Stop the Republican extremists!!

What a great headline that is.

It is actually a promotion started by (who else?) the left, to discourage qualified candidates from the right in running for office. It is also designed to solidify the agenda of the left by doing what they do so well...stealing words and changing their meanings.

They have already done this with the word "racist" and have many people believing that if someone disagrees with the policies of the incumbent President then that person must be racist. See my post a while ago about the race card...http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/2011/04/race-card.html

Of course, all this manipulation of words and recreation of meanings has been a process for a long time, starting with the evil of political correctness. Surprisingly, I have some thoughts on that too.... http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/2011/05/greatest-lie-of-all-political.html

And now we come to the left's new ploy.

If racist does not make 'em run, maybe extremist will?

Nobody wants to be called an extremist, do they? We all know that being an extremist is close to being a fundamentalist, and fundamentalist adherents to Islam are close to terrorists...so if we can call the right extremists, the people will associate that with terrorists and the game is over!! Right?

Ok. Good plan.....maybe.

Let's look at the definition of "extremist".

A quick trip to dictionary.com reveals this gem...
"a person who favours or resorts to immoderate,uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in beingpolitically radical"


And close by, a quote from Robert Kennedy...
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." [Robert F. Kennedy, 1964]


Now, I can live with both the definition and the quote.


I think they combine to show pretty clearly what an extremist is and what the dangers are.


So...let us now look at the different beliefs of the conservative and the progressive. Let us look at what they say, and see whether the definition actually fits....


This is gonna be fun!!


Point 1: 
Conservatives believe that the power should be in the hands of the people, that ever man, woman and child should have the freedom to make their own choices, follow their own journey in life and be responsible for the outcome of their decisions.


Progressives believe that Government is the right organization to control the populace, that the people do not have the intellect or capacity to determine what is good for them, and that it is the role of Government to ensure people do what is best for them by providing a structure to prevent them from doing what is not good for them. This structure is "law" with significant painful penalties if you eat the wrong food, drive the wrong car or use the wrong sort of energy (as a few minor examples). These laws are enforced by a plethora of agencies paid for by the very people controlled by them.


OK. So one group seeks freedom for all and personal responsibility. Sounds good to me. Nothing too extreme there. The other group wants government control and enforcement to make sure you do what you are told. Ummm...that sounds like forceful control of everyone...that kinda sounds extreme to me.




Point 2:


True Conservatives believe in small and limited government with the responsibilities and obligations of the government limited by the Constitution under which the law of this republic was created. OK...so laws were created to limit government and conservatives support that. Doesn't seem too extreme to me.


On the other hand, progressives want to rewrite the Constitution to include all manner of things that help them create larger government and more control over your life. They want to make you all believe this Nation is a Democracy and not a representative Republic governed by law. A democracy on the other hand is little more than control by the masses and the masses can be easily bought off with a few shekels. Progressives want to fundamentally change this country. Ummm....a bit too extreme for me!




Point 3:
Conservatives want people to be responsible for their own actions, to be responsible for their own families and to be responsible for their own success (or failure). That sounds very reasonable to me....certainly not extreme.


Progressives want the state to be responsible for ensuring that everybody can look after themselves, their families and their future. This state responsibility extends to those who make poor decisions, fail to take education seriously, or simply are too lazy to take responsibility themselves. Since the state has no money of its own, it needs to take money from those who are responsible and give that to those who are not. Umm...isn't that a bit extreme?


Point 4:


Conservatives seek lower taxes. This means that when you work for a living, you get to keep more of what you made. Does that sound extreme to you?


Progressives want to punish the hard workers by taking more of his money and giving it to the lazy or others that the elites determine in their own minds are worthy. I call that stealing...and very extreme.


Point 5: 


Conservatives believe that God and the belief in him and faith are the cornerstone of American culture. Belief in God has never (until now) been considered extreme.


Progressives want all reference to God be taken out of every Government activity, in case someone may be offended. Every reference. Doesn't that sound extreme to you?




Point 6:


Conservatives want the producers and risk takers and workers to all share in the profits of their efforts. They understand that capital flows to successful efforts and flows away from unsuccessful enterprises. They want the free flow of capital and labor to determine which markets thrive, fail or just meander along. The great American free market has not been a free market in 200 years, and yet the principals of a free market remain solid. Is it extreme to want to let the consumer determine which producers succeed or fail?


Progressives want success to be determined by some form of "fairness quotient" and not by what the market determines. They want to prop up inefficient and failing businesses and manage the flow of capital to those business government believes SHOULD exist (not caring what the people want - the people are not smart enough to know what is good for them.) Since the government has no money of its own, it will take money from the successful producers and business and give it to the unsuccessful business (without government funding those businesses would fail because capital does flow toward failing businesses). Once again, progressive steal from the successful to give to the unsuccessful. That sounds pretty extreme to me.



So, in just a few minutes, on a side by side comparison, it seems that what we have here is the progressive movement trying to transpose their program of extremist desires onto the true conservatives. This is exactly what a great progressive, Robert Kennedy warned of.


If you didn't get it before, I shall repeat it here...

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." [Robert F. Kennedy, 1964]

Does this give you pause to think?


Even Robert Kennedy, a stalwart of the progressive movement was able to see, over 50 years ago, where the greatest threat lies. 


You progressives out there....do you still think Republicans are extremists? Or do you have the moral certitude to know in your hearts that your beliefs are the extremist views, and conservatives are simply showing you the way.


Progressive words do have meanings. Robert Kennedy understood this, and at least had the moral honesty to point out that what you call your opponents is the greater evil.


Take note.


Stupid is as stupid says.


.........devereaux