Nancy Pelosi “Caviar Commie”

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52798

A New Voter Fraud

A New Voter Fraud
Democrats are getting people to vote for moderates in order to put extremists in power.

By Thomas Sowell

There is no real question that Democrats are more skilled at politics than the Republicans are. Democrats are more articulate, not to say glib, and they know how to stick together.

You don’t see individual Democrats in the Senate going off to do their own thing in concert with the opposition and against the interest of their own party, as Senator John McCain has done with so-called “campaign-finance reform” co-sponsored with ultra-liberal Senator Russ Feingold, and as he attempted to do on immigration with liberal icon Ted Kennedy.

Democrats know better than to betray their base of supporters — welfare-state beneficiaries, the teachers’ unions, environmental zealots, the ACLU, and tort lawyers — the way the elder President Bush betrayed his supporters who relied on his “no new taxes” pledge and the way the current President Bush betrayed them by attempting to create amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

Republicans have too often forgotten the old-time admonition to the girl going to a party, to always remember to “dance with the one who brung you.”

Even some Republicans have said privately that the Democrats have the edge in playing the game of politics. Given the greater political shrewdness of the Democrats and the overwhelming bias of the media in their favor, it is remarkable that Republicans have had any political success at all.

That the Republicans are still a viable party is one measure of how far the Democrats’ policies and values differ from those of most Americans.

Nowhere is that difference greater than when it comes to defending the American people against crime at home and against military and terrorist threats from abroad. Liberal Democrats — which is to say, most Democratic politicians and all of their leaders — are ready to try almost any “alternatives to incarceration” of criminals and almost any alternative to maintaining military strength as a deterrent to enemy nations.

More is involved than an unwillingness to face unpleasant facts of life. There is a coherent ideology behind these positions. That ideology goes back more than two centuries — and has failed in country after country over those centuries. But it is an ideology that sounds good and flatters the vanity of those who consider themselves part of a wise and compassionate elite.

Republicans have too eclectic a collection of beliefs to beat the Democrats on a purely ideological basis. Moreover, the liberal vision is a more attractive vision because it assumes away many of the painful and even brutal aspects of human life, especially the fatal dangers of relying on words when dealing with people who only respect force that is backed up by a willingness to use it.

Facts are the only real antidote to a seductive vision. But facts do not “speak for themselves.” Somebody has to articulate those facts and explain their implications. The liberal media will certainly not do it and too often the Republicans do it badly or not at all.

How many people are aware that the black-white income difference and the male-female income difference both narrowed during the 1980s — that is, during the Reagan administration? Democrats talked a better game on both fronts and to this day are widely regarded as the best hope, if not the only hope, for minorities and women.

How many people are aware that crime rates soared when liberal ideas became part of the criminal justice system in the 1960s and only began declining in the 1980s after more criminals were put behind bars and kept there a longer time?

Democrats have learned to avoid admitting to being liberals and this year are running a number of moderate candidates.

If these new moderate candidates are elected and give the Democrats control of Congress, that control will be exercised by senior Democrats who will hold leadership positions — and all of them are liberal extremists, whether people like Nancy Pelosi in the House or Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in the Senate.

Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put extremists in power, may be the newest and biggest voter fraud.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

ISLAMerica: HEZBOLLAH JUDGE ELECTED in MICHIGAN!

Printer Friendly

By Debbie Schlussel

Open Hezbollah supporter and extremist Muslim, David Turfe, was unfortunately elected a Michigan District Court Judge in Dearborn Heights 20th District. (Dearborn Heights is home to North America’s second largest mosque, headed by the former spiritual leader of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian Navy, Imam Mohammed Elahi–a domestic agent of Iran & Hezbollah.)

Remember the Hezbollah rally I attended at the Bint Jebail Cultural Center a/k/a the Hezbollah Social Club, at the height of the war between Hezbollah and Israel–where speakers made a plethora of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian speeches? Turfe was there campaigning, and openly supporting and cheering all of those statements. Not surprisingly, the Pro-Hezbollah/pro-HAMAS, Islamist Arab American PAC, which denies Israel’s right to exist, endorsed Turfe. (AAPAC’s then-Secretary Lola Elzein sent me and my family death, torture, and rape threats, coupled with Holocaust denial.)

