About Me

Name: Longplay
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

"Sign the Declaration" Tea Party

Just found this after being inspired to search the web by a Patriot Post letter to the editor suggesting this very idea.
We can all join the Founders and send a message to King Barack II.

http://signthedeclaration.blogspot.com/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Stoop to Conquer

Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe article discussing the "torture memo" debate got me thinking.

In any war the normal rules of society are for the most part put aside. In wars people are told to kill other people, something unthinkable, and in fact criminal, in "normal" times.   For the greater good, even a "moral" country has to behave in a manner inconsistent with its values from time to time . The real test of a society's goodness, its morality, comes after the extreme situation has passed, after the war is over. Does a society continue with the "abnormal" behaviors, oppressing those conquered, or does it return to it's principles?

To defeat the horrors of the Third Reich, the Allies fire-bombed Dresden and dropped atomic bombs on Japan, all difficult and even regrettable acts. But after the war, the West, especially the United States, proceded to rebuild and make better the countries it had defeated.

The argument of the American Left is usually that "we can't stoop to the level" of our enemies.  But in this fallen world the question cannot realistically be whether to stoop at all but to what level one can stoop before no longer being able to again stand erect.  In times of danger, those who deign to stoop at all will not live long enough to stand erect, and those who live permanently stooped will still be here - and will be in power. 

Pretending that we must a all times and in all situations be pacifists or fight with one hand tied behind our backs is unrealistic and suicidal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Call Obama's Bluff on Torture Hearings

Following the Obama administration’s release of memos regarding the Bush administration’s use of extreme measures to extract information from terrorists, and Obama’s own hints that he is open to prosecuting the memo’s authors, despite campaign assertions to the contrary, there are those on the right who wonder if Obama realizes that such hearings would expose the complicity of the Democrats currently in power (mentioned in Hugh Hewitt’s conversation with Michael Gerson here ).

My contention is that he does indeed realize this.  Obama and his associates are extremely crafty.  What he has done is throw red meat to the press and to Democrat demagogues, under the guise of the “transparency” he promised, even if it’s only transparency about the previous administration.  All he has to do now is sit back and let the court of public opinion do the work he knows he can’t risk having done in public hearings. 

When the characters have been assassinated, Barack the Merciful will step in and magnanimously refuse to prosecute the “criminals”.  “Move along.  We have more important things to do.  Nothing to see here.”   Yes, nothing but a few ruined reputations and a huge hole in our intelligence service’s ability to do its job of protecting the country.

Perhaps the GOP should call Barack’s bluff and insist on hearings - hearings not just on allegations of torture, but while we’re at it, on Fannie and Freddie, too.  While the Republicans don’t have the votes to combat Obama on legislative matters, public hearings could afford them the opportunity of exposing Democrat hypocrisy, while at the same time tying them up in a distraction.  And if Obama and the Dems refuse the hearings, the GOP can explain to the public exactly why they refuse.

Call their bluff!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: Fiat by Fiat

Concerning President Obama's attempt to force Chrysler to merge witht the Italian automaker Fiat, has anyone thought of this apt connection?

Main Entry:fi·at 
Pronunciation:\'fe-?t, -?at, -?ät; 'fi-?t, -?at\
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin, let it be done, 3d singular present subjunctive of fieri to become, be done
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
2 : an authoritative determination : dictate <a fiat of conscience>
3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree <government by fiat>

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Brave New Welfare World

Austin Hill pens a great article here about the coming divide between those who work hard and accept responsibilty for their actions and those who happily feed at the government welfare trough. 

Reading it called to mind Alduous Huxley's "Brave New World" where some people were bred to work and love it, and others were bred purely to love play.

In Huxley's fictional world neither group envied or resented the other.  But here in the real world, as we head in that direction, but without Huxley's genetic engineering factor, resentment will definitely arise, and only in one direction.

