Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT HOT WAS, IF THERE WERE NO COLD? What would you call light if there were no darkness? In the increasingly polarized world of politics, how would politically uncommitted people know how important America’s founding values are without hearing the progressive harangues?
I ask these questions to say this: The best alternative for conservatives is for House democrats to elect Nancy Pelosi as their minority leader.
Calm down and bear with me. The midterm election cycle brought forward a resurgence of national pride and political awareness. Between tea party gatherings, cable television commentators, Internet bloggers, and just plain folks talking to their neighbors, this country is moving forward again. But beware; the path is still unsteady and dangerous.
To sustain our momentum, and to rationally gain commitment from the political fence-sitters, we need the radical ravings of the left as a comparison.
Before Pelosi, Reid, and Obama were part of Americans’ daily intake of news, our founding principles were available to anyone willing to find them. The sources for such information are found almost everywhere, from libraries to the Internet. But most Americans did not search for these principles and the values they were built upon. Most of us were trying to eke out a living, stay ahead of the taxman, and raise our children to be great adults.
Our attitudes toward knowing the real America changed dramatically after the 2008 elections. And they changed because the contrast between what progressives like Pelosi believe in, and what mainstream Americans believe in, could not have been starker.
Blogs and stalwart liberal news agencies are all singing the same tune: if Pelosi remains the face of the Democratic party in Washington, it will not only alienate independent voters for the 2012 presidential election, but will also weaken an already weak Democratic caucus before that election.
Luke Russert of NBC said Pelosi is “pick your word – radioactive, toxic, or damaged goods.”
Russert further asserts, “Her unpopularity around the country – and especially among independents – would be a drag on the party heading into 2012 and a very important presidential election. Not only would she kill any chances of Democrats retaking the House, but she also would hurt President Obama’s ability to work with the GOP over the next two years.”
We can only hope. And right now, our hope springs eternal.
So, run for minority leader Nancy. Cajole your Democrat colleagues. Your liberal legacy is not yet complete. The depth of your failure remains unfulfilled. To put the cherry on top of your progressive sundae, you must hand us conservatives the 2012 presidency and both houses of Congress. You go, girl!
Which brings us to Keith Olbermann. We should all be glad he’s back after his suspension. Putting aside his well-known penchant for fabricating the news, his progressive vitriol is the perfect polar opposite to American values. Add his dash of unwarranted name-calling to anyone who’s conservative, and the differences between he and most independent voters is blatantly apparent.
Although we risk that his vocabulary might lure some people to believe he’s actually saying anything substantial, the contrast of progressive ideology and founding principles is never more on stage when he speaks. Besides, with his dismal 0.7 rating on “the most watched show” on hapless MSNBC, how many can he actually reach?
During a lengthy diatribe to rouse liberals to vote on the midterms, Olbermann said Tea Party candidates were “unstable individuals”.
According to Olbermann, Tea Party candidates, if elected, were going to, “march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the '30s, or backward to hanging union organizers, or backward to the Trusts and the Robber Barons.”
The midterm election, if won by Tea Party candidates was going to be “nothing short of an attempt to use Democracy to end this Democracy.”
And finally, about Tea Partyers and conservatives alike, “They see the future of America not in progress, but in revolution to establish a theocracy for white males, with dissent caged and individuality suppressed.”
Listening to Olbermann leaves me cold. But, I wouldn’t know hot if the progressives didn’t blow cold.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Dear Visitors and Fellow Bloggers,
We IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THE ADDITION of a new columnist, "EconProf".
EconProf is a talented and accomplished writer who also happens to be an actual professor of economics at a southwestern university. You can look forward to his insightful analyses of today's monetary challenges, as well as his bare-knuckled take on all current political events.
You can read his first article "Throwing Progressives Back to the Fringe", where he girds himself in Constitutional conservatism as he delves into the psyche of the modern progressive; their roots, their aims and their culture of victimhood.
We thanks you for your continued support!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
|"Don't cry for me, America."|
Quick! Someone call 9-1-1! Oops. Sorry. Too late.
As election results began pouring in and the Democrats desperate ambition to retain a stranglehold on federal power quickly fizzled, it was at approximately 9 PM (EST) Tuesday night, that the Left's hysterical and irrational adulation of President Barack Hussein Obama II was officially declared dead.
How could that possibly be? Well, simple really.
