The New Copperheads

The more things change the more they stay the same. The left-wing blogosphere and other radicals of the Democratic Party are nothing more than the old Copperheads of the American Civil War rearing their heads to strike and poison the American body politic, which would weaken it so badly that we could not fight the enemy that wishes to covert us to their tyrannical ideology or kill us.

The Copperheads of the Civil War were anti-war Democrats of the old Jacksonian order. They claimed to love liberty and defend the Constitution while the press was allowed to abuse their rights and to abdicate their responsibilities in doing so. They were racists that did not care to see black slaves freed. They thought of Lincoln as a tyrannt and a warmonger in the back pocket of the abolitionist. They idealized the old order, believing that a utopia of peace and tranquility was but around the corner, if things would just be allowed to continue as they were, under their control.

The Copperheads of the 21st Century are anti-war Democrats of the old Rooseveltian order. They claim to love liberty and defend the Constitution while allowing the ACLU and NY Times to abuse their rights and to abdicate their resposibilities in doing so. They are racists that do not care to see Arabs set free from the slavery of Islam. They think of Dubya as a tyrannt and a warmonger in the back pockets of the Jewish neocons. They idealize the old order, believeing that a utopia of peace and tranquility is just around the corner, if things would be allowed to continue as they were, under their control.

If we can weather this storm, the 21st Century Copperheads will be just like the Civil War Copperheads. On the ashheap of history. But, as in 1862 & 1864, the election of 2006 & 2008 will be the most defining in American History. Will we continue to be that shining city on a hill? Will we be that government of, by, and for the people? Or will we be subjected by a religion that allows men to rob us of the freewill that God has graciously imbued us with?

Lennon vs Cowboy Foreign Policy

It seems the underlying philosophy of the Democratic (liberal) foreign policy is the John Lennon song "Give peace a Chance". It's as if they want peace at any cost, to include the loss of life and liberty ("Better Red than Dead"). Neville Chamberlain wanted peace in his time. Unfortunately, it was not peace on his terms.

The Republican (conservative) foreign policy philosophy is that of the mythical American cowboy, the marshal of the old west. A man of honor and integrity who is willing to give and take. A man whose word is his bond. A man who is always willing to use diplomacy, even diplomacy by violence. Peace is bought with a price and is on his terms, not his enemies.

Peace for peace's sake is no peace at all. The people that are given over to the evil nature of humanity will use peace to build up and wage war against those they consider weaker than them. They will use promises of peace to gain an advantage over their foes. Peace is that last thing they want as long as their enemy has hope and a spirit of freedom that these evil men want to crush so that they can enslave these masses to their will. Then the peace of slavery is all people will ever know.

Peace for liberty's sake is a true peace. A peace that brings joy. A peace that is on win-win terms that everyone can enjoy. This peace does not come cheap and most be guarded jealously from evil people who want power for the sake of power. They want a utopia for themselves at the expense of anyone that does not share in their utopian view.

In the fight we are engaged in against Islam is one where we must choose to have liberty's peace or slavery's peace. Apologist of Islam say that it is a religion of peace. This is false. It is a religion of pacification. The leaders of this religion want to have infidels as second class citizens, women as property, and new converts as cannon fodder to build themselves a heaven on earth where all their wants and desires are fulfilled. They care about nothing but their own appetites. For any individual to have peace on Islam's terms must convert, become apart of the Dhimmitude (second-class) within Islamic society under sharia law, or die. If we have our motto "All we are saying, is give peace a chance", then we only have these three decisions.

If we want liberty's peace, we had better be willing to water the tree of liberty with the blood of our enemies. Unfortunately, the blood of patroits will also nurish that tree. It's needed, lest we esteem liberty to cheaply or treat our enemies with contempt.

Peace with Islam must be on our terms, our terms only. These terms are more than generous. They are far better than what we would get from them. However, they need to not merely taste defeat, but have a steady and consistant diet of it until our terms are more palettable than a life with death and hell ever looking over their shoulder.

Sports Socialism?

Art Modell owner of the NFL's B-more Ravens said that NFL owners "(are) 26 Republicans who vote Socialist!" The CBA agreements and profit sharing of TV and merchandising revenue is a bit socialistic in a way. But if one looks at it, you must realize that all pro-sport teams are not just competing against other teams in their own leagues for money. They're competeing against all various entertainment outlets for despendable dollars in the consumers' hands.

Communism as a national economic system does not work, but when done on a voluntary basis with known contractual expectations that apply to all as a part of a greater capitalist economy, it can be profitable and stable for all concerned.

CBAs of the NBA, NFL, and now NHL have salary caps place on teams. Each have their loopholes (some large, others very small and tight), but these caps have brought a parity of play within these leagues, which makes the entertainment value on the surfaces of play worth watching and following season after season. While MLB's 'luxury tax' make an attempt at implementing a salary cap it falls short, because large market teams can still lure stars and future stars from smaller markets. They pay the 'tax' and the dominance of the large markets continues.

The profit sharing of TV revenue and team merchandise is another leveler of the financal field within sports leagues. It's how the Green Bay Packers can survive in a town of 100,000 against teams in markets like Chicago, New York, and the Bay area of California. Why do the Yankees dominate baseball? They have lucrative TV contracts and keep much of the revenue from their merchandise. They have the money to attract talent to dominate on the field.

Most people of a capitalist mindset would ask, "What's wrong with that?" The problem is that in competive sports leagues you need other teams to compete against. If smaller market teams start go bankrupt and fold entirely, people in those markets are less likely to follow that sport and the league as a whole suffers. Hockey and baseball nearly saw the folding of franchises, because these leagues are ran on a feudal system of goverance. Each team is a vassel state with its own territory. Some of these states dominate the other, because of better access to resources and dominate the king and kingdom. The weaker states cannot strengthen themselves and the king (the commissioner and/or the league governing body) will not intervene (they like the status quo) or cannot intervene (the domineering teams are in control). It leaves the whole of the league in a weakened condition, because they compete against each other instead of other leagues for the sports-entertainment dollar.

Football has strong teams in a broad range of markets, because they run the league on a federal system. While each state is sovereign unto itself, each state voluntarily gives up a portion of their power and rights to ensure the strength and vitality of the whole. This is why football has skyrocketed in popularity since the sharing of TV revenue and the salary cap. The season is never a fore-gone conclusion. Teams that look good on paper have collapsed and the underdogs have gone on to the Super Bowl.

Hockey has started to come on board with the NFL model. If they can get a good, national (American) TV contract and can start producing ratings, they will find greater financal success.

Sports leagues and their teams will thrive if they realize they are competing against all forms of entertainment and not merely against each other.