By Julian Krasta
“He is known for his zealous oratory and anti-Semitism. He is the chief architect of a 2-state plan, which historians will document was the commencement of Middle East violence, culminating in a second Holocaust with Israel as its victim.
“He earned his Ph.D. from ‘wherever,’ wrote doctoral theses, penned an autobiography, and worked on Wall Street. He came into contact and became friends with known fanatics, crooks, and America haters.
“He was elected a senator in Illinois where he put his propaganda to full use, combating the local conservative party with the help of William (Weather Underground) Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, and Rev. Jeremiah ‘Them Jews’ Wright.
“By 2005 he had risen in his party ranks to become one of its most prominent members.
“In that position he perfected an understanding of the “Big Lie” technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses.”
* * * * *
The previous paragraphs fairly describe Barack Hussein Obama. But I’m admitting immediately, in order to make my point in this commentary, that I borrowed those passages almost verbatim from Wikipedia. They in fact point up a monstrous figure of history. I only changed the names, the locations, the tense, a few words here and there, and the date.
That monster was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister…and Obama is a carbon copy.
Obama’s propaganda technique is explained best by Victor Davis Hanson in a recent piece entitled “Just Make Stuff Up.” In it, Hanson sets out comprehensively that Obama is prevailing over a system that appears in total order, but because of his nonstop fabrications that system can really only be disorganized and chaotic (e.g., the numerous Cabinet appointees who were vetted then booted on the basis of “mistakes.”)
Disorganization and chaos was Obama’s goal from the start. I watched him channel his hatred and anger into powerful speeches that pumped up his listeners but alienated Republicans, moderates, and clear-thinking Democrats. His uncompromising vocal tone successfully attracted drifters and malcontents who were easily programmed into believing that the time was never better for a revolution.
But there remains that one colossal catastrophe: those same itinerants and k’vetshers signed the contract without reading it. They had no idea what they agreed to revolt against, because their chosen one never once spelled out his true plans or aspirations. He only repeated—ad infinitum, ad nauseum—“hope” and “change” (in the manner in which Hitler incessantly shouted, “Deutschland!”).
Obama cleverly spoke in vague terms and left it to his snarling sycophants to fill in the miles-wide blanks, and they filled them with what they imagined he said or promised them. They see now that they had cast their lots for a bait n’ switch brute who had no intention of effecting the changes they expected (whatever those imaginary changes might’ve been).
When I first witnessed those orgasmic displays of affection for Obama, they appeared eerily similar to the way Germans thrust out their right hands in salute to the lunatic Bavarian paperhanger and his propaganda minister. Those images brought to mind this quote by Euripides: “When love is in excess, it brings a man no honor, nor worthiness.” It is especially significant since the excess love Obama appropriated has gone unrequited, and has been only used to step on heads and purloin the top executive position.
In my previous commentary I wrote that the people in Tehran would judge for themselves as to whether Obama’s proposal of friendship is popcorn propaganda. The millions protesting the (phony) election is the answer, which I believe is their way of saying they want nothing more to do with egocentric and immoral dictators (whether he be an Iranian or an American).
If the Iranian people had faith that Obama and Ahmadinejad could “get it on” they would have accepted the results of the election. But their outright anger against the incumbent’s manufactured victory speaks volumes: If they’ve had it up to there with Mahmoud and the threat of annihilation it would be unthinkable that they would want to cozy up with the guy who hijacked the U.S. presidency, whose only real accomplishment to date is he bagged a house fly.
The protests undoubtedly have thrown a monkey wrench into Obama’s nefarious plans to secure Iran as a nuclear hot zone and remain an ongoing threat to Israel. The Iranian people’s reaction proves, to me at least, that they think his rapier wit is not that rapier after all, particularly since Obama has mimicked Jimmy Carter by stating it would do not good for the U.S. to meddle with the issue. That statement alone brazenly contradicts his monosyllabic twitters of “hope … change … yes … we … can.” And never forget that it was Carter’s psychopathic mind-set that plowed the road for the Taliban to overthrow the Shah, which catapulted the virulent and bloodthirsty Islamic terrorism stampeding rampant today.
There will always be voracious dictators with whom we must contend, whether they wear uniforms of the military, desert robes, or pin-stripe suits. They are responsible for unspeakable destruction and unconscionable carnage. But not one of them has outlasted the peoples’ endurance, nor will any ever undermine the sacrifices human beings are willing to make for the precious gifts of liberty, democracy, and peace.
So let us acknowledge the courage of those Iranians who are saying NO to the “Big Lie,” and honor those who are being beaten and killed for demanding justice, freedom, and the truth. My heart and prayers go out to them and to their families, and to the millions of others in Iran and everywhere who are “holding the line” against the monsters.
Julian Krasta may be contacted at semperfieternal@aol.com.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Barack "Banzai!" Obama
By Julian Krasta
He would’ve made one heck of a Kamikaze pilot. Just like those disillusioned and desperate souls who, beginning in October 1944, slammed their Model 52c Zeroes into U.S. and Ally naval vessels to cause as much death and destruction as possible, Obama is similarly caught up with the same target fixation. “Target fixation” is when a pilot becomes so fixed on his mark that he flies straight into it.
That underground nation known as his administration, including the MSM pit vipers, claim that the spiky focus and steely stare in Obama’s eyes is radiance and derring-do. Wrong. What emanates from those icy orbs is pathological pride and suicidal condescension.
The target now in his sites is Iran with whom he wants to “open a dialogue.” What he fails to accept is that they are not enchanted with his porous speeches, which are, at all times, top-heavy with artless sincerity. I’m pretty sure that the more he tries to sway Iranians to his bizarre thought processes, the more he is making a meal out of his own tongue.
Just for argument’s sake, let us, for a moment, pretend we’re looking at him from Iran’s point of view:
We see an interloper with no decision-making experience who lied, finagled, and bribed his way into the White House. He is self-possessed and closeted. His sophistication is synthetic. He belittles and badmouths America. He is leeching control of corporations (with union bosses catching the meaty scraps in their buckets). He has all but shredded the U.S. Constitution. He is taxing the American People down to their marrow, and is spending those tax dollars like a drunken yuppie. This gatecrasher is now inviting Muslims to join him in a daisy chain of comradeship.
Should Iranians trust Obama’s overture of friendship after witnessing the wholesale damage he is inflicting on his own country? I doubt it. The proof is that, with Obama in the cockpit at the controls, America’s favorable rating in Iran is five percentage points lower than when President George W. Bush held office.
I would add this speculation: Iran’s dwindling opinion of the U.S. also could be based on the fact that, while Obama is piloting America at full throttle to the left and eventually into a Marxist drop zone, Europe is pulling herself up by her bootstraps and is moving decidedly to the right as a result of overdosing on liberalism. Remember how Europeans were swooning and shouting praises and scrambling to touch Obama during the presidential campaign? They are now running, leaping, in the other direction, because they have accepted that liberal voters aren’t capable of picking a winner in a one-horse race.
Examples like these are not products of my imagination. They are a matter of public record, easily accessible on the Internet. If I can dig up this information, so can anyone in Tehran—and they can, and do, judge for themselves.
While I’m on the subject of digging, here briefly is another liberal lollapalooza: The Obama media have been crowing that Sonia Sotomayor would be “the first ever” Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Wrong again. He was Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, who served from 1932 to 1938. Justice Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew (Spanish ancestry). His father was New York Supreme Court Justice Albert Cardozo (who also was vice president and trustee of the Spanish-Portuguese synagogue, Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York City).
See what you can learn by seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The MSM should, once and for all—or even once—, report hard facts instead of always dunking their donuts in the wrong trough. They should state it as it actually is, like Marilyn Monroe was dazzling, or Nancy Pelosi is overdue for her rabies vaccination. It’s easier than they think.
But I digress.
Obama is spearheading a pervasive conspiracy to fly his “Bogey” into and wipe out the foundation upon which this country was conceived and created. And filling his tanks with volatile support are the Democrats in Congress (who proved that the only thing they’re good at is double-parking their limousines) and the media rag pickers (who wink at lowlifes like Cindy Sheehan but snub the TEA parties).
The result of this troika’s conniving conceit is Americans are living in an atmosphere of crisis. Tensions are simmering throughout the nation. So, unless and until Congressional Republicans gain back control in 2010, no part of this country will go untainted by the present regime, which is turning out to be worse than any foreign invasion piercing our borders or our air space.
Obama is comfortable in his prickly flight suit, because it is a patchwork of his lack of love for, or devotion to, the U.S.A. Unfortunately for him, he actually believes he will replace our rights and liberties with a garroting social order. What he has woefully underestimated is the eventual counter-impact by the People on that order.
We, therefore, must take a stand and ensure that the balance of power swings back to us. It is up to the People to disenfranchise that motley few by voting in replacements who will help reestablish conservative values. Once balance is reinstated we can work on rebuilding what Obama has been trying to smash to dust. It’ll be a slow recovery, but it’s better than no recovery.
Begin today. Support the right men and women who are determined to fight for our rights, who will recharge our Constitutional protections, and who will say “NO” to higher taxes and the dismantling of our military strength.
Finally, send the message to those presently in power that, despite his efforts to blow this country sky high, Obama’s obsessive target fixation will, in the end, result with him slamming into and making an ash of himself.
Julian Krasta may be contacted at semperfieternal@aol.com.
He would’ve made one heck of a Kamikaze pilot. Just like those disillusioned and desperate souls who, beginning in October 1944, slammed their Model 52c Zeroes into U.S. and Ally naval vessels to cause as much death and destruction as possible, Obama is similarly caught up with the same target fixation. “Target fixation” is when a pilot becomes so fixed on his mark that he flies straight into it.
That underground nation known as his administration, including the MSM pit vipers, claim that the spiky focus and steely stare in Obama’s eyes is radiance and derring-do. Wrong. What emanates from those icy orbs is pathological pride and suicidal condescension.
The target now in his sites is Iran with whom he wants to “open a dialogue.” What he fails to accept is that they are not enchanted with his porous speeches, which are, at all times, top-heavy with artless sincerity. I’m pretty sure that the more he tries to sway Iranians to his bizarre thought processes, the more he is making a meal out of his own tongue.
Just for argument’s sake, let us, for a moment, pretend we’re looking at him from Iran’s point of view:
We see an interloper with no decision-making experience who lied, finagled, and bribed his way into the White House. He is self-possessed and closeted. His sophistication is synthetic. He belittles and badmouths America. He is leeching control of corporations (with union bosses catching the meaty scraps in their buckets). He has all but shredded the U.S. Constitution. He is taxing the American People down to their marrow, and is spending those tax dollars like a drunken yuppie. This gatecrasher is now inviting Muslims to join him in a daisy chain of comradeship.
Should Iranians trust Obama’s overture of friendship after witnessing the wholesale damage he is inflicting on his own country? I doubt it. The proof is that, with Obama in the cockpit at the controls, America’s favorable rating in Iran is five percentage points lower than when President George W. Bush held office.
I would add this speculation: Iran’s dwindling opinion of the U.S. also could be based on the fact that, while Obama is piloting America at full throttle to the left and eventually into a Marxist drop zone, Europe is pulling herself up by her bootstraps and is moving decidedly to the right as a result of overdosing on liberalism. Remember how Europeans were swooning and shouting praises and scrambling to touch Obama during the presidential campaign? They are now running, leaping, in the other direction, because they have accepted that liberal voters aren’t capable of picking a winner in a one-horse race.
Examples like these are not products of my imagination. They are a matter of public record, easily accessible on the Internet. If I can dig up this information, so can anyone in Tehran—and they can, and do, judge for themselves.
While I’m on the subject of digging, here briefly is another liberal lollapalooza: The Obama media have been crowing that Sonia Sotomayor would be “the first ever” Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Wrong again. He was Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, who served from 1932 to 1938. Justice Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew (Spanish ancestry). His father was New York Supreme Court Justice Albert Cardozo (who also was vice president and trustee of the Spanish-Portuguese synagogue, Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York City).
See what you can learn by seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The MSM should, once and for all—or even once—, report hard facts instead of always dunking their donuts in the wrong trough. They should state it as it actually is, like Marilyn Monroe was dazzling, or Nancy Pelosi is overdue for her rabies vaccination. It’s easier than they think.
But I digress.
Obama is spearheading a pervasive conspiracy to fly his “Bogey” into and wipe out the foundation upon which this country was conceived and created. And filling his tanks with volatile support are the Democrats in Congress (who proved that the only thing they’re good at is double-parking their limousines) and the media rag pickers (who wink at lowlifes like Cindy Sheehan but snub the TEA parties).
The result of this troika’s conniving conceit is Americans are living in an atmosphere of crisis. Tensions are simmering throughout the nation. So, unless and until Congressional Republicans gain back control in 2010, no part of this country will go untainted by the present regime, which is turning out to be worse than any foreign invasion piercing our borders or our air space.
Obama is comfortable in his prickly flight suit, because it is a patchwork of his lack of love for, or devotion to, the U.S.A. Unfortunately for him, he actually believes he will replace our rights and liberties with a garroting social order. What he has woefully underestimated is the eventual counter-impact by the People on that order.
We, therefore, must take a stand and ensure that the balance of power swings back to us. It is up to the People to disenfranchise that motley few by voting in replacements who will help reestablish conservative values. Once balance is reinstated we can work on rebuilding what Obama has been trying to smash to dust. It’ll be a slow recovery, but it’s better than no recovery.
Begin today. Support the right men and women who are determined to fight for our rights, who will recharge our Constitutional protections, and who will say “NO” to higher taxes and the dismantling of our military strength.
Finally, send the message to those presently in power that, despite his efforts to blow this country sky high, Obama’s obsessive target fixation will, in the end, result with him slamming into and making an ash of himself.
Julian Krasta may be contacted at semperfieternal@aol.com.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Obama's Cult of Personality
By Julian Krasta
Cult of personality is “…when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.”
In early 2008, the worldwide liberal media went on a blowout selling-binge hawking Barack Hussein Obama as a “heroic public image.”
The fragments of what remain of that media (more confined here in the states rather than planet-wide, anymore) are still attempting to plug that image (“The 55-minute speech was remarkable and historic not so much for the delivery or even the words, but for the context, the orator, the moment”), which was posted immediately after Obama’s 6,000-words speech in Cairo.
The article, written by Mike Allen at Politico.com, also describes a moment when Obama drew hushed gasps from the audience for a comment they perceived as audacious. But, all in all, it is portly with praise, despite discrepancies and to-be-expected contradictions, such as when he said, “The U.S. should not impose its values on the world…”—yet he is demanding that Israel concede on preposterous points. Isn’t that an imposition? And then in his Cairo speech: “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”
Dizzy yet? But wait, there’s more. According to Obama: We were…we are…we shouldn’t be…you’re okay, but we’re not…we’re crude…we’re not crude…we’re bad, bad, bad…we’re not that bad…the U.S. is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
Which is it? What are we? I suppose it depends upon which lavish magical mystery tour Obama happens to be on.
The article by Allen is a classic representation of how Josef Stalin, for example, charily chiseled himself a heroic public image using pernicious propaganda to fabricate that hallucination. And the gulags and unmarked graves are crammed with those who dared to disagree.
Americans numbering in the millions swallowed whole the propagandists’ genetically produced persona of Obama, because those millions couldn’t tell the difference between a bagel and a brick.
Today they are suffering from a severe case of “What have I done?” acid reflux, the result of which is their arrogance has shriveled dramatically. They are realizing—too little, too late—that they were meshugeh ahf toit (that’s Yiddish for crazy as a loon) for betting the ranch, SUV, family jewels and college tuition on the MSM’s falsities, and that it is they, the loons, who perforce maneuvered us dangerously close to the deathtrap called totalitarianism.
And now for the bad news:
In his speech, Obama said, “The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as – it is as if he has killed all mankind.”
Sounds harmless, but…
Muslims who inure to the Koran—that it contains the final, unalterable and immutable words of Allah—would know he only paraphrased the actual passage, which is: “To murder a single human being is as evil as to murder all mankind, unless he be causing trouble (mischief) in the land.”
Islamic scholars know the meaning of “causing trouble in the land,” which is to “not live in accordance with the tenets of Islam.” Therefore, the passage Obama chose translates to “the murder of any non-Muslim is not evil.” (Thank you, C.H.)
The arresting difference between Islam and other religions is that all references in the Koran regarding human kindness (love, charity, mercy) count only when it is Muslim to Muslim. The religion unequivocally calls for the death of all infidels, and the enslavement of Christians and Jews.
The purpose of his Cairo speech was (supposedly) predicated on generating a new beginning between America and Muslims—and to build a heroic public image of himself.
Did he goof when he delivered an incomplete and misleading extract from the Koran? Or was he communicating a coded message to our enemies that it’s OK if all non-Muslims are eradicated?
Upon microscopic examination of all he has said and done in these past four months, particularly his choice of words for his Cairo speech, it is not inconceivable that Barack Hussein Obama could be generating the beginning of the end of the United States of America.
Cult of personality is “…when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.”
In early 2008, the worldwide liberal media went on a blowout selling-binge hawking Barack Hussein Obama as a “heroic public image.”
The fragments of what remain of that media (more confined here in the states rather than planet-wide, anymore) are still attempting to plug that image (“The 55-minute speech was remarkable and historic not so much for the delivery or even the words, but for the context, the orator, the moment”), which was posted immediately after Obama’s 6,000-words speech in Cairo.
The article, written by Mike Allen at Politico.com, also describes a moment when Obama drew hushed gasps from the audience for a comment they perceived as audacious. But, all in all, it is portly with praise, despite discrepancies and to-be-expected contradictions, such as when he said, “The U.S. should not impose its values on the world…”—yet he is demanding that Israel concede on preposterous points. Isn’t that an imposition? And then in his Cairo speech: “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”
Dizzy yet? But wait, there’s more. According to Obama: We were…we are…we shouldn’t be…you’re okay, but we’re not…we’re crude…we’re not crude…we’re bad, bad, bad…we’re not that bad…the U.S. is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
Which is it? What are we? I suppose it depends upon which lavish magical mystery tour Obama happens to be on.
The article by Allen is a classic representation of how Josef Stalin, for example, charily chiseled himself a heroic public image using pernicious propaganda to fabricate that hallucination. And the gulags and unmarked graves are crammed with those who dared to disagree.
Americans numbering in the millions swallowed whole the propagandists’ genetically produced persona of Obama, because those millions couldn’t tell the difference between a bagel and a brick.
Today they are suffering from a severe case of “What have I done?” acid reflux, the result of which is their arrogance has shriveled dramatically. They are realizing—too little, too late—that they were meshugeh ahf toit (that’s Yiddish for crazy as a loon) for betting the ranch, SUV, family jewels and college tuition on the MSM’s falsities, and that it is they, the loons, who perforce maneuvered us dangerously close to the deathtrap called totalitarianism.
And now for the bad news:
In his speech, Obama said, “The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as – it is as if he has killed all mankind.”
Sounds harmless, but…
Muslims who inure to the Koran—that it contains the final, unalterable and immutable words of Allah—would know he only paraphrased the actual passage, which is: “To murder a single human being is as evil as to murder all mankind, unless he be causing trouble (mischief) in the land.”
Islamic scholars know the meaning of “causing trouble in the land,” which is to “not live in accordance with the tenets of Islam.” Therefore, the passage Obama chose translates to “the murder of any non-Muslim is not evil.” (Thank you, C.H.)
The arresting difference between Islam and other religions is that all references in the Koran regarding human kindness (love, charity, mercy) count only when it is Muslim to Muslim. The religion unequivocally calls for the death of all infidels, and the enslavement of Christians and Jews.
The purpose of his Cairo speech was (supposedly) predicated on generating a new beginning between America and Muslims—and to build a heroic public image of himself.
Did he goof when he delivered an incomplete and misleading extract from the Koran? Or was he communicating a coded message to our enemies that it’s OK if all non-Muslims are eradicated?
Upon microscopic examination of all he has said and done in these past four months, particularly his choice of words for his Cairo speech, it is not inconceivable that Barack Hussein Obama could be generating the beginning of the end of the United States of America.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Do we want a punk in the White House?
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”
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”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
