Thursday, October 3, 2013
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Monday, September 30, 2013
Friday, August 10, 2012
Friday, January 15, 2010
YOUTH WASTED ON THE YOUNG
FRONTPAGEMAG.ORG
Geert Wilders (a good Dutchman like me) is absolutely right in his warnings.
"I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university," said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. "It's hate speech disguised as free speech." Idiot.
Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. "I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it," he said. Intelligent.
Terrorism Awareness Project
Home News Multimedia Links TAP YouTube Channel About
Anti-Islamic Dutch Lawmaker Event at University Cut Short as Crowd Turns Nasty
"Where Islam sets roots, freedom dies," Geert Wilders told the students during his 30-minute address organized by a new student group called Temple University Purpose and funded by the California-based David Horowitz Freedom Center, a foundation that promotes conservative scholarship.
His remarks were met by a mixture of applause and boos, and occasionally gasps — particularly when he stated that "our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture and we should defend it."
He decried as a "disgrace" a resolution co-sponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, and backed by the U.N. Human Rights Council earlier this month, deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right. Wilders also criticized President Barack Obama for his efforts to extend a hand to the Islamic world, saying that such appeasement marks "the beginning of the end."
If the spread of Islam continues unabated in the Western world, "you might at the end of the day lose your Constitution," he told the assembly. "Wake up, defend your freedom."
He also touched on common themes in his speeches, including calling for an end to Muslim immigrationand referring to the Muslim holy book, the Quran, as "an evil book" that promotes violence and intolerance.
A question-and-answer session was cut short after the tone of the event began to turn nasty, when some in the crowd of several hundred students began shouting jeers. Wilders' security detail quickly ushered him from the room.
"In order to improve our understanding of others, we need to learn," said Alvaro Watson of Purpose, the student group. "We can't fight for something if we only know one side."
Before his remarks at Temple, a public university serving about 34,000 students, Wilders showed his 15-minute anti-Islam film, "Fitna," which juxtaposes passages from the suras, or chapters, of the Quran with images of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, beheadings, shootings and speeches from clerics advocating violence against non-Muslims.
"I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university," said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. "It's hate speech disguised as free speech."
Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. "I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it," he said.
Temple officials issued a statement saying the university "is a community of scholars in which freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression are valued."
"We respect the right of our student organizations to invite people who express a wide variety of views and ideas," the school said in a statement.
British officials once banned Wilders from visiting for fear it would spark violence. He successfully sued the government and visited Friday.
Wilders is scheduled to speak at Columbia University in New York on Wednesday.
* About
* Links
* Events
* Contact/About Us
* Store
* Support Us
© 2007 Terrorism Awareness Project All Rights Reserved.
5,513,520 unique visitors since January 31, 2007
Geert Wilders (a good Dutchman like me) is absolutely right in his warnings.
"I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university," said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. "It's hate speech disguised as free speech." Idiot.
Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. "I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it," he said. Intelligent.
Terrorism Awareness Project
Home News Multimedia Links TAP YouTube Channel About
Anti-Islamic Dutch Lawmaker Event at University Cut Short as Crowd Turns Nasty
"Where Islam sets roots, freedom dies," Geert Wilders told the students during his 30-minute address organized by a new student group called Temple University Purpose and funded by the California-based David Horowitz Freedom Center, a foundation that promotes conservative scholarship.
His remarks were met by a mixture of applause and boos, and occasionally gasps — particularly when he stated that "our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture and we should defend it."
He decried as a "disgrace" a resolution co-sponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, and backed by the U.N. Human Rights Council earlier this month, deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right. Wilders also criticized President Barack Obama for his efforts to extend a hand to the Islamic world, saying that such appeasement marks "the beginning of the end."
If the spread of Islam continues unabated in the Western world, "you might at the end of the day lose your Constitution," he told the assembly. "Wake up, defend your freedom."
He also touched on common themes in his speeches, including calling for an end to Muslim immigrationand referring to the Muslim holy book, the Quran, as "an evil book" that promotes violence and intolerance.
A question-and-answer session was cut short after the tone of the event began to turn nasty, when some in the crowd of several hundred students began shouting jeers. Wilders' security detail quickly ushered him from the room.
"In order to improve our understanding of others, we need to learn," said Alvaro Watson of Purpose, the student group. "We can't fight for something if we only know one side."
Before his remarks at Temple, a public university serving about 34,000 students, Wilders showed his 15-minute anti-Islam film, "Fitna," which juxtaposes passages from the suras, or chapters, of the Quran with images of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, beheadings, shootings and speeches from clerics advocating violence against non-Muslims.
"I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university," said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. "It's hate speech disguised as free speech."
Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. "I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it," he said.
Temple officials issued a statement saying the university "is a community of scholars in which freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression are valued."
"We respect the right of our student organizations to invite people who express a wide variety of views and ideas," the school said in a statement.
British officials once banned Wilders from visiting for fear it would spark violence. He successfully sued the government and visited Friday.
Wilders is scheduled to speak at Columbia University in New York on Wednesday.
* About
* Links
* Events
* Contact/About Us
* Store
* Support Us
© 2007 Terrorism Awareness Project All Rights Reserved.
5,513,520 unique visitors since January 31, 2007
Friday, December 12, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
BLACK IS FOR MOURNING--NOT RACISM
Mourning In America
Mike Gallagher
Friday, November 07, 2008
Just how strange has this week been?
Real strange.
Thursday morning, I appeared on Fox & Friends, the morning talk show on Fox News Channel. I was to “debate” Lanny Davis, the longtime Clinton loyalist.
Obviously, the show wanted a reaction to this week's election from a liberal like Lanny and a conservative like me. I thought I'd have some fun and at the last minute, affixed black duct tape to my right arm.
The way the week turned out for the GOP, I figured wearing a black armband on TV would be pretty appropriate.
Poor Lanny didn't seem to get the joke. “It's pretty silly to be listening to someone give advice to the incoming Obama administration while wearing a black armband”, he sputtered.
Liberals never seem to have much of a sense of humor, even in victory.
Besides, Lanny, I wasn't giving any advice, I was just expressing an opinion. Unless you guys get your wish and the return of the Fairness Doctrine knocks people like me off the airwaves for good, I think I'm still allowed to express some views, aren't I? But things really took a turn when I got to my radio studio office after the TV appearance and found a bunch of angry emails waiting for me.
The nature of the complaints? That I was a racist because I wore a BLACK armband as a way to express my dissatisfaction with the election.
I'm not kidding.
Here's a sample:
“Gallagher, you racist pig. How dare you wear a black armband on Fox? Do you not know what that means to black people? I'm glad your bigertery (sic) is finally on display for the world to see.
Cedric
Houston, TX”
And another: “I'm a little surprised you didn't wear a white hood on TV this morning, Gallager (sic). You are a big, fat, racist m***** *****r who needs to have his butt whipped.
Tonya
Los Angeles”
And one more gem:
“Watching you wear a black armband, which everyone knows insults black people, made me immediately wish for your painful death. I'd like to think that will happen, but it probably won't. I'm a pessimist by nature.
Bill L.
Orlando”
Wow. And I thought Lanny Davis was grumpy.
These angry people even motivated me to try and Google references to black armbands somehow being offensive to Black people.
All I found was precisely what I thought, that it's a symbol of mourning, a sign of grieving or sadness. Nothing at all about race.
Then again, there are people who manage to find racial turmoil everywhere they turn.
The great Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution wrote a terrific piece after the election about how President-elect Obama managed to tap into the stigma that many White Americans feel about race. He opined that many people have been looking for something -- anything -- to relieve the burden felt by years of being blamed for racism.
What better solution than to elect a Black man president?
Naturally, race played a significant factor in this year's election. Finally, there is an answer to the rhetorical question, “Is America able to elect a Black president?”
And I expect that there is a pretty simple response to those who wonder if we can finally retire the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world and move beyond arguing about race relations incessantly.
Yes we can.
And we should.
Over and over, we were told that a vote for Barack Obama would be a way to “pay the debt” owed to millions of Black people. We would right the wrongs of the past; we would show the world how progressive we are.
I trust the debt has been paid.
Personally, I've always longed for the day when a Black person would be elected president.
Just not this Black person.
But by six percentage points, Americans elected Sen. Obama. Those of us who are the loyal opposition know that now, the battle begins.
