Tuesday, December 28, 2010

CHRISTMAS - AS CELEBRATED BY THE PRESIDENTS

As the "War on Christmas" continues, Americans are struggling to not let history repeat itself, and are also struggling to uphold our Constitution and the foundation that our Founding Fathers created.

Here is a brilliant piece by David Barton of Wall Builders. President Reagan's Christmas address will warm your heartstrings and give us hope that there is presidential material out there that truly love this great country:

Christmas – as Celebrated by the Presidents
by David Barton - December 25, 2010

Even though Christmas did not become a national holiday until 1870, it has a centuries old history in America. Interestingly, in colonial America, the southern regions that were more directly linked to High-Church traditions (e.g., Anglicans, Catholics, Episcopalians) celebrated Christmas; but the northern regions especially linked to Low-Church traditions (e.g., Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers) did not. Those Low-Church colonists associated the pomp and grandeur of Christmas celebrations directly with the autocratic leaders and monarchs in Europe that they so opposed.

Massachusetts therefore passed an anti-Christmas law in 1659, and it was not until the 1830s and 1840s that Christmas celebrations became accepted in New England (although as late as 1870, a student missing school on Christmas Day in Boston public schools could be punished or expelled). But by the 1880s, Christmas celebrations were finally accepted across the country and began to appear at the White House. For example:

  • In 1889, the first indoor decorated tree was placed in the White House, and in 1895, electric lights were added.
  • In 1923, the first National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony was held. In 1954 it was named the Pageant of Peace but in 1969 it became embroiled in a legal controversy over the use of religious symbols. In 1973, the nativity scene that had always been part of the Pageant was no longer allowed, but in 1984, it returned.
  • In 1953, the first White House Christmas card was created by President Dwight Eisenhower. (Ike was an artist in his own right and allowed six of his own paintings to be used as Christmas gifts and cards.) President Kennedy's 1963 Christmas card was the first to include an explicitly religious element, featuring a photo of a nativity scene. And in 2001, the first White House Christmas card to contain a Scripture was chosen by Laura Bush. It quoted Psalm 27: "Thy face, Lord, do I seek. I believe that I shall see the goodness of the Lord in the Land of the Living" – a Scripture she had chosen on September 16 (only 5 days after 9/11), based on a special sermon preached at Camp David.
Christmas was celebrated by our national leaders as a religious holiday, not the largely secular one it has become today.

For example, every Christmas Eve, President Teddy Roosevelt and his family would pile into the family sleigh (later the motor car) and travel to a Christmas service at Christ Church in Oyster Bay, New York. Following the pastor's sermon, Teddy would deliver one of his famous "sermonettes" on the true meaning of Christmas and then close the service with one of his favorite hymns, "Christmas By the Sea."

President Franklin Roosevelt would set up and decorate a tree on Christmas Eve, gather the family round him, and either read Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" or recite it from memory. (The original story is quite different from the modern movies by that name and is well worth the read.) He would also deliver explicitly religious Christmas Eve messages to the nation. For example, in 1944 following D-Day, he said:

Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way – because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and good will. . . . [FDR then prayed a prayer for the troops, and closed with:] We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth in which all the Nations of the earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come.

(I recommend you go online to the American Presidency Project and look up and especially read some Christ-centered Christmas messages from Presidents, such as that of Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, Harry Truman in 1949 or 1952, Ronald Reagan in 1982 or 1985, George W. Bush in 2003, and there are many additional examples. You should also watch President Reagan deliver one of his Christmas addresses.)

In recent years, there has been a relentless push from secularists and progressives to transform Christmas. Schools, government offices, and many commercial stores have replaced Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays to appease critics, not realizing that 93% of Americans celebrate Christmas, and 97% are not bothered by the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas." Yet far too often, the 3% seems to drive public policy; Americans need to push back.

Gratefully, religious Jews have been some of the strongest advocates for keeping Christmas a religious celebration. For example, Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for a number of national publications, declares:

I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . . How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? . . . Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends!
Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin agrees:

Secular fundamentalism has successfully injected into American culture the notion that the word "Christmas" is deeply offensive. . . . Anti-Christianism is unhealthy for all Americans; but I warn my brethren that it will prove particularly destructive for Jews. . . . Let us all go out of our way to wish our many wonderful Christian friends – a very merry Christmas. Just remember, America's Bible belt is our safety belt.
So . . . Merry Christmas!!!

Sign up on the WallBuilders email list and receive future information about historical issues and Biblical values in the culture, visit http://www.wallbuilders.com/.

Monday, December 20, 2010

CHRISTMAS TREES 'ROUND THE WORLD | A CHRISTMAS CAROL STORY

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays. Wishing you all know peace, love and joy this Christmas season.

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. -2 Timothy 3:16

"This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still." -Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 (h/t Tom Kiley)


The story of "A PARTRIDGE IN A PEAR TREE"

Ever wonder what in the world do leaping lords, French hens, swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won't come out of the pear tree have to do with Christmas? A long, long time ago ....

From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics. It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality which the children could remember.

-The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.

-Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.

-Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.

-The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

-The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament.

-The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.

-Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit--Prophesy, Serving, Teaching, Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy.

-The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.

-Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit--Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self Control.

-The ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.

-The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.

-The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles' Creed.

Merry (Twelve Days of) Christmas Everyone


CHRISTMAS AT ARLINGTON CEMETERY
Wonder why we don't hear about this in the media.

Arlington National Cemetery


Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.

Know the line has held, your job is done.

Rest easy, sleep well.

Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.

Peace, peace, and farewell...


As a traditional annual story on FOX News Sunday, these wreaths -- some 5,000 -- are donated by the Worcester Wreath Co. of Harrington, Maine. The owner, Merrill Worcester, not only provides the wreaths, but covers the trucking expense as well. He's done this since 1992. A wonderful guy. He has inspired places all across the country to join in, and is now an organization proudly named Wreaths Across America.

Also, most years, groups of Maine school kids combine an educational trip to DC with this event to help out. Making this even more remarkable is the fact that Harrington is in one the poorest parts of the state.

