Greatest Hits: Some Brief Thoughts on the Nature of Ideological Warfare

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Some Brief Thoughts on the Nature of Ideological Warfare:  I was proud that several people used this post as literature to hand out at Tea Party Rallies.

Remember this quote from Michelle Obama?

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed.”

She was far more prophetic than she will ever know.

Since Obama’s election, millions of Americans have become more informed, and more involved.  The Tea Party movement has galvanized millions in calling for smaller, more responsible government.  We are reading more and more, and in many cases, writing extensively and otherwise exchanging information.  We are in the process of returning the GOP to its roots.  We are engaging in nothing less than a peaceful ideological revolt against the left-and we’re meeting with some success.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

These are all encouraging signs.  However, we must realize one thing:  enlisting in this “army” is a lifetime commitment.  This isn’t like WWI, or WWII.  There will be no definitive capitulation.  There will be no surrender ceremony, after which we get go home to the old status quo.  Our adversaries will never give up.  They may be defeated, or delayed, but they will go to ground; hiding within the bureaucracies, universities, and other institutions.  They will continue to indoctrinate youth.  They will continue to spin lies and propaganda.  They will continue to divide and exploit by race, economics, gender, or religion.  And, when they see the opportunity, they will strike out at freedom via regulation, legislation, and legal decisions.  Failing that, they will resort to thuggery and violence.

We are locked in nothing less than a fight with evil.  It is evil to kill the unborn.  It is evil to legislate evil into good, and good into evil.  It is evil to steal from one, and give to another in order to secure the “other’s” loyalty.  It is evil to flaunt our existing laws, and create new ones to make criminals out of good people.   It is evil to indoctrinate children into falsehoods, while failing to educate them to think independently.  It’ ia evil to intimidate others into silence.  And, it is  evil to justify and attempt to legalize pedophilia.  But, that is what we are seeing.  Not only are our enemies not going to stop, they’re going to sink lower and lower.

Evil will never stop, or surrender.  For them, peace will only come when we are either silenced or dead.  There is no compromise with evil.  There are no treaties with darkness.  If they cease firing, it’s only to regroup and repackage their lies and deceptions.   Then, they will be back; telling even greater lies, and causing even more deception.  There is no negotiation with evil-they’re committed to our destruction.  So, constant vigilance is needed to stem the tide.

We look to be victorious in November.  We might win again in 2016.  Even if we are more successful than our wildest dreams, we will still be needed.  The candidates that we support will need our help, and our guidance, should they stray.  We will need to take to the streets when needed.  We will need to counter the left’s propaganda, as well as discuss the news and ideas that the MSM refuses to cover.

The lies of the left wither in the daylight of the truth.  Let’s shine that light.

Have you enlisted?

Share

Phyllis Schlafly Explains How the ERA Was Defeated

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

This is a really interesting history lesson, discussing how Phyllis Schlafly, and a small set of activitsts, defeated the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).  Take a look at this video.  Schlafly’s speech occurs at around 10 minutes.

I had no idea how popular the ERA was when it came out of Congress.  I also did not know how much of a head start that the feminists had.  I did know that it was a poisonous document, and had little to do with equality.   However, the real amazing part is that Phylis Schlafly and crew defeated the thing without ANY of our common weapons.  She and her fellow freedom fighters had none of the following…

1.  Blogs

2.  Email

3.  Twitter

4.  Facebook

5.  Talk Radio

6.  FOX News

7.  Smart Phones

She had NOTHING but the truth, and still won.  That’s an Army of Davids moment that needs to be remembered.

H/T: The Right Scoop

Share

How Republicans Can Win: Some Thoughts

Share

Via Powerlineblog comes this excerpt from David Horowitz’s pamphlet “Go For the Heart: How Republicans Can Win”, which gives some good advice to those who would advance the protection of life, liberty, and property because out of the two parties only the Republican Party right now contains a sizable portion of people that are fighting for these values. From the pamphlet:

…After voters re-elected an administration that added five trillion dollars to the nation’s debt, left 23 million Americans unemployed, surrendered Iraq to America’s enemy Iran, and enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control of the largest country in the Middle East, the one lesson Republicans should agree on is that elections are driven by emotions, not reason. Moreover, when it comes to mobilizing emotions, Democrats beat Republicans hands down.

Worse, Republicans appear unable to learn from their losses. Year after year, Democrats accuse Republicans of the same imaginary crimes – waging wars on women, not caring about minorities, and inflicting pain on working Americans to benefit the wealthy. And year after year, Republicans have no effective responses to neutralize these attacks. Or to take the battle to the enemy’s camp….

…“Caring” is not one among many issues in an election. It is the central one. Since most policy issues are complicated, voters want to know above everything else just whom they can trust to sort out the complexities and represent them. Before voters cast their ballots for policies or values they want a candidate or party that cares about them.

How crucial is this concern? In the 2012 election, 70% of Asian Americans cast their ballots for Obama, even though Asians share Republican values, are family oriented, entrepreneurial, and traditional. Asian Americans voted for Obama because they were persuaded that he cared for minorities – for them, and Romney didn’t…

…(Republicans) avoid finger pointing – naming an adversary and holding him accountable. Elections are adversarial. They are about defeating opponents.

