Friday, November 30, 2007

The Democratic Party Thinks Blacks Are Stupid!

by Frances Rice

A book that is well worth reading is They Think You're Stupid by Herman Cain. Information in that book and recent articles in liberal newspapers demonstrate that Democrats want to continue the political anomaly where the Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. The primary method used by the Democrats is to falsely accuse the Republican Party of being "anti-black."

Given the commendable civil rights record of the Republican Party that was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, as well as the current policies and actions by Republicans to help blacks prosper, the accusation that the Republican Party is "anti-black" is ludicrous on its face.

As author Michael Scheurer so succinctly stated, history shows that the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and now Socialism. The Democratic Party has hijacked the civil rights record of the Republican Party and taken blacks down the path of Socialism that has turned our black communities run by Democrats for the past 40 years into economic and social wastelands.

Considering the horrendous record of racism and "anti-black" Socialist policies of the Democratic Party, the question becomes, how do Democrats keep blacks voting overwhelmingly for a party that has caused so much harm to blacks?

With the help of the liberal media, Democrats use a combination of deception, hypocrisy, and re-writing of history to paint the Republican Party as a racist party, causing blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans, not a vote for Democrats.

Democrat Deception
A prime example of deception by the Democrats involves the effort to gain a voting member of Congress for the residents of the District of Columbia. Democrats recently blasted Republicans for legislation not passing in Congress. Yet, Democrats fail to mention the provision in our Constitution which designates DC as federal land and prevents DC residents from having a representative in Congress. In order to change that provision, there must be an amendment to the Constitution. The Democrats know this. Even so, Democrats want to deceive blacks by continuously introducing legislation in Congress, rather than seek an amendment to our Constitution. Why? They simply want to keep the issue alive to use against Republicans who refuse to go along with the unconstitutional scheme of the Democrats.

Shamefully, the Democrats are trying to blow smoke in the eyes of blacks about the S-Chip program that provides health insurance for poor children. In a typical sinister ploy, the Democrats want to expand the S-Chip welfare program to include over 700,000 adults, some with family incomes over $60,000. When Republicans objected to this expansion, including a veto by President Bush, Democrats accused Republicans of not caring about poor "children."

Every election cycle, Democrats try to deceive blacks by claiming falsely that Republicans "disenfranchise" blacks, even though blacks are voting in record numbers and, after several investigations in 2000 and 2004 by civil rights organizations and liberal newspapers, Democrats have produced no blacks who were denied the right to vote. If even one black person had been denied the right to vote, that person's name would have been blasted on the front page of every newspaper in this country.

In spite of evidence to the contrary, Democrats continue to repeat the mantra that "Republicans do not care about poor blacks." Ignored is the fact that, since the War on Poverty that began in the 1960's, more than $7 trillion dollars haves been spent on poverty programs, with over $500 billion spent on 80 poverty programs in 2006 alone. Contrary to the claims by Democrats, the No Child Left Behind Act which brings accountability to the school system is fully funded to the tune of $13.1 billion. In reality, Republicans have cut no programs designed to help the poor. Unknown by most blacks is the fact that a federal law mandates an automatic increase in funding for poverty programs.

Meanwhile, it is the Democrats who are actually taking actions that harm blacks. Democrats are aligning with the Teachers' Union and blocking providing school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black parents get their children out of failing schools. Democrats are putting the special interests of the Teachers' Union over that of poor blacks. Democrats do not want to acknowledge that the money belongs to the people, not the buildings.

Democrats are also aligning with the AARP, one of the Democratic Party's biggest special interest groups, by blocking Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the system because blacks on average have a five-year shorter life expectancy.

Hypocritical Democrats
In an ultimate display of hypocrisy, Democrat Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the minimum wage bill even though Democrats used minimum wage as a wedge issue during the 2006 election. The liberal press that supports the Democratic Party issued not one word of condemnation when Clinton and Obama, plus all of the other Democratic Party presidential candidates, refused to participate in the Congressional Black Caucus Detroit debate that was to be aired on FOX News. Yet, there was a media firestorm when four of the Republican Party presidential candidates did not participate in the Morgan State Tavis Smiley debate aired on PBS.

Democrats claim that they care about diversity, but readily demean black professionals who do not tow the Democratic Party's liberal line, slandering blacks as "vile," "Uncle Toms" and "Sellouts," including Dr. Condoleezza Rice, General Colin Powel, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Janice Rogers Brown and Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. Democratic Party operatives even insulted black Democrat Juan Williams, calling him a "Happy Negro" on CNN, for daring to expose the failed Socialist policies of the Democrats in his book Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America.

One example of hypocrisy is how the Democrats use the name "Willie Horton" to castigate Republicans. Democrats do not mention that it was former Vice President Al Gore who first brought up Willie Horton's name against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis during the 1998 primary election because, after Dukakis released convicted murderer Willie Horton from prison on a weekend furlough, Horton raped a woman and stabbed her husband.

In the general election, former President George H. W. Bush followed the example of Al Gore and used the name of Willie Horton against Dukakis who was the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Today, Democrats condemn G.H.W. Bush about Willie Horton, but hypocritically give Gore a pass.

Another stark example of hypocrisy is the way Democrats ignored the recent use of the "N-Word" on television by Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Now the Democrats are shamefully sullying the memory of Lee Atwater by falsely accusing him of using the "N-Word" in 1981, ten years before he died of a brain tumor on March 30, 1991 at age 40. Atwater was a tough political strategist who beat the Democrats in the political area, but he was not a racist..

Note that the charge that Atwater uttered a racist statement using the "N-word" was made by a liberal Professor Alexander P. Lamis, a native of South Carolina, who had worked as a research assistant at the liberal Brookings Institution before joining the Case Western Reserve University faculty in 1988.

Prof. Lamis claimed that Artwater made a racist statement in 1981, 18 years before Prof. Lamis wrote his book in 1999 (which was written 8 years after Atwater died in 1991) about politics in the 1990s. The title of Prof. Lamis' book is Southern Politics in the 1990s. If Atwater had made such an explosive, racist remark, why did Prof. Lamis not report that to the media in 1981 (or at any time during the 10 years before Atwater died) in order to destroy Atwater as a political strategist?

In Atwater's obituary written by Michael Oreskes that was published in The New York Times the morning Atwater died, Oreskes made an effort to trash Atwater even before his body had cooled, using every negative thing ever written or said about Atwater. Yet, Oreskes never once mentioned any statement made by Atwater in 1981 where he used the "N-word" as claimed by Prof. Lamis. The mean-spirited obituary about Lee Atwater that was published in The New York Times on March 30, 1991 can be found on the Internet at:
Michael Oreskes, Obituary for LeeAtwater

Democrats' Re-written History
An example of Democrats re-writing history involves the murder of blacks in the South during the civil rights era by "rabid racists." Democrats today want blacks to believe that it was Republicans who were the murderers. Instead, history shows that it was the Democrats who were the killers. One liberal historian, Dr. Eric Foner, decided to write an accurate account of history in his book A Short History of Reconstruction. Also, inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman conducted five years of research, wrote a book entitled Unfounded Loyalty, and sued the Democratic Party in 2005 for that party's 200-year history of racism. The Democrats came into court and, under oath, admitted their racist past, but refused to apologize because they know they can take the black vote for granted.


