Conservatives

Get Ready To Be In the U.S.S.A.

Mike Sheahen — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:26:50 -0500

Especially since 1932, the Left has been “boiling us like a frog, 1-degree-at-a-time” toward a Marxist/Communist/Socialist-totalitarian end, now resulting in Barack Hussein Obama, farther Left than self-proclaimed Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (“Democrat”, Vermont), getting the Presidency. Add now practically unopposed Socialist/Leftist government elitists in Congress, such as (Rep.) Nancy Pelosi, (Sen.) Harry Reid, and others; plus Obama’s Socialist plans, including to “remedy” the Constitution (according to him, a document of [quote] “negative rights, limiting government”, “written by ‘The Framers’ with ‘blind spots’”, “all of which must be remedied”), including “through the courts”, and, well, get ready to be in the U.S.S.A (United Socialist States of America)! How is Obama such a Socialist government elitist? For now, suffice it to say that some revealing things are, but not limited to, things Obama has written and said, in things he says, in his “voting behavior” in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate, and in his plans; plus the timeless principle, (which the Left is so opposed to applying to him), that (quote) “You are who you associate with”, such as, but not limited to Obama’s (quoting him) “Mentor and advisor” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who spews black racist Socialism, unrepentant Terrorist bomber and (to this day) self-described “Marxist” Bill Ayers; plus the fact that Obama has been endorsed by the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), and endorsed for President by the CPUSA (Communist Party of the United States of America), and of course they will endorse a Communist/Socialist government elitist like themselves, or the closest thing to one. So now we certainly are in for Socialist-totalitarian (quote) “Change”! Examples: Goodbye to more of our 1st Amendment rights, including “freedom of speech, and of the press” if the Left gets their so-called “Fairness Doctrine” for government control of “freedom of speech, and of the press”, (in violation of the 1st Amendment), in “radio”, which they sell under the old Communist/Socialist-totalitarian pretense of “countering” and “protecting from” (quote) “lies” and “hate speech”, etc; Goodbye to more of our 1st Amendment “freedom of religion”, particularly the “free exercise clause”, which the Left is trying to make us forget, as evidenced by their multiplying efforts against the word “God”, including their current effort to ban it from our monetary currency, and threaten teachers with their jobs for reading aloud things written by our Founding Fathers in which they exercised their “free exercise thereof” by even mentioning the word “God” Plus, there is the Democrat effort in Congress to take away people’s 401k’s for a pittance and put them under already fraudulent and dubious “Social Security Administration”, thereby making that many more people that much more dependant upon government. Why “fraudulent”? Because the “dirty little secret” is that "Social Security Accounts with our money in them" is fraudulent since money supposedly being paid into “Social Security” is being “appropriated” to such as “the general fund”, and is thus “spent before it gets there”, considering “deficit spending”, etc. Why “dubious”? Because, considering the above “dirty little secret”, and more, it’s fool-hearty to assume that “Social Security” will “be there” for the whole “baby boomer generation” (those born from 1946 to 1964), or any “generation” afterward. Plus, goodbye to more of our 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”, as the Left works to disarm the populace through "gun bans", etc, thus repeating history in that “Among the first priorities of tyrants is to disarm the populace”, even going so far as to dismiss the efforts of our Founding Fathers for our Constitutional “Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments)”, including that of Thomas Jefferson who said (quote) “The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is it shall not be needed until they try to take it away”. Altogether, goodbye to more of our Constitutional freedoms, free enterprise, and personal responsibility; hello to more government control, higher taxes, and more vote-buying spending programs and schemes bringing more dependence upon and control by Orwellian “Big Brother” government elitists. Again it’s being proven that, (quote) “A free and powerful people will remain so until enough realize they can vote themselves largesse from public funds, which then descends into tyranny”. Indeed the fact is that Obama’s Socialist plan to “spread the wealth around” through higher taxes, as he “let slip” to “Joe the plumber” (who was subsequently attacked and ridiculed by Obama and his Leftist allies, including the media, for asking a question and calling Obama’s answer what it is), is in fact at the core of “redistributionist” Marxist/Communist/Socialist government elitism. Not only that, but as for Obama’s saying that he will (quote) “cut taxes for 95% of ‘families’ or ‘American workers’”, that was a purely deceptive ploy because the rather obvious fact is that there is no “cutting taxes for 95%” when more than the bottom 33% don’t end-up paying anyway, so of course Obama won’t (quote) “cut taxes on 95% of ‘families’ or ‘American workers’”! Instead, with Obama’s Socialist plans to “spread the wealth around” (take from those who pay and give it to others), create the biggest Leftist expansion of government since the “New Deal”, (Socialist health care, etc), and more, he will of course claim to be “forced” to raise taxes, not only against “the top 5%”, but also against most families and American workers! Plus, the fact is, there is no raising taxes, especially in an economic downturn (like “The Revenue Act of 1932” which made “The Great Depression” even worse), without making things worse. If you still doubt these things, dare to think and research independently, which Leftist/Socialist government elitists cannot truly stop, and you will find these things are true.