We will do everything we can to encourage the Republican Party to rebuild itself. As Sen. Jim Demint (R, SC) told me, we need to find GOP leaders who are willing to adhere to the Reagan-era values that made many of us become Republicans in the first place.
We will challenge every crazy and wrong-headed move the Democrats come up with; we will follow the D.C. leaders closely and be sure to alert our readers, listeners and viewers to every misstep, every blunder, each and every attempt to run this country into the ground.
But for now, we will simply congratulate the other side for their victory. Sure, the mainstream media helped make it happen.
And of course the deck was stacked against Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. But there's no sense crying in our soup. Come inauguration day, we just need to be prepared to take on the Democrat establishment.
As many parents have taught their children: never start a fight, but be sure to finish it. We shall do our best.
Just how strange has this week been?
Check this out: a listener to my radio show emailed me and claimed that the day after the election, the Illinois Lottery featured a creepy winning number and that I should check it out.
Sure enough, I confirmed the bizarre claim. On the day after the election, in the Evening Pick Three lottery drawing in Obama's home state of Illinois, the winning number was 666.
Don't believe me? See for yourself. www.IllinoisLottery.com Click on the “numbers/ jackpots” tab and look up Nov. 5, 2008.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence. I certainly don't believe those who fear that Obama is the actual anti-Christ.
Then again, what are the odds of the mark of the beast being Illinois' winning lottery number the day after the election?
I think I'll go back to wearing my armband. For a long, long time...
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Mike Gallagher
Friday, November 07, 2008
Just how strange has this week been?
Real strange.
Thursday morning, I appeared on Fox & Friends, the morning talk show on Fox News Channel. I was to “debate” Lanny Davis, the longtime Clinton loyalist.
Obviously, the show wanted a reaction to this week's election from a liberal like Lanny and a conservative like me. I thought I'd have some fun and at the last minute, affixed black duct tape to my right arm.
The way the week turned out for the GOP, I figured wearing a black armband on TV would be pretty appropriate.
Poor Lanny didn't seem to get the joke. “It's pretty silly to be listening to someone give advice to the incoming Obama administration while wearing a black armband”, he sputtered.
Liberals never seem to have much of a sense of humor, even in victory.
Besides, Lanny, I wasn't giving any advice, I was just expressing an opinion. Unless you guys get your wish and the return of the Fairness Doctrine knocks people like me off the airwaves for good, I think I'm still allowed to express some views, aren't I? But things really took a turn when I got to my radio studio office after the TV appearance and found a bunch of angry emails waiting for me.
The nature of the complaints? That I was a racist because I wore a BLACK armband as a way to express my dissatisfaction with the election.
I'm not kidding.
Here's a sample:
“Gallagher, you racist pig. How dare you wear a black armband on Fox? Do you not know what that means to black people? I'm glad your bigertery (sic) is finally on display for the world to see.
Cedric
Houston, TX”
And another: “I'm a little surprised you didn't wear a white hood on TV this morning, Gallager (sic). You are a big, fat, racist m***** *****r who needs to have his butt whipped.
Tonya
Los Angeles”
And one more gem:
“Watching you wear a black armband, which everyone knows insults black people, made me immediately wish for your painful death. I'd like to think that will happen, but it probably won't. I'm a pessimist by nature.
Bill L.
Orlando”
Wow. And I thought Lanny Davis was grumpy.
These angry people even motivated me to try and Google references to black armbands somehow being offensive to Black people.
All I found was precisely what I thought, that it's a symbol of mourning, a sign of grieving or sadness. Nothing at all about race.
Then again, there are people who manage to find racial turmoil everywhere they turn.
The great Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution wrote a terrific piece after the election about how President-elect Obama managed to tap into the stigma that many White Americans feel about race. He opined that many people have been looking for something -- anything -- to relieve the burden felt by years of being blamed for racism.
What better solution than to elect a Black man president?
Naturally, race played a significant factor in this year's election. Finally, there is an answer to the rhetorical question, “Is America able to elect a Black president?”
And I expect that there is a pretty simple response to those who wonder if we can finally retire the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world and move beyond arguing about race relations incessantly.
Yes we can.
And we should.
Over and over, we were told that a vote for Barack Obama would be a way to “pay the debt” owed to millions of Black people. We would right the wrongs of the past; we would show the world how progressive we are.
I trust the debt has been paid.
Personally, I've always longed for the day when a Black person would be elected president.
Just not this Black person.
But by six percentage points, Americans elected Sen. Obama. Those of us who are the loyal opposition know that now, the battle begins.
We will do everything we can to encourage the Republican Party to rebuild itself. As Sen. Jim Demint (R, SC) told me, we need to find GOP leaders who are willing to adhere to the Reagan-era values that made many of us become Republicans in the first place.
We will challenge every crazy and wrong-headed move the Democrats come up with; we will follow the D.C. leaders closely and be sure to alert our readers, listeners and viewers to every misstep, every blunder, each and every attempt to run this country into the ground.
But for now, we will simply congratulate the other side for their victory. Sure, the mainstream media helped make it happen.
And of course the deck was stacked against Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. But there's no sense crying in our soup. Come inauguration day, we just need to be prepared to take on the Democrat establishment.
As many parents have taught their children: never start a fight, but be sure to finish it. We shall do our best.
Just how strange has this week been?
Check this out: a listener to my radio show emailed me and claimed that the day after the election, the Illinois Lottery featured a creepy winning number and that I should check it out.
Sure enough, I confirmed the bizarre claim. On the day after the election, in the Evening Pick Three lottery drawing in Obama's home state of Illinois, the winning number was 666.
Don't believe me? See for yourself. www.IllinoisLottery.com Click on the “numbers/ jackpots” tab and look up Nov. 5, 2008.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence. I certainly don't believe those who fear that Obama is the actual anti-Christ.
Then again, what are the odds of the mark of the beast being Illinois' winning lottery number the day after the election?
I think I'll go back to wearing my armband. For a long, long time...
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Views: What Do Guns Mean to Americans? The NRA vs. the Brady Campaign
Americans revere their Constitution but they can vehemently disagree on how to interpret specific passages. The 2nd Amendment is a prime example of how individual rights, self-defense, violence and American culture can produce such passion and divisiveness. The non-partisan Web site Opposing Views asked the NRA and the Brady Campaign what guns mean to Americans.
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Click here to read more debates on gun rights and gun control.
The Freedom to Protect Yourself, Your Family, and Your Community
By Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA executive director
America's 80 million gun owners could give 80 million answers to this question. To hunters, guns mean a day with family and friends, enjoying the beauty of the outdoors. To gun collectors, they provide a connection to the inventors, craftsmen, warriors and pioneers of days gone by. To competitive shooters, they provide an opportunity for self-mastery, through the discipline of training and the forge of competition.
Most important, though, is that guns provide an effective means of exercising the God-given, individual right of self-defense. To America's founders, that right was a hallmark of individual freedom in our new nation. Thomas Jefferson -- an avid gun collector and hunter -- said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms," and Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe."
While the founders were mainly concerned with "invaders and plunderers" of the political kind, the right is equally important in protecting individuals from the violent "invaders and plunderers" on our streets. In the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized this, declaring that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
Indeed, the most comprehensive study of gun use to date, by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found that Americans use guns for self-defense against crime more than two million times per year. Certainly today, with 40 states having adopted laws that allow honest citizens to carry handguns for protection outside the home, guns mean much of what they meant to our founders: the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your community.
We Must Make it Harder for Dangerous People to Get Dangerous Weapons
By Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
When I was 12, I earned an NRA Marksmanship badge at YMCA Camp. I enjoyed learning how to fire a gun at a target and worked at becoming better with practice. But I also took away a deep respect for how dangerous guns were.
Americans have a long history with guns. We used them to tame the frontier, and many Americans consider them important for hunting wildlife or managing pests. But Americans' views on guns often differ depending on where they live.
If you're in the bayous of Louisiana, or the plains of Montana, a gun can be your defense against predators. When the police are far away, you may feel strongly about needing a gun for self-defense. And if someone says we should restrict guns, you worry.
