Wednesday, September 22, 2010
So how do you really feel?
Ohio Democrat Party chairman Chris Redfern does not like the tea party movement, apparently. CAUTION: explicit language is used.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Bearded Marxist vs. The Witchcraft Dabbler
Delaware is crazy.
There's actually a debate over voting for a marxist or a woman who messed around with witchcraft in high school. This is in the United States of America, a major party candidate who is a marxist!
There should be no debate like this in America. Marxism = bad. I think world history has pretty much proven that out. Of course if the public school system had not actually been taken over by stealth marxist, communist and socialist revolutionaries, perhaps people would still know that.
But just the fact that the modern Democrat party in America is fielding a marxist candidate should be evidence enough that something is very wrong with America. That's why the tea party movement is standing up to make the voices heard of regular, non-marxist Americans. You know, the true crazies who believe in crackpot notions of private property and individual autonomy.
You'd think people would be a little more wary of a political ideology responsible for subjugating and murdering hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people.
Plus, vampires are cooler than witches these days.
There's actually a debate over voting for a marxist or a woman who messed around with witchcraft in high school. This is in the United States of America, a major party candidate who is a marxist!
There should be no debate like this in America. Marxism = bad. I think world history has pretty much proven that out. Of course if the public school system had not actually been taken over by stealth marxist, communist and socialist revolutionaries, perhaps people would still know that.
But just the fact that the modern Democrat party in America is fielding a marxist candidate should be evidence enough that something is very wrong with America. That's why the tea party movement is standing up to make the voices heard of regular, non-marxist Americans. You know, the true crazies who believe in crackpot notions of private property and individual autonomy.
You'd think people would be a little more wary of a political ideology responsible for subjugating and murdering hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people.
Plus, vampires are cooler than witches these days.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Conservative or Republican? Questioning the "Buckley Rule"
There's a concept in electoral politics popular in modern mainstream Republican circles called the "Buckley Rule." Postulated by William F. Buckley, founder of National Review magazine, it suggests Republican voters ought to support the most conservative candidate who can win. Tuesday's primary in which conservative Christine O'Donnell defeated liberal Mike Castle for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate seat in Delaware, Joe Biden's old seat, seems to question that rule.
Going by the Buckley Rule, a liberal Republican like Castle is the better Republican choice in a blue state such as Delaware. Castle has enjoyed a long political career in Delaware, serving as governor and as a nine-term United States congressman. A well established politician, his victory seemed all but assured. But he is, in mainstream parlance, a moderate. The conventional wisdom is that conservative Republicans can't win over independent or even some Democrat voters like a moderate Republican can. Incidentally, moderate John McCain didn't seem to have any luck winning those independent voters in 2008. But I digress.
Democrats also have a rule: Elect the most liberal candidate.
The modern Democrat party is unabashedly leftist and feverishly ideological. It bears more similarity to European Social Democrats than to the traditional American Democrat party. The party has long ago excised moderate and conservative Democrats from their ranks. They support, vote for and often elect, occasionally dubiously, their most liberal candidates. How else can you explain Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, and dozens of others who identify as liberal or even socialist? How do you explain Al Franken's election to the Senate? Or even the election of President Barack Obama, who as a Senator was known as having the most liberal voting record of all?
Leftism (progressivism in polite company) is predicated on radical and often revolutionary progress. The only way for Democrats to achieve their ultimate endgame is to elect leftists using, as hero of the left Saul Alinsky
was so fond of advocating, whatever means necessary. The ends justify the means.
The choice Delaware voters faced was between a true conservative Republican who would always vote Republican, and a liberal Republican who had often voted with Democrats. Castle supported the Democrats' massive energy taxation scheme "cap and trade." Republicans in Delaware chose conservatism, rather than Republicanism. Principle versus Party. As a result, the mainstream media talks about a civil war within the Republican party. The tea party versus the establishment. The Democrat civil war happened years ago. Their base is pure leftism, they've kicked their moderates and conservatives to the curb. Conservative Republicans just want to be recognized as the base of the Republican party and showed it in their primary votes.
O'Donnell may or may not be the best candidate, time will tell come November. She will certainly have a much steeper climb to pull out a victory. But she is now the Republican candidate, and the party must support her as vigorously as they would support Castle. There is wide agreement of the danger the Obama administration poses to the future of a constitutional, free America. Our endgame is a return to liberty, freedom and constitutionally limited government. Our argument is over the means to achieve it.
Democrats have no such argument.
Going by the Buckley Rule, a liberal Republican like Castle is the better Republican choice in a blue state such as Delaware. Castle has enjoyed a long political career in Delaware, serving as governor and as a nine-term United States congressman. A well established politician, his victory seemed all but assured. But he is, in mainstream parlance, a moderate. The conventional wisdom is that conservative Republicans can't win over independent or even some Democrat voters like a moderate Republican can. Incidentally, moderate John McCain didn't seem to have any luck winning those independent voters in 2008. But I digress.
Democrats also have a rule: Elect the most liberal candidate.
The modern Democrat party is unabashedly leftist and feverishly ideological. It bears more similarity to European Social Democrats than to the traditional American Democrat party. The party has long ago excised moderate and conservative Democrats from their ranks. They support, vote for and often elect, occasionally dubiously, their most liberal candidates. How else can you explain Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, and dozens of others who identify as liberal or even socialist? How do you explain Al Franken's election to the Senate? Or even the election of President Barack Obama, who as a Senator was known as having the most liberal voting record of all?
Leftism (progressivism in polite company) is predicated on radical and often revolutionary progress. The only way for Democrats to achieve their ultimate endgame is to elect leftists using, as hero of the left Saul Alinsky
was so fond of advocating, whatever means necessary. The ends justify the means. The choice Delaware voters faced was between a true conservative Republican who would always vote Republican, and a liberal Republican who had often voted with Democrats. Castle supported the Democrats' massive energy taxation scheme "cap and trade." Republicans in Delaware chose conservatism, rather than Republicanism. Principle versus Party. As a result, the mainstream media talks about a civil war within the Republican party. The tea party versus the establishment. The Democrat civil war happened years ago. Their base is pure leftism, they've kicked their moderates and conservatives to the curb. Conservative Republicans just want to be recognized as the base of the Republican party and showed it in their primary votes.
O'Donnell may or may not be the best candidate, time will tell come November. She will certainly have a much steeper climb to pull out a victory. But she is now the Republican candidate, and the party must support her as vigorously as they would support Castle. There is wide agreement of the danger the Obama administration poses to the future of a constitutional, free America. Our endgame is a return to liberty, freedom and constitutionally limited government. Our argument is over the means to achieve it.
Democrats have no such argument.
How Obama Thinks - Forbes.com
How Obama Thinks - Forbes.com
"It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet."
"It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet."
Monday, September 13, 2010
Capitalism at its finest...
Nothing like capitalizing on distrust of the current regime, in a twist of the left's recent anti-Bush mantra. I know it's kind of cynical and maybe even a little mean-spirited...
Don't worry, there's fun stuff too.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The President could learn a lot from Spider-Man
"With great power comes great responsibility."
The one word I didn't hear during President Obama's address last night announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq was "Freedom." It's a word his predecessor used often both as a conceptual elemental human aspiration and as a symbolic understanding of America's place in the world.
Whether we should have gone to war in Iraq is a legitimate discussion. Whether the United States ought to involve itself in world issues in general is also a legitimate discussion. Many people believe we have no business "meddling" in others' affairs. They might prefer a sort of isolationism as foreign policy. Others believe that as the only remaining true superpower in the world America has a duty and obligation to protect its interests and the interests of other nations and peoples. Many believe we have an obligation to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty throughout the world. Again, these are all discussions open for reasoned, civil debate.
The reality, however, is that America remains the only true power in the world. As such, in the sage words of Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." Much like the reluctant comic book superhero, America's great power is intrinsically coupled with great responsibility.
President Obama's speech seemed unengaged and disinterested. He spoke of Iraq in a manner that, frankly, cast it as little more than a distraction. Instead he simply said it is time to "turn the page" on a chapter of our history, not recognizing the enormity of a task nearly completed yet which remains tenuous.
From the National Review Online:
For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of "Bush’s war."
The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.
...In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (“we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform”), it was shameless.
At first glance it would seem that President Obama doesn't understand the great responsibilities placed into his hands as President of the United States, leader of the free world and shepherd of Freedom on earth. He campaigned on a single-minded promise to end the war in Iraq. He reminded us that he kept his promise.
But the story is not over. The stakes are still high and Iraq is still important, not only for its citizens but for the region as a whole.
What happens if Iraq devolves? The current forces which remain are called support troops or transitional forces or some such relabelling that may or may not appease the anti-war left or isolationist libertarians. Do we send troops back to fight some more?
Which post-conflict model does the President intend to emulate? The Vietnam pullout which led to the slaughter of millions? Or the peace-keeping presence of American military in South Korea? We still have military bases in Germany and Japan as well.
Finally, just how will we deal with a belligerent nuclear Iran, Iraq's neighbor?
It is clear that President Obama's most animating interest is his leftist social domestic agenda. He implied now that we have washed our hands of the Iraq problem, we owe it to those who fought and died to support his economic agenda. How patriotic.
The President does not seem fond of America's position of power in the world and the sense of America's responsibility to protect the idea of individual freedom. As a leftist he likely sees it as unfair that other countries are not as strong, or as prosperous, or as safe. The inequality of superiority likely bothers him greatly. Perhaps that's why he seems to always feel he needs to make apologies overseas.
So perhaps it is more likely that he does recognize America's position in the world, and he doesn't like it and would prefer to ignore or even minimize it.
Remember what happened when Peter Parker neglected his opportunity and responsibility to stop the bad guy? He lost his uncle. If America, the Shining City on a Hill, does not protect people and stop bad guys, who will? And what will the world lose?
The one word I didn't hear during President Obama's address last night announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq was "Freedom." It's a word his predecessor used often both as a conceptual elemental human aspiration and as a symbolic understanding of America's place in the world.
Whether we should have gone to war in Iraq is a legitimate discussion. Whether the United States ought to involve itself in world issues in general is also a legitimate discussion. Many people believe we have no business "meddling" in others' affairs. They might prefer a sort of isolationism as foreign policy. Others believe that as the only remaining true superpower in the world America has a duty and obligation to protect its interests and the interests of other nations and peoples. Many believe we have an obligation to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty throughout the world. Again, these are all discussions open for reasoned, civil debate.
The reality, however, is that America remains the only true power in the world. As such, in the sage words of Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." Much like the reluctant comic book superhero, America's great power is intrinsically coupled with great responsibility.
President Obama's speech seemed unengaged and disinterested. He spoke of Iraq in a manner that, frankly, cast it as little more than a distraction. Instead he simply said it is time to "turn the page" on a chapter of our history, not recognizing the enormity of a task nearly completed yet which remains tenuous.
From the National Review Online:
For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of "Bush’s war."
The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.
...In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (“we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform”), it was shameless.
At first glance it would seem that President Obama doesn't understand the great responsibilities placed into his hands as President of the United States, leader of the free world and shepherd of Freedom on earth. He campaigned on a single-minded promise to end the war in Iraq. He reminded us that he kept his promise.
But the story is not over. The stakes are still high and Iraq is still important, not only for its citizens but for the region as a whole.
What happens if Iraq devolves? The current forces which remain are called support troops or transitional forces or some such relabelling that may or may not appease the anti-war left or isolationist libertarians. Do we send troops back to fight some more?
Which post-conflict model does the President intend to emulate? The Vietnam pullout which led to the slaughter of millions? Or the peace-keeping presence of American military in South Korea? We still have military bases in Germany and Japan as well.
Finally, just how will we deal with a belligerent nuclear Iran, Iraq's neighbor?
It is clear that President Obama's most animating interest is his leftist social domestic agenda. He implied now that we have washed our hands of the Iraq problem, we owe it to those who fought and died to support his economic agenda. How patriotic.
The President does not seem fond of America's position of power in the world and the sense of America's responsibility to protect the idea of individual freedom. As a leftist he likely sees it as unfair that other countries are not as strong, or as prosperous, or as safe. The inequality of superiority likely bothers him greatly. Perhaps that's why he seems to always feel he needs to make apologies overseas.
So perhaps it is more likely that he does recognize America's position in the world, and he doesn't like it and would prefer to ignore or even minimize it.
Remember what happened when Peter Parker neglected his opportunity and responsibility to stop the bad guy? He lost his uncle. If America, the Shining City on a Hill, does not protect people and stop bad guys, who will? And what will the world lose?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
