Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3

My high school English teacher was an older, unmarried lady who had a, well let’s say, a risque reputation when she was younger. My parents knew her for years and when I was a high school sophomore, she was my teacher.

She loved Shakespeare. We were required to read a number of Shakespeare’s plays and his poetry. I barely passed. At age 15, Shakespeare didn’t interest me.

Fast forward four years. I’m now in college and once again I’m in an English lit class and we’re reading Shakespeare’s “historical” play, the Henrys, Richard the Third, and a few of his comedies. I’ve forgotten the instructor’s name. It’s been over fifty years. I do remember he read to us in class, in dialect of the times. Shakespeare became real. It became one of my favorite classes.

It was a four credit-hour class. We met four times a week and we spent a week on Henry the Fifth, one of Shakespeare’s most well known and most quoted plays. One of those famous quotes is  in Act IV, Scene 3 when Henry is in France, at Agincourt…on St. Crispin’s Day eve.

SCENE III. The English camp.

Enter GLOUCESTER, BEDFORD, EXETER, ERPINGHAM, with all his host: SALISBURY and WESTMORELAND

GLOUCESTER

Where is the king?

BEDFORD

The king himself is rode to view their battle.

WESTMORELAND

Of fighting men they have full three score thousand.

EXETER

There’s five to one; besides, they all are fresh.

SALISBURY

God’s arm strike with us! ’tis a fearful odds.
God be wi’ you, princes all; I’ll to my charge:
If we no more meet till we meet in heaven,
Then, joyfully, my noble Lord of Bedford,
My dear Lord Gloucester, and my good Lord Exeter,
And my kind kinsman, warriors all, adieu!

BEDFORD

Farewell, good Salisbury; and good luck go with thee!

EXETER

Farewell, kind lord; fight valiantly to-day:
And yet I do thee wrong to mind thee of it,
For thou art framed of the firm truth of valour.
Exit SALISBURY

BEDFORD

He is full of valour as of kindness;
Princely in both.
Enter the KING

WESTMORELAND

O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING HENRY V

What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Now, let’s move forward nearly 700 years and revise Henry’s speech into modern terms. It is still potent and applicable today—with a bit of tongue-in-cheek.

Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3.

Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, Revised.

Why am I a conservative instead of a democrat?

I chose today’s blog title purposely. I excluded the label Republican. I am not an establishment republican, I am a believer and follower of republicanism. There is a difference. In that same vein, I used the term democrat instead of liberalism. In this case I’m referring to the classical democrat philosophy of the mid-20th Century instead of the current democrat philosophy of liberalism. Again there is a difference. You’ll also notice I use the term “democrat” instead of “democratic.” There’s nothing democratic in the democrat party.

My parents were democrats in the classical sense and members of the democrat party. My mother was an elementary school teacher in the days before the infiltration of unionism into the NEA. My father was a coal miner. He and his father were members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). One of the more powerful unions during the first half of the 20th Century.

My parents…I’m trying to find the correct verb…adored…no that’s too strong…respected…no that’s too weak. Let us say both understood and believed in classical democratic philosophy best defined by Yves R. Simon. I remember my mother talking about “Dr. Simon.” She once traveled to Springfield, IL, to hear him speak at an Illinois education conference. I went with her.

I think, in those days, I attended more teacher’s meetings, conferences, conventions that most active teachers. Dad worked, my older sister was in college and at that time my grandmother did not yet live with us.

At that young age, I was steeped in democrat philosophy. It would be natural for me to be a democrat party supporter when I was older.

It didn’t work. Nor, surprisingly, did it work with my older sister. She graduated from college with a teaching degree and eventually became President of her local American Federation of Teachers union—as a Republican. In the 1950s and early 1960s, education and teachers unions were conservative.

Why did we change? What happened? A short answer was the events of the latter half of the 1960s. The real answer is more involved.

Through the first half of the 20th Century, schools taught history, real history about the Founding Fathers, about Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. Because we lived in Illinois, Lincoln was included. 

Lincoln, at that time, outside of Illinois, was not viewed all that favorably. That view could be understandable in the southern states but it was also true in many of the northern and western states as well.

The common view was that Lincoln violated the Constitution. He waived Habeas Corpus, imprisoned political enemies without trial nor charges levied, and he violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and the 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The excuse that Lincoln had to violate the Constitution in order to save it was not universally accepted.

The national culture at the end of World War II, those called the “greatest generation,” was conservative.  A conservative today would have felt at home in any democrat household. The democrat party leadership, however, was already tainted by the Progressive philosophy of the early socialists of the Wilson era and those brought into government by both Roosevelts.

Everyone was a “bitter clinger of their Bibles and guns” as Obama labeled us. If those voters were brought forward sixty years, there wouldn’t be a single democrat politician in office.

By the time my wife and I graduated from college in 1969, the liberal infiltration of universities and education was a fact. The transition of education with a conservative philosophy to a socialist philosophy took less than a decade. Many believe the transition was the culmination of long-term subversion by the USSR. There are many documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s to support that view.

Returning to the question why I, my wife, whose parents were also democrats, and my sister turned out to be republicans instead of democrats is an easy answer.  We didn’t change. The democrat party, infiltrated by socialists, communists if you will, and progressivism, changed.

Modern researchers claim that if John F. Kennedy was alive today, he’d be a republican. Maybe. I’m not so sure of that but I do agree with his statements and actions at the time of his presidency were more conservative than democrats like to admit.

The core difference between the two parties in the 1950s was a single concept. The democrats, following a philosophy similar to that of Simon’s believed in a top-down government—the primacy of the federal system. Republicans on the other hand, believed in a bottom-up government—the primacy of the individual and of the states.  That was, and still is to a large extent, the single division between today’s republicans and the views of the establishment Republican party and the democrats.

The final answer, as I said above, is that we did not change. The political parties did. We stayed faithful to the views taught to us by our parents and by our educational system.

We can correct the drift towards more federalism, more statism, more socialism, but to do so we must first reclaim our educational system, remove the taint of political correctness and teach the truth about our history, not the liberal pablum taught today—in the few remaining areas where history and government is still taught.

Out of touch

I sent an e-mail to my U. S. Representative, Vicky Hartzler, on Tuesday of this week asking her to join with other House conservatives and remove John Boehner as Speaker of the House. Ms Hartzler was first elected in 2010 with the assistance of the various Tea Party organizations in her district. With that help from the Tea Party, she sent long-time democrat Ike Skelton home.

However her conservative track record is not as solid as many would like. Case in point. She voted for the USDA bill that expanded the Food Stamp program.

It’s [the Food Stamp program] the fastest growing major program in the United States government. In the year 2000, we spent $20 billion on food stamps nationwide per year. This year it’s $80 billion. Last year it was $80 billion. It’s gone up fourfold in 10 years… It’s increasing every year and virtually every month. The most recent report in September had one of the largest increases in history, another 600,000 added to the rolls, totaling now 47.7 million people, one out of every six Americans receiving food stamps… — Committee on the Budget, US Senate.

The wild expansion of Food Stamps and the consequence increase of federal spending is not supported by conservatives of any stripe. Her vote upset many of her supporters. Frankly, this slipped past me. Research on another topic recently lead me to this and other votes by Ms Hartzler that is not consistent with conservative principles.  Unfortunately, those votes were consistent with the agenda of the ‘Pub establishment in Washington.

But Vicky Hartzler’s voting record is not the subject of this post. Her communications with her constituents, their concerns and how closely she monitors those concerns are. Here is the text of an email I sent Ms Hartzler earlier this week. I was greatly upset with the actions…or rather the record of liberal compliance, of John Boehner. I asked her to join with other conservative Representatives to remove John Boehner as Speaker.  Here is the text of that email.

