Tom Santopietro and his board of directors are doing an excellent job on the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party. The group met for its regular monthly meeting on the second Monday of each month. About 50 people attended. The group is planning several protests and bus trips to Washington, including an April 15 tax day protest.
Don Wise for State Assembly
The highlight of the evening was a talk by a conservative Republican State Assembly candidate, Don Wise. Mr. Wise owns a successful construction firm, Apex Building. He says that he has seen the Ulster-and-Dutchess County economy crumble under the Democratic Party policies of Assemblyman Kevin Cahill. Mr. Cahill claims to have brought jobs to the county economy and someone shouted "Erie County!" I added "Broward County!"
According to a local Democratic Party newspaper, the Kingston Freeman, Wise ran for Town Supervisor in the Town of Ulster three years ago, for State Assembly in the 1980s, and for County legislature. Naturally, when the Democrats report on Republicans they look for ways to slander them, and the articles in the Freeman are no exception.
Mr. Wise is articulate, intelligent and thoughtful. He presents a positive image. Mr. Wise aims to freeze state spending and eliminate waste in fields like education. After the meeting I questioned him as to why he does not advocate cuts in state government. He says that he is still formulating his aims. Kevin Cahill, the incumbent, is in contrast a big government advocate.
A nurse at the meeting who works in a local hospital told me privately that about one half of Medicaid spending in New York is pure waste, and that the percentage of waste in New York's Medicaid system is greater than in other Democratic Party- dominated states. In 2006, according to this source, Medicaid amounted to 23% of spending in the average state budget. According to a 2005 New York Times article, Medicaid abuse in New York is in the billions. The Times does not discuss systemic waste such as the transfer of personal assets in order to obtain Medicaid funding for long term care. According to the Citizens' Budget Commission:
"New York has the highest Medicaid spending among the 50 states, accounting for 15 percent of the national total, although it covers only 8 percent of beneficiaries.
"By comparison, California accounts for 11 percent of national spending while covering 18 percent of the beneficiaries. New York’s cost per person enrolled in the program, program, $7,912 annually, is 75 percent higher than the national average of $4,484, and nearly three times the California average of $2,770."
That was written near the end of the Pataki (R-NY) administration in 2006. In other words, Pataki had held office for 12 years and those facts were true at the end of the 12 years. Has the two party system enabled the voters to choose?
In addition to Medicaid, there is massive waste in state operations. The Department of Social Services not only provides welfare, the Department is itself a welfare program for non-working state employees. All of the agencies massively overspend and over-employ.
We might rename New York "The Emperor Has No Clothes and It's All Waste" state. I wish Mr. Wise all success in his election bid, but with the Democratic Party's strong local propaganda-and-lying machine led by the Kingston Freeman, it will be an uphill battle.
Other Business
Tom Santopietro, the president of the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party, defended Glenn Beck against unnamed attacks (I wonder who the attacker might be) but emphasized that the Tea Party is non-partisan. Tom mentioned that he objects to the GOP's use of the Tea Party name, which it has been doing unethically in some western states. Tom also mentioned that he was frustrated with Sarah Palin but still supports her to a degree.
I raised my hand at three different points and suggested that the Tea Party (a) focus exclusively on state and local candidates and issues (of course, as Chris Johansen mentioned in the car, big issues like Obamacare and cap and trade need to be included); (b) establish an ongoing state legislative bill monitoring process whereby Tea Party members might be alerted to bills about which to contact the state legislature; and (c) that I personally do not think that there is a single national politician, Republican or Democratic, who is fit to be president because they are all tainted by the same special interests that inspired the 2008 bailout. In other words, there is no small government candidate in either party.
Someone in the audience raised his hand and said angrily that he blogs for the American Thinker blog and that he does not trust any organization any more, including the Tea Party. He questioned Mr. Santopietro as to why there is no formal platform. I raised my hand and offered to help Mr. Santopietro put together a platform and offered to include the gentleman who raised the point on the platform committee. A similar proposal was discussed when I attended in January, I recall. No action has been taken.
Concluding Thoughts
The group is inexperienced but is making important progress. Tea Parties around the country need to support local candidates and avoid national ones. National politics is irrelevant at this point because the federal system is corrupt. It will need to be overturned as it has already failed. In place of the current system a more decentralized one with greater emphasis on states' rights (as in the Tenth Amendment) and reduced federal power would be better. Before the Constitution there were the Articles of Confederation. The nation needs to return to its roots. The fact is that about 30 states have a larger population than the entire nation did in 1783, approximately three million. The national population is too large to support a federal democracy. Powers currently granted the federal government, including constitutional interpretation, social security, medicare, labor law, most business regulation (except for unavoidable issues such as true interstate commerce) and monetary policy should be downloaded to regional or state governments. If New York favors massive inflation, for example, that should not force other states to subsist under inflation.
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Tea Parties Should Limit Themselves to State and Local Politics
Sarah Palin thinks that Jefferson sang this song.
It has become increasingly evident that the Tea Party lacks any national leadership. D. Eris of Poli-Tea and I have debated a related point a couple of times, with Eris claiming the desirability of third party candidates. That may be the case, but Eris's claim still begs the question as to who a charismatic and capable national leader might be.
Sarah Palin is great looking but lacks the intellectual foundations to be a leader. Reagan was no genius, as Chet of Snyder's bar pointed out last night, but he had an intuitive grasp and appointed some good people (not good enough in my opinion but better than any Republican since). Palin does not know anything about the history, political ideas or ideology of freedom. She thinks Jefferson is an African-American dry cleaner in Manhattan who "moved on up to the east side." She doesn't know why anyone might question the Fed, or who in American history favored doing so. In fact, she would be surprised if she found out. This is not to disparage her as a person. We are all members of what Kant called the Kingdom of Ends and so Palin deserves the same respect I give to Sherman Hemsley, who played George Jefferson. But as a presidential candidate she is too unread, and I definitely fear that the special interests may have gotten to her by now. I would make the same observations but to a lesser degree about any of the conservative media people, specifically including all of the announcers on Fox.
The fact that the Tea Party people have tended to congregate around Fox says that the movement is too green to support a national political candidate. The Tea Party needs to start from the local level and there needs to be a core coalition that starts to read, read, read about the ideas that built America. Anyone who does not know what Andrew Jackson stood for or why he would not have liked Abraham Lincoln does not know enough about American history to make sense of what is going on today.
Thus, I urge the Tea Party to develop a relationship with the Foundation for Economic Education. That fine institution has quietly served as a fulcrum on which the freedom movement has rested since the 1940s. Without the support it gave to many freedom oriented scholars through the years, the ideas that are alive today would have died. How many in the Tea Party have taken the time to educate themselves? To develop a relationship with the Foundation for Economic Education? To read about the substance of American history, including the banking controversies that were never resolved?
Moreover, none, I say not one, of the national figures in the Republican Party has the intellectual background nor the moral sense (and I specifically include Newt Gingrich) to represent a freedom movement. Thus, the Tea Party has no leadership and does not know where to turn.
It is only at the local level that freedom oriented candidates can be developed. It is time for the Tea Party to develop candidates who will evolve into the leadership of the coming nine decades. This must be done at the local, not the national level. I do not even think it can be done at the state level. A state like New York just appointed Richard M. Nixon's son-in-law, Edward F. Cox, a Wall Street attorney, to head the state's GOP. Is a Wall Street attorney the direction in which a party corrupted by massive subsidies to Wall Street ought to turn?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tea Party Movement HiJacked By Big Government RINOs on FOX?
I received this e-mail from Glenda McGee of Olivebridge, New York.
>This was sent to the 200,000 umbrella members of the Oklahoma Sooner Tea Party.
A WARNING TO THE TEA PARTY NATION
By Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It reminds me of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.
Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young, energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the constitutional precepts of limited government. I'm talking about then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C.
Watts, etc. These young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the growth and size of the federal government.
