WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSERVATIVE AND A PROGRESSIVE

            Following two weeks of constant bombardment by the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention attacking their opposing nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the American people are faced with one question. What now? Who should they elect as President of the United States and why?

            Based on the language of both parties this choice might seem a bit confusing. Both parties claim to hold to the idea that professing to be “progressive” or “conservative” spells out their political philosophy and where they intend to lead our country. Their ideas are incorporated by their past actions and beliefs and both claim to have the solution to America’s needs. Unfortunately this isn’t exactly true.

The Republican Party heralds itself as “conservative” while the Democrats prefer the label of “progressive.” The difference between the two can’t be more startling.

            According to the Webster’s New World College Dictionary the word “conservative” is listed as “…tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist  or oppose changes in politics.” For the most part the party does adhere to these principles. Some of their beliefs include small government (although they never seem able to accomplish much in that line), spending limits (again nothing—look at both of the George Bush’s tax increase records), less government intrusion (Patriot Act and other laws reflecting on freedom), and much more.  It seems whenever either party takes office nothing really changes. Yet the word “conservative” still maintains its place as secure without redefinition.

And so the Democratic “progressive” label is also up for examination.

The same dictionary states the word progressive means “continuing by successive steps,” “increasing as the base increases,” “favoring or working for, or  characterized  by progress or improvement,” and much more. You need to look up both definitions for a more defined example.

For years the Democrats referred to themselves as “liberal.” But over time this title was tarnished and identified with (at least to most average Americans) outrageous policies and laws. For starters abortion was included in their agenda as a benefit to women. Yet a review by various polling agencies today indicates that most Americans are opposed to the law. Welfare is another example; liberals believe that it is government’s responsibility to provide everything from housing, clothing, medical coverage, cel phones and whatever else in their opinion is needed. One thing lacking however, is there is no demand that welfare recipients get a job.

Finally there is the idea of individual responsibility. This reverts to the 1960’s hippy movement where “…if it feels good do it!” mentality. Consequently any sense of morality or what is considered right or wrong or of drug use, is now considered outdated by the progressive thinking person.

It was a few years ago that conservative radio commentator Glenn Beck warned that the liberals were going to change their identification from “liberal” to “progressive.” Sure as heck he was right. In only a few months’ later liberals were referring to themselves as progressives. Why make the difference in label? Simply it is only a question of semantics one would think. But that isn’t the real answer.

The liberal was beginning to look like a radical misfit. And based on their trend towards issues and ideas that were once regarded anathema perhaps such an accusation was merited. As a result the word “progressive” took on a new meaning.

But the adoption of the word has several ramifications. And a lot of these ramifications are designed to destroy the very fabric of our culture.

Words mean something. Take the word “gay” as one example.

There was a time when someone referred to being gay meant that they were lively, happy and joyous. And then the word was hijacked by the homosexual community the word has now taken on a disgusting connotation. How much these folks enjoy such an emotional dysfunction using this word isn’t borne out by the facts. The number of suicides among those afflicted with this disorder is high compared with others who suffer from depression. But if you put the tag “gay” on such behavior it puts on the false idea that such activity is “normal” and acceptable. It wasn’t until a few years ago that the “progressive” psychiatrists association deemed homosexual behavior not abnormal.

That’s being progressive.

In other areas progressives take pride in the changes of morality such as including couples cohabiting without being bound in marriage. In the past children of these relationships were referred to as “bastards,” but not so today. Such non-unions are only addressed as a “choice.” There is no shame in illicit activity since there is no contract (civil or religious) to bind a person to another. And, as stated, this attacks the very fiber of our culture. Again, this is another example spouted by “progressives.”

“Progressives” also seem to believe that the legalization of drugs as marijuana has some beneficial result. Getting stoned for recreational use, they say, is no different than using alcohol. This idea would seem more appropriate to those who come to such a conclusion after puffing on a couple of reefers. Any mind altering drug is a hazard not only to the person taking part but those surrounding them as well. Talk to some of the mothers of MADD.

It doesn’t take much spin to change someone’s ideas about most things. Consequently the battle between the Conservatives and the Progressives continues. Where it all will lead is anybody’s guess. After watching the conventions and listening to the various speakers—including Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump—and then hearing the analysis of various alleged news casters you couldn’t help if you were tuned in on the same channels or not! To be honest this writer cannot plead to be non-partial. If I am to be labeled then I would have to admit I could never be called a “progressive.”

