By Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, November 1, 2010
Election Day is a scant 24 hours away – which means that it’s almost all over but the shouting. Most Americans long ago decided whom they will support. For those who might be wavering, here are a few reasons why Election 2010 is so important. Tomorrow, I will be voting a straight Republican ticket because:
1. I want to live in an America where economic success is celebrated – not penalized. From President Obama and his Treasury secretary – who actually argued that extending low tax rates for successful small businesses, investors and earners would threaten the economic recovery – to the rest of the Democrats, an anti-business climate has run rampant in Washington over the last two years. A slew of burdensome new regulations, health care and financial “reform,” the GM bailout putting unions’ interests ahead of bond holders’, and the usurpation of the student loan business by the federal government signals a clear animus among Obama/Pelosi Democrats to a robust American economy based on free enterprise. That needs to stop. Businesses that are constantly threatened by new taxes, regulations and other government mandates will not hire new employees – hence our unemployment rate of 9.6% (according to CBS News, the national unemployment and underemployment figures come out to a whopping 17.1%).
2. I want ObamaCare repealed. The full extent of the catastrophe that ObamaCare will visit on the American health care system is yet to be fully known. What’s already clear is that ObamaCare takes the unprecedented (and likely unconstitutional) step of forcing Americans to purchase a private product – health insurance – even against their will, thereby redistributing a cool $1 trillion from American taxpayers to insurance companies between 2014 and 2025. In the same period, it reduces Medicare Advantage benefits by an average of $21,000 per enrollee (except in South Florida). It limits competition and patient choice, and turns doctors into government bureaucrats. Oh, and it costs $2.5 trillion without doing anything to lower health care costs. It’s a disaster, and it needs to go. Obviously, without a veto-proof majority, repeal won’t happen so long as President Obama is in The White House, but a determined Republican majority can at least minimize some of the damage.
3. I want the federal government to reverse its metastatic growth. The Obama/Pelosi Democrats have exploded the national debt. Since 2006 – when Democrats retook the congressional majority – federal spending has increased by nearly a trillion dollars. As early as May 2009, economist Michael Boskin noted that the President’s $3.6 trillion budget blue print not only redefined the role of government in Americans’ lives, it also more than doubled the national debt, adding more to the debt than all previous Presidents (George Washington to George W. Bush) combined. Only during World War II has the federal government matched current spending levels (25% of GDP) and deficits (10% of GDP). The Congressional Budget Office has projected that debt held by the public will rise from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 57 percent in 2009. It will then skyrocket to 82 percent of GDP by 2019. Our current course is not sustainable, as even Peter Orszag (the President’s former budget director) acknowledged, but the outlandish spending won’t stop as long as Democrats are in control.
4. I want a House and Senate that respects the popular will. Starting with heated town halls in the summer of 2009, House and Senate Democrats understood how unpopular ObamaCare was. The elections of Republicans Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell to the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia signaled public discontent with the Obama/Pelosi agenda. Finally, Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy – on the promise of being the vote that would stop ObamaCare. Instead, the President and congressional Democrats resorted to procedural tricks and paid off reluctant members – in knowing and outright defiance of Americans’ clearly expressed wishes. That kind of insolence from those who have a sacred responsibility to represent us cannot be rewarded with electoral success.
5. I want to be able to disagree with Democrats without being slandered. Remarkably, President Obama and the Democrats repeatedly extend the hand of friendship to an Iran seeking nuclear weapons in defiance of international law, even as they stigmatize fellow citizens who disagree with them. Americans who are part of the Tea Party – or even those who agree with some of its aims – have been characterized, without evidence or reason, as ignorant racists. Those of us who object to the construction of a mosque at the site of Ground Zero, or even openly acknowledge the threat of Islamofascist terrorism, have been accused of Islamphobia and bigotry – again, without a shred of evidence. By voting against those who have engaged in this kind of bullying discourse and their allies, Americans will send the message that the politics of smear and intimidation are unacceptable.
6. I want to be free. I am tired of a government that routinely favors the elite and/or connected, and which deems itself entitled to an ever-growing share of taxpayer money even as it seeks to exercise an ever-greater control over Americans’ lives. Republicans have pledged to reverse this approach and this attitude; it’s time to give them a chance to live up to their promises.
Vote tomorrow for a freer, more prosperous America – one which respects its citizens and believes in its own exceptionalism. Vote Republican.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
It Takes One To Know One
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
I'll never forget how Al Gore's Democrats tried to steal the 2000 presidential election and then spent the next eight years complaining about Republicans stealing their "democracy." Liberals: Projection is your name.
We've watched their behavior since, from the Democrats' suppression of military voters to Al Franken's larcenous Senate victory to the flagrant voter intimidation of the New Black Panther Party members in Philadelphia to untold stories of voter fraud already emerging in these congressional elections. We just saw a Delaware TV station "forgetting" to broadcast Christine O'Donnell's 30-minute campaign ad.
Sadly, Democrats are often what they accuse their "enemies" of being. They typically engage in that behavior which they decry and exempt themselves from standards they proclaim.
Item: Snarky comedian Jon Stewart issued calls for civility at his mock political rally this past weekend. "But we live now in hard times, not end times," said Stewart. "And we can have animus and not be enemies." Similarly, on his show, he has exhorted people to "stop shouting, throwing and drawing Hitler mustaches on people other than Hitler."
Yet in 2008, Stewart noted that Sarah Palin had said she really likes going to small towns "because that's the pro-America part of the country. You know, I just want to say to her, very quickly, f--- you."
Somehow I doubt that Stewart was similarly miffed at Barack Obama for denigrating small-town Midwesterners by saying, "It's not surprising, then, that they get bitter and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." I also don't remember Stewart and his ilk condemning the Bush/Hitler left for its eight years of malicious slander. We will probably get old waiting for "progressives" to denounce their fellow leftist Tony Serra, a defense attorney in San Francisco, for displaying a huge banner in front of his building that reads, "F--- Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina."