The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted "Contract with America" (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5 federal departments--such as the Departments of Energy and Education--and many federal agencies.
Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single federal department or agency--or even shrink the size of the federal government at all--it expanded the size and scope of the federal government at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I'm talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too, some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big Government toadies themselves. Such is the
power of that Putrid Province by the Potomac.)
The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already appearing.
First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were
tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.
I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.
But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans. Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand.
But if one wants a real barometer of Palin's true colors, look no further than her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.
Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas? Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama's universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the citizens of Texas against an emerging Police
State? Nothing! What has he done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!
As a result of both Rick Perry's establishment business-as-usual politics in Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already knows, Medina is one of you.
Medina is committed to preserving Texas' independence and sovereignty. She is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA superhighway. Medina is the real deal.
So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits is not what the Tea Parties are all about.
Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics, supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity back into government.
Don't get me wrong; there are things about Sarah Palin that I like. I especially appreciate her pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands. I also appreciate her signing the Alaska State sovereignty resolution while she was governor. By all indications, she did a good job as Alaska's chief executive. At the national level, however, she favors the Patriot Act--and even wants to expand it. She supported the banker bailouts. And when it comes to foreign policy issues, Palin is just
another neocon. Plus, as with most Republicans at the national level, I think she is clueless about the NWO. And please remember, it was Mr. New World Order himself, Henry Kissinger, who vetted Palin on behalf of McCain.
The Tea Party Nation should expect better!
The Nation also needs to be careful about Glenn Beck. He says many of the right things. He is likeable and charismatic; but he's also dead wrong on a number of issues--issues that are critical to the Tea Party Nation. He's dead wrong when he attempts to disparage and impugn Congressman Ron Paul, saying Dr. Paul is a "crazy, kooky guy." He's dead wrong in supporting the banker bailouts. He's dead wrong when he supports raising taxes (which he has done on several occasions). He was dead wrong when he supported the Patriot Act. He is dead wrong when he viciously attacks the 9/11 victims' families who demand further information about what happened to their loved ones on that fateful day. And he is dead wrong when he mocks people such as Alan Keyes and Joe Farah for demanding that Barack Obama release his birth
certificate--if he indeed has one.
And now I hear that there are some self-professed members of the Tea Party Nation who are actually running for Congressman Paul's US House seat in Texas. If this is not a sign that establishment Republicans are hijacking the Tea Party movement, I don't know what is. Remember, the Tea Party movement began a s a support base for the Ron Paul Revolution back in 2007.
I strongly encourage the Tea Party faithful to read Jane Hamsher's
recent column on this subject.
[ http://tinyurl.com/tea-party-soul ]
I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid
Newt Gingrich like the plague!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.
>This was sent to the 200,000 umbrella members of the Oklahoma Sooner Tea Party.
A WARNING TO THE TEA PARTY NATION
By Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It reminds me of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.
Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young, energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the constitutional precepts of limited government. I'm talking about then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C.
Watts, etc. These young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the growth and size of the federal government.
The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted "Contract with America" (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5 federal departments--such as the Departments of Energy and Education--and many federal agencies.
Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single federal department or agency--or even shrink the size of the federal government at all--it expanded the size and scope of the federal government at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I'm talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too, some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big Government toadies themselves. Such is the
power of that Putrid Province by the Potomac.)
The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already appearing.
First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were
tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.
I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.
But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans. Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand.
But if one wants a real barometer of Palin's true colors, look no further than her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.
Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas? Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama's universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the citizens of Texas against an emerging Police
State? Nothing! What has he done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!
As a result of both Rick Perry's establishment business-as-usual politics in Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already knows, Medina is one of you.
Medina is committed to preserving Texas' independence and sovereignty. She is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA superhighway. Medina is the real deal.
So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits is not what the Tea Parties are all about.
Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics, supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity back into government.
Don't get me wrong; there are things about Sarah Palin that I like. I especially appreciate her pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands. I also appreciate her signing the Alaska State sovereignty resolution while she was governor. By all indications, she did a good job as Alaska's chief executive. At the national level, however, she favors the Patriot Act--and even wants to expand it. She supported the banker bailouts. And when it comes to foreign policy issues, Palin is just
another neocon. Plus, as with most Republicans at the national level, I think she is clueless about the NWO. And please remember, it was Mr. New World Order himself, Henry Kissinger, who vetted Palin on behalf of McCain.
The Tea Party Nation should expect better!
The Nation also needs to be careful about Glenn Beck. He says many of the right things. He is likeable and charismatic; but he's also dead wrong on a number of issues--issues that are critical to the Tea Party Nation. He's dead wrong when he attempts to disparage and impugn Congressman Ron Paul, saying Dr. Paul is a "crazy, kooky guy." He's dead wrong in supporting the banker bailouts. He's dead wrong when he supports raising taxes (which he has done on several occasions). He was dead wrong when he supported the Patriot Act. He is dead wrong when he viciously attacks the 9/11 victims' families who demand further information about what happened to their loved ones on that fateful day. And he is dead wrong when he mocks people such as Alan Keyes and Joe Farah for demanding that Barack Obama release his birth
certificate--if he indeed has one.
And now I hear that there are some self-professed members of the Tea Party Nation who are actually running for Congressman Paul's US House seat in Texas. If this is not a sign that establishment Republicans are hijacking the Tea Party movement, I don't know what is. Remember, the Tea Party movement began a s a support base for the Ron Paul Revolution back in 2007.
I strongly encourage the Tea Party faithful to read Jane Hamsher's
recent column on this subject.
[ http://tinyurl.com/tea-party-soul ]
I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid
Newt Gingrich like the plague!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.
Friday, February 12, 2010
A Dem-GOP Split is Preferable to a Bush-Like Palin
The recent election of Scott Brown has two sides. The good side is that it amounted to a rejection of the destructive Obama-Democratic health bill. The bad side is that Brown turned out to be a Progressive. For how long have the Republican rank and file been falling for this? The Democrats produce toxic policies, and in reaction the Republicans support politicians who are committed to maintaining the Democratic policies. This kind of self-destructive stupidity has become so habitual that now a supporter of government sponsored health care in Massachusetts is hailed as a savior.
The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.
I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:
"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.
"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."
Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.
Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.
The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.
I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:
"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.
"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."
Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.
Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.
Has the Tea Party Become a Drag?
I just submitted this post at the RLC website:
I was reviewing Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party convention on Youtube and was reminded of her position on the 2008 bailout. In a September 24, 2008 television interview Palin supported the bailout. But at the recent Tea Party convention she objected to bonuses that the support she had previously advocated made possible. I think the expression is that she has been shedding conservative crocodile tears.
Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed. One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.
A reader suggested this blog by the Alantic Magazine’s Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists. Sullivan writes:
“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”
I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York. I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government. There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations. These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.
Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party. However, Sullivan makes a good point.
It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced. Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government. They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush. They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama. The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again. This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention. Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.
I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right. However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush. The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party? I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government. Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.
I was reviewing Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party convention on Youtube and was reminded of her position on the 2008 bailout. In a September 24, 2008 television interview Palin supported the bailout. But at the recent Tea Party convention she objected to bonuses that the support she had previously advocated made possible. I think the expression is that she has been shedding conservative crocodile tears.
Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed. One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.
A reader suggested this blog by the Alantic Magazine’s Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists. Sullivan writes:
“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”
I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York. I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government. There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations. These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.
Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party. However, Sullivan makes a good point.
It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced. Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government. They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush. They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama. The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again. This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention. Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.
I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right. However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush. The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party? I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government. Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
When It Mattered, Sarah Palin Supported Big Government
September 24, 2008
Last week: "While people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street — they’re collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses." EconomyCollapse.blogspot.com notes:
"Further, in traveling to Texas to stump for incumbent Governor Rick Perry after speaking under the Tea Party Nation banner, Palin is slighting the one real tea party candidate running in Texas-- a rising Debra Medina who is insistent on shaking up the status quo and triumphing over party stooges Perry & Hutchinson."
Has Sarah Palin undergone a major intellectual transformation since fall 2008? Has she read Ludwig von Mises's Theory of Money and Credit? Or is she just yanking the Tea Party's chain.
February 6, 2010 (about 8 minutes in)
I find Alex Jones's emphasis on conspiracy theories to be far fetched, and he is too harsh about Palin. But he is right that unless the Tea Party can find a candidate who opposes the bailout for intelligible reasons, it is an abject failure.
Last week: "While people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street — they’re collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses." EconomyCollapse.blogspot.com notes:
"Further, in traveling to Texas to stump for incumbent Governor Rick Perry after speaking under the Tea Party Nation banner, Palin is slighting the one real tea party candidate running in Texas-- a rising Debra Medina who is insistent on shaking up the status quo and triumphing over party stooges Perry & Hutchinson."
Has Sarah Palin undergone a major intellectual transformation since fall 2008? Has she read Ludwig von Mises's Theory of Money and Credit? Or is she just yanking the Tea Party's chain.
February 6, 2010 (about 8 minutes in)
I find Alex Jones's emphasis on conspiracy theories to be far fetched, and he is too harsh about Palin. But he is right that unless the Tea Party can find a candidate who opposes the bailout for intelligible reasons, it is an abject failure.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Hannity on the Certificate
Bob Robbins just forwarded a Post and Email article on Sean Hannity's rather recent but in my opinion 14 months late and $14 short (we are, after all, living in the age of the Federal Reserve Bank) demand that President Obama make his vault copy birth certificate public. The demand was made in response to remarks by Governor Sarah Palin. The Post and E-mail writes:
"(Dec. 9, 2009) — Last night Sean Hannity affirmed that the desire of millions of U.S. Citizens to see the real birth certification of Barack Hussein Obama was legitimate.
"His argument was, that if Obama was bold enough to vaunt an electronic image to 'prove' anything, that he should not be cowardly to hide the real McCoy."
The Post and Email article in turn refers to a World Net Daily Article:
"Sean Hannity today defended Sarah Palin's recent comments about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency and WND's pursuit of the story."
He said the question about his original, long-form birth certificate has still not been answered.
"What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'"
With all due respect to Mr. Hannity, where was he when this question was important, for instance, in October 2008??
"(Dec. 9, 2009) — Last night Sean Hannity affirmed that the desire of millions of U.S. Citizens to see the real birth certification of Barack Hussein Obama was legitimate.
"His argument was, that if Obama was bold enough to vaunt an electronic image to 'prove' anything, that he should not be cowardly to hide the real McCoy."
The Post and Email article in turn refers to a World Net Daily Article:
"Sean Hannity today defended Sarah Palin's recent comments about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency and WND's pursuit of the story."
He said the question about his original, long-form birth certificate has still not been answered.
"What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'"
With all due respect to Mr. Hannity, where was he when this question was important, for instance, in October 2008??
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Vote Yes on Sarah Palin's Qualifications
I just received this from philaver@aol.com:
Keep this moving quickly...
PBS has an online poll posted, asking if Sarah Palin is qualified.
Apparently the left wing knew about this in advance and are flooding the voting with NO votes.
The poll will be reported on PBS and picked up by mainstream media. It can influence undecided voters in swing states.
Please do two things -- takes 20 seconds.
1) Click on link and vote YES!
Here's the link:
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
Keep this moving quickly...
PBS has an online poll posted, asking if Sarah Palin is qualified.
Apparently the left wing knew about this in advance and are flooding the voting with NO votes.
The poll will be reported on PBS and picked up by mainstream media. It can influence undecided voters in swing states.
Please do two things -- takes 20 seconds.
1) Click on link and vote YES!
Here's the link:
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sarah Palin More Jewish Than Barry Goldwater
According to the Jewish Defense League site (h/t Nancy Razik) Sarah Palin is technically Jewish:
"Here's an interesting factoid: it seems that Governor Sarah Palin is technically a Jew. Yes, according to those who have written on the subject, not only was her mother, Sally Sheigam, Jewish (making her Jewish by Jewish law), her father also had a Jewish mother. However, her father was a devout Christian and raised his family that way, so Sarah was raised as a Christian despite her status as a Jew. Nazi sites have already picked up on this discussion."
Left-wingers attack Palin for being anti-Semitic while Nazis attack her for being Jewish. Academics attack her for not having studied the economics of John Maynard Keynes while educationists attack her for insisting that school children learn the "3 r's".
I hope McCain-Palin wins in no small part because I will LOVE to watch the saddened expressions on all those liberal professors that a Christian Jew non cultural relativist who is NOT ONE OF THEM is in the White House.
"Here's an interesting factoid: it seems that Governor Sarah Palin is technically a Jew. Yes, according to those who have written on the subject, not only was her mother, Sally Sheigam, Jewish (making her Jewish by Jewish law), her father also had a Jewish mother. However, her father was a devout Christian and raised his family that way, so Sarah was raised as a Christian despite her status as a Jew. Nazi sites have already picked up on this discussion."
Left-wingers attack Palin for being anti-Semitic while Nazis attack her for being Jewish. Academics attack her for not having studied the economics of John Maynard Keynes while educationists attack her for insisting that school children learn the "3 r's".
I hope McCain-Palin wins in no small part because I will LOVE to watch the saddened expressions on all those liberal professors that a Christian Jew non cultural relativist who is NOT ONE OF THEM is in the White House.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
But They Won't Cover Phil Berg's Law Suit
I just received the following message from Dan Friedman:
[One of the tricks you learn in Journalism 101 is do a report about a report of a politician responding to attacks rather than a story about the attack itself. That way you can repeat the attack, push it in the public's face, make the politician look like he's on the defensive, make his response appear partisan, even sneak in an unrelated bad-news poll - all with three degrees of separation and without giving away how badly you want the politician's opponent to win. The tactic carries a risk, though. If your readers are paying attention, it can make you look dumber than you already are. df]
From the NY Times-owned Boston Globe:
>"The John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign is striking back at a report about money spent on Palin's appearance.
"Politico reported that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 to clothe and accessorize Palin since she was picked by McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the bills include $75,063 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis and $49,426 at Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August." (emphasis moi)
###
[One of the tricks you learn in Journalism 101 is do a report about a report of a politician responding to attacks rather than a story about the attack itself. That way you can repeat the attack, push it in the public's face, make the politician look like he's on the defensive, make his response appear partisan, even sneak in an unrelated bad-news poll - all with three degrees of separation and without giving away how badly you want the politician's opponent to win. The tactic carries a risk, though. If your readers are paying attention, it can make you look dumber than you already are. df]
From the NY Times-owned Boston Globe:
>"The John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign is striking back at a report about money spent on Palin's appearance.
"Politico reported that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 to clothe and accessorize Palin since she was picked by McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the bills include $75,063 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis and $49,426 at Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August." (emphasis moi)
###
Friday, October 10, 2008
Conservative Chloe Responds to Palin's Attackers
Conservative Chloe responds to my blog on Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice here. Her thoughts follow:
The reasoning behind the anti-Semite questions surrounding first Senator Obama and more recently Gov. Palin are not only important to Israel and the Jewish community in America, but for every citizen living in the United States. God clearly states in the Bible, “those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed.” We must accurately assess each candidate’s intentions toward Israel not only for their safety as an ally, but to secure our blessing and protection as a Nation.
In Dr. Langbert’s blog post ‘Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice’ he addressed allegations made by others that Gov. Palin may be an anti-semite for attending a church where an alleged anti-semite spoke. She also was accused of attending a function with Pat Buchanan, whom many affiliate with anti-semitism. The first allegation is in regards to a group ‘Jews for Jesus’ that were not vetted and spoke at her church. She was in attendance. I have looked into this group and from what I saw on their website they are not anti-semitic and in fact appear to be the opposite. For those wanting to research here is their link: http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/. They observe all the Jewish holidays and yet believe that Jesus is their Lord. They invite both Jesus believing Jewish people (I believe that is Messianic Jew) and non-believing Jewish people. It appears they are evangelizing to the Jewish community. If they were anti-Semites, they would not care about saving the Jewish community and leading them to the Lord. While many in the Jewish community may be offended by this, that is the very nature of Christianity. To share Jesus with others who do not believe in him. In a statement by David Brickner clarifying the incident:
I want to thank those of you who have commented either here or in e-mails in response to the media furor over my remarks at Wasilla Bible Church on August 17th. The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. The notion that the terrorist, bulldozer attack in Jerusalem this summer was God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus, is absolutely not what I believe. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that.
Of course I never expected the kind of magnifying glass scrutiny on a message where I was speaking extemporaneously. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a Biblical prediction of judgment. I don’t believe that the newspaper should be used to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible.
I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way. Please feel free to read my further explanations, in my Realtime article and in the interviews I did with Christianity Today and NBC.
Sincerely,
David Brickner
Another attack against Gov. Palin is she “once” appeared at an event with Pat Buchanan. I found Gov. Palin’s explanation of this “incident”, it was reported:
Palin wrote a letter to her local newspaper making clear that her appearance at the Buchanan event wasn’t an endorsement of his candidacy. Published July 26, 1999, the letter said:
“As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect……” (www.politicofact.com)
In an Arab news article (arabnews.com) in regards to Gov. Palin meeting with Israeli officials it was also noted: “Palin displays an Israeli flag in her office window despite the tiny Jewish population in her state.”
Sounds like the media was making a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to cast doubts on Gov. Palin’s sincerity when it comes to her support for Israel and the Jewish community. It is one thing to have one incident of a suspected association that turns out to be false. It becomes an issue when a Presidential candidate sits in the pew of a church for 20 years listening to a Pastor’s diatribe about his dislike not only for Jews and Israel, but also for his own Country.
There is a very large and very successful attempt in America and in Israel to repair relations between Christians and the Jewish Community. Many organizations have been established to rekindle a relationship that was damaged shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus when the Romans convinced Christians that the Jews were the ones who killed Him (when in fact it was the Roman Empire). This led to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, a Holocaust in which most Christians turned their backs on their Jewish brothers and sisters.
Now the Christian community has opened their eyes to the Jewish community and realizes they are an ally, and not an enemy. The distrust in the eyes of the Jewish community is substantiated given the track record of people who are supposed to believe in a loving Jesus. But while this attempt has seen the fruits of its labor under such organizations as Christians United for Israel and other organizations, there is an attempt to undermine the process.
Progressives and anti-Semitic groups in America (mainly the pseudo-intellectual community) and abroad will do anything and everything to undermine the process or anyone supporting the process. They view a united Christian/Jewish coalition as very dangerous to their efforts to annihilate Israel. It is their tactic and attempt to pit those working in this relational effort against one another (a tactic many times used by Satan himself). I assure you we will continue to see this type of reckless behavior from the liberal media, other countries and anyone opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Nation.
In a comment in response to Dr. Langbert’s defense of Gov. Palin someone stated:
Protestant Church? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This church is an Apocolyptic bunch of whacked end-timers, they speak in tongues and do demonic exorcisms! They are Creationists who deny absolutely every shred of science. You talk like these guys are Methodists. They are outside mainstream Christianity as Scientologists! You either have absolutely no knowledge of Protestantism or you will defend Republicans no matter how ridiculous the argument is.
It is interesting to note that a person who thinks the Christian community is crazy because we don’t support evidence-based scientific theories (emphasis on theory) and yet has dismissed the scientific backings of intelligent design/Creationism findings is truly ignorance. There is much data and research archaeologically, geologically, biologically etc. to back up intelligent design/creationism. People who think we are ignorant for believing a different set of scientific data and research just as concrete if not more so than evolution which is also backed up by a very large book that has been more accurate then any Darwinist ideal are by their very nature deceived. Or maybe just demon possessed and in need of exorcism.
If this person thinks we are a bunch of apocalyptic wackos well, I guess he/she will just have to wait for the apocalypse to see who is right. And he better be right that we are a bunch of wackos because the alternative will not be to his/her advantage.
For those wackos looking for the science to back up intelligent design:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
The reasoning behind the anti-Semite questions surrounding first Senator Obama and more recently Gov. Palin are not only important to Israel and the Jewish community in America, but for every citizen living in the United States. God clearly states in the Bible, “those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed.” We must accurately assess each candidate’s intentions toward Israel not only for their safety as an ally, but to secure our blessing and protection as a Nation.
In Dr. Langbert’s blog post ‘Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice’ he addressed allegations made by others that Gov. Palin may be an anti-semite for attending a church where an alleged anti-semite spoke. She also was accused of attending a function with Pat Buchanan, whom many affiliate with anti-semitism. The first allegation is in regards to a group ‘Jews for Jesus’ that were not vetted and spoke at her church. She was in attendance. I have looked into this group and from what I saw on their website they are not anti-semitic and in fact appear to be the opposite. For those wanting to research here is their link: http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/. They observe all the Jewish holidays and yet believe that Jesus is their Lord. They invite both Jesus believing Jewish people (I believe that is Messianic Jew) and non-believing Jewish people. It appears they are evangelizing to the Jewish community. If they were anti-Semites, they would not care about saving the Jewish community and leading them to the Lord. While many in the Jewish community may be offended by this, that is the very nature of Christianity. To share Jesus with others who do not believe in him. In a statement by David Brickner clarifying the incident:
I want to thank those of you who have commented either here or in e-mails in response to the media furor over my remarks at Wasilla Bible Church on August 17th. The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. The notion that the terrorist, bulldozer attack in Jerusalem this summer was God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus, is absolutely not what I believe. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that.
Of course I never expected the kind of magnifying glass scrutiny on a message where I was speaking extemporaneously. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a Biblical prediction of judgment. I don’t believe that the newspaper should be used to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible.
I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way. Please feel free to read my further explanations, in my Realtime article and in the interviews I did with Christianity Today and NBC.
Sincerely,
David Brickner
Another attack against Gov. Palin is she “once” appeared at an event with Pat Buchanan. I found Gov. Palin’s explanation of this “incident”, it was reported:
Palin wrote a letter to her local newspaper making clear that her appearance at the Buchanan event wasn’t an endorsement of his candidacy. Published July 26, 1999, the letter said:
“As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect……” (www.politicofact.com)
In an Arab news article (arabnews.com) in regards to Gov. Palin meeting with Israeli officials it was also noted: “Palin displays an Israeli flag in her office window despite the tiny Jewish population in her state.”
Sounds like the media was making a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to cast doubts on Gov. Palin’s sincerity when it comes to her support for Israel and the Jewish community. It is one thing to have one incident of a suspected association that turns out to be false. It becomes an issue when a Presidential candidate sits in the pew of a church for 20 years listening to a Pastor’s diatribe about his dislike not only for Jews and Israel, but also for his own Country.
There is a very large and very successful attempt in America and in Israel to repair relations between Christians and the Jewish Community. Many organizations have been established to rekindle a relationship that was damaged shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus when the Romans convinced Christians that the Jews were the ones who killed Him (when in fact it was the Roman Empire). This led to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, a Holocaust in which most Christians turned their backs on their Jewish brothers and sisters.
Now the Christian community has opened their eyes to the Jewish community and realizes they are an ally, and not an enemy. The distrust in the eyes of the Jewish community is substantiated given the track record of people who are supposed to believe in a loving Jesus. But while this attempt has seen the fruits of its labor under such organizations as Christians United for Israel and other organizations, there is an attempt to undermine the process.
Progressives and anti-Semitic groups in America (mainly the pseudo-intellectual community) and abroad will do anything and everything to undermine the process or anyone supporting the process. They view a united Christian/Jewish coalition as very dangerous to their efforts to annihilate Israel. It is their tactic and attempt to pit those working in this relational effort against one another (a tactic many times used by Satan himself). I assure you we will continue to see this type of reckless behavior from the liberal media, other countries and anyone opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Nation.
In a comment in response to Dr. Langbert’s defense of Gov. Palin someone stated:
Protestant Church? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This church is an Apocolyptic bunch of whacked end-timers, they speak in tongues and do demonic exorcisms! They are Creationists who deny absolutely every shred of science. You talk like these guys are Methodists. They are outside mainstream Christianity as Scientologists! You either have absolutely no knowledge of Protestantism or you will defend Republicans no matter how ridiculous the argument is.
It is interesting to note that a person who thinks the Christian community is crazy because we don’t support evidence-based scientific theories (emphasis on theory) and yet has dismissed the scientific backings of intelligent design/Creationism findings is truly ignorance. There is much data and research archaeologically, geologically, biologically etc. to back up intelligent design/creationism. People who think we are ignorant for believing a different set of scientific data and research just as concrete if not more so than evolution which is also backed up by a very large book that has been more accurate then any Darwinist ideal are by their very nature deceived. Or maybe just demon possessed and in need of exorcism.
If this person thinks we are a bunch of apocalyptic wackos well, I guess he/she will just have to wait for the apocalypse to see who is right. And he better be right that we are a bunch of wackos because the alternative will not be to his/her advantage.
For those wackos looking for the science to back up intelligent design:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice
One of the slanders concerning Sarah Palin is that she is anti-Semitic. The reasoning on which this accusation is based is as follows. She attended a meeting at her church. The speaker, an executive of Jews for Jesus, in remarks not previously vetted by the church or by Palin, said that the Jews' refusal to convert to Christianity causes terrorism. As well, Palin once appeared at an event with Pat Buchanan.
The "Jed Report" makes these claims in a blog entitled "Sarah Palin and the anti-Semitism Question", based on a blog by Ben Smith on Politico.com entitled "Jewish Voters May Be Wary of Sarah Palin" in which Smith accuses Palin of anti-Semitism because she once appeared on a podium with Pat Buchanan and because she once attended a speech at her church. The speech was given by David Brickner and in it Brickner said that terrorist attacks on Israelis were God's "'judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity'".
To accuse someone of anti-Semitism in good faith there ought to be at least a little evidence. Knowing an anti-Semite or appearing with Pat Buchanan is not evidence, in part because many Jews have been associated with anti-Semites and with Pat Buchanan. Likewise, attending a speech billed as a "Jews for Jesus" speech is not anti-Semitic because all Christians believe in Jesus and there is nothing anti-Semitic about welcoming Jews who believe in Jesus either. Moreover, I have heard Jews make similar remarks. For instance, when I was a teenager a Jewish friend had discovered the Jewish religion and he said to me that the holocaust had occurred because the Jews were not sufficiently observant of Judaism. Coincidentally and tragically, my friend was killed in a car accident not long after.
It is not surprising that readers of the Bible make statements like this because the Bible is full of such statements. The Jews are criticized throughout the Bible for foresaking the path of righteousness, etc. That does not make the Bible anti-Semitic, just the opposite. Jews should not condemn Christians for using the same kind of logic that's in the Bible.
A friend recently e-mailed me with the argument that Sarah Palin is anti-Semitic as follows:
>"...Palin does go to a church that is wildly antisemitic..."
>"Palin's church supports what I consider, although others may not, the most antisemitic group of them all, Jews For Jesus, who have blamed the problems in Israel on the Jews because they have not accepted Jesus. The church's support of this group is incontrovertible, I leave it to you to decide whether they are an antisemitic group."
>"One of the many terrifying things about Palin is that she is an active member of a church that believes that the world will come to an end in our lifetime. I don't want her near "the button"
>"There are many deep conservatives who I respect, even though I may be in disagreement with 80% of their philosophy. I think there is a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a shrill shill like O'Reilly"
Interestingly, my correspondent likes Pat Buchanan even though Ben Smith and the Jed Report claim that association with Pat Buchanan is evidence of anti-Semitism.
Part of the reason for Jews' concern about anti-Semitism is that there has been alot of it, although few left-wing Jews have the knowledge to distinguish between European anti-Semitism and American anti-Semitism, which is much less intense and more the exception than the rule. In contrast, European anti-Semitism is more the rule than the exception.
Jews were expelled from much of western Europe, to include Spain, France and England, from the 13th to the 15th centuries. They were forced to either live in ghettoes as in Venice and Germany, in eastern Europe or the Muslim world. Over the course of the following centuries, eastern Europe, especially Russia and Poland, became intensely anti-Semitic, and much of the anti-Semitism was channeled through the official Russian Orthodox Church. Rape and killing were part of this history, as was official state oppression. Czar Nicholas, for instance, mandated that all Jewish males serve in the army from childhood until age 42. This was meant to be genocidal.
As a result, many eastern European Jews are fearful of Christianity. However, they do not understand that the Protestant Reformation was accompanied by an intensification of interest in and warmth toward Jews. The Cromwellian Revolution was accompanied by England's reopening to Jews. This was also associated with the growth of commerce due to the same historical process. Likewise, at least some of the Puritan thinkers in America were openly Zionist and philo-Semitic. Following the Revolutionary War, Jews were always permitted freedom of religion in the US, with a couple of stark exceptions, such as an edict by General Ulysses S. Grant. Progressivism integrated elements of Populism, which was often anti-urban and anti-Semitic, and was accompanied by a reaffirmation of feudal values that included anti-Semitism. Hence, there was more anti-Semitism beginning in the late nineteenth century through 1950 then there had been previously. However, many Jews, such as Walter Weyl and Walter Lippmann, were prominent in the Progressive movement, and the older, laissez-faire Mugwump movement as well.
When eastern European Jews arrived here between 1880 and 1925 they carried the fear of anti-Semitism with them. This was accompanied by the fact that America, in the throes of Popuulist nativism and Progressivism, was susceptible to various anti-Semitic movements, to include that of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin.
Despite the history of tension that eastern European Jews feel toward Christians, largely because the Russian Orthodox church was virulently anti-Semitic, the Whigs in England and the Calvinist faith to which they adhered, and their American offspring, the Puritans, were often philo-Semitic. Palin's church, Assembly of God, descends from the Puritan heritage. Many of the Puritan religionists of the 18th and 19th century were Zionists.
Christianity is a proselytizing religion that is historically a Jewish sect. The imagery of the New Testament is rooted and imbued with the old. A knowledgeable Christian cannot hate Jews. However, they naturally aim to convert Jews, which is not the same thing.
I would add that Jews need to be aware of their own prejudices. Calling someone anti-Semitic merely because they belong to a Protestant Church in itself may constitute bias. As well, America is very much a Christian country. To understand America a deep understanding of Jonathan Edwards, the Great Awakening, the Church in America and the philosophy of tolerance rooted in the Cromwellian Revolution of 1648 is absolutely essential. Jews should be aware that the tolerance of America is an Anglo-exception to the intolerance of socialist Europe. In contrast to Europe, where Jews were repeatedly murdered and oppressed by feudalistic then socialist and national socialist regimes, America, precisely because of its Protestant basis, has accepted and honored Jews. Jews should be aware of this virtue. I do think that there is much anti-Christian bias among liberal Jews, which is as much a form of bigotry as anti-Semitism.
The "Jed Report" makes these claims in a blog entitled "Sarah Palin and the anti-Semitism Question", based on a blog by Ben Smith on Politico.com entitled "Jewish Voters May Be Wary of Sarah Palin" in which Smith accuses Palin of anti-Semitism because she once appeared on a podium with Pat Buchanan and because she once attended a speech at her church. The speech was given by David Brickner and in it Brickner said that terrorist attacks on Israelis were God's "'judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity'".
To accuse someone of anti-Semitism in good faith there ought to be at least a little evidence. Knowing an anti-Semite or appearing with Pat Buchanan is not evidence, in part because many Jews have been associated with anti-Semites and with Pat Buchanan. Likewise, attending a speech billed as a "Jews for Jesus" speech is not anti-Semitic because all Christians believe in Jesus and there is nothing anti-Semitic about welcoming Jews who believe in Jesus either. Moreover, I have heard Jews make similar remarks. For instance, when I was a teenager a Jewish friend had discovered the Jewish religion and he said to me that the holocaust had occurred because the Jews were not sufficiently observant of Judaism. Coincidentally and tragically, my friend was killed in a car accident not long after.
It is not surprising that readers of the Bible make statements like this because the Bible is full of such statements. The Jews are criticized throughout the Bible for foresaking the path of righteousness, etc. That does not make the Bible anti-Semitic, just the opposite. Jews should not condemn Christians for using the same kind of logic that's in the Bible.
A friend recently e-mailed me with the argument that Sarah Palin is anti-Semitic as follows:
>"...Palin does go to a church that is wildly antisemitic..."
>"Palin's church supports what I consider, although others may not, the most antisemitic group of them all, Jews For Jesus, who have blamed the problems in Israel on the Jews because they have not accepted Jesus. The church's support of this group is incontrovertible, I leave it to you to decide whether they are an antisemitic group."
>"One of the many terrifying things about Palin is that she is an active member of a church that believes that the world will come to an end in our lifetime. I don't want her near "the button"
>"There are many deep conservatives who I respect, even though I may be in disagreement with 80% of their philosophy. I think there is a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a shrill shill like O'Reilly"
Interestingly, my correspondent likes Pat Buchanan even though Ben Smith and the Jed Report claim that association with Pat Buchanan is evidence of anti-Semitism.
Part of the reason for Jews' concern about anti-Semitism is that there has been alot of it, although few left-wing Jews have the knowledge to distinguish between European anti-Semitism and American anti-Semitism, which is much less intense and more the exception than the rule. In contrast, European anti-Semitism is more the rule than the exception.
Jews were expelled from much of western Europe, to include Spain, France and England, from the 13th to the 15th centuries. They were forced to either live in ghettoes as in Venice and Germany, in eastern Europe or the Muslim world. Over the course of the following centuries, eastern Europe, especially Russia and Poland, became intensely anti-Semitic, and much of the anti-Semitism was channeled through the official Russian Orthodox Church. Rape and killing were part of this history, as was official state oppression. Czar Nicholas, for instance, mandated that all Jewish males serve in the army from childhood until age 42. This was meant to be genocidal.
As a result, many eastern European Jews are fearful of Christianity. However, they do not understand that the Protestant Reformation was accompanied by an intensification of interest in and warmth toward Jews. The Cromwellian Revolution was accompanied by England's reopening to Jews. This was also associated with the growth of commerce due to the same historical process. Likewise, at least some of the Puritan thinkers in America were openly Zionist and philo-Semitic. Following the Revolutionary War, Jews were always permitted freedom of religion in the US, with a couple of stark exceptions, such as an edict by General Ulysses S. Grant. Progressivism integrated elements of Populism, which was often anti-urban and anti-Semitic, and was accompanied by a reaffirmation of feudal values that included anti-Semitism. Hence, there was more anti-Semitism beginning in the late nineteenth century through 1950 then there had been previously. However, many Jews, such as Walter Weyl and Walter Lippmann, were prominent in the Progressive movement, and the older, laissez-faire Mugwump movement as well.
When eastern European Jews arrived here between 1880 and 1925 they carried the fear of anti-Semitism with them. This was accompanied by the fact that America, in the throes of Popuulist nativism and Progressivism, was susceptible to various anti-Semitic movements, to include that of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin.
Despite the history of tension that eastern European Jews feel toward Christians, largely because the Russian Orthodox church was virulently anti-Semitic, the Whigs in England and the Calvinist faith to which they adhered, and their American offspring, the Puritans, were often philo-Semitic. Palin's church, Assembly of God, descends from the Puritan heritage. Many of the Puritan religionists of the 18th and 19th century were Zionists.
Christianity is a proselytizing religion that is historically a Jewish sect. The imagery of the New Testament is rooted and imbued with the old. A knowledgeable Christian cannot hate Jews. However, they naturally aim to convert Jews, which is not the same thing.
I would add that Jews need to be aware of their own prejudices. Calling someone anti-Semitic merely because they belong to a Protestant Church in itself may constitute bias. As well, America is very much a Christian country. To understand America a deep understanding of Jonathan Edwards, the Great Awakening, the Church in America and the philosophy of tolerance rooted in the Cromwellian Revolution of 1648 is absolutely essential. Jews should be aware that the tolerance of America is an Anglo-exception to the intolerance of socialist Europe. In contrast to Europe, where Jews were repeatedly murdered and oppressed by feudalistic then socialist and national socialist regimes, America, precisely because of its Protestant basis, has accepted and honored Jews. Jews should be aware of this virtue. I do think that there is much anti-Christian bias among liberal Jews, which is as much a form of bigotry as anti-Semitism.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Barack Obama for Vice President
I have figured out a way to rescue the Democratic presidential run. Ever since Sarah Palin's nomination was announced, the media has made much of comparing her experience with Mr. Obama's. "She's too inexperienced" complain media pundits, for Governor Palin has two years of executive experience while Senator Obama has none. The comparisons are catching like a California brush fire. Some have suggested that Joe Biden step down and allow Hillary Clinton to replace him as the vice presidential nominee in order to capture the women's vote. At this point, reports Texas Darlin, despite advice to focus on Senator McCain, the Obama team can't stop going after Sarah Palin.
Given the repeated comparisons between Governor Palin and Senator Obama, Senator Biden should step down and Senator Obama should accept the vice presidential nod in place of his current presidential claim. Senator Clinton, who is more appropriately experienced for the nomination could then replace Senator Obama as the presidential nominee.
In that way the Democrats could recapture the women's vote and have an experienced candidate.
Given the repeated comparisons between Governor Palin and Senator Obama, Senator Biden should step down and Senator Obama should accept the vice presidential nod in place of his current presidential claim. Senator Clinton, who is more appropriately experienced for the nomination could then replace Senator Obama as the presidential nominee.
In that way the Democrats could recapture the women's vote and have an experienced candidate.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Barack Obama Isn't for Change Any More
Texas Darlin (h/t Bob Robbins) has an excellent post on the new John McCain ad on Youtube:
In an interview with Palin on ABC which is full of the pecks and nips that ornithoid Obama supporter Charles Gibson cannot resist making before he flies south, Palin states that she would "reduce taxes, control spending and reform the oversight committees that review spending."
The difference between Palin and Obama, based on that brief interview, is this. Palin does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy but has the right instincts. Obama does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy either, and has the wrong instincts. It is difficult to grasp how anyone could have taken Senator Obama's "change" slogan seriously earlier this year. The media's credulity has done serious damage do an institution with wings already clipped.
I previously have expressed concern that Senator Obama is a sociopath. Texas Darlin carries this theme forward:
>"But McCain’s commercial merely skirts the surface of the Obamas’ disrespect for the precious American ideals of patriotism and public service. In truth, “disrespect” defines the Obamas’ life credo. We witnessed this most profoundly when Rev. Jeremiah “God-Damn-America” Wright was introduced to us as their 20-year friend, mentor, spiritual advisor, and pastor. And of course there have been other indicators (forfeited flag pin, Michelle’s admission that she’s lacked pride in her country, the couples’ longstanding friendships with anti-American terrorists, etc.)."
Texas Darlin quotes the No Quarter blog's discussion of Ms. Obama's indifference to 9/11:
"While spectators viewed Cindy McCain, John McCain and Barack Obama commemorating the lives lost during the tragic day that was September 11, 2001, on their television screens, the eyes of readers of the printed media in Ohio scanned a report on Michelle Obama’s crass and debased identity politics at a largely African-American religious conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. Did the aspiring First Lady leave the children at home, or did she decide that they can endure that particular day of their first week of school without her?"
In an interview with Palin on ABC which is full of the pecks and nips that ornithoid Obama supporter Charles Gibson cannot resist making before he flies south, Palin states that she would "reduce taxes, control spending and reform the oversight committees that review spending."
The difference between Palin and Obama, based on that brief interview, is this. Palin does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy but has the right instincts. Obama does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy either, and has the wrong instincts. It is difficult to grasp how anyone could have taken Senator Obama's "change" slogan seriously earlier this year. The media's credulity has done serious damage do an institution with wings already clipped.
I previously have expressed concern that Senator Obama is a sociopath. Texas Darlin carries this theme forward:
>"But McCain’s commercial merely skirts the surface of the Obamas’ disrespect for the precious American ideals of patriotism and public service. In truth, “disrespect” defines the Obamas’ life credo. We witnessed this most profoundly when Rev. Jeremiah “God-Damn-America” Wright was introduced to us as their 20-year friend, mentor, spiritual advisor, and pastor. And of course there have been other indicators (forfeited flag pin, Michelle’s admission that she’s lacked pride in her country, the couples’ longstanding friendships with anti-American terrorists, etc.)."
Texas Darlin quotes the No Quarter blog's discussion of Ms. Obama's indifference to 9/11:
"While spectators viewed Cindy McCain, John McCain and Barack Obama commemorating the lives lost during the tragic day that was September 11, 2001, on their television screens, the eyes of readers of the printed media in Ohio scanned a report on Michelle Obama’s crass and debased identity politics at a largely African-American religious conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. Did the aspiring First Lady leave the children at home, or did she decide that they can endure that particular day of their first week of school without her?"
Smears Debunked: The Truth About Gov. Sarah Palin
I received the following e-mail from Norma Segal this past Wednesday:
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin supporting Pat Buchanan for President Facts: Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, not George W. Bush for Pat Buchanan.
While Mayor of Wasilla, AK, Gov. Palin had a policy that if a candidate came to her city, she would wear that button on the day they were there. Pat Buchanan came to Wasilla so the day he came, she wore a button. On July 26, 1999, then-Mayor Palin wrote the Anchorage Daily News to clarify the record because a wire service story the paper had published nine days before "may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing" Buchanan because she had welcomed his visit to her town. "As mayor," she explained, "I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla." (Anchorage Daily News, 7/26/99)
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin endorsing the views of a Jews for Jesus speaker that spoke once in her church.
Facts: Gov. Palin did not know this speaker would be at her church and emphatically rejects his views.
This is based on concerns about a sermon presented last month at the church she usually attends. The Jewish news agency JTA investigated and reported that 1) Palin would have had no way of knowing that this person would be speaking at church that day, 2) Palin rejects the Christian speaker's offensive views, and 3) Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has seen "no evidence" that she shares those views. (JTA, 9/3/08)
Also, this speaker spoke once at Palin's church. Democrats should be cautious when their candidate, Barack Obama, embraced an anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who was both a personal friend and mentor for 20 years. Democrats are absolutely attempting to smear Gov. Palin with distorted facts. Democrats are doing a disservice to themselves if they think with one or two distorted facts that they can fool the Jewish community.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin censoring library books.
Facts: The Anchorage Daily News found that then-Mayor Palin never proposed to ban a single book. (Anchorage Daily News, 9/4/08) All other rumors and innuendo on this topic are outright smears.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin seeking to have creationism taught in public schools.
Facts: Gov. Palin took no action to add creationism to the state's curriculum throughout her term in office.
The Associated Press investigated and found that Gov. Palin "kept her campaign pledge not to "push the State Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum or look for creationism activists when she appointed members." The AP also quoted a political observer in the state who observed, "She has basically ignored social issues period." (Associated Press, 9/3/08)
The RJC is determined to set the record straight in the face of frenzied attacks on Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain. Please let us know if you hear about a smear that needs to be addressed.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin supporting Pat Buchanan for President Facts: Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, not George W. Bush for Pat Buchanan.
While Mayor of Wasilla, AK, Gov. Palin had a policy that if a candidate came to her city, she would wear that button on the day they were there. Pat Buchanan came to Wasilla so the day he came, she wore a button. On July 26, 1999, then-Mayor Palin wrote the Anchorage Daily News to clarify the record because a wire service story the paper had published nine days before "may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing" Buchanan because she had welcomed his visit to her town. "As mayor," she explained, "I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla." (Anchorage Daily News, 7/26/99)
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin endorsing the views of a Jews for Jesus speaker that spoke once in her church.
Facts: Gov. Palin did not know this speaker would be at her church and emphatically rejects his views.
This is based on concerns about a sermon presented last month at the church she usually attends. The Jewish news agency JTA investigated and reported that 1) Palin would have had no way of knowing that this person would be speaking at church that day, 2) Palin rejects the Christian speaker's offensive views, and 3) Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has seen "no evidence" that she shares those views. (JTA, 9/3/08)
Also, this speaker spoke once at Palin's church. Democrats should be cautious when their candidate, Barack Obama, embraced an anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who was both a personal friend and mentor for 20 years. Democrats are absolutely attempting to smear Gov. Palin with distorted facts. Democrats are doing a disservice to themselves if they think with one or two distorted facts that they can fool the Jewish community.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin censoring library books.
Facts: The Anchorage Daily News found that then-Mayor Palin never proposed to ban a single book. (Anchorage Daily News, 9/4/08) All other rumors and innuendo on this topic are outright smears.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin seeking to have creationism taught in public schools.
Facts: Gov. Palin took no action to add creationism to the state's curriculum throughout her term in office.
The Associated Press investigated and found that Gov. Palin "kept her campaign pledge not to "push the State Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum or look for creationism activists when she appointed members." The AP also quoted a political observer in the state who observed, "She has basically ignored social issues period." (Associated Press, 9/3/08)
The RJC is determined to set the record straight in the face of frenzied attacks on Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain. Please let us know if you hear about a smear that needs to be addressed.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Barack Obama Becoming Irrelevant
Sarah Palin has stolen the show. Conservatives have something to be glad about, because she is now a contender for president in 2012. As well, Mr. Obama's odd package of re-heated Progressivism, whimsical recital of the word "change" and lies from the Chicago stock yards, celebrated by cud chewing media bovines, has become irrelevant. This is turning into an election between McCain/Palin and Bob Barr.
Contrairimairi On Obamastick
Mitchell,
I believe the "MSM" (ooooooh how I HATE that acronym!) has missed the boat on the "lipstick on a pig" statement from BO. He did use the phrase appropriately, but if you watch his "body language" as he begins, you can see he seems clearly distressed over what is coming. The comment was being used to garner the exact reaction that it got, if you ask me. He KNEW the audience would take it for something other than the familiar phrase, and their reaction shows they DID. It was immediately perceived as a response to Sarah Palin, and the laughter and applause were the "knee-jerk" reaction, I believe, the use was meant to evoke. Technically, he did use the phrase to compare Bush and McCain's policies, but the "intent" to smear, I believe, was what he was going for, and subsequently GOT!
He can "say" that he was not referring to Sarah Palin as a "pig", and technically he would be correct, but he took this just one step too far! KNOWING that everyone present would be familiar with her speech line, I truly believe he deliberately, if hesitantly, used the line to smear her. I'll bet, as he rubbed his head, he was PRAYING his argument would be strong enough for the line not to backfire.........WRONG! Women SHOULD be furious over his repeated demeaning of all women by demeaning Hillary and Sarah.
I was particularly worried by Joe Biden's words, however, when he stated how capable and experienced Hillary was, and how she would have made a GREAT VP pick. Are we about to see BO's next "flip-flop"? Will he dump Biden and choose Hillary? Afterall, for BO, second place is NOT good enough. All that really matters to him is gaining the Presidency. I believe he will do anything he deems necessary to make sure that happens. Wouldn't it be a riot if he had already asked Hillary before she agreed to head to Florida for him? Wouldn't it be a bigger riot if she told him where to stuff his VP position????? LOL!
Any thoughts?
Mairi
My response:
I agree with you completely and am posting your message on my blog as the official position of "Mitchell Langbert's Blog"! BO got away with seeming like a saintly angel of "change" during the primary, but now that he is getting fair scrutiny from Fox and people like you his true nature is being clarified. I sensed that he is a rotten apple back in June when I called him a "sociopath". I stand by that characterization as a good approximation. He is certainly crude and aggressive beneath that charming exterior.
We will see about the Hillary for VP picture. I wonder if she would really reject it given how power hunger she is. But it's certainly possible, and perhaps likely. It's going to be interesting!
I believe the "MSM" (ooooooh how I HATE that acronym!) has missed the boat on the "lipstick on a pig" statement from BO. He did use the phrase appropriately, but if you watch his "body language" as he begins, you can see he seems clearly distressed over what is coming. The comment was being used to garner the exact reaction that it got, if you ask me. He KNEW the audience would take it for something other than the familiar phrase, and their reaction shows they DID. It was immediately perceived as a response to Sarah Palin, and the laughter and applause were the "knee-jerk" reaction, I believe, the use was meant to evoke. Technically, he did use the phrase to compare Bush and McCain's policies, but the "intent" to smear, I believe, was what he was going for, and subsequently GOT!
He can "say" that he was not referring to Sarah Palin as a "pig", and technically he would be correct, but he took this just one step too far! KNOWING that everyone present would be familiar with her speech line, I truly believe he deliberately, if hesitantly, used the line to smear her. I'll bet, as he rubbed his head, he was PRAYING his argument would be strong enough for the line not to backfire.........WRONG! Women SHOULD be furious over his repeated demeaning of all women by demeaning Hillary and Sarah.
I was particularly worried by Joe Biden's words, however, when he stated how capable and experienced Hillary was, and how she would have made a GREAT VP pick. Are we about to see BO's next "flip-flop"? Will he dump Biden and choose Hillary? Afterall, for BO, second place is NOT good enough. All that really matters to him is gaining the Presidency. I believe he will do anything he deems necessary to make sure that happens. Wouldn't it be a riot if he had already asked Hillary before she agreed to head to Florida for him? Wouldn't it be a bigger riot if she told him where to stuff his VP position????? LOL!
Any thoughts?
Mairi
My response:
I agree with you completely and am posting your message on my blog as the official position of "Mitchell Langbert's Blog"! BO got away with seeming like a saintly angel of "change" during the primary, but now that he is getting fair scrutiny from Fox and people like you his true nature is being clarified. I sensed that he is a rotten apple back in June when I called him a "sociopath". I stand by that characterization as a good approximation. He is certainly crude and aggressive beneath that charming exterior.
We will see about the Hillary for VP picture. I wonder if she would really reject it given how power hunger she is. But it's certainly possible, and perhaps likely. It's going to be interesting!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Similarities Between President Grover Cleveland and Sarah Palin
In 1884 Democrat Grover Cleveland defeated Republican James G. Blaine. Cleveland was what was then called a "Bourbon" Democrat, a laissez-faire liberal who favored low taxes, the gold standard, de-regulation and low tariffs. He represented honesty in government, like Sarah Palin. The elite New York and Boston Republicans, known as Mugwumps, backed Democrat Cleveland over Blaine. They were called Mugwumps because they were early "professionals" of the same kind that flowered in the twentieth century--professors, lawyers and physicians as well as businessmen. Some were independently wealthy. "Mugwump" means "Chief" in a Native American dialect, I believe Algonquin.
Here are some similarities between Grover Cleveland and Sarah Palin:
o Cleveland was governor of New York for two years before becoming president. Palin will have been governor of Alaska for two years before she swears in as vice-president.
o Cleveland was Mayor of Buffalo for less than a year before being governor. Palin was Mayor of Wasilla for four years before becoming governor.
o In 1873 Cleveland had an affair with 35-year old Maria Halpin and she bore Cleveland's son, Oscar Folsom Cleveland, out of wedlock. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, is currently pregnant out of wedlock
o Grover Cleveland's opponent, James G. Blaine, was accused of lying about his relationship with the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad and the Northern Pacific Railroad. Barack Obama has been accused of lying about his background, in his book, about his birth certificate and about his relationship to George Soros.
o Grover Cleveland favored lower taxes and less regulation. Sarah Palin favors lower taxes and less regulation.
o Grover Cleveland attracted bolters from the Republican Party (the Mugwumps) who believed that Blaine was corrupt. Palin is attracting bolters from the Democratic Party who believe that Palin best represents women and that her opponents are corrupt.
President Grover Cleveland was the last true laissez-faire liberal to be elected to the presidency. During his presidency, the average real wage increased by 10-20%. Big business and the left complained incessantly about "depression" but millions of immigrants flocked here to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that laissez-faire offered the poor.
Here are some similarities between Grover Cleveland and Sarah Palin:
o Cleveland was governor of New York for two years before becoming president. Palin will have been governor of Alaska for two years before she swears in as vice-president.
o Cleveland was Mayor of Buffalo for less than a year before being governor. Palin was Mayor of Wasilla for four years before becoming governor.
o In 1873 Cleveland had an affair with 35-year old Maria Halpin and she bore Cleveland's son, Oscar Folsom Cleveland, out of wedlock. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, is currently pregnant out of wedlock
o Grover Cleveland's opponent, James G. Blaine, was accused of lying about his relationship with the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad and the Northern Pacific Railroad. Barack Obama has been accused of lying about his background, in his book, about his birth certificate and about his relationship to George Soros.
o Grover Cleveland favored lower taxes and less regulation. Sarah Palin favors lower taxes and less regulation.
o Grover Cleveland attracted bolters from the Republican Party (the Mugwumps) who believed that Blaine was corrupt. Palin is attracting bolters from the Democratic Party who believe that Palin best represents women and that her opponents are corrupt.
President Grover Cleveland was the last true laissez-faire liberal to be elected to the presidency. During his presidency, the average real wage increased by 10-20%. Big business and the left complained incessantly about "depression" but millions of immigrants flocked here to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that laissez-faire offered the poor.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Jim on Sarah Palin
>Mitchell:
If Sara Palin succeeds, everything the left has worked for will evaporate. If she performs well on the road, and has one good debate, Obama is done.
The left is completely apoplectic right now. They are in big trouble, right now. They have no answers, anywhere. The established media and the 527’s are the only players really left to do damage, so they will pick up the mud and start slinging. This plays to Obama’s roots, so get ready to see the long knives.
I understand that they want to “trooper gate” her a few days before the election. Good luck! The idiot trooper was tazering a 12 year old and threatening to kill the family. You’ll win no votes trying to pursue wrongful dismissal or abuse of office on that one. It will backfire-badly.
Palin is not perfect, and that is her appeal. She is real, not contrived. She is human, but chooses to work through the problems than just blame or give up.
I have followed politics for 22 years, and I have never seen a VP speech like hers.
My reply:
Hear, hear.
If Sara Palin succeeds, everything the left has worked for will evaporate. If she performs well on the road, and has one good debate, Obama is done.
The left is completely apoplectic right now. They are in big trouble, right now. They have no answers, anywhere. The established media and the 527’s are the only players really left to do damage, so they will pick up the mud and start slinging. This plays to Obama’s roots, so get ready to see the long knives.
I understand that they want to “trooper gate” her a few days before the election. Good luck! The idiot trooper was tazering a 12 year old and threatening to kill the family. You’ll win no votes trying to pursue wrongful dismissal or abuse of office on that one. It will backfire-badly.
Palin is not perfect, and that is her appeal. She is real, not contrived. She is human, but chooses to work through the problems than just blame or give up.
I have followed politics for 22 years, and I have never seen a VP speech like hers.
My reply:
Hear, hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
