By a Redeemed Democrat
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider.
About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since then. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my family crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.
About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.
I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental College in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental: he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.
'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.
My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.
It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.
After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
By 'chance' he met Antoine 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.
About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans?
After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.
In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).
With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here, or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported that Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle-class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear:
“Beware of the enemy from within”
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Do You Know the Real Barack Obama?
Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, October 06, 2008
As the 2008 presidential campaign hurtles into its final days, John McCain confronts a choice: He can either start telling the public about the real Barack Obama, or he can lose.
For much of his career, McCain has been a media darling. He could count on the press to carry his water as long as he was a “maverick” Republican, driving more conservative members of his party crazy. But as he surely knows by now, when it comes to Barack Obama and the press, all bets are off. In covering Obama, the press has adopted a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy designed to boost the least-vetted, least-known candidate ever to seek the presidency. It isn’t by accident that the media has denied all less-than-glowing stories about Obama the kind of consistent, sustained coverage that allows them to penetrate public consciousness.
If McCain is going to have a chance at winning, he must make sure that the public becomes thoroughly acquainted with the real Barack Obama – the most radical presidential nominee ever. And because the press evidently intends to abdicate its responsibility to acquaint voters with the less-popular parts of Obama’s record, he’ll have to rely on paid adver tising to do it.
For starters, McCain should consider running a series of “Did You Know” ads about Barack Obama. He should ask voters, “Did you know that:
Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:
Monday, October 06, 2008
As the 2008 presidential campaign hurtles into its final days, John McCain confronts a choice: He can either start telling the public about the real Barack Obama, or he can lose.
For much of his career, McCain has been a media darling. He could count on the press to carry his water as long as he was a “maverick” Republican, driving more conservative members of his party crazy. But as he surely knows by now, when it comes to Barack Obama and the press, all bets are off. In covering Obama, the press has adopted a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy designed to boost the least-vetted, least-known candidate ever to seek the presidency. It isn’t by accident that the media has denied all less-than-glowing stories about Obama the kind of consistent, sustained coverage that allows them to penetrate public consciousness.
If McCain is going to have a chance at winning, he must make sure that the public becomes thoroughly acquainted with the real Barack Obama – the most radical presidential nominee ever. And because the press evidently intends to abdicate its responsibility to acquaint voters with the less-popular parts of Obama’s record, he’ll have to rely on paid adver tising to do it.
For starters, McCain should consider running a series of “Did You Know” ads about Barack Obama. He should ask voters, “Did you know that:
Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:
- Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.
- Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.
- Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?
- Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.
There is more, of course. Do voters know:
- That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?
- That Jeremiah Wright wasn’t Obama’s first radical mentor? As a young man in Hawaii, Obama had a quasi-filial relationship with radical Frank Marshall Davis – an avowed member of the Communist Party of the USA. In fact, in his memoirs, Obama concedes that he attended “socialist conferences” and encountered Marxist literature. (Now imagine the outcry if a Republican presidential candidate had such ties to a Nazi).
- That the People's Weekly World – the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the USA – has rhapsodized about Obama’s presidential campaign, calling it a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term"? (Think about how the press would react if a fascist newspaper heaped such praise on McCain.)
- That Obama has routinely tried to intimidate his critics into silence? His political organization spearheaded a massive campaign against a Chicago radio show that invited one of his critics to appear – even after being asked (and refusing) to send a representative to balance the program, hosted by a non-partisan University of Chicago psychology professor. Worse, his campaign sought to chill free speech by establishing a “truth squad” of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs, which threatened a “vigorous response” to any ad presenting information about Obama that they deemed to be “inaccurate.” And there are other examples.
- That even as America struggles to “bail out” our own struggling economy, Obama backs a global bailout? His Global Poverty Initiative would assess $2500 per taxpayer, according to Investor’s Business Daily, to fund a global war on poverty administered by the UN and its agencies.
- That despite touting his academic credentials as a rationale for initiating a campaign for president just two years after leaving the Illinois state legislature, Obama refuses to release either his college or his law school transcripts – just as he sought to keep records of his working relationship with former terrorist Bill Ayers on The Annenberg Challenge (a left-wing educational foundation) safely under wraps? What is it that he doesn’t want voters to know?
Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant. But Americans sense that=2 0there is more to Barack Obama than they’ve been told. Having witnessed the media’s own bias and favoritism, they’ve come to suspect – reasonably – that even if any of the rumors were true, the press might choose to conceal them until the election is safely over. What’s more, they wonder: What else is the press not telling us?
Certainly, it would be terribly wrong for John McCain to traffic in rumors. But he doesn’t need to. The truth is more than enough. There are facts that the American people deserve to know – and which the press isn’t telling them. By filling in the gaps that the media has left unmentioned, John McCain isn’t just doing himself a service. He’s doing journalists’ job for them, and allowing Americans to make an informed decision when they head to the polls next month.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Of Mice and Moose
By Julian Krasta
Glass ceilings notwithstanding, Gov. Sarah Palin is being accepted by America and other progressive nations as the new high-spirited Republican melody maker. Her in-tune communications, slowly but surely, are drowning out Obama’s bizarre ventriloquism, Joe Biden’s howlers (although I now must thank Sen. Biden for his public criticism of Obama), and the mainstream media’s pops and pings of their low-register gothic operas.
I admit I knew nothing about the lady, so when Sen. John McCain torpedoed the long-awaiting GOP with his announcement that he’d chosen Mrs. Palin as his running mate, I blurted (literally), “Who? But-but… what about Romney? Where’s Pawlenty?”
Once the conservative world had caught its breath, we scrambled like ants with road rage to bring ourselves up to speed and be informed about her as much as possible. What we learned was surprisingly uplifting, and encouraging. But encouraging and uplifting would not be enough for wary and weary Republicans. Our faith – our votes for John McCain – quite suddenly depended enormously on Mrs. Palin’s presentation of herself at the Republican convention, her message and delivery.
To put it plainly, when she finished speaking I had to find my socks. They were on the other side of the room, having been blown off by what I’d seen and heard.
As the balloons rained down on our nominees and ecstatic supporters, I concluded, with refreshed hopefulness, that Sen. McCain appeared to have done right with his choice.
In the weeks that have followed, and on the basis of hardnosed scrutiny, I came to recognize that Mrs. Palin not only has the head but the heart and constitution to assume the responsibilities of Vice President of the United States, to name a few: the hurdles, the sinkholes, and the sway of President of the Senate; the polluted power of Washington politics; and all that the second-in-command to the leader of what might be the last frontier of the free world must endure or may enjoy.
In addition, and with all due respect (I have to say this), it is my opinion that Mrs. Palin could easily be considered a candidate for U.S. Army Ranger: superincumbent point of convergence, fine sinew tone, her marksmanship with a hunting rifle, razor-sharp receptors, and she’s a flawless communicator. It’s probably why she is balls-out fearless in the face of twits wielding their toothless pitchforks and burned-out torches. Not too shabby for a mother of five.
As expected, from the moment she was named the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate, the cheese-eaters on the left went whacko, like a duck hit on the head. They didn’t just cross but leaped the line of civility and began – and continue – to snarl, spit and squawk some of the most reprehensible idioms against Sarah Palin.
They have squealed over and gnawed on everything from her pro-life position to her accession to the post of a city mayor and then governor of our largest state – even her husband and children.
They also have gone so far as to censure Mrs. Palin’s rightful choice not to abort her baby son, Trig, who had been diagnosed with Down syndrome prior to birth. (It’s one thing to push the envelope of criticism; it’s quite another, in this instance, to hammer nails in so deeply that they can never be retracted – and their contemptuous mockery of Mr. & Mrs. Palin’s faith-based decision not to terminate the life of their son, I assure you, will be neither forgotten nor forgiven.)
The liberal media (Obama’s Love Bombers: “You’re perfect just the way you are, Barack”), from top to bottom, and from the start, consciously and deliberately ignored the tenets of fairness and decency towards John McCain, and now Sarah Palin.
The most disturbing aspect is their shameless revelry in the destruction they are attempting to wreak on the Palin Family, particularly celebrities. I’m confident enough to say that they will never achieve their objective, and their words and actions will backfire in due course.
As an aside: On the topic of backfires, an example is what occurred during the Clinton administration. They bullied the banking industries into granting loans to unqualified purchasers. Approximately 30 years earlier, Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy browbeat a bill through the Senate to allow into our country a greater percentage of “the less fortunate” (i.e., from south of our borders and elsewhere), who comprise a significant (if not largest) amount of today’s unqualified purchasers. Both plans spearheaded by those two Democrats served as chief elements of the incubator in which was hatched this $700 billion T-Rex. Ironically, those screaming loudest “Save us!” are – you guessed it – liberal Democrats. End aside.
Nevertheless, the limousine liberals, who are enamored with the sound of their own voice (you listenin’ up their in your private jet, which is paid for by the People, Madam Speaker?), persist with their shrill insults at John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Mrs. Palin’s executive credentials and character, at every MSM opportunity and with serial ignorance.
At one point recently, I sat through the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan just for a respite. Thankfully, at about minute 18, I was able to turn down the volume on my TV because of the across-the-board news that two of the more vicious rodents (Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann) had both fallen victim to their own rat poison. Wait--didn’t I just say: “[…] their words and actions will backfire in due course”?
The catalog of gross offenders now also includes a certain David Kernell, a student who thought he was enrolling at Clown College (Harry Reid’s alma mater), but because Kernell, like Reid, probably failed basic comprehension instead scrawled his “X” on the University of Tennessee-Knoxville admission form. (Kernell is under investigation by the FBI and Secret Service for allegedly hacking into Sarah Palin’s electronic mail accounts.) Ditto my “backfire” comment (emphasis added).
William Shakespeare wrote: “Nothing is so common as the wish to be remarkable.”
For Sarah Palin, she needn’t wish it – she simply is. I believe in Mrs. Palin, because she exemplifies decency and morality. True, she has a tough field to plow if she succeeds Dick Cheney, but she is clearly at least ten times smarter, stronger, and on the ball than today’s passel of Washington mutts.
Ever see moose stomp mice? Me neither. But I have a hunch we’re going to see just that, come November.
Glass ceilings notwithstanding, Gov. Sarah Palin is being accepted by America and other progressive nations as the new high-spirited Republican melody maker. Her in-tune communications, slowly but surely, are drowning out Obama’s bizarre ventriloquism, Joe Biden’s howlers (although I now must thank Sen. Biden for his public criticism of Obama), and the mainstream media’s pops and pings of their low-register gothic operas.
I admit I knew nothing about the lady, so when Sen. John McCain torpedoed the long-awaiting GOP with his announcement that he’d chosen Mrs. Palin as his running mate, I blurted (literally), “Who? But-but… what about Romney? Where’s Pawlenty?”
Once the conservative world had caught its breath, we scrambled like ants with road rage to bring ourselves up to speed and be informed about her as much as possible. What we learned was surprisingly uplifting, and encouraging. But encouraging and uplifting would not be enough for wary and weary Republicans. Our faith – our votes for John McCain – quite suddenly depended enormously on Mrs. Palin’s presentation of herself at the Republican convention, her message and delivery.
To put it plainly, when she finished speaking I had to find my socks. They were on the other side of the room, having been blown off by what I’d seen and heard.
As the balloons rained down on our nominees and ecstatic supporters, I concluded, with refreshed hopefulness, that Sen. McCain appeared to have done right with his choice.
In the weeks that have followed, and on the basis of hardnosed scrutiny, I came to recognize that Mrs. Palin not only has the head but the heart and constitution to assume the responsibilities of Vice President of the United States, to name a few: the hurdles, the sinkholes, and the sway of President of the Senate; the polluted power of Washington politics; and all that the second-in-command to the leader of what might be the last frontier of the free world must endure or may enjoy.
In addition, and with all due respect (I have to say this), it is my opinion that Mrs. Palin could easily be considered a candidate for U.S. Army Ranger: superincumbent point of convergence, fine sinew tone, her marksmanship with a hunting rifle, razor-sharp receptors, and she’s a flawless communicator. It’s probably why she is balls-out fearless in the face of twits wielding their toothless pitchforks and burned-out torches. Not too shabby for a mother of five.
As expected, from the moment she was named the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate, the cheese-eaters on the left went whacko, like a duck hit on the head. They didn’t just cross but leaped the line of civility and began – and continue – to snarl, spit and squawk some of the most reprehensible idioms against Sarah Palin.
They have squealed over and gnawed on everything from her pro-life position to her accession to the post of a city mayor and then governor of our largest state – even her husband and children.
They also have gone so far as to censure Mrs. Palin’s rightful choice not to abort her baby son, Trig, who had been diagnosed with Down syndrome prior to birth. (It’s one thing to push the envelope of criticism; it’s quite another, in this instance, to hammer nails in so deeply that they can never be retracted – and their contemptuous mockery of Mr. & Mrs. Palin’s faith-based decision not to terminate the life of their son, I assure you, will be neither forgotten nor forgiven.)
The liberal media (Obama’s Love Bombers: “You’re perfect just the way you are, Barack”), from top to bottom, and from the start, consciously and deliberately ignored the tenets of fairness and decency towards John McCain, and now Sarah Palin.
The most disturbing aspect is their shameless revelry in the destruction they are attempting to wreak on the Palin Family, particularly celebrities. I’m confident enough to say that they will never achieve their objective, and their words and actions will backfire in due course.
As an aside: On the topic of backfires, an example is what occurred during the Clinton administration. They bullied the banking industries into granting loans to unqualified purchasers. Approximately 30 years earlier, Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy browbeat a bill through the Senate to allow into our country a greater percentage of “the less fortunate” (i.e., from south of our borders and elsewhere), who comprise a significant (if not largest) amount of today’s unqualified purchasers. Both plans spearheaded by those two Democrats served as chief elements of the incubator in which was hatched this $700 billion T-Rex. Ironically, those screaming loudest “Save us!” are – you guessed it – liberal Democrats. End aside.
Nevertheless, the limousine liberals, who are enamored with the sound of their own voice (you listenin’ up their in your private jet, which is paid for by the People, Madam Speaker?), persist with their shrill insults at John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Mrs. Palin’s executive credentials and character, at every MSM opportunity and with serial ignorance.
At one point recently, I sat through the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan just for a respite. Thankfully, at about minute 18, I was able to turn down the volume on my TV because of the across-the-board news that two of the more vicious rodents (Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann) had both fallen victim to their own rat poison. Wait--didn’t I just say: “[…] their words and actions will backfire in due course”?
The catalog of gross offenders now also includes a certain David Kernell, a student who thought he was enrolling at Clown College (Harry Reid’s alma mater), but because Kernell, like Reid, probably failed basic comprehension instead scrawled his “X” on the University of Tennessee-Knoxville admission form. (Kernell is under investigation by the FBI and Secret Service for allegedly hacking into Sarah Palin’s electronic mail accounts.) Ditto my “backfire” comment (emphasis added).
William Shakespeare wrote: “Nothing is so common as the wish to be remarkable.”
For Sarah Palin, she needn’t wish it – she simply is. I believe in Mrs. Palin, because she exemplifies decency and morality. True, she has a tough field to plow if she succeeds Dick Cheney, but she is clearly at least ten times smarter, stronger, and on the ball than today’s passel of Washington mutts.
Ever see moose stomp mice? Me neither. But I have a hunch we’re going to see just that, come November.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Critics of McCain's Critics Want Leftward Tilt
By David Limbaugh, for Newsmax
Friday, February 8, 2008 8:10 AM
Isn't it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential front-runner John McCain?
What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they've stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?
"Enlightened" moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.
John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush's arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.
Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative." Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain's critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?
If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain — ideologically and personally. McCain isn't winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.
It's easy for moderates to argue that critics of moderates are extreme. That's what moderates always say. They have been complaining about conservatism since I was wearing a "Goldwater for President" T-shirt.
They've said for years that the only way Republicans can win elections is to move to the center. Their opinion is not based on convincing data but wishful thinking. History is not their friend. Republicans win big with conservative ideas, provided they have inspiring candidates. Moderate ideas dilute the message and deflate the movement, zapping it of its verve and enthusiasm.
I have read the reasonable arguments of my friend Bill Bennett and others disputing that John McCain is a liberal. They argue he is a conservative with some liberal positions and that, in any event, he's far more conservative than Hillary or Barack.
Fair enough, though the McCain critics grossly underemphasize the differences and McCain's untrustworthiness. For the record, I can't see myself as ever voting for either Hillary or Barack, two unreconstructed socialists who are soft on defense and enemies of the unborn. But hold your horses. We're not there yet.
We're in the primary season, and there's nothing wrong with all sides advocating their respective positions. If conservatives can't hold John McCain accountable now for all his apostasies, apostasies he committed with utter delight amid mainstream-media adulation, what chance will we have of doing so later?
The idea that our party can't recover from vigorous debate during the primaries is unserious, to wit: Reagan versus Ford. In the meantime, rumors of the death of mainstream conservatism are greatly exaggerated.
McCain's relative success is not a sign of the end of Reagan conservatism as a dominant political force. It's just temporarily dormant, the victim of a confluence of factors, waiting to be re-ignited.
One factor is that we have had a weak GOP presidential field, though I think some of the candidates ultimately proved themselves to be quite inspiring. McCain has slipped in largely by default, like John Kerry in 2004.
Another factor is that Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for seven years. Though Democrats have recaptured Congress, they still haven't been able to accomplish many of their legislative initiatives, including obstructing funding for the Iraq War. Even their reprehensible character assassination of President Bush has lost steam since the surge began yielding fruit.
Nothing unites conservatives like Democrats in power and working their mischief, or out of power and maliciously but effectively obstructing good government — excuse the liberal-sounding oxymoron.
And then there's the war, which originally united conservatives but admittedly has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative influence with its willingness to accept all kinds of economic and social liberalism. I believe that's unnecessary. All three stools — and more — of mainstream conservatism can thrive simultaneously. Nevertheless, these factors and others have coalesced to dampen, temporarily, the fires and energy of conservatism.
Sometimes conservatives become more unified out of power. Of course that doesn't mean we should allow Democrats to regain the White House, either because we would unite while out of power or because we are seriously disappointed about the prospect of John McCain as our candidate.
But would the critics of McCain's critics please quit trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives and redefine mainstream conservatism? Just admit your guy is not that conservative and let us hold his feet to the fire, especially since his success to this point will give him all the more temptation to pander to liberals. You're the ones who need to chill out.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.
[Source]
© 2008 Creator's Syndicate Inc.
Friday, February 8, 2008 8:10 AM
Isn't it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential front-runner John McCain?
What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they've stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?
"Enlightened" moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.
John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush's arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.
Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative." Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain's critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?
If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain — ideologically and personally. McCain isn't winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.
It's easy for moderates to argue that critics of moderates are extreme. That's what moderates always say. They have been complaining about conservatism since I was wearing a "Goldwater for President" T-shirt.
They've said for years that the only way Republicans can win elections is to move to the center. Their opinion is not based on convincing data but wishful thinking. History is not their friend. Republicans win big with conservative ideas, provided they have inspiring candidates. Moderate ideas dilute the message and deflate the movement, zapping it of its verve and enthusiasm.
I have read the reasonable arguments of my friend Bill Bennett and others disputing that John McCain is a liberal. They argue he is a conservative with some liberal positions and that, in any event, he's far more conservative than Hillary or Barack.
Fair enough, though the McCain critics grossly underemphasize the differences and McCain's untrustworthiness. For the record, I can't see myself as ever voting for either Hillary or Barack, two unreconstructed socialists who are soft on defense and enemies of the unborn. But hold your horses. We're not there yet.
We're in the primary season, and there's nothing wrong with all sides advocating their respective positions. If conservatives can't hold John McCain accountable now for all his apostasies, apostasies he committed with utter delight amid mainstream-media adulation, what chance will we have of doing so later?
The idea that our party can't recover from vigorous debate during the primaries is unserious, to wit: Reagan versus Ford. In the meantime, rumors of the death of mainstream conservatism are greatly exaggerated.
McCain's relative success is not a sign of the end of Reagan conservatism as a dominant political force. It's just temporarily dormant, the victim of a confluence of factors, waiting to be re-ignited.
One factor is that we have had a weak GOP presidential field, though I think some of the candidates ultimately proved themselves to be quite inspiring. McCain has slipped in largely by default, like John Kerry in 2004.
Another factor is that Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for seven years. Though Democrats have recaptured Congress, they still haven't been able to accomplish many of their legislative initiatives, including obstructing funding for the Iraq War. Even their reprehensible character assassination of President Bush has lost steam since the surge began yielding fruit.
Nothing unites conservatives like Democrats in power and working their mischief, or out of power and maliciously but effectively obstructing good government — excuse the liberal-sounding oxymoron.
And then there's the war, which originally united conservatives but admittedly has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative influence with its willingness to accept all kinds of economic and social liberalism. I believe that's unnecessary. All three stools — and more — of mainstream conservatism can thrive simultaneously. Nevertheless, these factors and others have coalesced to dampen, temporarily, the fires and energy of conservatism.
Sometimes conservatives become more unified out of power. Of course that doesn't mean we should allow Democrats to regain the White House, either because we would unite while out of power or because we are seriously disappointed about the prospect of John McCain as our candidate.
But would the critics of McCain's critics please quit trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives and redefine mainstream conservatism? Just admit your guy is not that conservative and let us hold his feet to the fire, especially since his success to this point will give him all the more temptation to pander to liberals. You're the ones who need to chill out.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.
[Source]
© 2008 Creator's Syndicate Inc.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
A Timely Parable
While walking down the street one day, a U.S. senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in Heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," said the senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy. He has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit Heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now, choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers. "Well, I would never have said it before. I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."
So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell.
The doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags, as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.
"I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday, I was here and there was a golf course and a clubhouse and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, danced and had a great time. Now, it's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened"?
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday, we were campaigning. Today, you voted."
AND A BONUS ...
Three Things to Ponder:
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
C O W S - Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N - They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S - The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this:
You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians...It creates a hostile work environment.
"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," said the senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy. He has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit Heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now, choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers. "Well, I would never have said it before. I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."
So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell.
The doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags, as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.
"I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday, I was here and there was a golf course and a clubhouse and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, danced and had a great time. Now, it's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened"?
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday, we were campaigning. Today, you voted."
AND A BONUS ...
Three Things to Ponder:
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
C O W S - Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N - They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S - The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this:
You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians...It creates a hostile work environment.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Jackie Mason asks: "Camelot - or a Cesspool?"
To view the entire article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=60045
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Camelot - or a cesspool?
By Jackie Mason
Posted: February 5, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The Kennedys recently endorsed Barack Obama, and Teddy Kennedy drew a parallel with President Kennedy - a vision of a new Camelot rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the Bush administration. Either he was addressing the largest group of amnesiacs ever gathered in one place in history, or the media and much of America has been eating funny mushrooms and is in the throes of a mass delusion.
Back to reality: The late President Kennedy bears responsibility for the initiation of one of the bleakest episodes in modern American history - the Vietnam War. Only because Khrushchev had more common sense than he did, we avoided an enormous catastrophe. After the fall of the Soviet Union, when the Russian's secret files were opened, we learned, among other bits of knowledge - such as the fact the Rosenbergs were indeed Russian atomic spies - that there were functioning deployed short- and mid-range atomic missiles in Cuba. If we ever, as threatened, tried to land troops directly after the Bay of Pigs debacle on Cuban shores, our troops would have been slaughtered - one missile, thousands of Americans annihilated. This is all not to mention that the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs was authorized by Kennedy himself, and then he left the Cuban patriots out to dry by withholding promised air support.
Many of Kennedy's private and Cabinet sessions were secretly recorded, and many years later, one of these recordings from the time of the Bay of Pigs episode reveals Kennedy musing that for a president to go down in history he has to have a war. "Where would Lincoln be without the Civil War?"
A cynic might therefore suggest that Kennedy's trip to the brink of a nuclear holocaust was not a result of his inexperience but, rather, it had a more selfish origin. On the domestic front, he accomplished little, and his promises had to be delivered by President Johnson. He did, however, inaugurate the White House revolving door policy as far as women were concerned, and even in this area it needed a subsequent president - Clinton - to bring it to a point of perfection.
The other members of the Kennedy bunch are also hardly poster boys for responsible government - or even human beings. The liberals hug Robert Kennedy's memory, but choose not to remember that he personally authorized the wiretaps on Dr. Martin Luther King. He also carried on the president's policies and, as in many families, certain traditions, such as passing down clothing from an older to younger child - only they did this with women. The most well-known of these involved the late Marilyn Monroe. After the president was through with her, he passed her down to Bobby. Ultimately, as we all know, the poor woman eventually killed herself.
There are, of course, the gaggle of Kennedy relatives who have been arrested and charged with everything from drunk driving to rape, and even murder.
This, of course, brings us to the present bloviator-in-chief, Teddy Kennedy. It would be easy to write him off as another senatorial windbag, but he bears a distinction born by no other senator. He has killed someone - and not while serving as a member of the armed forces. After a drunken party, he drove off a bridge and left his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, alone to drown to death, trapped in his car.
All of this makes us wonder at the judgment of Mr. Obama and the American public. Camelot, once the fairy tale aspect is put aside, is as attractive as a cesspool - and may even smell a lot worse.
* * * * * * *
An added piece, as exclusively reported on www.lauraingraham.com this morning:
I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry's running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Camelot - or a cesspool?
By Jackie Mason
Posted: February 5, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The Kennedys recently endorsed Barack Obama, and Teddy Kennedy drew a parallel with President Kennedy - a vision of a new Camelot rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the Bush administration. Either he was addressing the largest group of amnesiacs ever gathered in one place in history, or the media and much of America has been eating funny mushrooms and is in the throes of a mass delusion.
Back to reality: The late President Kennedy bears responsibility for the initiation of one of the bleakest episodes in modern American history - the Vietnam War. Only because Khrushchev had more common sense than he did, we avoided an enormous catastrophe. After the fall of the Soviet Union, when the Russian's secret files were opened, we learned, among other bits of knowledge - such as the fact the Rosenbergs were indeed Russian atomic spies - that there were functioning deployed short- and mid-range atomic missiles in Cuba. If we ever, as threatened, tried to land troops directly after the Bay of Pigs debacle on Cuban shores, our troops would have been slaughtered - one missile, thousands of Americans annihilated. This is all not to mention that the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs was authorized by Kennedy himself, and then he left the Cuban patriots out to dry by withholding promised air support.
Many of Kennedy's private and Cabinet sessions were secretly recorded, and many years later, one of these recordings from the time of the Bay of Pigs episode reveals Kennedy musing that for a president to go down in history he has to have a war. "Where would Lincoln be without the Civil War?"
A cynic might therefore suggest that Kennedy's trip to the brink of a nuclear holocaust was not a result of his inexperience but, rather, it had a more selfish origin. On the domestic front, he accomplished little, and his promises had to be delivered by President Johnson. He did, however, inaugurate the White House revolving door policy as far as women were concerned, and even in this area it needed a subsequent president - Clinton - to bring it to a point of perfection.
The other members of the Kennedy bunch are also hardly poster boys for responsible government - or even human beings. The liberals hug Robert Kennedy's memory, but choose not to remember that he personally authorized the wiretaps on Dr. Martin Luther King. He also carried on the president's policies and, as in many families, certain traditions, such as passing down clothing from an older to younger child - only they did this with women. The most well-known of these involved the late Marilyn Monroe. After the president was through with her, he passed her down to Bobby. Ultimately, as we all know, the poor woman eventually killed herself.
There are, of course, the gaggle of Kennedy relatives who have been arrested and charged with everything from drunk driving to rape, and even murder.
This, of course, brings us to the present bloviator-in-chief, Teddy Kennedy. It would be easy to write him off as another senatorial windbag, but he bears a distinction born by no other senator. He has killed someone - and not while serving as a member of the armed forces. After a drunken party, he drove off a bridge and left his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, alone to drown to death, trapped in his car.
All of this makes us wonder at the judgment of Mr. Obama and the American public. Camelot, once the fairy tale aspect is put aside, is as attractive as a cesspool - and may even smell a lot worse.
* * * * * * *
An added piece, as exclusively reported on www.lauraingraham.com this morning:
STATEMENT FROM DR. JAMES DOBSON of FOCUS ON THE FAMILY:
I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry's running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Tough guy, eh?
by Kyle Hampton
I just got done listening to a little bit of Michael Medved. I know, I know…I should know better.
Anyway, Medved was talking about how this election is different from others where there was an ideological battle taking place in the primaries. Of course it benefits Medved to say this because it diminishes the key differences between McCain and Romney, making it a contest more of personality than of policy. Of course I could list several key policy decisions that distinguish McCain and Romney, but none is more important than McCain-Kennedy.
Immigration is the core divide in the Republican party right now and Romney and McCain stand on opposite sides of that gulf.
McCain now downplays the significance of his role as leading advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants. He and some other Republicans, like Trent Lott, famously called conservatives in favor of border enforcement xenophobes. McCain now tries to rewrite history by suggesting that Republicans rejected his bill only because of lost confidence in government, as if it were a purely psychological issue.
That misses the point that Republicans rejected the full idea of his bill for various reasons, but mostly because its whole purpose was to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. McCain-Kennedy’s failure was not lack of confidence in government, but a lack of confidence in McCain himself and his vision of immigration reform.
However, even granting Medved’s proposition that there is little policy difference between McCain and Romney (which I find lacks any substance), Romney has the better personality and temperament for the office of president.
