About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

U.S. TO FALL IN 2010 - PART II

 
 
   Russian academic Igor Panarin, citing uncontrolled immigration, economic collapse
 
and moral degradation as proximate causes, suggests that the USA will collapse in the
 
year 2010. The economic siege has been laid, and the unwillingness of those in power
 
to close the borders suggests that the flow of illegal immigrants from the south will
 
continue unabated. Much has been written about both demons, including posts on
 
this blog.
 
   But who would ever have thought the day would come when people of other
 
nations could, with a straight face, accuse the USA of becoming steeped in moral
 
degradation? A closer look suggests that they may be right. The nation has largely
 
abandoned constructive dialogue about "right" and "wrong," preferring instead
 
to stand on "legal" and "illegal." Is there really a difference? You bet there is!
 
   In today's USA, a man can engage in an extra-marital affair, impregnate his
 
paramour, take her to have an abortion and lie about the whole thing to his wife.
 
So you have adultery, dishonesty, cover-up and, according to some, murder, and
 
every bit of it is perfectly legal in most states. Does that make it right? Well, if
 
you  think so, your moral compass is so screwed up that you need not waste the
 
time to read further.
 
   A constant liberalization (and erosion) of law at the hands of judicial activists
 
and the American Civil Liberties Union threatens to erase the moral basis for ALL
 
law. The Constitution and the plethora of laws that have flowed from it are based
 
squarely on Judaeo-Christian morality, even though revisionist legal historians
 
lampoon the notion. The reason the ACLU so badly wants to deny this is that
 
causes they like to champion, e.g., gay rights, run squarely counter to the moral
 
convictions not only of Judaism and Christianity, but also of Islam and all of
 
the other major religions of the world. A nation in which infanticide, gay marriage,
 
public sexual displays, the expulsion of God and all things religious from public
 
view and discourse, serial adultery are not only legal but become the subjects of
 
art and feature motion pictures should not be surprised to be seen as morally
 
bankrupt -- even if it IS all nice and legal.
 
   But most of it used to be illegal. What happened? The pervasive influence of
 
liberalism has preached and cajoled that people should be able to do pretty much
 
whatever they want to do and that the laws should be constantly modified to be
 
as permissive as possible. Some elected officials are now pushing for the legalization
 
of controlled substances, euthanization of the elderly. What's next? No-fault RAPE?
 
   The point is that what we have here is a brewing perfect storm. An overcrowding
 
of the country with illegal immigrants, the declining availability of jobs and the
 
value of the dollar, the pending unaddressed insolvency of Medicaid, Social
 
Security and Medicare and the ever growing gulf between what's legal and what's
 
right is VERY likely, at some point, to throw the United States of America into
 
cataclysmic turmoil. Remember, America was born in revolution. It may have
 
to be re-born the same way. And it shouldn't take a KGB analyst to figure that
 
out. Our leaders need to stop flailing to prop up the system and acknowledge that
 
the system is broken -- REALLY broken. But don't bet on it happening soon.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

U.S. TO FALL IN 2010

 
 
   On December 29, the Wall Street Journal carried an article explaining the views of
 
noted Russian academic Igor Panarin. Among those views is one the professor has held
 
for at least a decade: that the USA will collapse in 2010. Ridiculous? On the surface yes,
 
but what lies beneath is more than a little unnerving.
 
   Panarin is no crackpot. He is the dean of the Russian academy of foreign service, an
 
organization that trains future Russian diplomats, a former senior KGB analyst and a
 
current advisor to the Kremlin on Russian-U.S. relations. He is a keen student of
 
history, and without a doubt he believes in what he is saying.
 
   The professor predicts that civil war will break out due to massive, uncontrolled
 
immigration, economic collapse and moral degradation, and that as the dollar collapses 
 
the country will eventually split into six different nation states with Alaska reverting
 
to Russian control. As one looks at the great empire/state dynasties of history, it
 
would be a tough point to make that these factors did not contribute to their demise.
 