Elections are necessarily about “us” and “them.” Democrats are as adept at framing “them,” as Republicans are not. Democrats know how to incite envy and resentment, distrust and fear, and to direct these volatile emotions towards their Republican opponents. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy complaining about the style of the Democrats’ argument….

…An exit poll conducted by CNN asked, “What is the most important candidate quality to your vote?” Among the four choices were, “Strong Leader,” “Shares Your Values,” “Has A Vision for the Future,” and “Cares about People.” Romney won the first three by more than 54%. But he lost “Cares About People” by 81-18%. That says it all….

…(Republicans) are defensive, and they are whiny, and also complicated. Of course elections are divisive – that is their nature. One side gets to win and the other side loses. But even more troublesome is the fact that responses like (those that the Republicans give) require additional information and lengthy explanations to make sense. Appeals to reason are buried in the raucous noise that is electoral politics. Sorting out the truth would be a daunting task, even if voters were left alone to make up their minds…

The pamphlet goes on to discuss more lessons from the last election and ways that Republicans can win them- if they want to. I agree with a lot of these sentiments. After the first Presidential debate in which Romney stormed back into the race, I wrote after that “Governor Romney was successful in this debate into making this election into a decision on whether or not to continue Obama’s policies or change them” and “Romney appeared to be in the debate and attacking his policies and theories of government”, which resulted in a big win for Romney. But in the third debate, which sealed his eventual loss, I wrote after that “I don’t think Romney did what he needed to do in this debate to win the election- Obama was aggressive, critical, petty, and had a lot of good lines- and won the debate” and “Romney asked a question about Pakistan, answered the question with a lot of solid policies and well-thought out ideas- but no attacks on Obama though.” After the first debate I thought Romney had a chance to win it- after the last debate I wrote that he missed the chance- and the reason why is that he didn’t understand how to win elections.

Next election, I think we need to seriously think about nominating a winner for office- someone who has battled to win tough and bitter and rough primary and general elections for a range of offices. Someone who doesn’t pull punches, who rips his opponent when given an opening, and who realizes that this isn’t all just fun and games but is really important stuff. I don’t care about the prestige of the office, or caring about who is offended or pissed off- I want someone who cares passionately about not destroying our nation’s prosperity, future, liberty, freedoms, and life through bad policies. The policies are bad- and the people who advance them need to know this and aggressively and soundly know it.

So a rough campaigner next time who wins elections, instead of a solid and sensible choice who successful manages operations. Scott Walker? Chris Christie? Marco Rubio? Ted Cruz? Bobby Jindhal? All of these people need to show me over the next four years that they can fight- and win.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

How Republicans Can Win: Some Thoughts

Share

Passive Romney Misses Chance to Seize Victory in Third Debate? My Notes and Observations

Share

Approaching this third and final Presidential Debate in 2012, I am led to believe that the challenger Mitt Romney needs to score a victory in this debate and appear to voters as more competent and Presidential and a better Commander-in-Chief than President Obama. The media is in the bag on this one and will score a tie or even an Obama loss as an ‘Obama win’, and President Obama has the advantage of being able to tout over and over that ‘he killed bin Laden’, so Romney faces some formidable challenges. The President has access to information and can use hypothetical scenario’s, no matter how implausible, to attack the Governor, while the Governor an rely on actual events and the administration’s responses to these events to portray Obama as unfit for command. We’re probably in store for another battle of reality vs rhetoric, results vs slander/lies, and an epic matchup of the real world vs bizarro world. This is it- Romney needs a victory before this large audience to sway Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and other swing states- let’s see if he is able to do this and highlight the foreign policy failures of our hapless and inept President- while also battling a likely heavily leftist moderator.

Here are my thoughts and notes and observations on the debate:

  • Governor Romney is forced to start by defending his statements about Obama’s policy. The start is rather rough- he started out shaky and fell back to material that sounded as if came from a speech. He needed to come out charging and instead it appears that he is playing it safe and going with a simple list of the failures of Obama’s policies. He just said we’re going to continue to do what Obama has done- “we just can’t kill our way out of this situation”- but that isn’t going to sell very well. Obama gets to say ‘I’m glad you agree that I’ve done a great job of killing the bad guys’- Romney should not have soft-served this one to Obama.
  • President Obama does not answer the question about Libya and whether or not his policies there a success there. He summarizes his actions as making a phone call to make sure everything was being done, issued a memo to conduct an investigation, and told someone to put together a speech about how he is going to catch the bad guys- and then went to bed, satisfied that he had done all the ‘work’ that goes into being a President. A lot of rhetoric followed this.
  • Someone told Romney to be wonkish and a policy analyst on this debate and appear to be ‘more Presidential’- but he is not doing so by really going after Obama. Oh, he is talking about a lack of progress in the Middle East- but not pinning it on Obama. The media isn’t going to do this- Romney is going to have to do this.
  • Obama on the other hand has come out hard-charging and attacking Romney, quoting him and putting him on the defensive, listing all of his positions- not ‘bad results’ but blaming Romney directly- this is sounding much better and is more effective. As a side note, the ‘social policies’ of the 1950’s led to important advances for minorities with Brown vs Board of Education and a Voting Rights Act and the ‘economic policies’ of the 1920’s led to a booming economy before it collapsed under FDR. Obama is a replay of the social policies under LBJ and a replay of the economic policies under FDR- neither of which I would consider a success.
  • Romney is letting Obama frame him- putting words in his mouth and then walking away, assuming that this frame will stick. Romney needs to do a better job rejecting this frame while also framing Obama. Obama wins this first exchange by quite a bit, and perhaps the election, letting him rip off lines like “one thing I have learned as commander-in-chief” without Romney replying back anything worthwhile. The Libya topic comes and goes without Romney landing a blow- what a blown opportunity- he was not properly prepared on this and assumes that the American people wanted a policy discussion instead of a political debate show. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- talk about your successes and why your policies have been great towards Syria. A lot of rhetoric here, nothing of note.
  • Romney jumps into a discussion on the importance of Syria- no one cares about this. This was an opportunity to be critical of Obama’s policies, not to have a discussion on the sort of right policies to enact here. Romney is playing defense, and I think he needed to play offense instead. General vague phrases like ‘we need better policies’ should have been stated as ‘President Obama has pushed for bad policies here such as’ blah blah. Less about what we should be doing, and more about what President Obama is not doing. Another missed opportunity for Romney- and Obama was able to jump back onto Libya and hammer Romney on this issue- Romney didn’t do this and that was another miss. Obama won this exchange too and again comes off looking more Presidential. Obama gets in the last word, although the moderator tries to help out Romney by asking him about his policies- sadly, no one cares about our policies in Syria, we care about why your policies are better than Obama’s, and that was not established except as a glancing and side blow at the end. Oh, Obama gets the last word after all on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- Do you have any regrets about pushing Mubarack out in Egypt? Obama says no, linking his actions to JFK and historical movements for democracy, and then even though it has turned out he gets to say a bunch of stuff about how he wants the region to improve (as if his words and thoughts can become reality without hard work and good policies). Romney needs to come back with “You helped push one of our historical allies out of power and led to radical Muslim groups taking more control of Egypt and destabilized the region”.
  • Romney instead comes back with “I agree with the President” and suggests that he would have also relied on rhetoric about freedom and such. Another missed change. No criticism on Obama in his answer, instead a rough transition about what his larger vision is on a range of issues. He’s talking about the economy now, debt, Iran, and foreign policy- what a mess. I am so disappointed that by his performance tonight- I thought he won the first debates, but this one is a mess for Romney so far- and we’re 30 minutes into it. Here was a chance to talk about the rape of our reporters, the rise of fundamentalists, the attacks on Coptic Churches, etc- and instead we got a lot of rhetoric. Obama gives us this kind of crap and does it better- Romney is coming off as tired and worn and scattered.
  • Question- What is our role in the world? Romney gives a confusing and sprawling answer- he is so unfocused, jumping from subject to subject. Obama is looking serious and locked in, Romney is sounding edgy and not calm. No attacks on Obama, letting him not play any defense at all. Obama gets to simply give a stock speech and engage in attacks on Romney.
  • Romney gets a little bit more excited and with it on talking about the economy- I am surprised at the difference in his tone of voice and passion with this topic switch- he nails his facts and lays down some good attacks. But Obama is clever and switched the topic over to education policy- don’t take the bait on this one, Governor- stick to going back to the economy and don’t get sucked into this argument about ‘how government can support teachers’. Obama spews off usual stuff about ‘government support for education’, even though the federal government plays such a tiny role in providing support for education. Romney took the bait though and instead talked about education successes- but didn’t link this back to the economy and didn’t do anything to hammer Obama. Obama interrupted the Governor several times during this exchange.
  • Question- How will we pay for an increased military? Romney talks about what he would cut- he should just do the usual Obama trick and say ‘I’m going to cut out fraud and waste and magically save billions of dollars’. Romney about a minute into his answer and Obama cuts him off over and over again- and Romney lets him. Obama gets to frame Romney’s policies again and just throw around numbers and information, coming off in control of the situation. I can’t believe that Romney discussed this topic without mentioning sequestration! In discussing Romney’s budget, I think that Obama did his usual accounting move and added trillions together multiple times- Obama’s ‘5 trillion short’ number included already military increases and balancing the budget, yet here Obama added those to the 5 trillion number. Romney never answered the original question about how to pay for the increased military- the libertarians and Ron Paul people aren’t going to like this exchange. I score this exchange another win for Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange, and gets to make a mockery of Romney’s plans by arguing them to absurdity, suggesting that having a smaller navy is the same thing as having less horse cavalry or less bayonets, pretending that having less destroyers and aircraft carriers and cruisers is the same thing as having less of obsolete technology. Romney gets no chance to rebut these attacks. At this point, I think that Obama has spoken a lot more than Romney has and seems to be dominating the time of possession.
