Democrats never seem to have enough money. They constantly tax us, come begging to us for more, and spend every cent the get plus some more (That “plus some more” causes inflation.). Then they excuse their greed with lies and start all over again.

Thus, when I got this email below on top of all their other requests, I thought it warranted a question.

Should we laugh at their silliness or fear the brazen audacity of their hope?

For decades the Democratic Party has taxed more, begged for more, spent more, and lied more and more brazenly. When their lies have become so obvious, how is it they are still believed?


In the foreword of 1956 American edition of The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek, Hayek discussed the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative.”

The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.

It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

So it is that many Americans who call themselves Conservative are actually Liberals — if we choose to use the classical definition of that word.

Unfortunately, as Hayek observed, we are muddleheaded. Therefore, we have allowed both our nation and our language to unravel.


REBLOG: Liberal Language and the Vicious Cult of Diversity

Looks like To Be Right! may have acquired a new blogger, . If that is the case, then we will have to visit twice as often.

Leftists often begin arguments with an unusual qualifier: “As a Latino…” or “As a woman…”- seemingly superfluous statements when it’s self-evident to all that, yes indeed, they do appear to be Latino or a woman.

We can all see this, so why remind us?

We all know that the Left has always been obsessed with race, gender and sexual orientation, but I could never quite make sense out of this often-reoccurring declaration because it was almost never necessary. What is the impulse for this disclaimer?

Upon consideration it occurred to me that giving your racial or more specifically, your historically disenfranchised credentials is significant these days when participating in the liberal narrative – the equivalent of an officer brazenly flipping a walleted badge before entering a secured area.

By doing so Liberals are saying: “I have special access to this argument, a perspective that trumps all others. Step aside.” Remember Obama stating the exquisitely obvious in regards to the Trayvon Martin case: “If I’d had a son, he would looked like Trayvon.” (continued here)

What Mike points out is that our race, sex, creed, and so forth do not necessarily provide us any special qualifications for speaking the truth. Yet in the belief that our race, sex, creed, and so forth do give us a special qualifications; the folks who crow DIVERSITY throw up walls between us. Thus, on the news blacks must cover black stories, and women must cover women’s issues. Why do that? Contrary to their preaching, the diversity crowd thinks our differences more important than what we have in common. Their objects are to use our differences to further division and conquest.

What is odd about this so-called diversity movement is that it is not a big conspiracy. Because there is safety in numbers, we instinctively gather into tribal groups. Unfortunately, because we don’t always give our choices much thought, we sometimes chose our tribal associations rather stupidly. When that happens, sneaky people can manipulate us. Then, instead of achieving an orderly society that allows everyone to go about their own business in peace, we pull our nation apart and risk civil insurrection.

Consider the most recent example of how the diversity crowd has used identity politics to divide us. Examine what is at the roots of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Instead of reveling in the fact we each get to choose from diversity of economic alternatives, that movement seeks to promote class warfare based upon our economic differences.

Check out these posts.

When in a comment provided a link to the post above, I decided to reblog it.

If you like Lyn’s post, you may also enjoy WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT THE BIBLE. That post references something Dr. J. Vernon McGee put together for his Daily 5-Year Bible Study many years ago.

Lyn Leahz

As you read some of these profound statements, please consider the many tragedies going on around the world, and here in America.  The only difference now is that America has greatly changed just in the last 20+ years, and more than ever before since 9-11.  Could it indeed be as these great leaders warned? 

Also, please take note of the importance of the family; both father and mother.  Today, with the working family and daycare overflowing with so many children, they cannot fulfill many requests, and increased stress, have we as parents forgotten our first calling assigned to us by God Himself—to instill the Word of God and its values within our children?  And not just in word alone, but in our daily lives?  Many of these great men give credit to their parents for their peace of mind, greatness, and success.

My friend, what has happened…

View original post 1,201 more words