HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Oct. 14, 2004 Remember back when Bill Clinton promised us his cabinet would "look more like America?" Many of us later wondered if his vision of America was a room full of Harvardite or Yali lawyers, since that was the cabinet he finally showed us. Oh, he threw in the "token" black Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown (who later died under VERY mysterious circumstances after threatening to spill the beans over the Vietnam graft scandal) and the "token" Hispanics, Antonio Pena, who left in disgrace after being caught lying to the FBI about pay-offs to his mistress and Bill Richardson (yes, he's Hispanic) who managed to stay on despite the Energy Department's security scandals until Bill was gone. Other than that, his cabinet was made up of white, New England lawyers...period. He'd even MARRIED one of 'em who thought she was the "co-President." Given who it is that seem to be Kerry's strongest supporters, we can likely look forward to more of the same--except without the "token" minorities--and with the exception that there'll also be gays there having sex on the White House desks, as was alleged in the best-selling book, "Unlimited Access," which was written by an ex-Secret Service employee who retired in disgust at what he saw going on there in 1992. Let's look at this "diverse" group of people who want Kerry elected, shall we? The radical feminists. These "ladies" are going around the country shouting that President Bush is poised to remove their "reproductive rights," meaning the right to kill their unborn children for any reason (or for no reason whatsoever.) This, despite the fact that, in the nearly 4 years he's been in office, President Bush hasn't make a single step in that direction (lamentably, in my opinion.) They are a single-issue bunch for the most part who simply CAN'T acknowledge that their dream world of "abortions for everyone" (but especially minorities as was the fond wish of Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger) is simply NOT the majority position in this country. The radical redistributionists. These are the people who fondly desire an "egalitarian" society (as many of them believe France is today) in which no one prospers "too much" and no one has "too little" material wealth--with THEM, of course, deciding who "deserves" what and who should have their property confiscated by the government to achieve their imagined "utopian" society. This is ill-disguised socialism, if not outright communism, and has proven to be an abject failure wherever it's been tried--most spectacularly in the case of the former USSR and its satellite nations. These are the people who still lament the passing of the USSR and firmly believe it would have "worked" if THEY'D been in charge. It's also the bunch that believe that the only reason some people don't prosper is because the "deck's been stacked against them" and they look to correct that by a Robin Hood mentality of stealing--this time from the productive among us--and giving what they steal, with no strings attached, to the UNproductive-- after a suitable rake-off to pay the monsterous bureaucracies they create for that purpose, of course. The anti-gun radicals. These folks believe that we can solve all our problems with criminality by disarming the "civilian" population and are hell-bent on doing it, even if it means trashing the Constitution to do so. This, despite all of the research that proves the opposite. They couch their current plans in terms of "responsible gun registrations," but what they REALLY desire is a gun-free society in which any civilian is converted merely to a victim--and it's victims upon whom the left depends for its political livelihood. They would leave us vulnerable to the predatory among us--both in and out of our own government, something which our Founding Fathers took pains to prevent by including gun ownership as a basic right of any free American citizen. In fact, it was deemed so important that it was made part of the Bill of Rights, second only to the freedoms of the press, speech, religion, political protest and assembly. These people too are completely out of touch with reality, but have a more sinister purpose than even their "useful idiot" supporters can imagine--the subjugation of this nation to an overweening, instrusive collective who will decide what each man or woman needs, where they should work, and how much they may own. The homosexual lobby. This group, which unaccountably enjoys political power FAR in excess of its actual numbers, is dedicated to the proposition that homosexuality is "natural" and homosexual couples are the societal and moral equivalent to married couples and must be given special status to "protect" them from "discrimination." First of all, there's nothing inherently wrong with "discrimination." Each of us practices it every day when we decide between hamburgers or tacos for lunch, or whether to buy a Ford or a Honda for transportation, or whether to associate socially with people with whom we agree and enjoy spending time or to socialize with those we find objectionable--for whatever reason. Discrimination has come to be a bad word as it's used by the left, but it merely means being able to make choices depending upon our individual wants, needs or predispositions. Homosexuality may be "natural" in the sense that anything involving the human condition is "natural," but it's also UNnatural in the sense that nature did NOT design human beings (or any other animal) to seek sexual gratification by means of any available orifice. Besides, homosexuality has NO survival value to the species, and, if it were genetic in origin, would have been bred out of the human genome ages ago. Americans are free to choose with whom they associate and interact, yet the homosexual lobby would have us believe that their particular perversion deserves special, government protections so as to FORCE it upon the 98% of us who are "straight." They believe that they can force acceptance legislatively--and, failing that, through the courts by use of activist judges who've already "sanctified" sodomy as a "right." This is not intended to be a gay- bashing commentary, only to reflect the reality of present-day society. These, then, are Kerry's principle supporters. One of the things that most disturbs me about present-day Democrats is their willingness to hide who they really are to achieve political success. Bill Clinton recently opined that Democrats' support for "gun control" cost them 20 of the 54 seats in Congress that they lost in the '94 elections. So, instead of changing their philosophy to more closely reflect that of Americans in general, they've chosen to hide the fact that they are anti-gun. Kerry has posed with a shotgun someone gave him as a gift. The mainstream media completely ignored the fact that, had HIS position prevailed in at least one gun-control bill for which he voted, his possession of that very same gun would have been illegal! Further, the Democrats have hidden their support for another of their constituencies--homosexuals- -by couching every debate on gay marriage as a "civil rights" issue akin to the 1964 Civil Rights bill (which, by the way, a large percentage of Democrats OPPOSED at the time.) It is nothing of the sort. In a Kerry presidency then, can we look forward to the same sort of diversity we saw in the Clinton cabinet? Probably. Democrats are very good at pandering, during elections, to the various and sundry left-leaning "support" groups such as the crowd in Hollywood, only to abandon them when their individual agendas conflict with what the Democrats wish to do once in power. As proof, I ask you to look hard at Kerry's campaign staff. Nary a black, homosexual or Hispanic advisor in the whole bunch. Sorry, but "diversity" does not mean a bunch of people who look different, but who all think exactly alike. ------------ About the author: David A. Jared is a news junkie, semi-retired and an avid golfer who's been writing his first book, "4000 years of chopsticks" for the last 20 years. Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
