This site was created by Winky & Wifey Finkerbean Ink {a division of carrjeremy} and it was Made with Xara products  This is a simple manifesto of what I believe and what I defend in both my political party and my ideology. It is for the most part historically accurate, and is required reading before I will engage in ideological talk with those that oppose my viewpoints. In general it disclaims the basics that apply the "hater" tag to me through ignorance, and makes it easier for my self righteousness, when I choose to ignore infantile arguments. I DO NOT spend my valuable time going over these basic issues with people who just like to argue. Thank you for your support or lack there of ... The Madman Behind The Curtain {aka ... The Crow} I have been getting a lot of attacks lately on my views on Democrats as opposed to Republicans, with the turn around being that they want to change Liberal to Conservative. I can see where the horribly misinformed would want to change this around but there is a HUGE difference between a party and an ideology. Party's have platforms, and this has gone on since the original party's which were conveniently enough the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Federalists had a platform that was very simple, a Federal Government, and it was made up of the people that fought the war for Independence with the dream of a Federal Government. The Anti-Federalists were for the separate states remaining as their own government without any federal intervention. Simple enough right? At the same time you had two different ideologies which were the Conservative {meaning wanting to conserve what was already in place, or basically what the Anti-Federalists wanted} and Liberal {meaning open minded or wanting to change or basically what the Federalists wanted} and because the whole system was new then the ideologies changed very fast. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton who was furious that he had fought a war for a new country just to have a bunch of Aristocratic Statesmen try and force everyone back into a state centric ideology, was actually very liberal. He pushed for federal banking, and repayment of war debts, and many other things that were horribly unpopular. They were so unpopular that the conservatives formed an actual party to work against the Federalists called the Democratic-Republicans, and led by Thomas Jefferson. They were very conservative, and were very upset with the liberal views of Alexander Hamilton in particular. When George Washington retired, and the electorate barely elected John Adams, there were a lot of established norms. These norms had been in effect for less than eight years but they were established all the same. John Adams immediately became the conservative, and so did the Federalists. Thomas Jefferson became the liberal as he was hellbound to reform a lot of the Federalist policies that he hated. After four years of Adams, Jefferson became president and the Democratic-Republicans became the majority party. Not bad for twelve years of constitutional republic huh? Thomas Jefferson despite a lot of revisionism, was a terrible president. The first notable thing that happened under Jefferson was that women and free blacks lost the right to vote in most states {and look it up if you think I'm full of it} and I am still rather sad over the complete lack of education on this. Jefferson was a complete elitist in his thinking and wanted only white, male, land owners to vote. He didn't abolish the vote for free black and women, but because he supported it the states {that were taken over by the Democratic- Republicans} created those laws themselves. I should point out that at THAT time it was a liberal policy as it wasn't “the norm” and was a “progressive” change. I would also like to remind everyone that the Democratic-Republicans later dropped the “Republican” part of their name and simply became known as “Democratic” party. Now with that being said, the Democrats dominated politics for a good number of years. By the time the civil war had come along, ALL policies were created and owned by the Democrats, and to be for any Democrat policy meant that you were conservative. Any other party for the most part was liberal as it wasn't the norm. To defend slavery automatically made you a conservative, and it WAS completely a part of the Democratic Party platform. The Federalists over time had fallen into a party known as Whigs which came from the word “Whiggam” which was originally an insult in Scotland. It loosely means poor disheveled trash, but has more often been translated into the term “Redneck.” The Whigs in England {who were for letting America have their independence} took the term as meaning they were “For the People” which is always a theme in politics. American Whigs were very liberal except for one issue, they were pro-slavery, or at best wouldn't take a stand on it. In the end the average Whig left the party to become Republicans. They had a lot of the old but outmoded Party issues of the Federalists {Capitalist, Federal Reservists} with the most liberal of all ideas, abolitionism. It was a part of the party platform despite the fact that Abraham Lincoln {the first republican president} didn't outwardly support abolitionism, he was perfectly fine with it, or wouldn't have even gotten the nomination. The party platforms only change when they get outmoded! When the Republicans completely abolished slavery, and voted in universal male suffrage {as in all men black or white could vote} it all became a moot point. Slavery was outmoded, and there was no “Slavery” platform any more. It was no longer a conservative or liberal issue, and as the years went on the