Archive for category Conservatism
When in the course of political events it becomes necessary for the Conservative base to temporarily dissolve the bonds which connect them to the Republican Party and to assume the wisdom of the party platform and principles, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation of one week’s time.
We hold these truths to be self-evident that Conservatives represent the heart of and the majority of the Republican Party. That whenever any form of party leadership becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the Conservative base to institute demands for full respect and adherence to fiscal AND social soundness. That without the Conservative majority, the Republican Party is unviable and non-competitive.
When a long train of abuses and usurpations becomes pattern, Conservatives will not and cannot comply.
Party leadership has punished and demoted principled Conservative members from committees of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Party leadership is threatening to compromise with the opposition, putting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at risk for all Americans.
Party leadership indicates it is unwilling to do the job for which it was given majority power in the U.S. House of Representatives. That being to fight socialists and those standing in opposition to the social underpinnings of America’s founding principles – life, marriage, and liberty – and to the commonsense principles of fiscal responsibility. To reduce spending and impose a reasonable ceiling on the currently insane level of debt resting on the head of citizens living and yet unborn.
Party leadership is demonstrating weakness at a time when strength is needed to exert sensible and correct counter positions to the flawed and destructive policies of the radical Left.
Party leadership exhibits a willingness to comply with the radical left-stream media’s destructive demands for compliance with harmful principles preferred by Democrats.
Party leaders insist on nominating presidential candidates who are unwilling to fight for and model Conservative principles which have stood the test of time and which have enabled the greatest times of prosperity in American history. These candidates are repeatedly unable to defeat flawed, corrupt Democrat incumbents who are substantially damaging America’s culture and committing generations of citizens to unsustainable debt while condemning millions of preborn children to death.
All the while, party leaders insist that those willing to compromise with the extreme demands of the Left are the answer to America’s most severe problems. This is not in the best interest of Americans.
We Conservatives therefore resolve to separate from the Republican Party, to demonstrate the seriousness of the problems existing within the party, for the period of January 1 to January 7 of the year 2013. If party leaders respond in good faith and restore a genuine, healthy respect to the Conservative base and the accompanying principles, relations will be fully restored. If not … a longer period of independence shall be declared until the leaders of the Republican Party come to restoration of good senses. For without the good will and full participation by the Conservative base the Republican Party cannot continue to pursue its questionable course, let alone compete with the opposing party.
By Jack Cashill, World Net Daily
After Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, many a Republican tracked with the Kubler-Ross model of electoral grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. That sense of acceptance may not have lasted long, but initially al least, most Republicans acknowledged Obama’s legitimacy.
In 2012, things are different. Monitoring my Facebook pages, I see a new model in play. This one goes directly from shock to disgust, and, unfortunately, it is altogether justified.
Yes, there is a good deal of intra-party sniping, much of it predictable and painfully stupid – Jeb Bush, please go away – but the genuine disgust is directed elsewhere, specifically at the Democratic-Media complex (DMC) and the hell it wrought with the electoral process.
At first, the numbers coming out of inner-city Philadelphia and Cleveland – both crucial cities in battleground states – seemed like the kind of misinformation DMC Luddites thrill to hector us about.
On “Meet the Press” not too long ago, Tom Friedman of the New York Times and NBC’s anchorman emeritus Tom Brokaw fretted openly about the vast right-wing communication stream.
“A lot of people will repeat back to me and take it as face value something that they read on the Internet,” cautioned Brokaw. “And my line to them is you have to vet information.” Not to be out-preached, the Time’s Tom Friedman countered, “The Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information.”
The Internet, however, now lets us see and hear information the two Toms and their pals have long tried to suppress. On Tuesday, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in 59 inner-city voting divisions, Mitt Romney received no votes.
“These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst,” reported the Inquirer glibly. Well, yes they do.
When Barack Obama outscores Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0 votes cast in these 59 districts, the stench of fraud is surely in the air. Saddam never did this well! Yet, as far as I could tell, not a single major media outlet picked up on the Philadelphia story.
If they had, they would have likely scolded the implicitly racist Republicans for imagining fraud in an attempt to “suppress” the vote. This the DMC has routinely done whenever Republicans have attempted to tighten the voting process.
Even worse than fraud, though, is the process that turned 20,000 citizens into sheep. Years of crude, vile, racist propaganda by the DMC and its local operatives have transformed the birthplace of democracy into a laboratory of mind control Goebbels would have envied.
Philadelphia is hardly unique. In one Cleveland precinct, Obama beat Romney 542 to 0. This was one of nine precincts in which Romney received no votes. The same pattern, in fact, was repeated in every American inner city. It is just that Democrats harvested and/or manufactured votes more aggressively in the battleground states.
The Democrats also harvested votes among the young. In Ohio, with its early voting, they staged campus rallies and then bussed their clueless lemmings to the polls.