CHRISTMAS TREES 'ROUND THE WORLD

Before the ball drops in Times Square, the Big Apple turns on its holiday charm with the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center.


The Capitol Christmas tree in Washington, D.C. is decorated with 3,000 ornaments that are the handiwork of U.S. schoolchildren. Encircling evergreens in the 'Pathway of Peace' represent the 50 U.S. states.

 
The world's largest Christmas tree display rises up the slopes of Monte Ingino outside of Gubbio, in Italy's Umbria region. Composed of about 500 lights connected by 40,000 feet of wire, the 'tree' is a modern marvel for an ancient city.


A Christmas tree befitting Tokyo's nighttime neon display is projected onto the exterior of the Grand Prince Hotel Akasaka.


Illuminating the Gothic facades of Prague's Old Town Square, and casting its glow over the manger display of the famous Christmas market, is a grand tree cut in the Sumava mountains in the southern Czech Republic.


Venice's Murano Island renowned throughout the world for its quality glasswork is home to the tallest glass tree in the world. Sculpted by master glass blower Simone Cenedese, the artistic Christmas tree is a modern reflection of the holiday season.

 
Moscow celebrates Christmas according to the Russian Orthodox calendar on Jan. 7. For weeks beforehand, the city is alive with festivities in anticipation of Father Frost's arrival on his magical troika with the Snow Maiden. He and his helper deliver gifts under the New Year tree, or yolka, which is traditionally a fir.


The largest Christmas tree in Europe (more than 230 feet tall) can be found in the Praça do Comércio in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of lights adorn the tree, adding to the special enchantment of the city during the holiday season.


'Oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree': Even in its humblest attire, aglow beside a tiny chapel in Germany's Karwendel mountains, a Christmas tree is a wondrous sight.


Ooh la la Galeries Lafayette! In Paris, even the Christmas trees are chic. With its monumental, baroque dome, plus 10 stories of lights and high fashion, it's no surprise this show-stopping department store draws more visitors than the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower.


In addition to the Vatican's heavenly evergreen, St. Peter's Square in Rome hosts a larger-than-life nativity scene in front of the obelisk.


The Christmas tree that greets revelers at the Puerta del Sol is dressed for a party. Madrid's two-week celebration makes millionaires along with merrymakers. On Dec. 22, a lucky citizen will win El Gordo (the fat one), the world's biggest lottery.


A token of gratitude for Britain's aid during World War II, the Christmas tree in London's Trafalgar Square has been the annual gift of the people of Norway since 1947.


Drink a glass of glühwein from the holiday market at the Romer Frankfurt's city hall since 1405 and enjoy a taste of Christmas past.


Against a backdrop of tall, shadowy firs, a rainbow trio of Christmas trees lights up the night (location unknown).



... and I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight --
 
Merry Christmas to All, and to All a Good Night!

Friday, December 10, 2010

OBAMA'S "SWINDLE OF THE YEAR"

From his Senate Conservatives Fund, Senator Jim DeMint wrote a detailed letter about the so-called 'compromise' to extend the Bush era tax rates. On the one side, it's Democrats as usual with their spend addiction and committed re-distribution of wealth at the expense of our children and grandchildren, but the other side is the most disturbing of all - Republicans have not seen the error of their ways.

It's almost as bad as Obamacare -- the more you read it, the worse it gets. Talk about Pork, it's loaded with it (and they keep adding more, the longer this drags out), along with more and more deficit spending. The Beltway must be a magical sort of Disneyland, where over spending has no ramifications, because Republicans are not holding up to their part of the November 2nd agreement, and have gone back to spending. That, or else they are not looking at what the other hand is doing. It's hard to believe they are that blind.

At this point, you gotta know Obama doesn't do anything without reaping loads of rewards on the back end. This mis-worded compromise is full of little goodies, such as scheduling unemployment to expire at Christmastime; the Bush tax rates to expire just in time for the 2012 re-election (scary thought, re-election); and more pay-offs to his cronies, including the unions. On-line gambling? Are you kidding me? In other words, as Charles Krauthammer writes, Obama just pulled a fast one on the Republicans.

Most of us want to spend the next two weeks before Christmas having fun shopping, gathering with friends and family, and rejoicing in the birth of Christ. But the next two weeks is all this Lame Duck session needs to add destruction to an already weakened country and economy. We can't let this happen. We worked too hard, and have been sold a cheap bag of Obama tricks.

If we have to bite the bullet for a month or two, so be it. It's far better than another close to trillion dollars in debt. We can't afford it. We don't have the money. Congress can pass a bill next month, that deals with extending the Bush tax rates only. Not more spending. And, they can make it retro-active. Americans had to deal with Clinton's tax increases retro-actively. It can be done. Republicans will have the majority. Nancy Pelosi has been fired. She no longer has the power, unless we give it back to her.

Read Senator DeMint's letter below (and Krauthammer's "Swindle of the Year"), and let's get to work. We can rejoice on Christmas Day, but in the meantime call, fax, and email our Congress that this is not the compromise we voted for. We can't move forward towards ending the deficit and recovering our economy by spending at the same time.


Have we been hood-winked again? What happened to no earmarks, no new spending, reduce the deficit? Here's some contact numbers for our elected officials. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5. (Click on page to enlarge)

Obama wants this so-called 'compromise' desperately. You gotta ask yourself -- WHY?

From United States Senator Jim DeMint
Senate Conservatives Fund
December 10, 2010

Dear Fellow Conservatives:

Many of you have contacted me about the bipartisan tax deal reached between President Obama and Republican leaders. I've carefully reviewed the legislation and I wanted to explain to you why I cannot support it.

First, I do not want to see anyone's taxes go up and I have been fighting for years to permanently extend all the tax rates. I disagree with the President that we cannot afford to extend these rates for everyone. It's the people's money and we should not raise taxes on hardworking American families.

But this bill does much more than simply extend tax rates.

For starters, it includes approximately $200 billion in new deficit spending and stimulus gimmicks. That's a lot of money that will have to be borrowed from China and repaid by our children and grandchildren. If we're going to increase spending on new programs, we must reduce other spending to pay for it.

The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don't have a temporary economy so we shouldn't have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we're not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.

The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.

Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.

The President called Republicans "hostage takers" this week but he should be pointing his figure squarely at himself. We've known for years that these tax rates were going to expire but he did nothing about it until the last minute. Now Americans are being told they have to accept hundreds of billions in new spending and stimulus gimmicks, an increase the death tax, and a bunch of unnecessary earmarks or their taxes will go up.

I'm not going to be bullied into voting for things that will hurt our country because politicians in Washington ignored the problem until it was a crisis.

Many of you fought hard to elect new leaders to the Senate this year with the expectation that they would fight deficit spending, tax hikes, and backroom deals. I take that commitment very seriously and I'm prepared to vote against this bill even if I'm the only one in the Senate to do so.

I appreciate the efforts made by my party's leaders to negotiate this deal but I believe Americans deserve much better. This deal should be rejected and then fixed. We can easily extend these tax rates without increasing spending once the new crop of Republican senators, including Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson, are sworn in. The President has already conceded that taxes cannot go up and we'll have more Republicans in Congress in a few weeks to fight for a better deal.

Thank you for supporting the principles of freedom and for your continued encouragement. I will continue to do my very best to be your voice in the United States Senate.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

PLAYING WITH THE TWO IMMUTABLE LAWS OF WASHINGTON

It stinks. The only satisfaction was watching a defeated president pout, blame and lie, while the über left self-destructed. The left has finally realized that they lost power, and it isn't pretty. But.... Obama has exposed his true ideological self -- more pluses.

Where do we start on the negative side.
  • Small businesses have a temporary tax relief, but 2 years may not be long enough for them to extend the risks necessary for economic growth, including new jobs. It should have been permanent.
  • Unemployment has just been subsidized by tax paying Americans in extending an additional 13 months, for a total of 3 years. Notice the unusual amount of 13? That's so the next extension falls on Christmas next year, and just as in 2010, no one wants to cut off free money at Christmastime.
  • The 2 percent cut in social security is another re-distribution of wealth for people who don't pay taxes, and guarantees that social security will be at death's door.
  • The Death Tax is still going to be resurrected, although at a lower rate. Neverless, it's baa-ack. Taxes on money that has already been taxed. Wasn't there a revolution on double taxation?
No wonder Obama has conceded. This whole plan is a major re-distribution of wealth.

While Obama is playing as though he has made the supreme sacrifice, methinks he thinks this will play out to his advantage in the 2012 elections. "For the good of the people" has nothing to do with his decision. After all, it's always about him.

Red State's Erick Erickson writes an excellent piece, in his usual fashion, on what the American people get out of Obama's great sacrifice.

Playing With the Two Immutable Laws of Washington
by Erick Erickson - December 6, 2010

There are two immutable laws of Washington, D.C. To understand the tax compromise in the Senate, you must know the laws.
  1. Politicians in leadership believe that if they make both the left and right angry they must have done something right; and,
  2. If Democrats and Republicans come together in a compromise — no matter how bad that compromise may be — the media will herald the compromise and inevitably use the word “tone” in discussing it.
Then there is a corollary to the two rules: people who want a seat at the table with the politicians and media will turn into sycophants and tell you how delicious the compromise tastes.

Understanding those two immutable rules and the corollary tell you all you’ll need to understand about how the tax compromise will be played. Let’s review what the compromise is:
  • Extend current tax rates for two years
  • Extend unemployment benefit for another 13 months
  • A two percent cut in the payroll tax for next year
  • Death tax of 35% imposed above $5 million
We can first laugh about Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. After all that work, lecturing, and lamenting they have been, in one act, put back under the rock from whence they came.

There will be no more hand wringing over saving social security and the deficit. We’re going to blow it up. Ironically, we’re going to blow it up to preserve today’s tax rates and resurrect the death tax.

Second, we can laugh at the Democrats who are in full meltdown over the Democrats daring to extend current tax rates for everyone. For all the left’s talk about equality over freedom, the left believes they can treat the most successful with the greatest disdain and take away the freedom to take risks in this country and replace it with servitude to government.

Had Obama shown any leadership, he could have gotten this passed months ago on the grounds that it’d help stem losses in the midterms. But he didn’t, despite pressure from many Blue Dogs who will, in less than a month, be called “former congressman.”

Just last week Mr. Obama said, in his weekly radio address, “I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.” My what a difference a week makes.

Ultimately though, this is a compromise that leaves both sides coming up short and is full of compromising the GOP did not have to engage in, even without controlling the Senate. They could have gotten more. We will also continue subsidizing unemployment — yes you read that right. At some point it becomes welfare, not unemployment compensation.

The compromise does little to stem the tide of uncertainty that has kept businesses from hiring. Because the fight will be wrapped up in the politics of 2012, small businesses that have been keeping money on the sidelines will keep doing so. Any politician who says this has anything to do with job creation will largely be lying.

Nonetheless, we know this much is true: the media, after weeks of taking the Deficit Commission seriously, and many of the politicians who have done the same will celebrate this grand act of bipartisan comity.

For months, the Democrats have said they would never support extending the current tax rates because of their concern for the deficit. They will now.

For months, the GOP has said they would never vote to raise taxes and will now vote to raise taxes by resurrecting the death tax instead of killing it — the only reason being Jon Kyl (R-AZ) wanted to bring it back and has held this position for a while.

For months, both sides have claimed they were committed to saving social security. Instead, they will cut the payroll tax thereby bringing the bankruptcy of social security even closer.

We will know who the real conservatives are in Congress. They’ll be the Republicans who oppose this deal.

But hey, it is bipartisan!

Maybe we can get Jeff Flake to primary Jon Kyl. . .

