If you like what’s going on in Washington, DC these days, you’re going to love the next 16 months, or so.

What we are seeing are the differences between the two major political parties in America laid bare for all to see.  The factions within each party are also coming to the fore, all with bared fangs.

Politics in America is not some kid’s game.  This IS a blood sport. It is as old as the country itself.

Americans have revolted twice.  Once against Great Britain.  The second was the “War for Southern Independence,” commonly referred to as the “Civil War.”  We didn’t LIKE either.  Had we been able to settle our differences, in both cases, in the nation’s government neither war would have happened.  Americans are deeply aware of that fact.

So, we fight like cats and dogs in the houses of our government with words and phrases – along, of course, with strutting and preening before the cameras and microphones of what passes for the news media in this country — and yes, even the world press.

Understand, dear reader, we do this rather than go at each other as we did at, oh, say Manassas, Antietam, Shiloh, Gettysburg and other well known fields that ran with American blood — simply because we could not settle our dispute in the nation’s government.

It is clear to all that an extremely great struggle is going on in Washington today.  The battle over the debt ceiling and spending cuts is only a sideshow.  The fight is over whether America will continue on the socialist path, which is destroying the nation, and impoverishing its people, or, will America return to its rightful place as a constitutional “representative republic” as the founders of the nation intended.

The bottom line is this:  America either lives or dies as a result of the death struggle going on in Washington today.  Either freedom dies – or socialism dies.  They cannot co-exist.  One must terminate the other.  No quarter can be allowed.

For freedom to have even a chance at survival in America, we must have a conservative government.

It is clear what socialism can and will do — and HAS already done — to this country.  There should no longer be any doubt.  It must be defeated.

Conservatives need to target the US Senate in the 2012 elections.  Democrats will have some 23 seats up for reelection.  Conservatives must see that those seats go to conservative candidates.

At the same time, conservatives must maintain control of the US House of Representatives AND replace a goodly portion of the so-called “establishment” Republicans with rock solid conservative republicans.  It is plain to see that today’s House does not have the spine it needs to buck the socialist agenda of the democrats.

And Obama MUST GO!   He has been the most divisive president since Lincoln.  The man is a socialist, plain and simple.  He and his socialist agenda have driven America so far down the path to Third-World status that it will take us at least a generation to climb back to where we were in 2008.

Do not underestimate Obama’s chances to win in 2012.  With his campaign organization, his money, his shock troops (The Labor Unions), his propaganda machine (The Mainstream Media) and every minority group in America supporting him, he will be a formidable candidate — no matter what the polls say about his popularity.

Taking America back from the socialists will be a humongous task.  But the alternative is unthinkable.

Obama’s disengagement of America from its leadership role in the world has lead to nothing but chaos.  The Mediterranean states, and a goodly portion of the European states, are in various states of division and chaos.   And it will only get worse until America shows the leadership the world is waiting for and counting on.

It will not come as long as Obama is in the Oval Office.  In fact, the mess America, herself, is in will not be resolved as long as Obama remains President of the USA.

So.  We have a three-step solution to take back America from the socialists.  Replace “establishment republicans” with conservative republicans in the US House, replace 23 democrat senators with conservative senators in the US Senate – and – toss Obama and his minions out of the Oval Office and replace HIM with a conservative. 

Like any plan that looks good on paper it is immensely more difficult to implement. But – it IS the solution.

Conservatives have less than a year and a half to get this done. Hadn’t we ought to be about it?

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at “INSIGHT on Freedom” at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

And at: “ Longstreet’s Commentaries” at:

http://www.swampfox1776.blog.com/

E-Mail: longstreet1862@gmail.com

Join Christians Against Leftist Heresy

 

WesternFront America

It’s the curse of having sat through too many local town council meetings and too many speeches by politicians; it’s taking notes as they speak because you want to keep what’s said fresh in mind. Regular folks don’t do this, but anyone who has spent any time as a reporter will tell you it is a hard habit to break.

So, on Tuesday, January 11, I found myself taking notes as New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, gave his first constitutionally required State of the State speech. He will be back in February with a speech about his budget. It was delivered to the members of the New Jersey Senate and Assembly, mostly Democrats; all of whom had learned in the previous year that the Governor was a jolly, fat buzz-saw who just loves a good fight.

Gov. Christie was preceded by two of the worst Governors in current times, Jim McGreevey who discovered he was gay after he put his boyfriend on the payroll and the whispers in the statehouse became a raging storm. He was followed by Jon Corzine, a limousine liberal. Together they increased taxes and fees 115 times in eight years! In a single term in office, Corzine raised taxes $9 billion!

I am New Jersey born and bred. I have traveled to nearly every other State in the Union with the exception of Alaska, Maine and Vermont. Do you really think I would ever leave a state that was the fictional home of Tony Soprano and the actual birthplace of Frank Sinatra? You gotta be kidding me! Forgetaboutit!

Two days after Gov. Christie took office, the state treasurer informed him that Corzine had left him and everyone else in New Jersey with a $2.2 billion deficit! Did he immediately raise taxes to cover it? No. Instead, he and the treasurer scoured the budget and found $2.2 billion in projected spending. What he did next stunned a state legislature almost as profligate as California’s. He impounded the $2.2 billion by executive order.

Goodbye old world order in New Jersey. Hello Chris Christie new world order in the Garden State. As Gov. Christie put it, to create real change, “you’ve got to show a little attitude.” If there is one thing New Jerseyans have and love, it is attitude!

So it should come as no surprise that, when Gov. Christie turned 18 and was eligible to vote, he voted for Ronald Reagan. In a talk in November at a Goldwater Institute event, he recalled how “then-Governor Reagan spoke to me. He talked about smaller, less intrusive government that was going to open up our country to exploit the entrepreneurial spirit that has always built and made it a unique place.”

“He talked about less spending, so that less money would come to Washington and more money would stay with the people who knew how to spend it best. He talked about a government that didn’t regulate every little bit and piece of your life.”

“And he talked about lowering taxes so that people could feel the economic freedom that comes from not having a government in your pocket every 15 minutes.”

Christie’s State of the State speech reflected the values that Ronald Reagan espoused and, in this centennial year of his birth, I think he would have loved every word of it. “I believe in a culture of truth,” said Gov. Christie. The voters liked what they heard and happily replaced Corzine with a man who had gained recognition by putting corrupt New Jersey politicians in jail.