Ms Hartzler, I’ve met you briefly at a number of events, the most recent at the Cass County Republican Christmas party.

I’m writing you to urge your support in removing John Boehner from his post as Speaker of the House. Representative Boehner has exhibited none of the qualities we need at this time as Speaker. He lacks leadership, fighting more often against members of his own party than he has our opponents. When push comes to shove against Obama and the democrats, he folds. Just review his activities with holding the debt limit. He has folded at every instance.

We cannot continue along this path. There are a number of strong conservatives who have the leadership abilities, the backbone to stand against Obama and the continuing demands for more taxes, more spending, more debt.

This cannot continue.

I urge you to support Paul Ryan as the next Speaker of the House. I know he is the Chairman of the House Budget Committee as you will be next year. He is needed more in the position of Speaker than as Chairman of the committee.

Please join the other conservative members of the House and remove John Boehner. He has failed in every issue that has come forward. Instead of supporting taxpayers, he has retaliated against those Representatives who do support less spending, fewer taxes and smaller government.

Thank you,

Mike Watson
Raymore, MO

It may not have been the most literate message but the subject of this email could not have been misunderstood. I received a response yesterday.

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for contacting me about the “fiscal cliff,” the looming increase in tax rates combined with deep cuts to defense and discretionary spending. Current tax rates on personal income and investment are due to expire December 31, 2012, immediately slamming individuals, families, senior citizens,  entrepreneurs, and business owners with tax increases. Simultaneously, automatic, across-the-board spending cuts (also known as “sequestration”) will occur on January 2, 2013, hitting the military with cuts that will jeopardize our readiness and defense capabilities. 

Allowing our country to go over the “fiscal cliff” would devastate our struggling economy and harm our long term recovery. I share your concerns and frustrations that we have reached this point of crisis after months of intense debate over how to address our country’s out of control national debt. Please know that I am committed to finding common ground to avoid the crisis and to protect families and businesses from huge tax increases. 

I have voted repeatedly throughout 2012 for legislation that would avoid the “fiscal cliff” by extending current tax rates and cutting waste in federal programs in order to pay for sequestration; yet, the Senate has failed to pass or even discuss the proposals put forth by the House. Now is the time for straightforward leadership from the President. The House has put forth multiple plans for replacing the sequester and beginning serious tax reform; we now wait for the President to present his plan so that meaningful discussions can begin and common ground can be found. Talk is not enough; the President must provide a framework to avert the crisis so negotiations can take place in good faith. 

Above all, it is time for an honest conversation with the American people. Under both Republican and Democratic leaders, our country has spent far more than it has, racking up an unprecedented $16 trillion in national debt. Even if income tax rates were now hiked to almost 100% for the wealthiest Americans, the federal government would still not have enough revenue to pay for its mandatory spending and budget commitments. And, raising tax rates would hurt businesses, destroy jobs, and wipe out long term economic growth. This reality underscores the fact that we must reassess what the federal government’s role should be and how it can be limited so we can preserve our country and prevent economic collapse. Our situation calls for urgency and honesty. 

I am committed and eager to begin substantive talks to implement a solution to this crisis, and I await serious action by the President to join this conversation. I and my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives have passed several bills (H.R. 8, H.R. 5652, and H.R. 6365) any of which could serve as starting points for negotiation. While listening to your input and views, I will continue to work diligently in the coming weeks to avert the fiscal crisis facing our country. Again, thank you for contacting me on this serious matter. It is a privilege to work on your behalf.  

With best regards, I remain,

                                                    Very truly yours,
                                                                                 
                                   Vicky Hartzler
                                   Member of Congress

Obviously, this is an automated response concerning the issue du jour and really says nothing. I’m not surprised by an automated acknowledgment of my email. That is common practice today. However, I did expect that “some” human eye would read my message and respond accordingly. That, apparently, is too much effort.

