GOOD ARTICLE TO PRINT AND KEEP
Driving in the rain!!
this may save your life
I have heard of the second part of this, but not the first part.
GOOD VISION IN A DOWNPOUR.
How to achieve good vision while driving during a heavy downpour.
We are not sure why it is so effective; just try this method when it rains heavily. This method was given me by a Police friend who had experienced and confirmed it. It is useful....even driving at night. One method used by Canadian Military Drivers for years.
Most of the motorists would turn on HIGH or FASTEST SPEED of the wipers during heavy downpour, yet the visibility in front of the windshield is still bad...
In the event you face such a situation, just try your SUN GLASSES (any model will do), and miracle!
All of a sudden, your visibility in front of your windshield is perfectly clear, as if there is no rain.
Make sure you always have a pair of SUN GLASSES in your car, as you are not only helping yourself to drive safely with good vision, but also might save your friend's life by giving him this idea...
Try it yourself, and share it with your friends! Amazing, you still see the drops on the windshield, but not the sheet of rain falling.
You can see where the rain bounces off the road. It works to eliminate the "blindness" from passing semi's spraying you too.
Or the "kickup" if you are following a semi or car in the rain.
They ought to teach that little tip in driver's training. It really does work..
And for a similar reason, why "Fog" lights must make WHITE light, or else are useless in FOG. Those YELLOW "FOG"lights are great in those blinding night SNOWstorms, and those big snowflakes become virtually invisible.
But YELLOW is useless in RAIN or FOG.
This next warning is a another good one! I wonder how many people know about this:
A 36 year old female had an accident several weeks ago and totaled her car. A resident of Kinburn, Ontario was traveling between Kinburn & Ottawa. It was raining, though not excessively, when her car suddenly began to hydro-plane and literally flew through the air.. She was not seriously injured but very stunned at the sudden occurrence!
When she explained to the OPP Officer what had happened he told her something that every driver should know -
NEVER DRIVE IN THE RAIN WITH YOUR CRUISE CONTROL ON.
She thought she was being cautious by setting the cruise control and maintaining a safe consistent speed in the rain. But the Officer told her that if the cruise control is on when your car begins to hydro-plane and your tires lose contact with the pavement, your car will accelerate to a higher rate of speed making you take off like an airplane. She told the OPP Officer that was exactly what had occurred.
The Officer said this warning should be listed, on the driver's seat sun-visor - NEVER USE THE CRUISE CONTROL WHEN THE PAVEMENT IS WET OR ICY, along with the airbag warning.
We tell our teenagers to set the cruise control and drive a safe speed - but we don't tell them to use the cruise control ONLY when the pavement is dry.
NOTE: Some vehicles (like the Toyota Sienna Limited XLE) will not allow you to set the cruise control when the windshield wipers are on.
If you send this to other people and only one of them doesn't know about this, then it was all worth it..
You might have saved a life!
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
One Minute Each Night
ONE MINUTE EACH NIGHT During WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill who
organized a group of people who dropped what they were doing every night
at a prescribed hour for one minute to collectively pray for the safety of
England, its people and peace. This had an amazing effect as bombing
stopped.
There is now a group of people organizing the same thing here in America .
If you would like to participate: each evening at 9:00 PM Eastern Time
(8:00 PM Central, 7:00 PM Mountain, 6:00 PM Pacific), stop whatever you
are doing and spend one minute praying for the up-coming election, and for
the revival of Christianity in this great country.
If you know anyone who would like to participate, please pass this along.
Someone said if people really understood the full extent of the power we
have available through prayer, we might be speechless. Our prayers are the
most powerful asset we have.
Thank You. Please pass this on to anyone who you think will want to join us.
ONE MINUTE EACH NIGHT During WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill who
organized a group of people who dropped what they were doing every night
at a prescribed hour for one minute to collectively pray for the safety of
England, its people and peace. This had an amazing effect as bombing
stopped.
There is now a group of people organizing the same thing here in America .
If you would like to participate: each evening at 9:00 PM Eastern Time
(8:00 PM Central, 7:00 PM Mountain, 6:00 PM Pacific), stop whatever you
are doing and spend one minute praying for the up-coming election, and for
the revival of Christianity in this great country.
If you know anyone who would like to participate, please pass this along.
Someone said if people really understood the full extent of the power we
have available through prayer, we might be speechless. Our prayers are the
most powerful asset we have.
Thank You. Please pass this on to anyone who you think will want to join us.
The article below was written by Gary Hubbell, a rancher, fishing guide and real estate agent, in Aspen Colorado of all places....Someone picked this up and began circulating it. To confirm its authenticity, someone emailed Gary and received the following reply:
Yes, indeed, I did write that. Thanks for your compliments.
Regards,
Gary Hubbell, Broker/Owner
United Country Colorado Brokers
Hotchkiss , CO 81419
970 872 3322 970 872 3322 office
970 988 2122 970 988 2122 cell
970 921 5588 970 921 5588 home
970 872 3323 office fax
Email: grandviewranch@gmail.com
Web: www.uccoloradobrokers.com
Web: www.aspenranchrealestate.com
Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation
Gary Hubbell
Aspen Times Weekly February 2010
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America 's future.
Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America 's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.
That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America . Here's why.
Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.
Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips - they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.
Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and "disabilities." Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.
We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.
But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.
A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union - whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense - is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.
Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 "FANTASTIC" years--- the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.
Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com
IF YOU AGREE, SHARE THIS . IF YOU DON'T, DO NOTHING AND KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.
Yes, indeed, I did write that. Thanks for your compliments.
Regards,
Gary Hubbell, Broker/Owner
United Country Colorado Brokers
Hotchkiss , CO 81419
970 872 3322 970 872 3322 office
970 988 2122 970 988 2122 cell
970 921 5588 970 921 5588 home
970 872 3323 office fax
Email: grandviewranch@gmail.com
Web: www.uccoloradobrokers.com
Web: www.aspenranchrealestate.com
Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation
Gary Hubbell
Aspen Times Weekly February 2010
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America 's future.
Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America 's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.
That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America . Here's why.
Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.
Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips - they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.
Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and "disabilities." Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.
We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.
But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.
A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union - whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense - is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.
Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 "FANTASTIC" years--- the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.
Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com
IF YOU AGREE, SHARE THIS . IF YOU DON'T, DO NOTHING AND KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.
FROM T
$200,000 for Capitol Hill Bottled Water?
Email Chuck Norris
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up The Congressional Budget Office just reported that in the past two years since President Barack Obama took office, federal spending is up 21.4 percent.
The national deficit was $1.29 trillion in 2010 (second to the $1.4 trillion in Obama's first year in office, 2009), which means that for every $1 the federal government spent this past year, it borrowed 37 cents of it!
The feds will tell you that their outrageous spending habits were necessary to pull our economy out of its recession. But would their same rationale justify the fact that the money Congress spends on itself has soared 89 percent over the past decade, more than three times the U.S. inflation rate?
It's true. In 2000, the feds spent $2.87 billion to run Capitol Hill. In fiscal year 2010, they almost doubled the amount, to an enormous $5.42 billion. From 2000-10, while inflation went up 26 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Capitol expenses went up 89 percent.
Were all those expenditures necessary to pull the economy out of a recession, too? Will the Obama administration again blame former President George W. Bush for its contemptible spending habits in its first two years?
According to Capitol News Connection and the congressional watchdog groups Sunlight Foundation and LegiStorm, here are just some of the itemized personnel costs of your legislative branch of government, including their comparative increases from 2000:
--Congress members' salaries and benefits: $126 million, up 23.5 percent.
--Expense allowances for Senate leaders: $180,000, up 99 percent.
--Senate officers: $178.98 million, up 99 percent.
--House leadership offices: $25.88 million, up 82 percent.
--Other House officers: $198.30 million, up 120 percent.
--Senators' personal offices: $422 million, up 75 percent.
--Representatives' personal offices: $660 million, up 62 percent.
--Architect of the Capitol salaries: $106.78 million, up 118 percent.
--Capitol Police salaries: $265.18 million, up 237 percent.
--Capitol Police general expenses: $63.13 million, up 860 percent.
Other items:
--Senate inquiries and investigations: $140.5 million, up 96 percent.
--Capitol grounds upkeep: $10.97 million, up 102 percent.
--Capitol building maintenance: $33.18 million (not listed separately in 2000).
--Senate office buildings: $74.39 million, up 16 percent.
--House office buildings: $100.46 million, up 169 percent.
--Capitol Visitor Center: $22.45 million (didn't exist in 2000).
--Congressional Budget Office: $45.16 million, up 72 percent.
--Government Accountability Office: $556.84 million, up 47 percent.
--Library of Congress: $446.15 million, up 73 percent.
--Congressional Research Service: $112.49 million, up 57 percent.
And if you don't think those costs are reflective of a nation in economic peril and government run amok, consider momentarily how critical these following costs are to running our country -- or are they?
--Since Democrat Nancy Pelosi took over the position of speaker of the House in January 2007, funding for her office soared 62 percent, from $2.9 million to $4.7 million. For a single office?!
--And taxpayers paid an enormous printing bill of $93.76 million, up 212 percent. (How many copies of the 1,000-plus-page Obamacare bill do you think that bought the feds? In a computer age of paperless transactions, don't you think they could save a few dollars here by learning what PDF files are?)
--According to the Sunlight Foundation, $4.28 million was spent on student loan repayments during the first quarter of this year as one of the congressional staff member employment perks.
--Pension costs continue to soar as congressional members enjoy the $60,000 annual benefit when they retire at age 62 after only having five years of congressional service. More than 400 former members receive average pensions of $60,000 a year.
--Taxpayers also forked out $3.27 million for Capitol Hill office supplies, as well as $628,332 for food. In addition, we spent $51.05 million on electricity and $4.63 million on sewer and water services in the Capitol building.
--And that water bill doesn't include the bottled water, which the House offices alone spent nearly $200,000 on during just the first quarter of 2010!
Friends, this next election fight is not for the weak at heart. Those elected next will either plummet our country into a fiscal abyss by maintaining the present course or deliver our economy from utter ruin by turning sharply to avoid economic disaster.
If our country is to survive, we must elect only those who show proof of fiscal discipline, refuse under all circumstances to increase our national deficit, disdain special interests, are willing to radically cut spending, and commit to pass and live under a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. (Please join the movement to pressure Congress to do so, by signing BBA Now's petition for a Common Sense Balanced Budget Amendment. And for a voter guide detailing where candidates in your state stand on issues, go to http://www.ChristianVoterGuide.com.)
With the present elective battle at hand, I call upon the great battalion of patriots to get out and vote Nov. 2 in the same spirit in which George Washington admonished his army in 1776: "The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men."
(I also encourage everyone to check out the trailers to two new patriotic films playing near you, "I Want Your Money" and "Battle for America.")
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Email Chuck Norris
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up The Congressional Budget Office just reported that in the past two years since President Barack Obama took office, federal spending is up 21.4 percent.
The national deficit was $1.29 trillion in 2010 (second to the $1.4 trillion in Obama's first year in office, 2009), which means that for every $1 the federal government spent this past year, it borrowed 37 cents of it!
The feds will tell you that their outrageous spending habits were necessary to pull our economy out of its recession. But would their same rationale justify the fact that the money Congress spends on itself has soared 89 percent over the past decade, more than three times the U.S. inflation rate?
It's true. In 2000, the feds spent $2.87 billion to run Capitol Hill. In fiscal year 2010, they almost doubled the amount, to an enormous $5.42 billion. From 2000-10, while inflation went up 26 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Capitol expenses went up 89 percent.
Were all those expenditures necessary to pull the economy out of a recession, too? Will the Obama administration again blame former President George W. Bush for its contemptible spending habits in its first two years?
According to Capitol News Connection and the congressional watchdog groups Sunlight Foundation and LegiStorm, here are just some of the itemized personnel costs of your legislative branch of government, including their comparative increases from 2000:
--Congress members' salaries and benefits: $126 million, up 23.5 percent.
--Expense allowances for Senate leaders: $180,000, up 99 percent.
--Senate officers: $178.98 million, up 99 percent.
--House leadership offices: $25.88 million, up 82 percent.
--Other House officers: $198.30 million, up 120 percent.
--Senators' personal offices: $422 million, up 75 percent.
--Representatives' personal offices: $660 million, up 62 percent.
--Architect of the Capitol salaries: $106.78 million, up 118 percent.
--Capitol Police salaries: $265.18 million, up 237 percent.
--Capitol Police general expenses: $63.13 million, up 860 percent.
Other items:
--Senate inquiries and investigations: $140.5 million, up 96 percent.
--Capitol grounds upkeep: $10.97 million, up 102 percent.
--Capitol building maintenance: $33.18 million (not listed separately in 2000).
--Senate office buildings: $74.39 million, up 16 percent.
--House office buildings: $100.46 million, up 169 percent.
--Capitol Visitor Center: $22.45 million (didn't exist in 2000).
--Congressional Budget Office: $45.16 million, up 72 percent.
--Government Accountability Office: $556.84 million, up 47 percent.
--Library of Congress: $446.15 million, up 73 percent.
--Congressional Research Service: $112.49 million, up 57 percent.
And if you don't think those costs are reflective of a nation in economic peril and government run amok, consider momentarily how critical these following costs are to running our country -- or are they?
--Since Democrat Nancy Pelosi took over the position of speaker of the House in January 2007, funding for her office soared 62 percent, from $2.9 million to $4.7 million. For a single office?!
--And taxpayers paid an enormous printing bill of $93.76 million, up 212 percent. (How many copies of the 1,000-plus-page Obamacare bill do you think that bought the feds? In a computer age of paperless transactions, don't you think they could save a few dollars here by learning what PDF files are?)
--According to the Sunlight Foundation, $4.28 million was spent on student loan repayments during the first quarter of this year as one of the congressional staff member employment perks.
--Pension costs continue to soar as congressional members enjoy the $60,000 annual benefit when they retire at age 62 after only having five years of congressional service. More than 400 former members receive average pensions of $60,000 a year.
--Taxpayers also forked out $3.27 million for Capitol Hill office supplies, as well as $628,332 for food. In addition, we spent $51.05 million on electricity and $4.63 million on sewer and water services in the Capitol building.
--And that water bill doesn't include the bottled water, which the House offices alone spent nearly $200,000 on during just the first quarter of 2010!
Friends, this next election fight is not for the weak at heart. Those elected next will either plummet our country into a fiscal abyss by maintaining the present course or deliver our economy from utter ruin by turning sharply to avoid economic disaster.
If our country is to survive, we must elect only those who show proof of fiscal discipline, refuse under all circumstances to increase our national deficit, disdain special interests, are willing to radically cut spending, and commit to pass and live under a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. (Please join the movement to pressure Congress to do so, by signing BBA Now's petition for a Common Sense Balanced Budget Amendment. And for a voter guide detailing where candidates in your state stand on issues, go to http://www.ChristianVoterGuide.com.)