  • Obama- “As long as I’m President, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon”, relying on sanctions and economic embargo’s. Obama is looking rather strong here, saying that he will not take any options off the table, while also saying that he is less militant than Romney. Romney has an option- either being stronger and more militant or appealing to moderates and independents by being smarter and less militant. Romney instead falls into policy discussions and ways to manage the situation. A bunch of policy options is no match for Obama pounding on the fact that he’s sent young men into battle, killed bin Laden, and is commander-in-chief right now. Romney’s not President yet, and won’t be unless he reverses the trend of this debate, so all of that is well and good but he needed to go after Obama.
  • President Obama talks about Iran and how we should deal with Iran, attempting to frame Romney as some sort of fool. Romney has an opening though- Obama’s failure to support the Iranian people during the Green Revolution. Obama said that he would ‘stand by the Iranian’ people- but here was a clear and visible time he did not. Romney should charge through here and hammer Obama on this. Romney instead talks about Iran’s views on our current administration- a great chance for him to bring up the fact that the Iran government has endorsed Obama and supports his re-election. In his answer there was a passing reference to both the Green Revolution and Iran’s support of Obama, but his overall argument- that Obama was weak in the beginning- was not a very strong argument- he needed to argue that Obama is weak NOW. Obama’s reply is that Romney is a liar and says his favorite line in every debate that “every fact-checker has looked into that claim and said that it’s simply not true” and gets to defend his actions in the Green Revolution. Romney gets into a discussion about the apology tour, but weakly lands blows on this. Obama replies with a bunch of rhetoric and deep-sounding words, avoiding the fact that there were real policy implications for his apology tour, and frames the debate once again. Obama gets the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney demonstrates that he understands the role of a CEO for real- that there wouldn’t be some sort of call out of the blue saying that Israeli bombers are in the air about to bomb Iran. Obama would have had some sort of smart sounding answer for that, belaying the fact that it would have been out of the blue for him because he has not forged any relationship with any major leaders around the world and because he has not done the hard work- going to meetings, reading memo’s, etc- needed. Obama replies by framing Romney as some sort of extremist, flip-flopping, and lying fool, connecting various speeches without any context and just cherry-picking lines and stringing them together nicely. I’m sorry- it’s powerful stuff when Obama rolls off these sort of insincere, calculating, ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical attacks. He is an audacious fellow, our President, and with no principals or soul he has the ability to lay blows on this like Romney without worry about the fact that pretty much everything that he said was not true. Obama gets the last word in this exchange, Romney does not get a chance to reply to any of these charges, letting the lie stand. LETTING THE LIE STAND. Another win for Obama. This moderator is much better than the other ones in helping out Obama, throwing him softball questions and giving him the last word on every exchange, which are much more subtle but no less powerful means of injecting bias into a debate.
  • Question is about Afghanistan. Romney talked, nothing notable in there, I’ve already forgotten what he said. Obama gets to roll off usual nice-sounding lines. This is the perfect debate for him- a lot of pretty words and stories without having to defend his results and with the moderator helping to end the conversation after Obama drops a good line or series of lies. Obama got the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney asked a question about Pakistan, answered the question with a lot of solid policies and well-thought out ideas. No attacks on Obama though and Obama is going to get the last word and the ability to say ‘Romney flipped on this’ or that ‘Romney now likes my policies.’ I can only hope that the American people were looking to this debate for policies and looking Presidential and will find Obama to be boorish and rude. Obama is comfortable, in his zone, and not at all flustered by Romney, who isn’t even looking at Obama any more. It’s almost as if Romney doesn’t know why he won the first debate and scored a win in the second- he’s talking to the moderator and just saying stuff- that isn’t how to defeat a skilled sophist like Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • China- Obama is positioning himself as some sort of right-wing protectionist on Chinese trade. Obama pretends that he has some sort of positive leverage on China, ignoring the fact that we are borrowing money from them, cutting out military, and are abandoning our commitments around the world. That’s the usual ignore reality stuff that Romney needed needed to go after, instead Romney talks about these issues as if they are not Obama’s fault, as if they are happening in some sort of a vacuum- he is looking past Obama.
  • Moderator follows up on a Romney point by pointing out the other side- yet hasn’t done that the whole debate for any of Obama’s points- he never offered an alternative viewpoint or an argument against Obama’s points. I guess this is better than an incorrect fact-check, but still, it would be nice to have a fair moderator one of these debates. Obama gets the last word in on this issue, getting to talk about how he (using taxpayer money and ignoring all the failures that he dumps on taxpayers) was able to build businesses here (as if this is the same thing as a private businessman doing it!). No one is really going to care about currency manipulation and these complicated ideas- I wonder if Obama might be right in betting that Americans are uneducated and ignorant and can be easily fooled by words and shiny objects.
  • Regarding Romney’s stance on bankruptcy, Obama says that Romney did not want the auto companies to get any government help- let’s go to the record on this one- in Romney’s editorial he says “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing”- although Obama is correct and Romney does not say ‘bailouts without conditions for private companies’, Romney is correct that he felt that the federal government should provide guarantees, I assume loan guarantees, to the auto companies that emerge form bankruptcy restructured and stronger. That might have been a better approach than Obama’s, which was give a blank check to some companies and not others, play politics with those companies, and seize control of GM for the unions and the government. One approach relies on capitalism and free markets, and the other in a perverted economic system that could be described as some sort of third way alliance of big labor-big government- and big business. Obama got the last word on this subject.
  • Closing arguments- a lot of rhetoric from Obama, nice sounding phrases, keep trying, Romney’s bad, etc etc. Romney’s closing argument was less passion filled and more confident sounding than his earlier ones- he has got to get the fear back into him, the fear that he might lose, and that might have motivated him more- he sounds like he is targeting moderates and independents with this debate.