On Tuesday Gov. Christie told the assembled legislators, “We cannot spend money we don’t have.” Do I dare hope that Chris Christie will someday run for President?

The latter part of his State of the State speech was a dissection of how retrograde the state teacher’s union is and why the state’s pension and benefits system had to be changed because it was hideously under-funded by billions and because he wanted to ensure that policemen, firemen, and other civil service employees would actually have a pension when they retired.

Last year he spoke to an initially hostile meeting of firefighters. By the time he got through they all crowded around him, eager to shake his hand and get their picture taken with him. Christie is no ordinary politician. “This isn’t about politics,” he said, “This is about their lives.”

He is passionate about reforming the school system in New Jersey and would, one suspects, take delight in crushing a teacher’s union that exists for nothing other than political power. Last year, when he urged New Jersey voters to demand 4% to 5% pay cuts, 59% of the school budgets were defeated.
Ronald Reagan stood six foot, two inches tall. He had literally been a movie star! Chris Christie is short. He is fat. And he is completely comfortable with that. He is a good public speaker and when he speaks, you know he really means what he says.

He’s not some cookie-cutter version of Ronald Reagan, his inspiration. He is Gov. Chris Christie and New Jersey is loving every minute of it.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

Man is by nature a political animal.

~ Aristotle

Like Aristotle, conservatives generally accept the world as it is; they distrust the politics of abstract reason – that is, reason divorced from experience.

~ Benjamin Wiker

Dr. Benjamin Wiker, in his new opus, “10 Books every Conservative Must Read,” refers to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle as the father of political conservatism. Citing Aristotle’s work “Politics,” Wiker lists two primary reasons: First, Aristotle understood that the essential political argument happens between those who recognize that political life and morality are natural (from God) as opposed to those who believe that political life and morality are entirely manmade, like the Sophists and Epicureans of Aristotle’s day.

Secondly, “conservatives, like Aristotle, lean toward political suspicion, since they believe mankind is not infinitely malleable, and they understand that morality is objective and places restrictions on what human beings can and should do in a civilized society.”

From the beginning of “Politics,” Aristotle draws a distinction between his ideas and that of the Sophists – the liberals and moral relativists of his times – regarding the natural foundation of political life and society, claiming it lies in the natural union of husband and wife, the family. Aristotle thought that humans are social and political by nature; therefore politics should not be about acquisition of power but about “acting out and perfecting our human nature insofar as that is possible.” However, perfecting our human nature is not Aristotle favoring some utopian socialism, but that our political existence must be in accord with our human nature – Natural Law.

Aristotle systematically outlines the building blocks of society being derivative of the family, which is a husband and wife having children. Several families form a small village. Several villages make a city and several cities a nation. While the village was too small and the nation too large for “the full flowering of our nature,” Aristotle believed that the city-state was ideal in size and resources to achieve the fulfillment of our nature.

According to Wiker, Aristotle maintained that “society doesn’t rest on some kind of social contract that guarantees abstract rights, but on the natural union of husband and wife that binds the past and present to the future with children.”

In the spirit of modern deconstructionism, liberals of today will crow about Aristotle favoring slavery, subordination of women, abortion and infanticide as being “natural.” Of course, Aristotle was wrong on these issues, and thankfully Christianity historically allowed for those corrections of Aristotle in regards to slavery, abortion and infanticide to be made. Yet, contrary to deconstructionists of today who want to eradicate the legacy of Western civilization, particularly white males, conservatives and most rational people can accept the singular genius of Aristotle while disregarding his philosophical excesses.

The central premise of Aristotle’s “Politics” lay in his division of political regimes into different types according to the number who rule, and what kind of rule, good or bad:

• Kingly – one person rules for the true common good;
• Tyranny – one person rules for his own advantage;
• Aristocracy – a few rule for the true common good;
• Oligarchy – a few rule only for their own advantage;
• Polity [Republic] – majority rule for the sake of the true common good;
• Democracy – majority rule for their own private advantage rather than the common good.

Aristotle’s government-rule paradigm seems a bit counterintuitive today because we have been taught in our state-controlled public schools that democracy is the epitome of just government, but Wiker states, “Aristotle takes the quite sensible position that the majority can be as selfish, foolish and tyrannical as any tyrant or oligarch. Therefore, he calls democracy a perversion.” The constitutional framers agreed with Aristotle and understood the diabolical nature of democracy, considering it to be “mobocracy” – the tyranny of the majority.

For Aristotle, the “greatest factional split is perhaps that between virtue and depravity.” Morality is the cement that holds the republic together. When war is waged on morality and depravity trumps virtue and replaces it in the marketplace of ideas, then a good government quickly devolves into a bad one.

For example, Aristotle cites “demagogues, in order to make themselves popular” so as to manipulate the electorate, assert that the will of the people is supreme over the law, which in American politics means that popular social programs like Social Security, Medicare and welfare can overrule the Constitution.

Admittedly, Aristotle was a Greek pagan who believed in a pantheon of gods; nevertheless, the singular genius of his philosophical worldview allowed for the understanding that all governments of men absent virtue were doomed to collapse into utter failure and tyranny. On this point Wiker commented:

The reality of wickedness, or sin, makes the creation of perfect political regimes humanly impossible, and it ensures that any imprudent attempts to create political perfection, or utopia, will end in disaster. Conservatives believe in original sin – or the simple reality of human wickedness – and understand that this limits what good politics can achieve.

Throughout Aristotle’s “Politics” is a relentless striving for the perfecting of our human nature, that our political life has to comport with our nature and Natural Law; yet Aristotle was not some utopian socialist who believed that man was a tabula rasa (blank slate) upon which a perfect nature could be written.

Aristotle was a practical man who understood that the best way to understand humanity is to study the past. Aristotle loved the family and saw this institution as both the fundamental economic entity as well as the singular disseminator of morality. This explains why since the Enlightenment Age liberals and utopian socialists have been so hell-bent to undermine and destroy the family at every opportunity – destroy the family and you will destroy the nation.

Aristotle’s political worldview understood that without virtue and a republic based on morality, the most savage men will devolve from political animals (Natural Law) to savage political beasts (survival of the fittest). Therefore, I agree with Dr. Wiker that Aristotle is indeed the father of political conservatism.

© Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He hosts a radio program Thursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta. It can be heard online at the Radio Sandy Springs website. His weekly podcasts are available Mondays at The Conservative Beacon. Washington is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

 

WesternFront America

Socrates (470-399 B.C.) – a renowned Greek philosopher from Athens who taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle and Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Socrates used a method of teaching by asking questions. The Greeks called this form “dialectic” – starting from a thesis or question, then discussing ideas and moving back and forth between points of view to determine how well ideas stand up to critical review with the ultimate principle of the dialogue is Veritas – Truth.

Characters

• Socrates
• Aristotle
• Ayn Rand, 20th century Objectivism philosopher

The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. ~ Ayn Rand

{Setting: The Academy of Socrates}

Socrates: We are gathered here today at my Academy to discuss a very important question – Is Ayn Rand’s radical atheism a terminal defect of Objectivism philosophy? Rather than conducting this symposium myself I will call upon my student, Aristotle, the father of political conservatism, to make diligent inquiry into Rand’s ideas.

Aristotle: Ayn, what significant entry did you write in your journal at age 13?

Ayn Rand: I have made this declaration about my life which I shall never change – “Today I decided to be an atheist.”

Aristotle: But how can a mere child make such an irrevocable declaration about one’s life?

Ayn Rand: “The concept of God is degrading to men” because the affirmation that “God is perfect” meant that “man can never be perfect.” The thought that “man is low,” and imperfect and that there is something above him was simply “wrong.” Therefore, since there is “no proof of the existence of God exists, belief is rationally indefensible.”

Aristotle: Ayn, you discovered my writings on philosophy in 1918 after graduating from high school and your admittance to the University of Petrograd where you later made this sweeping declaration: “The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. In your magnum opus, “Atlas Shrugged” (1957) you detailed the parameters of the philosophy you later created – Objectivism – that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest.

Ayn Rand: I tried to make radical individualism the foundation for capitalism.

Aristotle: Indeed, this brings us to the central premise of this dialogue: The four major problems of an Objectivism worldview which may lead one to form sophistic conclusions:

1. Where rationality leads

In Atlas Shrugged, Galt Gulch’s Dagny Taggart [a.k.a. Ayn Rand] extols the wondrous machine motor designed by Galt: “She thought of this structure … replacing the power plants of the country” of which Dr. Wicker commented:

These beautiful passages lead to one, very profound insight: the well-designed technological object is a demonstration of the existence of the spiritual power of the human mind over matter against those who like Marx would argue that our thoughts are entirely caused by material conditions.

Aristotle: Ayn, you zealously propagandized the cause of rational objectivity, yet your atheism ignores God. Without God our technological progress would not be possible if our minds were incapable of penetrating nature, if there were no order to nature, if there were not definable objective truth. “If you allow human technological wonders to be tangible proofs of the human mind as cause, then the things of nature should likewise demonstrate the existence of a mind that made them.”

2. Selfishness is not the cure for collectivism or moral relativism.

Aristotle: Ayn, throughout your work you “present false dichotomies, either-or choices between two extremes: collectivism or individualism, either living entirely for the state or entirely for oneself, either complete self sacrifice to the point of annihilation or complete selfishness to the point of narcissism.” You avoid Marx by accepting the radical individualism sown by Thomas Hobbes that comes to fulfillment in Nietzsche. What about the importance of family in society? Ayn, doesn’t family mean anything to your philosophy?

Ayn Rand: Aristotle, the family isn’t a relevant part of Objectivism. I proved that by the abortion I got in the early 1930s, joining the abortion movement and refusing to have children with my husband. To me family restricts me from enjoying my life, my way!

Aristotle: But your Objectivism philosophy ignores my extensive writings about the family which establishes “the conservative affirmation of the primacy of local economic life against the interference of the state is rooted in the moral duty of families to provide for themselves, not in individual selfishness (which is a vice, not a virtue).” Throughout my writings, including “Politics,” I avowed that the family is the fundamental economic entity as well as the disseminator of morality. Ironically, Ayn your obsession with narcissism and radical selfishness lived vicariously through your books perverted your reason, the very power that defined you and your Objectivism philosophy.

3. Objectivism becomes subjectivism; reason becomes Rand

Aristotle: Ayn, is it Reason that you celebrate or is it your reason that you have championed in the philosophy of Objectivism? …I have here a signed copy of “Atlas Shrugged” to your friend and leading woman disciple, Barbara Branden, the wife of your lover Nathaniel Branden, whom you named your institute of Objectivism after. May I read the inscription? I believe your words reveal the essence of your soul.

Ayn Rand: {nervously} Yes.

Aristotle: To Barbara – For the sense of life which is mine and yours – for starting with the same values and accepting nothing less – to carry on my battle, my universe and all my values. ~ Ayn

Ayn, you claim Objectivism is a philosophy dedicated to Reason, if so then why did you steal another woman’s husband, justify it with your reason and humiliate her further in the book’s dedication? … Are these not the acts of an irrational mind?

Ayn Rand: Perhaps my Objectivism philosophy devolved into a cult-like movement as my star ascended. I become increasingly intolerant of any contrary views or intellectual challenges to Objectivism philosophy and excommunicated all heretics.

Aristotle: Indeed, let us move to the fourth and final critique of the Objectivism philosophy.

4. Philosophy of selfishness or personality disorder?

Aristotle: Ayn, when I analyze Objectivism and observe your life which merely mirrors your writings, I have come to this evident conclusion: You are a narcissist. From your earliest work, “The Little Street” (1928) you extol as virtuous the main character’s vice: “He doesn’t understand, because thankfully he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning or importance of other people.”

This radical selfishness is a leitmotiv throughout your entire body of work including your late writings like, “The Virtue of Selfishness” (1964) – a paean to selfishness and narcissism.

{Turning to the Academy students}

Narcissists like Ayn Rand have no respect for the pain and problems she caused others. Narcissists like Ayn Rand are motivated by delusions of grandiose self-importance and demand to be deified above all others. Narcissists like Ayn Rand live in a dream world of exceptional success, power, beauty, genius, or perfect love (“romantic realism”) which confuse and conflate fantasy and reality.

Ayn Rand: Aristotle, I must protest now that you are being too hard on me.

Socrates: And now we end where each of us must begin – with God. Ayn, is your summary rejection of God merely a projection of yourself as a narcissist? If so, what do we do with your “bible,” Atlas Shrugged? If your rejection of God was merely narcissistic rejection of a power greater than your limited intellectual capacity could understand or value, then, absent God, is it the conservatism of Aristotle, Adam Smith, or Ronald Reagan that you truly celebrate, or is it self-deification and crass narcissism disguised in Objectivism rhetoric?