With the present elective battle at hand, I call upon the great battalion of patriots to get out and vote Nov. 2 in the same spirit in which George Washington admonished his army in 1776: "The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men."
(I also encourage everyone to check out the trailers to two new patriotic films playing near you, "I Want Your Money" and "Battle for America.")
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
FROM TOWNHALL
If Dems Lose, Obama Will Blame Everyone But Himself
Email Byron York
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 3diggsdigg
Sign-Up Assume the polls are correct and Republicans win control of the House, and perhaps even the Senate, in next month's elections. What lessons will the White House learn? Will Barack Obama interpret the vote as a repudiation of much of his agenda, or will he conclude that he made a few tactical errors but was still right on the big issues?
Bet on the latter. All indications coming out of the White House suggest that if Democrats suffer major losses, the president and his top aides will resolutely refuse to reconsider the policies -- national health care, stimulus, runaway spending -- that led to their defeat. Instead, they will point fingers in virtually every direction other than their own. Come November, it's likely the D-for-Democrat that the president refers to so often will actually stand for "denial."
The White House has given us plenty of clues in recent days as to how Obama will react to a possible Democratic drubbing at the polls. Here are five.
1. Obama will blame voters, not himself. At a small fundraiser in Massachusetts recently, Obama suggested Democrats are in trouble because recession-weary Americans simply aren't thinking clearly. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama said. "And the country is scared." If Democrats lose, Obama is likely to fault voters' irrationality and not anything he has done.
2. Obama will spin the outcome as an illegitimate GOP victory. In recent weeks, the president and top administration officials have accused the Chamber of Commerce of illegally using foreign contributions to fund ads critical of Democrats. There's no evidence to support the charge, but Obama has laid the foundation for a simple explanation of Democratic defeat: Republicans cheated.
3. Obama will blame a broken process. In a recent New York Times article, reporter Peter Baker asked a number of White House aides about mistakes Obama has made in office. "The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers," Baker writes, "was the assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions." By that standard, a post-defeat Obama will be guilty more of overestimating Republicans and the culture of Washington than of making mistakes on his own.
4. Obama will reaffirm, not reconsider, his achievements. The president says he has already kept about 70 percent of the promises he made in the 2008 campaign. Now, his main task will be to shield those accomplishments from GOP challenge. Aides constantly tell reporters that Republicans intend to roll back Obamacare and Wall Street reform, and the president plans to spend as much time as it takes fighting those efforts. "There's going to be a lot of work in [the next two years] just doing things right and making sure that new laws are stood up in the ways they're intended," Obama told Baker.
5. Obama will resist real change inside the White House. The president has lost several top aides in recent months: Rahm Emanuel, James Jones, Lawrence Summers, Christina Romer, Peter Orszag and others. So far, Obama has preferred to replace departing insiders with other insiders. His reluctance to bring in a high-level adviser from outside his circle suggests he wants to keep doing what he's doing.
Tie all those threads together, and in the wake of a Republican victory in November you can virtually guarantee the White House will not concede that the president hurt himself by pushing an unpopular national health care program through Congress; by pushing nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus spending that failed to reduce unemployment as predicted; by pushing a costly cap-and-trade agenda; or by advocating any number of other initiatives that flew in the face of voter sentiments.
In a recent campaign ad, Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck says the public tried to tell White House and Democratic leaders not to go ahead with those unwelcome measures. "They heard us, and yet they ignored us," Buck says, adding: "And folks, on Nov. 2 they will ignore us no more." Republicans no doubt hope Buck is right. But so far Obama is sending signals that even if he loses big in November, he'll make excuses, point fingers and try to keep going just as before.
Byron York
Byron York, chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner
Email Byron York
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 3diggsdigg
Sign-Up Assume the polls are correct and Republicans win control of the House, and perhaps even the Senate, in next month's elections. What lessons will the White House learn? Will Barack Obama interpret the vote as a repudiation of much of his agenda, or will he conclude that he made a few tactical errors but was still right on the big issues?
Bet on the latter. All indications coming out of the White House suggest that if Democrats suffer major losses, the president and his top aides will resolutely refuse to reconsider the policies -- national health care, stimulus, runaway spending -- that led to their defeat. Instead, they will point fingers in virtually every direction other than their own. Come November, it's likely the D-for-Democrat that the president refers to so often will actually stand for "denial."
The White House has given us plenty of clues in recent days as to how Obama will react to a possible Democratic drubbing at the polls. Here are five.
1. Obama will blame voters, not himself. At a small fundraiser in Massachusetts recently, Obama suggested Democrats are in trouble because recession-weary Americans simply aren't thinking clearly. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama said. "And the country is scared." If Democrats lose, Obama is likely to fault voters' irrationality and not anything he has done.
2. Obama will spin the outcome as an illegitimate GOP victory. In recent weeks, the president and top administration officials have accused the Chamber of Commerce of illegally using foreign contributions to fund ads critical of Democrats. There's no evidence to support the charge, but Obama has laid the foundation for a simple explanation of Democratic defeat: Republicans cheated.
3. Obama will blame a broken process. In a recent New York Times article, reporter Peter Baker asked a number of White House aides about mistakes Obama has made in office. "The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers," Baker writes, "was the assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions." By that standard, a post-defeat Obama will be guilty more of overestimating Republicans and the culture of Washington than of making mistakes on his own.
4. Obama will reaffirm, not reconsider, his achievements. The president says he has already kept about 70 percent of the promises he made in the 2008 campaign. Now, his main task will be to shield those accomplishments from GOP challenge. Aides constantly tell reporters that Republicans intend to roll back Obamacare and Wall Street reform, and the president plans to spend as much time as it takes fighting those efforts. "There's going to be a lot of work in [the next two years] just doing things right and making sure that new laws are stood up in the ways they're intended," Obama told Baker.
5. Obama will resist real change inside the White House. The president has lost several top aides in recent months: Rahm Emanuel, James Jones, Lawrence Summers, Christina Romer, Peter Orszag and others. So far, Obama has preferred to replace departing insiders with other insiders. His reluctance to bring in a high-level adviser from outside his circle suggests he wants to keep doing what he's doing.
Tie all those threads together, and in the wake of a Republican victory in November you can virtually guarantee the White House will not concede that the president hurt himself by pushing an unpopular national health care program through Congress; by pushing nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus spending that failed to reduce unemployment as predicted; by pushing a costly cap-and-trade agenda; or by advocating any number of other initiatives that flew in the face of voter sentiments.
In a recent campaign ad, Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck says the public tried to tell White House and Democratic leaders not to go ahead with those unwelcome measures. "They heard us, and yet they ignored us," Buck says, adding: "And folks, on Nov. 2 they will ignore us no more." Republicans no doubt hope Buck is right. But so far Obama is sending signals that even if he loses big in November, he'll make excuses, point fingers and try to keep going just as before.
Byron York
Byron York, chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
COMMENTS POSTED
Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR: Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Flood Insurance Reauthorization , Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Debt Limit Increase, Fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN “Reforms.” Patriot Act Reauthorization, CAFTA, Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations, Head Start Funding, Line-item Rescission, Oman Trade Agreement, Military Tribunals, Electronic Surveillance, Head Start Funding, COPS Funding, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus, Farm Bill (Veto Override), Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extention. Marsha Blackburn Voted AGAINST: Ban on UN Contributions, eliminate Millennium Challenge Account, WTO Withdrawal, UN Dues Decrease, Defunding the NAIS, Iran Military Operations defunding Iraq Troop Withdrawal, congress authorization of Iran Military Operations, Withdrawing U.S. Soldiers from Afghanistan. Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman. See her unconstitutional votes at : http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html Mickey
By MickeyWhite on FROM TOWNHALL on 10/24/10
By MickeyWhite on FROM TOWNHALL on 10/24/10
FIRE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
1 King 18:24
Then you call on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord; and the God who answer by fire, He is God. So all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
Psalm 39:3
My heart was hot within me; While I was musing, the fire burned. Then I spoke with my tongue, (meditating)
Job 32:18
For I am full of words; The spirit within me compels me.
Read to the end of the chapter at home.
Matthew 3:11 Luke 3:16
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, Who sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
If God does it for others he will do it for you.
Believing the Whole Bible in the simple terms as God meant It to be.
2 Samuel 22:33 God is my strength and power, And He makes my way perfect.
Acts 4:33
And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.
Acts 1:8A
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.
Learning the truth about the divine power of God, healing, deliverance, freedom from your bondage of sin/sins and getting yourself out of God's way so, he can move in our lives.
Knowing and believing that God will answer - Which is called FAITH!
Believe in God, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Do not be ashamed of Them. Seek God's love, & the power of God, His FIRE! Like the Apostle had.
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I do not change.
2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord. are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord
Hebrews 13:5
For He Himself has said "I will never leave you nor forsake you"
Deuteronomy 31:6B
He will never leave you nor forsake you.
Joshua 1:5B
I will be with you I will never leave you nor forsake you.
God never changes; His Word is for today. His Word is our safety, our strength, our being. He never leaves us. He's always there and we need more of Him. To be on fire of the Lord and the Holy Spirit just like the Apostles had.
God's Will is in the Bible. What was for his Apostles is for us. Having and needing a REAL divine hunger, something our soul is seeking and needing. If you have God's Will (Bible) The answer will come! God will answer. Seek Him like you never had before. Finding that
divine hunger, praying for the divine hunger. It's there. Seek it. Want it, hunger for it. Praise God it will come.
Jeremiah 20:9
Then I said " I will not make mention of Him, Nor speak anymore in His name" But His word was in my heart like a burning fire Shut up in my bones: I was weary of holding it back, And I could not.
Get yourself out of your own way and let God do his good works. And Do it God's way. Get on Fire for God!! Get on Fire for God is not the God of the dead, but for the living. God hears our prayer! He hears our prayers. Glory be to God! He answer our prayer once we get out of His way.
God is saying to the Christan let him pray, God will meet the soul every time you turn to Him, He will meet you face to face.
When we pray to God believe, have faith and get your healing, your answer, your loved ones saved, deliverance from sin. God is stronger then satan, Jesus when he died he made sure of that! Praise God. He went to Hell for three days and took back what Adam gave up for us. We can have what the Apostles had.
1 Corinthians 2:10-16 (pg 1668)
(10) But, God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
(11) For what man knows the things of a man except the Spirit of man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God
(12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God Read (13-15)
(16) For Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
If you have to get on your knees, or flat before the Lord, Do It! Cry out to him! Pray through until you get the answer.
When your desires of your heart goes out to God, THAT ALL THE SPIRITUAL ENERGY & the power of God comes to you & you begin to concentrate and forms an unconscious creative action of Faith, you and God are working together. That is the creative action of Faith.
Be diligent before God. Be in prayer & supplication. Humble yourselves to God. Get out of God's way. He will be your God, your savior, your healer, your deliver. Once you get out of His way for your life. Let Him live in your Life. As Christ lived in me and you! Which is our Revelation of the age.
Then you call on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord; and the God who answer by fire, He is God. So all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
Psalm 39:3
My heart was hot within me; While I was musing, the fire burned. Then I spoke with my tongue, (meditating)
Job 32:18
For I am full of words; The spirit within me compels me.
Read to the end of the chapter at home.
Matthew 3:11 Luke 3:16
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, Who sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
If God does it for others he will do it for you.
Believing the Whole Bible in the simple terms as God meant It to be.
2 Samuel 22:33 God is my strength and power, And He makes my way perfect.
Acts 4:33
And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.
Acts 1:8A
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.
Learning the truth about the divine power of God, healing, deliverance, freedom from your bondage of sin/sins and getting yourself out of God's way so, he can move in our lives.
Knowing and believing that God will answer - Which is called FAITH!
Believe in God, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Do not be ashamed of Them. Seek God's love, & the power of God, His FIRE! Like the Apostle had.
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I do not change.
2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord. are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord
Hebrews 13:5
For He Himself has said "I will never leave you nor forsake you"
Deuteronomy 31:6B
He will never leave you nor forsake you.
Joshua 1:5B
I will be with you I will never leave you nor forsake you.
God never changes; His Word is for today. His Word is our safety, our strength, our being. He never leaves us. He's always there and we need more of Him. To be on fire of the Lord and the Holy Spirit just like the Apostles had.
God's Will is in the Bible. What was for his Apostles is for us. Having and needing a REAL divine hunger, something our soul is seeking and needing. If you have God's Will (Bible) The answer will come! God will answer. Seek Him like you never had before. Finding that
divine hunger, praying for the divine hunger. It's there. Seek it. Want it, hunger for it. Praise God it will come.
Jeremiah 20:9
Then I said " I will not make mention of Him, Nor speak anymore in His name" But His word was in my heart like a burning fire Shut up in my bones: I was weary of holding it back, And I could not.
Get yourself out of your own way and let God do his good works. And Do it God's way. Get on Fire for God!! Get on Fire for God is not the God of the dead, but for the living. God hears our prayer! He hears our prayers. Glory be to God! He answer our prayer once we get out of His way.
God is saying to the Christan let him pray, God will meet the soul every time you turn to Him, He will meet you face to face.
When we pray to God believe, have faith and get your healing, your answer, your loved ones saved, deliverance from sin. God is stronger then satan, Jesus when he died he made sure of that! Praise God. He went to Hell for three days and took back what Adam gave up for us. We can have what the Apostles had.
1 Corinthians 2:10-16 (pg 1668)
(10) But, God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
(11) For what man knows the things of a man except the Spirit of man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God
(12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God Read (13-15)
(16) For Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
If you have to get on your knees, or flat before the Lord, Do It! Cry out to him! Pray through until you get the answer.
When your desires of your heart goes out to God, THAT ALL THE SPIRITUAL ENERGY & the power of God comes to you & you begin to concentrate and forms an unconscious creative action of Faith, you and God are working together. That is the creative action of Faith.
Be diligent before God. Be in prayer & supplication. Humble yourselves to God. Get out of God's way. He will be your God, your savior, your healer, your deliver. Once you get out of His way for your life. Let Him live in your Life. As Christ lived in me and you! Which is our Revelation of the age.
FROM AUL
Dear Friend of Life,
Time Is Of The Essence
Only seven days remain until the most important election for pro-life voters in recent memory.
Time is of the essence. Only seven days remain until the most important election for pro-life voters in recent memory.
Planned Parenthood and the enemies of life have gone into overdrive as they desperately try to cling to power. They are fighting back as they are determined to preserve taxpayer-funded abortion in health care. Taxpayer-funded abortion is the cornerstone of anti-life policy and the enemies of life will do anything and everything to save it. We must fight back.
Will you act now and make a generous contribution of $50, $100, $250, or more to our "Life Counts" initiative? As you know, we are targeting the twelve seats that could determine whether or not we have a pro-life House. Every dollar you contribute will help us sustain our pro-life momentum.
Make no mistake about it: these twelve seats are winnable and the American people are prepared to usher in a tidal wave of change that could reverse taxpayer-funded abortion in health care. Americans overwhelmingly reject the White House's "health care" scheme that forces you to pay for abortions under the guise of insurance coverage. And they reject Washington's back-room deals and attempts to turn American military installations into abortion clinics.
It's time to kick the enemies of life out of Congress. However, we haven't yet met our fundraising target for the "Life Counts" campaign. We have raised $85,000 of our $125,000 goal, but need to raise the remaining $40,000 almost immediately to impact these 12 key races. So please stand with us and make a generous contribution of $50, $100, $250, or more to our "Life Counts" initiative right away.
With your urgently needed help, we can change all this. We can restore a pro-life Congress and we can beat Planned Parenthood.
The time to act is now. Tomorrow is too late.
Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life Action
P.S. So remember: the 12 targets of our "Life Counts" campaign voted for – or endorsed – the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in American history. Their seats will determine whether or not we have a pro-life House in the next Congress. But we need to raise another $40,000 almost immediately to impact these 12 key races. So will you immediately invest in our campaign to defeat the enemies of life and restore a pro-life Congress? I'm counting on your urgently needed support. The clock is ticking and there are only seven days remaining. – Charmaine
Time Is Of The Essence
Only seven days remain until the most important election for pro-life voters in recent memory.
Time is of the essence. Only seven days remain until the most important election for pro-life voters in recent memory.
Planned Parenthood and the enemies of life have gone into overdrive as they desperately try to cling to power. They are fighting back as they are determined to preserve taxpayer-funded abortion in health care. Taxpayer-funded abortion is the cornerstone of anti-life policy and the enemies of life will do anything and everything to save it. We must fight back.
Will you act now and make a generous contribution of $50, $100, $250, or more to our "Life Counts" initiative? As you know, we are targeting the twelve seats that could determine whether or not we have a pro-life House. Every dollar you contribute will help us sustain our pro-life momentum.
Make no mistake about it: these twelve seats are winnable and the American people are prepared to usher in a tidal wave of change that could reverse taxpayer-funded abortion in health care. Americans overwhelmingly reject the White House's "health care" scheme that forces you to pay for abortions under the guise of insurance coverage. And they reject Washington's back-room deals and attempts to turn American military installations into abortion clinics.
It's time to kick the enemies of life out of Congress. However, we haven't yet met our fundraising target for the "Life Counts" campaign. We have raised $85,000 of our $125,000 goal, but need to raise the remaining $40,000 almost immediately to impact these 12 key races. So please stand with us and make a generous contribution of $50, $100, $250, or more to our "Life Counts" initiative right away.
With your urgently needed help, we can change all this. We can restore a pro-life Congress and we can beat Planned Parenthood.
The time to act is now. Tomorrow is too late.
Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life Action
P.S. So remember: the 12 targets of our "Life Counts" campaign voted for – or endorsed – the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in American history. Their seats will determine whether or not we have a pro-life House in the next Congress. But we need to raise another $40,000 almost immediately to impact these 12 key races. So will you immediately invest in our campaign to defeat the enemies of life and restore a pro-life Congress? I'm counting on your urgently needed support. The clock is ticking and there are only seven days remaining. – Charmaine
Monday, October 25, 2010
WARNING FOR ALL TO WATCH OUT FOR
Straight from Davidson County Sheriff’s office:
Kids are putting Drano, tin foil, and a little water in soda bottles and
Capping it up - leaving it on lawns. When you go to pick up the trash,
And the bottle is shaken just a little - in about 30 seconds or less it
Builds up a gas and explodes with enough force to remove some of your
Extremities. The liquid that comes out is boiling hot as well.
Don't pick up any plastic bottles that may be lying in your yards or in
The gutter, etc.
Pay attention to this.
1. A plastic bottle with a cap.
2. A little Drano.
3. A little water..
4. A small piece of foil.
5. Disturb it by moving it; and BOOM!!
No fingers left and other serious effects to your face, eyes, etc.
People are finding these "bombs" in mailboxes and in their yards, just
Waiting for you to pick it up intending to put it in the trash. But, you'll never make it!!! It takes about 30 seconds to blow after you move the thing.
Click on link below to discover for yourselves.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/bottlebomb.asp
Kids are putting Drano, tin foil, and a little water in soda bottles and
Capping it up - leaving it on lawns. When you go to pick up the trash,
And the bottle is shaken just a little - in about 30 seconds or less it
Builds up a gas and explodes with enough force to remove some of your
Extremities. The liquid that comes out is boiling hot as well.
Don't pick up any plastic bottles that may be lying in your yards or in
The gutter, etc.
Pay attention to this.
1. A plastic bottle with a cap.
2. A little Drano.
3. A little water..
4. A small piece of foil.
5. Disturb it by moving it; and BOOM!!
No fingers left and other serious effects to your face, eyes, etc.
People are finding these "bombs" in mailboxes and in their yards, just
Waiting for you to pick it up intending to put it in the trash. But, you'll never make it!!! It takes about 30 seconds to blow after you move the thing.
Click on link below to discover for yourselves.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/bottlebomb.asp
FROM PATRIOT POST
Brief · October 25, 2010
The Foundation
"When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground." --Thomas Jefferson
Opinion in Brief
Juan Williams"National Public Radio fired its longtime news analyst Juan Williams [last] week for saying something that many Americans feel. Williams, who also works as a Fox News Channel contributor (as I do), told FNC host Bill O'Reilly that when he gets on an airplane and sees someone in Muslim garb, he gets 'nervous.' Williams prefaced his remarks by reminding viewers that he had written several books about the civil rights movement. 'I'm not a bigot,' he said, noting that his uneasiness has a basis in fact. He recalled the would-be Times Square bomber's words last week when he was sentenced to life in prison for trying to detonate a bomb. 'The war with Muslims is just beginning,' Williams paraphrased. But Faisal Shahzad's actual statement was far more chilling. Shahzad warned those in the courtroom: 'Brace yourself, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow.' And Shahzad's tirade is only the latest in a long string of invectives by those who claim to speak for Islam. Such vile threats cannot help but provoke fear.... Unfortunately, NPR chose to punish Williams for admitting his fear. That doesn't solve anything. ... It is unfortunate that we live in a world in which one group's religious faith can make the group an object of fear. But it is not Juan Williams or others like him who are the chief culprits in this state of affairs. It is those who fly airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah who should be blamed by everyone, including their co-religionists who share no guilt for these crimes." --columnist Linda Chavez
For the Record
"NPR deemed [Juan] Williams' remarks 'inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices.' The oh-so-thoughtful people at NPR obviously believe there are certain things that can't be thought or expressed, even if those things clearly aren't bigoted and are uttered by someone who clearly isn't a bigot. In its unwillingness to tolerate Juan Williams, NPR has shown how little regard it has for even the slightest dissent from approved orthodoxies, especially if broadcast on the hated Fox News network. Just because you speak in dulcet tones, it doesn't make you any less close-minded. I often find NPR informative and enjoy my occasional appearance, but with this decision, it has chipped away at the country's shrinking common ground for discourse. Let the record show that it wasn't Fox News that severed its relationship with Williams because he said unacceptably liberal things, and it wasn't Fox News viewers who agitated to have him dumped over his appearances on NPR. It's the self-consciously tolerant people who behaved illiberally, not for the first time, and certainly not for the last." --National Review editor Rich Lowry
Political Futures
"[T]he tea party is not a 'threat' to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn't remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself. In a practical sense, the tea party saved the Republican Party in this cycle by not going third-party. It could have. The broadly based, locally autonomous movement seems to have made a rolling decision, group by group, to take part in Republican primaries and back Republican hopefuls. ... Because of this, because they did not go third-party, Nov. 2 is not going to be a disaster for the Republicans, but a triumph. The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration's spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. ... Finally, the tea party stiffened the GOP's spine by forcing it to recognize what it had not actually noticed, that we are a nation in crisis. The tea party famously has no party chiefs and no conventions but it does have a theme -- stop the spending, stop the sloth, incompetence and unneeded regulation -- and has lent it to the GOP." --columnist Peggy Noonan
Tea Party Primer
Our quintessential field guide for the Tea Party movement, Tea Party Primer, is immediately available individually, in small quantity or as a bulk purchase. Inexpensively priced for wide distribution, the Tea Party Primer's purpose is to be a catalyst for the restoration of our Constitution's integrity and mandate for Rule of Law! All purchases at The Patriot Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.
Government
"Fundamentally, there is a permanent war of attrition between liberty and the federal regulatory bureaucrats. A war of attrition is a resource war. In both WWI and WWII, the side with the most soldiers and industry (the allies) won. Although I don't believe it has ever been tried, a new Congress could try to use its power of the purse to begin to 'atrit' the regulators. That is to suggest Congress should order permanent, immediate and massive staff reductions among the regulators. Defund and de-authorize (say 50 percent) of the regulatory staff positions. It actually takes a long time and a lot of hard work to conceive, write and legally enact a new regulation. If there were only half as many bureaucrats at EPA, for example, they simply wouldn't have the time to pass as many oppressive regulations as they do. That would both slow down new regulations and make it harder for the regulators to enforce regulations already on the book. Then, if the tea party Congress and the public had the stomach for it, they could start rolling back existing regulations. ... [W]hile regulations have been passed one at a time over many decades, they can only be undone by collective repeal and resource deprivation." --columnist Tony Blankley
The Gipper
"We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed." --Ronald Reagan
Re: The Left
"[Barack Obama is] now offering a scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles. The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can't think straight. Part of the reason 'facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time,' he explained to a Massachusetts audience, 'is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared.' Opening a whole new branch of cognitive science -- liberal psychology -- Obama has discovered a new principle: The fearful brain is hard-wired to act befuddled, i.e., vote Republican. But of course. Here Obama has spent two years bestowing upon the peasantry the 'New Foundation' of a more regulated, socially engineered and therefore more humane society, and they repay him with recalcitrance and outright opposition. Here he gave them Obamacare, the stimulus, financial regulation and a shot at cap-and-trade -- and the electorate remains not just unmoved but ungrateful. Faced with this truly puzzling conundrum, Dr. Obama diagnoses a heretofore undiscovered psychological derangement: anxiety-induced Obama Underappreciation Syndrome, wherein an entire population is so addled by its economic anxieties as to be neurologically incapable of appreciating the 'facts and science' undergirding Obamacare and the other blessings their president has bestowed upon them from on high." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
Reader Comments
"I disagree with Alexander's advocacy for pragmatism in the general election. If lots of people vote for the lesser of two evils it will mean the end of the Tea Party, the end of the Republican party as a viable alternative and big trouble for the U.S. We must vote purist and let the cards fall where they fall. The U.S. will probably not disappear in the next two years. If people don't vote for the lesser of two evils and things go badly for the Republican party, maybe they will get the idea that they need to field conservatives for 2012." --Clif
Editor's Reply: First, pragmatism and purism are not mutually exclusive. Second, if voters seat more Leftist Democrats rather than moderate Republicans, that will not be good for the country. That is precisely what has gotten us where we are now. Once we have established majorities, then we can start weeding out the RINOs. Fact is, in most of the congressional districts in question, the choice is not between the "lesser of two evils," but a moderate Republican and a Leftist Democrat. If you see those as two evils, then you fail to understand the power of redemption. Once upon a time, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. Our objective should be to make sure the most conservative candidates are on the big tickets, as many are this election. And as I have noted, this is election is just one battle to restore constitutional integrity. It is not the end of the war. I will take vigilance and many election cycles to revers the slide toward Socialism.
"My thoughts run counter to Charles Krauthammer's assertion that a liberal Republican 'batting .667 is better than a Democrat batting .000.' Not now. Not in this new era. Not when power to corrupt has been taken by the hard left." --kilt1iron
Editor's Reply: So it's the late innings of Game 5 of the World Series and your team is down three games to one. You don't have a guy who's batting 1.000, so you pass over the one batting .667 to pick the guy batting .000?
"In regards to Friday's Digest, don't we have to trust Democrats first in order for them to fix the problems in the health care bill? All we have been told is lie's and as for me, I am really tired off the way they are operating! Want honesty in our elected seat's and no smoke and mirrors!" --Carolyne
"As for 'fixing' the health care bill: Two problems: 1. You can't 'fix' socialism, and 2. You can't 'fix' stupid!" --Tim
Click Here
NoObamaNation
Express how you feel with these best selling products, including our "Bitterly Clinging" T-shirts, bumper stickers, and poster.
The Last Word
"Unable to win as liberals this year, some Democratic candidates seek to win as conservatives, no matter how ludicrous the posture appears. Some of the same Democrats who campaigned against 'nativists' and 'Christianists' in 2008 have become them in 2010. Kentucky Senate Candidate Jack Conway, for example, is now a very pious religious fundamentalist. Who knew this proponent of abortion on demand and gays in the military read the Book of Leviticus so faithfully? Who knew this respecter of all religions had such disdain for Eastern gods? A few years ago, a candidate like Conway might have campaigned alongside Buddhists, with Richard Gere in tow. Al Gore might have even joined him to fish for dubious donations at their temples. But this year, the Left's false idols have been banished from sight, and the Democrats now claim to live in deadly fear of 'foreign' money sloshing through American politics." --columnist George Neumayr
The Foundation
"When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground." --Thomas Jefferson
Opinion in Brief
Juan Williams"National Public Radio fired its longtime news analyst Juan Williams [last] week for saying something that many Americans feel. Williams, who also works as a Fox News Channel contributor (as I do), told FNC host Bill O'Reilly that when he gets on an airplane and sees someone in Muslim garb, he gets 'nervous.' Williams prefaced his remarks by reminding viewers that he had written several books about the civil rights movement. 'I'm not a bigot,' he said, noting that his uneasiness has a basis in fact. He recalled the would-be Times Square bomber's words last week when he was sentenced to life in prison for trying to detonate a bomb. 'The war with Muslims is just beginning,' Williams paraphrased. But Faisal Shahzad's actual statement was far more chilling. Shahzad warned those in the courtroom: 'Brace yourself, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow.' And Shahzad's tirade is only the latest in a long string of invectives by those who claim to speak for Islam. Such vile threats cannot help but provoke fear.... Unfortunately, NPR chose to punish Williams for admitting his fear. That doesn't solve anything. ... It is unfortunate that we live in a world in which one group's religious faith can make the group an object of fear. But it is not Juan Williams or others like him who are the chief culprits in this state of affairs. It is those who fly airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah who should be blamed by everyone, including their co-religionists who share no guilt for these crimes." --columnist Linda Chavez
For the Record
"NPR deemed [Juan] Williams' remarks 'inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices.' The oh-so-thoughtful people at NPR obviously believe there are certain things that can't be thought or expressed, even if those things clearly aren't bigoted and are uttered by someone who clearly isn't a bigot. In its unwillingness to tolerate Juan Williams, NPR has shown how little regard it has for even the slightest dissent from approved orthodoxies, especially if broadcast on the hated Fox News network. Just because you speak in dulcet tones, it doesn't make you any less close-minded. I often find NPR informative and enjoy my occasional appearance, but with this decision, it has chipped away at the country's shrinking common ground for discourse. Let the record show that it wasn't Fox News that severed its relationship with Williams because he said unacceptably liberal things, and it wasn't Fox News viewers who agitated to have him dumped over his appearances on NPR. It's the self-consciously tolerant people who behaved illiberally, not for the first time, and certainly not for the last." --National Review editor Rich Lowry
Political Futures
"[T]he tea party is not a 'threat' to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn't remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself. In a practical sense, the tea party saved the Republican Party in this cycle by not going third-party. It could have. The broadly based, locally autonomous movement seems to have made a rolling decision, group by group, to take part in Republican primaries and back Republican hopefuls. ... Because of this, because they did not go third-party, Nov. 2 is not going to be a disaster for the Republicans, but a triumph. The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration's spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. ... Finally, the tea party stiffened the GOP's spine by forcing it to recognize what it had not actually noticed, that we are a nation in crisis. The tea party famously has no party chiefs and no conventions but it does have a theme -- stop the spending, stop the sloth, incompetence and unneeded regulation -- and has lent it to the GOP." --columnist Peggy Noonan
Tea Party Primer
Our quintessential field guide for the Tea Party movement, Tea Party Primer, is immediately available individually, in small quantity or as a bulk purchase. Inexpensively priced for wide distribution, the Tea Party Primer's purpose is to be a catalyst for the restoration of our Constitution's integrity and mandate for Rule of Law! All purchases at The Patriot Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.