But in urban areas like Philadelphia or South Central Los Angeles or even my home town in Indiana, guns may be best known for injuring young people as a result of gang violence, or police officers at a traffic stop or domestic quarrel. But when you say "we need to controls the weapons available on the streets," other Americans misinterpret you as wanting to limit their rights.
This is why we've had a passionate debate about guns. Finding common ground may have been aided by the Supreme Court decision in June that Americans have a right to have a firearm in their home but that reasonable restrictions on gun access are also lawful.
Guns are always going to be available to law-abiding citizens. But we can take steps to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.
To read about other issues on Opposing Views, click here
Americans revere their Constitution but they can vehemently disagree on how to interpret specific passages. The 2nd Amendment is a prime example of how individual rights, self-defense, violence and American culture can produce such passion and divisiveness. The non-partisan Web site Opposing Views asked the NRA and the Brady Campaign what guns mean to Americans.
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Click here to read more debates on gun rights and gun control.
The Freedom to Protect Yourself, Your Family, and Your Community
By Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA executive director
America's 80 million gun owners could give 80 million answers to this question. To hunters, guns mean a day with family and friends, enjoying the beauty of the outdoors. To gun collectors, they provide a connection to the inventors, craftsmen, warriors and pioneers of days gone by. To competitive shooters, they provide an opportunity for self-mastery, through the discipline of training and the forge of competition.
Most important, though, is that guns provide an effective means of exercising the God-given, individual right of self-defense. To America's founders, that right was a hallmark of individual freedom in our new nation. Thomas Jefferson -- an avid gun collector and hunter -- said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms," and Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe."
While the founders were mainly concerned with "invaders and plunderers" of the political kind, the right is equally important in protecting individuals from the violent "invaders and plunderers" on our streets. In the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized this, declaring that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
Indeed, the most comprehensive study of gun use to date, by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found that Americans use guns for self-defense against crime more than two million times per year. Certainly today, with 40 states having adopted laws that allow honest citizens to carry handguns for protection outside the home, guns mean much of what they meant to our founders: the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your community.
We Must Make it Harder for Dangerous People to Get Dangerous Weapons
By Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
When I was 12, I earned an NRA Marksmanship badge at YMCA Camp. I enjoyed learning how to fire a gun at a target and worked at becoming better with practice. But I also took away a deep respect for how dangerous guns were.
Americans have a long history with guns. We used them to tame the frontier, and many Americans consider them important for hunting wildlife or managing pests. But Americans' views on guns often differ depending on where they live.
If you're in the bayous of Louisiana, or the plains of Montana, a gun can be your defense against predators. When the police are far away, you may feel strongly about needing a gun for self-defense. And if someone says we should restrict guns, you worry.
But in urban areas like Philadelphia or South Central Los Angeles or even my home town in Indiana, guns may be best known for injuring young people as a result of gang violence, or police officers at a traffic stop or domestic quarrel. But when you say "we need to controls the weapons available on the streets," other Americans misinterpret you as wanting to limit their rights.
This is why we've had a passionate debate about guns. Finding common ground may have been aided by the Supreme Court decision in June that Americans have a right to have a firearm in their home but that reasonable restrictions on gun access are also lawful.
Guns are always going to be available to law-abiding citizens. But we can take steps to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.
To read about other issues on Opposing Views, click here
Monday, October 13, 2008
HOW TRUE!
Intellectual Flyover Country
By Doug Patton
October 13, 2008
Columnist David Brooks is the sort of writer who passes for a conservative at The New York Times. In reality, he is an urbane, pseudo-erudite hack, as evidenced by his latest column.
Brooks contends that the reason conservatives are no longer winning elections is because we have eschewed intellectualism and promoted social class warfare, thereby "driving away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts." In the last two decades, according to Brooks, conservative politicians and "talk-radio jocks" have "divided the nation between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts."
Brooks also asserts that "George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party." That argument is absurd. It is precisely because of Bush's excesses, not the GOP's, that he has a 29 percent approval rating: excesses in spending, a nearly trillion-dollar bailout bill, and lax border security. Bush deserves credit for three accomplishments in eight years: modest tax relief, a pair of solid Supreme Court appointments and especially for seven years of terror-free life for the American people. After that, the list of his accomplishments goes downhill quickly.
Yet Brooks lists "anti-immigration fervor" and "isolationism" as the "excesses" from which Bush supposedly saved his party. Question: In what world does David Brooks live that he believes such things? Answer: The solipsistic echo-chamber of New York City.
Brooks criticizes John McCain for choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, as if that is the source of McCain's current problems. He seems to believe that Palin adds to the GOP's exclusion of the groups he thinks have been driven from the party. "Nobody," Brooks writes, "so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite."
But the most astounding part of Brooks' analysis is his statement that Republicans are guilty of alienating whole professions - lawyers, doctors, tech executives, even bankers - all of whom now donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.
As a lifelong resident of flyover country, I hardly know where to begin to refute Brooks' snobbery. So let's stop dancing around the subject. The reason these groups feel alienated from the Republican Party is that they are embarrassed by those of us who want to defend innocent human life and traditional marriage. They simply cannot believe that these issues are more important to us than a temporary drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
But their embarrassment goes much deeper than that. The gulf is primarily a spiritual one. Those of us who believe in fighting for the defense of life and - dare I say it? - for the preservation of normal, traditional, monogamous human sexual relationships do so out of a belief that someone much greater and wiser than we are, namely the Creator of the Universe, has said this is how we should live. This is not an arbitrary position we have taken in order to deny "reproductive rights" to women or "equal rights" to homosexuals. These are strongly held views given to believers by God, universal truths, if you will. No religious tradition in the world believes in killing babies or in homosexual marriage.
So let's be totally honest. George W. Bush has failed the Republican Party and, more importantly, the American people, in almost every regard. He has spent our money in a manner that would make a drunken sailor ashamed, grown the federal government at a faster rate than any president since FDR, colluded with Ted Kennedy and his ilk on education policy, and given us stimulus checks with the caveat to spend them on plasma TVs and IPhones, rather than existing debt (or the terrorists win). And he has spent eight years asleep at the wheel on illegal immigration.
The Republican Party has not rejected intellectualism. The definition of the word has been hijacked by the William Ayer' and the Ward Churchill's of the world, with their pithy rejoinders that 9/11 victims were "little Eichmanns." One need only read Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or Christopher Buckley to know that conservative intellectualism is alive and well.
What sets conservatives, and by extension the GOP, apart is that we have always encouraged vigorous debate and the civil discourse necessary for the continuation of this American experiment. It is the foundation of our republic and the catalyst to our best ideas. But we succeed in our intellectual pursuits only because they stand firmly on the solid rock of our morality, our spirituality and our admission of and submission to the God that grants our souls the right to breathe. The sinking sand of liberal dogma will never be a suitable substitute.
---
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
By Doug Patton
October 13, 2008
Columnist David Brooks is the sort of writer who passes for a conservative at The New York Times. In reality, he is an urbane, pseudo-erudite hack, as evidenced by his latest column.
Brooks contends that the reason conservatives are no longer winning elections is because we have eschewed intellectualism and promoted social class warfare, thereby "driving away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts." In the last two decades, according to Brooks, conservative politicians and "talk-radio jocks" have "divided the nation between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts."
Brooks also asserts that "George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party." That argument is absurd. It is precisely because of Bush's excesses, not the GOP's, that he has a 29 percent approval rating: excesses in spending, a nearly trillion-dollar bailout bill, and lax border security. Bush deserves credit for three accomplishments in eight years: modest tax relief, a pair of solid Supreme Court appointments and especially for seven years of terror-free life for the American people. After that, the list of his accomplishments goes downhill quickly.
Yet Brooks lists "anti-immigration fervor" and "isolationism" as the "excesses" from which Bush supposedly saved his party. Question: In what world does David Brooks live that he believes such things? Answer: The solipsistic echo-chamber of New York City.
Brooks criticizes John McCain for choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, as if that is the source of McCain's current problems. He seems to believe that Palin adds to the GOP's exclusion of the groups he thinks have been driven from the party. "Nobody," Brooks writes, "so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite."
But the most astounding part of Brooks' analysis is his statement that Republicans are guilty of alienating whole professions - lawyers, doctors, tech executives, even bankers - all of whom now donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.
As a lifelong resident of flyover country, I hardly know where to begin to refute Brooks' snobbery. So let's stop dancing around the subject. The reason these groups feel alienated from the Republican Party is that they are embarrassed by those of us who want to defend innocent human life and traditional marriage. They simply cannot believe that these issues are more important to us than a temporary drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
But their embarrassment goes much deeper than that. The gulf is primarily a spiritual one. Those of us who believe in fighting for the defense of life and - dare I say it? - for the preservation of normal, traditional, monogamous human sexual relationships do so out of a belief that someone much greater and wiser than we are, namely the Creator of the Universe, has said this is how we should live. This is not an arbitrary position we have taken in order to deny "reproductive rights" to women or "equal rights" to homosexuals. These are strongly held views given to believers by God, universal truths, if you will. No religious tradition in the world believes in killing babies or in homosexual marriage.
So let's be totally honest. George W. Bush has failed the Republican Party and, more importantly, the American people, in almost every regard. He has spent our money in a manner that would make a drunken sailor ashamed, grown the federal government at a faster rate than any president since FDR, colluded with Ted Kennedy and his ilk on education policy, and given us stimulus checks with the caveat to spend them on plasma TVs and IPhones, rather than existing debt (or the terrorists win). And he has spent eight years asleep at the wheel on illegal immigration.
The Republican Party has not rejected intellectualism. The definition of the word has been hijacked by the William Ayer' and the Ward Churchill's of the world, with their pithy rejoinders that 9/11 victims were "little Eichmanns." One need only read Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or Christopher Buckley to know that conservative intellectualism is alive and well.
What sets conservatives, and by extension the GOP, apart is that we have always encouraged vigorous debate and the civil discourse necessary for the continuation of this American experiment. It is the foundation of our republic and the catalyst to our best ideas. But we succeed in our intellectual pursuits only because they stand firmly on the solid rock of our morality, our spirituality and our admission of and submission to the God that grants our souls the right to breathe. The sinking sand of liberal dogma will never be a suitable substitute.
---
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
DOUBLE STANDARDS
Sisterhood Of The Protected Female Liberal Journalists
By Michelle Malkin
September 10, 2008
Let’s talk Mommy Wars, double standards and the media elite. Last Friday, Howard Gutman, a member of the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee, attacked Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. In a finger-wagging appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Obama’s operative scolded the Republican mother of five children for not putting her professional career on hold.
“Your responsibility is to put your family first,” Gutman lectured as he singled out Palin’s Down Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. “The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn’t run for vice president with five kids, it’s that a parent, when they have a family in need” should get out of the public sphere and stay home.
The Gutman standard has now been proffered by countless Obama hacks and water-carrying commentators. Damningly, it’s high-powered working mothers in the journalism business who are helping to broadcast the anti-Palin slams or doing nothing to defend her.
How would Katie Couric like the Gutman standard applied to her? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old. With two young children devastated by the loss of a father, she opted not to quit journalism. She anchored NBC’s “Today Show” through his illness and death, continued working an intensive, time-consuming schedule as one of America’s most visible broadcast journalists while a single mother with two fatherless children at home, and then jumped to CBS News, where she maintains a rigorous on-air schedule, travel plans and an off-air social calendar. Where are the finger-waggers?
How about CNN’s Soldedad O’Brien? She’s been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage and nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disney’s Family Parenting website lauds her as “a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of America’s top news anchors along with her four children” — two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste O’Brien’s professional pursuits?
Also at CNN, Campbell Brown flew to Las Vegas last year to moderate a political debate while 8 and a half months pregnant. Fox News host and left-wing blogger Alan Colmes, last seen questioning Palin’s commitment to prenatal care because she worked and traveled late in her pregnancy, had no comment. When Brown initially left the “Today Show” in 2007, she said she was stepping down to devote more time to family and baby. She immediately turned around and jumped ship to CNN, where she has anchored wall-to-wall CNN Election Center coverage and will launch a new nightly show in November.
At NBC, famous balancer of work and motherhood Meredith Viera replaced Couric on the “Today Show.” She has three children at home and a husband who has battled multiple sclerosis and two bouts of colon cancer. By the Gutman standard, Viera should have left the business years ago to tend to her family in need.
As a working woman in the media for 16 years and a working mother in the media for the last eight, I know the commitment and energy it took for these women to get to the top. I’ve filed columns from hospital beds, written books while nursing, brought my toddlers to TV studios, and told bedtime stories on the cell phone while boarding planes. I’ve worked hard to strike the “balance” we all seek. I’ve made good choices and bad choices, and have no regrets about the opportunities I’ve taken or the opportunities I’ve rejected. I couldn’t have done it without a supportive husband willing to forego his own career goals — the kind of spouse the media has ignored in Todd Palin and the kind of spouse I’m sure the Sisterhood of the Protected Female Journalists all have.
I don’t challenge the commitment these fellow working mothers in the media have to their home lives. What I challenge is their silence and complicity as the Palin-bashers impose a “Family First” double standard on conservatives. The sorority is closed to the Right.
—
Michelle Malkin is author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.” Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
By Michelle Malkin
September 10, 2008
Let’s talk Mommy Wars, double standards and the media elite. Last Friday, Howard Gutman, a member of the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee, attacked Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. In a finger-wagging appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Obama’s operative scolded the Republican mother of five children for not putting her professional career on hold.
“Your responsibility is to put your family first,” Gutman lectured as he singled out Palin’s Down Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. “The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn’t run for vice president with five kids, it’s that a parent, when they have a family in need” should get out of the public sphere and stay home.
The Gutman standard has now been proffered by countless Obama hacks and water-carrying commentators. Damningly, it’s high-powered working mothers in the journalism business who are helping to broadcast the anti-Palin slams or doing nothing to defend her.
How would Katie Couric like the Gutman standard applied to her? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old. With two young children devastated by the loss of a father, she opted not to quit journalism. She anchored NBC’s “Today Show” through his illness and death, continued working an intensive, time-consuming schedule as one of America’s most visible broadcast journalists while a single mother with two fatherless children at home, and then jumped to CBS News, where she maintains a rigorous on-air schedule, travel plans and an off-air social calendar. Where are the finger-waggers?
How about CNN’s Soldedad O’Brien? She’s been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage and nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disney’s Family Parenting website lauds her as “a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of America’s top news anchors along with her four children” — two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste O’Brien’s professional pursuits?
Also at CNN, Campbell Brown flew to Las Vegas last year to moderate a political debate while 8 and a half months pregnant. Fox News host and left-wing blogger Alan Colmes, last seen questioning Palin’s commitment to prenatal care because she worked and traveled late in her pregnancy, had no comment. When Brown initially left the “Today Show” in 2007, she said she was stepping down to devote more time to family and baby. She immediately turned around and jumped ship to CNN, where she has anchored wall-to-wall CNN Election Center coverage and will launch a new nightly show in November.
At NBC, famous balancer of work and motherhood Meredith Viera replaced Couric on the “Today Show.” She has three children at home and a husband who has battled multiple sclerosis and two bouts of colon cancer. By the Gutman standard, Viera should have left the business years ago to tend to her family in need.
As a working woman in the media for 16 years and a working mother in the media for the last eight, I know the commitment and energy it took for these women to get to the top. I’ve filed columns from hospital beds, written books while nursing, brought my toddlers to TV studios, and told bedtime stories on the cell phone while boarding planes. I’ve worked hard to strike the “balance” we all seek. I’ve made good choices and bad choices, and have no regrets about the opportunities I’ve taken or the opportunities I’ve rejected. I couldn’t have done it without a supportive husband willing to forego his own career goals — the kind of spouse the media has ignored in Todd Palin and the kind of spouse I’m sure the Sisterhood of the Protected Female Journalists all have.
I don’t challenge the commitment these fellow working mothers in the media have to their home lives. What I challenge is their silence and complicity as the Palin-bashers impose a “Family First” double standard on conservatives. The sorority is closed to the Right.
—
Michelle Malkin is author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.” Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
PALIN A GOOD CHOICE
McCain VP Pick No Friend to Polar Bears
By Sarah Lai Stirland August 29, 2008 | 1:18:52 PM Categories: Election '08
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has ignored research showing that polar bear populations are declining in the quest to plumb new sources of energy, according to scientists, and environmental groups who fought to put the bears on the endangered species list.