When Republicans Act Like Democrats

Steve McCullough — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:49:35 -0500

Barack Obama has now been elected the forty-fourth President of the United States. He ran a very organized campaign and has made history as the first man of color to be elected to the nation's highest political office. Democrats have increased their margin of representation over Republicans in both houses of congress and hold a majority in the senate which should allow them to pass almost all legislation they desire. This election can be seen as either a repudiation or an opportunity for the Republicans Party. I see it as a little of both. First, let me say right up front, that I do not like political parties. I don't care if they are Democrats, Republicans, Bull Moose, or Whigs. Both George Washington and John Adams, our nation's first two presidents, believed that political parties would lead to the downfall of our political system of representative democracy since it allowed special interest groups to gain too much power over political candidates. Today we can see their fears have been realized in Washington with billions of dollars worth of political influence financing campaigns. Trial lawyers, trade unions, the medical industry, abortion advocates, financial institutions, and a host of other lobbyists roam the halls of congress doling out money to any politician willing to compromise his principles for a chance to get a piece of the pork. As we recently witnessed in the mortgage industry meltdown, even those who are supposed to be overseeing quasi-government agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from those whom they are supposed to be regulating. This is a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse. In the election of 2000, Republicans won both houses of congress and the presidency. This was a great opportunity for those elected to enact the conservative core values which defined the Republican party in the 1980's - limited government, fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and strong social values. These are the ideas which Ronald Reagan communicated to Americans which allowed him to unite his GOP base along with "Reagan Democrats" to win landslide elections in 1980 and 1984. However, for six years the Republicans in power ignored these conservative values and acted like big-spending Democrats. They ran up a huge deficit and instituted a myriad of expensive government-sponsored social programs such as the Medicare drug program. When our military became bogged down in the Iraq war and the deficits and spending kept growing, American voters got fed up. In 2006, Republicans lost control of both houses of congress. Americans wanted change and any change seemed preferable to the status quo. The GOP lost its way and this year put forth a squishy, middle-of-the-road presidential candidate in John McCain who claimed he was well-suited to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats. In truth, McCain had repeatedly demonstrated this with his record for tag-team legislation, working with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, and other liberal lawmakers. "Reaching across the political aisle" always entails selling out conservative values - something McCain seemed willing to do more often than not. At the tail-end of his political campaign McCain tried to convince voters that he was a real agent for change in Washington. The voters didn't buy it. Then there was the other candidate who was, by his mere appearance, an obvious change to the stereotypical politician. Thus, we now have president-elect Barack Obama, the first mixed-race American to take the oath of office. So, what does all this mean for America? The country will now fall under the control of big-government politicians controlling the executive branch and both houses of congress. Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners (including most small business owners), who now carry 60 percent of the income tax burden, and millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of those who pay no federal income tax. Capital gains taxes, already the second-highest in the world, will be raised from 15 percent to 20 or 25 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed and the estate tax will be reinstituted. An extremely costly government-sponsored health care program will be enacted which will cover both citizens and illegal immigrants. The government will very quickly run up a trillion dollar deficit once all of Obama's programs are implemented. The Supreme Court will probably see two or three more activist liberal judges appointed. There will be an attempt to culturally redefine America. Affirmative action will be strictly enforced across the country and there will be a move to provide "reparations" for those of African-American heritage. The courts will shoot down all restrictions on abortion and America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth. A liberal Supreme Court will attempt to change the definition of marriage at the national level. There will be many challenges to the Second Amendment right to own firearms. Conservative talk radio will be restricted by the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and there will be more political correctness and speech codes on college campuses. Twelve to twenty million illegal aliens will be granted amnesty and Democrats will attempt to make them citizens as quickly as possible and register them for their party. Military spending will be cut by 25% and America's armed forces will come under the influence of the United Nations. No global consensus - no military action. And what does this portend for the Republican Party? Actually, this is a great opportunity for the GOP. Americans are not Europeans despite the wishes of Democrats that we were more like them. Most Americans believe that independence, hard work and entrepreneurialism leads one to success. These are the conservative core values which our Founding Fathers incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Most Americans want a limited, fiscally-responsible federal government, low taxes, and a strong military which will defend our country. Most have Judeo-Christian values and do not want to redefine marriage. They believe that Americans have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Will the Republican Party learn a lesson from this election and return to its conservative roots? Only time will tell. If Republicans continue to act like Democrats they will live a long time in the political wilderness. If they rediscover their true identity and unite behind a conservative standard bearer, America may experience a second "Reagan Revolution".

Obama tries to woo evangelicals

Drew McKissick — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:42:53 -0400

Barack Obama's on the make for evangelicals - specifically the conservative, registered-to-vote variety. The same type of voters he previously referred to as being "bitter" and who "cling to guns or religion".

A few weeks ago he told such voters that, if elected, he would expand and overhaul President Bush's federal faith based initiatives, announcing his own "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships". He has begun regular attempts to appeal to evangelicals, speaking to them on multiple occasions in recent weeks as part of what his campaign terms its "Joshua project".

Of course this is all well and good. Candidates who expect the votes of any Americans should make an attempt to address their concerns. The reality however is more blatantly political in that, on the fundamental cultural and moral concerns of evangelicals, he has very little in common with them at all.

The differences are greatest on two fundamental issues: abortion and gay marriage.

On abortion, Obama just became only the second presidential candidate in American history to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood, which referred to him in its announcement as a "passionate advocate" for the right to abortion.

In a speech to the group last July, Obama stated that, "...on this fundamental issue, I will not yield...", and that, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act", (an act that would overturn hundreds of state abortion laws, including those regarding parental notification, and would guarantee public funding for abortion).

A hint as to just how "passionate" he is on the subject, as a state senator in Illinois, he actually opposed legislation, (known as "Born Alive Infant Protection"), that would mandate care for infants who were born alive in spite of attempts at abortion. Not exactly a mainstream American position, much less for evangelical voters.

As for his views on the most fundamental institution in our society, the family, it gets no better.

He's for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, overruling the military by repealing "don't ask, don't tell", opposes constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man and one woman", (which have passed in 30 states with an average 70% of the vote), and wants anti-discrimination laws that not only cover "sexual preference" but "gender identity".

That's "change we can believe in" all right.

And keep in mind that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means each state could then be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, in effect allowing one state to redefine marriage for the entire country.

He made his position on state marriage amendments known a few weeks ago in a letter to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club of San Francisco, saying: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states".

Well, that's pretty clear, right? At least until his campaign went into spin mode, suggesting that he still opposes gay marriage, but supports gay civil unions and domestic partnerships.

In other words, he's suggesting that he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but opposes any attempts to keep it against the law. Meaning he opposes the right of voters in any state to be able to keep the traditional definition of marriage from being redefined by unelected judges, (as happened in Massachusetts and California).

The truth is that he wants to play the political game of being for something without having to admit it. Meaning he'll say he's for gay civil unions and domestic partnerships which have all the same rights and benefits of marriage and hope nobody points out that it's gay marriage in all but name - so as not to upset some of those "bitter" middle class voters he'll need in a few swing states this November.

For all the rhetoric of a new kind of politics, it turns out he's really just a repackaged version of the same old cultural liberalism most Americans have rejected for decades. He's hoping that they don't catch on before Election Day.

(This column also ran in The State)

More conservative reaction to Obama's speech on race

Drew McKissick — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:06:02 -0400

Some more conservative reaction to Obama's big race speech the other day for you to check out...

Wes Pruden:

His depiction of a white grandmother as a mean-spirited racist, his tolerance of harsh denunciations of whites (like his mother) from the pulpit that he has supported for 20 years with his presence and his tithes, strikes the white voters he must persuade as mean, harsh and inexplicable. This is not the message Barack Obama set out with a year ago when he caught magic in a bottle. Now the magic, and maybe his shot at the White House, resembles only a dashed wish written on the wind.

Pat Buchanan:

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God d**n America!" ...

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables. ...

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country. ...

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

Charles Krauthammer:

The beauty of a speech is that you don’t just give the answers, you provide your own questions. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor, and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which “controversial” remarks? ...

The question is why didn’t he leave that church? Why didn’t he leave — why doesn’t he leave even today — a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) “God d**n America”? Obama’s 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.

Ann Coulter:

Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we're not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we're not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems....

Discrimination has become so openly accepted that -- in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist -- Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist "old uncle," Rev. Wright.

Few conservatives in the news media

Drew McKissick — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:01:08 -0400

From the "sun came up in the east" department...

Conservatives remain scarce in the news media landscape.

Only 6 percent of the national press corps describe themselves as "conservative" in a population that includes reporters, editors and producers from major television and radio networks, daily newspapers, news wires and online sources.

Those who consider themselves "very conservative" amount to just 2 percent, according to a wide-ranging survey of 585 journalists and news executives released yesterday by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

In contrast, 36 percent of the overall population generally consider themselves conservative. ...

The majority of nationally ranked journalists — 53 percent — described themselves as moderate, 24 percent were liberal and 8 percent "very liberal."

And still liberals scream about Fox News. I guess they're ticked off about that 6 percent.