|
Turning Lemons Into Lemonade AN ELECTION THAT THE REPUBLICANS NEEDED TO LOSE AN OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA OBAMA A FRIEND TO GUN OWNERS? THE MENTALITY OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE SUPPORTERS LIBERALS MORE EMOTIONAL THAN CONSERVATIVES SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN'T VOTE October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
On the air last week, I said it election day was actually a great day for conservatives. Not Republicans. Conservatives. To which many of my listeners responded that I must be in denial and hung over from crying in my beer election night. But I was, and am, dead serious. Let me explain… Without taking anything away from the impressive campaign that Barack Obama ran, the fact is voters didn’t reject conservatism on Tuesday. They rejected the rejection of conservatism. They rejected Republicans who claimed to be fiscal conservatives but governed as fiscal liberals. President George W. Bush’s eight years of “compassionate conservatism” wasn’t conservative. It was big government Republicanism. John McCain was no conservative. Conservatives knew it. The ones who voted for him, like myself, did so only by holding their noses. As for Republicans in Congress, the leadership hasn’t pushed a conservative agenda since the 1994 Contract with All this became bitterly clear, even to the most self-deluded GOP partisans, when Bush, McCain and the Republican Party leadership in Congress embraced that $700 billion (and counting) Wall Street bailout just a few weeks ago. Voters, particularly conservatives, fired a shot across the bow of the SS GOP in 2006 by knocking them out of the majority in both the House and the Senate. Republicans, naturally, didn’t learn a damned thing and kept doing the same ol’ things the same ol’ ways. So voters this week decided to give them a beating they’d never forget. And then some. While Democrats scored phenomenal ballot box victories Tuesday, that was a rejection of GOP governing and campaign incompetence, not an embrace of full-scale socialism – even though Barack Obama is, unquestionably, a socialist. Remember, one of the most important aspects of the Obama campaign was the promise to CUT TAXES for 95 percent of the people. Folks, that’s a conservative agenda. His campaign also spent a ton of time and money telling people that Barack Obama would not take away our guns. Folks, that’s a conservative agenda. On the campaign trail and in debates, Obama said he’d pay for his new programs by cutting spending on old programs. Folks, that’s a conservative agenda. I even heard that at one point Obama’s website had a section claiming he was pro-life. And he also came out, so to speak, as opposed to gay marriage. Folks, that’s a conservative agenda. Now, I don’t for a minute believe Barack Obama really believes this stuff…but that’s what he campaigned on. And combined with GOP incompetence, he fooled plenty enough people to get elected. It was the political version of Three-card Monte. But once the rubes discover they’ve been conned, they’ll be open to electing Republicans again to the House and/or Senate in 2010, if… IF. If Republicans finally wake up and smell the coffee. As Newt likes to say, real change requires real change. Not tinkering around the edges. REAL CHANGE. That means that if Mitch McConnell is going to remain as Minority Leader in the Senate, he needs to at least bring Tom Coburn and/or Jim DeMint into leadership positions. I’m sure a case is being made to promote John Ensign instead; however, you can’t overlook the fact that Ensign ran the National Republican Senatorial Committee this year and may end up losing even more seats than Elizabeth Dole lost two years ago when she ran the NRSC. How does the party of merit justify rewarding such a colossal failure? Under the circumstances, Senate Republicans ought to task the Taking out Harry Reid in 2010. Kinda like tasking Dorothy with taking out the Wicked Witch of the West. You do that, and you get your heart’s desire, Sen. Ensign. Over in the House, Republicans took a severe beating in 2006. But their leadership hadn’t been in place for a full term, so House members re-elected them last year. No excuses this time around. Boom, boom…out go the lights. Nothing short of a wholesale change of the entire House leadership team is acceptable, starting with Minority Leader John Boehner. Republicans simply can’t keep rewarding failure. At least former Democrat Minority Leader Dick Gephardt realized that after two losing two successive elections in the 1990s it was time to step aside and give someone else a shot. If House Republicans won’t change leaders - including, if not especially, McConnell - donors should snap their wallets shut and grassroots activists should sit on their hands until they come to their senses. They should support only Republicans who vote for wholesale leadership change. Meanwhile, over at the Republican National Committee there’s only one sensible course of action. When the RNC convenes for its Winter Meeting next January, they HAVE to elect Michael Steel as the party’s National Chairman. Not because he’s black. Because he’s the best, most qualified person for the job. Being black, with a black hombre in the White House, is merely a bonus. Steel is a former Maryland Republican Party chairman, so he knows how a party organization operates and will be able to relate to and work well with the other state chairmen. He’s also a former lieutenant governor, so he knows how government works (or doesn’t work, as the case may be). He’s also been a statewide candidate twice: won one and lost the other. So he knows both the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Oh, and he won as a Republican in the People’s Republic of Maryland…big time Democrat territory (61 percent for Obama). Presently, he runs GOPAC - the GOP’s premier candidate recruitment and training organization. Plus, he’s an unapologetic fiscal and social conservative who can articulate the conservative message effectively and isn’t afraid of the press. Oh, and Vice President-elect Joe Biden said he was clean. Yes, real change requires real change. And desperate times call for desperate measures. These are desperate times for Republicans…and the nation. Republicans, heal thyselves. Or be prepared for yet another thrashing in 2010.
AN ELECTION THAT THE REPUBLICANS NEEDED TO LOSE — GOOD LUCK OBAMA If ever there was an election that was not worth winning, it was the contest of 2008. While it was hard-fought on both sides, had McCain won, it might have spelled the end of the Republican Party. As it is, the party is well-situated to come back in 2010 and in 2012, if it learns the lessons of this year. If Obama raises taxes, the situation could get even worse. With a liberal Congress on his hands, he will be constrained to move to the left, if he needs any pushing. When The party will recover, fed by anger at Obama’s policies, and will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever. The stellar efforts of NewsMax.com and its ally, GOPtrust.com, illustrate the power of such efforts. Together, these groups raised $10 million for an independent expenditure on media in swing states featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American bombast.
I DIDN'T WRITE THIS BUT...I LIKE IT:
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth. You lied in that debate. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a "professor of Constitutional law." You lied last spring. You distorted the truth. You distorted the truth. You lied to While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to You divide While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to You are lying to They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not You are deceiving
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change" like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Barack Hussein Obama has said that Obama is going to disarm, literally and figuratively all legally owned guns from the hands of law abiding gun owners. He will pry your cold, clinging, fingers from constitutionally protected firearms. Disarmed, our civilian population is like sheep to slaughter. And with the possibility of a leftist fascist administration, you are going to need your guns. Foe shizzle. Obama voted with a minority of lawmakers in 2004 against a bill affirming a homeowner's right to use a firearm in self-defense against an intruder. Richard A. Pearson, Executive Director Illinois State Rifle Association made a pretty convincing case against Obama in his newsletter. He points out that although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner? Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of And let’s not forget Obama’s pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN’s international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the According to Pearson, bi-annual checks for no less than $700,000 are given to gun control groups to support "legislative efforts". The Joyce Foundation is a liberal, charitable foundation that, among other things, funds gun control groups. According to Wikipedia : The Joyce Foundation's Annual Reports list Barack Obama as one of the 12 members of the Board of Directors from 1998 until 2001. (source Sportsmen for Obama?) Jennifer Bishop, the Brady Field Director, testified in hearings that there is a weekly ANTI-GUN CONFERENCE CALL among gun control groups to coordinate efforts across the When you see anti-gun actions pop up, even now in red states, these are not isolated grass roots incidents. This is part of a network, a large national effort, to ban guns. The leftist machine at work. In Mr. Pearson's newsletter he warns Americans, "In closing, I’d like to remind you that I’m a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation’s outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him." That’s the Barack Obama I know. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner? Uh... not so much. Here we have New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat. He is one of these Senators who will soon be serving in a Democrat Senate that will have unfettered power – with Barack Obama in the White House, possibly 60 Democrat senators and maybe 250 Democrat representatives. So Senator Bingaman went on a talk radio show and proclaimed his support for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Here's a little bit of his reasoning: "Radio and media generally should have a higher calling than just reflecting a particular point of view. They should use their authority, their broadcast power, to present an informed discussion of public issues ... The country was well served [by the Fairness Doctrine]. Public discussion was at a higher lever and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." So there you go. This Senator, who will soon be leading this country without any speed bumps stopping him, believes that we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine because our discussion will be more intelligent. In that case, if that is really your goal – to present intelligent, informed discussion – let's get rid of Entertainment Tonight. And while you are at it, American Idol and these sleazy MTV reality TV shows. And maybe BET as well. Don't let this guy fool you, folks. The Fairness Doctrine is not about intelligent, informed discussion. It is about power – the power sought by all despots to shut down the opposition. A new poll by the
About 56% of Democrats say they will be "angry" if Barack Obama loses the election compared with only 20% of Republicans.
Angry? I drop-dead guarantee you that if Barack Obama loses in 11 days there is going to be serious violence in urban areas. Now some of you less-educated people out there are going to suggest that I'm saying this because the people engaging in violence will be black. Well, I'll tell you something that many people will not be able to understand. It won't be race that will bring the disturbances and riots on .. it will be the urban culture of violence. I'm not a racist .. I'm a culturalist. There .. that ought to keep some of you thinking for a while. Well this is something I have been saying for years ... only this time, people seem to be acting on their emotion. I remember reading a while ago about a study by Drew Westen, a psychologist and brain researcher at At an ultra-left wing "Take Back America" convention, Weston presented his theory that Democrats must tap into the emotions of their constituents in order to win them over. Don't bog them down with the facts. Don't bother explaining to them how Barack Obama's tax policies are going to kill small businesses in this country. Don't bother telling them the pitfalls of government-run healthcare. Just appeal to their blind emotions ... and you've got their vote. Meanwhile, on the other side you are getting headlines like this from the mainstream media: "Ugly election incidents show lingering Give me a big-time break. I wrote this and posted it on Bakersfield.com and thought I'd share it with you here as my first post: FROM JAZ McKAY
The common belief is that when voter turn out is low that is a bad thing. I disagree. It's not a matter of how many people vote its a matter of who is doing the voting. People with no true understanding of the issues or who are uninformed about the candidates should not be allowed to vote. Bottom line - stupid people should be prevented from entering the voting booth.
Our country has been plagued with stupid people corrupting society and bastardizing the value of life for all Americans. The intellectually handicapped have been reproducing at a substantially greater rate than those of the informed and intelligent.
There should be a litmus test that determines voter eligibility. I would suggest that if you do not know who your own representatives are you're too stupid to vote.
If you don't know who the Vice President is you're too stupid to vote.
If you don't know which is the majority party in congress you're too stupid to vote.
If you don't know who the Secretary of State is you're too stupid to vote.
If you don't know that the first Tuesday of November is voting day in presidential elections you're too stupid to vote.
By the way, if you can't pass this simple internet test you shouldn't vote. Check out http://dontvote.org/
But now I'll take it a step further, if your on the government dole you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you're on welfare of any kind you should not be allowed to vote.
Remember this quote attributed to the Scottish author Alexander Tytler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (money-benefits) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years." He was dead on! We're seeing that today with the popularity of Obama. Furthermore, if you can't prove who you are you should not be allowed to vote. You must show ID to vote. And remember that the only people who whine about voter ID laws are Democrats. Why is that? Simple, most illegally cast votes are cast for Democrats. Democrats have been at the forefront of every move to loosen voting restrictions and to counter any attempt to combat voter fraud.
Voter fraud is a reality, and across this country most of the votes that are illegally cast are cast for Democrats. It is Democrats who are driving the demands that non-citizens be allowed to vote in local elections.
It is Democrats who are even insisting that illegal aliens be permitted to vote in some areas. It is Democrats who have opposed each and every move, no matter where, to attempt to clean up the election process by making sure that people who vote are actually legally qualified to vote.
It is Democrats who want felons to vote! They know that felons will, by and large, vote for Democrats. The Democrats are the party of rapists, killers, drug dealers, thieves and gang bangers.
Now .. if you really want to hear Democrats howl ... make it easier for military personnel to vote. Military personnel, you see, usually vote Republican. Fact!
1
|