The Note : Speaker Pelosi ‘Absolutely’ Confident Dems Will Retain House Majority
Barack Obama’s Dream is Our Nightmare
Obama's Dream Car: Everybody will have one Is Obama in his own dream world or is he doing this on purpose? In the wake of Obama’s call for another fifty billion in government spending last week, Investor’s Business Daily asks, “Is this just a campaign ploy or is the White House ruining our economy on purpose?” Hannity asserted in July that Obama “is bankrupting the country, he is the most incompetent president to ever hold that office.” Dick Morris writes: “Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well…the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill.” I agree with David Horowitz. Obama is doing it on purpose . Obama’s American Dream is a nightmare vision for 70% of Americans, but the president genuinely believes his dream will make the world a better place. He thinks capitalism is a bad system that allows the rich to exploit the poor, and that in damaging capitalism and replacing it with big government, the country will prosper (except for the rich, who don’t deserve their wealth anyway). He thought our economy would rebound magnificently under this treatment, with the rich paying and poor raking it in. In short, he believes in a leftist Santa Claus. Obama can’t learn from his mistakes. To admit failure at this point would be to call his entire life’s ideology into question, to throw not just Reverend Wright under the bus, but everyone who ever loved Obama – his radical mother and his leftist grandfather , Frank Marshall , his beloved black communist father figure in Hawaii, Bill Ayers , who launched Obama’s political career and wrote Obama’s autobiographies . It would even mean losing his dream of his communist biological father who abandoned him. To turn from dreams to reality would cut the President off from the leftist sycophants around him, and the radical czars he’s installed in the White House. It wouldn’t earn Michelle’s respect either, who Sean Hannity reminds us, urges people not to be so selfish as to go into business. We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. …make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry… None of his crowd understand that is it business which creates jobs, makes a good life for Americans, allows ordinary people to realize their dreams for themselves and their children. Michelle and Obama believe it will help America for them to help themselves to our money. To learn from his mistakes would rock BHO’s world. That is why he will never do a Bill Clinton, listen to his polls, learn from his disasters, and move to the center. Obama would prefer to dream on. Let’s hope November will start to end the nightmare for the rest of us.
See the article here:
Barack Obama’s Dream is Our Nightmare
It’s Like Charles Johnson Running a Country
Obama is said to be much more popular in foreign countries than the previous president, and I guess a part of that is if you ever insult him, he will ban you from ever visiting America . I guess one of the perks of being the U.S. President is being able to boss around people from other countries, but it still seems a little harsh. Still, this policy makes sure that in America you won’t run into people who constantly insult the president — other than most Americans, of course.
Pat Buchanan Offends Anti-American Islam-Loving Libertarians
Pat Buchanan has offended anti-American libertarians who think Islam is gentle. Buchanan said the Ground Zero mosque is a development planned by a man with the “religious motivation of the Saudis who attacked the towers” and should not be built. This has Fred Reed of LewRockwell.com infuriated: America is not at war with Islam, prior to 9/11 America never considered Islam violent and by no means would alleged Muslims attack America. Reed blames America for Islamic violence — America is the bloodthirsty beast that created Muslim monsters and was never attacked by Islam. If America is not at war with Islam, who are the maniacs screaming Allahu akbar every time Americans are attacked here and overseas? The 9/11 attacks were not committed by Mazel Tov -screaming Jews. Other than radical leftist terrorist groups who always support Islam, attacks around the world are carried out by Muslim terrorists following world-conquering Islamic sharia law . Reed’s radical libertarian view denounces Buchanan as a “yahoo,” insisting Americans are Christian brutes attacking Muslims : Buchanan, of the American Conservative , [is] proclaiming that Islam is a Culture of Jihad, and most militant…Would it be poltroonish of me to note that just now Christian armies are busily annexing and wrecking Afghanistan and Iraq, having recently bombed Somalia? That they use robotic aircraft to murder Yemenis, that they hunt down Moslems in the Philippines (where after 1898 Americans engaged in atrocities that would win the admiration of the Japanese), encourage Israel to ruin Lebanon and to run a concentration camp for Moslems in Gaza, enthusiastically murder Pakistanis from the sky, and threaten Syria and Iran? Leftist anti-American ideology indicts America as the controlling world conqueror and Islam as misunderstood because “not one Islamic nation is in the First World.” That’s because Muslims are too busy forcefully amalgamating the First World to their culture. Note to Reed, Buchanan consistently says he is against the Iraq war . His magazine recently stated : “If we’re honest, since day one, the War on Terror has actually been a war for it.” Buchanan shares similar views of war— avoid unless attacked , Saddam was never a threat and America should not aid Israel . But it is Buchanan’s pro-West Christian statements against Islam that anger Reed.
See original here:
Pat Buchanan Offends Anti-American Islam-Loving Libertarians
Odd Mom Out: In Defense of Nerdy Parents
I wish I could bottle up all the parents I know who raise their children the way my husband and I raise ours and live together in one giant community. Like the Amish do. Or polygamists do (minus the polygamy). If we did, parenting would be so much easier — and infinitely more fun. I haven’t always needed a homogeneous environment to be content. Despite my Protestant, white-collar Midwestern background, I spent a decade living in Boston and New York. There, I worked or lived amongst (and with) black, Jewish, blue-collar, and gay Americans. I taught in almost every variety of school, and I used to chat it up pretty regularly with a homeless Rastafarian who hung out below an apartment I once occupied. Today I live in a city-like Midwestern suburb, rather than a suburban bubble. I like my local 7-Eleven and the everyday guys down at the body shop. They’re smart, traditional-minded folks: FOX news is plastered on the corner wall of their waiting room and a copy of the Holy Bible sits on the table next to Popular Mechanic . So no, I’ve never had any particular need to stick with my own kind. But being a mother in the 21st century has left me little choice in the matter. I’m not suggesting all parents need to do all things the exact same way — naturally, the dynamics and likes/interests/personalities of families differ. I only mean that parenting in America has become a bona fide obstacle course, where moms and dads routinely fight a culture that does not have their children’s best interests at heart. In her excellent book, Bringing Up Geeks , author Marybeth Hicks highlights this phenomenon. In the opening pages of the book, she describes a conversation she had with an average, run-of-the-mill, 21st century mom. I’m standing in a circle of mothers, chatting about — what else? — our kids. At some point in the conversation I admitted that my children are geeks. I said this to be funny, but it’s true. My kids know it. Most everyone who knows us knows it. And we’re okay with that. But one mom in the circle was shocked. ‘Oh, noooooo,’ she comforted me. ‘Your kids are very popular! Reeeally. Why would you say such a thing? Hicks explains to the mother that she likes and is proud of the fact that her kids are geeks (a term she uses caustically and defines as “ g enuine, e nthusiastic, e mpowered k ids”), but the other mother insisted that Hicks’s kids are not geeks. This exchange signifies a deeply rooted modern phenomenon: the desire of today’s parents not to parent their children but to befriend them — and make sure everyone else does, too.
View post:
Odd Mom Out: In Defense of Nerdy Parents
From the Pen of David Horowitz: September 14, 2010
It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one’s agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. Political stratagems that appear moderate and compromised to radical factions of the left may present an even greater threat from the perspective of the other side. In 1917, Lenin’s political slogan wasn’t “Socialist Dictatorship! Firing Squads and Gulags!” It was “Bread, Land and Peace.” – Hillary Clinton and “The Third Way”: How America’s First Lady of the Left Has Bamboozled Liberals and Conservatives Alike, Jewish World Review – If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include: “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.) Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
Go here to read the rest:
From the Pen of David Horowitz: September 14, 2010
An Apology – Nicholas Kristof and I do not see the world … (Martin Peretz/The New Republic)
Martin Peretz / The New Republic : An Apology
Citizens of America vs. destructive internationalists
Dacia Nichol Taylor I believe we are at a juncture in political thought that has the potential to poison the future of our country. It can be summed up as follows: The idea of an international community and with it, international “citizenship,” is absurd. “You can’t be a citizen of an entity that doesn’t exist.” – John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations. He knew. And it will never exist. As long as we are Americans, it never can. Admittedly, growing up in a world where Captain Planet gave me the vision of world cooperation and peace, I saw that the motto “we are the world” was the common understanding of what we were all setting out to achieve. It was second nature. All things relating to “global good” were seen as just that – good. Never did it occur to me that this was one of the greatest threats to Americans, disguised in pretty wrapping paper. Ironically, there was another idea that I didn’t remember hearing about at all in relation to the United States: American sovereignty, emphasis on “American”. The right of an entity to have control over its own affairs is supposedly something to which all legal states are entitled. There are basic rules for the road that we all pretend to understand are necessary in order to hold on to “legitimate” power. Yet it is those countries that defy them in the most vile ways that are defended by international advocates in the name of sovereignty. Now riddle me this: Where then do you see advocates of American sovereignty decrying international institutions seeking to control us in the name of our sovereignty? You don’t. Unless of course you’re part of the evil cult of conservatism, and especially if your name is John Bolton. But you don’t count. I’ve come to the conclusion that 9/11, in all of its horrors and