Showing posts with label raquel okyay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label raquel okyay. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Saturday, March 31, 2018
My Interview on Raquel Okyay's Podcast March 30
Raquel Okyay had me on her podcast, Rocky and the Gonz, on March 30 . I enter about one-half hour in. It was fun.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Think Global, Act Local
I mailed about 650 Town of Olive Republican newsletters. As I mailed the newsletter, which announces a Town Republican Committee meeting, I have increasing concerns about the future of my involvement with the GOP, especially with respect to state-level and national-level candidates, i.e., for Senate, Governor and President. I have been happy to support NY 22nd CD George Phillips, who is having a very nice $500 per plate fund raising dinner the same night as our Town meeting.
I took myself off blog impresario Larwyn's mailing list, telling Larwyn that I do not want to associate further with GOP activists. I do not think that the GOP is different from the Democratic Party, and the American public continues to resist transformation of either or creation of a third and fourth party.
I also told Raquel Okyay that I would not support her projected candidacy for state assembly further. Besides being a Lazio supporter Okyay continues to support the policies of George W. Bush. I consider Bush to be a fascist and a crook, and Lazio is no better. Hence, I do not see the point of supporting Okyay in her strategizing about a candidacy. I suggested that Okyay familiarize herself with basic books on freedom such as John Locke and Friedrich Hayek, but unsurprisingly she took no interest in doing so. Rather she wrote the following response to my e-mail, which comes after hers:
Raquel: Mitchell -- You want to put all your eggs in the Paladino basket - go for it - You are no friend of mine. You watched a man you don't know give two speeches and you are prepared to not just throw our friendship under the bus, but also do damage to my carreer! What the f*ck is wrong with you Mitchell? Wake up out of your dream - you just lost one of the best allies you had.
Me: Sorry, Raquel. I do not support Progressives. I've already let Mike Marnell know my opinion that the Lincoln Eagle ought to oppose you if you run for office in this district. George Bush is sc*m. I cannot support someone who likes him, which you do. You're a nice person, but that does not change the underlying issues. George Bush has done tremendous harm to this country, and I put his supporters in the same category as Obama's supporters. To me, you are equivalent to Rahm Emanuel. That you do not see the difference between Paladino and Lazio only adds further support for my assessment that your political views are opposed to freedom. If you don't know what I'm talking about you need to do some reading, because you are not educated about freedom. And I don't mean the New York Times, which agrees with you about Lazio. I mean John Locke, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Bertrand de Jouvenal and the Federalist Papers.
Raquel: Mitchell I'm shocked!! We can disagree in a primary race, can't we? Why does Paladino do this to people, I don't get it? Did we even support the same GOP candidate for President in 08, Mitchell? Did it matter? You may have saw Paladino speak a couple of times, but you know me for years. I expect this from amateurs, not from old friends like you.
Me: I have heard Carl speak twice and he has emphasized the following issues: excessive welfare spending and cutting the state budget by 20%. No Republican has such a focus, certainly not Rick Lazio who was involved in the biggest expansion of government in the past 25 years, the corrupt bailout of Wall Street conceptualized by the Republican Party and George W. Bush.
I think it is clear, Raquel, that we have little common ground. You continue to support big government advocates like George Bush and Rick Lazio and, like your fellow Progressives in the Republican Party, are troubled by Mr. Paladino's focus on 20% budget cuts, which you attempt to deflect with an out of context quote about welfare recipients in jail. Afraid of going to jail, are you? In any case, please do not consider me a supporter of anything you have in mind for the future. I do not like Progressives.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Republican Excitement Grows
My in-box is overflowing with messages from friends about a number of developments, bad and good. My neighbor, a life long Democrat, just sent me this message about the Democrats' and Obama's yucky health care reform courtesy of Newsmax:
>Dear Reader:
>Time is critical. Americans all over the country are fed up with the Obama administration. They don't want his radical healthcare program.
Citizens from states like Massachusetts, Nebraska, Florida and others are rising up as never before.
