socialism

Why I Prefer to Be a Bad Sport for Now


<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE













MicrosoftInternetExplorer4













<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>


















UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>



<![endif]-->

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

<![endif]-->

On November 5 John Kasich wrote: “We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes.”  I certainly agree that conservatism must be redefined, and I will offer my suggestions in a moment.  But I submit that none of us is ready for the task just yet.

 

In her 1969 groundbreaker On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D., introduced a model known as the Five Stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.  While not every process entails all five stages, the good doctor stated categorically that everyone experiences at least two.  But it appears that virtually every conservative commentator has tossed the model out and substituted his own single-phase paradigm: Submission.  No sooner had Senator McCain delivered his concession speech than some of my favorite radio talk show hosts – who had been breathing fire just hours earlier – blandly appealed to my optimism as though the proponents of capitalism and self-determination had merely lost a preseason football game.  Perhaps they don’t want to appear sore losers.  Perhaps they want to come across as “high-roaders.”  But in whose eyes?  I guarantee you the liberals are so drunk with victory that they don’t care whether we lost sportingly or otherwise.  Besides, it is a bit late for conservatives to worry about image.  We have been drubbed.  We have been bulldozed, hoodwinked, ground into the muck.  We fought fair while they pulled every dirty trick in the playbook, and they clobbered us silly.

 

Where is the outrage, ladies and gentlemen?  Do liberals hold a patent on passion?  Did someone outlaw indignation while I wasn’t looking?  The liberals seem to wield it freely enough.  History instructs that we can not move forward until we fully appreciate where we are.  Permit me to remind all of those blasé “we’ll-gettum-next-timers” a few facts I can recall off the top of my head about the man who just gave conservatism a bloody nose.  Barack Hussein Obama: (1) exhibited blatant sexism during the primaries, then thumbed his nose at feminism by snubbing Senator Clinton in favor of “Conehead” Biden; (2) showed the “common man” his true elitist colors when he rejected public campaign financing and outspent Senator McCain by a factor of 7 to 1; (3) would turn our courts into tools for “redistributive justice”; (4) used government computers and databases to find dirt that would discredit Joe the Plumber; (5) has bragged about the fact that he wants to increase the tax burden on the producers of this country so that he can guarantee a better living for the 30-40% who are freeloaders; (6) was endorsed by both Hugo Chavez and Iran’s parliament; and (7) has little patience for the notion of individual rights.

 

And another thing.  Let us not forget that, despite his silken demeanor, the man is an empty suit when it comes to concrete solutions.  I know attorneys because I am one.  The first lesson they teach in law school is how to use as many of the biggest words available to say as little as possible.  Our new chief executive took that lesson to heart.  People are weeping and screaming and dancing in the streets because “we” made history on November 4 by electing the first African American in U.S. history.  Unfortunately, a majority of the voters got so caught up in making history that they forgot to ask what kind of person lay beneath the fashionable skin they were about to vote for.  Let’s face it.  Obama didn’t have to make sense.  He needed no substance.  And he didn’t need to curry favor with moderates.  All he needed was to be a good looking, well-spoken black man who hung out with “cool” people like Madonna and Bruce Springsteen.  And he knew it from day one.  When I was a boy I was taught that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would someday stamp out racism.  I’m sorry to report that racism is still with us; it has merely switched sides.

 

This is the America our complacency has nurtured.  So spare me the silver-lining pablum.  I want to hear some emotionally healthy yelling and desk-pounding out there.  I’m not talking about rioting or bullying.  Those of you with an established forum in the media know exactly what to do.  I only hope you’ll find the motivation to do it.  As for the rest of you, try this as an example.  When I moved to a college town some years back, I confess that I allowed my vitriolic liberal brother-in-law to temper my philosophies.  Whenever he would rant about the evils he perceived Bush to have perpetrated, I was quick to remind him that the common enemy wasn’t Bush – it was career politicians and elitists in general.  When he simmered down I patted myself on the back for "remaining above the fray."  But one evening my 9-year-old nephew bragged to me that he had browbeaten a schoolmate of his into “voting” for a liberal in an important race.  With the glassy-eyed exuberance of a Hitler youth, he recited the mantra he had heard night after night from his father.  I decided I had placated the brother-in-law for the last time.  Though I don’t hang out as much with my sister’s family as a result, I can rest assured that my nephew now knows his father’s way of thinking is not the only way.

 

So conservatism as we know it has been pulverized.  It lies dead in the gutter.  How do we resurrect it?  The first thing we do is reintroduce ourselves to some fundamental principles many of us have forgotten: lower taxes; limited government intervention; disciplined government spending; individualism.  All variations of the concepts of tradition and convention must be eliminated from our lexicon.  Who do we attract?  On the count of three, let’s all scratch our heads.  One … two … three … and there is our answer: Real People.  But just what is a real person?  As a rule of thumb, real people don’t toe the party line or wear the homogenous blue blazer.  Take me, for instance.  I’m into The Who, Pearl Jam and the Black Keys, but I refuse to buy a suit that is anything but double-breasted.  I have tattoos, but I believe shoelaces should be tied, belt loops should be belted and undershorts should be covered in public.  I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I will not hesitate to go for the kill shot if someone breaks into my home.  On the other hand, I have never understood, and will never understand, the attraction of game hunting.  I am an agnostic.  I detest abortion, but I think an outright ban ignores reality.  Though I am a heterosexual, I don’t understand how letting gays get married diminishes the institution for straights.  By the same token, I don’t understand why gays feel the need to impose an archaic religious ritual on an otherwise fulfilling relationship.  I don’t indulge in illegal recreational drugs; just the same, I don’t see the harm in legalizing marijuana or cocaine – people bent on destroying themselves will do it one way or another, so there’s no reason to spoil the party for responsible users.  Blah, blah, enough about me.

 

The point is that today’s conservative is not as easy to peg as was the little twerp Michael J. Fox played on prime time television in the 1980s.  That is why there were so many so-called Independents out there for Obama and his string-pullers to swoop up this time around.  The key to redefining conservatism is to refrain from overdefining it.  Agree on a very limited number of core principles, leave the rest of the slate clean and welcome the deluge of fresh new faces with bold ideas who will inevitably flock to your doorstep.

 

-R. Thomas Risk

 

 

Tito The Builder vs. Peggy Joseph

On Inauguration Day 1961, John F. Kennedy admonished Americans, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Too many voters will have none of that talk today. They want as much as they can get from the government for as little as they can give.

Peggy Joseph, a Barack Obama supporter, is but one recent example. She acknowledged to a reporter at a recent Obama rally that she is helping Obama because she expects a big return on her voting investment -- in the form of car and mortgage payments and who knows what else.

But Tito (The Builder) Munoz did the math and said on "Hannity & Colmes" that he doesn't want the 96 cents an hour he might gain from the government in exchange for his vote. He also realizes that government handouts are designed to keep the little guy little and coming back to the government for more.

Watch Peggy Joseph and Tito The Builder debate in a mash-up at Eyeblast.tv.

Cross-posted at Video Done Right

How the Right loses

Chris Bowers complains about "the corporate welfare style typical of American government--privatize the profits, socialize the risk".  This is not a left-wing criticism - it's a genuine problem, both for the country (as illustrated by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae going "under government control") and for the Right (which sets itself up to lose a fight about the size of government with every intervention in industry).

This is how government grows...

  1. Socialize Risk: Government intervenes in an industry to "solve" some apparent and visible problem.  This is done "for the people."
  2. Unintended Consequences: This intervention merely shifts the costs to new areas and sweeps problems under the carpet, where they accumulate.
  3. Blame The Market: Government intervention is not blamed, because the people who support it assume their good intentions could not be responsible for bad things.
  4. Socialize Profit: The Left demands Something Be Done by people with Good Intentions. Politicians comply.  This is done "for the people."

Unfortunately, our political structure comes at this from four different places.

  • Democratic politicians, organizations and activists are happy to go along with Steps 1-4, because, hey, #4 was their goal in the first place.
  • Republican politicians and organizations go along with Steps 1-3, only objecting at Step #4.  By which time it is too late.
  • Business goes along with Step #1, and attempts to use Step #2 to get more of Step #1.
  • Libertarians believe the problem occurs at Step #1.  Once Step #1 is conceded, we've already lost on steps 2-4.  But libertarians and limited government conservatives have relatively little power.

Now, we are at Step #4 - essentially nationalizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  As Chris Bowers writes, "nationalizing industries ... is the literal definition of socialism and big government".  Of course, he thinks that is a good thing, also writing that "nationaliz[ing] the mortgage industry ... actually seems like a good idea to me."

 

Obama's 'civilian national security force'

Posted: July 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

<!-- copyright -->© 2008  <!-- end copyright -->

 

<!-- begin bodytext -->

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

(Column continues below)

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69601

 

 

Dangerous Parallels

Time and time again I hear people say that it's a bad year to be running as a Republican. No doubt that's true. When one hears 'Republican' they often think primarily of the Iraq war, or even solely. Many members of the GOP running in 2008 seek to distance themselves from the policies of George Bush and the unpopular war for sake of losing power. Not only is this a crude disservice to the war effort, for which the tide has actually turned in our favor, it is counterproductive and is derived from thinking in the wrong direction. Today's Republicans are so worried about polishing their image amidst an unpopular war, they have long forgotten who were are up against - an ultra-liberal Democratic Party run by the fringe left, progressively leaning more socialist every day. Efforts would be better spent, in conjunction with hailing conservatism as our mantra, peeling away the facade of the Democratic Party to reveal its hideously true form.

It's no secret that the Communist Party USA and the socialist parties find their best hopes of success in the Democratic Party. And surely they are all exuberant over Barack Obama's current position as a contender for the presidency. Unfortunately for America yet lucky for any Democrat, it is not exactly headline news, however. It is our job as conservatives, and for any true Republican, to highlight these similarities to the people of America. The dangerous parallels can be seen with such little effort. Take this, for example, from the Communist Party USA's 2008 Electoral Policy:

The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.

Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.

We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.

The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our country’s renewal and future.

We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills.

This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.

This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights. This election can strengthen democracy for all.

If that doesn't scare you, hear it with your own ears - CPUSA Party Chairman Sam Webb explaining that electing Democrats is the road to socialism:

Upon reading the party platforms for the Socialists, Communists, Democrats, and especially Barack Obama's "Blueprint for Change" one would wonder why so many factions of the left are needed.

The Rules of Socialist Acquisition

The Rules of Socialist Acquisition
(a representative sample)

  1. To each according to his ability to work the system.
  2. Compassion without coercion is useless.
  3. Never ask when you can use the government to take.
  4. The vast majority of the rich in this galaxy are undertaxed.
  5. All we want is what's yours.
  6. Monopoly is evil unless the government runs it.
  7. Class envy makes a good running mate.
  8. If a government program fails, repeat.
  9. Every rake deserves to be stepped on twice.
  10. It is critical that the expected "returns" on any "investment" are never defined.
  11. Never feed the hungry on an empty stomach.
  12. Always know who you're buying.
  13. Exclusive knowledge is power.
  14. Never be afraid to mislabel an opponent.
  15. Be clean, articulate, and non-threatening.
  16. When in doubt, throw a friend under the bus.
  17. Never allow others' self-interest to stand in the way of your common good.
  18. A liberal without guilt is no liberal at all.
  19. When someone says, "I'm not a racist," he's lying.
  20. A dead vote is just as good as a live one.
  21. A good vote is worth casting twice.
  22. Actual progress is not guaranteed.
  23. Small print is the best invention since snake oil.
  24. Entitlements and handouts will always overcome freedom and opportunity.
  25. Integrity is no substitute for campaign cash.
  26. A friend in need is a potential donor and land deal partner.
  27. Never confuse powerful financial backers with luck.
  28. Make sure your campaign cash doesn't cost you more than it is really worth.
  29. Beware of relatives giving speeches.
  30. There's nothing more dangerous than an honest consultant.
  31. The most beautiful thing about the environment is that you can turn it into an election issue.
  32. Citing Global Warming yields more cash than pointing a gun.
  33. Always trust a person wearing a suit better than your own.
  34. Moral choice is a complex personal issue that is better defined by focus groups.
  35. Morality has limits. Moral relativism has none.
  36. Never make fun of a Democrat candidate's family. Insult something he cares about instead.
  37. Be careful what you legislate. It may do exactly what Rush Limbaugh says it would.
  38. Compromise means the absence of opposition to Democrats.
  39. War is good for political activism.
  40. People could afford housing and healthcare without the government - if it weren't for the government.
  41. Talk is cheap. Heap it generously on the public.
  42. There isn't a gaffe by a Democrat politician that the media won't overlook.
  43. Never argue with a loaded Kennedy.
  44. Labor camps are full of people who opposed someone's beautiful dream.
  45. Entitlement is the easiest way to enslave a population.
  46. Democracy has limits. Dictatorship has none.
  47. Saying stupid things is often smart.
  48. Never cross Michelle Obama.
  49. Never let the electorate know what you're thinking.
  50. Never admit anything that can't be later blamed on Republicans.
  51. Only the Democrats could screw up New Orleans so badly and keep getting elected.
  52. Knowledge is bliss, ignorance is power.
  53. Give someone a fish, you feed him for one day. Teach him how to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.
  54. Pursue social justice; money and power will come later.
  55. All voters are suckers.
  56. Every once in a while offer a compromise; it confuses the hell out of Republicans.
  57. There is no substitute for an unnecessary government program.
  58. Never do something that the government can do for you.
  59. Never spend your own money when you can spend the government's.
  60. Money taken as profit is immoral; money taken by government is the highest form of Lightworking.
  61. If it can get you elected, say it!
  62. Only fools say what they believe.
  63. Faith moves mountains of "Obama" memorabilia.
  64. Poverty is no crime. Better yet, it's an excellent source of votes for the Democrat party.
  65. Even in the worst of times, someone always gets elected.
  66. Never snort cocaine and have sex in a limo with a homosexual drug user named Larry Sinclair.
  67. Oil is a stolen product.
  68. Practice saying it in front of the mirror: "This isn't the Almighty God that I know."
  69. Law makes everyone equal, but presidential pardons go to the highest bidder.
  70. There's nothing wrong with big business as long as they donate to anti-business causes.
  71. Never buy votes if ACORN can fix it for nothing.
  72. Friends and family are the rungs on the ladder of success - don't hesitate to step on them.
  73. Blood is thicker than Kool-Aid.
  74. Blame Bush first; ask questions later.

h/t to The People's Cube

 

Remembering Jimmy Carter

This is too great.

Let's focus on the word "change." We've all heard this word a hundred times over this election cycle, as Barack Obama has adopted it as a campaign slogan. Don't be fooled, folks. Obama has coined this term merely as an opposition word; simply to mean "anti-George Bush" and, given the unpopularity of the current president and the war in Iraq, many people give a warm welcome to change. Using this sentiment, Obama has created a facade to mask something that would otherwise be very familiar...

Let's be hypothetical for a minute.

Say Walter Mondale had used the mantra of change; that he had focused on reversing the incumbent administration. That wouldn't have worked too well, given the unpopularity of the previous president, Jimmy Carter. America knew how damaging Carter's policies were and how they failed during the 70's. Walter Mondale wanted a return to the Carter-era of super sized government, but America knew what that would cost. Enter Ronald Wilson Reagan, who brought genuine change that led to a restored faith in the presidency via limited government, competent and effective economic policies, and a strong foreign policy. The People had gotten the right kind of change with Reagan and in return they ushered in the largest electoral victory in the country's history.

Fast forward to the present: With the Gipper gone and Jimmy Carter's term seemingly forgotten, the ability to hark back to those failed policies seems restored. And I assure you folks, that is precisely what Barack Obama intends to do when he say change.

Thank You Father Pfleger

Cross-Posted at Illinois Conservative

If America is spared the devastating effects of a socialist administration presided over by Barack Obama we have the Trinity United Church of Christ to thank.  By now, unless you’ve been on an extended vacation off the planet, you have probably heard and seen the video clip of Father Pfleger’s Sunday morning sermon at Obama’s church often enough to have memorized the content.  

For those who may not be familiar with Father Pfleger, he is a long time social activist and Catholic Priest, and close friend of Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama.  He has been Pastor of Saint Sabina Church on Chicago’s south side since 1981.  The Archdiocese has attempted several times to transfer him to other parishes, as is the custom in the Catholic Church.  Each time, he has been able to organize protests by his parishioners resulting in the Cardinal setting aside Church policy and allowing him to stay on at St. Sabina.

In many ways his career has been more entwined with the career of Barack Obama than Jeremiah Wright’s has.  He worked closely with Obama when Obama was a community organizer in Chicago and they have maintained the relationship ever since.  Pfleger has contributed to Obama’s campaigns and Obama has directed “earmarks” to his church programs for years.  Between 1995 and 2001 Pfleger contributed a total of $1500 to Obama’s various campaigns.  In January 2001 Obama announced $225,000 in state grants to St. Sabina projects.

As a guest speaker at Trinity United Church of Christ on Sunday, Rev. Pfleger ridiculed Senator Hillary Clinton, accusing her of feeling entitled to the Presidency because she was “Bill’s” wife and because she was white.  In a performance reminiscence of a “Saturday Night Live” comedy skit, he mimicked Hillary’s tearful response to a supporter’s question at a campaign rally, saying, “"When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on, I really believe that she just always thought this is mine. I'm Bill's wife, I'm white and this is mine…”

In the aftermath of Pfleger’s sermon Obama supporters have been scrambling to moderate the effects on Obama’s campaign.  From accusations of “guilt by association” to drawing a moral equivalency to McCain’s support from Pastor Hagee, they are regurgitating all the excuses used to explain away Obama’s twenty years as a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church.  This episode, however, is more problematic for Obama than any of the others for a number of reasons.

Using a candidate’s religious views or the theological doctrines of a candidate’s church as fodder in a negative political campaign is a dangerous precedent.  So are “cherry-picking” statements from a pastor’s sermons when those statements are based on theology, whether or not they are politically correct by today’s community standards.  If the practice of demanding that a candidate disassociate himself from any pastor or church where politically incorrect language has ever been used in a sermon, it will eventually be impossible for anyone who regularly practices their religion to run for public office.

Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists or any other religious group have many doctrines that, when enunciated from the pulpit, could be considered offensive to those outside that religious belief.  Attempting to apply politically correct standards to religious thought is detrimental, not only to the religion involved but to society at large.  Furthermore, when you prevent someone from speaking their mind by political correctness, it is not only contradictory to the American principle of freedom of speech; it also prevents an accurate understanding of other peoples’ true character.

Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are perfect examples of this point.  Had they not been exercising their freedom of speech or if they had been careful to speak only in politically correct terms we would have no knowledge of their true beliefs.  Having said that let me point out that the sermons under consideration are not theological.  Instead, they are racist and political with little or no valid theological content, unlike those by Hagee and Falwell used as a moral equivalent by Obama supporters.  As unpleasant and ill advised as the statements by Hagee and Falwell may be, they are grounded in the theological doctrine of God’s sovereignty over the affairs of man and nature.  Those by Wright and Pfleger are grounded in racial hatred and a hatred for the American culture and social structure.

It is their right to believe whatever they choose and to share that belief with anyone who chooses to listen.  In fact, I am grateful they shared them with the world.  Now we know where we stand with them and can react accordingly.  In addition, their sermons give us an insight into the character of the man many would like to see as President of the United States.  You might ask, how can that be, since he was not even present and has denounced the offensive remarks by both Wright and Pfleger?

At this point the politically correct comment would be “I’m sure Obama does not agree with their views”.  This is the accepted caveat used by almost all commentators, columnist and talking heads in the media.  The truthful comment, at least for me, is “I’m sure he does agree with the worldviews expressed by these preachers“.

The worldview expressed in their sermons is the motivating factor that underlies the profession of community organizing of which Obama often boasts.   It is the belief that members of a community are victimized by unjust actions and oppression by those in power that forms the basis for community organizing efforts.  It is also compatible with the socialist’s worldview of what they believe to be the universal injustices in the capitalist system.

Furthermore, the enthusiastic reaction from the congregation to Pfleger’s sermon, so evident in the video, indicates this type of message is not unusual for this particular church but rather is the expected fare.  Obama’s twenty-year membership and his continued loyalty to the church should be proof positive to any unbiased observer that he is in agreement with its views.  It does not matter what he says or does at this point.  The opportunity to disassociate himself from Wright and the Church has passed long ago for anyone who is truly concerned.

These latest revelations may affect Obama’s chances in the general election but they are not likely to prevent him from becoming the Democratic nominee.  I heard someone today opine that the Democratic Party’s rules committee meeting this weekend would probably switch their support from Obama to Clinton in response to the growing controversy.  That is not likely.  The socialist dominated base and leadership of the Democratic Party has invested too much time and money in the Obama candidacy to change course now.

This is just the type of bombshell Hillary has been waiting for and it could supply her with the incentive to keep her candidacy alive until the convention.  Whether it will do any good or not remains to be seen.  Obama has been groomed and promoted by the leadership of the socialist movement for most of his adult life for just this moment, and they are not likely to pass up the opportunity to usher in a socialist era in America with his election.

 

If after the Denver convention Obama is still their candidate we will know for sure the Democratic Party is really the Democratic Socialist Party.  If he is elected President in November, we will know the American people are ready for a democratic socialist government.  If he is rejected by the voters we should all be thankful to Unity Church, Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger for waking up the American people.  

 

 

Facing the Enemy Within

According to the British press, a committee of Parliament is recommending that all British subjects be issued carbon credit cards which they would need to present when buying gasoline, paying for their electricity or purchasing items that produce greenhouse gases.  Canada is considering placing a carbon tax on activities that produce CO2.  Commodities brokers like the Chicago Carbon Exchange are gearing up for a booming business in the trading of carbon credits.

 

It does not require a crystal ball or a genius level I.Q. to see the future that awaits America in a few short years if the conservative movement fails to turn back the tide.  The chances of that happening are growing less every day.  Millions of Americans and thousands of reputable scientists understand that the claim of anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than a colossal international hoax.  In spite of this, the environmentalist movement is continuing to win the debate at every turn.  

 

There are a number of reasons for this.  First, conservative opinion makers have conceded the basic premise of man-made global warming and are concentrating on mitigating the damage caused by the proposed schemes for curbing CO2 emissions.  Second, politicians view the widespread acceptance of climate change as an opportunity to expand and consolidate their power base.  Third, major corporations are seizing on the phenomenon of the world wide epidemic of “enviromania” as an opportunity to increase profits by catering to those infected, and from emerging markets in “green“ technology.

 

The next three years promise to be the most critical in our nation’s history.  The great experiment in democracy launched in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention is on the verge of following the Russian experiment in communism into oblivion.  The nation will survive, the government will survive, but America as a land of liberty will not.  The good news is that the majority of the American people will not feel the loss of liberty as much as former generations would have.

 

Like the proverbial bullfrog in a pan of water, most of the present generation has been gradually habituated to the loss of liberty through the gradual encroachment of government on their daily lives since the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt.  The biggest problem facing America today is the failure of the public to understand the nature, strength and agenda of their domestic enemies.  

 

The coalition between the environmentalist, the socialist movement and the leadership of the Democratic Party that has formed over the past decade has become a fifth column in America working to impose the international agenda of socialism on the United States.  Should they gain the victories they expect in the 2008 elections some of the things we can look forward to are, open borders, increased taxes, rationed energy---either outright or through taxation, increased prices due to carbon taxes added to products we buy, and an inferior quality of nationalized health care.

 

The conservative movement is without the leadership necessary to counter the threat which leaves the rank and file conservatives dependent on what they can do on their own.  The danger of backing John McCain in the coming election is that his supporters will spin his possible victory as vindication of his agenda and campaign strategy, marginalizing the influence of the conservative base of the Republican Party.  

 

If he wins the election, among the first initiatives he will propose will be a cap-and-trade system for controlling CO2 emissions and “comprehensive” immigration reform.  His $5,000 per family health insurance tax credit is little better than Obama or Hillary’s socialized healthcare schemes, so far as bringing down the costs of health care is concerned.  It will be even more difficult to successfully oppose these threats from McCain than if offered by a Democratic President because Republicans in Congress will feel some compulsion to support the policies of their new President.  

 

One course I am considering, but not recommending---at least not yet--- is to vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote while supporting conservatives running in local elections.  This strategy would probably assure the election of Obama, but would put the Republicans in Congress on notice that their future depends on conservative support.  Perhaps it would encourage those left in Congress to develop the backbone needed to stall the socialist policies proposed by Obama for two years while the conservative movement regrouped.

 

For those of us who are concerned about international terrorism and looking for the security offered by McCain as President, perhaps we need to admit the threat from the enemy within is more immediate than the enemy without.

 

The incompetence of Obama and the negative potential of his policies will become evident, even to the most distracted voter, during his first couple of years in office.  Hopefully such an eventuality would have the effect of Clinton’s first two years in office resulting in the conservative takeover of Congress in 1994.  I would be interested in seeing readers’ comments on the subject. 

Syndicate content