Michigan Judge-Elect David Turfe Supports HezbollahAnd his close relative, Mohammed Turfe (I’m told that’s his brother), was one of the speakers uttering those statements. From my July 26, 2006 column, “Hezbollah U.S.A, Part III: My Date at Dearbornistan’s Hezbollah Social Club“:

Haj Mohammed Turfe (AP incorrectly called him Mohammed “Torfah”), Founding Chairman of the Bint Jebail Cultural Center, gleefully and repeatedly spoke of how “only a few thousand Jews will survive Armageddon.” This mantra, repeated often throughout the event, got raucous, deafening applause and cheers. Well, for once–I thought–extremist Muslims have respect for Christianity. . . when they can twist it to suit their fascist hopes and dreams.

The 20th District of Michigan is now apparently Hezbollah-occupied territory. And, apparently, many non-English speaking Muslims voted for Turfe, only Turfe, on the ballot Were they all legal U.S. citizens? Don’t count on it. From our spy in Dearbornistan Heights:

I have to say, my city had a large turn out. From what I witnessed…..many many FOREIGNERS…….couldn’t even speak English. Lots of young people……headscarves & all.

Here’s an interesting fact……From what I saw, many
ballots were only marked off with 1 vote…….by Turfe’s name. Just goes to show how much they care about all the other issues……they have an agenda & I see we are losing a damn fighting battle !!! Sad part is….We still outnumber them here….so far.

Final results from the Detroit Free Press:

20TH DISTRICT
100% of precincts reporting
David Turfe 8,524 51%
Donald Rivard 8,138 49%

Justice Mid-West style, Meet Justice Mid-East style.

 

Posted by Debbie at November 8, 2006 08:25 AM

The media party won by a hair

The media party won by a hair

Can you imagine this election with an evenhanded media? The GOP would still be in control of Congress. Our foreign policy would still be robust, rather than maidenly. Our enemies abroad, like Ahmadinejad and Chirac, would not be having a good day today. And the constant revision of history—such as the “no WMD” slur—would not be crystallizing into received truth even now.

The New Media have not yet beaten the Old. They are making a difference, but the Old Liberal Media have protected their power, at the cost of major alienation from millions of America. Over time, the Old Media will continue to move to the Net, but the political debate will continue. The New Media have a voice, but not as powerful as ABCCBSNBCPBSNPR.

Conservatives in general rely too much on individual brilliance among our leadership. We have done well in finding outstanding and creative leaders, and one failure of the Republicans in Congress was a failure of imagination and vigor, such as we might expect from Reagan, Gingrich and George W. Bush in foreign policy. Liberals build institutions, conservatives wait for individuals to emerge. Over the long run, institutions tend to win.

The media is the core institution of the Left, and it is striking that no Old Media outlet has moved to the Right—or even the Center—in the past fifteen years, while losing credibility and audience. So the Left has protected its existing fortress in the Old Media.

There are many lessons in the GOP setback of 2006. One of them is the constant need for renewal; we have not even carried out the major domestic reforms promised in 2000. I do not blame President Bush for that—he has been fighting a war, and has obviously been preoccupied with that supreme responsibility. The conservative movement still does not have an institutional basis. We have topnotch think-tanks, but no universities. We have talk-radio—thanks to the market—but only Fox as a voice on television. Our most creative thinkers have no natural place to rest and build during the inevitable interregnums.

On the plus side, the Democrats have shown no capacity for growth at all. That is bad for the country but good for the GOP. It is now a time for renewal—not blame—and we must look to the most creative thinkers to craft a message of realistic hope to the country.