In court, Democrats acknowledge that it was the Democrats who fought to expand slavery; passed those Jim Crow laws and Black Codes; and opposed the passage of very piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860's to the 1960's. The Democratic Party, using their terrorist arm, the Ku Klux Klan, went on a Republican-cleansing murdering spree in the South after the Civil War. For years, Democrats lynched and terrorized Republicans, black and white, until they drove Republicans out of the South. This led to the South voting solidly for the Democratic Party for over 100 years after the Civil War because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

It defies logic to think that all of the racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the arms of the Republican Party after the Republicans were successful in helping blacks gain freedom and civil rights. In fact, Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because it was Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery; amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote; founded the NAACP; and pushed to pass civil rights legislation in the 1860's, 1950's and 1960's over the objection of Democrats.

Democrats were perfectly happy when the racist South was voting monolithically for the Democratic Party. Yet, Democrats today have the gall to demean Richard Nixon for his "Southern Strategy" in the 1970's that was designed to reach out to fair-minded Southerners and get them to stop voting for the Democratic Party that did not share their values and had caused so much harm to blacks.

It was Richard Nixon who first implemented affirmative action with the expanded 1969 Philadelphia Plan, assisted by black Republican Art Fletcher who was known as the "father of affirmative action enforcement." Nixon was also responsible for the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1970's. The transformation of the South from voting solidly for the Democratic Party was a 30-year odyssey, and Louisiana is still in the hands of the Democrats.

During the modern civil rights era, while Democrats were blocking school house doors and killing civil rights demonstrators, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools. Eisenhower also assured the Brown v. Board of Education decision by appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren to the US Supreme Court. It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who crafted the civil rights legislation of the 1950's and 1960's. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was filibustered by Democrats, a law that more Republicans voted for than Democrats. If it had not been for Republicans, President Johnson could not have achieved passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Most black Americans today do not know that Democrat President John F. Kennedy was not a civil rights advocate. In fact Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr, Martin Luther King, Jr. and had Dr. King investigated on suspicion of being a communist in order to undermine Dr. King. Also unknown is the fact that President Lyndon did not have civil rights at the top of his agenda. Johnson failed to mention one word about voting rights in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965. In that speech Johnson devoted only 35 words to civil rights.

The statement by Johnson about losing the South after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not made out of concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party. Instead, it was an expression of a concern that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States' Rights Democratic Party. This prediction came true in 1968 when Democrat George C. Wallace started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor Lester Maddox who brandished an ax-handle to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.

In order for the Democrats to win the White House in 2008, the Democratic Party must keep a "lock" on the black vote, and they are counting on black Americans accepting all of the negative rhetoric spewed out about the Republican Party without question. What they are not counting on is black Americans seeing through the Democratic Party's deception, hypocrisy, and re-written history.


Frances Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association and can be contacted at:
www.NBRA.info


The YouTube Debacle

Editorial - November 30th, 2007 - New York Post

Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube de bate was barely over before the net work was forced to make an embarrassing admission: One of its supposedly disinterested questioners, retired gay Army officer Keith Kerr, has an official position with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Wait.

There's more.

Within hours, resourceful bloggers had uncovered the even more embarrassing fact that at least three others who'd been selected to grill the Republican presidential hopefuls had all declared, in various online forums, that they're backing Democratic candidates. (Michelle Malkin has the details . . . )

Literally everyone in Republican circles is pointing out the outrage democrats would be expressing if Republicans had infiltrated the audience at a democrat debate. The duplicity is the reaction by democrats of; "Oh don't make such a big deal of this, the candidates didn't know." I worked in democrat campaigns (back in my youth) and the attitude that anything goes to win is certainly a major cause of these actions. The lack of concern for propriety by democrats is not unexpected. And in addition THEY DID KNOW! You can bet on it. You can also bet on the fact that democrats think it is funny. If Republicans did it to them now THAT would be outrageous. But done to a Republican? Just funny. No big deal. Lets moveon.org.

Once again the duplicity and double standard of democrats (or liberals or progressives or socialists or whatever they call themselves today) is out there for all to see. The blatant bias of CNN (jokingly referred to by many as the Communist News Network) also continues unabated. Questioners in the democrat YouTube debate were clearly asking softball questions allowing the candidates to state their best answers. Questioners in the Republican YouTube debate were ALL asking hardball questions that are related to the democrat attack points against conservatives. Not a single question was included about the state of the war, the strength of the economy, or popular positions such as the debate about "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Such bias is not tolerable from a TV network that has any pretense to objectivity. CNN doesn't.

What is truly funny is that CNN edited out Kerr, the Clinton plant, from the rebroadcast of their show. However they did not edit out the others that Michelle Malkin has identified on her web site. The list is now up to SEVEN of the CNN/YouTube questioners as plants!!! Michelle Malkin is now referring to this as the horticulture debates, with the questioners all being "plants".

ROTFL


Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The FairTax -- The Truth

Neal Boortz - November 27th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Last week Townhall published an article that opposed the "Fair Tax" bill H.R. 25. You can read that article
here.

This is a response by one of the two authors of a book on the"Fair Tax", which specifically addresses the criticisms. This is an important issue as it attempts to stop the damaging excess taxing of our nation.

Since Congressman John Linder, the author of H.R. 25, The FairTax Act, and I wrote “The FairTax Book” in 2005 we’ve seen an unprecedented and ever-growing nationwide interest in this tax reform idea. Let’s face it, you have to be doing something to capture the imagination of the American people to have a book on taxes debut No. 1 on The New York Times Bestsellers List. There are some, though not in what we call the mainstream media, who think that Governor Mike Huckabee’s embrace of The FairTax is an important element to his rise in the GOP presidential sweepstakes.

At least one thing has become clear, the fair tax (flat tax) proponents are being more honest and consistent with their comparison. The idea of a rate must be consistently applied. Ian, who commented on the earlier article, gave an excellent explanation of the difference between an add-on (sales tax) rate and an embedded (income tax) rate. Whichever you use you need to be consistent to compare apples to apples.

For example, if you make $100, and the Feds take take 28%, or $28, that leaves $72 net. Thus, calculating the income tax rate as a "sales tax" rate (or add-on), you'd take the $28 in tax - we'll call it the "sales tax," and divide it by the $72, which is the net - which we'll call "price" for this example. $28/$72 equals a "sales tax" (or add-on) of 39% (which, of course, is more than the 30% FairTax).
Anyone who compares a sales tax (add-on) rate with an income tax (embedded) rate is clearly showing a bias against the flat tax. I don't like people who are being that duplicitous. That alone is starting to convince me the flat tax people are on to something. When the flat tax opponents resort to misleading comparisons, you have to assume they know they are losing the argument. This article by Neal Boortz has some excellent points in favor of the flat tax.


Friday, November 23, 2007

Democrats Party Of Rich, Study Finds

by Donald Lambro - November 23rd, 2007 - Washington Times

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

[snip]

. . . . contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."


Republicans are the middle class and represent those who believe in free enterprise and the rewards of hard work.

Democrats are the rich corporate executives and represent those who believe in corporate socialism, welfare and government control, along with the poor who they want dependent on their handouts.