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

TIME NOW TO REVERSE ALL THAT LIBERALISM HAS DONE

Freedom has had another crushing defeat today, as 15 Republican senators and all Democrats voted in favor of and passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (SB 510). What is most troubling are the 15 Republicans, who apparently voted their own free will, rather than adhering to the pleas of the American people who spoke out loud and clearly on November 2nd.

Don't know about anyone else, but this election knocked the wind out of me. It was a long time coming, and, to coin a phrase -- All the Brothers Were Valiant. The past two years have been tumultuous, wreaking havoc on our nervous systems, but we fought back and won the battle -- historically.

How many times have we said "stop government control of our schools; stop regulating every aspect of our lives; stop this excessive, wasteful spending"? Now is the time to start the process -- possibly beginning with our schools, by using the school voucher system. That would put the fear of God in the school unions. But it would only be a start.

Something happens to politicians once they hit the Beltway, and it's not pretty. Now that a fleet of newbies are about to unload on DC, we must hold every Republican's feet to the fire. Many already there are not listening to the Election Day message, and we can only pray for the newly elected.

SB 510 has another chance to be stopped as they reconcile this atrocity in the House. The “Food Safety Modernization Act” is just another Big Government takeover, and represents everything the November 2nd election was all about. This is a massive expansion of federal regulation, increasing more power to the FDA, increases taxes, and increases food costs.

Call, fax, or email your House of Representatives and more. List of 111th Congressional phone and fax numbers Page 1, Page 2, and Page 3. A list of the "Gang of 15" who voted for this boon-doggle is at the end of this post.

Eric Cantor and John Boehner appeared weak today, after their meeting with "The One", and it was a tad discouraging. Would that I could, but we cannot give up now. If we are to preserve our freedom, we must hold their feet to the fire. The message (and our freedom) will be lost if we don't.

FOLLOW UP: House May Block Food Safety Bill Over Senate Error
A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House. (h/t RobNRick)

Just like a wanton greedy child, the libs desperate attempt to ram through their agenda, taking away our freedoms at every turn, will trip them up.

In other words, as Mr. Hawkins so aptly writes:
"It’s not simply time to hit the brakes on liberalism; it’s time to roll it back."
AWR Hawkins writes an excellent, no-nonsense piece in Pajamas Media. We cannot let up for a single day.

Time Now to Reverse All That Liberalism Has Done
The new Congress has no time to piddle around the margins. It's time to attack liberalism's heart and roll its legislation back.
by AWR Hawkins - November 27, 2010

As the November 2 elections vanish in the rearview mirror, newly elected Republicans seem united on trying to repeal ObamaCare. Nearly to a person, they list the repeal of that hideous piece of legislation as job one. And they also appear united on extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, which is how it should be. But we must keep their feet to the fire lest some weak-kneed Republicans like Senator Bob Corker (TN) pressure them into moderation. (Even before the election Corker was distancing himself from the “crazier Republicans” whom Tea Parties supported.)

We have to be louder than Corker and make sure the incoming Republicans understand we didn’t fight for their election in order to see them take office and morph into bipartisan weaklings along the lines of a John McCain (R-AZ) or a Susan Collins (R-ME). Nor do we want them to conform to the habits of John Cornyn (R-TX), whose initial refusal to fund Christine O’Donnell’s senatorial campaign in Delaware remains one of the most spineless and shameless actions undertaken by a Republican who actually claims to be a conservative.

Beginning now, as we transition from the election season, we must press incoming senators and House members not only to repeal ObamaCare and extend the Bush tax cuts, but to undo every bit of damage liberals have done to this country in the past. (I know we don’t control the Senate, but we are predominant in the House, and there we can use votes to repeal, undo, and otherwise revoke liberalism in such a way as to send a clear message about the issues that will define the 2012 elections in both the House and Senate.)

We have the momentum, for now. But if we don’t use that momentum to accomplish great things, or at least to attempt great things, we will only see how quickly momentum can atrophy and shrink away.

Why can’t we cut monies for projects liberals hold near and dear to their bleeding hearts as a means of achieving our goal of shrinking the size of government? This could include eliminating or making drastic cuts in funding for groups like the National Endowment for the Arts, and others that get their kicks from using taxpayer dollars to fund projects that ridicule Christians, Jews, and America’s heritage. We could vote to institute a school voucher program that would provide school choice to families who otherwise couldn’t afford it: a choice that would steal power from the National Education Association by allowing families to escape the air of indoctrination so prevalent in public education. We could also press for the privatization of Social Security, relaxation of certain asinine environmental standards, a national immigration law that mirrors the one Gov. Jan Brewer signed in Arizona, and a steep reduction in the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits currently offered to people who would rather not work.

In a word, we could actually take our cue from the liberal playbook and begin introducing and passing so much pro-freedom legislation in the House that our opponents are simply overwhelmed.

To do any less would be to do what Rush Limbaugh described as “piddling around the margins … and never really [getting] to the crux of what is wrong” legislatively in this country.

It’s not simply time to hit the brakes on liberalism; it’s time to roll it back.


AWR Hawkins is a conservative writer who holds a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University.

GANG OF 15 (Republicans voting YES for SB 510)
Shame on these conservatives, especially those from America's heartland.
Alexander (R-TN)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Collins (R-ME)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Snowe (R-ME)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Monday, November 15, 2010

STOP FEMINISTS' JOB KILLING LEGISLATION

They're ba-ack. And just like a pouty child, they will have their way, making this 111th Congress the most dangerous enemy of the state. Ignoring and misrepresenting the message sent worldwide on November 2nd, the liberal congress will force down our throats every disgraceful bill they can get away with, so it's up to us to keep their actions in plain sight, while the newbies look on.

One of the first assaults will be the passage of the "Paycheck Fairness Act", which has already passed through the House and will be up for a vote this Wednesday, Nov 17th, in the Senate, on its way to Obama's desk.

Call your Senators, and tell them to VOTE NO of S. 3772.

Pulling out a few bullet points from Ms. Schlafly's piece --
The so called “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation, send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits.

This bill makes no sense during good economic times, and would only add insult to injury now, when unemployment is near double-digits nationwide.