Tags: obama   welfare  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hugh Hewitt Sums it Up

Hugh Hewitt blows away the smoke and mirrors and sums it up nicely here:

"The problem with President Obama's agenda is that it is built on serial fantasies,  fantasies which ignore the real benefits of things such as nuclear power and oil exploration.  The president's talk was well phrased and beautifully delivered, and deeply disconnected from the realities of economic growth."
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eric Holder, Rascism and Grade Inflation

By now most of us have heard about Attorney General Holder's rascist comments.  They're all over the airwaves and the blogs, including this one from the great Michelle Malkin.  While it's obvious who's the real coward and rascist in this, I want to look at this from another angle, that it serves as an example of something the Left has pushed in all areas of society, namely "grade inflation".
 
Usually by grade inflation we mean the liberal educational ploy of lowering the bar on grades to make it appear that more students are achieving, and as a side-benefit, to heighten the self-esteem of both the teacher and pupil.  This is certainly a problem and just as certainly one promoted by Leftist "educational" theory and practice.  But this concept can also increasingly applied to the practice of inflating oneself, also most often seen in left-leaners.
 
Teaachers can not anymore be merely purveyors of the understanding of math, science, history, and literature anymore.  Instead they must be therapists for our children, leading them into the adult years before their time.  I faced this head-on in a Madison, Wisconsin, PTA meeting where an excited young third-grade teacher gushed over how exciting it was to discuss with her young males boys how exciting it was that they were  finding they had hair "in new places".  This was in a school that refused to have students memorize multiplication tables.
 
Judges cannot just be judges anymore, applying the law as given to them, by those whose job it is to make law.  No, they must be legislators, and more than that, must be legislators and transformers not just of their defined jurisdiction, but of the world, and often invoking international law as precedent.
 
Presidents can not just be presidents anymore, running the machinery of the state as outlined in the Constitution.  They must be saviors of the world, raisers of oceans.  Does anyone think that if Mr. Obama was the first President, he would have stepped down after his term had ended?
 
And now we have Eric Holder, the Attoney General, inflating himself into national scold - or worse.  Since when has that office been used as a bully pulpit?
 
And what exactly is he threatening to do that wouldn't be beyond the bounds of his designated power?  To force racial desegregation in our neighborhoods will he somehow and begin forcing people from their homes - and this with no law written to allow it? 
 
Does he intend to organize, as part Obama's suggested civilian national security force,  a Federal Bureau of Thought Police? 
 
Will he decide, in retaliation for the supposed crime of police stopping someone for "driving while black", to begin arresting people for "living while white"?
 
But then I suppose this should be expected from a member of the gang (literally) that thinks the Supreme Court should "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers" in the Constitution. 
 
The job of Attorney General?  Why, it's powers are just what I say they are.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Warns of, and Wants, Hard Times

Rush Limbaugh recently concluded a personally-proposed alternative to the Democrat "stimulus" plan with these words: 

" ... Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can."  [emphasis mine]  

Unfortunately for us, however, the Obama administration does have a reason, and it has nothing to do with improving the economy and the lives of American citizens.  It has everything to do, as Rahm Emmanuel pointed out, with not letting "a crisis go to waste".  To their ilk a recovery would be a waste, in that it would begin to close the door to their goal of a bigger, more controling government.  They are after the political power to change the nature of the country's government, pure and simple.  The economy, and the public, be damned.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and The High Road to Revolution

In a statement that reveals one of the key strategies of the Obama administration – and indeed of the Left as a whole, Arne Duncan, Obama's new secretary of education, recently defended the inclusion of “education” funding in the “stimulus” bill by stating that improvement in education is the only long-term stimulus.  

As Nicholas Gramsci maintained (as Rush so astutely pointed out in his first book so many years ago) and as Obama's close associate William Ayres (who surely knows the new secretary well) came to realize, getting control of the minds of the young is the surest way to underpin a revolution.