Revealing Politics’ Caleb Bonham and Lacey Meeks attended an Obama event on the campus of Ohio University and asked the students what they thought about the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
“I have no idea,” laugh two girls. “I am really uninformed about that,” says another. “When did that happen?” asks still another. “I don’t even know what this is honestly,” says a fellow. When asked about Ambassador Chris Stevens, several just shrug their shoulders and say, “Who’s he?”
When queried about their reasons for supporting Obama, the students happily cited student loan relief and free birth control pills just as ghetto dwellers talked about food stamps and Obamaphones.
The students may outgrow their bought-and-paid-for ignorance. The ghetto dwellers will not. They are locked in, and that is the real scandal. The fact that they live in the crime-scarred hellholes that they do testifies to their routine betrayal by their presumed liberators in the DMC.
Today, the laborers of the NEA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, teach their students that the Founding Fathers were guilty of ignorance and prejudice in limiting the vote to stakeholders. Alexander Hamilton, for one, knew better than the teachers.
Citing Blackstone’s Commentaries, Hamilton cautioned that those “under the immediate dominion of others” and lacking a “will of their own” would undermine those voting thoughtfully and independently. The 2012 election has proved his wisdom.
By Jay Hominick, The American Spectator
The Emperor’s latest suit of new clothes fits about as well as the previous ones. Now we all have to mouth platitudes about what a terrific campaign Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ran. Well, guess what, they ran a pathetic embarrassment of a campaign, and when the R/R met Conductor Karl Rove’s caboose at the American Crossroads, the result was a disastrous train wreck. The Emperor not only has no clothes, he is covered in unsightly warts.
I say this fully acknowledging that Romney almost won with a fine debate performance and that I for one was gulled into predicting he would win. But that would have been a fluke, losing the campaign and winning the debate.
Without doing a laundry list of complaints, I can prove my case with a simple question: did anyone here see an ad, one single solitary ad, laying out exactly what was going to happen to you after Obamacare is implemented? Anyone mention the “fine” you will pay if you do not honor the mandate to buy health insurance? Anyone mention one by one, slowly, each new tax that will kick in automatically on January 1, 2013?
I saw a million polls on Rasmussen and Real Clear Politics about the Presidential and the Congressional and immigration and exfoliation and peregrination and miscegenation and who knows what all, but not one single poll asked people if they know the amount they will pay extra in 2013. Not one asked if they are aware of the amount of the health insurance penalty. So it falls to me to give you the results of my informal poll. The answer is zero. Zero! Nobody knows because it was out of sight, out of mind and no one called it to people’s attention.
I went around asking my wealthier friends if they were aware that if they die on December 31 and leave an estate of 5 million dollars, their children will receive five million dollars (well, not in New York, with an estate tax as high as 16 percent), but if they hang in until January 1, their children will receive 2.8 million and Uncle Sam will take delivery of the other $2,200,000.00. No, they were not aware, for the most part. And those are the more fiscally knowledgeable people in the society.
Personally, I would have preferred direct attacks on the Democrats and on the President, but even in the Gentleman Jim model, it made sense to EDUCATE people about the dollars-and-cents consequences of their vote beyond repeating like a mantra umpteen zillion times that there are 23 million Americans looking for work.
Even that issue was not framed to pack a punch. It would have resonated much more to repeat how many people had jobs when Obama took office and how many have them now. Then point out this is the first time in our lifetimes the country has fewer total jobs at the end of four years.
But if Romney was dumb Rove was dumber. He collected upwards of one hundred million dollars and all but one of the candidates he backed lost. The reason for his monumental ineffectiveness was simple: his ads sounded like campaign ads from the Campaign.
The whole point of surrogate advertising groups is to get their hands dirty. If the man on the ticket wants to be Mr. Nice Guy, then it’s up to his backers to play rough. (The Talmud says a scholar should not fight back against his detractors but his students and followers should instead.)
The Swift Boat guys defeated John Kerry by telling uncomfortable truths that George W. Bush did not think were fodder for Presidential conversation. Where was the equivalent material about Obama in the ads run by Rove and his pals?
We did not even hear substantive material from his Presidency that was hard-hitting. No ad mentioned his telling Medvedev to tell Putin he would be flexible after the election. No ad mentioned he agreed with Sarkozy that Netanyahu is a liar. No ad mentioned he told the San Francisco Chronicle he would bankrupt the coal industry.
But we certainly did not hear personal things on the level of the ads against Romney for being a vulture capitalist. We did not hear that he was a community organizer for years without a single testimonial from anyone who benefited from his help. We did not hear that he lets his brother live in a hovel in Kenya.
Nor do the Republicans get credit for playing nice. The press frames it as a mutually negative campaign. I see the downside of this strategy, but where is the upside? Whose respect did they gain?
Yeah, I know I made the same point here eight years ago, but those who do not repeat it are doomed to learn from history.