Saul Alinsky Takes the White House

Saul Alinsky Takes the White House

Conservatives may not realize just how difficult it might be to recover from this week’s elections.

The day after the big defeat, the conservative chatter everywhere was about how the “movement” and the Republican Party (two different things) could finally unshackle themselves from the bad old habits that brought them down, and about how the ability to draw a sharp contrast with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate would allow us to focus attention, rally the faithful, and re-storm the castle in 2010 and 2012.

Fat chance.

Too many conservatives think we’ve seen all this before — in 1964 and 1974 and 1992 — and that we know how to handle it. Fly, meet ointment: We’re not dealing with the same sorts of opponents. These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles. They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover. And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs.

It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents). Right now the libs (and yes, all the Democratic senators, with the possible exception of Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, are libs) have 56, with three Republican moderates and one conservative leading their races but awaiting recounts or runoffs. Watch for the Alinskyites to try stealing all four, and to succeed in at least two. We’ve seen this game before. They did it in Indiana’s “Bloody Eighth” congressional district in 1984. They almost succeeded in 2000 in Florida. They did succeed, outrageously so, in the Washington State governor’s race in 2004. Those are just the most obvious of many similar examples. And now they are even more ruthless, more lawyered-up, and in a more powerful position to pull it off than they were in any of those instances.

Next, watch what happens if they regularly can’t peel off enough Republicans (or hold their own semi-fairminded people like Nelson and Joe Lieberman) to overcome whatever filibuster attempts Republicans do mount. Watch for an assault on the filibuster itself. Watch how they use as precedent the GOP “nuclear/constitutional option” on judges in 2005 — except instead of just using it for judges, watch them use it against all filibusters. It’s easy: Make the ruling from the chair that the filibuster is out of order for some reason. Instruct the parliamentarian to rule in their favor. Win the appeal of the parliamentarian’s ruling by simple majority vote. And watch the courts pronounce it an internal matter of the legislative branch and thus outside of courtroom purview.

Watch a cheerleading establishment media — the Fourth Estate as a veritable Fifth Column — actually back these lefty maneuvers. It’s all in the name of one-man/one-vote democracy, dontcha know? The filibuster once served its purpose, they’ll say, but as a vestige of Southern “massive resistance” to integration it is now being used for massive resistance to the first black president, which invalidates it (suddenly) as a legitimate tool.

Watch the left use these tactics and others to pass even more liberalized voting laws — an open invitation to even more fraud that is more creative, easier to hide, and less challengeable in court.

Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama “thugocracy” use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with “vote suppression.” Anybody who complains about DoJ’s actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury. Likewise, anybody who peacefully protests abortion clinics or the use of state-sponsored racial quotas will be charged with a civil rights violation. And the accused won’t be able to look to the Supreme Court for help: Anthony Kennedy’s “evolving standards” of justice will evolve to match the new zeitgeist, providing a 5-4 majority for the administration. Meanwhile, of course, Obama’s other appointments will be filling up the rest of the judiciary at a rapid clip, with nobody able to stop them.

Other ways the Obama axis will tilt the playing field: “card check” legislation to eliminate secret ballots in unionizing and to force union victories in contract negotiations. Provision after provision giving favors to the trial bar so it can sue enemies into submission. Copious new regulations, especially environmental, to be used selectively to ensnare other conservative malcontents. Invasive IRS audits of conservative think tanks, other conservative 501 organizations, and PACs.

What Ohio officials did in rifling through so many of Joe Wurzelbacher’s files will serve as ample precedent. (Just watch, by the way: Nobody ever will be effectively disciplined for the violation of Wurzelbacher’s rights.)

And, only when the time is right and the ground (or air) has been well prepared, will come the grand-daddy of all fights, the re-enactment of the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine.”

Oh, they’ll be clever. They’ll pick their spot. They’ll wait until Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin says something innocent they can twist out of context and call “hate speech” — and then they’ll highlight some schoolyard fight where a member of a “victim group” gets the worst of it as if the “attack” were caused by talk-rad…no, make that “hate radio,” which will be the new moniker the Fifth Column/Fourth Estate hangs on the talkmeisters.

(Even before imposing the Fairness Doctrine, they’ll use the Federal Communications Commission in other ways to put a muffler on their opponents.)

And, always, a few carefully calibrated street demonstrations, splashed with just the right headlines across the East Coast newspapers and captured by just the right camera angle on CBS News, will be used any time, on any issue, to make the point that civil unrest would be the price of resistance to the benevolent desires of the Obama regime.

The erosions of conservative rights will be incremental. Each one will have its own justification. Each one will be supported by the establishment media. Each one will be timed so as to allow the general public to become accustomed to it, to accept it as unremarkable, or even to come to regard it as a public good for the sake of keeping conservative “troublemakers” from fomenting disorder.

And the Obamessiah, still speaking frequently to stadia full of admirers, will provide a tone of reasoned moderation, combined with further appeals to hope, in order to justify it all.

These are the sorts of things Alinskyites do. These are the sorts of tactics used by ACORN, at whose conferences Obama himself regularly taught seminars on “power.” These are the sorts of policies favored by the academic left, Obama’s old milieu — the policies that favor speech codes and stolen campus newspapers and the firing of faculty for “offensive” remarks.

Conservatives have fought things like this for years already, of course. But they’ve never fought it while the left controlled so many of the levers of power, and certainly not when the left was led by such a charismatic and near cult-inspiring leader who was so smart, so well steeped in these stratagems, and so fully supported by a Fourth Estate up whose legs warm feelings run every time he waxes eloquent.

It will take very focused, very intelligent, very skillful action by conservatives to stop this creeping subversion of a free society. This is a whole different political battlefield than any on which we’ve fought before. And we haven’t yet found our Omar Bradley.

Letter to the Editor

Quin Hillyer is an associate editor at the Washington Examiner and a senior editor of The American Spectator. He can be reached at qhillyer@gmail.com.

Livni urges Obama not to talk to Iran

Livni urges Obama not to talk to Iran

Nov. 6, 2008
Jerusalem Post staff and AP , THE JERUSALEM POST

US President-elect Barack Obama should not talk to Iran just yet, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Thursday, warning that such dialogue could project “weakness.”

“We need to fight extremism,” Livni said as she stood next to visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in the home of the American ambassador to Israel.. “We need to continue the pressure on Iran and I believe that the idea of continuing the pressure comes with more intense and effective sanctions on the Iranians.”