The result is that the poor are now voting for the party of the rich and insisting on taxing the middle class to provide for their welfare and handout programs. It gives a whole new meaning to the idea of class warfare. The rich and the poor have joined forces against the middle class.


Meet The Women Who Won't Have Babies

. . . because they're not eco friendly.

by Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner - November 21st, 2007 - London Daily Mail

Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiance Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker. When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children. "To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn't want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilisation," says Sarah.

"I didn't want to have an 'accident' if contraception didn't work - we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby." While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilised.

"We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised," says Sarah.
"In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby."

Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children.

There are two groups of people in this universe of people who want no babies. Those who choose it for themselves. Those who think it should be forced on others. The first type I have no problem with. It is the second type, many of whom flock to PETA, that I find truly repugnant. I do not understand how they can simultaneously think our world is great but that one species God created has to be wiped out? Do they not see the idiocy of that position? Even if they deny the existence of God it makes no sense. If all this "just happened", how can there be anything wrong with our species doing what it wants?


NYT: Suicide Manual For Dems

by Ann Coulter - November 21st, 2007 - anncoulter.com

Here's a story that may not have been deemed "Fit to Print": In the six months that ended Sept. 25, The New York Times' daily circulation was down another 4.51 percent to about a million readers a day. The paper's Sunday circulation was down 7.59 percent to about 1.5 million readers. In short, the Times is dropping faster than Hillary in New Hampshire. (Meanwhile, the Drudge Report has more than 16 million readers every day.)

One can only hope that none of the Democratic presidential candidates are among the disaffected hordes lining up to cancel their Times subscriptions.

The Times is so accustomed to lying about the news to prove that "most Americans" agree with the Times, that it seems poised to lead the Democrats -- and any Republicans stupid enough to believe the Times -- down a primrose path to their own destruction.

So if you know a Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't currently read the Times, by all means order him a subscription.

Ann Coulter is as sarcastic a writer as has ever existed. She is funny, if you are not the target of her humor or inclined towards political correctness. Though some on the right have become offended by some of her excessive rhetoric, and not without some cause, she still is FUNNY.

It is bizarre how the New York Times, and leading liberals in the Democrat Party, can insist that the American people want amnesty for illegals. No matter how many times the people reject it, the Times, and leading liberals in the Democrat Party, simply refuse to believe their opinions cannot be forced down the people's throats. They are convinced the people are with them. The result is shown above. The New York Times continues to lose readership as people vote with their wallets. Maybe the Times needs to start paying attention to that poll.


Turning Tides In Iraq

by Charles Krauthammer - November 23rd, 2007 - Townhall.com

Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam's totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment -- tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus' genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?

The neo-conservative goal of democracy in Iraq is not yet working, and yet it is clear that our military, a symbol of our form of democracy, is winning the hearts and minds of both the Iraq people and many of their leaders. This dichotomy should be apparent to all. We are winning even if not by the exact method our politicians had planned. Why is it that the Democrat Party leadership cannot see it?


Lessons In Holiday Dining With Liberals

by Larry Elder - November 22nd, 2007 - Townhall.com

. . . laws prohibit interstate health insurance sales, preventing people in state A from getting medical insurance from a company in state B? According to The Wall Street Journal in 2005, "eHealthInsurance compared the cost of a standard family insurance policy ($2,000 deductible with a 20 percent co-insurance) across that nation. (A) non-employer-based family policy for four in Kansas City, Missouri, costs about $170 per month, while similar coverage in Boston tops more than $750 a month." Why? Most states mandate the type of services that must be covered -- podiatrists, acupuncturists, massage therapists, etc. -- whether the patient wants it included or not.

Some states force insurers to sell to all applicants at the same price, regardless of their age or health. The result? "Faced with higher premiums for insurance they seldom use, the young and healthy drop their coverage, leaving an insurance pool of older, sicker people -- and even higher premiums. After a decade of such political meddling, the average monthly cost of a family policy in New Jersey bests the monthly lease of a Ferrari."

Socialized medicine is what we have in America. It is the reason our health system is broken and gets worse every year. It may not be as socialized as Canada, but it is socialized and getting more so. When even the radical right wing extremist Bill O'Reilly thinks that more socialism in health care is the answer, it is clear what the problem is. Our populace has gone insane and cannot apply even basic principals to a problem where a person's interests get in the way.

Socialism never works. It always has these grandiose magnanimous goals. However since it is always an evil system, trying to tell people how they must live by enslaving some to the greed of others, it always becomes corrupt and then fails. It does not work this time because you really - really - really want it to. Wishful thinking is the sign of a child . . . or an idiot.


As Larry Elder points out, the courts and the legislatures have screwed up health care because everyone wants health care to be a "right". Making it a "right" does not solve the problem. It simply accelerates the move down the "Road to Serfdom". Oh wait. Didn't a genius called Frederick Hayek write a book by that name three generations ago explaining why socialism never works?

Socialism never works. Good writers like Larry Elder can explain it, but everyone in America, even so called right wing extremists like Bill O'Reilly, can still put their hands over their ears and drone on, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah . . . I can't hear you." The greed of would be socialists, "I want what I want and I will not be told I can't get it," always means that government tries to provide it. As always they provide it by sending goons with guns. Of course they always send some well meaning bureaucrat first, and since he sees his request as being reasonable, if you resist they see you as the bad guy. The goon is not there to enslave you but to punish you for your resistance to something good. How dare you resist. Can't you see the good that will come from you bowing down to the bureaucrat?


Health care is becoming the foot in the door for the socialists. Even George W. Bush and a major part of the Republican Party has fallen for this scheme. It still always fails because it is always evil and it always results in corruption. Wanting it to work does not make it work. It just makes you part of the problem.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

A Hard Look At The Fair Tax

by Hank Adler - November 22nd, 2007 - Townhall.com

This presentation is intended to review and raise issues with respect to Federal legislative proposal H.R. 25 (109th): Fair Tax Act of 2007, the “Fair Tax”. Because the title of the proposed legislation prejudices the discussion, this presentation refers to this proposed legislation as H.R. 25.

[snip]

H.R. 25 – Conclusions

With all of its complexity, the current Internal Revenue Code is a more evenhanded approach to collecting necessary Federal revenues than H.R. 25. This is not to say that the author believes the current Internal Revenue Code is the right long term answer for the United States; it is to say that H.R. 25 is not the right long term answer.

This article is an analysis of the H.R. 25 law. It sums up most of the concerns of those who are opposed to the issue, and appears to do it with logic adopted by generally conservative economists. At first blush, the idea of a 30% federal sales tax would seem to assure a major collapse in our economy.

However I wish I could find out a little more about the writer Hank Adler other than that he is an associate professor at Chapman University. The implication is that he is a conservative or libertarian of some flavor since he is writing in Townhall.com. Townhall does not usually provide a forum for liberals and progressives unless they identify them as such. Chapman University is in a very conservative area of California, Orange County, but it is also a leading university in film studies, which is certainly not a conservative field. The point is to understand what bias Hank Adler might be subject to. The whole concept is so complex that a reasoned case can be made for either side. It takes some time to know what is really true and understanding motivations of a writer can help to look for any bias that exists.

I have long supported the concept of radical change in our government to fix some of the problems of our society. The question really becomes whether this is the direction to go. No tax is free from economically driven response that counters the intended goals. The 30% advantage being offered to those outside of our nation in buying our productive efforts cannot begin to be a benign issue. A 30% tax on food does not seem rationale either.

According to Adler, H.R. 25 does not seem to be at all the kind of tax that flat tax proponents think would be an improvement. This article attacks the idea. Can anyone provide a supportive article on the concept?


With Iraq Improving,
Will Neocon Ideas Return?

by Victor Davis Hanson - November 22nd, 2007 - Townhall.com

More than seven months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., claimed that Iraq was “lost.”

But that was hardly the case. In fact, Sunni insurgents were just beginning to turn on al-Qaida and join us.

[snip]

As fear of defeat in Iraq recedes from the political landscape, look to a growing consensus elsewhere. “Neocon” — the term often used to describe “new” conservatives who today support fostering democracy in the Middle East — may still be a dirty word.

But if you take the anger about George Bush out of the equation, along with the Iraq war and the fear of any more invasions by the U.S., why not support democratic reform in the Middle East?

This is still the idealistic view. As we are discovering with our relationship with Musharraf and his supporters in Pakistan, it is not possible to buy "friends" in the middle east. At best you can rent them . . . and the costs are high. We have plenty of prior evidence. The Shah in Iran. The House of Saud. The only true alliances (not friends . . . alliances) we have built in the last 100 years are where we established democracies in Germany and Japan.

However the real problem is the cynical reality that democracy is a shaky proposition, if by democracy you mean pure majority rule. What is really needed is the Constitutional Republic guarantee of individual rights to all provided where the use of democracy is in selection of the officials. However the officials must be limited with a balance of powers and a strong Constitution to the even handed treatment of all citizens. It is a tough balance to maintain, as we are discovering here in America. We too are creeping towards socialism and tyranny, just like all prior democracies.

In the middle east, with their dominant religion being based on the premise of a religion controlled socialist theocracy, democracy is a really hard sell. It has never worked all that well in Turkey. As the Taliban proved in Afghanistan, sharia law is a pretty horrible experience for women, gays and anyone who is not willing to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Allah. Expecting any democracy to resist that is at least argumentative.

The real question becomes, what is the best strategy to defeat the world-wide Islamo-fasicst movement that is dedicated to the destruction of our western world of freedom? We cannot leave the middle east to the petroleum supported dictatorships that currently rule. That strategy has not worked. What is the right strategy? Wait until nuclear bombs are going off here in America?


Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Weapons Of Mass Destruction Facility
For North Carolina Dedicated

At 1:00 PM yesterday, North Carolina held a dedication ceremony for the two new buildings composing the Weapons of Mass Destruction center for the 42nd Civil Support Team. This is an impressive new North Carolina facility that everyone in the state and the nation is praying will never be needed. Two buildings compose the new facility, the Admin Building (below), and the Garage (second picture below).






The facility is located at the Greenville Airport. The dedication ceremony was held inside the garage where a sort of auditorium facility had been set up for the day. Invited guests (below), band (second picture below) and the 42nd Civil Support Team (third picture below) were already gathered when I arrived. The band was playing some great patriotic and marching music.






There was an area set up at the end of the facility with charts depicting significant information about the 42nd Civil Support Team and the new Weapons of Mass Destruction facility that was being dedicated to help them perform their role. The charts were very helpful (all 5 shown below).









The officials for the event entered in two groups, one group sitting in a special reserved section (shown below) and the other sitting in the area indicated as the dais (second picture below).




Present for the Ceremony were (shown above from left), Greenville Mayor, Don Parrott, State Representative Edith Warren, State Representative Marian McLawhorn, Secretary of the NC Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Brian Beatty, Major General William Ingram - Adjutant General, State Command Sergeant Major Steve Boyles, Lt Colonel Chris Johnson, Lt Colonel Danny Mills - Commander of the 42nd Civil Support Team, and First Sergeant Wayne Stroud. Not present this day was Brigadier General David L. Jennette, Jr., Army Forces Commander.

After introduction of the dignitaries, first speaker was Mayor Don Parrott.




Secretary Brian Beatty, N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety spoke about the role of the Civil Support Team and its critical nature during any event that presents the possibility that Weapons of Mass Destruction are used.



The first Military representative to speak was Lt Colonel Danny Mills, the Commander, 42nd Civil Support Team.




Keynote Speaker for the event was Major General William Ingram, Jr.





At this point, everyone adjourned outside for the ribbon cutting service itself.




The four people chosen to cut the ribbon were (from left above in both pictures) Lt Colonel Danny Mills, Major General William Ingram, Secretary Brian Beatty and Mayor Don Parrott.



There were a great number of people of interest in the group who attended the ribbon cutting ceremony. Michael Sprayberry (shown on left above) Deputy Director and Operations Chief of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety, Betty Jo Shepheard, Regional Director for Senator Richard Burr, Janet Bradbury, Regional Director for Senator Elizabeth Dole, and Brigadier General Bud Martin, Commanding General of the Joint Task Force.




The end of the event was an opportunity for everyone to visit with old friends and people they often talked with but rarely got to see. If it were not for the sobering topic being discussed, it would have been a great event. We all need to pray that this facility is never needed.

I thank the 42nd Civil Support Team and all the North Carolina National Guard for their dedication to maintaining our safety.


Monday, November 19, 2007

Eastern North Carolina Big Winner

The 13th Biennial North Carolina Republican Party Hall of Fame Awards Banquet was held on Saturday, November 17th at the Embassy Suites in Cary. The event was a tremendous success with several hundred Republican supporters in attendance for the festivities.

This year’s event featured a gubernatorial straw poll between the three Republican candidates for Governor: Bill Graham, Bob Orr, and Fred Smith. Fred Smith prevailed in the straw poll. Bob Orr placed second and Bill Graham finished third.

The North Carolina Republican Party's Hall of Fame was established in 1982 and became a biennial awards event in 1985. In addition to the Hall of Fame Awards by District, there are also three statewide awards, including: the Charles Raper Jonas Award, the J.E. Broyhill Award, and the John P. East Memorial Award. Two ot the three winners of these awards this year are from Eastern North Carolina.

John P. East Memorial Award
John Hawkins, Sr. (Warren County)


J. E. Broyhill Award
Robert E. Rector (Granville County)


Robert Rector, with his wife Nancy, receives his award.


Charles Raper Jonas Award
Congresswoman Sue Myrick


The inductees for 2007 to the North Carolina Republican Party Hall of Fame are listed below:
Betty Jo Shepheard, John J. Edwards, Nancy L. Cleveland, William W. Cobey, Jr., Representative Theresa Harlow Esposito, Litchard D. Hurley, Franklin E. Williams, Sr., Betty F. Lapish, Mary Frances Forrester, Durward E. Clarke, Dr. Joe L. Morgan, Julius Ceasar Cousar, Nancy R. Mazza.

I almost titled this article "John Edwards inducted into Republican Hall of Fame" but finally decided against it. As you might have figured out, it is not the same John Edwards. This John Edwards is a good guy.

Congratulations to all the winners.



Sunday, November 18, 2007

High Hopes For Connerly
To End Race Dependency

by Kathryn Jean Lopez - November 18th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Believe it or not, we have come a long way regarding race in America. Though blacks have gone from being discriminated against in the law to being victimized by laws intended to help them, there have been positive changes. Ward Connerly, head of the American Civil Rights Institute, hopes to make more changes next November -- by breaking black Americans free from the chains of dependency.

Racial preferences are "the last thing that connects black people to the era when blacks were dependent on the government," Connerly told me earlier this month. With an eye toward nailing the coffin shut on black victimization by the government, he is calling his Election Day 2008 campaign, "Super Tuesday for Equal Rights." On that day, he is hoping for a victory over racial preferences in referendums in Nebraska, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma. According to Connerly, victories on these ballots could mark "the end of an era."

Actually as great as this would be, to predict it as "the end of an era" is at least a little bit of hyberbole. It will still be a great day and could at least be called "the beginning of the end."

The article goes on:
Bill Cosby, in his book with Alvin F. Poussaint, "Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors" (Thomas Nelson, 2007), encourages individual responsibility and "no more excuses." Cosby and Poussaint point out that in 2002, there were 1.2 million black-owned businesses in the United States, which marked a 45 percent increase in five years. More than ever, this is a land of opportunity.

That is the real goal. The American Dream. What I want is to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to realize that Dream. That has always been the reason America is great. America is the place where each person can have his own dream and make it come true.

The problem is that the same people who are selling the race warfare rhetoric of affirmative action are the people selling the class warfare rhetoric of welfare and socialism. A government that can satisfy your dreams is a government that can take them away. Your dream cannot be a dream of having government provide for you. Your dream has got to be that you have the opportunity to provide for yourself.

The prerequisite for all dreams is education and opportunity. We have to make sure that government gets back to helping people acquire those, rather than having a government that gives welfare and dependency. It is when you use education and opportunity to provide for yourself that you reach what Bill Cosby calls Victory. It is the only victory worthwhile.


Saturday, November 17, 2007

A Tale Of Two Houses

You can check this out on Snopes.com under "The Story of Two Houses".



House #1 - A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.





House #2 - Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes in to underground purifying tanks and then into e cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.


****************************


HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore. HOUSE #2 is a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".


Received as an anonymous email.


Thursday, November 15, 2007

Potholes On The Road

Editorial - ovember 15th, 2007 - Smithfield Herald

North Carolina’s transportation woes will soon be over.

After all, Gov. Mike Easley, Senate leader Marc Basnight and House Speaker Joe Hackney have put together a crack team to examine road building, its financing and other transportation-infrastructure issues.

An insurance company executive will lead the 24-member 21st Century Transportation Committee, created as an alternative to a legislative special session. The committee will include nine current legislators, four local government elected officials and two members of the state Board of Transportation.

Now, there’s what we need. More politicians advising politicians about formulating public policy.

Nowhere to be found on the committee: a civil engineer, an urban planner, a road-construction manager, a demographics expert, an asphalt-firm executive or an expert in road financing.

I love it! You don't see sarcasm as often as you should in an article about state government. However the corruption that is common in North Carolina government is certainly cause enough to start being sarcastic. Recent articles included the charge that Jim Black's son threatened retaliation if someone dared to challenge awarding him a contract even though his quote was 3 times the low quote. Does anyone think this is not common practice in the corrupt environment that the Democrat Party has created here in North Carolina?

A major reason is indicated in this article. There is a serious problem with transportation in North Carolina. Easeley-Basnight-Hackney, in typical Democrat fashion, create a committee with no one expert in this field to look at the problem and solely politicians in charge. They have a problem and they increase the amount of political influence. That assures two things. The problem will not be solved. No one will point out the political influence being asserted to assure the corruption continues.

That is intolerable. A perfect example of the corruption that is eviscerating any confidence our state will ever fix the problems. Just the opposite is occurring. Perdue and Moore are benefitting from huge amounts of campaign contributions from Republicans. Why would any Republican contribute to these Democrats? Because, in a self perpetuating cycle, they want to make sure they are not cut off from a chance to participate in the corruption. No one thinks it will end. The Republican Party is not doing this. Individual Republicans are. This is exactly why socialist cultures become so corrupt. Everyone simply wants to make sure they get to participate. In the end it destroys the society.


DOT Leader Gets An Earful

by Bruce Siceloff - November 9th, 2007 - News & Observer

There was serious talk about low pay and environmental stewardship. But it was a plea for new software that rocked the room with applause.

[snip]

Scott Walston, a transportation planning supervisor, ignited the hottest topic when he complained about weak information technology support for DOT workers. When computers in his office were replaced with newer ones, he said, their Windows XP software was replaced with an older version, Windows 2000.

"We're operating with Microsoft Office 1997, and there are several versions that have come out since then," Walston said. "Our e-mail system is pathetic. We're using Netscape 2001."

This is insane, but not surprising. While the rest of the world is worrying about how to move from Windows XP to Windows Vista, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is moving backwards. Windows XP is itself an Operating System whose life is coming to an end, having been around since 2001 in an industry that usually has a shelf life for software of a maximum of 5 years.

XP has survived this long only because it is very good. Much better than Windows 2000 which had so many shortcomings it only lasted 1 year. That it only lasted 1 year and then was replaced with Windows XP should be all the knowledge it takes to realize no one should be going back to Windows 2000. In the article the DOT Information Technology representative is talking about moving to Office 2003 next year, in 2008. With the vastly superior collaboration tools of Office 2007, which is now starting to get a reputation for stability since it has been out a year, why are they looking to go to an old version of Office? Office 2003 is good, but it is 4 years older than the current product.

At the same time we get an article about the Department of Corrections paying 3 times as much for pest control as necessary because the owner of the firm winning the bid is Jim Black's son,
"Blacks son bid high but got jobs". In a department spending as much money as the Department of Transportation, what chance is there that the corruption so prevalent in our state government is not prevalent here too?

Does anyone think that the Democrat Party raid on the highway trust fund of $170 million per year is not indicative of the fact that they see all public money as simply sources of payola? In fact how many doubt that the reason for the problems in this department are not directly related to the $170 million raid on the higway trust fund?

North Carolina is the most socialist state in America. Like the Soviet Union, that means it is the most corrupt as well. I never thought I would have to acknowledge it but North Carolina has overtaken Louisiana as the state people think of when they think about corrupt government here in America. Why do people think that unless they punish the Democrat Party and vote them out, this will not continue?


Saturday, November 10, 2007

Democrats And Waterboarding

by Alan Dershowitz - November 7th, 2007 - Wall Street Journal (opinionjournal.com)

Michael Mukasey, whose confirmation as attorney general now seems assured, is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of "waterboarding" cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents--some of which I disagree with--the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process.

The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? [That would be millions if nuclear bombs were involved.] Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds [millions] of Americans?

Very interesting article. Alan Dershowitz is a liberal who, like Christopher Hitchens, recognizes that our system is under attack from a movement, Islamo-fascism, that could easily destroy us. He recognizes that there is a powerful element in the Democrat Party which does not care about that war. They are so focused on their war against free enterprise (and thus a war against America) that they are indifferent to the war with the Islamo-fascists.