Medved stated that he liked that McCain was a tough guy, but it seems to me that McCain is a tough guy only on some issues. When was the last time McCain got fiery over judges? When was he a tough guy on tax cuts? When was the last time you remember him worked up over education? Indeed it seems that McCain gets fiery over things he understands, but that is a limited number of issues.
I do admit that McCain is a tough guy on immigration, interrogation, and the First Amendment, but he’s on the wrong side of those issues. To project that McCain is a tough guy on all issues misunderstands who McCain really is.
Romney, on the other hand, has shown a consistency of character. He is affable and engaging publicly and coolly competent behind closed doors. He is never out of his league on any issue and generally is the most capable person in the room. He refrains from making personal attacks and always projects a sense of optimism.
This is the kind of personality that I want in the president’s office. Indeed, it seems much better than someone whose temper is never out of reach. Competence is what I want in a president, not a bully.
******
Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 2/04/2008 04:29:00 PM
I just got done listening to a little bit of Michael Medved. I know, I know…I should know better.
Anyway, Medved was talking about how this election is different from others where there was an ideological battle taking place in the primaries. Of course it benefits Medved to say this because it diminishes the key differences between McCain and Romney, making it a contest more of personality than of policy. Of course I could list several key policy decisions that distinguish McCain and Romney, but none is more important than McCain-Kennedy.
Immigration is the core divide in the Republican party right now and Romney and McCain stand on opposite sides of that gulf.
McCain now downplays the significance of his role as leading advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants. He and some other Republicans, like Trent Lott, famously called conservatives in favor of border enforcement xenophobes. McCain now tries to rewrite history by suggesting that Republicans rejected his bill only because of lost confidence in government, as if it were a purely psychological issue.
That misses the point that Republicans rejected the full idea of his bill for various reasons, but mostly because its whole purpose was to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. McCain-Kennedy’s failure was not lack of confidence in government, but a lack of confidence in McCain himself and his vision of immigration reform.
However, even granting Medved’s proposition that there is little policy difference between McCain and Romney (which I find lacks any substance), Romney has the better personality and temperament for the office of president.
Medved stated that he liked that McCain was a tough guy, but it seems to me that McCain is a tough guy only on some issues. When was the last time McCain got fiery over judges? When was he a tough guy on tax cuts? When was the last time you remember him worked up over education? Indeed it seems that McCain gets fiery over things he understands, but that is a limited number of issues.
I do admit that McCain is a tough guy on immigration, interrogation, and the First Amendment, but he’s on the wrong side of those issues. To project that McCain is a tough guy on all issues misunderstands who McCain really is.
Romney, on the other hand, has shown a consistency of character. He is affable and engaging publicly and coolly competent behind closed doors. He is never out of his league on any issue and generally is the most capable person in the room. He refrains from making personal attacks and always projects a sense of optimism.
This is the kind of personality that I want in the president’s office. Indeed, it seems much better than someone whose temper is never out of reach. Competence is what I want in a president, not a bully.
******
Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 2/04/2008 04:29:00 PM
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Congress Poised to Give Tax Rebates to Illegal Aliens!
ALERT From FAIR
Congress Poised to Give Tax Rebates to Illegal Aliens
Call Your Senators Now!
The economic stimulus package traveling through Congress right now does nothing to stop the IRS from issuing rebate checks to illegal aliens. Please call your Senators now and urge them to take action!
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R.5140, the economic stimulus package, by a vote of 385-35. As many of you have already learned from news outlets, the economic package includes tax rebates of $600 for individual taxpayers and $1,200 for couples. However, this package—thrown together within days—allows the IRS to send tax rebate checks to illegal aliens!
The issue stems from defining who is eligible for a tax rebate. In drafting H.R.5140, Congress left gaping loopholes. Section 101 excludes "nonresident aliens" from being eligible, but this is essentially meaningless as the IRS does not determine whether an individual is a "nonresident alien" based on his or her immigration status. Moreover, it does not address the eligibility of illegal aliens who send in tax returns using stolen or false social security numbers.
At a minimum, the IRS should be required to screen the numbers (whether individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) or social security numbers (SSNs)) used to issue the checks to ensure they match the name of the taxpayer in question. If a name and number do not match, the IRS should be prohibited from issuing a tax rebate check. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has filed an amendment to affect this change, but we do not know whether he will even be allowed to offer it.
H.R.5140 is now in the Senate and will go through the Senate Finance Committee this afternoon. From there, Senate staffers indicate it will go quickly to the floor. PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!
We urge all FAIR members, activists and friends to call their Senators now and urge them to fix the loopholes in H.R. 5140 that allow illegal aliens to get tax rebate checks. After calling your own Senators, please call the Senators who sit on the Finance Committee and urge them to take action too.
To find the phone numbers for your Senators, click here.
For the membership of the Senate Finance Committee, click here.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Holiday Greetings!
To All My Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere.
Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wished.
To My Republican Friends: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere.
Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wished.
To My Republican Friends: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Monday, December 17, 2007
A Message from One Angry Mom
This has been going around, but it's worth repeating.
*****************
By "Anonymous"
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the holy bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off nick berg's head while berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their first amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the united states constitution's bill of rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." well, jimmy crack corn and-you guessed it: I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan
I have another quote that I would like to add and I hope you forward all this.
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" – Also by Ronald Reagan.
One last thought for the day:
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in. And how many want out."
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ.
2. The American G.I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
You might want to pass this on,
As many seem to forget both of them.
*****************
By "Anonymous"
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the holy bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off nick berg's head while berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their first amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the united states constitution's bill of rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." well, jimmy crack corn and-you guessed it: I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan
I have another quote that I would like to add and I hope you forward all this.
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" – Also by Ronald Reagan.
One last thought for the day:
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in. And how many want out."
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ.
2. The American G.I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
You might want to pass this on,
As many seem to forget both of them.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Caught between Iraq and a Hard Place?
Not according to "Lightwave" on the Wake Up America blog:
"This is now an unassailable fact: The official position of the Democratic Party of the United States of America is that America must surrender in Iraq to the terrorists, that so far these traitors to the country have not yet paid a price.
I do not use the term traitor as exaggeration or hyperbole. It is entirely appropriate. It is defined as “…one who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.” The Democrats in Congress meet all four definitions of the word.
They have betrayed the country by attacking our troops and policy publicly, and by meeting with those who directly support our enemy. They have betrayed our cause by portraying our troops as murderers and savages and inciting Americans against our cause during a time of war. They have most certainly betrayed our trust as national elected officials, accusing our sitting President of lying during a time of war. And most of all they have committed treason by showing direct support for the actions and measures our enemy wants us to take, and fomenting surrender during wartime.
The price they will pay -- the price they must pay – should be exacted from them at the polls in 2008. It must be the unambiguous message that what America wants in Iraq is nothing short of victory, and that while a majority of Americans want us to bring the troops home, only a small percentage wish to surrender in Iraq.
The rest of us -- the large, overwhelming majority of Americans -- wish to keep troops in Iraq. We have a duty to fulfill. Part of that duty is to let America's enemies know that we will not capitulate to them -- that we will not give up -- that these colors do not run.
President Bush’s speech last night was great; he said what needed to be said, that no matter what your political party, victory in Iraq in America's best interests and that we must win there.
He also talked about a presence in Iraq lasting past the end of his Presidency. Let's be honest here. We all know that's the truth: Iraq doesn't stop being a problem on January 20, 2009. We will still have troops there. Although I would like to have them home, the mission is going to require years. Our job is to support it.
I'm glad he leveled with the American people on this. We will be in Iraq after President Bush is out of office. That's why the 2008 elections may be the most important ones in America's history.
Unless those elections are used to send a clear message to the world that America is going to get the job done in Iraq, we will be risking a much bloodier war in the future. There isn't a human being on Earth that can successfully argue that our departure from Iraq won't necessitate a much bloodier war down the road with Iran.
If we leave Iraq, we will still have to deal with Iran. The same if we stay in Iraq, but we will be in a much stronger position. Therefore, it is vital to America’s interests. Period.
I believe this country would rally behind President Bush once again. And the price the Democrats will pay -- not all of them, mind you, but most -- will be forgotten by our generation."
Thank you, Lightwave.
"This is now an unassailable fact: The official position of the Democratic Party of the United States of America is that America must surrender in Iraq to the terrorists, that so far these traitors to the country have not yet paid a price.
I do not use the term traitor as exaggeration or hyperbole. It is entirely appropriate. It is defined as “…one who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.” The Democrats in Congress meet all four definitions of the word.
They have betrayed the country by attacking our troops and policy publicly, and by meeting with those who directly support our enemy. They have betrayed our cause by portraying our troops as murderers and savages and inciting Americans against our cause during a time of war. They have most certainly betrayed our trust as national elected officials, accusing our sitting President of lying during a time of war. And most of all they have committed treason by showing direct support for the actions and measures our enemy wants us to take, and fomenting surrender during wartime.
The price they will pay -- the price they must pay – should be exacted from them at the polls in 2008. It must be the unambiguous message that what America wants in Iraq is nothing short of victory, and that while a majority of Americans want us to bring the troops home, only a small percentage wish to surrender in Iraq.
The rest of us -- the large, overwhelming majority of Americans -- wish to keep troops in Iraq. We have a duty to fulfill. Part of that duty is to let America's enemies know that we will not capitulate to them -- that we will not give up -- that these colors do not run.
President Bush’s speech last night was great; he said what needed to be said, that no matter what your political party, victory in Iraq in America's best interests and that we must win there.
He also talked about a presence in Iraq lasting past the end of his Presidency. Let's be honest here. We all know that's the truth: Iraq doesn't stop being a problem on January 20, 2009. We will still have troops there. Although I would like to have them home, the mission is going to require years. Our job is to support it.
I'm glad he leveled with the American people on this. We will be in Iraq after President Bush is out of office. That's why the 2008 elections may be the most important ones in America's history.
Unless those elections are used to send a clear message to the world that America is going to get the job done in Iraq, we will be risking a much bloodier war in the future. There isn't a human being on Earth that can successfully argue that our departure from Iraq won't necessitate a much bloodier war down the road with Iran.
If we leave Iraq, we will still have to deal with Iran. The same if we stay in Iraq, but we will be in a much stronger position. Therefore, it is vital to America’s interests. Period.
I believe this country would rally behind President Bush once again. And the price the Democrats will pay -- not all of them, mind you, but most -- will be forgotten by our generation."
Thank you, Lightwave.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
"A Time to Reap" by William Rivers Pitt
Wednesday 20 June 2007 (and today, and everyday).
My friend Dan was on his way home the other day, and found an American flag crumpled in a gutter outside his apartment building. The flag, perhaps as big as the cover of a book, had been used as a decoration for some pre-Fourth of July party, but afterwards was merely thrown aside like litter for the street-sweepers to collect.
Dan gathered it up, smoothed the creases, and hung it from a nearby railing. The motivation for his actions was hard for him to explain, but it came down to this: Everything else in America is so screwed up, but this American thing before him would not be defiled within reach of his arm. My friend, surrounded by the chaos of a flailing nation and filled with the need to act, found some solace in the rescue of that flag.
He is not alone in his sentiments, not alone in his desire to make things right again within reach of his arm.
There is something happening today in America. With the right kind of ears, you can hear it in the sound of millions of brows slowly furrowing in anger and disgust. It feels like those tense moments just before the eruption of a summer thunderstorm, those moments when the air is electric, the ozone reek of spent lightning fills the world, and you know something very loud is about to happen.
What is happening, what can be heard and smelled and sensed all across the land, is the cresting wave of rage, betrayal and fury that is, finally, roaring across the shores of our collective American heart. After more than six years of lies, theft, graft, corruption, manipulation and misconduct, just about every living person within these borders finds themselves today gripped by the slow seethe, directed inward as much as outward, of one who has come around to see just how much of a fool they've been played for.
There are numbers to argue the reality of what is happening: The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has 81% of Americans believing this country to be very much on the wrong track. Put simply, four out of every five people nowadays have that furrowed brow, that sense of betrayal, that slow seethe.
It is a Becoming, this thing, or perhaps an Awakening. It is very real, and is all around us, and it feels like something very loud is about to happen.
It is happening because of Iraq, to be sure, but the roots of the phenomenon stretch deeper into the soil, down where our basic ideas and ideals are rooted. The Iraq debacle, along with myriad examples of corruption and malfeasance, gives voice to a larger sense of outrage felt by nearly all of us today, an outrage so vast that naming it or describing the totality of it beggars vocabulary.
Americans are realizing that their faith and trust in the workings of the republic have been deliberately undermined, and the simple ability to feel good about their nation has been stolen away. Faith in the constructs of our democracy has turned to gall for the citizen who perceives now the magnitude of this theft. When joined in this by another citizen and another and another again, when the unrest of the one becomes a massed and overwhelming majority, those responsible should rightly tremble before the looming possibilities of what may come to be unleashed.
Most Americans, at bottom, have very little in common with one another. We are a collection of races, creeds, colors, faiths, schools of training and the generational freight of inherited bias and belief. We are separated by region, by upbringing, by the economics of class, by that which we know, that which we have forgotten and by that which we choose to ignore. The distances between us are at the center of our American experience, a rift that would be terminal if we ever lose our core linkage, the thing we all have in common as Americans.
We are from everywhere, with beliefs in everything, and the roots of our national unity can only be found in the weaving of our beginnings. All we have in common, across the broad span of this gathered multitude, are the documented dreams inked onto our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, the Declaration that announced us and the laws that have flown outward since. All we have in common is our faith in that link, in the ideas that created it. That's it. That's the one true bond between us, one both strong and fragile in equal measure.
That is the missing thing people have come to sense, the stolen thing which summons the storm. Partisan sensibilities and the your-team/my-team nonsense of modern politics is being replaced by the broad belief that we have all been screwed, that what is most important has been discarded by those in power. The poll numbers charting low approval for Bush and the GOP are matched by similarly low numbers approving of the new Democratic majority in congress. The former bears most of the responsibility for what has happened, as far as the citizenry is concerned, but the latter's failure to stop or reverse the trend is equally shameful.
The seeds of this Becoming have been planted, and have grown, and the time has come to reap.
The American people are weary of Becoming, weary of watching everything they hold dear getting cast into gutters. The midterm elections last November heralded their peaked frustration, and the power invested in this new Democratic Congress came with an invested trust, a hope that this wrong track would be righted. The American people are tired of waiting, tired of revealed wrongs continuing without consequence or punishment, tired of anticipation. This frustration smells of ozone, and feels electric, and means something very loud is indeed about to happen.
This new Democratic Congressional majority is not new anymore, and it knows what it needs to know, and the time has come to reap. Potential must become actual, actions must have consequences, and our faith in each other and what binds us together must be restored. Enough of talk. The subpoenas must be sent, the oaths must be required, the truths must be told, and the consequences of betrayals must be felt.
This new Republican Congressional minority is not new anymore either, and it knows what it has done, and it must join in the reaping. Matters have progressed beyond the pettiness of parties, because the problems before us can no longer be deflected with spin and blather. Enough of talk. The subpoenas must be welcomed, the oaths required, the truth embraced, and the consequences suffered.
My friend Dan did a small thing the other day. He made sure one small bit of America was right and proper and respected, because it was something he could do within reach of his arm. The Democrats in Congress must do likewise, must reach out their right arm, must make change with their long reach instead of merely promising change; they must do this now. Something is happening today in America, and it involves each and every one of us, and it is going to get very loud if matters continue as they have been.
It is time to reap.
My friend Dan was on his way home the other day, and found an American flag crumpled in a gutter outside his apartment building. The flag, perhaps as big as the cover of a book, had been used as a decoration for some pre-Fourth of July party, but afterwards was merely thrown aside like litter for the street-sweepers to collect.
Dan gathered it up, smoothed the creases, and hung it from a nearby railing. The motivation for his actions was hard for him to explain, but it came down to this: Everything else in America is so screwed up, but this American thing before him would not be defiled within reach of his arm. My friend, surrounded by the chaos of a flailing nation and filled with the need to act, found some solace in the rescue of that flag.
He is not alone in his sentiments, not alone in his desire to make things right again within reach of his arm.
There is something happening today in America. With the right kind of ears, you can hear it in the sound of millions of brows slowly furrowing in anger and disgust. It feels like those tense moments just before the eruption of a summer thunderstorm, those moments when the air is electric, the ozone reek of spent lightning fills the world, and you know something very loud is about to happen.
What is happening, what can be heard and smelled and sensed all across the land, is the cresting wave of rage, betrayal and fury that is, finally, roaring across the shores of our collective American heart. After more than six years of lies, theft, graft, corruption, manipulation and misconduct, just about every living person within these borders finds themselves today gripped by the slow seethe, directed inward as much as outward, of one who has come around to see just how much of a fool they've been played for.
There are numbers to argue the reality of what is happening: The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has 81% of Americans believing this country to be very much on the wrong track. Put simply, four out of every five people nowadays have that furrowed brow, that sense of betrayal, that slow seethe.
It is a Becoming, this thing, or perhaps an Awakening. It is very real, and is all around us, and it feels like something very loud is about to happen.
It is happening because of Iraq, to be sure, but the roots of the phenomenon stretch deeper into the soil, down where our basic ideas and ideals are rooted. The Iraq debacle, along with myriad examples of corruption and malfeasance, gives voice to a larger sense of outrage felt by nearly all of us today, an outrage so vast that naming it or describing the totality of it beggars vocabulary.
Americans are realizing that their faith and trust in the workings of the republic have been deliberately undermined, and the simple ability to feel good about their nation has been stolen away. Faith in the constructs of our democracy has turned to gall for the citizen who perceives now the magnitude of this theft. When joined in this by another citizen and another and another again, when the unrest of the one becomes a massed and overwhelming majority, those responsible should rightly tremble before the looming possibilities of what may come to be unleashed.
Most Americans, at bottom, have very little in common with one another. We are a collection of races, creeds, colors, faiths, schools of training and the generational freight of inherited bias and belief. We are separated by region, by upbringing, by the economics of class, by that which we know, that which we have forgotten and by that which we choose to ignore. The distances between us are at the center of our American experience, a rift that would be terminal if we ever lose our core linkage, the thing we all have in common as Americans.
We are from everywhere, with beliefs in everything, and the roots of our national unity can only be found in the weaving of our beginnings. All we have in common, across the broad span of this gathered multitude, are the documented dreams inked onto our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, the Declaration that announced us and the laws that have flown outward since. All we have in common is our faith in that link, in the ideas that created it. That's it. That's the one true bond between us, one both strong and fragile in equal measure.
That is the missing thing people have come to sense, the stolen thing which summons the storm. Partisan sensibilities and the your-team/my-team nonsense of modern politics is being replaced by the broad belief that we have all been screwed, that what is most important has been discarded by those in power. The poll numbers charting low approval for Bush and the GOP are matched by similarly low numbers approving of the new Democratic majority in congress. The former bears most of the responsibility for what has happened, as far as the citizenry is concerned, but the latter's failure to stop or reverse the trend is equally shameful.
The seeds of this Becoming have been planted, and have grown, and the time has come to reap.
The American people are weary of Becoming, weary of watching everything they hold dear getting cast into gutters. The midterm elections last November heralded their peaked frustration, and the power invested in this new Democratic Congress came with an invested trust, a hope that this wrong track would be righted. The American people are tired of waiting, tired of revealed wrongs continuing without consequence or punishment, tired of anticipation. This frustration smells of ozone, and feels electric, and means something very loud is indeed about to happen.
This new Democratic Congressional majority is not new anymore, and it knows what it needs to know, and the time has come to reap. Potential must become actual, actions must have consequences, and our faith in each other and what binds us together must be restored. Enough of talk. The subpoenas must be sent, the oaths must be required, the truths must be told, and the consequences of betrayals must be felt.
This new Republican Congressional minority is not new anymore either, and it knows what it has done, and it must join in the reaping. Matters have progressed beyond the pettiness of parties, because the problems before us can no longer be deflected with spin and blather. Enough of talk. The subpoenas must be welcomed, the oaths required, the truth embraced, and the consequences suffered.
My friend Dan did a small thing the other day. He made sure one small bit of America was right and proper and respected, because it was something he could do within reach of his arm. The Democrats in Congress must do likewise, must reach out their right arm, must make change with their long reach instead of merely promising change; they must do this now. Something is happening today in America, and it involves each and every one of us, and it is going to get very loud if matters continue as they have been.
It is time to reap.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Recipe for the Winning Ticket
By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon
Something is cooking, and it smells like fresh-baked GOPie.
2008 isn't even here yet and the Iowa corn is already popping. Republicans have an opportunity to change the main ingredients to their stock and base that will give them a fresh, crisp (s)tart. Or, perhaps the "spice" of the GOP can be blended anew into a stock-to-your-ribs strategy that will once again unite the party, and ensure a rise to victory in the next Presidential election.
It's never too early to sow the seeds necessary to win in 2008. The key ingredients are already on the party table. We simply need to sift together the parts that have been diluted or missing for too long with our well-seasoned principles.
Let's take a look at what we need to bulk up:
Ingredients and Amount:
Truthfulness = Full measure
Integrity = Full measure
Fearlessness = Full measure
Leadership = Full measure
Experience = Full measure
Secure Borders = Full measure
Limited Government = Full measure
Add:
a dash of Rudy ... a pinch of Fred ... 1 tbsp. of [p]iss and vinegar
Skim off the McCain and bake at 98.6 degrees for 17 months, and let stand for 4 years.
This is the mix of organically grown political ingredients for a Mitt Romney/New Gingrich ticket -- the "slice of American Pie," which will renew and sustain mouth-watering freedom for all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.
Pie in the sky, you say? Why, you ask, do we count our eggs before they're hatched, baked and dished up?
Newt Gingrich recently said: "...But we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures."
It follows that, as a party, we must use our best ingredients for leaders and not cheesy substitutes in order to win at all costs. We watched that strategy fail in California when Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of the state over Tom McClintock, the true conservative.
With his premium leadership quality, Mitt Romney becomes the perfect filling for the post of President of the United States. Pundits criticize him about being beholden to corporate greasing. But it won't stick, because Romney already made his dough, not to mention he's a Harvard Baker Scholar. The sooner they poke holes in campaign, the faster the steam will be released. Critics chop, slice, beat and spread lies about his intentions, but the combined ingredients will rise to the occasion. Romney can dish with the best of his critics and sweeten the rhetoric with his disarming sense of humor. And, unlike the corporate globalists, he will not replace our tradition of American Apple Pie with Chinese Fortune Cookies.
Newt's experience is the formidable layer that will keep our GOPie from collapsing before it's done. There was nothing flaky about his "Contract with America"; it served time and again to strengthen the party and family tradition of GOPie. Newt is the "ready-to-serve" part of this recipe.
Why ask Speaker Gingrich to fill the number two spot on the ticket? He is the starch that will toughen the party and hold it together. He could create the most powerful Vice Presidency in U.S. history. His "American Solutions for Winning the Future" will ferment in the minds of his detractors and serve to make the next Presidential election appetizing for conservatives, and more palatable to Democrats.
In a field of "open borders" candidates among the current top tier, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the only two candidates who seem to understand that just because the apples are picked by migrant illegals does not mean they are legally entitled to a piece of the taxpayers' pie.
We want to serve our GOPie a la conservative mode, and that will take a Romney/Gingrich recipe.
Bon appetit!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Elect Mr. Right, not Mr. Right Now
You don't become President. The Presidency is an institution and you have temporary custody of it.
-Ronald Reagan
In the four short years of the office's term, the man elected must rise up to and sustain the Constitutional oath: '... that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.'
There is no pledge as powerful and as selfless, because it demands that the succeeding custodian of the Presidency continue the eternal uphill struggle for, by and against the myriad domestic and foreign issues that eclipse our lives: hostile world leaders; growing numbers of disillusioned and dissatisfied citizens; invidious politicians on both sides of the aisle who handily switch from ally to adversary between sunrise and sunset; biased media reporting intent on thwarting the Chief Executive's credibility; predisposed civilian groups aggressively intoning issue after issue (whether relevant or not) -- to name a few. And there remains the singular matter that requires our sitting and future President's attention 24/7: the promise by riotous Islamic terrorists to cause America's destruction.
In view of these contentious realities, what distinctions should Americans expect from our next President?
Above all: Leadership. He must be governed by a steel-eye countenance in order to effectively assume the mantle of Commander in Chief and stand knuckle to knuckle with our avowed enemies -- upholding the principle that America takes a backseat to no one.
The next man destined to serve the American people knows to expect a daunting hand-off from George W. Bush, which is why that man must also cross the threshold of the Oval Office fully armed with practical business and management experience required for controlling the White House.
He will be a man who says what he means and means what he says.
He must possess unshakable moral integrity.
He must be fearless when confronted with intense and unending enmity and criticism.
He must passionately pursue every best measure necessary to defend our nation and amplify our security, no matter the cost.
These are only some of the reasons why the Republican Party should not support a candidate who is only partially qualified for the post. To invest any hope in a man based solely on poll popularity or, worse, name recognition, could prove fatal for a teetering GOP and the American people. It would be as dangerous as placing our trust in a non-FDIC bank with a flashy name that caters mainly to the glitterati while dealing junk bonds to the middle class.
We would be incompetent if we champion any Presidential candidate who has broken his sacred marriage vows, or who is inclined to emotional unevenness. The Presidency has already suffered enough shame, so we should not risk the possibility of more reprehensible maltreatment of the station.
We must therefore seriously consider that one candidate who is wholly qualified to be the 44th President of the United States ... that one candidate who is capable of rising up to and sustaining the Constitutional oath ... that one man who can lead us back up the iron mountain we proudly call America.
Choose carefully. Our lives, and the life of our country, depends on it.
-Ronald Reagan
In the four short years of the office's term, the man elected must rise up to and sustain the Constitutional oath: '... that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.'
There is no pledge as powerful and as selfless, because it demands that the succeeding custodian of the Presidency continue the eternal uphill struggle for, by and against the myriad domestic and foreign issues that eclipse our lives: hostile world leaders; growing numbers of disillusioned and dissatisfied citizens; invidious politicians on both sides of the aisle who handily switch from ally to adversary between sunrise and sunset; biased media reporting intent on thwarting the Chief Executive's credibility; predisposed civilian groups aggressively intoning issue after issue (whether relevant or not) -- to name a few. And there remains the singular matter that requires our sitting and future President's attention 24/7: the promise by riotous Islamic terrorists to cause America's destruction.
In view of these contentious realities, what distinctions should Americans expect from our next President?
Above all: Leadership. He must be governed by a steel-eye countenance in order to effectively assume the mantle of Commander in Chief and stand knuckle to knuckle with our avowed enemies -- upholding the principle that America takes a backseat to no one.
The next man destined to serve the American people knows to expect a daunting hand-off from George W. Bush, which is why that man must also cross the threshold of the Oval Office fully armed with practical business and management experience required for controlling the White House.
He will be a man who says what he means and means what he says.
He must possess unshakable moral integrity.
He must be fearless when confronted with intense and unending enmity and criticism.
He must passionately pursue every best measure necessary to defend our nation and amplify our security, no matter the cost.
These are only some of the reasons why the Republican Party should not support a candidate who is only partially qualified for the post. To invest any hope in a man based solely on poll popularity or, worse, name recognition, could prove fatal for a teetering GOP and the American people. It would be as dangerous as placing our trust in a non-FDIC bank with a flashy name that caters mainly to the glitterati while dealing junk bonds to the middle class.
We would be incompetent if we champion any Presidential candidate who has broken his sacred marriage vows, or who is inclined to emotional unevenness. The Presidency has already suffered enough shame, so we should not risk the possibility of more reprehensible maltreatment of the station.
We must therefore seriously consider that one candidate who is wholly qualified to be the 44th President of the United States ... that one candidate who is capable of rising up to and sustaining the Constitutional oath ... that one man who can lead us back up the iron mountain we proudly call America.
Choose carefully. Our lives, and the life of our country, depends on it.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
IT AIN'T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER
The Regime Against the Nation
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday June 12, 2007
Last week, in one of the great uprisings of modern politics, Middle America rose up and body-slammed the national establishment.
The Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, and for the businesses that have hired them -- a bill backed by La Raza and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post -- went down to crushing defeat.
Majority Leader Harry Reid fell 15 votes short (45 to 50) of shutting off debate. Like the rout of the Dubai ports deal, the victory was achieved by a firestorm of public protest, reflected in millions of phone calls and e-mails, and citizens marching to town meetings.
The capital's capitulation to the country was unprecedented and astonishing. Not two weeks earlier, the amnesty provision of the bill had been supported by more than 60 senators.
But opponents of this bill, which would reward mass criminality with mass amnesty and eventual U.S. citizenship, ought not rest.
For President Bush is coming back to resuscitate the monster, and this bill has more support in the Senate than the 45 votes it got Thursday. Some Republicans and Democrats who voted not to shut off debate are privately committed to amnesty, if they can be given political cover and face-saving amendments to take home.
Sen. John Kyl is not necessarily wrong when he says, "All we have to do on the Republican side is sit down with those who have amendments, get those amendments in a reasonable package, not too many, but enough so all of the members can say they had their chance."
Kyl reads his party right. For the GOP is the political instrument of K Street and Corporate America -- the folks who fund the party and finance the campaigns. And the No. 1 issue of Corporate America is Bush-Kennedy-McCain. For not only does it give blanket amnesty to businesses for hiring illegals, it legalizes the illegals and ensures Corporate America an endless supply of cheap immigrant labor.
The fundamental reason this bill is not dead is that its authors and backers will never quit. For this legislation is part of a larger agenda of a large slice of America's economic and political elite.
What is that agenda?
They have a vision of a world where not only capital and goods but people move freely across borders. Indeed, borders disappear. It is a vision of a "deep integration" of the United States, Canada and Mexico in a North American Union, modeled on the European Union and tied together by super-highways and railroads, where crossing from Mexico into the United States would be as easy as crossing from Virginia into Maryland. It is about the merger of nations into larger transnational entitles and, ultimately, global governance.
This immigration bill is but a piece of a great global project already far advanced. In 1993, a majority of Americans opposed the NAFTA trade deal with Mexico because they did not believe the propaganda and feared that, as Henry Kissinger said, it represented the architecture of a new world order.
More than a dozen years have elapsed. And the results? Contrary to the promises, our trade surplus with Mexico did not grow. It vanished. In 13 years, we have run $500 billion in trade deficits with Mexico. Last year's $60 billion was the largest ever. Mexico now exports more cars, trucks and auto parts to the United States than we export to the world.
What NAFTA did was enable U.S. companies to close their plants here, fire their American workers, and move their factories and jobs to Mexico, while Mexico continued to export its poor to the United States.
What is the hidden agenda of the global companies, which evolved out of what were once great American companies?
They want a limitless supply of low-wage immigrant labor and an end to penalties for hiring illegals. They want the freedom to shut factories here and move them to nations where wages are low, benefits nonexistent and regulations lax. They want to be able to move products back to the United States free of charge. They want to be rid of their American workers, but keep their American consumers.
They want to be able to go out to Asia and hire bright kids and bring them to the United States to replace middle-age U.S. workers who cost too much. They want to be able to outsource their white-collar jobs to India at a fraction of the wages they pay Americans.
It is about globalism -- and about greed. And, as the Bible says, love of money is the root of all evil. But they have a problem. The nation has begun to awaken to the reality that the vision of the global corporation and the transnational elite cannot be realized without the death of the American republic. And so they are in a fight that is long overdue.
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Liberal Animal Control
by Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon
They are now coming after our four-legged companions.
Blue state after blue state is now engaged in mandating forced neutering and spaying of our pets -- and with a Dr. Strangelove fanaticism that should instead be directed at improving school systems or providing clinics with the necessary means for lessons on birth control for illegal aliens and unwed pregnant teenagers.
It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’
“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs.
Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.
The most recent proposal blossomed the week of April 9, 2007 in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.
Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.
Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.
How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?
On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding without recourse that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.
Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?
We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:
Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.
Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.
Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.
Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.
Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.
Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.
Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.
It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’
“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs.
Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.
The most recent proposal blossomed the week of April 9, 2007 in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.
Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.
Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.
How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?
On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding without recourse that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.
Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?
We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:
Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.
Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.
Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.
Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.
Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.
Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.
Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.
Dogs and cats are loyal and trustworthy.
Non-English speaking, rule-busting and intoxicated illegal immigrants are neither willing nor capable of being either.
Dogs and cats provide joy and unconditional love.
Self-seeking illegal immigrants bleed the American taxpayer unconditionally, and without conscience.
So, why are liberal politicians persistently pressing forward like Rommel’s panzer divisions to force pet owners to bring in their canines and felines to be anesthetized and sterilized, and at no later than four months of age? It’s a question that demands sober, logical, and credible answers. It presents the slippery slope of a liberal agenda that has quietly infiltrated American thought via educators and the media.
In the end, as always, the real victims are those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. They are being threatened with arbitrary rules composed by out-of-control liberals and their equally uncontrollable agendas. Clearly it seems that the ‘unborn’ are a menace to liberals: human fetuses and late-term babies allowed to be aborted with impunity, and now the attempt to eliminate conception amongst dogs and cats -- to wipe them out.
The Lefties of the '60s that scared everyone with the idea of over-population are still at it. It is not enough that we are faced with an extremist foreign agenda whose aim is to exterminate westerners. We are systematically being reduced in number, both human and animal inside our own borders. Imagine if the whole of America was placed into the efficient hands of the liberals: In less than two generations there would be no one remaining, except, of course, illegal aliens.
The question is, who will get there to finish the job first?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The View Just Got Brighter
From Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dyer, to Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, to ‘Rosie the Riveter,’ American women have stepped up and made great noises to gain representation, equality, free speech, and recognition. However, for her efforts Hutchinson was convicted of treason in 1637 and cast out by the divine commissioners of her Massachusetts colony because her feminist initiatives did not align with those of the men. Mary Dyer attempted to pick up where Anne had left off and was hanged by the same ecclesiastical authorities.
From the beginning, traditionalists associated feminism with mental illness, neurotic behavior, hysteria and even sadism. (It was easier to label such audacious women with epithets than to brazen out their contentions, which goes hand in hand with ‘If you ignore it, it will go away’). The woman, however, would not be ignored, and she didn’t go away. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony didn’t give up or cave in, and neither backed down from their determined goals; they pushed on with righteous indignation.
It is common knowledge that every historic endeavor has a critical turning point, such as with the women’s movement. When it peaked it did so loudly, brashly, and somewhat hysterically. It began to take shape at the height of the Cultural Revolution, when women of every age, race, persuasion and class underwent sweeping metamorphoses: they became independently outspoken, aggressive, demanding and, to a large measure, fanatic.
At the time, the term ‘radical’ grew to be one of the most overused expressions in all the languages of the world. It remains no less drawn on today, and can be applied without second thought to certain women who are ensconced in high-profile stations -- who have manipulated and sullied those stations with reckless abandon.
As we all know, and must accept, Islamic terrorists promise to wash America -- indeed, the world -- in blood. They wait for the instant an avenue is open to another invasion. We therefore live each day anxiously treading dangerous waters. Adding insult to their pledge to cause injury and death have been the tactless and demoralizing missives of homegrown critics, specifically by another Rosie, but of a much lower esteem:
Rosie O’Donnell -- whose un-tethered and gross outspokenness against our country and our President, as well as her overall behavior, turned intensely macabre.
She proved daily that she is discombobulated by her so-called ‘star’ status and that she is struck senseless with hatred. She overtaxed the right to speak her mind and bluntly ignored the fact that exercising such a right doesn’t make it right when she ruthlessly condemned America and Americans. The First Amendment does not equip her or anyone with the exalted power to walk on water, nor does it make it appropriate for her or anyone to cruelly harpoon and underrate the men and women serving in our military -- or our allies’ military -- who, of their own free will, are placing their personal safety in harm’s way in order to keep us safe from harm.
This person lashed out with tidal waves of anti-American smears, the likes of which hadn’t been heard since ‘Hanoi’ Jane’s carnival shows. Rosie raised the bar of spitefulness so high an Olympic pole-vaulter couldn’t clear it with a NASA booster rocket strapped to his back. Even worse, it appeared she took as hostage the American Broadcasting Company and their sponsors (or was ABC an ‘enabler’ to gain high ratings?), using The View as a launching pad for her aggravating statements.
Rosie claimed she is plagued by bouts of depression, and used this as an excuse for her ranting. Someone should enlighten her with the facts, that there isn’t a person alive today who doesn’t suffer at times from melancholy, because there is a lot out there every day to be depressed over. Simplicity is something we all want but is becoming less and less available due to the constant stress of threats by Islamic terrorists against our lives and our country. It’s the same for everyone and we’re all dealing with it all as best as we’re able -- some better than others; those others, like O’Donnell, worse than the rest.
Despite -- or in spite of -- counter criticism, she chose to toy uncontrollably with self-immolation, the cinders of which she stoked daily with her ugly and baseless comments. Perhaps she has now finally torched her credibility and appeal, as might be the basis for the announcement that she and ABC are parting ways. If so, her departure is coming just in time, because she very well could have taken down with her every breakthrough, every achieved milestone, and every sacrifice made on behalf of women everywhere by pioneer giants such as Hutchinson, Dyer, Stanton and Anthony, as well as the sweat and pride of every gal who riveted bolts into the fuselage of B‑29 bombers that aided in America’s victories in World War II.
The numbers of women heroes of the world, both known and nameless, is inestimable. For the time being that list is safe from being truncated or forgotten, as long as women such as Rosie O’Donnell are never included or associated with the names and memory of the honorable and legendary.
From the beginning, traditionalists associated feminism with mental illness, neurotic behavior, hysteria and even sadism. (It was easier to label such audacious women with epithets than to brazen out their contentions, which goes hand in hand with ‘If you ignore it, it will go away’). The woman, however, would not be ignored, and she didn’t go away. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony didn’t give up or cave in, and neither backed down from their determined goals; they pushed on with righteous indignation.
It is common knowledge that every historic endeavor has a critical turning point, such as with the women’s movement. When it peaked it did so loudly, brashly, and somewhat hysterically. It began to take shape at the height of the Cultural Revolution, when women of every age, race, persuasion and class underwent sweeping metamorphoses: they became independently outspoken, aggressive, demanding and, to a large measure, fanatic.
At the time, the term ‘radical’ grew to be one of the most overused expressions in all the languages of the world. It remains no less drawn on today, and can be applied without second thought to certain women who are ensconced in high-profile stations -- who have manipulated and sullied those stations with reckless abandon.
As we all know, and must accept, Islamic terrorists promise to wash America -- indeed, the world -- in blood. They wait for the instant an avenue is open to another invasion. We therefore live each day anxiously treading dangerous waters. Adding insult to their pledge to cause injury and death have been the tactless and demoralizing missives of homegrown critics, specifically by another Rosie, but of a much lower esteem:
Rosie O’Donnell -- whose un-tethered and gross outspokenness against our country and our President, as well as her overall behavior, turned intensely macabre.
She proved daily that she is discombobulated by her so-called ‘star’ status and that she is struck senseless with hatred. She overtaxed the right to speak her mind and bluntly ignored the fact that exercising such a right doesn’t make it right when she ruthlessly condemned America and Americans. The First Amendment does not equip her or anyone with the exalted power to walk on water, nor does it make it appropriate for her or anyone to cruelly harpoon and underrate the men and women serving in our military -- or our allies’ military -- who, of their own free will, are placing their personal safety in harm’s way in order to keep us safe from harm.
This person lashed out with tidal waves of anti-American smears, the likes of which hadn’t been heard since ‘Hanoi’ Jane’s carnival shows. Rosie raised the bar of spitefulness so high an Olympic pole-vaulter couldn’t clear it with a NASA booster rocket strapped to his back. Even worse, it appeared she took as hostage the American Broadcasting Company and their sponsors (or was ABC an ‘enabler’ to gain high ratings?), using The View as a launching pad for her aggravating statements.
Rosie claimed she is plagued by bouts of depression, and used this as an excuse for her ranting. Someone should enlighten her with the facts, that there isn’t a person alive today who doesn’t suffer at times from melancholy, because there is a lot out there every day to be depressed over. Simplicity is something we all want but is becoming less and less available due to the constant stress of threats by Islamic terrorists against our lives and our country. It’s the same for everyone and we’re all dealing with it all as best as we’re able -- some better than others; those others, like O’Donnell, worse than the rest.
Despite -- or in spite of -- counter criticism, she chose to toy uncontrollably with self-immolation, the cinders of which she stoked daily with her ugly and baseless comments. Perhaps she has now finally torched her credibility and appeal, as might be the basis for the announcement that she and ABC are parting ways. If so, her departure is coming just in time, because she very well could have taken down with her every breakthrough, every achieved milestone, and every sacrifice made on behalf of women everywhere by pioneer giants such as Hutchinson, Dyer, Stanton and Anthony, as well as the sweat and pride of every gal who riveted bolts into the fuselage of B‑29 bombers that aided in America’s victories in World War II.
The numbers of women heroes of the world, both known and nameless, is inestimable. For the time being that list is safe from being truncated or forgotten, as long as women such as Rosie O’Donnell are never included or associated with the names and memory of the honorable and legendary.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Larry, Moe, and Harry Reid
The week of April 16, 2007 began with a shocking news report in the early morning, which grew more shocking in each ensuing hour, and concluded in abject horror with the revelation of a massacre of over 30 of our brightest people at Virginia Tech University. In the days that followed we prayed -- and continue to pray -- for their souls, for the recovery of the survivors, and for their families, friends, and fellow students.
The poke in the eye was dealt by the senator from Nevada, on Thursday, April 19, 2007: He plain out ignored the mourning processes over what evil had done what evil had wanted. With the poise of a snake oil salesman he positioned himself before a gaggle of reporters and delivered a revolting testimonial:
“I believe this war is lost.”
If he had ended this statement with “…nyuk, nyuk, nyuk,” then the question in every conservative’s mind would have been finally answered: Stooges are alive and well on Capitol Hill -- and they’re driving our red, white & blue integrity and morale into the ground. (Note: Flying above the senator, which he showed no interest in noticing, was our Stars & Stripes at half-staff in respect, honor and memory of the students and faculty who were killed four days earlier.)
Reid has lashed back against Republicans’ criticism of his statement, and with ambiguity:
“No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats.”
String both his messages together and they make about as much sense as NBC’s irreverent decision to broadcast the disturbing personal video and audiotapes of the Virginia Tech shooter only 48 hours after the unspeakable tragedy (the day before the Nevada senator decided he was overdue for his moment in the limelight). (On a personal note, I will never forgive NBC for their avarice by airing that video so soon, nor will I ever pardon them for flip-flopping and ultimately canceling the screwball comedy 3rd Rock from the Sun, a critical and ratings success at the time: proof that liberal television networks (much like the sitting Congress) are nowhere near in touch with practicality.)
Back to ‘Stoogeville:’
Pack in with Reid the rest of his irresponsible sidekicks, like Nancy ‘Give Me an Inch So I Can Be the Ruler’ Pelosi (whose unauthorized trots throughout the Middle East was a blatant act of insubordination as well as a violation of deference for both President Bush and Secretary of State Rice, not to mention jeopardizing national security), and the prodigious vessel we call Congress will be in danger of taking on water. Or, more simply put: Loose lips sink ships.
Senate Majority Leader Reid proved by his loose-lip statement that he, and others of the self-styled ‘new’ Congress, is not a visionary. Neither is he a leader, because a genuine leader who is fully committed to battling the darkest forces of iniquity never lays down his sword to that enemy -- an enemy that is consumed with blind hatred and bloodlust, who gives no quarter to his victims, whether they be men, women, or children.
Reid and his colleagues cannot -- or will not -- accept the true meaning of victory on the scale necessary to once and for all stamp out radical Islamic terrorism. Success does not materialize ‘abracadabra’ like a fuzzy rabbit from inside an illusionist’s top hat. The House and Senate steadfastly refuse to recognize that society allows only one great change at a time, and every great change takes time.
Terrorists are trying to use that time to gain traction and the only way to beat them, and those that sponsor terrorism, is to slash their malignant ideology to zero. Reid and the others who think and speak like defeatists will never grasp this fact, because their reach falls miserably short due to their short-sightedness.
For Reid to state to the world -- to the sworn enemies of peace -- that the war in Iraq is lost (and on the basis of intelligence reports for just one week) is not a sign of strength. It is fearful, ignorant, and unmanly.
Senators represent the people, but Reid’s statement -- and statements and actions by others like him -- is disloyal and a slap in the people’s face. And the people include each devoted member of our armed forces -- Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines -- serving not just in Iraq but in every outpost in the world. The value of their mottos, particularly Semper Fi, is plainly and dishonorably alien to Reid.
Slap me, and I’ll turn the other cheek. But slap our men and women in uniform and you have stepped way over the line.
Senator Reid said this war is lost. There is only one response that that comes to mind which is succinctly appropriate. As 3rd Rock’s high commander, Dick Solomon, retorted often and with sustained relish:
“No, Harry. You’re WRONG.”
The poke in the eye was dealt by the senator from Nevada, on Thursday, April 19, 2007: He plain out ignored the mourning processes over what evil had done what evil had wanted. With the poise of a snake oil salesman he positioned himself before a gaggle of reporters and delivered a revolting testimonial:
“I believe this war is lost.”
If he had ended this statement with “…nyuk, nyuk, nyuk,” then the question in every conservative’s mind would have been finally answered: Stooges are alive and well on Capitol Hill -- and they’re driving our red, white & blue integrity and morale into the ground. (Note: Flying above the senator, which he showed no interest in noticing, was our Stars & Stripes at half-staff in respect, honor and memory of the students and faculty who were killed four days earlier.)
Reid has lashed back against Republicans’ criticism of his statement, and with ambiguity:
“No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats.”
String both his messages together and they make about as much sense as NBC’s irreverent decision to broadcast the disturbing personal video and audiotapes of the Virginia Tech shooter only 48 hours after the unspeakable tragedy (the day before the Nevada senator decided he was overdue for his moment in the limelight). (On a personal note, I will never forgive NBC for their avarice by airing that video so soon, nor will I ever pardon them for flip-flopping and ultimately canceling the screwball comedy 3rd Rock from the Sun, a critical and ratings success at the time: proof that liberal television networks (much like the sitting Congress) are nowhere near in touch with practicality.)
Back to ‘Stoogeville:’
Pack in with Reid the rest of his irresponsible sidekicks, like Nancy ‘Give Me an Inch So I Can Be the Ruler’ Pelosi (whose unauthorized trots throughout the Middle East was a blatant act of insubordination as well as a violation of deference for both President Bush and Secretary of State Rice, not to mention jeopardizing national security), and the prodigious vessel we call Congress will be in danger of taking on water. Or, more simply put: Loose lips sink ships.
Senate Majority Leader Reid proved by his loose-lip statement that he, and others of the self-styled ‘new’ Congress, is not a visionary. Neither is he a leader, because a genuine leader who is fully committed to battling the darkest forces of iniquity never lays down his sword to that enemy -- an enemy that is consumed with blind hatred and bloodlust, who gives no quarter to his victims, whether they be men, women, or children.
Reid and his colleagues cannot -- or will not -- accept the true meaning of victory on the scale necessary to once and for all stamp out radical Islamic terrorism. Success does not materialize ‘abracadabra’ like a fuzzy rabbit from inside an illusionist’s top hat. The House and Senate steadfastly refuse to recognize that society allows only one great change at a time, and every great change takes time.
Terrorists are trying to use that time to gain traction and the only way to beat them, and those that sponsor terrorism, is to slash their malignant ideology to zero. Reid and the others who think and speak like defeatists will never grasp this fact, because their reach falls miserably short due to their short-sightedness.
For Reid to state to the world -- to the sworn enemies of peace -- that the war in Iraq is lost (and on the basis of intelligence reports for just one week) is not a sign of strength. It is fearful, ignorant, and unmanly.
Senators represent the people, but Reid’s statement -- and statements and actions by others like him -- is disloyal and a slap in the people’s face. And the people include each devoted member of our armed forces -- Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines -- serving not just in Iraq but in every outpost in the world. The value of their mottos, particularly Semper Fi, is plainly and dishonorably alien to Reid.
Slap me, and I’ll turn the other cheek. But slap our men and women in uniform and you have stepped way over the line.
Senator Reid said this war is lost. There is only one response that that comes to mind which is succinctly appropriate. As 3rd Rock’s high commander, Dick Solomon, retorted often and with sustained relish:
“No, Harry. You’re WRONG.”
Monday, April 02, 2007
There are houses, and there are houses
Look over the descriptions of the following two houses and see if you can tell which belongs to the environmentalist.
HOUSE NUMBER 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guesthouse all heated by gas. In one month alone this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an entire year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas exceeds $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or mid-west “snow-belt,’ either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE NUMBER 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. This house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000-gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE NUMBER 1 (the 20-room, energy-guzzling mansion) is located outside Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker), Al Gore.
HOUSE NUMBER 2 (a model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So, whose house is gentler on the environment?
Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
HOUSE NUMBER 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guesthouse all heated by gas. In one month alone this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an entire year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas exceeds $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or mid-west “snow-belt,’ either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE NUMBER 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. This house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000-gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE NUMBER 1 (the 20-room, energy-guzzling mansion) is located outside Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker), Al Gore.
HOUSE NUMBER 2 (a model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So, whose house is gentler on the environment?
Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