DOES YOUR WORD MEAN SOMETHING?

            By giving your word you put your integrity, character, honesty and honor on the line. When you violate your word you trash all the rest. Such is the case with noted politicians.

            Early in the nomination selection for the President of the United States 17 Republican candidates took a pledge to support the nominee of the Republican Party. Of the 16 seeking the nomination—all professional politicians, they sought to have such a pledge mandated for one purpose only and that was to control Donald J. Trump.

            It was feared that Trump, being Trump, would bolt from the Republican Party and run on a third party ticket. By making such a pledge supporting the eventual nominee, it was believed that Trump would fade into the sunset and not interfere with those who have made politics their own private power source. This power controls everything else including money (and who gets it), control of peoples’ lives, laws that benefit only those who support the ideals of those who wish to maintain their personal treasure and comfort among other things. The idea of the “little people” sounds great but in reality the true idea is to keep the multitude under the thumb of government. And it is government that these professional politicians cherish.

            But lo and behold, Trump didn’t fade into the sunset. One by one he knocked off each of the 16 rivals and emerged with the big prize—the Nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States!

            And so it came about that several of the former nominee seekers who demanded that a promise to support the eventual nominee decided that their word meant nothing.

            Governor John Kasich of Ohio made it clear that he would not support Trump even though he prided himself as a signer of the promise to support the eventual nominee. Petulantly he would not even attend the RNC convention held in his hosting state. Apparently he prefers sitting in the State Capital and suck his thumb. For many of us who once thought he would make a marvelous candidate since he excelled in leadership as both as a United States Congressman and governor in his own state, we are now disappointed that he would abdicate his word and adopt the lower ground.

            And there is Jed Bush. Again we believed him a good and truthful man worthy of nomination. Unfortunately he has shown his true colors. As a Bush he apparently believed that the nomination for the Presidency was his and his alone since his brother and father once held the office. He like the others, also decided that his world meant nothing. As a consequence he also turned his back on all the qualities that make an honest person keep their word.

            From the offshoot Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, made no bones about his hatred of Donald Trump. His attacks were personal and cutting. He seems to forget that he never was considered an effective presidential candidate by the people. He like the others decided to pick up his marbles and leave the playing field rather than endorse his chosen enemy. As a professional politician he believes an amateur as Trump isn’t worthy to run for the nation’s highest office. Whereas Trump embraces love of country Graham centers his love on holding public office. And what has he and his professional political colleagues in the U.S. Senate delivered? It seems very little.

            And finally there is Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. His performance at the RNC Convention can only be described as hypocritical. He also signed the pledge to support the selected Republican nominee. He also, like the others above decided that his word meant nothing.

            But like Kasich he was playing a card game of his own. He, like Kasich, believed that if they could deny Trump the number of pledged delegates needed for a first ballot nomination they could sweep in and wrestle the nomination from Donald Trump. Both counted on a “brokered convention,” and both were proved wrong. To their dismay it didn’t happen. The one thing both of these men forgot was the overwhelming support of the American people who are tired of the broken promises of the professional politicians who use their own cushy offices to satisfy their own egos and lofty interests.

            So now the RNC Convention has closed and the troops are returning to their home states in preparation of a bruising showdown between Trump and Hilary Clinton, the ordained Democratic nominee.

            Next week the Democrat National Convention convenes and you can bet it will be fulfilled with unbelievable promises and attacks on Trump whether the facts are true or not.

            In comparing the candidates as objectively as possible the difference between the two couldn’t be more diametrically opposed. Trump, the amateur politician has performed incredible success in the business world. Many will cite his brutal negotiation skills as a defect. Perhaps, however, this is what is needed when talking to our enemies.

            As far as his being “bought” forget it. Not only did he personally fund much of his own campaign he faced every bigoted inquiry by television and radio interviewers without resorting to speaking in political dodge-the-question gibberish. His wealth protects him from influence from lobbyist who has taken over most of our government representatives. He is a straight talker who shoots from the hip—a quality that makes a lot of politicians nervous. But one thing for sure, he is respected as a person who gets the job done.

            Clinton’s baggage is well known. There isn’t enough room in this column to list her defects both personally and professionally. For her corruption and dishonesty both are linked as one. Like Jeb Bush she believes she is entitled to the office of the Presidency of the United States of America.

