by Anthony Gucciardi

On any given day you can find a news story that focuses on the conflict between democrats and republicans, or Group A and Group B. These groups could be anything, but as long as they are toted as being the opposite of each other, they will clash. When one party supports a bill, the other tends to oppose it. This holds true for both sides, creating a never-ceasing battle over political parties, as opposed to policy.

The change in each party’s fundamental policies has been warped into an infinitesimally minute amount of distinction from one another. When one does not agree with the “Republican” stance, they generally lean towards a “Democratic” stance. The guise of the two parties creates a false sense of freedom and liberation from a structured ideal.

The Soviet Union’s single party system was a failure due to it’s inability to withstand a dissident attack. The United States two-party system is simply the post-beta form of the Soviet-style political spectrum, with the guise of liberty upon it’s aging fangs.

Holding Hands

The word paradigm (paradigma), compounded from it’s Greek root word “to show”, accurately describes the dimension between the left and right party. This paradigm requires a vice grip of social ideology held together for stability. A single party’s influence can break, without a backboard to cater towards any dissidence.

Two parties can stand up against one another to create both geometrically and intellectually a more powerful structure that can withstand intense dissidence from each party for one reason: the rebellion of the first party’s ideals are reciprocated by the second.

Real Issues

The war between left and right diminishes the focus on real issues. A frighteningly large number of people will make all their decisions based upon their party leaders. The debate turns into left verses right, instead of what is best for the country. The mainstream media loves to turn everything into a matter of “party wars”, instead of discussing the actual issue at it’s core.

Instead of thinking “left” or “right”, think about it from a human perspective. What will this do to our country? How will it affect me? How will it affect my neighbors?

Thinking for yourself

Imagine for a moment that your car has broken down. You go to a used car dealership and search around for a nice car. There are no price tags on the cars, but the place seems rather professional. You find a car you like, and it looks like it’s in pretty decent condition. You ask about the price, and the salesman says it will cost you $95,000.

In this case, most people would first investigate the true value of the car before purchasing it. While it seems completely logical to find the true value of the car, many do not take this metaphorical step when it comes down to left verses right. Placing blind trust in the leaders of a political party is just like trusting the used car salesman to give you the best price. Find out the truth for yourself, as it’s the only way to truly find out what’s going on.

Media Spins

The mainstream media loves to take legitimate topics and turn them into a battle between political parties. A perfect example is the Healthcare bill. Even though it has ridiculous policy changes, and a eugenics-based provision system, it is still turned into a left verses right issue by the media. Luckily people have begun to see through this false two party system, and are beginning to realize they are being played.

The mainstream media’s deception is wearing off quite rapidly, as the public begins to realize that they are being duped. The public is realizing that regardless of which party the current political figurehead (puppet) is affiliating himself with, he is still the same as the previous leader. It is a vicious cycle that continues to this day. The difference is that now the people are waking up to this cycle, and opposing it.

Ally yourself with humanity, not parties

You do not have time to waste on petty arguments that center around the false “party wars”. Use your time to get real information out, like the implications of the Healthcare bill, or the shocking dangers of vaccinations. True patriotism is to have thoughts that do not derive from the structured and targeting news media, or the most famous political puppet in your region.

by Harrison Price

Having Michael Moore make a movie about the evils of capitalism is like having Al Gore pitch a diet plan… neither makes sense.  So how how the TV star and filmmaker done financially over the years?  Pretty well:

Documentary film director Michael Moore, who has become a millionaire thanks to the profits from his movies, told CNSNews.com that “capitalism did nothing” for him.

CNSNews.com spoke with Moore on the red carpet at the Uptown Theatre in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday night before the premiere of his upcoming documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story.”

CNSNews.com asked: “Critics may say, when they see this movie, Michael Moore has amassed a fortune of over $50 million, some have said and –”

Moore said:  “Really? Are you kidding me? Seriously? Wow. Where did it go?”

