Monday, September 08, 2008

Party First, Country Second, Liberty Never

I listened to Hugh Hewitt as I drove to the post office today. Hewitt was at his worst.

His caller was a Democrat woman who is voting for "Sarah and John." (Apparently, John is an afterthought to Sarah voters.)

Why is she voting for Sarah? Because this woman had a special needs child of her own and she doesn't want other women to go through what she went through.

In other words, she is voting for Sarah for what used to be Democrat reasons. This woman is a member of a pressure group and she expects Sarah to throw taxpayers money at her cause. She expects Sarah to expand the nanny state and destroy a little more of our freedom -- in the name of helping mental retards. Excuse me, "special needs babies."

And Palin is supposed to be the one on the ticket that wants small government! What a joke!

Hewitt, of course, was delighted. He doesn't give a damn about freedom or any other principles conservatives were once supposed to hold dear. Hewitt wants electoral success, and anything the Republicans have to do to win is fine by him.

This is the death of the Republican Party. It is now just another welfare state party, a gang grasping for power so they can spend the money you make.

I do not see how I can ever again give this party my vote.


Jason H. Bowden said...

"I do not see how I can ever again give this party my vote."

Then don't.

I'm voting for McPalin because the good for me outweighs the bad for me when compared to the alternatives.

I don't need people grabbing our guns (guns are already illegal here in Obama's Chicago), higher taxes, the Hezb'Allah detonating Iranian nukes in our cities, tariffs on foreign goods, etc.

Sitting this one out looks like a lot of sacrifice for almost no gain.

Myrhaf said...

Jason, last night I received an email from John Lewis that reads in part,

In July the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which details their plan to force Americans to reduce emissions of CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases.” This follows on an Executive Order signed by President Bush, which was made possible by a U.S. Supreme Court decisions ruling that CO2 is a “pollutant.” (!)

This plan will strip the American people of their freedom, and place them under the control of a single, all-powerful, federal agency. Industrial permits, furnace regulations, auto emissions testing, building permits, transportation, and food production—all will fall under the boot of the EPA. Environmentalists will use lawsuits to pressure the EPA to tighten an ever-shrinking noose around the neck of every American.

Note that Bush signed this Executive Order. He also outlawed the incandescent lightbulb. And sent spending through the roof, which is raising the hidden tax of inflation. If a Democrat president had done these things, right-wing talk radio would bitch about it every day.

Do you think things would be worse if Kerry had been elected in 2004?

Do you think the flaky Obama would be more effective in expanding state power than the national greatness Republican McCain?

Anonymous said...

I enjoy your analysis, but this country has been on the long road to serfdom for quite some time.
I don’t think voting for either party will get you any better results. However, I’m inclined to deliberately vote the Republican ticket to avert a possible Brama administration. Brama has too many scary associations from the American Hating Black Theologist Reverend Wright, to the U.S. home grown terrorist Bill Ayers. If elected, Brama will be able to fill thousands of position around the country with the types of people he associates with. I just don’t want to risk that.
As an off topic side note, I think a Objectivists are best served pulling our children out of public school, supporting and promoting proper education like the VanDamme Academy or Home Schooling, or at minimum become minders of our children’s teachers (as I’m doing now with mine) to be sure they’re not corrupting their cognitive faculty or pushing some political agenda.

john said...

Palin signaled her mission to become the advocate for having retarded children on purpose and having the state pay for it during her speech. It was coded, because one might get the impression that it could have been meant as "I will be a visible inspiration." I immediately saw that she meant "I will see to it that laws are passed." Here's what she said:

"And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That's how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

[Note, when she said that last line, her head came up and she gave a conspirational look into the camera. She signaled it was code.]

This is a promise to influence the passage of legislation. She might attack the current practice of physicians strong insistence on the ambio test; she might throw weight into the education establishment's efforts to provide more and more special treatment into these children; she might pound the socialized medical system into heavier spending on them; etc., use your imagination.

If you think her being "a republican" is protection against my prediction, please remember Bob Dole. He saw to it that the ADA got passed, a massive and destructive piece of intrusion.

Palin had this retarded child on purpose. One wonders if she and hubby plan to pay for all its special needs out of their own wealth. One wonders if it is fair to the other children to bring in one that soaks up all parental attention. One wonders if the needs of Trig threaten the college fund for all the others.

When a woman is 44 years old, the chances that her child will be retarded and condemned to disease and early death [age 24 with normal treatment, recently expanded to 40 with extraordinary (very expensive) treatment] are 1 in 35. Palin obviously did not intend to stop having sex with hubby; she did not choose to have tubes (hers or hubby's) tied/cut; she obviously never would get an abortion. Therefore, she deliberately ran a huge risk of a retarded baby with no option of abortion.

So, Palin's coded message to America is not "watch me for inspiration"; it is "I will get the state to support you if you decided to deliberately have retarded children. Together we will thumb our nose at abortion and birth control , get others to pay for our beliefs and celebrate the high moral purpose of deliberately welcoming these gifts from God. No more stigma, no more bills."

Her daughter, who conceived a child during the last month or two of Sarah's pregnancy, was obviously inspired by her mom's vision and duly put it into practice; The other demographic with a hight likelihood of having Down Syndrome babies is: young teen mothers.

Myrhaf said...

Thanks for all of that, John.