Ayn Rand: {profound silence}

Aristotle: As a conservative I accept the world as it is and distrust the politics of abstract reason, unlike the sophists, humanists and liberals whose empiricism views reason separate from experience.

Despite her exceeding love of my ideas, I answer “yes” to the question – Is Ayn Rand’s radical atheism a terminal defect of Objectivism philosophy? Conservatism and capitalism aside, the major tenants of Objectivism philosophy effectively is the worship of selfishness and narcissism which is antithetical to real conservatism and capitalism which are rooted in the Republic, the free market, morality, assiduousness, veritas, virtue, and God.

* See Dr. Benjamin Wicker, “10 Books Every Conservative Must Read” (Regnery, 2010), pp. 299, 318-28.

© Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He hosts a radio program Thursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta. It can be heard online at the Radio Sandy Springs website. His weekly podcasts are available Mondays at The Conservative Beacon. Washington is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

 

WesternFront America

So, the Tea Party Movement is well over a year old, and we’ve had the 2009 and 2010 Tax Day Tea Parties. Millions of conservatives and patriots have stopped privately growling at their TV news, and have started publicly expressing their views. The “silent majority” is silent no more, and the grassroots have become a force to recon with.

So what’s next? Rallies, signs and flag waving (whether Old Glory or the Gadsden flag) are great for what they are – a show of force of numbers… a motivation to the like minded… a chance to share information… even a therapeutic catharsis! But a protest rally in and of itself doesn’t change minds or pressure our elected officials. So what are Tea Partiers and Patriots to do next?

“Conservative Evangelism”!

We have much to learn from the early church. In the first years, 11 apostles and under 100 disciples utilizing personal contacts and small gatherings were able to spread the word to millions!

Now, while we recognize that the Gospel was also guided and empowered by divine providence – and claiming no such ordination by God for the Tea Party movement… we can still be extremely effective in sharing the “good news” of common sense conservatism if we first equip ourselves as good soldiers of the message. We must become informed enough to hold our own when making the conservative case.

Next, we must ENCOURAGE the “brethren” by motivating the like minded to also become involved. Not merely to vote in the general elections, but to vote in the primaries… to campaign for candidates that represent their views… to be informed voters… and to themselves become activist evangelists! This is the “IN-Reach” aspect of evangelism!

We must also faithfully perform the commission as OUT-Reach “evangelists” to make the case to the uninformed, the mis-informed, the unmotivated, the undecided and the unengaged. In other words, everyone who is NOT a committed leftist!

One-on-one “evangelism” has always been the most effective tool in the church, and it will be the most effective tool in the conservative arsenal as well. TALK to your neighbors, friends, co-workers and families!

Distribute conservative literature! A pocket constitution is a WONDERFUL start! How can we expect people to understand the assaults on our constitution if they aren’t familiar with the document! In addition, perhaps we should begin to produce “tracts” which present the conservative message on single issues in a concise bifold pocket sized pamphlet.

EXPRESS your opinions. WRITE letters to the editor. Maybe post on social media or create a blog of your own. And of course, WRITE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS – OFTEN! Make them recognize your name!

Evangelism in the church is sharing the good news of salvation – and if you believe that you’re offering salvation from destruction that’s a true motivation.

Similarly, evangelism in conservatism is sharing the message of freedom, liberty, and opportunity. If you believe you’re offering freedom from oppression and tyranny – you should be strongly motivated.

Copyright © 2010 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.

 

WesternFront America

By Larry Miller

There are some who live in a fantasy world that believe moral values are not necessary to maintaining a solid conservative government. They reject the idea that it takes a firm set of convictions to stop government waste and intrusion. They call themselves “fiscal conservatives” and want us to believe that the only qualification to be worthy of our support is to be in favor of a smaller government that minimizes its interference in their lives and lowers our taxes. Many of them do this in the guise of promoting what they call a “big tent” party.

They are ones who want to believe that killing unborn children is all right, but they still want lower taxes. While this specious goal may be theoretically attainable, in practice, it has never worked out. We are told that the death of innocent children and acceptance of aberrant lifestyles is something we should overlook so we can reduce the roll of government in our lives. To some extent it is possible to accept the premise that the national government has no business regulating these practices… if its hands are tied so it does not prevent the states from doing to.

The reality is that when the chips are down and the bare knuckle brawl begins, it is generally only the hard core fiscal AND social conservatives that are standing strong against higher taxes and beltway intrusion. So many of those who would have us believe their “fiscal conservatism” alone would save us have fallen by the wayside as they cave to the pressures of the progressives who have no such moral dilemmas or sell their allegiance to the highest bidder. These progressives and their corporate cronies know they want power, and power comes from bigger and bigger government operations.

Why is it Senators like Jim DeMint and Rick Santorum stood firm while many who talked a good game fell prey to the schemes of their godless opposition? Why is it that Congressmen and women like Michelle Bachmann, Mike Pence and Randy Forbes take courageous stands against the pressures of even their own party organizations? It is because they have a moral compass that helps them understand the difference between right and wrong.

Before we go too far down the road of canonizing any… even the best of our elected representatives, we have to grasp the fact that the last perfect person walked on water, healed the sick and was hung on a cross. Having the right values does not negate a person’s fallible humanity. I’m sure it is possible to point to some event in each life where they missed the mark, so let’s not fall into the trap of holding these people to a higher standard than we apply to ourselves… a standard based more on intentions than results.

It has been said the courage is the one virtue that insures all others. The thing that most “fiscal conservatives” don’t seem to grasp is that values are nice, and I could agree with many of their values, yet unless one has the courage and stamina to see the battle through to the end, the values themselves mean nothing. Unless they have the courage of Rachel Scott as she faced the deranged gunman at Columbine High School, they will not stand up to the tremendous pressures and temptations of the most powerful deliberative body in the world.

We hear speeches about picking battles, how people expect results or how something, anything, must be done. Unfortunately what is not done is the job at hand. In the end, what we get from most “fiscal conservatives” are promises, excuses and stories of things we just don’t understand the complexities of the issues or that things are just done a particular way in the house or senate. And the result is that they sound almost like Democrats.

Originally posted at Political Christian © Larry Miller

 

WesternFront America

I’ve been encouraged that the Tea Party movement is growing and becoming better organized.  Conventions will be held to coordinate efforts, and even the MSM is starting to pay attention without the typical attacks.  We are having an impact, but to continue doing so, some things need to be considered.

