Kamis, 31 Januari 2008
Abu Laith al-Libi lamenting the death of Mullah Dadullah in this 2007 USA Today photo.
We should have been talking about the al-Libi's of the world for the past 6 years, instead of Valerie Plame, Katrina, Anna Nicole and other such white noise.
Do not believe it. Polls showing this outcome will disappear as soon as John McCain wraps up the nomination. If that happens, instead of polls, we will begin hearing about the "Keating 5." Shortly thereafter, we will begin seeing polls that show John McCain is well behind Obama or Hillary. Don't let pollsters choose your nominee for you.
Remember chapter 6 from "A Choice Not An Echo."
The time to stand up for a true traditional conservative Republican has passed. The chance to do something smart no longer exists. Now we have one last shot and less than one week to do something that is at least half-smart.
J. B. Williams - 1-30-08 [From a Canada Free Press article entitled "John McCain is an Outright Liar!"]
Rabu, 30 Januari 2008
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.emphasis added
Those are a lot adjectives to learn at once.
The second question this brings to mind is - (the first question being "who cares?") Is he really dropping out? When stories surfaced three weeks ago that Hillary would drop out, I discounted those stories in part because they relied on Edwards as a source - and everything Edwards says is a lie.
You would be far more likely to reach the truth if you took the quoted paragraph above and believed the opposite of each phrase and clause.
The only person who cares?
- Scrappleface jokes that Edwards will endorse McCain.
- Michelle Malkin has more.
never voted for experimentation on aborted children. But TIME
reports that he did so three times -- in 1992, 1993, and 1997.
He says his religion is "between me and my family." So is his
voting record, I guess.
Joe Sobran - March 2000
[See Michelle Malkin today for a preview of the fall campaign.]
update - we appear headed to make an echo instead of having a choice.
Selasa, 29 Januari 2008
Senin, 28 Januari 2008
One disadvantage from which conservatives have suffered for many years has been the need to re-learn recent history over and over again. This problem exists because young conservatives have no way of learning about the past due to the liberal bias of modern education. Modern schools teach that conservatism has no history or core philosophy other than a legacy of racism, oppression and war. Students have no idea that there is a philosophical basis and historical context for such ideas as free markets, lower taxes, national sovereignty, etc.
Students and recent graduates, if they are interested in politics at all, will tend to think only in terms of the headline-of-the-moment instead of the broader context into which an election fits. Younger voters think they are discussing "the issues" if they debate how much government interference in health care is best, how to address "global warming," or what to do about high gas prices.
At the same time, younger conservatives who cannot remember the 70's, 80's or 90's are susceptible to many ideas that would be contradicted by a little memory of recent history. One such idea is that "moderate" Republicans are somehow more electable than conservative Republicans. We are supposed to believe that "independents" will spring out of the woodwork to support a moderate Republican instead of the Democrats' liberal nominee. And this is where we must reinvent the wheel. If new conservatives could remember Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, George Bush I, Ronald Reagan, etc., they would not fall prey to this kind of propaganda. Prior to the new media, there was no way for conservatives to educate each other or pass on the lessons of the recent past. We had to rely on a conservative newspaper columnist whose column appeared once a week or an old book or some other rare source of conservatism to provide an irregular trickle of information that wasn't filtered through the MSM/DNC.
Today, we can transmit facts, history and perspective much more quickly through the new media, especially if such facts include some of the old material that the MSM/DNC used to be able to suppress.
One such treasure trove of facts is found in Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 paperback, "A Choice Not an Echo." In Choice, Schlafly breaks down each Republican primary battle from 1936 through 1960 and shows how establishment Republicans (those with ties to the publishing and banking world) had undermined the choice of the rank-and-file Republicans with false charges (spread through an obliging MSM) of "extremism" and "unelectability."
Among my favorite chapters is Chapter 6, in which she discusses polls - "Pollsters and Hoaxsters" (1944):
The New York Kingmakers realized they could not capture the 1944 Republican nomination either with Wilkie or with the same type of last-minute blitz they had used in 1940. This time they went into action earlier. They discovered and developed a new political weapon: the Gallup Poll. Dr. George Gallup began asking a lot of questions of a very few people, and - funny thing - he usually came up with answers that pleased the New York kingmakers.p. 45
The Gallup Poll has been used repeatedly as a subtle propaganda machine to sell the Republicans on the false propositions that the GOP cannot win unless it (1) continues the New Deal foreign policy (Soviet appeasement - Salt) and (2) names candidates who will appeal to the left-leaning Democrats and liberals.
A Choice Not an Echo sold millions of copies and was instrumental in wresting control of the GOP back to the grassroots. Even though Barry Goldwater lost by a wide margin that year, the Goldwater coalition was born that year that eventually swept Ronald Reagan into office. As a result of the grassroots organizing efforts and the distribution of various short books such as Choice in 1964, a movement was born. Richard Nixon, despite his faults, was elected in the next two elections by the same coalition. Niether Nixon nor Reagan won by appealing to moderates. [Nixon didn't sell out conservatives until after he was elected.]
Schlafly identifies the people she refers to as "kingmakers." They have a lot in common with the Republican "moderate" kingmakers of today.
In 2002, Ann Coulter wrote about Phyllis Schlafly and Choice:
About the time a young Hillary Rodham was serving as inspiration for the perfect little girl in the Hollywood thriller "The Bad Seed," Schlafly was remaking the Republican Party.
In 1964, Schlafly wrote "A Choice, Not An Echo," widely credited with winning Barry Goldwater the Republican nomination for president. The book sold an astounding 3 million copies. (The average nonfiction book sells 5,000 copies.) Goldwater lost badly in the general election, but the Republican Party would never be the same.
Goldwater's nomination began the retreat of sellout, Northeastern Rockefeller Republicans who hoped to wreck the country with slightly less alacrity than the Democrats. Without Schlafly, without that book, it is very possible that Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president.
For the record, I read my copy of A Choice Not an Echo years before I had heard of Ann Coulter, but many years after the book was published. Original editions of the book were still floating around in the 1980's just as they are today. I promote the book now because it is an election year and Republicans face a choice regarding who to nominate. The cries of "electability" ring throughout the land, as we are told to support John McCain by the MSM/DNC.
Moderates bring the GOP to defeat. The Independents or "undecided" voters are nothing but liberals who are too embarrassed by the Clintons, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore et al. to call themselves Democrats. Such voters did not abandon the Democrats to elect Gerald Ford or Bob Dole and they will not help John McCain in 2008. Instead, they will give us Barack Obama, especially if we provide nothing more than an echo.
update - January 30, 2007 - See Michelle Malkin today for a preview of how this fall's election will turn out like so many of those discussed in A Choice Not An Echo.
Hillary Clinton - February 5, 2003
Minggu, 27 Januari 2008
"Resolving Kosovo's final status" has been an intentionally vague diplomatic phrase for the process of determining if Kosovo will become a separate nation, remain part of Serbia or linger as a U.N.-EU-NATO protectorate. Serbs, other Balkan Slavs and a few Greeks fear a fourth possibility: an independent Kosovo will encourage Albanian ethnic radicals who dream of Greater Albania. After taking Kosovo, irredentist Albanian zealots will demand slices of Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece's Epirus Province and Serbia's Presevo Valley.
In the above quote, translate "Albanian ethnic radicals" to mean "muslims."
Mark Steyn January 26, 2008
Sabtu, 26 Januari 2008
(1) The New York Times' (and Mother Jones') endorsement of McCain is bad enough. Rush Limbaugh explains further:
The New York Times, by the way, yesterday, hold onto your coffee cup or your steering wheel if you haven't heard this. After months of pondering, the New York Times announced its endorsements for the Democrats and Republicans, and here they are. There was no surprise who they endorsed for the Democrats, and there was not much surprise about who they endorsed for our side. They endorsed Hillary on the Democrat side and they endorsed McCain. So this is a serious, serious question. A serious number of liberal newspapers have endorsed John McCain. I ask myself -- I'm not even asking you to think about this -- I'm thinking to myself here, and I happen to be verbalizing thoughts. What in the world am I supposed to think when liberal newspapers endorse McCain as the Republican, when I know for a fact they're not going to vote for him? When I know for a fact that when it comes to November, whenever they issue their final endorsements, they're going to endorse Hillary or whoever the Democrat is? So what is the game plan here? What is the gambit? What are these liberal papers trying to do? Are they trying to be consistent?
(2) McCain opposes border enforcement and supports amnesty, despite his protestations to the contrary. A leading McCain staffer considers Mexico and the U.S. to be part of one region instead of separate countries.
(4) McCain's slander of the Swift Boat vets in 2004.
(5) McCain's attempts to undermine the judicial nomination process in 2005. The Supreme Court is supposedly the reason of last resort trotted out by moderates for conservative voters to support some RINO in the general election. "At least we will control the Supreme Court if President Dole [Bush I etc.] wins," they say. When McCain undermines the nomination process so that conservatives have a harder time being confirmed, he nullifies that election year bargain-with-the-devil.
(6) He describes himself as a "deficit-hawk," which is MSM/DNC code for "supports higher taxes."
(7) McCain is among the least electable Republican candidates. Bill Clinton has promised a virtual love-fest if the nominees are McCain and Hillary. Which means if McCain is nominated, he will fail to attack and expose Hillary's record. Which means he will lose. [Of course, we all know what a liar Bill Clinton is. The exact opposite may well be the case.]
The Republican base will abandon McCain in the general election. We know this to be the case. We should stop trying to bully the Republican base into supporting unpalatable nominees and, instead, nominate someone who comes close to supporting a basic, simple Republican agenda. It doesn't take rocket science or mindreading to predict who the base will support. All we want is someone who will:
1) Build the wall
2) oppose abortion
3) fight the war
4) cut taxes
5) cut spending
6) support conservative judicial nominees
(Had GWB done ## 1 and 5, we might not have lost Congress in 2006.) If a candidate barely gets half of these issues right (and even those only if the spin is right), they will not get the support of the base in the general election, no matter how many primaries said candidate wins by default because the conservative vote is split. All the phony NY Times endorsements in the world won't help in that case.
It is easier for the Republican establishment and the pundits to endorse and support a viable nominee than it would be to change the basic values of millions of Republicans across the country.
Jumat, 25 Januari 2008
Ice Bowl II; Giants-Packers 2008; Vince Lombardi; Alex Webster; Phil Bengston; Ray Nitschke; David Letterman; Lambeau Field;
Sunday, I wrote about the bitter cold temperatures around the country and their effect on politics, news reporting and pro football games. I specifically mentioned football because we tend to forget weather history unless it is tied to an event - like a major football game:
Football history serves a purpose when sportswriters forget that they are not supposed to talk about cold weather in the recent past, as such talk contradicts the steady drumbeat of propaganda that would have us believe quite a different story.
Every football fan remembers the original Ice Bowl from December 31, 1967. Without the Ice Bowl (or other event by which to remember a bitter winter), we would forget that a major cold spell occurred at that time. We would be left with only vague memories of winters past and MSM/DNC drumbeats about global warming. Each year's bitter weather would fade into the same memory hole as Bill Clinton's sale of nuclear weapon technology to China or Islamic terrorism. I try to write as much as possible about the bitter cold events that we experience so that we will be less susceptible to the propoganda. Major football games are possibly the easiest memory aids for this task.
One such game was played this past weekend, as the Giants beat the Packers for the NFC Championship. The game was played in the same subzero temperatures that plagued much of the nation.
Ice Bowl II - January 20, 2008
This year's game was not quite as cold as the original Ice Bowl -
December 31, 1967 - Ice Bowl
Vince Lombardi and Phil Bengston
- but it was colder than the first time that the Giants and Packers played for the NFL Championship at Lambeau field [a bitter day itself].
December 31, 1961
Ray Nitschke tackles Alex Webster
Ice Bowl II has inspired its own jokes, especially as they relate to the weather conditions. This week, David Letterman issued a new top ten list based on the game.
Late Show Top Ten
Top Ten Things Overheard During the Giants-Packers Game
10. "Here to sing the national anthem, global warming genius Al Gore"
9. "It's minus 3 degrees, but it's a dry cold"
8. "Eli's hands are frozen to the center's ass"
7. "Packers tight end looks suspiciously like a polar bear"
6. "I'm glad I spent the extra money on the fleece-lined cheese hat"
5. "The referees will be officiating the second half from the hotel"
4. "Screw the game, let's keep huddling"
3. "No number 3 -- writer got frostbite in Green Bay"
2. "It's still warmer than the Ed Sullivan Theater"
1. "Is that the temperature or Bush's approval rating?"
None of this is scientific, but it will help us counter the propoganda. Remember these images and jokes as you are reminded to "go green" around your house or office. Advocates of going green want you to believe that the Earth is somehow not cold enough. While we have plenty of evidence to dispute the very concept of global warming, the photos provide the imagery that make it easier to resist the non-stop onslaught by the MSM/DNC.
Ann Coulter - 1-23-08
Kamis, 24 Januari 2008
New York Daily News
Rabu, 23 Januari 2008
Thomas Sowell - December 2007
Selasa, 22 Januari 2008
Hampshire whether he believed Clinton had raped Juanita
Broaddrick. Any previous vice president (supposing the
question could have arisen about any previous president)
would have bellowed an indignant denial. Gore, however,
stammered a long, noncommittal answer and spoke of
"mistakes [Clinton] made in his personal life." Get that:
if your state's attorney general rapes a woman, he's just
making a mistake in his personal life.
Joe Sobran - January 2000
Minggu, 20 Januari 2008
Winter of 2008; Football conditions; Green Bay Packers; South Carolina primary election; Ice Bowl; Freezer Bowl
On NBC's Today show this morning, Lester Holt reported from South Carolina, claiming that adverse weather prevented him from returning to New York after yesterday's Republican primary.
This eveniing, the Packers and Giants will play the NFC championship game in near zero weather, with wind chills well below zero.
We tend to forget cold weather events of the past, thus making ourselves susceptible whenever an MSM/DNC teleprompter tells us that we are enduring the warmest winter on record. We forget the bitterness and misery of the Winter of 2007 only a year later.
That is why the Yahoo football article today is interesting, as it reminds us of past weather events in the context of football:
The coldest game in NFL history was not the 1967 NFL title game at Lambeau Field when the Packers beat Dallas 21-17 in the Ice Bowl. It was minus 13 that day and the wind chill factor was estimated at minus 48.
But in the 1981 [1982-ed.] AFC championship game, while the temperature was minus-9, the wind chill plunged to minus-59 at Cincinnati as the Bengals beat San Diego 27-7.
So when did global warming begin? Was it only after the 1967 Ice Bowl? Or was it only after the Freezer Bowl in 1982? At what temperature should the Earth be?
Ice Bowl - December 31, 1967
Football history serves a purpose when sportswriters forget that they are not supposed to talk about cold weather in the recent past, as such talk contradicts the steady drumbeat of propaganda that would have us believe quite a different story.
Freezer Bowl - January 10, 1982
Mark Steyn - 1-19-08
Previous - New York Times and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
Sabtu, 19 Januari 2008
I cannot think of Bobby Fischer without thinking of an article Ayn Rand wrote shortly after the match. She titled her article "An Open Letter to Boris Spassky." The article barely mentioned Fischer, but for me the article and all that implies about collectivism, individualism, freedom and the future of the western world far outweighs anything else related to Spassky, Fischer or the famous chess match.
Fischer and Spassky in 1972
The article first appeared in Ayn Rand's newsletter and was later republished in Rand's book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It." In this article, Rand applied the basic principles of communism/collectivism/socialism to chess. She asked Spassky if he could play the game if he had to play by the collectivist rules. In fact, these simple questions point out the error in much of the assumptions that underlie not only communism, but the entire altruistic, egalitarian unspoken creed that dominates our life in today's leftist west.
Judge for yourself:
From Chapter 6 of "Philosophy: Who Needs It."· Would you be able to play if, at a crucial moment – when, after hours of brain-wrenching effort, you had succeeded in cornering your opponent – an unknown, arbitrary power suddenly changed the rules of the game in his favor, allowing, say, his bishops to move like queens? You would not be able to continue? Yet out in the living world, this is the law of your country – and this is the condition in which your countrymen are expected, not to play, but to live.
· Would you be able to play if the rules of chess were updated to conform to a dialectic reality, in which opposites merge - so that, at a crucial moment, your queen turns suddenly from White to Black, becoming the queen of your opponent, and then turned Gray, belonging to both of you? You would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the view of reality your countrymen are taught to accept, to absorb, and to live by.
· Would you be able to play if you had to play by teamwork – i.e., if you were forbidden to think or act alone and had to play not with a group of advisers, but with a team that determined your every move by vote? Since, as champion, you would be the best mind among them, how much time and effort would you have to spend persuading the team that your strategy is the best? Would you be likely to succeed? And what would you do if some pragmatist, range-of-the-moment mentalities voted to grab an opponent’s knight at the price of a checkmate to you three moves later? You would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the theoretical idea of your country, and this is the method by which it proposes to deal (someday) with scientific research, industrial production, and every other kind of activity required for man’s survival.
· Would you be able to play if the cumbersome mechanism of teamwork were streamlined, and your moves were dictated simply by a man standing behind you, with a gun pressed to your back – a man who would not explain or argue, his gun being his only argument and sole qualification? You would not be able to start, let alone continue, playing? Yet in the living world, this is the practical policy under which men live - and die - in your country.
· Would you be able to play – or to enjoy the professional understanding, interest and acclaim of an international chess federation – if the rules of the game were splintered, and you played by “proletarian” rules while your opponent played by “bourgeois” rules? Would you say that such “polyrulism” is more preposterous than polylogism? Yet in the living world, your country professes to seek global harmony and understanding, while proclaiming that she follows “proletarian” logic and that others follow “bourgeois” logic or “Aryan” logic, or “third-world” logic, etc.
· Would you be able to play if the rules of the game remained as they are at present, with one exception: that the pawns were declared to be the most valuable and nonexpendable pieces (since they may symbolize the masses) which had to be protected at the price of sacrificing the more efficacious pieces (the individuals)? You might claim a draw on the answer to the this one – since it is not only your country, but the whole living world that accepts this sort of rule in morality.
· Would you care to play, if the rules of the game remained unchanged, but the distribution of rewards were altered in accordance with egalitarian principles: if the prizes, the honors, the fame were given not to the winner, but to the loser – if winning were regarded as a symptom of selfishness, and the winner were penalized for the crime of possessing a superior intelligence, the penalty consisting in suspension for a year, in order to give others a chance? And would you and your opponent try playing not to win, but to lose? What would this do to your mind?
You do not have to answer me, Comrade. You are not free to speak or even to think of such questions – and I know the answers. No, you would not be able to play under any of the conditions listed above. It is to escape this category of phenomena that you fled into the world of chess.
The myopic reader would conclude only that we shouldn't run chess according to the rules of communism - but would miss the bigger picture. We see the folly of undercutting individual effort, reward, achievement, strategy, etc. when it comes to chess or other games, but we fail to see that the same lesson applies to everything else. At the same time we honor chess champions like Fischer and Spassky, we allow politicians to tell us how they are going to apply Ayn Rand's invented nightmare scenarios to health care and other major components of the economy. While Rand's questions might seem ridiculous, we will find ourselves, more and more, answering her questions with regard to our own medical choices, employment decisions, business matters, etc.
Rand's little philosophy book has enjoyed numerous editions over the years:
Jumat, 18 Januari 2008
Thanks to "Death by 1000 Papercuts" for alerting me to The People's Cube version of a hypothetical New York Times front page from the Warsaw ghetto uprising during World War II.
My question is, why didn't the New York Times actually use these headlines in 1943? We know that the Times writes today's stories that way - equating good with evil, blaming both sides, accusing those who defend themselves of overreacting, siding with U.S. enemies, etc. etc.
The accepted version of media history is that organizations such as the New York Times were patriotic during World War II and became "skeptical" of the government during Vietnam and Watergate. Establishment historians note the general supportive attitude of newspapers during WWII. The same historians note rising "skepticism" over the following two decades on the part of the media and attribute such skepticism to misconduct on the part of the American government.
In fact, the New York Times has been part of the fifth column since before World War II. But there was a very good reason that the Times (and others) did not oppose official U.S. interests during WWII. The New York Times' version of the ghetto uprising would have been just as bad as it is depicted on the above graphic had the uprising occurred two years earlier.
Prior to June 1941, Germany was allied with the Soviet Union. In June 1941, the Germans invaded the Soviet Union and threatened the workers paradise so admired by the left. The New York Times turned against Germany not out of a sense of patriotism or a lack of "skepticism," but out of loyalty to the Soviet Union. The Times and other media outlets saw a threat to their real ally. The U.S. just happened to be on the same side - thus making the Times appear patriotic.
Had Germany and the Soviet Union remained allied during the entire war, the Times' coverage of the war would have been very different. The graphic above is a good example. Leftist historians would today refer to WWII as a boondogle, where America learned the "limits of imperialism." Today, we would constantly hear warnings about not getting into "another WWII."
There is no real difference between the NY Times of Walter Duranty's day and the New York Times of today. The war coverage seems different because today we don't have the Soviet Union on our side to keep our newspapers loyal.
Will it work? Well, that depends on who the "Entertainment Tonight" viewers are. Are they merely stupid, vapid, celeb-obsessed women, or are they stupid, vapid, celeb-obsessed women who vote?
Debbie Schlussel - January 17, 2008
Kamis, 17 Januari 2008
Ten years ago today, Matt Drudge posted a report that Newsweek was sitting on a story that the President had perjured himself in a civil trial to cover up acts of sexual misconduct in the White House.
The story remained on the Drudge Report for days before the MSM/DNC reluctantly began covering the story. Drudge had a decent following even before the Lewinsky story broke, and the unrebutted allegations on his website threatened to make the MSM/DNC appear complicit in a cover up if it did not appear to begin reporting the story. I first heard about this story in an early morning ABC News report around the 20th or 21st of January.
I had never heard of Drudge at that time. It would be weeks before I would learn of Drudge's involvement. It would be even longer before I fully understood the significance of Drudge's ability to circumvent the gatekeepers and break this (or any other) story.
The full story is included in Drudge's book:
Regardless of the effect on the Clinton administration, the world changed forever with the posting of that story. Never again would the gatekeepers have full power to decide what information we receive. Drudge has increased in readership dramatically ever since. The king has lost its ability to compel a lie.
This type of media revolution was foreseen by Hillary Clinton in the mid-1990's, whose administration tried desperately to thwart it during the rest of its time in office. [Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.]
The blogs that stopped Dan Rather during Rathergate stood on the shoulders of Drudge, as links from Drudge to Powerline and Little Green Footballs helped alert the country about Rather's and CBS' attempts to influence an election with forged documents.
We must celebrate this and every new media anniversary, or the MSM/DNC gatekeepers will reinterpret events, downplay the important parts and misrepresent history. The revolution continues, but we must never lose the ground that we have already conquered.
Very few bloggers have mentioned the anniversary. It appears that even the conservatives have missed the point. Most of them think of this incident as just another Clinton scandal. They fail to realize that this scandal was about more than Bill Clinton and an intern. This scandal was about a media revolution in progress. Just as Rathergate transcends Dan Rather and George Bush, the Lewinsky scandal transcends Bill and Monica.
There is a reason that so few true pioneers exist. Only a few individuals recognize the long range possibilities resulting from any innovation. The rest of us follow in the wake of these pioneers and, if we are lucky, make the most of the opportunities that the pioneers have provided.
I re-read some of the pages from the Drudge Manifesto this evening and was, once again, fascinated by the unfolding story - not of the sex, perjury and obstruction - but of Drudge's first post and the immediate aftermath. Pages 55-67 of the Manifesto bear witness to a part of history that has been hidden in plain site.
Drudge talks about his discovery of the story and how it developed during the hours leading up to the fateful post. He discusses his thoughts at the moment he hit "enter" on the fateful story. What follows is a narrative of two days of silence, in which MSM/DNC said nothing, while a tempest erupted below the surface. Drudge remained barricaded in his apartment for most of that time. After nearly 30 hours of silence, Freepers were suggesting that Drudge had been set up for a lawsuit by Newsweek.
Meanwhile, the Clinton White House frantically followed the story in silence. ". . . and White House staffers are reloading and refreshing the DRUDGE REPORT as fast as the circuits allow. Over 6,000 visits from the eop.gov domain in the last 39 hrs. [as of Monday afternoon - 1-19-98 - ed]"
Similar backstage stories exist for each of the MSM/DNCscandals of recent years, but the participants haven't committed those stories to writing. How many of us have felt a small "rush" as we hit "enter" on our latest bombshell post, imagining the unseen effects around the world or around the corner?
The events of January 17, 1998 (and the hours that followed) provide not only a window into history, but incentive for us to continue our own efforts in the new media revolution.
update - Michelle Malkin has a bumper sticker.
Ann Coulter - 1-16-08
Rabu, 16 Januari 2008
Michelle needs a man
"I need a man. A man who can say “No.” A man who rejects Big Nanny government. A man who thinks being president doesn’t mean playing Santa Claus. A man who won’t panic in the face of economic pain. A man who won’t succumb to media-driven sob stories.
A man who can look voters, the media, and the Chicken Littles in Congress in the eye and say the three words no one wants to hear in Washington: Suck. It. Up."
In fact, she has presented the only solution (not only to the real estate bubble collapse, but to the entire economy). All of these "stimulus" packages not only are going to create further federal debt and erode our currency and our future, but they are delaying the real solution - a price correction.
By bailing out the homeowners, the government is delaying the inevitable drop in prices and preventing market forces from working. If prices could drop from the ridiculous levels to which government sponsored currency inflation has driven them, those of us who have saved our money could snap up some deals. The new mortgages would reflect actual values instead of inflation inspired fantasies. The sooner we endure the pain, the better. The sooner that the fools among us lose their properties or write off inflated mortgage values (or some combination thereof), the sooner that the thrify among us can be rewarded for our thriftiness. The price correction would have the added benefit of allowing the normal volume of sales to go forward, instead of this stalemate that has resulted from expectations of bailout or a vain attempt by individuals to hold on to unrealistically expensive homes.
All of us are going to have to go back to square one to counter the "stimulus" propaganda over the next few months. If the idea of a price correction scares you, take a look at the following short, simple books.
By educating yourself now, you are preparing for the onslaught so that you won't find yourself swept up by "stimulus" hysteria. Learn the basics so you can be the man Michelle wants you to be.
Pat Buchanon - January 14, 2008
Selasa, 15 Januari 2008
Pennsylvania's 12th District
Russell is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve. Russell and his then-pregnant wife were working in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 as Flight 77 hit the building. The Russells and their unborn son all survived. Russell has since served in Iraq. He now resides in Johnstown.
Lt. Colonel William T. Russell (USAR)
Russell's website contains a lot of relevant information related to issues.
Murtha's opponent from 2006, Diana Irey, has apparently decided not to run this year. The 2006 campaign, while unsuccessful, posed the first serious challenge to Murtha in quite some time.
We often talk about coattail effects from a strong Presidential candidate upon local races. In this case, the reverse might be true. A strong congressional challenge could help Republicans in the Pennsylvania presidential race. Even if Russell does not win, an issue oriented battle might spark enough enthusiasm to help the Republican presidential candidate.
The inescapable answers are yes, yes, yes and yes. Read the evidence and denials in full (oicray.com) and see how her orchestrated lying continues to this day.
William Safire - 10-23-2000
Senin, 14 Januari 2008
Jumat, 11 Januari 2008
If the U.S. loses its credit rating, it will be harder for the federal government to borrow money. The federal government's borrowing costs will soar. Interest payments on the national debt will soar. Budget deficits and the federal debt will continue to grow.
Just as importantly, "safe" investments such as bonds, T-bills and money market mutual funds will be jeopardized, as the stability of such investments has always been predicated on the credit rating of the U.S. government and its ability to repay its debt. [The previous sentence is a gross understatement.]
With these previously "safe" investments now at risk, the devastating consequences will spill into other markets, such as insurance and banking (including mortgage lending). The consequences for mortgage lending have been forecast in such books as Empire of Debt (specifically the final chapters). The coming credit crunch is related to and will compound the bursting of the existing real estate bubble.
Since the Moody's warning focused on healthcare and SS spending as the principal culprits of the coming credit rating downgrade, I wonder how the candidates will react to this news.
In the pre- new media days, this story would have been buried, lest it prevent the candidates' attempts to bribe the voters with their own money. If this story sees the light of day now, most candidates will simply spin it into their own pre-existing demagoguery. They will say that the coming crisis shows the need to enact their own programs to greatly expand federal health care spending, even though such spending is the cause of the coming crisis.
Most presidential candidates have vowed to reform the healthcare system but many of them, especially on the Democratic side, have focused on extending coverage to the 40m-plus uninsured Americans rather than on cutting costs.H/T Financial Times
For any problem, politicians confuse the cause with the solution.
Some day, when you are forced to accept pennies on the dollar for your money markets and other "cash" savings, remember to blame every politician that pushed for more government health care and refused to face facts on Social Security.
time the Devil has finally gotten his act together.
After dabbling with huge wars and monstrous tyrannies --
very successful but short-lived in their violence -- he
has found a stabler long-term strategy: the more
peaceful tyranny of the appetites in a mass society,
catered to by mediocre rulers like Bill Clinton. In C.S.
Lewis's classic The Screwtape Letters, the senior devil
counsels his younger colleague that for purposes of
damnation, murder may be no better than playing cards,
if cards will do the trick. From that point of view,
Stalin may be no better than Clinton.
Joe Sobran - December 1999
Kamis, 10 Januari 2008
Camille Paglia - January 10, 2008
Gloria Steinem - 1962
Rabu, 09 Januari 2008
The pre-primary polls did not reflect the possibility that independents could vote for either a Democrat or Republican. My own theory is that much of the vote that was expected to end up in Obama's column went to McCain. Independents were allowed to vote in either primary and were predicted to make up more than 40% of the New Hampshire vote.
As I wrote on Friday:
. . . Hillary may well sneak over the finish line in New Hampshire and avoid the calamity that a double loss would have brought her. McCain may win New Hampshire in his vain attempt to get the nomination, but a McCain victory will actually translate into a Hillary victory.
I refused to get too excited about Monday's headlines that predicted Hillary's exit partially because of the McCain factor and partially because those predictions of Hillary's demise were based somewhat on the word of John Edwards, who is incapable of telling the truth.
Years from now, as we lament the list of President Hillary's critics who suddenly find themselves subject to tax audits or political prosecutions, we can thank John McCain for keeping Hillary's White House hopes alive.
The second lesson of New Hampshire 2008 is - polls mean nothing. Never base your vote or your support upon a poll.
More details of the vote here.
The left blames the voting machines or something. At least they are not being hypocrites for trotting out the same theories they raised after recent Republican victories. The DNC leadership is being hypocritical for not supporting the leftists after yesterday's election mess. BTW, where is Al Gore? Why isn't he front and center with the lunatic left demanding a recount?
Catron speculates that Clinton supporters lied to the pollsters about supporting Obama for fear of seeming racist, only to vote for Hillary.
Wednesday evening update -
Wuzzadem on polls.
Selasa, 08 Januari 2008
Thomas Sowell - 1-8-08
Senin, 07 Januari 2008
TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS
Mon Jan 07 2008 09:46:28 ET
Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!
"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."
Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."
"Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.
Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state.
"She did not work this hard to get out after one state! All this talk is nonsense," said one top adviser.
But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.
[The dramatic reversal of fortunes has left the media establishment stunned and racing to keep up with fast-moving changes.
In its final poll before Iowa, CNN showed Clinton with a two-point lead over Obama. Editorial decisions were being made based on an understanding the Democratic primary race would be close, explained a network executive.]
I will not dwell on this story for the moment because we will not get any better indication of what is going to happen until at least tomorrow night (or probably later). But I am uncomfortable with this story for two reasons:
- Part of the story comes from John Edwards, and everything Edwards' says is a lie.
Minggu, 06 Januari 2008
Mark Steyn - comparing McCain's credentials with those of Orrin Hatch during the 2000 primaries.
previous - how John McCain may rescue Hillary Clinton [again].
Jumat, 04 Januari 2008
John McCain; New Hampshire; Barack Obama; Independent votes; Hillary Clinton; Bill Bradley/Al Gore 2000 primaries;
I have already documented how John McCain rescued the Clintons following the 1996 fundraising scandal by changing the subject from Clintons' illegal foreign fundraising to "campaign finance reform."
During the 2000 primary season, Al Gore was on the ropes in the face of Bill Bradley's strong primary challenge. Bradley had picked up numerous high profile endorsements and was attracting support from Independents/newcomers, etc. [In the New Hampshire primary, Independents are permitted to cross party lines and vote for candidates from one of the major parties.] In the 2000 New Hampshire primary McCain's "straight talk express" "maverick" campaign drained Independents from Bradley and allowed Gore to eek out a victory. The momentum from Gore's New Hampshire victory helped him obtain the nomination. At the very least, Gore's New Hampshire victory avoided a costly, drawn out battle with Bradley that could have hampered Gore's efforts in the general election. Gore was able to mount a serious challenge to George W. Bush, mainly because McCain protected Gore from Gore's serious challenger in New Hampshire.
In 2008, McCain is doing it again. By mounting a serious challenge in New Hampshire, McCain will drain Independent votes from Obama. Without the Independent votes in the Democratic primary, Hillary may well sneak over the finish line in New Hampshire and avoid the calamity that a double loss would have brought her. McCain may win New Hampshire in his vain attempt to get the nomination, but a McCain victory will actually translate into a Hillary victory.
Democrats and Independents have an opportunity to finish off Hillary NOW. We shouldn't let John McCain rescue the Clintons once more.
Dick Morris - 1-4-07
Kamis, 03 Januari 2008
Chill Map - January 3, 2008
The extreme cold threatens crops in Florida as I write this. Snow flurries are reported in Daytona Beach.
Iguanas are falling out of trees in Miami as a result of the cold snap.
H/T Miami Herald
A Russian scientist - Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin - predicts a new period of global cooling.
Undaunted, the global warming true believers will continue to advocate the destruction of all that remains of the U.S. industrial base in the name of lowering the Earth's temperature.
The true believers never tell us at what temperature Earth should be.
Previous - chill map from February 2007; Winter of 2007
Selasa, 01 Januari 2008
"First order of business for the new year? Remove fangs from our neck. Why do we have to continue paying off these thugs, moochers, looters and destroyers? . . . . It's one thing to make a mistake, fair enough. But not to correct it doubles the wrong and speaks to a much more egregious failure, moral bankruptcy. It's no wonder everyone craps all over us. We are a joke. . . . . Remember that kid in school whohad no friends, so he would try to buy your friendship all the time in every conceivable, ass kissing way? Remember the contempt you held for that chump? He is us."
Pamela Geller - January 1, 2008