frashure's blog

I just thought I'd write this one up real quick.

I was browsing through the Issues portion of the Virginia Democrats' latest flop of a candidate for the 4th district, when I read the following paragraph:

I attended a private, Catholic, all-girls school in an upper middle-class Midwest suburb; my parents selected the school because it was one of the top National Merit Scholarship "factories" in the state and most of the school's graduates went on to top private colleges. During my junior year, six of my classmates became pregnant; six of my classmates-all with parental assistance-terminated their pregnancies. I am positive that before their daughters became pregnant at 16, all of those parents would have stated emphatically that they were against abortion and that there were many other options available. However, when faced with the life-altering situations that teen pregnancy brings, every one opted out. For my former classmates and their parents, it was a choice: finish school, go to college, marry well, achieve financial stability and then start a family.

I placed emphasis on the latter portion because it is the very point for which the entire article should have revolved: make that choice first. But in keeping with the typical liberal ideology on copping out of bad decision, Andrea Miller seeks to play on the emotions of sympathetic parents wishing merely the best for their kids. Does Miller not also see getting pregnant the initial choice, and one that cannot be undone? Should those girls not have "opted out" of the pregnancy before they created a new life?

Therein lies the difference between the pro-life and the pro-choice crowds: the view of responsibility for your actions, and the weight of choice.

Time and time again I hear people say that it's a bad year to be running as a Republican. No doubt that's true. When one hears 'Republican' they often think primarily of the Iraq war, or even solely. Many members of the GOP running in 2008 seek to distance themselves from the policies of George Bush and the unpopular war for sake of losing power. Not only is this a crude disservice to the war effort, for which the tide has actually turned in our favor, it is counterproductive and is derived from thinking in the wrong direction. Today's Republicans are so worried about polishing their image amidst an unpopular war, they have long forgotten who were are up against - an ultra-liberal Democratic Party run by the fringe left, progressively leaning more socialist every day. Efforts would be better spent, in conjunction with hailing conservatism as our mantra, peeling away the facade of the Democratic Party to reveal its hideously true form.

It's no secret that the Communist Party USA and the socialist parties find their best hopes of success in the Democratic Party. And surely they are all exuberant over Barack Obama's current position as a contender for the presidency. Unfortunately for America yet lucky for any Democrat, it is not exactly headline news, however. It is our job as conservatives, and for any true Republican, to highlight these similarities to the people of America. The dangerous parallels can be seen with such little effort. Take this, for example, from the Communist Party USA's 2008 Electoral Policy:

The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.

Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.

We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.

The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our country’s renewal and future.

We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills.

This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.

This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights. This election can strengthen democracy for all.

If that doesn't scare you, hear it with your own ears - CPUSA Party Chairman Sam Webb explaining that electing Democrats is the road to socialism:

Upon reading the party platforms for the Socialists, Communists, Democrats, and especially Barack Obama's "Blueprint for Change" one would wonder why so many factions of the left are needed.

The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has, so far, run virtually unchecked and untested by its supporters. These people baffle me; they fall in line in torrents, largely ignorant in the most strict of definitions. Only amongst this kind of hysteria could a presidential venture of this sort garner any strong footing. Fortunately for Obama, there are many American's who seemingly just don't care.

Two-hundred and thirty-two years ago we declared our independence. In the scope of world history, that time is hardly so far gone. Should the issues of that time, of our founding, be not still paramount to the fabric of our nation? Surely they are and, in an age where our sovereignty, security, and other basic right are so easily trampled upon by activist judges and over-zealous politicians, we must remain steadfast in remembering our Founding Fathers and those who shed their blood for this Freedom.

After watching this video, narrated by Fred Thompson, a thought occurred to me: In all of his many speeches preaching 'hope' and 'change,' it's not exactly frequent to hear Barack Obama get heated in defending our constitution, or railing against any threats to our sovereignty and freedom, or stressing the importance of remaining a free people. So, I decided to do some research. I opened the PDF of his "Blueprint for Change" and did a search for a few key words. You may be shocked at what I found, or more importantly, what I didn't find.

Freedom - After a search through the entire document, I was returned two instances of the word "freedom." Both were contained in the same line: "Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers." Not exactly what I was looking for. A search of the "Issues" portion of his site turned up one mention of the "First Amendment freedoms" in regards to protecting children from content in the media (something Obama and I both agree is an important issue) and freedom of net neutrality.

Constitution - Again, I was offered merely two results. One came in a line that explained Obama's steadfastness in opposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the result of Roe v. Wade. The second was a mention to, go figure, Iraq's Constitution.

Liberty - Shame. Not once does this word appear, in any context, in the entire 62-page document.

Sovereignty - Again, nothing.

Founding Fathers - This is probably the most depressing of them all. Nowhere in his little "plan for America" does he cite the most important people in our history.

So what is important to Barack Obama? You'll find plenty of instances of "universal."

The frightening thing about all of this: It may not be so far fetched to say that, if he were to obtain the presidency, Obama very well may toss out any vital part of our history that he deems outdated and rewire our entire system as he sees fit to his socialist utopia. How is it that a man with such low regards for the principles upon which this nation was founded is in such a position to take it's highest office?

This is too great.

Let's focus on the word "change." We've all heard this word a hundred times over this election cycle, as Barack Obama has adopted it as a campaign slogan. Don't be fooled, folks. Obama has coined this term merely as an opposition word; simply to mean "anti-George Bush" and, given the unpopularity of the current president and the war in Iraq, many people give a warm welcome to change. Using this sentiment, Obama has created a facade to mask something that would otherwise be very familiar...

Let's be hypothetical for a minute.

Say Walter Mondale had used the mantra of change; that he had focused on reversing the incumbent administration. That wouldn't have worked too well, given the unpopularity of the previous president, Jimmy Carter. America knew how damaging Carter's policies were and how they failed during the 70's. Walter Mondale wanted a return to the Carter-era of super sized government, but America knew what that would cost. Enter Ronald Wilson Reagan, who brought genuine change that led to a restored faith in the presidency via limited government, competent and effective economic policies, and a strong foreign policy. The People had gotten the right kind of change with Reagan and in return they ushered in the largest electoral victory in the country's history.

Fast forward to the present: With the Gipper gone and Jimmy Carter's term seemingly forgotten, the ability to hark back to those failed policies seems restored. And I assure you folks, that is precisely what Barack Obama intends to do when he say change.

_{^{[For a play-by-play report of the convention, I suggest you head over to BearingDrift.com and check out their live blogging.]}}

It's over. Virginia's Republican Party has simply handed over John Warner's senate seat to liberal Mark Warner.

After twenty-thousand 2nd's to Jim Gilmore's nomination, Bob Marshall's crew was finally allotted time on the state. What happened? Grassroots came to life. The convention roared in support of a true conservative. After Marshall's nomination speeches, I asked those Gilmore supporters around me: How can you vote against someone who can energize people like that?

But it's not about how loud you are, it's how many numbers you have and, quite unfortunately (and to the future demise of the party) the majority of the votes went to the Establishment Republican. Jim Gilmore is tried and tested, and he failed that test. His supporters argue that he has the name recognition that Marshall lacks. If that's true and Jim Gilmore has any shot at defeating Mark Warner in November, why is it that he only won the nomination by 65.76 of 10,379 votes?

Instead of energinzing their grassroots conservative base and marching to Washington on the mantra of true conservatism, the Republican Party of Virginia will be struggling to keep its footing and not to lose another Republican seat.

However, a man who has run his entire campaign on energizing the grassroots force within the party, Prince William Delegate Jeff Frederick, had much better success today. After the ballots were cast for Party Chairman but before there had been a tally of all districts, Chairman John Hager rolled out onto stage with a motion to declare Frederick the winner by acclimation. After a second of that motion, Jeff Frederick was declared the new Party chairman.

Come November, when Mark warner takes over the vacant seat, I will surely be there to say "I told you so."