Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The World Looks Up To America With Good Reason

Is America the greatest nation on earth? Lets see what people around the globe have said...

Startingwith this thanks from an Australian blogger...


Thanks America Where do I start?
I've wanted to say this for a long time. It is unbelievable that America gets badmouthed all the time. America has helped the cause of freedom more than anyone else. First of all I'd like to thank America for saving Australia's butt at the Battle of the Coral Sea in WWII. This prevented the Japanese from landing here, and bringing with them the concept of "comfort women". I think Australia's nature is such that we would have sacrificed 90% of our population rather than hand over any woman. America's intervention meant that we were never required to make that terrible choice. Thanks America!

Then of course there's the fact that you saved Europe's butt, not once but 3 times - WWI, WWII and the Cold War. I don't know why we don't hear more thanks from Europe for this. But in the absence of thanks from ungrateful recipients of American largesse, let me say it instead - thanks America!

And then there's all the foreign aid you give. And all the technology you provide. And all the knowledge that is provided for free. And the Mars rover images, also provided for free. And the GPS system also provided for free. And why don't the third world countries thank you for all the stuff they receive from America? I don't know. But let me thank you instead. Thanks America!

And something that is far more important than foreign aid is the security umbrella you provide, that the entire free world lives under. If there was any justice in the world, the rest of the free world would provide money to fund the American military, and hand over a cheque with a BIG SMILE. Instead, what do we see? Protests in places like South Korea. Unbelievable. How you can put up with the South Koreans is beyond me. The fact that you do put up with them, with a smile, exemplifies the inner beauty of the American soul. Thanks America!

And then there's the fact that after defeating an enemy, instead of rubbing his nose in the dirt, you instead show great magnimity and help him to his feet, immediately, ala Germany and Japan. You show that the best way to defeat an enemy is to turn him into a friend. You teach that we should judge people by their current behaviour, not past bad behaviour. If only the rest of the world could learn from America. But instead most of the rest of the world maintains grudges for centuries, transferring guilt to perfectly innocent people, and pretending to inherit suffering and permanent victimhood. If only people would adopt the American way, the world would be so much better. What can I say? Nothing. I am humbled in the face of American largesse. Thanks America!

And then there's the glorious imperial measurement system that you still cling to, in honour of the glorious King George, long after the rest of the world, including Australia, has metricized, which even caused one of the Mars probes to be smashed to smithereens. Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm. Ok. Hmmmmm. Let's move on folks, nothing to see here.

And then there's the fact that you give money to others in the event of a natural disaster, such as the Tsuanami, regardless of race or religion, yet no-one ever gives you a dime when you have a natural disaster. Both the government and the people individually have unmatched generosity. And even rich people in America tend to give their money to charities instead of passing it on to their kids, like people in most other countries. Thanks America!

And then there's the fact that after 9/11, instead of nuking the entire Middle East in response, you instead freed 52 million people from state-slavery/holocaust/institutionalized rape, and then poured BILLIONS into those countries, on top of the BILLIONS that the war cost itself, plus the sacrifice of your countrymen. All while everyone is accusing you of stealing oil. I don't know why these ingrates don't thank you for all you have done. Maybe it's because they're ingrates? Maybe with education their children will thank you. Just like European children thank you. Hmmmm. Hmmmm. Nevermind about that. Let me thank you instead. Thanks America!

From across the globe, countries are grateful to America...

Grand Duke Jean, the constitutional monarch of Luxembourg since 1964, will make his first official visit to this country Nov. 11- 19 (1984).

Luxembourg's Ambassador to the United States, Paul Peters, said 1984 was chosen for the visit because this year Luxembourg is celebrating the 40th anniversary of its two World War II liberations, both by the United States Army.

The Ambassador said the Grand Duke wanted to thank America for the liberations. The first was on Sept. 10, 1944, and the second was actually in January 1945, after part of Luxembourg was retaken by German troops, then taken again by the American Army in the Battle of the Bulge.

Above video is from an Italian (legal) immigrant to the US

Kuwait Says Thank-You America on billboards!
By Jeffrey Marcus
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 20, 2002; 12:15 PM

Kuwait is a grateful nation. A very grateful nation. In fact, the country is so grateful to the United States for liberating it from Iraq in 1991 that its embassy decided to purchase 10th anniversary billboards in area Metro stations.

Below is a statement from the Interim Prime Minister of Iraq Awad Allawi.

..."The second message is quite simple and one that I would like to deliver directly from my people to yours: Thank you, America."

Below is a TV ad from Iraqi's to America

"Saddam’s goal was to bury every living Kurd…
He failed.
“Thank you.”
“Thank you, America.”
“Thank you.”
The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say ‘thank you’…
for helping us win our freedom.
“Thank you for democracy.”
“Thank you, America.”
“Thank you.”

On November 30, in Charlotte, Consul General of France in Atlanta presented "Thank you America" Certificates to 28 veterans and members of the families of those who passed away recently. France also presented America with a little statue saying "thanks" following WWII that stands in the NY harbor to this day.

btw- There is plenty more from virtually every free country on this hateful little rock on which we reside.


Indoctrinating School Children: Democrat Strategery

Thanks to Spank That Donkey...

Okay boys and girls gather around for today's indoctrination class into the Obama-nation.
Everyone sing along as we become good little socialist democrats.
Your tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen... even though the video says it was filmed in someone's house... it sure looks like a grade school to me...

And the new re-cut version of the above....

Labels: ,

Biden Loose Cannon Behind The Wheel

Hat tip to Mike McCarville... the hits just keep on comin'!

The Joe Biden Gaffe-mobile Continues.

""Let's start telling the truth,"
Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube last year. "Number one, you take all the troops out - you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at."

