I begin with a quote, as it’s this quote that inspired this entry. It came to me by email (but is verified.)

Subject: Beware of Change

(July 7, 2008)
Beware of Charismatic Men Who Preach ‘Change’
Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr.
Sandy Hook, VA

For many more years than just the few, we have been divided by strong political differences — largely along “party” lines. We euphemistically now call these divisions “conservative” and/or “liberal.” However, in this writer’s observation, it’s more correctly described as conservative and socialistic. You see, if we were to call what we now label “liberal” by the name socialist, it would have few takers. And perhaps that’s pointedly why it’s not called that.

And that’s the purpose of this blog: to be a forum to discuss exactly what are the various viewpoints and, with some good honest discussion, hopefully arrive at a greater understanding of what the good and noble course of action should be.

One who is not a liberal in his youth has no heart, and who is not a conservative in his maturity has no mind.

–unknown author, possibly Voltaire — although commonly but falsely attributed to Churchill

In theory, each perspective has something to add: Conservative, earn what you eat; and Liberal, care for the weak. And there should be a common ground somewhere encompassing both viewpoints. However what theoretically began here as social concern has gravitated into socialism — a very virulent form of government. And, as if we’ve not seen enough in history to know that this form of government does not work: It disincents the hard-working from their industry, and incents the indolent to work no more. And what’s worse, those that accept this “handout” become more and more violently demanding. ..But now I digress.

My point in this blog is that, for decades now, we have been systematically attacked and undermined by those who desire to make us a Socialist government. And now, “we have seen the enemy, and it is us.” Nonetheless, clear thinking may help to recognize it for what it’s worth. (And perhaps my digression earlier is quite to the point.) There are those who, under the guise of “help the lesser,” are really–and now openly–advocating “take from the rich, and give to the poor.” This works for Robin Hood; but not in reality. The rich in that case were unjust; in the case of our society, are simply trying to make a better lives for themselves — by themselves. And again, historically, any “handout” tends to weaken, not strengthen.

When Barack Obama said to “Joe the Plumber” that he desired to “spread the wealth around,” Joe would have done well to respond, “Yeah, but it’s my wealth that you’re desiring to spread around.”

But to the point, in my opinion, this move to what is Socialism is no accident. It began perhaps forty years ago in the late 60’s, and hasn’t stopped pressing to this day to undermine us. And, if you look, is succeeding.

However, while we remain to be free, it’s up to us to choose and chart the right course, based on where it will go. Make your choice where we will go — because we will end up there. But choose wisely. Consider the possibilities, in the cold light of objective thought. Do you really think a “giveaway state” will strengthen or weaken a man’s industry? Did Nationalized Medicine actually make Canada’s healthcare better or worse than our own? (If you don’t know, they’re coming across the border to stay alive, where their system requires 6 months for a cat scan for a brain tumor.)

It is in the heart of man, to do less, and have more. And such it was in the early colonies, when those hardworking people had, within their community, those who would eat at the evening dinner table, but would not work during the day. The governor, in arbitration, sald “I will seek counsel from Scripture. And whatever It says, we will do.” and subsequently advised the Colonists (according to Scripture) “If a man will not work, he will not eat.” As they imposed this upon the lazy, they resisted — until they got hungry. At which point, every member of society now became productive. And which was the better? ..For all their sakes?

But once again, to return my purpose, as we choose… (and choose we must,) we must choose as if what we pick, we will get. But don’t be taken in by empty promises. Just because it sounds good, it may either be good, or possibly be very much the most self-serving lie, whose purpose is ultimately to put you under control. You think it out.

That’s what the first quote is for.