sadness, had a very important message that the liberals in this country have been fighting since the 1930s: Wake up America. The response in the aftermath of the attacks brought a wave of contraction from globalization. In its place, a new wave of nationalism set in, bringing to the forefront American interests, namely American security, and with it American sovereignty. As a nation united, we sought to defeat our enemies and protect our shores in a grandiose display of patriotism not seen since the end of World War II. Once the liberals splashed their collective faces with cold water (not the bottled kind of course, mind you), the drum beat toward dismantling the newfound solidarity began. This time they focused on a new word to which to give demonic definition: Unilateralism. Without having set the stage that portrayed the idea of international “citizenship” as a force for “global good,” their mission to craft unilateral action as an evil never would have succeeded. Liberals understand the idea of American memory, namely that it only lasts perhaps a decade or so. And even better still, that decade is reset with each new generation’s political awareness. See, while my parents may have lived through Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, their judgments on the issues will only be based on their perceptions of the last two or three presidents and how they compare to the options in front of them. For example, although they lived through Reagan as active adults, they will weigh prospective leaders against their perceptions of Clinton and Bush because their memories are closer tied to more recent years – their Reaganism buried in recent disappointment. My generation, on the other hand, was born during Reagan, and while we became aware of the presence of political and international evil in 2001, our political maturity developed while George W. Bush was being slaughtered in the mainstream media. Clinton and the first Bush had enough of a focus on international approval to sway my parents toward the desire for international consensus, and my generation saw the portrayal of unilateral action as evil. Neither generation has a focus on American exceptionalism and sovereignty in the front of their minds, and the left has used this lack of awareness to manipulate what is seen as good and evil in mainstream thought. We all want peace. We all want to get along. International cooperation has been portrayed as the only way to achieve this, which is a soft ball of wax to mold into whatever agenda is sought. Please sign your name here, here and here, and we’ll all get along. If you don’t sign, you’re a war monger. And so went the fate of George W. Bush. He wouldn’t sign. He took the oath of office of Commander in Chief of the United States instead. Only in a world of liberal manipulation would the idea of self-preservation deserve to be weighed against the interests of anyone besides the entity seeking to preserve itself. Whether the means is unilateral, bilateral, trilateral or multilateral, American best interests should be the primary objective. Just because our neighbors do not see enough value in protecting their own interests does not mean that we follow suit. In a strange irony, as the guarantors of freedom in the world, our neighbors also have security in knowing that should they tumble into their own mess, we will always be there to save them from themselves. It is shameful that they would expect us to not act to protect our own interests when it is those very actions that extend to protecting their interests as well. Unilateralism be damned. Unless I need you to use it, of course. The evil of liberalism in our country has been underestimated, however, as no one in the world community truly expected the proud American people to ever sign their own death warrant. Then we elected Obama, and they all quickly figured out that they still couldn’t quite fill out their “big girl” panties on their own. Until threats such as communism and socialism are completely wiped from the planet, each American generation needs two things in order to carry the torch of our liberty forward: 1) A reminder of the importance of America in the world, and 2) A leader who will show us how important it is for us to be Americans and model our future after ourselves. Sometimes, that leader spans multiple generations, as it has with Ronald Reagan. Sometimes it dies before it can manifest into movement, and the light that it left behind is dimmed by liberal adversaries, as has been the case with character assaults we know so well. As Americans, our objective should always be the interest of America. We are American citizens, not world citizens. We are guarantors of freedom, and without our guarantee there can be no freedom. The liberal message has been one that takes away from the very core of American exceptionalism. They tell us our city doesn’t shine so bright. It’s just that our hill is so large everyone can see it. And further, since everyone’s view of the horizon is obstructed by our hill, we should let them come and tell us what buildings should and should not be built, how we should build them, and who we should let use them. But it’s our hill, and we have the right to exist as we see fit because had we not built the city on the hill, there would simply be a hill. It is our creation, and we have the right to protect it. We are not “citizens” of an international community. We are American citizens. And that should embody the purpose behind everything we do.
Read more:
Citizens of America vs. destructive internationalists