It's a “job killing, trial attorney bonanza,” and employers potentially would see female applicants as instigators of lawsuits, instead of contributors to productivity.

This bill would only ADD to the ever increasing problem of our litigious state of mind.

Time to TAKE ACTION again. Call the Senators.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

From Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum:

Stop Feminists' Job Killing Legislation
Tell your Senators to vote NO on the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act

November 15, 2010

On Election Day, Americans spoke out against the radical liberal agenda in Washington, D.C. Voters demanded a Congress that will strengthen the economy and create more jobs.

But, the liberal left is still pandering to feminists and trial attorneys at the expense of American jobs by bringing the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” to a vote during the Lame Duck Session that begins Monday, November 15th.

The “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation, send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits.

Your calls are urgently needed to stop the feminists from causing unemployment rates to rise even higher!

Originally introduced by Hillary Clinton during her time in the Senate, and reintroduced by Sen. Harry Reid, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 3772) (PFA) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) in the following ways:
  • Allows for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages to be granted, even without proof of intent to discriminate. Currently, an employer must be found to have intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices in order for an employee to receive monetary compensation, and even then, the employee is entitled only to back pay. The provision in the PFA is unacceptable and unnecessary, as damages are already available under Title VII for pay discrimination.
  • Changes the “establishment” requirement. The EPA currently requires that employees whose pay is being compared must work in the same physical place of business. The PFA would amend the word “establishment” to mean workplaces in the same county or political district. It would also invite the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to develop “rules or guidance” to define the term more broadly. This leaves the door open for the EEOC to compare a woman’s job in a rural area to a man’s job in an urban area that has a much higher cost of living, which would drive up the cost of employing the woman in the rural lower cost area. Such increase in employment costs would result in fewer people being employed, and would also result in employers shipping jobs overseas.
  • Replaces a successful pay discrimination-determining system with a proven failed system. The PFA would invalidate the successful, Supreme Court-endorsed system for determining whether pay discrimination has occurred (known as the Interpretative Standards for Systemic Compensation Discrimination), and would replace it with the highly inaccurate Equal Opportunity Survey, which has found true discriminators to be non-discriminators 93 percent of the time.
  • Increases the numbers in class-action suits. Under EPA, if an employee wants to participate in a class-action suit against his employer, he must affirmatively decide to participate in the suit. The PFA would automatically include employees in class-action suits, unless they affirmatively opt out. This change would result in booming business for trial attorneys, and huge costs to employers, who may decide to ship jobs overseas to avoid such costs altogether.
In addition to these changes, the PFA would institute a system of “comparable worth” effectively allowing judges, juries and unelected bureaucrats to set employees’ wages, instead of employers. Thus, an employee’s compensation level would be based on some vague notion of his “worth,” instead of on concrete factors like education, experience, time in the labor force, and hours worked per week. The PFA would also cause employers to avoid hiring women in low-paying positions, since the employers may then become targets for burdensome lawsuits. This trend would result in even higher unemployment for low-skilled women, potentially increasing the number of families dependent on government assistance.

President Obama has called the PFA a “common-sense bill.” The truth is, this bill makes no sense during good economic times, and would only add insult to injury now, when unemployment is near double-digits nationwide.

Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush, called the PFA a “job killing, trial attorney bonanza,” and said employers potentially would see female applicants as instigators of lawsuits, instead of contributors to productivity.

Take Action

The House of Representatives has already passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, and President Obama has said that he will sign the bill into law if the Senate passes it. The Senate vote is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, November 17, so call your Senator and tell him or her to vote NO on S. 3772 the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act!”

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Further Reading:

Thursday, November 4, 2010

REACTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT'S POST-ELECTION PRESS CONFERENCE

Look at what we've done! A hearty congratulations goes out to all conservatives and tea partiers for a job well done. It was historic, and a devastating blow against communism, socialism, marxism and all the other unsuccessful big government ism's out there. Through all the tears, aches and pains suffered over the last two years -- we have been triumphant.

Not since 1938, has there been such a blowout, and all the negative attacks by the press, the libs, and especially the soon-to-be-gone 'moderate' Republicans, cannot dim the light of this bright and shining victory.

The National Journal reported today that the GOP picked up 680 seats in state legislatures across the country, and now hold more seats than at any time since 1928. It far exceeds the 472 seats in the 1994 "Contract With America" blowout with a 52 seat pick up in the House, and the post-Watergate 628 Democrat seat pickup in 1974.

And yet, Obama is in complete and utter denial. Again, he blames an ignorant and mis-informed people for his "shellacking", and insists the election in no way is a reflection on him or his policies, but rather on a weak economy.

Really?

This conservative victory means more than meets the eye, for the 10 Republican Governor pickup means the all important redistricting process will play a huge part in the 2012 election.

So, while there were a few heart-breakers in the momentous 2010 election, there are so many reasons to be grateful and proud. It reminded me of the disappointment I felt when Ronald Reagan lost the presidential nomination in 1976, and why he is so loved to this day. His words were powerful then, and appropriate now -- so take heart, keep your spirits high, and keep up the great. Three cheers for all. You deserve it.

If anyone forgot why Ronald Reagan became the greatest president in modern times, here's one of many examples. This is a speech he gave as he bid farewell to his campaign staff after his second defeat for the presidential nomination: (h/t Mark Levin)

"Sure there's disappointment in what happened, but the cause.... the cause goes on. Don't get cynical ...because, look at yourselves, at what you were willing to do, and recognise that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a shining city on a hill."

It brought tears to my eyes, and then he wrote --

We fought, we dreamed, and the dream is still with us.
Ronald Reagan



Keith Hennessey writes an excellent piece about Obama's post-election speech, his off-the-mark, carefully structured, sharp words, which "foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address".

Reactions to the President's Post-Election Press Conference
by Keith Hennessey - November 3, 2010

Here are my initial reactions to important economic policy elements of the President’s press conference.

The President argued the electoral losses were the result of a continued weak economy and his inability to convince voters that he had made things better quickly enough. He repeatedly ducked the question of whether his policies contributed to the Democrats’ devastating losses. Two conclusions are consistent with ducking this question: (1) he thinks his policies did not hurt Democrats on Election Day; or (2) he knows they hurt Democrats but doesn’t want to admit it because doing so would further risk the policy gains he has achieved. I find it very hard to imagine (1), but I misjudged him last January and as a result I incorrectly concluded he would stop pushing for health care reform, so I lack confidence in my ability to discern between the two.

---------------------------------------------------------

He did not acknowledge learning anything from the election or that he was in any way surprised by the result. In contrast he surprised me with the word “confirmed”:

And yesterday’s vote confirmed what I’ve heard from folks all across America: People are frustrated — they’re deeply frustrated — with the pace of our economic recovery and the opportunities that they hope for their children and their grandchildren.
Given this answer, I’d like to ask him “Were you surprised by Tuesday’s results?”

--------------------------------------------------------

The initial press reaction was that the President “took responsibility for the losses.” The precise words in his prepared statement were, however, artfully phrase:

Over the last two years, we’ve made progress. But, clearly, too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday. And as President, I take responsibility for that.
The President took responsibility only for “too many Americans [not feeling] progress yet.” That’s a minor concession, along the lines of “We didn’t communicate our policies well.” He conceded nothing about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of his economic policies, nor about the unpopularity of stimulus, health care, or cap-and-trade.

---------------------------------------------------------

In a prepared statement as important as this one, no language is accidental. These sentences foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address:

But what I think the American people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future: reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we’re making the investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy.
and

In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world. To win that competition, and to continue our economic leadership, we’re going to need to be strong and we’re going to need to be united.
He also tends to connect economic competitiveness with domestic infrastructure, R&D, and education spending. This linkage is not accidental.

-------------------------------------------------------

He tried to erect a firewall around the health care laws:

And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.
Yet for several months he has been refighting (is that a word?) the tax rate battle of ten years earlier, and his entire economic message has been a backward-looking complaint and a relitigation of the policies and conditions he “inherited.”

--------------------------------------------------------

He floated a few areas of potential bipartisan agreement:

•the looming tax increases;
•energy:
◦expanding domestic natural gas supply;
◦energy efficiency;
◦“how we build electric cars”;
◦expanding nuclear power;
•education;
•limiting appropriations earmarks;
•fixing one tax provision in the health care laws that hurts small businesses;
•infrastructure spending; and
•immediate (and temporary) expensing of business investment.
------------------------------------------------------

He acknowledged that legislation pricing carbon is dead for the foreseeable future. In doing so he acknowledged a well-established conventional wisdom, but it’s still significant when the President says it. His “this year” language should kill silly speculation about a lame duck Congress trying to enact cap-and-trade in 2010, and his “… or the year after…” language takes cap-and-trade off the table through the remainder of this Presidential term.

I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year. And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.
He also signaled a willingness to trade legislative action on “clean energy” with dialing back (or prohibiting?) EPA from regulating greenhouse gases:

So I think it’s too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. I think we can. Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.

And I think EPA wants help from the legislature on this. I don’t think that the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here. I think what they want to do is make sure that the issue is being dealt with.
-------------------------------------------------------

Finally, on the question of looming tax increases he signaled that “this is something that has to be done during the lame duck session,” and he made no negative statements about extending all the rates. When asked directly “So you’re willing to negotiate?” he replied “Absolutely.” In upcoming days I’ll write about potential paths to a tax deal.


Keith Hennessey served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush from August 2002 through the first three weeks of 2009.

Monday, November 1, 2010

MURKOWSKI GETS KQFD RADIO HOST FIRED

If anything should get defeated Alaska incumbant senator Lisa Murkowski out of office, it's her unscrupulous act of getting radio host Dan Fagan fired at KQFD Alaska. Murkowski was fairly and squarly beaten in the primary by Tea Party endorsed Joe Miller, but like a greedy, spoiled, wanton child, she stomped her foot, and cried like a baby, demanding she stay in the race as a write-in candidate.

Accusing Fagan of "electioneering", she sent her attack dogs to protest the radio station for allowing this. Isn't this what talk show hosts do? Fagan's response is correct, "radio talk show hosts constantly advocate for or against candidates", but it appears libs are thin-skinned. Murkowski is using her fleet of $1,000 per hour lawyers to threaten the radio station, showing the public just how unprofessional and spoiled she truly is.

This plan of Fagan's stemmed from a recent flip-flop in the Alaska court system, when Murkowski again used her power to instigage the overturn of a state regulation. The regulation, in place for over 50 years, forbids allowing any information about write-in candidates at the polling place or within 200 feet of its entrance. Could the phrase "Sore Loser" ring any louder?

Murkowski was crying in her spilt milk about this with Greta Van Susteren Sunday night, and Sarah Palin, often at odds with Dan Fagan, wrote a powerful response to the latest Murkowski hissy-fit, which she entitled "Lisa, Are You Going to Shut Down My Facebook Page for Writing This?"

Brilliant, Sarah!

Murkowski's actions are exactly what has infuriated a country. The fact that incumbants feel entitled to remain in office as long as they want; make decisions based on their own personal desires through any backroom deals necessary; ignore the will of the people; compromise their principles to achieve their personal goals; the use of D.C. Beltway thugocracy -- has awoken the sleeping giant. We have had enough!

Comments can be made to Alaska radio station KQFD here.

Using her power, Queen Murkowski lashes out when her subjects oppose her? Do the right thing, Alaska. If this woman wins -- I give up!

TEA PARTY WINNERS MAY BE SILENCED BY GOP BOSSES

What if Republicans take back the House? Have they really heard the American people? It's not just winning a seat in Congress that matters, but appointments to decision making positions that matter. If the newly elected members of congress are not given positions that effect government spending, the change America is looking for may not happen.

The GOP elitists know this, and although House Minority Leader John Boehner may have heard the ringing of the bell, there is no guarantee. Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. The GOP's actions are going to be carefully watched, and appointments have consequences.

The whole point of electing constitutional conservatives is to bring back constitutional values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets -- all critical to get our country back on track. New appointments for new Tea Party members will change the size and scope of government spending, but if they are shoved to the back, their impact will be meaningless.

Many, if not all, of the newly opened positions appear to be ear-marked (pun intended) for the senior members who have oligarchy running through their veins. They are the epitome of what is wrong with government and why there is such a conservative ascendancy. America wants to get back to representative government, and the new members must fight for this, just as they had to fight to get there. It's not over -- it's only just begun. Republicans have one chance, this chance, and it's a short one.

In her usual brilliant fashion, Betsy McCaughy of Defend Your Healthcare write of this trap in the New York Post.

The Seniority Trap
by BETSY McCAUGHEY - November 1, 2010

Republicans are expected to win enough seats in tomorrow's elections to control the House of Representatives. Already, GOP chiefs are divvying up key committee chairmanships -- with the same people who ran things last time 'round jockeying to get their power back. If that happens, voters who supported Republican candidates to rein in the cost of government will be defeated after the election by the seniority system in Washington.

Tea Party candidates promised voters they'd end profligate spending, ear marks and political deal-making. Those who win tomorrow must be heard and heeded when they get to Washington, rather than relegated to unimportant jobs.

The GOP lost control of the House four years ago in no small part because voters had come to doubt the party's commitment to controlling spending. Voters now seem outraged enough at Democrats' overspending to give Republicans another chance. But the party chiefs may blow it.

One of the most powerful jobs in the House is to chair the Appropriations Committee, which divides up billions of dollars of federal funds. It's the favor factory. Appropriators rise to top leadership positions in both parties because they decide whose pet projects get funded. By definition, reining in federal spending means reining in the appropriators' power.

The leading contender for Appropriations Committee chair is Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, a prototype of the lifelong politician. He's been in Congress 32 years. He rose to the chairmanship in 2005 and stayed on as ranking minority member when the GOP lost the House in 2006.

Under GOP House rules, Lewis shouldn't be able to retain his party's top slot on the committee for more than three terms, but Lewis is expected to ask for a waiver -- and likely will get it.

Such decisions are made by the Republican House Steering Committee -- whose chairman, Rep. John Boehner, will become speaker if voters give Republicans the House majority. The deliberations on bestowing chairmanships are secret, but generally consider seniority along with popularity: who raises the most money for GOP candidates, toes the party line, gets along best with other members, etc.

House Republicans imposed term limits on chairmanships in January 1995, making good on a key promise of their Contract With America and ensuring that the message the voters had sent in the 1994 election upheaval would have an impact on what actually occurred in the House.

Now, as then, opening House leadership positions to newer members is vital to changing Congress' pro-spending ways. Term limits are meaningless, if they can be overridden by cronies.

The prospect of getting a waiver is the ultimate incentive for a chairman to dispense costly favors, in utter disregard of taxpayers or the federal debt.

GOP newcomers in Congress should jump all over this. To rein in spending, they should demand that the Appropriations Committee be handed over to serious cost-cutters -- not the same old figures who failed to stop earmarks, put up with TARP and played along with the Democrats' vast ballooning of the federal debt.

Waivers are reportedly also in the works so that chairmanships of other committees, including the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Rules Committee, will go to the same figures who held those jobs the last time the Republicans were in the majority. That's outrageous.

Polls indicate that voters aren't only shifting their preference from Democrats controlling Congress to Republicans. Voters are also anti-incumbent. They know that lawmakers who have been in Washington for years ignore what the public wants. Candidates who win on Tuesday must go to Washington determined to end the oligarchy and restore representative government.

It's common sense that newly elected Congress members are likely to be truer representatives of the people than members who've held their seats for decades, climbed the seniority ladder, and catered to the Washington establishment. Yet party leaders will try to consign newcomers to unimportant assignments.

Other GOP members should also think twice about letting the old bulls run the show. This is not the way to hold onto the majority that the Democrats are forfeiting because of their big-spending ways. For 2010 to be a watershed, the rules must change.

At last February's Conservative Action Political Conference, Boehner was asked how he'd handle the Tea Partiers if he became speaker. He promised to listen to them and open the House to their influence: "I'll pledge to you right here, right now, that we're going to run the House differently." We'll soon see if he's ready to keep that promise.


Betsy McCaughey (DefendYourHealthcare.us) is a former New York lieutenant governor and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."

Friday, October 29, 2010

ALASKA RADIO HOST LAUNCHES MURKOWSKI SABOTAGE PLAN

This is one time when I wish to be an Alaskan resident. Since loser, Linda Murkowski, is trying to sabotage candidate Joe Miller's campaign to be the next Republican senator (which he won fair and square), turnabout's fair play, especially in light of the crap shoot the courts are playing.
The court made two opposing decisions in one day about a "list of write in's" at the polling place. Murkowski attempted to re-write the write-in law in her favor. First the law was upheld that no lists were allowed, then later in the day, another court said lists of write-in candidates would be allowed! What is happening to our courts these days, but that's a story for another time.

If you are a resident of Alaksa, or know anyone who is, please pass this plan around. The plan is on the Conservatives 4 Palin website here.

Alaska Radio Host Launches Murkowski Sabotage Plan
by Rachel Rose Hartman

A conservative radio host in Alaska is calling on residents to sabotage Sen. Lisa Murkowski's campaign by flooding the state with write-in bids -- and listeners are following suit.

Kyle Hopkins reports for the Anchorage Daily News that more than 100 people filed paperwork in Alaska on Thursday to register as U.S. Senate candidates.

KFQD 750 AM radio host Dan Fagan is calling the plan an act of "civil disobedience" to protest what he views is an illegal effort by the state to aid Murkowski's write-in campaign. Fagan supports Republican nominee Joe Miller, a tea party candidate who beat Murkowski in a primary upset earlier this year.

A website devoted to promoting Sarah Palin, another Miller backer, dubs the effort Operation Alaska Chaos.

The state Republican and Democratic parties went to court to stop the state from providing voters at polling stations with a list of write-in candidates' names. The parties and other voting-rights advocates argue that the list provides Murkowski with an unfair advantage and violates state law.

That case remains active in the Alaska court system, with the state Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments on Friday.

But Fagan isn't waiting for a last-minute decision. The host hopes that his effort will diminish any advantage Murkowski could receive via the state-sanctioned write-in list, by crowding the list with 100 or so names of new write-in candidates who filed before Thursday's deadline.

(Photo of Murkowski: AP/Chris Miller)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

THIS IS A REFERENDUM, NOT AN ELECTION

We heard him say it with our own ears -- My name is not on the ballot, but my agenda is. In all his speeches, across the fruited plain, for over two years, before a cherry-picked adoring audience, it's always about him. "My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out," Obama said Tuesday afternoon during an appearance on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show. Is he saying this election is a referendum on him? Sounds like.

On the other hand, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had another message: "They can't talk about their record," he said on Monday in a radio appearance. "You know, this election is going to be a referendum on their job-killing policies."

This is the stand that Democrats must play because they cannot stand on their issues. Most of us will never forget that wintry cold Sunday night back in March when they eeked out enough votes to pass Obamacare by two. Most of us will never forget how they did it. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, and why November 2nd is so critical to us. This destruction has been going on for decades.

Basically, it's not any one thing the libs have done, but a sum of its parts. This overreach is a pattern of Democrats, but never on such a grand scale. Another reason why Nov 2nd is more a referendum than an election.

Dennis Prager writes a great piece on this 'Referendum', and what will happen if the Democrats are allowed to continue along this path of destruction. It's an inspiration to get out and vote, to get your neighbors, friends, and family [even foes, if you can convince them) to follow. Our nation depends on it.

P.S. Thought and prayers to Carly Fiorina, and happy to hear you're back out there -- on your way to a historic win!

This Is a Referendum, Not an Election
by Dennis Prager - October 26, 2010

Next Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day.

It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is "the most important election in our lifetime" or something analogous. But having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, this commentator cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

The reason is that unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America.

If the Democrats win:

-- The American people have announced, consciously or not, that they support the Democratic Party's "fundamental transformation" -- those were President Obama's words when he campaigned, and he has lived up to them -- of America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

-- America will change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth.

The left has never been primarily interested in creating wealth. Its primary goal always and everywhere has been to redistribute it. That so many businessmen and much of Wall Street are only now awakening to this fact is only a testament to the staggering lack of wisdom in big business.

-- America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens.

For proof, just look at the virtual shutdown of much of France and the ubiquitous rioting of vast numbers of its citizens over a tiny change in its welfare state -- raising the age of retirement from 60 to 62. The idea that one will work two more years before receiving benefits until death so offends vast numbers of French -- including young people who have every reason to believe they will live until the age of 100 -- that they are fighting it as if their very lives were in jeopardy. That is the self-centeredness that all welfare states engender in their citizens.

-- America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims -- who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state.

Latinos, blacks, Muslims, gays and vast numbers of women have been told by the left and its political party that they are all persecuted by a country that is SIXHIRB -- Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist and Bigoted. That America is the least SIXHIRB country in the world is a fact that has been all but drowned out by the left-wing domination of television and print news media, all the entertainment media, and the high schools and universities.

-- America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial, and religious backgrounds

With a Democratic victory the country's very motto -- E Pluribus Unum, "Out of Many One" -- will continue to erode as ethnic and racial identities rather one American identity are increasingly celebrated. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced that Germany's experiment with multiculturalism has "utterly failed," but the left and its political party, the Democrats, have redoubled their efforts to supplant E Pluribus Unum with multiculturalism.

-- America will continue its economic slide.

With a Democratic victory, unsustainable debts will mount, wealth-producing companies will continue to flee from higher taxes and more regulations, energy use will be taxed in the name of environmentalist utopianism, and the government will continue to print dollars.

-- America will become increasingly secular.

With a Democratic victory, the left's goal of rendering America's other motto, "In God We Trust," an anachronism will come closer to fruition. Leftism is a jealous god. As in Western Europe, the Judeo-Christian roots of this country are ceasing to play the indispensible moral role they have played since before 1776.

And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections.

In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory.

Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs. It was above all about America.

Read more Dennis Prager columns here.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

My Favorite Jim Geraghty (NRO) Quote

Commenting on the intra-party spat between the Democrat nominee for governor in Rhode Island, Frank T. Caprio, and Obama, Mr. Geraghty, of National Review Online, compared it to Shovel Ready Projects. On live radio, Mr. Caprio told Obama to "take his endorsement and really shove it". Originally Obama refused to endorse Mr. Caprio who is behaving like a Republican, but in typical "about face" fashion, Obama changed his stance on the issue, and decided to endorse him while on a campaign stop at a local factory.

From the NYT piece:
More than a political sideshow, the Rhode Island intra-party spat was a stark reminder that the president is willing to go to great lengths to keep his party in power on Capitol Hill – even if it means stepping into a hornet’s nest of local politics and getting stung.
Which leads me to my favorite Jim Geraghty quote:
This may be a "stark reminder" of that, but I don't know. After the declaration that the Cambridge police acted stupidly; the obliviousness to Democrats' worsening political problems for much of the cycle; the inability to move the numbers for Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, or Martha Coakley; the presumption that Pennsylvania Democrats would accept Arlen Specter; the ubiquitous vacations and golf rounds; the empty Oval Office address on the oil spill; and the endless invocation of the tired, repetitive, ineffective pushing-cars-out-of-ditches-and-sipping-Slurpees line, it may simply be a stark reminder that President Obama has the political instincts of a standard river trout.

(Side note: I am familiar with taking something -- most often a dissatisfying job--and shoving it. I am not familiar with how "really shoving it" differs from the standard shoving.)
Nicely done, Jim.

– Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot on NRO.