But we mustn't let this hypocritical incident pass without also challenging Stewart's bogus premise, shamelessly popularized by the liberal media, that Obama's opponents, particularly tea party protesters, are uncivil, vulgar, bigoted, hyper-partisan rubes forever flirting with violence.
This is wrong in every respect. The protesters are extraordinarily civil, racially colorblind, peaceful and committed to making public officials of both parties more accountable and responsive to the people and more faithful to America's founding principles.
The truth is that Stewart and his fellow leftists can't stand criticism of their policies and their politicians. It's not the tea partyers' mythical rudeness that bothers leftists. It's that they are daring to stand up to the left's agenda. So don't blindly or silently accept these false caricatures. Remember who's making them -- and why.
Item: Speaking of Obama's bitter-clinger formulation, I've always believed his bizarre suggestion that the small-towners cling to "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" said more about Obama than it did about small-towners, about whom Obama obviously knows next to nothing.
We've seen repeated proof that it is Obama who harbors animus toward people who aren't like him, from his "typical white" grandmother to Republicans he is relegating to the back seat because they "created the mess." Most recently, we saw his antipathy exposed in his now famous "enemies" statement.
At a rally in Cincinnati, Obama said, "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies, and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' ... then I think it's going to be harder."
There's no two ways of interpreting this. Obama unambiguously is calling those who oppose his agenda "enemies." He's the one with the antipathy. But it's worse than that. He's also, once again, using the race card, deliberately trying to paint Republicans as enemies of an entire race of people, the same tactic he used in opposing the Arizona immigration law. So it is Obama, not his opponents, who are culpable on the matter of "enemies" and alleged racial animus.
Item: I filled a couple of chapters in my book about Obama's deceitful self-description as a post-partisan and his fraudulent labeling of Republicans for their alleged partisanship. Well, he struck again in his recent Cleveland campaign rally, where he said the Republicans' political strategy has been to count on voters having "amnesia" about the GOP's having caused this terrible economy. He said they were obstructionists -- just as he disingenuously accused Republicans of having no ideas on health care right before he bragged about having adopted some of their ideas.
On the bright side, people are onto Obama's and the left's projection and hypocrisy, which is yet another explanation for the Democrats' imminent trouncing.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
I'll never forget how Al Gore's Democrats tried to steal the 2000 presidential election and then spent the next eight years complaining about Republicans stealing their "democracy." Liberals: Projection is your name.
We've watched their behavior since, from the Democrats' suppression of military voters to Al Franken's larcenous Senate victory to the flagrant voter intimidation of the New Black Panther Party members in Philadelphia to untold stories of voter fraud already emerging in these congressional elections. We just saw a Delaware TV station "forgetting" to broadcast Christine O'Donnell's 30-minute campaign ad.
Sadly, Democrats are often what they accuse their "enemies" of being. They typically engage in that behavior which they decry and exempt themselves from standards they proclaim.
Item: Snarky comedian Jon Stewart issued calls for civility at his mock political rally this past weekend. "But we live now in hard times, not end times," said Stewart. "And we can have animus and not be enemies." Similarly, on his show, he has exhorted people to "stop shouting, throwing and drawing Hitler mustaches on people other than Hitler."
Yet in 2008, Stewart noted that Sarah Palin had said she really likes going to small towns "because that's the pro-America part of the country. You know, I just want to say to her, very quickly, f--- you."
Somehow I doubt that Stewart was similarly miffed at Barack Obama for denigrating small-town Midwesterners by saying, "It's not surprising, then, that they get bitter and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." I also don't remember Stewart and his ilk condemning the Bush/Hitler left for its eight years of malicious slander. We will probably get old waiting for "progressives" to denounce their fellow leftist Tony Serra, a defense attorney in San Francisco, for displaying a huge banner in front of his building that reads, "F--- Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina."
But we mustn't let this hypocritical incident pass without also challenging Stewart's bogus premise, shamelessly popularized by the liberal media, that Obama's opponents, particularly tea party protesters, are uncivil, vulgar, bigoted, hyper-partisan rubes forever flirting with violence.
This is wrong in every respect. The protesters are extraordinarily civil, racially colorblind, peaceful and committed to making public officials of both parties more accountable and responsive to the people and more faithful to America's founding principles.
The truth is that Stewart and his fellow leftists can't stand criticism of their policies and their politicians. It's not the tea partyers' mythical rudeness that bothers leftists. It's that they are daring to stand up to the left's agenda. So don't blindly or silently accept these false caricatures. Remember who's making them -- and why.
Item: Speaking of Obama's bitter-clinger formulation, I've always believed his bizarre suggestion that the small-towners cling to "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" said more about Obama than it did about small-towners, about whom Obama obviously knows next to nothing.
We've seen repeated proof that it is Obama who harbors animus toward people who aren't like him, from his "typical white" grandmother to Republicans he is relegating to the back seat because they "created the mess." Most recently, we saw his antipathy exposed in his now famous "enemies" statement.
At a rally in Cincinnati, Obama said, "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies, and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' ... then I think it's going to be harder."
There's no two ways of interpreting this. Obama unambiguously is calling those who oppose his agenda "enemies." He's the one with the antipathy. But it's worse than that. He's also, once again, using the race card, deliberately trying to paint Republicans as enemies of an entire race of people, the same tactic he used in opposing the Arizona immigration law. So it is Obama, not his opponents, who are culpable on the matter of "enemies" and alleged racial animus.
Item: I filled a couple of chapters in my book about Obama's deceitful self-description as a post-partisan and his fraudulent labeling of Republicans for their alleged partisanship. Well, he struck again in his recent Cleveland campaign rally, where he said the Republicans' political strategy has been to count on voters having "amnesia" about the GOP's having caused this terrible economy. He said they were obstructionists -- just as he disingenuously accused Republicans of having no ideas on health care right before he bragged about having adopted some of their ideas.