CNSNews.com then asked Moore: “Critics would say he’s [Moore] been very successful under a capitalist system. How would you justify making a movie where you paint capitalism as evil?”

Moore said: “Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film.”

According to Fortune Magazine, Moore’s films have grossed over $300 million worldwide. His highest grossing film was “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which critiques the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq and earned over $200 million worldwide.

Moore reportedly was paid $21 million by Disney for producing, directing and creating the film.

Moore also earned 50 percent of the profits of his 2007 film “Sicko,” totaling $25 million plus DVD sales, according to Vanity Fair reported that Moore would receive all of the profits made from DVD sales of “Sicko,” sales of which have been estimated at over $17 million.

Some more details about Mr. Moore’s “working class” life:

He lives in a million-dollar apartment, and boasts of that as well. “I walk among them. I live on the island of Manhattan, a three-mile-wide strip of land that is luxury home and corporate suite to America’s elite….. Those who run your life live in my neighborhood. I walk in the streets with them each day” (Michael Moore, Stupid White Men, p. 51). For vacations, he keeps another million-dollar beachfront house in Michigan.

He sends his child to a private school — no sense associating with the working class — and has some trouble associating with them himself. The New York Post reported on a tantrum he threw in London: “Then, on his second-to-last night, [Michael Moore] raged against everyone connected with the Roundhouse and complained that he was being paid a measly $750 a night. ‘He completely lost the plot,’ a member of the stage crew told the London Evening Standard. ‘He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the 5 pound-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public.’ At his last appearance, staffers refused to work or even open the theater’s doors.” NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003.

He supplements his meager income with speaking tours. No more $750 gigs; on his 2004 pre-election tour he charged Utah Valley State College $40,000, Xavier $25,000, and University of New Mexico $35,000. Not bad for an hour or two’s work.

Ah, the joys of capitalism….

One of his former associates summed him up: ” You would think that he’s the ultimate common man. But he’s money-obsessed.”

There will be some suckers who will see his film, and then there’ll be liberals who will write many postings on their blogs about all of the “facts” he uses.

But will any of them realize it is they who are the fools quoting a multi-millionaire talking about the evils of capitalism… that system that made him rich?

Figures Moore, like Gore, are Liberal heroes.

by: Beach Gir

What an Orwellian world or Alice in Wonderland world we have been plunged into? Or perhaps more true to form, it is a Bolshevik world...

The House of Representatives is busily dictatong the words that can be used to put down the President of the United States in the hallowed halls of our Republic. You gotta be rollin' in laughter at this nonsense. With a H/T to Drudge, here's the post by Glenn Thrush at Politico: House guidelines for Presidential putdowns.

Let's start with what you cannot call the President: a Liar, a Hypocrite and other things that may be quite accurate representations.

This Democrat House of Representatives never ceases to amuse. Either they are spending us blind and into oblivion - as in WE ARE BROKE; or they make themselves the laughing stock of the world.

It is true, finally, in their own acts and deeds - the liberal 'progressives' have no sense of humor. They are certainly not planning ahead. Why ever must they feel that they must be so defensive on behalf of President Obama. Is he not strong enough to take the opposition disagreement that other presidents have taken throughout our history? I think he's plenty strong. Or is their defensiveness born out by their racism? (Read Destiny Denied by Shelby Steele for a perspective on the liberal's view.)Okay, so maybe it was bad form for a Congressman to point out that the President of the United States lied to the American people and the world in a speech to the joint houses of Congresses but no one denied the lie was a lie. The only dust-up was that someone pointed it out - gasp - in public.

And now the Lilliputians in Congress are busy codifying what a member of Congress can legally say to putdown the President of the United States. This goes against our entire history of our elected elite being able to say with impunity anything they want to say in session.

Good news for us when we have a Republican president in 2012. Then the gaggle of liberal honking geese can choke on their own vileness. Where were these sensibilities when we needed them to quash the heinous acts of liberals/progressives writing their relentless trash about President George W. Bush?The Democrats of Capitol Hill - The Mad Hatters of our times... Now, this would be a great cartoon film feature on the order of the Keystone Cops.....

by Thomas Craig

The military has a saying, "Salute the rank, not the man".  The other night during the President's address to Congress, our Leadership and our Party were made to look like ignorant fools due to the disrespect shown to the President.  Congressman Wilson (R-SC) thankfully apologized after shouting out "You Lie!" during the President's address. 

We all remember the disrespect shown to President Bush.  We all believed in the prestige of the office and we thought of those who blatantly disrespected Bush as un-American.  Many in our Party feel that the GOP should simply show the same respect to Obama as the Democrats had shown to Bush.  The problem with this mentality is that people seem to forget that the pendulum always swings back.  When Republicans were in power, we felt confidant that we will hold on to that power.  Now, Democrats honestly think that they will hold on to the reins forever.  We didn't forget the actions of the minority when we were in charge and the Democrats won't forget our actions now when we take back Washington. 

Perhaps Congressman Wilson had a point.  Personally, I think he had a very valid point in his statement.  By doing what he did though, he cheapened the argument and emboldened the opposition.  We need to stop the hysterics and make our arguments loud and clear.  The time for baseless distractions are over, whether they are "Obama is a muslim", "Obama isn't a citizen", or "Obama is an alien".  They are ridiculous and they take away from our credibility. 

Healthcare needs to be reformed, plain and simple.  Instead of shouting down every idea the Democrats come up with, we should be using our voices to pitch our own ideas on reform.  This will not only be more productive but it will point out the misguided notions of Liberals who have good intentions but would bury this Nation in a mound of debt so large our grandchildren will be born with sore backs. 

Its time to cut the bs and get down to business!

by Dacia Nichol

This discussion is partially one left to the ponderings of the Romney 2012 crowd, but it can also be relevant to the Republican crowd in general with the added Clinton element. With Obama’s election victory and all the hoopla surrounding it, the only ones who seemed particularly concerned over his lack of well…anything besides a short but definite radical left voting record…was the opposition. Of course they’re supposed to be concerned with basically anything he does – being the opposition, he could have had a clean nose, but his overall political philosophy would have been the main point of objection. Therefore, any points – no matter how well justified – were swept under the rug along with most anything GOP leadership had to say at the time. We got a tad more of an earful once Ms. Palin hit the town.

And what has happened since? We told you so. Everything we screamed and warned about is essentially manifesting – his disdain for the country shown in his apologetic attitude during foreign visits, his leftist sympathies with his speaking out on behalf of leaders who disrespect their people and their constitution while remaining silent when a true uprising is swelling in one of the terrorist hot spots in the world, his racial philosophies and immature decision making when jumping to conclusions about an arrest involving a black man and a white police officer while admittedly not knowing the facts of the case, his socialist economic beliefs in using government ownership whenever possible for problem solving, spending the country towards bankruptcy, and shoving social medicine on voters despite their vigorous opposition to it, and perhaps the biggest shame in all of his shortcomings is his lack of experience. It’s proving to be the most damaging of all for both sides, and for the country. For the Democrats, he just can’t get anything done. For the Republicans, the blame game is being used to try and cover up the current majority impotence and resources are having to be spent to counter it. For the country…it’s just embarrassing. After all, what does it take to run the most powerful country in the world? Who will take our interests seriously when our own president neither seems to understand them nor lack the political capital to push for any of those that he does grasp as necessary. What’s still holding up alright? The policies carried over from the Bush Administration. Not for long of course.

All that being said, since the opposition has been so good at predicting what the future will bring providing a set of circumstances, how will this play out in 2010 and 2012? Most are on board with the expectation that Democrats will lose their majority in Congress. The optimism is for John Boehner to be the next Speaker of the House, and the Senate? Well, we can assume Mitch McConnell would take the place as leader, but one can only wish that the GOP could foster a better conservative for the job.

Now, the Romney crowd found the Carter-Reagan analogy with Barry’s new election. "Hey, it took a Carter to get a Reagan." Indeed, circumstances seem to fit – a charismatic guy swoops in after a fallout in the GOP, promising the world, and turns out to be totally incompetent. Best of intentions, but just couldn’t get anything done. Economy gets worse, bringing in the next party with their hero-in-chief who had lost the primary in the previous election. Romney’s resemblance to Reagan in his rhetoric and policies set the stage for a perfect analogy and expectation.

On the other hand, yes Obama has played up to the Carter expectations, but he’s now borrowed a move that throws the discussion in another direction: 1994. His push for Obamacare looks a whole lot like the Clinton push for HillaryCare – some of the Clinton mistakes have been corrected, but alas the resolve of the American people to fight for what they see as a threat to their liberty has been greatly underestimated. History shows that this could still be a good thing for the GOP. Newt Gingrich came in with his "Contract with America" and managed to balance the budget and pass welfare reform. But…who got the credit for any Republican successes in Congress? You betcha – the man at the top. His reelection sealed the deal. Will the same thing happen here?

A couple of thoughts. First, if we want to go by history, it’s not quite as straight cut as it was seen to be at the onset. After all, Reagan lost more than once. Further, Jimmy Carter made the mistake of blaming Americans for their problems – that’s more than apologizing outside the country for our past. That’s finger pointing, and the people that have built and contributed to their nation do not want to hear their leader saying, "shame on you!" Of course, Romney did lose in his senate race against Ted Kennedy in the 90s (R.I.P. Ted), so perhaps he’s met the "third charm" qualification. Obama might have also made the mistake of being so disconnected from the people he supposed to be leading, that he doesn’t need a "shame on you" speech. His lies and control of the press might be enough to make voters distrust his goodwill to bring in the Carter effect. Plus, the majorities that Republicans could even possibly gain in congress with even the most favorable results, may not be enough to get as much done as Gingrich & Crew did. The American public may just very well see enough of the damage that Democrats are truly causing and toss the rest of them out along with their president come 2012.

We shall see.

by Dacia Nichol

We've all had enough of the debate already, wouldn't you say so? "Trudge along" is still the order of the day unfortunately. While yours truly would love to just pick a side, one cannot merely dismiss the chaos and inherent lack of logic found in both arguments.

If polls mean anything to you, it seems the country is not in the mood for a few things:

1) more debt;
2) more government;
3) the partisan attitude of Congress; or
4) socialized medicine.

Unfortunately for Democrats this health care bill, lovingly coined "Obamacare", appears to contain all four elements. After the administration threw us some bread crumbs suggesting socialized medicine could be removed, they had to come quickly back around with a dust buster to clean up after the backlash.

A couple of backlashes actually - one from the hard left demanding that socialized medicine was not an option open for discussion (this one even had Jon Stewart questioning Barry's testicular fortitude), and the other one claiming that the public option was such a huge part of Obama's campaign platform, that turning back on the promise to push for one was a sign of shortage in political capital.

Thus far, the administration has been bombarded with unsolicited advice from every nook and cranny in the literary world. Every study presented has had zillions of anecdotal evidence and stories brought to counter against it. Lists upon lists have been drafted to offer solutions....some even of the familiar "12-step" variety. From the looks of it, one might conclude that this phenomenon could be useful for the White House, meaning they can rest well knowing that yes, the American people DO want health care reform. Er...health "insurance" reform rather? Or whatever...we'll see what the winds bring tomorrow.

That being said, we'll move onto the topic of who is most evil in this debate.

First, let's start by acknowledging the bipartisan conclusion that health care needs fixing.

Second, let's define what exactly we agree on:

1. Health care costs are outrageous;
2. Insurance companies are profit ventures and conduct business as such - even at the expense of human life.
3. Medicare is an implosion waiting to happen;
4. The poor and middle class are the most vulnerable and under-served in the health industry;
5. Things like transparency, a good doctor-patient relationship, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and portable care are highly desirable features; and
6. Tort law is out of control.

In sum, we all want health care to cost less, be more accessible to individuals, and have lots of choices like our doctors, our hospitals, and our coverage options.

So what's getting lost in translation? The role of government. This entire debate is winding down to the fundamental differences between the parties - big government vs. small government. Here's the other kicker - instead of reaching for compromise, both parties have fallen back to semi-yellow-journalism tactics (sensationalist journalism dating back to the pre-Revolution days).

Democrats - "We can't do nothing - nothing isn't an option! If we don't do this now, people will die! It's all the evil insurance companies' fault!"

Republicans - "If this plan goes through, government will take over your lives! They'll ration your care! They'll decide who lives and who dies!"

Democrats point to long lines at medical clinics in poor neighborhoods with countless video testimonials to justify their points. Republicans point to the histories of any and all countries with similar systems to what is proposed as examples of the failure of the social medicine side of the bill. Their claims also come with complimentary video footage.

Question - with all the advice and proposals and ideas circulating around America, with public support for reform high, but support for this reform in its current state low, why aren't the necessary nips, tucks, and alterations being made?

The Republicans have decided to take the approach of being stalwarts. Apparently, Obama is not doing so hot in the "bringing people together" promise, and that means he's built himself a loyal opposition. Not good news when you're trying to overhaul a major system in the country that will affect every single American...oh and most Americans don't identify with your party either. In fact, a new Gallup poll says that Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts would be your only solid supports in the end.

The Democrats aren't taking a very "group-hug" approach either. Some want to drop the public option for the sake the country for the time being, but others - far louder than the compromise crowd - demand that no concessions shall be had, and want the bill pushed through regardless of its popularity. The "we won" mentality still runs strong, but now it also appears to be tainted with the acknowledgment that political winds do change and a rush job is needed to preserve the social justice they live, breathe, and would die for. Well...at least they act like they would.

Then there's the president himself. Strangely, he continues to stay in campaign mode, generating more questions than answers with each appearance in the public forum. It's not the questions - some of them have been phenomenal. It's the overall candy coated shell slick smooth talk that still doesn't give the hint as to whether we're talking peanut, plain, or crunchy.

In another stroke of irony - one of the only things we all agree on in this country about health care also happens to be the one thing Obama is not interested in addressing: tort reform. Further, Democrats are trying to marginalize anything and everything Republicans object to with the argument "Republicans have no alternative". Except they do. And demanding that the minority party devise an entire plan of their own that they know has no chance of passing is just an avoidance strategy - avoiding the debate that is.

See, the idea behind a president who campaigned on being "bipartisan" and "reaching across the aisle" kind of centered on the notion that you know...you'd include the opposition party in whatever it is you're doing. Sure, politics-as-usual wouldn't find any of this current fiasco surprising, but that's the downside of having promised to get past all that in exchange for a new beginning if elected. We all must have forgot about the reasons why we don't get along to begin with, for they are certainly on display now.

So - who's most evil? It wouldn't be accurate to paint Republicans in any kind of saintly light, but they are there, with ideas, now using stalling measures in response to being shut out (or so it seems). If the health situation really is as dire as Democrats claim it to be, they'll agree to gamble pulling the public option, reducing costs by working with Republican ideas, have sweeping reform, then hope that the cost of health insurance will have lowered so significantly, there is no longer a need for a federal health insurance option. Or perhaps the public would be open to a much smaller price tag on a public option after said reform takes place? No…apparently the public option is a sticking point not worth sacrificing for all the poor that are being used as pawns in their quest for socialization of our country.

Verdict: Democrats.

by Terence P. Jeffrey

Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
 
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
 
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
 
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
 
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
 
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state.  In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal.  In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
 
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
 
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
 
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
 
For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.