Do or Die Election 2010: Toward Freedom or Secession?

I have not been blogging because I have been busy with electoral politics. Like many who have been activated this year in response to the suicidal policies of America's selfish elite,  I have not done so much on a practical level in many years.  Like many, I do not love the mechanics of elections such as sign placement, phone banking, petitioning and the like, but do it as a calling.  My friend Glenda McGee suggested that we are throwing pebbles in the large American lake, and causing ripples just as others are causing ripples that together will form waves and then a tsunami that will overwhelm the centralized power elite. Or so we hope.

The Republicans in Ulster County, New York have never been more visible. Signs are everywhere to the extent that one Republican in the Hudson Valley suggested that too many signs were placed. County Chair Robin Yess noted in response that the Democrats have vandalized numerous signs. Indeed, many of the Paladino signs I put up have been removed, undoubtedly by people who believe themselves to be more right and more intelligent than we are.  This indeed raises doubts in my mind about the universalizability of ethical belief, the foundation of Immanuel Kant's philosophy.  More murder has been committed by people who believe themselves to be the most right and to be the universal standard bearers of historical right than by psychopaths and sociopaths in the normal sense.  The difference between someone who believes himself to know the absolute historical and universal right and someone who does not know what right and wrong are may be nil.

Our congressional candidate's, George Phillips's, performance has been amazing.  Socialist extremist Democrat Maurice Hinchey has never had an opponent this visible.  I am told that our congressional district, the New York 22nd, was set up by Pataki as a kind of toxic waste dump of college campuses from Vassar to Cornell and inner city districts (Binghamton, Ithaca, Poughkeepsie, Liberty and Monticello) that are left wing. In response, Representative Hinchey painted himself as a progressive; aimed to turn the Hudson Valley into a socialist park, and repeatedly attacked Israel.  Even in a toxic waste district like New York's 22nd CD there are enough normal, decent people to resist.  This is despite the pro-bailout left's domination of the local media.

On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday I put up dozens of signs in the Town of Olive and distributed calling lists to four or five members of the Town of Olive Republican Party.  On Thursday McGee and I gave out handbills.  On Friday night McGee and I helped local entrepreneur Mike Marnell stuff his Lincoln Eagle newspaper into saran wrap-like sleeves so that they can be tossed into thousands of driveways in the Hudson Valley.  On Saturday we drove around the Towns of Olive and Marbletown distributing the Lincoln Eagle to two dozen diners, farm stands, supermarkets and other stores.  As well we distributed the hand bill to farm stands and health food stores, many of whose proprietors said that they would give the handbills to their friends.

The response to our handbill was varied.  On Friday several of us distributed them in Woodstock and the hard leftists there were often hostile, although many others were interested.  Then, we went to Adams Fairacre Farms, a specialty store, and distributed them for about an hour until the proprietor chased us away.  The reaction there was positive.  In other words, all but the hard, ideological left were open to the handbill. The handbill was targeted at the left concerned with food issues.

The big news for us in Ulster County was George Phillips's national support in his run against Representative Maurice Hinchey.  Phillips has received more than $500,000 from American Crossroads and television advertisements have been flooding the cable lines and air waves. In addition, Phillips was aided by Mayor Edward Koch, who endorsed him over Hinchey because of Hinchey's aggressively anti-Israel position.  Given the toxic nature of the 22nd district, a Phillips victory will be amazing.

My prayers are with all of the Republican candidates this year, even the RINOs, because we need to take back the government from the extreme left and the Democratic Party and repeal the socialist laws that have created growing income inequality, a declining economy and an increasingly dictatorial government.  My good friend Cortes de Russy is running as a GOP write-in candidate in New York's 18th CD against extremist socialist crank Nita Lowy. I blogged about their debate about two weeks ago. Lowy is ignorant about economics and about what America is.  Lowy and her supporters have increasingly made it clear that we need to begin to think about secession.  This is no longer a long term question, but one that we need to start planning for.  The current state of America is unacceptable and many do not share any commitment to the type of government that the social democrats have created and favor.  The Untied States government is stupid garbage, and unless we can free ourselves through the ballot box, more direct political action leading to greater instability will be necessary. In a sense then, this is a do or die election.

De Russy Wins Debate

Cortes de Russy performs brilliantly in his Journal News-sponsored  debate with Congresswoman  Nita Lowey.  De Russy is a last minute write-in candidate but his performance is so grand that he dwarfs Lowey. De Russy warrants consideration for a run in two years.  More so, de Russy would make a great gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in four years.

In constrast, Congresswoman Nita Lowey seems foolish. An economic illiterate who makes repeated partisan swipes at de Russy and then claims that the Republicans are too partisan, Ms. Lowy never saw massive government waste and incompetence that she could not cheer and never saw a looting Democrat whom she could not applaud, all the while accusing Republicans of partisanship.

Their debate reminds me of the recent assertions by one of the speakers at the Ulster County Republican Committee last week, I think it was State Senator Bill Larkin but I'm not sure, that upstate ought to be separated from downstate.  Of course, Ulster County has elected Stalin-on-the-Hudson, Maurice Hinchey, who makes even Lowey look good so maybe I'm being unfair.

I am becoming a partisan separatist. Just as Rome was broken up into the eastern and western Empires, so America may need to be broken in two: the free and the social democratic Americas.  I don't have to tell you to which America Lowey belongs. Lowey's America  is not mine.  One of the funniest moments was when she was saying how great diversity was but she repeatedly displays utter ignorance of the values, culture, philosophy and ideology on which the United States was founded.  Lowey and I probably have similar backgrounds, but I don't consider myself a citizen of Lowey's America, and I don't want her to be a citizen of mine.

I do have one bone to pick with de Russy.  I don't think the banks should have been bailed out.  I think that they should have been liquidated just like the auto companies should have been.  A nation without Wall Street would be healthier and more agile. America needs commercial banks and Wall Street like my dear late mother needed lung cancer.

That said, I was otherwise delighted with de Russy's stellar performance. He is a natural politician and should consider running for Congress or something higher in the coming few years.

De Russy for Congress: Opportunity of a Lifetime to Do a Write-In Vote

My good friend and crusader for justice, Cortes de Russy, is running as a GOP and Conservative Party-endorsed write-in candidate in Westchester and Rockland Counties, the 18th CD in New York.  If you live in the district please support him. The write-in campaign is an ad hoc response to the failure of the mistakenly nominated GOP candidate.  De Russy had been considering a bid for the seat earlier this year but then bowed out when the Westchester Party thought it had an alternative candidate who turned to be a mistake.  Hopefully de Russy will mount a full-blown campaign in two years. I don't know how write-ins work but they can explain that at the polls.  It will be worth voting just to learn how to do a write-in, so please don't forget to do a write-in for de Russy if you live in his district. It will be a spectacular experience, the opportunity of a lifetime. His press release follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Doug Colety, Chairman

Chairman@WestchesterGOP.com

914-497-2876

WESTCHESTER GOP ENDORSES CORTES DERUSSY FOR CONGRESS

DeRussy Announces Write-in Campaign in 18th District

White Plains, New York (October 19, 2010) -- Westchester Republican Committee Chairman Doug Colety today announced the Westchester GOP’s endorsement of the write-in candidacy of Cortes DeRussy for the 18th Congressional District.

Said Colety, “I am pleased to announce that the Republican town and city leaders in the 18th Congressional District have voted to support Cortes DeRussy in his bid to represent the 18th Congressional District. The Republican Party is committed to not only giving the voters an alternative to Tax and Spend Nita Lowey, but to winning this critical seat. Cortes DeRussy is a true fiscal conservative and tax fighter who will stand up for the taxpayers of the 18th District. His message will resonate with voters who are ready for a change after more than 20 years of Nita Lowey’s consistent votes for higher taxes and spending. I look forward to working with Cortes over the next two weeks to ensure that he is victorious on November 2nd.”

DeRussy is a resident of Yonkers and has lived in Westchester County for almost 40 years. He was a trustee in the Village of Bronxville for two terms and has served on numerous civic and not-for-profit boards.
The 18th Congressional District is composed of part of Westchester County and Rockland County.

More on St. Joseph Monks' Casket Case

My friend Cortes de Russy just forwarded this e-mail about a few coincidences regarding the monks' casket case about which I recently blogged:

>"I am pleased that you picked up on this; Candace & I have connections from all sides.

 

"Candace's father spent a number of years at the Abbey studying for the priesthood and my sister lives nearby; we attend Mass there whenever we are in the area.

 

"Also, as you may recall, I participated with IJ (as a plaintiff) in their successful effort to overturn the limitations that many states imposed on the sale of wine via the internet. We actually won in the Supreme Court. IJ is one of my favorite orgs."

 

And mine as well! 

 

 

Queens Village Republican Club Dinner a Triumph

The Queens Village Republican Club's annual Lincoln Day Dinner was fantastic. The QVRC claims to be the oldest Republican Club in the country. It was my first time in attendance at the dinner because I often teach on Sunday afternoons, when the dinner is held each year. I drove the 130 miles to Queens from Woodstock and was happy I did.

The highlights of the dinner were remarkable speeches by Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, whom I was privileged to meet for the first time, and my good friend Candace de Russy. Lt. Gov. McCaughey, besides being brilliant, is utterly charming. I understand that she is a frequent visitor on Fox television. Her claims about the Senate health care bill are startling and are enough to give any American pause about this bill. I still harbor some second thoughts about supporting it. If it passes it could lead to a libertarian revolution, which would make me very happy. Eliminate Washington altogether, I say. But it is wrong to wish the country ill, even if for a greater cause. This is one of those conundrums for philosophers who specialize in particularist ethics. Is it wrong to support a bad that supervenes on circumstances that make it good? I say the answer is yes, despite my initial impulse. Virtue (or what particularists call "resultance") lives. Let us say no to "Obamacare"!

According to Dr. McCaughey, under Obamacare there will be significant reductions in the availability of pain-reducing surgery such as knee operations and hip replacements. In other words, care for baby boomers would be significantly reduced, resulting in much worse quality of life for boomers than has been true for their parents. The Democratic Party seems to have arrived at a new form of exploitation: inter-generational. Exploit 2030 voters to subsidize 1972 voters. Let's pray that Americans have not been so debilitated intellectually that they are able to revise this pattern. As Dr. de Russy suggests, schools have become Orwellian so that Americans have become unable to question the claims of Democratic Party politicians.

Which brings me to Dr. de Russy's talk, which emphasized political correctness and decay in American higher education. As usual, she was right on the mark. The "tenured radicals" who dominate higher education have created a nation of historical ignoramuses who worship the state.

I was delighted to meet Dan Halloran in person for the first time after a couple of years of e-mailing. Dan gave one of the concluding talks of the evening. He is a brilliant speaker, articulate and brave. I am expecting him to make a congressional run after conquering the City Council, and I will be thrilled when he does.

Finally, there is a wonderful rumor that Cortes de Russy and Phil Orenstein, two of my favorite people, are thinking of running for Congress this year. The Massachusetts Miracle seems to be infectious. Let us hope that they along with George Phillips in my 22nd Congressional district, a wonderful candidate as well, all will win.

America Going to Hell in A Handbasket

Cartoonist Paul Nichols of the Catholic Cartoon Blog links to my blog about Cortes de Russy's article here. The blog to which he links is as follows:

America Going to Hell in A Handbasket: Stimulus A Fraud

Cortes de Russy has an excellent article in Pajamas Media about the nonsesensical economic stimulus that our economic experts, who are rather our economic illiterates, have been advocating on the half-witted media outlets.

De Russy notes that:

"We now find ourselves informed by 'leading' economists and politicians that the solution to our current economic malaise is for government to embark on a gigantic spending spree. This spending, we are assured by one of the leading securities rating organizations, Moody’s Economy — whose recent history of ratings brings into question its judgment for quality analysis — that these expenditures will generate 'multiples' of growth in GDP in magnitudes exceeding 1.5 times the amount spent."

What a laugh. If I print $10 and spend it on a baseball, then prices go up because baseballs become scarcer. Any additional production due to the spending is offset by higher prices. Only cranks would make Moody's argument. And, of course, Moody's is one of the firms that was giving Enron an "A" rating in the weeks prior to its collapse. Now, they feel qualified to dispense dumb economic advice.

De Russy notes:

"Lest we forget, capital formation is the seed corn of wealth and job creation, and since wealth creation is the driver of economic progress, one must ask if government spending increases or enhances capital formation."

Government spending does not enhance capital formation--it demolishes it.

De Russy concludes that:

"The history of economic progress throughout the world provides irrefutable evidence that the economic well-being of ordinary citizens is closely correlated to the relative degree of freedom in markets and the relative lack of government planning and spending. To argue that government direction and allocation of resources will produce better results is to ignore history and the general understanding of how markets function."

A conclusion with which I have to agree.

Looking over the comments on de Russy's articles on Pajamasmedia, some are of better quality than others. This one from Sara for America caught my attention:

"The stimulus is like the treasure found in a mummy’s tomb. It excites at first, but then everyone who touches it starts dying."

America Going to Hell in A Handbasket: Stimulus A Fraud

Cortes de Russy has an excellent article in Pajamas Media about the nonsesensical economic stimulus that our economic experts, who are rather our economic illiterates, have been advocating on the half-witted media outlets.

De Russy notes that:

"We now find ourselves informed by 'leading' economists and politicians that the solution to our current economic malaise is for government to embark on a gigantic spending spree. This spending, we are assured by one of the leading securities rating organizations, Moody’s Economy — whose recent history of ratings brings into question its judgment for quality analysis — that these expenditures will generate 'multiples' of growth in GDP in magnitudes exceeding 1.5 times the amount spent."

What a laugh. If I print $10 and spend it on a baseball, then prices go up because baseballs become scarcer. Any additional production due to the spending is offset by higher prices. Only cranks would make Moody's argument. And, of course, Moody's is one of the firms that was giving Enron an "A" rating in the weeks prior to its collapse. Now, they feel qualified to dispense dumb economic advice.

De Russy notes:

"Lest we forget, capital formation is the seed corn of wealth and job creation, and since wealth creation is the driver of economic progress, one must ask if government spending increases or enhances capital formation."

Government spending does not enhance capital formation--it demolishes it.

De Russy concludes that:

"The history of economic progress throughout the world provides irrefutable evidence that the economic well-being of ordinary citizens is closely correlated to the relative degree of freedom in markets and the relative lack of government planning and spending. To argue that government direction and allocation of resources will produce better results is to ignore history and the general understanding of how markets function."

A conclusion with which I have to agree.

Looking over the comments on de Russy's articles on Pajamasmedia, some are of better quality than others. This one from Sara for America caught my attention:

"The stimulus is like the treasure found in a mummy’s tomb. It excites at first, but then everyone who touches it starts dying."