James Lewis    11 8 06

Renewing the Contract

Renewing the Contract

By Philip Klein

Published 11/8/2006 12:09:29 AM

Those conservatives who are waking up dispirited about the Democratic Party’s takeover of the House and its gains in the Senate would be wise to think back to a Wednesday two years ago. On the morning of November 3, 2004, conservatives were euphoric as President Bush was re-elected comfortably and the GOP gained seats in the House and Senate — knocking off Tom Daschle in the process. Republicans began to talk in terms of being a permanent majority. The Democrats, meanwhile, were demoralized — seemingly destined for political irrelevance. A lot has changed in two years, and a lot will change between now and November 4, 2008 — when Americans go to the polls to elect President Bush’s successor. Rather than seeing Tuesday’s defeat as a crisis, Republicans should look at it as an opportunity to rehabilitate the party in time for that crucial election. In assessing last night’s results it is important to note that it was not a defeat for conservatism; it was a defeat for Republicanism, or at least, what Republicanism has come to represent. In the past 12 years, Republicans went from the party that promised “the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money” to the party of the Bridge to Nowhere; it took control of Congress on a pledge to “end its cycle of scandal and disgrace” and went down in defeat as the party of Tom DeLay and Mark Foley. Having abandoned its core principles, the Republican Party had nothing to run on this year, so its campaign strategy centered on attacking Nancy Pelosi — a questionable tactic given that, according to some polls, more than half of the country had never even heard of her. Republican strategists who projected optimism over the past few months cited as reasons for their confidence: fundraising, incumbency advantage, gerrymandering and new innovations such as “microtargeting.” But as this election made perfectly clear, none of this can bail out a party that is bereft of ideas. We will hear a lot of reasons for why Republicans lost this year. We will hear that they lost because of an unpopular war, an unpopular president, a culture of corruption, a traditional anti-incumbent six-year itch and a dispirited base. But one thing is for sure. Republicans did not lose on a platform of limiting the size and scope of government. Just as this election wasn’t a defeat for conservatism, it wasn’t a victory for liberalism. Democrats intentionally avoided a publicized “Contract With America”-style platform advancing a progressive agenda in favor of making the campaign a referendum on President Bush. The closest thing they had to a platform, “A New Direction for America,” was not a sweeping ideological document, but a laundry list of initiatives such as making college tuition tax-deductible, raising the minimum wage, and negotiating drug prices. Though a Democratic majority will likely roll back President Bush’s tax cuts, they didn’t advertise that in the “fiscal discipline” section of their platform. (It is a testament to how enamored Republicans became with big government that they enabled Democrats to run as the party of fiscal discipline.) After controlling the House of Representatives for the last 12 years and the White House for the last six, a lot of pent up anger developed toward Republicans. If the GOP had to lose an election as a result of this sentiment, better this year than in 2008, when Americans will choose who will lead the War on Terror into the next decade. The Democratic Party will take power in January. Either they’ll demonstrate to Americans that they have no governing philosophy, or they’ll play to their anti-war base by pushing for a premature withdrawal from Iraq and go overboard with investigations of President Bush. While the exposure of the Democratic Party during the next two years will help Republicans, the GOP should not head into the next election thinking that running against Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will ensure victory. Instead, the Republicans need to differentiate themselves by returning to their small government roots and once again becoming the party of ideas. In 1994, Republicans swept into power by signing a contract with America. That contract has been breached, and unless they want to lose the big prize in 2008, it’s time for that pact to be renewed.

Malvo gets life in 6 Maryland jihad killings

And that’s what they were, jihad killings, as Jihad Watch readers knew in late 2003. Above is one of Lee Malvo’s jailhouse drawings. Another says, “I, Lee, will die for the revolution, jihad.” Michelle Malkin posted more last spring.

“Malvo gets life in 6 Md. sniper killings,” by Stephen Manning for Associated Press:

ROCKVILLE, Md. – Convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison for six murders in Maryland that were part of a three-week shooting spree that terrorized the Washington area in 2002.The Maryland trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court included Malvo’s chilling insider account of his trip across the country with accomplice and mentor John Allen Muhammad.

In a brief statement in court Wednesday, Malvo apologized for his role in the killings.

“I’m truly sorry, grieved and ashamed for what I’ve done,” said Malvo, his voice breaking.

Malvo, 21, pleaded guilty in October to the murders in Montgomery County, where the series of 13 shootings began and ended in October 2002.

It is unlikely, however, that Malvo will ever serve time in a Maryland prison. He has already been sentenced to life in prison in Virginia for sniper shootings there and was sent to Maryland last year for a new trial on the condition he be returned after his case ended. That could happen within the next several days, said Darren Popkin, Montgomery County’s chief deputy sheriff.

Top Hamas Officials: ‘We Want [All of] Palestine, from the River to the Sea’; ‘Resistance and Jihad Are Legitimate’

Hamas consistently belies the benign intentions others continually try to thrust upon it. From MEMRI:

In the nine months since it came to power, and despite the PLO’s demands, Hamas has not changed its views: It refuses to recognize Israel or acknowledge its legitimacy, insists that previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements will be recognized only if they serve Palestinian interests, continues to lay claim to all of Palestine, and, in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, offers only a temporary hudna (ceasefire). In addition, Hamas continues to express reservations about the Arab peace initiative of 2002, and to support resistance, jihad, and abduction of Israeli soldiers.TO VIEW CLIPS FROM THE MEMRI TV PROJECTON HAMAS, SEE:http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=157 .

The following are statements made by Hamas leaders in the last two months:

Rejection of Israel and Its Legitimacy

In an interview, Palestinian Political Bureau head Khaled Mash’al told the daily Al-Hayat: “Why am I required to [recognize] the legitimacy of an occupying [entity] that is sitting on my land when there are millions of Palestinians who come from the land on which this entity is sitting? It is true that there is an entity called Israel, but I do not wish to recognize it.” [1]

At an October 20, 2006 Hamas convention in Khan Yunis, Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that “Israel is a vile entity that has been planted in our soil, and has no historical, religious or cultural legitimacy. We cannot normalize our relations with this entity. The history of this region has proven [time and again] that occupation is temporary. Thousands of years ago, the Romans occupied this land and [eventually] left. The Persians, Crusaders, and English [also] came and went. The Zionists have come, and they too will leave. [We say] no to recognizing Israel, regardless of the price we may have to pay [for our refusal].” [2]

In a sermon in Khan Yunis, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said: “Israel wants Hamas to hand it the card of recognition in the hope that this would lead to recognition by other Muslim countries. Israel may have been recognized by part of the Palestinian people and by some Arab countries. However, it [now] wants something more significant – the [trump] card of Islamic recognition – and it wants to obtain this recognition through the Palestinian government and Hamas…” [3]

Palestine From the River to the Sea

On the issue of a Palestinian state, Khaled Mash’al said: “The [Hamas] movement has agreed to [the establishment of a Palestinian] state within the 1967 borders and to a hudna… As a Palestinian, I am interested in a Palestinian state and I am not interested in the occupying state. Why do people require the Palestinians [to accept] the existence of two states as one of their principles and goals? The Zionist state exists. I [wish to] speak of my Palestinian state that does not exist. I am the one that has been denied [the right to] a state, to sovereignty, to independence, to liberty, and to self-determination. Therefore, my main [goal] is to focus on obtaining my rights. I wish to establish my state.” [4]

Mahmoud Al-Zahar said: “We [aim to liberate] all our lands… If we have the option, we will establish a state on every inch of land within the 1967 [borders], but this does not by any means imply that we will relinquish our right to all the Palestinian lands. We want all of Palestine from [Ras] Naqura to Rafah, and from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river.” [5]

The Mourning After

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/11/the_mourning_af.html

No Dressing up this Pig

No Dressing up this Pig
November 8th, 2006

Let us be honest. This was a wipeout. The Republicans did not win any Democrat-held House seats. They won no Democrat-held Senate seats. They won no Democrat-held Governors races. That has not happened before within memory.

The vote for Congress appears to give Democrats about a 9% point lead, if you look at the exit polls. That is larger than the GOP margin in 1994. It is also more than a 10% shift from 2004 . And for once, the exit polls were not that far off. The 5PM exit polls showed McCaskill winning by 2%, and she won by 2%. They showed the Democrats would win Senate races in Maryland , Rhode Island and New Jersey by 7% each. These were very close to actual results. They showed a 3% Corker win in Tennessse. Corker won  by 3%. They were off only on Virginia  and Arizona, where they were about 5% too favorable to the Democrats.

The next few weeks may be slow water torture for the Republicans. I am not optimistic that either Montana (1,700 vote lead for Tester) or Virginia (7,000 vote lead for Webb) will shift with any recount. Virginia was a blown seat.  Except for the macaca fiasco, Allen would have won by at least 5%. The Democrats will likely hold a 51-49 Senate majority, thanks to Joe Lieberman caucusing with them (will the Daily Kos/Moveon.org crowd appreciate this fact, or would they rather he caucus with the Republicans?).

Hispanics voted about 70-30 for Democrats, a 15% shift from 2004. So the GOP’s mixed message on immigration lost both Hispanic and white votes.  The GOP lost state legislative seats around the country, and control of many chambers- in Oregon, Michigan, Colorado, as examples.  As Matthew Continetti pointed out  in the Daily Standard, the GOP is much more of a regional party today than it was yesterday – strong in the South and intermountain west (but weakening even there).

In New England, Chris Shays is the only GOP congressman left standing (20 Democrats), assuming Rob Simmons winds up losing in Ct. 2 (he trails by 170 votes). Both New Hampshire seats turned over, and it appears, two in Connecticut. In New York, the House makeup is now 23 Democrats, 6 Republicans. The Republican Party in New England and New York is for all practical purposes now, a sideshow.

The various strands of the Republican Party – the business wing, the social conservative wing, the strong national security wing, the nativist anti-immigrant wing – are likely to have the knives out the next few months. It is hard to see any big tent spreading. Where is the Reagan to do it?

The Democrat have their own issues, but they showed remarkable discipline in this cycle. And without question Chuck Schumer totally outclassed Elizabeth Dole, and Rahm Emanuel did the same to Tom Reynolds in running the respective Senate and House committees.  They recruited better candidates, raised lots of money, and took advantage of every GOP stumble. The GOP lost at least six House seats to scandal: Penn.. 10, Pa. 7, Fla. 16, Texas 22, Ohio 18, and New York 20.

It could have been even worse. GOP candidates appear to have barely survived in Penn. 6, New Mexico 1, Washington 8, Nevada 3, Connecticut 4, Fla, 13, New York 25, New York 29, Wyoming, Il. 6, Ohio 2, Ohio 15, Colorado 4, Idaho 1,New Jersey 7, and VA. 2 . The final toll likely will be a 28-30 seat gain for the Democrats, with a runoff likely in Texas 23, since Henry Bonilla failed to get 50% of the vote.

Absent a few point movement towards the GOP in the last week, the wipeout would have been wavelike-40-45 seats. As it is, some GOP incumbents lost who were not on anybody’s list of 40-50 most vulnerable incumbents: Jim Leach (Iowa 2), Jim Ryun (Kansas 2), Jeb Bradley (NH 1).

In 2008, the GOP will face the same challenge the Democrats did this cycle- having to pick up about 15 seats to take back the House. It won’t be easy, and will not happen unless the GOP candidate for President wins big.

Don’t forget that next cycle the GOP will have to defend 21 of the 33 Senate seats. So there is risk the Democrats could add to their Senate lead if it holds at 51-49, though a few Democratic Senate seats might be vulnerable in 2008, such as South Dakota, and Louisiana.  In the end, the Democrats won 24 of the 33 Senate races this year, winning by wide margins in six states  that Bush won in 2004 (Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Florida,  West Virginia, and New Mexico), as well as what appear to be very narrow wins in three more red states: Virginia, Missouri and Montana.

The GOP’s agony is largely attributable to the Iraq war. This is not meant as a comment on the wisdom of the war, or how it has been run. It is simply a political comment. The GOP was on the verge of becoming a dominant national party after 9/11. Now it is a party on the ropes.

Sure, GOP earmarks, and Congressional spending hurt the party. Ambiguous messages on immigration and the Foley and Abramoff scandals hurt too. But without Iraq, the news would have been far better yesterday for the GOP (and I think would have resulted in a more decisive win for Bush in 2004).

President Bush has made policy decisions that involved great political risks. On the political side he appears to have lost his bet. This was not a cautious Presidency, as Clinton’s was (at least above the waist). In the long war that America and the West now face, the verdict on our decisions is still out.

But the President’s political weakness going forward will likely limit his options in the next few years. 

Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker