What is Conservatism?

All too often, I have been accused by my friends of bashing the liberals without explaining who conservatives are and what they believe in. In order to respond to this criticism, I have elected to write a response. First, we need to define what I mean when I use the term, conservative. I define a conservative as a person who believes in the following:

1. We believe in the nobility of man and acknowledge that emotion must be tempered with reason.
2. That a strong military secures our homeland from foreign threats and that the soldier is the first guardian of American freedom.
3. That man does not need a large government to dictate his actions or to take care of the civilian population and therefore taxes should remain low.
4. That the U.S. Constitution means exactly what it says and not what someone in a black robe wants it to mean to accomplish their social agenda.
5. That Jefferson was right and knew what he was talking about when he said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with blood periodically.
6. That liberty allows man to make his own choices and that sometimes the choice will lead to bad consequences. When a man makes such a choice, he learns a lesson about himself and his freedom and government does not need to provide a safety net for such choices.
7. That morals and ethics are not subjective. Human behavior must be held to standards of conduct that are outside of the individual’s control because this creates a system that causes man to cast his eyes upward rather than down.
8. That evil cannot be negotiated with or handled with purely diplomatic solutions. It must be destroyed when it is encountered or our fellow man and neighbors will suffer for our apathy. We must aggressively pursue it and root it out at every opportunity.
9. That while the United States of America is not the world’s policeman, our strength and power as a nation comes with responsibility. It is this responsibility that must dictate our actions in the international community, particularly when our neighbors are suffering or are threatened.
10. That free market capitalism has given us the richest nation on the planet and that socialism and communism are an illness that will prove fatal to such a system.
11. That hard work, education, and personal excellence will make you successful and that you are responsible for yourself, your family, and your community.
12. That where possible, we inculcate these values and our freedoms all across the world. In this respect, America remains a shining beacon of hope in the darkness of tyranny.

But conservatism is more than just an ideology or philosophy. It is also personal courage. Courage to stand by your beliefs when everyone stands against you, courage to face an international community too paralyzed with self interest and greed to take action, courage to take the road less traveled and thereby earn the scorn and criticism of your fellows. This is because doing what is right is seldom popular or easy.

This is a lesson that George W. Bush is living right now. He is being assailed by the Congress and the Democrats and even by members of his own party. The American public cries out in exasperation for him to abandon the war in Iraq. Yet he maintains the course because that is what we must do because it is his job to lead the nation where it needs to go despite the will of the American people to abandon the course. I would suggest that President Bush is merely demonstrating the courage of his convictions. It is not pleasant to do so and sometimes the cost is dear, but liberty demands sacrifice from all of us, including the President of the Untied States.

A conservative does not wet his finger and then put it up to see which way the wind of public opinion is blowing. His choices are made based on his faith in the principals of the founding fathers and the U. S. Constitution. Ethical issues are determined by his moral compass, an instrument that is true to its function because it is not interfered with by subjective values. A conservative is not swayed by fads and buzz words because they are transitory, while his personal ideals are not. While some may say that this makes a conservative inflexible, such is not the case because only the bad choices have been eliminated. These ideals form a solid foundation upon which to build one’s life. However, you must choose to adopt them and then live by them.

With the ideology out of the way, I shall now address our course. First, we must stay in Iraq and complete our mission there. If not, Iran and Syria will move in and pick over the carcass of Iraq and worsen the situation in the Middle East. Iran and Syria are terror nations. Each support, train, and equip terrorists. Therefore, failure in Iraq to secure the nation will give us a defeat in the war on terror. Second, we are a nation at war. This is not a skirmish, police action, or low intensity conflict. It is a war. People die in war and the fates of nations are decided in war.

Third, illegal immigration is a serious problem for the Country. Porous borders represent a serious threat to national security and a fence and aggressive patrols of our northern and southern borders needs to be implemented and illegal immigrants need to be repatriated to their home countries. Additionally, no amnesty for illegal immigrants should be granted because it was given in the past and that only encouraged additional illegal immigrants seeking the same courtesy. Immigrants made this country great, but the vast majority arrived on our shores legally and we need to return to that model.

