History will one day look back with horror on the Democratic Party's support of infanticide through abortion. And when that day finally comes, you can be just as sure Democrats will tell you the parties switched.
— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) June 29, 2020
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
6/29/2020
AS SEEN ON TWITTER
6/25/2018
5/07/2018
Stoneman Douglas Shooter Was Assigned To Controversial Broward Discipline Program, Officials Now Say
Stoneman Douglas Shooter Was Assigned To Controversial Broward Discipline Program, Officials Now Say
Broward school district officials admitted Sunday that the confessed Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School gunman was assigned to a controversial disciplinary program, after the superintendent repeatedly claimed Nikolas Cruz had "no connection" to the alternative punishment designed to limit on-campus arrests.
5/05/2018
The Media Is Killing the Democratic Party
The Media Is Killing the Democratic Party
Ever since April 30, when the New York Times published a list of topics that special counsel Robert Mueller would like to ask President Trump about, cable news and the political press have focused exclusively on the two major legal matters in which the president is entangled.
4/08/2018
Where Was Teddy?
Where Was Teddy? | National Review
Editor's Note: The following first appeared in the November 7, 1988 issue of National Review . It is too early to break out the champagne, but have you noticed how many books of welcome tendency have been on the best-seller list lately?
3/14/2018
Democrats on the verge of identity crisis
Inside the Beltway: Democrats on the verge of identity crisis
Jubilant Democrats and much of the news media have proclaimed that Democrat Conor Lamb's microscopic victory over Republican Rick Saccone is a glorious symbol. Though Mr. Lamb received a mere 641 votes more than his opponent in the Pennsylvania race, his fans insist it is an automatic bellwether signaling the inevitable defeat of the GOP in the midterms and beyond - a predictable narrative.
As Seen On Twitter
Obviously, Putin ordered Trump to order Tillerson to pretend to be harsh on Russia so that Putin could order Trump to fire him to divert attention from how he hadn't been harsh on Russia and then appoint Putin's real puppet Pompeo, or something. pic.twitter.com/eppW3Bxy9d
— Consent Factory (@consent_factory) March 14, 2018
3/11/2018
The left always hates God — until they don’t
Stephen Colbert mocks at God: Make Oprah 'Run!'
Stephen Colbert, late-night comedian, sat down with famed talker Oprah Winfrey and turned on the charm for God to make her run for the presidency in 2020. It was a mocking bit, no biggie for atheists but at least somewhat insulting for Christians. But the deeper takeaway is the hypocrisy it reveals of the left.
8/21/2013
Democrats and Lawlessness
Via-American Spectator
By PETER FERRARA
They’re all wonderfully content to champion their president’s authoritarian rule by decree.
In the third of the six films of the Star Wars saga, the Sith Lord who has infiltrated to become the ruling Chancellor of the democratic republic confederation of peaceful worlds announces to the elected Assembly of representatives of those worlds that to deal with an exaggerated, fabricated crisis, “The Old Republic will be reorganized into the first Intergalactic Empire.” The distracted Assembly responds with polite applause. One of the few characters who understands what is happening remarks wryly, “So this is how the Republic ends. With applause.”
Proving that truth is stranger than fiction, this is happening right now in the United States of America. President Obama has already seized the power to rule by decree, and is doing so virtually every day now.
For those who do not immediately get what is meant by “rule by decree,” let me explain. The Constitution grants the power to legislate, to make laws, to the Congress, which is why it is called “the Legislative Branch.” It grants the power to carry out, or execute, the laws to the President, which is why the President and his Administration are called “the Executive Branch.” The Constitution accordingly specifies that the President’s duty is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It grants the power to interpret and adjudicate the law to the Judiciary, which is why that is called “the Judicial Branch.”
But President Obama does not accept the limitations of his role within this constitutional framework. He is now regularly exercising the power to legislate directly himself, either by announcing on his own supposed authority changes in existing laws that Congress has already passed, or by announcing that he will carry out entirely new laws that Congress never passed, or even refused to pass. These actions are brazen, lawless violations of the Constitution.
The President through his Executive Branch has the power to issue regulations interpreting the law as passed, for purposes of implementation. But all regulations must be authorized by an underlying law passed by Congress. Neither the President nor any agency underneath him in the entire Executive Branch can issue a regulation that contradicts or changes the law that is cited as authorizing it. In other words, if the law says 2014, the President has no authority to say screw it, I say 2015, by regulation or otherwise.
The same is true of Executive Orders. All Executive Orders must be based on authority granted to the President by some law passed by Congress, or by the Constitution itself.
The President does have the authority to refuse to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional. But he cannot refuse to enforce laws because he disagrees with them, or to gain political advantage, such as delaying implementation of a law until after the next election, attempting to deceive the American people as to what has been enacted until the next election passes. The Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Justice Department exists to advise the President as to his legal powers. And this is what legal opinions issued by that office have said.
By PETER FERRARA
They’re all wonderfully content to champion their president’s authoritarian rule by decree.
In the third of the six films of the Star Wars saga, the Sith Lord who has infiltrated to become the ruling Chancellor of the democratic republic confederation of peaceful worlds announces to the elected Assembly of representatives of those worlds that to deal with an exaggerated, fabricated crisis, “The Old Republic will be reorganized into the first Intergalactic Empire.” The distracted Assembly responds with polite applause. One of the few characters who understands what is happening remarks wryly, “So this is how the Republic ends. With applause.”
Proving that truth is stranger than fiction, this is happening right now in the United States of America. President Obama has already seized the power to rule by decree, and is doing so virtually every day now.
For those who do not immediately get what is meant by “rule by decree,” let me explain. The Constitution grants the power to legislate, to make laws, to the Congress, which is why it is called “the Legislative Branch.” It grants the power to carry out, or execute, the laws to the President, which is why the President and his Administration are called “the Executive Branch.” The Constitution accordingly specifies that the President’s duty is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It grants the power to interpret and adjudicate the law to the Judiciary, which is why that is called “the Judicial Branch.”
But President Obama does not accept the limitations of his role within this constitutional framework. He is now regularly exercising the power to legislate directly himself, either by announcing on his own supposed authority changes in existing laws that Congress has already passed, or by announcing that he will carry out entirely new laws that Congress never passed, or even refused to pass. These actions are brazen, lawless violations of the Constitution.
The President through his Executive Branch has the power to issue regulations interpreting the law as passed, for purposes of implementation. But all regulations must be authorized by an underlying law passed by Congress. Neither the President nor any agency underneath him in the entire Executive Branch can issue a regulation that contradicts or changes the law that is cited as authorizing it. In other words, if the law says 2014, the President has no authority to say screw it, I say 2015, by regulation or otherwise.
The same is true of Executive Orders. All Executive Orders must be based on authority granted to the President by some law passed by Congress, or by the Constitution itself.
The President does have the authority to refuse to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional. But he cannot refuse to enforce laws because he disagrees with them, or to gain political advantage, such as delaying implementation of a law until after the next election, attempting to deceive the American people as to what has been enacted until the next election passes. The Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Justice Department exists to advise the President as to his legal powers. And this is what legal opinions issued by that office have said.
3/28/2013
Such Touching Concern
Via-American Spectator
by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr
WASHINGTON — The American left cares so much for humanity that it even expends copious draughts of compassion toward us, toward you and me, toward suave, dégagé conservatives. The left’s members really fret over how elements of the “extreme right” are undermining the Republican Party, consigning it to oblivion.
The latest moral colossus to perform this exemplary task is Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, but there are many more from all the precincts of the left. This past weekend I even detected this concern for us from the pollster, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. Writing a piece on the future of the Republican Party, he expressed his concern that advocates of “staunch conservatism” have left the Republican Party “estranged from America.” If moderate Republicans do not smarten up and presumably rid the party of these “staunch conservatives,” the party will go so far to the right that it will be replicating the political suicide of Senator George McGovern and his McGovernite zealots back in 1972.
If you are old enough you may remember how in 1972 the left was apoplectic that McGovern was leading the Democratic Party out into the wilderness. You do not recall it that way? You have forgotten? It did not seem like that at the time? The left in 1972 was full of its usual brag and bounce that crazy George was on the right side of history, and victory was only months away. Is Mr. Kohut mistaken?
I think he is. Actually, this grave concern by the left over the projects of the “staunch conservatives” within the Republican Party is one vast sham. A similar concern by the left for the extremist tilt of the Democratic Party is never apparent, and the reason is obvious. The concern does not exist. Yet the Democratic Party over the years has, for a certitude, gone left, far left. Review the evidence. On issue after issue — from social policy to fiscal policy — the Democrats have moved leftward. With the help of their amanuenses in the media the left is never forced to talk about it, but it is a fact. With the leftward rush of the party proclaimed in the Prophet Obama’s State of the Union Address, it is the Democrats who are extreme. Their day of reckoning will come on November 4, 2014.
by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr
WASHINGTON — The American left cares so much for humanity that it even expends copious draughts of compassion toward us, toward you and me, toward suave, dégagé conservatives. The left’s members really fret over how elements of the “extreme right” are undermining the Republican Party, consigning it to oblivion.
The latest moral colossus to perform this exemplary task is Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, but there are many more from all the precincts of the left. This past weekend I even detected this concern for us from the pollster, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. Writing a piece on the future of the Republican Party, he expressed his concern that advocates of “staunch conservatism” have left the Republican Party “estranged from America.” If moderate Republicans do not smarten up and presumably rid the party of these “staunch conservatives,” the party will go so far to the right that it will be replicating the political suicide of Senator George McGovern and his McGovernite zealots back in 1972.
If you are old enough you may remember how in 1972 the left was apoplectic that McGovern was leading the Democratic Party out into the wilderness. You do not recall it that way? You have forgotten? It did not seem like that at the time? The left in 1972 was full of its usual brag and bounce that crazy George was on the right side of history, and victory was only months away. Is Mr. Kohut mistaken?
I think he is. Actually, this grave concern by the left over the projects of the “staunch conservatives” within the Republican Party is one vast sham. A similar concern by the left for the extremist tilt of the Democratic Party is never apparent, and the reason is obvious. The concern does not exist. Yet the Democratic Party over the years has, for a certitude, gone left, far left. Review the evidence. On issue after issue — from social policy to fiscal policy — the Democrats have moved leftward. With the help of their amanuenses in the media the left is never forced to talk about it, but it is a fact. With the leftward rush of the party proclaimed in the Prophet Obama’s State of the Union Address, it is the Democrats who are extreme. Their day of reckoning will come on November 4, 2014.
3/22/2013
White House Misfire
Via-Washington Free Beacon
Column: How Democratic divisions frustrate liberal dreams
BY: Matthew Continetti
Harry Reid, welcome to the black helicopter crowd.
“When you go to registration, it raises all the black helicopter crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go to the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they’ll cite Nazi Germany and all that,” Biden told NPR Wednesday.
Paraphrase: Opposition to President Barack Obama’s gun agenda automatically makes you a conspiracy nut.
But if that’s true, a lot of Democrats must be receiving messages via their dental fillings. The day before Biden’s interview, Reid had made it clear that the gun bill he’d put to a vote on the Senate floor would not include an assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban would rather have to be submitted as an amendment, which is almost certain to fail. Same goes for the ban on high-capacity magazines. (Universal background checks would be included in the bill, however.)
The Senate likely will pass an assortment of quite meaningless gun restrictions that will disappoint liberals who had hoped the Obama White House and congressional Democrats would seize the post-Newtown moment.
And they did try to seize the moment. It’s just that they failed—not because of Republicans but because of internal divisions within the supposedly unstoppable Democratic Party.
Let us note that in Harry Reid’s Senate there are more votes against Chuck Hagel than there are in favor of an assault weapons ban. (Reid said the ban has at most 40 votes on the floor; 41 Republicans voted against Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense.) And let us note, too, that in this season of fake liberal concern for the divided and adrift GOP, Democrats aren’t exactly in tip-top shape, either.
Column: How Democratic divisions frustrate liberal dreams
BY: Matthew Continetti
Harry Reid, welcome to the black helicopter crowd.
“When you go to registration, it raises all the black helicopter crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go to the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they’ll cite Nazi Germany and all that,” Biden told NPR Wednesday.
Paraphrase: Opposition to President Barack Obama’s gun agenda automatically makes you a conspiracy nut.
But if that’s true, a lot of Democrats must be receiving messages via their dental fillings. The day before Biden’s interview, Reid had made it clear that the gun bill he’d put to a vote on the Senate floor would not include an assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban would rather have to be submitted as an amendment, which is almost certain to fail. Same goes for the ban on high-capacity magazines. (Universal background checks would be included in the bill, however.)
The Senate likely will pass an assortment of quite meaningless gun restrictions that will disappoint liberals who had hoped the Obama White House and congressional Democrats would seize the post-Newtown moment.
And they did try to seize the moment. It’s just that they failed—not because of Republicans but because of internal divisions within the supposedly unstoppable Democratic Party.
Let us note that in Harry Reid’s Senate there are more votes against Chuck Hagel than there are in favor of an assault weapons ban. (Reid said the ban has at most 40 votes on the floor; 41 Republicans voted against Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense.) And let us note, too, that in this season of fake liberal concern for the divided and adrift GOP, Democrats aren’t exactly in tip-top shape, either.
3/13/2013
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
Via-American Spectator
By J.T. Young
What it can’t control the left will call unfair and undemocratic.
The Left’s inherent challenge is justifying their claim to what others own. This challenge arises from the contradiction between the Left’s motivating ideology and the failure of its economic application. Understanding this inevitable contradiction and the necessity it creates enables us to understand everything else the Left think, say, and do.
Nowhere is the hypocrisy of accusing others of one’s own greatest fault clearer than with the Left. The accusation in question is materialism — the charge with which they seek to indict capitalism. Yet, it is the Left themselves who are utterly captivated and defined by material production.
If there is a political embodiment of the ethos of greed, it is not capitalism, but socialism, where everything is reduced to no more than a means to that society’s self-professed end: material production. While Marx explicitly made this the basis of everything — not only in socialist and communist societies, but all human history — it is no less the implicit motivator of the rest of the Left.
However it is perhaps history’s greatest irony that the Left consciously choose to eschew capitalism — history’s most efficient means of producing the material resources they require. The Left deny the equity of any distribution of resources that they do not control. Capitalism is therefore the most egregious violation of their sense of fairness, because it is premised on a lack of control — i.e., a free market.
As a result all Leftist systems are rooted in a profound and insoluble contradiction: an ideology of producing a materially superior society that is doomed in practice to be a materially inferior one.
By J.T. Young
What it can’t control the left will call unfair and undemocratic.
The Left’s inherent challenge is justifying their claim to what others own. This challenge arises from the contradiction between the Left’s motivating ideology and the failure of its economic application. Understanding this inevitable contradiction and the necessity it creates enables us to understand everything else the Left think, say, and do.
Nowhere is the hypocrisy of accusing others of one’s own greatest fault clearer than with the Left. The accusation in question is materialism — the charge with which they seek to indict capitalism. Yet, it is the Left themselves who are utterly captivated and defined by material production.
If there is a political embodiment of the ethos of greed, it is not capitalism, but socialism, where everything is reduced to no more than a means to that society’s self-professed end: material production. While Marx explicitly made this the basis of everything — not only in socialist and communist societies, but all human history — it is no less the implicit motivator of the rest of the Left.
However it is perhaps history’s greatest irony that the Left consciously choose to eschew capitalism — history’s most efficient means of producing the material resources they require. The Left deny the equity of any distribution of resources that they do not control. Capitalism is therefore the most egregious violation of their sense of fairness, because it is premised on a lack of control — i.e., a free market.
As a result all Leftist systems are rooted in a profound and insoluble contradiction: an ideology of producing a materially superior society that is doomed in practice to be a materially inferior one.
3/12/2013
Debt Has Soared by $5.5T Since Last Senate Budget
Via-IBD
By John Merline
By John Merline
If you want a sense of just how massive the nation's debt problem is, consider this: The U.S. added $226 billion in new debt in just the 35 days since President Obama missed the legal deadline to submit his budget.
That's more than the government will spend this year on education, homeland security, law enforcement, housing aid, energy and the environment, combined.
A 1921 law requires the president to submit his budget plan to Congress on the first Monday in February, but Obama so far hasn't produced one, and the White House says it won't release its plan to get the nation's deficits and debt under control until sometime in April.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, haven't produced an annual budget — also required by law — since 2009. Over that time, the nation's debt has climbed $5.5 trillion, according to the Treasury Department.
Senate Budget Committee Democrats are now promising to introduce a budget plan this week.
April Fools?
2/12/2013
The Democratic Disgrace
Via-Front Page Magazine
By Daniel Greenfield
Every job has a minimum requirement. The absolute very least that anyone can do without being considered a complete and utter failure.
The minimum requirement for a Commander-in-Chief is to stick around when an American diplomatic mission is under fire. Obama flunked even this minimal requirement by going to sleep and then flying off for a fundraiser in Vegas.
The minimum requirement for a Secretary of State is to at least pretend to care why such an attack took place. Hillary Clinton failed that minimum requirement by declaring that it didn’t matter why the attack happened.
The minimum requirement for a Vice President is to avoid becoming a national embarrassment. Biden has failed miserably at that.
The minimum requirement for the country’s leading environmentalist is to refrain from selling a television news network created to promote an environmental message to one of the world’s leading petro-tyrannies. And Al Gore failed there.
Obama, Clinton, Biden and Gore couldn’t even meet the lowest possible standard for their positions, but that’s not a problem in a Democratic Party that no longer has any standards.
read entire article
By Daniel Greenfield
Every job has a minimum requirement. The absolute very least that anyone can do without being considered a complete and utter failure.
The minimum requirement for a Commander-in-Chief is to stick around when an American diplomatic mission is under fire. Obama flunked even this minimal requirement by going to sleep and then flying off for a fundraiser in Vegas.
The minimum requirement for a Secretary of State is to at least pretend to care why such an attack took place. Hillary Clinton failed that minimum requirement by declaring that it didn’t matter why the attack happened.
The minimum requirement for a Vice President is to avoid becoming a national embarrassment. Biden has failed miserably at that.
The minimum requirement for the country’s leading environmentalist is to refrain from selling a television news network created to promote an environmental message to one of the world’s leading petro-tyrannies. And Al Gore failed there.
Obama, Clinton, Biden and Gore couldn’t even meet the lowest possible standard for their positions, but that’s not a problem in a Democratic Party that no longer has any standards.
read entire article
12/24/2012
The Madness of Keynesian Economics
Via-American Thinker
By Jonathon Moseley
President Barack Obama demands more stimulus spending to avoid the "fiscal cliff." Obama increased the national debt $6 trillion to $16 trillion. Yet the Democrats' 'cure for what ails ya' is even more spending. Obama demands around $75 billion in new spending to stimulate the economy in 2013.
"Keynesian Economics" is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending. It provides the excuse to depart from common sense that allows politicians to ignore the alarm bells. It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn't have any money to spend.
If the government had a surplus saved up, spending actual money might give our economy a short-term sugar high (with dubious long-term results). But our Federal and state governments must first suck money out of the economy by borrowing it.
History has repeatedly proven that this is nonsense. Yet Democrats will not let go of the Keynesian Myth. The government is the center of society, America's modern Democrats want to believe. So they cannot shake the dogma that our entire economy depends upon government spending.
Read entire article
By Jonathon Moseley
President Barack Obama demands more stimulus spending to avoid the "fiscal cliff." Obama increased the national debt $6 trillion to $16 trillion. Yet the Democrats' 'cure for what ails ya' is even more spending. Obama demands around $75 billion in new spending to stimulate the economy in 2013.
"Keynesian Economics" is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending. It provides the excuse to depart from common sense that allows politicians to ignore the alarm bells. It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn't have any money to spend.
If the government had a surplus saved up, spending actual money might give our economy a short-term sugar high (with dubious long-term results). But our Federal and state governments must first suck money out of the economy by borrowing it.
History has repeatedly proven that this is nonsense. Yet Democrats will not let go of the Keynesian Myth. The government is the center of society, America's modern Democrats want to believe. So they cannot shake the dogma that our entire economy depends upon government spending.
Read entire article
12/05/2012
The Blue-State Suicide Pact
Via-Forbes
Joel Kotkin
With their enthusiastic backing of President Obama and the Democratic Party on Election Day, the bluest parts of America may have embraced a program utterly at odds with their economic self-interest. The almost uniform support of blue states’ congressional representatives for the administration’s campaign for tax “fairness” represents a kind of bizarre economic suicide pact.
Any move to raise taxes on the rich — defined as households making over $250,000 annually — strikes directly at the economies of these states, which depend heavily on the earnings of high-income professionals, entrepreneurs and technical workers. In fact, when you examine which states, and metropolitan areas, have the highest concentrations of such people, it turns out they are overwhelmingly located in the bluest states and regions.
Ironically the new taxes will have relatively little effect on the detested Romney uber-class, who derive most of their income from capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate. They also have access to all manner of offshore dodges. Nor will it have much impact on Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires, or the Hollywood moguls and urban land speculators who constitute the Democratic Party’s “good rich,” and enjoy many of the same privileges as their wealthy conservative counterparts.
Joel Kotkin
With their enthusiastic backing of President Obama and the Democratic Party on Election Day, the bluest parts of America may have embraced a program utterly at odds with their economic self-interest. The almost uniform support of blue states’ congressional representatives for the administration’s campaign for tax “fairness” represents a kind of bizarre economic suicide pact.
Any move to raise taxes on the rich — defined as households making over $250,000 annually — strikes directly at the economies of these states, which depend heavily on the earnings of high-income professionals, entrepreneurs and technical workers. In fact, when you examine which states, and metropolitan areas, have the highest concentrations of such people, it turns out they are overwhelmingly located in the bluest states and regions.
Ironically the new taxes will have relatively little effect on the detested Romney uber-class, who derive most of their income from capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate. They also have access to all manner of offshore dodges. Nor will it have much impact on Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires, or the Hollywood moguls and urban land speculators who constitute the Democratic Party’s “good rich,” and enjoy many of the same privileges as their wealthy conservative counterparts.
11/08/2012
The Big Tent in the Middle
Via-American Spectator
By GEORGE NEUMAYR
Dems win elections by rejecting the advice they give to Republicans.
Barack Obama's victory vindicates the "base" strategy of the Democrats. Obama never moved to the center, even as he cast his centrist opponent as an extremist. Obama didn't worry too much about winning conservative-leaning independents; he just made sure liberal Democrats got to the polls.
Democrats win elections by rejecting the "big tent" advice that they typically give to Republicans. While they mau-mau Republicans into "moving to the middle," they stand immobile on the left, maintaining fierce ideological purity and deploying wedge issues without apology. This unites their side and divides the opposition, producing contests of liberal conviction and character assassination versus GOP ambiguity and polite disagreement. They nominate candidates who accept without reservation the Democratic Party platform; Republicans struggle to find candidates willing to uphold theirs. Democrats call Republicans evil; Republicans call Democrats merely mistaken. And yet, haplessly, the Republicans are the ones who find themselves answering charges of extremism from the media.....
Read article here
By GEORGE NEUMAYR
Dems win elections by rejecting the advice they give to Republicans.
Barack Obama's victory vindicates the "base" strategy of the Democrats. Obama never moved to the center, even as he cast his centrist opponent as an extremist. Obama didn't worry too much about winning conservative-leaning independents; he just made sure liberal Democrats got to the polls.
Democrats win elections by rejecting the "big tent" advice that they typically give to Republicans. While they mau-mau Republicans into "moving to the middle," they stand immobile on the left, maintaining fierce ideological purity and deploying wedge issues without apology. This unites their side and divides the opposition, producing contests of liberal conviction and character assassination versus GOP ambiguity and polite disagreement. They nominate candidates who accept without reservation the Democratic Party platform; Republicans struggle to find candidates willing to uphold theirs. Democrats call Republicans evil; Republicans call Democrats merely mistaken. And yet, haplessly, the Republicans are the ones who find themselves answering charges of extremism from the media.....
Read article here
11/06/2012
The U.S. Election is a Referendum on Civilization
Via-American Thinker
By Daren Jonescu
That the election of November 6, 2012, has the potential to be a definitive moment in American history is now almost a truism. This conception may sound overblown to the ignorant and disengaged, but in fact it is a great understatement. As America is the only nation left in which freedom is still on the ballot, this definitive U.S. election means even more, in truth, than most voters may realize. It is a referendum on the survival of modern civilization.
A recent blog post at the Weekly Standard displays the results of a BBC election poll taken in various countries around the world. The results demonstrate that if the rest of the world were allowed to vote, Barack Obama would win in a Saddam-like landslide.
Throughout what is left of the civilized world, Obama's superiority to Mitt Romney, and in general Democrats' superiority to Republicans, is the default assumption, regarded as beyond question. One who objects to that opinion has a lot of explaining to do. And one who dares to admit thinking the United States of America a very agreeable proposition is regarded as either an infidel or a dope.
These two presuppositions -- that the Democrats are the good guys, and that America is essentially a bad thing -- should always be understood as a pair. Together, they reveal exactly what the modern Democratic Party and the American media have spent decades trying to hide from their fellow citizens -- namely, that to prefer the Democrats is to dislike America.
By Daren Jonescu
That the election of November 6, 2012, has the potential to be a definitive moment in American history is now almost a truism. This conception may sound overblown to the ignorant and disengaged, but in fact it is a great understatement. As America is the only nation left in which freedom is still on the ballot, this definitive U.S. election means even more, in truth, than most voters may realize. It is a referendum on the survival of modern civilization.
A recent blog post at the Weekly Standard displays the results of a BBC election poll taken in various countries around the world. The results demonstrate that if the rest of the world were allowed to vote, Barack Obama would win in a Saddam-like landslide.
Throughout what is left of the civilized world, Obama's superiority to Mitt Romney, and in general Democrats' superiority to Republicans, is the default assumption, regarded as beyond question. One who objects to that opinion has a lot of explaining to do. And one who dares to admit thinking the United States of America a very agreeable proposition is regarded as either an infidel or a dope.
These two presuppositions -- that the Democrats are the good guys, and that America is essentially a bad thing -- should always be understood as a pair. Together, they reveal exactly what the modern Democratic Party and the American media have spent decades trying to hide from their fellow citizens -- namely, that to prefer the Democrats is to dislike America.
10/25/2012
Back When Democrats Knew Economics
Via-American Spectator
By Ralph R. Reiland
Who warned that "increasing federal expenditures" would "demoralize both the government and our economy"?
Eleven months before he was assassinated as he rode with his wife in the back seat of an open convertible in a motorcade through downtown Dallas, President John F. Kennedy delivered a major address to the Economic Club of New York at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on December 14, 1962.
By Ralph R. Reiland
Who warned that "increasing federal expenditures" would "demoralize both the government and our economy"?
Eleven months before he was assassinated as he rode with his wife in the back seat of an open convertible in a motorcade through downtown Dallas, President John F. Kennedy delivered a major address to the Economic Club of New York at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on December 14, 1962.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)