliefs. She is not a purist ideologically she is simply angry stubborn and willfully ignorant .

      • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 4:06 pm

        Actually, I am still waiting for someone from the Left to explain to me why his, her or their alternative to my chosen path IS viable.

        I ask and I ask. We just had a two-day-long exchange between CO and me on that very subject. I asked, repeatedly, for some explanation of his “chosen path” and why it was better than mine, and all I got was a link to some sloppy platitudes that carefully avoided any discussion of Leftist governance and then the last-ditch effort of the thoroughly beaten, the excuse that my quest for answers really just means I am a miserable meanie.

        In the United States, there are only two basic “chosen paths” for those who actually evaluate how the country is run. One is adherence to our Constitution, one is the belief that some degree of variance from it is OK. The first led our nation to unprecedented economic prosperity, vast personal liberty, amazing opportunities, and the development of a standard of living not only unequaled but unimagined at any other time. The second, when it has been implemented in other countries, has led to various degrees of economic misery and loss of personal liberty, and when fully implemented to the slaughter of tens of millions in desperate attempts to retain power and in literally imprisoning people in their own countries by forbidding them to leave.

        As it is being implemented in this country, it has already led to diminished personal freedoms, onerous and often punitive taxation and regulation, economic malaise, and increasing restrictions on the ability of people to make their own decisions about their own lives.

        The first resulted in a country where people were willing to risk death to get in. The second, nations in which people were willing to risk death to escape.

        These are the hard cold facts upon which I have built my political philosophy. You can sneer at them, call my dependence on them “willful ignorance” but facts show you to be a liar.

        You are, and always have been, free to explain the architecture of the system you prefer, to explain how and why it would work better in this country and its benefits to the people, and to expound upon the historical record of its success when applied in other nations.

        You have done none of these things.

        You hurl snot-nuggets at people on the Right, you sneer at what you consider conservative values and policies, you conflate personal opinions with political positions, but when it comes to actually talking about politics, about the best way to govern this nation, you scurry off into your safe place of excuses and insults.

        And I see you have reverted to the old fallback, “angry”. I am wondering if you have yet another invented persona, this one a Canadian who claims to observe but somehow never sees anything.

  4. Mark Moser November 27, 2013 / 5:54 pm

    Perhaps I should try proof reading my post before posting them!
    entertaing = entertaining

  5. Mark Moser November 27, 2013 / 5:56 pm

    I did it again, but at least I’m consistent! Post = Posts

  6. GMB November 27, 2013 / 10:54 pm

    I would like to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving Day. Sei Gut Neo!

    • neocon01 November 28, 2013 / 8:50 am

      Haaaapy Thanksgiving Everybody!!!

      GMB….Semper Fi my brother
      and big gut to you to LOL

  7. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 28, 2013 / 10:18 am

    No one here really thinks that the GOP has become less partisan do they? While Democrats are led by a centrist core the Republicans because of the TEA Party have been forced to the right. How do you win national elections without moderates which outnumber both progressives and conservatives? I expect the TEA party wing of the GOP to make gains in southern and midwestern state governments for the next few election cycles but after 2020 there will be a steady shift back to the center starting with the loss of Texas by 2018.

    • Amazona November 28, 2013 / 10:25 am

      And yes, I am thankful for Freddy/Diane/the Major Pain, et al. Not for he/she/it as a person/hive dweller/indeterminate undefined whatever, but because in this, the greatest country in the world, he/she/it is/are reminders of the freedoms we all share, including the freedom, in his/her/their case to be clueless goofball(s).

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 28, 2013 / 10:57 am

        Still no idea of what the GOP needs to do to remain a viable national party? At least there will be a historical record leaving no doubt in the minds of 22 Century scholars of who killed the GOP.

      • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 12:28 pm

        Really? You have been able to determine that I have “…no idea of what the GOP needs to do to remain a viable national party?..” ? Funny, isn’t it, how little you mange to process even when it is laid out in front of you and explained.

        but….to sum it up….stop getting sucked into the emotional quicksand of ISSUES, and stick to pure politics. (Gee, didn’t I just say something like this a day or so ago? ) The Left is completely dependent on manipulating the emotions of the unthinking, so they dangle all sorts of emotion-based ISSUES out there as bait, and soon people are casting ballots thinking they are voting for gay “marriage” or for “choice” or even for “hope”, totally unaware that they are really voting for a political system that has,when fully implemented, let inevitably to economic misery and loss of personal liberty. The Left is the perfect example of bait-and-switch.

        As I have pointed out so many times, again just in the past couple of days when the non-observant “observer” was trying to tap dance around the fact that he has absolutely no knowledge of (or, evidently, interest in) the political system he supports by attacking its opposition, discussion of the architecture of government is the most scary and threatening thing to the Left.

        Why else do you think they couch their appeal in such gooey platitudes and strenuously avoid talking about the way Leftist governments are actually RUN?

        The biggest long-term weakness of the Left is that the political model simply does not work. But as it is developing support, its biggest weakness is that it is completely dependent upon deception. As a side note to that, this means that it is dependent on the emotion-driven unthinking, such as you and CO. Awareness of the truth sets in long before the economic and social failure of the system, but when they meet you find things like what we saw around 1990—-the utter collapse of what had been the behemoth of the USSR, the tearing down of the shameful Berlin Wall, the rush to freedom and democracy of millions who had been, literally—LITERALLY—imprisoned in their own countries.

        Since you feel like referring to “historical record” even though you are speculating about a record that does not yet exist, I suggest that you examine some REAL historical records. Let’s see—-where to start?

        Well, there is the record of the Left regarding its treatment of homosexuals, blacks and women. That would be a lengthy research project, and I don’t believe for a moment that you have the courage or integrity to delve into any of it, but it’s there if you ever develop a backbone and a conscience. Check out the historical record of the Progressive Movement in the United States under Woodrow Wilson. Margaret Sanger was a Progressive, who founded Planned Parenthood as a means of controlling the birth rate of black people with the goal of eradicating the race. Homosexuals were on the list of Undesirables in Nazi Germany, hauled off to the death camps along with Catholics, gypsies, and of course Jews.

        One of the biggest voting blocs for Obama has been his own race. Take a look at how black people tend to view your precious alphabet “community”. If Liberals are not only tolerant of the sexually deviant but welcome them, why did the Reverend Wright have a scheme for helping the gay men of his parish hide their sexual orientation and behavior?

        No, F/D/MP, et al, you are blind and ignorant and fully committed to the territory you have blindly staked out. But when you don’t remove your head from your nether regions, the view will never change, and the view you constantly describe to us can be summed up as, no surprise, s**t.

        Just because you love your s**t, admire it, and think it smells like rosebuds in a spring dawn, does not change the fact that you are depending on what you are told and not on what is real.

    • neocon01 November 28, 2013 / 12:11 pm

      No one here really thinks that the donks has become less partisan than stalin do they?

    • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 1:04 pm

      As an example of F/D/MP et al living in a fool’s paradise where reality is what they decide it is, irrespective of objective fact, he/she/it declares that “…Democrats are led by a centrist core ..”.

      This is the most bizarre description imaginable of a party which has slid so far to the Left that it is unrecognizable as the Democrat Party of even just a few decades ago. Even those who put it in this death spiral tried to hide or disguise their establishment of a Ruling Elite taking it upon itself to decide for the common man what was determined to be for his best interest. When McCarthy talked about Communists in high places in our government, the effort was to discredit and silence him because the known presence of Communists in high places in our government had to be kept secret. But in 2008, both of the top Dem candidates were openly admirers of Saul Alinsky, an avowed Communist, and were unabashed followers. Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis on Alinsky, and Obama taught the Rules for Radicals in his career as a community agitator.

      The Democrat Party has come out of the closet as it has veered to the radical Left, and it now struts its red colors, loud and proud. The president’s closest advisers are openly socialist or communist, or associated with radical Islam, and no one in the Dem party bats an eye. The president curries favor with brutal Leftist dictators and appears to be speaking for his party, while he insults and dismisses our oldest and most loyal allies. The administration openly supports the Muslim Brotherhood and helps establish virulent anti-American governments in nations which had, historically, good relations with the United States, and the Dems find this OK.

      The principles of collectivism and rule by the Anointed,the establishment of a Ruling Elite, is promoted by the party, in direct and blatant opposition to the very principles upon which this nation was built but in slavish adherence to the principles of tyrannies around the world.

      And F/D/MP et al consider this to be “centrist”.

      Actually, it is. It is the core of radical Leftism, so far to the left along the political spectrum that it rubs shoulders only with the other Leftist identities. There was Socialism, which became such a toxic term it needed to be sanitized, so it became Progressive—because who could argue with moving forward, right? The reality that this had become the name of a regressive movement was of no import—-there would be plenty of gullible fools who would be suckered in by the name and ignore the reality. Sometimes they called themselves Liberals, another feel-good name intended to provide cover for the most illiberal of all possible government models. Again, they knew there would be plenty of people eager to assume the mantle of Liberal, even though it has nothing to do with reality. Fascism was a favorite label of the Left, until it became necessary to explain why one Leftist nation was at war with another, and then it was given a completely new definition, that of being on the Right. It was easy to fool the idiot base,which had never had any idea of the architecture of Leftist governance anyway so wouldn’t realize that suddenly a Leftist structure had a new name which completely contradicted its nature. Communism fell out of favor with the International Left, which needed to expand into countries which were distrustful of Russia and the new USSR, so that word got put on the shelf until enough people had been desensitized to it.

      The “centrist core” of the Democrat Party is now the center of radical Leftism. Now, even much of Leftist thought is to the right of the Democrat Party.

    • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 1:44 pm

      What IS a “moderate”, anyway?

      Draw a line, a vertical line. Got that?

      OK, on the right side of that line lies the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the architecture of our government. It says, in its original body, what the federal government must do. It lays out 17 enumerated duties of the federal government. Later, in a belt-and-suspenders move to make sure that there was no misinterpretation of the document, it laid out what the government CANNOT do, and then summed the whole thing up in a statement, the 10th Amendment, which says basically that if something is not delegated to the federal government it is forbidden to the federal government, and if something is desired and not outlawed by the Constitution it is up to the states to get it done.

      On the other side of that line is the political philosophy that the government exists to take care of its people, that its role should not be constrained, and that its power and authority should be expandable to allow it to do anything it wants to do.

      That line is the center. One cannot sit on that line. One has to take a side, whether it be commitment to the principles and wording of our Constitution, to the idea that our federal government is restricted as to size, scope and power and that most authority has to be vested in the states or in the people, or a belief that the role of the federal government is and should be vast and unlimited in size, scope and power as decided at any given time.

      The Constitutional side is the Right. The expansive, powerful-government side is the Left.

      If you are on the Right, you are on the Right, because the 10th Amendment pins down any waffling on just when, how or how much the size, scope and power of the federal government can be expanded beyond the original 17 enumerated duties. It’s simple. It can’t.

      This is not to say that government in general should not take on responsibilities or activities not delegated in the Constitution. It merely says that these responsibilities or activities, being forbidden to the federal government, must take place at the state or local level, or be the responsibility of private citizens.

      But once you decide the federal government should be allowed to expand, you have moved to the other side of that line.

      Now draw a horizontal line, crossing the center vertical line. If you understand politics, you will understand that the line moving from the center to the left will be a very long one, because there is a lot of variation on how much power and authority people want to accede to the federal government. At the far left end of this line is communism. Scattered along the line from the center to the end are all the other Leftist identities and agendas, ranging from our Social Security system not too far to the left of center all the way out to the end. One can be moderate in his or her belief regarding how much power the federal government should have, but if that exceeds the 17 enumerated duties in the Constitution that person is still to the left of center.

      The line extending to the right of center is not nearly as long, because to be “far Right” means only to really really REALLY believe in the Constitution. The gradations are much fewer, mostly leading to Libertarianism, which is now an effort to keep calling Republicans who favor expansion of the federal government “conservatives” by setting up a false distinction, and those who argue about the legality of the federal income tax.

      What the Left likes to label as “far Right” has nothing to do with political philosophy and is based on personal beliefs on a variety of issues, the hunting ground of the Left.

      So the term “far Right” is an invention designed to create the illusion of crackpottery. The term “far Left”, however, has validity, as there are so many gradations of federal power and so many ideas of how far it should go.

      One can be moderately Leftist, but the the hijacking of the adjective “moderate” to make it a noun was done to try to make ignorance of the reality of our political decisions sound like a virtue. Gee, isn’t it better to be MODERATE than to be extreme? Kind of like how it sounds so much better to be all LIBERAL and all. What could be more huggy-feely non-threatening than a liberal moderate?

      What the Left has done, very successfully, has been to cloud the water so that well-intentioned people confuse issues with politics. They have been bamboozled into believing that if they want certain things that strike them as liberal in tone, moderate, tolerant, accepting, socially responsible, they have to turn their backs on the Right.

      The truth is that every single thing on a wish list of most “moderates” can not only be achieved in a nation which is run according to its Constitution, they can be achieved with greater success because they are voted on, funded, administered and overseen on a state or local level, and can be tailored to the specific needs of the state or community.

      The Left has created a false dichotomy with its own vocabulary and now the mindless foot soldiers echo it.

  8. Amazona November 28, 2013 / 10:22 am

    A Happy Thanksgiving to all.

    It’s my favorite holiday, based as it is on reflection on blessings and gratitude for them. It’s a pure holiday, one for appreciating what God has made possible, and for sharing with family and loved ones.

    The best of the day to all of you.

  9. Retired Spook November 28, 2013 / 12:11 pm

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I have more than usual to be thankful for this year. I’ve sold my business, and I’m retiring as of December 1st.

    • canadianobserver11 November 28, 2013 / 12:39 pm

      Congratulations, Spook! You are very lucky to retire when you are still active and can enjoy all that free time. I’m sure you have a long list of things you want to do. Happy Thanksgiving!

      • Retired Spook November 28, 2013 / 1:02 pm

        I’m sure you have a long list of things you want to do.

        I do.

    • 02casper November 28, 2013 / 8:03 pm

      Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Spook, have a great retirement.

  10. dbschmidt November 29, 2013 / 3:04 pm

    Happy (Belated) Thanksgiving to everyone.
    Wishing Spook a very happy retirement and you, among others, will always have a place for good meal and to stay if you wander into the great State of North Carolina.
    I am thankful that I can be considered a “Right Wing fanatic” by our northern “Observer” because I support and defend the Constitution of these United States even thought there are things I feel need to be changed via the amendment process or a constitutional convention.
    But in all truth–I am always thankful for another day on this God’s green earth while being able to be one of his many great creations.

    • Amazona November 29, 2013 / 4:25 pm

      db, here it was a great Thanksgiving, maybe my best. I hope yours was, too, and that all of you found a way to celebrate your blessings. I have so much to be thankful for, and being able to spend it with my family was very special. We have been scattered for so long, and to be in the same general area, many of us working together, being able to share times like this, is truly something to be grateful for.

      I suggest that one thing to be grateful for is that we are here at the opportunity to steer this nation away from the rocks and back onto its proper course. A few years ago, our current straits were unimaginable except to a few visionaries. In a few years, it may be too late, or require violent conflict. But now we are not past the tipping point, and there is hope the course can be changed.

      Take a look at Mark Levin’s latest book to see his ideas on important Constitutional amendments. It is very thought-provoking and well written. And if you find yourself heading Colorado way, Spook can tell you how to find me. Right now my Refugee Center (I have a big walkout basement used for the last two years to shelter people who got burned out, last year, or flooded out, this year) is still occupied, but my guests might be able to return home soon, and even with them here I still have room. I bought the right land, with the right view and the right barn, and it happened to have a big house on it, and I’ve enjoyed having the ability to have guests. I can’t promise great meals, but we can work around that…………..

Comments are closed.