I live my life by the principles that I was taught in Sunday school as a child. These principles come from Christ: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," Luke 6:31; "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44); and taking care of the "least of these" (Matthew 25: 34-46). As far as I know Christ never left instructions to disregard these principles in a time of crisis. Just because I learned these principles as a child does not mean that these principles are the "childish ways" that Paul says that I am to put away as an adult (I Corinthians 13:11). 

Christ's point is that conflicts and disagreements can be resolved through non-violence. An eye-for-an-eye was declared null and void by Christ over 2,000 years ago (Matthew 5:39). One of the ways I try to accomplish Christ's commands is to "put myself in the other person's shoes." Usually, when I do this I can understand the other person's point of view.  However, with conservatives it all just falls apart on me because I simply cannot figure out what motivates them. I don't understand their goals and I do don't understand why their solution to all problems is to "kill it".

For all of their tough talk, the driving force behind the conservative's motives seems to be fear. They are afraid of everything. Come to think of it, this explains why they love guns so much; and the military; and really big bombs; and border fences and alarm systems. They assume that everyone is out to get them, their family and all of their stuff. Walking a mile in their shoes does me no good. When the walk is over and I turn to speak to them, there is a gun pointed in my face. They don't want to hear anything I have to say.

The burning question then is "why?"  Why are they so scared? They are armed to the teeth, in an alarmed house, behind a locked and gated fence, smack in the middle of the safest, strongest nation in the history of the world.  Most of them call themselves Christians which means even if they die they will spend eternity in Heaven. What and who do they fear?

It turns out that their greatest fear is "change".  This is just sad because the only constant in life is change. I cannot help them. I cannot ease their fears. I don't want to help them, because remaining steadfast in the past means that you don't want others to ascend to the success that you have had in this land or any other land for that matter. Conservatives don't want any change to mess up their happiness which is dependent upon conformity to a mythological America that only exists in their brains. Their fear is obviously driven by selfishness. Yuck! Who wants any part of selfishness?  How do you defend a selfish viewpoint? You form a group and charge it with keeping things the same and demand loyalty to the group as the highest priority. 

I don't recall Christ ever teaching that loyalty to a group was a principle by which to live my life. I don't recall Christ teaching me: to protect what is mine, to arm myself to the teeth, to fear and distrust everyone, to assume the worst of everyone or to put my needs ahead of all others.  I am not naïve; I know where conservatives get their selfish rationale.  I was brought up by those who adamantly believe that this selfish viewpoint is sanctioned by God. (A good read on the subject can be found at: http://www.thestoryofchristianity.com/a_conservative_christian_view_of_the_world.php

This general fear that pervades the conservative mentality drives them to crush principles that they do not possess and have no desire to understand.  The best example of this is the conservative belief that loyalty to the nation is a value. In a word, this is nationalism: love of the USA, protection of the homeland. Thus, anything (including the shattering of principles) that protects the homeland is acceptable and just.  Vigilance for the sake of the protection of the homeland becomes sacred for the conservative. You hear people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Pam Geller expound the virtues of hyper-vigilance.  

The odd part about this conservative logic is that they equate the protection of the homeland with freedom.  Anyone who is not hyper-vigilant is anti-freedom and anti-American. After witnessing the Bush II administration (wiretapping, torturing, suspension of due process of law, firing of justices who refused to go along with the administration, attacking weak nations on false premises) it is no stretch to suggest that conservatives would hand the country over to a dictator.  As long as that dictator put America first, saw to her total safety and rounded up and slaughtered all the liberals, conservatives would support a dictator.

This "logic" leads conservatives to blame liberals and their lack of hyper-vigilance for attempting to usher-in the conservative's greatest fear: "change".  Specifically, Pam Geller tried to argue that it was Germany's lack of vigilance that allowed the Nazi's to rise and change Germany (Wake up America !!! http://politicalzonenet.blogspot.com/2009/06/wake-up-america-by-pam-geller.html). Pam even says to check your history "look it up" she says. I did and the truth is that she has it backwards: it was hyper-vigilance that allowed the Nazi's to take over.

Does Pam, or anyone, really believe that a group as crazy as the Nazis could rise to power without support?  What would drive the German people to allow a hyper-nationalistic, political party to take over their country?  Fear and hatred of "outsiders" is the answer. Hyper-vigilance welcomed the Nazis to protect the people and allay their fears of non-Germans and to make Germany strong again. Germany had been decimated by the Great War and the Great Depression. The Nazis brought pride in being German back to the German people. The Nazis promised a strong united Germany that would no longer be Europe's patsy. The Nazis valued loyalty above all else: loyalty to Germany, loyalty to the "true" Germans. Devotion to a pure German race would produce an invincible nation. Loyalty to the Fatherland became the highest German value.

Lack of vigilance (laziness) did not lead to the rise of the brown shirts, the Nazis and Hitler. Nationalism and hyper-vigilance for the protection of the Fatherland ushered in the Nazis with open arms. The fear and distrust of anyone who was not an Aryan German ushered in the Nazis. German conservatives scapegoated their problems onto: Jews, gays, gypsies, blacks, and pacifists (aka liberals). Liberals, known then as pacifists, were blamed for German weakness. As Joseph Goebbels put it, "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for it." (Sound familiar America?) 

It is the protection of one's own and a fierce loyalty to country that drives people to desire the protection of a dictator. Liberals live by principles that rise above loyalty to a country. Conservatives cannot comprehend this concept because to them there is no greater value than loyalty to America, so they label liberals as disloyal and unpatriotic. What would Jesus do? He'd join the liberals because America is a country not a principle.

Conservatives would support a dictator if he would run the liberals out of the country and save America for the true and loyal Americans only. Conservatives welcome with open arms anyone that will put America first same as Germany welcomed the Nazis who put Germany first. Fear, paranoia and hate are the conservative's principles. Conservatives did not abandon Christ's principles, they NEVER had them and they do not understand his principles. Conservatives marginalize Christ's principles in favor of protection of their own kind.  Conservatives question the loyalty of others who do not feel the same way.

In her article, Pam Geller, never objects to the nationalistic zeal of the Nazis, but she does object to the people who didn't guard against the Nazi's change. Change is the problem in Pam's eyes, not nationalism.  Pam uses Nazism (whose main stance is extreme nationalism over principles) as an example of what will happen if we allow liberal change in America. Pam's solution to the problem then is to ridicule and rid America of liberals (whose main stance is principles over extreme nationalism). Pam Geller's answer for the suppression and removal of change is nationalism. Brilliant! However, the true German history lesson is that we need to guard against allowing nationalism to take over America. We need to do more as a people to guard against nationalism and live by sound principles. So, ok, we liberals will work harder to point out the destructive nature of nationalism, but what are you conservative nationalists going to do?  How far will conservatives go to resist the change that moves us toward principles and away from nationalism?

George Orwell wrote, "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."  The following is some of what Pam and her fellow conservatives are not hearing:

Conservatives on sacrificing principles:

Bill O'Reilly on sacrificing values for the protection of the homeland, Feb. 22, 2009: "I didn't like the line in his speech (Obama's inauguration address) about ‘we don't have to compromise our values to protect ourselves'. I think sometimes we do!" http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216561&title=Fox-News-Fear-Imbalance.

Conservatives on crushing liberals:

Rush Limbaugh speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 28, 2009: "To us (conservatives) ‘bi-partisanship' is them (liberals) being forced to agree with us after we have politically cleaned their clocks and beaten them." http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219518&title=CPAC-After-Party.

Conservatives on "Might makes Right":

"Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules!" From Wayne LaPierre CEO of the NRA speaking at the same 2009 CPAC event. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219518&title=CPAC-After-Party.

Which group is really comparable to the German Nazis?

Joseph Goebbles (German Nazi): "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for it."

Orrin Hatch (R Utah) August 2006: "Hatch says Democratic win could help terrorists" (Salt Lake Tribune 8-17-06). We heard this from many Republicans throughout the 2004 and 2006 election campaigns.

Joseph Goebbels, defending lying to the people: "…the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
And which US administration piled lie on top of lie because it defends lying to the people?

"We do not torture." George W. Bush Nov. 7, 2005 from Fox News. 
 
Donald Rumsfeld on WMDs pulled form an article titled: McGovern Almost Ejected For Confronting Rumsfeld WMD "Lies", May 2006:
"Here are Rumsfeld's words as spoken in an interview with ABC News.
‘We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.'
McGovern said, ‘You said you knew where they were.'
Rumsfeld replied, ‘I did not.'
Though you wouldn't know it from the reaction of the befuddled boot-licking idiots who applauded Rumsfeld during the speech, he has been caught lying to the American people in public…" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/050506rumsfeldlies.htm.

Dick Cheney your turn: "The United States is a country that takes human rights seriously. We do not torture. We're proud of our country and what it stands for." Nov 2, 2007.

Pam Geller, if you cannot recognize a blatant threat to America under George W. Bush why should anyone trust your instincts now? Pam, if you had lived in Nazi German I am sure that you would have supported nationalism.