Sen. John McCain tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential candidate Friday. Palin is only the second woman to be on a major party's ticket as VP -- the first was Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, pictured here, disagrees with John McCain on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She's for it, he's against it.
"The governor's going to support senator McCain's policies," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior campaign advisor.
Photo: Associated Press/Al Grillo
The 44-year-old Palin, a beauty pageant winner and former mayor of a small town in Alaska, is an advocate of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has infuriated environmentalists for her support of the aerial shooting of wolves as a way to build up herds of moose and caribou. She's also sued the Interior Department for putting polar bears on the endangered species list.
In the lawsuit, filed this month in federal district court in the District of Columbia, Palin argues that the government's move to list polar bears as endangered is not based on sound science, and restricts oil and natural gas development. The Interior Department had put the bears on the list in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, who argued that the bears are being threatened by global warming.
In an interview on the conservative CNN talk show hosted by Glenn Beck earlier this year, Palin said that she was worried that environmentalists are using the Endangered Species Act to block the extraction of oil and gas.
"In fact, the number of polar bears has risen dramatically over the past 30 years," she said. "Our fear (is) that extreme environmentalists will use this tool, the ESA, to eventually curtail or halt the North Slope production of very rich resources that America needs."
But biologists who have studied polar bear populations counter that the facts simply do not support Palin's assertion that polar bear populations are on the rise.
"Polar bear populations have not been increasing for the past 30 years, and that's a well-known fact," said Ian Stirling, an emeritus scientist with Canada's Department of the Environment and an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta in an interview. Stirling has studied polar bears for 37 years -- the longest of anyone.
In fact, the polar bear population has actually declined by 20 percent in Alaska's Southern Beaufort Sea since the mid-1980s, he says, referring to peer-reviewed research that he's conducted with other scientists for the US Geological Survey. The reason: Loss of their habitat in the form of melting ice.
The population decline in the area is one of six documented declining populations. In all, there are 19 distinct populations of polar bears, but not all of those populations have been surveyed.
The research reports with this information have been available to Palin for more than a year, Stirling says.
"There is currently no way to drill for oil in polar bear seas without imperiling the polar bears," said Kassie Siegel, climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Polar bears that come into contact with spilled oil will become coated with oil, will attempt to groom themselves to remove it... and will almost certainly die."
Palin has stated that her opposition to the polar bear listing is based on a scientific review from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Yet documents released by a FOIA request show that the state's biologists agreed with the Interior Department about the polar bear's habitat.
Senator McCain believes that protecting polar bears is important, but that using the endangered species act may not be the best approach to solving the problem -- rather enacting climate change legislation is, says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain. He added that Palin will support McCain's policies.
"McCain has said many times that policy must be based on sound science," he said. "We will see a difference from the past eight years."
"The governor is going to support senator McCain's policies," Holtz-Eakin said in an interview.
In a statement on the Palin pick, the McCain campaign called her a "tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president, and that "she has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington."
The McCain campaign also praised Palin for being independent-minded and standing up to oil companies, yet at the same time "fighting for the development of new energy resources."
Conservative blogs hailed the choice Friday, gleeful at the outrage Palin's election sparked among liberals. The mood around the offices of Townhall.com is sort of like that of Christmastime," wrote blogger Matt Lewis. "Everyone is ecstatic. The pick was perfect, and the execution flawless ... You can tell this is a good pick by the way conservatives love it -- and by the way liberal blogs hate it!"
As the governor of a state that's renowned for valuing civil liberties, Palin received praise from the American Civil Liberties Union this May for letting a bill pass that prohibits the funding of the implementation of REAL-ID, a federal law that requires states to comply with certain technical standards when issuing drivers' licenses.
Governor's Information
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Born: February 11, 1964
Birth State: Idaho
Party: Republican
Spouse: Todd Palin
Family: Married Todd Palin; five children
Religion: Christian
School(s): University of Idaho
Address: State Capitol
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK
99811-0001
Phone: 907/465-3500
Fax: 907/465-3532
Governor Sarah Palin made history on Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office. The 11th governor of Alaska, she is the first woman to hold the office.
Her top priorities are resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development. Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to oversee maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and a Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska.
Palin's administration passed major legislation that began a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline and overhauled state ethics laws. Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multi-state agency that promotes conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and environment. She also serves as chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee. Prior to her election as governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla. During her tenure, she reduced property tax levels while increasing services and made Wasilla a business friendly environment, drawing in new industry. She has served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's most valuable non-renewable resources. She was elected by her peers to serve as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.
Sarah Heath Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Palin, who graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982, has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. She is married to Todd Palin, a lifelong Alaskan who is a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snow machine race. Todd and Sarah fish in Bristol Bay with their children – Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. Through Todd's Yup'ik grandmother, Alaska's Native heritage plays an important role in their family. Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on Sept. 11, 2007.
Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA and enjoys hunting, fishing, Alaska history, and all that Alaska's great outdoors has to offer.
________________________________________
By Sarah Lai Stirland August 29, 2008 | 1:18:52 PM Categories: Election '08
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has ignored research showing that polar bear populations are declining in the quest to plumb new sources of energy, according to scientists, and environmental groups who fought to put the bears on the endangered species list.
Sen. John McCain tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential candidate Friday. Palin is only the second woman to be on a major party's ticket as VP -- the first was Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, pictured here, disagrees with John McCain on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She's for it, he's against it.
"The governor's going to support senator McCain's policies," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior campaign advisor.
Photo: Associated Press/Al Grillo
The 44-year-old Palin, a beauty pageant winner and former mayor of a small town in Alaska, is an advocate of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has infuriated environmentalists for her support of the aerial shooting of wolves as a way to build up herds of moose and caribou. She's also sued the Interior Department for putting polar bears on the endangered species list.
In the lawsuit, filed this month in federal district court in the District of Columbia, Palin argues that the government's move to list polar bears as endangered is not based on sound science, and restricts oil and natural gas development. The Interior Department had put the bears on the list in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, who argued that the bears are being threatened by global warming.
In an interview on the conservative CNN talk show hosted by Glenn Beck earlier this year, Palin said that she was worried that environmentalists are using the Endangered Species Act to block the extraction of oil and gas.
"In fact, the number of polar bears has risen dramatically over the past 30 years," she said. "Our fear (is) that extreme environmentalists will use this tool, the ESA, to eventually curtail or halt the North Slope production of very rich resources that America needs."
But biologists who have studied polar bear populations counter that the facts simply do not support Palin's assertion that polar bear populations are on the rise.
"Polar bear populations have not been increasing for the past 30 years, and that's a well-known fact," said Ian Stirling, an emeritus scientist with Canada's Department of the Environment and an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta in an interview. Stirling has studied polar bears for 37 years -- the longest of anyone.
In fact, the polar bear population has actually declined by 20 percent in Alaska's Southern Beaufort Sea since the mid-1980s, he says, referring to peer-reviewed research that he's conducted with other scientists for the US Geological Survey. The reason: Loss of their habitat in the form of melting ice.
The population decline in the area is one of six documented declining populations. In all, there are 19 distinct populations of polar bears, but not all of those populations have been surveyed.
The research reports with this information have been available to Palin for more than a year, Stirling says.
"There is currently no way to drill for oil in polar bear seas without imperiling the polar bears," said Kassie Siegel, climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Polar bears that come into contact with spilled oil will become coated with oil, will attempt to groom themselves to remove it... and will almost certainly die."
Palin has stated that her opposition to the polar bear listing is based on a scientific review from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Yet documents released by a FOIA request show that the state's biologists agreed with the Interior Department about the polar bear's habitat.
Senator McCain believes that protecting polar bears is important, but that using the endangered species act may not be the best approach to solving the problem -- rather enacting climate change legislation is, says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain. He added that Palin will support McCain's policies.
"McCain has said many times that policy must be based on sound science," he said. "We will see a difference from the past eight years."
"The governor is going to support senator McCain's policies," Holtz-Eakin said in an interview.
In a statement on the Palin pick, the McCain campaign called her a "tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president, and that "she has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington."
The McCain campaign also praised Palin for being independent-minded and standing up to oil companies, yet at the same time "fighting for the development of new energy resources."
