Archive for the ‘Things I Agree with in the Political Arena’ Category

How to Know You are a Good Liberal

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on January 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Author unknown

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or North Korea . 
4. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.
5.You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
6. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
7. You have to believe that a teacher who isn’t qualified to teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach them about sex. 
8. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
9. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
10. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
11. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Edison.
12. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
13. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge. 
14. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected but seasonal decorations put up by a city should be illegal.
15. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy: GOD BLESS AMERICA !


Marxist tsunami won’t douse liberty

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on November 10, 2008 at 1:16 am

By: Henry Lamb

It is not just a victory for the Democrats; it is a Marxist tsunami. The principles that have guided President-elect Obama to this point are deeply rooted in Marxist philosophy. He is now in the position to infuse government with this philosophy through his appointments and legislative agenda. Democrats Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frank and others with recognizable names are only the face of what’s in store. Behind this face is a force teaming with the power to obliterate the U.S. Constitution and the machinery of self-governance it created.

The God to whom our founders prayed for guidance has been thrown overboard by the modern Democrat Party. For at least a generation, Karl Marx has provided both inspiration and guidance to the people who are now in control of America. Republicans have not just been out-maneuvered and out-campaigned; some Republicans have been willing participants, joining the Democrats in the worship of Marxist ideals.

This Democrat tsunami is not only a defeat of Republicans; it is a defeat of freedom.

Freedom, as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, cannot exist when government ignores the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution. Government, led by both Democrats and Republicans, started ignoring these limitations long ago and has now grown into a people-management machine that would make Karl Marx proud.

This transformation has been possible only because the people have allowed it. Now, a majority of people expect it, and even demand it. When this tsunami settles across the land, the federal government will truly be the people-management authority of the United States. And what’s worse, Democrats are likely to welcome the global central bank to be discussed at a global economic summit this month, which would transform the United States into an administrative unit of the global people-management authority – the United Nations.

Those people who have been called to carry the torch of freedom will not jump ship and move to another country, or throw in the towel and shrink into the shadows. Freedom lovers will survey the losses, inventory the resources, build a new strategy – and go to work.

The losses are not limited to the White House and Congress. Freedom has been defeated in the schoolhouse, as well as in the courthouse. To be successful, a new strategy must recognize this reality and design ways to retake these foundational institutions.

Try as it may, the Marxist tsunami cannot extinguish the flame of freedom. Freedom lovers are not without resources. In every state and every community there are people who still believe in the principles of freedom set forth in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. These people, and their faith, are a powerful resource against which even the gates of hell cannot prevail.

It took the advocates of Marxist theory several generations to convince people that government should manage all human affairs. It will take time for the advocates of freedom to convince a new generation that individual freedom spawns free enterprise that produces prosperity and a far better way to live than can be realized under a Marxist people-management regime.

The Russian people welcomed the Marxist tsunami early in the 20th century. By the end of the century, they were crushed by it. Americans who refuse to recognize that the current ascendancy of the Democrats is a Marxist tsunami will be swept up and eventually crushed by it, whether they recognize it or not.

Those who are called to carry the torch of freedom into the 21st century will find one another and begin anew to free the nation from this latest threat of tyranny. Ironically, this new strategy will include many of the tactics used to build the Marxist tsunami. For example, community organizing is a tool widely used by those who teach and advance Marxist ideas. This tool works equally well for freedom lovers. Already, in communities across the country, small organizations are working to teach the principles of freedom and how they can be incorporated into local ordinances and state law. Already, there are organizations working to get the principles of freedom restored to the institutions of education and returned to the textbooks used at every grade level.

Those who are called to carry the torch of freedom will find these organizations, get involved and go to work. Success will come, and freedom will be restored only when everyone who enjoys the fruits of freedom shares the burden of defending it. The champions of this Marxist tsunami will dance and drink and celebrate their great victory, ignorant of the giant they have awakened.

From every corner of the country, regular Americans are feeling the call and rising to find fellow patriots who are not about to let freedom die. The pending tsunami may damage the pillars of liberty, but it cannot quench freedom’s torch. Together, in a thousand ways, in ten thousand communities, the flame of freedom raised by each individual will light the way and chart the course to reclaim the schoolhouse, the courthouse, the White House, Congress and the future.

Conservative Hippie>>>[Right on, Henry Lamb, right on! People, resist the coming regime! Resist!]

David Limbaugh: Conservatives, Don’t Be Hypnotized

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on November 7, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Let me first say that we conservatives should be gracious in defeat because it’s the right thing to do. That does not mean, however, that we should for one minute abandon the vigorous pursuit of our ideas. The left never does, and we cannot afford to.

We mustn’t be sucked in to demands for bipartisanship from those who wouldn’t practice it if their lives depended on it, lest we continue down the perilous path of unilaterally surrendering our ideas in the misguided hope that getting along is our highest aspiration.

Remember in 2001, after liberals had already bludgeoned President Bush for 36 days and accused him of stealing an election they’d tried to steal, when they demanded he show bipartisanship? That is, those who lost insisted that those who won reach out to them. They said Bush didn’t have a mandate and should voluntarily dilute his conservative policy proposals in the interest of getting along.

Conservative Hippie>>>[We can not afford to do this anymore!]

In that case, bipartisanship meant that conservatives should become more liberal on their own instead of the two factions fighting for their respective programs and letting the votes fall where they may.

Conservative Hippie>>>[No frikkin way!] 

Now the liberals have won, and again, they are calling for bipartisanship. But they’re not demanding from themselves, as the victors, the same standard they demanded of President Bush in 2000 or 2004. They aren’t counseling themselves to moderate their own positions to make them more palatable to congressional conservatives; they’re saying that congressional Republicans should move toward Obama in a spirit of “bipartisanship.” Heads I win; tails you lose.

Just to be clear, I — as a conservative — am not saying that Barack Obama should govern to the center for the sake of bipartisanship. He won. I assume he will try to pursue his agenda. I don’t happen to believe that policy harmony among elected officials is the be-all and end-all. Rather, each side should pursue its agenda, fairly and energetically.

In the first place, we know that liberals are always going to pursue their agenda with ferocious tenacity. Republican efforts to reach across the aisle result in pulling back bloody stubs. Ask President Bush and, the left’s formerly favorite Republican, John McCain.

Leftists in the Democratic Party and the media will vilify you as a right-wing extremist almost no matter how accommodating you are. At least one side in this eternal struggle knows it is in a war. And that side, while demanding bipartisanship from the other, is plotting to silence it, beginning with talk radio. We pooh-pooh that promise at our peril.

All this talk about bipartisanship is promoted either by well-meaning types who are ignorant of the system our Framers devised or by liberals who calculate they can shame us into rolling over for their planned radicalism.

Would you Pollyannaish peddlers of unity and bipartisanship please explain how collegial congressional cocktail parties are more important than advancing the best interests of the nation? Could you tell me under what moral principle you would advocate, say, conservative cooperation with liberal legislation during Obama’s “honeymoon” period that would further dismantle America’s capitalistic system or undermine our national security?

Right before the election, I wrote that Obama worries me because of his leftist ideas and the Saul Alinsky (Chicago-style, thuggish) tactics his campaign and its surrogates were using to secure the election. Now adding to my concern is all this talk about a new day in America and the need for bipartisanship, which is just an effort at soft intimidation and a strategy to shame the opposition from exercising its vigilance and acting as the opposition party. But even that would be far less troubling if there were fewer gullible people on our side.

Perhaps it’s Obama’s messianic aura and rhetorical generalities of harmonic convergence that blind “intellectuals” to his radicalism and deceive them into believing he’ll govern as a centrist. Maybe it’s his fluency and mellifluous voice that separate pro-life advocates such as Doug Kmiec from their critical faculties to the point they could argue that this poster child for Planned Parenthood was the more pro-life of the two presidential candidates. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editors must have taken a quick slug of the Kool-Aid before opining that Obama now faces “a much greater foe: Democrats on Capitol Hill,” who will try to pull this presumed pragmatist to the left.

Dream on, boys. They’ll be headed west together as fast as their partisan legs can carry them. And we better be ready for them, believing our own instincts and powers of observation rather than relying on the lying eyes of our elites and the false assurances of our political opponents who will tell us that left means center and wrong means right.

What is it about Obama’s leftist past and record as the most liberal senator that so many intelligent people do not understand?

Conservative Hippie>>>[This is war, people. The days of trying to appease our enemies in the liberal party are over. Did you hear that–OVER. We MUST stand our ground! We must NOT be bullied into intimidation anymore! We already know, they do not like us. So why o why do we have moderates and conservatives who are constantly trying to prove how nice they are? They want us out of the way so they can teach the world to sing, so they can sing the words Imagine there is no heaven, all living together as one, give peace a chance, we are the world. They do NOT care anything about our agenda! Do you not see it it! Open your eyes America! The time of reaching out to them is over! The time of trying to be liked by them is over! I said OVER! WAKE UP CONSERVATIVES! We STAND OUR GROUND NOW! We MUST take back any ground we have lost from being passive for the sake of peace! We must take back any ground we have lost from trying to show them we are such nice people! It is over! They play dirty! It is time we rolled up our sleeves and say loudly, “NO! No more! We do not have to prove to you we are nice. We no longer are going to play nice nice with you. WE will NOT compromise our beliefs for the sake of your so-called peace anymore! We refuse to bow to policies we are in disagreement with! We are taking our country out of your hands! We need to put them on the defensive. Too long we have been on the defense. It is their turn NOW! We must become the offense side IF we want to keep this nation free!]

A Look at an Obama Presidency

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on November 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Must see video. Do not think this will not happen. It most certainly will.

Dictators Mock Obama’s Ignorance

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on November 1, 2008 at 10:16 am

Must see. This is EXACTLY what will take place if Obama the socialist is elected.

The Coming 1st Amendment Crackdown

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on October 30, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Conservative Hippie>>>[I agree with joseph Farah. The liberals hate “dissent.” They will want us all to line up like little clones all in the name of unity.]

Joseph Farah:

Who says you have to know something to serve in the U.S. Senate?and most of the Democrats in both houses want is simply to muzzle radio voices with whom they disagree. They don’t like the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press, and, despite its prohibitions against Congress making any law to infringe upon those unalienable rights, they’re going to do it any way next year. They can’t wait. They’re champing at the bit.

I can prove you don’t.

Exhibit A: Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.

Bingaman told Albuquerque radio station KKOB he would like to bring back the Fairness Doctrine: “I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].”

Now that’s dumb enough. It’s evil, too. What Bingaman and his totalitarian friends in Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

But Bingaman really exposed himself as a know-nothing with his next statement – patently and provably untrue.

He claimed that when the Fairness Doctrine was in place prior to 1987, there were “a lot of talk stations that seemed to do fine.”

“For many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country,” he said. “I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.”

This is a subject I know a little something about, having researched it for my book,

“Stop the Presses! The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution.” Here’s what I found. It’s stunning! decide? Or is the marketplace the best guide?can’t handle dissent. They know their detestable policies cannot win the day in the free and open marketplace of ideas. So what they do is what demagogues and would-be tyrants have always done – they use the coercive power of government to control debate.

In 1987, when President Ronald Reagan drove the wooden stake through the heart of unconstitutional monster known as the Fairness Doctrine, there were a total of 75 talk-radio shows in all of these United States. Bingaman claims there were many talk stations. He’s dreaming. There were no more than a handful of stations willing to risk airing controversial, stimulating and opinionated talk programs as we have come to know since.

Think about that! A total of 75 talk-radio programs across the entire breadth of the United States. Do you know how many there are today? More than 3,000. That’s a phenomenal 4,000 percent explosion. In fact, my friend Rush Limbaugh, who challenged Bingaman’s ill-informed nostalgia for the good old days of a muzzled media on his show last week, said there are more than 2,000 talk-radio stations offering, of course, countless points of view from the extreme left to the extreme right and everything in between.

What does that tell you?

Do you think we really had more fairness back then?

Or is real fairness and balance achieved with the explosion of voices we witnessed beginning in 1987?

Do you think we had a more lively political debate then or now?

And, most importantly, who should decide which views are aired on the public airwaves? Should government bureaucrats make those decisions? Should politicians

Know this: Idiots like Bingaman and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama

Why I’m not a Liberal by Dennis Prager

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on October 29, 2008 at 3:49 pm

By Dennis Prager

Article gotten from here:

The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.

Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.

I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.

I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.

I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. “Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested” is legalized thievery.

I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.

I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.

I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.

I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.

I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.

I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.

I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.

I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization — between the two sexes.

I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.

I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life — far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.

I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore — along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power — are immediately necessary.

I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.

I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.

I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity.

I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women’s happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.

I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns — if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.

I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.

I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.

I believe that America’s children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.

I believe that liberal educators’ removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.

I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.

I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country.

Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves “liberal” or “progressive” and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word “liberal.”

I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.

I’m Black and not voting for Obama

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on October 29, 2008 at 3:46 pm

In J. Lee Grady’s latest iteration of his Fire In My Bones Column, he has written  an article entitled, “Breaking Up (With Obama) Is Hard To Do”. The article highlights the ironic reverse discrimination that is taking place in the African-American community over those who break rank and choose not to vote for Obama simply because he is black.

Apparently skin color trumps morality, values, and even political idealogies and those among the community who choose to vote against Obama because of this are systematically being labled traitors, defectors and Uncle Toms.

Grady’s article is only one of many writings that are exposing the divisiveness of this campaign. In it, he relates how he was sharing the pulpit with a very popular African-American recording artist who he refused to name:

I’m not going to reveal the identity of this woman—not because she doesn’t want me to tell, but because outing her as a McCain supporter could close doors for her in the black church. Sadly, African-Americans who aren’t supporting Obama today are viewed as traitors.
I’ll say it, even if every one else is afraid too: It’s a very sad day when people will side with ethnicity and political agenda at the expense of denying Biblical Values. It’s not secret that while Mr. Obama vehemently claims to be a Christian, his values and beliefs assault those of the Christ he claims to serve.
Here are a few of the noteable quoteables from the article:
It’s not easy to go against the flow when it seems that the entire black community is marching in lockstep with the well-financed Obama machine. Aside from all the endorsements from Hollywood celebrities and European crowds, black church leaders have formed a huge mass choir of support as well: 
  • Texas megachurch pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell and conference speaker Juanita Bynum have endorsed Obama.
  • Gospel artists Donnie McClurkin, Hezekiah Walker, Byran Cage and Mary Mary have performed at Obama rallies.
  • Television preacher T.D. Jakes gave Obama a glowing acclamation the day after he claimed his party’s nomination.
  • Obama received a thunderous ovation when he appeared at the convention of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in June.
  • When his wife, Michelle, spoke to 7,000 delegates at the National Baptist Convention in Cincinnati in September, her 15-minute speech was interrupted constantly by cheers, chants and applause.
  • Last year Obama formed an impressive coalition of pastors and leaders who have mobilized support for him at the polls. The prestigious group includes civil rights icon Joseph T. Lowery; Dr. Cynthia Hale of Atlanta; Bishop Larry Trotter of Chicago; Bishop Cody Marshall of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) in Illinois; and the presidents of the two largest black Baptist denominations.
  • COGIC, the nation’s largest Pentecostal denomination, has not officially endorsed Obama, but the leader of its Pastors and Elders Council, Derrick Hutchins of Florida, told Charisma he supports Obama because he “understands the infirmities of the nation’s neediest communities.”
To all of this I simply pose the question: “What about Jesus and all of the things that He said a Christian should value?”
Grady goes on to detail other examples of reverse discrimination a little closer to home:
One black friend who works in my office said family members blasted her when they learned she wasn’t voting for Obama. Another black colleague said she gets icy comments from women at her hair salon when she expresses honest disagreements about Obama’s values.
I have a friend in Baltimore, an African-American pastor, who says black friends have chided him after he admitted he isn’t in Obama’s camp. “They tell me, ‘Why are you voting that way?’ or ‘You’re letting us all down.’ It’s a touchy subject.” He also knows pastors who will tell people to vote for Obama from the pulpit, yet they have never once preached against abortion.
As divisive as the 2008 campaign has become, it’s even more divisive in the black church. Many African-American churchgoers view voting for Obama as the black thing to do. It’s a given. They see an Obama victory in November as the grand culmination of the Civil Rights movement and, perhaps, as the end of racial intolerance in this country.
And here is perhaps the best quote from the article; it sums it up quite nicely:
My friend believes there is a spiritual problem at the bottom of this. “It’s a spirit that has to be broken,” he says. “People have allowed an allegiance to race to become more important than the gospel. That’s why we have to fast and pray before this election.”
Grady goes on to quote Kimberly Daniels of Spoken Word Ministries. Kimberly has a powerful message to the community; one that I hope gets heard and listened to. Kimberly says this:
Says Daniels: “Believe me, I would love to see a black brother in the White House—but not someone like Obama, who has embraced humanistic doctrines. Many white preachers are afraid to say this, and many black preachers won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.”
“Regardless of political opinions, the Bible makes it clear: Those who support the homosexual agenda and the murder of unborn babies will be judged.”
That statement is not popular, yet it is still the truth, nonetheless. She also made these statements:
Now that I am a born-again Christian, I do not consider my race to be my primary identity. I am a Christian first—before I am an African-American, a Democrat or a Republican. That’s why I am troubled that so many African-American Christians are voting for Barack Obama simply because he is black.
I also share her view, because it is the Biblical one. As a follower of Christ, I do my best to be a good citizen. However, my allegiance is to Christ and His Kingdom and I still consider myself an alien this world, as I’m on the way to my real home.
Black Christians today need to put their faith first when they step into the voting booth. Does Obama represent godly values?
The obvious answer here, is no, Obama does not represent godly values. This is why the rest of America flocks to him. The “Obama Doctrine” is garden variety humanism neatly packaged in heresy.
I also share Mr. Grady’s sentiments in this statement:
I am thankful for Kim and the many brave African-American Christians today who have risked their reputations by going against the flow of popular opinion. I pray that all of us, black and white, will speak for truth and stay on the narrow path even when the crowd has chosen the broad highway.
It was hard enough for African-Americans to navigate through the racist history of America, now many brave souls have to whether the racial storm that is brewing within their own ranks.

A feminist’s argument for McCain’s VP

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on October 29, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Sunday, September 7, 2008

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an “i for independent” after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they’ll realize it’s not up to them any longer.

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it’s about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It’s that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as “terribly sexist” and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, “I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, “Fatal Attraction,” noting, “Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career…”. These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was “Bros Before Hoes,” to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.

The campaign’s chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women’s Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women’s rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton’s “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters – pro-choice women and gays to be specific – would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake – the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women’s rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin’s candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line – the abortion card – where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats – a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don’t count.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions – the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin’s focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin’s comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she’s voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman – who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

Tammy Bruce is the author of “The New American Revolution” (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter. E-mail comments to

Obama: Lucifer is my Homeboy by Ann Coulter

In Things I Agree with in the Political Arena on October 29, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Author: Ann Coulter

Article gotten from here:

It’s another election season, so that means it’s time for Democrats to start uttering wild malapropisms about the Bible to pretend they believe in G-d!

In 2000, we had Al Gore inverting a Christian parable into something nearly satanic. Defending his nutty ideas about the Earth during one of the debates, Gore said: “In my faith tradition, it’s written in the book of Matthew, where your heart is, there is your treasure also.” And that, he said, is why we should treasure the environment.

First of all, people who say “faith tradition” instead of “religion” are always phony-baloney, “Christmas and Easter”-type believers.

Second, Jesus was making almost the exact opposite point, saying: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on Earth,” where there are moths, rust and thieves, but in heaven, because, Jesus said, “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

I guess that’s the kind of mix-up that can happen when your theological adviser is Naomi Wolf.

Then in 2004, Democratic presidential candidate and future Trivial Pursuit answer Howard Dean told an interviewer that his favorite part of the New Testament was the Book of Job. The reporter should have asked him if that was his favorite book in all three testaments.

And now in 2008, we have Democrats attacking Sarah Palin for being a Christian, while comparing Obama to Jesus Christ. (And not in the sarcastic way the rest of us do.)

Liberals have indignantly claimed that Palin thinks the founding fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, which is Olbmermannic in the sense that (a) if it were true, it’s trivial, and (b) it’s not true.

Their claim is based on a questionnaire Palin filled out when she was running for governor of Alaska in 2006, which asked the candidates if they were “offended by the phrase ‘under G-d’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.” Palin answered: “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me, and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”

As anyone can see, Palin was not suggesting that the founding fathers “wrote” the Pledge of Allegiance: She said the founding fathers believed this was a country “under G-d.” Which, um, it is.

For the benefit of MSNBC viewers who aren’t watching it as a joke, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to lay out the founders’ breathtaking new argument that rights came not from the king, but from G-d or, as the Declaration said, “Nature’s G-d,” the “Creator.”

That summer, in 1776, Gen. George Washington — a charter member of the founding fathers — rallied his troops, saying: “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves. … The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under G-d, on the courage and conduct of the army.”

So Washington not only used the phrase “under G-d,” but gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the “unborn.” That’s right! George Washington was a “pro-life extremist,” just like Sarah Palin.

There is no disputing that a nation “under G-d” was “good enough” for the founding fathers, exactly as Palin said.

Meanwhile, on the House floor last week, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee compared Palin to Pontius Pilate — and Obama to Jesus. Cohen said: “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.” Yes, who can forget the Biblical account of how Jesus got the homeless Samaritan to register as a Democrat in exchange for a carton of smokes!

Rep. Cohen would be well-advised to stay away from New Testament references.

As anyone familiar with the New Testament can confirm for him, there are no parables about Jesus passing out cigarettes for votes, lobbying the Romans for less restrictive workfare rules or filing for grants under the Community Redevelopment Act. No time for soul-saving now! First, we lobby Fannie Mae to ease off those lending standards and demand a windfall profits tax on the money-changers in the temple.

David Freddoso’s magnificent new book, “The Case Against Barack Obama,” describes the forefather to “community organizers” like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — the famed Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky is sort of the George Washington of “community organizers.” If there were an America-hater’s Mount Rushmore, Saul Alinsky would be on it. He tried to hire Hillary to work for him right out of Wellesley. A generation later, those who had trained with Alinsky did hire Obama as a community organizer.

In Freddoso’s book, he quotes from the dedication in the first edition of Alinsky’s seminal book, “Rules for Radicals,” where Alinsky wrote:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —Lucifer.”

I suppose it could have been worse. He could have dedicated his book to George Soros.

Even liberals eventually figured out that they shouldn’t be praising Satan in public, so the Lucifer-as-inspiration paragraph was cut from later editions of Alinsky’s book. (But on the bright side, MSNBC adopted as its motto: “Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which.”)

That’s exactly what happens to most Democratic ideas — as soon as they are said out loud, normal people react with revulsion, so Democrats learn to pretend they never said them: I was NOT comparing Palin to a pig! I did not play the race card! I did not say I would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions!

Sarah Palin might be just the lucky break the Democrats need. As a staunch pro-lifer, Palin could give Democrats an excuse to steer away from topics they know nothing about, like the Bible, and onto a subject they know chapter and verse, like abortion.