Contrary to what the MSM has been saying, the Tea Parties are not a branch of the Republican Party, Fox News, the insurance industry, and so on.  There are Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, Libertarians, and even Democratic and Green Party folks involved (I did see some Green Party folks at a local event).  Therefore, the movement should stick with the three basic tenants that can potentially unite all of these groups: small government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.  If battles erupt over other issues, the movement will fracture and fail.  Just ask the Reform Party.

The movement needs to ALWAYS be about IDEOLOGY.  Consistent with that, I don’t believe that there should be a national “leader” of the Tea Parties.  Do that, and it will become more about the leader than the cause-more about personality than ideology.   I’ve seem some folks postulating excitedly that since Sarah Palin is speaking at one of the conventions, she is going to become the “leader.”  I literally cringe when I hear such talk.  Don’t get me wrong, some “star power” supporting the movement is a great thing, but avoid having a leader that can potentially divide the coalition.  It’s about ideas, not leaders.  Keep it grassroots, and let the people run it.

We, individually, need to always question everything.  Yes, I know, it makes me sound like a 60’s hippie, but it’s a great way to keep us honest.  In all honesty, questioning everything is why I’m a Conservative.  I was indoctrinated liberal in college, but once I got out in the real world, and started seeing that everything I taught was fail, I questioned, and sought out information.   Then I studied Conservatism, which fits reality quite nicely.  We  can never stop questioning.   We need to be able to point out possible mistakes, potential issues, and absolutely never be sheeple.  In other words, NEVER blindly follow.

So why mention this here?  We always need to honest with ourselves.  When anyone joins something bigger than himself or herself, there is always danger in losing oneself to the group.  It can happen in any situation or movement.  People, no matter how intelligent or forthright, can get caught up in a movement that leads to nowhere, or worse.  Considering that there are likely liberal psyops in many groups, forums, or blogs, we have to keep evaluating things to make sure that we are always being true to the ideology above all else.  When we start compromising our idea, falling for false flag ops, or failing to see that a “leader” is misleading us, our movement fails, or we become no better than the Republicans or the Democrats.

I think, as well, that we can’t always “take our ball and go home” when things don’t go exactly as we want.   Yes, most of the Tea Party folks are Conservatives, but we’re not all cut from the same cloth either.  Some of us are issue oriented, others lean towards the libertarian side.  All is well with this; it gives us some real diversity of thought.  However, there is always the danger that we can fracture over smaller issues, while letting the larger ones go unattended.  If people stick with the three big issues, the others can be discussed and debated.  Let’s remember that the Constitutional Convention was NOT a hugfest.  The debate was often heated and contentious, but at the end of the day, the delegates, representing the best and brightest of the country, if not the world, gave us something incredible.  We have to look to their example, and within ourselves, to find the best way to move the movement forward.

If we stick with ideas, and avoid the pitfalls of previous failed movements, we can achieve great things.  If we stick to the ideas that unite us, we can accomplish some things that would make the founders proud.  Just remember, it’s ALWAYS about IDEAS!!

© Matt Ross

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0

The Liberty Pen

 

WesternFront America

[What follows is a transcript of a monologue by Rush Limbaugh from his November 24, 2009 radio program]

Do you know that the Fox News Channel is the only television outlet to report on ClimateGate?  The rest of the media is totally ignoring it.  The Washington Post is actually attacking the “deniers.” This whole hoax has been fully exposed.  These people were hiding data. They were hiding data from a Freedom of Information request. There are e-mails from the guy that ran the place, this university in England, to all of his contributors and all the members of his committee: “Don’t release any information. I’ll delete it rather than release it, if I have to.”  They made up numbers.  They totally ignored numbers that disproved global cooling.  This is a giant, giant, giant scam.  It deserves a huge investigation.  And Obama, if he was worth his salt, would be the first one demanding it because this has been allowed to hijack an international agenda that is oriented toward further fleecing of the United States.  That’s all it is.

We’re going to talk about Copenhagen. We really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes.  One universe is a lie.  One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie.  The other universe is where we are, and that’s where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it.  And seldom do these two universes ever overlap.  A great illustration is what’s happening here with what is now incontrovertibly known as a hoax.  We know that the lead place, this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University — which is the number one advisor and communicator with the IPCC, which is the UN’s climate-control crowd.

We know that data was made up to advance the notion that man is causing the climate to warm.  We know that data was purposely left out that hides the fact that the earth is cooling.  Even on this bunch’s website, they cannot hide the fact that temperatures have not increased the last ten years, and they’ve had to come up with some of the most irrational, illogical explanations for it.  “Well, it’s the ocean currents out there. It could be El Nino or La Nina. A lot of stuff is going on,” but they specifically ignore anything related to the sun!  And without the sun, there’s nothing.  How you can ignore the sun in the whole concept of warming is idiocy.  But the point is this:  We have now the facts.  I don’t care how it happened, whistle-blower or a hacker.

Remember, all of this information was subject to Freedom of Information requests, and they were deleting information that would harm them.  They were deleting information and fighting the release.  So it’s a hoax.  We know these people — and I’ve known it all along.  I know who these people are.  I know who communists are.  I know who liberals are.  I know how they have to get things done.  They have to lie.  This ought to be among the biggest stories to come down the pike in a year, and it is in that side of the universe where we all live, in the real world.  As far as the left is concerned, the story hasn’t happened.  The Indian prime minister is talking about moving fast on Copenhagen.  Copenhagen is where they hope to come up with the next Kyoto treaty to punish the leading energy producers and the leading economies of the world.  Copenhagen ought to be discredited! It ought to be canceled.  There’s no reason for it.  There’s no reason for anybody to advance any piece of legislation aimed at reversing something that is not happening.

Instead, what is happening is the people in the Universe of Lies are ignoring it.  Their agenda will be paramount — and I guarantee you that as we speak, the hoaxers and everybody involved in it from Algore on up to this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University are plotting strategy on how to keep forging forward because of two things.  There is a hell of a lot of money at the end of this train and these people want to get their hands on it.  A lot of it is ours, a lot of it is grants from other governments, plus the power that’s going to come with that.  The second thing is that the scientists involved in this so-called consensus stand to have their reputations in ruin if this ever becomes a mainstream story.  So they’re going to move fast.  Even as we speak right now, they’re plotting strategy to discredit the truth of the hoax.  I don’t know how they’re going to do it, but I know these people, and they’re going to do that.

When they come out with whatever their answer is, they’re going to be given total support by the worldwide media, the president of the United States, Algore. And once again it will be the people who look at the truth — the e-mails back and forth, scientists in and outside this organization, those people — are going to be attacked as invading the privacy of people, showing things that have never been intended to be seen in the public eye and basically characterized as extremists and “deniers” and knuckle-draggers. “I mean, people are so old-fashioned! Are we going to get serious with saving our planet?”  They are not going to give this up.  They’re not going to give it up.  Obama’s even talking more about climate change legislation.  Even though he may not go to Copenhagen, he’s still talking about how we must at least move forward on cap and trade in this country because it’s important to save the world. “We must use renewable energy.  Coal and oil are destroying the planet!”

They’re not!

This can drive rational, reasonable, average people insane trying to juxtapose these two universes — the Universe of Reality and the Universe of Lies.  The Washington Times has an editorial on this, and the headline:  “Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling,” and they cite e-mails back and forth that have been uncovered that prove manipulation of data.  “The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud.

“We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries,” because they’re involved in this. They have people that are involved. “Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.” It’s worse than that.  It’s a made-up theory that has no scientific evidence backing up one shred of it.

You know, folks, the two universes here — The Universe of Lies, The Universe of Reality — they don’t overlap anymore.  And this is even bigger than global warming, which was my point yesterday.  It’s about everything that the left is involved in.  What this fraud, what the uncovering of this hoax exposes, is the corruption that exists between government and academia and science and the media.  Science has been corrupted.  We know the media has been corrupted for a long time.  Academia has been corrupted.  None of what they do is real.  It’s all lies! It is all oriented toward a political outcome.  It’s bigger than global warming.  And of course science has been corrupted here. Science is being used for political purposes.

It always has been, but this is a new low — or a new high, depending on your perspective.  But what they have done here is now make it reasonable to doubt everything some scientist says who gets government money from somewhere.  And if you know what’s good for you, if you know that they’re leftists, you won’t believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything.  Their ideas are so hideous, are so insidious, so anti-free market, that they have to dress their ideas up in a phony cloak of compassion: Saving the planet, saving the polar bears, saving the water, saving the earth, saving whatever it is. “Saving the poor,” while they destroy the poor.  It just infuriating. So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live.  The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media.  Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit.  That’s how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

Now, I looked up what Obama had to say about science in his immaculation speech back in January while I was thinking about the global warming science cover-up that’s going on out there.  Given how Obama feels and thinks about science (at least what he said about it) what will his reaction be to the “poof,” as Lanny Davis would say, that top global warming scientists are really lying global warming political scientists?  Here’s what he said: “For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.  We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.  We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield the technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.”

Now, if, if he meant what he said, he would declare a national emergency.  If he meant “restoring science to its rightful place,” because it has been corrupted, he would call a national emergency. He would cancel every green program that’s going on, which has as its foundation “saving the planet.”  He would cancel every tax increase that is scheduled or being discussed that has to do with saving the planet.  He would unilaterally demand that every corrupt scientist be named and ostracized, if he really wanted to restore science to its “rightful place.”  He would get the bad apples out of the barrel and make sure they never got in, and he would name names and he would be outraged at this degree of corruption that has led the world down a path that will lead to the further harm, and perhaps destruction as we know it, of the United States of America.

He should be outraged! He is the leading protector and defender of this country and its Constitution.  If he really meant what he said back in his immaculation speech when he said we will “restore science to its rightful place,” he would be demanding heads.  Heads would roll! He would want to know how this happened, how did this scam take place, who was it that thought it up, who have been the participators in this scam, and who have been their allies.   Now, I don’t expect any of this to happen.  I’m saying this to illustrate just how far off-the-track this country has become.

He would call for an immediate investigation of all these global warming proponents to see just how much of the scientific community is practicing this fraud and this deceit.  It’s the biggest lie, it is the biggest fraud, the biggest scam in the history of the world.  We have had treaties that nations have signed.  We have seen treaties that we came close to ratifying.  We’re going back to Copenhagen and they’re going to try to rebuild what’s falling apart.  All in the name of science, which is the pursuit of facts and truth, which no longer is what science is about.  It has been corrupted.  The only way to restore science to its rightful place is to speak out on this fraud, investigate this scam; make it right by exposing the fraud, the deceit, and the cover-up, and name names.  But that’s not going to happen.  Because Obama himself isn’t. “White House…” This is Politico.com. “White House Hits Back on Climate Critics — It’s been a bad few weeks for the Obama administration when it comes to climate change, as the White House has found itself trapped between a stalled Senate and constant hammering from world leaders on the lack of leadership on global warming.  On Monday, the administration hit back.”

Now, it was Thursday that the e-mails were released that we have all now read and seen and have concluded that the whole thing is a hoax, and Politico, living in The Universe of Lies, doesn’t even refer to that! “White House Hit[ting] Back on Climate Critics”?  I thought the story was going to be about Obama hitting back at people who are reading these e-mails and finding a hoax.  No! He’s hitting back at people saying he’s not doing enough to advance global warming. “[A] senior White House official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity,” said, “‘It would be a mistake to conclude that the international community’s failure to reach a final treaty in Copenhagen is due to a lack of domestic legislation in the United States.’”

So poor little Obama is feeling criticized by the people of the world who he thought were going to love him and respect him and respect the United States, and all of a sudden they’re complaining to him because their history, the tradition they know, is we take the bullets. The pioneers take the arrows. We do the dirty work around the world, and Obama is not doing it on an issue that they thought he was in the can for, all signed and delivered.  And now he may not even go to this thing.  I don’t even know how you can write the story.  I don’t know how you can write the story and ignore the proof that global warming, climate change — how loudly do I have to shout it? — IS A HOAX!

What does it take for people to understand it is a hoax?

But if you live in The Universe of Lies, the last thing that you are governed by is the truth.  The last thing you are governed by is reality.  The only thing that matters to you is the advancement of your political agenda.  And you tell yourself in The Universe of Lies that your agenda is so important the world will not survive without it and therefore you could lie, cheat, steal, destroy whoever you have to to get your agenda done — because your opponents are eeevil, and in fighting eeevil, anything goes.  There are no rules when you’re in a fight with the Devil.  And that is why in The Universe of Lies in this country, those of us who live in The Universe of Reality are the true enemy.  We are the real enemy.

It’s not Hugo Chavez, it’s not Russia, it’s not Iran, it’s not Al-Qaeda, it’s not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  We are the enemy because we stand not only in the way of their agenda, but we also expose them daily for what they are: Frauds in the media, in academia, in science, and in government.  In the old days before there was a New Media, whatever the government did was considered pure.  The media was considered pure.  Science was considered pure.  Academia was considered pure.  Now millions of Americans have had their suspicions of decades confirmed that all of these institutions are frauds, that they put forth a face and an image that hides their truth because it must.

They couldn’t get anywhere were they honest.  So The Four Corners of Deceit:  Government, academia, science, and media, have been exposed, and the real enemy are those who are doing the exposing.  They will continue to live in The Universe of Lies. They will continue to report on meaningless templates like this: All these people around the world concerned about greenhouse gas emissions” and “Obama hasn’t passed legislation here, and so the world can’t act until Obama acts, ” and you sit here, you read it and you scratch your head.

It’s a hoax!  It is a hoax!  It isn’t real!  It never was real.

Have you ever noticed how the media and others always declare that it’s the “respected” scientists who are the ones who believe in global warming?  “The consensus of respected scientists.”  And, by the way, I must remind you again that if there is consensus involved — i.e., a vote — then there’s no science.  If words mean anything, it’s not possible.  Science is not up for a vote.  What is to be “respected” about lying, bending data, and cursing those who ask questions?  That’s the basis of science itself, is inquiry, curiosity, constant test of the data, make sure it’s what it is before we say it’s what it is.  Algore says “the scientist I respect most,” like that’s some sort of accolade. They get to declare who’s the scientist to listen to just like they tell us who our nominee should be based not on degrees or results, but on who they like.  You can have studied for degrees and worked in the field for 30 years. They’ll put up as your equal or even superior someone who wakes up one day and declares himself an “environmentalist,” that has a fax machine and a cute-looking logo.

Now, the New York Times, our old buddy over there, Andrew Revkin.  The New York Times is asking for information on the whistle-blower.  The New York Times and Washington Post are more interested in tracking down and punishing the whistle-blower than they are in publishing the now-confirmed-as-authentic e-mails and documents.  This is what passes for journalism from two of our foremost newspapers.  They have been corrupted.  They are parts of the Four Corners of Deceit.  They are the media.  Lest we forget, the New York Times and the Washington Post cheerfully directed their readers to Sarah Palin’s hacked e-mails.  Oh, they loved that, but e-mails which are now shown to be “authentic,” these people are trying to track down the whistle-blower.  They want to find out who this guy is, and they want to punish him.  I have a sample e-mail from a nutcase. Michael Mann is a huge global warmest scientist.  He’s almost as bad as John Holdren, who is Obama’s science czar — and Holdren, by the way, is involved in this.  Obama’s science czar has involvement with Phil Jones’ group, the CRU over at East Anglia University.

So here’s an e-mail, September 30th of this year from Michael Mann to Phil Jones, who runs the unit over there.

Hey, Phil,
Let’s not get into the topic of hate mail.  I promise you I could fill your in-box with a very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes and threats that I have received. … It’s part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. it’s a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer with the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama’s health plan, we’ll see it now as the US Senate moves on to focus on the cap-and-trade bill that passed Congress this summer. … It isn’t coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper with press release came out the day before the US senate was considering the McCain. Lieberman climate bill in ’05?
We’re doing the best we can to expose this.  I hope our real climate post goes up some ways to exposing the campaign and preemptively deal with the continued onslaught we can expect over the next month.  Thanks for alerting us to that detail of Koffman, et al, which I’d overlooked.  We’d already asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you point out he’s really already done this! And Osborn and Briffa ’06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same.

Now, it goes on to scientific data, but it clearly indicates that these people are purely political.  Corporate-funded attack machine?  As far as I’m concerned, most major corporations are on board with this crap!  General Electric is basing its future on all this garbage.  General Electric? Jeffrey Immelt is basing General Electric’s future on a hoax and people’s ability to be convinced that the hoax is real.  Corporate attack machine?  “Corporate attack machine,” that’s typical language of uber-leftists and statists and anti-capitalists, and that’s what’s the key about this.  But there are countless other e-mails that talk about hiding the data that disproves their theory, rigging the data to show that cooling is not happening when it is, and they admit it in their e-mails.

Bloggers in the UK are advising people over there that if they own stock in any alternative energy companies, start dumping them now because the conspiracy behind anthropogenic global warming has been exposed.  James Delingpole is actually suggesting if you own stock in alternative energy companies, dump it.

Now, look at me.  In the real world, a media existing in the real universe would be tracking down Algore wherever he is and be demanding an interview.  They would be demanding to ask him about the rigged science, the phony science and the hoax that he has built his post-political career on.  Actually, it’s not post-political.  It is purely political.  His post-elective career on.  The media would be hammering him — or should be — were they operating in the Universe of Reality.  He should be hounded until he grants interviews!  When he refuses to grant interviews, the media in the real world would be telling their audiences, their readers and their viewers that they have tracked Algore down, they know where he is. They would also say, “Now we know why Algore never lets the media in to one of his lectures or the showing of his movie or his slide show or whatever it is.”  He never lets the media in and he doesn’t take questions and he doesn’t do interviews — unless it’s at the Academy Awards or on Saturday Night Live, a comedy show.  Is this going to happen?  No!  Nowhere near the truth will the media get.  They rely entirely on their existence in the Universe of Lies.

James Delingpole, UK Telegraph:  “If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. When you read some of those files — including 1079 e-mails and 72 documents — you realize just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be ‘the greatest in modern science.’ These alleged e-mails — supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory — suggest:  Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

“One of the alleged e-mails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L. Daly (one of the first climate change skeptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting: ‘In an odd way this is cheering news.’ But perhaps the most damaging revelations — the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal — are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause,” and they give samples of the e-mails, which we’ll link to this story at RushLimbaugh.com.  I don’t want to read all these e-mails.  Some of it does contain scientific data and would be boring to hear.  Just read them for yourselves and you will see exactly what’s being discussed here.

The Wall Street Journal: “Global Warming With the Lid Off — ‘The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.’ So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 e-mail to ‘Mike.’ Judging by the e-mail thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center.

“We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.  The ‘two MMs’ are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions — a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the e-mails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.  Yet even a partial review of the e-mails is highly illuminating.”

The Journal goes on to provide more information and excerpts from the e-mails.  They conclude thus:  “For the record, when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he ‘won’t dignify that question with a response.’ Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he ‘did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,’ but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.

“However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the US Congress and other investigative bodies.” It sure as hell does, and the media ought to be trying to find Algore this minute and to have him explain this.  That would be happening if… (interruption) Four Corners of Deceit, Snerdley. They’re all corrupt now. Media, academia, science, government, the Four Corners of Deceit.

The thing is, as I said yesterday, this doesn’t surprise me because I know who liberals are.  I know that liberalism is a lie.  I know that liberals have to lie about who they are, what they believe, and what their agenda is.  Look, what other movement needs a “wordsmith” to tell them how to say things which are not true to make people believe them, as in George Lakoff (rhymes with)?  Who the hell has people like that?  Who needs a wordsmith to tell people how to put together statements and write legislation that essentially has “yes” meaning “no”?  Who needs that?  Frauds need that! People filled with deceit, people who are trying to fool us every day need help in doing it from professionals.  Honesty is the last resort, and it is seldom used by anybody on the left.

Read the Background Material…

• Newsbusters.org: ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox
• Washington Times: Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling
• UK Telegraph: Climategate: the Final Nail in the Coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
• PowerLine: Global Warming Bombshell
• Wall Street Journal: Global Warming With the Lid Off
• Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable
• American Thinker: Violating the Principle of Science as ‘Social Contract’
• Sweetness & Light: Emails Damning To CRU Head, Phil Jones
• Sweetness & Light: Proof That ‘Climate Skeptics’ Are Right
• UK Register: Treemometers: A New Scientific Scandal. If a Peer Review Fails in the Woods…
• American Spectator: “Climate Gate” Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
• Nature.com: Storm Clouds Gather Over Leaked Climate Emails
• Sweetness & Light: Post Your Favorite CRU Email/Docs Here
• IBD Greensheet: Download The Entire Leaked Climate Emails -Joe Weisenthal
• Heritage Foundation: ClimateGate Heats Up Global Warming Debate Before Copenhagen

 

WesternFront America

Two Sundays ago, Bob McDonnell sat behind me in church, and he didn’t appear the least bit suicidal. McDonnell didn’t sing too loud or try to address the congregation when he was introduced. That went a long way toward winning my vote.

It was an especially impressive performance when you realize he’d helped torpedo his own campaign only a few days earlier, when he told the Washington Post where to find his master’s thesis from CBN University (Regent University).

I’ve been trying to analyze his decision and I can’t find a rational explanation. He’s in an interview with Washington Post reporters who are aggressively secular; view Christian social doctrine as bigoted, hateful and backward; voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama; and believe the Virginia’s governor’s race is a referendum on Obama.

McDonnell’s a devout Christian, who attended a university founded by the Post’s favorite religious fanatic: Pat Robertson. His thesis is almost 100 pages and filled with conservative Christian beliefs perfect for taking out of context.

Note to Bob: Let the Post do its own research. Or why not just tell the Post you used to go clubbing with Mark Sanford and be done with it?

Even Michelle Obama had enough sense to try and restrict access to her master’s thesis until after the election – and she’s only the candidate’s wife.

As far as the Post is concerned, VA Republicans are the gift that keeps on giving. First George Allen and now McDonnell. Here’s what McDonnell hath wrought: this area is filled with individuals and groups who oppose everything he stands for, but this opposition is not newsworthy because it’s so predicable.

Feminists, abortionists and homosexuals don’t like McDonnell. Ho Hum.

But Bob’s decision to play librarian gives the Post an excuse to gin up a “controversy” and repeatedly showcase these opinions, as if they were newsworthy, by using a campaign development from a student thesis 20 years ago! It’s a win-win: the Post gets to relive the Allen-Webb campaign and cliched liberals get to recycle their failed ideology.

What the McDonnell campaign should have done was prepare for the potential discovery by putting views from 20 years ago into context for today, and recruit a group of third-party spokespersons prepared to answer any attack.

Then if the thesis surfaces, the campaign is ready to go with prepared remarks and advocates. What you don’t do is hand the enemy a loaded gun, and then act surprised when you get shot.

They tell a story about Huey Long running for governor of Louisiana. He was giving a populist stem-winder in Baton Rouge and then later in the week he was campaigning in more conservative Shreveport. There Huey took a position that was completely opposite.

Everything was fine, except that a traveling salesman had heard Huey in each location. The salesman demanded an immediate explanation.

Huey looked at the salesman and said, “Well, I was lying in Baton Rouge.”

Which is a better response than what McDonnell is using now.

Bob spends 90 minutes on the phone with the death panel at the Post, saying his views have changed. Plus he’s not one of those scary Republicans, because he’s agreed with Tim Kaine and Obama; and some of his best friends are interior decorators.

Great. Now McDonnell looks weak, uncertain and wishy-washy.

Former VA GOP Chairman Pat McSweeney gave McDonnell sage advice when he said you can lose votes by taking a stand and offending people; you can avoid taking a stand and alienate people who want a leader; and you can backpedal from beliefs you previously held. But God help the candidate who does all three.

McDonnell’s answer should have been:

“This is 2009 and not 1989. As governor I want to create jobs and economic opportunity for men and women alike. Although the ideal situation for young children is a two-parent family where the mother works as the homemaker and the father works as the breadwinner, life is not always ideal, and families are often faced with a situation where both parents are forced work outside the home. And that’s why women held management positions in my attorney general’s office, women are key parts of my campaign, and women will play a crucial role in the future of Virginia when I’m governor.”

Then if Deeds and his media enablers want to dwell on homosexual marriage, abortion and other social issues, McDonnell simply refuses to answer hypothetical questions – and adds that hysterical hyperventilating about his “secret plan” is silly. He has a record in the legislature and the attorney general’s office that shows exactly how he will perform as governor.

If McDonnell runs his race on the agenda set by the Post he will lose. If he lets the Post decide which issue positions are allowed, he will lose. It’s not too late to do it right – and to remember:

You don’t have to have all the votes to win an election. You just need enough to win.

————————————–

© Michael R. Shannon

Michael R. Shannon is a Virginia-based public relations and media consultant with MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations who has worked in over 75 elections on three continents and a handful of islands.

 

WesternFront America