LowDownCentral's blog

Up The Establishment

Conservative Tea Partyby Lance Thompson

The media has focused on the growing rift between new conservative stars and their Tea Party backers versus the old guard establishment Republicans.  This difference has been highlighted in races in Florida (Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist), Alaska (Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski), and most recently Delaware (Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle).  In each case, a conservative outsider has overcome long odds to beat an experienced but more moderate candidate backed by the Republican establishment.  This trend shows every indication of continuing.
 
Christine O’Donnell, now the Republican candidate for Delaware’s open Senate seat, will face Democrat Chris Coons in November.  Polls show O’Donnell trailing in double digits.  This is a familiar situation to conservative candidates this year.  Marco Rubio trailed governor Charlie Crist by double digits in the Florida primary before winning the Republican Senate nomination.  Crist then declared himself an independent (refusing to return the millions in Republican campaign funding he had already received), and again took a double digit lead.  This race has reversed to Rubio’s advantage.  Joe Miller in Alaska was also behind in the polls before his win over Lisa Murkowski.
 
In all of these cases, old guard Republican strategists and pundits warned voters that the conservative Tea Party candidates were too extreme, and would not have the appeal to win.  Let’s examine both arguments individually.
 
First, in an era of rampant and unchecked socialism rammed through by an ultra-liberal President and Congress, there is no other possible cure than a conservative resurgence.  We didn’t get socialized medicine, skyrocketing debt, and a crippled economy by half measures and bipartisanship.  We arrived here thanks to a Democratic steamroller that paved the way for every item that’s appeared on the liberal wish list for the last two generations.  The only way to reverse this trend is to put strong, principled, undiluted conservatives in office and in power.  Moderates will not do.
 
Second, the fact that Tea Party candidates are prevailing all over the country, in states previously thought too blue to bother, demonstrates that the enthusiasm, power, and momentum this election year is with conservative candidates who connect with the people.  The pundits who now tell us that these candidates, once nominated, can’t win the general election are the same ones who told us earlier that these candidates would not win in their primaries. 
 
Have we not nominated moderate conservatives before?  Wasn’t John McCain known for reaching across the aisle?  Wasn’t he always tougher on conservative Republicans than he ever was on Democrats?  His even-handedness and bipartisan reputation was supposed to guarantee support from independent voters and the press.  Instead, his inept campaign was so ineffective that an opponent with no executive experience, less than one full term in the Senate, and no discernible aptitude for world leadership beat him handily in 2008.
 
And even when the Republicans place moderate, established, electable candidates on the ballot, and they do actually win, they are notable undependable when needed most.  Moderate Arlen Specter enjoyed the support of the GOP and President Bush over conservative challenger Pat Toomey for the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate primary.  Specter prevailed and paid back the GOP with liberal votes on the judiciary committee and by switching parties prior to his 2010 re-election bid.  He failed to win the Democrat nomination, and is now thankfully out of politics.  Moderate electable candidates do not serve conservative causes or interests.
 
If we believe in conservative principles, we must nominate and elect conservative candidates.  This year, more than ever, watered-down, moderate, half measures are not enough.
 
The American people are restive.  They are preparing to throw out a record number of Democrats from Congress and state governments across the country.  If the Republicans who replace them don’t put our nation back on the right course, they will be thrown out as well.  We won’t get a second chance to get it right.
 
Christine O’Donnell is a principled conservative.  She deserves our support.  The establishment may fight her tooth and nail.  But Christine O’Donnell has already defeated them.  They just don’t know it yet.  Burt Lancaster said it best in the film “Sweet Smell of Success,” when his character, powerful columnist J. J. Hunsecker, tells struggling publicity agent Sydney Falco that Falco’s influence is over.  “You’re dead, kid.  Go get yourself buried.”

 

Burning Passions

by Lance Thompson

There has been much controversy over the Dove World Outreach Center’s Pastor Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11th terror attacks.  The usual free speech advocates who defend the right of rabid anti-papists to display crucifixes in urine and call it art have been notably absent from this discussion, except to denounce the pastor’s plans as inflammatory and insensitive.
 
While the pastor has the right to burn anything he owns, as do his parishioners, provided they abide by local pollution laws, burning books is a disturbing trend.  There are many books in my life I would have liked to burn, many of them mathematics texts.  But no matter how much I disliked a book, I never resorted to the torch.  Better to donate an unwanted volume to a library or Goodwill where it might find an appreciative reader.
 
I don’t advocate burning at all.  It seems indiscriminate, destructive, and prone to creating collateral damage.  Once started, fires are very hard to control.
 
However, if a hypothetical fire were to ignite, there are more appropriate places and more volatile fuels.  Take for example the Dar-al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia.  This is the mosque attended by Fort Hood murderer Nidal Malik Hasan.  This is the mosque whose former imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, introduced Muslim worshippers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour to Eya al-Rababah, who secured for them an apartment in Alexandria, Virginia, and was later deported for falsifying drivers licenses.  This is the mosque where al-Hazmi and Hanjour met Khalid al-Mihdhar--three of the five highjackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 and its innocent passengers and crew into the Pentagon on September 11th.  This is mosque attended by Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, currently serving a 30-year term for planning the assassination of President Bush.  This is the mosque that Steven Emerson, of the Investigative Project on Terrorism calls “one of the most radical mosques in the United States.”  This is the mosque the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, a database operated by the U. S. Customs Office, called “a front for Hamas operatives” in 2002.  In 2007, TECS found that Dar-al-Hijrah “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing.”  Forget burning Korans.  Let’s have a bonfire at Dar-al-Hijrah.
 
Onto that bonfire, let’s add the hazardous written and unwritten rules of political correctness.  These rules prevent media outlets from calling Feiz Muhammad a radical Islamic imam after he advocated the beheading of Dutch politician Geert Wilders.  Instead, a FoxNews story referred to Muhammad, who was born in Sydney, Australia, as a “radical Australian cleric.”  These same rules prevented the United States Army from investigating Fort Hood murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan, even after the Muslim psychiatrist had expressed sympathy for our terrorist enemies and disdain for the United States, a nation he had sworn to defend.  These same rules allow hundreds of Muslim worshippers to spill into the streets of New York City to kneel, pray, and snarl traffic for blocks around without being arrested, dispersed, or even cited for jaywalking.  More fuel for the fire.
 
Don’t add the Koran to the flames.  But those who use the Koran to encourage, justify and commit the murders of thousands of innocent people should feel the heat.  Confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, co-conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh, and Fort Hood murderer Hasan would make suitable contributions to the conflagration.  Throw in enemy combatants who wear no uniform, claim no nation as home, and wage war without quarter on soldiers and civilians alike–terrorists, pirates, and traitors.  They have earned no kinder fate.
 
Pastor Jones has ignited controversy with his statements, and whether or not there are real flames or just lots of hot air remains to be seen.  But there is a growing fire in the hearts of Americans who feel they’ve been pushed too far, endured too much, and suffered too long.  Every new terrorist act or plot, every new dismissal of charges against an enemy, every new concession to radical Islam stokes that fire.  Once started, fires are very hard to control.

 

Restoring Faith in Honor

 

By Rose Pedenko

The plan was to leave the hotel by 8 AM to beat the crowd ahead of the 10 AM start of the Glenn Beck rally on 8/28.  Even the best laid plans did not prepare me for the magnitude of underlying anger that would drive hundreds of thousands of Americans to descend on the Lincoln Memorial at the crack of dawn.  Earlier that morning, my husband clicked on Fox News to a stunning aerial shot of the event--the perimeter already packed with Beck fans--three hours before the scheduled start of the rally.

I bolted downstairs to catch a cab.  It was the cab driver’s 7th trip that morning.  He managed to get me within a block of the event and I quickly melted into a throng of humanity.

Suffering from claustrophobia and intolerance to heat, attending this rally became a testament to just how hungry I was for the reinforcement that comes from knowing one is not alone.  Standing shoulder to shoulder, sandwiched into barely enough room to turn around, it was hot, humid, and the perfect conditions for me to pass out.  But I fought the feeling hard because we were about to participate in what everyone was certain would be a historic event—to start the heart of America again.

What made me fly across the country to attend this three hour event?  The answer may be somewhat different than the majority of attendees (at least the majority surrounding me).  We were not necessarily like-minded, but clearly like-hearted.

I am not a religious person, but knew that my faith in America needed to be restored.  While I know that no man is an island, drowning in the sea of liberalism that is Los Angeles has a way of making one believe he or she is quite isolated and certainly godless.  It created a void that could only be filled by experiencing the kind of energy I had hoped to find here.

In the age of Twitter, Facebook and Crackberries, reportage of the event was instantaneous, particularly because those attending knew the MSM would not be covering the event fairly and Fox News had already decided only to “report” on the event (in an effort to remain fair and balanced).

This country and the values it was founded upon were slipping away and being replaced with apathy and the ever-increasing belief by many that government should take care of us.  This kind of oblique thinking has been fostered by the inculcation of progressive ideas in our schools; and the reshaping of the malleable minds that are America’s future.  Only reasonable, thoughtful human beings care about what happens to the generations that follow after we cease to exist.

Even though the rally was presented as a non-political event, it was clear that anger at our politicians was the driving force that rallied the masses to Washington, D.C.  But once there, Beck masterfully redirected that anger in a way that made sense, even if you are agnostic.

Beck was very clear about the content and meaning of the Restoring Honor event, and while it goes against my grain to participate in any large gathering, particularly one with religious overtones, it was important that I hear the message and find a way to synthesize it with my own conflicting ideas about religion.

There I stood, enveloped in shouts of “hallelujah” and “praise the Lord.”  Was I in the wrong place at the right time?

There are millions of non-church going conservatives, libertarians and moderate Republicans that might otherwise have attended this gathering.  It was not just about Beck’s religious fervor (a turn-off to many), but a way to redirect our political anger in this call for faith, hope and charity.  Faith is also about trusting others, and right now we all need to trust in one another to help restore this country to greatness.

Faith, hope and charity are not solely Christian values but they are also virtues learned through common sense and respect for others.  It occurred to me that mistakes are being made by excluding those that do not wholly share an acceptance of God through blind faith.  Many of us are good people that struggle with our beliefs.  We need to be a part of this movement, to stand side by side in our fight for freedom with people whose faith may be stronger than our own.

There is no other answer in this struggle to restore America because, as Beck stated, America is at a crossroads.  Who are we and what is it we believe?  He asked us to tell the truth in our own life and the truth in mine is that I am honorable and my honor is not defined by someone else’s arbitrary definition of spirituality.

Beck quoted his favorite verse from the Declaration of Independence: “…with a firm Reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”  Beck also often quotes Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that “if you haven’t questioned with boldness even the very existence of God, for if there be a God, He must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear.”  And there, go I.

Uniform Misconduct

by Lance Thompson

 
Lily Tomlin once said about Hollywood, “No matter how cynical you get, you never can keep up.”  The same sentiment applies to the Obama administration.  Few of its harshest detractors could even imagine the depths to which this government has stooped to remain in power.  Very few would have imagined that the President’s administration would encourage lawbreaking to disenfranchise Americans in uniform.  Yet, according to two Department of Justice officials, that is now official policy.
 
The Military Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act was passed last October to ensure that Americans serving abroad would have their votes counted.   Specifically, MOVE requires states to send absentee ballots to citizens serving overseas 45 days before any election.  But according to Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams, two former attorneys for the DOJ’s voting section, Eric Holder’s justice officials are going to great lengths to subvert this law and prevent members of the American military from voting.
 
Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of DOJ’s voting section, has met with various state attorneys general to let them know that litigation against states that violate MOVE regulations would be a “last resort” and to suggest that states take advantage of ambiguous language in the MOVE Act that allows “waivers” for requirements that produce “undue hardship.”  Basically, the DOJ is encouraging states to seek loopholes in the MOVE act and promising not to investigate states that avail themselves of such loopholes.
 
Additionally, the DOJ web site does not mention the MOVE Act, and in fact refers to the previous regulation, now superceded, of a non-binding recommendation to send out absentee ballots a month in advance.  This can only be a deliberate attempt to further subvert the new law.
 
Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is very selective about the laws it enforces.  It does not prosecute New Black Panthers for voter intimidation.  And now it encourages states to prevent their citizens serving in the military from voting. 
 
There is only one reason for the DOJ to follow this course.  The Obama administration knows it cannot retain its grip on power if a free election is held in November.  Only by manipulating the outcome, suppressing the votes of some Americans, and subverting the law do the Democrats have a chance of winning.  It is easy to identify the votes Obama and Holder wish to suppress by observing which violators they protect.  New Black Panthers brandishing weapons at polling places suppress the white vote.  States that avoid, with the endorsement of the Justice Department, the regulations of the MOVE Act suppress military voters.  Thus, Obama and Holder obviously believe that white voters and military voters are a threat to their power.
 
Judging from the recent Real Clear Politics average of national polls showing Obama underwater by four points, white voters and military voters aren’t the only ones disenchanted with the Commander in Chief.   All citizens must not only assert their right to vote, but protect the rights of those the government seeks to intimidate or suppress.  No group deserves this protection more than the men and women who fight and die to give us those rights in the first place.

 

It Ain't Over Till It's Over

by Lance Thompson 

When political leaders and media personalities discuss the economy today, they do so in terms of the “recovery.”  Certain indicators “point to a recovery” or show that “the recovery is picking up steam” or that various sectors, industries or people are “sharing in the recovery.”  These spokespersons refer to the recovery as part of a natural cycle, as if recovery always follows recession, and it is only a matter of pinpointing the precise month in which federal financial solvency will return.  In fact, both recession and recovery depend upon economic policy and fiscal decisions by political leaders.  Our current leaders have not set the stage for a recovery of any sort. 
 
The American economy has steadily eroded since the end of the Bush administration and the fateful decision to fund TARP.  The program’s acronym was well-chosen, for it merely threw a cover over the bursting bubble caused by the government encouraging banks to make loans to those who could never pay them back.
 
While President Bush bears responsibility for employing the bail-out fix, President Obama has taken massive government spending to new heights (or depths, if one considers the red ink seeping from the national economy like oil from a certain hole in the seabed of the Gulf).  Government spending on takeovers of banks and auto companies, the stimulus bill, the health care laws and other massive government initiatives has saddled Americans with record deficits and unsustainable debt.  This is not the formula for recovery.
 
The massive spending requires revenue to pay it back.  The current administration has floated all sorts of inventive tax-raising schemes, from a national value-added tax on top of income and corporate tax, to fees on every conceivable activity or service an American citizen could possibly engage in.  The implication is clear–taxes will inevitably and dramatically rise in the years ahead, putting a greater burden on the private sector and private citizen.  This is not the formula for recovery.
 
President Obama and the Democrats have meanwhile attacked, vilified, fined, investigated and taken over companies for committing the perfectly legal and responsible achievement of making profits.  The Democrats have in recent decades railed against big corporations and excessive profits, but until the current administration, they have usually had the good sense not to punish them.  Until now, even Democrats have recognized that large, profitable companies provide jobs, goods, services, and the all-important revenue that keeps the government funded.  Punishing successful companies is fiscal suicide, yet that is the policy of the current administration.  This is not the formula for recovery.
 
Unemployment hovers around ten percent.  President Obama, in last week’s report of jobs created in the last quarter, admitted that the vast majority of workers were hired for the temporary purpose of completing the 2010 Census.  Industries concerned about higher taxes, restrictive regulation, adversarial government and uncertain demand for their products in a more cautious economy are reluctant to invest in new employees.  As the American economic environment becomes more antagonistic, large corporations will shift their operations to other countries that offer more favorable conditions.  Smaller companies will downsize, or go out of business altogether.  It all means fewer jobs and opportunities.  This is not the formula for recovery.
 
Yet President Obama, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, countless Democrats in Congress and the off-key chorus of their supporters in the media continue to talk about recovery as if it were pre-ordained and inevitable, like the next inadvertent blurt of candor from Joe Biden.  In fact the recovery they refer to is illusory, and the economic downturn they claim is nearly over is in fact deeply rooted and persistent.
 
Economic recovery results from sound economic policy.  Cutting taxes, simplifying complex regulations, reducing government interference in the free market, encouraging the economic engines of our nation rather than hobbling them or taking them over are all aspects of economic policy that will spark and sustain recovery.  None of these is being considered by the current administration or the Democrat majority party in Congress.
 
John Steele Gordon, in his excellent and highly readable economic history of the United States, “Empire of Wealth,” (Harper Collins 2004) points out that during the Great Depression of the 1930's, no one knew how long it would last.  And every year or so, when there were minor signs of recovery in one sector or another, the economic experts would breathe sighs of relief and announce, “The worst is over.”  Such statements would be followed by even deeper and wider losses throughout the economy, and matters would actually get worse.  Despite periodic glimmers of hope, the Depression dragged on for a decade.
 
Calling the infrequent and minuscule bits of good news that emerge during our economic travails a “recovery” is very much like calling the temporary relief of an anesthetic a “cure.”  As long as the fundamentals of our economy are weakened by irresponsible government policy, we will suffer under a chronic fiscal malady.  We may find a cure in November by throwing out of office those in Congress who continually vote for more irresponsible spending and debt.  But if we let them stay, that American fiscal malady is very likely to be terminal.

 

Two Term or Not to Term

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon 

Between President Nixon’s pressured resignation and Bill Clinton’s Pants on the Ground deliberate misstatements under oath, the word “impeach” was seldom used with legitimacy.  However, by mid-summer 2009 (six months after the inauguration of the man whose middle name rhymes with “pain”) “impeachment” has been Twittered, Googled, Facebooked, texted, and even “whispered” (surprisingly) by those with buyer’s remorse.  Twelve months later it is being shouted from America’s rooftops. 

Recently, Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), unwittingly provided a ray of hope in that someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.  Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is even saying this could be President Barack Obama’s Watergate.  This also means Joe Sestak is not the brightest Crayola in the box, but we digress. 

The very name Barack Hussein Obama is sending chills up and down the collective spine of Americans.  There are still those that scoff at the seemingly xenophobic vocalization of his middle name as being racist.  But Americans have quickly learned that being labeled a racist is part and parcel of this administration’s progressive as well as regressive tactics. 

The course this President has set is due to surrounding himself with ideological quacks and cons inside the administration and supported by dutiful drones like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid--all intent on steering the United States into a Marxist-lite firestorm.  It began with the GM takeover, under the guise of saving it from bankruptcy, and now, the BP oil spill may have provided the catastrophic event they were waiting for.  As Senator Bill Nelson suggests, "If this thing is not fixed today, I think the president doesn't have any choice, and he better go in, completely take over…."  And the latest push for Financial Reform may end up plugging up all the loose ends. 

They (Obama & Company) are masters of deflecting attention from one crisis to another to distract Americans long enough to cement their progressive agenda.  Perennial campaigning and near record-setting rounds of golf for a sitting President are their way of saying, “Keep your eye on the ball and you’ll forget all that other stuff.” 

Starting with the top dog and working downward, there are more fools and fruitcakes in charge than Nixon had plumbers, except this time they are (laughingly) referred to as czars, appointed by and answering only to the President.  Congress has, in effect, rendered itself inutile as it cedes and/or is robbed of its one-third checks and balances power.  Even a new Republican majority will be hard-pressed to reverse the current damage and what lies ahead when much of this administration’s agenda bears its rotten fruit. 

The current list of czars is only the tip of the iceberg.  Now comes Arif Alikhan and Kareem Shora, appointed to posts at the Department of Homeland Security by Janet Napolitano .  The announcements emphasized the words “devout Muslims.”  We cannot recall when any other U.S. government official was sworn in and the words “devout Catholic,” “devout Protestant,” “devout Jew” or “devout atheist” were added as a tagline.  The fact that Muslims – devout or otherwise – are included as integral parts in the security of this country is frightening.  What next, Tony Villaraigosa as Border Czar? 

Coincidentally, another member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council is Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and President of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.  From Socialist President Woodrow Wilson to Socialist President Woodrobama, Americans have never had more cause for grave concern. 

American culture is based in the ideology of freedom.  To say this administration, in concert with senators and congresspersons intoxicated with the idea of omnipotent power, has betrayed every trust sacred would be a gross understatement.  Our free enterprise system, and thus our liberty, are victims of a new Night and Fog-like Decree: where one by one, ownership of our intellectual property, business profits, and homes, are being abducted and shot down by a progressive agenda the masses do not even comprehend.  Day by day the murky pictures coming out of the White House become clearer as they continue to herd us over a financial cliff. 

And now, even the American media are taking a jaundiced view of the person upon whom they heaped unadulterated – and undeserved – praise, having hawked, peddled and schemed on his behalf, all of which brought him to the ultimate seat of power.  The liberal press has been slow to catch on that “transparency,” once a clever campaign gimmick, is now biting them where it hurts: access to their Chosen One.  Even the Huffington Post, sanctioned source of information that it has become, was surprised that Obama breached years of protocol by leaving White House without the press with him. Timely press conferences have been replaced with the Elmer Fudd-like blips and bloopers of White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. 

Quoting CBS’s Chip Reid (regarding the drastic BP Oil spill): “…critics on Capitol Hill just weren’t buying what the White House was saying about the government’s role in all of this and whether they could do more.”  That’s a harsh statement from the network that cheapened their once powerhouse status. 

This President was swept into office by being the first campaign to effectively harness the power of the internet: to organize and rally the uneducated, and cajole the elites (the easiest to dupe) that real transformative change could take place.  Had the majority not been so awed by the oratorical smoke and mirrors, they might have realized the true intent.  The same internet, laden with first person proof of his radical agenda, will also, unfortunately for Barack Obama, be the powerful broom that sweeps him out of that office in 2012. 

Say Yes to No

by Lance Thompson 

 
The Republicans in Congress who boast of their bipartisanship and ability to reach across the aisle are afraid of being cast as members of “The Party of No.”  This classification, invented by the mainstream media, is intended to characterize Republicans as having no new ideas, no willingness to cooperate, and no future.  Even with that biased view, the Party of No is an affiliation much to be admired in the current environment of socialist political initiatives.
 
However, for those faint-hearted Republicans eyeing the November elections and the questionable advice of the media, liberal pundits, and Democrat mouthpieces, I offer a slight variation.  Instead of joining the Party of No, enlist in the Party of No More.
 
The Party of No sounds negative, contrary and bereft of imagination.  The Party of No stands alone as a monument to obstinacy.  However, the Party of No More automatically draws attention to the next question–the Party of No More What?
 
This shifts the focus to the other side.  The Party of No More stands for no more mega-legislation that grows in committee like kudzu until it reaches thousands of unread pages, containing hidden tax hikes, regulatory fees, secret police forces and death panels.  The Party of No More stands for no more expansion of Big Government into every aspect of our lives, from how much salt is in our food to what kind of light bulbs we can buy. 
 
The Party of No More stands for no more disparaging of, apologizing for, and railing against America by its president in foreign lands, at international conferences, or in front of an enabling media.  The Party of No More stands for no more bowing to unfriendly foreign leaders, criticizing long-time allies, or encouraging rogue nations by our silence, acquiescence or complicity in their depredations.
 
The Party of No More stands for no more out-of-control spending; multiplying debt and deficits; bailouts, handouts and regulatory cutouts guaranteed to burden coming generations with the tab for our profligacy.  The Party of No More stands for no more government takeovers of private industry, no more control over how much profit a company can make or compensation its executives receive.  The Party of No More stands for no more penalties for success or rewards for indolence.
 
The Party of No More stands for no more packing the government with unelected czars, advisors or other bureaucrats whose ideology is anti-American and whose decisions and edicts have the force of law.  The Party of No More stands for no more bullying of states by the federal government when the people try to enforce the laws the administration doesn’t like.
 
The Party of No More need not merely stand in opposition.  The Party of No More stands for the openness and transparency in government that the current administration promised but has flagrantly avoided. The Party of No More stands with Americans who have watched the country they love being weakened, saddled with debt, derided by its leaders, and undermined by their actions.  The Party of No More stands with those who revere the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the Judeo-Christian values that form the backbone of our democracy.
 
The Party of No More has a chance to turn this nation from its destructive course and restore the United States to world leadership.  If this is to happen, the Party of No More must stand for no more half measures, no more watered-down rhetoric, no more compromise with the failed and exposed ideology of the left.  The Party of No More will have one chance to turn the nation from its perilous path this November.  This can be accomplished with persistence, courage, and dedication.
 
Otherwise the Party of No More must bid farewell to the America That Is No More.

 

Arizona Opened and Closed

by Lance Thompson

 
My wife and I used to spend a great deal of time in Arizona, and it has much to offer–particularly now that the state is the object of a boycott by those who favor illegal immigration.
 
At the top of the state and the top of most scenery lists is the Grand Canyon.  One no longer has to risk life and limb to explore it, as one-armed explorer John Wesley Powell did in 1869.  But the views from the rim or up from the Colorado River are no less magnificent just because you can now drive or ride to this breathtaking monument to the persistence of erosion.  The El Tovar Lodge reminds guests of the grand era of travel when the railroads built impressive lodges in the West to entice vacationers from the East.
 
For manly vacations, check out Old Tucson Studios, custom-built frontier location for countless Westerns starring Hollywood icons from John Wayne to Clint Eastwood.  Tombstone, where the actual gunfight at the OK Corral took place, is still around, with a fee to see the real corral.  South of Tucson in Green Valley is the Titan Missile Museum, which allows visitors to descend into the underground control center of an ICBM launch site, and view a missile standing in its cavernous silo.  North of Tucson is the Pima Air and Space Museum where once high-flying warbirds now sunbathe into their autumn years, like retirees at a desert resort.
 
Arizona’s cities and towns have much to offer–Sedona’s red rock beauty is now sprinkled with Starbucks, boutiques, and slow-moving traffic; Phoenix is home to the Arizona Diamondbacks and the outstanding Heard Museum for Southwest art and culture; Flagstaff is close to Sunset Crater, Wupatki and Walnut Canyon National Monuments–easy day visits with short hikes into northern Arizona geology and history; Bisbee offers art galleries and tours of the old gold mine; and Scottsdale is still the hot spot for world class resorts and dining.
 
There is much more to Arizona than you can see currently in the breathless media coverage of those protesting the state’s lonely effort to enforce federal immigration law.  This responsibility, which should have been met by the federal government, has been consciously avoided by Washington for the last three administrations.  Arizona stepped up, and has been hammered for it
 
In consequence, the Obama administration has promised legal challenges, protestors have gathered to support illegals, and groups from highly-paid San Francisco city officials to Democrat lawmakers who hope to turn illegal residents into loyal voters have called for a boycott on Arizona.
 
Which brings us to possibly the most attractive current feature of the Grand Canyon State.  Not only does it offer unmatched scenic, cultural and leisure diversions, but all these are certain to be even more enjoyable now that a visitor’s chance of encountering illegal aliens and liberals has been greatly reduced–one by law, the other by mass liberal hysteria.  It is hard to imagine an Arizona attraction that will not be improved by less traffic, smaller crowds, and fewer undesirables.
 
So encourage your liberal friends to boycott the Grand Canyon State, and enjoy the less obstructed views of scenic wonders, the better tables in restaurants, and the shorter lines at Chase Field.  Not to mention the elevated level of conversation.

 

Preparations for Reparations

by Lance Thompson

 
For a long time, the idea of reparations (monetary compensation to the descendants of slaves) struck me as just another special interest group looking for handouts from Uncle Sam.  But lately, I have begun to see the logic and moral foundation for reparations.
 
Not for descendants of African slaves, of course.  There are no living slaves or even living children of slaves anymore.  If anyone deserved reparations for slavery, he or she is long gone.  Descendants of slaves inherited greater freedom, opportunity and blessings than their forebears ever dreamed of, so there is no legitimate claim for them.
 
However, there are others who deserve reparations, or at least others who soon will.
 
When the government decides how much you can benefit from your labors, as they do with progressive taxation, then you are not free to strive and prosper.  When the government decides how much profit is too much, as they do when they bring charges against successful companies, then the owners, stockholders and investors in those companies are not free to enjoy the benefits of their investments.  When the government takes a percentage of one’s profits from the sale of one’s home, the sale of one’s stock investments, the sale of one’s business, then those people are not free to enjoy the benefits of their life’s work.  When one is not free, one is by definition either a captive or a slave.
 
When the government redistributes wealth by taxing those who work and subsidizing those who do not, that is more than confiscation.  That creates a class of people who benefit from the toil of others.  One group of people who work to support a group of people who don’t is slavery.
 
When one is forced to buy a certain type of health insurance, one is not free to choose how to spend his money or how to provide for his own well-being.  When the government decides what kind of light bulbs one can buy, what size toilet tank one can install, or how much salt can be added to one’s food, then there is no limit to the depth and detail of government intrusion into one’s life.  When every aspect of existence  is decided or dictated by another, that is not freedom.  That is slavery.
 
Lest you think that only the half of Americans who actually pay taxes are slaves, let me hasten to address the rest.  Those who exist on the public dole, on welfare and subsidies and federal aid, are also slaves.  They are kept healthy, kept solvent, and just plain kept because they are vital to the whole system of slavery.  Every couple of years, this growing group of dependents is harvested for their votes.  They are slaves to government largesse, having lost the ability and the incentive to work and achieve and provide for themselves.  They too, are slaves.
 
As government grows with every multi-thousand page piece of legislation that the current Congress rubber-stamps into law, so does the extent of our slavery deepen.  If we remain on this course, at some point in the near future, we shall all be dependent on the government for our existence.  We will all be slaves, and we will all deserve reparations from the government that enslaves us.
 
But by then, who will be left to pay?

 

What's In Your Tea?

by Lance Thompson

 
The Obama administration, their surrogates, and their media servants have gone to great lengths to tie the Tea Party to dimwits, extremists, terrorists, those who incite violence against the government.  These are serious charges, and would be enough to discredit any political party–unless that political party is the Democrats, and they control the White House and the Congress. 
 
Dimwits?  Does the Tea Party have any members who believe the island of Guam, (the eroded tip of an undersea volcano) could sink under the weight of too much military hardware? Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia expressed that very concern when questioning Admiral Robert Willard, commander of the US Pacific Fleet.  Nancy Pelosi’s campaign to pass health care reform included the famous call-to-action, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”  This may not be dimwitted, since it turns out to be true.  Only now are we coming to know the true nature of health care reform–after it’s been passed into law.  Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano told the nation that after the terrorist bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thwarted by alert airline passengers last Christmas, that “the system worked.”  If so, it was the system of American citizens looking out for themselves while their government looked the other way.  If dimwits taint a party, the Dems better clean house. 
 
Extremists?  The Dems believe the Tea Party is extreme because its members hold the Constitution to be sacred, believe in the right of free assembly and free speech, and make their views known to their representatives.  Does the Tea Party have anyone who cites Mao Tse Tung as a philosophical model, as White House Communications Director Anita Dun, Obama car czar Ron Bloom, or Obama “green czar” Van Jones have done?  You can’t get more extreme than Mao–runner-up to Stalin for greatest mass murderer in history.  If extremism earns demerits, the Dems have cornered the market.
 
Terrorists?  The Tea Party has no terrorists, either avowed, accused, or convicted.  But the Obama administration battled long and hard to free terrorists from Guantanamo Bay; afford terrorists the rights of American citizens; give terrorists access to American courts (and by rules of evidence, American sources of intelligence); normalize relations with state sponsors of terrorism such as Venezuela, Iran and Cuba; and to redefine terrorist acts as “man-caused disasters.”  If there are no terrorists in the Obama administration, there are certainly strong supporters.
 
Inciting violence against the government?  There have been no acts of violence against government tied to the Tea Party.  Their rhetoric is strong, but no stronger than the threats the Democrats have hurled against the American people in the last few years.  In May, 2008, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened a government takeover of the American oil industry. Of course, such an extreme threat pales in comparison to the actual government takeover of banks, car companies, and all health care–all of which have happened since the Democrats took over two branches of government in November 2008.  Democrats are enraged by Sarah Palin’s words to Tea Partiers, “Don’t retreat, reload.”  Compare that mere phrase to the partisan piling on of debt to unsustainable levels; to Justice Department abrogation of investigations into ACORN voter fraud, Black Panther voter intimidation, not to mention the corruption charges against New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson; to the circumvention and contravention of the Constitution that goes further every day. 
 
The Democrats cannot defend their own actions, so they attack and demean and accuse the most vocal opposition they face.  The Tea Party points out where they are wrong and demand redress and satisfaction.  This is the way American democracy has always worked–until the Democrats came to power.  Now protest, once lauded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the highest form of patriotism, is seen as subversive.  To resist is unAmerican.  To demand one’s rights is tantamount to crime. 
 
The Democrats must discredit the Tea Party before November, for no other force poses a greater threat to their hold on power.  The campaign to silence these patriots will be no less widespread, savage, or unscrupulous than that to pass health care reform.  Choose sides and prepare for battle. 
 
I’m going to put the tea pot on to boil.

 

Syndicate content