This debate was probably not for him- if it was, I would score it as a solid win for Obama. He was able to get the last word in on every subject, able to blast away with little reply from Romney, and Romney had a very laid back and measured strategy. The after-debate commentary is that Romney was trying to simply ‘hug’ Obama, as a boxer who has a lead in points does towards the end of a boxing match.

I don’t think Romney did what he needed to do in this debate to win the election- I think he got some bad advice on this one. Obama was aggressive, critical, petty, and had a lot of good lines- will this win moderate and independent voters or scare or turn them off?

CNN is talking about how Obama anticipated Romney’s move to the center and was ready for it, FOX is talking about how Romney might have surprised Obama by his passive and moderate approach in this debate. I can’t watch CNN any more- they are just bashing Romney and continuing Obama’s attacks on him instead of providing real analysis. FOX is back to looking at what the candidates said and their attitude in the debate, having people chime in with their views on who won, doing some fact-checking, and looking into focus groups. Chris Wallace echoed my thoughts- he said that anyone who just tuned in today would have thought that Romney was sitting on a big lead instead of playing the challenger role. Flipped back to CNN and watched them fact-check some of the debate- many of Obama’s claims against Romney are true but missing important and vital context that undermines that truth, many of Romney’s claims against Obama were mostly true both in context and principle.

Obama 42 minutes, Romney 41 minutes. Shocking- all four debates, advantage Democrat in time, and could have been higher if Romney hadn’t talked over Obama and the moderator several times. All four moderators biased in favor of the Democrats to some degree, some more so than others.

Please feel free to quote and reference my notes and observations in your own posts on this debate. Tinyurl link: http://tinyurl.com/9y2w7oa

UPDATE: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER may have made me feel a little bit better about Romney’s debate performance. Here is what he wrote:

…I think it’s unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn’t just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he’s had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he’s a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he’s talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate. 

We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger. Now I would have gone after Obama on Libya like a baseball bat, but that’s why Romney has won elections and I’ve never had to even contested them. He decided to stay away from the and I think that might have actually worked for him….

Last election a candidate who I liked not do every little thing needed to win and he ended up losing by the smallest of margins, so I really am trusting that Romney knows what he was doing in this debate.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

And Then There Was One …Debate That Is. What Will Obama’s Strategy Be?

Share

The Romney campaign team are rightfully feeling good about their chances of winning now that the first two presidential debate and the VP debate are behind them.  The polls are very favorable.

So, going into next Monday’s debate on foreign affairs, Romney would appear to be in the driver’s seat. All indications are that only a very serious misstep could stop Romney from a  victory on November 6, only three weeks away. Being a foreign affairs debate, and considering the fiasco of the events leading up to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya (inadequate security) and the Obama administrations bumbling explanations of what really happened (spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video), it would seem that Romney will have no problem making the President look inept and possibly involved in a cover up for purely political reasons.

In the opinion of this humble observer, it would be a big mistake for the Romney team to get overly confident, I would be a mistake for them to underestimate just how low Barack Obama will stoop to win reelection. In the debate the other night, when Obama was asked by a member of he town hall audience, Kerry Ladka, who turned down  the request for additional security in Benhazi, Obama never answered the question. Instead Obama got on his high horse and told the world that he is president and Commander-in-Chief and everybody works for him and he was offended that Governor Romney was trying to politicize a national security matter. He said that, as soon as the word came that there was an attack on the Benghazi consulate, he immediately was on the phone to hiss national security advisors giving orders to do this, that, and the other thing and the very next morning in the Rose Garden he spoke to the American people about the “terrorist attack”. Of course, Mitt Romney called him on the lie that he (Obama) had refered to the attack as a “terrorist attack” and not as a spontaneous protest over some video. As we are all aware, the moderator, Candy Crowley, came to Obama’s rescue. But, my point is this. President Obama never answered Mr. Ladka’s question. President Obama was not prepared to answer Mr. Ladka’s question.

According to this Washington Post article, President Obama spent a few minutes after the debate with Mr. Ladka. Mr. Ladka reports that Obama gave some further explanation.

… However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

[…]

As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Folks, you can  bet that come next Monday’s debate, President Obama will be prepared and he will have invented a plausible explanation on why he delayed so long on calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack and instead put the blame on the spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video. It might go something like this.