When questioned later it was...
"I was near where a shot landed."

Biden went on to later say he was actually just shaving in the morning when he felt the building shake, "No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing" .

FOX News (seems to be the only news agency that) has been asking the Obama campaign for details of the alleged shooting in Iraq ever since Biden was tapped to be vice president. Biden campaign spokesman David Wade promised an answer last week, but failed to provide one.

Now we also have the foreign policy expert for the Democrat party saying things like this...

"If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."

But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February. A convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

No explanation why Senator Biden didn't simply alert the generals with him at the time as to the location of Osama B Laden that he now claims to know...

Quick, somebody ask Biden how to spell potato!
lol -red

Labels: , , ,

McCain Unleashing Sarahcuda on Biden

Thanks to Okie Campaigns for the headsup...

Let Sarah - Be Sarah: Warning to Joe Biden: McCain Has Released the Barracuda

September 29, 2008
How McCain Wins

John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity.

The conventional wisdom is that it was a mistake for McCain to go back to Washington last week to engage in the attempt to craft the financial rescue legislation, and that McCain has to move on to a new topic as quickly as possible. As one McCain adviser told The Washington Post, “you’ve got to get it [the financial crisis] over with and start having a normal campaign.”


McCain’s impetuous decision to return to Washington was right.
The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.

But the goal shouldn’t be to return to “a normal campaign.” For these aren’t normal times.

We face a real financial crisis. Usually the candidate of the incumbent’s party minimizes the severity of the nation’s problems. McCain should break the mold and acknowledge, even emphasize the crisis. He can explain that dealing with it requires candor and leadership of the sort he’s shown in his career. McCain can tell voters we’re almost certainly in a recession, and things will likely get worse before they get better.

And McCain can note that the financial crisis isn’t going to be solved by any one piece of legislation. There are serious economists, for example, who think we could be on the verge of a huge bank run. Congress may have to act to authorize the F.D.I.C. to provide far greater deposit insurance, and the secretary of the Treasury to protect money market funds. McCain can call for Congress to stand ready to pass such legislation. He can say more generally that in the tough times ahead, we’ll need a tough president willing to make tough decisions.

With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

I’m told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff’s handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They’re supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.

In the debate, Palin has to dispatch quickly any queries about herself, and confidently assert that of course she’s qualified to be vice president. She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, “Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted.”

The core case against Obama is pretty simple: he’s too liberal. A few months ago I asked one of McCain’s aides what aspect of Obama’s liberalism they thought they could most effectively exploit. He looked at me as if I were a simpleton, and patiently explained that talking about “conservatism” and “liberalism” was so old-fashioned.

Maybe. But the fact is the only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — distanced themselves from liberal orthodoxy. Obama is, by contrast, a garden-variety liberal. He also has radical associates in his past.

The most famous of these is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and I wonder if Obama may have inadvertently set the stage for the McCain team to reintroduce him to the American public. On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words “middle class.” The Obama campaign even released an advertisement trumpeting McCain’s omission.

The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama’s eloquent memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” There Obama quotes from the brochure of Reverend Wright’s church — a passage entitled “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”

So when Biden goes on about the middle class on Thursday, Palin might ask Biden when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, September 29, 2008

Media In The Tank For Obama Hook Line and Sinker

Engram at the BackTalk Blog hits another one out of the park...

As you can probably tell, I (Engram) agree with Tony Blankley, who says:

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda."

Engram writes...

"The media is in the tank for Barack Obama, and that's the simple explanation for why mainstream media reporters are maniacally investigating the flowers that Sarah Palin received during her years as mayor of Wasilla while studiously ignoring what Barack Obama did during his years as a community organizer and as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
It's a very strange feeling to watch this play out before one's very eyes."


SPDS Rant Of the Week

Cary Tennis at Salon.com wins this weeks Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome (a frequent side effect of Bush Derangement Disorder) rant of the week and typifies just how insane Sarah Palin makes liberals!
What business is it of Democrats who we select for Republican candidates anyway?
That is enough reason to vote for John McCain right there.

Buckle your seatbelt and tighten your helmet cause here we go on the insane train to nowhere...
Cary Tennis:
"And then came Sarah.
My reaction to her, and the way the Republican Party threw her in our faces, and the pandering and hypocrisy that was behind their decision to do so, was immediate, visceral, and indeed, vicious.

I have crossed every line I believed should never be crossed in public discourse -- I have criticized not only her policies and her record, but her hair, her personal style, her accent, her abilities as a mother, etc.
I've also begun to suffer personally and professionally.
I bore my friends with my constant tirades against her, and am constantly distracted from my work by my need to continually update myself on the latest criticism, and indeed, ridicule, of her.
In my hatred for her, I have begun to hate myself.

I don't want this woman ruining my life before she even gets a chance to ruin our country. How do I stop?

Is there a self-help group for this?"

Yes, Carie there is.

It's called you're-a-moron.com

Labels: , ,

In Times of Crisis, Avoid Socialism

In Times of Crisis, Trust Capitalism

By Joseph Calhoun

From Real Clear Politics

The US government is executing a coup d’etat of capitalism and I fear that we will pay the price for many years to come. Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke and a host of others tell us the credit market is not working and the only way to get it working again is for the government to intervene. They claim this intervention is urgently needed and if we don’t act, the consequences are dire. Dire, as in New Depression dire. Have these supposed experts on capitalism forgotten how it really works?

Last week Goldman Sachs raised $10 billion in new capital in one day. They sold $5 billion in preferred stock and warrants to Berkshire Hathaway and also completed a secondary offering of common stock that raised another $5 billion. Friday, JP Morgan raised $10 billion in a secondary offering to help pay for the Washington Mutual takeunder. Both of these offerings were oversubscribed, meaning that the companies could have raised more capital if they wanted. There is not a shortage of capital for well run financial companies.

There is, however, a shortage of capital for companies that have acted irresponsibly with investor capital in the recent past. For some reason, our political leaders believe this is a failure of the market, but isn’t this what should be expected from rational investors? Given a choice, why would a rational investor allocate limited capital to the losers rather than the winners? If capital is really as scarce as it seems, isn’t it better for our economy if we make sure that it is allocated wisely?

The biggest bank failure in the history of the United States happened last Thursday night and by Friday morning, it was business as usual. The only difference was the name on the door and the losses suffered by those unfortunate enough to invest in Washington Mutual bonds or stock. The taxpayers didn’t lose anything and depositors didn’t lose anything, only investors. That is how capitalism works in case everyone has forgotten.

The “crisis” we face today is not a creation of the market. Government intervention over many years (but especially the last year) is what brought us to the point where we’ve placed our hopes for economic recovery on the good intentions of a Congress facing re-election in a few weeks. There has been much commentary recently about the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the creation and expansion of the sub-prime mortgage market which many believe to be the cause of this mess. That criticism is certainly warranted, but little attention has been paid to the real culprit – the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, what attention there has been is concentrated on the role of Alan Greenspan rather than Ben Bernanke. While Alan Greenspan deserves his share of the blame, Bernanke’s contribution to this mess should not be minimized or excused.

Bernanke obviously does not trust the market to sort the winners from the losers. When this erupted last year, the Fed lowered interest rates, including the discount rate, which is the rate charged by the Fed to lend directly to banks. There has always been a stigma attached to borrowing directly from the Fed and for good reason. If a bank can’t get other banks to lend it money, that tells the market something about the condition of the bank in question. Last August, Bernanke convinced three large banks to borrow at the discount window in an effort to remove that stigma. When that didn’t work, he concocted a scheme to allow banks to borrow from the Fed in anonymity via a mechanism he called the Term Auction Facility. When Bear Stearns blew up, he added the Term Securities Lending Facility for investment banks. By removing the stigma of borrowing from the Fed and hiding the identity of the borrowers, Bernanke removed important information from the market.

Now we face a situation where banks are not willing to lend to each other and have therefore become dependent on the Fed for daily liquidity. This is a direct result of the Fed’s actions. Banks will not lend to each other because they don’t know which ones are really in trouble. The rise in inter-bank lending rates is a rational market response to a lack of information. Furthermore, why pay those inter-bank rates when the Fed or ECB is offering easier terms?

These opaque lending facilities are just part of the problem created by the Fed and Treasury. The Bear Stearns intervention started the process by raising expectations that the government would step in and broker deals that would normally be left to the private sector. By providing favorable terms to JP Morgan in the deal, private actors came to see an advantage in waiting to see if the Fed would provide similar terms again. The worry at the time was that a Bear Stearns failure would cause a collapse of the system, but after watching Lehman Brothers file bankruptcy one has to wonder if that worry was based on fear or facts. Lehman filed bankruptcy on a Sunday night and the market opened the next day and functioned as it should. Would a Bear bankruptcy have been different? We will never know, but I have my doubts.

Now markets are waiting on pins and needles as the politicians haggle over the details of the latest bailout attempt by the Fed and Treasury. This has introduced another roadblock to the re-capitalization and reorganization of the financial industry. Companies that are in need of capital are waiting to see if the plan will bail them out of their difficulties. If Hank Paulson is willing to pay an above market price for their bad loans, why should they dilute their equity now? Why not wait until they can offload the bad paper on the taxpayer and raise capital at a better price? Why take Tony Soprano terms when Uncle Sam is willing to let the taxpayer take the hit for you?

If this bailout goes ahead in its current form and the Treasury pays a high enough price to recapitalize the troubled banks, what has been accomplished? The plan may be enough to induce the banking sector to start lending again, although frankly, I don’t know why we would want institutions who have shown such poor judgment in the past to stay in that business. This plan short circuits the capitalist model which would allow the stronger, well-run institutions to gain market share and/or expand profit margins. The long-term effect will be to lower the overall return on capital in the financial services industry. The government apparently believes that the key to economic recovery is to allocate limited resources in an inefficient manner. Does that make sense?

Paulson and Bernanke have testified to Congress that the market for the mortgage paper rotting on the balance sheets of bad banks is not working. They have not offered an explanation of why that market is not functioning except to blame the complicated nature of some of the securities. That explanation begs the question of how exactly the Treasury believes it will be any better at deciphering the mortgage market. A more logical explanation is not a lack of willing buyers, but a lack of willing sellers. The Fed has allowed institutions to use collateral of ever falling quality to secure loans from the Fed. If a bank can finance its activities through the Fed and keep the bad loans on the balance sheet, what incentive does it have to sell? Selling will reveal the true condition of the company and will also force other institutions to do the same under mark- to-market accounting. The Fed is the one keeping the market from functioning. The Treasury does not need to enter the market for it to start functioning; the Fed needs to leave the market.

Paulson has said that the cause of the current problems is the housing deflation, but that ignores the elephant in the living room. The housing bubble, which was concentrated in a relatively small number of states, was caused by the reckless actions of the Greenspan Fed. The consequences of that bubble have been exacerbated by the Bernanke Fed. The market is functioning as it should. It is the Fed that is not functioning correctly. There is no reason we had to go through either the bubble or the aftermath. We got into this mess because we tried to avoid the consequences of the Internet bubble. We will only make things worse by trying to avoid the consequences of the housing bubble.

We are not on the verge of a new depression. The housing bubble collapse in California, Florida and a few other states is not enough to bring down the entire banking system. Investors who made mistakes in these markets should be held responsible and those who navigated the Fed-distorted market should be rewarded for their wisdom and prudence. Enacting the Paulson plan will not allow that to happen and our economy will suffer for it in the long run. The Japanese tried to prop up failed banks in the aftermath of the bursting of their twin bubbles and the result was 15 years of stagnation. Why are we emulating a strategy that is a demonstrable failure? A better alternative would be to allow capitalism to work as it should and stop the interventions of the Fed in the money market. Trust capitalism. It works.

Joseph Calhoun is chief investment officer for Alhambra Investment Management in Coral Gables, Florida. He can be reached at jyc3@alhambrapartners.com


Freddie And Fannie Were Fine Said Democrats

Thanks to Curt at Flopping Aces...

Get out the duct tape and wrap your head very tightly before viewing this video of 2004 hearings on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
After viewing ask yourself if Democrats are part of the solution or simply the problem?

Notice who is claiming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are fine, no problems, no regulation required and who is asking and begging for more oversight and increased regulation of those now failed institutions?


Obama Puts Handlers On Biden; Worries About Gaffe Soar

Thanks to Mike McCarville at The McCarville Report-

Can Biden Withstand Palin Debate Pressure?
Can Joe Biden withstand the pressure of his debate with Sarah Palin this week?

It's a fair question to ask given Biden's repeated gaffes and while Palin has stumbled during recent television interviews, it is Biden whose comments have drawn "He said what?" responses.

The most recent Biden gaffe came when he said that when the Depression occurred (in 1929), President Franklin Roosevelt went on television and reassured the nation. Herbert Hoover was president in 1929; commercial television was, at that time, unknown to the nation. The mainstream media, however, have given Biden a pass on this gigantic gaffe and instead focused on Palin.

Writing on the National Post, Sheldon Alberts reported, "In recent days, Biden has claimed it was the “patriotic” duty of wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes, urged a wheelchair-bound man to 'stand up' at a Democratic rally, and suggested Hillary Clinton 'might have been a better pick than me' as Obama’s running mate.

"But many of those remarks were lost amid the media fascination with Palin."

Those remarks, and others, have prompted what Alberts described as "growing concern" in the Obama camp that Biden will make a campaign-staggering gaffe in the debate with Palin.

A Los Angeles Times columnist wrote of Biden, "And, of course, last summer Biden attempted to endear himself to an Indian American supporter by telling him that in Delaware, 'you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.'
Not only was this an offensive line, it didn’t even make any sense: The observation, familiar to anybody who watched a comedian on cable television 15 years ago, is that Indian Americans are the only ones who work in convenience stores, not that they’re the only ones who shop there.

The man can’t even keep his condescending cliches straight." Then there's this, from a New York Times columnist, who wrote that Biden is "a human verbal wrecking crew. "This is the fellow who nearly derailed his nascent presidential campaign last year by calling Mr. Obama 'articulate and bright and clean,' and who noted that a person needed a slight Indian accent to walk into a Dunkin’ Donuts or 7-Eleven in Delaware, his home state.

"The man who, reading his vice-presidential acceptance speech from a teleprompter, bungled Mr. McCain’s name and called him 'George.' ('Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip,' he explained.)

"The man who, on the day Mr. Obama announced him as his running mate, referred to his party’s presidential nominee as 'Barack America' and noted that his wife, Jill Biden, a college professor, was 'drop-dead gorgeous' but, problematically, possessed a doctorate.

"The man who has said he is running for president (not vice president) and who confused Army brigades with battalions.

Who referred to Ms. Palin as the lieutenant governor of Alaska.

"Aides to Mr. Obama said that Mr. Biden’s propensity to misspeak could pose problems, particularly in the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 2. They are watching his performance but have not tried to rein him in.

They have assigned two veteran minders to travel with him — David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry."

posted by Mike @ 4:46 PM
Reposted by red @ 8:37 PM

Labels: , , , ,

Red Stater Not A Fan Of The Big Banking Bailout

Now I could be wrong on this one... just my opinion.
But heck if you don't have an opinion why blog?
But as I understand it, all this big bank failure Hoo-haa is about bad loans... loans to people that probably shouldn't have been approved for a loan and by people that simply didn't care who got hurt.

If one thin dime of the proposed $700Billion was going to keep people in their homes... I might think about it... but to bail out the banks while the folks lose their homes etc anyway only for those same banks to turn around and wrecklessly loan out more money... doesn't make sense to me.

I believe the US economy is large enough to swallow that deal right up and keep on chugging provided confidence in the stock market doesn't fall out the bottom which is what I think the bailout might cause. When wall street see's the banking bailout and government stepping in, it could react very negatively to that.

The federal government should let private industry and commerce take it's course, the US economy must have rises and falls it is the nature of the beast.
I heard today that Russia always had a very stable economy... and the people nearly starved to death and stood in line for toilet paper... forget gasoline.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi and her corrupt buddies decided it was a good time to go partisan and load up the bailout with some good old porkbarrel earmarks for corrupt and criminal liberal organizations like ACORN.
-red stater

Labels: , ,

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Democrats Lose Ball; Playing On Wrong Field

While claiming Republicans took their eye off the ball by going to war in Iraq which eventually led to the crippling of Al Qaeda, Democrats don't even know where the ball is.

Obama and Democrats continue to claim we need to be in Afghanistan fighting Al Qaeda in spite of the following facts which are conveniently ignored by the democrat controlled main stream media...
The one exception, and it is an important one, is the editorial board of the Washington Post. In an editorial two months ago, they said about Obama:

He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.
Obama and Democrats have no clue.
We are supposed to trust the safety of our grandchildren to these morons?
I think not.

Labels: , , ,

Conservatives Defending America On Multiple Fronts

It's not easy being a Republican in office these days.
To do so means you are willing to fight a brutal and bloody war against Al Qaeda and Islamic radicals without support from Democrats or the liberal Democrat controlled media and to also fight a virtual war against socialism and communism which is threatening the foundation on which our entire country is based... needless to say again without support from Democrats who are the socialists and communists in question. To do so means that the press will use every possible tactic and lie to discredit and destroy you like they have tried (and continue) to do to Sarah Palin.

Democrats not only refuse to face head on the threat of Islamic Fascism they embolden it and almost embrace it or seek to treat those who would destroy our country as mere criminals in need of counseling and maybe probation.

Redefine it as you will, progressive, liberal, whatever... it is socialism and communism re-packaged and re-sold as something new and fair.
Income redistrubution and anti-capitalism and endless social programs and government control of healthcare, the auto industry, the airline industry, the housing industry... and now wall street... all steps toward one end.

Voters will go to the polls in a few weeks and we shall see. Will the people rise up again and reward those fighting for our freedom, fighting for democracy, fighting against big government, higher taxes, fight against unlimited expansion of government control and those fighting against the single biggest threat we have faced in decades- Islamic Fascism, Vote Republican and Vote for America. As the Democrats like to say.... "Take Back America".

Labels: ,

Obama Math Worse Than Fuzzy

Doesn't anyone have a calculator?
Barack Obama has repeatedly said that he is going to "cut income taxes for 95% of Americans".

Now, this sounds good doesn't it? Unfortunately for Obama it's impossible.
Roughly 95% of Americans are actually paying income tax (roughly a 5% unemployment rate)... okay you say, so he's going to cut taxes for everyone with a job...?

No, he said he's going to RAISE taxes on the top 5% (who are already paying over 90% of the taxes currently) which means that he's going to cut taxes for 90% of working Americans and apparently the 5% that aren't working, which of course is impossible. (you can't lower taxes on those not paying taxes in the first place)

Liberal math strikes again.
Democrat strategery- "Promise 'em anything and take everything from 'em later."


Obama's Marxist Connections Disturbing

From The American Thinker Blog...

Another Obama Marxist

By Lance Fairchok
Barack Obama has a thing for Marxists.
He befriends them, listens to their counsel, and he even hires them to work in his campaign.
And they seem to feel the warmth.
President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, who led a revolution there in 1979, says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a "revolutionary" phenomenon, and Americans are "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change."

A captured computer revealed that an unknown person chatted with Marxist FARC guerillas on Obama's behalf (they believed), stating he would be the next President and US policy towards Columbia would change.

Frank Marshall Davis, a dear Obama friend and mentor was as a member of the Communist Party USA.
Barack Obama just seems to attract Marxists.

If the people he surrounds himself with are any indication of his core beliefs, a higher capital gains tax to punish the rich, even if it diminishes actual tax revenue, may be only the beginning.

Obama's Official campaign blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, a former writer for the leftist Nation magazine and a contributor to the Socialist Viewpoint, is certainly a believer in class warfare.
The capitalist ruling class of the United States exercises a virtual dictatorship not only over American society, but also over the entire world. This capitalist class rule is the basic cause of the poverty, wars and the degradation of the natural environment.

After being expelled from Socialist Action in 1999, we formed Socialist Workers Organization in an attempt to carry on the project of building a nucleus of a revolutionary party true to the historic teachings and program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.

-Socialist Viewpoint

The product of a Harvard education, Sam is an admirer of anti-American academic Noam Chomsky, a hypocrite and fraud masquerading as a political philosopher.
Mr. Chomsky, perhaps admired by Obama as by his official blogger, is fond of visiting dictators and terrorists and giving speeches blaming all the worlds' ills on America. All while accepting money from military conteacts at MIT. Chomsky was an ardent supporter of Pol Pot, and to this day denies a holocaust occurred in Cambodia (1.67 million died).
He is unrepentant about the horrors his vile ideology encouraged and supports Hamas and Hezbollah with the same willful blindness today.

In an article in the Harvard Crimson, Sam writes of his hero:

For me, hearing Chomsky speak for the first time was a life-changing experience. His ability to take preconceptions and destroy them-to completely remodel one's understanding of reality with cold, hard facts-blew me away. When I left what was then the ARCO Forum last fall, I felt as though I had been through the Matrix and back. Chomsky really has this effect because he bombards you with evidence and logic, not empty rhetoric. It is nearly impossible to hear him or read him-once you've actually checked his facts yourself (he even cites page numbers in public addresses)-and deny what he's saying.

For anyone who has actually endured one of Chomsky's muddled rants or tried to verify the claims in his books, young Sam's praise is comical; and a clear indication he has never actually read one. You find very quickly Chomsky is not overly concerned with "facts," as he fabricates them with abandon. He cites page numbers, to his own books, which recycle themselves with astonishing success. Hardly an example of a towering intellect, his tired canards are sufficient to impress the worshipful Sam Graham-Felsen, and endear himself to the same leftist academics that so easily embraced dictators such Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot, idolize Chavez and Castro and legitimized terrorists like Yasser Arafat. Chomsky is the master of post-modern moral relativism, quick to excuse atrocity with obfuscation.

On the day after 9-11, Chomsky wrote:

"The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people."

It may be simple self-aggrandizing hypocrisy that inspires Mr. Chomsky's comments, though I suspect, more likely he mistakes the accolades of twenty year old activists as confirmation of his own genius. He plays what works with the crowd. Here are some other nihilistic gems gleaned from his pedantic and incomprehensible writing:

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged."
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."

"The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media. "

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

"I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system."

Sam Graham-Felsen, hired to run Obama's blog, writes about Noam Chomsky in a Marxist publications that openly calls for revolution against the American government. This is a Presidential candidate's choice to run the on-line portion of his campaign. That speaks volumes of his character and worldview. Contradicting what he says in public,
Obama is surrounding himself with poeple who never seem to learn that their absurd ideologies end in misery and ruin.

Sam is young and has much to learn, so we can forgive his silly hagiographies, the ones about Chomsky and the ones about Obama. His hero worship is eager and emotional and completely without substance, much as Obama's campaign promises are without substance. Obama is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky mold, and knows where to get people like Sam who have energy and drive. His staff is nothing if not energetic. He even cut his activist teeth in Chicago, the stomping grounds of Alinsky and so many others in the "progressive" community.
One wonders why the windy city still has a murder rate higher than Baghdad, after so many years of enlightened activism.

The adults in the Obama campaign expect us to believe that a campaign staff filled with Marxists and radicals does not reflect the candidate.
We are supposed to believe that ideologues who distain America and Americans can improve the system that has brought humanity more prosperity and well-being than any nation before it. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths, they tell us we are great, and then insist we must change because we are responsible for all the bad things that happen in the world. That alone should anger the electorate enough to defeat them. The change Obama will bring will not be the change America needs or expects. It will be the change of naive adolescents, which think Noam Chomsky wise.

We continue to have an optimistic outlook about the revolutionary potential of the world working class to rule society in its own name-socialism. We are optimistic that the working class, united across borders, and acting in its own class interests can solve the devastating crises of war, poverty, oppression, and environmental destruction that capitalism is responsible for.
- The Socialist Viewpoint

Labels: , ,

Who Said That?

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." ~


Thanks Oklahoma!

Just a quick note to say thanks to everyone who rated this blog at BlogNetNews.
(rating and link over in right sidebar)
Hopefully you will always find Red Stater entertaining and thought provoking.
Not everyone gets my wit and sarcasm, but hey that's okay.
Thank you.
-red stater


Saturday, September 27, 2008

Obama... Naive or Deliberately Deceptive?

September 27, 2008

Obama is Dangerously Naive

(Thanks TO Engram at BackTalk Blog...)

Either that, or he is deliberately deceptive. I hope it is the latter.

This does not mean that his performance in last night's debate was politically ineffective. Never forget that in presidential debates, as amazing as it might seem, style is what mostly matters to the American people. Stylistically, Obama did a fine job of creating the impression that he is someone other than his long history suggests he is. And that's good for him. Substantively, however, McCain simply cleaned Obama's clock and showed that the junior senator from Illinois is dangerously unprepared to be our next commander in chief. I wish that mattered to the viewing audience, but history suggests that it will not. To most Americans, it's all about style. Thus, we probably won't see any major shift in the polls as a result of last night's debate, and I cannot even predict the direction of any minor shift that might occur.

Overall, it was a fine debate, and both did well in terms of achieving their political objectives. And the moderator (Jim Lehrer) was simply outstanding.

Although it does not matter all that much to the voting public, substance does matter to me, so that's what I'll focus on. On the Iraq war, Obama was at his best when he said:

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

This made me wonder if Obama believed that the Iraqis did not have WMDs or if he instead believed that we should not invade even though he thought they did. Based on the one anti-war speech that might catapult him all the way to the presidency, I conclude that Obama thought that Iraq had WMDs:

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

And Saddam Hussein is the man who would be in charge today had we not invaded. Under that scenario, he would not be sitting on his hands watching his mortal enemy -- Iran -- develop a nuclear bomb. Obviously, after our troops were gone, Saddam would get on with developing the WMDs that he wanted the world to believe that he already possessed. Perhaps ensuring that this scenario became a reality reflects profoundly excellent judgment on Obama's part, but that's not obvious to me. Still, it is clearly debatable, and the fact that Obama opposed the invasion is certainly not what makes him dangerously naive.

The whole problem with Obama's judgment is that he thought made great sense, once Osama bin Laden decided to make Iraq the central front in the war on terror, to accept defeat in Iraq. That is, after opposing the invasion, Obama's next big idea was to withdraw our troops and hand al Qaeda the glorious victory it sought in Iraq. Fortunately, and no thanks to Obama, al Qaeda has been crushed in Iraq, and their reputation throughout the Muslim world has been greatly diminished, not enhanced. Thus, I was surprised to hear Obama say this:

And I wish I had been wrong for the sake of the country and they had been right, but that's not the case. We've spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.

He was apparently referring to this article:

Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new U.S. government analysis concludes, according to a senior government official who has seen it.

Some unnamed senior government official who says he has seen the report makes this claim, and that's good enough for Obama. It gives him cover to make a misleading claim, but it is a seriously flawed assessment because it glosses over a critical detail: what would al Qaeda's position be today had we abandoned Iraq at the height of al-Qaeda-induced sectarian violence there (as Obama proposed that we do)? Obviously, they would be very much stronger than they are today. Also, al Qaeda's strength, whatever it might be, derives from its safe havens in Pakistan, which was also noted in the article:

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."

Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."

And this fact brings up the complete non sequitur that an enthralled media allows Obama to get away with every time (and will do so again now): Because al Qaeda's safe havens are inside Pakistan, how will withdrawing our troops from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban serve to defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan? There is no reasonable answer to this question, which is why Obama constantly blurs the critical distinction between Afghanistan (where the Taliban are fighting with the help of some al Qaeda field commanders) and Pakistan (where al Qaeda's leaders are and where al Qaeda has established those safe havens). Only by blurring that distinction can one create the false impression that pulling troops from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan is a way to directly confront a resurgent al Qaeda. From the debate last night, watch Obama make this misleading move:

OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.

Now six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan.

We hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put al Qaeda to rest, and as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.

But we can't do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put -- provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

That's the misleading move. Completely, 100% misleading. Let me emphasize the key point, one that is not debatable: because there are no al Qaeda safe havens in Afghanistan, sending more troops to Afghanistan will not help us to capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda (because bin Laden and al Qaeda's safe havens are inside Pakistan). There is nothing complicated about this.

Let me further illustrate how cleverly deceiving Obama can be:

And right now, the commanders in Afghanistan, as well as Admiral Mullen, have acknowledged that we don't have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge.

All true. The Taliban are fighting more effectively these days, and I assume that's because they now have some al Qaeda field commanders helping them out. Defeating them is a priority, and we need more troops to do that, but this has nothing to do with capturing and killing bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda in Pakistan. That's the point that no one appreciates (not Barack Obama or those who are enthralled by the man).

Here's more:

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

But how is that going to help you to kill Osama bin Laden (in Pakistan) and crush their safe havens (in Pakistan)? He does not say because he wants Americans to believe that Afghanistan is where al Qaeda is resurgent.

Obama does mention Pakistan as well, and does say that al Qaeda is there, but it is his attempt to create the false impression that al Qaeda is resurgent in Afghanistan that I object to. He needs to create that false impression so that it will seem to make sense to say that sending more troops to Afghanistan will help to kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

I have never seen any mainstream media reporter address this glaringly obvious problem with Obama's reasoning, so I assume that reporters are as ignorant of the relevant facts as Barack Obama appears to be. The one exception, and it is an important one, is the editorial board of the Washington Post. In an editorial two months ago, they said about Obama:

He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

As they point out, "...there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered." Glaringly obvious, but top secret (except for on this blog and in that one single editorial). Creepy.

Labels: ,

Ten Conservative Principles

Ten Conservative Principles

by Russell Kirk

Adapted from The Politics of Prudence (ISI Books, 1993). Copyright © 1993 by Russell Kirk. Used by permission of the Estate of Russell Kirk.

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims. In various editions of my book The Conservative Mind I have listed certain canons of conservative thought—the list differing somewhat from edition to edition; in my anthology The Portable Conservative Reader I offer variations upon this theme. Now I present to you a summary of conservative assumptions differing somewhat from my canons in those two books of mine. In fine, the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays.

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.

That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice.

Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.

As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress.

Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act.

To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily.

Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition.

If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities.

That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors.

To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands.

In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression.

The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression.

He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host.

The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.

Russell M. Scott


Thanks to my good friend Russell Scott
-red stater

Labels: ,

Will The Real Barack H Obama Please Stand Up?

Hiding the Ball

Why does Barack Obama play "hide the ball" with his personal résumé, concealing his extreme leftist ideology and denying his damning associations? Question kind of answers itself, wouldn't you say?
Be concerned, very concerned.

Obama hides his liberalism for the same reason every other liberal presidential candidate has: The electorate tilts center-right. This isn't just my gut speaking or some self-serving theory I'm propounding.

The Battleground poll -- a well-respected bipartisan affair conducted by the Terrance Group, a Republican polling organization -- and Lake Research Partners, a Democratic organization, tells us 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives.

But the specifics are even more telling. Twenty percent consider themselves very conservative, 40 percent somewhat conservative, 2 percent moderate, 27 percent liberal, 9 percent very liberal, and 3 percent don't know or didn't answer.

So John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 didn't deny they were the most liberal senators because liberalism has become a dirty word through a clever conservative propaganda campaign. They denied it because liberalism is a minority position in reality, albeit an extraordinarily effective vocal minority.

Obama will only come clean about his liberalism when he thinks he is in safe territory, as he did at the San Francisco fundraiser where he trashed small-town Americans, thinking his words wouldn't reach those he was belittling. Nor is Obama upfront about the liberal nature of his policy proposals, choosing instead to mask their liberalism and even disguise them as conservative.

How else do you explain his whopper that he is recommending a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans when we know that the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay very little income tax at all? His plan calls for giving many of these people tax credits, even though they are paying no tax or are paying a small enough amount that the credit would result in them netting money from the government. As others have pointed out, this is welfare, not a tax cut. "Tax cut" resonates well among center-right voters; "welfare" does not.

On foreign policy, suffice it to say that Obama would never want the center-right electorate to know the extent of his appeasement and retreat-and-defeat orientation, his support for the bankrupting and sovereignty-forfeiting Global Poverty Act or his goal of eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons, as reported by The New York Times.

But where Obama is really playing hide the ball is in his past and present associations. His campaign operatives and the mainstream media have done their best to divert any attention from these relationships by saying it's dirty campaigning to smear him through the acts of others. Well, folks, that's not how ordinary people think. In sizing up someone's character, we often consider with whom they associate. Sue us if you wish -- even start a class action -- but it won't change human nature, which leads us, rationally, to consider this factor.

Endless reports and many books have been written documenting Barack Obama's discipleship in the thug tactics of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." For Obama, community organizing was not an innocuous vehicle for assisting the needy. It was and is a cynically dangerous vehicle for the politics of extortion and intimidation and the usurpation of power by socialists, whose ideology and methods more closely resemble those of Josef Stalin than those of Mother Teresa.

These sources also prove beyond any reasonable doubt Obama's close -- not remote, not casual -- relationship with the nihilistic, America-hating, Pentagon-bombing radical William Ayers. Obama glibly dismisses the very idea that he should be blamed for a passing acquaintanceship with a guy who was bombing the Pentagon "when (Obama) was 8 years old."

Enough with the insults to our intelligence, Mr. Obama. You were not 8 when you launched your state Senate campaign in Ayers' home. You were not 8 when you served in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers was instrumental in establishing. You are not 8 today, though you are still Ayers' close friend, while he remains an America-hating radical, wholly unrepentant about his terrorist activities, other than to say he didn't do enough.

The fact that Obama would be seen in the same room with this guy should disqualify him from presidential aspirations. But he's not just in the same room. In many ways, he's on the same page, as evidenced by his default instinct to apologize for America and to blame America first.

But Obama will continue striving to hide the ball on this association and many others, including those with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko.

But beware; if anyone dares to expose those relationships and their sordid details, he will open himself up to malicious and fraudulent charges of racism and other Saul Alinsky thug tactics that make Bill Clinton's politics of personal destruction look like child's play.

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party, Absolute Power and Persecution.

Labels: , ,

Pre-Remedial Lesson For Democrats On "The War"

Okay... after listening to Obama stumble through the Democrat revisionist history of the war on terror for the hundredth time... as a public service, here is a summary of the war on terror and how the liberal Democrats who claim Republicans took our eye off the ball, have never actually even had their eye on "the ball." (Unless you define "the ball" as power and control of the congress and the white house)

Try to follow along... I'll make it as simple as possible.

1- Al Qaeda declared war (Jihad) on the US and launched attacks repeatedly against the US for more than a decade before 2001, including under the Clinton administation. The first world trade center and the USS cole bombings just to name a couple.

2- Saddam Hussein (one of the most brutal dictators on the planet) increased his efforts to aquire nuclear weapons, defied weapons inspectors and the UN, violated the no fly zones and payed suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians in Israel. President Clinton defined Iraq as a serious threat to the US and world peace saying the regime must be removed by any means required. (Iraqi Liberation Act)

3- September 11, 2001: Al Qaeda carries out plan to fly Airliners into the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon killing over 3,000 innocent Americans. Osama Bin Laden claims credit for Al Qaeda for the attack. The world changed. The war changed. We changed.

4- U.S. launched attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in a matter of weeks had virtually destroyed most of Taliban control in that country driving them into the remote regions perhaps even out of the country.

5- Meanwhile, dictator terrorist Saddam Hussein continued to defy the UN, the weapons inspectors and the US in his pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons yet was still given one last chance to disarm and open up to inspections. He declined. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Saddam was seeking WMD and it was only a matter of time till he aquired them.

6- Considering the consequenses of a nuclear Iraq, (with full congressional support from the majority of Democrats) the US and it's allies launch an all-out attack on Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard Army in Iraq easily defeating them in a matter of weeks causing Hussein to have to run and hide in a small hole in the ground until captured by US forces and later hanged to death following a fair trial by Iraqi's.

7- In the meantime, seeing what they believed to be an opportunity to take control of Iraq and drive the US out, Al Qaeda (Sunni) as well as Shiite Armies from Iran began to flood into Iraq from neighboring countries (like Syria). Bin Laden himself declared on many occasions that Iraq was the central battle against America, sending every available resourse into Iraq with the plan to cause a civil war and drive US forces out of Iraq. The war changed from a war against Iraq... to a war on terror, a war against Shiite radicals and Sunni radicals (Al Qaeda).
Yes, the same people who perpetrated the 9/11 attack on the US. The connection democrats have never made and refuse to admit exists.

8- Al Qaeda launced attacks on Shiite Mosques and civilians and in return Shiite radicals like the Hojjatieh attacked innocent Sunni's in the effort to creat the impression of a genuine civil war. It almost worked.

9- Democrats and the US media fell for the "hidden ball trick" and perpetuated the efforts to create that civil war by playing along here in the US.
Democrats turned against the effort and claimed we could never win, that this was Vietnam, that there was a civil war in Iraq and that we should pull out of Iraq immediately leaving it to Al Qaeda. (Exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do) Violence increased, Al Qaeda and the Sadre Army battled each other via innocent civilians on each side... with suicide bombings, car bombings and IED's. The media ate it up. Many Democrats to this day refuse to admit Al Qaeda was even in Iraq, showing their complete lack of understanding and their losing track of "the ball'.

10- General David Petraeus took over command of forces in Iraq with a new strategy. The surge was born. US forces got the Al Sadre Army to draw down it's attacks against Al Qaeda and Sunni's relieving one side of the so called "civil war". The attacks by US forces were focused on Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was crippled, then ultimately virtually defeated in their efforts and wiped out in Iraq. Al Qaeda forces then began to flee back to Afghanistan and other areas.

11- Iraq is becoming a free, stable, democratic friend to the US in the region... their economy is booming and they are currently building a large theme park in Bagdhad with the worlds largest ferris wheel... much to the dismay of Democrats, Obama, the liberal media and those who were cheering for a US defeat in Iraq who were certain they would get that defeat.

12- US forces in Afghanistan have been increased (and will continue to increase) as troops have been pulled out of Iraq, focusing on renewed activities by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that country as a result of their (Al Qaeda's) failure in Iraq.

2- a We did not take our eye off the ball... what democrats failed to see is that the ball moved and we kicked the hell out of it... and still are.

UPDATE: 11/18/08- Iraq violence at lowest level since before the war, Iraq army taking over most provinces, Iraq economy growing strong, US military coming out and going to Afghanistan and home. Iraq has a chance for success.
God Bless America

Labels: , , ,