Fourth, the detention and military trial of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is necessary and should continue. The Patriot Act and surveillance programs need to continue as well. While the possibility for abuse of these programs requires oversight, they are necessary to carry out the war on terror and to secure our nation. Fifth, the United Nations is no friend to the United States of America. It has succeeded in making itself as irrelevant on the stage of world affairs as was the League of Nations. The appointment of nations who abuse their citizens, deny them basic civil rights, and hold political prisoners to sensitive committees within the U.N. only underscores this point. Therefore the United Nations either needs reform or to be abolished in favor of an organization that actually works.

Sixth, we do not need six committees on global warming regardless of what Nancy Pelosi says. Further, global warming is rapidly achieving the critical mass to force change as did DDT. The banning of DDT has caused the deaths of millions of Africans secondary to the spread of malaria. Despite DDT being a safe and effective chemical, the hysteria generated by the lunacy of the left got it banned and keeps it from saving lives. The same hysteria will cause trillions to be spent to fight a problem that is completely natural and normal for the planet. Further, nobody has even considered that interfering with the workings of natural climate change could create a significantly larger and more profound problem than the current warming trend.

Seventh, we do not need socialized medicine or any other socialized industry in America. The socialization of industry may work well for Hugo Chavez, but it is a poison to a capitalist economy. Waiting six months to obtain an MRI or to receive a surgical procedure is not something that the citizens of the United States wants or needs. Eighth, we need to continue military research to maintain the most advanced and best equipped military on the planet. This includes the frontier of space and NASA. These are some of the issues that I and other conservatives find to be important. They are not all inclusive nor are they meant to be, but they do convey a sense of what a conservative views as important.

I would now like to speak of conservative compassion. When one accepts personal responsibility for oneself and does not look to the government to provide for him as a parent, he begins to understand how tough life is and he looks for ways to help his neighbor help himself. That is why those who are conservatives typically give more to charity, volunteer their time to community organizations, and run for political office. However, our compassion is tempered with reason. In other words, the best solution is not always the wisest.

To illustrate, imagine a meeting of mice. At this meeting, the mice are speaking about how nice it would be if they had some way of detecting the cat’s movements. When a mouse suggests placing a bell around the cat’s neck, those attending the meeting all cheer, save a single mouse. As the elation for the solution dies down, the single mouse is asked why he is not cheering. The reply is a question to a question: Who will bell the cat? The assembly goes instantly quiet because every mouse knows that if detected, they will certainly become food for the cat. Today, many of the suggested solutions of the left are examples of “belling the cat.”

By tempering compassion with reason the conservative can avoid many pitfalls of emotion that trap the liberal. Without reason, emotion blinds us to reality. How many times have you heard of the old adage that love is blind? It merely means that a person’s love for another has blinded them to the negative aspects of their character. Similarly, strong emotions sway and blind people to the realities of life and they attempt to bell the cat regardless of their personal safety. Such people view their wounds gained during these exercises as badges of honor. While the intent is good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Reason prevents such mistakes by suggesting other, and perhaps not quite as good, solutions to the problems of man and we do not end up with hundreds of failed social programs because of errors in judgment.

Regarding abortion, I offer the following observations. Where you come down on Abortion depends upon where you judge life to begin. For the National Organization of Women (NOW), life does not begin until the entire child is free from the mother. For others, it begins at conception. While the science of biology agrees with the latter, those who are pro-choice are quick to point out that intelligence does not yet exist in such a form and it is only biological tissue similar to a toenail. However, if this is the case then why did the women who had abortions file a lawsuit against a hospital for disposing of their “babies” in a hospital incinerator with other waste?