On the bright side, people are onto Obama's and the left's projection and hypocrisy, which is yet another explanation for the Democrats' imminent trouncing.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Left's Tolerance Limited to Liberals
By Ken Connor
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Good Book tells us that pride goes before a fall, and with the midterm elections looming perhaps nothing encapsulates the truth of this maxim more than the leadership of the Democrat Party and its constituency of liberal media elites. The Left's inability to engage opposing views with seriousness and respect and their unwillingness to tolerate divergent opinions within their own ranks reveal an ugly intolerance lurking beneath their veneer of open-mindedness, an intolerance that has fueled the continued, rapid growth of the Tea Party and all but sealed the electoral fate of many Democrats come November 2nd.
A new series of advertisements for MSNBC on the airwaves this week capture perfectly the kind of paternalistic condescension that's crippling the Left in the eyes of so many American people. The ads are intended to communicate the spirit of progress that guides the network, and to set MSNBC above and apart from its chief competition and ideological nemesis, Fox News. In airing these ads, MSNBC is essentially extending an invitation to the American people. "Join us" they say, in our quest to "move forward" towards a better America for all. There's only one small problem. According the ideological litmus test imposed by the network, vast segments of the American population don't qualify to participate in MSNBC's vision.
Among the many images included in the ads is a snapshot of President Obama signing the health care legislation, a picture of two men exchanging wedding vows in a same-sex wedding ceremony, and footage of the First Family celebrating Obama's nomination at the DNC convention in 2008. These are the kind of things MSNBC has in mind when it speaks of American society's "evolution" towards a better tomorrow for all. Therefore, if you voted for John McCain, or opposed the Democrats' health care legislation, or believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then you are a heartless, selfish, racist bigot who is anti-progress and anti-American. As anyone who's ever tuned in to watch Chris Matthews or Rachael Maddow or Keith Olbermann knows, MSNBC's vision of a "diverse" America does not include the conservative viewpoint.
The Left's brand of tolerance was also recently on display at National Public Radio, where last week longtime news analyst Juan Williams was fired after he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and expressed a "controversial" opinion about Muslims and September 11th. For daring to say aloud what many Americans think and feel in the post-9/11 age – namely, that boarding an airplane alongside individuals dressed in traditional Muslim garb makes him feel nervous – he was accused of violating NPR's standards of journalistic ethics. Never mind the fact that 99% of Williams' commentary on O'Reilly's show that evening was in defense of a tolerant, sensitive approach to Islam, or that NPR's other correspondents routinely color their reporting with their own Liberal, hyper-partisan bent. For daring to depart from the accepted Liberal line, Williams had to go.
The Tea Party phenomenon, in particular, has the likes of Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann sputtering with outrage and confusion. These commentators simply can't fathom how anyone could support the ideas advanced by such backward neanderthals! President Obama and the Democratic leadership are similarly irritated by the ongoing success of the movement, and have – like their ideological brethren in the media – concluded that the only possible explanation for the American public's lack of support is a combination of ignorance, fear, stupidity, and the evil influence of shadowy special interest money. David Brooks recently satirized the delusional hubris of the Democrats in a New York Times op-ed:
"Democrats are lagging this year because the country appears incapable of appreciating the grandeur of their accomplishments. That's because, as several commentators have argued over the past few weeks, many Americans are nearsighted and ill-informed. Or, as President Obama himself noted last week, they get scared, and when Americans get scared they stop listening to facts and reason. . . . The Democrats' problem, as some senior officials have mentioned, is that they are so darn captivated by substance, it never occurs to them to look out for their own political self-interest. . . . They see this campaign as a poetic confrontation between good (themselves) and pure evil (Karl Rove and his group, American Crossroads). As Nancy Pelosi put it at a $50,000-a-couple fund-raiser, 'Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where – because they won't disclose it – is pouring in'. . . . [T]his Lancelots-of-the-Left tale underlines a self-affirming message – that Democrats are engaged in a righteous crusade against the dark villain who tricked Americans into voting against John Kerry."
Amidst all the mudslinging, rationalizing, and scapegoating, there hasn't been much room for any substantive discourse across party and ideological lines; the Democrats simply refuse to engage on this level. The more America's cohort of self-identified "Tea Party Patriots" continues to grow, the deeper the Left buries its collective head in the sand. One is reminded of Scarlett O'Hara's famous method of dealing with the unpleasantness of reality: "I'll think about it tomorrow!" With one week to go before the election, however, the time for Democrats to change course has all but run out.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Good Book tells us that pride goes before a fall, and with the midterm elections looming perhaps nothing encapsulates the truth of this maxim more than the leadership of the Democrat Party and its constituency of liberal media elites. The Left's inability to engage opposing views with seriousness and respect and their unwillingness to tolerate divergent opinions within their own ranks reveal an ugly intolerance lurking beneath their veneer of open-mindedness, an intolerance that has fueled the continued, rapid growth of the Tea Party and all but sealed the electoral fate of many Democrats come November 2nd.
A new series of advertisements for MSNBC on the airwaves this week capture perfectly the kind of paternalistic condescension that's crippling the Left in the eyes of so many American people. The ads are intended to communicate the spirit of progress that guides the network, and to set MSNBC above and apart from its chief competition and ideological nemesis, Fox News. In airing these ads, MSNBC is essentially extending an invitation to the American people. "Join us" they say, in our quest to "move forward" towards a better America for all. There's only one small problem. According the ideological litmus test imposed by the network, vast segments of the American population don't qualify to participate in MSNBC's vision.
Among the many images included in the ads is a snapshot of President Obama signing the health care legislation, a picture of two men exchanging wedding vows in a same-sex wedding ceremony, and footage of the First Family celebrating Obama's nomination at the DNC convention in 2008. These are the kind of things MSNBC has in mind when it speaks of American society's "evolution" towards a better tomorrow for all. Therefore, if you voted for John McCain, or opposed the Democrats' health care legislation, or believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then you are a heartless, selfish, racist bigot who is anti-progress and anti-American. As anyone who's ever tuned in to watch Chris Matthews or Rachael Maddow or Keith Olbermann knows, MSNBC's vision of a "diverse" America does not include the conservative viewpoint.