"A shellacking" is what President Obama called the Democratic party's historic defeat, when doggedly pressed by an unsympathetic White House press corps during a presidential press conference Wednesday afternoon. With TOTUS nowhere in sight, the president stammered and stuttered his way through a mine field of once adoring but now inquiring journalists' pointed questions that attempted to zero in on exactly what on earth went so terribly, terribly wrong in the wake of the disastrous results of the 2010 midterms. The press corps was uncharacteristically cool toward the president after shamelessly supporting him and his corresponding Progressive agenda in 2008, then having to endure the embarrassment of having their butts handed to them on a shingle last night.
What went wrong indeed.
Historically, first-term presidents with below fifty-percent approval ratings (Obama's is at 47%) lose an average of just thirty-six congressional seats during their first midterm elections. But with the Democrats losing sixty seats, with four still yet to be decided, it hasn't been since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938 that a president has suffered such a humiliating and utter defeat of his party.
And then, to add insult to injury, the gains for the GOP at the state level were even more devastating. Republicans added at least ten new governors nationwide, as well as hundreds and hundreds of state legislators and other local officials, including the unlikely capturing of both the governorship and the legislature in several states -- two of which were for the first time in over 125 years.
Predictably, hemorrhaging liberals in the media worked overtime to deflect blame from Obama's wildly unpopular Progressive agenda as the reason for the crippling election results, and instead, slapped a damage-control tourniquet on the news by, of course, blaming "angry" Americans. Here's a small sampling of some Wednesday morning's headlines:
"US tidal wave of anger chases Democrats out"
Arizona Daily Star
"Angry voters get their say"
Detroit Free Press
"Angry US voters turn from Obama"
"Voters carry anxiety, disappointment to the polls"
Times West Virginia
"The 2010 election: Ugly economy, angry voters"
The Wall Street Journal
"Poll: Voters angry at government help GOP win"
Asked by reporters at today's press conference how he personally felt in the wake of Tuesday's drubbing, Obama responded, "I feel bad." Oh, yeah, and he quickly added that he believed the Democratic flogging was a result of voters being "frustrated".
Of course, you have to read between the lines when digesting Obama's self-serving excuse coupled with the newspaper headlines. According to Pathway to Happiness, "If you aren't aware of how your mind is imagining scenarios of hurt, your anger will appear irrational."
Aha. So, let's connect the dots, shall we?
Obama said that voters were frustrated. Frustration leads to anger. The media blamed the Democrats' loss on "angry" voters. Anger leads to hurt. Incorrectly imagining scenarios of hurt leads to irrationality. Irrationality is a subset of behaviors exhibited by the insane. Ergo, voters elected Republicans because they are certifiably nuts!
Actually, the preceding would be a more accurate description of the pathway to irrational hysteria better known as Obamamania.
Obama, his die-hard supporters and his abettors in Congress just don't get it -- or at the very least, they just won't admit it. Yesterday's loud-and-clear election results weren't a reflection of mere "voter anger", they were a scathing repudiation of Obama, the Progressive Left's Marxist agenda and an awakening of a majority of Americans to Obama's false "Hope and Change" tripe.
And although Obama lamely attempted to blame the voters' renunciation of his radical policies on his failure to communicate, the truth is, after twenty-two months, Americans understand Obama's policies just fine, thank you -- and they catagorically reject them.
Americans made it loud and clear yesterday that it was Obama and the Democrats who weren't listening to them:
They didn't listen when America said "no" to Obamacare.
They didn't listen when America said "no" to bank bailouts and car company takeovers.
They didn't listen when America said "no" to trillions of dollars of spending and debt.
They didn't listen when America said "no" to the massive expansion of government.
They didn't listen when America said "no" to a private sector job-crushing "Stimu-less" Bill.
They didn't listen when America said "no" to the Ground Zero mosque.
And they didn't listen when America said "no" to attacking Arizona's immigration laws.
Make no mistake, the midterm elections were a major defeat for Obama and the Progressives, and a resounding victory for liberty, the rule of law and the Founding Principles.
So, shout it from the rooftops, America, so that Obama and the rest of the Progressives can hear you loud and clear this time:
Sunday, October 31, 2010
NEVER HAVE THE WORDS OF RONALD WILSON REAGAN BEEN SO TRUE nor desperately needed as during these 2010 midterm elections.
The usurpers on the Progressive left have boastfully declared that they are out to "Fundamentally Transform America" into an alien form of government -- a Marxist society -- which is foreign to its citizenry.
