24 posts tagged “conservatives”
I was a bit miffed with Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s support of RINO Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party Doug Hoffman in the New York State House race in District 23. Gingrich attempted to salvage his stand for Party loyalty over Conservative loyalty when Scozzafava dropped out. At that time Gingrich endorsed Hoffman.
Apart of all the Republican Party at all costs mentality, Gingrich has written an awesome Veteran’s Day message. Gingrich praises civilian police officer Sgt. Kimberly Munley for not waiting for back-up taking down fifth column Muslim terrorist Major Nidal Hasan after being wounded.
Newt proceeds to praise other incidence of American heroism stretching from the fall of the Berlin Wall to roughly 1776.
It is this phrase that I found to ring sadly true with the present American government:
“Hero” is not a word we use a lot these days. We have a media dedicated to destroying, not showcasing, greatness. We have popular culture determined to celebrate victimhood rather than heroism. And we have a regime in Washington that seems more at home with international autocrats and dictators than America and its heroes.
But the inescapable fact of America is this: Ours is a country founded and defended, not by conciliation and sophisticated diplomatic gestures, but by honor, bravery and sacrifice.
Our heroes are not incidental to our nationhood but an essential part of it. Why? Because America is not, contrary to what our President believes, merely a nation among nations. We are, on our best days, closer to what Ronald Reagan believed: A shining city on a hill.
“A shining city on a hill” is an honorable way to view America rather than as a nation at fault for all the world’s woes in the 20th and 21st century. Do you not think so as well?
JRH 11/11/09
A lot of Conservative Political Action Committees (PAC) not affiliated with a political candidate love to take credit for their part in a candidate’s victory. When a candidate loses either try to spin their part as a success or are silent.
I start out this way because a Conservative candidate that was attempting to buck the Two-Party System in America gave a good shot but lost in New York district 23. That candidate was Conservative Party nominee for the House of Representatives Doug Hoffman.
I learned the reason for Hoffman’s loss. It was not because Hoffman polled third behind Democrats and Republicans. He actually polled second at 45% to %49%. Leftist Democrat Bill Owens won by a mere 4%. The travesty for Hoffman’s loss is the Republican candidate battling Hoffman and Owens realizing she was not going to win dropped out of the race and endorsed the Leftist Democrat Owens. That RINO Republican was Dede Scozzafava.
One may ask, “Why is a Republican supporting a Democrat for Office in this time of growing voter mistrust of Democrats and Leftists?”
Scozzafava was truly a Republican in Name Only. She supported the Democratic Party Leftist platform which included Pelosi favoritism for abortion and social transformation rendering the U.S. Constitution irrelevant. This is the very same thing President Barack Hussein Obama represents as well.
Hoffman has a remarkable amount of reputable Republicans endorse him over the Leftist Scozzafava. This I found a blessing for the Conservative base that is reemerging as the voice of Americans. I was a bit disheartened to hear that Republicans such as Newt Gingrich supported Scozzafava for no other reason than Republican Party loyalty. Newt should have realized that blind Party loyalty will not make significant wins as former Presidential candidate Senator John McCain proved. Senator McCain was a RINO that really had only a couple of attractions for a Conservative Republican; viz. his rough reputation as a maverick and his Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. McCain banked on his maverick image of making his own decisions regardless of Conservatism or Leftism. McCain should have been wise enough to utilize Palin better bark at Obama’s Leftist credentials and past associations. This is especially so since the Obama campaign utilized the MSM to castigate Palin’s image with down right made up Leftist lies.
Thus goes Party loyalty! Down the proverbial drain!
If the Republican Party used the opportunity to get a Hoffman win with GOP financial resources, Hoffman would have definitely won that race. Sure Hoffman is NOT a Republican but does anyone believe he would caucus with Leftist Democrats? This was a non-Republican Conservative who would not support the Pelosi way as Scozzafava would have. You have to know that Owens is merely a rubber stamp for the Obama/Pelosi Leftist agenda for America.
I am on the Club for Growth mailing list. Club for Growth as any good PAC group would have gave a spin self-gratifying personal spin on Hoffman’s loss. Regardless of Chris Chocola of Club for Growth’s personal spin, the point made of why Doug Hoffman should have won is very relevant for future Conservative and Republican politics of the near future.
Here is the email Chocola sent to me:
JRH 11/6/09
************************
Hoffman Comes Up Short in NY-23
Chris Chocola
Sent: November 4, 2009 12:03:50 PM
Club For Growth
As you have probably heard by now, Club for Growth PAC-endorsed candidate Doug Hoffman lost his underdog bid in yesterday's special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. Nominee of the Conservative Party of New York, and the first third-party candidate the Club PAC has ever supported, Doug finished with 45 percent of the vote, but fell short to Democrat Bill Owens' 49 percent. The official Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, took 5.5 percent of the vote and played the spoiler after dropping out of the race and endorsing the liberal Democrat in the final days of the campaign.
Doug's loss is a disappointment, but our efforts shined a national spotlight on the campaign and sent an important message to Washington insiders. The day the Club for Growth PAC entered the race, Doug was polling at 17 percent - with our help, he gained 28 points in just 36 days, and came very close to pulling off an historic upset against both major parties. It's now clear that had the Republican Party supported Doug or any serious conservative from the beginning, he would have won going away.
Party labels aside, conservatives lost nothing last night, as Scozzafava and Owens are both avowed liberals in support of Nancy Pelosi's agenda in the House of Representatives. Doug Hoffman was our only chance to bring real change to Washington, and in little more than a month, we almost helped him pull it off.
As attention turns now to the 2010 election cycle, there are a few lessons to be learned from last night's results. First, the Club's PAC reaffirmed its unique ability to identify and promote economic-freedom candidates early on and to draw conservatives around the country to their cause. Second, the Republican establishment learned that in these difficult times, voters - especially center-right voters - are drawn to principles, not parties. And most importantly, conservatives learned that the principles of limited government and economic freedom are ascendant heading into next year's elections, and that the Club for Growth PAC stands ready to fight effectively for those principles wherever we can do the most good.
Thank you for all you did in the historic NY-23 race. I say "historic" not because we won this battle - we didn't - but because I have a good feeling that this battle will set a tone for and pay dividends in the coming battles against national health care, for limited government, and to mobilize grassroots free-market citizens to rise up in other election contests in 2010.
Best Regards,
Chris
_____________________
Hoffman Lost BUT Should Have Won
John R. Houk
© November 6, 2009
_____________________
Hoffman Comes Up Short in NY-23
Chris Chocola
President, Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Ste 600
Washington, DC 20036
PH: 202-955-5500
Government mandated disclaimers --
Donations to the Club for Growth are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. We do not accept donations from corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.
Yesterday I read a Liberty Council authored Christian Newswire article that validated Conservatism, Christian Family Values as well as Biblical moral values. The article basically was a ‘smack the red headed step-children’ of Leftism and the homosexual agenda in its hubris over President Barack Hussein Obama and the Leftist Dems “Change” mantra of the 2008 election.
In summary here is the summary of the Conservative/Family Value victory:
n Virginia voted in a Conservative Republican Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General while contrastingly showing the Virginia Dems the door.
n Incumbent Leftist Dem Governor John Corzine was defeated by Republican Chris Christie even though the Leftist darling President BHO campaigned for him and the MSM polls showed Corzine leading in the polls.
n In May 2009 the lawmakers of Maine produced a bill signed by the Governor legalizing same-sex marriage. On November 4, 2009 Maine voters chose Biblical Morality over lawmaker Secular Humanism by repealing the legislation. Leftists and homosexual ideologues made sure via the comment route to inform a State legalized same-sex marriage by law rather than judicial fiat.
To my joy I discovered slanted right political wit Ann Coulter wrote an article demonstrating the Conservative cause is alive and well. My fellow Conservatives read it for some mirth. Counter-culture Leftists and homosexuals read it and weep.
JRH 11/5/09
Here are Parts 1 and 2 to Mark Alexander’s essay on The Rule of Law. The essays are an indictment on the Left turning the U.S. Constitution into a “living” document rather than a framework for the Rule of Law in America.
JRH 9/14/09
Senator Ted Kennedy passed away on Tuesday August 25, 2009. I read some of the praise remarks of the late Senator. The one I remember best is the “Lion of the Senate.” I think a more apt description for Senator Kennedy is the “Lion of the Left.”
I have also read some of the comments by some of my fellow Conservatives which can be summed up in the invective goodbye of “Good Riddance.” Amazingly some more vile words were used as well.
I was no fan or friend of Ted Kennedy; nonetheless my fellow Conservatives who detest Leftist ideology you should respect a man who spent much of his adult life serving the United States as an elected Senator from Massachusetts.
I was about seven years old when President JFK was assassinated. I was about twelve years old when Senator RFK was assassinated. My lower working class family was staunch Democrats believing that President FDR saved America and American people from jobless poverty of The Depression. It did not matter if there were moral or political differences with Democrats. All that mattered was Joe Working American had work and thus food to put on the table.
I would even venture to say that my family could give a hoot about politics in general. The man that enabled Americans to work and take care of his family was a Democrat; ergo every President my family voted for was a Democrat. Mom would not talk about it but I bet she even voted for McGovern.
What I am getting at is that it was engrained into me the Kennedys were Democrats and hence of the line of the saviors of the American worker. Because of this familial attitude, an emerging affinity to politics in general and my impressionable youth; I too was a bastion of the Democrat Left with a huge appreciation of (neoconservative) Democratic Party Hawks like Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson. My admiration of Jackson was to be the evidence of my current Republican Neocon slant in politics.
Nonetheless, from ages twelve (1968) through nineteen (1976 and Carter) I was an altruistic ideologue Leftist.
Then the first President I was eligible to vote for – Jimmy Carter – turned out to be an indecisive idiot. How in the world could a Democrat President manage the American economy into despair and allow America to have the air of a decrepit paper tiger abroad?
The 1980 election campaign approached. And as if Sir Lancelot came on his horse to save the honor of the Democratic Party, Senator Ted Kennedy decided to challenge the incompetent incumbent President Carter. Man as a young Leftist I was drooling. Unfortunately my fellow Democrats did not overwhelmingly share my Kennedy adoration.
Before Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy the opinion polls placed huge favor on Kennedy above the incumbent Carter. Unfortunately as the campaign came into full swing, Carterites were able to use trust issues because of the Chappaquiddick scandal that Senator Kennedy was involved in on July 18, 1969.
Was Ted drunk? Was married Roman Catholic Ted having an affair with Mary Jo Kopechne? Was there a sex act being performed before Ted ran the car into the river? Why did Ted abandon Kopechne in the submerged car swimming to safety and not call for help? Why did Ted wait until the next day to report he was the driver?
All these questions were never answered adequately probably due to big money, political familial patronage and political power in general. Kennedy’s demise to dethroning the incumbent Carter was a “Can you trust this guy?”
And so my last Democratic Party Lancelot bit the Presidential dust.
I was a confused Leftist with the choice between President Carter and Ronald Reagan. Considering my indoctrination and the Reagan Cold War rhetoric he often spoke, I thought a vote for Reagan was a vote to push buttons and launch the nuclear arsenal.
So I voted Libertarian in 1980. Thank GOD President Reagan won the day! I evolved into a Conservative.
If Senator Ted Kennedy had pulled the upset and defeated incumbent President Carter for the Democratic nomination, would I have stayed the Leftist path? As much as I despise Leftist ideology today, I cannot fathom when or if I would have become a Conservative with a President Edward Kennedy.
JRH 8/26/09
Democrats falsely accuse the GOP of sending Americans to disrupt the President Barack Hussein Obama and/or Democrat townhall meetings. The reality is concerned Americans want to be heard. The further reality is when false accusations from Democrats fail to incite shame; the Left goes to the next step; i.e. to sending goons to beat up concerned Americans.
Bill Adams writing for the American Thinker gives us an Alaskan view of Sarah Palin departing as Governor of Alaska. Adams touches on the Left Wing MSM’s horrendous mercilessly attacking Palin and family not on ideas but rather on her belief system. There actually are not that many ideas to attack for Palin was a success as administrator of the State of Alaska.
Then Adams touches on how Democrats in Alaska filed ludicrous after ludicrous ethics violations within the State Congress. Nearly of have ethics violations have been dismissed that have made it to an examination. The outcome of the Leftist strategy was to bury Sarah Palin in legal bills that became a distraction as the executive administrator of Alaska.
Adams moves on to touch on possible personal options for Palin. There is also a discussion of an actual impact Palin can have on the Conservative movement in America especially in light of the Obamasiah.
JRH 7/15/09
Many Republicans and definitely the Left are not supporters of Sarah Palin. I am. She represents the best hope for social conservatism to offset the Obama Agenda to transform America into a Secular Humanist nation devoid of its Christian heritage.
Here is an essay I agree with that is pro-Palin:
JRH 7/6/09
Below are a couple of comments left by Ellie (of Vox social network) concerning one of my many cross posts: “The Immorality of Homosexuality.”
Thank you for the link, I will have a look.
With all due respect, the parades are not proof of anything. It makes me sad (and a bit crazy, to be honest with you) that we liberals and secularists are painted as perverts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I, like many liberals, am pro-military, and pro-authority.
It makes me sick to see thongs in public. I don't want to see people's private parts - whether someone's gay or straight. But gays don't have a monopoly on perversion - not at all. It's the bad stereotype of gay parades that makes all sorts feel free to act like they're porn stars. My gay friends hate it even more than I do. They are perfectly proper citizens.
I'm not touching the Bible - I have no interest in reinterpreting it. I respect other's wishes, I just wish you guys would speak to us liberals before you judge us.
…
Way2K, are you kidding me? Craigslist? That is not a scientifc study.
The article says, "One study says this...and one study says that....". They are not mentioning what studies they refer to. That must be convenient to say the study is out there in the ether but to not actually reference which study it is.
Here is an example of a scientific study:
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men
And to explain why such published studies are important references, here is my favorite scientist discussing evolution vs creationism.
Thank you for listening to me rant, I can't think of a better thing than for our polarized citizens to talk to one another.
So because a person finds some statistics and posts them to a Craig's List link, the statistics are invalid? Hmm...
Besides it was only a cursory Google search that I found this link. I did not realize you were going to use the statistics as a scientific reference. Probably Googling those statistics will lead to the origination.
I do appreciate genial dialogue as opposed to the epithets that I receive for my stand with Christian morality.
Incidentally, contrary to probably most of my fellow Conservatives (and probably a significant portion of my fellow Christian Right brethren) I am not closed minded about many Slanted Left concepts. However, I do filter everything through the Bible as it is viewed via Charismatic, Pentecostal and Word of Faith views. I am also aware that many Christians both toward the Left (i.e. more relativist than Biblical) and toward the Right (intolerant Protestant traditional view points often equated with fundamentalism) would consider me archaic (Left) or heretical (Right). Nonetheless, the Bible is everything for me.
In saying that I have to say there is a good argument for both Socialism and Capitalism in the New Testament:
· Socialism – Acts 2:40-47.
· Capitalism – Matthew 13:44-52; 25:14-29.
I personally could find more of the Scripture supporting Capitalism than Socialism but the point is both concepts are in the New Testament. I also realize that theologians would not view these Scriptures in economic terms; rather the Biblical scholar or student would find the spiritual Truth that is the direct meaning. Nonetheless, the spiritual Truth may be the point; however the principle can be surmised.
There is evil in Socialism. When all the altruistic good of the collective is looked at through who decides what is the greater good for the collective, then abuse begins to occur. Hence Socialism too often leads to godless authoritarian Communism in which the one human (or ruling human group) decides the good for the many.
There is evil in Capitalism. When the individual (or the influential group of wealth) places greedy gain to the detriment of the mass of individuals then people are exploited for the benefit of a few.
The key for either the Socialist Left or the Capitalist Right to be beneficial for humanity is the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Or love humanity as God loved humanity enough to give His one and only Son, that all humanity may have the God-Kind (Zoe) life. I am ashamed to say too many Christians fall short of the Christian ideal which does include me. I do have a tendency to get steamed over social issues like homosexuality and abortion because they definitely are not in line with the Bible. I become so steamed that I sometimes fall into the ditch of harshness.
So Ellie the biggest problem I have with the Left and alternate lifestyles is the anti-Biblical Christian path they tend to take.
Ellie now I will try the “scientific” data to which you refer.
The link to the research of Dr. Simon LeVay is fascinating stuff. LeVay’s hypothalamic studies have led to the speculation of a “gay gene.” LeVay’s thinking seems to be if there is a “gay gene” than the lifestyle of homosexuality is a normal biological part of human life.
It is the old “genetics versus environment” argument with those believing homosexuality developing due to one’s social environment is a learned lifestyle and thus reversible and not normal.
As you can expect the “science” that is in the tank to validate homosexuality has been initially excited about LeVay’s research. And those scientists (although a minority) who are Christian or social traditionalists seem to be big on proving the environmental hypothesis.
When it has looked like LeVay and/or other like minded scientists was very close to identifying a “gay gene” the social traditionalists are quick to point out it has not been proven. (SA this narth.com article) Then someone woke up among the homosexual activists. If homosexual friendly LeVay indeed discovers a “gay gene” proving biology over environment, then heterosexual parents might take advantage with a little genetic social engineering to remove any possibility of a “gay gene” to exist via abortion or other methods. This would effectively bring the modern termination of homosexuals as their so-called genetic brethren (and sistren) would slowly decrease.
Of course the American Psychiatric Association admits there is no “gay gene”. Many on the Right believe this APA reversal was due to regain a better reputation of objectivity. I believe the APA reversal was due to the headaches that genetic engineering would cause for the homosexual community.
Let me end by saying that I do appreciate dialogue without profanity. My experience is that my intransient stand with the Bible irritates the Slanted Left, homosexual activists, the pro-choice crowd and other such ideologies. That is okay as long as the Left understands that their views are often offensive to me. But hey, we all live in America. We all have Constitutional Rights of Free Speech as long as it does not cause immediate harm (e.g. falsely yelling fire in crowded area).
Thanks for your time Ellie.
I have been haphazardly following an issue that the Mainstream Media (MSM) has amazingly NEVER sought the details about. That issue is the authenticity of President Barack Hussein Obama’s status of eligibility to the Office of President of the United States of America. (One of SlantRight’s last posts on this issue is here.)
I say “haphazardly” because even if BHO mans up about his original Birth Certificate about the location of his actual birth, the Constitution is vague enough to allow Congress to define certain elements of what is considered a Natural Born American citizen.
If Barack Hussein Obama was actually born in Kenya as many Conservative conspiracy hunters believe, then all the Democrat Party controlled Congress has to do is change the rules to fit the vagueness of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is one speculative scenario: There is absolutely no argument that BHO’s mother is a Natural Born American citizen. All Congress has to do with a simple majority is define a Natural Born citizen as one who has at least one parent Naturally Born on the soil of the United States of America no matter the location of the child.
Shazzam! The location of President Barack Hussein Obama’s birth becomes irrelevant.
The reality is Congress has been updating the definition of a Natural Born citizen for years.
Congressional Authority:
In the absence of a judicial interpretation of Constitutional language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. A federal court would likely give great deference to Congress’ interpretation. The Congress also has broad authority regarding issues of citizenship. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants authority to Congress to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Several federal judicial decisions recognize Congress’ plenary powers regarding issues pertaining to citizenship that do not specifically fit under the Fourteenth Amendment. Notably Rogers v. Bellei (401 US 815) and US v. Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649) say that Congress has the power to regulate matters pertaining to citizenship not specifically defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In addition, Congress has previously used their naturalization power to define the term “natural born” as used in a statute. In the Naturalization Act of 1790 Congress defined “natural born” to include children born abroad to citizen parents. Although the language was not kept in later naturalization laws, that specific language was not challenged. (Natural Born Citizen Act Summary - http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc. From Joint Council on International Children’s Services)
So President Barack Hussein Obama has the absolute protection from his political party (Senator Arlen Specter makes it easy to quash any debate in the Senate). Why does he still fear the release of his original birth certificate?
In the realm of pure speculation the fear could be related to BHO being born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. Although the legal hoops can be leaped through by Obamasiah, his credibility to manage the executive branch based on the so-called mantra of “Change” would be damaging. I believe it would be so damaging that the 2010 election would swing power back to the Republicans in Congress thereby erasing any prospect on President Obama’s Left Wing agenda. With a public outrage being realized by voters that would understand they were hornswoggled by Obama, the Democrats and the Leftist MSM there would be legitimate calls for investigation of the Slanted Right have been up in arms about Obama ever since they realized the old enemy Hillary Clinton was not to be the target.
Just as a side bar of disclosure I am well aware that there are many of my fellow Conservatives who have now been labeled “Birthers” will dispute the power of Congress to make laws defining the specifics of a Natural Born Citizen. And the Birthers may even have a case for that; however good luck and pressing that through Left admiring activist judges.
Here is one example of the belief Congress does not have the authority to define a Natural Born Citizen.
With the Birthers in mind, read this pitch from the United States Justice Foundation to keep the battle going to expose the illegitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency. To read the USJF ad battling to expose BHO’s birth status, go to the end of this post at SlantRight.com.
JRH 4/4/09