Thoughts on The Certificate

I had previously written about David Horowitz's important Frontpagemag editorial concerning the birth certificate. Unlike most conservatives, I admire Saul Alinsky, and one of Alinsky's "rules for radicals" is that tactics that drag on too long become a drag. At the same time, variations on the birth certificate theme might be useful, but not everyone agrees. I solicited comments from some brilliant and insightful friends, and here they are:

Raquel Okyay writes:

The facts so far are "foggy", but what if the fog was lifted, and indeed Obama is shown not to be a natural born citizen, does he receive immunity from the constitution's requirement simply because he is a black man, and his election is historic? What you are proposing is to ignore facts and possibly permit a person to lie to the American people, and violate what is clearly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution (whether outdated or minor).

If you have an argument to change the Constitution to remove this requirement going forward, fine. But, for me changing the rules after the game is unfair and undemocratic. I do not think it is wrong for the electorate to question Obama's eligibility after the fact. Obama can simply produce the proper documentation and this controversy is over.

The very fact that the pissant media are completely ignoring this story is the most disturbing aspect and I think that in itself is a major point. And this is the essence of the argument -- liberty has to do with freedom from oppressive governments. When the government and their pissant media friends are hiding or confusing the truth, it is in fact, our liberty that is being ignored. True democracy only exists in truth of liberty!

Notwithstanding, David, you are still one of my favorite authors!

Cortes de Russy writes:

As Mitchell and I have discussed, I fall down on David's side of this argument for the primary reason that he states.

Where there are wrinkles to be ironed out in process, these can be readily managed through the tools at hand. Oklahoma's legislature, for example, has already proposed legislation that would require adequate proof of a candidate's legal and constitutional eligibility prior to a candidate being included on the ballot in that state. If only one state passes such a requirement, I believe, this issue will be put to bed forever.

Regarding the development of a political system and electorate that is more respectful of the original intent of the Framers regarding devolution of powers among the states, etc., the solution is not any "quick fixes" but rather a serious education effort that will convince and reinforce the principles which uphold individual liberty. For example, there was no discussion in the recent campaign regarding the appropriate role of government in the lives of its citizens. McCain had a perfect opening to ask the question when Joe the Plumber inadvertently prompted Obama's "spread the wealth" comment but he either missed it or he doesn't contemplate the question at any level.

Keeping this issue alive will only harden positions and make it all the more difficult to convince the majority of citizens that conservatives are not "kooks" but rather thoughtful and concerned actors on the American political stage.

David Horowtiz replies to Raquel:

What I am proposing is not to make further inquiries into the facts in this case. It's too late and the consequences of this debate are destructive to our nation and our constitution when we are fighting two wars and in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in our history. You say I am proposing to "possibly permit a person to lie to the American people." What president, legislator, political leader etc has not lied to the American people? This is a question that the 64 million Americans who voted for Obama will be asking if 5 unelected political appointees on the Supreme Court decide to disqualify him.

Second, when you say that "changing the rules after the game is unfair" you need to think about the fact that more than half the nation which still believes in Obama will be asking the same question.

Third, concerning your distress at the bias of the media. What else is new and why should its support for Obama on this minor issue be the point of your distress?

I apologize for speaking so bluntly -- and I do appreciate your graciousness in allowing me the latitude to be wrong -- but I really think this whole issue is an emotional one that boils down to conceding that we lost the election and now have to live with Obama as president. But I think the beginning of a conservative political revival lies precisely in accepting this fact.

Raquel adds:

Ok, David, I have tried to persuade you to the far side of the moon, and I have failed. :(

You are proposing that concerned citizens do not make further inquiries and I am proposing we inquire, inquire, and keep inquiring!

I concede to the fact that we lost the election, and whatever the outcome of this controversy, I agree that a new conservative revolution is in the workings. I have little doubt that Democrats will ultimately hang themselves, they don't need me and my silly questions.

A quick observation: both the mayor of Honolulu and the Chief Clerk (or whatever her title is) have stated that they have seen Obama's birth certificate and that it is valid. Unless they are criminals, that should suffice to settle the matter.

I, frankly, understand why the Obama people ignored this issue for, had they rushed to respond his interlocutors would have been encouraged to come up with other issues forcing him to respond further, etc. It would never have ended and would have done just what was desired: create an aura of doubt surrounding his candidacy.

I, too, am distressed at his victory but do not want to win by such means.

Phil Orenstein writes:

My comments are two words: cognitive dissonance. I've been avoiding this for the past week or so, but now I have to cough it up. When I first read David's 3 blogs arguing that the birth certificate issue was nonsense and conservatives should move on, and the hundreds of emotional responses that followed, I decided to put it on the back burner and not deal with it. To me and to those who had done their homework regarding the facts of the issue, we found it a straightforward issue of Obama's obfuscation and lying to the American people about his birth certificate as well as numerous other documents (college records, medical records, etc.) and by implication everything that he stands for including change, hope and transparency. Due to the legal hieroglyphics and intellectual gymnastics one had to go through to sort out the wheat from the chaff, even many conservatives just avoided it and admonished us to move on to the real issues. Mitch has done a yeoman's job in simplifying the issues. To put it simply, no document the Obama camp has so far revealed to the public is proof of his legitimate "natural born" status as required by the Constitution, including his COLB (Certification of Live Birth) which is not proof he was born in Hawaii. It is a stunning admission of guilt that Barack Obama would not, simply out of respect for the people he was elected to preside over, disclose the sealed "vault copy" of his birth certificate, which would have ended the debate for me, Mitch and others.

FrontPage is my computer's homepage, and I read David's blog every day. I respect him as my major intellectual hero, for having advanced the Academic Bill of Rights, taken the fight for our country's values and self defense directly into the schools with the IslamoFascism Awareness projects, wrote "the Party of Defeat", the only author I am aware of who unmasked the treasonous actions of the Democratic Party to sabotage our now victorious war in Iraq, and many more. To me David, having been on both sides of the political divide is a true visionary and great conservative voice for Americas future.

But when I read David's arguments for dropping the whole ball of wax, I was stunned...Or on the other hand am I missing something? Am I just obsessing over a silly issue that has no relevance to reality. If a terrorist struck on our soil tomorrow, would we still carry on over the vault copy? So I thought about David's main point that Obama had already won and that the continued frenzy of a fringe of us trying to point out the obvious truth to a majority of American's who don't do their homework and are seduced by ephemeral images, via the pissant media and academic indoctrination, is tantamount to banging our heads against the wall. So David's point, truth be dammed, is that we'll only be hurting ourselves by continuing along this road.

Now I am busy planning and promoting a great conservative event event in NY for Feb 2009 to rebrand the GOP as the true "Party of Lincoln." The key is to re-establish the image of our greatest leader, Lincoln in the American memory which has declined in the past few decades, since the guiding premise of teacher education is that members of minority communities are marginalized when national heroes are recognized. So Lincoln and our great heritage has been stripped from the curriculum. This is the travesty that is poisoning the Obama generation to be disconnected with our great past heritage and only find relevance is the messianic images Obama projects. Also, postmodernism has already made a mockery of everything sacred in the world including religion, our American heroes and the Constitution. So truth, history and facts to these majority of our fellow Americans schooled in progressive indoctrination, has little or no relevance. So in the end, while I agree with Mitch that Statism and lies have taken over both political parties, the addiction is so complete, that cold-turkey prescriptions for truth will be rejected by the body politic. Basically what I am saying is to move on. Obama will be haunted by the entire foul Chicago political machinery of Emanuel, Rezko and now Blagojevich following him into the White House to claim a piece of the filthy pie that Obama was groomed in. Let's put our heads together now and save our country!

David, I wrote this to get a load off my chest. However, I cannot in good conscience tell others to "move on" although I myself am too tied up to pursue the case further. I have to agree with my friends Raquel and Mitchell, that as long as their conscience compels them to pursue the truth, they should do so. Whether it gets to the justices or not, either the sealed vault copy shows he is natural born or not and the American people have a right to know. Take the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Now it's Blagojevich's and his connections to Emanuel and possibly both their resignations rather than staining Obama's record. So I applaud those who are still fighting since the same process of lies and cover-ups will continue for the next 4 years. Sorry, I can't honestly concede on this.

David Horowitz replies:

That last line is exactly right, and we need to be positioning ourselves to take maximum advantage of their mistakes...Well, the search for information is one thing, and I certainly am all for finding out the truth in these matters. The political act of seeking to void an election is quite another on a matter as de minimus as this, and that's what I object to...My point is not truth be damned, but with the election over there's no feasible way to establish the truth in a way that will persuade a majority of Americans, let alone a majority of the Obama voters that this is indeed the truth and Joe Biden should be president. Joe Biden???!!!! Are you sure you would want to go through with this even if you could which (I am convinced) you can't?

Vasos Panagiotopoulos writes:

David, I agree. As president of Columbia GOP 1982-83, Obama and I often debated at Ferris Booth Cafe, and I found him to be fair, decent and intelligent, even if he was persistently wrong and unable to stop talking. This issue makes conservatives look nasty and small. I think Dole, Giuliani and McCain are nasty and small and the big reason we were so badly defeated. Bush Jr, for all his failings, would have been an even match for Obama. Romney would have defeated him. Don't forget Bush was elected twice. McCain made the same mistake as Faso '06, Gore'08 and Nixon'60 and precisely the mistake Bush'88 avoided. Americans voted for Obama the decent chap, not the black, not the liberal. As a son of immigrants (and a grandson of illegals) and a Columbia alum (and a fellow student of Brzezinski) I am darned proud of Obama. I don't think it is a coincidence that those here in Queens who hate CPAC board member and national conservative icon Serf Maltese with a passion also hate Obama. They only betray their own nastiness and help Obama.

In 1996 my assemblyman, Jim Buckley's former driver, Doug Prescott, was defeated by a pretty young attorney who happened to be the niece of a powerful judge. No one took her seriously because she was a "little girl." So our older volunteers didn't work much. A week before elections, the campaign office was closed for lack of staff. (In fact when our state senator correctly sued the feds for the local cost of illegals, our district's influx of Italians saw this, in combination with Andy Beveridge's study of Italians being NYC's top illegals, as an assault on them and voted for the Italian-surname "little girl" as the senator was running unopposed.)

I kept arguing all along, if you make Obama to be Jimmy Carter (thanks to Brzezinski) you can defeat him. If you play the race card, we will be totally defeated. I know pleny of conseratives from Columbia wo helped Obama because they genuinely liked him as a person. I can tell you I have reason to believe some prominent former Reagan youth members also helped him because they found McCain and his Nixonian coterie to be a nasty, noxious piece of garbage. Because of these small minded people, we have given Richard Dailey and Zbigniew Brzezinski control of the White House and the world for at least then next two years, if not for two decades.

Mitchell Langbert replies:

Dear Cortes, Phil, Raquel, Vasos and of course David--Thanks so much for your thoughtful correspondence about David's blog. I hope you don't mind that I posted everyone's comments on my blog. David is likely right, although the law suits may be creating a useful tactical or psychological imbalance. The recent Blagojevich news seems to confirm my early conclusion that Obama is not a nice guy. I don't think the people he's associated himself with (Vasos, you're obviously the exception) have been nice people. Not just Wright and Pfleger but the likes of Blagojevich, Daley and the entire Chicago sludge machine. Since the media wasn't interested in asking questions, it's easy for him to look great. Also, the Republicans are in worse trouble than Vasos and Phil are saying. I don't think that today they have the necessary ideological grounding to win, and in order to gain it they would need to reject a large portion of their likely financial support. I think the country is in trouble and more than just tactical and strategic planning is necessary. The Republican Party has lost its vision. Phil's idea about the party of Lincoln sounds great, but where are Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises now that we really need them?