Even in liberal states such as Massachusetts citizens are showing their outrage over the Obama-Pelosi-Reid alliance and it's dismal record at creating jobs and inability to protect us against terrorism...
...You can help this effort by Going Here Now.
The site to which you are directed shows this video:
The famously dynamic and lovely Raquel Okyay, congressional candidate and leader of southern Ulster County, reminds us that:
>A win on Tuesday for Scott Brown, needless to say, will be a big win for the Republican party and a win for those of us fighting against healthcare "reform".
I urge you to do whatever you can to help Scott Brown win.
>Read my commentary here.
In her blog Raquel notes:
>One does not have to be a political mastermind to see what is happening in America today. Glenn Beck’s claim that the Obama administration’s goal is to transform the Nation in a way that mirrors Hugo Chavez’ take- over of Venezuela, indeed, has validity. The amount of government control and over the top spending that the Obama White house and the Democrat controlled Congress have assumed in one year is unprecedented and will take many years to salvage...
>State Senator Scott Brown is running his campaign against “wasteful government spending and higher taxes.”
>...The American people are angry that the President promised that these negotiations would be aired on C-span at least eight times on the campaign trail, and so far, nothing. No one really knows what the final bill will entail, but everyone knows it will raise health insurance costs, and it will ration care.
Phil Orenstein, up and coming party leader of Queens County, New York forwarded a link to the Go West Blog, which "proudly supports Lt. Col. Allen West's candidacy for Congress." West is running in Florida and is a wonderful candidate.
Glenda McGee attended the Kingston, NY Tea Party meeting on Monday night and George Phillips's announcement of his congressional candidacy yesterday. McGee is fighting cap and trade and keeps getting her photo on newspaper covers. One article was about the Tea Party from Oklahoma and they put her picture on the cover even though she lives in the Town of Olive!
Even President Barbara Bowen of the left wing faculty union of the City University of New York, the Professional Staff Congress, and her lieutenant Mariah Berger, have sent around e-mails urging the union's left-to-liberal college faculty membership to make calls in opposition to the bogus health care bill's tax on union benefit plans:
>Dear Professor Langbert,
>Thank you for your response. In her email yesterday President Bowen urged PSC members to take action in support of fair health care reform and in opposition to the proposal to tax “Cadillac” health plans. This position on health care reform is that of the union as a collective, after debate, discussion and a democratic vote. We understand that not all individual members share these sentiments, however, and we appreciate your comments. We respect and value your views and Barbara Bowen thanks you for taking the time to share them.
>Sincerely,
>Moriah Berger
That e-mail really tickled me. I doubt that there are more than ten unions more left wing than the Professional Staff Congress. I also doubt that there was a higher Obama-to-McCain voting ratio in any union in the country than in the Professional Staff Congress. But even the Grasmcian Marxists are complaining about Obama now.
Here is the union president's, Barbara Bowen's, e-mail:
>Dear Colleague,
Today is the labor movement’s National Call-In Blitz to demand fairness to working people in health care legislation. I am asking you to take a minute or two to call your US Representative and Senator today. The AFL-CIO’s call-in line will connect you immediately: 1-877-323-5246. Tell your representative that you support fair health care reform but that you oppose the plan for a 40 percent excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans.
Taxing benefits is bad policy and bad politics. Benefit cuts and increased consumer costs are NOT health care reform.
The Senate bill would impose an excise tax paid by employers on benefit plans exceeding $23,000 for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals. CUNY faculty and staff would not be immediately affected by the proposed excise tax, as our current healthcare benefits fall below the threshold in the Senate bill. But the benefits tax is designed to apply to more plans, and more people, every year. The cap on benefits grows much more slowly than the rate of medical inflation. A plan under the cap today could easily be over the cap tomorrow and subject to a 40 percent excise tax. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20% of employee health plans would be affected within 3 years.
The theory underlying this provision is that employers will reduce benefits to avoid paying the excise tax and presumably pay their employees the balance that would have gone to insurance. These increased wages, taxed as regular income, would be used to finance health reform. Assuming employers would voluntarily pass on savings to their workers—a long shot at best—the most likely result will be a reduction in the quality of employee health benefits.
This is a critical week for influencing the final shape of the legislation. PSC members, like millions of other Americans, hoped and fought for single-payer health reform. But this is our chance to make the current bill as fair as we can make it. Please call or email today: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/healthcare010810.
We are now closer to reform than we’ve been in generations. We can’t stop now.
In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President
>Dear Reader:
>Time is critical. Americans all over the country are fed up with the Obama administration. They don't want his radical healthcare program.
Citizens from states like Massachusetts, Nebraska, Florida and others are rising up as never before.
Even in liberal states such as Massachusetts citizens are showing their outrage over the Obama-Pelosi-Reid alliance and it's dismal record at creating jobs and inability to protect us against terrorism...
...You can help this effort by Going Here Now.
The site to which you are directed shows this video:
The famously dynamic and lovely Raquel Okyay, congressional candidate and leader of southern Ulster County, reminds us that:
>A win on Tuesday for Scott Brown, needless to say, will be a big win for the Republican party and a win for those of us fighting against healthcare "reform".
I urge you to do whatever you can to help Scott Brown win.
>Read my commentary here.
In her blog Raquel notes:
>One does not have to be a political mastermind to see what is happening in America today. Glenn Beck’s claim that the Obama administration’s goal is to transform the Nation in a way that mirrors Hugo Chavez’ take- over of Venezuela, indeed, has validity. The amount of government control and over the top spending that the Obama White house and the Democrat controlled Congress have assumed in one year is unprecedented and will take many years to salvage...
>State Senator Scott Brown is running his campaign against “wasteful government spending and higher taxes.”
>...The American people are angry that the President promised that these negotiations would be aired on C-span at least eight times on the campaign trail, and so far, nothing. No one really knows what the final bill will entail, but everyone knows it will raise health insurance costs, and it will ration care.
Phil Orenstein, up and coming party leader of Queens County, New York forwarded a link to the Go West Blog, which "proudly supports Lt. Col. Allen West's candidacy for Congress." West is running in Florida and is a wonderful candidate.
Glenda McGee attended the Kingston, NY Tea Party meeting on Monday night and George Phillips's announcement of his congressional candidacy yesterday. McGee is fighting cap and trade and keeps getting her photo on newspaper covers. One article was about the Tea Party from Oklahoma and they put her picture on the cover even though she lives in the Town of Olive!
Even President Barbara Bowen of the left wing faculty union of the City University of New York, the Professional Staff Congress, and her lieutenant Mariah Berger, have sent around e-mails urging the union's left-to-liberal college faculty membership to make calls in opposition to the bogus health care bill's tax on union benefit plans:
>Dear Professor Langbert,
>Thank you for your response. In her email yesterday President Bowen urged PSC members to take action in support of fair health care reform and in opposition to the proposal to tax “Cadillac” health plans. This position on health care reform is that of the union as a collective, after debate, discussion and a democratic vote. We understand that not all individual members share these sentiments, however, and we appreciate your comments. We respect and value your views and Barbara Bowen thanks you for taking the time to share them.
>Sincerely,
>Moriah Berger
That e-mail really tickled me. I doubt that there are more than ten unions more left wing than the Professional Staff Congress. I also doubt that there was a higher Obama-to-McCain voting ratio in any union in the country than in the Professional Staff Congress. But even the Grasmcian Marxists are complaining about Obama now.
Here is the union president's, Barbara Bowen's, e-mail:
>Dear Colleague,
Today is the labor movement’s National Call-In Blitz to demand fairness to working people in health care legislation. I am asking you to take a minute or two to call your US Representative and Senator today. The AFL-CIO’s call-in line will connect you immediately: 1-877-323-5246. Tell your representative that you support fair health care reform but that you oppose the plan for a 40 percent excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans.
Taxing benefits is bad policy and bad politics. Benefit cuts and increased consumer costs are NOT health care reform.
The Senate bill would impose an excise tax paid by employers on benefit plans exceeding $23,000 for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals. CUNY faculty and staff would not be immediately affected by the proposed excise tax, as our current healthcare benefits fall below the threshold in the Senate bill. But the benefits tax is designed to apply to more plans, and more people, every year. The cap on benefits grows much more slowly than the rate of medical inflation. A plan under the cap today could easily be over the cap tomorrow and subject to a 40 percent excise tax. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20% of employee health plans would be affected within 3 years.
The theory underlying this provision is that employers will reduce benefits to avoid paying the excise tax and presumably pay their employees the balance that would have gone to insurance. These increased wages, taxed as regular income, would be used to finance health reform. Assuming employers would voluntarily pass on savings to their workers—a long shot at best—the most likely result will be a reduction in the quality of employee health benefits.
This is a critical week for influencing the final shape of the legislation. PSC members, like millions of other Americans, hoped and fought for single-payer health reform. But this is our chance to make the current bill as fair as we can make it. Please call or email today: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/healthcare010810.
We are now closer to reform than we’ve been in generations. We can’t stop now.
In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Okyay Debunks Climate Change Report
It is rather astonishing that anyone takes Al Gore's tin foil hat theory of climate change seriously after the e-mails revealing that much if not all of the climate change research has been doctored. Raquel Okyay aims to further debunk the claims of the die-hard ideologues and extremists who dominate the United States government and the autistic left. Raquel, a distinguished voice in Ulster County, New York politics, has been researching the facts behind the report behind the meeting of environmentalists in Copenhagen. Raquel writes:
>I admit that I have been skeptical of man-made global warming from the get go. For one thing Al Gore does not impress me one bit with his “end of the world” predictions, knowing full well that an ulterior motive is at bay. But it wasn’t until I started reading “Climate Change Reconsidered — The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” (“Reconsidered”) that I realized that not only does it appear that Gore is dead wrong on his (and others) theory of man-made climate change, but the entire movement, that bases its findings on biased and inconclusive science, is really about perpetrating a global socialist society aimed at redistributing wealth on an international scale.
>Much of the language and direction of the meeting of Environmentalists at Copenhagen is based upon four Reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) originally published in 1990 with its fourth Assessment published in 2007. The panel, assembled by the United Nations (“UN”), sought to present legislative language so as to bind sovereign countries to reduce UN directed carbon emission, as well as force industrialized nations to fund carbon emission standards and applications on non-industrialized nations.
Read Raquels analysis here.
>I admit that I have been skeptical of man-made global warming from the get go. For one thing Al Gore does not impress me one bit with his “end of the world” predictions, knowing full well that an ulterior motive is at bay. But it wasn’t until I started reading “Climate Change Reconsidered — The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” (“Reconsidered”) that I realized that not only does it appear that Gore is dead wrong on his (and others) theory of man-made climate change, but the entire movement, that bases its findings on biased and inconclusive science, is really about perpetrating a global socialist society aimed at redistributing wealth on an international scale.
>Much of the language and direction of the meeting of Environmentalists at Copenhagen is based upon four Reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) originally published in 1990 with its fourth Assessment published in 2007. The panel, assembled by the United Nations (“UN”), sought to present legislative language so as to bind sovereign countries to reduce UN directed carbon emission, as well as force industrialized nations to fund carbon emission standards and applications on non-industrialized nations.
Read Raquels analysis here.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
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?
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?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Conservatives Should Disempower Left-wing Propaganda
Raquel Okyay is a noted New York State conservative. She ran for City Council in Queens and now is a major figure in the Republican Liberty Caucus in New Paltz, New York. Recently she wrote an excellent blog arguing that "Obama won by lies, fraud and manipulation." Okyay makes some excellent points about the mass media's bias. But she argued that the New York Times is "a major partisan news organization".
I correct Okyay on her blog as follows:
"No, no, no. The Times is the 'pissant media'. Don’t empower it. It is a pissant. Nothing more. Please don’t call it 'major'. It is as major as the biggest ant you can think of, a quarter inch or so."
Okyay wrote back to me:
"You're right, what was I thinking?? I changed it to pissant."
But I was wrong about one thing. The Times is not media. It is propaganda. Media implies communication of information. The Times does not communicate information; it propagandizes and lies. Conservatives have made the error of empowering pissant propaganda sources like the Times by calling them "mainstream", "media", "MSM" and "major". They are not mainstream, major nor media.
Conservatives need to raise their consciousness and begin to disempower propaganda sources. I think there needs to be consciousness raising among conservatives. Conservatives need a new vocabulary attendant upon a new consciousness. Conservatives need to evolve away from the categories that statist left wing murderers have constructed. "Progressivism" is not progressive; "liberals" are not liberal; socialism is anti-social; and the news media provides neither news nor serves as media. There is nothing "mainstream" about the New York Times nor network television. Nor is there anything major about them.
I correct Okyay on her blog as follows:
"No, no, no. The Times is the 'pissant media'. Don’t empower it. It is a pissant. Nothing more. Please don’t call it 'major'. It is as major as the biggest ant you can think of, a quarter inch or so."
Okyay wrote back to me:
"You're right, what was I thinking?? I changed it to pissant."
But I was wrong about one thing. The Times is not media. It is propaganda. Media implies communication of information. The Times does not communicate information; it propagandizes and lies. Conservatives have made the error of empowering pissant propaganda sources like the Times by calling them "mainstream", "media", "MSM" and "major". They are not mainstream, major nor media.
Conservatives need to raise their consciousness and begin to disempower propaganda sources. I think there needs to be consciousness raising among conservatives. Conservatives need a new vocabulary attendant upon a new consciousness. Conservatives need to evolve away from the categories that statist left wing murderers have constructed. "Progressivism" is not progressive; "liberals" are not liberal; socialism is anti-social; and the news media provides neither news nor serves as media. There is nothing "mainstream" about the New York Times nor network television. Nor is there anything major about them.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Raquel Okyay on Oil
Raquel Okyay points out that close to 70% of voters agree with Senator McCain:
"that the ban on offshore drilling should be lifted to ease the price of oil. Leading Democrats are still trying to prevent oil companies from offshore drilling, even with the high poll numbers against them."
Okyay points out:
"We want drilling because it makes sense to exploit our own resources instead of paying for oil elsewhere. There is a way to accomplish this goal without losing sight that renewable energy is the way of the future. Pelosi apparently has other things on her mind when determining whether offshore..."
The oil debate is an example of how America's commitment to socialism has crippled it economically. There ought not to be public debate concerning how to best obtain energy. The reason that we do not use alternative energy is that state and federal policy has inhibited the building of wind mills and has made risky investments difficult to make through regulation, inflation, taxes and other penalties to inventors. America becomes increasingly poorer as our Congressional Neros fiddle in Washington, dabbling in oil investing and exploration, subjects about which they know little. It is time to de-regulate the energy markets and stop penalizing inventors by taxing and harassing them when they succeed.
"that the ban on offshore drilling should be lifted to ease the price of oil. Leading Democrats are still trying to prevent oil companies from offshore drilling, even with the high poll numbers against them."
Okyay points out:
"We want drilling because it makes sense to exploit our own resources instead of paying for oil elsewhere. There is a way to accomplish this goal without losing sight that renewable energy is the way of the future. Pelosi apparently has other things on her mind when determining whether offshore..."
The oil debate is an example of how America's commitment to socialism has crippled it economically. There ought not to be public debate concerning how to best obtain energy. The reason that we do not use alternative energy is that state and federal policy has inhibited the building of wind mills and has made risky investments difficult to make through regulation, inflation, taxes and other penalties to inventors. America becomes increasingly poorer as our Congressional Neros fiddle in Washington, dabbling in oil investing and exploration, subjects about which they know little. It is time to de-regulate the energy markets and stop penalizing inventors by taxing and harassing them when they succeed.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Barbecue 6-21
Pamela Hall took a number of beautiful pictures of our barbecue on 6-21 in West Shokan. Here are a few of her pictures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
