The 2010 State of the Union address was amazing. Hearing Obama speak made me realize that every single criticism of the president, from both left and right, is absolutely, positively justified. I was amazed by how he could lie, distort, and lie some more throughout the entire speech. The content was pure garbage, but its deeper significance, evident in how his tone changed from ultra-lefty to faux-populist and how he tried to pander to nearly every group out there, was that the American people’s call for sanity has finally shaken him up. I was amazed about how deftly he betrayed his leftist comrades by calling for spending freezes and offshore drilling (I thought McCain and Palin lost the election?) and, with equal agility, fired shots at the Constitution (the Supreme Court’s recent first amendment ruling) and called for more government intervention. It was a speech whose content only pleased the mindless minions whose mouths water whenever they see the first non-fully-white president in American history flanked by teleprompters deliver a speech punctuated with his trademark halting pauses. It is these non-color-blind liberals who would apply the death penalty on anyone who criticizes their Dear Leader if they could. In the words of MLK, Jr. I, and most other sane Americans, judge him by the content of his character not the color of his skin… and, I will also add, by the merits of his actions: more government, more debt, more unemployment, higher taxes, and less security. Only true sheep can honestly believe that a one-year record like this constitutes change, hope, or progress in any way. Even his supporters must admit that he has a lot of work to do if he is to live up the standards that he set for himself.

For everyone else, this speech was an insult. It reminded me of the orchestrated speeches given by dictators throughout history, the Lenins and Castros, whose every word was applauded by their one-party government officials/lackeys while their nations fell apart. For the Left, Obama promised little on his signature policy initiative, health care reform, and his promises to halt government spending and emphasis on lowering taxes only infuriated the big-state-lefties. For the Right, Obama’s pandering was seen as just that, calling his redistributionist policies “tax cuts” was like twisting the knife, the promise to be more bipartisan after breaking that promise multiple times fell on deaf ears, and attack after attack on the free market system, disguised as populist rhetoric against banks, revealed that distinctive Marxist underbelly of this administration. For centrists, who tend to be more fiscally conservative and socially “liberal,” do not know what to believe, the actions of the past year, with unprecedented government growth, bailouts (things they disliked about W. Bush), and broken promises about public finance for his campaign, about the “closure” of Gitmo within the year, about changing the culture of Washington, or his words now, similar to his words back then. The magic of words only last so long, just ask Hitler, Chavez, and Mao, who, after having immense popular support, secured their power through the brutal repression of their respective populations. The right knew this from the beginning and so the resistance to the mass-hypnosis of the presidential campaign was rooted in an understanding of history and gave rise to comparisons to the Nazis and the Soviets… the Left tried to spin this as being a manifestation of racism, but their logic is faulty, if racists glorify racism then why would they compare the Obamania to the Nazi regime, the epitome of racism of the last century? Regardless, the Left likes to use racism as a political attack instead of addressing why people are unhappy, the redistributionist rhetoric/actions, the anti-Americanism (yes, anti-Americanism) of going on worldwide apologizing-and-bowing tours, etc. etc. Today, America is more vigilant than ever, because we see that the administration has finally realized that Obama’s words have failed and, historically, repression is the next step. I personally doubt that he will take such drastic action, he is a weak leader, he is sly, he is calculating, he is profoundly cold, and he does not have the mettle to be a revolutionary… but there are forces and influences around him that believe that this is the moment to make America a socialist utopia and that this opportunity cannot be squandered.

I loved the State of the Union because it further emboldened me (to civic participation). The speech was a rhetorical retreat, a concession that he cannot act so socialistic in the open, and an affirmation of the fact that the Democrats’ string of defeats is sending Washington a message. So far, this year has been quite positive for independent-minded Americans but we are still under the thumb of an Imperial Democrat government in Washington that is trying to disregard the will of regular Americans. We Americans still have at our disposal a powerful weapon, our vote, and while they can try to ignore us, they cannot ignore the fact that we can throw them out of power… forever.

-AG

Wow. Truly amazing. After increasing spending across the board to historically high levels with very little to show for it, president Obama has announced a spending freeze on some discretionary spending to be put into effect in 2011. Obama is hoping that this will boost his approval rating among center and right voters, but for me, this move only means one thing: Scott Brown and the Tea Party movement have scored their a huge tangible win against the government, at least in the government’s rhetoric. Why else is Obama pretending to be a born-again fiscal conservative after all this time? Go Scott! Do we think that Obama will keep this promise, of course not. He did not even live up to his “first act as president” promise of closing Gitmo within the year, even with vast left-wing support. Ultra fail. Just like when he mentioned tort reform, received a standing ovation, and then scrapped it as soon as we weren’t looking, I expect Obama to find ways to increase spending despite his announced “freeze.” Remember, lefty liberals do not believe in “freezes,” they believe in “warming” and they also believe in spending money faster than the machines can print the stuff. Don’t believe me? Just watch as White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein practically begs (especially near the end) Rachel Maddow to support the president on this and how she rips the administration for trying to save money:

Very fun to watch. Maddow, veteran of the failed Air America experiment (they are filing for bankruptcy, in case you haven’t heard), is the quintessential leftist in this clip, accusing the Obama administration of taking a “big right turn” for trying to cut excessive spending. Crazy. I can see it now: Obama clinging to his guns (Biden’s biceps) and his religion (Reverend Wright-ism). If anything, this goes to show that the Left is more interested in making excessive spending more excessive as long as it is the government that’s doing it.

For the rest of us, this goes to show that this administration is trying to govern by the polls, the anti-Bush who reads the polls in order to know what’s in his “heart.” What does move mountains is bucking expectations, electing conservatives in liberal states, and voting against the socialist machine. They are trying to pivot now first by appearing populist by going after the banks, then by appearing centrist by announcing tax credits for the middle class, and now appearing fiscally conservative by claiming that he will freeze discretionary spending. None of this is real, it’s just for show. Expect the far left to lob grenades at Obama for his transgressions against Keynesianism and Leninism. Grab some popcorn, turn on MSNBC, and just watch the fireworks fly this week. It’ll be an early Fourth of July… and as an added bonus, all their infighting and failures may just end up making America more free!

-AG

If you’re a far left liberal that is. If you’re a regular American citizen, more invested in pragmatism than ideology, Obama has certainly put us on the road to tremendous change. The White House has defended its chang-y agenda, saying things like “we’ve seen is a dramatic difference in terms of how the United States is perceived around the world.” Yes indeed, now our enemies think we are weak and our allies worry about our resolve. They say that Obama laid “a foundation for keeping America safe and making us a partner around the world,” comments made less than a month after the terror attack by the would-be underwear bomber, the suicide bombing of the CIA in Afghanistan, and the brazen Taliban attack on Afghanistan’s capital city. Security we can believe in.

Obama making friends with our “ally” Pakistan

Economically, despite spending trillions of taxpayer dollars, unemployment marches on, small businesses continue to go out of business, and the national debt is soaring. Not enough change? Not if you’re Dean, Kucinich, or the leftist anti-war fringe who have blasted Obama for not going far enough with his promise of change. I said this before, and I’ll say it again: “In Obama, we got exactly what he promised us: redistribution of wealth, weakness abroad, and more government intrusion.” The left, the rabid left that believes that this is their chance to somehow create a society where Marxism, environmentalism, defeatism, and atheism are the foundational principles is unhappy with Obama for not pushing harder, for not ordering the National Guard to arrest Congress for not passing his bills, for not outlawing opposition parties. The truth is that Obama is much smarter than the far far left gives him credit for because a too sudden move towards socialism and American people will revolt, so instead the president is giving us socialism by increments. The question should not be whether Obama has brought change to America, he has, but rather if the change he has brought has helped or hurt our country. Just recently, the answer to that question was given by Massachusetts and that answer will echo throughout the country later this year.

-AG

I was thinking the other day that far left liberals in this country have an odd view of the world, as if they completely rebelled against the things that they were taught as children. This is a general statement of course and is completely subjective, taken from my own experiences when I was a young child and the lessons that I was taught. I understand that there are many differences in the way that people are raised, but in general there are some values that are pretty widespread, dare I say universal, in this country. Let’s call these American values. I will enumerate some and give their leftist liberal counterparts.

“Work hard and you will be successful.” This was something that my parents instilled in me from a very young age and it applies to nearly everything in life. This was not a conservative viewpoint nor a political ideology, but a truism gleaned from experience… experiences such as the struggle against communism in Cuba where, despite having family members imprisoned for political reasons, my family earned a living, became educated, practiced their faith in defiance of the state, and ultimately came to this country against huge odds. What is interesting is that the leftist point of view is almost the polar opposite of this: “without government help, you can’t make it.” Just glossing through the Democrat party’s platform one reads thing like “giving people jobs,” “giving people health care,” and even a part where they say that they will “help” those who, and I quote, “no matter how hard they work - are seeing prices go up more than their incomes.” I always thought that the can-do spirit was part of the American character, not the idea that there is an upper bound to our success, a bound that only government can help you break through. Is it any wonder that conservatives sometimes brand liberals as un-patriotic or un-American when the left’s values are so out of sync with American values?

“Be your own boss” and “work in what you love.” These, to me, are related lessons that my family taught me. It affirms that one should seek independence, if possible, and that one should enjoy their vocation. It extols the virtues of owning a business, especially in an area that one loves. The leftists on the other hand believe that good jobs do not come from the independence of the citizen but rather through organizing unions to challenge companies. Don’t believe me? Just check out the “Good Jobs with Good Pay” section where, instead of talking about how entrepreneurship and innovation can spur job growth and good wages, they talk about ensuring the rights of unions. Their section on entrepreneurship was vague and probably the shortest in the whole document. This is because the leftists believe that “companies are evil.” No longer are businessmen considered “successful,” they are considered greedy and heartless… all of them. Democrats somehow believe that unions “pull people out of poverty” and “create a stronger middle class,” when in reality unions produce nothing, it is the entrepreneurs and a company’s employees that produce things, create wealth, and drive the economy. Unions only suck up membership fees from workers and make unrealistic demands of companies, making demands that do not reflect economic realities; just look at the auto industry. Furthermore, why is being a unionized worker the ideal status for Americans? Do we grow up thinking “man, when I grow up I want to be a SEIU member?” I, personally, am all for unions, I simply worry when they become big machines that usurp the rights of workers, instead of help protect them.

“Be responsible.” So simple and so true. It applies to everything, from the idea that one should not force others to take care of you (if possible) to facing the consequences of ones actions. Needless to say, the left finds this value to be complete nonsense. From their positions on health care to immigration to taxes, the left promotes a society where the few are responsible for the many. No longer is health a personal matter, all taxpayers, especially the wealthy, must contribute in order to “give” it to all. No longer is illegally crossing into the United States a crime according to the left, they say we must provide a path to citizenship… in essence rewarding them for doing something illegal. No longer are merit and actions important in our society, but rather the color of your skin or minority status influences decisions as varied as university acceptance or getting a job. The Democrats advocate the idea of “we will take care of you,” and whenever some political leader does not act like a nanny, they say that they are not doing their job, they are not taking care of you. Personally, I don’t want to be taken care of. I stand on my own two feet. I am an American and I will not be treated as a child. Sadly, not everyone shares this sentiment.

Just perusing through the Democrat platform, one finds a value system that seems alien and divorced from the American value system, as I was taught. To be fair, the document does say things like promoting competitiveness and the hard work is good and things like that, but these words ring hollow when you look at their entire agenda. Their brief mention of small businesses is drowned out by their tax schemes, emphasis on union power, and rich versus poor rhetoric. Their talk of the American dream is silenced by their insistence that only government can lead to a comfortable life, that no personal effort can achieve prosperity. They talk of “giving” Americans everything instead of letting Americans get it themselves, instead of freeing Americans… and dishonestly ignore the fact that in order to “give” something, the government must “take” something away, because the government produces nothing. There are many more examples of the disconnect between the far left and Americans in general, I simply outlined a few here. What I honestly believe is that regular Joe liberals do not agree with this stuff. I believe that they care about those who cannot do for themselves and worry that without some sort of safety net too many people will fail, many conservatives believe this too but they do not hold the opinion that government is the only answer. These regular Joe liberals ultimately flock to the party that seems to represent these views, when in fact the Democrat party has been hijacked by the far left and care only for power. If conservatives are to make a dent in the power and size of government, then we must make inroads among these regular liberals because many of them actually do share the American values that the Democrat party disdains.

-AG

After appointing banking industry insider Tim Geithner to manage the executive branch’s response to the economic crisis, the banks made out like bandits. Free market values were thrown out the window as trillions of dollars were simply handed to the financial industry in order to save them from almost certain collapse… courtesy of the US taxpayer, especially future ones. The result was expected, decline in the dollar, skewed market reality, and banks were saved. By saved I do not mean that they simply did not die, I mean that they got bigger, their bonuses got huger, and instead of using the money to rebuild the economy, they simply invested it in the market making record profits. I also do not mean that all banks were saved, the smaller ones continue to die to this day, only to be gobbled up by larger banks or nationalized by the federal government. In essence, Geithner, the bank guy, saved the banks. Not surprising.

What did surprise people was that Obama, the “agent of change,” seemed to be more and more in bed with Wall Street. The market has dramatically improved over the last year, primarily because the big market movers have been drafting off highly-public government bailouts and “stimuli,” but this has not “trickled down,” in fact, the bailouts and cash continue to “trickle up” under the Obama regime. Simultaneously, while Democrats have done their best to concentrate taxpayer dollars in the hands of government-regulated enterprises (as banks are), the American people have grown unhappy with the direction of the country. The charge that Republicans benefit big business disproportionately has been muted by the Democrats’ blatant redistribution of wealth from bottom to top. The victory of Republican Scott Brown in heavily liberal Massachusetts made it clear that the people were unhappy. Lucky for the Democrats, they had a plan ready all along.

Even the Lefties are sick of Obama’s bailouts

For months, Obama has been blasting “fat-cat bankers” for their arrogance (pot calling the kettle black) and struck a populist tone. This is a sharp change from most of last year, during which Obama was “spreading the wealth” as he promised. He even recently said that they would tax the banks in order to make back the money that they lost from the bailouts… of course, banks would simply pass on these extra taxes onto the consumer, making it so that we, the taxpayers, would end up paying ourselves back. But forget logic, let’s get back to populism. Now Obama says that he wants to enact stricter regulations on the financial industry, adopting the so-called “Volcker Rule” that aims to separate the investment and commercial banking operations of financial firms, including the provision and I quote: “banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds or proprietary trading operations for their own profit unrelated to serving their customers.” He railed against banks taking advantage of the taxpayer safety net that they enjoy… a safety net that the president eagerly employed in his quest to save the banks. He railed against the excess and abuse of greedy banks… without mentioning that it was the federal government that enabled, encouraged, and ultimately rewarded such excess and abuse. In sum, after building up the banks, handing them taxpayer dollars without oversight, and placing bank industry insiders as managers of the “recovery” efforts, he made banks the scapegoats… bashing Bush can only take you so far.

If you think that this was not the plan from the beginning, you are fooling yourself. Obama and his minions made it priority one to inflate the banking industry and then make them out to be the villains so that the Democrats could continue with their principal argument: capitalism is a failure and socialism is the only way. Some people say that the Volcker Rule will prevent any crash like this from occurring in the future, that may be so, but what we sacrifice is the growth of the American economy and any hopes of a recovery from this recession. The Volcker Rule may plunge us into a near-permanent recession. The reasons are abundantly clear. If banks cannot use the market to diversify their portfolios and reduce their risk, then they will be even more reluctant to make risky loans. This means fewer mortgages, which means that the real estate market does not recover. No real estate recovery means no construction jobs, fewer mortgage brokers, fewer real estate agents, more renters, less home ownership, slowed economic growth, etc. etc. etc. Obama is making the smart political bet that breaking up Wall Street will resonate with voters, I think he is right… but the intended consequence is not merely votes, it’s cutting the American economy off at the knees and making the most important sectors of the economy even more dependent on the federal government. Along with the fascistic health care proposals, the federal government will have almost total control over the American people.

Volcker and Obama

While I am no friend of the financial industry, I do understand that banks are a business. I, as a bank customer, would like my bank to be prosperous. The better they do, the better we all do. Do I care about their bonuses? Normally no, except in this case they are using taxpayer dollars, but what do we expect to happen if the government hands over the taxpayers’ wallets? What is most important to me is the health of the free market economy and what is being suggested by the administration is a direct attack on both the free markets and the economy in general. The real culprit behind the recession is not the fact that banks took risks, this is expected of them. The real culprit was the fact that these risks were under-priced, in other words, people were investing in things that they knew nothing of for unrealistic prices. If any regulations are to be enacted, they should focus on the cause, not focus on restructuring an entire industry and putting them under more direct control of the state. All we need is accurate valuation of securities, more transparency, and less of a government guarantee. The Volcker Rule seems to try to accomplish all these things while knee-capping the economy. This is because the Democrats have an ulterior motive, just like with health care reform, instead of a plan that is straightforward, e.g. reducing costs, tort reform, fixing the pre-existing conditions issue, we get a convoluted mixture of cuts to medicare, higher taxes, benefits that kick in after several years, company and individual mandates. and more government bureaucracy. This is the Volcker Rule, another way to impose a Democrat agenda in the guise of “fixing” a problem.

The Republicans should get on the ball and propose some common sense moves. Want more transparency? Pass legislation requiring full disclosure of what financial products are comprised of. Want the price of securities to reflect risk? Pass legislation that requires rating agencies to be fully capable of rating new financial products. Want less of a government guarantee? Require capital reserves on certain types of high risk assets or simply don’t bail out these firms like we did. The answers are not so difficult and do not require a top-down restructuring of the American economy… it seems like every time a Democrat tinkers with the economy, we get closer and closer to full-fledged communism.

-AG

John Edward’s, the two America’s, class warfare demagogue who sips chardonnay in his mansion while publicly asserting that he is the poor people’s candidate, is a master when it comes to media relations. No, I am not referring to his $400 dollar haircuts and parading his cancer-stricken wife in front of the cameras during his hopelessly failed presidential campaign, I am actually referring to the way the he leaked the news to the media that he did indeed father a love child with his mistress and was going to support the child financially. Of course, to remind the folks out there, Edwards was cheating and fathering love children while his wife was battling cancer. True class.

While everyone already knows that the Democrat presidential candidate is a hypocrite and a liar and an adulterer and a leftist and other more colorful words, what impressed me (yes, impressed) is how he timed his admission. He waited until the “Great Scott!” MA senate race, a race that had everyone’s attention in a headlock, to release the news. In a turn of more good fortune for him the distracting news kept piling on, unemployment numbers were higher than expected, the Dow tumbled more than 200 points on news of financial regulations overhaul, Obama’s one-year catastro-versary was taking place, and most importantly, the Haiti earthquake news was still on front pages. You may think of me as being callous for saying that he was waiting for disasters and whatnot to reveal the news, but ponder this: how long has he known about the love child, especially after he actively covered it up during his campaign? It is known that he has been sending money for about a year now, so why wait until the news was dominated by these events to admit it? The answer is clear: so that very few would notice. We should all take notice of the games that these politicians play with the media, timing is everything… and for a Democrat who decided to run for president at the same time Obama AND Hillary were, a Democrat who timed his affair for the period that has wife was fighting cancer and during a presidential campaign, this time he got the timing just right.

-AG

Update: I also forgot to mention that Edwards made this admission right before his aide, Andrew Young, was scheduled to give an interview describing how Edwards instructed him to fake a DNA test saying that he was not the father of the child. Like I said, Edwards’ timing is artful. This clip is also artful:

I am on a bunch of lefty mailing lists just so I can see what these nuts are up to. Here’s one that I received recently that I found to be pretty interesting; it’s from the Howard Dean group Democracy for America:

“DFA Member-

In case you haven’t heard yet, something scary is happening in Florida. Tea Party extremists have forced out the state Republican chair and are now free to nominate the most right-wing candidates imaginable to public office across the state.

We must not allow these extremists the power or legitimacy that comes with elected office.


That is why DFA is bringing some of the best political talent in the country to train Florida candidates and activists in 2010 to make sure progressives have the tools to win.

This is a critical year in Florida politics. There are huge statewide races with national implications as well as local races that hit close to home.

You may be disappointed by some so-called Democrats in Washington and, believe me, I am too. But the solution isn’t to throw up our hands and cede our country to extremists. The solution is to elect better Democrats, everywhere. And it starts in Florida. Join us.

Thanks for all you do.” [bold added for emphasis]

You’re welcome.

This email had three instances of “extremists,” one instance of “scary,” and one instance of “right-wing.” I’m panicking already! This is the type of fear mongering that is circulating among liberals who probably do not know any better about the Tea Party movement. As for the Florida issue, the state GOP chairman seemed to be mismanaging funds and he was making some bad calls. If only the RNC would do the same and rein in Mikey.

What I find most amusing is that at the end of the email, they admit that even though the Democrats that were just elected were doing a bad job, they should go and elect more of them! Apparently, the big government agenda put forward by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate does not go far enough. Spending trillions is not enough, we must spend QUADRILLIONS!!! Oh Dean, what a clown.

The sad part is that they consider me an extremist… I, who pay taxes, contribute to society, vote and sometimes put my simple, honest opinions on a hidden away blog on the inter-tube-webs… oh and I forgot my most subversive act: thinking! Sometimes I hope we would all be a little more extremist.

-AG

Congratulations to all Americans out there that were and are opposed to the current health care proposals which are, without a doubt, one of the most intrusive and expensive government programs ever conceived in our country: the supermajority is no more! The election of non-Democrat Scott Brown in Massachusetts, that great state, has restored my faith in our system and has shown Americans of all stripes that the most revolutionary weapon in our arsenal, as citizens, is our vote. The Democrats have been running wild in Washington and have acted as if they did not have to answer to the American people… this year let’s show them that they are wrong. While we may rejoice right now, a word of caution: the Obamas, Reids, and Pelosis came to power because of a Republican party that committed treason against conservatism and if conservatives are not wary, this cycle will simply repeat. Conservatives must make sure to vote for candidates that make the conservative case clearly and with common sense. The far left has been winning the media war for years, it’s time we reverse this trend by being smart about our choices. Party voting hasn’t gotten us very far. We must make the most principled votes possible. It’s now up to the Scott Brown’s of today and the Scott Brown’s to come to show America how a conservative should lead and why conservatism is the best way to preserve freedom, expand opportunity, and usher in prosperity… the far left fringe will put every obstacle in our way, but we must persevere.

-AG

In the bluest of blue states, red is gaining traction. I have only recently been following the Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown ® and Martha Coakley (D), mainly because I expected a quick victory for the most liberal candidate. Apparently, conventional wisdom is being bucked as we speak. Scott Brown took a lead in the polls, ever so slim, and Coakley, the expected winner, may just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The surprising thing is that Coakley’s failure is being seen as… well… surprising. To put it nicely: she’s a moron and a puppet of the Left. Just running a cursory search of things she has said and done reveal what is expected from the Democrats: utter detachment from reality. Here’s some clips:

Ironically, the Taliban just launched a brazen attack on the capital city of Afghanistan yesterday. I wonder what alternate reality she lives in…

Here’s a beautiful quote from a lobbyist attending one of Coakley’s fundraisers recently, something that runs contrary to the whole “party of the people” image due to the presence of health care industry lobbyists and the impact this election would have on the health care reform bill:

Indeed, change we can all believe in. Of course, being initiated into the Imperial Democrats’ den of corruption, kickbacks, and culture of bribery is not too surprising to intelligent folks out there, but we aren’t talking about those people, we are talking about those who have been indoctrinated in far Left propaganda for years and blindly follow any ass running for office, pun intended. If these were not enough reasons, Brown skillfully puts together an ad criticizing Coakley for pinning all of her foreign policy experience on her sister who lives abroad. Craziness indeed.

Here’s some more fun where she talks about how she wants to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and her saying that America will always have open borders.

The rest of Coakley’s incompetence is right there, in her own words, on television, and on the internet. Amid a recession she parrots the Obama line about raising taxes. While America begs Washington to change or re-do the health care reform bill, hers is the vote that will make it all possible, saddling her state with an even greater economic burden. The list goes on…

The other side of story is one that concerns me the most. Whether MA goes red or blue does not matter too much. Like the election after Bush which benefited the Left, widespread disaffection with the party in power and an empowered conservative base make Republican gains in this state more possible than before. Unfortunately, the person we have running for office is automatically getting rewarded for not being a Democrat… when the reality is that he may be more moderate than most conservatives would like. Without a doubt, if I could, I would vote for him, at least for the chance to save our country from the ravages of Obama’s health care fascism, but what I worry about is how much we are willing to compromise. In how many other states will we be forced to choose between a Democrat government on steroids and a Republican who will sell out? We will always tell ourselves, “yeah, just this time, because it really counts,” but when won’t it “really count?” Conservatives must draw a line when it comes to supporting liberals in elephants’ clothing and be willing to stay in the minority if the Republicans keep advocating “moderation” (especially in the fiscal sense). As a general rule of thumb, I think that conservatives, tactically, should vote for moderate Republicans in blue states and more conservative ones in purple and red states… otherwise, the cycle of big government Republican and big government Democrat will just keep repeating.

In the interest of fairness, I will post one of Coakley’s attack ads against Brown. Here she viciously attacks him for being…. REPUBLICAN!! Oh the horror.

What’s funny about this ad is that it is wrong on the facts and it misspelled the name of her state… not a good move. Furthermore, it’s a very weak attack even by far leftist standards… a picture of Bush and Cheney? Really? Looks like it’s straight out of the hope-and-change express’s playbook. All in all, it is still possible that she may win and if she does then Massachusetts will have definitely been [refer to title].

-AG

Minorities, you can’t make it on your own! This is the message constantly spewed by the Left. Their “reasons” are simple: racism is keeping you down, class-ism is keeping you down, sexism is keeping you down, etc. etc. With these blunt rhetorical instruments they brand Republicans and everyone on the Right as being the bigots, the rich robber-barons, the abusers of poor minorities. Reality is much more nuanced (to use one of their favorite words) than they make it out to be. Bigots exist on all sides and we have good reason to reject their views, in the words of honest Abe, a Republican: “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Unfortunately, this message of unity, that we are all Americans regardless of what state, race, heritage, gender, “social group,” or religion, is something that the Left has not heard and indeed, it is a message that liberals have rejected. Name something that can be termed a social identity group and you will find a liberal group that identifies with it. What is most amazing about the Left is that, after helping erect barriers between so-called identity groups, they turn around and call the Right bigoted and prejudiced. It is political jujitsu that has been taking place for a long time and it is very effective. At the end of the day though, the liberals who profess these lofty ideals of “helping” minorities rise above (the majority I presume) while instead helping create subcultures and cultural enclaves where these very minorities get stuck, are in fact more racist and classist and sexist than the conservatives they criticize.

Case in point are the recently revealed comments by Senate Majority Leader and Democrat Harry Reid who, during the campaign, said that Barack Obama could win the presidency because he is “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect”. Of course, Obama immediately forgave Reid’s comments saying he knows Reid’s heart, yet when Professor Gates was arrested last year, Obama immediately brought into question whether or not the police officers were being racist. Clearly, Democrats get a pass on racism. Even the vice-president’s comments about Indian-Americans and seven-elevens were simply taken as being a gaffe, almost silly in its portrayal. At the same time, regular Americans are scrutinized, Don Imus gets fired, Bill O’Reilly criticized for his characterization of a Black restaurant, and social differences are used as a wedge and charges of racism are used as a bludgeon by the Democrats. I am not saying that disparaging remarks about people based on social/physical similarities should be tolerated, I am saying that the standard must apply to all. Sadly, this will not change anytime soon, for American liberalism stands on the “two America’s” argument, on the “majority vs minority” argument, and on the idea that the majority is bigoted/backward and need to “progress” with “progressive” policies. Racism is as integral today to the Democratic Party as it was in the 1800’s. Only when we absolutely rejects the divisionism that has existed and continues to exist today because of racism, gender-ism, etc. can we, as a society, move forward. Just look nearby, at Latin America, where women have shattered “the glass ceiling” with no formal “women’s empowerment movement” (see: Bachelet of Chile and Cristina Fernández of Argentina) and minorities have become presidents (see: Peru’s former president Fujimori who was of Japanese descent) to see that probably the greatest impediment to “minority empowerment” is the fact that liberals have been simply using minorities as political pawns instead of actually helping them. To move forward we need to stop seeing any differences between Americans, but with liberals constantly reminding us of how racist we are, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for us, how can we?

-AG

The best defense is a good offense… so goes the adage. This is something learned early by the previous administration due to the terrible events of September 2001. It was trial by fire. The lesson was clear: evil exists in the world and must be confronted before they kill any more innocents here at home. What followed was an “offense-first” foreign policy that led us to where we are now in the world. Many Americans rejected this seemingly bellicose behavior on the part of our country, particularly liberals but many people on the right as well, but they failed to remember the reasons we needed to be proactive, as opposed to reactive. Whether or not there was an overreach on the part of the administration is for history to judge, but what is indisputable is that 9-11 taught us something about the world… but now, it appears that America has forgotten the lesson.

The current administration, in its efforts to be seen as the anti-Bush, has decided that the best policy for America is to play defense, to react. So far, most of what has happened with respect to the war on terror has been a reaction, not an action. Take, for example, the plans to surge in Afghanistan, this was equal parts a political move (to appear centrist and satisfy a campaign promise) and a reaction to increased casualties. Or North Korea’s provocations, which led to more (ineffectual) sanctions. Or the recent Christmas would-be bomber which prompted the administration to review security and “improve” measures. All reactions to the enemy. At the same time we have our troops in Iraq retreating back to our bases, the highest casualty rate to date in Afghanistan, and a resurgent Al Qaeda, all due to the actions or inaction of the administration. In reacting to everything, we are giving the enemy the chance to act and, fortunately, only the technical incompetence of the terrorists themselves has kept us safe in the age of Obama… but our luck can only protect against so much. We need to get back on offense. While playing offense may be offensive to some, it kept the bombs off our planes, it kept Al Qaeda cowering in their caves, and it kept America safe. The price we paid in blood, treasure, and international “likeability” was needed to ensure that those who dreamed of a renewed Caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia never got the chance to make those dreams reality. America was, and is, the only thing standing in the way of extremists willing to commit the mass murder of innocents simply to send a message. Playing defense just makes our job that much harder.

-AG

Saturday morning, an effigy of Obama was hanged in Plains, Georgia above a sign in honor of former President Jimmy Carter. The Secret Service is now investigating the incident. See video:

This is not the first time something like this has happened. In October 2008, during the presidential campaign, two students, whose names were graciously made public by the mainstream media, hung an effigy of Obama in response to the hanging of Sarah Palin in effigy. The students were arrested and charged. See video:

In Lexington, Kentucky, where the effigy was hung, there was a crowded forum of city, university, and community leaders that discussed this event and they unanimously condemned this act.

Now, let’s get back to reality for a moment. First of all, I think that it is in poor taste to hang an effigy of an elected leader or a candidate. That’s what the radicals do abroad and we should not be emulating them. Second, the above outrage and coverage by the media over these “acts” directed against Obama is something unique because during President Bush’s terms we had similar events that received little to no coverage. Bush’s effigy has been burned in celebration of Obama’s inauguration in Washington DC:

Burned at the stake in Alaska:

Pelted with shoes in DC:

The list goes on, but these are the more recent ones. The recurrent soundtrack to all of these events is laughter. The recurrent setting is America. The recurrent reaction from the media is little to none. Have we, as a country, decided that the symbolic destruction of one political figure is comical but doing it to another is absolutely wrong? I have not been able to find any reports that anyone was arrested for destroying, faux killing, or defacing a Bush effigy… while Obama effigy “hangers” have been sent to jail and are actively being pursued. Whether or not one agrees with the policies of one of our elected officials, is it right to hang or set ablaze effigies of them? I think it has gotten pretty ugly out there on both sides, but unfortunately the imbalanced media rarely shows the lefties gleefully setting fire to a doll of a “Republican” president, they specialize in generating outrage over the defacing of dolls of Democrats. Hanging effigies of Obama does little to advance the conservative cause, those who do it do conservatives a disservice. Hanging and burning effigies is something that the Left does, let them keep it. The difficult thing is when leftists hang effigies of leftists and blame it on the right… the only thing conservatives can do is consistently denounce these tactics. Conservatives’ principal weapon must be the vote and the only way to win votes is to win over hearts and minds. Faux executions of politicians may not be the best way of doing that.

-AG

This happened a few days ago, but I have not had a chance to comment. The Danish newspaper Politiken published an editorial that proclaims Obama to be, “of course,” greater than Jesus. This is not so surprising when you take into account the infatuation that Europeans and the media in general have with Barack Hussein Obama, but I find that comparing him to Jesus Christ right after Christmas is a low-blow. While it is perfectly within their right to say such blasphemy, it goes to show that the mass-hypnotic effect of the president has not yet faded completely. Comparing him to Him is not all that new (see previous post), but in this case the Danish newspaper takes it one step further, going from “like” to “greater” (greater as in “Akbar“). While I enjoy the fact that people around the world admire a (supposed) American, what bothers me is that we, Western Civilization, are still willing to characterize our leaders as deities instead of progressing to a stage of practical realism. Is human development supposed to move in the direction of less reason or more? Why does this not worry everyone?

-AG

A lot of persons of the elitist mentality deride toughness… so foolish they are. Elitism in America exists and existed because of individuals who shaped history after the events of December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 (to name a few). In each of these events, while led by two completely different persons, America did not choose to whimper in a corner but instead to harness American power in order to extinguish evil. Elitists see history differently, probably because elitists find it amusing or enlightening to twist the historical narrative to fit their own mind-set. This does not make this type of person more enlightened, it makes this type of person akin to the high school all-star athlete who ends up serving drinks at a bar: wasted potential. I see it constantly, at reunions with old friends and with people whose style is eloquent but whose content in vacuous. What I marvel at, in the midst of listening to their diatribes against the right, is their ability to use specious arguments and a smattering of facts, ill-interpreted, that make Dali look like a realist. What I take away every time is that true “enlightenment” comes not from the arrogance of believing oneself so clever, so wise, or so insightful but rather from having a true understanding of what matters and what one actually knows. I strive for that latter while elitists blindly thrive in the former.

Toughness, on the other hand, holds its nose up to no one. Toughness sees a necessity and pursues a course of action, be it perfect or imperfect, vigorously. That is not to say that many times ignorance does not accompany toughness, but toughness itself, what I term that visceral “gut” reaction that makes us stand up to an enemy or to bite our tongues in preparation for some necessary torture, is pure and beneficial to man. Without it, the Spartans who held back the Persian Empire, glorified in history books and Hollywood alike, would not have safeguarded Western Civilization. Without it, those who resisted the Nazi war machine would have succumbed to it and we would be celebrating our new years with book burnings and lynchings of “undesirables.” So when I hear people say that such toughness is a quality that leaders should not have, I fear for my country. To imagine a world run by Chamberlains, waving pieces of paper while enemies polish their bayonets, fills me with dismay… yet this is precisely what they want. Idealists, unfortunately for all of us, do not elect Chamberlains anymore, they elect Lenins, who argue for peace but deliver national holocausts. Therefore, let us not sue for an end to American toughness, for there exist two great evils that emerge upon its extinction: the vultures who await our moment of weakness and the parasites who promise us utopian dreams but end up sucking us dry. For all of history, only toughness has kept them at bay. In the future, we will need no less to guide us forward… which makes those who cherish toughness, in my eyes, wiser than those who disparage it.

-AG