"Debate" Part 2

Second verse, same as the first.  But angrier.

I commented on part 1 of the Democrat “debate” in yesterday’s blog post (HERE).  My overall thoughts remain the same:  Frightening that any of these people could actually become the head of our country and terrifying what that would mean for this country (more details in that post). 

But, there were a few differences in the second “debate,” probably because the second night candidates were coached based at least in part on the first night and reactions to it.  So, there was more Trump bashing and there was more anger.   Especially from the women (except, of course, the love guru, Marianne Williamson); I think that Democrat women think that being angry somehow proves that they are strong.  Yet I have no doubt that Kamala Harris’s angry and self-righteous attack on Joe Biden was prepared and memorized long before the debate began – she just needed to find the right opportunity to use it.

Actually, the toxic anger spread from Kamala to the rest of the group on stage, making the “debate” even less useful than the first night.  Does anyone really think that anger and hate are the best way to govern?

There were a few other things that especially bothered me.  First is the number of candidates who indicated that their preferred method of governing was to ignore Congress and the will of the people and to govern instead via a stroke of the executive order pen.  Yes, executive orders are at times useful and necessary, but in a democracy that should not be the first choice; that sort of rule by fiat is far more suited to a dictatorship.  But, then, the further left a candidate goes, the more he or she is entering dictatorship territory – a place where the state tells us what to do, what to think and where the people have no real voice at all.

I was also bothered by the belief, expressed most articulately by Pete Buttigieg, that those who oppose the Left’s position on the border have no right to call themselves Christians or to ever invoke the name of God again.  I would argue that those who use religious teachings to support their secular agenda do not understand that the values and teachings of the Christian and other religions can be expressed in any number of ways in the secular world.  I happen to think that the directive to love or care for those in need is better expressed in terms of the migrants by doing what we can to stop those caravans that put people in danger and also that simply opening our borders in the long run is not the most loving act toward either those seeking to enter or those already here.  What the Democrats don’t understand is that religious laws are not political policies and by trying to use them to further a political or personal agenda suggests that it is they who are not following God’s teachings.

I heard many on the stage refer to climate change as an “existential threat.”   I’m not sure, but I think that using the word existential in this phrasing is not really correct.  I think what they want to say is that climate change is a threat to mankind.  They want to make that sound fancy, so they use the word “existential” but that word, while defined as “relating to existence” is specifically related to human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.  Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice.   So, I don’t really think that existential is the right word here.  As my middle school English teacher always said, don’t use a big word just to try to impress people if you don’t fully understand its meaning and its connotation.

Finally, the overall problem with all these candidates was summarized by Bernie Sanders when he said that “we can transform this country.”  I don’t think most people want the country transformed.  I certainly do not want the country transformed.  I want what it is to remain, but improve, as it has done and continues to do since its creation.  Trying to improve something that is less than perfect is far different than “transforming” it to something else.

The Democrats do not really like America and would change it to something else.  For some that something else is socialism.  For others it is something else that they may or may not articulate.  But for none is it a country that holds traditional American values including individual freedom and responsibility.  They would change our Democratic Republic, the shining star of freedom, into something fundamentally different.  And that is the most frightening thought of all.

Thoughts on he First Democrat "Debate"

After getting over the jokes and laughs at the ridiculous show that was the first Democrat debate, I realized I was actually horrified that one of these people could really become the head of our great country. 

The first question is:   How could that happen?  The answer is “sadly, too easily.”   We have a very ill informed electorate, partly because many people themselves make little effort to be informed, partly because our education system has failed to teach many about our system of government and the need of the electorate to be informed, and partly because the media no longer takes seriously its job to inform the electorate and rather chooses to be a propaganda arm for its chosen political views.   

In any event, as Thomas Jefferson told us:  A well-informed citizenry is the cornerstone and at the heart of a democracy and is the best defense against tyranny.   Based on this, our democracy is currently in grave danger!

The next question is: if anyone of these candidates were elected, what sort of a leader would they be?  From the “debate” we saw that each candidate went out of his or her way to claim their victim points:  African American, Hispanic, woman, veteran, poor upbringing, (even upbringing by conservative parents as a negative!), etc., etc.   We learned that they like to place people into identity groups and pander to groups that they believe will respond to that pandering with votes.  

We also learned that they are unable to acknowledge that for the first time in many years our economy is good and growing, unemployment, especially for minorities, is at all time lows; instead, they insist on telling us that the economy is bad. (They need it to be bad so they will have victims to which to pander and make promises) Similarly, they find fault with most everything that is currently going well for our country and at the same time choose to blame the President and Republicans for anything that is not perfect.

These two things alone show us that these candidates are not interested in uniting the country.  They will continue to tear us apart with identity politics and victimhood.  In furtherance of maintaining such underclasses dependent upon them and their power they will reverse anything positive for the people of this country that gets in the way.  And, they will continue to create hatred between identity groups.

Indeed, they are not interested in maintaining an identifiable country as evidenced by their stands for open borders.  They would rather play some blame game about the illegal immigration crisis, using that blame to gain points for their power, rather than deal with actual facts.  Thus, a man who chose to take his daughter across the Rio Grande in order to enter this country illegally, and who with his daughter perished, is not responsible; rather, it is the fault of the President and republicans (none of whom told him to cross a dangerous river to enter the country illegally).   Individual responsibility is not relevant when you can use an individual act to stir up hatred for a group you dislike.

There is, in these Democrats' view, no personal responsibility for that father’s decision – why should he wait for a slower legal process when he can put his daughter in danger and they can use the horrid result to cast blame for a crisis that they themselves are at least in part responsible for creating?  Not, in my opinion, the sort of approach I want to see in the leader of my country.

These candidates are also not interested in the assimilation of immigrants into our society as evidenced in part by their choice of using a language that is not the language of this country.  Pandering!  And, I’m wondering how immigrants from countries other than those speaking the foreign language answers prepared by the candidates felt about their exclusion.  I feel insulted that as a voting citizen these candidates chose to speak Spanish, to pander to some other audience just to score points.  

We learned that the law does not really matter to these candidates, or only matters when it furthers their agenda.  History is in many cases a mystery to them, as are a complete understanding of relevant facts on an issue.

During its founding, America came together under the slogan “united we stand, divided we fall.”  Yet, the main modus operandi of these Democrats seems to be to divide us in order to obtain and retain their own power.  Their currency is hate.  And, the frightening thing is that there are those who accept their ploys and pandering and even take them seriously. 

So, humorous as the “Democrats Have (no) Talent” show was last night, it should be a wake up call to everyone in this country about the direction we are headed if we continue to tolerate the beliefs and antics of these people.  Unless the electorate realizes the importance of  being informed, and then truly and fully inform themselves, it is not outside the realm of possibility for anyone to be elected, no matter how threatening they are to our country and its core principles