Although she described Obama’s election as “a source of inspiration to millions around the world,” and congratulated him on his “historic victory,” her comments marked a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration. Obama has stated a willingness to talk to Iran about its nuclear program without condition, telling The Jerusalem Post in July that he would engage “in tough, direct talks” with Teheran.

His policy marks a departure from that of the Bush administration, which has refused to engage Iranian leaders.

Earlier on Thursday, Livni said in an interview with Israel Radio that Obama is not willing to accept a nuclear Iran. But “dialogue at this time is liable to broadcast weakness,” the Kadima leader cautioned. “I think early dialogue at a time when it appears to Iran that the world has given up on sanctions could be problematic.”

Obama says direct diplomacy with Iranian leaders would give the US more credibility to press for tougher international sanctions.

He has said he would step up diplomatic pressure on Teheran before Israel feels compelled to launch a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

In an interview during his visit to Israel in July, Obama told the Post that “I will do everything in my power as president to prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons. And I think that begins with engaging in tough, direct talks with Iran, sending a clear message to Iran that they shouldn’t wait for the next administration but should start engaging in the P5 process [involving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council] that’s taking place right now, and elevating this to the top of our national security priorities, so that we are mobilizing the entire international community, including Russia and China, on this issue.”

He added that “One of the failures… of our approach in the past has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime. But I have also said that I would not take any options off the table, including military.”

If the Iranians failed to respond positively to clear, direct and urgent diplomacy, he went on, then “we’ve stripped away whatever excuses they may have, [and] whatever rationales may exist in the international community for not ratcheting up sanctions and taking serious action.”

Asked whether he would support an Israeli strike at Iranian facilities in the coming months if Israel felt it had no choice but to act, Obama said: “My goal is to avoid being confronted with that hypothetical. I’ve said in the past and I will repeat that Israelis, and Israelis alone have to make decisions about their own security. But the grave consequences of either doing nothing or initiating a potential war with Iran are such that we want to do everything we can, to exhaust every avenue to avoid that option.”

Israeli military officials have said Iran could have the capacity to produce a bomb as early as next year.

Livni has repeatedly said she hopes international diplomacy prevails. But she doesn’t rule out force if UN sanctions don’t pressure Teheran to scale back its nuclear aims. In June, she said Iran “needs to understand the military threat exists and is not being taken off the table.”

IAF planes destroyed an unfinished Iraqi reactor in 1981. But policy-makers and experts are at odds over whether Israel could cripple Iran’s nuclear program, whose facilities are scattered and in some cases built underground in heavily fortified bunkers.

Obama campaign workers angry over unpaid wages

Obama campaign workers angry over unpaid wages

Posted: Nov 5, 2008 01:38 PM MST

Updated: Nov 5, 2008 09:03 PM MST

Jeremy Brilliant/Eyewitness News

 

Indianapolis – Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

“I want my money today! It’s my money. I want it right now!” yelled one former campaign worker.

A former spokesman for the Obama campaign said 375 people were hired as part of the Vote Corps program and said people signed up to work three-hour shifts at a time. Three hours of canvassing got workers a $30 pre-paid Visa card.

The workers showed up to get their cards Wednesday morning at 10:00 am.

“There was a note on the door saying 1:00 pm and then at 1:20 pm everybody was like why is nobody here. They just got here and they’re trying to get it organized,” said Heather Richards, a former campaign worker.

The large gathering of around 375 people prompted police to call in extra officers and set up temporary barricades. The barricades helped keep the crowd from spilling out onto Meridian Street. Police say the several hundred people in line were for the most part orderly.

“No arrests. Some of the people were upset at first because the line wasn’t moving as fast as they thought it should. But we really haven’t had any problems,” said Major Darryl Pierce, Metro Police.

Eventually people did start getting paid, but some said they were missing hours and told to fill in paperwork making their claim and that eventually they would get a check in the mail.

“Still that’s not right. I’m disappointed. I’m glad for the president, but I’m disappointed in this system,” said Diane Jefferson, temporary campaign worker.

“It should have been $480. It’s $230,” said Imani Sankofa.

 

“They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90,” said Charles Martin.

“I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned,” said Randall Waldon.

Some people weren’t satisfied with filling out a claim form for money they felt was still due to them.

“They say that they gonna call you or they going to mail it to you, but I don’t know. We’ll see what happens,” said Antron Grose.

“Talking about they’ll mail it to us. I ain’t worried about that, man. They’re not going to mail nothin’,” said Martin.

EPICENTER REACTS TO OBAMA VICTORY

 EPICENTER REACTS TO OBAMA VICTORY

By Joel C. Rosenberg

(Washington, D.C., November 5, 2008) — Congratulations to Sen. Obama. His victory last night was an historic moment, further evidence of how far Americans have come in moving beyond the racial divisions of the past. This is good, and should not be underestimated.

It is now our solemn responsibility to pray faithfully and consistently for him, his wife, his family, and his advisor. We must pray for their safety, their wisdom, and their discernment. This is the right thing to do and honors the Lord. As the Apostle Paul teaches so clearly in I Timothy 2:1, “I urge that entreaties, prayers and petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”

We must also pray faithfully for the safety of our nation, for the peace of Jerusalem, and for the advancement of freedom and security throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East. I am very concerned about what the next year to 18 months may hold. Vice President-elect Biden warned us that the world will test this young new president. We must therefore pray for peace while we prepare for war.

I’m paying particular attention this morning to how people in the epicenter are reacting to Sen. Obama’s victory. Leaders in Iran are thrilled since the likelihood of decisive U.S. action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program has just dropped dramatically. Leaders in Iraq, by contrast, are trying not to be worried given that the likelihood of rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces has just increased dramatically.

Palestinians seem to be thrilled, since they seem Obama as pro-Palestinian and open to dividing Jerusalem and pressuring the Israelis to make further concessions of “land for peace.” Many Israelis feel quite unsettled this morning, concerned that they will be all alone in the Middle East as the U.S. begins to pack up and go home from Iraq. They are also concerned that Obama and his team do not appear to fully understand or appreciate the seriousness of the threat of Radical Islam. Sen. Obama told us during the campaign that Iran was a tiny country that did not pose much of a threat. Israelis are not convinced he will stand with them in a nuclear showdown with Tehran.

A senior political strategist in Israel emailed me last night with this thought: “The State of Israel is now facing the most unfriendly American administration ever….Israel’s will to live will be tested in ways that will not e pretty. Many of Obama’s foreign policy team and Middle East advisors see Israel as the obstacle to peace. And we can not count on Jewish supporters of Obama to have any standing in setting policy in this administration.” A new poll released yesterday also caught my attention: 46% of Israelis would have voted for McCain, while only 34% would have voted for Obama. That tells us something about the concern from Eilat to Haifa and from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem about losing a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people in President Bush to someone who has not indicated convincing support for Israel in the past.

I know many of you are very worried about the direction of our country. I certainly understand this sentiment, but as I wrote yesterday, let us not lose heart. The Lord knew who would win. He allowed it to happen. He has a plan. He has a purpose. And now He is calling us to serve Him faithfully – to do whatever He tells us to do, to go wherever He tells us to go, to say whatever He tells us to say. Now is the time to draw close to Christ, to advance His kingdom, and prepare for His return. He is, after all, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. Now is certainly no time to forget, or to be discouraged.

The United States of Audacity

The United States of Audacity

Posted By Arthur Chrenkoff On November 5, 2008 @ 1:32 am In . Column2 02, Elections 2008 | 82 Comments

Confetti has now been swept away by illegal migrant cleaners, balloons have deflated faster than the economy, and suicide pills in case the unthinkable happened have been flushed down the toilets by liberals around the country (except for those few who have kept theirs in case America emerges victorious from Iraq). The wheel has turned, history was made — even if not particularly emphatically by historical standards — and the cliché count among the commentating class has surpassed the number of foreclosures in California and Arizona combined.

Now is perhaps a good time for several quick predictions for the next four years (or more, if we’re unlucky). None of them are in any sense brave predictions. They are animated by the sentiment often espoused by my late grandmother: “things are rarely as good or as bad as people think they are.” It’s a sentiment born out of years of war, occupations, oppression, economic hardship, and assorted political upheaval. It has served my grandmother and my family well in surviving through the ups and more numerous downs of Central European history, and I believe it will also serve us all well as we enter the uncharted territory of Barack Obama as the holder of the bully pulpit, commander in chief, and leader of the free world.

America will continue to be a terrorist target

As Osama bin Laden watched the election night returns on CNN in some mud hut in northwestern Pakistan, it is very unlikely that Barack Obama was the change that this wily jihadist could believe in.

You have to remember that the planning for the September 11 attacks took place while a loveable, charismatic, I-feel-your-pain Democrat occupied the White House. Clinton was an internationalist, multilateralist, militarily-ambiguous (at the best of times) Kyoto believer. None of his charm, popularity, and bleeding heartedness had made him any less satanic in the eyes of Osama and Co. Similarly, the Iranian hostage taking crisis of 1979 took place under the watch of a sincere, righteous, and devout believer in human rights, justice, and morality in international politics.

This is because the enemies of America don’t care about the personnel in charge but about America’s values and America’s policies abroad. Presidents come and go, conservatives replace liberals and are in turn replaced by conservatives yet again, the country lurches from the Great Society to the Contract with America — yet America’s values, as well as her interests abroad, remain surprisingly consistent. This is her true strength, but also the reason why she continues to attract the hatred of totalitarians of all stripes through decades and centuries.

To truly satisfy al-Qaeda and their followers, in the short term, the United States would have to prematurely withdraw from Iraq, abandon the war on terror in Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world, leave Israel to destruction by Iran and other enemies, stop providing financial aid and other assistance to assorted Arab countries, and withdraw any and all military forces as well as economic and political interests from the Middle East.

In the medium term, the United States would have to pull back to within her borders her international political, economic, and cultural influence. No American companies “exploiting” the developing world, no Britney and Hollywood movies beamed around the world, no NATO, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and exporting democracy.

And in the longer term, the United States would have to convert to Islam and become part of the worldwide ummah.

One or two items from the short-term list might conceivably, if unlikely, become a reality. Anything more is an Islamofascist pipe dream; anything less is unacceptable. The war will go on.

Those who pretended that anti-Americanism was all about Bush will be proven wrong

The world has spoken. Even though countries as diverse as France, Pakistan, Australia, and Kenya did not have any Electoral College votes, they still got the president they wanted. There is little doubt that, at least in the short term, America’s Bush-era high negatives around the world will deflate amongst an orgiastic celebration of fresh hopes and new beginnings.

But just as al-Qaeda will not cease being an enemy of America just because America elected a president with the middle name of Hussein, so won’t the anti-Americanism around the world suddenly vanish when George W. Bush takes off for his last helicopter flight out of the White House. Anti-Americanism is a complex political (and all too often psychological, if not psychiatric) problem that is as old and complex as America herself.

For America not to be hated around the world, she would have to cease being America. That is not going to happen, even under President Obama. As I mentioned in the previous section, America’s interests in the world and values at home will largely remain unchanged. The United States will still play a dominant role in international affairs, it will still have allies and enemies, its economy and culture will continue in innumerable ways to exert influence everywhere from the new skyscrapers of Shanghai to the slums of Cairo.

Just as importantly, America will remain a capitalist, consumerist, open, multi-ethnic, religious, polluting, entertaining, creative, democratic, and free society. Barack Obama’s rise to the highest office in the land is undoubtedly pregnant with much symbolism and meaning, but America has merely elected a new president, not a new system of government or a new people.

The excitement of the historic election will eventually die down, but the cold hard reality will remain. Particularly since …

Disappointments will start on the day one

Obama ran as a Messiah, but now he has to govern like a politician. He will disappoint, as all politicians invariably do over time.

To say that Obama created unrealistic expectations during his campaign would be a political understatement of the decade. Tens of millions expect him to do everything from filling a spiritual void and transforming politics (into what, I don’t think any one actually knows) to stopping global warming, fixing the economy, and guaranteeing everyone a comfortable and secure livelihood.

But Obama and his administration will be working within the constraints of the Constitution and the political system, as well as of the economy and social considerations. Rhetoric can soar and inspire but it can’t magically transform everyday realities. Change you can believe in is not necessarily a change you can easily implement.