The Left's brand of tolerance was also recently on display at National Public Radio, where last week longtime news analyst Juan Williams was fired after he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and expressed a "controversial" opinion about Muslims and September 11th. For daring to say aloud what many Americans think and feel in the post-9/11 age – namely, that boarding an airplane alongside individuals dressed in traditional Muslim garb makes him feel nervous – he was accused of violating NPR's standards of journalistic ethics. Never mind the fact that 99% of Williams' commentary on O'Reilly's show that evening was in defense of a tolerant, sensitive approach to Islam, or that NPR's other correspondents routinely color their reporting with their own Liberal, hyper-partisan bent. For daring to depart from the accepted Liberal line, Williams had to go.
The Tea Party phenomenon, in particular, has the likes of Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann sputtering with outrage and confusion. These commentators simply can't fathom how anyone could support the ideas advanced by such backward neanderthals! President Obama and the Democratic leadership are similarly irritated by the ongoing success of the movement, and have – like their ideological brethren in the media – concluded that the only possible explanation for the American public's lack of support is a combination of ignorance, fear, stupidity, and the evil influence of shadowy special interest money. David Brooks recently satirized the delusional hubris of the Democrats in a New York Times op-ed:
"Democrats are lagging this year because the country appears incapable of appreciating the grandeur of their accomplishments. That's because, as several commentators have argued over the past few weeks, many Americans are nearsighted and ill-informed. Or, as President Obama himself noted last week, they get scared, and when Americans get scared they stop listening to facts and reason. . . . The Democrats' problem, as some senior officials have mentioned, is that they are so darn captivated by substance, it never occurs to them to look out for their own political self-interest. . . . They see this campaign as a poetic confrontation between good (themselves) and pure evil (Karl Rove and his group, American Crossroads). As Nancy Pelosi put it at a $50,000-a-couple fund-raiser, 'Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where – because they won't disclose it – is pouring in'. . . . [T]his Lancelots-of-the-Left tale underlines a self-affirming message – that Democrats are engaged in a righteous crusade against the dark villain who tricked Americans into voting against John Kerry."
Amidst all the mudslinging, rationalizing, and scapegoating, there hasn't been much room for any substantive discourse across party and ideological lines; the Democrats simply refuse to engage on this level. The more America's cohort of self-identified "Tea Party Patriots" continues to grow, the deeper the Left buries its collective head in the sand. One is reminded of Scarlett O'Hara's famous method of dealing with the unpleasantness of reality: "I'll think about it tomorrow!" With one week to go before the election, however, the time for Democrats to change course has all but run out.
Can Arizona Save America?
By James Allen
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Arizona is a fascinating state because of the extreme reactions its controversial legislation seems to elicit from the country. It’s definitely the Wild West when it comes to legislation, with the recently passed immigration law known as SB1070. Then there is Arizona’s Proposition 200 from 2004 that required proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. It was approved by Arizona voters but was recently struck down by the 9th Circuit Court, dealing a blow to the very integrity of our elections. And don’ t forget the current legislative endeavors including a proposition that directly confronts the unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare and a proposition to undo the race-based hiring practices of Affirmative Action. To some, Arizona is on the cutting edge of states’ rights and law and order; to others it is a racist, hateful place that is violating human rights and is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
In these 2010 elections, Arizona has the chance to be an important part of the Republican take-back of Congress, providing the opportunity to flip five House seats to the type of conservative Republicans the country needs. This is vital to re-shaping Congress. Arizona Congressional Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are all up for grabs, and the support from Arizonans locally, and Americans nationally, is vital here.
Dr. Paul Gosar in Congressional District 1 has received endorsements from Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt among others. He is a successful dentist and small business owner who is well-known and well-liked in his community. He will be a key ally in the fight to repeal ObamaCare and set into motion the kind of reforms that can improve our health care system instead of destroying it. Who better to understand the ins and outs of health care and to speak with real world knowledge than someone who has actually worked there?
Ben Quayle, in Congressional District 3 who some argue was running off little more than name recognition in the primaries, has proven to be a bold campaigner and someone who has the right ideas to get the economy back on track and slow the growth of government. He has a plan posted on his website that outlines the steps he would take, directly refuting the false claim by Democrats that Republicans are offering no ideas of their own. Quayle has also received endorsements from key conservative candidates, has gained the support of the 3rd Congressional District in Arizona, and earned effusive praise from Hugh Hewitt.
Janet Contreras, the “regular American” in Congressional District 4 who is running against Ed Pastor, is giving Mr. Pastor a run for his money …or rather a run for his war chest. It is an uphill battle, but on her side Janet has massive grassroots support from unhappy voters in Pastor’s district. Janet is the ideal person for this job. She is a former Democrat who has wholeheartedly converted to conservative principals and gained the support of key leaders in the conservative movement as well as the Tea Party. She wrote an open letter in 2009 to our nation’s leadership that Glenn Beck read on the air to national notice. The overwhelming support from citizens across the country and right here in Arizona encouraged her to run for office and propelled her through the primary and into the general election. She is the perfect choice for the people and by the people to change Washington.
David Schweikert, in Congressional District 5 who if elected should certainly join the ranks of other “young guns” in the Republican Party, is running against the Pelosi “lap dog” Harry Mitchell. Schweikert is a rare veteran in politics who doesn’t compromise his conservative principals. This is another crucial race, and Schweikert, armed with solid arguments, is full of ideas for reversing the insane the growth of government and reinvigorating the economy. Mitchell’s campaign is doing what so many desperate Democrats are now doing across the country – creating ads that are pathetically and blatantly false in an attempt to deceive voters, but with the truth and the help of the people Schweikert can win.
Last and not least among the candidates who will be fighting to change the course of Washington is Marine Veteran Jesse Kelly, whose district will prove to be one of the most important “toss-up” races there in the country, since it could be won by as few as 640 votes. While this is a close, tough race, Kelly has advantages: his district has more registered Republican voters than Democrat voters, and with the Blue Dog Democrat being shown to be little more than a myth, his opponent’s appeal should be weakened. Combined with the rising Republican tide across the country, this could be a key win.