   Massive, uncontrolled immigration already exists, and the new president's commitment
 
to amnesty and open borders only guarantees that it will build to critical mass. It would
 
also seem that an economic crater of some proportion is now underway. Just how big it
 
will get is, at present, unknown.
 
   The moral degradation issue is a touchier one, but it has to be discussed. Thanks in
 
part to the American Civil Liberties Union, the far left of the Democratic party, humanist
 
and atheist societies, the dialogue about morals has sifted almost entirely away from
 
what is moral to what is legal. This has been done in order to advance gay rights, get
 
God and prayer completely out of government and the schools and cleanse as many
 
written works as possible of any reference to morality, right and wrong.
 
   So what does the world see when they look at the United States of America? They
 
see Hollywood's tasteless and tawdry public portrayal of sexuality, flourishing
 
internet porn sites, gays demanding full rights to marry, parading in the street
 
and destroying property when their wishes are not granted, intense legal and political
 
pressue on the Boy Scounts of America to admit gay scoutmasters, the inclusion of
 
gay material in school textbooks, rampant political corruption with the virtual
 
auction of a senate seat, governors indicted for corruption, the head of the tax
 
writing body in the House of Representatives himself accused of being a tax cheat,
 
another openly gay representative thwarting strict controls on Fannie Mae while
 
having a gay affair with one of the officers who was spending the organization over
 
the brink, a senator convicted o bribery and corruption -- the list goes on, and on, and
 
on.
 
   If the politically correct U.S. public wants to pull an Alfred E. Newman (who, me?),
 
then so be it. Nero is said to have fiddled whil Rome burned. The issue we tiptoe around
 
is whether there is a "right" or a "wrong" apart from what is legal or not. Even the most
 
intellectually disingenuous of us knows the answer to the dilemma in his/her heart, even
 
when pretense to the contrary persists. We also know that a great deal of what the ACLU
 
badgers some court into declaring legal is not right.
 
   Will the U.S. collapse under the weight of its own foolishness and dishonor in 2010?
 
Maybe we need to stop rght now, step back and take a long look at where our society
 
is headed.
 
            See the follow-up to this post to come soon.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN?

 
 
   Pursuant to the 2008 presidential elections, both major party candidates promised
 
America "a different kind of campaign." There were high-sounding pledges about
 
"sticking to the issues" and staying above the negativity and mud-slinging of  the
 
past. Needless to say, what we heard about is not what we got. It may well be that
 
modern politicians don't know any other way to campaign than the "down and
 
dirty" mudfests that seem to typify current electoral politics. So what might "a
 
different kind of campaign" actually look like?
 
   It would certainly begin with the issues that are important to Americans. In a really
 
different kind of election, candidates would go beyond glittering generalities and over-
 
blown promises to explain to Americans WHAT they propose to do, HOW they plan
 
to do it, HOW MUCH they think it will cost and WHERE the money is going to
 
come from to pay for it. I realize that this would require a great deal of homework
 
for the candidates, but isn't it, after all, a reasonable expectation? Not only would
 
it create increased clarity about how a candidate would govern, it would generate an
 
actual standard of accountability that would get us beyond just voting for those we
 
"like" instead of those we "don't like."
 
   A different kind of campaign would be one in which the major media objectively
 
reported election related news, instead of choosing a side or a candidate and becoming
 
an unaplogetic advocacy arm. In our present reality so-called "journalists" have
 
convinced themselves that it's perfectly appropriate to inject their own poltical views
 
into their reporting, and spin the news to favor their own candidate. This is a direct
 
strike against the public who ought to have the right to make up their own minds based
 
on an objective, fair, balanced and "unspun" version of who said what and what actually
 
occurred. In the current media milieu, a discerning reader or viewer is well-advised to
 
take EVERYTHING reported with a grain of salt, bearing fully in mind that pure
 
reporting, political and otherwise, is virtually extinct, and a great deal of what is put
 
out for public consumption is tasked to advance the outlet's own political agenda.
 