Conservative blogs hailed the choice Friday, gleeful at the outrage Palin's election sparked among liberals. The mood around the offices of Townhall.com is sort of like that of Christmastime," wrote blogger Matt Lewis. "Everyone is ecstatic. The pick was perfect, and the execution flawless ... You can tell this is a good pick by the way conservatives love it -- and by the way liberal blogs hate it!"
As the governor of a state that's renowned for valuing civil liberties, Palin received praise from the American Civil Liberties Union this May for letting a bill pass that prohibits the funding of the implementation of REAL-ID, a federal law that requires states to comply with certain technical standards when issuing drivers' licenses.
Governor's Information
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Born: February 11, 1964
Birth State: Idaho
Party: Republican
Spouse: Todd Palin
Family: Married Todd Palin; five children
Religion: Christian
School(s): University of Idaho
Address: State Capitol
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK
99811-0001
Phone: 907/465-3500
Fax: 907/465-3532
Governor Sarah Palin made history on Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office. The 11th governor of Alaska, she is the first woman to hold the office.
Her top priorities are resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development. Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to oversee maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and a Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska.
Palin's administration passed major legislation that began a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline and overhauled state ethics laws. Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multi-state agency that promotes conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and environment. She also serves as chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee. Prior to her election as governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla. During her tenure, she reduced property tax levels while increasing services and made Wasilla a business friendly environment, drawing in new industry. She has served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's most valuable non-renewable resources. She was elected by her peers to serve as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.
Sarah Heath Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Palin, who graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982, has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. She is married to Todd Palin, a lifelong Alaskan who is a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snow machine race. Todd and Sarah fish in Bristol Bay with their children – Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. Through Todd's Yup'ik grandmother, Alaska's Native heritage plays an important role in their family. Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on Sept. 11, 2007.
Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA and enjoys hunting, fishing, Alaska history, and all that Alaska's great outdoors has to offer.
________________________________________
Friday, August 1, 2008
MORE ON OBAMA
August 01, 2008
Why I'm Thanking God for Obama
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
Every day, for the past several months, I've made a habit in my morning prayers of thanking God for the emergence of Barack Obama. Not because my hope is in Obama, but because my hope is always, unequivocally in God.
As so many have noted, 2008 is not an ordinary American election.
Rather than two people with different policy positions vying for the President's job, we have one man who understands he's a mere mortal like the rest of us, and one man, who seems to think he is a god.
And y'all know what I'm talkin' about here.
Many of Barack's followers manifest troubling signs of regarding him as at least a demigod. Even while refraining from saying outright that they think he's a god, their belief comes through in the strange messianic iconography of their Obama-glorifying posters, videos and music. Belief in the godlike nature of Barack's powers comes through in their faith in the vast promises he or his surrogates make about the change that's going to come about, not if, but when he becomes president, not just of our Country, but the whole darned world, oceans and all. Or so he seems to think.
The seas will recede. The planet will heal. Everyone will love America again. The sick will all be cured by socialized medicine. The poor will cease to exist. The rich will give all their money to Africa. The government will become efficient. Sin won't happen. The yellow brick road will lead to the White House, not a fantasy land. And the Emperor's clothes will suddenly materialize so that the whole world will actually see something there.
The bottom line here is that Barack Obama does not seem to be running against John McCain. He seems to think he's too big for that. As he told a roomful of Congressional Democrats this week, behind closed doors, he is no longer a mere man, he's "become a symbol of the possibility of America." Considering the scope of the promises he is making and the hope he is offering not only America, but the rest of the world to boot, Barack Obama seems to be running against a far higher power than himself.
Barack Obama actually appears to be running against God. By claiming that he can do things only God can do, like heal "broken souls" and fill up "holes" in people's hearts, make all "divisions" go away and disperse with all inconvenient "distractions," Barack Obama claims power that no mortal man, and certainly no mere president has ever had, or ever will have, no matter how much money he has to spend or how brilliant or how able he may be.
Most rational human beings know this without thinking hard.
That's why this isn't an ordinary election, and why it is becoming more absurd by the hour.
But this is a terrific opportunity for all of us mortal Americans who still love this Country and happen to think that our Founders were onto something quite exceptional in the history of human civilization. This election will not pit Democrats against Republicans, but those who love America against those who just love Barack and think he is the one they've been waiting for to finally close the deal and secure their love for an America perfected by the politics of Barack Obama.
Utopian Claims that Materialize as Misery
For years now, I've occasionally fallen victim to discouragement over strides the rainbow Marxists have made in America and around the world. The Berlin Wall was barely in its shallow grave before communism's sepulchral cries of resurgence began to be heard in places far and near. The Soviet Block was barely broken before western Europeans began doing their best to emulate it and enshrine another form of it's tyranny by binding treaty.
The greatest single Marxist victory has been the systematic re-write of the movement's own bloody history, carried out by leftists in America and western Europe. After WWII, Hitler's Germany was scrubbed clean of its National Socialist underpinnings, and entire generations have been told that Fascism was the polar opposite of Communism. For the past eight years, with the new resurgence of American conservatism, leftists have bombarded the public from sympathetic press pulpits and university lecterns with their "Bush is Hitler" agitprop. And a great many fools have swallowed this lie whole hog.
As Pope Benedict foretold in 2003, in his treatise on the sleeping ambitions of worldwide communism:
"Let us not forget that Marxism, as the one great political force of our twentieth century, made its appearance with the claim to be bringing a new world of freedom and of free people. This very promise of knowing the scientifically guaranteed way to freedom, and of creating the new world, drew to it many of the boldest spirits of our age; ultimately it even appeared as the force through which the Christian teaching of redemption could be transformed into a realistic practical means for liberation - as the force that could bring the Kingdom of God as the true kingdom of men. The collapse of realist socialism in the East European states has not quite laid aside all such hopes, and here and there they still subsist, silently awaiting some new form."
-- Pope Benedict XVI; Truth and Tolerance; p. 233; emphases mine.
Just because this monstrous system puts on a new and younger face does not render it more benign.
Empty Resume, Empty Promises
Obama has arisen from nothingness, from one accomplishment-free political gig to another, propped up by leftists adulators and sycophants, to offer a perfect portrait of socialism's eternal snare. Forget God; put your hope in mankind. Human arrogance and narcissistic pride. From the fall in the Garden to the present, from generation to generation, Satan's delusion holds sway with many.
Barack Obama is walking, talking, breathing narcissism. The iconography of his campaign is nothing, if not the glorification of Obama, a solitary, quite mortal man. They must glorify Obama's image because, in reality, he has no accomplishments that bear mention.
Obama struts his nothingness with grace; even his detractors admit that.
What could more openly and more amply demonstrate the absolute emptiness of socialism's promise than the perfectly empty resume of its newest hero?
What could possibly more adequately prove the personalized utopianism of his followers than that they believe in a man who has borne no fruitful action?
Barack Obama offers "collective salvation" in the form of socialist government interventions in every sphere of life, from starting-at-birth state education, to socialized, universal health care, to a tripling of the already failing AmeriCorps. This socialist answer to all that ails mankind isn't anything new. It's old, tried, and just as untrue now as in its beginning.
Beware the man who promises what man simply lacks the power to bestow.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."
-- H. L. Mencken
Time and time and time again, this has proven true. Time and time again, new men arise in varying disguise, making the same promises, urging the same change.
God or Barack? This ain't rocket science.
The lesson in socialism's long, failed and scandalous history is actually very simple, I think, not rocket science at all.
Life, as God created it, is basically unfair.
Beginning at the very reality that each human being is unique, without exact duplication anywhere, anytime. Even in the case of identical twins, uniqueness begins at the moment of birth, as each twin experiences a separate reality in his or her environment. With uniqueness comes individuality and at every moment of life, unfairness.
No matter the measure one chooses, whether genetic beauty or physical strength, native intelligence or agility, inherited wealth or power, the benefits bestowed by one's parents or the lack of these. In every single aspect of human life, no matter where one is born or what happens thereafter outside one's control, life is not fair.
I perceive that within the heart of every socialist lies an insurmountable resentment over this basic fact, which is always aimed squarely at God, who made things this way. Arrogant man wants to be like God and design things his own way.
Two thousand years ago, however, Jesus of Nazareth offered the eternal solution to the paradox of unfairness and inequality:
Speaking of God's judgment, Jesus said,
From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.
