The difference between liberal progressives and conservatives

There are a lot of differences between liberal progressives and conservatives. For instance, liberal progressives look back at America's history with a happy feeling of shame. Conservatives look back at America's history with reverence for the incredible accomplishments of Americans who came before us, a sense that there are lessons to be learned from the past, including the mistakes of the past, but, most importantly, with a just and reasonable sense of pride.

Liberal progressives look at the problems in the world and irrationally blame the U.S. for all of these. Conservatives look at the problems in the world and, while seeing room for improvement, recognize the significant contributions of the United States to world peace, the reduction in hunger, the recovery from disaster, and, beyond the contribution of any other, the advancement of individual and national freedoms.

Liberal progressives look at government as the solution to problems at home and abroad. Though the government rarely truly improves a situation where it meddles, Liberal Progressives fit the model of insanity by striving to employ the same types of big-government actions while expecting different results. Conservatives have seen that socialism, welfarianism, and big government fail to solve virtually any problems and always, always erode the basic freedoms of individuals. Their mantra is limited government and, true conservatives follow this pattern religiously for one simple reason - it works.

In another stroke or perspective on insanity, liberal progressives identify the government as America, heap all the world's guilt at its feet and then invite it into our personal lives as though, with the blessing of liberal progressives, government will suddenly change its stripes. Conservatives identify the people - the individuals - with a fervent sense of freedom and liberty, as America and the government as a necessary evil best taken in small doses and the smaller the better.

Liberal progressives see nation states as outmoded and fatally flawed models for society regardless of the despots and violent radicals who cover the earth. Conservatives, while recognizing that it is not workable to force other countries to adopt our system of government, realize the idiocy of abandoning a system the works for a pipe dream based on principles already proven unworkable. If other countries are jealous of our success, they're welcome to join us in a system of government that respects the individual, as well as the individual's right to strive for success, which is only possible if the individual also has a chance of failure. The beauty of this system is that, should someone fail, they have the right to try again ... and again ... and again ... and again ...

Liberal progressives see 'the end of the world' around every corner. Conservatives realize that this big, blue marble is not going to explode and vanish into space dust any time soon. They recognize the limits on the influence of man on nature. While agreeing that we share a responsibility as stewards of the planet, conservatives humbly admit that, while temperatures ebb and flow, disasters come and go, mankind is only one small part of that equation.

Liberal progressives see their elitist intelligence as the ultimate 'wisdom' in the world, therefore justifying their leadership. Conservatives recognize the limitations of man's capacity for understanding, place their ultimate faith in a higher power and realize that the greatest failings of man center on instances when mankind arrogantly overestimates his level of intellectual brilliance.

If it appears that I could go on and on, that's probably because I could. But, to wrap things up, please consider the following differences between liberal progressives and conservatives. The prior, when caught in an unseemly situation, such as a politician caught with his pants down, laughs it off and goes on as though nothing happened because they can't be held accountable for ethics they never aspired to. The latter, justly goes through the political wringer because he failed to live up to the ethics he claimed and generally watches his political career rightly crumble.

The other big difference is that, in the eyes of our Left-stream media, all violence originates with conservatives, even when reality flies in the face of that assertion. Unsubstantiated threats of violence against liberal progressives are touted by the media as continued examples of radicalism from the right while actual threats against those on the right, such as union threats against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are all but ignored.

Rahm Emanuel? Are people just tone deaf?

Sometimes, I just don't understand. This morning, someone posted a photo in Facebook that showed a Rahm Emanuel for Mayor sign planted in the snow-covered grass between the lanes of a Chicago boulevard. While the person who posted this pointed out that Rahm must have some kind of clout with the city to pull that off, since it is apparently not otherwise acceptable, she still likes Rahm.

I'm a big fan of Ronald Reagan. I think he was possibly the best president since George Washington. And that's saying something since we've had some other remarkable men in that office since 1789 when Washington was first sworn in. But, as much as I appreciated Reagan, I never quite got the "Great Communicator" thing.

Sure, I was impressed with what he said but it was his message more than his delivery that really got me. The same thing with Billy Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom have also had similar monikers attached to their names. I never got that at all. With Clinton, when the Lewinski scandal broke, I felt like I was the only person who wasn't surprised. I mean, the guy had hound-dog written all over him as far as I could tell.

And Obama - it's as though people who love him are absolutely tone deaf to the rather peculiar things he has to say. I want to scream at them: HE'S A SOCIALIST/WELFARIAN WHO BLAMES AMERICA FOR MOST OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS. But, I guess people will only hear what they want to hear.

I recently wrote a column where I spoke of Emanuel setting off the same alarms for me that Stuart Levine did. I once interviewed the former head of the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, who is now in prison for using that position to fatten his wallet, for a story about the IHFPB's decision making process related to a proposed hospital in Crystal Lake, IL. I was right about Levine and, in my recent column, I wrote of how Emanuel sets off the same alarms for me. But, nobody else seems to see it.

I told someone about that today - about how I think Emanuel is dirty to the core and, with any luck, will go from City Hall to 26th and California in the near future. My friend said he doesn't see it. In his eyes, Emanuel is merely a pitbull who will get things done one way or the other.

"That," I said, "is the point. How will he get things done and for what purpose?"

I believe Emanuel escaped an investigation into his involvement with Fannie Mae because the investigators were largely sympathetic to his position and influence. But, with or without any solid evidence, I'm convinced this guy is dirty. And I can't understand why other people don't see it.

Maybe I'll one day admit that I was wrong. More than likely, I'll only admit that he hasn't been caught yet. Then again, if Chicago is really lucky, he'll prove me right.

Breitbart presents smoking gun evidence of Obama/SEIU connection

I'm tired of people trying to paint Obama as a socialist/communist with ties to organized labor that go way beyond working within the framework of the American free-market system. What evidence do you have? Just because he worked as a community organizer and attorney with these groups, that doesn't mean anything. Come on - give us some solid evidence. Prove it or shut up.

(Click here for Smoking gun evidence)

Oh. Well ... uhm ... what were we talking about?