            This column once stated that there is no one more obtuse than the average American voter. Perhaps this election in November will prove this point to be right. Hopefully we will be proved wrong.

LIVING A DOG'S LIFE

            If you are wondering why we didn’t post a column last week the answer is simple: We were living a dog’s life!

            Our son, David and our daughter-in-law Barb flew out to take part in the United Kennel Club Washington Classic dog show held at Auburn, Washington, over the Fourth of July weekend.  Dave is a professional UKC judge and he, along with five other professional judges, was flown out to judge the event. Since he and Barb live in Cincinnati, Ohio, this was the perfect opportunity to get together. Also, it was the first professional dog show either my better-half and I ever attended.

            The show was held on a 20-acre site designed especially for dog shows. Called “the Argus Ranch,” it was sponsored by the Puget Sound K-9’s. The ranch has hosted the event for the past 11 years and along with the Washington Classic they a

Winning  Firsr Place Blue Ribbon in the Sub-Junior
  Division is Lucas Merrill, 5,
of Portland, Oregon and his English Bulldog

lso hold training and dog competitions that attract over 3,000 attendees annually said Holly Leale, owner of the facility.

            The event covered three days and attracted over 250 exhibitors as far away as Texas, Colorado, California, Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Montana and Canada. It was one of the most interesting and fun-filled events I ever covered. Having our son judge in the event was even more exciting.

            Dave and Barb own “Aircastle Kennel’s,” and specialize in breeding, training and showing standard poodles. In addition both are also professional groomers and judges. Barb judges for the American Kennel Club. There is a big difference in participation and philosophy between the two clubs.

            The UKC is the second oldest dog registry in the United States and includes members from all 50 states and 25 foreign countries. It was founded in 1898 by Chauncey Z. Bennett who believed that other existing registries placed too much on “show” rather than the dog. Consequently he formulated a registry that places emphasis on a dog’s performance as well as quality of breed.

            The dog show hobby is known chiefly as a sort. But like many other sports it attracts those with big bucks. Bennett also believed that clubs as the American Kennel Club puts too much emphasis on confirmation only (dogs looks) than a dogs performance. That's when he came up with the idea of “the total dog.” In addition it is the owner who shows their dog in the ring unlike the AKC that features professional dog handlers.

            In addition there is also the “sub-junior” program that has handlers as young as four-years old (assisted by an adult) show their pups in the ring. “These are the future trainers and handlers of the future,” said JoAnne Mulligan, secretary of the event.

            Bennett’s idea took root and today The UKC shows are designed to promote a dog’s intelligence, working ability as well as its conformation of breed. Their events include not only the quality of a breed but also how it performs in events as obedience and agility. Programs include rally obedience, weight pull events, jumping and obstacle trials among other specialty programs.

            But what is special about the club’s events is many programs allow mixed breed dogs to compete as well.

            The obstacle trial event is a classic example. The course is laid out with jumps, a tunnel shaped in a “U”, a swinging bridge and slide and a row of poles that require the dog to run through them from left to right. Missing a pole is a disqualification. The run is timed and a dog must hit every obstacle perfectly to gain points. What was remarkable was the first dog to perform was a five-time champ of mixed breed. He went through the course like lightning. “Well, there’s the winner,” I thought. Several other dogs also ran the course and some didn’t finish as hoped by their owner.

            Then, the last to perform was a little white poodle.

            The other dogs were mid-size and this little guy was a lot smaller. What chance did it have? A couple of minutes later we found out! The pup shattered the time and didn’t miss one obstacle winning first place.

            With dogs as large as Great Danes to Chihuahua’s small enough to put in a women’s purse, there were other breeds commonly known to everyone. Terriers, retrievers, Sheppard’s, bull dogs and others that you couldn’t pronounce their names. The Best of Show included a long-hair Chihuahua and Basenji pup from Africa.

            So how much is spent for one of these dogs? It was reported one show dog that was  purchased in China went for $30,000! When you take in the cost of an animal that expensive you also have to take into account the upkeep and vet bills. Our son who owns 11 standard poodles along with Barb’s Dobermans, they spend up to $4,000 a month on feed and veterinarian bills. Fortunately both are groomers and can prepare their mutts for show themselves.

            For dog lovers shows like this are a must. The people were great and everyone was encouraging and the dogs themselves seemed to be having the time of their life. Frankly I didn’t know how interesting such an event would be but I will tell you one thing. We can’t wait until next year!