How does electing liberals help conservatism?

Sep 15 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

David Karki With all due respect to my colleague, Dan Calabrese, apparently for whom no RINO is too liberal to support, his columns bashing new Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell carry a clear inconsistency if not an outright cognitive dissonance. He seems to think the only way to get conservatives into power is to vote for liberals like Mike Castle. RINO = Liberal, Dan. From where I stand, there are a couple obvious flaws in his premise. One, Castle is a Democrat and votes like one. That he’s delusional enough to still think himself a Republican doesn’t make him one. And he has only himself to blame for his loss tonight. What else did he think would happen when he strayed so far from his base and did everything in his power to put them off or infuriate them? Whether O’Donnell is a good candidate or not thus became irrelevant. Just so long as she wasn’t Mike Castle, that was good enough for them. That fault lies squarely with him, and not with those conservatives who are accused of making the perfect the enemy of the good to the detriment of the greater cause. We should not be projecting blame for the inevitable reaction to Castle’s action on anyone but him, and certainly not on O’Donnell or her supporters. Should this seat go to the Democrats in November, he and he alone will have handed it to them. (Though, based on his voting record, the Democrats in one sense already had it.) Two, what makes anybody think that if the GOP otherwise runs the table, and the Senate is 51-49, Castle wouldn’t pull a Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords and flip sides so that VP Joe Biden’s 50-50 tiebreaker vote would give the Senate back to the Democrats? Hell, I’d fully expect it. Why? Because that’s where Castle’s ideological loyalties lie. The idea that a liberal would go with a conservative flow – out of expediency, I guess – simply makes no sense.  And I don’t understand why Calabrese and others cling to this fantasy. For the last time – RINOs are liberals. They hide behind that lie of a (R) label after their name, and when push comes to shove they never vote with conservatives. Be mad at such people for being unable or unwilling to be honest with themselves and voters about what they are, not at those of us who would simply get them to be honest for the first time. And this year, of all years, RINO-ism is unacceptable. We face the clearest and most present danger in our history in the form of what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have done and are doing to our country. Getting along with them, or more efficiently managing the monstrous Leviathan government they’ve shoved down our throats is not enough anymore. This must be stopped and defunded in the two years to come, and once Obama is gone in 2012, repealed, reversed, and rolled back as quickly and completely as possible. The Mike Castles of the world have no intention of assisting in this effort, and would at best undermine it and at worst outright help to thwart it. He and his fellow RINOs who seem to inhabit the inside-the-Beltway establishment GOP need to get it through their heads that their time is over. We tried it their way earlier this decade, to disastrous results. The whole reason there was an opening for Obama to get into the White House and wreak the havoc he has is because the GOP so badly screwed the pooch. And why did that happen? Because we were dependent upon RINOs for a phony mirage of a majority. Calabrese has often ridiculed the GOP Congress of a few years ago. Yet he apparently wants to re-elect more of the same. How did a RINO-driven “majority” work for implementing conservatism last time around? That’s right – it didn’t. Repeating behavior while expecting a different result; isn’t that the definition of insanity? For the record, I know little about Christine O’Donnell and she may well be a poor candidate who faces very long odds in November. (And frankly, that’s the simplest explanation which is being missed – in Delaware, as in Arizona before it with John McCain and J.D. Hayworth, the choice was ostensibly between a non-conservative RINO and a non-electable conservative candidate.  In that situation, you can’t solve William F. Buckley’s strategy of the most electable conservative, because each fails half the test. The question thus isn’t which do you pick, but why weren’t there better candidates in the first place?) But the position that Calabrese holds is borderline incoherent. I can understand it coming from the likes of Karl Rove – who viciously and unconscionably smeared O’Donnell on Fox News tonight – because the careers of Beltway RINOs are the first to be put at risk by the Tea Party candidates. I understand it far less from Democrats, who if O’Donnell is half as awful as they claim should be popping champagne corks over an easy hold on which they’ll have to spend no money. As the oft-misquoted Shakespeare line goes, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” And I don’t understand it at all from “conservatives” like Dan. How many times must the Castles, McCains, Snowes, Collinses, and Grahams of the Senate vote with the Democrats before you’ll give up on them? Are you really that into the Kevin Bacon fraternity hazing scene in Animal House? “Thank you, sir, may I have another?” You advance conservatism by electing conservatives. O’Donnell may not be the best candidate, she may be a long shot to win, but she’s all we have. If the choice were Castle or a Democrat in November, as Calabrese wanted, then the seat would already be lost. This way, there is still a ray of hope.

Follow this link:
How does electing liberals help conservatism?

No responses yet

Barack Obama’s Dream is Our Nightmare

Sep 15 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

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

No responses yet

Van Hollen: We Haven’t Lost the House Yet

Sep 14 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

After an August recess tour that included stops in 17 battleground districts around the country, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) returned to Capitol Hill confident that predictions of a lost majority are premature.

Continued here:
Van Hollen: We Haven’t Lost the House Yet

No responses yet

Violence Ahead of Guinea Election

Sep 13 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Guinea’s two candidates for president scheduled talks today to calm tensions after violent clashes between their supporters led to a suspension in campaigning ahead of next week’s run off vote. Former Prime Minister Cellou Dalein Diallo won more than 40 percent of the first-round vote in June, while opposition leader Alpha Conde took more than 18 percent. The June voting marked the country’s first democratic poll since its independence in 1958.

Read more from the original source:
Violence Ahead of Guinea Election

No responses yet

9/11: Nine years turns a resolved, united America into a bunch of politically correct pansy asses

Sep 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Tina Trimble Belliston The anniversary of 9/11 is always a very emotional time for me, as it is for the entire country. Nine years ago today, the most horrific terror attack in the history of our country took place. It plunged an unsuspecting city into panic and set the entire nation reeling from shock. We were absolutely paralyzed that day, and I, like so many of my fellow Americans, still weep at its remembrance. So many of us lost family, friends, and loved ones – as did people from more than 70 countries around the world. What the hell happened? The impact of 9/11 wasn’t just felt here at home. The aftershocks were felt around the globe. Most of us can remember exactly where we were that day, what we were doing, and what we were feeling with amazing clarity. So much is now happening in our nation that would have seemed inconceivable just nine years ago, and I think I’m safe in saying that much of it has our collective heads spinning. I do not believe for one fleeting second that, on September 12, 2001, there would have even been a shred of discussion about whether a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would be “appropriate”. It was a time in our nation when we weren’t Republicans and Democrats, or blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians, or this religion or that one. Instead, we were Americans. We wept together, we prayed together. We felt fear, horror and shock together. No partisan lines, no racial divides. Just one nation united by tragedy. It is my firm belief that the answer from that American collective to such a question, had it been asked then, would not have been just a no, but a loud and resounding “Hell no!” So what happened in the span of nine years to change that?  Political correctness. Now obviously, lest I be accused of ineptitude by the small minds of those who like to feign intellectualism by slapping together a string of musty, multi-syllabic words interspersed with a peppering of insults – or, in other words, those who would twist my words to imply that I naively believe political correctness only arrived on the scene recently – political correctness is nothing new. (Wow. Nobody can construct a run-on sentence quite like I can. Do you need to take a breath after that one? I do. But I digress.) While it certainly isn’t anything new, it seems to me that political correctness has gone absolutely feral in our society these days. Rearing its ugly head and snaking its way into our minds, it is running amok and striking unnecessary fear into the hearts of the American people, paralyzing so many in the face of what would are deemed “sensitive” issues. In our current society, “sensitive” seems to have become code-word for the fact that if you disagree on said “sensitive” issues you’re going to be labeled racist/bigot/islamophobe/insert-your-own-label-here. Political correctness has many people tip-toeing around the subject of the Ground Zero mosque, many so immersed in fear of offending someone by speaking out that they’ll instead squelch their own feelings, forgetting what they felt on 9/11 – what the overwhelming majority of us felt on 9/11 – the lives lost and the panic struck, in order to spare someone else’s feelings. But here’s a newsflash – having an opinion on this subject does not make you a radical/racist/islamophobe/wingnut/insert-your-own-label-here. For those who spout off that Americans are “overreacting” in regard to this issue, here’s a thought. Tolerance, you cry?  Compassion? Sensitivity?  Freedom of speech?  Well, a little turn of phrase comes to mind: It’s a two-way street. Yeah. That applies here. Demanding that a person tolerate something they find hurtful and offensive does nothing more than facilitate intolerance. Why does it seem that, in regard to this issue, tolerance, sensitivity and freedom of speech are, instead of a two-way street, a one-way street?  Hypocrites. Where does your demand for tolerance and compassion end and mine begin? l No regard is being given to those who will feel the sting from this project the most.  Instead, it seems all the regard is given to those who will stubbornly move forward with the mosque regardless of what message it sends in the minds of the American people. In fact, did you know that you’re a radical? Well, to be fair, 7 out of 10 of you currently reading this would be considered radical, based on recent polls. Don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, you know. Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf has implied that 70 percent of Americans are radicals with respect to the Ground Zero mosque project. In his own words, “If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse.” Yesiree, Bob: You’re a radical, I’m a radical, she’s a radical, he’s a radical too! Kind of has a ring to it, don’t you think? So, if you oppose the mosque at Ground Zero based on the premise that you feel it’s insensitive, you’re a radical. But it apparently is not radical for the Cordoba Initiative to display insensitivity by forging ahead with a plan that flies in the face of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Don’t you just love those pesky little double standards? They seem to rear their smarmy little heads so very often these days. Let’s be honest here. If this issue truly had anything to do with sensitivity, tolerance, compassion, understanding, seeds of peace and all those other feel-good terms people like to toss around, then the Cordoba Initiative would step away from this plan and relocate their project. Instead, apparently we are to be more concerned with the notion, in Rauf’s own words, that “the headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack,” than we are with the will of the American people. Where is the sensitivity on the part of Islam that is so frequently demanded of us as a nation? Tolerance? Compassion? Understanding? Yeah, there’s that pesky little turn of phrase again: It’s a two-way street. And that other pesky term – double standard. Furthermore, can anyone point me to a time when Islam isn’t claiming that it’s under attack? That it’s been offended? That we aren’t being tolerant enough? Speaking of enough, when is enough finally, well, enough? Flag burnings, Bible desecration, persecution of non-Muslims, and even persecution of Muslims who aren’t apparently Muslim enough, are commonplace in the Middle East. Yet we are to find no intolerance, no hate, no bigotry in those actions? Man, those pesky little terms just keep popping up – double standards, two-way streets, and hypocrisy. And yes, for those pseudo-intellectuals who are frothing at the mouth about now, I do realize that the Middle East is not the United States. D’oh! Hypocrisy and double standards still abound. When they can scream all the way from the Middle East and demand tolerance here for their actions there, we can scream right back from the U.S. and demand the same. What does it say about the state of our world when the pastor of the obscure Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, with a tiny congregation of 50, suggests burning Korans on the anniversary of 9/11 and receives more worldwide media coverage than Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally that drew a crowd of 500,000 did? Further to the point, what does it say about the “religion of peace” when they apparently find burning the U.S. flag, desecrating the Christian Bible and persecution of non-Muslims to be perfectly acceptable, yet the mere mention that a few Korans might be burned on the anniversary of 9/11 is enough to cause Muslim radicals the world over to threaten violence?  That the idea of moving the Ground Zero mosque a few blocks further away is enough to cause them to claim that Islam is under attack? What does it say about the state of our nation that the mere hint of burning a few Korans causes our leaders to speak out about the harm that will be done to our relations with Islam? Why is Bible desecration, flag-burning and persecution of non-Muslims by Muslims perfectly acceptable and not to be taken in to account in regard to the impact they may have Islam’s relations with the West, but speaking out against the mosque at Ground Zero makes 70 percent of Americans radicals? I, for one, am sick to death of the appeasement, the demands of tolerance and sensitivity made by hypocrites who refuse to reciprocate the very things they so indignantly stipulate to us. The same people who would use political correctness to subjugate us, and use the very freedoms so many have fought and died to preserve in order to strangle us. Religion of peace and tolerance?  My lily white arse. The holocaust was 60 years ago, and already there are those who claim it never happened. The attacks of 9/11 happened nine years ago today, and already we are being told that we “overreacted”. How long until 9/11 “never happened”? Never forget, America. Never forget.

See the original post:
9/11: Nine years turns a resolved, united America into a bunch of politically correct pansy asses

No responses yet

The First Thing David Horowitz Wrote After the Planes Hit the Towers

Sep 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

This post is a reprint of the first thing NewsReal Blog ‘s Editor-in-Chief David Horowitz wrote after the planes hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. TODAY IS Pearl Harbor. The destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, the revelation to all the world that even the White House is vulnerable, should be a wake up call to Americans. This country is at war, and we are far behind in securing our citizens’ safety and preparing for our defense. How was it possible to hijack 4 commercial airliners from major airports – one of them Dulles International – and to do so within a set time frame? How could obvious targets like the Pentagon and the World Trade Center Towers be so undefended? We know the answer. America is soft. America is in denial. America is embarrassed at the idea that it has enemies and must protect itself. America has been so eager to cash in on “peace dividends” that it has stripped itself of even prudent defenses. America is in denial that much of the world hates us, and will continue to hate us. Because we are prosperous, and democratic and free. Today’s tragedies must be a wake up call. It’s time to remember that the first duty of government is to provide for the common defense. That means it’s time to spend the surplus on national security now. Beginning with a missile defense system that will prevent even bigger terrorist disasters in the future. It is time to dramatically increase our domestic counter-terrorist and intelligence efforts, and to step up the monitoring of all groups who have declared war on the United States. It’s time to tighten our security systems, beginning with airport checks. It’s time to let the profiling of potential terrorists – and that does mean Islamic and Palestinian terrorists – outweigh the objections of the ACLU and other leftist groups. It’s time for those on the political left to rethink their alliances with anti-American radicals at home and abroad. It’s time for the President to identify the monsters who planned the day of infamy, and then to carry out a massive military strike against them and any government who sponsored these acts. It is time for a new sobriety in America about what is at stake in the political battles with those who condemn America as an “oppressor” nation. It is time for Americans who love this country to stand up in her defense.

See the original post:
The First Thing David Horowitz Wrote After the Planes Hit the Towers

No responses yet

41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes … (Andrew Malcolm/Top of the Ticket)

Sep 10 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

Andrew Malcolm / Top of the Ticket : 41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes — and they’re not alone

No responses yet

From the Pen of David Horowitz: September 10, 2010

Sep 10 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Forty years ago, I wrote the first book about the New Left, which was also a kind of manifesto of our publicly proposed agendas for a more democratic and racially equal America. I say “publicly proposed” because as leftists we knew we could not announce what we really intended which was a socialist revolution in America. As “new” leftists, we retained the illusion that socialism was a workable future, and that we could avoid the “mistakes” the Soviets had made, which had tarnished and compromised the socialist agenda. We also told ourselves that we could not be candid about what we intended because of America’s repressive political atmosphere at the time. But, in fact, McCarthyism was already dead and the real reason it was so difficult for us to articulate our socialist intentions was because they had been so thoroughly discredited by the historical record. In the same year, a much more famous (and equally disingenuous) document appeared, called “The Port Huron Statement,” which was the founding manifesto of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The Port Huron Statement did not admit to its socialist agendas, but called instead for “participatory democracy,” by which it meant a direct democracy (or “people’s democracy”) – a democracy that would embrace the economic order as well. This was exactly how Marx had described the Communist future, but the Port Huron statement prudently refrained from acknowledging that fact. SDS quickly became the largest organization of the New Left enroling close to 100,000 members at its peak, and spearheaded the movement against America’s anti-Communist war in Vietnam. But a movement that had begun with slogans about “democracy” emblazoned on its banners, ended up — a bare seven years later — embracing totalitarian police states like Cuba and North Vietnam and genocidal Communist movements like the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. In its final spasms of revolutionary fervor, SDS spawned leaders like Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers who called for actual war against “Amerikkka” and went “underground” to lead the first political terrorist cult in this country. As it happens, Tom Hayden, who was the most famous of the authors of the Port Huron statement was also one of the loudest voices calling for a “war of liberation” in “Amerikkka” and the creation of armed “zones of liberation” in American college towns. Although he didn’t go underground with the Weatherman, he gave their cause his moral and political support. Hayden even formed his own guerrilla foco (a term lifted from Che Guevara’s strategist, Regis Debray), called the “Red Family,” whose members trained at local firing ranges for the battle to come. Not surprisingly, in the years that have passed Hayden has not cared to recall the details of these episodes or explain how this political degeneration might be connected to the principles he helped to draft at Port Huron. Nor have any of the New Left historians of this period. This failure is all the more striking in light of the fact that the disastrous direction in which he and others led the New Left was actually predicted at the moment of its founding by dissenters from the Port Huron consensus. These were notably the late Irving Howe and his disciple, Michael Harrington. Even in 1962, Harrington and Howe saw that Hayden and his comrades were totalitarians in the making. –  Left Illusions 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.)

Read more from the original source:
From the Pen of David Horowitz: September 10, 2010

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »