The liberal wing of American politics has done the country a lot of good for one to stand by and witness it self destroy. One must, therefore, speak out, perchance the party changes its ways, and makes itself once more relevant in American politics. Think about Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Barnes Johnson and the great good they did for America. What would America be without FDR’s New Deal legislations that radically altered the economy, from government’s lack of involvement in the welfare of the people to the present social compact whereby we all agree that Cain’s question: “Am I my brothers’ keeper”, must be answered in the affirmative. Think about LBJ’s great society programs that improved the lives of many poor minority persons, and certainly facilitated their entrance into mainstream American politics. Think about Harry Truman’s executive order that ended racial segregation in the military and the good it has done America. Yes, liberals have done America a lot of good that one wished they survived.
One wished that America’s two party systems survived. We need our two mainstream parties, one to the right of the center, and the other to the left of the center of the political spectrum. Both parties essentially accepted the underlying premises of the American polity: democracy and free enterprise economy. It is politically healthy for liberals to seek to have government be used for programs that served the people, particularly the poor and for conservatives, who understand the dangers of big government, to resist them and make sure that the government does not become so large that it begins to tell the people what to do.
John Locke’s wisdom that the best government is a limited one is balanced by John Maynard Keynes’ economic wisdom that sometimes we need to use the instrument of government to make sure that the seeming built in cycles of boom and bust in capitalist economies are ameliorated. The two parties, conservatives and liberals, balanced each other out, and the result is the excellent government we have had in this country.
Sometimes we need government intervention in, and regulation of, the economy, but realistic conservatives ascertain that the government does not go too far least it destroys the goose that lays the golden eggs. Liberals can get so carried away by their do good thinking that they want to use the government to solve just about every ill that dogs mankind, unaware of the consequences of what they are doing, enlarging the government to a point that it becomes monolithic and overbearing and begins to tell the people how to live their lives.
Think of the USSR’s government and its total control of society, all in the name of serving the people’s welfare, and how it became authoritarian and totalitarian, and, worse, killed the incentive for people to work hard and in the process essentially destroyed the Russian economy.
The free enterprise system, as envisaged by Adam Smith, has its built-in flaws and needs to be corrected by Keynesian thinking, but we must make sure that we do not go too far and over regulate the economy, and or take too much money out of the hands of hardworking people through taxes, that they no longer have the incentive to work hard. In short, America benefited from the struggles of the liberal and conservative wings of its system maintaining parties.
The thinking of liberals today suggests that they have decided to take themselves away from playing significant role in American politics. Perhaps, they have decided to exit American politics, and or be replaced by another party?
Our Anglo-Saxon tradition somehow works in such a way that two strong political parties exist in the land. This is certainly the way it is in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and until recently the United States of America. When one of the mainstream parties decides to die, it is replaced by the emergence of another, to maintain the traditional two-party system.
In Britain, the Liberal Party essentially marginalized itself and was replaced by the Labor Party, so that Britain continues to have two strong political parties, labor and Conservative. In the recent past, it was Liberal and Conservative Parties that competed to rule Britain.
In America, we had the Federalists and the anti Federalists factions, and later the Tories and Whigs, and much later the Democrats and Republicans. We have always managed to have two parties, and as one ruling party chooses to bow out, another replaces it. America has not been like continental European countries with their multiparty systems. Our traditional stability, among other factors, lies in our wise choice for two political parties, both of whom are system supportive. One of our parties always leans to the left and the other to the right. The weaknesses of continental Europe, inter alia, are attributable to their multi party system. Many political parties weaken the country so much so that occasional dictators were needed to restore some sort of stability in their polities.
Nature abhors power vacuum. If indeed the American Democratic Party has decided to destroy itself, the polity will spring forth another mainstream political party to replace it. But, in the meantime, one cannot help but ask why this otherwise acceptable political party is doing what guarantees its demise? Why are democrats indulging in social policies that alienate the American people?
Has the Democratic Party forgotten that political parties exist to articulate the wishes of the people, to compete for the right to win elections and translate public opinion into public policies? In a democratic polity, political parties do not tell the people what they should do, but do for them what they want done.
The American people do not want God removed from their social discourse, they do not want abortion on demand, and they do not want legalization of homosexuality. Yet the Democratic Party seems bent on forcing American people to accept these values.
America is a Christian nation. That is a fact and is not up for debate. However, our Founding fathers appreciated what happens in theocratic states and decided to separate church from state. They did not want to destroy religion but to make sure that secular rulers are not beholden to any particular religious sect.
If we are intellectually honest, we accept that we do not know what God is, or is not. All we know is that at a deeper level we feel that there is God.
History teaches us that sometimes some deluded individual has interpretations of what God is, or is not, and is motivated to superimpose his interpretations on the rest of society. Our founding fathers realistically appreciated that religion ought to be an individual thing, that no one ought to have others views of God imposed on him. Therefore, our founding fathers correctly insisted that religion had to be separated from the state. They wanted to leave individuals the freedom to gravitate to whatever interpretation of God makes sense to them, not the one that a state religion told them is true.
We witnessed the horrors of the Spanish inquisition and other Roman Catholic atrocities, such as making Galileo recant his scientific discoveries; we witnessed what the Church of England did to those who did not accept Oliver Cromwell’s particular view of God. Today, we witness what apparently deluded Islamic mullahs did in Afghanistan, Iran and other places in the Muslim world.
Today’s liberals consider themselves so smart that like the fool, they know that there is no God. With little scientific understanding, they are convinced that God does not exist. They see belief in God as superstitious and want to eradicate it from our society. They want our society to remove all symbols of God from its public institutions. They have joined forces with the godless ACLU and other knows it all organizations to remove God from American society.
Given man’s sinful nature, he needs moral agents to continue to teach him to behave morally. Indeed, it is doubtful that a human civilization can exist without religion?
The question is not whether there should be religion or not, but to make sure that our efforts to reconnect to our source is as rational as is possible. But liberals want to remove all signs of religion from America. They want to do so even though over 90% of Americans say that they believe in God. Apparently, these liberals believe that they know more than religious Americans do and want to impose their deemed better understanding of the nature of phenomena on all Americans. In so doing, they have become dictators and want to ram their godlessness on a godly people.
If democracy means government by the majority of the people, liberals who want to impose their godlessness on Americans are not democrats. One cannot see why less than ten percent of the people should be making policies for the 90% of the people who believe in God.
Abortion is another area where liberals want to impose their views on Americans. History teaches us that no matter what we do some women would become pregnant and want to get rid of their pregnancies. Whereas the best policy is to encourage those women to carry their pregnancy to term, and if they do not want their children, give them up for abortion, the reality of human fickleness is that some women seek abortion. Okay, abortion is a reality of life, so make it available for those who want it. Roe Versus Wade is a necessary evil. We do not need to go back to the past when women who wanted abortion resorted to back alley quack doctors to satisfy their wishes.
Nevertheless, to abort a child is to kill a child. A society that accepts the killing of children simply because some women do not want them is devaluing life. If abortion on demand is accepted, sooner or later, we must so devalue life that we shall have eugenic social policies. It should be remembered that the founders of the Planned Parenthood movement were not only eugenics but wanted to prevent poor persons, particularly minority persons from having children. These people were not always the angels they made themselves out to be. They may be nihilists.
Empirical observation indicates that certain persons are unproductive elements in society. The mentally ill and the developmentally delayed are examples. If life is to be preserved on the basis of pragmatism, as abortion choosing feminism teaches, it follows that we should exterminate the unproductive elements of society? These people are kept alive because society values all lives; they are kept alive through the support of normal persons’ taxes, taxes they themselves do not pay.
If abortion on demand or so-called women’s right to choose becomes cavalierly accepted, the next logical argument is to destroy those we do not want in society, those who do not contribute to the economy and who must be supported by the tax payers. Therefore, to avert cheapening human life, every rational society discourages abortion as much as is possible, while understanding that some form of it will always exist.
Realism teaches us that man is not an angel, and is not going to become perfect in the near future. So, rational persons tolerate some abortion but not make it an admired social policy.
What do the Democrats do? They jump in bed with death seeking radical feminists who teach abortion on demand, and want society to make abortion very easy. They accept the dangerous hypothesis of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. True, we all must choose what to do with our bodies, but if what you do with your body entails killing another human being; your right must be limited by society. When behavior has negative consequences for other human beings, we all must intervene to make sure that it is prosocial, not antisocial.
Some abortion must be allowed, such as when a woman’s life is in danger, and when pregnancy is as a result of rape, but reason teaches that in other instances society ought to discourage abortion, so as to preserve the sanctity of human life.
The Republican Party wisely adopts this benign neglect policy towards abortion. The party looks the other way as abortion bent women get what they want. But the Democratic Party chooses to forsake reason and mouth the death welcoming logic of radical feminists who want women to kill their children on demand.
These feminists are unaware that the logical consequences of their choice are the killing of women themselves. Just look at what is happening in China. Male dominated society and logic teaches that men will always dominate society because stronger animals always dominate weak ones, generally prefer male to female children. Developments in ultra sound technology have made it possible to ascertain the gender of the child in the womb, and if the choice is what child to abort, the chances are that it would be the female child. It is already happening in China and could happen here. If we are still an adult reasoning society, we understand why society prefers boys to girls: in times of war, and war is always a part of human society, we need strong men to defend society.
The other perplexing policy choice of Democrats is their support of legalization of homosexuality and the oxymoronic concept of same sex marriage.
It is true that throughout the animal kingdom there are always those animals that prefer sex with their gender. Probably about one to two percent of the human population has always been homosexual, two percent pedophiles, two percent psychotic, two percent developmentally delayed, and two percent antisocial. In every large population, deviance from the norm exists in the order of one to two percent.
There seems nothing we can do to change reality. We cannot wish homosexuality away just as we cannot wish criminals, pedophiles and the mentally ill away. We have to live with these deviant persons. We have to tolerate them, but toleration is not approval. Toleration does not mean that we should normalize deviancy, as the homosexual lobby would have us do. These people would like nothing better than for normal society to approve their self-destructive lifestyle, thereby making us party to it. They are seeking assisted suicide and some of us refuse to help them do so, though they are free to destroy themselves by themselves.
The main argument of the homosexual lobby is that they are the way they are as a result of biological determinism. By the same token, criminals are probably determined by their biology?
If it can be demonstrated that there are genes disposing to antisocial personality disorder, should we therefore legalize criminality?
There is putative biological factor in the etiology of the major mental disorders (schizophrenia, Delusional Disorder, Bipolar Affective Disorder, Depression etc.). Should we, therefore, stop seeking a cure for these mental disorders and simply say that because nature predisposes persons to disordered thinking, and to hallucinate in one or more of the five senses that they should be accepted as normal?
Why don’t we permit known schizophrenics and or deluded persons to become our political leaders? Why decry an Adolf Hitler who obviously had delusional disorder, grandiose type, being in politics? Why not tolerate deluded politicians who believe that we ought to kill our enemies even if those enemies are the product of their overheated imaginations?
If we put away political correctness, it is obvious that intelligence is largely inherited. We know that about two percent of the population of all races tends to have superior IQ (over 132), two percent tends to have inferior IQ (under 70) and that the rest of us have average intelligence (IQ 100-110, with some being above average, IQ between 120-130). Since about two percent of the population inherited inferior intelligence should we then stop making efforts to improve their lives and simply accept them as they are?
Research will soon show that some people are born with preference for sex with children. Yes, there are adult men who want to have sex with six-year-old children. Satan’s revered priest, Paul Shanely, wrote articles arguing that adult men should have sex with six year old or even younger boys. The North American Adult-boy Association devotes itself to seeking civil rights for adult men to have sex with one-year old children.
Whereas rational adults want to protect children, cowardly ones want to have sex with them. If you must have sex, why not do so with fellow adults and obtain their permission rather than from children whom you can intimidate into doing whatever you want them to do for you? Cowardice is afoot in the land, and these contemptible and dastardly people who ought to be shot on the spot now ask for their civil rights to inflict pain on children.
Since it can be proved that pedophiles are predisposed to be so by their genes, should society approve it? Why not? If we are going to approve homosexuality on the basis of its biological causation, why not approve other odious behaviors that are possibly determined by individuals’ biological constitution?
Just thinking about what homosexuals do makes the average male want to throw up. It takes some sort of inherited predisposition for a man to overcome what is otherwise a shameful act, and ask another man to insert his penis into his anus and mouth and call that absurd activity enjoyable. Obviously nature made the penis to go into the vagina, not the anus or mouth. (Homosexuals do not want the public to know what they do, to prevent public disgust at them; therefore, we must let the public know what these creatures do.)
Odious as homosexuality is, experience teaches us that we are not going to wish it away. In fact, if you oppose it, its practitioners are more likely to engage in it. They would do so as an act of defiance.
God’s children are a defiant lot and would defy whatever you tell them not to do. They would do so if only to tell you that you cannot make them behave in a certain manner, hence have power over them. They want to seem like they have power, and control and can do whatever they feel like doing. Indeed, some have argued that the world itself began as an act of defiance of God and is maintained by continuing defiance of God.
Rational persons, therefore, desist from telling other human beings what to do; they do not preach against homosexuality, they simply ignore it. If folks want to desecrate themselves, that is their prerogative, provided they take the consequences of their actions. Placing ones penis into feces is likely to lead to infection with bacteria, virus and fungus. Homosexuals tend to incur sexual and other diseases at a greater rate than heterosexuals. This is not including the fact that their sexual practices so widen their anuses that in their old age they practically have feces drooping out of their bowels. Many of them have to wear diapers.
There is a price to be paid for childish oppositional defiant behavior. If in your effort to seem powerful and in control of your body and what you do with it you defy nature, you must pay a price. Homosexuals pay a terrible price for their childish behavior and one does not worry about it. Adult reasoning tells one that all of us must take the consequences of our behaviors, so one does not loose sleep if one sees decrepit old homosexuals.
So you want to be homosexual? Be my guest and do as you please, provided you do not do what you do in my presence? Rational persons adopt a live and let live policy without supporting homosexuals’ self-destructive life style.
The Democratic Party forsakes prudence and wants to pass laws to legalize every absurd life style they see. They want to legalize so-called same sex marriage. They know that over 70% of Americans do not approve of homosexuality but they want to ram down our throats their absurd friend’s insistence on ramming things down people’s throats. They want to convert all of us to the wish of normalizing deviancy. Indeed, one of these days they would want us to see deviancy as normalcy. (Just wait and see; if homosexuality is legalized, the very next day the battle would be to legalize pedophilia. When societies begin to decay, they do so quickly.)
The homosexual lobby argues that homosexuality is a civil rights issue. They equate their struggle with black Americans struggle for civil rights. They point out that if left alone that white Americans would not have permitted whites and blacks to intermingle, that it took laws that did not respect racist whites’ desires to give blacks civil liberties. Even the devil Bible quotes scripture to make its case.
There is a difference between civil rights for blacks and civil rights for homosexuals, pedophiles, criminals and other antisocial persons. Blackness is a biological state. As far as one knows, no one chooses his race?
Homosexuality is a behavior. Individuals can choose their behaviors. Homosexuals can choose not to do the disgusting thing they do. Of course, they have a right to choose to do what they do but they do not have a right to ask us to approve it. If they want to destroy themselves, the universe permits that, but they do not have a right to ask us to be a party to their assisted suicide.
While we are on the subject of the similarity of black civil rights and so-called homosexual civil rights, let us point out that Africans loathe homosexuality. They consider it insulting and degrading to equate their struggle to be free men with homosexuals’ struggle to be perverted men.
In traditionally African societies, people did not approve homosexuality. Yes, there were homosexuals and other deviants in Africa but what happened was that these creatures were told to leave their villages and never to return. They were ostracized and banished for life. Those who engaged in incest were literally banished. (Ah, soon, there will be a battle cry by the decadent to legalize incest. Why not? Every thing that occurs is natural, as Homosexuality occurs and is natural, incest occurs and is natural, and so it must be legalized. As Dostoyeski said in Brothers Karamazov, once we remove God from social discourse, every behavior is permissible.)
Please take note of what is going on in the World Anglican Church. African Anglicans adamantly opposed the consecration of same sex marriages. Indeed, they have influenced the kicking out of the American Episcopal Church from the Anglican community for elevating a gay bishop, Robinson, to that high position. American Episcopalians have desecrated the Church of Christ, and Africans want them out or they go form their own Church of Christ. Let narcissistic gay Americans Episcopalians go worship their bodies, their craven idols, and leave other Christians to worship the God of the Bibles that tells us that a man should not lay with another man (Leviticus, 18:22).
Finally, there is considerable historical evidence that when homosexuality is permitted into the open that society degenerates and dies. Greek civilization died when it permitted the two percent perverted men in it to desecrate boys. Roman civilization died when it permitted the likes of Nero to abuse boys. All things being equal, Western civilization will die if it permits the legalization of the abusive behavior called homosexuality.
We must remember that great empires come and go and are replaced by others. Already China and other Asiatic peoples are poised to replace us, and would gladly do so if we permit our society to degenerate and collapse.
One is simply baffled why Democrats support every thing that is decadent and repulsive? Why do these so-called liberals depart from the struggle to improve every one lives to destroying people’s lives?
Democrats have gone sentimental and no longer appreciate the evil nature of human beings. They have bought the sentimental claptrap of academic professors who teach that human beings are good by nature and, as such, ought to be treated with kid gloves. History teaches us that men do prey on other men. In the state of nature, Thomas Hobbes hypothesized that life was nasty, brutish and short because all preyed on all. In the real world of international politics, nations prey on other nations. Therefore, adult reason teaches us to always be prepared for other nations attack on us. We must always try to balance power with whoever has power to defeat us.
As John Stuart Mill pointed out in On Liberty, our liberties are safeguarded by our eternal vigilance, and by military strength. Become weak and other nations would chew you up.
If American had not developed a strong military, the slaves of communism would today be governing us; America would be another republic in Russia’s empire of slaves. And if we do not continue to make our military second to none in the world, China and other Asiatics would gladly take our country over. In the face of this historical reality, Democrats want to weaken our military.
One watched John Kerry talk nonsense about withdrawing our troops from the Middle East. If we did not fight Arab Muslim terrorists in their lands, we would have to fight them on American streets. As a matter of fact, President Bush has not gone far enough in trying to counter Muslim terrorists. He ought to insist on change of regimes in all Middle Eastern lands. He ought to insist that their governments be elected in a democratic manner because history teaches us that elected governments who have to obtain their people’s periodic approval in order to stay in office hesitate to go to wars or support terrorists. It is autocrats that go to war at their whims.
I suggest that the United States government adopt a policy of not recognizing unelected governments worldwide. We can relate to these non-democratic governments through our embassies but they should never be permitted to talk to our elected officials like the president and congressmen. Oriental despots and their minions can talk to our appointed officials like the Secretary of state and his deputation in other countries, ambassadors, but not to our democratically elected officials.
We also ought to get the United Nations to change its charter and require only elected governments to have membership in the United Nations.
These very simple measures could get most of the oriental despots to suddenly become democratic and, as such, pose less threat to America.
The primary function of government is to protect the people from each other, and from external others. We must, therefore, have a strong military and fight wars that protect our liberties.
Give the military whatever it wants, if you want your liberty, but the Democrats want to destroy the military just as they want to destroy every value Americans cherish.
I do not know why Democrats are bent on self-destruction and the destruction of America along with it. What I do know is that if the Democratic Party continues on the path it is on, it will be marginalized and become irrelevant in American politics. The Republican Party would become the dominant party, and, perhaps, in time a new Social Democratic Party would rise to replace what has increasingly become a moribund Democratic party.
Perhaps it is time for the Democratic Party to go? But if it wants to survive, it must restructure itself and stop espousing destructive social policies.

[email protected]

December 13, 2005