Obama: Governor Romney has demonstrated he is not fit to be President. governor Romney intentionally tried to politicize this tragic death of our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff and the national security issues that were in play by criticizing  what he clearly does not understand, When it comes to national security, I as President and Commander-in-Chief can not always divulge everything we know. Of course I knew this was a terrorist attack within in minutes of the attack beginning. We had live feed from the security cameras at the Benghazi Consulate and our intelligence people were working to identify some of the people involved in the attack. I, as Commander-in-Chief, gave the order that we should not go public with what we knew. It  was important that the terrorists did know what we knew and that is why I gave the order to go the spontaneous attack do the video. Now, unfortunately we had too many leaks on what really happened and I gad to then go public with what we knew. But, you can bet that I am going to get to the bottom of those leaks. My point is this, Governor Romney understands nothing of national security and he was reckless in trying to politicize this tragic event.

Of course, all the above is conjecture on my part. But, I do believe that Obama will come to the next debate with a plan to defuse the Benghazi issue to the extent that he can. We need to keep in mind that in this 90 minute debate the Benghazi issue will not get more than ten minutes before the moderator moves the debaters on to a different subject.

On the issue of Syria, Mitt Romney must, in my opinion, be very careful. Every time I’ve heard Romney on the issue of Syria, he has been very assertive in accusing President Obama of not doing enough to help the people of Syria who have been murdered by tens of thousands by Syrian president Assad. I would caution Mr. Romney to be very careful  on the subject of Syria. He needs to understand that America has no horse in that race. All parties to the Syrian conflict are anti-American. I believe that Obama is going to try to set a trap for Mitt Romney. Obama would like nothing better than to paint Romney as a warmonger. I can just see Obama looking into the camera and pointing his finger at Mitt Romney and saying “If governor Romney is elected President, he will take America into a costly and bloody war that no American wants and what America can ill afford.”

The election is yours to win or lose, Mr. Romney. Do not let Barack Obama trick you into saying something stupid,

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Romney Demolishes Obama in Debate 1: Reality Wins over Myth

Share

This debate has the potential to be the game-changer that Romney needs. Trailing by over 3% in the polls based on the RealClearPolitics average and needing something more than a tie or marginal win that would likely only narrow the polls, Romney delivered a game-changing performance and changed the narrative of this election in the first debate.

President Obama has attempted to make this election into some sort of class warfare or blame Bush election- but Governor Romney was successful in this debate into making this election into a decision on whether or not to continue Obama’s policies or change them. Romney was right- we can go with the traditional American economic system or continue to attempt Obama’s trickle down government economic theories that have been so unsuccessful over the last 4 years and have slowed the recovery. Throughout the debate, Romney lectured Obama on economic policies, the proper role of government in society, theories in leadership, and on basic truths of the world, and Obama sulked and looked away and looked angry (you can tell by his head tilt). There were times during this debate that I felt that even Obama didn’t believe what he was saying- his tone and cadence changed into what I call ‘lecture mode’ as he spewed out talking points and parts of past speeches, while Romney appeared to be in the debate, listening to Obama, attacking his policies and theories of government, and responding to the flow of the debate.

On to the specific points and questions… here are my thoughts:

  • Romney did a skillful job of anticipating Obama’s attacks and was very well prepared for this debate- he came out roaring and hard-hitting. He responded to Obama’s attacks while not getting sucked into his bizarro world and replying to all of the backwards and wrong facts contained in them.
  • Watch the first 15 minutes of the debate- in that first part, I think that Romney hammered Obama pretty heavily, although the middle of the debate was more even.
  • Obama stuck to the ‘$5 trillion tax cut for the rich’ angle over and over, even though Romney said that he doesn’t have this policy- either Obama believes Romney is a liar or Obama is a liar.
  • Obama over and over cited ‘studies’- compare this to Romney, who cited actual commissions and their findings and said the name of the organizations whose studies he was quoting. I wonder whose studies Obama is citing and whether or not they are nonpartisan, well-sourced, and well-researched. I doubt it, and so did Romney later on, when he said he could find 6 studies that said that the study that Obama was citing was bunk.
  • “Look at the evidence of the last 4 years”- good line from Romney, because this is not a debate between Romney’s potential theories and Obama’s potential theories- we’re comparing the evidence of President Obama’s results (as President) vs the evidence (such as it is) of Governor Romney’s results (as Governor).
  • Obama had NO answer for the debt and deficit questions. He didn’t even try to defend himself or his record on this and dodged and ducked is way through it.
  • Romney said that he will grow his way out of debt. Liberals don’t like this and will talk about ‘the math’- but the math that they will use will be static and assume that tax cuts or spending cuts do not affect revenue, and this assumption is poor. Tax cuts may lead to less revenue of the government- but they also lead to employment growth and after that they lead to much greater revenue than without the tax cuts. Romney believes in a dynamic economy- Obama is about locking in and divvying up a static economy. Later I imagine the liberals will do the math over and over on this issue, ignoring the dynamic nature of the economy the entire time.
  • Obama brought up a bunch of taxes that he would repeal if he were President- but he is President and has been President for 4 years and for the first half of that time his party controlled the House and Senate- and he didn’t repeal those taxes. Either he lied here and doesn’t want to really repeal those taxes or he was incompetent and when handed the keys to the car he drove it in a different direction than he should have.
  • When asked about how President Obama would deal with the skyrocketing (and immoral) debt, President Obama talked about spending more money on college and cutting a minor tax break for oil companies that has been around for over 100 years.
  • “I’ve been in business for 25 years, and I have no idea what you are talking about”- Romney to Obama. Great line, because it establishes that Romney knows what he is talking about and that Obama does not.
  • Obama began his discussion about how to deal with the looming and massive policy problems of entitlement reform by speaking about how we shouldn’t call them entitlements. The name of the program is not really what the problem is here, Mr. President- it is the fact that these programs are broke and insolvent and will soon result in poor and elderly facing a reduced standard of living and less security.
  • Romney says “I want to repeal and replace program”- Obama says “Romney wants to repeal”- Romney says “Also I want to replace it- repeal and replace”- Obama says “Yeah, but there are no details on the replacement”- Romney says “Here are the details”- Obama flashes a sheepish grin and shakes his head because he knows that he is selling BS and got caught.
  • Romney addresses the costs of healthcare and talked about how to get the costs of this program under control.
  • Although Obama mentioned several roles of government, the one that he spoke the most about and with the most passion about was new spending programs.
  • Romney talked about the role of government in protecting liberty and freedom and encouraging prosperity- his answer is much closer to what our Founding Fathers wrote about in the Declaration of Independence.
  • Several times, President Obama said “Romney doesn’t have any details” and then in the next sentence said “But based on the details we have, I can predict”. It is not possible for there to both be ‘not enough details’ and there to be ‘enough details to predict numbers’- that’s double-speak.
  • President Obama talked about how he has lately been making progress dealing with the GOP House as his example of how he has been bipartisan- but I predict that next week Obama will give a speech where he accuses the GOP House of being the sole barrier to him being more successful.
  • Obama in his conclusion laid out his vision of the next four years- raise taxes, more money for green energy, more money to teachers, and continue doing what he has been doing.
  • Romney in his conclusion said that he wants to change directions, course change for America, two paths to take, look at the records and results, and vote based on this contrast in success.

Final verdict- big win for Romney.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Madonna Threatens to Strip Naked if Obama Wins Reelection; Polls Surge For Romney

Share

Madonna performs in concert

1980s recording star and current nostalgia act Madonna (pictured above) has promised to strip naked if President Obama wins reelection in November.

During one of her concerts, after a group of young male dancers led Madonna on stage in her wheelchair, the ’80s icon removed the oxygen mask from her face and told her adoring fans:

You better f*cking vote for Obama you Motherf*ckers.  We have a mothef*cking black motherf*ing Muslim in the White House!  There is hope for America you f*cking c*cksuckers!  Vote for f*cking Obama and I’ll take off all my clothes!

As the crowd of gay men in their 50s and 60s applauded wildly, the former star was helped to her feet by the backup dancers and feebly attempted to lower her pants to show her “Tramp Stamp” which had the words “Obama” emblazoned on it.

“I can’t reach.  I can’t reach.  My arthritis” she was heard to lament.

As her backup dancers attempted to lower her pants Madonna screamed out, “My bursitis!  Oh god my bursitis!”

The attempt to show “Obama” on her butt was only partially successful as the tattoo was obscured by folds of fallen skin.

Once the backup dancers gingerly returned Madonna to her wheelchair she started to sing “Like a Virgin” with special lyrics adapted just for the occasion:

Like a virgin/touched for the very first time/but please don’t touch me my bones ache/when my oxygen tank beats next to my wheelchair/I know I can breathe again

Gonna give you all my love boy/until I take a nap/my pulse is fading fast/been saving it all for you/because my life cannot last much longer

So f*cking vote for Obama/the black muslim/ooh baby can you hear my heart beat?/No seriously/Can you hear my heart beat because I can’t

After the concert Madonna was led back to the nursing home where she was serenaded by a Boy Scout troop.  The occasion was marred however when Madonna told the Boy Scouts that she would “strip f*cking naked” if they voted for “f*cking Obama!”

When Madonna was told that the Boy Scouts were not old enough to vote she fell asleep.

In a related note, since her promise to strip naked if President Obama wins reelection polls show Romney leading Obama by a remarkable 98 to 2 percent.

“I guess you can only ask so much of Americans before they push back” said a pollster.

Original Post:  Manhattan Infidel

Share

The Conservative Resistance Is On The Path To Victory

Share

How’s that for starting out the week on a positive note? In a long article, on the order of 3000 words, Daren Jonescu at American Thinker makes the case for our ultimate victory. By the second paragraph, I was hooked and had to keep reading to see where his thought thread was leading. In essence, he makes the case that our 100 year history of losing every major policy battle is what is leading us to victory. It is not so much that we will finally win the final battle. On the contrary, it is the frustration of our long and growing resistance is slowing down the liberal’s progress will cause them to finally over play their hand causing an absolute tidal wave of resistance that will wash them away for good. In other words, liberals will  end up defeating themselves. Let’s see how Jonescu arrives at this interesting conclusion.

