Ol' BC first came to the RWRepublic in its infancy. Since then, he is without question the most loyal reader I have. Last night, he posted some interesting questions in the wake of the incredible waste of time that passed for a debate. There were, of course, largely obvious answers to all of them, so I figured, Why not ...

Do the Democrats who are running REALLY think they represent the views of a majority of Americans?

Yup. They think Americans are stupid socialist idiots who not only believe that they have no clue whatsoever how to run their own lives, but that they need a Barack the Schlock or a Hitlery to run it for them. They really believe that the backlash against President Bush is because he's a Republican and not because he's nearly as liberal as they are. Why else would they be promising all this stuff that no one really needs or wants?

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, do some of these candidates REALLY think the Islamic terrorists are just going to terrorize one another and leave the non-Muslims alone?

Worse. They think the terrorists will cease to be terrorists and live quiet, happy lives sitting around campfires singing "Kum Ba Ya". They think that only Americans are capable of greed and selfishness and that making everyone's situation the same (poverty by force if necessary) will lead to peace. They think that they are the only people who are capable of making anyone happy, and that even the terrorists will "see the light" if only we just appease them (Neville Chamberlain was unfortunately unavailable for comment).

How are the deaths of those in the Darfur region different than the hundreds of thousands of deaths of Arabs and Kurds under Saddam Hussein?

In one very important, but nonetheless rather irrelevant way. What's going on in Darfur is actually a bona-fide Civil War, unlike anything we've seen in Iraq.

Pro-choice versus Pro-life, what's with the exceptions? If I was born in 1955 or 1975 as the result of a pregnancy by rape or incest or if my mother died during childbirth, am I less of a person than the majority of the other people? If not, why the exceptions? Is a fetus a life or not at conception? At one month? At two months? Are most pro-lifers only part time?

Every American grapples with this issue, whether pro-life or pro-child murder. No child is any less a person just because he/she is still in the womb. The reason we make exceptions has to do with violation of the rights of the mother. It's very difficult to reconcile this. If it is clear that the mother is going to die from carrying the baby to term (an EXTREMELY RARE situation), then her God-given right to life is threatened, and we have a responsibility to protect it. How do we also protect the baby's similar God-given right? At this time, we are in the unfortunate position of not having any idea. In the interests of preserving her family unit, and with the understanding that one of these very important people (the mother or the baby) is going to die, we make a choice as to whom we save. In choosing to save the mother, we preserve her ability to bring more children into the world in the future, and we save her family from the emotional and economic disaster that might have followed. Nonetheless, we grieve the loss of the child.

As to rape and incest, we make these allowances as a peace offering to the pro-murder crowd. Of course, it's gotten us nowhere. The Constitution Party states that we shouldn't be punishing the child for the sins of his/her father, but if a woman has not consented to the act, then should she be considered to have consented to the pregnancy? Conversely, doesn't it solidify the pro-life position if the position is taken that by consenting to an act that is known to have pregnancy as a consequence, one has consented to the resulting pregnancy?? After all, that is precisely the position taken by those who advocate a woman killing her baby and simultaneously advocate forcing a father to finance a child's life against his will should the mother choose life.

What happened to the specific powers granted to the federal government in the constitution? I missed the entire education and healthcare section. There has been a lot of talk about heaping on more and very little about rescinding any. What about all others being reserved for the states? Eerie silence.

Those specific powers are still there, along with a slew of others that have been added illegally by those elected to office with the consent of their constituents. This question is truly what the New Federalism seeks to address. America needs a wake-up call.

Do that many of the candidates REALLY think that if they grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in this country no more are going to sneak in?

Nope. They know all too well what will happen - and it's exactly what they want. Face it, with all of their support of killing off babies that could have been voting for liberal candidates, they're running out of people to vote for them. It's happening a lot faster than they anticipated. Liberals need a new constituency, and if they can import one, all the better for them. Do you really think they are fighting this hard so that these people can vote for conservatives??? If these people seriously cared about bringing more people into the prosperity that is America, they'd be falling all over themselves trying to get large numbers of Israelis to move here so that the terrorists could have the land they want. Why isn't THAT happening??

It's not happening because Israelis generally would be voting in favor of fighting off terrorists, lowering taxes, and bringing government back to within its legal limits. They are largely well-educated and well-off. Those they are trying to get your heart to bleed over are largely neither. They're not looking for people who will be independent. They are looking for people who will need liberals for their well-being.

Have that many of the candidates forgotten that learning English opened doors to success for millions of Germans, Italians, Israelis and scads of others for years and years?

Nope. The problem is that they don't want those doors to be opened. They want the doors closed so that they can have their little dependency class and force you and me and the rest of America to pay for it.

Why weren't signs and information printed in eighteen languages for all those years if it is that critical?

Because it's not critical at all...

Could it actually hold people back and keep them living at a subsistence level?

That is precisely the point, and it's exactly why there is a move on to force every language but English on all of us. I'm not saying that English is what makes people successful. What I'm saying is that English, by sheer luck of the draw, has been the language of successful people. To be successful in the world today, you ALMOST HAVE TO surround yourself with English-speaking people. Telling those who would otherwise do this that it's ok not to ultimately slows their success, which is exactly what the liberals want. People who claim to be the smartest people in the world can't possibly be stupid enough to ignore these facts.

Do people REALLY think that catering to a Palestinian state, whose sole mission in life is the eradication of Israel, is going to lead to peace in the region?

Nope. If they did, they'd be inviting scores of successful Israelis to naturalize as Americans. The real problem is that they are more ideologically inclined with the Islamofascist philosophy espoused by the terrorists than they are with the more liberty-minded philosophy of the Israelis.

How about if that Palestinian state is on land that was previously Israel and is presently adjacent to Israel?

All the more reason to eradicate it, in their opinion. These people value freedom, but only for themselves. Everyone else, including you and I, is expected to take orders from them, Constitution be damned.

Maybe I've been listening to Sage a little too much, but I doubt it. Just because I have this cynical outlook on liberals doesn't mean I'm not an optimist. America's brightest days are ahead; I'm convinced of that. Still, we must overcome these very dark times when many among us would surrender our constitutional rights and succumb to a socialist regime just because they're too lazy or ignorant to stand up and fight.

RWR