   A different kind of campaign would set a higher and more civil tone. That does
 
not mean a Pollyanna-ish avoidance of what incumbents have done wrong, which
 
bad apples opponents have associated with or how dangerous their policies might be.
 
It does mean a responsibility to demonstrate how a candidate's own policies are better, what
 
they would do differently and how those they have aligned with are nobler, purer and
 
higher-minded. In other words, for every negative there should have to be a positive
 
counterpoint. Campaigns that focus mainly on how bad the other guy is leave frustrated
 
and uninformed voters deciding which candidate is the lesser of two evils. And who
 
wants to vote for that, regardless of party affiliation?
 
   In a different kind of campaign, the public, not the campaigns would determine what
 
are and are not relevant issues. Today, campaigns tend to harp on whatever themes they
 
believe will interest voters and disadvantage opponents. If they have questionable past
 
associations they decry mention of those by demanding that opponents "get back to
 
the issues," subtly denying that character IS a very big issue, that the voting public
 
has a right to know about past alliances and performance, and using "Swift Boat,"
 
"racism" or other deflectors to force a change of subject. The net result is that
 
campaigns routinely spend as much time trying to obscure what they don't want
 
voters to know as they do peddling their unspecific promises that they DO expect
 
voters to believe. This is a waste of public time and a disservice to voters.
 
   Finally, a different campaign would do more -- not less -- to expose its candidate
 
to public dialogue. Barack Obama's encounters with Pastor Rick Warren and Joe
 
"The Plumber" Wurzelbacher nearly undid him, because they forced him to divulge
 
in a public and undisgused way his commitments to abortion and socialism. His
 
campaign did everything humanly possible to keep him out of unscripted situations,
 
thus denying the American public candid access to his thought processes. Ditto the
 
Republican campaign in their "handling" of Sarah Palin. Knowing that she wasn't
 
yet polished and ready for the media's "gotcha" questions, they virtually hid her
 
away. And their attempts to remake her nearly offset the benefits her genuineness
 
and the "down home" style she brought to the campaign. Let the candidates be the
 
canddiates, not some manipulated "shadow version" of reality, suitably vetted
 
for public consumption. And THEN let the voters decide.
 
   Leaping back through the "rabbit hole" into reality, I concede it is probable
 
that such a campaign will never occur. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't. And
 
the candidate courageous enough to hold himself/herself, the media and voters
 
accountable to such an open process, may very well be the ONE who can really
 
bring the change so desperately needed in American governance.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JOINING THE RESISTANCE - PART III

 
 
   Whatever the failings of the Democratic party, identifying and elevating a charismatic,
 
articulate leader is not one of them. Barack Obama almost singlehandedly transformed
 
a presidential campaign that was supposed to be about critical national issues into a
 
referendum on his rather compelling personality. His success in that effort got him
 
elected. The lesson for Republicans is that unless they find a similarly compelling
 
leader -- an inspiring messenger to carry their message -- it won't much matter what
 
that message is.
 
   Leaders don't arise in a vacuum. They emerge from the crucible of human
 
interactions and public dialogue. Those wishing to mount a successful resistance
 
to Democratic socialism will do well to identify, elevate and polish such leadership
 
while they are re-packaging their message and determining just how their historically
 
conservative philosophy can relevantly address current national issues.
 
   The GOP is not without potentials for the leadership mantle. Such consideration
 
must start with this year's VP hopeful, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. No other
 
candidate either excited the conservative base or provoked rabid ralings from the
 
left like she did. In the post-campaign haze, the substance of criticism leveled
 
against her by the media has begun to fade. The most recent evidence of this is
 
the public retraction by MSNBC -- one of her harshest critics -- of the charge that
 
in a debate prep session she didn't understand that Africa was a continent, not a country.
 