The "great planners" of the Democratic Party today are intent on forcing an ideology on Americans that has been tried before in near and far places across the globe, and has always ultimately failed. As Americans have painfully learned over the past two years, while the great planners go about implementing their grand schemes, even against the will of the very people they are supposed to represent, the end result always brings certain misery and hardship on those of whom they wish to control.
President Reagan knew that only by following the principles of the Founding Fathers -- the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Adams -- could America continue to prosper and thrive, and maintain the exceptionalism and the unalienable rights and freedoms that we have come to know and cherish, but as of late, seem to have either taken for granted or discarded altogether.
On November 2nd, we voters face a pivotal moment in America's history. We either can chose to forsake our Founding Principles and side with the "planners" and the "schemers", or we can vote for patriotic men and women who have put themselves on the line, politically and personally, like maybe none others before them, and who hold dear the precepts and time-honored traditions that has allowed America to stand proudly and strongly amongst the other nations of the world -- a shining city on the hill for all the world to see.
VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2nd!
May God bless us, and may God bless America!
Friday, October 29, 2010
A Republican campaign volunteer filed a Tucson police complaint Wednesday, alleging theft of Ruth McClung's campaign signs by a staff member of Congressman Raul Grijalva.
Gabriela Mercer, 46, said she saw two campaign signs in the back of district director's Ruben Reyes' vehicle.
Mercer, who has a daughter serving in the Marines on her second tour in Afghanistan, said she had visited Grijalva's office to ask for information about his stance on the war.
As Reyes approached Mercer, he opened the back of his sports utility vehicle, where two campaign yard signs were visible, she said.
Mercer, who has volunteered for Republican congressional candidates McClung and Jesse Kelly (challenging Gabrielle Giffords-D), said when she asked why he had the signs, Reyes became defensive and eventually said he was going to "put them up".
Mercer said she found it "unbelievable" that a high-ranking staffer would steal a political opponent's signs.
Reyes said that when he got up that morning, he found McClung signs... lying in his yard. He picked them up, put them in his truck and later "discarded" the signs, Reyes said.
Asked why he told Mercer he was going to put the signs up instead of giving this version of the story, Reyes said it was a "spur of the moment" comment.Shyaah! More like a bald-faced lie. But why split hairs?
It seems Grijalva has taken up sign-pilfering as a hobby, now that he finds himself locked in the toughest battle of his political career. According to a recent poll by Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies, it shows Grijalva and Republican challenger Ruth McClung in a statistical dead heat -- 40 percent to 38 percent with 13 percent still undecided, even though in Grijalva's district, there are nearly twice as many registered Democrats as there are Republicans.
"El Jefe" Grijalva's opponent, Ruth McClung, a solid conservative and real-life rocket scientist for a Tucson-based engineering company, proudly contrasts her people-up approach to governing, as opposed to Grijalva's top-down elitist vision, this way, "This is a race between two opposing philosophies: Grijalva's 'progressive' left wing philosophy, and my philosophy built on conservative values." McClung adds, "Like Thomas Jefferson, I believe a government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Amplifying the desperate situation that Grijalva faces for re-election, four Democratic sources from different parts of the country said that there is "new attention" being paid to a race that was long considered "in the bag". Another Democratic source familiar with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said there are "whispers" about the Grijalva-McClung match-up "being a sleeper race".
"Grijalva made a major misstep in calling for a boycott of his own state [that cost the state millions of dollars in revenue]. He should win, though. But anything is possible this year, especially in Arizona where the Republicans and anti-incumbents are apparently very fired up," said the source.
Anything indeed -- including stealing your opponent's campaign signs.
Career politician Grijalva will have to wait until November 2nd to find out whether he'll get to keep his comfy Washington digs or whether he'll be packing his bags for the state he verbally trashed.
You can help Ruth McClung defeat the sticky-fingered, dirt bag Grijalva, by going to her web site at:
UPDATE: Gabriela Mercer, the conservative campaign volunteer who reported the theft of a couple Ruth McClung campaign signs by a Raul Grijalva staffer, now reports that she has had the back window of her Nissan sedan bashed in with a large river rock.
While eating dinner at a local Tucson restaurant, Gabriela Mercer was approached by her waiter and asked what kind of car she drove. When Mercer told the waiter what kind it was, the waiter responded, "I think someone just threw a rock through your window."
The Grijalva leftist goons didn't take long to retaliate against Mercer, and just like good jackbooted Marxists, they sent their message loud and clear.
It's getting ugly out there, folks...
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
"WE HAVE A LAWLESS POLITICAL CLASS that is not only ignoring the Constitution, but deliberately disregarding it. They are throwing out American history and trying to rewrite it in their Marxist ways. Just because President Obama was elected doesn't give him the right to change hundreds of years of American history and replace American values and principles." -- Talk-radio host Mark Levin on "The Mark Levin Show", July 7, 2010.In a stunning display of judicial thuggery Tuesday, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, led by the activist consiglieres Judge Sandra Ikuta and Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, struck down Arizona's requirement that residents of the Grand Canyon State provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.
In yet another attack on Arizona's attempt to enforce illegal immigration laws -- this time by an ideologically-driven liberal judiciary -- by a 2-1 decision, the two rogue justices ruled that Arizona's Proposition 200, passed in 2004, illegally preempted the federal government's National Voter Registration Act which requires states to make voter registration opportunities "widely available" and for states to remove "unnecessary obstacles". Groups representing Hispanics and Native Americans had vehemently opposed the Arizona law before the court, arguing the state proposition erected unfair barriers to voting, especially for newly naturalized citizens.
Interestingly, the 9th Circuit had previously ruled against the same group's petition back in January of 2005, spurring Chief Judge Alex Kozinski -- the lone judicial dissenter on Tuesday -- to write the following caustic rebuttal:
[The provisions in Proposition 200] plainly allow states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote. The majority (Ikuta and Day O'Connor) refuses to accept the consequences of this reality. That is the law of the Circuit and therefore binding on us. Because I believe that we must take precedent seriously and that Gonzalez I was correctly decided, I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the NVRA preempts Arizona's voter registration requirement.The Ikuta-Day O'Connor ruling sparked intense outrage with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett who told The Republic, "I think the decision by the 9th Circuit is an outrage, and I think it's a slap in the face of Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of our elections."
With the November 2nd mid-term elections looming right around the corner, Governor Jan Brewer added, "The Federal Government stands against our efforts to prevent voter fraud and they refuse to do their job on illegal immigration. The voters passed this critical election security law in 2004. SEIU and UFCW are backing this voter registration front group that is fraudulently registering thousands of ineligible voters."
If you're keeping score at home, this marks the FIFTH TIME THIS YEAR that "Don" Barack Obama and his federal cosca, including his chief capo and hard-on with a suitcase, Eric Holder, at the Department of Justice and the cosca's hapless moll, Janet Napolitano, at the Department of Homeland Security have pulled out their figurative gats and set them a-blazing against the state of Arizona. And it's not even St. Valentine's Day.
And for what exactly? For Arizona enforcing federal immigration laws that the feds, under Obama, have been explicitly ordered to ignore, and also for Arizona attempting to save herself from a skyrocketing narcotics and human-trafficking influx, an ever-increasing crime rate and a money-sucking-ly high education and health care deficit.
Got dat? Good, now let's take a walk.
Below is a brief chronology of the Obama Crime Family's "rap sheet" when it comes to its recent targeted and fevered assault against the state of Arizona:
May 28, 2010
US Attorney General Eric Holder asked the Supreme Court to strike down a state immigration-enforcement law that Janet Napolitano herself signed into law in 2007 while governor of Arizona.
The Obama Administration joined a challenge to the Arizona law, led by Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who asked the court to hear a challenge brought by immigrant-rights groups to the so-called "Employer-Sanctions Statute" which targets employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and empowers the state to revoke the business licenses of repeat violators. Then-Governor Napolitano, at the time of the law's passage, was quoted as saying, "The law is valid."
July 6, 2010
The Department of Justice filed suit in federal court against the State of Arizona to block the enforcement of Senate Bill 1070 (SB1070), which empowers state law enforcement officers to assist federal law enforcement officials, i.e. ICE and Border Patrol, with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Obama and his abettors at the DOJ claimed the Arizona law illegally preempts the federal law and unfairly targets Hispanics for potential racial profiling -- even though the language in the state law was virtually identical to that of the federal law.
However, when pressed before Congress, both AG Eric Holder and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted that neither one had even read the bill before the administration filed suit against Arizona.
