Because Lowell is straight forward and open about his Liberal beliefs, it often serves my purpose to cite his blog, Blue Virginia. Consider this example, Keith Fimian: Standard Issue Right Wingnut. It begins:
I defy anyone to find something in this video of a Keith Fimian campaign event that isn’t standard-issue right wingnuttery. Against a woman’s right to choose? Check. Mindless “your money is your money” rhetoric (apparently he wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare and the military, since those account for most of the federal budget)? Check. Opposed to workers being able to organize effectively? Check. “Illegal immigrant” bashing? Check. Sarah Palin-like rhetoric about using “weapons to defeat [the terrorists] not lawyers to defend them?” Check. Government bashing? Check. Blaming “career politicians” in general rather than Bush and the Republicans for “getting us into this mess?” Check. Attacking “Barney Frank” as barely concealed homophobia? Check. Same-old same-old Republican economic mantra? Check.
The video? That was Fimian’s speech during his campaign kickoff. Consider what Lowell is actually complaining about. Fimian sees no reason:
- For taxpayers to pay for other people’s abortions. Why should anyone have the right to demand such a thing?
- To spend more money than we have on Social Security, Medicare, or anything else. Are we suppose to indebt our grandchildren and great grandchildren just so politicians can spend our money?
- To deprive workers of a secret ballot — allowing them to be forced to join a labor union.
- To reward illegal immigrants and their employers.
- To give the Miranda Warning to foreign terrorists. When foreign terrorists have declared war on us, and our military is fighting them, do we really want our troops acting like policemen?
- To praise politicians who cannot set spending priorities and balance a budget. Is bashing spendthrift politicians who will not respect Constitutional limits on their power really the same thing as bashing government?
- To praise Barney Frank. When Congressman Barney Frank fought tooth and nail for the idiotic home mortgage lending laws that lead to the recent housing bubble, why should anyone want to praise that dangerous fool?
Nonetheless, look at the elected officials running our Federal Government. These people would agree with Lowell. How did we ever elect such a crowd? That is the subject of this post, and we will use President Barack Obama for an example.
Without any doubt, our current president has less experience than any president in modern history. How can you tell? There is a way that is so easy that it is laughable. The evidence stand out for all to see at whitehouse.gov. Read the presidential biographies of The Presidents. If you are lazy or too busy, just look at the last five before Obama.
- George W. Bush - Served as the 46th Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998
- William J. Clinton - Elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976, and won the governorship in 1978. After losing a bid for a second term, he regained the office four years later, and served until he defeated incumbent George Bush and third party candidate Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential race.
- George H. W. Bush - Served two terms as a Representative to Congress from Texas. Twice he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. Then he was appointed to a series of high-level positions: Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the U. S. Liaison Office in the People’s Republic of China, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1980 Bush campaigned for the Republican nomination for President. He lost, but was chosen as a running mate by Ronald Reagan.
- Ronald Reagan - Served as president of the Screen Actors Guild. He was elected Governor of California by a margin of a million votes; he was re-elected in 1970.
- James Carter - Served seven years’service as a naval officer. In 1962 he entered state politics, and eight years later he was elected Governor of Georgia.
Each of Obama’s predecessors had extensive managerial experience. President Barack Obama, by comparison, had virtually none — until he became our president.
How did Obama get elected? Why do some people vote for politicians like Obama? Why do they reject leaders such as Keith Fimian. To a large extent I think the answer is one of religious philosophy. Because we have raised generations of Americans without making a concerted effort to teach each generation about our nation’s Christian heritage, large numbers of Americans have adopted the attitudes of Secular Humanism. Secular Humanists rejects the belief in God and teach the perfectability of Man by men. Christians, on the other hand, believe Man can only be perfected by God.
What are the political consequences of a belief that rejects God? If there is no God, then the statement in the Declaration of Independence that says our rights are endowed by God has no relevance. That statement is reduced to mere superstition. Moreover, an oath of office sworn on the Bible becomes a mere formality.
If there is no God, the goal of politicians changes in its entirety. Once we were lead by men who strove to be our nation’s greatest servants. Now our leaders seek to be our masters – to mold each of us into that which they desire. Meanwhile, to soothe our complaints, they put on a show of being a great man or great woman. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith describes how the “great” behave for the benefit of their admiring peasants.
When we consider the condition of the great, in those delusive colours in which the imagination is apt to paint it. it seems to be almost the abstract idea of a perfect and happy state. It is the very state which, in all our waking dreams and idle reveries, we had sketched out to ourselves as the final object of all our desires. We feel, therefore, a peculiar sympathy with the satisfaction of those who are in it. We favour all their inclinations, and forward all their wishes. What pity, we think, that any thing should spoil and corrupt so agreeable a situation! We could even wish them immortal; and it seems hard to us, that death should at last put an end to such perfect enjoyment. It is cruel, we think, in Nature to compel them from their exalted stations to that humble, but hospitable home, which she has provided for all her children. Great King, live for ever! is the compliment, which, after the manner of eastern adulation, we should readily make them, if experience did not teach us its absurdity. Every calamity that befals them, every injury that is done them, excites in the breast of the spectator ten times more compassion and resentment than he would have felt, had the same things happened to other men. It is the misfortunes of Kings only which afford the proper subjects for tragedy. They resemble, in this respect, the misfortunes of lovers. Those two situations are the chief which interest us upon the theatre; because, in spite of all that reason and experience can tell us to the contrary, the prejudices of the imagination attach to these two states a happiness superior to any other. To disturb, or to put an end to such perfect enjoyment, seems to be the most atrocious of all injuries. The traitor who conspires against the life of his monarch, is thought a greater monster than any other murderer. All the innocent blood that was shed in the civil wars, provoked less indignation than the death of Charles I. A stranger to human nature, who saw the indifference of men about the misery of their inferiors, and the regret and indignation which they feel for the misfortunes and sufferings of those above them, would be apt to imagine, that pain must be more agonizing, and the convulsions of death more terrible to persons of higher rank, than to those of meaner stations. (from here)
You think I jest? Then think about all the money and time people spend studying the lives of celebrities. Then realize this. We have elected celebrities — mere entertainers and experts in the art of stagecraft – not men and women of conscience to lead us.
Lowell is the kind of moonbat who rejects anyone to the right of Trotsky. Perhaps if he got a real job….
Jim – It is not our job to judge Lowell. We should be satified if we are not forced to fund, help implement, and practice the things he believes.
Even as they scream vile epithets against injecting religion into politics, the modern Liberal strives to manufacture a secular humanist theocracy. Many are so blinded by ideology they cannot see what is right in front them. If we inject government into every aspect of our lives, what must be the inevitable result? What religious choices will we have left? If everything is government, and government must be secular, how can anyone make a religious choice without being sued or thrown in jail?
If the modern Liberal knows what he is doing, then he means to render religious freedom meaningless. He intends that we cannot make a religious choice. Hence he intend to strip us of of freedom of religion.