It seems that both the "McCain staffer" who supposedly leaked the information, AND
 
the organization he supposedly worked for didn't really exist, and the "news story" was
 
based on an e-mail from a friend of a reporter's friend. (Just bye the bye, what kind of
 
half-assed news organization publishes so absurd a story without confirmation, and
 
on such thin documentation? I guess the answer is MSNBC, who gave the nation
 
Obamabots Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews).
 
   Palin has won universal respect from her fellow governors, who say she's plenty
 
smart and experienced to govern a country. She's clearly short on foreign policy
 
experience, but that can be remedied. And her folksy way of expressing herself,
 
while dubbed by some elitists "a lack of gravitas," won the hearts and minds of
 
a whole lot of ordinary people. If she runs in 2012, the media and the far left will
 
come out gunning for her. Some Republicans may prefer a less controversial candidate,
 
but her fire and spunk -- both qualities needed to challenge a presidential incumbent
 
will be hard to match.
 
   But not to worry, the list of rising Republican aspirants doesn't end with Palin. Paul
 
Ryan, an exciting congressional up and comer from Wisconsin is a solid conservative
 
with a strong personality and fine communication skills. Less effusive, but equally
 
brilliant is Virginia Representative Eric Cantor, expected to stand for Minority Whip
 
in the 2008 House. And don't forget young Republican governors like Bobby Jindal
 
of Louisiana, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and
 
Charlie Crist of Florida. All of the foregoing -- particu;aly Jindal, the nation's
 
first ever Indian American governor -- deserve a long look.
 
   The point is that the GOP doesn't just need ONE leader. It needs a whole cadre of
 
new leaders who bring youth, intelligence, political savvy and common sense
 
governance experience to the table. The Dems won with Obama. They might well
 
have won with Hillary, too. Wouldn't it be great if Republicans had two such
 
pre-eminent leaders from which to choose. That won't happen simply through the
 
dominant ambition of these leaders. How many people do you suppose contacted
 
Obama and asked him to run? It was a lot! And how many women's groups and
 
feminist leaders came out in support of Hillary? Count them! It's time for GOP
 
voters who care to pick a favorite (or favorites) and begin corresponding with them,
 
encouraging them, tracking their progress, talking them up. Who are the conservatives
 
in your own community who would make good state or national legislators? If you
 
don't know, why not? Revolutions are only won by those who care enough to support
 
the cause.
 
   Winning elections should be about messages. But the fact of life is that it's usually
 
just as much about messengers. And Republicans need some new ones!
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GOP: WHAT NOW?

 
 
   In a crushing repudiation of Republicans, Americans flocked to the polls in record
 
numbers to hand the Democrats control of the White House, House of Representatives
 
and Senate -- the dreaded "supermajority." While such an electoral move is unwise,
 
virtually eliminating checks and balances from the legislative and governance processes
 
and paving the way for near certain abuse of power, it is, sadly, also not surprising.
 
   The current unprincipled crop of Republicans in Washington are without direction,
 
fresh ideas or meaningful leadership. The two-term incumbent president is leaving office
 
 in near disgrace, his legacy being a too-costly, low-benefit war, a cratering economy,

worldwide
ill will and Usama bin Laden still free as a bird. It would seem that the only way

forward for
the GOP is up. Unfortunately, such an ascent will not happen simply because

Republicans
wish it to. Hard work and a great deal of soul-searching will be involved.
 
   The party has to decide what it stands for and precisely where it wishes to position itself
 
on the political spectrum. It is unlikely that an electorate, lulled by promises of national
 
security and small government, but handed a war costing over 4,000 American lives and
 
an enormous fiscal deficit fueled by out-of-control congressional spemding will again
 
be persuaded to issue the GOP a blank check based on trust. In practice, this means that
 
a simple re-stating of conservative principles is not enough -- not by a long shot. Such
 
principles must address relevant issues such as the economy, the environment, energy
 
self-sufficiency and national security, and then be formulated into specific step-by-step
 
program proposals that clearly map the road to success. The greatest failing of both
 
recent presidential campaigns was their aversion to specifics that would have allowed
 
the electorate a real chance to evaluate their prospects for success. In the absence of
 
such content, the presidential election was nothing but a personality contest, which
 
suited the Democrats just fine.
 
   Before defining principles, policies and programs, Republicans must decide where
 
the party is best positioned going forward. It would seem that the current foray into

moderation
was an abject failure, given the fact that too few independents were persuaded.

And but
for Sarah Palin, the conservative base would have been content to sit the election

out -- 
such was their lack of enthusiasm about the McCain candidacy.
 
   Facing facts, some truisms emerge. Republicans cannot continue to move away from
 
the conservative base. To do so leaves too small a choice between them and moderate
 
Democrats and invites the almost inevitable rise of a powerful and vocal third  
 
(conservative) party that would fatally erode the GOP's electoral hopes. Further,
 
Republicans cannot win on a platform dominated by pro-life and anti-gay positions --
 
not because they're wrong, but because national surveys show that most Americans
 
are now pro-choice and, while not ready to re-define marriage, do have a wide
 
tolerance for gay rights. These are battles, not strategies, and to become bogged down
 
in them will only deter the party from identifying and clarifying issues that will strike
 
fire with a majority of voters. Consider that Barack Obama did not win the presidency
 
by running on a gay rights or pro-abortion message. Rather, he won on the themes of
 
change, hope and the economy. About to be in power, he will now be able to bring
 
about changes in those other areas that are known to matter to him. A Republican
 
resurgence could put them in a position to do the same.
 
   Before considering everything lost, consider that Obama won on historically flawed
 
policies that have met with failure after monumental failure. It is thus likely that
 
they will fail again, and sooner rather than later in a teetering economy. These failures,
 
along with the many needs that will be unaddressed by the Democratic administration
 
will provide the clues to Republican strategists and policy developers that will lead
 
to an evolution of ideas that can build a better America, fill a national void and have
 
an honest opportunity to persuade American voters who, after all, only want a better
 
life for themselves and their children.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SCOPING OUT OUR NEW PRESIDENT

 
 
   On November 4 the American people voted. The sheep, spurred on by media
 
hype that seemed far more substance than reality, bitter parisanship and desperation
 
for new hope chose Barack Hussein Obama over John McCain by about seven million
 
votes. Many ardently believe that Obama will be the Shepherd. Nearly as many
 
desperately fear he will be the Wolf. The truth may be that he is neither, but that
 
remains to be seen.
 
   What is being hailed as historic about the 2008 elections is that America chose a
 
black man to be its leader. What is equally historic is that the campaign and
 
circumstances that led to Obama's election have definitively changed the way
 
future campaigns will be run, and the traditional assumptions about what gets
 
one elected president. This campaign was not about issues, political philosophies,
 
experience, qualifications, consistency of positions, past associations and loyalties,
 
or public record. If it was about any of those things, Obama would have lost and
 
lost big. The '08 election was about identifying an idealist, a leader, the champion of
 
a new direction -- a Ronald Reagan or a first-term Bill Clinton. This election
 
wasn't somewhat about that. It was ALL about that. It's what David Axelrod and
 
David Plouffe always knew and the Republicans never quite figured out. The
 
American middle -- the independents and undecideds -- didn't vote the politics or
 
the positions. They voted the man! It's not just the "hope we can believe in," it's
 
Obama they believe in.
 
   The Obama campaign did a masterful job of keeping Obama out of situations
 
where he would betray his political immaturity and inexperience by having to
 
field tough questions. Every time they failed to do that, he faltered (e.g., the
 
Camelback Forum, and Joe the Plumber). They courted, manipulated and
 
co-opted the media, influencing them not only to support Obama but to viciously
 
attack McCain and his running mate. They created an "aura of the gods" at the Denver
 
convention, styled Obama, preened him, made him appear glib, in control, thoughtful.
 
Even the contrived leaks about him playing in pickup basketball games while on the
 
campaign trail was designed to make him look young, hip, real. It worked!
 
   Republicans, by contrast, appeared old, out of touch, stuck in the past (not very hip)
 
and decidedly negative. It was the old Karl Rove playbook. And it didn't work -- at
 
all. It might have worked better had they recruited a young, vibrant, glib, handsome
 
candidate. And they can kiss off the next EIGHT years if they don't. But more important,
 
cool slogans, sweeping, unfulfillable promises, concepts with no specifics and untried
 
ideas only work when the other side has NO new ideas, is equally unspecific about the
 
HOW of the few changes it does propose and on too many issues is indistingioshable
 
from its opponent.
 
   Who is Barack Hussein Obama? We don't really know, and the press has forever
 
sullied its sacred trust by systematically refusing to help us find out. The darker
 
suspicion is that Obama is The Wolf, a liberal who will impose big government
 
socialism upon us at every opportunity. That may come to pass, although the
 
current economic crisis may prove a blessing in disguise by inhibiting the speed
 
at which that can occur.
 
   There is, however, a more hopeful view. Obama is on record as saying he wishes
 
"govern from the center," to build a powerful bipartisan coalition to overcome the
 
current gridlock malaise in Washington. His first staff appointment, Rep. Rahm
 
Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, has drawn equal fire from the Republican National
 
Committee and the MoveOn.org types. When both extremes are disappointed, that
 
would seem to define centrism (although no one doubts that Emanuel is a
 
barekuckle Decomratic partisan of Chicago ilk). Appointing a couple of centrist
 
Republicans to cabinet posts, and reaching out in conciliation to John McCain
 
would further indicate that Obama's promise was not just hot air rhetoric.
 
   I didn't vote for Obama, but you won't see any immature bumper stickers on
 
my cars proclaiming "He's Not MY President." Like it or not, he is OUR
 
president, and I plan to give him every chance, supporting him where I can, and
 
opposing him by every legal means available where I can't. That's not just my
 
right, it's my obligation as an American. It's the quintessential meaning of
 
citizenship. And it's just possible that we aren't the only ones not to know who
 
Barack Obama is. HE MAY NOT YET KNOW! He's still a young man, and of
 
limited experience. The future, and those he chooses to listen to going forward
 
will shape him into the president he will be -- for better or for worse. That may
 
be neither what the left hopes, nor what the right fears. While he is in the making
 
I, and many others who did not vote for him, will pray that God grants him wisdom.
 
patience and moderation. If he becomes his own man, and follows the road not
 
taken, the United States of America may just be all right after all.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JOINING THE RESISTANCE - PART II

 
 
   Whether Barack Obama wins the presidency or not, Democrats seem sure to increase
 
their congressional majorities in both houses. It will be a rough four years for
 
conservatives, any way you slice it. So, what can be done about it?
 
   First, in spite of its failings of the last eight years -- and they have been many -- the
 
Republican party is what we have to work with. Barring the unforeseen rise of a third
 
major party, long overdue, no one else has the base or the resources to challenge the
 
Democratic machine and a president who hungers for unlimited power. So we have
 
to think about how to rehabilitate the GOP. It's been done before, and it can be done
 
again. Republicans have failed America not because the principles of conservatism
 
are flawed, but because Republicans in power have not adhered to them. To rejuvenate
 
the party, then, there must be a purge of the neo-liberal philosophy of the Bush years,
 
and a re-commitment to the Reagan Revolution. Voters can demand and force such
 
a re-thinking by their elected representatives, if necessary by replacing them.
 
   Second, the new Republicanism must purloin some pages from the Democrats'
 
playbook. When Republicans swept into control, the Democrats did not simply
 
roll over. While they didn't win many votes, they did block a few and screamed to
 
high heaven every time the Republicans did something over the top. While they
 
sometimes resembled dogs howling at the moon, they did use their platform to
 
draw national attention to Republican positions they considered vulnerable during
 
future elections. Although limited, the strategy contributed to an overall degrading
 
of Republican popularity. The Democrats also used legal challenges and demanded
 
special prosecutors to investigate every suspicion of Republican wrongdoing, leading
 
to the demise of stalwart GOP leaders like Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Dennis Hastert,
 
Newt Gingrich and the like. Does anyone believe that there are no bones hiding in
 
Nancy Pelosi's closet among the Prada shoes, or that there's not fire behind the
 
ACORN and Ayers smoke? When the election is over, there will be plenty of time
 
to find out, and possibly to fan the blaze into a conflagration that will bring down
 
some prominent Democrats just as they did some leading Republicans.
 
   Third, new strategic leadership must be identified and elevated. The days of winning
 
office solely through negative campaigning are waning. A clear, concise conservative
 
message posing real solutions to real problems must be crafted, polished and packaged.
 
John McCain trails in the polls not because he isn't a good man, but because those
 
who have driven his campaign have made it negative, pedantic, reactionary amd boring.
 
Plans for a Republican administration were not carefully crafted and condensed into
 
defensible talking points that posed stark alternatives to Democratic socialism. Such
 
plans arrived late and in sketchy form as a reaction to the opponents' campaign. It is
 
difficult to stay on message when the campaign is unsure what the message is. Even
 
if the principles are sound, when the packaging is unattractive, the product won't sell.
 
   Fourth, the Democrats have been very savvy about building their base. Some would
 
assert that they've even been crooked, in light of ACORN and like organizations, and
 
the Obama campaign's attempts to stifle criticisms by legal recourse. While crooked
 
is no good, savvy is very good.  If the liberals can grow and support an ACORN,
 
then conservatives can build a similar organization to identify, educate and register
 
a host of new right and centrist voters, and there will be a boatload of potentials
 
out there. Think about all the businesses -- particuarly small or family-owned ones
 
that will be crushed by Obama "spread the wealth" socialism, the many who will be
 
downwardly mobile due to recession or depression spurred by Democratic tax hikes,
 
young hunters who will be afraid of losing their guns, workers who will feel
 
disenfranchised by congressional action that takes away their right to secret union
 
ballots, people enraged by high fuel costs and an administration that stalls on offshore
 
drilling, people whose basic sense of justice is violated by the Fairness Doctrine, a
 
Democratic legislative initiative designed to shut down conservative talk radio. Are
 
there as many as 1.3 million of these -- the number that ACORN claims to have
 
registered? Try ten times that many. But it will take organization and tons of hard
 
work to recruit and mobilize them.
 
   The Dems and an Obama administration will also do things (e.g., the Fairness
 
Doctrine) that will be highly susceptible to constitutional legal challenge. The GOP
 
should gear up fund raising efforts immediately to pose legal hurdles to every
 
questionable Democratic initiative -- all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
 
Special prosecutors should be demanded to investigate every Democratic indiscretion,
 
and should Democrats obstruct them -- which they will -- the obstructionists should
 
be publicly identified and pilloried in any sympathetic media outlet. Democratic
 
leadership in particular should be targeted. If the ACORN investigation turns up
 
evidence of purposeful election rigging or other related malfeasance, Republicans
 
should immediately push to cut off federal funding to ACORN. While they may
 
not succeeed, the Dems who cover ACORN's exposed backside can be forced to wear
 
their complicity in future elections. Democratic initiatives like the Community
 
Reinvestment Act and blockage of tighter reins on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
 
should be exposed -- including Barney Frank's homosexual affair with Herb Moses
 
while the latter was shaping policies at one of the now discredited mortgage giants.
 
There is almost no end to the Democrats' vulnerability on such issues.
 
   There is one more crucial piece to the New Resistance movement. That will be
 
discussed in detail in the third part of "Joining the Resistance," coming soon.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT JOE KNOWS

 
 
   During the last two weeks the name "Joe" has become quite significant in the current

presidential
contest. Not one, but two "Joes" have been in the news. And each has shed

significant light on
the contest now playing out before the American electorate.
 
   Joe number one is Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential candidate and running mate

of
Barack Obama, who observed during remarks in Seattle that Barack Obama would be

tested by
an international crisis within the first six months after election, that the way it was

handled might
at first appear wrong, and that voters needed to be patient and "stay with"

Obama. Obama
himself later sought to amend Biden's remarks to mean that WHOEVER

was elected would be
so tested. But that was clearly not Senator Biden's initial intent. Now

Joe Biden, gaffes and all,
is nobody's dummy. And he knows foreign policy. So what does Joe

know about a brewing
crisis that will test a young and inexperienced Obama and which he

might appear to fumble?
 
   Interestingly enough, Biden's comments came just after a senior Iranian policy advisor's
 
remarks in London that Iran was consdering a pre-emptive strike on Israel in order to protect
 
their own nuclear program. Assuming that's a possible scenario, how might Barack Obama
 
react? His insipid initial reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia and the fact that he has
 
surrounded himself with pro-Palestinian advisors suggests that his obligatory rhetoric about
 
being committed to Israel's security is just that. Based on his record, the views of his advisors
 
and what he has said publicly, his probable reaction would be to scold Iran and refer the
 
matter
to the United Nations where, as usual, nothing significant will be done. That will be

read by
the general public as weakness, and by Jewish Americans and the Israeli allies as

abject
betrayal. Such a scenario will likely cause many Obama voters a severe case of buyer's
 
remorse, and will irrtrievably damage America's image as an ally worldwide, and the
 
relationship with our only reliable ally in the toubled Middle East. Even Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad,
who IS a dummy, wouldn't be stupid enough to attack Israel with John McCain

in the White
House, because he knows that such an action would trigger a massive U.S.

military counter-
strike that would send his tattered regime back into the stone age. Biden

knows that Obama
simply isn't ready for such a test, and that public reaction will be intensely

negative. He's
trying to deflate public expectations in advance of the events. And one must

ask what kind
of incentive that is to vote for Obama in the first place?
 
   The other Joe's last name is Wurzelbacher. He's the poor Ohio plumber who had the
 
audacity to ask The Chosen One why he wanted to raise taxes on small businessmen, drawing 
 
the now famous response from Obama that he "wanted to spread the wealth around." It

seems
that every time Obama appears in an unscripted situation, he blurts out the truth,

opening
windows into his soul and character that his campaign team has fought relentlessly to

obscure.
Remember his Camelback bumble to the effect that determining when life begins is

"above
my pay grade," thus copping out on a full and frank discussion of the morality of

abortion?
The Ohio blunder clearly shows his socialist leanings -- that his plan is to take

money from 
those who have earned it and give it to those who have not -- some of whom pay

no taxes
at all.  His campaign is still reeling from that one.
 
   Most interesting is the way the in-the-tank-for-Obama media has turned on Wurzelbacher,
 
regaling him for not having a plumber's license (which he doesn't need in his county to do
 
residential work) and because he owes back state taxes. Some have suggested that he was a
 
Repuiblican plant. All of this is simply a distraction from the point. It really doesn't
 
matter if Wurzelacher is a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent, whether he's left or
 
right handed, whether he's gay or straight, whether he was a Republican plant or Jack the
 
Ripper. The damning words didn't come from his mouth, they came from Obama's. Of
 
course, the press has chosen to ignore that, as they have Obama's other gaffes.
 
   Some real insight has come to us from these two Joes. Unfortunately, Obama supporters
 
have made up their minds like silly adolescents who buy their favorite rock star's every CD
 
even though it is musical crapola. You can't confuse them with the facts What do you know,

Joe? 
Six months from now the old refrain may have a whole new significance, and we'll know

that we
should have listened more carefully.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »