The Ideology of Emotions vs. the Ideology of Reason

Throughout world history liberalism has caused horrific harm to countless countries financially, domestically, and otherwise. Traveling through time or even through the history of America will result in with enough evidence to fill up volumes of encyclopedia-sized tomes. It is actually not necessary to glance back any further than the last couple of years in order to examine the results of liberals in power. The Obama administration has weakened and destructed every positive aspect of the country in which Americans have prided themselves for generations, all in the name of compassion, care, hope and change without any real solutions to solve the problems plaguing this country.

His actions are similar to the OWS protestors who’ve got some nice-sounding slogans and have caused others to identify with them emotionally, but are lacking actual solutions and the ability to allow brains override emotions.

What is the motive Occupy Wall Street protestors? Do they want to shut down all businesses? Only big businesses? What will cause them to be satisfied? Do they want the rich to become paupers? Do they wish to sit in fancy offices on swivel chairs as executives for multi-millionaire corporations with their heads bent over long sheets of figures for hours at an end? These people are clueless in how to continue past their emotions of jealously and anger, yet the entire liberal movement from the President and down has endorsed and supported these protestors with ACORN actually providing cash for some so that they participate in the protests.

Obama’s seemingly hasty decision to back the protestors can be understood when remembering that liberals operate solely upon their emotions. If they see someone’s upset, fighting for their rights etc. then those people must be supported ignoring the knowledge that it may cause more harm than good. This often results in unwise choices and puzzling decisions to those who don’t allow emotions to get the better of them, and is what Obama’s foreign policy has been dictated by; emotions.

In Egypt, a Prime Minister of many years was somewhat of a dictator and totalitarian, but not the excessively harsh type who brutally killed thousands of civilians in unmarked mass graves. He would ensure he won the elections (much like Putin in Russia) and was often forced to rule with a tough thumb due to the constant rumblings by Islamic extremists who loathed his positive relationship with America and Israel. The U.S. aided Egypt, its ally, monetarily and otherwise, and helped them develop an impressive and powerful army since Egypt was a rarity in the Muslim world and the Middle East (excluding Israel of course.) Egypt was a Muslim country who actually suppressed terror and helped keep the entire Middle Eastern region somewhat stable and at peace, unlike Syria, Iran and other Arabic countries.

What was Obama’s reaction when Mubarak faced protestors who wished to force him out of power? He dumped him and celebrated his downfall! Why? Because he was overcome with emotion by the opposition people who had chanted for freedom, change and lots of other positive slogans. The information that many of these fighters were Islamic extremists who wish to take control of the country via “democratic elections” didn’t matter, since these people cried for liberty. 

How can anyone be assured that the new leadership won’t be more of the same, in addition to being hostile to the U.S. and adding tension to the Middle East? The Muslim Brotherhood who is feared will eventually receive the power, has expressed their intention to govern strictly according to Sharia Law. Even if the unlikely occurs and the extremists don’t manage to take control via “the elections” a few months down the line, they won’t rest until they ensure that they gain control over the country, as we’ve seen with Hamas in Gaza. Although 75% of the country supports Sharia Law, the results in other countries have proven that it will lead to the oppression of women and all non-Muslims.

Dennis Prager had explained how history has proven the last several decades that all change in Muslim countries resulted in less democracy, increased extremism, and worse living conditions despite what promised previously. Despite the evidence, instead of carefully researching the opposition before throwing his support behind them, Obama has behaved recklessly and dangerously.

Let’s roll back the time with thirty three years. The Shah was the moderate ruler of Iran, an ally, and a tough leader against those who wished to promote extremism and terror. When the extremists took to the streets in an attempt to overthrow the Shah, Jimmy Carter, president at the time, threw our former ally under the bus. 

Carter’s weak stance on foreign policy encouraged the radical Islamists to overthrow the Shah’s rule and then dare overtake the American embassy and hold hostage 52 Americans for 444 days. Ayatollah Khomeini, who took control of the masses, silenced the opposition, ruled according to Sharia Law, and led Iran with a tough fist. Now, thirty plus years later, the current “president” Ahmadinejad is actively aiding terrorism across the globe, spouts dangerous anti-democracy threats, and is in the process of creating nuclear power aka nuclear weapons.

One would think America would look back at history and learn from past mistakes, but with Obama at its helm his sympathy for the protestors overrode everything else.

The assassination of Gaddafi by U.S. backed rebels may have resulted in the eradication of some evil, yet in its stead greater evil is threatening to take his place. Ever since Bush attacked Iraq and Gaddafi had given up his chemical and nuclear programs, his global presence had changed from a threatening negative force to a neutral figure. Out of fear from U.S. repercussions he halted his support for terrorism and paid a total of billion dollars to the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing. Yes, Gaddafi was a dictator and ruled with an iron fist, but he hadn’t gassed or murdered tens of thousands of civilians throughout his dictatorship as Saddam Hussein has done, and which the left has conveniently forgotten in their opposition to the Iraqi War. 

Only the last several months when protestors wreaked havoc across the country did he attempt to squelch their power using extreme force, an act which I can’t see a single current Muslim leaders not engaging in. One has got to be extremely naïve to believe that Saudi Arabia or even the new Libyan leader wouldn’t treat rebels attempting to overtake the country in a similar manner.

Anyone remember Obama’s response to the students in Iran seeking true freedom and protesting against the brute Ahmadinejad? Iran is currently ruled by a freedom-suppressing, Sharia imposing, democracy-hating, terrorist sponsor. A change in governing isn’t likely to make it worse for either the Iranian people or the rest of the country. Libya, though, is now very likely to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists who will impose Sharia law, suppress women’s rights, revert to sponsoring and supporting Libya will now be ruled solely by Sharia Law. One mustn’t wait until it is actually enforced, to admit that Libyans aren’t necessarily better off now than previously. In addition to the gruesome manner Gaddafi was killed, mass graves have been discovered in which civilians and business owners who had expressed support for the Gaddafi regime were executed and buried, thus proving the new regime will be equally or even more brutal than the previous one.

Despite all these negative results, the left is gloating and boasting over Gaddafi’s death and congratulating Obama’s foreign policy. Throughout the entire Libyan debacle they have disregarded the Gaddafi of the last decade and chose to support an unknown group comprised of many factions simply since they spouted lines of freedom and justice. Now, when disturbing details are emerging, they continue to revel in their victory. This is the result of governing by emotion rather than by careful consideration.

Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937-1940, declared after signing the Munich Agreement that; “War wins nothing, cures nothing, ends nothing...in war, there are no winners, only losers” and called it “Peace for our time.” Not much time passed before it became clear that appeasements don’t stall evil since it only whets their appetite for more. Having been granted significant portions of Czechoslovakia, it emboldened the Nazis to proceed forward and conquer the remainder of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Although at that point the United Kingdom, France and Russia declared war on Germany, it was too late to save the lives of millions as Germany succeeded in conquering most of Europe, thus proving Chamberlain wrong. For when there is no war, there is a winner. Although eventually defeated, Hitler had been the victor from WWII since he succeeded in reaching most of what he set out to do. 

If the Allies would’ve confronted and stopped him immediately after he annexed Austria or at least kept their word to protect the Czech, the mind-boggling figure of over fifty million lives could have been saved. However thanks to Hitler’s glib promises he convinced the other world leaders to sign the now-infamous Munich Agreement, while Chamberlain reassured his people via the use of some empty slogan.

It is clear that the liberals haven’t learned from their past mistake as evident in their constant demands for Israel to appease the Islamic extremists by handing over a portion of their land, only to follow thereafter with new demands for additional areas of land to be relinquished. In a sense, supporting the Arab Spring across the world when it is spurred by radical extremists is similarly an attempt to appease them with control over their countries in the hope that they remain satisfied with their loot. Time will still tell what the final results of Obama’s dangerous foreign policy will be.

The 2012 election are now a year away and it is imperative for people to be aware of what we will be battling. The ideology of glib talk, slogans, and emotions will battle intellect and reason. It will boil down to whether people will flow with the emotions or allow their brains to dominate over their heart. Acting based upon emotions is nice when deciding where to spend your charity funds, not when deciding who should lead the country and what type of policies should be enacted. A leader and a government must be able to present real solutions and follow intellect despite the protests of their hearts. 


               

The Party of Slogans Needs to Get Their Facts Straight, and Not Only about Osama

The LSM and liberal half of the blogosphere has been going on and on nonstop giving the gutsy president full credit for the capturing of Bin Laden.

Now as in the past, many conservatives have tried to explain their opposing views to the left but in futility, since the left gets stuck in their platitudes and bumper stickers. They never learned the quote, “Don't judge a book by its cover.” These leftists walk around with a know-it-all attitude and don't bother learning from elders, history, or facts. The liberals’ brains are programmed to only think in slogan form. Obama captured Osama! The who, what, when, why, and where that was once considered the ABC’s of journalism has become almost nonexistent when it doesn’t conform to their ideology. Yes, Osama was captured and killed under Obama’s presidency, but what led to his death? Our intelligence forces got their lead from al Qaeda members that have undergone water boarding- an effective tool to get terrorist members to start talking. This and other interrogation methods were authorized and put in use under Bush’s presidency constantly coming under the criticism from the left until these techniques were disrupted by Obama and the left because he felt it was too harsh and offended some softhearted leftists.

This is by far not an isolated incident where the left has responded without thinking. In ’08, when the economy was at the brink of collapsing due to the housing/mortgage crisis (because mortgages were given to people who could've never afforded it and should've never gotten it) the liberals only knew and still know to say one thing: Bush is to Blame. After all, the housing market collapsed during his presidency. What they forget (intentionally or unintentionally) is what caused this crisis to begin with? Who authorized mortgages to people that were never able to afford it in the first place and why? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history is aware that Carter started these programs and remembers when they were greatly expanded under Clinton’s era. True, while some conservatives in Congress renounced these programs at that time others didn’t out of fear having the race card thrown at them or for other reasons. However, it is clearly the Democratic Party and their ideology that supported this and similar programs. They believe in fighting for so-called equality, previously saying that it’s not fair that not everyone should be able to own their own homes and therefore forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t ever repay them. Nowadays, one can find them crying crocodile tears over the torture of terrorists! The conservative motto is and has always been that everyone has the freedom to choose how to lead their life and those that work hard and are successful can afford their own homes while others that are not so successful although they do or don’t work simply can’t. And the government definitely has no right or business mixing into who should or shouldn’t be getting mortgages!

The same is with the health insurance. The left cries in a pitiful voice that all shall have equal rights to health care including one who has never purchased insurance and then gets sick and is then obviously denied from purchasing a plan. What is next? If you wreck your vehicle you should be allowed to then buy insurance? Maybe after ones’ home burns down the insurance companies’ should be forced to allow you to buy a plan? What the left obviously doesn’t get is the definition of insurance and how an insurance company operates. Insurance is purchasing a policy in advance and constantly paying lesser amounts so that in the scenario that one gets sick/house burns down/car gets totaled etc. the insurance company steps in and reimburses the owner of the policy. The insurance companies have the ability to reimburse the owner of the policy only because they collect fees from so many members monthly and most people thankfully don’t have to collect their policies.

And by the way, for those of you who blame it all on the executives and CEO’s of Wall Street, yes there are some corrupt people in Wall Street as there are in just about everywhere you look, but by and large the CEO’s and executives from Wall Street’s goals are to build and expand a successful business. When one blames an entire group as in; all banks are bad, there’s obviously something wrong with that. The banks would’ve never given as one can see from the past until the federal government found it necessary to intervene. It was obvious to all who gave, received, and authorized these mortgages that the possibility of it being repaid was close to nil, however, forced to comply, the banks issued those mortgages. When the housing market collapsed out came the very same people that forced the banks into this business and portrayed them as the bad guys on Wall Street who took advantage of the poor all to make an easy dollar. Barney Frank and his cohorts’ intention were twisted from the start. They wanted to give people something they couldn’t afford claiming that it’s unfair that some do have while others don’t. Instead of trying to right this supposed wrong by trying to help these people earn more and be successful on their own, he gave them temporary ownership on something that he knew wouldn’t last. After all, this made them appear as “The party that promotes equality and justice for all,” while simultaneously creating an additional bloc of Democratic voters that remain dependent on federal aid.

Now back to Osama Bin Laden. Obama was against the “torture” of terrorists. He stopped the CIA from employing these methods and closed the black sites where these techniques were in use. Obama fought for terrorists’ rights and wanted to try KSM in Manhattan in a civil trial which would’ve given him the same rights a citizen has! So yes, Osama was captured under Obama’s watch, and he gave the ok to execute him, but that’s just about the total amount of credit that the gutsy Obama deserves. After all, he’s the one that stopped the very programs that pointed our intelligence in the right direction. The proper behavior expected from Obama at his press conference was to give credit where credit is due, to the heroic SEALS’, our tireless intelligence agency and so forth. He would’ve then heard from me and all other conservatives that yes, Osama was caught under Obama’s watch and he gets credit for that. However his entire focus was how “I” said when to shoot and “I” built up the CIA, among many other “I” statements which many were not even the truth, that the right is compelled to straighten it out for those seeking the truth. For one, he patted himself on the back for the buildup of the intelligence committees while in fact, he’s the one that put many limits on the CIA and stopped them from continuing to use the enhanced interrogation methods which were so successful in squeezing some info out of these terrorists and actually led to Osama’s death, Obama’s attorney General even threatened to investigate those that employed and allowed those techniques. And if he meant the SEALS in that statement, they have been operating for the last several decades.

It actually just hit me that if the previous president would’ve been Obama or someone with a similar ideology to Obama, many of our policies Bush had instigated would’ve never been implemented. Obama would’ve never allowed the CIA to water board those three tough guys, we wouldn’t have gotten the info which helped lead us to their leader, and Osama would still be mocking us in his mansion and plotting evil plots against the American people as he’s been doing right up to his death!

So to all of you liberals singing into your microphones and drinking over your keyboards that Obama’s path to victory in 2012 is guaranteed, let me make one thing positively clear. The American people are not going to fall for your bumper stickers and slogans such as Obama got Osama. Liberals get swept up with their emotions, but the rest of the country lets logic reign. Hope, hope, hope, is all you heard in 2010, and generally the word has positive connotations, but you know what? Saddam Hussein had great hopes, as did Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin and many others who hoped to kill, destroy and decimate entire populated areas.  I’m not comparing any of the above not to each other and definitely not to Obama. My point is that hope is not always positive, and the left should recognize that. The same is with change. Obama and his cronies jumped onto the bandwagon in Egypt because the people were fighting for change, something the American people had voted for in 2008. But as is now clear to all, is that change in Egypt is way not positive in relation to America. Mubarak was an ally, a friend to America and tough on terror, while the Muslim Brotherhood which is gaining more and more of the power in Egypt is an undercover terrorist group and is anti-American to say it softly. And this is where Obama and the left are totally wrong. He jumps at the sounds of hope and change blindly, no matter who what when or where.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, anything with a seemingly negative connotation is immediately interpreted as such. Interrogations for terrorists, oh no! Military trials for KSM and his peers, no way! It doesn’t sound compassionate enough!

The 2012 campaign will be focused not on bumper stickers, but on the important topics. Who stands at the right side of the debates offering solutions that will resolve some of the serious issues this country is facing?  An “R” before your name won’t guarantee the automatic support of your party’s support, if your ideology and voting records don’t match the people’s will. This may and probably will result in many heated primaries against RINOs, so that when the general elections arrive the choice between the candidates will be clearly defined.