Early in his piece, Jonescu challenges conservatives about their motivation. Conservatism by its nature is not about being radical or revolutionary. It is about preserving, conserving, and maintaining. Do conservatives know and agree on what it is they want to conserve and maintain? Although the author believes that American conservatives know very well where they want to go, we would have to agree, wold we not, not all conservatives are created equally. Many would say that the goal is to return to the limited government that our Founders envisioned and described in our constitution. Others would be content with smaller less intrusive federal government but they would still want to maintain some level of social programs. A few would go much further, wanting to do what the Founders were charged with doing and fix the Articles of Confederation.

Jonescu paints a very disturbing picture of where America is today:

Despite  all of Barack Obama’s hoopla about “fundamentally transforming” America, the  truth of the matter is even scarier than Obama’s threatening promise: the  fundamental transformation has, to a large extent, already happened.   Contemporary society has been gradually undermined, in the strict sense of  having had its terrain booby-trapped with moral explosives, over many  decades.  Obama’s promised transformation is merely the paperwork, writing  into law what has already been accomplished in culture.

In  short, Western society has essentially ceased to be the glorious crown of  humanity that it once was.  The wellspring of ethical individualism has  regressed into a fear-addled horde of collectivists.

[… ]

And  the civilization that, through its dual focus on human reason and the individual  soul, planted the seed of that political liberty which is literally  inconceivable in any other historical context has allowed itself to recede into  an increasingly unvarnished mob of angry, frightened children clamoring for  their “fair share,” for what they are “entitled to” — for a ruler to take care  of them, freedom be damned.

The author goes on to explain how, in Europe and the rest of the West, the decline into socialism has met less resistance than in America and, therefore, the liberals in Other Western nations were able to achieve their ends without showing their true colors. But, in America, we freedom lovers have been a much bigger thorn in the side of the liberals.

…This strength and this vehemence have manifested themselves in angry, careless  lurches, wild punches that expose progressives and their real agenda more fully  than they would ever have wished to expose themselves.

And  their open aggression has, as it were, awakened a sleeping giant.  The Tea  Party is the direct product of progressivism’s excessive “vehemence.”  And  the Tea Party’s effect, in turn, has been to stoke the left’s ire that much  further.  Even President Obama, who was intended to be the European-style  kinder, gentler face of socialism, has become angry at this resistance and has  dropped the veneer.

And, how does Me. Jonescu see this playing out?

The  days lying ahead of America will often be treacherous and sad.  They will  require nerves of steel from those who would resist progressivism’s desperate  last stand.  It has become patently clear that the present Republican Party  establishment is not up for this fight.  Constitutional conservatives must  do it themselves, using the GOP apparatus as just one tool.  They must  remain cool and workmanlike, rebuilding dams faster than the leftist waves can  knock them down.

This  is the means to conservative victory.  One cannot merely “go back” to a  better time.  Societal decay cannot simply be undone.  One must allow  — even encourage — the progressive degeneration to play itself out, fighting  it at every turn until the leftists, seething with an increasingly open hatred  of America, overplay their hand and self-destruct.  Finally, thanks to  steadfast conservative resistance, “progressivism” will be fully exposed for the  empty, anti-human power lust that it truly is.

So, is Mr. Jonescu right? Will the conservative movement finally achieve victory through a few more loses? A strange way to win a war, don’t you think? I find myself agreeing with his logic. Or, maybe it is that I am desperate to belive there is any path to victory for conservatives. All of my grandchildren are adults now and all but two have their own families. Two of my great-grandchildren will start kindergarten this Fall. It is my fervent wish that by the time they are adults that there will be an America waiting for them that is much closer to the America in which I grew-up in the fifties. It wasn’t perfect; but, it was pretty damn good!

Whether you agree with Mr. Jonescu or not, I do hope you will bookmark his article and read it at your leisure. He is a very talented writer.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Walker Wins Recall Vote: Let the Denial of Reality Begin

Share

It was over early, and  the race was called for Scott Walker, and the Lt. Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch.  This is one for the history books, and represents a huge win in the constant fight between freedom and the thug tactics used by Walker’s union opponents.  Here are some of my initial thoughts…

1.  The blame game will begin.  With any loss, the Democrats are going to blame someone else, so I would guess that the Koch brothers will be at the top of their list.  Forget that the unions spent $60,000,000.  Forget that they made asses of themselves by protested Special Olympics ceremonies, police memorials, wrecked the capitol building, faked Dr. excuses, beat up counter-protesters, and intimidated business owners.  Forget all of that, because that could not have possibly had anything to do with it, right?

2.  Then, there is now a conflict between the DNC and the unions.  The DNC didn’t spend a freely as the union bosses would have wanted.  Let’s just say that they aren’t going to like spending time under the bus.  The internal warfare might be interesting to watch.

In other words, it’s going to be the typical denial of reality.

More as it comes, and congratulations to Governor Walker, and Lt Governor Rebecca Kleefisch.

NOTE:  Smitty has been doing the coverage over at The Other McCain.  

Share