Government
"Fundamentally, there is a permanent war of attrition between liberty and the federal regulatory bureaucrats. A war of attrition is a resource war. In both WWI and WWII, the side with the most soldiers and industry (the allies) won. Although I don't believe it has ever been tried, a new Congress could try to use its power of the purse to begin to 'atrit' the regulators. That is to suggest Congress should order permanent, immediate and massive staff reductions among the regulators. Defund and de-authorize (say 50 percent) of the regulatory staff positions. It actually takes a long time and a lot of hard work to conceive, write and legally enact a new regulation. If there were only half as many bureaucrats at EPA, for example, they simply wouldn't have the time to pass as many oppressive regulations as they do. That would both slow down new regulations and make it harder for the regulators to enforce regulations already on the book. Then, if the tea party Congress and the public had the stomach for it, they could start rolling back existing regulations. ... [W]hile regulations have been passed one at a time over many decades, they can only be undone by collective repeal and resource deprivation." --columnist Tony Blankley
The Gipper
"We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed." --Ronald Reagan
Re: The Left
"[Barack Obama is] now offering a scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles. The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can't think straight. Part of the reason 'facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time,' he explained to a Massachusetts audience, 'is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared.' Opening a whole new branch of cognitive science -- liberal psychology -- Obama has discovered a new principle: The fearful brain is hard-wired to act befuddled, i.e., vote Republican. But of course. Here Obama has spent two years bestowing upon the peasantry the 'New Foundation' of a more regulated, socially engineered and therefore more humane society, and they repay him with recalcitrance and outright opposition. Here he gave them Obamacare, the stimulus, financial regulation and a shot at cap-and-trade -- and the electorate remains not just unmoved but ungrateful. Faced with this truly puzzling conundrum, Dr. Obama diagnoses a heretofore undiscovered psychological derangement: anxiety-induced Obama Underappreciation Syndrome, wherein an entire population is so addled by its economic anxieties as to be neurologically incapable of appreciating the 'facts and science' undergirding Obamacare and the other blessings their president has bestowed upon them from on high." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
Reader Comments
"I disagree with Alexander's advocacy for pragmatism in the general election. If lots of people vote for the lesser of two evils it will mean the end of the Tea Party, the end of the Republican party as a viable alternative and big trouble for the U.S. We must vote purist and let the cards fall where they fall. The U.S. will probably not disappear in the next two years. If people don't vote for the lesser of two evils and things go badly for the Republican party, maybe they will get the idea that they need to field conservatives for 2012." --Clif
Editor's Reply: First, pragmatism and purism are not mutually exclusive. Second, if voters seat more Leftist Democrats rather than moderate Republicans, that will not be good for the country. That is precisely what has gotten us where we are now. Once we have established majorities, then we can start weeding out the RINOs. Fact is, in most of the congressional districts in question, the choice is not between the "lesser of two evils," but a moderate Republican and a Leftist Democrat. If you see those as two evils, then you fail to understand the power of redemption. Once upon a time, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. Our objective should be to make sure the most conservative candidates are on the big tickets, as many are this election. And as I have noted, this is election is just one battle to restore constitutional integrity. It is not the end of the war. I will take vigilance and many election cycles to revers the slide toward Socialism.
"My thoughts run counter to Charles Krauthammer's assertion that a liberal Republican 'batting .667 is better than a Democrat batting .000.' Not now. Not in this new era. Not when power to corrupt has been taken by the hard left." --kilt1iron
Editor's Reply: So it's the late innings of Game 5 of the World Series and your team is down three games to one. You don't have a guy who's batting 1.000, so you pass over the one batting .667 to pick the guy batting .000?
"In regards to Friday's Digest, don't we have to trust Democrats first in order for them to fix the problems in the health care bill? All we have been told is lie's and as for me, I am really tired off the way they are operating! Want honesty in our elected seat's and no smoke and mirrors!" --Carolyne
"As for 'fixing' the health care bill: Two problems: 1. You can't 'fix' socialism, and 2. You can't 'fix' stupid!" --Tim
Click Here
NoObamaNation
Express how you feel with these best selling products, including our "Bitterly Clinging" T-shirts, bumper stickers, and poster.
The Last Word
"Unable to win as liberals this year, some Democratic candidates seek to win as conservatives, no matter how ludicrous the posture appears. Some of the same Democrats who campaigned against 'nativists' and 'Christianists' in 2008 have become them in 2010. Kentucky Senate Candidate Jack Conway, for example, is now a very pious religious fundamentalist. Who knew this proponent of abortion on demand and gays in the military read the Book of Leviticus so faithfully? Who knew this respecter of all religions had such disdain for Eastern gods? A few years ago, a candidate like Conway might have campaigned alongside Buddhists, with Richard Gere in tow. Al Gore might have even joined him to fish for dubious donations at their temples. But this year, the Left's false idols have been banished from sight, and the Democrats now claim to live in deadly fear of 'foreign' money sloshing through American politics." --columnist George Neumayr
FROM AIPAC
Dear Friend of Israel,
They’ve tried to destroy Israel through warfare.
They’ve tried to destroy Israel through suicide bombings.
They’ve tried to destroy Israel by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
Now, Israel’s enemies are launching another attack. And it’s going to succeed, unless we as pro-Israel Americans come to Israel’s defense.
Their new plan of attack — to delegitimatize Israel’s very right to exist – and this plan is well underway.
Just look at the Goldstone Report, which seeks to question Israel’s right as a sovereign nation to defend its citizens.
At no time in history, have we seen any other nation be condemned for taking defensive action after having more than 6,300 rockets and mortars launched on its cities.
And Goldstone is just the beginning.
Since 2006 alone, the U.N. Human Rights Council (led by some of the world’s leading human rights violators) has targeted 27 out of 34 censures against Israel.
Throughout these attacks on Israel’s legitimacy, the only country that has consistently stood by Israel’s side has been the United States.
Goldstone is a prime example of this. By a vote of 344-36, the U.S. House of Representatives issued a resolution that soundly rejected the findings of the report and called on the administration to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration by the U.N.
This stands in stark contrast to the European Parliament, which just last month(by a vote of 335-387) urged its member states to “monitor actively the implementation of recommendations included in the Goldstone Report.”
It is vital we ensure that consistent U.S. support for Israel continue, which is why I urge you to become a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee today.
For nearly 60 years, AIPAC has worked to make Israel more secure by ensuring American support remains strong.
By joining AIPAC, you help us work year-round with both Democratic and Republican political leaders to enact public policy that strengthens the vital U.S.-Israel relationship.
Please don’t delay. Join AIPAC and help us ensure continued U.S. support for the Jewish state.
Thank You,
Jonathan E. Missner
Director of National Affairs and Development
P.S. Congress will soon consider the FY 2011 foreign aid budget, which includes $3 billion in security assistance for Israel. Please make a special donation today to ensure AIPAC has the resources to work with Congress in support of this critical security assistance Israel needs to protect her citizens.
They’ve tried to destroy Israel through warfare.
They’ve tried to destroy Israel through suicide bombings.
They’ve tried to destroy Israel by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
Now, Israel’s enemies are launching another attack. And it’s going to succeed, unless we as pro-Israel Americans come to Israel’s defense.
Their new plan of attack — to delegitimatize Israel’s very right to exist – and this plan is well underway.
Just look at the Goldstone Report, which seeks to question Israel’s right as a sovereign nation to defend its citizens.
At no time in history, have we seen any other nation be condemned for taking defensive action after having more than 6,300 rockets and mortars launched on its cities.
And Goldstone is just the beginning.
Since 2006 alone, the U.N. Human Rights Council (led by some of the world’s leading human rights violators) has targeted 27 out of 34 censures against Israel.
Throughout these attacks on Israel’s legitimacy, the only country that has consistently stood by Israel’s side has been the United States.
Goldstone is a prime example of this. By a vote of 344-36, the U.S. House of Representatives issued a resolution that soundly rejected the findings of the report and called on the administration to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration by the U.N.
This stands in stark contrast to the European Parliament, which just last month(by a vote of 335-387) urged its member states to “monitor actively the implementation of recommendations included in the Goldstone Report.”
It is vital we ensure that consistent U.S. support for Israel continue, which is why I urge you to become a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee today.
For nearly 60 years, AIPAC has worked to make Israel more secure by ensuring American support remains strong.
By joining AIPAC, you help us work year-round with both Democratic and Republican political leaders to enact public policy that strengthens the vital U.S.-Israel relationship.
Please don’t delay. Join AIPAC and help us ensure continued U.S. support for the Jewish state.
Thank You,
Jonathan E. Missner
Director of National Affairs and Development
P.S. Congress will soon consider the FY 2011 foreign aid budget, which includes $3 billion in security assistance for Israel. Please make a special donation today to ensure AIPAC has the resources to work with Congress in support of this critical security assistance Israel needs to protect her citizens.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
FROM YAHOO NEWS
Obama likely to focus on deficit in next 2 years
Buzz up!255 votes ShareretweetEmailPrint Play Video FOX News – President Obama Vs. GOP
Slideshow:President Barack Obama Play Video Barack Obama Video:President Obama Boosts Sharon Angle? FOX News Play Video Barack Obama Video:iPad: Autograph Book of the Future? FOX News AP – FILE - In this June 10, 2010, file photo President Barack Obama makes addresses reporters in the White … By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – 2 hrs 21 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Preparing for political life after a bruising election, President Barack Obama will put greater emphasis on fiscal discipline, a nod to a nation sick of spending and to a Congress poised to become more Republican, conservative and determined to stop him.
He is already giving clues about how he will govern in the last two years of his term.
Obama will try to make gains on deficit reduction, education and energy. He will enforce his health care and financial overhauls and try to protect them from repeal should Republicans win control of Capitol Hill. He will use executive authority when blocked by Congress, and steel for scrutiny and investigations if the GOP is in charge.
While trying to save money, Obama will have to decide whether to bend to Republican and growing Democratic pressure to extend Bush-era tax cuts, even for the wealthy, that expire at year's end. Obama wants to extend them for people making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000, but a broader extension is gaining favor with an increasing number of Democrats.
Moving to the fore will be a more serious focus on how to balance the federal budget and pay for the programs that keep sinking the country into debt.
In other times, that discussion might seem like dry, Washington talk. Not now. People are fed up with federal spending, particularly as many remain jobless.
The White House refuses to talk about how the president will have to adjust his style or goals if power in Congress tilts right, for fear of undermining what Obama is still campaigning hard to do: keeping Democrats in power. There is no conceding as Obama recruits voters and rallies supporters all the way to Nov. 2.
Yet if polls and analysts are on target, Republicans are poised to win big, possibly taking control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate, where Obama's party already lacks the votes to overcome bill-killing delay tactics. Obama probably will operate in an environment with even fewer moderate Republicans.
The president has signaled that at the start of the new year, he will speak more directly to the country about the financial choices ahead. "If we're going to get serious about the deficit, then we're going to have to look at everything: entitlements, defense spending, revenues. ... And that's going to be a tough conversation," he said.
It's one that will be framed by a bipartisan debt commission, whose ideas this December will give Obama political cover on where to suggest unpopular cuts.
Obama says the most frustrating part of his presidency is that he had to keep spending money and adding to the deficit in his first six months in office "to save the economy." He has from the start called deficit reduction a goal, but one that had to get bumped in favor of sparking the economy.
Ask America: Learn. Listen. Be heard.
Ask America
Election forum
The Fast Fix
Map snapshot
Almost 60 percent of likely voters now say cutting the yearly budget shortfall is the priority, even if that means the government can't spend on new education programs, develop alternative energy sources or enact his health care overhaul or alternative energy policies, an Associated Press-GfK poll found.
Obama defends the huge economic stimulus plan and the bailout of U.S. automakers, and doesn't blame people for getting tired of all the spending. But he does accuse Republicans of showing a lack of genuineness about fixing the systemic problems that have driven up the debt long before he won the White House.
And there rests the true trouble.
Even though Obama and the Republicans ostensibly share the goals of reducing debt and creating jobs, they disagree fundamentally on their approaches. That problem appears to be worsened by the lack of a serious working relationship among the leaders. If divided government simply leads to more division over the budget and economy, newly empowered Republicans and a Democratic president seeking re-election may both pay the price.
"It's going to be very hard to find common ground," said James Thurber, a professor of government at American University. "To a certain extent, (Obama's) strategy depends on the strategy of majority of the House, and what can be found in the Senate, where's he's basically going to be deadlocked."
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said if Obama and his team are going to work with the new Congress, then they must accept the end of government stimulus efforts as a means for creating jobs. Boehner and fellow Republicans have outlined a plan for governing that includes deep spending cuts and a repeal of Obama's health care law, among other changes. Boehner is likely to ascend to House speaker if his party wins a majority.
"They're going to have to signal some kind of willingness to work with Republicans to cut spending," Boehner told The Associated Press. "Cutting government spending is what the American people want, and it's an approach neither party has tried yet."
The federal deficit was a near-record $1.3 trillion for the just-completed budget year.
Obama may succeed in getting Republican support for trade pacts on a new education law that insists on school reforms. He will go for an immigration overhaul and energy legislation, but have to accept smaller, piece-by-piece results. Capping of greenhouse gas emissions, for one, seems to be going nowhere.
"It's a very different reality for the president for the next two years, which is not to say that nothing gets done," said Norman Ornstein, a political scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Even in a rancorous and nasty environment, it seems to me there may some areas of opportunity."
Either real compromise or political pressures may pull Obama and enough Republicans together to get some priorities done. President Bill Clinton managed to rebound and work with Republicans after they swept into office in 1994, teaming up on welfare and balanced-budget legislation.
Never to be ignored are the core Democrats who helped get Obama elected and who, in some cases, are disgruntled about the pace of progress. "He's got to be careful to manage his base," said Ann Crigler, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California. "His election is going to start Nov. 3."
Buzz up!255 votes ShareretweetEmailPrint Play Video FOX News – President Obama Vs. GOP
Slideshow:President Barack Obama Play Video Barack Obama Video:President Obama Boosts Sharon Angle? FOX News Play Video Barack Obama Video:iPad: Autograph Book of the Future? FOX News AP – FILE - In this June 10, 2010, file photo President Barack Obama makes addresses reporters in the White … By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – 2 hrs 21 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Preparing for political life after a bruising election, President Barack Obama will put greater emphasis on fiscal discipline, a nod to a nation sick of spending and to a Congress poised to become more Republican, conservative and determined to stop him.
He is already giving clues about how he will govern in the last two years of his term.
Obama will try to make gains on deficit reduction, education and energy. He will enforce his health care and financial overhauls and try to protect them from repeal should Republicans win control of Capitol Hill. He will use executive authority when blocked by Congress, and steel for scrutiny and investigations if the GOP is in charge.
While trying to save money, Obama will have to decide whether to bend to Republican and growing Democratic pressure to extend Bush-era tax cuts, even for the wealthy, that expire at year's end. Obama wants to extend them for people making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000, but a broader extension is gaining favor with an increasing number of Democrats.
Moving to the fore will be a more serious focus on how to balance the federal budget and pay for the programs that keep sinking the country into debt.
In other times, that discussion might seem like dry, Washington talk. Not now. People are fed up with federal spending, particularly as many remain jobless.
The White House refuses to talk about how the president will have to adjust his style or goals if power in Congress tilts right, for fear of undermining what Obama is still campaigning hard to do: keeping Democrats in power. There is no conceding as Obama recruits voters and rallies supporters all the way to Nov. 2.
Yet if polls and analysts are on target, Republicans are poised to win big, possibly taking control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate, where Obama's party already lacks the votes to overcome bill-killing delay tactics. Obama probably will operate in an environment with even fewer moderate Republicans.
The president has signaled that at the start of the new year, he will speak more directly to the country about the financial choices ahead. "If we're going to get serious about the deficit, then we're going to have to look at everything: entitlements, defense spending, revenues. ... And that's going to be a tough conversation," he said.
It's one that will be framed by a bipartisan debt commission, whose ideas this December will give Obama political cover on where to suggest unpopular cuts.
Obama says the most frustrating part of his presidency is that he had to keep spending money and adding to the deficit in his first six months in office "to save the economy." He has from the start called deficit reduction a goal, but one that had to get bumped in favor of sparking the economy.
Ask America: Learn. Listen. Be heard.
Ask America
Election forum
The Fast Fix
Map snapshot
Almost 60 percent of likely voters now say cutting the yearly budget shortfall is the priority, even if that means the government can't spend on new education programs, develop alternative energy sources or enact his health care overhaul or alternative energy policies, an Associated Press-GfK poll found.
Obama defends the huge economic stimulus plan and the bailout of U.S. automakers, and doesn't blame people for getting tired of all the spending. But he does accuse Republicans of showing a lack of genuineness about fixing the systemic problems that have driven up the debt long before he won the White House.
And there rests the true trouble.
Even though Obama and the Republicans ostensibly share the goals of reducing debt and creating jobs, they disagree fundamentally on their approaches. That problem appears to be worsened by the lack of a serious working relationship among the leaders. If divided government simply leads to more division over the budget and economy, newly empowered Republicans and a Democratic president seeking re-election may both pay the price.
"It's going to be very hard to find common ground," said James Thurber, a professor of government at American University. "To a certain extent, (Obama's) strategy depends on the strategy of majority of the House, and what can be found in the Senate, where's he's basically going to be deadlocked."
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said if Obama and his team are going to work with the new Congress, then they must accept the end of government stimulus efforts as a means for creating jobs. Boehner and fellow Republicans have outlined a plan for governing that includes deep spending cuts and a repeal of Obama's health care law, among other changes. Boehner is likely to ascend to House speaker if his party wins a majority.
"They're going to have to signal some kind of willingness to work with Republicans to cut spending," Boehner told The Associated Press. "Cutting government spending is what the American people want, and it's an approach neither party has tried yet."
The federal deficit was a near-record $1.3 trillion for the just-completed budget year.
Obama may succeed in getting Republican support for trade pacts on a new education law that insists on school reforms. He will go for an immigration overhaul and energy legislation, but have to accept smaller, piece-by-piece results. Capping of greenhouse gas emissions, for one, seems to be going nowhere.
"It's a very different reality for the president for the next two years, which is not to say that nothing gets done," said Norman Ornstein, a political scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Even in a rancorous and nasty environment, it seems to me there may some areas of opportunity."
Either real compromise or political pressures may pull Obama and enough Republicans together to get some priorities done. President Bill Clinton managed to rebound and work with Republicans after they swept into office in 1994, teaming up on welfare and balanced-budget legislation.
Never to be ignored are the core Democrats who helped get Obama elected and who, in some cases, are disgruntled about the pace of progress. "He's got to be careful to manage his base," said Ann Crigler, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California. "His election is going to start Nov. 3."
FROM LYNN JENKINS = HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
As Our Nation’s Debt Continues to Increase Congress is Trying to Save Their Jobs
Last week the White House Office of Management and Budget announced that the year’s budget deficit was $1.3 trillion. Our national debt is now more than $13.6 trillion and continues to grow at an alarming rate. Since President Obama was sworn into office and Speaker Pelosi was re-confirmed as Speaker of the House, Congress has recklessly spent massive amounts of taxpayer dollars adding over $3 trillion to the debt in less than two years. The share of the publicly held debt for each American citizen, man, woman, and child, was calculated this week to be over $43,000, this is up from $36,000 when the so-called stimulus was signed into law and $29,000 when Nancy Pelosi became speaker.
Continued Efforts to Repeal and Replace Obamacare
Not only is President Obama and Speaker Pelosi’s government takeover of health care unpopular among the American people, it is also unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” But, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution did our founding fathers give Congress the authority to regulate commerce between individuals. Requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty for failing to do so appears to be in violation of that clause.
That is why over the last 10 months I have been hard at work finding ways to repeal this burdensome law and replace it with initiatives that will lower costs rather than raise them. 20 states are currently challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 in court. Kansas, unfortunately, is not represented in the suit, because Attorney General Steve Six ignored my request and that of many Kansans and chose not to challenge the law. To give Kansans a voice in this pivotal case, this week I continued the battle to repeal Obamacare by signing onto the American Center for Law and Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief challenging the law. The brief demonstrates that Congress lacks the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to impose the individual mandate. Furthermore, the brief shows that because the President’s health care reform bill lacked of a severability clause, if the court strikes down the individual mandate it must void the entire package.
Celebrating the Dedication of the Frontier Chapel at Fort Leavenworth
I was honored to be in Fort Leavenworth earlier this week to celebrate the dedication of the Frontier Chapel. The newly constructed Frontier Chapel sits over 500 and serves people of all faiths. Each of us is blessed with so many freedoms and gifts, and it is so important that we recognize the role that faith plays in the lives of those who risk everything to protect us. In Congress, we have a duty to respect both the history and religious traditions of our nation and I will support efforts to do so now and in the future.
Honored with Fiscal Conservative Ranking
This week the National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC) awarded me with their 2010 Tax Fighter Award. The NTLC was organized in 1975 to seek constitutional and other limits on taxes, spending, and deficits at the federal, state and local levels of government. The NTLC is one of the longest standing and strategically oriented pro-taxpayer/entrepreneur organizations in America. Their research ranks me in the top 5% of current Members of Congress.
I firmly believe that the best way out of the current economic mess is to ensure businesses and families are allowed to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Raising taxes, especially during hard economic times, creates uncertainty for small business owners, investors, and average American families. Instead of asking cash-strapped families to give even more money to the federal government, Congress needs to learn to tighten its own belt. That is why it is my top priority to keep tax relief for working families and businesses, oppose new taxes such as the value added tax, and put an end to the death tax.
Kansas Visitors in Washington
The 2010 Real World Design Challenge winners from Baldwin High School dropped by my D.C. office this week. The Baldwin High School Real World Design Challenge Team was named national champions of the design competition in March at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. The students modeled new jet designs that reduce fuel consumption. Seniors Brandon Baltzell, Carson Barnes, junior Shelby Gregory, sophomore Carrie Deitz and advisor Sandy Barnes got to visit the White House as part of the kickoff to this week’s White House Science Fair.
Please Feel Free to Tell a Friend
Washington, DC Office
130 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6601
Fax: (202) 225-7986
Pittsburg Office
701 N. Broadway Street
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Phone: (620) 231-LYNN (5966)
Fax: (620) 231-5972
Topeka Office
3550 SW 5th Street
Topeka, KS 66606
Phone: (785) 234-LYNN (5966)
Fax: (785) 234-5967
Last week the White House Office of Management and Budget announced that the year’s budget deficit was $1.3 trillion. Our national debt is now more than $13.6 trillion and continues to grow at an alarming rate. Since President Obama was sworn into office and Speaker Pelosi was re-confirmed as Speaker of the House, Congress has recklessly spent massive amounts of taxpayer dollars adding over $3 trillion to the debt in less than two years. The share of the publicly held debt for each American citizen, man, woman, and child, was calculated this week to be over $43,000, this is up from $36,000 when the so-called stimulus was signed into law and $29,000 when Nancy Pelosi became speaker.
Continued Efforts to Repeal and Replace Obamacare
Not only is President Obama and Speaker Pelosi’s government takeover of health care unpopular among the American people, it is also unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” But, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution did our founding fathers give Congress the authority to regulate commerce between individuals. Requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty for failing to do so appears to be in violation of that clause.
That is why over the last 10 months I have been hard at work finding ways to repeal this burdensome law and replace it with initiatives that will lower costs rather than raise them. 20 states are currently challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 in court. Kansas, unfortunately, is not represented in the suit, because Attorney General Steve Six ignored my request and that of many Kansans and chose not to challenge the law. To give Kansans a voice in this pivotal case, this week I continued the battle to repeal Obamacare by signing onto the American Center for Law and Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief challenging the law. The brief demonstrates that Congress lacks the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to impose the individual mandate. Furthermore, the brief shows that because the President’s health care reform bill lacked of a severability clause, if the court strikes down the individual mandate it must void the entire package.
Celebrating the Dedication of the Frontier Chapel at Fort Leavenworth
I was honored to be in Fort Leavenworth earlier this week to celebrate the dedication of the Frontier Chapel. The newly constructed Frontier Chapel sits over 500 and serves people of all faiths. Each of us is blessed with so many freedoms and gifts, and it is so important that we recognize the role that faith plays in the lives of those who risk everything to protect us. In Congress, we have a duty to respect both the history and religious traditions of our nation and I will support efforts to do so now and in the future.
Honored with Fiscal Conservative Ranking
This week the National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC) awarded me with their 2010 Tax Fighter Award. The NTLC was organized in 1975 to seek constitutional and other limits on taxes, spending, and deficits at the federal, state and local levels of government. The NTLC is one of the longest standing and strategically oriented pro-taxpayer/entrepreneur organizations in America. Their research ranks me in the top 5% of current Members of Congress.
I firmly believe that the best way out of the current economic mess is to ensure businesses and families are allowed to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Raising taxes, especially during hard economic times, creates uncertainty for small business owners, investors, and average American families. Instead of asking cash-strapped families to give even more money to the federal government, Congress needs to learn to tighten its own belt. That is why it is my top priority to keep tax relief for working families and businesses, oppose new taxes such as the value added tax, and put an end to the death tax.
Kansas Visitors in Washington
The 2010 Real World Design Challenge winners from Baldwin High School dropped by my D.C. office this week. The Baldwin High School Real World Design Challenge Team was named national champions of the design competition in March at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. The students modeled new jet designs that reduce fuel consumption. Seniors Brandon Baltzell, Carson Barnes, junior Shelby Gregory, sophomore Carrie Deitz and advisor Sandy Barnes got to visit the White House as part of the kickoff to this week’s White House Science Fair.
Please Feel Free to Tell a Friend
Washington, DC Office
130 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6601
Fax: (202) 225-7986
Pittsburg Office
701 N. Broadway Street
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Phone: (620) 231-LYNN (5966)
Fax: (620) 231-5972
Topeka Office
3550 SW 5th Street
Topeka, KS 66606
Phone: (785) 234-LYNN (5966)
Fax: (785) 234-5967
The Devil & the Duck
There was a little boy visiting his grandparents on their farm
He was given a slingshot to play with out in the woods. He practiced in the woods; but he could never hit the target. Getting a little discouraged, he headed back for dinner.
As he was walking back he saw Grandma's pet duck.
Just out of impulse, he let the slingshot fly, hit the duck square in the head and killed it. He was shocked and grieved!
In a panic, he hid the dead duck in the wood pile; only to see his Sister watching! Sally had seen it all, but she said nothing.
After lunch the next day Grandma said, 'Sally, let's wash the dishes' But Sally said, 'Grandma, Johnny told me he wanted to help in the kitchen.' Then she whispered to him, "Remember the duck?' So Johnny did the dishes.
Later that day, Grandpa asked if the children wanted to go fishing and Grandma said, 'I'm sorry but I need Sally to help make supper.' Sally just smiled and said, 'well that's all right because Johnny told me he wanted to help? She whispered again, 'Remember the duck?' So Sally went fishing and Johnny stayed to help.
After several days of Johnny doing both his chores and Sally's; he finally couldn't stand it any longer. He came to Grandma and confessed that he had killed the duck.
Grandma knelt down, gave him a hug and said, 'Sweetheart, I know.. You see, I was standing at the window and I saw the whole thing, but because I love you, I forgave you. I was just wondering how long you would let Sally make a slave of you.'
Thought for the day and every day thereafter: Whatever is in your past, whatever you have done... And the devil keeps throwing it up in your face (lying, cheating, debt, fear, bad habits, hatred, anger, bitterness, etc.)...whatever it is...You need to know that God was standing at the window and He saw the whole thing.
He has seen your whole life.... He wants you to know that He loves you and that you are forgiven. He's just wondering how long you will let the devil make a slave of you. The great thing about God is that when you ask for forgiveness; He not only forgives you, but He forgets. It is by God's grace and mercy that we are saved.
Go ahead and make the difference in someone's life today. Share this with a friend and always remember: God is at the window!
When Jesus died on the cross; he was thinking of you!
There was a little boy visiting his grandparents on their farm
He was given a slingshot to play with out in the woods. He practiced in the woods; but he could never hit the target. Getting a little discouraged, he headed back for dinner.
As he was walking back he saw Grandma's pet duck.
Just out of impulse, he let the slingshot fly, hit the duck square in the head and killed it. He was shocked and grieved!
In a panic, he hid the dead duck in the wood pile; only to see his Sister watching! Sally had seen it all, but she said nothing.
After lunch the next day Grandma said, 'Sally, let's wash the dishes' But Sally said, 'Grandma, Johnny told me he wanted to help in the kitchen.' Then she whispered to him, "Remember the duck?' So Johnny did the dishes.
Later that day, Grandpa asked if the children wanted to go fishing and Grandma said, 'I'm sorry but I need Sally to help make supper.' Sally just smiled and said, 'well that's all right because Johnny told me he wanted to help? She whispered again, 'Remember the duck?' So Sally went fishing and Johnny stayed to help.
After several days of Johnny doing both his chores and Sally's; he finally couldn't stand it any longer. He came to Grandma and confessed that he had killed the duck.
Grandma knelt down, gave him a hug and said, 'Sweetheart, I know.. You see, I was standing at the window and I saw the whole thing, but because I love you, I forgave you. I was just wondering how long you would let Sally make a slave of you.'
Thought for the day and every day thereafter: Whatever is in your past, whatever you have done... And the devil keeps throwing it up in your face (lying, cheating, debt, fear, bad habits, hatred, anger, bitterness, etc.)...whatever it is...You need to know that God was standing at the window and He saw the whole thing.
He has seen your whole life.... He wants you to know that He loves you and that you are forgiven. He's just wondering how long you will let the devil make a slave of you. The great thing about God is that when you ask for forgiveness; He not only forgives you, but He forgets. It is by God's grace and mercy that we are saved.
Go ahead and make the difference in someone's life today. Share this with a friend and always remember: God is at the window!
When Jesus died on the cross; he was thinking of you!
FROM TOWNHALL
How America Can Stand By Arizona
Email Russell Pearce
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up I knew Arizona’s SB 1070 would be controversial when I introduced it, but I did not expect the national immigration debate to revolve around a state law.
While the anti-American open borders Left attack me and the law as “racist,” “nativist” and their other empty smear words, the vast majority of the people of Arizona and America support the law.
Naturally, politicians of both parties on the state and local level are trying to jump on the bandwagon as the election approaches.
On the state level, dozens of gubernatorial and attorney general candidates are campaigning to enact SB 1070 style legislation. Even Democrats like Georgia’s Roy Barnes say they’d sign such a bill. Of course a politician’s promise isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Even if they would in fact sign the bill, they must also pledge to fight the Obama administration and its far left buddies like the ACLU and Mexican American Legal Defense Fund who are sure to file lawsuits and do whatever they can to block implementation of the law.
On the federal level, just saying “I support SB 1070” is even emptier without any commitment to fight the open borders agenda of the Obama administration and the courts.
Any Senate candidate who supports SB 1070 needs to guarantee that they will vote against any activist judge. Any RINO who voted for a board member of “LatinoJustice” (which filed an amicus brief against SB 1070) like Sonia Sotomayor knew how she would vote on immigration cases.
Additionally there is legislation that can affect the legal challenges against SB 1070.
Sen. Robert Menendez’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 would try to nullify every single state and local law that fights illegal immigration. Congressman Luis Gutierrez’s CIR ASAP Act with over 100 Democratic co-sponsors does the same thing.
Menendez’s bill also restricts the 287(g) program to allow state and local law enforcement to enter into formal agreements with federal immigration authorities to fight illegal immigration. Gutierrez’s bill completely repeals it.
287(g) is a useful program, but it is unfortunately viewed by many as a permission slip that must be granted by the federal government to allow states and localities to enforce immigration law. Former INS Commissioners Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Post claiming that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what is permitted by 287(g).
Obama and Janet Napolitano restricted the agreement so that it can only be used to enforce the law against illegal aliens who also commit other crimes, and unfortunately many local law enforcement agencies stopped pursuing the law.
When Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio cracked down on illegal immigration without getting permission from Obama, they threatened to revoke his 287(g) status. When Sheriff Joe refused to balk, they filed suit against him with a frivolous civil rights claim.
The truth is that Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly acknowledges that states have the inherit authority to enforce immigration law stating:
"Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer of a State . . . to communicate with the [Secretary of Homeland Security] regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."
Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR] Act further clarifies the states’ rights over immigration by “reaffirming the existing inherent authority of States…to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States…for the purposes of assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States in the course of carrying out routine duties. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by Congress.”
I’m flattered that my law has become a litmus test on immigration, but I hate to see Democrats and RINOs pretend to defend it to win votes. In Arizona a number of vulnerable Democratic Congressmen including Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick tried to sound tough by opposing the federal lawsuit with much fanfare. Yet these same Democrats opposed SB 1070 initially, and they refuse to defend Arizona’s right to enforce the law. Rather they simply demand that the federal government take action (i.e. amnesty.) Needless to say, they have not co-sponsored the CLEAR Act.
With friends like these, SB 1070 does not need enemies. Any candidate or politician on the federal level who claims to support SB 1070 needs to put their money where their mouth is. This means supporting the CLEAR Act and acknowledging a state’s inherit right to enforce the law, opposing activist judges, and demanding that the federal government enforce all laws.
Of course the federal government needs to enforce its own laws and secure the border. But until they do, the least we can ask of them is not to interfere with states that care about the rule of law.
Russell Pearce
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce represents Arizona’s 18th Legislative District and is the author of SB 1070.
Email Russell Pearce
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up I knew Arizona’s SB 1070 would be controversial when I introduced it, but I did not expect the national immigration debate to revolve around a state law.
While the anti-American open borders Left attack me and the law as “racist,” “nativist” and their other empty smear words, the vast majority of the people of Arizona and America support the law.
Naturally, politicians of both parties on the state and local level are trying to jump on the bandwagon as the election approaches.
On the state level, dozens of gubernatorial and attorney general candidates are campaigning to enact SB 1070 style legislation. Even Democrats like Georgia’s Roy Barnes say they’d sign such a bill. Of course a politician’s promise isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Even if they would in fact sign the bill, they must also pledge to fight the Obama administration and its far left buddies like the ACLU and Mexican American Legal Defense Fund who are sure to file lawsuits and do whatever they can to block implementation of the law.
On the federal level, just saying “I support SB 1070” is even emptier without any commitment to fight the open borders agenda of the Obama administration and the courts.
Any Senate candidate who supports SB 1070 needs to guarantee that they will vote against any activist judge. Any RINO who voted for a board member of “LatinoJustice” (which filed an amicus brief against SB 1070) like Sonia Sotomayor knew how she would vote on immigration cases.
Additionally there is legislation that can affect the legal challenges against SB 1070.
Sen. Robert Menendez’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 would try to nullify every single state and local law that fights illegal immigration. Congressman Luis Gutierrez’s CIR ASAP Act with over 100 Democratic co-sponsors does the same thing.
Menendez’s bill also restricts the 287(g) program to allow state and local law enforcement to enter into formal agreements with federal immigration authorities to fight illegal immigration. Gutierrez’s bill completely repeals it.
287(g) is a useful program, but it is unfortunately viewed by many as a permission slip that must be granted by the federal government to allow states and localities to enforce immigration law. Former INS Commissioners Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Post claiming that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what is permitted by 287(g).
Obama and Janet Napolitano restricted the agreement so that it can only be used to enforce the law against illegal aliens who also commit other crimes, and unfortunately many local law enforcement agencies stopped pursuing the law.
When Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio cracked down on illegal immigration without getting permission from Obama, they threatened to revoke his 287(g) status. When Sheriff Joe refused to balk, they filed suit against him with a frivolous civil rights claim.
The truth is that Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly acknowledges that states have the inherit authority to enforce immigration law stating:
"Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer of a State . . . to communicate with the [Secretary of Homeland Security] regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."
Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR] Act further clarifies the states’ rights over immigration by “reaffirming the existing inherent authority of States…to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States…for the purposes of assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States in the course of carrying out routine duties. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by Congress.”
I’m flattered that my law has become a litmus test on immigration, but I hate to see Democrats and RINOs pretend to defend it to win votes. In Arizona a number of vulnerable Democratic Congressmen including Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick tried to sound tough by opposing the federal lawsuit with much fanfare. Yet these same Democrats opposed SB 1070 initially, and they refuse to defend Arizona’s right to enforce the law. Rather they simply demand that the federal government take action (i.e. amnesty.) Needless to say, they have not co-sponsored the CLEAR Act.
With friends like these, SB 1070 does not need enemies. Any candidate or politician on the federal level who claims to support SB 1070 needs to put their money where their mouth is. This means supporting the CLEAR Act and acknowledging a state’s inherit right to enforce the law, opposing activist judges, and demanding that the federal government enforce all laws.
Of course the federal government needs to enforce its own laws and secure the border. But until they do, the least we can ask of them is not to interfere with states that care about the rule of law.
Russell Pearce
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce represents Arizona’s 18th Legislative District and is the author of SB 1070.
FROM PROPHECY NEWS WATCH
Muslim Professor at PA University Calls for Destruction of Israel
http://www.theblaze.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaukab Siddique believes strongly that the Holocaust was a hoax and that Muslims must “rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.” While his rhetoric is concerning, even more worrisome is that Siddique is an associate professor of English at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. And while the university acknowledges his comments are troubling, it says it can’t take action partly because Siddique is tenured.
Over Labor Day weekend, reports CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck, Siddique addressed radicals at an anti-Israel rally in Washington, D.C. There, his anti-Semitism was on full display.
“We must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel — if possible by peaceful means,” Kaukab Siddique said. “Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people.”
“For the Jews, I would say see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up,” Siddique warned. “And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.
“It is obvious to us that Zionism is racism,” he adds. “It is obvious to us that Zionism is genocide. It is obvious to us that Zionism is terrorism. But somehow the man living in the White House does not seem to know that. His silence is grim and dismal.”
CBN also uncovered e-mail exchanges posted online in which Siddique called the Holocaust “a hoax” that was “invented,“ saying there is ”not even one document” proving it happened. Jews have “taken over America” by “devious and immoral means,” he adds.
“This [Labor Day event] is not a one off deal,” Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Ray Locker told CBN. “This is something he has said at similar events over a period of at least a dozen years, as far as we can tell.”
Lincoln University, the school’s website boasts, is the world’s oldest historically African-American college. CBN reports it has received almost $200 million in Pennsylvania state money since 2003.
Michael Hill, the school’s executive vice president, told CBN that the University in no way agrees with or supports Siddique’s comments on Israel. But, he added, Siddique is tenured and has freedom of speech, and the school cannot control his private life. He added that the school will ensure his personal views do not seep into the classroom.
In an e-mail to CBN, Siddique denied that he was anti-Semitic and said his “speaking out” about Israel, “conform(s) to the ideals and principles that founded Lincoln University.”
He explained: “When I refer critically to the ‘Jews’ I am referring to the current leadership of the ‘State of Israel’ and to their major supporters, not to the Jewish race as a whole.”
Yet his message in Washington failed to make the distinction. “There’s no question of just removing the settlements,” he yelled, “These settlements are only the tentacles of the devil that resides in Tel Aviv.”
____________________
THEY (MUSLIMS) KEEPS TELLING US THEIR PEACEFUL?????
http://www.theblaze.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaukab Siddique believes strongly that the Holocaust was a hoax and that Muslims must “rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.” While his rhetoric is concerning, even more worrisome is that Siddique is an associate professor of English at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. And while the university acknowledges his comments are troubling, it says it can’t take action partly because Siddique is tenured.
Over Labor Day weekend, reports CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck, Siddique addressed radicals at an anti-Israel rally in Washington, D.C. There, his anti-Semitism was on full display.
“We must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel — if possible by peaceful means,” Kaukab Siddique said. “Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people.”
“For the Jews, I would say see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up,” Siddique warned. “And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.
“It is obvious to us that Zionism is racism,” he adds. “It is obvious to us that Zionism is genocide. It is obvious to us that Zionism is terrorism. But somehow the man living in the White House does not seem to know that. His silence is grim and dismal.”
CBN also uncovered e-mail exchanges posted online in which Siddique called the Holocaust “a hoax” that was “invented,“ saying there is ”not even one document” proving it happened. Jews have “taken over America” by “devious and immoral means,” he adds.
“This [Labor Day event] is not a one off deal,” Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Ray Locker told CBN. “This is something he has said at similar events over a period of at least a dozen years, as far as we can tell.”
Lincoln University, the school’s website boasts, is the world’s oldest historically African-American college. CBN reports it has received almost $200 million in Pennsylvania state money since 2003.
Michael Hill, the school’s executive vice president, told CBN that the University in no way agrees with or supports Siddique’s comments on Israel. But, he added, Siddique is tenured and has freedom of speech, and the school cannot control his private life. He added that the school will ensure his personal views do not seep into the classroom.
In an e-mail to CBN, Siddique denied that he was anti-Semitic and said his “speaking out” about Israel, “conform(s) to the ideals and principles that founded Lincoln University.”
He explained: “When I refer critically to the ‘Jews’ I am referring to the current leadership of the ‘State of Israel’ and to their major supporters, not to the Jewish race as a whole.”
Yet his message in Washington failed to make the distinction. “There’s no question of just removing the settlements,” he yelled, “These settlements are only the tentacles of the devil that resides in Tel Aviv.”
____________________
THEY (MUSLIMS) KEEPS TELLING US THEIR PEACEFUL?????
FROM PROPHECY NEWS WATCH
Canadian Church Group Helps Fund Anti-Israel Organization
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Church of Canada has donated travel expenses to a new Jewish organization that hosted Muslims at a convention backing a boycott of Israel, according to the National Post.
The Protestant church group admitted that it donated $900 to the organization but said that officials did not need to authorize the donation because of its small size. However, United Church officials told the National Post that the description of the event that led to the creation of the Independent Jewish Voices was “consistent with our overall policy that the end of the occupation must come in order to bring peace and justice.”
The expenses were earmarked for a two-day Alliance of Concerned Canadians conference which provided the catalyst for the formation of the new group. Among delegates who were invited and whose travel expenses were defrayed were “members of Jewish-Muslim, Jewish-Arab and Jewish-Palestinian groups."
The Canadian Jewish Congress is furious over the donation, calling it “shocking, outrageous, shameful and scandalous.” The group’s director Bernie Farber declared, “Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and the Canadian Jewish Congress or another mainstream Jewish organization were to have funded a Christian group to be critical of the United Church of Canada.”
Church spokesman Bruce Gregersen emphasized that the money was for travel expenses and was not intended to help get the new anti-Zionist group off the ground, but Farber said, “It is a horse by the same name. The United Church provided funding to establish an organization whose goal it is to target and attack the mainstream Jewish community.”
He asserted that “the average United Church member will be as shocked as am I to discover that money from their church has gone to help create an anti-Zionist organization.”
Among those attending the two-conference in Toronto was Rev. Vicki Obedkoff, who signed a letter in 2007 aimed at pressuring the Rolling Stones not to appear in “apartheid” Israel. Also present were delegates from the Canadian Arab Federation.
__________________________
JEW'S SHOULD ALWAYS BE PICKED UP OVER MUSLIMS
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Church of Canada has donated travel expenses to a new Jewish organization that hosted Muslims at a convention backing a boycott of Israel, according to the National Post.
The Protestant church group admitted that it donated $900 to the organization but said that officials did not need to authorize the donation because of its small size. However, United Church officials told the National Post that the description of the event that led to the creation of the Independent Jewish Voices was “consistent with our overall policy that the end of the occupation must come in order to bring peace and justice.”
The expenses were earmarked for a two-day Alliance of Concerned Canadians conference which provided the catalyst for the formation of the new group. Among delegates who were invited and whose travel expenses were defrayed were “members of Jewish-Muslim, Jewish-Arab and Jewish-Palestinian groups."
The Canadian Jewish Congress is furious over the donation, calling it “shocking, outrageous, shameful and scandalous.” The group’s director Bernie Farber declared, “Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and the Canadian Jewish Congress or another mainstream Jewish organization were to have funded a Christian group to be critical of the United Church of Canada.”
Church spokesman Bruce Gregersen emphasized that the money was for travel expenses and was not intended to help get the new anti-Zionist group off the ground, but Farber said, “It is a horse by the same name. The United Church provided funding to establish an organization whose goal it is to target and attack the mainstream Jewish community.”
He asserted that “the average United Church member will be as shocked as am I to discover that money from their church has gone to help create an anti-Zionist organization.”
Among those attending the two-conference in Toronto was Rev. Vicki Obedkoff, who signed a letter in 2007 aimed at pressuring the Rolling Stones not to appear in “apartheid” Israel. Also present were delegates from the Canadian Arab Federation.
__________________________
JEW'S SHOULD ALWAYS BE PICKED UP OVER MUSLIMS
FROM PROPHECY NEWS WATCH
"Evangelicals" who are turning the church against Israel
http://www.theird.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“With God on Our Side,” the new anti-Israel movie produced by an evangelical pastor and aimed at evangelical audiences, is touring America this month, with anti-Israel British Anglican priest Stephen Sizer in tow. On October 27, it was originally going to be screened in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, doubtless hoping to appeal to young evangelical Congressional staffers, whose numbers and influence likely will increase in the new Congress. Now, for whatever reason, it instead will screen at a Lutheran church on Capitol Hill.
The Evangelical Left is anxious to neutralize evangelicals as America’s typically most pro-Israel demographic, especially by focusing on the plight of Palestinian Christians, who are portrayed as victims exclusively of Israeli oppression. “With God on Our Side,” predictably, portrays pro-Israel Christians as mindless zealots indifferent to Palestinian suffering and exploiting Israeli Jews as merely tools for precipitating the Second Coming. Hapless quotes from Christian Zionists are contrasted with thoughtful articulations from Palestinian Christians and other pro-Palestinian advocates.
Anglican priest Stephen Sizer, prominently featured in the film, bewails Christian Zionism on his website: “Aspects of this belief system lead some Christians in the West to give uncritical support to Israeli government policies, even those that privilege Jews at the expense of Palestinians, leading to great suffering among Muslim and Christian Palestinians alike and threatening Israel’s security as a whole.”
Rev. Sizer essentially advocates a Helen Thomas sort of theology. His blog even acclaimed Thomas for exclaiming that Jews need to “get out of Palestine” and go back to Poland or wherever. “Bring it on,” Sizer enthused in response to Thomas’s promise to keep speaking out. He has further explained:
“With God on our Side” is a direct challenge to the foolish idea that Christian Zionism has any biblical or moral foundation. It is an oxymoron, as absurd as to suggest that biblical Christianity and apartheid are in any way compatible. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa tried and failed and eventually repented. Would that Christian Zionists did the same.”
Sizer is incredulous that Christians would “justify on theological grounds the theft of land, the demolition of homes, the destruction of property, the creation of ghettos and the denial of fundamental human rights, in order to create what is increasingly becoming a racist state.” He insists in his blog that Christian support for Israel challenges “our understanding of the gospel, the centrality of the cross, the role of the church, and the nature of our missionary mandate, not least, to the beloved Jewish people.” And he deplores Christian Zionism as a “heresy conclusively refuted by the New Testament.” Sizer and “With God on our Side” are unwilling to accept that many evangelicals and other Christians have substantive reasons for supporting Israel other than a grimacing expectation of the End Times. Israel’s democracy, pro-Western stance, and resistance to Islamist terror are just a few reasons that many Americans, Christian or not, affirm Israel against its many enemies. But Sizer and his film are largely uninterested in the transgressions, and inferior human rights records, of Israel’s primary foes. Nor are they usually willing to critique radical Islam.
“With God on our Side,” with Sizer and producer Porter Speakman of Colorado as the chief promoters, is gaining an audience among some evangelicals. They screened their film at prestigious evangelical Wheaton College earlier this year. (The film features a Wheaton professor.) And “Christianity Today,” a flagship evangelical magazine, favorably reviewed the film this Summer. “A Christian pastor, Speakman asks such Zionists to reevaluate their absolute support of Israel,” the review observed. “He presents historical context, theological perspective, and on-the-ground impressions.” Agreeing with the film that “Palestinians’ claims to the land cannot be easily dismissed,” the reviewer uncritically accepted the film’s premise that “ordinary Palestinians, including fellow Christians, are being hurt by Israel’s policies,” without examining other more potent threats to Palestinian Christians. Admitting that “some” might see the film as “slanted,” the reviewer defended the film for ostensibly “telling a story” that its “intended audience has not heard.”
That audience is supposedly naïve and mindless evangelicals who have been insulated from any criticism of Israel until exposed to “With God on our Side.” It’s not clear what caves or compounds those pious fools live in. But this film, no less propagandistic and vapid than it alleges its Christian Zionist targets to be, offers a simplistic counter narrative that portrays Israel as the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa. The tiny percentage of Palestinians who are Christian are useful props for this film and its advocates who, like much of the Evangelical Left, are not typically interested in persecuted Christians unless Israel is the villain.
Anti-Israel activists often especially fault U.S. evangelicals for America’s pro-Israel tilt. But polls usually show that pro-Israel sentiment in America includes not just evangelicals but also Mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews. End times scenarios do not motivate the pro-Israel beliefs of most Americans or even most evangelicals. But “With God on our Side” constructed a cheap straw man based on stereotypes, maybe because it could not proffer more substantive arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL IS GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE
http://www.theird.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“With God on Our Side,” the new anti-Israel movie produced by an evangelical pastor and aimed at evangelical audiences, is touring America this month, with anti-Israel British Anglican priest Stephen Sizer in tow. On October 27, it was originally going to be screened in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, doubtless hoping to appeal to young evangelical Congressional staffers, whose numbers and influence likely will increase in the new Congress. Now, for whatever reason, it instead will screen at a Lutheran church on Capitol Hill.
The Evangelical Left is anxious to neutralize evangelicals as America’s typically most pro-Israel demographic, especially by focusing on the plight of Palestinian Christians, who are portrayed as victims exclusively of Israeli oppression. “With God on Our Side,” predictably, portrays pro-Israel Christians as mindless zealots indifferent to Palestinian suffering and exploiting Israeli Jews as merely tools for precipitating the Second Coming. Hapless quotes from Christian Zionists are contrasted with thoughtful articulations from Palestinian Christians and other pro-Palestinian advocates.
Anglican priest Stephen Sizer, prominently featured in the film, bewails Christian Zionism on his website: “Aspects of this belief system lead some Christians in the West to give uncritical support to Israeli government policies, even those that privilege Jews at the expense of Palestinians, leading to great suffering among Muslim and Christian Palestinians alike and threatening Israel’s security as a whole.”
Rev. Sizer essentially advocates a Helen Thomas sort of theology. His blog even acclaimed Thomas for exclaiming that Jews need to “get out of Palestine” and go back to Poland or wherever. “Bring it on,” Sizer enthused in response to Thomas’s promise to keep speaking out. He has further explained:
“With God on our Side” is a direct challenge to the foolish idea that Christian Zionism has any biblical or moral foundation. It is an oxymoron, as absurd as to suggest that biblical Christianity and apartheid are in any way compatible. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa tried and failed and eventually repented. Would that Christian Zionists did the same.”
Sizer is incredulous that Christians would “justify on theological grounds the theft of land, the demolition of homes, the destruction of property, the creation of ghettos and the denial of fundamental human rights, in order to create what is increasingly becoming a racist state.” He insists in his blog that Christian support for Israel challenges “our understanding of the gospel, the centrality of the cross, the role of the church, and the nature of our missionary mandate, not least, to the beloved Jewish people.” And he deplores Christian Zionism as a “heresy conclusively refuted by the New Testament.” Sizer and “With God on our Side” are unwilling to accept that many evangelicals and other Christians have substantive reasons for supporting Israel other than a grimacing expectation of the End Times. Israel’s democracy, pro-Western stance, and resistance to Islamist terror are just a few reasons that many Americans, Christian or not, affirm Israel against its many enemies. But Sizer and his film are largely uninterested in the transgressions, and inferior human rights records, of Israel’s primary foes. Nor are they usually willing to critique radical Islam.
“With God on our Side,” with Sizer and producer Porter Speakman of Colorado as the chief promoters, is gaining an audience among some evangelicals. They screened their film at prestigious evangelical Wheaton College earlier this year. (The film features a Wheaton professor.) And “Christianity Today,” a flagship evangelical magazine, favorably reviewed the film this Summer. “A Christian pastor, Speakman asks such Zionists to reevaluate their absolute support of Israel,” the review observed. “He presents historical context, theological perspective, and on-the-ground impressions.” Agreeing with the film that “Palestinians’ claims to the land cannot be easily dismissed,” the reviewer uncritically accepted the film’s premise that “ordinary Palestinians, including fellow Christians, are being hurt by Israel’s policies,” without examining other more potent threats to Palestinian Christians. Admitting that “some” might see the film as “slanted,” the reviewer defended the film for ostensibly “telling a story” that its “intended audience has not heard.”
That audience is supposedly naïve and mindless evangelicals who have been insulated from any criticism of Israel until exposed to “With God on our Side.” It’s not clear what caves or compounds those pious fools live in. But this film, no less propagandistic and vapid than it alleges its Christian Zionist targets to be, offers a simplistic counter narrative that portrays Israel as the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa. The tiny percentage of Palestinians who are Christian are useful props for this film and its advocates who, like much of the Evangelical Left, are not typically interested in persecuted Christians unless Israel is the villain.
Anti-Israel activists often especially fault U.S. evangelicals for America’s pro-Israel tilt. But polls usually show that pro-Israel sentiment in America includes not just evangelicals but also Mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews. End times scenarios do not motivate the pro-Israel beliefs of most Americans or even most evangelicals. But “With God on our Side” constructed a cheap straw man based on stereotypes, maybe because it could not proffer more substantive arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL IS GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE
Friday, October 22, 2010
RABBI YECHIEL ECKSTEIN
By My Spirit
October 22, 2010
"So he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." — Zechariah 4:6
Imagine if the state where you are living right now were surrounded entirely by enemies intent on your total destruction — just because you happen to live in Florida, or Kansas, or Colorado. How would it feel to live under that tension, that fear, 24/7? How would that affect how you looked upon yourself, others, the world?
Of course, you know where I'm heading with this. Israel is that state, the Israelis are those people. Living in a country no bigger than the state of New Jersey, throughout her history, Israel has been surrounded by enemies who share one goal — wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Within a day of its inception, five of Israel's surrounding "neighbors" declared war on the fledgling state and attacked from all directions. As a result, the Jewish population, some 600,000 people, was outnumbered 20 to 1! Yet, we prevailed.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this. We need only to remember the biblical accounts of Gideon and Midianites, where the people of Israel routed their much stronger enemies with only 300 men. Or remember how Nehemiah and the people rebuilt the wall around Jerusalem in 52 days, despite opposition from her enemies. Over and over again, we see the people of Israel succeed, despite being outnumbered, outmanned, and out-equipped.
The one thing we were never without, however, was God. Remember what God told Gideon: "With the three hundred men… I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands" (Judges 7:7). And when Nehemiah and the people completed the rebuilding project in record time, the nations around them realized, "that this work had been done with the help of our God" (Nehemiah 6:16). The prophet Zechariah reminds us of this as well, in God's words to His people: "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit."
There was opposition to God's plans in biblical times; there is opposition to God's plan for His people today. But what people of faith can depend upon is that God's Word will endure. He remembers all His promises that He makes to His people. He cares for His people and will deliver them from all opposition.
Despite what enemies we face, Christians and Jews alike, we know that we have God on our side. As you live for Him, determine not to trust in your own strength and abilities, but in His Spirit.
With prayers for shalom, peace,
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
October 22, 2010
"So he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." — Zechariah 4:6
Imagine if the state where you are living right now were surrounded entirely by enemies intent on your total destruction — just because you happen to live in Florida, or Kansas, or Colorado. How would it feel to live under that tension, that fear, 24/7? How would that affect how you looked upon yourself, others, the world?
Of course, you know where I'm heading with this. Israel is that state, the Israelis are those people. Living in a country no bigger than the state of New Jersey, throughout her history, Israel has been surrounded by enemies who share one goal — wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Within a day of its inception, five of Israel's surrounding "neighbors" declared war on the fledgling state and attacked from all directions. As a result, the Jewish population, some 600,000 people, was outnumbered 20 to 1! Yet, we prevailed.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this. We need only to remember the biblical accounts of Gideon and Midianites, where the people of Israel routed their much stronger enemies with only 300 men. Or remember how Nehemiah and the people rebuilt the wall around Jerusalem in 52 days, despite opposition from her enemies. Over and over again, we see the people of Israel succeed, despite being outnumbered, outmanned, and out-equipped.
The one thing we were never without, however, was God. Remember what God told Gideon: "With the three hundred men… I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands" (Judges 7:7). And when Nehemiah and the people completed the rebuilding project in record time, the nations around them realized, "that this work had been done with the help of our God" (Nehemiah 6:16). The prophet Zechariah reminds us of this as well, in God's words to His people: "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit."
There was opposition to God's plans in biblical times; there is opposition to God's plan for His people today. But what people of faith can depend upon is that God's Word will endure. He remembers all His promises that He makes to His people. He cares for His people and will deliver them from all opposition.
Despite what enemies we face, Christians and Jews alike, we know that we have God on our side. As you live for Him, determine not to trust in your own strength and abilities, but in His Spirit.
With prayers for shalom, peace,
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
Thursday, October 21, 2010
FROM PATRIOT POST
Alexander's Essay – October 18, 2010
Third Party Conservatives: Fixers or Spoilers?
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue ... the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." --James Madison
In the years following the resolute conservative leadership of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party became indolent, more reactive than proactive. Making matters worse, the party supported the infiltration of so-called "big-tent moderates," those whose policy positions are almost indistinguishable from their Democrat challengers. Consequently, conservative third-party candidates have become significant players in national and state elections.
Conservatives voters have mixed opinions on support for third-party candidates. Thanks to the Tea Party movement, the question of constitutional integrity has been reinvigorated, and there are more outstanding third-party candidates in this midterm election than ever before.
Many Patriot readers have asked: "How should one vote when a third-party candidate is more conservative than the Republican offering? Should one vote for the lesser of two evils on the major party tickets? Is a vote for a third-party conservative a wasted vote or, worse, one that takes votes from a moderate on the ticket, and seats a Leftist?"
The answers, of course, depend on one's affinity for purism versus pragmatism, and the particular circumstances and consequences of each political contest.
Purists are those who rigorously and steadfastly adhere to established traditions and principles in the conduct of their affairs, in application both to individual and societal matters.
Pragmatists, on the other hand, are those who take a practical approach to arriving at solutions, even if that means supporting the lesser of two evils. They thus try to strike a balance between principles and practicality rather than take a strict ideological line.
So, how to vote? By way of an answer, let's consider the following.
One of the issues challenging some incumbent Republican candidates is their vote for the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which many conservatives begrudgingly supported and which was signed into law with similar enthusiasm by George W. Bush at the end of his second term.
A conservative purist would argue that the government should have no role in the regulation of free enterprise, other than ensuring the exercise thereof, and that the economy, if left to its own devices, is self-regulating, and that self-regulation is the most efficient means to achieve economic prosperity. In the case of TARP, the purist objects to the intervention, and if the economy collapses as a result, the notion is that it will eventually recover and be stronger for what it was allowed to endure.
The conservative pragmatist, on the other hand, while concurring with the academic principles held by the purist, understands the consequences of the purist's position, and weighs that outcome against the consequences of striking a compromise. Thus, the pragmatist holds his nose and votes for TARP, understanding that averting an unprecedented economic collapse is more important than upholding an academic principle.
I consider myself a purist in regard to the government's TARP intervention, disagreeing with it in principle. However, while I did not live through the Great Depression, I have learned much about its causes and consequences from those who did, and thus I supported a pragmatic compromise in the matter of government intervention to prevent the cascading failure of our banking system, assuredly taking the economy down with it.
Now, whether you agree or disagree with this compromise, the bottom line is that government intervention created the crisis of confidence that led to the near collapse of our economy and, in my humble opinion, government intervention was the solution.
I will always be conflicted over my position on TARP. Fortunately, however, the original bailout cost to taxpayers, estimated to be $356 billion, has proven to be less than 10 percent of that loss and, in terms of our GDP, less than a third the loss due to the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s. TARP should not be confused with Obama's so-called "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" which is going to cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars. (Many thanks to the Red Chinese for underwriting this DemoDebt, while growing their own economy at a 10 percent clip.)
How does this help answer the questions about voting for third-party candidates?
The purist will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot, regardless of the consequences. The notion here is that if such votes end up seating a liberal (as votes for Ross Perot may have done for Bill Clinton in 1992), this ultimately will be for the good of liberty.
The pragmatist will vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the liberal, even if that candidate does not comport with all, or even most of, the purist's principles. The pragmatist thus believes that the consequences of seating a liberal will be more injurious to freedom and liberty than seating a moderate.
The above debate is as contentious as the consequences of each approach, and it has been raging for as long as third-party candidates have been on ballots.
The consummate conservative protagonist, William F. Buckley, concluded that the best rule was to vote for the most conservative electable candidate.
A case in point would be last month's Delaware senate primary.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, a pragmatist, wrote that the election of third-party conservative candidate Christine O'Donnell "was a bad day not only for Republicans but for conservatives." He doubts that O'Donnell can defeat her liberal opponent in the upcoming general election, but believes her moderate Republican opponent Mike Castle would have.
"The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama's social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda," argues Krauthammer.
"Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican," he says. "What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That's batting .667. You'd rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate? Castle wasn't only electable. He was unbeatable."
Whether Krauthammer is right about O'Donnell's electability is yet to be determined, but his conclusion should be weighed carefully by all of my likeminded conservative purists.
To be sure, we are in a unique political cycle this year. Other third-party candidates have already defeated numerous establishment Republican Senate candidates in the primaries. Joe Miller defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Marco Rubio so frightened Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida that Crist became an "independent" and now stands to be pounded by Rubio in the general election. And there are strong conservatives running with an "R" next to their name: Rand Paul in Kentucky, Mike Lee in Utah, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado.
Additionally, post primary, there are almost 20 House seats with strong Republican contenders in which third-party conservative challengers are pushing those Republicans to the right. Will those challengers split the conservative vote and give the seat to Democrats in the process?
There's plenty of consternation within the ranks of the Republican establishment as to what to do with third-party conservatives. Here's one idea for the GOP: Back strong conservative candidates on the big ticket so as to obviate the need for third-party candidates.
In Tennessee's 3rd congressional district where I will vote, we face a dilemma similar to that in many House districts. I supported a longtime colleague and strong conservative primary contender, Robin Smith, an outspoken advocate for the Rule of Law, with a proven political record. Yet one of Robin's six Republican opponents, wealthy lawyer Chuck Fleischmann, a political unknown, defeated her by 1,409 votes. He did so by infusing his campaign with more than $100,000 of his own money, running negative ads and landing a last-minute endorsement from populist Fox News infotainer Mike Huckabee. (Fleishmann's campaign manager had run Huckabee's abysmal presidential bid and called in a political favor.)
It was a stinging defeat for Robin and all conservatives in our district. But, hey, I'm not bitter.
In the upcoming midterms, I must decide whether to support Fleischmann, whose campaign tactics were abysmal but who promises he's a conservative, or vote for one of his authentic conservative third-party opponents and risk giving the seat to Fleischmann's ultra-Leftist Democrat opponent.
What criterion will I use?
Fleischmann has a strong lead over his opponent and none of the third-party contenders are polling beyond single digits. So I will likely cast my vote for Savas Kyriakidis in order to fire a round across Fleischmann's bow, and give him notice that if he breaks his conservative promise, he will serve only one term. Of course, if things change over the next two weeks and I detect a risk of seating the Leftist, I'll hold my nose on Election Day, knowing that this election marks but one battle to restore constitutional integrity, not the end of the war.
My advice to our readers: Vote, and make your vote count! If you are faced with a choice between a third-party conservative and a Republican moderate, and you can vote for the most conservative candidate without seating a Leftist as a consequence, do so. If not, hold your nose and vote for the most electable conservative on the ticket.
(Footnote: Regarding all the media polling in the final weeks of this midterm election, don't be lulled into overconfidence. Resolve to vote on 2 November, and bring your like-minded friends and family with you to the polls. In the meantime, please revisit the essay "Pollaganda -- Political Polling as Propaganda for a full understanding on how the media uses polls to influence elections.)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Third Party Conservatives: Fixers or Spoilers?
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue ... the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." --James Madison
In the years following the resolute conservative leadership of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party became indolent, more reactive than proactive. Making matters worse, the party supported the infiltration of so-called "big-tent moderates," those whose policy positions are almost indistinguishable from their Democrat challengers. Consequently, conservative third-party candidates have become significant players in national and state elections.
Conservatives voters have mixed opinions on support for third-party candidates. Thanks to the Tea Party movement, the question of constitutional integrity has been reinvigorated, and there are more outstanding third-party candidates in this midterm election than ever before.
Many Patriot readers have asked: "How should one vote when a third-party candidate is more conservative than the Republican offering? Should one vote for the lesser of two evils on the major party tickets? Is a vote for a third-party conservative a wasted vote or, worse, one that takes votes from a moderate on the ticket, and seats a Leftist?"
The answers, of course, depend on one's affinity for purism versus pragmatism, and the particular circumstances and consequences of each political contest.
Purists are those who rigorously and steadfastly adhere to established traditions and principles in the conduct of their affairs, in application both to individual and societal matters.
Pragmatists, on the other hand, are those who take a practical approach to arriving at solutions, even if that means supporting the lesser of two evils. They thus try to strike a balance between principles and practicality rather than take a strict ideological line.
So, how to vote? By way of an answer, let's consider the following.
One of the issues challenging some incumbent Republican candidates is their vote for the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which many conservatives begrudgingly supported and which was signed into law with similar enthusiasm by George W. Bush at the end of his second term.
A conservative purist would argue that the government should have no role in the regulation of free enterprise, other than ensuring the exercise thereof, and that the economy, if left to its own devices, is self-regulating, and that self-regulation is the most efficient means to achieve economic prosperity. In the case of TARP, the purist objects to the intervention, and if the economy collapses as a result, the notion is that it will eventually recover and be stronger for what it was allowed to endure.
The conservative pragmatist, on the other hand, while concurring with the academic principles held by the purist, understands the consequences of the purist's position, and weighs that outcome against the consequences of striking a compromise. Thus, the pragmatist holds his nose and votes for TARP, understanding that averting an unprecedented economic collapse is more important than upholding an academic principle.
I consider myself a purist in regard to the government's TARP intervention, disagreeing with it in principle. However, while I did not live through the Great Depression, I have learned much about its causes and consequences from those who did, and thus I supported a pragmatic compromise in the matter of government intervention to prevent the cascading failure of our banking system, assuredly taking the economy down with it.
Now, whether you agree or disagree with this compromise, the bottom line is that government intervention created the crisis of confidence that led to the near collapse of our economy and, in my humble opinion, government intervention was the solution.
I will always be conflicted over my position on TARP. Fortunately, however, the original bailout cost to taxpayers, estimated to be $356 billion, has proven to be less than 10 percent of that loss and, in terms of our GDP, less than a third the loss due to the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s. TARP should not be confused with Obama's so-called "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" which is going to cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars. (Many thanks to the Red Chinese for underwriting this DemoDebt, while growing their own economy at a 10 percent clip.)
How does this help answer the questions about voting for third-party candidates?
The purist will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot, regardless of the consequences. The notion here is that if such votes end up seating a liberal (as votes for Ross Perot may have done for Bill Clinton in 1992), this ultimately will be for the good of liberty.
The pragmatist will vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the liberal, even if that candidate does not comport with all, or even most of, the purist's principles. The pragmatist thus believes that the consequences of seating a liberal will be more injurious to freedom and liberty than seating a moderate.
The above debate is as contentious as the consequences of each approach, and it has been raging for as long as third-party candidates have been on ballots.
The consummate conservative protagonist, William F. Buckley, concluded that the best rule was to vote for the most conservative electable candidate.
A case in point would be last month's Delaware senate primary.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, a pragmatist, wrote that the election of third-party conservative candidate Christine O'Donnell "was a bad day not only for Republicans but for conservatives." He doubts that O'Donnell can defeat her liberal opponent in the upcoming general election, but believes her moderate Republican opponent Mike Castle would have.
"The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama's social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda," argues Krauthammer.
"Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican," he says. "What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That's batting .667. You'd rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate? Castle wasn't only electable. He was unbeatable."
Whether Krauthammer is right about O'Donnell's electability is yet to be determined, but his conclusion should be weighed carefully by all of my likeminded conservative purists.
To be sure, we are in a unique political cycle this year. Other third-party candidates have already defeated numerous establishment Republican Senate candidates in the primaries. Joe Miller defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Marco Rubio so frightened Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida that Crist became an "independent" and now stands to be pounded by Rubio in the general election. And there are strong conservatives running with an "R" next to their name: Rand Paul in Kentucky, Mike Lee in Utah, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado.
Additionally, post primary, there are almost 20 House seats with strong Republican contenders in which third-party conservative challengers are pushing those Republicans to the right. Will those challengers split the conservative vote and give the seat to Democrats in the process?
There's plenty of consternation within the ranks of the Republican establishment as to what to do with third-party conservatives. Here's one idea for the GOP: Back strong conservative candidates on the big ticket so as to obviate the need for third-party candidates.
In Tennessee's 3rd congressional district where I will vote, we face a dilemma similar to that in many House districts. I supported a longtime colleague and strong conservative primary contender, Robin Smith, an outspoken advocate for the Rule of Law, with a proven political record. Yet one of Robin's six Republican opponents, wealthy lawyer Chuck Fleischmann, a political unknown, defeated her by 1,409 votes. He did so by infusing his campaign with more than $100,000 of his own money, running negative ads and landing a last-minute endorsement from populist Fox News infotainer Mike Huckabee. (Fleishmann's campaign manager had run Huckabee's abysmal presidential bid and called in a political favor.)
It was a stinging defeat for Robin and all conservatives in our district. But, hey, I'm not bitter.
In the upcoming midterms, I must decide whether to support Fleischmann, whose campaign tactics were abysmal but who promises he's a conservative, or vote for one of his authentic conservative third-party opponents and risk giving the seat to Fleischmann's ultra-Leftist Democrat opponent.
What criterion will I use?
Fleischmann has a strong lead over his opponent and none of the third-party contenders are polling beyond single digits. So I will likely cast my vote for Savas Kyriakidis in order to fire a round across Fleischmann's bow, and give him notice that if he breaks his conservative promise, he will serve only one term. Of course, if things change over the next two weeks and I detect a risk of seating the Leftist, I'll hold my nose on Election Day, knowing that this election marks but one battle to restore constitutional integrity, not the end of the war.
My advice to our readers: Vote, and make your vote count! If you are faced with a choice between a third-party conservative and a Republican moderate, and you can vote for the most conservative candidate without seating a Leftist as a consequence, do so. If not, hold your nose and vote for the most electable conservative on the ticket.
(Footnote: Regarding all the media polling in the final weeks of this midterm election, don't be lulled into overconfidence. Resolve to vote on 2 November, and bring your like-minded friends and family with you to the polls. In the meantime, please revisit the essay "Pollaganda -- Political Polling as Propaganda for a full understanding on how the media uses polls to influence elections.)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
