Vision, Mission, and Strategy

Hillbilly Politics

On another blog: there is a discussion going on about how the Democrats in Congress refused to listen to Petraeus.

One of the posts ended with this:

… I want to hear a definitive “we can’t afford this anymore” timeframe. 20-40 or 40+ what’s to long? We cannot afford to have an open ended war here. We are screaming about the cost of illegal aliens but we will keeps spending our childrens childrens money on Iraq? Makes little sense to me.

To which I replied:

rob I was with you until your last statements:
“We are screaming about the cost of illegal aliens but we will keeps spending our childrens childrens money on Iraq? Makes little sense to me.”

We spend more on illegals than we do on the war and they kill more U.S. people per day than die in the war.

As for the rest, I don’t think we’ll be over there 20-40 years. However, there are some things, nonmilitary, that need to happen.

When you look at the Iraqi people, you hear they want freedom and democracy, but they don’t really know what they are because they’ve never experienced them. They have had no examples to show them what it really means or how to achieve it. And there are others who don’t want them to have that freedom out of fear… fear that freedom and democracy might become a concept that their own peoples may desire, which is a threat to their totalitarian regimes and dreams of Global Domination.

So, there is fighting… a lot of it… cowardly fighting from the shadows and by trickery.

Our soldiers are their best examples of what it means to live in a democratic society and have choices other than those dictated by the powerful. We can’t very well send in civilians when there are shadowy cowards willing to use children as human shields to kill others off, now can we?

When General Petraeus talks about how the war cannot be won militarily, these are some of the things he is talking about.

And yes, it will be a long hard slog because in some ways it has the flavor of a revolution much like our own that won our independence. However, Iraq doesn’t come from a place of knowing what those concepts mean in reality so it’s going to take longer for them to achieve.

I’ve said, many times, in various places, that the Democratic Party of today is not the Democractic Party of old. The party was hijacked by the extreme left and the socialists in America. They don’t want freedom and democracy in Iraq anymore than the totalitarians who are fighting against them. Freedom and democracy don’t fit in with their One World Government. To them, freedom and democracy in Iraq is a step backwards… many steps backwards.

It’s funny, just a couple of days ago I heard the term hijacked used on a news station and have read it used in other blogs. I’ve been using it for months now. Does that mean people are actually reading what I write?

This is how I see the Democratic Party of today, funded by socialist/communist backers pulling the strings from the shadows. While they mouth platitudes and thoughts of equality, women’s rights, and other laudable sentiments, their actions say just the opposite of what they speak. Now, growing up I learned, and through experience I know actions speak louder than words. Why can’t everyone else know that, too? How do we bring them to a place of understanding that?

On another blog, I talked about this concept from another perspective and talked about how the liberal crowd are like the ball in the pinball machine in the hands of a master player, forever being bounced off one object or another never settling to any one thing until the master ends the game.

This blog highlights that concept nicely:

…  As I told my friend, I don’t think all liberals are bad people, but I can’t say as much about their stand on the issues.

For instance, the liberal position is to nullify the Second Amendment, making it impossible for honest citizens to own guns.

Liberals have made a religion out of the junk science revolving around Global Warming, and made a god out of Al Gore, a man who just happens to own an alternative energy company.

Liberals believe in encouraging America’s enemies by announcing timetables for withdrawal from war zones.  They also believe in extending Geneva Convention protections to terrorists and Constitutional rights to illegal aliens.

Liberals argue in favor of bilingual education in spite of the fact that studies show that Latinos, so educated, rarely catch up to other foreign-born students who aren’t similarly patronized.

Liberals promote open borders, higher taxes and an end to capital punishment.

Liberals favor affirmative action while simultaneously insisting that they, unlike conservatives, are racially color-blind.  But, then, they are also the folks who see nothing wrong with U.S. members of Congress forming a Black Caucus.

Liberals believe that activist Supreme Court judges should be encouraged to ignore the original intentions of the nation’s forefathers so long as the judges are advancing a left-wing agenda.

Liberals see nothing wrong with academic tyranny so long as it’s their professors who are ruling the ivy-covered roost.

Liberals have stretched the First Amendment beyond all recognition.  What it says in regards to the so-called separation of church and state is this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  It then goes on to proclaim freedom of the press and speech, and to acknowledge the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  Only certifiably crazy people could interpret that to preclude schools from announcing Christmas vacation or a community from placing a 30-foot Christmas tree on the roof of its city hall.

Liberals believe that freedom of the press extends only to those newspapers, TV networks and radio stations, in lockstep with their beliefs.  But let Internet websites, talk radio or Fox News, offer a viable alternative, and liberals start looking for ways to shut down the opposition. Apparently, it’s only pornography they hate to see censored.

Liberals insist they’re for religious tolerance, women’s rights, democracy and intellectual freedom, but more often than not they side with the Arabs, who are for none of those things, and against Israel.

Liberals favor gay marriage, but refuse to say, if homosexuals are allowed to tie the knot, on what basis, if any, the state can deny the same right to consenting adults who just happen to be siblings, father and daughter, mother and son, or Pamela Sue Anderson and the Oakland Raiders.

Liberals want the U.N., not the U.S., to be the world’s peacekeeper.  But one only has to look at Darfur to see what a fine job the U.N. does of it.  And how is it that the same liberals who can’t bear the thought of American soldiers risking their lives in Iraq are so anxious to have them sent off to the Sudan?

Liberals are terribly concerned with respecting the rites and traditions of Muslims both here and in Guantanamo, but every holiday season happily attack the rites and traditions of American Christians.

Liberals have double standards where politicial scandals are concerned.  Whereas Republicans lop the heads off their own (Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Dan Crane, Trent Lott, Scooter Libby), even sometimes when the charges hardly warrant it, liberals have no problem giving leadership positions to such scoundrels as Ted Kennedy, William Jefferson, Robert Byrd, John Murtha, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank; or, for that matter, paying homage to the likes of Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter.

But perhaps there’s no area in which their hypocrisy is on such blatant display as when it comes to abortions.  Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court should never have heard Roe v. Wade in the first place — abortion not being a Constitutional right — liberals are simply loopy when it comes to this issue.  Whether it’s fighting for a woman’s right to have a partial-birth abortion or abortions on demand for young teens, you can count on liberals being just plain wrong.  It’s sort of funny in a way because the same yahoos who insist that 18 and 19 year old men and women are too immature to enlist in the military seem to think 13-year-olds are up to having abortions without parental consultation. …

You decide.

6 Responses to Congress vs. General Petraeus

  • suek says:

    “Liberals have double standards where politicial scandals are concerned. ”

    I disagree with this…I think they have _no_ standards. They know that the Republican base _does_ have a standard, and use that knowledge to smear those politicians who violate the standards, knowing that the Repubs base will hold their politicians accountable. Their base, on the other hand, has no standard other than power, and therefore they don’t worry about _any_ action on the part of their members as long as it doesn’t cause them to lose that power. If a politician loses his/her power/influence, they will dump him/her. Look at Kerry. He’s nowhere. Now Gore, on the other hand…they dumped him, but he’s coming back as a result of the Global Warming thing. He’s building power again, and they may turn to him again. It depends…if GW can be debunked, he’ll be out again.

  • hillbilly says:

    “I disagree with this…I think they have _no_ standards.”

    They do and they don’t… they don’t have any standards as far as day to day standards but they do seem to hold everyone not liberal to a higher set of standards.

    As far as the Repubs, yeah, we do have standards and yeah, they do use them against us.

    GW was debunked before it got started… at least, Al Gore’s version of it. There has been and continues to be a concerted effort to keep the most respected scientists in the field… silent. Yes, there is Global Warming but not nearly the way it is being described by Al Gore. However, since the scientists are keeping mum, a different tack has been taken… like the fact that the whole thing is a Ponsi scheme to bilk people out of money buying carbon offsets owned by… Al Gore.

  • Christi says:

    Steph, thanks so much for the link and thanks for helping out with liberals at my site. I linked to your numbers about the cost of inaction and that was the end of the conversation. lol

    btw, sorry it took me so long to get over here but I got a little crazy this weekend tilling up a flower bed and I tilled up my phone line. Not a good thing to do when you are on dial-up for the Internet.

  • hillbilly says:

    I saw that on your blog… about the phone line… I don’t have anything really against liberals as long as they desire honest debate but when they start telling me that I have to believe things the way they do, or do what they do, or what they say without any type of logical reason, that’s when I gotta say what I gotta say.

  • hillbilly says:

    I think they are, too, but they are still too weak to stand on their own and that’s what worries me. We owe it to ouselves as well as them to see this job through.

April 2007
« Mar   May »


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.