Since the radicals of the sixties “grew up” and melded into the woodwork of our education system, this process has already been moving inexorably ahead for decades, and the results can already be seen in our historically and morally uneducated young who voted in droves for Obama.  The Left now has the power to crush the opposition that has struggled against it all these years and complete its hold on the the education system, guaranteeing its power far into the future.  And power, not an electorate educated to "stimlate the economy" is indeed the goal.  This may not be secreatary Duncan's personal goal, but then again the Left has always employed useful idiots. 

The process is a slow one because it grows with the growth of generations and because its workings must be subtle and not attract attention. Changing the U.S. internally is Obama and the Left's primary goal. The goal of their foreign policy will be to do what has to be done to keep power at home, even at the cost of sacrificing his sympathy for Leftist regimes by making war.
Once America is secured for the Left, then it can unite with the world Left. With the help of an incompetent and gullible media, the administration will distract the electorate with seemingly conservative ideas here and there, and with flowery and vague platitudes, all the while plodding towards their long-term goal.

I am reminded of a favorite line uttered by Tom Selleck in the movie “High Road to China” - “The ox is slow, but the earth is patient.” This could easily be paraphrased to capture the Obama/Left philosophy and resolve: “Revolution is slow, but the left is patient.”

Some parting comments.

Will the Leftist legislators in the House and Senate show the same patience, or will they give the game away in their eagerness?

Is the Right also patient and steadfast, or has it given up?

If the Right will not be a force to confront Obama's Left, there is another force at work in the world that also has great patience to achieve its goals: “Jihad is slow, but Islam is Patient”.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pew Poll: Green Smokescreen Lifting?

In its article "Warming at the Bottom", Investor's Business Daily points out concerning global warming, that a new Pew Research poll finds  "only 30% feel President Obama should focus on it".  IBD concludes that "the public has evaluated the warnings — and found them wanting."
 
I believe that savvy politicians on the left also believe the evidence to be wanting but that, since they've produced a generation of people who are (as they once accused conservatives of being) "ignorant and easily led", they want to keep hold of, for as long as possible, an issue that can help them move toward their real goal - socialism. 
 
The left doesn't really care a wit about "saving the earth", knows it can't be done, and that it in fact doesn't need to be done.  As with all radical leftists, the world they do want to "save" is the world of human societal organization and they see "thinking green" as a vehicle for hoodwinking the masses into going along with the draconian measures required to achieve their utopian dreams.
 
"Don't look at that man behind the curtain (tinkering with your freedoms) - Look at me, the Great Obama, saving the rainforest!"
 
This poll gives us a glimmer of hope that the masses may be close to snapping out of the hynotist's trance.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama the Mutt: Beyond Race?

 This from the AP article "'Mutts like me' - Obama shows ease discussing race":
'WASHINGTON – It popped out casually, a throwaway line as he talked to reporters about finding the right puppy for his young daughters.  But with just three offhanded words in his first news conference as president-elect, Barack Obama reminded everyone how thoroughly different his administration — and inevitably, this country — will be.  "Mutts like me"  '
"Just popped out"?  Yeah, right.  Everything Obama does is calculated.  I wouldn't be surprised to find the line's in his regular repertoire and that he's used it more than once before.
 
The title of the article claims that this comment shows Obama is at "ease discussing race".  No, it shows that he can't stop discussing and thinking about race.  If he were truly "beyond race" he wouldn't have said it.  And this context wasn't a "discussion" either.
 
But, though the author didn't intend it this way, he was correct in saying that this does indeed start to tell us how "thoroughly different" "the country - will be".  And not in a good way.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spreading the Wealth to WalMart

The lead-n line in Investor's Business Daily's "Soviet Unions" reads:
 
"Economy: Wal-Mart expects a "blockbuster" holiday season, but with Democrats in full control of the levers of government in Washington, this might be its last."

They're definitely on to something here.  Since the market took a nosedive I've been infected with a "what-the-H___" attitude and have made several purchases that are very out of the ordinary for me.  Now this morning I see an upcoming one-day sale at WalMart with some great prices on laptops.  I've been wanting to one for my mom so we can keep in touch more and share photos and this just may be the chance.
 
I've been assuaging my guilt and justifying the purchases by telling myself I'm helping to "spread the wealth".  But at least I'm doing it voluntarily.  Pretty soon BO will be forcing me to buy computers for someone else's relatives.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

But Gays Do Have Marriage Rights ...

"... Even as the last votes were being counted in California, the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of the ban filed a challenge with the state Supreme Court. They contended that California's ballot cannot be used to undermine one group's access to rights enjoyed by other citizens."
 
But don't gays already have the same rights as those "other citizens"?  A heterosexual can legally marry someone of the opposite biological sex and a gay person is free to so the same.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bringing "Color" to the GOP

On my drive home tonight I was listening to Michael Medved's radio show. in which he cited statistics about the election's voting patterns by race and ethnicity. 

The stats were pretty dismal and Medved insisted that the GOP must find a way to bring these people in, a point made over and over in most election cycles.  I happen to agree that should indeed be a goal, especially considering demographic trends (and the fact that it is just plain good for them).

I was frustrated, however, that Medved offered no recommendations on how to go about this important and daunting task.

The prevailing GOP strategy has always been the "Democrat-Lite" "me- too but less" approach, which obviously hasn't worked.  Just as you can't be half-socialist, you can't be half-liberal.  Voters intrigued at all by liberalism want the real thing. 

Conservatives need to have a serious and honest discussion of questions such as:

How do you reach blacks who will not listen to black people such as Walter Williams, Ward Connerly, Michael Steele, Shelby Steele, Star Parker, or even Bill Cosby, but will listen to Al Sharpton, Michael Pfleger, and Louis Farakhan?  The first group (on our side) didn't come into the fold attracted by the by the "me-too" approach.  How did they come to understand?  We should ask them. 

In his early years, when Jesse Jackson urged the black community to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, he quickly learned they did not want to hear that message.  To continue making a living, he switched back to playing the greivance game, and the black community has, by and large, downed that kool-aid ever since.

So how do you reach black voters who will vote for white liberals whose policies have destroyed their communities over the last 50 years, before they would vote for a black conservative?  I strongly believe that if a black conservative, even one as hip-sounding as Michael Steele, had been  on the GOP ticket, blacks would still have pulled the Democrat lever.

How do you pull in Hispanics when they won't even vote for John McCain, who went totally against the GOP base on illegal immigration and pandered to race-centered groups such as La Raza?

And how do you persuade such people that conservatism is in their own best interest and bring them into the party when, by the time they are of an age to be reasoned with, their formative years have been spent being indoctrinated with leftist ideas and hate for America in an education system (and in some churches) soon to be under control by those sharing the "education" theories of William Ayres?

And lastly, how can this be done without compromising basic conservative principles?
 
If you can't do the latter, what's the use of the former?
 
Or are we perhaps relegated to waiting for the realization to set in that, having a man "of color" in the White House hasn't changed a thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wimpy "Graciousness"

Enough of pundits masking their wimpiness in defeat as graciousness (NRO and even on Hugh Hewitt). 
 
That's what got us where we are now.
 
Enough of "my friend across the aisle".  They are not our friends.
 
Enough of gushing over the country's "achievement" in electing a black man.  Electing a bad black man is not un-racsist, it's electing a bad man.
 
Enough of claiming Obama ran a "good" campaign instead of a corrupt and dishonest, and law-breaking one.
 
When the racists Wright and Farakhan, the tyrants Castro and Chavez, the mullahs in Iran, the terrorists in Hamas, their friend Mr. Khalidi, Osama Bin Ladin, and the homegrown killers Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn are all smiling and partying, I for one, am not!
 
As with William Jefferson Clinton, Barrack Hussein Obama is not my President.
 
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
 
Why the beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity.  We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution." 

Barry Goldwater, 1964
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »