In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
It didn't happen overnight
shootstright
Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
A good read , pass it on.[8D]
It Didn't Happen Overnight
by
Sen. H. L. Richardson (Ret)
Because of my many years as a conservative in elected office, I have
been asked by others, "how did we get in this mess we are in?" The
great author Robert Louis Stevenson wisely said, "Sooner or later in
life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences."
That's what's happening now, we're at the banquet.
Here is a brief synopsis of how it happened.
Many Americans believe that the core religious values, which founded
and sustained this nation, have not only been sadly neglected but
also forgotten. In so doing, the public is finding out what political
ignorance and religious apathy has created. While godly people
snoozed and gun owners were busy hunting, small minorities of
hedonists have inveigled their way into government and have been able
to impose their political will upon the majority.
It didn't happen over night.
To understand, we have to go back one hundred years to the comments
of a very wise man, President Theodore Roosevelt. He stated, "There
are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality.
What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such
thing as a new morality. There is only one morality. There is only
true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of
paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we
must return to the old morality, the sole morality."
Roosevelt saw moral slippage occurring at the beginning of the last
century. He saw radical activists proclaiming a "new morality"
embodying atheism and materialism. They were becoming increasingly
vocal on our college campuses and were becoming more active in
American politics, promoting their "new" morality. They were also
attempting to elect their candidates on the socialist ticket.
In the beginning, the Socialists and their allies were singularly
unsuccessful and remained small in number. The vast majority of
Americans were happy with our liberty, constitutional government,
free enterprise and politics implemented through the two party
system.
At the beginning of the last century, a socialist by the name of
Lenin, put wheels under the world socialist movement. He lead a small
minority of communists in overthrowing the czarist government in
Russia; in so doing, Lenin developed a financial base and a national
platform for the promotion of world socialism. After the First World
War, the hard core left became more politically active in the United
States. Lenin was an excellent organizer, and he and other socialist
leaders realized that it was an impossible task to sell their bad
tasting political medicine to the vast majority of Americans.
Norman Thomas, an early leader in the American socialist movement
promoted the concept that Americans would never knowingly adopt
socialism but, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every
fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a
socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
The left abandoned their attempts to sell their socialist programs as
a third party and decided that there was more fertile political
ground within the two party system running as "liberals" and
"progressives."
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the democrats had a weak
political party, eager for any new members. The left seized the
opportunity and registered as democrats. They were aware that both
parties are open to any one who registers in either party.
The socialists recognized that to be a candidate, all you have to do
is register, be of age, alive, not a felon and have the money to
legally file for office. There is no political litmus test in either
party in order to be a member or a candidate.
Socialists could easily register as Democrats and campaign on any
issue to get elected rather than campaigning on socialist programs --
say anything to win the office, then legislate as they please once in
office.
The left-wing political leader ship recognized that by themselves,
they were only a tiny percentage of the American population. They
did, however, recognize that only one out of four Americans vote in
primary elections and therefore, a small percentage could nominate a
candidate in primary elections since multiple candidates often seek
the office. The left saw that in local elections for school boards
and city council and supervisors, even smaller numbers could affect
the outcome. If their Socialists candidates won local offices, they
could establish a base of operations in order to move up step by step
to higher office, such as state representatives, state senators and
at a later opportunity, to Congress and the US Senate.
The following is an actual example of how a small minority can win a
major California State Senate office. Registration heavily favored
the Republican Party.
District population approximately 600,000
Those who could register to vote 400,000
Those who bothered to register 235,000
Total who voted in primary election 120,000
Republican primary vote 70,000
Democrat primary vote 50,000
Eight candidates sought the Republican nomination
The Republican winning candidate gained 16,000
And won handily. In the general election, he easily gained the senate
seat and served for 22 years. Is this race an exception? No! It
happens all the time. Realize the significance of only 16,000 votes
out of potentially 400,000 who could have participated. Think about
it. Is it any wonder that a small, dedicated minority of voters could
have a disproportionate impact on our government when three out of
four Americans don't even register or bother to take part in primary
elections, in the important process of selecting who their candidates
might be? It has been said that when one American was informed that
much of the country's population suffered from both political
ignorance and apathy. His yawning response was "I don't know and I
don't care."
The socialists, in democratic garb, had a long-range plan with little
to stand in their way. Since they were atheists and agnostics, they
believed that any method that achieved socialist power was
"ethical."
The expression, "the end justifies the means" became their
motto and
method of operations. Deception and lying became the tools of their
trade.
During the latter 1800's and early 1900's, the socialist base was
still too small to elect their numbers to many offices; they needed
to attract additional support. Now clothed as liberals in democratic
garb, they increased their numbers by wooing small disgruntled and
politically isolated segments of the population, with future promises
of political advantage. Knowing that by adding small segment by
segment, their combined small numbers could add up enough votes to
win primary elections.
They first successfully impacted and wooed segments of the union
movement. Then over the years, adding little segments one at a time,
they captured support from the homosexual community by sympathizing
with their "gay" activities. They attracted anti-war pacifists,
disgruntled feminists, the extreme environmentalists, gun control
supporters and any other dissident group that could be wooed with
future promises of legislative support. Adopting "class action"
agitation, they pandered to any group they could exploit and bring on
board.
During the growth of their move towards power, the left wing
leadership wisely kept these segments separated, appealing to them
directly, and then, only to each one's special interest. They knew
there would be difficulties if they ever brought them all together,
for they certainly didn't want to have meetings of rank and file
union members with the "gay" community nor the elderly with
anti-war
activists.
The socialist knew that, with accurate polling information, they
could campaign on issues that they didn't really believe -- but
appealed to the average voter; they didn't have to broadcast who
their real supporters happened to be. The great depression of the
1930's brought the democrats into national power at all levels of
government, including a segment of the "liberal" Democrats. The
majority of the Democratic legislators elected during the 1930's and
1940's were still traditional Americans in their ethics and values.
However, few old-line Democrats saw trouble brewing and the shift in
leadership taking place within their own party. The old time Democrat
found out soon enough when he found himself gerrymandered out of his
seat and replaced by a young leftist.
At the present time, the good ole hard working *, the symbol of
the Democrats, should have been changed to the condor; a bird far
more in keeping with the leftward slant of their party.
A condor is a large ugly vulture, which feeds on carrion. It stays
afloat on hot air and deserts its young when frightened. Its defense
mechanism is to throw up, barf a stream of semi-digested meat on its
enemies. The bird can't survive near civilization and is becoming
extinct in proximity to civilized society. To keep it alive in
California, the government now subsidizes its food. It survives quite
well in backward South American countries. Could anyone think of a
more appropriate symbol for a left-wing socialist movement?
Over many years, the planned "liberal leftist" control over
the inner
workings of the Democrat party structure increased dramatically.
Working together as an organized minority during the nineteen fifties
and sixties, the leftists set forth to take control of the Democrat
party leadership. Achieving substantial success, they then moved to
influence the Republican Party as well, running their candidates as
liberals or "moderate" Republicans. RINOs (Republican In Name Only)
became a small dissident element in the Republican Party as well.
Small but mouthy, they are the croaking frogs on republican lily
pads.
While in office, during the 1970's and 1980's, I saw the left grasp
control over the political fortunes of the Democrat party, On a first
hand basis, right before my own eyes, I watched it happen. Today, the
socialists are the dominant voice in its elected leadership. Whenever
the opportunity presented itself, they effectively and systematically
eliminated conservative democrat office holders within their ranks.
Because the Left now controls leadership, they control candidate
funding, thereby controlling who wish to be elected and leveraging
Democrat incumbents who wish to be returned to office.
A very conspicuous case of rooting out non-conforming members of the
Democrat party is the primary election defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman
in Connecticut. In six years this long-time Senator went from
national icon of the Democrat party to pariah. The message is the
same -- tow the line, or else.
Over the past fifty years, controlling the vast wealth created
through taxation, they have built a huge federal, state and local
bureaucracy which not only employs their own kind but implements a
wealth of programs that reflects the wishes of their base, the
unions, the gays, the feminists the anti war pacifists, the gun
controllers, etc. Through laws, they have dramatically increased
their power and have done what Norman Thomas hoped would happen.
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under
the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation
without ever knowing how it happened.
Fortunately, a number of Americans are aware of how it's happening
and are trying to inform their fellow Americans. Millions of
Americans still hold to the core traditional and religious values
that founded this nation and, properly informed, are working
diligently to see the left in both parties are routed out of our
Constitutional government.
The first glimmer of hope came with the republican nomination of
Barry Goldwater for president in the 1960's. Although he was soundly
defeated in the general election, he defeated in the primary, the
darling of the left leaning republicans, Nelson Rockefeller.
Conservatives rallied to work for Goldwater and didn't quit working
after his defeat. In California, in 1966, they defeated another
"moderate" in the primary by nominating and electing as governor,
something as rare as a right-winger in Hillary Clinton's staff -- a
conservative actor.
The fledgling American core value revolt was under way. A voice was
raised promoting our traditions and our ethics: activist
organizations began to crop all over America -- politically
unsophisticated but eager to learn. Fourteen years later, they
nominated and elected Ronald Reagan to the presidency.
In 1994, the Lower House of Congress went republican and its
leadership shifted toward conservatism. Was liberalism dead? Not by a
long sight. They had managed to control both houses of Congress for
forty years. The Republicans held narrow margins but with a few
"moderate" RINOs in their midst, their control is iffy. The lefties
were deeply imbedded in the Northeastern states and were the
controlling factor in most large cities.
However, they were increasingly having problems within their own
ranks. The splinter groups they'd attracted and wooed began to make
demands. They had contributed to the democrat victories, now they
wanted their reward. They wanted more of their own elected to office
and they wanted their issues enacted into law. Instead of being
splinter groups kept in the closet, they demanded to be heard, and
their wishes subsequently become part of our laws.
They got their wish and, and the dissidents are now running the
"Democratic" party. The tail is now wagging the old
"Democrat"
donkey. The anti-war, pro-abort, environmental extremists, soft on
crime, big spending liberals, feminists and deviants of both sexes
are calling the political tune and are marching hand in hand in gay
parades. The large body of old rank and file Democrats are scratching
their heads and wondering, "What's going on?"
Big changes are now occurring. The South, traditionally Democrat but
fundamentally religious, has turned Republican. Not because of any
great love for the Republican structure, but because of their disgust
over the present leftward drift of their own party.
Amongst elected democrats, hoping to seek higher office and
recognizing that the new base of the party has become a collection of
wacko wonks, are trying to cover and obfuscate this fact by
constantly attacking their opposition as "extreme," haters of the
poor or religious bigots. Their rhetoric borders the wild -- trying
to please their base while seeking to appear as moderate to the
average voter. It ain't working.
They are in trouble and they know it. The governmental bureaucracy,
which houses and provides jobs for their supporters, is being
threatened. Their economic base is vulnerable and their future is
suspect. How can they send Junior and Zelda to Harvard if they are
outa' work? Therefore, their attacks are becoming more vicious and
the thin veneer of civility is wearing off their "democratic"
facade.
There is a truism in economic circles, "bad money drives out good."
The same thing is true in politics. Bad people drive out good ones.
In the "Democratic" party that rule is holding true. Bad democrats
drive out good ones. In rural America, the trend is decidedly towards
basic American values. Who would have believed forty years ago, that
below the Mason Dixon Line, the South would turn Republican? Or that
rock-ribbed republican New Englanders would tolerate Barney Frank or
Ted Kennedy in office?
The left hasn't gained total control, for if they had, they'd have
made it a "crime" for me to write what I have just written.
There is
still time to turn it all around and get the buggers out of
government. I know it's possible and so does the left, which is why,
when challenged, and a conservative leaning judge is appointed to the
Supreme Court, the thin veneer of civility rubs off for all to see.
We are now witnessing how uncivil and uncouth they really are.
They started as a minority and still are a minority. The big
difference is that over the last hundred years, they have embedded
themselves and their unworkable policies in all facets of government
-- including education and segments of the major media.
They can be routed out but they won't go willingly. They have worked
hard to get where they are and are going to see that all their
socialist programs are going to be shoved down our collective
throats. They are nasty people. Rub off that thin veneer of civility
and see for yourselves.
Theodore Roosevelt also said, "All those blatant sham reformers, in
the name of new morality, preach the old, old vice and self
indulgence which rotted out first, the moral fiber and then even the
external greatness of Greece and Rome."
Is America next? Are we to be "rotted out by sham reformers?"
Are we
to be apathetic Americans who say, "I don't know and I don't
care!"?
I don't think so. I believe we are at the banquet and Americans are
feasting on the political consequences of the last one hundred years.
They don't like the taste of the political concoctions they've been
fed and are demanding and working for change.
****************************[8D]
It Didn't Happen Overnight
by
Sen. H. L. Richardson (Ret)
Because of my many years as a conservative in elected office, I have
been asked by others, "how did we get in this mess we are in?" The
great author Robert Louis Stevenson wisely said, "Sooner or later in
life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences."
That's what's happening now, we're at the banquet.
Here is a brief synopsis of how it happened.
Many Americans believe that the core religious values, which founded
and sustained this nation, have not only been sadly neglected but
also forgotten. In so doing, the public is finding out what political
ignorance and religious apathy has created. While godly people
snoozed and gun owners were busy hunting, small minorities of
hedonists have inveigled their way into government and have been able
to impose their political will upon the majority.
It didn't happen over night.
To understand, we have to go back one hundred years to the comments
of a very wise man, President Theodore Roosevelt. He stated, "There
are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality.
What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such
thing as a new morality. There is only one morality. There is only
true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of
paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we
must return to the old morality, the sole morality."
Roosevelt saw moral slippage occurring at the beginning of the last
century. He saw radical activists proclaiming a "new morality"
embodying atheism and materialism. They were becoming increasingly
vocal on our college campuses and were becoming more active in
American politics, promoting their "new" morality. They were also
attempting to elect their candidates on the socialist ticket.
In the beginning, the Socialists and their allies were singularly
unsuccessful and remained small in number. The vast majority of
Americans were happy with our liberty, constitutional government,
free enterprise and politics implemented through the two party
system.
At the beginning of the last century, a socialist by the name of
Lenin, put wheels under the world socialist movement. He lead a small
minority of communists in overthrowing the czarist government in
Russia; in so doing, Lenin developed a financial base and a national
platform for the promotion of world socialism. After the First World
War, the hard core left became more politically active in the United
States. Lenin was an excellent organizer, and he and other socialist
leaders realized that it was an impossible task to sell their bad
tasting political medicine to the vast majority of Americans.
Norman Thomas, an early leader in the American socialist movement
promoted the concept that Americans would never knowingly adopt
socialism but, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every
fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a
socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
The left abandoned their attempts to sell their socialist programs as
a third party and decided that there was more fertile political
ground within the two party system running as "liberals" and
"progressives."
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the democrats had a weak
political party, eager for any new members. The left seized the
opportunity and registered as democrats. They were aware that both
parties are open to any one who registers in either party.
The socialists recognized that to be a candidate, all you have to do
is register, be of age, alive, not a felon and have the money to
legally file for office. There is no political litmus test in either
party in order to be a member or a candidate.
Socialists could easily register as Democrats and campaign on any
issue to get elected rather than campaigning on socialist programs --
say anything to win the office, then legislate as they please once in
office.
The left-wing political leader ship recognized that by themselves,
they were only a tiny percentage of the American population. They
did, however, recognize that only one out of four Americans vote in
primary elections and therefore, a small percentage could nominate a
candidate in primary elections since multiple candidates often seek
the office. The left saw that in local elections for school boards
and city council and supervisors, even smaller numbers could affect
the outcome. If their Socialists candidates won local offices, they
could establish a base of operations in order to move up step by step
to higher office, such as state representatives, state senators and
at a later opportunity, to Congress and the US Senate.
The following is an actual example of how a small minority can win a
major California State Senate office. Registration heavily favored
the Republican Party.
District population approximately 600,000
Those who could register to vote 400,000
Those who bothered to register 235,000
Total who voted in primary election 120,000
Republican primary vote 70,000
Democrat primary vote 50,000
Eight candidates sought the Republican nomination
The Republican winning candidate gained 16,000
And won handily. In the general election, he easily gained the senate
seat and served for 22 years. Is this race an exception? No! It
happens all the time. Realize the significance of only 16,000 votes
out of potentially 400,000 who could have participated. Think about
it. Is it any wonder that a small, dedicated minority of voters could
have a disproportionate impact on our government when three out of
four Americans don't even register or bother to take part in primary
elections, in the important process of selecting who their candidates
might be? It has been said that when one American was informed that
much of the country's population suffered from both political
ignorance and apathy. His yawning response was "I don't know and I
don't care."
The socialists, in democratic garb, had a long-range plan with little
to stand in their way. Since they were atheists and agnostics, they
believed that any method that achieved socialist power was
"ethical."
The expression, "the end justifies the means" became their
motto and
method of operations. Deception and lying became the tools of their
trade.
During the latter 1800's and early 1900's, the socialist base was
still too small to elect their numbers to many offices; they needed
to attract additional support. Now clothed as liberals in democratic
garb, they increased their numbers by wooing small disgruntled and
politically isolated segments of the population, with future promises
of political advantage. Knowing that by adding small segment by
segment, their combined small numbers could add up enough votes to
win primary elections.
They first successfully impacted and wooed segments of the union
movement. Then over the years, adding little segments one at a time,
they captured support from the homosexual community by sympathizing
with their "gay" activities. They attracted anti-war pacifists,
disgruntled feminists, the extreme environmentalists, gun control
supporters and any other dissident group that could be wooed with
future promises of legislative support. Adopting "class action"
agitation, they pandered to any group they could exploit and bring on
board.
During the growth of their move towards power, the left wing
leadership wisely kept these segments separated, appealing to them
directly, and then, only to each one's special interest. They knew
there would be difficulties if they ever brought them all together,
for they certainly didn't want to have meetings of rank and file
union members with the "gay" community nor the elderly with
anti-war
activists.
The socialist knew that, with accurate polling information, they
could campaign on issues that they didn't really believe -- but
appealed to the average voter; they didn't have to broadcast who
their real supporters happened to be. The great depression of the
1930's brought the democrats into national power at all levels of
government, including a segment of the "liberal" Democrats. The
majority of the Democratic legislators elected during the 1930's and
1940's were still traditional Americans in their ethics and values.
However, few old-line Democrats saw trouble brewing and the shift in
leadership taking place within their own party. The old time Democrat
found out soon enough when he found himself gerrymandered out of his
seat and replaced by a young leftist.
At the present time, the good ole hard working *, the symbol of
the Democrats, should have been changed to the condor; a bird far
more in keeping with the leftward slant of their party.
A condor is a large ugly vulture, which feeds on carrion. It stays
afloat on hot air and deserts its young when frightened. Its defense
mechanism is to throw up, barf a stream of semi-digested meat on its
enemies. The bird can't survive near civilization and is becoming
extinct in proximity to civilized society. To keep it alive in
California, the government now subsidizes its food. It survives quite
well in backward South American countries. Could anyone think of a
more appropriate symbol for a left-wing socialist movement?
Over many years, the planned "liberal leftist" control over
the inner
workings of the Democrat party structure increased dramatically.
Working together as an organized minority during the nineteen fifties
and sixties, the leftists set forth to take control of the Democrat
party leadership. Achieving substantial success, they then moved to
influence the Republican Party as well, running their candidates as
liberals or "moderate" Republicans. RINOs (Republican In Name Only)
became a small dissident element in the Republican Party as well.
Small but mouthy, they are the croaking frogs on republican lily
pads.
While in office, during the 1970's and 1980's, I saw the left grasp
control over the political fortunes of the Democrat party, On a first
hand basis, right before my own eyes, I watched it happen. Today, the
socialists are the dominant voice in its elected leadership. Whenever
the opportunity presented itself, they effectively and systematically
eliminated conservative democrat office holders within their ranks.
Because the Left now controls leadership, they control candidate
funding, thereby controlling who wish to be elected and leveraging
Democrat incumbents who wish to be returned to office.
A very conspicuous case of rooting out non-conforming members of the
Democrat party is the primary election defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman
in Connecticut. In six years this long-time Senator went from
national icon of the Democrat party to pariah. The message is the
same -- tow the line, or else.
Over the past fifty years, controlling the vast wealth created
through taxation, they have built a huge federal, state and local
bureaucracy which not only employs their own kind but implements a
wealth of programs that reflects the wishes of their base, the
unions, the gays, the feminists the anti war pacifists, the gun
controllers, etc. Through laws, they have dramatically increased
their power and have done what Norman Thomas hoped would happen.
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under
the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation
without ever knowing how it happened.
Fortunately, a number of Americans are aware of how it's happening
and are trying to inform their fellow Americans. Millions of
Americans still hold to the core traditional and religious values
that founded this nation and, properly informed, are working
diligently to see the left in both parties are routed out of our
Constitutional government.
The first glimmer of hope came with the republican nomination of
Barry Goldwater for president in the 1960's. Although he was soundly
defeated in the general election, he defeated in the primary, the
darling of the left leaning republicans, Nelson Rockefeller.
Conservatives rallied to work for Goldwater and didn't quit working
after his defeat. In California, in 1966, they defeated another
"moderate" in the primary by nominating and electing as governor,
something as rare as a right-winger in Hillary Clinton's staff -- a
conservative actor.
The fledgling American core value revolt was under way. A voice was
raised promoting our traditions and our ethics: activist
organizations began to crop all over America -- politically
unsophisticated but eager to learn. Fourteen years later, they
nominated and elected Ronald Reagan to the presidency.
In 1994, the Lower House of Congress went republican and its
leadership shifted toward conservatism. Was liberalism dead? Not by a
long sight. They had managed to control both houses of Congress for
forty years. The Republicans held narrow margins but with a few
"moderate" RINOs in their midst, their control is iffy. The lefties
were deeply imbedded in the Northeastern states and were the
controlling factor in most large cities.
However, they were increasingly having problems within their own
ranks. The splinter groups they'd attracted and wooed began to make
demands. They had contributed to the democrat victories, now they
wanted their reward. They wanted more of their own elected to office
and they wanted their issues enacted into law. Instead of being
splinter groups kept in the closet, they demanded to be heard, and
their wishes subsequently become part of our laws.
They got their wish and, and the dissidents are now running the
"Democratic" party. The tail is now wagging the old
"Democrat"
donkey. The anti-war, pro-abort, environmental extremists, soft on
crime, big spending liberals, feminists and deviants of both sexes
are calling the political tune and are marching hand in hand in gay
parades. The large body of old rank and file Democrats are scratching
their heads and wondering, "What's going on?"
Big changes are now occurring. The South, traditionally Democrat but
fundamentally religious, has turned Republican. Not because of any
great love for the Republican structure, but because of their disgust
over the present leftward drift of their own party.
Amongst elected democrats, hoping to seek higher office and
recognizing that the new base of the party has become a collection of
wacko wonks, are trying to cover and obfuscate this fact by
constantly attacking their opposition as "extreme," haters of the
poor or religious bigots. Their rhetoric borders the wild -- trying
to please their base while seeking to appear as moderate to the
average voter. It ain't working.
They are in trouble and they know it. The governmental bureaucracy,
which houses and provides jobs for their supporters, is being
threatened. Their economic base is vulnerable and their future is
suspect. How can they send Junior and Zelda to Harvard if they are
outa' work? Therefore, their attacks are becoming more vicious and
the thin veneer of civility is wearing off their "democratic"
facade.
There is a truism in economic circles, "bad money drives out good."
The same thing is true in politics. Bad people drive out good ones.
In the "Democratic" party that rule is holding true. Bad democrats
drive out good ones. In rural America, the trend is decidedly towards
basic American values. Who would have believed forty years ago, that
below the Mason Dixon Line, the South would turn Republican? Or that
rock-ribbed republican New Englanders would tolerate Barney Frank or
Ted Kennedy in office?
The left hasn't gained total control, for if they had, they'd have
made it a "crime" for me to write what I have just written.
There is
still time to turn it all around and get the buggers out of
government. I know it's possible and so does the left, which is why,
when challenged, and a conservative leaning judge is appointed to the
Supreme Court, the thin veneer of civility rubs off for all to see.
We are now witnessing how uncivil and uncouth they really are.
They started as a minority and still are a minority. The big
difference is that over the last hundred years, they have embedded
themselves and their unworkable policies in all facets of government
-- including education and segments of the major media.
They can be routed out but they won't go willingly. They have worked
hard to get where they are and are going to see that all their
socialist programs are going to be shoved down our collective
throats. They are nasty people. Rub off that thin veneer of civility
and see for yourselves.
Theodore Roosevelt also said, "All those blatant sham reformers, in
the name of new morality, preach the old, old vice and self
indulgence which rotted out first, the moral fiber and then even the
external greatness of Greece and Rome."
Is America next? Are we to be "rotted out by sham reformers?"
Are we
to be apathetic Americans who say, "I don't know and I don't
care!"?
I don't think so. I believe we are at the banquet and Americans are
feasting on the political consequences of the last one hundred years.
They don't like the taste of the political concoctions they've been
fed and are demanding and working for change.
****************************[8D]
Comments