Conservative Political Commentary

[Under the Radar?] Anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-globalist, pro-Constitution, and usually with an attempt at historical and economic context (This blog was given its name before I decided it was going to be a political blog.)

Friday, October 29, 2010

On November 2, Democrats Will Reap the Rewards for Ignoring the People

United States President Barack Obama signs int...Image via WikipediaOctober 29, 2010
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country's scared.” -- President Barack Obama [1]

Yeah, clinging to our guns and religion.

Republicans Poised for Big Wins
It has been generally predicted that the Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives. Nate Silver of The New York Times calculates that the GOP will end up with about 232 seats. Control of the Senate is somewhat less likely, but there should be good gains. Silver predicts 48 seats for the GOP. Anyway, the Democrats should be well short of the 60-vote supermajority they need to pass their controversial bills. Republicans will also gain significantly in governorships. [2]

Obama Says Voters Can’t Think Straight
Obama doesn’t seem to understand that people don’t like his policies, and that they have good reason not to like them.

He has previously said that he hasn’t done a good enough job of selling his agenda. But he has made it too clear, and the majority of voters are rejecting it.

The president still blames Bush at every opportunity, saying his policies got us into the economic mess we’re in. Well, Bush over-spent and caved to Paulson’s bailout demands. But Obama carried the bailouts to the next level, spent almost a trillion dollars on the failed “stimulus,” and wants to spend a lot more. Bush’s deficit, though large, will pale in comparison to Obama’s. Obama’s talk about deficit reduction is simply a joke.

The majority of voters are not ignoring, but using “fact and science and argument” to rebut Obama’s ideas. They are scared of what Obamaism is bringing, and they are suffering from its effects. Common sense tells them that endless spending will not help the economy, but will eventually destroy it. Higher taxes, more and stricter regulations, and government’s anti-business attitude will not help the unemployment situation, but exacerbate it. They are angry because they are losing jobs and prosperity, and Obama either doesn‘t know what to do, or else is deliberately letting this happen.. And they are thinking more clearly than the out-of-touch Obama and his elite advisers.

Obama, and this is too obvious, wants to adopt the same policies that have led Europe to its present state of rapid decline. Paul Krugman notwithstanding, we are on our way to where Britain is now, facing severe austerity measures just to save our economy and currency from complete collapse. Of course Obama thinks Britain and the EU should be spending more. And in socialist Europe, any kind of reduction of the too-generous government benefits tends to lead to riots, such as we’ve seen in Greece and France.

Tea Party Influence Is Crucial
Like them or not, the Tea Party has succeeded in bringing several issues to the forefront of national attention, and has established itself as an influential force in American politics. Liberals try to dismiss it, but they are losing power at its hands. The Republican Party has a chance to use a conservative mandate to advance a conservative agenda and stop or slow Obama’s plans. If the GOP fails to do this, the Tea Party will publicize their failures, and voters will hold them accountable. The Tea Party has helped voters to see that something can be done about the politicians who are causing the trouble, and that the voice of the people can ultimately prevail, even though it is being tuned out by the current Administration and congressional majority. Voters are too upset to think straight, y’know.

The Tea Party has helped to make this an issues-focused and accountability-intense election, and for that we can be grateful. Democrats’ thoughtless attacks and phony racism claims will hurt themselves much more than they will hurt the Tea Party.

A fact that liberals can’t seem to understand is that even though most people don’t claim any affiliation with the Tea Party, there are millions who do, and the Tea Party largely represents the views of the majority of American voters.

Most Voters Will Get It Right
If the polls indicate the actual election results, voters will largely reject the job-destroying, freedom-threatening Obama program. It is about Obama. His policies have led to the most widespread anti-government mood in memory, and justly so. There is a backlash because the Administration and Democratic congressional majority have blatantly ignored the will of the people, and are presenting them with the astronomical bill for their fascist-socialist, unconstitutional actions.

[1] Quoted by Michael Barone, “Voters Fed up With Obama’s Big, Bossy Government,” 10/25/2010, Patriot Post.

[2] See: Nate Silver, “‘Robopolls’ Significantly More Favorable to Republicans Than Traditional Surveys,” The New York Times.

Photo: President Obama signs "Stimulus" bill. Public domain.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Hidden (?) Agenda of Climate/Environmental Alarmists

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate...Image via Wikipedia
The underlying purpose of the “climate-change” alarmist movement is to concentrate government power by claiming that climate changes are going to bring about such catastrophic events that dictatorial international government, supported by high taxes, must act to stop it. Some say it’s too late to act. Some say we must act quickly. UN climate conferences have attempted, unsuccessfully thus far, to get binding international agreements to address this so-called problem. It is unfortunate that the U.S. Government is so anxious to impose restrictions and regulations on everyone because of this false issue.