Republicans, like the Democrats before them had completely initiated all of their policies. Capitalism, Federal Reserve, Continental Railways, and so many other things I am not going to list them all, had simply become the new norm. Thus, the Republicans had to become the conservatives during the times when the Democratic Party seized power from them. Aside from some truly liberal battiness from Teddy Roosevelt {Federal Land grabs, Instigating the bad treaties with Russia that caused Pearl Harbor, Forced Labor Unions, and other crap that Moonbat McCain loves the guy for} most Democrats were liberal for quite a time when they managed to get into the big white house. Now I will not say that “slavery” is a time honoured tradition in the Democratic party, but what I will say is that slavery has NEVER been a part of the Republican party. The same applies for equal rights for not just blacks but for women. Regardless of the liberal or conservative slant that the Republicans have had at what time in history, universal suffrage for both blacks and women have been key Republican issues, while on the same note have at times been key Democratic issues to oppose them. I do not say that either party embraces either concept now because it is an established norm. The Republicans since the days of their Federalist beginnings have been pro capitalism, and the Democrats have been anti-capitalism. In general the Democratic- Republicans and on down were started and maintained based on Anti-Capitalist beliefs, and more over the the promotion of complete and utter freedom {women and blacks} are a means to that end. The Democrats, had never had to worry about such issues as anti-capitalism thrives better with imposed rules based on gender and race. Their current concepts of socialist ideals also tend to create these rifts based on access to current freedoms and liberty. Even when they create “more equal” status in the name of liberty, all they really do is place races, and genders into categories that can be exploited by charismatic leaders who will take away the voices of the people they supposedly “support.” A long string of Democratic victories brought along the father of modern day conservatism {sorry folks not Reagan} Barry Goldwater. Later on the farthest of the right wing would start relabeling him a “Libertarian” but in reality his conservative revival was based on the most important of the Republican planks, the assault on capitalism. Goldwater {despite revisionism} was extremely pro rights for everyone. He also was pro-choice, which technically by today's standards would be the norm, and shouldn't be considered a liberal viewpoint as it is what IS the law. Even though I fancy myself a conservative, I often separate the distinction that I am liberal on abortion because I am firmly AGAINST it. This being that abortion is the law and I wouldn't want to “conserve” that. At the time Goldwater would have been a liberal on that view. Down the road, the average Democrat was using such things as “War Mongery” to beat up on Goldwater while Johnson was escalating an un-winnable war in Vietnam. It's funny how easily the outlook on conservative and liberal gets skewed. By today's standards a “conservative” is in the fight to save capitalism, promote the equality of all through liberty, and not through penning of extra regulatory laws. A “conservative” fights for the power of the American military as a force against tyranny around the world. Conservative is the term used for anti-abortion folks but that is, in my opinion the wrong way to look at it as abortion IS the law. The standards of “liberalism” are for changing the established norms. This would include removing capitalism, de-funding the military, and promoting greater legal actions against traditional liberty. In theory this is not a bad thing if it is what you believe but knee-jerkism on either side is dangerous. The liberals in this country tend to be taking an axe to the doorways of every fundamental liberty that we have left in the idealism of “the greater good” and to compare that form of liberalism to the forms that were going on during the Civil War is “fair” but disingenuous if comparing them as absolute “sameness” for they are not. This is where the party system interjects itself. Republican conservatism or liberalism throughout history has either been placed on the plank of complete freedom or capitalism. Democratic conservatism or liberalism has either been placed on the plank of less freedom or lack of capitalism. We can paint it all with a very broad brush and call Republicans “near anarchists” and Democrats “near socialists” and that would be a fair assessment. Sometimes the Anarchy of Republican Capitalism can create rifts between the classes as some get rich and some get poor. The Republicans would seek to defend {conservative or liberal} that at least we all have the opportunity to be either, and hope to promote the better. The Democratic plank has always been based on the attitude that human life is unfair and someone needs to even the odds. The basic argument that Republicans still have against Democrats is that their policies promote these separations and in the end makes them tragic, and inevitable. The point of who did what throughout history is steeped in party politics not ideology, so to change the values of the argument is not an option I will fall into. ;8o) This article is Copyright © 2009 by The Crow's Nest .. You MAY repost this "entire" article anywhere you wish as long as the link to http://www.jeremycrow4life.com and the by line of "Jeremy Crow" are applied to the bottom of it. Please take some time to read the rest of this sicko's crap at http://blog.jeremycrow4life.com .. Thank You