I know that our congressmen are busy and usually have canned responses when they get constituent messages on the same subject. What really upset me was her response had nothing to do with removing John Boehner.

Perhaps in 2014, it’s time for Ms Hartzler to have a conservative opponent in the primary. One more in touch with their constituents and not a rubber-stamp of the ‘Pub establishment.

Divergence vs. Convergence

I had an interesting weekend…well Saturday at least. Like many, I’ve been greatly disappointed in the ‘Pub establishment at all levels. Most of my ire is focused towards the Washington leadership, slightly less so at the state establishment.  With those sentiments in mind, I’ve been looking and searching for other conservatives who feel like me. I thought I’d found one such group.

One of the problems we conservatives have is that we’re divided. If you analyze the 2012 election results, you’ll see that more than two million “conservative” voters stayed home this year. Those missing voters had an impact at the federal and state level. The primary problem appears to have been the disbelief and rejection by those voters of the establishment ‘Pub leadership, platform and candidate. A portion of those voters dropped out due to the man-handling of opposition delegates during the Miami convention.

We all laughed when the democrat party ignored their delegates on reinstating God into the dem platform. No one laughed when the ‘Pub establishment added more constraints on grassroots organizations with the goal to minimalize the power of those delegates.

So I and others have been looking for conservative groups whose aim is to rebuild the party—to create coalitions, to unite the various splinter groups, to build a convergence of thought to strengthen the party and to reinstate, to renew and merge, our views with those of the establishment. The establishment has run rough-shod over internal opposition too long. It’s time to force change. With those thoughts in mind, I drove to Columbia to meet with some folks whom I thought may be one such group.

There were only a dozen people overall. Many had driven similar distances as did I. A couple were local drop-ins who sought more information. The group leaders had some slick flyers stating their purpose and vision and copies of the state by-laws.  I scanned the material and found nothing therein that I opposed. In fact, from the documentation, I thought my search was over.

I was mistaken.

I followed my usual methodology…I listened. The groups was clearly divided by age—the “thirty-somethings” and those in their fifties and older. I was encouraged. The age spread would provide a good mix.

Then I listed to the rhetoric and doubts began to appear. The younger and more numerous members were clearly frustrated Ron Paul supporters. Some of the older members were too. As the discussion continued it became clear that the purpose of this group, contrary to the printed documentation, was not toward convergence with other conservative groups nor with the Tea Party organizations.

Some of the older members invoked the Reagan/Goldwater rule, “Never speak ill of another republican.” The more vocal speakers agreed, reluctantly, to abide by that rule and broke it within minutes.

Instead of soliciting ideas for moving forward, the meeting was quickly devolving into complaints about ‘Pub state officials and other conservatives groups. Instead of building consensus, some attendees used the meeting to promote personal political views. Rather than allowing the meeting to continue to slide, a member asked to shelve discussion and elect members. 

I was not surprised to see the new leadership rest with the more vocal, younger members. I didn’t have issue with that. They were more plentiful and demographics ruled. Someone nominated me for Secretary and I quickly declined. I had not yet decided if this was a group that I was searching for and wanted to join.

The meeting broke up after two hours giving me plenty of time to drive home and do some research. I wanted to compare the written goals and purposes of the national group with the personal views of those attending the meeting. It was easy, most were on Facebook and I could visit their pages and see exactly what and who they supported.

My fears were confirmed. Instead of building support among other grassroots groups, a number of the members were seeding discord. No coalition building but creating more discord and divergence. They claimed to support freedom and liberty…as long as it didn’t interfere with their pet positions.

The group was not for me.  I wish them well and I hope they return to those principals and goals they supposedly followed. However, I doubt that will happen.

All-in-all, it was an interesting day. I did meet a few like-minded folks and I was able to meet some I’ve only conversed with via the internet. For now, I’ll continue my search.