I expect that, to paraphrase my grandmother’s motto, President Obama will not be as bad as his detractors fear, or as good as his supporters hope for. America won’t turn into a Union of Soviet States of America, even though the U.S. has elected its apparently most left-wing president in history, a man who throughout his rather short and undistinguished career has freely associated himself with Marxists and other assorted far-leftists. Neither will America turn into some post-modern paradise on earth. Obama will not “heal the divided nation” or end the “bitter” partisanship. Such touchy-feely rhetoric is what his supporters might swoon over, but neither objective is achievable, or even particularly desirable in a healthy, competitive, two-party democracy.

Things will get worse for the Republicans before they get better

Political parties which lose, particularly lose big, don’t stop having problems when the polls close. The Republicans can expect some unpleasant times ahead as the minority party out of office in the White House, the Congress, and soon on the High Court. These unpleasant times will be made doubly so by the internal strife over the soul and future direction of the party.

The debate over what the Republican Party is, what it stands for, and what constituencies it should seek to appeal to in order to regain power, is a necessary one, though it will not be pretty. Navel gazing and inward looking, the infighting, bitterness, and the perceived ideological extremism will all make the GOP seem unattractive to anyone outside the base, and many people within it. And the base alone doesn’t win the elections.

There will be a long honeymoon for Obama, partly because of the strength of the sentiment for change, partly because of his status as a media and elite darling, and partly because of a non-partisan human inclination to give the new guy a fair go. Under ordinary circumstances it takes some time for a politician to go from hero to zero. These are not ordinary times, however. With the double whammy of an economic crisis and the ongoing war on terror (even though it has decidedly gone cold lately), I won’t venture any guesses about the likely timeline, but conservatives should not expect a quick and easy comeback.

A Republican resurrection would not be simple at the best of times, but now the GOP also faces a whole new generation of young voters who have given their first vote to the Democrats and might keep on doing so in the future. The Republicans also confront the reality of increasing electoral participation of ethnic minorities, hardly a Republican constituency. This represents not just a strategic or tactical challenge. It is an existential challenge for the party seeking to build a new majority coalition.

And lastly…

Deification of the Anointed One will only get more sickening

Prayers, chants, portraits with a halo? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Should the Obama presidency end in tears, prepare for the Messiah narrative to get hyper-charged among the Obamaniacs. If the brave new experiment collapses due to Obama’s faults, external circumstances, or a combination of the two, the Messiah will have become scorned, scourged, and crucified, dying (politically) at the hands of the evil ones, while attempting to redeem his people. If particularly unlucky, America might acquire its own version of the King Arthur mythos, where the brave leader is not really dead but merely asleep somewhere beyond the horizon in the West (Hollywood, perhaps?), awaiting to come back and rescue his country at a time of future peril.

That would be truly unbearable; America cannot afford another Nixon experience.

The Seven Big Post-Election Questions

The Seven Big Post-Election Questions

Posted By Jennifer Rubin On November 4, 2008 @ 8:15 pm In . Column2 04, . Positioning, Elections 2008, Politics, US News | 77 Comments

Now that the question has been answered — who will be the 44th president — there are seven more questions which will consume politicians, strategists, pundits, and voters for the next few years.

1.  Will President Barack Obama govern as a moderate centrist or a liberal extremist? As the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, with a background seeped in far-left activism, he does not seem naturally inclined to head to the center without a looming election to force him to accommodate moderate voters. Certainly he now has every opportunity to push through the redistributive agenda he spoke about so fondly in his now-infamous 2001 radio address.  He has healthy majorities in both houses of Congress and a wish list built up over eight years — with everything from universal health care to abolishing secret ballot union elections to the [1] Freedom of Choice Act.

It would seem to require Herculean strength for a president, especially one relatively new to Washington and with a record of subservience to party orthodoxy, to resist the strong leftward pull. Certainly, Obama presumably wants not just one, but two terms and wants to retain that Congressional majority. And the lesson of 1994 when President Bill Clinton lost his Democratic Congressional majority remains fixed in Democrats’ memories. But it is hard to imagine, even with the financial crisis — and the resulting mound of debt and revenue shortfall — that Obama will now transform into a protector of free markets and balanced budgets and a bulwark against the phalanx of Democratic special interest groups.

Bottom Line: Expect Obama the liberal to trump Obama the equivocator.

2. Who will get blamed for the Republican wipeout? The list of potential culprits is long: President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, John McCain, Sarah Palin, the entire McCain camp, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and, of course, the MSM. Those on the right with a specific agenda (e.g., less populism, more technocrats, and activist government) already have their guns pointed at the corresponding culprit (e.g., Palin). The conservative punditocracy got an early jump on the circular firing squad with many isolating Steve Schmidt as the tactician run amok. Others fingered their own candidate.

Bottom Line: After months of fighting, the conventional wisdom will be to blame Bush, banish the McCain campaign team, and conclude that the absence of any viable economic message was a significant factor in the loss. And expect conservatives in the base to rally around Palin in the face of an onslaught by the punditocracy which will label her selection as McCain’s biggest error.

3.  What will the Republican Congressional minority do? They can’t do much given their reduced size. The argument will be over whether to accommodate the new administration or to resist at all costs. More importantly, the struggle will be to identify a new agenda comparable to the Contract with America which could re-energize the party and gain back lost seats.

Bottom Line: Look for a “Heck, no!” strategy while young Turks like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) strive to develop a comprehensive alternative agenda.

4.  Will “continuity” or “change” be the watchword in national security policy? The deep, dark, and not very well-kept secret of the second Bush term was that it differed not very greatly from much of Obama’s campaign rhetoric — a preference for multilateral discussions, abandonment of strict nuclear verification requirements for North Korea, capitulation to Syrian domination of Lebanon,  a business-like drawdown of forces in Iraq, and a redoubling of efforts in Afghanistan. Four more years of that may not thrill conservatives, but it will seem quite familiar to those following the evolution of Bush’s foreign policy.

Now Obama could certainly veer left, acceding to calls for a substantial cut in defense spending and making good on his pledge to meet directly with rogue-state dictators and to renegotiate NAFTA. But that would only invite unneeded risk and rekindle doubts about the new president.

Bottom Line: Aside from rhetorical flourishes, expect less change than promised. The rub however will come when, as Joe Biden predicted, the first test of Obama’s mettle comes. If he blinks, expect to hear a lot about ”Jimmy Carter II.”

5.  Who becomes the Republican frontrunner for 2012? Given the dearth of Republicans in Washington and the cloud of the Bush years, expect the most viable contenders to come from outside Washington: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal. Palin has bonded with the base and gained the affection of many conservative pundits and activists. She has a ready outlet in the blogosphere and talk radio. Romney has the organization, experience, and knowledge — and perhaps some buyer’s remorse by GOP insiders that he would have been a better candidate in an election dominated by a financial crisis.

Bottom Line: Palin will work to round out her expertise while Romney will seek to redefine and soften his image. (Combined, they have the brains, charm, and experience for a fairly impressive ticket.) But if conservatives wish to obliterate any memory of 2008, look for Jindal to emerge as the newest outsider with a record of conservative reform.

6.  Will there be a crack-up of the conservative punditocracy? Many conservative scribes inside the New York-Washington corridor were the first to jump on Palin and to shower Obama in compliments — “Oh, he knows philosophy!” “Ah, his temperament.” Others, horrified at their colleagues’ muddied thinking and abandonment of conservative principles, struck back. The danger for both is that their readers will lose interest in interpersonal fights and that politicians will figure out pundits don’t have much to do with winning elections.

Bottom Line: After a short period of hostility and some columnists “leaving for new opportunities,” pundits will settle down to the business at hand: fighting about the direction of conservatism instead of with each other.

7. What to do about the MSM? By virtually any [2] objective standard — supported by [3] statistical evidence — this was the most egregiously biased coverage ever seen in a presidential race. From the “tingle up the leg” in the primary to the never-ending slam pieces on Cindy McCain to the Palin feeding frenzy to the refusal to ask [4] minimal questions about Obama’s past associations and policies, the MSM made clear they were an extension of the Obama campaign. With Obama firmly in power will he try to mount an effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, wiping out talk radio and maybe even the blogosphere?

While he contemplates that, conservatives will need to strategize on how to minimize and work around the MSM in future campaigns. It may be that you can’t run a presidential campaign without the MSM, but that you can make them far less important. If the candidates cooperate more with new media and less with old media, that’s where the viewers and readers will go. If Palin’s first interviews were with Chris Wallace, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, and Politico, that’s where the public would have gone to learn about Palin. And a far different first impression would gave been formed.

The MSM remains important to the extent they are treated as independent reporters rather than spin doctors for Democrats. But Republicans needn’t play along. There is no rule requiring Republican campaigns to leak to the Washington Post – thereby helping to make news — or to go on Hardball.

Bottom Line: Technology, reading, and viewing habits and public disgust with MSM bias are powerful influences which will allow conservatives to find and bolster alternative outlets. But they shouldn’t kid themselves. Ronald Reagan got elected twice with no talk radio, no Fox News, and no blogosphere. The MSM is not the source of conservatives’ woes; it just adds to them.

Election 2008 has turned out to be a gloomy one for Republicans, but it could have been worse. They may manage to keep the Senate Democrats’ total below the filibuster threshold of sixty. And Republicans should do well to keep in mind that nothing is permanent in politics. Democrats who lost the Congress in 1994 and the presidency for the first eight years of the new millennium now reign supreme — until they won’t any more. Republicans would do well to cease the circular firing squad and get about the business of finding a message and impressive messengers to tout it.

No Time To Cry–TIME TO GET TO WORK !!!

No Time To Cry–TIME TO GET TO WORK !!!

All night long I have been getting e-mails proud Americans talking about everything from leaving the country to committing hari kari. OK folks crying time is over put down those razor blades, there is no time to cry, we need to get to work TODAY. There is a mid-term election in two years.

After getting smashed by Karl Rove 2x in a row, the Democrats went back to the basics they rebuilt bottom-up. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL. The Republican Party must rebuild on a grass-roots basis. We must purify the Republican Message go back to our conservative roots and LEARN HOW TO COMMUNICATE IT BETTER. American IS STILL A CENTER RIGHT COUNTRY. We just elected a leftist president. Once America starts feeling the weight of the government on our backs communication will be easier.

We need to Protect our right to free speech, make sure that Congress will not re-institute the Fairness doctrine. THE DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT TALK RADIO OR THE BLOG WORLD IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE BIAS OF THE TELEVISION NEWS AND NEWSPAPER MEDIA. We must not only communicate their obvious bias to America but we must identify their Advertisers and let them know we will not support their products if they continue to support a biased news media.

More Below:

To Conservatives Who Are Thinking About Tomorrow
Tony Blankley,
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire.
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green & pleasant Land.

In regard to attitude, America’s conservatives could do worse than to be moved by those lines of Robert Blake from another place and another time on behalf of a similar sacred cause then not yet realized.

Conservatism always has been and always will be a force to reckon with because it most closely approximates the reality of the human condition, based, as it is, on the cumulative judgment and experience of a people. It is the heir, not the apostate, to the accumulated wisdom, morality and faith of the people.

As a force in electoral politics in any given season, conservatism, like all ideas and causes, is hostage to the effectiveness of the party that carries its banner, the candidates and leaders who articulate its principles and programs, and the engagement and spirit of the people who are its natural adherents.

A dispassionate critique of the performance of each of those elements would have to conclude that the core of the conservative people — our natural adherents — were inflamed with both passion and knowledge of conservative principles. It was the party and the candidates, leaders and conspicuous advocates (with some honorable exceptions) who failed both in their visions and their performances a cause that yearned to be well-led.

But fate (if you are a classicist) or the mystery of God (if you are religious) also has played its part this season. Only once since FDR-Truman has the American electorate elected the same party to the White House three times in a row (Reagan, Reagan, Bush — 1980-1992). And by the way, only once since 1896, when Grover Cleveland declined to run for re-election and William McKinley won, has the American voter not elected the same party to the White House at least twice in a row (Carter, Reagan — 1976-1980).

Moreover, the Republican Party, our reluctant champion, naturally (if, in a few instances, unfairly) was held to account for two unpopular wars, manifest corruption and managerial incompetence, a collapsed housing market that resulted in a 20-50 percent crash in the home values for most Americans, and a financial crisis that threatens world prosperity and has reduced the value of the average American’s stock portfolio by about 40 percent.

But as someone who has been banging around American politics since the Goldwater glory and defeat of 1964, I need to observe that the first explanation of losing causes and losing parties (liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans) almost invariably is to blame incompetent candidates, ineffective messages, and overwhelming events.

At a technical level, that is often true.

But at a deeper, historical level, the failure was that the cause was not yet ready to lead. We conservatives were not ready to lead in 1964. By 1980 and 1994, under Reagan and Gingrich, we had figured out how to talk to a majority of the country with both principles and programs that gained a majority endorsement. We no longer were just standing on our high horse declaiming to a nation. We were on the ground, with the people, leading them into the citadel of power.

At a practical level, it is worth considering how Benjamin Disraeli reformed the modern British Conservative Party in the 19th century. (For a fuller account, see David Gelernter’s Feb. 7, 2005, article in The Weekly Standard, “The Inventor of Modern Conservatism.”)

Disraeli envisioned the Conservative Party as the true national party, while the Whigs were merely the party of intellectual ideas. In that time, English intellectuals and progressives were fascinated with German ideas, just as today Democrats are enchanted with European ideas. Disraeli judged: “In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of the people or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines.” By championing the vote for the people in a century in which that was inevitable, Disraeli formed a conservative party that dominated British politics for 150 years.

Today there are certain profound values — free markets and respect for life — that are renounced at the price of our soul. Free markets, particularly, are under the immediate, explicit assault of the next government. Life may be undermined more surreptitiously.

But as a national cause championed by a national party, a conservative agenda must, for example, learn to speak persuasively to a near majority of Hispanic-Americans, or we will be merely a debating society. When Texas joins states such as Colorado, New Mexico (and even North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona and Florida), where Hispanic votes are necessary for victory, there is no possibility of national governance without finding that voice.

Our challenge is not to retreat to the comfort of self-congratulatory exile but to sweat and bleed — and be victorious — in the arena of public opinion.

The United States of Audacity

The United States of Audacity

Posted By Arthur Chrenkoff On November 5, 2008 @ 1:32 am In . Column2 02, Elections 2008 | 77 Comments

Confetti has now been swept away by illegal migrant cleaners, balloons have deflated faster than the economy, and suicide pills in case the unthinkable happened have been flushed down the toilets by liberals around the country (except for those few who have kept theirs in case America emerges victorious from Iraq). The wheel has turned, history was made — even if not particularly emphatically by historical standards — and the cliché count among the commentating class has surpassed the number of foreclosures in California and Arizona combined.

Now is perhaps a good time for several quick predictions for the next four years (or more, if we’re unlucky). None of them are in any sense brave predictions. They are animated by the sentiment often espoused by my late grandmother: “things are rarely as good or as bad as people think they are.” It’s a sentiment born out of years of war, occupations, oppression, economic hardship, and assorted political upheaval. It has served my grandmother and my family well in surviving through the ups and more numerous downs of Central European history, and I believe it will also serve us all well as we enter the uncharted territory of Barack Obama as the holder of the bully pulpit, commander in chief, and leader of the free world.

America will continue to be a terrorist target

As Osama bin Laden watched the election night returns on CNN in some mud hut in northwestern Pakistan, it is very unlikely that Barack Obama was the change that this wily jihadist could believe in.

You have to remember that the planning for the September 11 attacks took place while a loveable, charismatic, I-feel-your-pain Democrat occupied the White House. Clinton was an internationalist, multilateralist, militarily-ambiguous (at the best of times) Kyoto believer. None of his charm, popularity, and bleeding heartedness had made him any less satanic in the eyes of Osama and Co. Similarly, the Iranian hostage taking crisis of 1979 took place under the watch of a sincere, righteous, and devout believer in human rights, justice, and morality in international politics.

This is because the enemies of America don’t care about the personnel in charge but about America’s values and America’s policies abroad. Presidents come and go, conservatives replace liberals and are in turn replaced by conservatives yet again, the country lurches from the Great Society to the Contract with America — yet America’s values, as well as her interests abroad, remain surprisingly consistent. This is her true strength, but also the reason why she continues to attract the hatred of totalitarians of all stripes through decades and centuries.

To truly satisfy al-Qaeda and their followers, in the short term, the United States would have to prematurely withdraw from Iraq, abandon the war on terror in Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world, leave Israel to destruction by Iran and other enemies, stop providing financial aid and other assistance to assorted Arab countries, and withdraw any and all military forces as well as economic and political interests from the Middle East.

In the medium term, the United States would have to pull back to within her borders her international political, economic, and cultural influence. No American companies “exploiting” the developing world, no Britney and Hollywood movies beamed around the world, no NATO, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and exporting democracy.

And in the longer term, the United States would have to convert to Islam and become part of the worldwide ummah.

One or two items from the short-term list might conceivably, if unlikely, become a reality. Anything more is an Islamofascist pipe dream; anything less is unacceptable. The war will go on.

Those who pretended that anti-Americanism was all about Bush will be proven wrong

The world has spoken. Even though countries as diverse as France, Pakistan, Australia, and Kenya did not have any Electoral College votes, they still got the president they wanted. There is little doubt that, at least in the short term, America’s Bush-era high negatives around the world will deflate amongst an orgiastic celebration of fresh hopes and new beginnings.

But just as al-Qaeda will not cease being an enemy of America just because America elected a president with the middle name of Hussein, so won’t the anti-Americanism around the world suddenly vanish when George W. Bush takes off for his last helicopter flight out of the White House. Anti-Americanism is a complex political (and all too often psychological, if not psychiatric) problem that is as old and complex as America herself.

For America not to be hated around the world, she would have to cease being America. That is not going to happen, even under President Obama. As I mentioned in the previous section, America’s interests in the world and values at home will largely remain unchanged. The United States will still play a dominant role in international affairs, it will still have allies and enemies, its economy and culture will continue in innumerable ways to exert influence everywhere from the new skyscrapers of Shanghai to the slums of Cairo.

Just as importantly, America will remain a capitalist, consumerist, open, multi-ethnic, religious, polluting, entertaining, creative, democratic, and free society. Barack Obama’s rise to the highest office in the land is undoubtedly pregnant with much symbolism and meaning, but America has merely elected a new president, not a new system of government or a new people.

The excitement of the historic election will eventually die down, but the cold hard reality will remain. Particularly since …

Disappointments will start on the day one

Obama ran as a Messiah, but now he has to govern like a politician. He will disappoint, as all politicians invariably do over time.

To say that Obama created unrealistic expectations during his campaign would be a political understatement of the decade. Tens of millions expect him to do everything from filling a spiritual void and transforming politics (into what, I don’t think any one actually knows) to stopping global warming, fixing the economy, and guaranteeing everyone a comfortable and secure livelihood.

But Obama and his administration will be working within the constraints of the Constitution and the political system, as well as of the economy and social considerations. Rhetoric can soar and inspire but it can’t magically transform everyday realities. Change you can believe in is not necessarily a change you can easily implement.

I expect that, to paraphrase my grandmother’s motto, President Obama will not be as bad as his detractors fear, or as good as his supporters hope for. America won’t turn into a Union of Soviet States of America, even though the U.S. has elected its apparently most left-wing president in history, a man who throughout his rather short and undistinguished career has freely associated himself with Marxists and other assorted far-leftists. Neither will America turn into some post-modern paradise on earth. Obama will not “heal the divided nation” or end the “bitter” partisanship. Such touchy-feely rhetoric is what his supporters might swoon over, but neither objective is achievable, or even particularly desirable in a healthy, competitive, two-party democracy.

Things will get worse for the Republicans before they get better

Political parties which lose, particularly lose big, don’t stop having problems when the polls close. The Republicans can expect some unpleasant times ahead as the minority party out of office in the White House, the Congress, and soon on the High Court. These unpleasant times will be made doubly so by the internal strife over the soul and future direction of the party.

The debate over what the Republican Party is, what it stands for, and what constituencies it should seek to appeal to in order to regain power, is a necessary one, though it will not be pretty. Navel gazing and inward looking, the infighting, bitterness, and the perceived ideological extremism will all make the GOP seem unattractive to anyone outside the base, and many people within it. And the base alone doesn’t win the elections.

There will be a long honeymoon for Obama, partly because of the strength of the sentiment for change, partly because of his status as a media and elite darling, and partly because of a non-partisan human inclination to give the new guy a fair go. Under ordinary circumstances it takes some time for a politician to go from hero to zero. These are not ordinary times, however. With the double whammy of an economic crisis and the ongoing war on terror (even though it has decidedly gone cold lately), I won’t venture any guesses about the likely timeline, but conservatives should not expect a quick and easy comeback.

A Republican resurrection would not be simple at the best of times, but now the GOP also faces a whole new generation of young voters who have given their first vote to the Democrats and might keep on doing so in the future. The Republicans also confront the reality of increasing electoral participation of ethnic minorities, hardly a Republican constituency. This represents not just a strategic or tactical challenge. It is an existential challenge for the party seeking to build a new majority coalition.

And lastly…

Deification of the Anointed One will only get more sickening

Prayers, chants, portraits with a halo? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Should the Obama presidency end in tears, prepare for the Messiah narrative to get hyper-charged among the Obamaniacs. If the brave new experiment collapses due to Obama’s faults, external circumstances, or a combination of the two, the Messiah will have become scorned, scourged, and crucified, dying (politically) at the hands of the evil ones, while attempting to redeem his people. If particularly unlucky, America might acquire its own version of the King Arthur mythos, where the brave leader is not really dead but merely asleep somewhere beyond the horizon in the West (Hollywood, perhaps?), awaiting to come back and rescue his country at a time of future peril.

That would be truly unbearable; America cannot afford another Nixon experience.

President-Elect Obama Faces a Dangerous World

President-Elect Obama Faces a Dangerous World

Posted By Bridget Johnson On November 4, 2008 @ 11:09 pm In . Column2 03, . Positioning, Elections 2008 | 34 Comments

As voters stepped into the polls, they came armed with their opinions, their emotions, their gut feelings, their peer pressure, their community organizers’ suggestions and a variety of other decision-making tools that will never supplant bare-bones knowledge on the issues.

Last time around, it was Diddy warning citizens to “Vote or Die,” but last year a [1] study by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press nearly gave the world of punditry a collective heart attack. Looking at the survey somberly reminds us that these are the people who voted, volunteered, were perhaps cajoled into registering by an ambitious, compensated town crier with a clipboard.

Only 36 percent of Pew respondents could name Vladimir Putin as the president of Russia — even when he’d been president for nearly eight years. Only two-thirds could name their own state’s governor. Sixty-nine percent could even identify our vice president, even with Dick Cheney’s starring role as the butt of liberal jokes. Just 37 could peg the chief justice of the Supreme Court as leaning conservative, and even fewer respondents, 32 percent, could name Sunni as the Islam branch opposite Shia. And on, and on.

Too many American voters sleepwalk through the world, and yet lined up to pick the next leader of the free world. And now, Barack Obama, you have the weight of the world on your shoulders — a world where many of its inhabitants would like to see a weaker United States so that they can feel stronger themselves, and have won agreement from many on the American left. You have constituents and global onlookers alike who think that the reputation of the U.S. is paramount to doing the right — even if unpopular — thing.

Here are five things you should remember about the world today — and that you should cling to stronger than upper-class citizens’ money:

· The fact that chief Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef [2] said in April, “We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election” because “he has a vision to change America” is not a hat tip to your alleged great uniting or peacemaking abilities. It’s an ominous sign that, after evaluating the candidates, this terror organization came to the conclusion that you can most easily be manipulated. No less than the survival of the Jewish state hangs in the balance — and toasting PLO lackeys will only reinforce the suspicion that you were just pandering to Jewish voters on Israel. Actions will speak louder than campaign-trail rhetoric.

· Russia will most likely attack Georgia again, especially since they saw how your mind works in [3] this response to the South Ossetia war: “I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict.” If you can’t pick sides when appropriate, you’re going to let Russia become a steamroller over the former Soviet states. If you think that Russia smashing Georgia after Georgia tried to rein in a breakaway territory is a situation in which Georgia needs to “show restraint,” then you don’t belong in the White House — you belong at the United Nations.

· As Obamaniacs flooded the polls Tuesday, Iran celebrated its [4] National Day Against Global Arrogance. That translates to a national holiday denouncing the United States in P.C.-friendly terms, as the mullahs’ minions dutifully protested the Great Satan. The Islamic Republic News Agency reported: “People from all walks of life converged at the site of the former US embassy in Tehran, better known in Iranian history as the ‘Den of Spies.’ Ralliers, including groups of school and university students, shouted slogans against the United States as they marched through Tehran’s streets. By chanting slogans such as ‘nuclear energy, is the legitimate right of the Iranian nation,’ the ralliers underscored the need for producing nuclear energy to generate electricity.” If you think that the U.S. can fairly enter negotiations with this entity, especially as you’ve agreed Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, you’ll be about as useful as Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis.

· Neither you nor John McCain focused on much of anything south of the border during the campaign, but there are volatile situations that could blow up in your face very quickly. In Mexico, you have a violent drug war buoyed by drug smuggling across our border and a methamphetamine market that has been cornered by Mexican cartels since we enacted pseudoephedrine restrictions. In South America, you have a Venezuelan leader trying to rally others against “The Empire” (us) while cutting economic and military deals with Iran and Russia. Just as bad economic times helped the populist (you) win here in America, trying times will leave lovers of democracy — who are already persecuted in Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution — in even more dire straits. Will you take sides and stand up for them and, in turn, everything for which America stands?

· Whether Osama Bin Laden is captured or not is, unfortunately, just a political talking point — one you used well during the debates, I might add. Because whether or not you plan to bust down Pakistan’s door, with guaranteed disastrous results, or chase Osama to the “gates of hell” as your challenger promised, you still have a vast terror network flourishing under the guidance of Ayman al-Zawahiri. You have a radical, extremist Islamist ideology to counter — and many on the left would rather [5] complain about documentaries on the subject than face the threat head-on.

This isn’t to say that the McCain-Palin team would have met all of these challenges, or that they would have even been able to get anything done with a Democratic Congress. But Washington, D.C., is now in dangerous territory with the loss of checks and balances.

And President-elect Obama, so much hangs in the balance with your willingness — or refusal — to accept and act upon global realities.

“God DAMN America !”

“God DAMN America !”

by Beth Gilinsky, Action Alliance Network, November 2, 2008

 

Gary Cooper in High Noon

Gary Cooper in High Noon

Once upon a time there was an America that wasn’t embarrassed to be like a Gary Cooper or Joel McCrae character: big and straight-talking; at times a little rough around the edges but so quick to smile you felt like the sun was coming out after a rainstorm. It was a loyal America that cherished not only ideals as vast as liberty, justice, equality under the law, and victory over Evil, but also things as basic as a summer afternoon’s baseball game — or any game — where the playing field was level. 

It was a strapping, Big Blue Sky America of adventurous kids who grew into can-do adults who still got goose-bumps at the first notes of “Stars and Stripes Forever” because it symbolized the greatness that was still within us. This was an America where a man’s handshake was his word and he knew he loved his country, and that plus an unbeatable Constitution created the most miraculous and magnanimous nation ever. Of late it seems a memory, but it was there and it is still to be found in America ’s heartland if one only takes the time to look.

Educators, Hollywood, and the media have for decades so dumbed down language and ideas, debased standards, and depressed the sweetness and beauty of life for much of our citizenry that many Americans are convinced now that patriotism means having to say you’re sorry – in every foreign country and at every opportunity — for America. They have been convinced that America is so rotten that no one should be able to examine the credentials of a man laden with activities and items open to question since this man espouses this new, “enlightened” version of America . We are being lead to believe that someone’s virtue is beyond question because he espouses the fashionable “virtue” of “blaming America first”. Because he consistently questions America we, perversely, can no longer question him.

If we don’t wake up in the next 24 hours, the man beyond investigation will be entrusted as Commander in Chief of our military forces, appoint heads of the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security and other agencies, and will have access to any piece of information, classified or not. Barak Obama evidently deems as insignificant the Constitutional and security concerns of American voters, because he has refused to have released his records from Occidental College and Columbia College and Harvard, his selective service registration, his medical records, his Illinois State Senate schedule, his law practice’s client list, a certified copy of his original birth certificate and an embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth, any Harvard Law Review or University of Chicago scholarly articles he published, or even a record of his Baptism. This does appear to be a man of deliberate and planned secrecy.

This, combined with his disquieting associations with extremists and plans to meet without preconditions with dictators troubles those of us who have not fallen for everything Obama. We are weary of being instructed that we should not question anyone’s patriotism. Well, many question the patriotism of Obama’s associate, Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. We also wonder why Obama skirts the issue of his relationship with former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi and presides over a campaign that remains mum on the sources of many of the millions of dollars raised for this most expensive election ever.

Barak Obama sat for twenty years, was married by, had his children Baptized by, and was a friend of a vicious hater, the Rev. “God DAMN America !” There is no possible explanation for Obama’s continued presence in Rev. Wright’s sphere but one: he liked what he was hearing. If you are voting for Obama, you must also find the words “God DAMN America !” an idea, the new form of “patriotism”, you can live with comfortably.

When you go to the polls on Tuesday, please follow the words of Martin Luther King and judge Barak Obama not on the color of his skin but on the content of his character, as well as on the quality of his associations, the soundness of his policies and ideas. Meeting without preconditions with human rights abusing dictators who are giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations that label America the Great Satan is not sound foreign policy. If you vote for Barak Obama, you are in essence asserting that American and Allied leaders should have met with Adolph Hitler before the war, with no preconditions.

Joe the Plumber asked a simple question of Barak Obama and an Ohio Party hack suddenly approved a records investigation on him. Can you also live with this comfortably? Is this the kind of America you want where, if you ask a question of the “anointed one” the state opens an investigation into your past? Can you really say you care about our basic rights and not question why this occurred and its implications for America in an Obama Presidency? Why are those who even dare utter Barak Obama’s middle name, “Hussein,” branded as bigots by his admirers? Is it to silence them? Today there may be one Joe the Plumber, but after Election Day, we may all become Joe the Plumbers.

If you are voting on Tuesday and cannot discern between America and the dictatorships in different countries where people are tortured and beaten by their governments, women are gang raped by dictators, dissidents are incarcerated for years without trial, and young children are strapped with bombs and sent to blow themselves up, then either you have not seen enough of the world Barak Obama so wants us to meet with and apologize to or you yourself have been so desensitized and confused by the media bias and “entertainment” industry violence you are no longer able differentiate between a basically decent but at times flawed America and those horrific regimes and tyrants exerting daily their perverted form of barbaric cruelty. And before you leave to vote, ask yourself if, in a couple of years you might possibly find yourself looking in the mirror and wondering, “What was it about the words ‘God DAMN America’ that I found so convincing? How could I have cast my vote to hurt the country that really was so good to me?”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers