So we let them elect Barack Obama.

It turns out those smart people were pretty dumb.

Yesterday, I was reading an article on CNN.com about the Tea Party protests and meetings that have been going on all around the country. I was appalled at what one Democrat had to say about them.

Are you ready? He said it "violates the democratic process."

Hack. Gag. Faint.

I have been listening to Democrats self-righteously denounce any debate on the health care issue and claim that conservatives who pose objections to Obama’s various socialistic programs are clouding the issue and not promoting healthy conversation. The problem: their idea of healthy conversation is for us to sit down and shut up. President Obama himself has said that he doesn’t want those who "caused the problems" to be talking.

A few years ago, when we were in the middle of what was being denounced as a quagmire in Iraq (funny we don’t hear about that anymore), a very vocal group was howling that the war was unjust, wicked, and a pack of lies. But no one threatened their right to say so. We debated, but we didn’t try to shut them up.

That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats. While Republicans might spend a lot of money and some of them might be immoral, they don’t try to take away people’s freedom to speak. You know, First Amendment.

I realize that at this point the Democrats are probably just doing a lot of sabre-rattling.

I fear that in a few years, the sabre might come out of the sheath.

Unfortunately, all he showed was the same lack of moral restraint as a lot of other Republicans.

There’s no excuse for Mark Sanford’s actions. They are reprehensible. He ought to resign, if not because it is wrong for a governer to abuse state funds in the manner that he did, simply because the pro-life, pro-family values he claims to hold to for which the people of South Carolina elected him run contrary to what he has done. Mark Sanford is a hypocrite. There is no other way to state it and no easy way around it. Mark Sanford is an adulterer. There is no easy way around that, either.

But like the rest of us, Mark Sanford is a sinner. Some of us may not be hypocrites, and some may not be adulterers, but all are sinners. While we should be harsh and swift in condemning what Governer Sanford did because it is wrong and because of his office, we should keep in mind that he is a human and humans sin. Humans also need forgiveness, which does not mean he shouldn’t suffer the consequences, but that we should not hold him to more than he deserves.

Unfortunately, Mark Sanford is a Republican, which means that he will not be afforded grace or forgiveness from a very large portion of the population. While Republicans sin and are condemned universally for their actions, to about half of the nation and ninety percent of the news media, Democrats make errors in judgement. For Democratic politicians and media members express outrage over Sanford’s hypocrisy is a classic case of pot and kettle. Democrats and liberal media members have no room to talk about this, because according to them, such actions aren’t even wrong. While they may say (at certain times) that those actions are inappropriate, the evidence suggest otherwise. One of the most revered Democratic politicians, Ted Kennedy, had a mysterious night that resulted in the death of a young woman. Less outrage was expressed by the left wing when John Edwards was caught cheating on Elizabeth in the middle of her battle with cancer. And we can always bring up the stout defense offered for Bill Clinton: what he does in his pants is his business.

I’m not blaming any Democrat for Mark Sanford’s downfall. Mark Sanford’s sins are Mark Sanford’s fault. However, Mark Sanford is being honest about his sin. He’s calling it sin. And he’s not making excuses for it. He’s facing the consequences for his actions. Those who won’t face the consequences when they do the same things he has done have no room to talk.

And that’s the simple truth.

Please don’t take the title of the post in the wrong fashion. I don’t want anybody to lose their jobs or their livelihood. I don’t wish ill on anyone. But the reality of life in America is that newspapers have long been, and continue to be, purveyors of liberal babbling. Our local paper, and this columnist, included.

They’re done for. They’re clinging to an outmoded way of spreading news. News that must pass through their filter before we read it anyways.

I have never been a subscriber, nor has my family, to the local paper. I read the part I want to read online, the sports section, whenever I want to read it.

We have enough nonsense circulating through, as Rush has recently begun to call it: “The State-Run Media.” We don’t need newspapers adding to the nonsense. Go to Drudge Report.

~

Other Stuff: Thomas Sowell writes about the new racism called diversity, and how it applies to Sonia Sotomayor.

President Obama’s Muslim roots broken down, along with his wildly inaccurate claim that America is one of the largest Muslim nations in the world. Article on this to come next week.

~

This isn’t an article, per se, but it’s a tough night for me to write, so I’ve given a bit of a switch-up. Hope it’s enjoyed.

©2009 Harrison Beckmann, theinconvenientpatriot.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Now, he wants us to believe that freedom is “universal” too. Oh no, he’s not saying that we should spread universal freedom throughout the world as the previous president believed; he’s saying that freedom is a “universal principle.”

Pardon me for a moment whilst I endeavor to wrap my brain around this one.

If freedom is a universal principle, Mr. President, then please explain to me why the women in Muslim countries must walk about with their faces and heads covered, cowering in shame and fear that something they do will be interpreted as evil. Explain to me how men can get away with gang-raping a woman, and then the woman is charged with adultery. This is freedom?

If freedom is a universal principle, Mr. President, then why is it that in present day Canada, preachers who speak their opinions about homosexuality are branded “intolerant” and tossed behind bars for “hate crimes.” If it is a universal principle, how is it that in China Christians must be registered with the state and teach only state-approved doctrines or risk their health and freedom (such as it is) to teach and preach what they truly believe? How is it that in China the internet is censored to omit almost all mentions of the Tienanmen Square Massacre? How is it that in Africa, rival warlords continue to fight each other for the right to put their fellow Africans in subjugation to themselves.

Are these things freedom?

Mr. President, do you not realize that the skimming of the surface I just mentioned to you is not an aberration, but the norm throughout history?

And since freedom is such a universal principle, there would not be a problem with the United States, (until January of this year) the chief purveyor of freedom in the modern world, spreading that message, now would there? However, the President seems to be under the impression that we should not . . .

impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.

Wait? Which is it? Is freedom universal to all countries with all histories and cultures? Or is it an American idea that we’re “forcing” on all those poor wretched souls in third world countries like some of the President’s close family members live in?

Barack Obama has absolutely no right to pompously go on radio stations in other countries and proclaim in the same breath that America has no right to impose her values (of freedom) on others, and then claim that freedom is a universal principle. If freedom is a universal principle, than we aren’t imposing anything. We’re giving them a gift of what they want.

Freedom is not a universal principle. Freedom as America was introduced to it is a principle based almost solely in the Bible, which, rather ironically, happens to be where the principles of about ninety-eight percent of the Founding Fathers were based as well. Until Barack Obama and the rest of the United States understands that, freedom in a country . . . well, that’s going to become an extinct principle.

Then we can have universal speech and religion as well. Won’t that be nice?

©2009 Harrison Beckmann, theinconvenientpatriot.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

In this, he is just like all the other angry men in this country. They aren’t all black. There are a lot of white angry men, too. They aren’t all men. Many are women. There are a lot of angry women. They aren’t all young, either. There are a lot of angry old people. A whole big bunch of them.

I see it every day. Faces are tired. Tempers are short. Wrinkles are fast becoming a disease of epidemic proportions.

America had a choice in the last election. She could elect Neville Chamberlain the 2nd. Chamberlain was adept with words, making nations feel secure in the peace they could see, rather than uncomfortable with threats far away. He was good at talking to bad people and making bad people see the good in themselves and stick to their agreements. At least he was in 1938. Here’s what he said:

“How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul”.

It sounded good. Neville Chamberlain the 2nd got his job.

It was a revolution in America in 2008. The people rose on the wings of anger. Anger at rich, fat cats such as Rick Wagoner of GM and Ken Lewis of Bank of America who had made a fortune by obviously never making any wise business decisions. Anger at oil-hungry politicians whose only goal was to wreck the future of the nation they put their lives on the line for when younger such as John McCain and George W. Bush. Anger at people who worked hard for what they have. Anger at people who didn’t wallow at the bottom in despair and covet the riches of others, but instead worked hard to become successes. Anger at people who would dare suggest that the federal government not provide for every need of its citizens, and cover for every mistake. Yes, it was truly a revolution. The “Yes We Can” revolution. The “Hope and Change” revolution.

Congratulations to the revolutionaries. They got what they wanted. They elected a revolutionary.

Only problem was, we never got to hear the end of that prepositional phrase, “Yes We Can.” Yes We Can what?

Elect a tyrant. That’s what. Revolutionaries are almost always tyrants. The leaders of the French Revolution were tyrants. The leaders of the Iranian Revolution were tyrants. And the leader (singular) of this Yes We Can Revolution is a tyrant.

Barack Obama played to his audience perfectly. In order to win American Idol, both the talent show and the real life version called Presidential Elections, you don’t have to be the best. Sure, you have to be mildly talented to pass the first few rounds and impress the judges. But who you really need to play to is the audience. The audience doesn’t care if you’re right, and they certainly don’t care if you’re the best. They care if you make them feel good. If you make them feel good, they will vote for you. Sounds like Hitler.

Barack Obama made people feel good. I mean, after all, who wouldn’t want to vote for a fresh, young, handsome face who uses nice words that don’t have any awkward gaps between them? There were just a few people in this country who were under the mistaken impression that we were voting for Best Looking Actor in a 60 Minutes piece.

Too bad. Because now we have an angry president, elected by angry people, who appoints an angry independent Latina for a lifetime, picks an angry muscleman to run his money, and gives angry speeches about torture by the last administration.

Because we all know a lot gets done on anger. Like bombings and stuff.