The last paragraph sums up Dershowitz's advice to the Democrat Party. Though I am not interested in maintaining this issue as a partisan issue I consider his advice frightening. That is because he is encouraging the Democrat Party to have the anti-war element in their party pretend to care about defending our nation so they don't lose the election. He might argue that he is asking this not be a partisan issue, but his goal, a Democrat victory, indicates that is not the true motivation.


Friday, November 09, 2007

Congress Porks Up Waterways Bill

by Timothy P. Carney - October 19th, 2007 - The Examiner

The Senate recently passed a bill authorizing money for the Army Corps of Engineers with a price tag of about $14 billion. The House version of the Water Resources Development Act passed at $15 billion. In a conference committee, lawmakers from both chambers hammered out the differences, and in the end came to a compromise: $23 billion.

What concerns me is the possibility that George W. Bush knew that this bill was so filled with pork benefiting both the Democrat and Republican sides of the aisle that he did not seriously expect to stop the waste. He anticipated that his veto would be overridden. He may have simply been posturing. It is certainly not consistent with his previous practice of approving anything that increases government size and waste.

This is not the Republican philosophy. It is not what we elected Bush to do. He has deceived the Republican party base about what he stood for. Unfortunately he is a part of the "elite" wing of the Republican Party that is rapidly promoting Bush's new philosophy of "big government conservatives". That is what they call "compassionate conservative" but not what they really mean. They really mean corporate socialism. There is a war in the Republican Party today between those who support free enterprise (which really means small business) and those who support "capitalism" (which really means big corporations).

There is no real way we can represent both. The Republican Party needs to decide whether they support free enterprise or "capitalism". Since today the democrat party is the true party representing big business, Republicans can't really get their support. Their money goes to the democrats. However we have not yet gotten the message out that big business has sold out the Republican Party. They are still registered Republican but they give their money to the democrats. Small business has not yet caught on that they cannot win by playing the same game.

Today, neither party represents the interests of those who are willing to embrace free enterprise and the concept of competition that comes with it. A few more years with neither party representing the interests of free enterprise will leave our current economic system in shambles and our government as corrupt as any in the world.


Thursday, November 08, 2007

Meet the Anti-Planner

by Bill Steigerwald - November 6th, 2007 - Townhall.com


It is safe to say economist Randal O'Toole is an expert in many of the things that have caused Pittsburgh and other cities great pain -- government planning, government mass-transit systems and government attempts to shape or contain the redevelopment of cities. A senior fellow at the Cato Institute, he specializes in urban growth, public land and transportation issues. His daily blog is called The Antiplanner (ti.org/antiplanner) and his new book is "The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future."

Government planning is based on the premise that bureacrats understand more about society and the future than those who are in the private sector. It is an assumption of arrogance and demands the power to tell people how to live. It is always a disaster in the long run. Even if some benefits are obtained in the short run, giving this much power to bureaucrats will lead to abuse at some point in time. It is a predictable as the tides.


Stop "Making A Difference"

by Thomas Sowell - November 6th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?

How many have studied the impact of drunken idlers on other people in their own society, including children who come across their needles in the park -- if they dare to go to the parks?

How many have even considered such questions relevant as they drop their stone in the pond without thinking about the waves that spread out to others?

Thomas Sowell is making a point with which most agree. However not many would think to phrase "serving the homeless" as "making idleness easy". It is the knack of this writer to express things in a way that things make sense, where you can say, "Yes, I agree. Now I know how to say what I feel." Thomas Sowell helps us all by giving us words to express our honest feelings. Those who have long felt that the programs where we feed the homeless were not working have not had an easy way to express our unease.

Not surprisingly those who want to feel self righteous about their acts are offended. Those who work to feed the homeless do not want it pointed out that they are not doing something good. They are not "giving back" to the community. They are promoting idleness and homelessness by making it easy.

Which do you think you should do? "Make a difference" or "promote idleness"? What if they are the same? In fact isn't an honest assessment the truth they are the same?


Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Faking The News In A 'Good' Cause

by Michelle Malkin - November 7th, 2007 - New York Post

You don't have to be a Harvard University researcher to figure out that the media is infected with liberal bias - or to realize that some left-wing journalists will use any means necessary to create ideological narratives that fit their worldview.

The Rathergate debacle at CBS News - in which faked National Guard memos were used to smear President Bush - was an extreme example. But if you look closely, you'll find everyday examples of Serious Journalists manufacturing the news and concocting social crises. Amazingly, they always manage to make conservatives look racist, intolerant and evil.

These stories about news reporters lying never have a very long or effective life because anyone involved in the news has to participate in the public dialog, and the MSM has the ability to move the dialog on to new stories that they cover. Later they come back and repeat their original lies . . . . and if you disagree with their story the second time they claim your attack is "old news". They can thus create their own truth whether it is true or not. Just like Rather did. It is amazing the number of articles you can find where some journalist still insists that the memos were real.

The effort to invent news that fits a particular journalist world view is catching on among student newspapers as well. The editor of one newspaper did exactly what Rather did, invent news. From the same article above:

For many left-wing do-gooders in the media, the ideological end - exposing America as an irredeemably racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist nation - justifies these manufactured means. That destructive philosophy has manifested itself on countless college campuses, where professors and students alike have been caught cooking up fake hate crimes to show how racist our society is.

On Monday, in a separate but rather related incident, a student journalist/College Democrat at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., admitted that she had drawn swastikas on her dorm-room door. Sarah Marshak signed a confession, campus officials said, after security cameras caught her in the act.

How long do you think it will be before some newspaper reporter ignores her admission and repeats the lie that Nazis drew swastikas on her dorm-room door to intimidate her. When this first broke Sarah Marshak was lauded for the courage she showed in ignoring the threat implied by the action. This was back before it became known she drew them herself. How much courage does it take to berate some people for their attacks on you when they don't exist?


Dems Outmaneuvered On Impeachment

by Michael Goldfarb - November 7th, 2007 - The Weekly Standard

4:23 Update: The House begins a 5-minute vote on whether to send Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The bill won't be acted upon, so this is another way to kill it.

4:31 Update: Looks like the Democrats successfully regrouped after that first vote surprised them. The House just voted 218-194 to send Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee. This effectively kills the bill, preventing a debate on impeachment.

It's interesting that on such a weighty question as impeaching the vice president of the United States, votes can change so quickly. While the roll calls are not yet available, it seems there were plenty of Democrats who voted to go forward with impeachment when they thought it would fail, who suddenly voted against impeachment when it mattered. I guess it was all just about politics after all -- even for the supposed 'true believers.'


Even for those of us who would have liked to see the democrats have to take an open position on impeaching Vice President Cheney for supporting the war against Islamo-fascism, it is just as well that this will not happen. We are in a war. We have an enemy that glories in our internal disagreements. I'll galdly give up the partisan desire to humiliate democrats if it helps even a little in ending the constant embarrassment of partisan bickering in front of our enemies.

The final outcome is actually inconsistent with the headline title for this article. Though temporarily outmaneuvered, they managed to stop the pubic discussion before it was over. I wonder if they consider that a victory?



Islamo-facism And The Death Of Feminism

by Julie Bushey Trevor - November 6th, 2007 - Burlington Free Press

In my lifetime I have witnessed the bravery of countless women who have risen to the challenge of ending the oppression of women worldwide. It is puzzling to me why at this time in our history, when women in this country in particular have made tremendous gains in their own status, they have willingly stalled their work toward freedom for certain women; especially the violent oppression of the Women in Islam.

[snip]

Islamo-fascists insist [o]n a fundamental Islamic ideology where men and women are not equal; women are considered physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and morally inferior to men. Public facilities therefore are separate (and often inferior) for women; a "gender apartheid" as many call it.


The support of the left in America for this violent anti-female and anti-Christian religion is bizarre. Their insistence that the position of the Islamo-fasicsts is our fault is indefensible. Christopher Hitchens is one of many on the left who are simply astounded at the willingness of liberals to excuse the violence against innocent women. I don't know if this predicts the "death of feminism" as proclaimed in this article, however the liberals who have failed to stand up for their principals owe our nation an explanation of their irrational behavior. What do they really believe?


GOP Seizes Control Of City-County Council

by Brendan O’Shaughnessy - November 7th, 2007 - Indianapolis Star

Earlier this year, before property tax bills arrived and before income taxes were raised, Democrats were predicting they would win as many as 20 of the council’s 29 seats.

As with Democrats all over America, any displeasure with the Democrat program was met with an attitude that the people were "on their side". Republicans had been defeated in the last election and now that Democrats were on top, nothing would interfere with their tax and spend program. The people supported them. The people had abandoned the war mongering Republicans.


Reacting to the overwhelming loss, William Oliver, a Democrat unopposed in District 10, said he was concerned about Republicans controlling the council.

“There’s so many newcomers over there,” he said. “So many experienced Republicans chose not to run, it’s kind of alarming.”

Democrats were caught by surprise.
Many Republicans were too, as the consensus of public opinion did not anticipate the Republican victory. Like Republicans all over America, there was actually a feeling of despair among party members until yesterday's surprise victories.


Democratic challenger Carey Hamilton, who raised more money than all but one other council candidate, said people she talked to at the polls in District 4 were upset about property taxes, even though the council had more control over the county income tax increase. She said she had mistakenly believed voters connected the property tax increase more closely to the state legislature.

“I wasn’t expecting there to be so much anger about taxes,” Hamilton said. “I don’t think my message really mattered much at that point.”

Surprise victories for Republicans came from across the county.

For many years there has been a growing conviction our nation was moving towards freedom and away from the socialist practices of the Democrat Party. In the face of an unpopular war that seemed to be going against America, and with the National Republicans abandoning the commitment to fiscal responsibility, many Republicans went down to defeat in the last election. This election in Indianapolis seems to suggest that Democrats may have misunderstood the mood of the people.

The direction of the country has not changed. The last election was a reminder to the Republicans that they were not intended to forget who put them there. This election seems to be the same reminder for the Democrats, at least in these races in Indianapolis.

And yet, here in the South that national mood does not seem to prevail yet. Why is that?


Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Fred Smith's Thoughts On Defeat

In a December 6, 1959, story in the Charlotte Observer, the then-high school football player made clear his feelings after North Carolina lost to South Carolina in the Shrine Bowl.

Though he was chosen as the game's outstanding lineman, [Fred] Smith was not happy: Smith riveted his eyes on the horizon with a grim expression. "Come on, Fred," called a buddy, "smile for the man."

"The losers don't smile," sighed Smith, finally breaking into a faint grin.

All was not lost, however. The story goes on to note that college coaches from both Carolinas descended on Smith "with outstretched palms, eyes gleaming with congeniality." Smith went on to attend Wake Forest University on a football scholarship.


Life Is Not A Defined Benefit

by Star Parker - November 5th, 2007 Townhall.com

Twenty seven years ago, in November 1980, Chile, Dr. [Jose ] Pinera's home country, approved Social Security reform in which a tax-based, pay-as-you go government retirement system -- essentially identical to what we have here -- was replaced with an ownership based system of individually owned retirement accounts. Yes, in principle the kind of reform that President Bush proposed.

As the then youthful Minister of Labor and Social Security of Chile, Pinera was the godfather, mastermind, architect, navigator, and quarterback of the reform.

Key in execution was to allow every Chilean worker the dignity of choice.

They could choose to stay in the existing system, continue to pay payroll taxes, and qualify for government benefits at retirement, or they could get out and use those same funds to open and invest in their own personal retirement account.

Within months, 90 percent of the Chilean workforce opted out of the government system and into their own personal ownership regime.

The result has been more than just an enormously successful transformation of a failed government retirement system. Chile's social security privatization -- if I may use the word that politicians, even the conservative ones, choke on these days -- has been a driving piston in Chile's economic engine, now the most powerful in Latin America.

We have got to have radical reform here in America. One area where that is needed is in the system of social security. Our current system is nothing but generational slavery. Everyone knows that slavery is evil, unless it benefits us. The slavers of 200 years ago had completely rationalized why the system was good for them. Today our older people have completely rationalized social security. The young are completely opposed. A generation clash is coming if something is not done soon.

It is easy to argue that the current social security is the only way to handle taking care of our older generations. However Chile has shown there are better ways. I am not surprised that a former socialist nation like Chile has led the way. Experiencing socialism is sometimes one of the best ways to acquire the motivation to abolish it. Our current Social Security System is socialism and includes all the worst evils of that economic concept.


Protecting The Human Dignity Of The
Girl Child Worldwide

by Ken Blackwell - November 1st, 2007 - Townhall.com

One of the most prominent forms of discrimination against girls exists even before they exit their mother’s womb. That is the issue of sex-selection abortion. The notion of sex-selection abortion challenges the liberal concept of abortion as an innate human right. Sex-selection abortion is practiced in countries where cultural norms dictate that a man is more prized than a woman.

This past summer saw the horrific discovery of the remains of dead baby girls in the Indian town of Orissa. These babies had been bagged and tossed in a well behind what was discovered to be an abortion clinic.

The liberals in American are so proud of their support for gender equality. However they are provably indifferent to gender equality based on two intertwined issues. Their new fondness for the religion of Islam with its hatred for anything western, including free enterprise, is the first issue. Sharia law makes women second class citizens, even slaves to the males in society. The second issue, support for abortion, is so absolute that even in the face of repeated proof that it is being used to select male children over female children in Muslim societies (and many others as well) they will not waiver. Why?


'Global Warming' As Pathological Science

by James Lewis - November 2nd, 2007 - The American Thinker

Trofimko Lysenko is not a household name; but it should be, because he was the model for all the Politically Correct "science" in the last hundred years. Lysenko was Stalin's favorite agricultural "scientist," peddling the myth that crops could be just trained into growing bigger and better. You didn't have to breed better plants over generations, as farmers have been doing for ages. It was a fantasy of the all-powerful Soviet State.

Today, "global warming" is the new Lysenkoism. This article provides a list of the incredibly stupid claims to science of the political left of the last century. This latest junk science claim is frightening because otherwise rational beings are insisting that it is true in the face of compelling evidence it is not man's fault. Why are they so sure it has to be man's fault? It plays into the fears of a generation that was never taught to think by a corrupt education establishment but always taught to assign blame.

That makes it hard to deal with because to make progress you can't just appeal to the public based on logic, you must find a way to explain the process to people who have opinions and think they are a substitute for facts. No matter how many lies and exaggerations are told by the "global warming" hysterics on the left, a large portion of the public will not hold them accountable. The consequences are evil.

If that is not pathological, nothing is.


Huckleberry Finn And “Muslim” Jim

by Lee Culpepper - November 4th, 2007 - Townhall.com

The latest politically correct attempt to feign offense over The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (which unleashes Mark Twain’s piercing wit and bitter criticism of society) is currently smoldering in North Richland Hills, Texas. Ibrahim Mohamed, a 17-year-old junior at Richland High School, claims that his teacher’s reluctance to replace the hateful word “nigger” on the blackboard with the “N-Word” was “cruel” and demonstrated “bad judgment.” Mohamed was the only black student in his class. He has since been transferred to a different English class with another teacher.

The only really decent character in Twain's book is Jim. It is a great story, told as if by Huck, and moves along with great zest, drawing the reader in and making him care about these two characters, one white and one black, who are working together to accomplish their personal goals.

At the beginning Huck cares little for Jim. By the end of the story, Huck (and the reader) has acquired a respect and concern for Jim that neither Huck (nor the reader) had at the beginning. In the process Mark Twain also creates a completely new definition for the word "nigger". By constantly associating it with "Jim", and changing the reader's view of Jim, Twain changes the connotations of the word forever.

It clearly is Twain's intent. It also was clearly Twain's intent to embarrass those who thought the cultural attitudes of the time were okay. He was successful in that. Walking a fine line, Twain tweaked society's nose and forever changed our culture in the process. He was ridiculing those who used "nigger" as a put down of an entire race. He held Jim up as a proud and decent human being who should be admired. Most readers learned the lesson even if it took some time to sink in.

It is sad that so many today cannot accept Twain's lesson. I believe it is because they reject the premise that whites can reject racism. Too many who glory in victim hood say that whites are racist and cannot change. I wonder if they really think racism cannot end, or if they are determined that racism should not be ended as it serves their purposes to claim it is still a problem?


Monday, November 05, 2007

First Amendment Heroes

by Mike Adams - Novermber 5th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Sometimes we forget that Dinesh D’Souza was one of the first to write about the effects of political correctness on university free speech. His early 1990s book, Illiberal Education is a must-read for anyone interested in the topic. And, for those who don’t know it, his sometimes-overlooked Letters to a Young Conservative is loaded with practical (and fun) advice on how to fight back against campus political correctness.

Recently, I realized that I would not be doing what I am doing without Dinesh’s influence. Shortly thereafter, I wrote to thank him for being, not just a great influence but, perhaps, the greatest political mind of our time. I hope some of you will take the time to write and thank him for his role in starting this great free speech revolution in higher education.

When I first started writing about the insanity on our campuses even my own family and friends did not believe the stories. But because of all the people I’ve mentioned today, they do believe me now. And, whenever I get a chance, I tell them “See, I told you so.”

Next week, I will write about young First Amendment heroes who are still in school. You won’t believe how great these kids are when I first tell you. But, later, when they become household names, you will. And, then, I will write again to tell you “See, I told you so.”

Until then, enjoy your precious liberties. Our toughest battles may be still to come.

Our toughest battles are still to come. It is time America remembered what made us great. When the abolition movement failed to disband after the slavery practiced by Muslim governments against whites ended (known in our historical lore as the Barbary Pirates but in actuallity a much larger multi generational problem) it took on the injustice of slavery against blacks here in the Americas. It is forever to our sorrow that America was one of the last in our hemispere to end slavery. However that battle was won, and 500,000 whites died following Abe Lincoln in his war to end the practice and keep America one nation.

If there is honor in those black men and women who would not stop fighting for their own freedom, willing to risk death, how much honor is there in those white men and women who died while free for the freedom of others? What kind of courage did they show?

When did we become such wusses that we are not willing to fight for freedom today? How can we tolerate the injustices that have been re-instituted into our nation in the guise of political correctness? Here in North Carolina the education system is failing to such an extent that half of our black male children quit school because they know that they are wasting their time? They are not getting an education while our teacher's unions are bragging about how their new methods have been scientifically tested and proven superior to the methods that gave us the greatest education system in the world 40 years ago. How can anyone with a brain believe this? How can anyone with a conscience allow them to continue to destroy an entire generation?

It is not just in higher education that these battles must be fought. We need to win these battles on the local level too. Where are the first Amendment heroes of the Inner Banks? Are you ready to be one?


Saturday, November 03, 2007

The American Dream

A Lesson in Personal Responsibility

by Larry Elder - November 1st, 2007 - Townhall.com

Who is Stanley O'Neal? Born in segregated Alabama in 1951, O'Neal spent his early childhood delivering newspapers, picking corn and cotton on the family farm, and being educated in a one-room school built by his grandfather. He landed a job on General Motors' assembly line, and won a place studying engineering and industrial administration at the General Motors Institute. O'Neal later secured a Harvard scholarship, where he earned an MBA. "I really didn't have an understanding of the world or any role models, but I had a strong desire to learn, and I think that is what pulled me through," said O'Neal.

He left General Motors for Merrill Lynch in 1986, beginning a meteoric rise to CFO in 1998, president in 2000 and CEO in 2002. In July 2002, when Fortune magazine named O'Neal the most powerful black executive in the country, O'Neal refused to comment for the story. Most interviewers found O'Neal disinclined to talk about his race and background, as Fortune later wrote: "[O'Neal] is even reluctant to discuss what it's like to be the first African American to run a major Wall Street firm."

Last year business pundits praised O'Neal, and his firm rewarded him for their record $7.5 billion net income by paying O'Neal $48 million, one of Wall Street's richest packages.

This story says a huge amount about the America we live in today. The lessons are in two areas.

First about race. Stan O'Neal was not made CEO of Merrill Lynch because he was black. His race did not matter. No one is given control of a multi billion dollar corporation as a token. This was not affirmative action, it was about merit.

Second about corporate leadership. Merrill Lynch was enchanted with the profits that could be made from sub-prime loans, just like every other major wall street firm. However when the market changed and the profits disappeared, managing the marketing process was not enough. Corporate heads are rolling, not because of their race, but because they did not protect the corporation from the down side of this market mistake. Even the first black man to head a major firm is not exempt.

It does not matter that we pay our corporate executives too much money. It does not matter that we fire them too quickly for the good of either the corporations or American free enterprise. At least one interesting lesson is that in neither hiring nor firing will race matter at this time.

That lesson is a good one. It means we are coming much closer to Martin Luther King's goal that we will judge a man by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. That is good for America as it means we are closer to the American Dream.

I just wish we had not allowed our free enterprise system be so corrupted by the courts. Today, there is no consequence for mistakes. Every major Wall Street firm went along with the sub-prime effort because of short term focus driven by court actions. Firing the heads who allowed this is not a replacement for avoiding the herd mentality that is the basis for modern business management. The CEOs all knew that as long as they went along with the herd, they would get their golden parachutes. This idiocy is driven by court decisions that punish any firm for trying to practice accountability.

Two lessons about America today. One good. One bad. This is the American Dream?