While pro-choice groups oppose any regulation regarding the termination of human life in the womb, including partial birth abortions, many of them oppose the death penalty. Perhaps we should relabel executions as “retroactive abortions.” A post for another time, I think. Regardless, most conservatives and Americans view life as beginning at conception. This explains why it was legislation from the bench and not from Congress that brought us abortion on a golden platter. That such legislation is based on some dubious right to privacy does not establish Roe v. Wade as settled law. The majority of Americans are against abortion on demand, yet any woman who wants one, can get one. Pardon me, but doesn’t the left carping about the majority of Americans wanting to cut and run from Iraq and Bush not allowing it seem disingenuous when contrasted against abortion and Roe v. Wade? It certainly seems as if many times the number of American lives lost in Iraq is killed in abortions in a single year legally.

Where do I stand personally? I am against abortions with the exceptions of: to save the life of the mother, rape, and incest and yes, I would forbid my daughter to have one except under the previously listed exceptions. Abortions allow one to be careless with their sexual choices and then burdening the child with the consequences of that action because the mother is too lazy or irresponsible to accept the burden of her choice. That is pretty much where I stand on the issue of abortion.

Finally, let me address optimism. President Ronald Reagan said, “How can we not believe in the greatness of America? How can we not do what is right and needed to preserve this last best hope of man on earth? After all our struggles to restore America, to revive confidence in our country, hope for our future, after all our hard-won victories earned through the patience and courage of every citizen, we cannot, must not, and will not turn back. We will finish our job. How could we do less? We're Americans.” I believe that Reagan captured the essence of American optimism with those comments. I am inspired by those words every time I read them. Such optimism challenges man to be more than what he is and encourages him to step up to higher expectations.

America has a destiny, and it is to spread the liberty and hope granted to man by his Creator to the far flung corners of the world. We are the light that pierces the darkness of evil and gives hope to the oppressed. We are the defender of the weak and the foil of tyranny. If we fail to achieve our destiny, then the hope of man is crushed. That is why we have faith and why we must not fail and by the will of God almighty we will achieve our destiny and man will at last breathe free. These are the core concepts that separate the conservative from the liberal and they are the foundation upon which I have built my life.

That is what conservatism is.

The War Against Faith

"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions."
G.K. Chesterton

Hatred of Christianity has grown to epidemic proportions in recent years. In the future, Christians may see themselves treated identically to the Jews in the Nazi death camps. After reading that last, you are probably rolling your eyes and thinking “Here we go, another zealot and his tirade.” Not so, I am merely an observer of human nature and history.

In today’s world, man chafes at the strictures of religion. Religious limits on human behavior prevent the worst of man’s nature from asserting itself and directing the actions of man. It is for this reason that Christianity is viscerally hated. Man’s reasoning is simple; if there is no God to watch my actions then I can do as I please without consequence. By systematically destroying the faith of man, we can eliminate the last layer of control over our lives.

That liberals would seek to destroy the faith of others is no surprise. They have systematically destroyed objective morality and seriously diluted the meaning of words such as virtue, justice, evil, and temperance. Indeed, the last layer of stricture left is religion. Once God has been vanquished mankind will be free, or so they think.

Because this hatred of Christianity is tied to modern liberalism, the effect is not limited to the United States. This contagion has spread to Europe and is making its way steadily east. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that wherever a bastion of liberalism is found, so to is hatred for religion in general. Whether the liberals like it or not they are doing a far better job as an enemy of God than Lucifer. If the situation were not so grim, one could find humor in that fact.

But as Chesterton so aptly remarked, they hate Christianity while they profess love for all religions. The liberal profession of esteem for other moral codes is merely a smoke screen to hide their true intent to destroy all codes of personal conduct. However, as long as the religion has teeth, such as Islam, or is too far away from them to have an impact on their behavior, then they pay it lip service and forget it. This is the finest example of liberal cowardice, they believe in their principals so strongly that they are willing to let YOU die for them. That is why they howl for the blood of evangelicals while they make nice with the guys in turbans making bombs. Oddly, the war on the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs is chillingly similar to Germany and how Jews were treated in the 1930’s. If you recall your history, those events ultimately led to the holocaust and World War II.

The liberal disgust with Israel’s defense of itself also speaks volumes in regard to liberal political objectives. During the most recent kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, they said that Israel overreacted, lacked patience, should have pursued diplomatic avenues, and did not have the benefit of the poor Lebanese at heart in their military response. While I am not surprised by these comments, I do question liberal sanity. Why do the liberals seek to protect terrorists? One could argue that they feel some sort of identity with the terrorists from their hijinks in the 1960’s with the Weather Underground and other liberal radicals. While the liberals have, at least temporarily, put away their bomb making materials, they have kept their vitriol and histrionics for use against anyone who opposes them and that includes the church, but I don’t think that this is the answer. I believe that the answer is tied to the religious beliefs of the Israelis. If Israel were a secular nation, then I believe there would have been no criticism for their military response. By minimizing Israel the liberals drive yet another nail into the coffin of religion.

If you don’t buy that last, then why did the Democratic Party abandon Joe Lieberman? The people of his state may have reelected him to the United States Senate for another term, but he is there as an independent. The Democrats kicked him to the curb because he supported the war on terror and for supporting Israel in the defense of their country. In respect to all other issues, he voted the party line.

Regardless of what they say, the liberals cannot bear the faith of the citizens of the United States or any other nation. They detest the morals and ethics of those who have faith and they belittle them behind closed doors while they arrogantly crow about themselves being superior. Such was the attitude of the Nazi Party in 1930’s and we all know how that turned out.

What Goes Through Their Minds

You really have to wonder about the liberal mindset. Sure, they want abortions, are anti-war, hate conservatism and view it as a modern inquisition, hate all of the rich except themselves, and are desperately trying to save the planet, but what goes on in that miasma of swirling rhetoric from the 1960’s they call a brain?

Many conservatives have often wondered this as they pondered the lunacy of the left. For example, this is a quote that I saw from an online book review, “President Clinton's taxation in 1993 actually fueled the economy to its greatest growth in ways that congressional republicans screamed would cause a recession. Guess what? It didn't.” Now that we have a sample of liberal thought, let’s examine it. First, the liberal praises Clinton for raising taxes, nothing surprising there, but then the liberal goes on to state that it actually fueled the growth of the economy!

If I recall correctly, didn’t President John F. Kennedy raise taxes in order to slow economic growth to counter the overheating caused by the World War II war economy? If raising taxes then slowed the economy, wouldn’t Clinton’s raising of taxes have the same effect in the 1990’s? Could that be the reason that the economy went south right as Bill and Hillary were departing the White House? Did then Presidential Candidate George W. Bush not warn the citizens that the economy would falter and nearly did until the Bush tax cuts reenergized economic growth?

Everywhere you dissect liberal thought you cannot but help to arrive at the same end point, the liberal conclusion is non sequitur in the majority of cases. The reason for this is simple; they do not use rational thought to support their assumptions. The liberal mind is therefore driven by the heart and fueled by emotion. That is why it is impossible to speak with these people. They will not listen to reason, only the call of their emotions. Think about it, when was the last time you received a good conversation with someone who is either very frightened or very angry? I’ll tell you, never.

That is because when a person gets wound up emotionally, the midbrain takes over and rational thought has left the building. Why do you think that the marching and chanting are so important to liberal causes? If the liberal leadership did not use inflammatory techniques and then maintain that level of frenzy with chanting and shouting and all of the rest of liberal nonsense, they would be out of a job. This is why they attend government functions and then stand up and make an ass out of themselves and disrupt the events where their targets happen to be. In fact, protesting is beginning to look a lot like civil insurgency.

Take the World Trade Organization, the heart of all things evil in the liberal world and run by Satan himself. When the WTO met in Seattle, Washington, they had set up training camps to teach people how to protest the meeting. Some of the more popular classes being taught were how to counter police tactics and how to overload the justice system so that serious crimes would go unpunished. They even put the elderly and their own children in danger to prevent the use of tear gas. While the “protestors” stated that Seattle ’99 was a peaceful demonstration, the police have a far different view. While the eyes of the world were fixed on the police response, the protestors used every means available to provoke them. However, the police reacted sanely to the insanity of the left. The event left many officers nationwide wondering where these foaming at the mouth idiots came from. The answer to that question is a shocking one.

The nation’s public schools and institutions of higher learning are breeding grounds for the left. Similar to Nazi Germany, the left hopes to accomplish what the Hitler Youth Program failed to do, create loyal party followers that will ascend to leadership as they grow older. These “blanks” if you will, are then treated to the propaganda arm of the left and encouraged to “fight the power” to achieve social justice, whatever that means. When you look at the National test scores, it is not hard to determine why Johnny can’t read. It is difficult to educate when you indoctrinate, you see.

So to answer the question of what goes on inside the liberal mind, the dedicated liberal puts his brain in neutral and then engages his heart. Why anyone would wish to be a puppet for another is beyond me, but perhaps they simply enjoy saying, “two, four, six, eight, blah, blah, blah, something that rhymes with eight.”

Free Speech? Not Hardly

Why are the liberals so protective of their free speech when they seek to silence anyone who disagrees with them? For example, take the current reactivation of the Fairness Doctrine introduced by Ernest Hollings in the Senate and Bill Hefner in the House. Both bills seek to codify the discontinued FCC practice of allowing equal time to “controversial” subjects on the airwaves. While this would seem like a good thing in theory, in practice it will act to stifle the conservative voice.

This is not surprising given the utter failure of Air America, which is currently bankrupt, and the failure of Al Franken to be the “Rush Limbaugh” of the left. If the liberals cannot get you to listen to them, they will try to silence the conservative voice by forcing them to give air time to opposing views. Pardon me, but isn’t the job of carrying the liberal’s water delegated to CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, and PBS? How many more outlets do they need for Christ’s sake?

In addition to silencing conservative speech and thereby crippling the political agenda of the right, they are also seeking to punish those that dare challenge their ideas. Ever inventive, there has been talk in the left’s camp about enacting laws to jail those skeptical of global warming using the Holocaust Denier laws of Europe as a guide. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me as if the liberals have taken a page from Stalin’s book when they seriously consider abridging the first amendment to support their political agenda. I realize that the left seeks to destroy the second amendment, but I always thought that they held free speech as sacrosanct.

Unfortunately, the liberals of today are not those of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s or John F. Kennedy’s party. They have a socialist agenda and they seek to silence all opposition to defend their views and they think nothing of perpetuating lies and propaganda in order to achieve their political objectives. Do you want proof? Dan Rather and CBS knew that the information he presented regarding the military service of the President was most likely falsified. This was according to a document expert hired by CBS to verify the bona fides of the documents. When the veracity of the documents came into question, liberals attempted to say that Carl Rove leaked them to embarrass CBS.

Additionally, the left’s war on DDT resulted in millions of deaths in Africa because other insecticides were not as effective in killing mosquitoes and thus preventing the spread of malaria. Never mind that DDT was maligned by the left and banned secondary to the hysteria whipped up by the liberals in order to accomplish an environmental agenda, because they achieved their goal. Now, the same idiots that removed DDT from the world are trying to sell us on global warming while they gag differing opinions and brand opposing scientists as charlatans.

We as a people have entered extremely dangerous political waters. The left’s attempt to silence the voice of the right and the political tactics and strategy employed by them are the same ones that were used by the USSR and by Red China to govern their citizens. In short, our very freedoms are at risk. If the first amendment is allowed to be weakened in the same manner as the second, then our other rights as citizens will surely fall. Therefore, if you remain silent regarding the suppression of free speech, you may find yourself permanently gagged by tyranny right here at home. I will go further and say that this issue goes beyond politics and threatens the rights of all citizens regardless of political ideology. We are citizens of the United States of America and it is incumbent on each of us to secure the rights of our fellow citizens or we all risk becoming slaves to tyranny. If you are a liberal, I encourage you to set aside your political ideology and to fight your leadership on this issue. We may disagree politically, but we are still American citizens. In the end, the rights you save may be your own.

Congressional Integrity

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly promised the American people a U.S. Congress that will be a stellar example of integrity and honesty. One wonders who she is trying to convince, the American public or herself. While it is true that the Republicans have had control of the House and Senate since 1996 and have had their share of ethical and criminal infractions, they still are more honest on balance than a Democrat. Sexual relations with interns in both the House and White House, stiffing the House Bank and Post Office, using publicly paid office staff as their personal slaves, and scouting out the bribes are all old Democrat tricks of the trade. While one could argue that I am speaking of the Democrats of old, some of the violations are recent.

John Conyers and the abuse of his office staff comes readily to mind. Mr. Conyers used his staff, paid for by your tax dollars, to run his personal errands, baby sit his kids, and various other things he should have either done himself or hired someone out of his own pocket to do. Speaker of the House Pelosi came down hard on Mr. Conyers and demanded that he say he is sorry. He has since apologized and is now back in the good graces of the House Speaker and will retain his appointment. Funny that you don’t hear much about how this was handled in the media, especially with Speaker Pelosi going on and on about the high moral character of the Democrats. I guess they are too busy watching the Republicans for infractions.

Then there is John Murtha, the most hawkish Democrat in Congress and also a victim of ABSCAM. Sure, he was a corrupt politician back in the day, but he got better. He was slated to be Pelosi’s right hand, but she does not have the pull in the House everyone thought she did. Had Mr. Murtha done more than simply sniff around looking for a bribe, he would be ineligible for a House Seat because he would be a hawkish felon.

But really, why should criminal behavior stop someone from serving their fellow citizens. Ted Kennedy for example has done well since he got rid of the body of Mary Jo Kapechne, not to mention his antics as a libertine and drunk. Fortunately for the American public when Teddy is gone, the Kennedy family will be well represented by the drunkard in the House that told the Capitol Police he was arriving to vote on a bill when he wrecked his automobile during the wee hours of the morning in order to avoid a DUI charge. He is currently off to rehab, but he will be back as soon as he dries out.

Then there is Robert Byrd, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who exemplifies the epitome of tolerance. Imagine that David Duke renounced his racist views and won a seat in the U. S. Senate as a Republican. What would be the likely reactions of the Democrats and the news media? I am sure that they would extend a warm welcome to him as he entered service in the Senate as they have done for Senator Byrd and not express outrage over his election and say mean things about him. Everybody deserves a second chance just like Bob Byrd right?

The Republicans claim the moral high ground and therefore must be held to a higher standard, but it is the sliding scale ethics of the Democrats that will eventually damn them in the eyes of the public and that is why Nancy Pelosi is currently sweating bullets. You see, Speaker Pelosi knows her own team and their thought process and while she will not dime them out, she is worried that she will have to pay for their transgressions. Her influence in the House is tenuous given that she could not carry John Murtha as her second in command. A failure to control the unethical behavior of her party colleagues could make her irrelevant in House politics. Personally, I believe that as soon as the euphoria has worn off the Democrats will return to their old habits. Why? Because far too many of the old school Democrats are still around and as we have observed with the Republicans, power has a corruptive effect. While the media may allow one or two to slip by, they cannot turn a blind eye to them all and retain the pretense of credibility.

As it now stands, the die is cast and we must wait and watch. The Democrats have promised a boatload of grand things to their constituents, but only time will tell if they actually deliver anything. Thus far, their bipartisan pledge has been swept away with the 100 hour legislative session in which the Republicans are not allowed to have any input in legislation. Ultimately, the public will decide if last November’s ballot was a mistake or a victory. However, a lot of damage can be done in two years before the electorate can speak again. Meanwhile, let’s see if Pelosi can go the distance.

I’m Not Really a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

Hollywood: the land of drugs, sex, alcohol, parties, and one hell of a lot of opinions regarding how the common people should live their lives. I don’t fault people for having a point of view, but when you take it upon yourself to represent yourself as an expert on a political topic of the day and render an “expert” opinion I think that you have crossed the line. For example, when so many farmers were being tossed off of their lands because of ill fortune, Cloris Leachman came to their aid to testify before Congress on the plight of the farmer. The obvious question here is, what in the nine hells does she know about farming? Would it not have been better to have a real farmer rather than actors speak about farming to Congress?

In addition to Ms. Leachman, there is Leonardo DiCaprio championing the cause of global warming. While he may drive a Prius and thereby take some of the gold out of the sheik’s pocket, he speaks as if he is a climatologist that has personally performed research in the field and arrived at Al Gore’s conclusions independently. DiCaprio is more the voice of doom than he ever was an actor. Thank God for sliding scale morals though, he was able to pocket a huge sum of cash for making commercials in Japan for fuel inefficient vehicles. Don’t run one outside of Japan though, or he will have his legal team send you a cease and desist. Then there is the grand old lady herself, Ms. Jane Fonda.

Hanoi Jane is a genuine Hollywood traitor. Why she was not tried as such is a mystery to me. She rapturously cavorted with an NVA antiaircraft gun crew and blatantly lied about the torture of prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton. Yet she was the daughter of Henry Fonda and so she did not have to worry about criminal proceedings when she returned home.

Her foray into communist politics as a sympathizer may have had an impact on her film career, but I was no fan of Barbarella anyway. She has since apologized for her actions in Vietnam, but the veterans of that war still have no love for her and I suspect that the feeling is mutual. Fortunately for the liberal left, Sean Penn has taken up the role of Hollywood traitor and continues the work that she abandoned. Mr. Penn does not relish his duties as did Ms. Fonda, but he is trying.

While each group has its share of fruitcakes, the Hollywood leftists seem to have far more than is average. Just off the top of my head there is: Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Ed Begley, Jr., Ed Asner, Tim Robbins, Ted Danson, George Clooney, and Rosie O'Donnell. Unfortunately, actors are not the only entertainers that suffer from an over inflated sense of self importance. Singers such as Barbara Streisand have made their mark as political activists as well. Unfortunately, she bears the same disdain for the common man as does the Hollywood elite. This was demonstrated when she uttered an obscenity during a concert at a member of the audience that challenged her political tirade in between songs. Never fear however, she apologized when the word about the incident became public. While her apology was insincere, she at least shut the media up about the issue.

Perhaps Hollywood and the music industry have it right after all. Consider that for 2006 Yahoo! posted the following results as the overall top searches for the year:

1. Britney Spears
2. WWE
3. Shakira
4. Jessica Simpson
5. Paris Hilton
6. American Idol
7. Beyonce Knowles
8. Chris Brown
9. Pamela Anderson
10. Lindsay Lohan

While the WWE and American Idol are TV shows, the rest are actors and singers. Britney Spears is not only a singer, but a girl who detests underwear, is in the number one spot. She is also a current favorite of photographers and celebrity porn sites. Regardless, it is our attraction to these people that gives them their money and influence. We buy tickets to their performances, purchase their marketed products, buy their DVDs, and dutifully sigh whenever their names are mentioned.

None of the above makes any of them an expert on anything except entertaining. Just because someone has a lot of money and entertains you, it does not mean that they can give you sage advice on the troubles of the world. If anything, these people are hypocrites. They have railed against the evils of violence and yet they still make violent movies, TV shows, and songs in order to part you from your hard earned cash. In my book, that makes them intellectual whores and when was the last time you asked a whore for an opinion on a social issue or political position?

Hollywood’s message is beginning to be heard loud and clear by the public at long last and the public is beginning to tire of it. That is one of the reasons why Hollywood ticket sales are in the toilet and people have begun to switch off their TV’s. Nothing is worse than being unable to enjoy a show or a program because one of its actors cannot be separated from a ludicrous social or political position. By keeping their mouths shut and their noses out of public affairs, they can finally achieve some of that privacy they have been whining about and avoid leaving a bad taste in the mouths of their fans.