I do not believe that climate change is affected to any significant degree by mankind, nor do I believe that man can do anything significant to change it. It is possible to make things worse by pollution. The environmental movement has many radical proponents who are anti-Western, anti-prosperity, anti-business communists, including more extremist criminals than one might suppose.

Special Lord Monckton Interview: Scientific Misconduct Needed to Push Nwo Objective 2/5
One of the best explanations of the climate-change and environmentalist movements and their actual objectives (probably unknown to many organizational members) is given by Lord Christopher Monckton in the following video, one of a series of videos posted on YouTube:

His comments on Greenpeace strike me as quite interesting. Lest anyone think that the N.W.O. (New World Order) is simply a conspiracy theory, consider the actions of various governments in response to the climate “crisis,” not to mention the “financial meltdown,” both of which situations require little to no government action other than getting out of the way.

The radical fascist-socialist-Marxist Obama Administration is on board with central planning on world-wide basis. Of course, Obama sees himself as a “citizen of the world” rather than an American, and is anxious to engage our enemies diplomatically. We are in far greater danger from government action (loss of liberty and loss of national wealth) than we are from anything related to the climate or the environment due to nature.
Photo: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change COP14, Poznan, Poland (public domain).
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Campaign of Desperation? Obama’s War on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

President Barack Obama and his people are engaged in a fairly strong effort to discredit the United States Chamber of Commerce by accusing them of spending foreign money in the current election campaigns. This has brought vehement denials from the Chamber and other groups the White House has been aiming at with similar accusations.

If you were wondering whether Obama is anti-business, this should be the clincher in that debate. (See my recent article). Now, of course, “Big Business” is the bad guy, more or less in the same category, rhetorically speaking, as “Wall Street,” just greedy fat cats who will stoop to anything to promote their agenda.

As reported by Politifact,
Here's what the president said at a rally on Oct. 7, 2010, on behalf of Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley:
“Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections. And they won't tell you where the money (for) their ads comes from.”
On ABC's This Week on Oct. 10, 2010, George Will connected the dots: “Well, he won't tell us who he's talking about. He's talking about the Chamber of Commerce, which does indeed receive dues from foreign entities that are associated with American business, just as the AFL-CIO receives dues from foreign entities associated with it. And -- and the shock and awe that we're supposed to feel from this is somewhat selective.” ….
…[N]o one has offered any evidence that the Chamber of Commerce is not complying with that law [i.e., the law requiring that foreign funds be segregated.] [1]
Karl Rove rightly points out that Obama’s statements are not in keeping with a President’s proper behavior, as reported by Fox News:
“Have these people no shame? Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office that he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies?” Rove said. “This is just beyond the pale. How dare the president do this.” …. [2]
Soon-to-depart Presidential adviser David Axelrod believes it’s OK for government officials to hurl charges and claim that the ones accused must prove they are not guilty. The Hill blogger Walter Alarkon writes:
Axelrod was pressed by CBS’s Bob Schieffer on Sunday for evidence that the foreign campaign contributions benefiting the GOP is more than “peanuts.”
“Do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Axelrod said on “Face the Nation.” “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem.” ….
“Don’t accuse those who are playing by the rules of somehow doing something that is unethical or illegal,” [Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed] Gillespie said on “Face the Nation.”

Gillespie added that it was “an unbelievable mentality” for Axelrod to assert charges about foreign contributions without backing them up [3]
As Fox News has noted:
“David Axelrod is either woefully uninformed or willfully deceptive and dishonest,” Gillespie said. [4]

Not even AP, usually a reliable helper for Obama, is ready to go along with these reckless accusations:
The Obama administration and its allies are going all out against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and GOP-leaning groups, accusing them of using foreign money to help finance political ads. Trouble is, they're providing no evidence …
“I challenge the Chamber of Commerce to tell us how much of the money they're investing is from foreign sources,” Biden said during a fundraiser for Democratic Rep. Chris Carney in Scranton. “I challenge them, if I'm wrong I will stand corrected. But show me, show me.” …. [5]
The AP article quotes a Chamber official as saying that no money from foreign sources is used for political purposes. [6] Also:
Bruce Josten, the chamber's top lobbyist, was even more pointed: “We are seeing an attempt to demonize specific groups and distract Americans from a failed economic agenda,” he said in a statement. [7]
Various published reports have said that the Chamber has spent $25 million for political advertising, and expects to spend $50 million more this election cycle. This is what has Obama’s forces worried, because most of that money will be in support of GOP-leaning causes. As the reader can see, there are several things the Republicans find objectionable about the president’s war on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

1. It makes a serious charge while offering no evidence.
2. It assumes guilt until innocence is proven.
3. It ignores the fact that unions and other Democratic-supporting organizations also receive foreign money and engage in political spending, but no one thus far has questioned their compliance with the law governing foreign funds.
4. It is seen as an attack on business and portrays Obama as anti-business.
5. It contributes to what businesses perceive as a hostile environment, one that discourages business expansion and hiring, through high taxes, over-regulation, and the federal government’s generally hostile attitude.
6. It is a lie and a cheap campaign trick perpetrated by people who ought to act better.

This charge could very well backfire, and open the Democrats up for more scrutiny. Remember Clinton‘s “Chinagate”? Also, voters these days are quite capable of seeing through such phoniness.

No one should be shocked or surprised at such a ridiculous charge. But, neither should anyone be ignorant of the fact that it is unsupported and hypocritical.

[1] “President Barack Obama says foreign money coming in to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may be helping to fund attack ads,” 10/11/2010, Politifact. According to the website, “PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in politics.”

[2] “Rove, Gillespie Slam Obama for Spreading ‘Baseless Lie’ Over Foreign Contributions,” 10/10/10, Fox News.

[3] Walter Alarkon, “Axelrod: Chamber must prove foreign money accusations false,” 10/10/10, Blog Briefing Room, The Hill.

[4] “Rove, Gillespie Slam Obama for Spreading ‘Baseless Lie’ Over Foreign Contributions,” See [2].

[5] Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, “SPIN METER: Foreign money in politics? Not proven,” 10/11/2010, via Yahoo! News.

[6] and [7] Ibid.


Sunday, October 3, 2010

Eddie’s Simple But Reliable Voting Guide

The primaries are over, and the general elections draweth nigh. It has been predicted that Republicans will make major gains in the November elections, but the Democrats are still in charge for one more session of Congress, a lame-duck affair, in which they may try to vote in some of their least-liked policies.

I am suggesting a highly simplified, yet very effective voting guide that will help our country avoid a good many problems, and solve some of the aggravating troubles we currently have. With President Barack Obama still in office and ready to wield the veto pen, the GOP can at least (1) propose better policies, and (2) slow down the Obama agenda. With the people supporting conservatism, the GOP can be surprisingly successful.

The voting guide I am recommending is simply this: Avoid voting for any candidates of the Democratic Party. For every Democratic congressional candidate defeated, Obama loses a vote in Congress. Even the “conservative” Democrats vote with the president most of the time, and in fact are not very conservative.

People who live in states where the budget is in a large deficit can generally see how this is most often attributable to liberal Democratic state officials who love to spend.

It’s true that there are some RINOs left. Not all the best conservatives won their primaries, but that should have been taken care of in the primary campaigns. Many good conservatives did win. None had a “D” by their name. It is important that Democrats be defeated if we are to stop Obama’s fascist-socialist-Marxist plans from coming to further fruition. It is to be hoped that Obamacare can be stopped by defunding, and later by repeal. That likely won’t happen unless there is a Republican majority in the House, but the Republicans, even if they fail to gain control of either house, should at least be able to deny the Democrats the 60-vote supermajority they would need in the Senate to pass controversial bills.

Some people are saying they’ll vote against all incumbents, but that is not a reliable way to change the direction of Washington. Voting against an incumbent Republican will only facilitate the election of some Democrat, who in all likelihood will be ten times worse than the Republican, even if the Republican leaves a lot to be desired.

The Tea Party is not essentially anti-incumbent, but pro-conservative. They know that with liberals in charge, we will face economic disaster through uncontrolled spending and higher taxes. Their policies will ensure perpetual high unemployment and an eventual currency collapse.

Continuing Democrat majorities will also ensure more anti-life policies, more anti-Christian and pro-Islamic attitudes, and less freedom for individuals. For those who want to vote for the “person, not the party,” when you vote Democratic, no matter how good the candidate seems, you are voting for the party of Chicago-style operations, forced unionism, food taxes, carbon taxes, and increasingly centralized government and endless Keynesian spending. Any thought of a balanced budget is a low priority with these people, no matter what is said.

This voting guide is simple, but will be found to be effective if it is used.

If Republicans win, strong effort must be made to hold them to their promises. They have disappointed us before. But this can be done, and is greatly preferable to giving the socialists more time in office.

(Not authorized by any candidate, party or campaign. Personal opinion only.)