Leon H. Wolf / The New Ledger : Meghan McCain’s Dirty, Sexy Politics
Memo to conservative activists: A governing majority without RINOs is impossible
Dan Calabrese So you support “true conservative” Christine O’Donnell over dastardly RINO Mike Castle in the Delaware Senate race, because you won’t be satisfied with a Republican majority. You want only real, rock-ribbed conservatives in the Republican caucus. And some day, because of your brave, principled stand, we will have a governing majority of conservatives running this country. That’s your plan, is it? Good luck. The ascension of such an ideologically monolithic governing majority is impossible. Not just here, but anywhere that has free elections. It will never happen. Delusion. That doesn’t mean key conservative priorities can’t be passed. But it can’t be done by electing only pre-approved ideological purists to office, because that can’t be done. Ask our allies. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party has to cobble together a majority that includes the Labor Party in order to govern. In Great Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron would not be prime minister at all if he had not reached a deal with the Liberal Democrats to join his government. That’s because Cameron’s Tories didn’t win a majority of the seats in Parliament, and they had to find a coalition partner. Do you ever wonder why all this “cobbling together” is always going on around the world? Why these coalitions are necessary before parties in parliamentary systems can form governments? It’s because most countries are ideologically divergent, and their political parties even more so. That makes it almost impossible to elect a majority of legislators from one party. There is basically no such thing as a governing majority that hasn’t been cobbled together from among ideological groups who have fundamental differences, but, for the sake of governing, can find enough common ground to reach a deal and form a coalition. In the United States, where we have only two competitive political parties, one of the two always has a majority, but that doesn’t mean you have a governing majority of people who all think alike. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are home to a widely diverse group of ideological perspectives. As the Democrats have discovered since last year, you can have enormous majorities in both houses of Congress, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to just pass whatever you want, because a) your members have a wide variety of different points of view; and b) a lot of them come from districts that will turn them out of office if they go too far in supporting an ideological remaking of the country. That’s why we got ObamaCare, but haven’t gotten Cap and Trade or Card Check. We have Democratic majorities, but we don’t have a liberal governing majority. American conservatives, smelling the coming Republican monsoon in this year’s November elections, are not satisfied simply to see Republicans take control. They want only “true conservatives” with a rating of 98 or more from the American Conservative Union. And even if they nominate a “true conservative” who has almost no chance of winning the general direction, like Ms. O’Donnell in Delaware, that’s somehow better than electing a RINO like Castle because it will maintain the purity of the Republican caucus. It will also ensure that the Republican caucus remains in the minority – forever. It can advocate the right things forever. It will never achieve any of them. The last few presidential elections have shown us that America is a 40-20-40 country. About 40 percent of Americans will almost always vote Republican. About the same number will always vote Democratic. The other 20 percent decide the elections. So let’s consider the 40 percent who vote Republican. Of those, the vast majority are probably pretty conservative, but not all of them. Some of them don’t like the idea of a Democratic president, but aren’t opposed to electing a Democrat to the House or Senate, perhaps as a check on a potentially too-conservative president, or perhaps because they vote Republican mainly because of national security, and they don’t have to worry about their senator being commander in chief. Either way, you don’t have anywhere near 50 percent of the electorate embracing the mantle of so-called true conservatism. And in certain states – like Maine, Delaware or Massachusetts – you might have a shot at electing a Republican once in a blue moon. But it won’t be someone like Jim DeMint. It will be someone like Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown. Or Mike Castle. Now, this doesn’t sit well with you, because these RINO jerks don’t support your conservative agenda. Aside from voting with the Republican caucus for the purpose of organizing the chambers, what good are they? Well, that’s where you come in. Moderates, for the most part, go with public opinion. What are the biggest conservative