The Difference between Radicals and Moderates, Circa 2010

Kyle-Anne Shiver
Pop quiz question for Election Day:  What's the difference between a radical and a moderate in 2010?

Answer:  INSIGHT.

Radicals have it; moderates don't.

Socialist radicals of the Democrat variety understand that their tyrannical power-play to transform America into a socialist democracy like those failing across the pond is at stake in this election.

American patriot radicals -- like the Liberty Boys of 1776 -- understand that the United States Constitution and the Republic which it codifies is on the line.

Two world views are colliding in America.  Only those without the insight to fully recognize this fact can lay claim to moderation, center-this or center-that. 

If one wishes to point to a leader for each side, then I'll say this election boils down to Palin Vs. Obama, or Real American Vs. Citizen of International Socialism (the world).

What we have here are two philosophies fighting to the death for the soul of America, each represented by one phenomenal public figure.

Barack Obama, in keeping with international socialists throughout the last century, has proclaimed himself loudly-and-clearly a "citizen of the world."  He conducted his entire campaign as a lecture to greedy, over-consuming Americans on the necessity of propping up the lagging third world and the inherent goodness of his redistributive plans for government.  That this message was apparently lost by mainstream American voters in the haze of media sycophancy, is a sad commentary on both our presumed independent press and the attention span of voters.  Nevertheless, Barack Obama's message was clear to sentient observers from the start of his campaign.

To Obama, America is the problem to the world, not the solution.  He hammered away consistently at his intention to
divvy up the American "pie" in international-socialist fashion, even while disingenuously peppering his talk with Reaganite calls for lowering taxes on the middle-class.  Even if folks missed some of his intentions, it should have been clear to all but the proverbial ostriches among us that Obama was declaring himself a citizen of the world when he actually made his "citizen-of-the-world" speech in Berlin.  Thronged by ogling, drooling, chanting Europeans on a celebrity campaign tour, Obama took great pains to paint himself as post-American.

And his first year in the presidency has demonstrated beyond doubt that Barack Obama is indeed anything but an all-American president.  From his
obsequious bowing, his kumbayah-to-the-world speech at the UN and his magnanimous granting of American civil rights to foreign terrorists, he has demonstrated again and again that America is nothing to him but a member state of the morally superior global community.

Which brings us to Sarah Palin, his arch-foe in the public psyche.

No, Mrs. Palin holds no public office.  She wields no genuine power in terms of armies or bureaucracies.  She is merely a private citizen.  But Sarah Palin has arisen from the ashes of electoral defeat as the embodiment of archetypal American values, beliefs, hopes and dreams.

At present, with a
"post-American" president at the helm, Sarah Palin carries the torch of liberty and American exceptionalism in the palm of her lovely hand.  She is the surviving embodiment of the spirit of 1776 and the Reagan reformation. She is at once the American phoenix and the shining city on the hill, captured in the imaginations of a people still yearning to be free and determined to strive for greatness, even if the rest of the world prefers to drown in mediocrity, corruption and defeatist socialist uniformity.

While it is easy to see Barack Obama and Sarah Palin as nothing but political adversaries in a nation grown weary with partisanship, that explanation defies the reality we see exhibited in the passions of their respective followers.

And Democrat radicals understand Palin's place clearly.  They've just run major ads proclaiming:  "Don't Let Palin Win," featured on the Drudge Report.

Whichever side one is on, the stakes are clear.  Nothing less than the soul of America is on the line.

Will we give up forever on the American dream and become nothing more than footnotes in the annals of failed international socialism?

Or will we see an American reformation that reestablishes individual liberty and ingenuity as moral imperatives worth fighting for and preserving for our progeny?

The stakes could not be higher.  And the archetypes, Palin and Obama, could not be clearer.  These two torch-bearers define an era in which fence-sitting is beyond the bounds of reason.

Two opposing world views are colliding.

And only one side can prevail.

So, to cling to the title, "moderate," while perched upon one's fence at this pivotal moment in history, seems akin to ignorance and cowardice personified. 

When your house is on fire, those who refuse to pick up a bucket of water are as guilty as those who lit the match that started the fire.
Pop quiz question for Election Day:  What's the difference between a radical and a moderate in 2010?

Answer:  INSIGHT.

Radicals have it; moderates don't.

Socialist radicals of the Democrat variety understand that their tyrannical power-play to transform America into a socialist democracy like those failing across the pond is at stake in this election.

American patriot radicals -- like the Liberty Boys of 1776 -- understand that the United States Constitution and the Republic which it codifies is on the line.

Two world views are colliding in America.  Only those without the insight to fully recognize this fact can lay claim to moderation, center-this or center-that. 

If one wishes to point to a leader for each side, then I'll say this election boils down to Palin Vs. Obama, or Real American Vs. Citizen of International Socialism (the world).

What we have here are two philosophies fighting to the death for the soul of America, each represented by one phenomenal public figure.

Barack Obama, in keeping with international socialists throughout the last century, has proclaimed himself loudly-and-clearly a "citizen of the world."  He conducted his entire campaign as a lecture to greedy, over-consuming Americans on the necessity of propping up the lagging third world and the inherent goodness of his redistributive plans for government.  That this message was apparently lost by mainstream American voters in the haze of media sycophancy, is a sad commentary on both our presumed independent press and the attention span of voters.  Nevertheless, Barack Obama's message was clear to sentient observers from the start of his campaign.

To Obama, America is the problem to the world, not the solution.  He hammered away consistently at his intention to
divvy up the American "pie" in international-socialist fashion, even while disingenuously peppering his talk with Reaganite calls for lowering taxes on the middle-class.  Even if folks missed some of his intentions, it should have been clear to all but the proverbial ostriches among us that Obama was declaring himself a citizen of the world when he actually made his "citizen-of-the-world" speech in Berlin.  Thronged by ogling, drooling, chanting Europeans on a celebrity campaign tour, Obama took great pains to paint himself as post-American.

And his first year in the presidency has demonstrated beyond doubt that Barack Obama is indeed anything but an all-American president.  From his
obsequious bowing, his kumbayah-to-the-world speech at the UN and his magnanimous granting of American civil rights to foreign terrorists, he has demonstrated again and again that America is nothing to him but a member state of the morally superior global community.

Which brings us to Sarah Palin, his arch-foe in the public psyche.

No, Mrs. Palin holds no public office.  She wields no genuine power in terms of armies or bureaucracies.  She is merely a private citizen.  But Sarah Palin has arisen from the ashes of electoral defeat as the embodiment of archetypal American values, beliefs, hopes and dreams.

At present, with a
"post-American" president at the helm, Sarah Palin carries the torch of liberty and American exceptionalism in the palm of her lovely hand.  She is the surviving embodiment of the spirit of 1776 and the Reagan reformation. She is at once the American phoenix and the shining city on the hill, captured in the imaginations of a people still yearning to be free and determined to strive for greatness, even if the rest of the world prefers to drown in mediocrity, corruption and defeatist socialist uniformity.

While it is easy to see Barack Obama and Sarah Palin as nothing but political adversaries in a nation grown weary with partisanship, that explanation defies the reality we see exhibited in the passions of their respective followers.

And Democrat radicals understand Palin's place clearly.  They've just run major ads proclaiming:  "Don't Let Palin Win," featured on the Drudge Report.

Whichever side one is on, the stakes are clear.  Nothing less than the soul of America is on the line.

Will we give up forever on the American dream and become nothing more than footnotes in the annals of failed international socialism?

Or will we see an American reformation that reestablishes individual liberty and ingenuity as moral imperatives worth fighting for and preserving for our progeny?

The stakes could not be higher.  And the archetypes, Palin and Obama, could not be clearer.  These two torch-bearers define an era in which fence-sitting is beyond the bounds of reason.

Two opposing world views are colliding.

And only one side can prevail.

So, to cling to the title, "moderate," while perched upon one's fence at this pivotal moment in history, seems akin to ignorance and cowardice personified. 

When your house is on fire, those who refuse to pick up a bucket of water are as guilty as those who lit the match that started the fire.