A divergent path

If you are a long time reader of this blog, you will have noticed I’ve been somewhat quiet since the election.  There are a variety of reasons for that reticence…long delayed chores, commitments to friends, and just a bit a depression that I think has afflicted all of us.

I like to call myself a political observer. That is what I call myself when around my ‘Pub friends. I’ve disappointed a few that wanted me to be more active in the political process. I was active this year supporting friends who were running for office. I’m glad to say they all won their offices.

Still, it wasn’t enough to win on the larger state and national scale. There have been many who have pontificated where the failure occurred—we didn’t address the moderates, the independents, the Hispanic voters. We needed to address woman and modify our pro-life stance. We should embrace all the illegals like the democrats and further continue to dilute our voter base.

Those are the opinions of the Washington GOP and their political toadies like Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. Each of them have sold their souls to the GOP establishment. I want nothing to do with them. Whenever I hear them speak, I understand they really have no concept how the rest of the conservatives really think. They don’t understand why we oppose them—after all, they are the party elite!

No more.

At the core, the Republican Party is fragmenting. The conservative base feels betrayed. Why? Because we believe the party elite crammed a vulnerable candidate down our throats whose conservative credentials were weak at best. Then they modified the party’s convention rules to further weaken conservatives, those not of the establishment to maintain the establishment’s control of the party’s primary, caucus and convention process. The result was that many conservatives shifted to 3rd parties or didn’t vote. It was enough to lose those “swing” states.  Democrat ballot box stuffing didn’t help either.

The party elites believe they can continue as before. That won’t happen. In the states and among political pundits outside of Washington, forces are moving. Here’s just a few comments from a couple of well-known conservatives.

Laura Ingraham unloaded on her radio show with this comment.

Laura Unleashed

Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindahl offers the Republicans some simple advice in the wake of crushing losses on November 6. Be smart…be the ideas party…offer intelligent solutions. This sounds obvious, but approach, language, strategy all have to be carefully considered in the wake of Mitt Romney’s defeat and the loss of Senate contests that should have been gimmes for the GOP. As for those Republicans who believe that the party needs to moderate or change its core beliefs to survive, go for it. I think that is both a political fools errand and and bad policy. Most people are conservative because they believe free markets and limited government, borne out of our Judeo-Christian tradition, represent the best hope for America. Those are the principles I will continue to advocate for, regardless of intra-party squabbling or the panic of the moment.

Bobby Jindal had this to say.

Jindal: End ‘dumbed-down conservatism’

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 11/13/12 4:22 AM EST

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich.

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

Jindal, a Brown Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, is already a favorite of conservative intellectuals and his assessment that Republican difficulties owe as much to economics as demographics will be well-received by right-leaning thinkers. Since last week, a sort of backlash to the backlash has sprouted up, with some conservatives castigating what they see as too much knee-jerk pandering on immigration and not enough discussion of what they see as the party’s unimaginative, donor-driven fiscal policies.Jindal, the son of Indian immigrants, said the GOP “must reject identity politics” and “treat folks as individuals, as Americans, not as members of special interest groups.”

Raising Romney’s damaging comments about voters who don’t pay income taxes, Jindal urged the GOP to make clear they want the support of every American.

“The Republican Party is going to fight for every single vote,” he said. “That means the 47 percent and the 53 percent, that means any other combination of numbers going up to 100 percent.”

Bobby Jindal will be the incoming leader of the Republican Governors Association. There’s more at the website if you wish to follow the link. 

Across the country, groups of conservatives are organizing, planning and gathering. Some call for a new 3rd party. Others point out that we already have conservative 3rd parties and none have been able to draw double-digit percentages in elections at any level. More, this time, believe as I do that change to the Republican Party must come from within. To do that, we must weed out the establishment drones at the local and state levels. Then we can seize the national central committee.

Those who used our support this last election cycle must declare their stance now. Are you for us, the conservatives who worked to get you elected or for the establishment? The time to choose is coming. Choose wisely.

Principles, Values and Motivations

As conservatives, we base our principles on the Constitution, the writings of our Founders, of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. These writers and others expound the theories that our nation has placed into practice as our Constitution.

From these principles, we create our values: individual liberty, self-reliance, personal responsibility and growth through personal effort and work. These values give meaning to our lives, our families and our children. Together, our principles and values, have created a culture that is foreign to many. Particularly, the left, whose principles and values differ radically.

Today’s topic, however, is not about those differences. It is about motivations—what drives us towards our goal of reclaiming our state and federal governments, of reinstituting those cherished values into government and reclaiming our individual liberties and self-worth.

At the root, while creating a personal framework, neither principles nor values truly drive our motivation. It is the imposition of contrary principles and values that motivate us. I found an article by John Hawkins on PJ media (H/T to Dinah H) that enumerates the issues that motivate us as we move toward the elections in thirty days. John writes of five issues…agendas, perhaps, that has been adopted by the left. These agendas, as they have been and continue to be implemented on a national scale creates conflicts with our established, conservative culture, principles and values. Those differences, ours from our values and the left’s from the agendas below, creates and supports our motivation.

5 Revolting Facets Of American Culture

The black mold in the walls of American culture.

1) An elevation of victimhood

In a weird reversal of how the world has worked since man was raised up out of the dust, it has become good to be a victim in America. In fact, many of the people held up as “victims” in our country are loving every second of their “victimhood.”

The best recent example of that phenomenon is Sandra Fluke. Here’s an unaccomplished 30 year old student who went to Congress and demanded that other people be forced to pay thousands of dollars a year to subsidize her birth control. It’s like the set-up of a stand-up comedian’s joke, except that when people responded with the natural punch lines which featured lots of “She’s a slut” jokes, Sandra Fluke was treated like a victim. Next thing you know, she’s on TV, she’s treated like a heroine, she gets a speaking slot at the Democratic Convention. For a 5th rate mediocrity like Sandra Fluke, her supposed “victimhood” was the best thing that ever happened to her.

2) A fascination with freaks, failures, and deviants

For many Americans, the easiest way to get your name in the papers, get people talking about you, and make money isn’t to be great at something, it’s to be a dirtbag. Make a sex tape, flash your vagina getting out of a car, or just behave like a jackass and everyone will be saying your name. If you don’t think that’s true, then why do you know who Snooki is?

When you reward bad behavior with money and fame, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get more bad behavior. Snooki may be a skanky loser, but how many young girls are thinking, “A skanky ‘loser’ with money, fame, and a TV show sounds pretty good to me!”

3) Infantilization

America is a country that was born in revolution and peopled by some of the most independent human beings ever to walk the earth. Our ancestors explored, conquered, and settled this nation under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, even in many places where “government” was more of a theoretical concept than a functioning entity. Now, the government educates your kids, gives you money and food if you don’t have a job, picks which toilets and light bulbs you’re allowed to buy, runs your health care, and takes care of you when you get old.

We’ve become a society where adults are encouraged to behave like children and as Mark Steyn has said, “A society of children cannot survive, no matter how all-embracing the government nanny.”

4) Hyper-sexualization:

Sex is a healthy, normal, and good part of life. For that matter, so is water. But just as you can drown in a flood, our society is drowning in sex. It saturates our magazine ads, TV, and the Internet to such an extent that gyrating women in bikinis trying to sell us beer or teenagers having sex on TV barely even catches our attention.

Hyper-sexualized Halloween costumes, nudity on the Internet and in film, and musicians wearing outfits that would have been considered risque for prostitutes fifty years ago have become the norm. Worse yet, we don’t know how to stop ourselves. Any time someone suggests that we turn the dial down a notch or two from acting like a society full of pimps and whores, you’d think it was a suggestion that we put everyone in formless robes and chastity belts. There should be some setting between Leave it to Beaver and a strip club that we can embrace as a country.  (RELATED CONTENT: What Father Would Permit His Young Daughter to Wear a Bikini? and The Difference Between Sexy Bikinis and Slutty Thongs — And Why Little Girls Should Wear Neither)

5) Indifference towards societal disintegration

Thomas Sowell had it right when he said, “Civilization has been aptly called a ‘thin crust over a volcano.’ The anointed are constantly picking at that crust.”

We seem to start out with an assumption that our culture is healthy, vibrant, and can’t be damaged by any of our societal tinkering. It’s hard to understand what would give anyone this impression when roughly a third of the population has been divorced, 73 percent of black children, 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites are born outside marriage, and 1 out of every 32 Americans is in prison or on parole.

Yet, we slur Christianity, encourage gay marriage, talk up single motherhood, push deviancy in TV and movies, mock morality and scoff at codes of honor. Throughout most of history, civilizations haven’t looked at attempts to stave off cultural rot as religious zealotry or prudishness; they’ve considered it to be simple common sense.

Truly, we are in a culture war. A war between those of us who cherish our traditions, our Christian values and the principles that built this country against those of the dependency class, those who have neither values based on religion or on self-improvement but of personal aggrandizement—a transitory display of self that fades with age and without gaining wisdom.

The next battle in that war comes in a month when we go to the polls to determine which of these two cultural visions will be sustained.  The war between these two cultures will not be resolved in a single battle for there is no end as long as greed, sloth and a lust for power exists. This election will not determine the winner of the culture war. If we lose, however, it could be a devastating to our continued survival as a nation of free individuals. The nation is becoming fragile and it could take little for it to be permanently damaged.

When you enter the polling booth next month, think on these motivators and check the box, flip the lever for the conservative candidate…the candidate whose personal ethos supports our common principles and values, the candidate who is motivated, like us, in defense of our nation, our principles, values and culture.

It Ain’t Fair!!!

Life. It’s not fair, nor will it ever be.

I came across a column by John Stossel titled, “Making it Fair.” In his column, he quoted a Michael Moore interview where Moore declared…

Filmmaker Michael Moore took this notion about fairness to its intuitive conclusion during an interview with Laura Flanders of GRITtv, saying of rich people’s fortunes: “That’s not theirs! That’s a national resource! That’s ours!” As is typical, Moore was confused or disingenuous. In our corporatist economy, some fortunes are indeed made illegitimately though political means. The privileges that produce those fortunes should be abolished. But contrary to Moore, incomes are not “national resources.” — Washington Examiner.

To the collectivist, what is your is his, and in the case of Moore and others like him, what is theirs, is theirs.  In reality, they’re a pack of thieves. Fairness, to them, is taking the assets, hard earned assets, of others. Fairness, to such as Moore, is equal outcome…as long as that same rule isn’t applied to them. I haven’t seen Moore, nor any of the Hollywood libs, donating their fortunes to those in need.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals. — NY Times.

When we examine the differences between the “fairness” liberals preach, and the “fairness” liberals practice, we discover that liberals really do not believe in fairness.  No, they’ll do whatever they can to insure “fairness” is biased in their favor.

Liberals complain that conservative principles and actions are unfair. In Obama’s last State of the Union speech, he mentioned “fairness” at least nine times.  Why is there such an emphasis on “being fair” by the libs? One possibility is their inability to understand that there is no fairness in life.

Life is not fair. There is no guarantee of fairness. If life was fair, no child would die through accident or illness. Pediatric diabetes would disappear. Every mother, father and child would be happy and healthy.

But life is not fair. Some families are not happy while others are. Some children die in accidents, such as the man and two children who died in a fire this week as the mother, who had just returned home from work, watched.

If life is not fair, why are conservatives, when interviewed, judge themselves happy more often than liberals?  In an exchange on PBS Newshour host Jeffrey Brown, correspondent  Paul Solman, Lori Sanders of the American Enterprise Institute and others, the topic was happiness.

PAUL SOLMAN: How happy are you, scale of one to four, one not at all happy, four very happy?

LORI SANDERS, American Enterprise Institute: I’m a four.

PAUL SOLMAN: A four?

LORI SANDERS: I’m very happy.

PAUL SOLMAN: Lori Sanders works at the conservative Washington think tank the American Enterprise Institute. A few blocks away, Occupy D.C.er Eric is on the more liberal end of the spectrum.

What number would you give yourself?

MAN: A one.

PAUL SOLMAN: Are you unhappy, do you think, because of the inequality, economic inequality in this country?

MAN: Well, yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: Study after study, it turns out, finds conservatives happier than liberals.

Yale social psychologist Jaime Napier has a theory as to why.

JAIME NAPIER, Yale University: Economic inequality really does affect people’s subjective well-being.

PAUL SOLMAN: Napier’s work has convinced her conservatives are happier than liberals because they think there’s equality of opportunity in America.

JAIME NAPIER: One of the biggest correlates with happiness in our surveys was the belief of a meritocracy, which is the belief that anybody who works hard can make it. That was the biggest predictor of happiness. That was also one of the biggest predictors of political ideology. So, the conservatives were much higher on these meritocratic beliefs than liberals were.

PAUL SOLMAN: Liberals like the folks we found at Occupy D.C., who don’t think the opportunities out there are equal these days. Their message is clear: The system is not fair.

WOMAN: Everybody here at this Occupy movement is here because they have had enough. So, they’re angry. And chances are, you know, people here are very unhappy with the way that our society works.

WOMAN: I believe that things should be equal, or people should have more of an opportunity to become closer to the 1 percent, because, right now, it’s like the 1 percent is the 1 percent, the 99 is the 99, and we kind of don’t stand a chance.

PAUL SOLMAN: The conservative AEI staffers, on the other hand, think we do.

How many of you, on average, think Americans get what they deserve they deserve economically?

Reza Jan, who grew up in Pakistan, believe in Horatio Algerism for all, sort of.

REZA JAN, American Enterprise Institute: I would say not everybody is able to pull off those kinds of success stories. But, in this country, more than any other, for the work you do, you are able to better yourself.

PAUL SOLMAN: That’s true no matter who you are, said Jesse Blumenthal.

JESSE BLUMENTHAL, American Enterprise Institute: The “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” notion works here more than really anywhere else in the world.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, optimism alone doesn’t determine contentment. Religion boosts happiness. So does marriage. But Napier’s research accounted for that.

JAIME NAPIER: We adjusted for education, for income, for marital status, religion, people who lived urban vs. rural, all kinds of things. So, you know, on average, just your ideology alone is an independent predictor of your subjective well-being.

ARTHUR BROOKS, American Enterprise Institute: It is true that conservatives tend to be less concerned about income inequality.

Arthur Brooks, president of the AEI, and the author of “Gross National Happiness,” agrees with Napier about the conservative happiness edge.

ARTHUR BROOKS: Conservatives think that fairness is one in which outcomes are based on merit and people start with more or less equal opportunities, or at least we’re working for equal opportunities. If you believe those things, and you see that some person makes more than others or the top 1 percent is breaking away than the bottom 99 percent, that’s not going to affect your happiness very much at all.

Look closely at that last statement. “Conservatives think that fairness is one in which outcomes are based on merit and people start with more or less equal opportunities, or at least we’re working for equal opportunities.”

That is the primary difference between conservatives and liberals.  Conservatives take action—personally, to better themselves. Liberals wait for someone else to take action so they can take advantage of the results. The conservative governs, through his own actions, his life. The liberal subordinates his life to the governance of others.

No, life isn’t fair. No one in touch with reality believes that. Fairness and happiness is what we create for ourselves.