-- The Gospel of Luke 12:48 (New Revised Standard Version)
All who follow the same God, whether Jewish or Christian, see plainly that God's judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with one's station or gifts in this life, but only with what each individual does with what he is given.
It is certainly no accident that socialism has made its greatest advances among secular people, divorced from God by their own choice, and that today in America, it is the progressive secularists, the hardened socialists and communists, and many radical elements in our society that back Barack Obama's rise. For many of these people, hope in God died long ago.
The salvation that Obama offers comes in the form of radically changing America to a utopian state, which he contends will fix our "broken souls." That simply is not within the province of his abilities.
As Pope Benedict has so wisely and emphatically stated:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
-- Truth and Tolerance; p. 116
Barack Obama stands front and center now, offering the age-old false promise that mankind can save itself through "collective redemption," and simply because he employs Christian language and symbols, no genuine lovers of God will be fooled.
Hope in God?
Or hope in Obama?
I thank God every day for giving us Americans such a clear and easy choice. Perhaps He is simply using Barack Obama to separate a bit of chaff from the grain.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent citizen journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/why_im_thanking_god_for_obama.html at August 01, 2008 - 11:09:52 PM EDT
Why I'm Thanking God for Obama
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
Every day, for the past several months, I've made a habit in my morning prayers of thanking God for the emergence of Barack Obama. Not because my hope is in Obama, but because my hope is always, unequivocally in God.
As so many have noted, 2008 is not an ordinary American election.
Rather than two people with different policy positions vying for the President's job, we have one man who understands he's a mere mortal like the rest of us, and one man, who seems to think he is a god.
And y'all know what I'm talkin' about here.
Many of Barack's followers manifest troubling signs of regarding him as at least a demigod. Even while refraining from saying outright that they think he's a god, their belief comes through in the strange messianic iconography of their Obama-glorifying posters, videos and music. Belief in the godlike nature of Barack's powers comes through in their faith in the vast promises he or his surrogates make about the change that's going to come about, not if, but when he becomes president, not just of our Country, but the whole darned world, oceans and all. Or so he seems to think.
The seas will recede. The planet will heal. Everyone will love America again. The sick will all be cured by socialized medicine. The poor will cease to exist. The rich will give all their money to Africa. The government will become efficient. Sin won't happen. The yellow brick road will lead to the White House, not a fantasy land. And the Emperor's clothes will suddenly materialize so that the whole world will actually see something there.
The bottom line here is that Barack Obama does not seem to be running against John McCain. He seems to think he's too big for that. As he told a roomful of Congressional Democrats this week, behind closed doors, he is no longer a mere man, he's "become a symbol of the possibility of America." Considering the scope of the promises he is making and the hope he is offering not only America, but the rest of the world to boot, Barack Obama seems to be running against a far higher power than himself.
Barack Obama actually appears to be running against God. By claiming that he can do things only God can do, like heal "broken souls" and fill up "holes" in people's hearts, make all "divisions" go away and disperse with all inconvenient "distractions," Barack Obama claims power that no mortal man, and certainly no mere president has ever had, or ever will have, no matter how much money he has to spend or how brilliant or how able he may be.
Most rational human beings know this without thinking hard.
That's why this isn't an ordinary election, and why it is becoming more absurd by the hour.
But this is a terrific opportunity for all of us mortal Americans who still love this Country and happen to think that our Founders were onto something quite exceptional in the history of human civilization. This election will not pit Democrats against Republicans, but those who love America against those who just love Barack and think he is the one they've been waiting for to finally close the deal and secure their love for an America perfected by the politics of Barack Obama.
Utopian Claims that Materialize as Misery
For years now, I've occasionally fallen victim to discouragement over strides the rainbow Marxists have made in America and around the world. The Berlin Wall was barely in its shallow grave before communism's sepulchral cries of resurgence began to be heard in places far and near. The Soviet Block was barely broken before western Europeans began doing their best to emulate it and enshrine another form of it's tyranny by binding treaty.
The greatest single Marxist victory has been the systematic re-write of the movement's own bloody history, carried out by leftists in America and western Europe. After WWII, Hitler's Germany was scrubbed clean of its National Socialist underpinnings, and entire generations have been told that Fascism was the polar opposite of Communism. For the past eight years, with the new resurgence of American conservatism, leftists have bombarded the public from sympathetic press pulpits and university lecterns with their "Bush is Hitler" agitprop. And a great many fools have swallowed this lie whole hog.
As Pope Benedict foretold in 2003, in his treatise on the sleeping ambitions of worldwide communism:
"Let us not forget that Marxism, as the one great political force of our twentieth century, made its appearance with the claim to be bringing a new world of freedom and of free people. This very promise of knowing the scientifically guaranteed way to freedom, and of creating the new world, drew to it many of the boldest spirits of our age; ultimately it even appeared as the force through which the Christian teaching of redemption could be transformed into a realistic practical means for liberation - as the force that could bring the Kingdom of God as the true kingdom of men. The collapse of realist socialism in the East European states has not quite laid aside all such hopes, and here and there they still subsist, silently awaiting some new form."
-- Pope Benedict XVI; Truth and Tolerance; p. 233; emphases mine.
Just because this monstrous system puts on a new and younger face does not render it more benign.
Empty Resume, Empty Promises
Obama has arisen from nothingness, from one accomplishment-free political gig to another, propped up by leftists adulators and sycophants, to offer a perfect portrait of socialism's eternal snare. Forget God; put your hope in mankind. Human arrogance and narcissistic pride. From the fall in the Garden to the present, from generation to generation, Satan's delusion holds sway with many.
Barack Obama is walking, talking, breathing narcissism. The iconography of his campaign is nothing, if not the glorification of Obama, a solitary, quite mortal man. They must glorify Obama's image because, in reality, he has no accomplishments that bear mention.
Obama struts his nothingness with grace; even his detractors admit that.
What could more openly and more amply demonstrate the absolute emptiness of socialism's promise than the perfectly empty resume of its newest hero?
What could possibly more adequately prove the personalized utopianism of his followers than that they believe in a man who has borne no fruitful action?
Barack Obama offers "collective salvation" in the form of socialist government interventions in every sphere of life, from starting-at-birth state education, to socialized, universal health care, to a tripling of the already failing AmeriCorps. This socialist answer to all that ails mankind isn't anything new. It's old, tried, and just as untrue now as in its beginning.
Beware the man who promises what man simply lacks the power to bestow.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."
-- H. L. Mencken
Time and time and time again, this has proven true. Time and time again, new men arise in varying disguise, making the same promises, urging the same change.
God or Barack? This ain't rocket science.
The lesson in socialism's long, failed and scandalous history is actually very simple, I think, not rocket science at all.
Life, as God created it, is basically unfair.
Beginning at the very reality that each human being is unique, without exact duplication anywhere, anytime. Even in the case of identical twins, uniqueness begins at the moment of birth, as each twin experiences a separate reality in his or her environment. With uniqueness comes individuality and at every moment of life, unfairness.
No matter the measure one chooses, whether genetic beauty or physical strength, native intelligence or agility, inherited wealth or power, the benefits bestowed by one's parents or the lack of these. In every single aspect of human life, no matter where one is born or what happens thereafter outside one's control, life is not fair.
I perceive that within the heart of every socialist lies an insurmountable resentment over this basic fact, which is always aimed squarely at God, who made things this way. Arrogant man wants to be like God and design things his own way.
Two thousand years ago, however, Jesus of Nazareth offered the eternal solution to the paradox of unfairness and inequality:
Speaking of God's judgment, Jesus said,
From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.
-- The Gospel of Luke 12:48 (New Revised Standard Version)
All who follow the same God, whether Jewish or Christian, see plainly that God's judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with one's station or gifts in this life, but only with what each individual does with what he is given.
It is certainly no accident that socialism has made its greatest advances among secular people, divorced from God by their own choice, and that today in America, it is the progressive secularists, the hardened socialists and communists, and many radical elements in our society that back Barack Obama's rise. For many of these people, hope in God died long ago.
The salvation that Obama offers comes in the form of radically changing America to a utopian state, which he contends will fix our "broken souls." That simply is not within the province of his abilities.
As Pope Benedict has so wisely and emphatically stated:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
-- Truth and Tolerance; p. 116
Barack Obama stands front and center now, offering the age-old false promise that mankind can save itself through "collective redemption," and simply because he employs Christian language and symbols, no genuine lovers of God will be fooled.
Hope in God?
Or hope in Obama?
I thank God every day for giving us Americans such a clear and easy choice. Perhaps He is simply using Barack Obama to separate a bit of chaff from the grain.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent citizen journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/why_im_thanking_god_for_obama.html at August 01, 2008 - 11:09:52 PM EDT
Sunday, July 20, 2008
LIBERALS AND THE OIL-GAS CRUNCH
TO: President George W. Bush
The Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives: The Hon. Mitch McConnell, The Hon. Jon L. Kyl, The Hon. John Cornyn, The Hon. John Ensign, The Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, The Hon. John R. Thune, The Hon. Richard Burr, The Hon. Norm Coleman, The Hon. Larry E. Craig, The Hon. James M. Inhofe, The Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, The Hon. John E. Sununu, The Hon. David Vitter, The Hon. Jim DeMint, The Hon. John A. Boehner, The Hon. Roy Blunt, The Hon. Eric I. Cantor, The Hon. Adam Putnam, The Hon. Kay Granger, The Hon. John R. Carter, The Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter, The Hon. Tom Cole, The Hon. Robert C. Byrd, The Hon. Harry Reid, The Hon. Richard J. Durbin, The Hon. Charles E. Schumer, The Hon. Patty Murray, The Hon. Charles E. Schumer, The Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, The Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow, The Hon. Jeff Bingaman, The Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln, The Hon. Barbara Boxer, The Hon. Thomas R. Carper, The Hon. Bill Nelson, The Hon. Russ Feingold, The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, The Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, The Hon. James Clyburn, The Hon. John Lewis, The Hon. Rahm Emanuel, The Hon. John B. Larson, The Hon. Xavier Becerra, The Hon. Rosa DeLauro, The Hon. George Miller, The Hon. Chris Van Hollen, The Hon. Joseph Crowley, The Hon. Diana L. DeGette, The Hon. Ed Pastor, The Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, The Hon. John S. Tanner, The Hon. Maxine Waters, The Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, The Hon. G.K. Butterfield
President Bush announced on Monday that he would lift a long-standing executive order banning offshore oil drilling and he essentially dared Congress to do the same!
A Little Recent History Is In Order...
Here's what our liberal legislators have done over the past several weeks.
First, liberals attempted unsuccessfully to pass the so-called Boxer Climate Bill.
But it wasn't a "Climate Bill" at all. In actuality, it was really just a huge liberal plot to increase taxes. Here's how Sen. Mitch McConnell described it:
"It is, at its heart, a stealth and giant tax on virtually every aspect of industrial and consumer life. It would result in massive job losses. And it seeks to radically alter consumer behavior, without any measurable benefit to the environment in return."
"And that's why it's so hard to comprehend the Majority's decision to move to a bill, at the start of the summer driving season, that would raise the price of gas by as much as $1.40 a gallon, home electricity bills by about 44 percent, and natural gas prices by about 20 percent."
"Overall, it's expected to result in GDP losses totaling as much as $2.9 trillion by 2050."
Yup, leave it to Barbara Boxer and other liberals in Congress to increase taxes when the price of gasoline at the pump is almost beyond the ability of most Americans to afford it!
But fortunately, because patriotic Americans like you made your voices heard, that bill died an unceremonious death!
But then -- without missing a beat -- several days later, Senate liberals tried to slip through ANOTHER TAX BILL-- masquerading as energy policy.
What were they thinking: Did they wink and chuckle at each other and say:
"Now that the Boxer Bill has failed, they won't be expecting another attempt so soon?"
Fortunately, that measure failed as well!
Meanwhile... In the House of Representatives...
On the House side, Congressman John Peterson introduced an amendment that would have extended the limits of offshore drilling.
Surely, Peterson thought, liberals had gotten the message. The crisis facing our nation was too grave, too painful for "politics as usual." This time he was certain his amendment would pass. It didn't. After the defeat of his amendment, Peterson said: "I was stunned today. I didn't expect this to happen. A lot of Democrats who supported us voted against the amendment. All six Republicans voted 'aye' and all nine Democrats voted 'nay.' I think 'Pelosi Power' was lurking. They were strong-armed from above." These days, Pelosi Power rules Capitol Hill. San Francisco values are the values of today. It's DOWN with people and UP with the snail darter, the Wyoming toad, and the Colorado squawfish.
Left-wing fanatics and environmental whackos are thumbing their noses at their fellow citizens -- a growing number of whom can barely afford to drive to work.
And, as analyst Stephen Schork recently predicted,
"If you think your gasoline bills are expensive now, wait till you get your home heating bill this winter."
As a consequence of Pelosi-Reid-inspired policies, the time has come to put middle-and lower-income Americans on the Endangered Species list.
But Here's The Icing On The Cake...
Senator Obama and a gaggle of liberal legislators started stumping for a windfall tax on oil... a strategy guaranteed to do only one thing... raise the price of gasoline.
A generation ago, the Carter Administration imposed just such a tax and the results were disastrous: a reduced incentive to drill for oil, a drop in domestic production, severe shortages, and long lines at the pump.
Obama was a teenager at the time, but you'd think he'd remember.
These actions raise a chilling question: "Are liberals actually TRYING to drive up gas prices?" For years the Greenies have been down on their knees, begging for higher gasoline prices. In the Energy Bulletin, Hamish McRae published an article with a title that says it all:
"Oil at $100 a barrel will do more to save the planet than all the wind farms in the world."
With the price of oil hovering around $140 per barrel, is the earth safe yet?
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter wrote:
"Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles."
"Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 'The Population Explosion' that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan."
"Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished! "
"In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, 'We can't drill our way out of this crisis.'
"What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, 'You can't eat your way out of being hungry!' 'You can't water your way out of drought!' 'You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!' 'You can't drink yourself out of dehydration!'
"Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?
"It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan."
In other words, the higher the price at the pump. the fewer the drivers on the road.
Of course, those who can no longer afford gasoline will inevitably be the poor.
But, as Al Gore would say, "Let them ride buses."
Yours in Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.orgCenter for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus Street, Suite 310
Alexandria VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights
in the legal, legislative and educational arenas. Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.
HOW THE LEFT WAS WON
How The Left Was Won
An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order
Combining a series of unique insights with an entirely new set of analytical techniques, How the Left Was Won systematically dismantles each and every element of modern-day liberalism ranging from the justifications behind all of its flawed social and political policies to the most basic assumptions regarding the ideology itself.
In order to achieve this goal, the author first introduces a new framework which segments and isolates all liberal behaviors and beliefs into the most objective and discrete elements possible. He then goes on to provide numerous examples of how liberals relentlessly employ this simple set of tools and methodologies over and over again and then discusses the resulting effects they have on our society. Some of these strategies include:
● Promote and Exploit Divisiveness: Learn why liberals should thank God every day for differences between people and how without them, liberalism would be dead in the water.
● Bad Competition: Learn why practically all liberal policies create success only through the impairment of others and exactly where this dynamic must necessarily lead.
● Relevancy and Proportion: See why the vast majority of what liberals say has absolutely no meaning whatsoever and learn a simple way to prove it every time.
● Implicit Assumptions: Explore the assumptions liberals use to shape public policy and see why the arguments supporting them are ultimately nothing more than a house of cards.
● Groupdividual: Find out how liberalism has distorted the differences between groups and individuals and why this continued distortion is the basis for all flawed social policies within the United States.
● The Perpetual Motion Machine: Learn how the vast majority of liberal programs are based on the scientific impossibility of getting something for nothing.
● A Swarm of Ants: Find out the real reason liberalism continues to permeate more and more elements of our society and why there just may be no way of stopping it.
“Mgrdechian does an excellent job of dissecting the strategies liberals use...”
— Jonathan Garthwaite,
Editor-In-Chief, Townhall.com
"...a must-read for conservatives and independents alike."
— The Iowa Voice
"I highly recommend this book."
— Kelvin Moxley, The Conservative Spectator
"...exactly what Conservatives have been trying to say for years..."
— The Guardian Watchblog
"Extremely valuable."
— Danny Carlton, Jacklewis.net
"For anyone who wants to gain insight to the mind of liberal politics…"
— Bookviews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)