Obama then purposely, albeit clumsily, mischaracterized the Arizona law this way when attempting to justify the administration's legal action:
"This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law, you can try to make it really tough on people who look like illegal immigrants, You can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona and your great-great grandfather may have been there before Arizona was a state. If you didn't have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed."September 2, 2010
US Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit in federal court against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Holder claimed in his lawsuit that Sheriff Arpaio had refused to comply with DOJ requests for documents involving the arrests and subsequent treatment of "illegal" and legal Hispanics. Civil rights groups La Raza and the ACLU had been pressing Holder's office to investigate Arpaio for alleged civil rights violations and racial profiling.
The always out-spoken and defiant Sheriff Arpaio responded this way to the Obama Administration's lawsuit on Fox News:
"It's been a year and a half they've been investigating me and my office for alleged racial profiling. Nothing happened. But why [the lawsuit] now? They sued the state two months ago. They filed another suit against some county schools. And now I'm being sued. I think there's a move afoot to go after Arizona because they don't like us enforcing illegal immigration laws. So they're really going after the people of Arizona. The people of Arizona want something done [on illegal immigration] and now they're zeroing in with these lawsuits."September 3, 2010
The Obama Justice Department's civil rights division sued Maricopa County Community Colleges in Arizona seeking damages from schools for having "intentionally committed document abuse discrimination." The Justice Department said they wanted "full remedial relief" for 247 non-citizens who applied for jobs with the community college district between August 2008 and January of this year, plus a civil penalty of $1100 for each of the "aggrieved".
The DOJ says MCCC broke federal law by requiring each non-citizen applicant to supply his/her "permanent resident card", or green card, in addition to a valid driver's license and a Social Security card. According to Thomas E. Perez, the assistant general for civil rights, MCCC's requesting a green card amounted to "immigration-related employment discrimination." Perez went on to say the Office of Special Council will bring legal actions against all employers who impose "unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles to employment for work-authorized non-citizens."
Charles Reinebold, a spokesman for MCCC, who was shocked by the sheer aggressiveness and the punitive vindictiveness of the Justice Department, said this in the district's defense, "We are extremely disappointed by the Justice Department's action. We had no intent to discriminate against any foreign national, and feel we have been singled out for the maximum penalty under the law. This was a paperwork error, and we revised it after it was brought to our attention. I'm very surprised the administration would resort to a lawsuit. In the past (pre-Obama), the emphasis has been on mediation to resolve these issues."
October 7, 2010
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced it had filed a Freedom of Information ACT lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice for information regarding the DOJ's decision to file a lawsuit against Arizona's tough new illegal immigration law SB 1070. Specifically, Judicial Watch wanted documents pertaining to the ACLU in making the decision to file a lawsuit against Arizona.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said of the lawsuit, "I suspect that the Obama Justice Department is making decisions on behalf of the ACLU and its leftist allies instead of the public interest. [They] should stop stonewalling and release these basic documents on its decisions to attack Arizona over its get-tough immigration law."
October, 26, 2010
On a 2-1 vote, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit strikes down Arizona's law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration.
The question begs then, why on earth all the verbal attacks, threats and intimidation tactics -- not to mention multiple lawsuits -- by the Obama Administration against a state that is merely trying to protect its citizenry and their property, its resources and its finances from an unrelenting flood of illegal aliens?
Attorney General Eric "The Mouthpiece" Holder may hold the answer:
"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns. But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."Janet "Little Echo" Napolitano obviously studied her administration talking points that day, too:
"We are actively working with members of Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our immigration system at the federal level because this challenge cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, of which this is one."In "The Mouthpiece" and "Little Echo's" own words, the end game appears to be all about Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
But to what end exactly?
To answer that question, let's take a moment to connect the dots, shall we?
- The Obama Administration and his abettors have declared "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" as a "high priority" for Obama's first -- and, God help us, only -- term in office.
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform is Progressive-speak for mass amnesty. (Oh, sure, there will be some window-dressing to make it appear more palatable -- think Obamacare and Stimu-less BS).
- The granting of mass amnesty to mostly Hispanic illegal aliens will potentially add 12-16 million indentured, registered Democrats to the voter rolls nationally.
- The enormous influx of Democratic voters will ensure that the Progressives become an overwhelming and formidable power.
- The Progressive makeover (read "destruction") of American history, values and Constitutional principles will steamroll ahead unabated.
- Progressive Utopia.
|Mmm, Mmm, Mmm... I pledge allegiance to Obama and to the Banana Republic for which he stands, many races, under oppression, indentured, with enslavement and social justice for all... Mmm, Mmm, Mmm.|