priorities right now? Getting spending under control and repealing ObamaCare? Those would be my choices. So what you need to do, then, is create a political environment in which the likes of Snowe, Brown and Castle can’t help but vote for those things. Can that be done? Sure it can. But you have to get more of the nation – particularly that 20 percent who will always be independents – so see the wisdom of the conservative position. Then, the RINOs will support your agenda because you’ve turned it into a mainstream agenda. To my way of thinking, there is nothing radical about sharply reducing the size of government or even privatizing entitlements. I think it’s radical not to do these things, because when I look at the long-term costs of these programs, it scares the living daylights out of me. The larger general public might be getting there, but it’s not there yet. Conservatives, here’s your task: Bring the public along, and then all the RINOs will follow suit. You can’t build a governing majority without some RINOs, however much you may hate them, and however much Mark Levin tells you you’re a detestable sellout if you believe me. And you can’t govern without the consent of the American people, no matter how big your majority is. Ask President Obama about that. So no, defeating Castle in the primary and sending Christine O’Donnell to be slaughtered in the general is not a moral victory, nor is it a victory for principle. It’s no kind of victory at all. It’s your refusal to understand that governing majorities are always cobbled together, and successful governance follows when effective leaders get the people behind what needs to be done. Don’t worry. The RINOs will get on board. But a Democrat never would. Become Dan’s friend on Facebook . Become a fan of The North Star National on Facebook . Buy Dan’s novel, Powers and Principalities. To book Dan as a speaker, contact Lourdes Swarts at Speakers Access.
Read more:
Memo to conservative activists: A governing majority without RINOs is impossible
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
Would You Buy a Used Mosque From This Man?
A new serpent has appeared in the nest of vipers that is making its home in the crater of the toppled Twin Towers, among the remains of the 9/11 dead. This particular model citizen goes by the name of Imam (of course) Muhammad Musri. The cast of hucksters and political minded holymen around the 9/11 Victory Mosque already included among others: Michael Bloomberg — Huckster-in-Chief of New York City, whose company is very profitably expanding its operations in the Persian Gulf. An enthusiastic promoter of the construction of the mosque (I wonder why) far more enthusiastic than he is for the reconstruction of the fallen towers themselves. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — Yet another man-of-god mountebank, primarily notable for his sympathy for al Qaeda. “ We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims .” He has been singled out as an overseas representative for the US by our would-be global overlords in Washington DC, no doubt for his deep insight into the American soul and his passionate concern for the American people, who broadly deplore pretty much everything he is doing. Reverend Terry Jones of Gainesville — A political, theological and publicity genius who decided to burn a stack of Korans on September 11th. Associated indirectly with the affair of the Victory Mosque, by the widespread sactimonious blah about first amendment freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. … Apparently, Imam Muhammad Musri was inspired to interject himself in order to prevent Reverend Jones’ impending act of heresy. No doubt you are holding your breath waiting to hear my opinion of burning the Koran. I think Ann Coulter almost nailed it , but not quite. The reason not to burn Qurans is that it’s unkind — not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero — in both cases, it’s not a question of anyone’s “rights,” it’s just a nasty thing to do. I may be the only person on the right who doesn’t deplore Reverend Jones’ gesture. But then, I’ve known bra burnings and flag burnings, and have watched America, the founders, the flag, the Bible, God, Christ, Moses and Mary variously mocked and damned all my life. I’m just not that moved by burning a Koran. To normal decent American Muslims I say “ welcome to my life. ” And to the people that are going to riot in the streets about it, I say … hmmmm, actually I can’t say that on a family website. Objectively, the Koran is simply an object that Jones bought in a store. It’s his property. So far as I’m concerned he can burn it, wear it as a hat, or pour milk and sugar on it and eat it for breakfast. I couldn’t possibly care less. Regarding the mosque however, I think that Coulter, champagne and roses be upon her, understates the case and is off the point a bit. It’s worse than a nasty thing to do, it’s also a propaganda goody for America’s enemies.
Hot Post: Why Johnny’s So Pissed Off
This post was first published here… Americans have heard an awful lot over the years about why Johnny can’t read, but we rarely hear about why Johnny’s so pissed off — for the obvious reason, of course: the topic is off-limits. Addressing the reasons why kids today are struggling emotionally means parents might have to take a good look at what they’re doing wrong. And that’s no fun for anyone. Yet address it we must. Angry kids have become a bona fide statistic in America — not an anomaly, as in years past. In September 2009, Wall Street Journal ‘s work and family columnist Sue Shellenbarger wrote that 29 states in America — along with a few cities — now offer mental health services to our nation’s three and four-year-olds. From 9.5% to 14.2% of children under 6 have emotional problems serious enough to hurt their ability to function, including anxiety or behavioral disorders,” writes Shellenbarger. Another study by the Archives of General Psychiatry found depression in children “as young as 3.” Lynn Hopson, executive director of a New Haven, CT preschool says, We’re seeing more and more children with challenging behaviors every year. This problem doesn’t end in preschool. Thousands of elementary and middle schools throughout the United States have now been trained to use the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, a program developed by Dan Olweus. His program has been recognized by the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence and other prominent organizations. Which leaves us with an obvious question: Why are today’s children acting out to such a degree and even in need of mental health services? There are only three possible answers to this question: Some children are born this way; excessive exposure to media and technology has made children this way; or bad parenting. As to the first possibility: You can certainly find research that suggests people are “born bad” (for lack of a better phrase) — in 2007, for example, Scientific American highlighted research that indicates some babies are born with violent tendencies — but reason and common sense prove otherwise. For one thing, if some kids are born bad, why the tremendous rise of babies born with natural aggression? Is it something modern mothers are eating? Moreover, prisons are filled with adults with disastrous childhoods. If some children are born with a propensity toward anger and aggression, why don’t half the folks in prisons have lovely parents?
Follow this link:
Hot Post: Why Johnny’s So Pissed Off
Saudi diplomat seeking asylum: ‘My life is in danger’ (Michael Isikoff/msnbc.com)
Michael Isikoff / msnbc.com : Saudi diplomat seeking asylum: ‘My life is in danger’
Imam Rauf Predicts Violence In Muslim World If He Does Not Get His Way
Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf , the self-professed bridge builder “devoted to peacemaking,” is now claiming that the Muslim world will erupt in violence if he withdraws his plan for the Muslim community center and mosque he intends to build right near Ground Zero. Rauf told Soledad O’Brien on CNN’s “Larry King Live” that: If we move that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. Rauf went on to say that the violent reaction in the Muslim world could be worse than it was to the Danish cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad in a negative light . O’BRIEN: But the controversy itself– RAUF: So the Cordoba house — O’BRIEN: –though, right, isn’t that causing to some degree an instability and a risk, a risk of safety? I mean, there’s an address now that has become the flash point for a lot of anger. Isn’t that a risk to Muslims and Americans? RAUF: There is a certain anger here, no doubt. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis , which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much larger footprint in the Muslim world. If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed. Instead of trying to calm down the Muslim world, whatever the ultimate fate of his prized project turns out to be, the bridge builder warns us that we better do things his way or there will be security risks for the United States and Americans abroad. O’BRIEN: What’s the risk? When you say “national security,” what’s the risk? RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides — you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around.
Read the original post:
Imam Rauf Predicts Violence In Muslim World If He Does Not Get His Way
Clinton Sticks A Knife In Obama’s Back
What's she planning? The day Obama announced his new $50 billion government spending program in Ohio , Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the growing national debt is a security threat to the United States: “Our rising debt levels (pose) a national security threat… It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest. And it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable… And it also sends a message of weakness internationally. I mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny, but to, you know, have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered American values and interests over so many years.” You have to wonder why Republicans haven’t been saying this. Democrats obviously know how to play political hardball. This is obviously the opening shot in a Hillary run for the Democratic nomination in 2012. You gotta love it. The Democratic Party will tear itself apart. Hillary and her supporters will be assaulted as racists by the Obama diehards. In the end, Obama, who has bought the unions and the party base with taxpayer savings, will win this battle, and then will be crushed by the rest of the country in November. You can put this in the bank.
See original here:
Clinton Sticks A Knife In Obama’s Back