TRANSFORMER

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

Democrat candidate Barack H. Obama said five days before the general election that if he were to be elected he was going to make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of the United States. Our country would not be what it was when he was through with it.

This pledge was made by a man who in his formative years led anything but the life of a "typical" American youth. As a young man he spent time with very "questionable" mentors. He then committed himself to change the United States from what it was (something he only minimally experienced) to the country he felt it should be.

The country had soured on Bush (brought about by a well done job by the propaganda machine of the left). Along comes a well spoken, attractive man who vowed "Hope and Change," and to assuage the seeming endless guilt of the left for slavery, he was classified African-American.

Why am I bringing this up again? It made no difference when something could have been done about it. What's done can't be undone, or can it?

If we go with Hillary as President in 2016, we go with another person who is unsatisfied with America as it is. She is a passionate advocate of Saul Alinsky the infamous community organizer who wrote, Rules for Radicals. That book, which Alinsky dedicated to ‘Lucifer,’ became the handbook for racial agitators and left-wing political zealots. Then we have Bernie Sanders.....Going down that transformational road another four or eight years with Hillary or Bernie could very well mean the end of the America as most of us living today know it.

This is a big left/right split. The left says, "Good, we need a change." The right says, "The bath water may need a change, but let's keep the baby."

If we go with Trump we have a"loose cannon." But his pledge to Make America Better resonates with Conservatives and a surprising number of others, rather than the Left's pledge to Make America Different.

Ted Cruz knows what America was meant to be and is dedicated to protecting the desires of the founders. Trump would be "interesting" to have as President. I think both the Left and Right would, at some level, like to see what a non-politician would do with the office. Would the entrenched 30-40 year bureaucrats be scurrying off the cliff like Lemmings? I do believe the best for the Conservative's view of America would be Cruz, but I would go with Trump in the general election.

I guess our choice of a President boils down to our belief about America. Do we want to make it better or do we want to make it different?

Michael Moore, a poster boy for the far left, said " this (America) is a nation founded on genocide and built on the back of slaves....."

John Wayne, ditto for the right, said,"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I’m not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be.”

President Obama used these statements to describe the United States on his apology tour , "our government made a series of hasty decisions... based on fear rather than foresight"; ..." our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions...we went off course." " .."you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world." "  ..working through some of our own darker periods in our history." " ... still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans." "I pledge to you (other nations) that we seek an equal partnership."

For an example of the President's desire for "equal partnership" with other nations of the world, let's look at his recent trip to Cuba. Obama had to be aware that Raul Castro was not going to greet him at the airport on March 20, 2016. Castro, who is still second in command to Fidel, made the decision not to meet the first president of the most powerful nation in the world to visit in 88 years. This visit that was to formally begin relationship between the two countries (that would have to benefit Cuba’s 11 million people more than the 318 million people of the US) and our President seemed to be alright with that. I guess if you consider/want your nation to be regarded on par with Namibia, why not?

As a Conservative I do not want our country to be in an "equal partnership" with other countries as President Obama suggested. I sure don't understand why someone would want to take something they have been given guardianship over and fundamentally transform it from a "leader" to an "equal."

President Reagan said, “ After 200 years, two centuries, she (America) still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home." "...in my mind (America) was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get there. That’s how I saw it, and see it still."

Consider this: Coach Barack and Coach Ron are giving the above as a pep talk at half time for team America. Would you want to follow the coach who believes in the greatness and potential of his team or the coach who believes it would be best if his team tied? Shouldn’t our President be a cheerleader for our country?

In just the last few years we have gone from John Wayne to Michael Moore and President Reagan to President Obama. This is no small shift. Those conflicting views of America and her place among nations will forever change the face of the world.

If a person believes the United States is an ill-founded nation, and therefore does not deserve to occupy its lofty position in the world, if one believes there should be no "most powerful" nation and all nations, as all people, should be equal, you most likely lean left. If you believe nature abhors a vacuum and if the US no longer fills its leadership position in the world, some other county will and that all nations, as all people, are not equal, You will most likely lean right.

A question we must ask before we totally commit to being fundamentally transformed is, "Will the world be better off when China or India or Russia take our place, and we become a larger version of Switzerland?"

I have a problem with judging the country today by what it went through in its early years. Transforming the country today based on its past is dangerous. I'll bet you, Mr. or Mrs. Reader, think of yourself as a pretty decent person today, but my guess is in the beginning of this trip to decency and respectability you have pooped in your pants and threw up on your uncle's shoulder. Those, less than desirable acts, committed in your infancy (hopefully) were a part of the growth process and made you what you are today. Why would we consider changing a country that we have to build walls around to keep people out, because we "pooped" in the past?

Maybe the Democrat party would like to take a look at transforming because of past deeds. The Democrats were strongly associated with the origins of the KKK. George Wallace and Bull Connor held political office as Democrats while turning hoses on blacks in Birmingham, Alabama in the 60s (the 1960s not the 1860s). Then we have Robert Byrd, a KKK Exalted Cyclops, a Democrat senator for almost 60 years. If it's not fair to judge the Democrat party of today by its actions in the past might not the same be said for judging America? Should we look at "fundamentally transforming" the Democrat party?

As Abe Lincoln said, (and why wouldn't we believe him, he was the last politician ever nicknamed "Honest"), “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” If I might have the audacity to add to Abe's words; If we do not choose wisely in this next election, we, as a country, may just fundamentally transform ourselves to death.

THE WAR OF THE WORDS

I always thought my interest in what was going on around me was political, but I'm not too sure now. My interest doesn't meet the definition of politics-- the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. I really don't care about "governance" or "power." What I really care about is why people believe as they do. I think now that my interest all this time has not been politics, it's psychology. The mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group. It's not that there is no relationship between politics and psychology it just seems people who believe certain ways do tend to associate with certain political parties. My quest is to try to understand others thinking, not to engage in the fruitless task of persuading others to change political parties because that is really asking others to change their beliefs. Beliefs are the core of who we are and are guarded fiercely.

Any issues I put on blogs or Facebook posts are designed to generate a discussion. I really want to understand how a person living basically in the same culture, with the same general education and economic level as I have can believe so differently than I do. (I do understand there is distinct possibility I may be wrong, and I am willing to entertain that possibility.)

Even if there were no such things as political parties people would have different views on what we classify as political subjects (even though one would be hard pressed to find these subjects in the Constitution). Subjects like:

Health Care

Climate change

Same-Sex Marriage

Abortion

Capital Punishment

Welfare

Competition

Minimum Wage

Debt

Immigration

Redistribution

etc. etc. etc.

Many of these issues have been covered in my previous Blogs, and as a thinking human being, I have certain views on each subject. I believe if there were no such thing as political parties, I would still have those views. For example:

I believe that we as a society should contribute and help those of us who NEED the help of others. I do not believe, for their good or ours, we should be helping those who just WANT the help of others.

I believe that the climate has changed since the earth was invented and any change today is CONTRIBUTED to by humans (and by butterflies in Peru). I do not believe the continual change in climate is CAUSED by humans.

I believe that sports are a part of the character development of young people and a preparation for the challenges of life. I don't believe in sports being watered down by games with no scores and "participation" trophies presented so some of our precious prodigies won't "feel bad."

I believe that if you raise a person's wage from $8 to $15 that additional money is coming from somewhere, and an artificial stimulus added from outside the natural flow of a business is counter productive. A business is in business to make a profit by selling a product or service that someone wants at a price he or she is willing to pay. I do not believe that a business is in business to provide a place to work where employees can be fulfilled and make as much money as the employees feel they need to live at the level they wish to live.

I believe that the 300 million guns on the streets are too many to ever "confiscate." We are passed that. We must make their misuse severely punishable. I do not believe the government requiring additional paperwork will do anything to curtail the activities we wish to curtail.

These are examples of the way I view the various issues of the day. I do believe I would view these issues the same if I lived in a dictatorship or a country with 10 political parties. My beliefs are what make sense to me; they are generated by my life experiences and my conception of common sense.

Not wishing to be alone with my beliefs, I would naturally look around for like-minded people. My beliefs, not in themselves "political," find themselves at home in the conservative wing of the Republican party. I assume those who believe differently than I do would find their kind of folks in the Liberal wing of the Democrat party. (Those who have not even given these issues a scintilla of thought are probably currently matriculating in our various universities.)

I wonder what comes first? Does one take on certain core beliefs because of life's experiences, then look around for a group, political or otherwise, that supports that belief, or does a person, because of family affiliations, adopt the beliefs of the family group-think? (Growing up on the north side of Chicago, it was in my DNA to be a Cubs fan. Those brought up on the south side were Sox fans. No matter how many facts were produced to change our minds; minds would not be changed. I think our political arguments today are really Cub/Sox arguments.)

The question keeps coming up as to why we seem to be so divided today. I am sure we were divided during the Civil War also, but maybe divided over a couple of issues, big ones I General Grant you, but today it seems we are divided over every little thing. Why?  I'm thinking much has to do with the expansion of the media. I personally have come from a time with 3 network TV stations and no talk radio, to wall to wall opinions being directed at me 24/7. I didn't realize that many different opinions even existed! In the "old days" we not only didn't have the media to inform us of contrary views, I'm not sure views were that "contrary"...Climate change, of course it does, always has. No question about helping others, "Let's have barn raisin'." Competition? You were a winner or a loser. You got paid what you were worth, and everybody had a gun and knew how to use it. And my guess is that Same Sex marriage wasn't a big topic around the campfire. Today, do we have so much free time we are just making up stuff to argue about?

Politics is such a white-hot issue; maybe we could just take our disagreements outside the realm of politics and put them more in the Cubs/Sox category. When you think about it, how much can we, you or I, actually do about any of the political stances we take? I would like the Republicans to win because they are a group who encompass my world view. Just for 100% intellectual curiosity I would like to understand the "other side," while at the same time understanding I am the "other side" to the "other side."

The 2016 election campaign, if the primaries are any indication, will be a verbal bloodbath. Unless we wish to sink to the level of our current politicians, we need to separate ourselves from the rhetoric of the political parties, know what WE believe, have confidence in our opinion, express it civilly, and go Cubs!