Arizona’s candidates aren’t just average Republicans. They’re conservative Republicans who have had to stand strong on their conservative principals through the heated debates that Arizona has confronted with its tough solutions like SB1070 and 2004’s Prop 200, as well as the current battle over health care liberty and institutional racism in hiring. Arizona’s attitude—that if the federal government will not protect its citizens and provide for the common defense then the state will—as well as the belief that unconstitutional government overreach must be fought, has produced the kind of conservatives this nation sorely needs.
The state of Goldwater, whose capital is named after the mythical firebird of rebirth, is front-and-center in the rebirth of conservativism and leading the country back to liberty, security and its Constitutional roots. If victory prevails Arizona will at least take 5 seat back to the house with Strong Republican Governor still in office.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Arizona is a fascinating state because of the extreme reactions its controversial legislation seems to elicit from the country. It’s definitely the Wild West when it comes to legislation, with the recently passed immigration law known as SB1070. Then there is Arizona’s Proposition 200 from 2004 that required proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. It was approved by Arizona voters but was recently struck down by the 9th Circuit Court, dealing a blow to the very integrity of our elections. And don’ t forget the current legislative endeavors including a proposition that directly confronts the unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare and a proposition to undo the race-based hiring practices of Affirmative Action. To some, Arizona is on the cutting edge of states’ rights and law and order; to others it is a racist, hateful place that is violating human rights and is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
In these 2010 elections, Arizona has the chance to be an important part of the Republican take-back of Congress, providing the opportunity to flip five House seats to the type of conservative Republicans the country needs. This is vital to re-shaping Congress. Arizona Congressional Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are all up for grabs, and the support from Arizonans locally, and Americans nationally, is vital here.
Dr. Paul Gosar in Congressional District 1 has received endorsements from Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt among others. He is a successful dentist and small business owner who is well-known and well-liked in his community. He will be a key ally in the fight to repeal ObamaCare and set into motion the kind of reforms that can improve our health care system instead of destroying it. Who better to understand the ins and outs of health care and to speak with real world knowledge than someone who has actually worked there?
Ben Quayle, in Congressional District 3 who some argue was running off little more than name recognition in the primaries, has proven to be a bold campaigner and someone who has the right ideas to get the economy back on track and slow the growth of government. He has a plan posted on his website that outlines the steps he would take, directly refuting the false claim by Democrats that Republicans are offering no ideas of their own. Quayle has also received endorsements from key conservative candidates, has gained the support of the 3rd Congressional District in Arizona, and earned effusive praise from Hugh Hewitt.
Janet Contreras, the “regular American” in Congressional District 4 who is running against Ed Pastor, is giving Mr. Pastor a run for his money …or rather a run for his war chest. It is an uphill battle, but on her side Janet has massive grassroots support from unhappy voters in Pastor’s district. Janet is the ideal person for this job. She is a former Democrat who has wholeheartedly converted to conservative principals and gained the support of key leaders in the conservative movement as well as the Tea Party. She wrote an open letter in 2009 to our nation’s leadership that Glenn Beck read on the air to national notice. The overwhelming support from citizens across the country and right here in Arizona encouraged her to run for office and propelled her through the primary and into the general election. She is the perfect choice for the people and by the people to change Washington.
David Schweikert, in Congressional District 5 who if elected should certainly join the ranks of other “young guns” in the Republican Party, is running against the Pelosi “lap dog” Harry Mitchell. Schweikert is a rare veteran in politics who doesn’t compromise his conservative principals. This is another crucial race, and Schweikert, armed with solid arguments, is full of ideas for reversing the insane the growth of government and reinvigorating the economy. Mitchell’s campaign is doing what so many desperate Democrats are now doing across the country – creating ads that are pathetically and blatantly false in an attempt to deceive voters, but with the truth and the help of the people Schweikert can win.
Last and not least among the candidates who will be fighting to change the course of Washington is Marine Veteran Jesse Kelly, whose district will prove to be one of the most important “toss-up” races there in the country, since it could be won by as few as 640 votes. While this is a close, tough race, Kelly has advantages: his district has more registered Republican voters than Democrat voters, and with the Blue Dog Democrat being shown to be little more than a myth, his opponent’s appeal should be weakened. Combined with the rising Republican tide across the country, this could be a key win.
Arizona’s candidates aren’t just average Republicans. They’re conservative Republicans who have had to stand strong on their conservative principals through the heated debates that Arizona has confronted with its tough solutions like SB1070 and 2004’s Prop 200, as well as the current battle over health care liberty and institutional racism in hiring. Arizona’s attitude—that if the federal government will not protect its citizens and provide for the common defense then the state will—as well as the belief that unconstitutional government overreach must be fought, has produced the kind of conservatives this nation sorely needs.
The state of Goldwater, whose capital is named after the mythical firebird of rebirth, is front-and-center in the rebirth of conservativism and leading the country back to liberty, security and its Constitutional roots. If victory prevails Arizona will at least take 5 seat back to the house with Strong Republican Governor still in office.
Liberals at War With Liberty
By David Limbaugh
Friday, October 29, 2010
Why were liberals were so insanely paranoid about the alleged nefarious activities of President George W. Bush? Projection, anyone? They were mortified at Bush's alleged encroachment on our individual liberties, but now that they're in control, we see where liberty ranks on their list of priorities.
We've always known that the term "liberal," in modern parlance, is an oxymoron. Today's liberals are the exact opposite of the classical liberals of yesteryear, who actually believed in limited government and free markets.
Liberals have been seducing Americans out of their liberties for decades with false promises of security. Prior to Obama, we were on a slow march toward statism, but now we are on a rapid gallop.
That's mostly what next week's congressional elections will be about. Ordinary Americans are horrified and outraged that Obama and his enablers in Congress are fundamentally transforming America from a beacon of liberty to a bankrupt socialist state. They are outraged that this elite bunch of officious intermeddlers are waging all-out war against our social compact. Americans want America back.
This nation was founded as a constitutional republic, with the people electing representatives to serve on their behalf and tend to the proper functions of government but ultimately retaining sovereignty.
Most Americans are sophisticated enough to understand that we don't have a pure democracy and that we can't conduct government by daily polls or plebiscites. But they also don't expect that their wishes will be ridiculed, summarily rejected and spat upon by a sneering, disdainful autocracy.
President Obama and his henchmen are in the process of undermining the social compact in a number of ways. They are acting outside their constitutional authority, in defiance of the rule of law, to achieve political ends they -- not the public -- desire. They are ignoring the express will of the people and treating them like ill-informed rubes whose opinions aren't worthy of serious consideration, only phony placation. They are implementing a policy agenda that is substantively depriving us of our liberties across the board.
It's not for shock value that conservatives accuse Obama's band of being socialists. It's because there appears to be no limit to their appetite for gobbling up power and swallowing our individual liberties.
It's not just about power, either. They are imbued with a disturbing degree of moral superiority. They believe they have the right -- even the duty -- to tell us how we ought to live our lives because they know better than we do what is good for us. And they talk to us about Christian scolds!
This attitude underlies their views, from the seemingly least significant to the most pressing issues. Their czars and administrative dictators tell us that they are going to coerce us out of our cars and onto biking trails and walkways. They are giving people's hard-earned money away to other people to keep those other people in houses they can't afford, only to result in those others being unable to pay their mortgages and still losing their homes.
They are re-expanding the welfare state, increasing people's dependency on government, even though welfare reform was producing dramatically positive results while weaning people off the government teat. It's not results that matter; it's only the intermeddlers' professed good intentions. But how can good intentions any longer be fairly attributed to them, when the results of their policies are so uniformly disastrous, from the war on poverty to welfare to Social Security to, now, health care? And yes, I meant to include Social Security, because in its existing form, it is a complete hoax -- entirely unfunded because its revenues have been hijacked from the beginning by immoral, irresponsible politicians unwilling to make government live within its means. These same politicians still refuse to reform it toward solvency, preferring fear and demagoguery to the hard truth.
People are very anxious about the depressed economy, to be sure, but they are outraged at Obama and Congress' deliberately bankrupt spending in the fraudulent name of repairing the economy; they are incensed at this immoral larceny against them and future generations of Americans to satisfy professor Obama's quixotic experiment in socialist economic theories. And they are mortified that these reckless knuckleheads are wrecking the best health care system in the world under false pretenses -- from promising more choice and coverage, when there will be less of both, to reduced costs, when costs are already beginning to explode.
America, its founding principles, its Constitution, its robust liberty tradition and its strength are being stolen out from under us by a man who has no appreciation for America's greatness and who has contempt for ordinary Americans (we're "enemies"), whom he considers beneath him and unworthy of their sovereign prerogative to preserve this nation.
The people have had enough. Consequently, absent unimaginable, comprehensive voter fraud next week, we're going to see an unprecedented housecleaning.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Why were liberals were so insanely paranoid about the alleged nefarious activities of President George W. Bush? Projection, anyone? They were mortified at Bush's alleged encroachment on our individual liberties, but now that they're in control, we see where liberty ranks on their list of priorities.
We've always known that the term "liberal," in modern parlance, is an oxymoron. Today's liberals are the exact opposite of the classical liberals of yesteryear, who actually believed in limited government and free markets.
Liberals have been seducing Americans out of their liberties for decades with false promises of security. Prior to Obama, we were on a slow march toward statism, but now we are on a rapid gallop.
That's mostly what next week's congressional elections will be about. Ordinary Americans are horrified and outraged that Obama and his enablers in Congress are fundamentally transforming America from a beacon of liberty to a bankrupt socialist state. They are outraged that this elite bunch of officious intermeddlers are waging all-out war against our social compact. Americans want America back.
This nation was founded as a constitutional republic, with the people electing representatives to serve on their behalf and tend to the proper functions of government but ultimately retaining sovereignty.
Most Americans are sophisticated enough to understand that we don't have a pure democracy and that we can't conduct government by daily polls or plebiscites. But they also don't expect that their wishes will be ridiculed, summarily rejected and spat upon by a sneering, disdainful autocracy.
President Obama and his henchmen are in the process of undermining the social compact in a number of ways. They are acting outside their constitutional authority, in defiance of the rule of law, to achieve political ends they -- not the public -- desire. They are ignoring the express will of the people and treating them like ill-informed rubes whose opinions aren't worthy of serious consideration, only phony placation. They are implementing a policy agenda that is substantively depriving us of our liberties across the board.
It's not for shock value that conservatives accuse Obama's band of being socialists. It's because there appears to be no limit to their appetite for gobbling up power and swallowing our individual liberties.
It's not just about power, either. They are imbued with a disturbing degree of moral superiority. They believe they have the right -- even the duty -- to tell us how we ought to live our lives because they know better than we do what is good for us. And they talk to us about Christian scolds!
This attitude underlies their views, from the seemingly least significant to the most pressing issues. Their czars and administrative dictators tell us that they are going to coerce us out of our cars and onto biking trails and walkways. They are giving people's hard-earned money away to other people to keep those other people in houses they can't afford, only to result in those others being unable to pay their mortgages and still losing their homes.
They are re-expanding the welfare state, increasing people's dependency on government, even though welfare reform was producing dramatically positive results while weaning people off the government teat. It's not results that matter; it's only the intermeddlers' professed good intentions. But how can good intentions any longer be fairly attributed to them, when the results of their policies are so uniformly disastrous, from the war on poverty to welfare to Social Security to, now, health care? And yes, I meant to include Social Security, because in its existing form, it is a complete hoax -- entirely unfunded because its revenues have been hijacked from the beginning by immoral, irresponsible politicians unwilling to make government live within its means. These same politicians still refuse to reform it toward solvency, preferring fear and demagoguery to the hard truth.
People are very anxious about the depressed economy, to be sure, but they are outraged at Obama and Congress' deliberately bankrupt spending in the fraudulent name of repairing the economy; they are incensed at this immoral larceny against them and future generations of Americans to satisfy professor Obama's quixotic experiment in socialist economic theories. And they are mortified that these reckless knuckleheads are wrecking the best health care system in the world under false pretenses -- from promising more choice and coverage, when there will be less of both, to reduced costs, when costs are already beginning to explode.
America, its founding principles, its Constitution, its robust liberty tradition and its strength are being stolen out from under us by a man who has no appreciation for America's greatness and who has contempt for ordinary Americans (we're "enemies"), whom he considers beneath him and unworthy of their sovereign prerogative to preserve this nation.
The people have had enough. Consequently, absent unimaginable, comprehensive voter fraud next week, we're going to see an unprecedented housecleaning.
Why Socialism Breeds Racism
By Ben Shapiro
Monday, November 1, 2010
This week's Sports Illustrated featured an article on French soccer star Thierry Henry. Henry, who is black, signed with the New York Red Bulls this season after spending over a decade playing in Europe. What shocks Henry most about America? Whereas European fans routinely insult and slur black players, Americans don't.
"I've been to a lot of arenas to watch NBA games and the Yankees, and I have never heard anyone have a go at a guy because he's from Puerto Rico or the Dominican or Africa or wherever," Henry marveled. "I can understand why people in America are kind of shocked [by European racism], because that doesn't happen in their sports."
Europe is far more racist than America. Yet the left is in love with European values. They love Europe's emphasis on promiscuous sex. They love Europe's redistributive economic policies. Most of all, they love Europe's willingness to abandon all principle in supposed gratification of multiculturalism.
Unfortunately for the left, Europe has proved itself a failure on each of these elements. Europe's emphasis on free love without commitment has created a childbearing holocaust -- Europe is not reproducing at even replacement rates. That failure to reproduce is hastening the decline of Europe's suicidal economy, which is so top-heavy with aging union workers that it makes Dolly Parton look like Keira Knightley. That failing economic structure means more and more reliance on impoverished immigrants, who are not interested in assimilating into what they perceive as a morally bankrupt culture. And that failure to assimilate destroys precipitating societal fragmentation.
As Europe collapses, however, the left clings even more tightly to the European model. They cannot allow the utopian socialist dream to die its well-deserved death.
How, then, do they bolster that dream? By proclaiming that they stand not for economic decay or familial destruction, but for tolerance. They blame capitalism for economic downturns, then state, as President Obama has, that tough times produce racism. In this view, capitalism produces racism.
It's false. Capitalism requires individual responsibility and accountability. People are seen as atomized units in a capitalist system -- they are either useful or they are not. They are not seen racially or ethnically or religiously. They consume and they produce, and those are their only relevant characteristics.
This seems cold, but it isn't. It's profoundly fair and profoundly anti-discriminatory. It creates a colorblind system -- the only color that matters is green.
Socialism, by contrast, requires a justification for why certain individuals should give money to other individuals for no apparent reason. Socialism has no moral justification whatsoever; poor people are not morally superior to rich people, nor are they owed anything by rich people simply because of their lack of success. Charity is not a socialist concept -- it is a religious one, an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty over property, a sovereignty the left utterly rejects.
How, then, can socialism justify itself? By pointing to capitalistic "exploitation." There's only one problem: true capitalism doesn't exploit. Capitalism invariably boils down to barter between two willing parties, neither of whom uses force to work with the other.
Socialism's answer is ingenious -- it points to phantom "institutional racism." Because white forefathers oppressed black forefathers, today's rich whites owe today's poor blacks money. Because most minority groups once experienced discrimination at the hands of majority groups, today's high-earners -- who, by and large, come from majority groups -- now owe today's minority groups cash.
Then, socialism rests on seeing people as members of groups, not as individuals. Rich sons are responsible for the existent or non-existent sins of their fathers; poor sons are due benefits because of their fathers' tough lives. Racism is a critical element of the socialist agenda -- focus on group identity provides the only supposed moral justification for redistribution of wealth. It's no surprise that when socialism fails, racism bubbles beneath.
Now, though, the left is running scared. They fear that the tea party culture and its attendant economics will do away with socialism's long-running cultural and economic dominance. That's why they attack the tea party as racist -- because if the tea party isn't racist, the socialists' moral raison d'etre is utterly defeated.
On Nov. 2, 2010, Americans will reject the socialist agenda and its race-tinged propaganda. Then socialists will truly panic. They will ratchet up the rhetoric; they will mine minority communities for race warriors; they will play racial dirty tricks. It will fail. Americans are not racists, and they are not socialists. That is why America is on the rise, even as Europe falls.
Monday, November 1, 2010
This week's Sports Illustrated featured an article on French soccer star Thierry Henry. Henry, who is black, signed with the New York Red Bulls this season after spending over a decade playing in Europe. What shocks Henry most about America? Whereas European fans routinely insult and slur black players, Americans don't.
"I've been to a lot of arenas to watch NBA games and the Yankees, and I have never heard anyone have a go at a guy because he's from Puerto Rico or the Dominican or Africa or wherever," Henry marveled. "I can understand why people in America are kind of shocked [by European racism], because that doesn't happen in their sports."
Europe is far more racist than America. Yet the left is in love with European values. They love Europe's emphasis on promiscuous sex. They love Europe's redistributive economic policies. Most of all, they love Europe's willingness to abandon all principle in supposed gratification of multiculturalism.
Unfortunately for the left, Europe has proved itself a failure on each of these elements. Europe's emphasis on free love without commitment has created a childbearing holocaust -- Europe is not reproducing at even replacement rates. That failure to reproduce is hastening the decline of Europe's suicidal economy, which is so top-heavy with aging union workers that it makes Dolly Parton look like Keira Knightley. That failing economic structure means more and more reliance on impoverished immigrants, who are not interested in assimilating into what they perceive as a morally bankrupt culture. And that failure to assimilate destroys precipitating societal fragmentation.
As Europe collapses, however, the left clings even more tightly to the European model. They cannot allow the utopian socialist dream to die its well-deserved death.
How, then, do they bolster that dream? By proclaiming that they stand not for economic decay or familial destruction, but for tolerance. They blame capitalism for economic downturns, then state, as President Obama has, that tough times produce racism. In this view, capitalism produces racism.
It's false. Capitalism requires individual responsibility and accountability. People are seen as atomized units in a capitalist system -- they are either useful or they are not. They are not seen racially or ethnically or religiously. They consume and they produce, and those are their only relevant characteristics.
This seems cold, but it isn't. It's profoundly fair and profoundly anti-discriminatory. It creates a colorblind system -- the only color that matters is green.
Socialism, by contrast, requires a justification for why certain individuals should give money to other individuals for no apparent reason. Socialism has no moral justification whatsoever; poor people are not morally superior to rich people, nor are they owed anything by rich people simply because of their lack of success. Charity is not a socialist concept -- it is a religious one, an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty over property, a sovereignty the left utterly rejects.
How, then, can socialism justify itself? By pointing to capitalistic "exploitation." There's only one problem: true capitalism doesn't exploit. Capitalism invariably boils down to barter between two willing parties, neither of whom uses force to work with the other.
Socialism's answer is ingenious -- it points to phantom "institutional racism." Because white forefathers oppressed black forefathers, today's rich whites owe today's poor blacks money. Because most minority groups once experienced discrimination at the hands of majority groups, today's high-earners -- who, by and large, come from majority groups -- now owe today's minority groups cash.
Then, socialism rests on seeing people as members of groups, not as individuals. Rich sons are responsible for the existent or non-existent sins of their fathers; poor sons are due benefits because of their fathers' tough lives. Racism is a critical element of the socialist agenda -- focus on group identity provides the only supposed moral justification for redistribution of wealth. It's no surprise that when socialism fails, racism bubbles beneath.
Now, though, the left is running scared. They fear that the tea party culture and its attendant economics will do away with socialism's long-running cultural and economic dominance. That's why they attack the tea party as racist -- because if the tea party isn't racist, the socialists' moral raison d'etre is utterly defeated.
On Nov. 2, 2010, Americans will reject the socialist agenda and its race-tinged propaganda. Then socialists will truly panic. They will ratchet up the rhetoric; they will mine minority communities for race warriors; they will play racial dirty tricks. It will fail. Americans are not racists, and they are not socialists. That is why America is on the rise, even as Europe falls.
Ronald Reagan Was the Tea Party
By Michael Reagan
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Liberals and their Democratic Party allies are frightened out of their halfwits by the re-emergence of the dreaded tea party, which began in Boston Harbor in December 1773, when colonists dressed as Indians dumped shiploads of tea into the water, helping to set off what eventually became the American Revolution.
There’s nothing new about the liberal alarm over the tea party’s reappearance in American politics. The last time they confronted it was back in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, when my dad Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California and then for the presidency of the United States.
The left, as they always will, attacked him personally instead of dealing with the issues; he beat them each time, hands down.
Ronald Reagan was the personification of American exceptionalism. He understood that the concept of self-rule -- a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln put it -- was the secret behind this nation’s astonishing progress from a loose confederation of almost-primitive states to becoming the mightiest nation in the world, all in a mere 200 years.
Ronald Reagan believed in the American people. Unlike today’s liberal elite he was convinced they have the wisdom to chart the nation’s future, and he insisted that the government get out of their way and allow them to chart their own futures and the future of the United States.
When people ask me if he would support the tea party movement I tell them he was the tea party of his time. He saw it as being as American as apple pie and he sought to serve it as pie a la mode.
He would have been astonished at the huge popularity of today’s tea parties -- of the movement’s sudden emergence and power. But then I doubt that in his worst nightmares he would have ever imagined that a massive power grab from the White House in a mere two years would reach down and attempt to inflict the president’s version of European socialism on every single American.
He took the presidency when it had been dangerously weakened by indecisive foreign and domestic policies and over the next eight years strengthened the nation’s economy and restored our reputation as a nation not to be trifled with.
He would have seen today’s tea party as the proper response to the threat to our individual liberties represented by such legislation as so-called Obamacare, which inserts the federal government between Americans and their medical-care providers.
He would have recognized the administration’s barely disguised attempts to introduce their version of Euro-socialism, and would have rallied the American people to oppose it with traditional American vigor.
And he would have been in the forefront of the tea party movement, urging it on and devoting every last ounce of his energy to its progress in restoring America to its rightful place as the head of the family of free nations.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Liberals and their Democratic Party allies are frightened out of their halfwits by the re-emergence of the dreaded tea party, which began in Boston Harbor in December 1773, when colonists dressed as Indians dumped shiploads of tea into the water, helping to set off what eventually became the American Revolution.
There’s nothing new about the liberal alarm over the tea party’s reappearance in American politics. The last time they confronted it was back in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, when my dad Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California and then for the presidency of the United States.
The left, as they always will, attacked him personally instead of dealing with the issues; he beat them each time, hands down.
Ronald Reagan was the personification of American exceptionalism. He understood that the concept of self-rule -- a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln put it -- was the secret behind this nation’s astonishing progress from a loose confederation of almost-primitive states to becoming the mightiest nation in the world, all in a mere 200 years.
Ronald Reagan believed in the American people. Unlike today’s liberal elite he was convinced they have the wisdom to chart the nation’s future, and he insisted that the government get out of their way and allow them to chart their own futures and the future of the United States.
When people ask me if he would support the tea party movement I tell them he was the tea party of his time. He saw it as being as American as apple pie and he sought to serve it as pie a la mode.
He would have been astonished at the huge popularity of today’s tea parties -- of the movement’s sudden emergence and power. But then I doubt that in his worst nightmares he would have ever imagined that a massive power grab from the White House in a mere two years would reach down and attempt to inflict the president’s version of European socialism on every single American.
He took the presidency when it had been dangerously weakened by indecisive foreign and domestic policies and over the next eight years strengthened the nation’s economy and restored our reputation as a nation not to be trifled with.
He would have seen today’s tea party as the proper response to the threat to our individual liberties represented by such legislation as so-called Obamacare, which inserts the federal government between Americans and their medical-care providers.
He would have recognized the administration’s barely disguised attempts to introduce their version of Euro-socialism, and would have rallied the American people to oppose it with traditional American vigor.
And he would have been in the forefront of the tea party movement, urging it on and devoting every last ounce of his energy to its progress in restoring America to its rightful place as the head of the family of free nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)