BRANSON TEA PARTY REFLECTS A VISION FOR THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

On Saturday April 17, Dana Loesch, Paul Curtman, and I spoke at the Branson, Missouri Tea Party.  Eric Farris invited us two months ago, and after being involved with this event, I think I see his vision without him telling me what it is.   By bringing us to his beautiful city, and allowing us to see the great community that the people of Branson have created, he has created a bond between the St. Louis School and the Branson movement.   The people of this of town reflect the America that the Tea Party is working to preserve. 

When I say preserve, I mean that we are still have a great nation, and American has not been lost yet.  We hear many say “American has been ruined” and “Our liberties and freedom are gone.”   Sure, it is important to take these problems seriously.  But the state of  affairs is not just determined by what people do in Washington.  The people have to actively work to make their world what they want it to be. 

When we arrived in Branson, we immediately noticed that things were different here.  You saw a lot of American flags, and many of the stores had names like “God and Country”.  We went to dinner with the Matt Grindstaff, the pastor who gave the prayer to start the Tea Party.  He informed me that Branson still had prayer in schools, and “here in Branson, it is still in vogue to be Christian.” 

That struck me, because we are inundated with stories of how the Christianity is under attack from the Left.  But we don’t get to hear enough about places like Branson, where the people were able to retain the values and practices that they believe in.   They, and other people throughout the nation are successfully resisting the Pelosi Cabal’s version of “transformation”.   

When Laura Roth, national radio host, interviewed country singer Clay Cooper, he said ” Branson is a conservative, family oriented town.”    A woman who was friends with Eric said “We do not need the Tea Party in Oklahoma, it is conservative everywhere.”  Another woman from Oklahoma said “well, the governor is a Democrat., because of the direction that the people have taken the state, must still operate as Democratic governor has to recognize this fact.   “We like it there,” she added.

Branson and the accounts of my new friends from Oklahoma were a microcosm of the real story.  Even tough Team Obama has hit us with an authoritarian, punitive agenda, we have kept this nation from collapsing, as it could have.   Supporters of the Stimulus Package keep saying that “it saved us from the Great Depression.”

I see that it was the people who saved us from the Great Depression II.  Instead of always talking about all the bad things liberals and progressives say about conservatives, why not  through in a few stories about people like the ones in Branson.  So far, they have been able to control their destiny, that is the story of the American Experience. 

http://www.thegrio.com/black-history/godmother-of-the-civil-rights-movement-dorothy-height-dies-at-98.php

HOW I WOULD RESPOND TO IRAN AND THE ISLAMIC FASCISTS …….. IF I WERE PRESIDENT

For over five years we have heard about Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons”.  And since Operation Iraqi Freedom we have watched waves of Islamic jihadist coming from nations that are our “allies” attack our soldiers and kill thousands of other Muslims.  Also, we have  discussions of getting Russia and China on board for economic sanctions against Iran, and the USA is trying to work through President Karzai and the Pakistani government to respond to the continuing assaults from Al Qaeda.  Many are anticipating and even hoping for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities if they  they appear to have the ability to make a bomb.   And finally, there are those that want the United States to conduct a strategic strike against to “set them back a few years”.  As president, I would take a completely different approach.

Obviously, sanctions have not been working to stop Iran.  First, the economic impact of the sanctions is either pushed onto to the people of the nation, who even when they try to voice their objections through an election, they are repressed and disenfranchised.  Also, as long as China and Russia refuse to back strong and consequential measures, the existing penalties will not be enough.  And both nations have been contributing to the regime through trade and technological assistance.  Also, Russia and China have declared their opposition to the United States position as the dominate world power.  So they are not particularly upset about the problems a nuclear armed Iran pose for the USA.

I am also unimpressed with the notion of using an airstrike to cripple their weapons making plant.  Most military observers that I am familiar with have said that such a strike may not even get the job done.  The issue is more than our military capacity.  If the facilities are deep enough, and if the intelligence is off, then even our bunker busters missles may not be able to completely eliminate the threat.   And even if the attack was successful, many analysts say that it would only set them back for two or three years. 

And then, Iran would have an een greater rallying cry for the jihadists.  If Israel attacks them, then the Middle East will explode into chaos and war.  Islamic factions that are fighting one another may actually unify to wage war on the Jews.  Iran would call this an unprovoked attack on them, and much of the already anti-Israel European groups would condemn Israel, and they may even aid the Iranians.

If the USA does this, then off course it would be another example of the Great Satan oppressing the Islamic world.  Whatever would be gained by “setting  them back” two years would be lost in the destabilization that would take place. 

For how I would deal with this problem, we have to go back to the beginning of George Bush’s second term.  Bush announced that he felt that Iran building a nuclear bomb was “unacceptable behavior”.  I liked George Bush’s position on national strength and denouncing evil, but I disagreed with this statement, as well as those who said that they should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  My objection is not that I want them to have a bomb, a most certainly do not.  The problem is our complicated relationship with them made demanding they give it up more unrealistic than the media makes it out to be.  And by stating that we were not going to allow it, we strengthened the regime’s standing when they showed that could do it anyway.

The United States worked with Iran to combat Al Qaeda in the 1990′s, and we cooperated with them during the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.  At one point, Iran almost went to war with the Taliban.  Madeline Albright issued an implicit apology for the 1953 ousting of their elected Communist president.  For the Iranians, that was not encouragement for better relations, and did not increase their respect for America.  Instead, it demonstrated that we could be messed with. 

I would have first, in the time when the new Iranian bomb crisis emerged, ignored the weapon issue and called on them to end their practice of Gender Apartheid.  I would have called upon the Islamic world to stop subjugating the women of the Middle East.  This redirection would have  forced them to try to justify it, the way South Africa tried.   Then we force the world that is so mad at America to either join us in opposing this bigotry, or show that they do not care. 

If they did  not back us on this, then I would tell them “shut the hell up about how much you don’t like American arrogance.”

The problem is not that a nation we do not like will has a nuclear bomb.  The problem is that nation’s president said he wanted to erase our ally from the map.  This statement should have been verified publically, framed, and declared an act of war.  Allan Combs once said he did exactly say this.  What he said should be played in its original form, then directly translated, and put into some official transcript that is regularly addressed so that there is no confusion.

I would have told Iran “go ahead, make your stupid little nuclear bomb.”   Then, I would have made it clear that we have an intelligence operation inside their nation watching to see if Iran is prepared to attack Israel.  During the Six Days War, the Israeli’s saw that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were about to attack them and took action.   They even had an operative that tricked the Syrians into giving away their hidden artillery positions by having them plant trees there. 

In 2008 George Bush did announce that the USA was using covert means to help the Iranian people oust the regime.  I believe this was a good move, even though many questioned why one would announce this publicly.  It put pressure on an already paranoid group of leaders, and it gave some sense that we were actively supporting the Iranian resistance without making any type of overtly subversive move that we would not follow through with.

I would tell Iran that we will know if they are trying to attack Israel.  I believe that if we give our international intelligence operatives the correct support and funding, we can know this.  Then I would tell them that if they even so much as smelled like they were going to use that weapon on Israel, that the USA would invade Iran the full force of our military.  We would invade to remove their nuclear capacity, we would invade to remove their ENTIRE regime, their despot president, Khomeini and all rest of their supreme religious counsel. 

We would not be there to nation build, we would be their to remove the evil threat from existence.  It would be a war just like WWII. 

I believe this attempt to prevent a nuclear armed Iran has been an embarrassment for both the Bush and Obama administrations.  The Iranians have lied and ignored the world call for them to cease this threat.  It has shown many who want to diminish America that Iran cannot really be stopped through diplomatic and economical means.  The USA bans trade with Iran, but many of our products and mon ey still end up in Iran through nations  we cannot control.

As far a the jihadists, I would call together all the region’s presidents, and tell them that the had two choices.  The people attacking are troops are coming from somewhere, and they will be stopped at the source.  If they are coming from your nations, you have a very short time to control your borders and help us keep them out of the areas we are trying to secure.  If you cannot stop them, then we take this as your relinquishing your sovereignty, or that you are not capable of maintaining it.    Therefore, either we will “help” you get control back or we are taking your inaction as a deliberate facilitation of the jihadists.

Either way, we are dealing with these people not as insurgents and terrorists, but as soldiers fighting for a particular force.  I call this force The Union of the Caliphate, as Bin Laden, Syd Qyd, and the Muslim Brotherhood all spoke of their designs on forming one Islamic Nation in the Middle East under sharia law and their control.  Anyone funding these efforts would be publicly identified to the American public, and defined as helping the evil. 

Firms in our country who do business with these creeps would just have to deal.  If our brave fighting men and women make sacrifices, so can they. 

The jihadists would be dealt with the way we dealt with the Japanese and German combatants during WWII.  We would fight them with massive response and would go to the source. 

This may seem extreme to some, but we cannot go on like this. We cannot ask some to put their lives on the line to contain something that cannot be contained.  If the mission is worth them being there, then it is worth us taking it to final resolution .

These are not isolated cells of  angry natives. Islamic fascism is a coordinated effort that is being controlled and funded at the top by people who intend to overthrow the non-sharia governments in the Middle East and ultimately destroy the USA.

I would confront that as an act of war against the American people, and deal with it today…….. If I were president.

BOB MCDONNELL AND THE CONFEDERACY STATMENT

After declaring April Confederate History Month for the state of Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell apologized for omitting any mention of slavery in the declaration.  Some see this as just an issue of political correctness and public relations, but it speaks to he larger issue as to what is wrong with this practice of elected officials trying to make grandiose statements to impress “the base”.  It tends to result in retractions and unproductive controversy, serving to increase the personal notoriety of the people involved without helping  the people that they serve.  Bob McDonnell is an exceptional leader and normally professional, but in this case he seems to have fallen into the trap that could cause problems for many other officials and candidates if they go down this road.

On Wednesday, McDonnell issued the following statement:

The proclamation issued by this Office designating April as Confederate History Month contained a major omission. The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed. The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War. Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation. In 2007, the Virginia General Assembly approved a formal statement of “profound regret” for the Commonwealth’s history of slavery, which was the right thing to do.

On Tuesday, when asked why he had omitted slavery in the first place he said “there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.”

If  McDonnell felt this way on the day before, what is with this lengthy reversal?  It was not as though he was not aware of the potential objections, because he addressed them at the time of the declaration.  It is not like he learned the horrors of slavery in one day!    McDonnell was making a statement about Virginia’s heritage, and he must have known what the reaction would be. 

But that statement runs shallow when he retracts so quickly.  And at a time when so many of the people who put him in the position he is in are being cast as violent radical racists, this does not seem like a good time to make this kind of statement.  Especially if in 24 hours you have to say you’re sorry for making it.

The thing is, as a black person I am not offended by Confederate flags, nor do I assume that anyone who has one is a racist.  Also, Bob McDonnell was supported by the former governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who made history by becoming the nation’s first black governor since Reconstruction.  But even Wilder called the move “mind-boggling”, and saw the original declaration as an attempt to revise history. 

The problem with McDonnell’s declaration is that his state is one of the first in the nation wide state sovereignty movement against the federal healthcare reform legislature.   With the media advocates of the bill trying to make the state challenges out to be a neo-Confederate attack against our “historic” president , it seems like a bad time to declaring April Confederate History month for Virginia. 

Sure, he may have impressed some who are adamant about embracing Virginia’s Civil War past.  The Washington Post reports that the move was something that “political observers said would strengthen his position with his conservative base.”

But that is the problem.  This notion of a monolithic “conservative base” that wants governors, senators, and representatives to do things like this.  We do not need grandstanding, we need leadership. 

 That is  not the grassroots conservative movement, but  a very small minority  that some elected officials, such as McDonnell, feel that they need to reel in with these kind of exaggerated demonstrations.

But this does not empower the citizen conservatives, it burdens them.  With the mass media campaign to demonize Tea Party members, why do something that will further associate the move to block healthcare with the “secessionists” imagery that they are laying on these people.

It may look cool on Tuesday, but it looks weak on Wednesday.  If you want to discuss how General Robert E. Lee was against slavery, or how Stonewall Jackson actually helped teach many blacks how to read, fine.  But when you do something that is so obviously designed to get a reaction and stick a finger in the eye of the administration and it’s supporters, it at least needs to be something that you can back up for more than a day.  The problem was that he was asked about the slavery omission, and gave a very clear repudiation of that as an issue.

Then, the next day, he pulled back and sent out a 7 paragraph “I’m sorry” note like a kid who got busted for taking a dare. 

McDonnell’s move was heralded as courageous by some, but was it?  He apologizes, then the Tea Party, particularly the southern state movements,  are still having this used against them.

Many respond “well, they make us out to be radicals, so what difference does it make?”  The fact is the hard work done by the people who have dedicated their time to this deserve better.    Millions of people who at first though the Tea Party was just some fringe cultural anomaly now at least agree with some or most of its platform, and many have  joined it.

There is no conflict between maintaining your core principles and being inclusive.   Many people who have voted fo Obama have had second thoughts, and they are looking for answers.   And most of the American people have rejected the idea that the Tea Party people are merely showing anger toward a black president. 

That is a result of the people donating their time and talents. That is a result of them being assertive, unafraid, but also respectful and honest.  We congratulated and Bob McDonnell’s victory last November, and we still believe he will continue to be a good governor.  But they must be careful not to let the powerful groups that encourage this kind of divisive maneuver to make them liabilities to the very movement that propelled them to victory.

But when an elcted official  the movment got behind, someone who was embraced by the Tea Party movement, does something like this, it works against the real momentum that this movement has created.  It is selfish and disheartening.  And when he turns tail the very next day, it damages his credibility to those who are still making up their minds about this thing. 

These people who are still making up their mind are not progressives, they are not moderates.  They are hard working Americans, many of whom  do not care about Democrats, Republicans, conservatives or liberals. 

They are just people looking for the right answer.

We do not need our elected officials to act like talk show hosts.  As much as people like  conservative media personalities, and as much good as they have done for this movement, the role of the elected official is much different.  Some of the sound bites work great for these programs, but they do not show the people who will decide November’s results that they are interesting in doing good for the WHOLE NATION.

Most people do not follow politics the way many of us do.  These polls that show that 40% of the population is conservative are great for the Hannity Show, but it is not a good idea assume that means that everyone is already sold.    What will win in November is a message from conservatives that inspires all Americans, even the ones who are still not affiliated, to come out and look for the individuals who speak to the American Experience.

That is what the Tea Party did, and tat is why it is the strongest political movement in the nation today.  It spoke to Democrats, Republicans, independents, conservatives, and even principled liberals.  And that is why so many who blindly accept the Pelosi agenda are trying to paint the Tea Party as corporate controlled  ”Astroturf”, because they know that it reflects a genuine non-partisan desire to change the direction of the nation, regardless of which party is in power.

The GOP earned the first shot at getting the Tea Party support by standing strong against the bills that the Tea Party goers opposed.  This support was not given to them automatically.  it had to be earned.  The GOP still has a long way to go to get the nation behind it the for the big  November victory they have been hoping for.

There  were  most likely  groups that really wanted Governor McDonnell to make this declaration, and some officials are afraid of being branded “one of them”.    Special interest groups that is, and I don’t think they were concerned about the  negative effect in could have n the people who have worked so hard to help him in others get to where they are today. 

 For many of the people hitting the streets for this citizenship movement, who are every bit as conservative as McDonnell and his “heritage advisors”, it is just a pain in the rear.

Janet Brewer does the dance. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/26/2010-04-26_ariz_gov_defends_citizenship_law_that_smacks_of_hypocrisy_to_new_york_hispanics_.html

SAving the news

These are a collection of links related to The Greyfalcon articles.

http://www.conservativecabbie.com/tag/john-mccain\

http://www.democracy21.org/vertical/Sites/%7B3D66FAFE-2697-446F-BB39-85FBBBA57812%7D/uploads/%7BC523803D-04F5-491F-A42D-4BBF57FC54DD%7D.PDF

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/23/arizona-gov-jan-brewer-signs-tough-immigration-law/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=382551514731

 http://theamericano.com/2010/04/12/black-tea-party-members-face-tough-criticism/

http://southflorida912.org/2010/04/14/joe-budds-analysis-of-the-cd19-election/

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_slide.html

Rachel Alfonso. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193921155425154.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/23/arizona-gov-jan-brewer-signs-tough-immigration-law/ Janet Brewer

Freedom Pheonix: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0093130

Official Text f Arizon SB 1070 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2R/bills/SB1070S.pdf

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874

J.D. HAYWORTH IS NO DAISY

There is a lot of talk about certain candidates being “true conservatives” and being an answer to the Washington establishment.  And certain people, such as Sarah Palin, have been lambasted for not supporting some of these “true conservatives”.  The assumptions have ranged from her having loyalty to the person who put her in the spotlight, to her being “establishment  owned”. 

But is this the whole story?  Maybe, it is because she knows that sometimes the  ” Consistent Conservative ” may not be so consistent at all, and that they would provide an easy opportunity for the Democrats to attack the integrity of the conservative movement for embracing these people. 

And maybe, she knows that a lot of people just don’t like the opponents of those she has recently endorsed.  And maybe she is actually showing more independence by not letting  these  ”true conservatives, but not really” get away with taking advantage of the Tea Party and citizenship movement. 

And maybe, just maybe, she really believes the people she did endorse are actually the best candidates.  In several of the cases, The Greyfalcon agrees.

It seems that a lot of people are saying “I want to get rid of that guy in office”, but they don’t know anything about the person is trying to replace them. 

 J D Hayworth, has actually calls himself “The Consistent Conservative” in his adds.  He is heralded as the champion of border security, one of the issues that has soured conservatives on McCain.  On one talk show Hayworth said “We thank John for his service, but it is obvious that he has been in Washington too long.  It time for him to come home to Arizona.”

Hayworth says “John’s been in Washington too long” and “Washington is broken” an awful lot.  Before I knew more about him, that was a turn off. Those sound like stock phrases, and the first 20 times I heard him, I couldn’t find anything that he said that would make anyone want to vote for him, beside the fact that he was not John McCain.

Upon further examination, Hayworth appears to be the personification of why the Republicans lost in 2006.  In 2005, he voted for the Transportation Bill that included $138 dollars in earmarks for Arizona.   But it is not the fact that he voted for this, but the way the he explains it that is concerns me. 

His response was that Arizona was a growing state, and that they were for construction projects that needed to be paid for.  He said that the earmarks in the Tarp Bill that McCain voted for were bad because they didn’t do anything for Arizona, and that they were just to make people OK with the bailout.

 In 2005 he was also reprted to have voted for 6500 earmarks for $24 million dollars.  His response “we do not have line item veto.” 

He is basically saying that his earmarks were better than McCain’s earmarks, because his earmarks went to a more worthy cause, for the state of Arizona.

But that is what makes an earmark an earmark.  If Louisiana Mary gave that answer, Republicans would hammer her.  We will not be inconsistent conservatives. 

There is a lot of talk about “those Progressives” and  “we can’t elect more Progressive Republicans”, and a certain talk show host that uses the term as many times as the smurfs said smurf.  One of the things that characterized progressivism was its use of regulation and a vast administrative class to circumvent the limitations that the Constitution put on government power. 

In American Progressivism, Ronald Pestritto writes “Through te realization of their agendas, Roosevelt and Wilson had made reform respectable.  Federal regulation of numerous aspects of public life had become commonplace.  Americans may have tired of their crusading zeal, but the progressive presidents and their supporters had inaugurated a new era in American government.”

Hayworth supported the 527 Reform Act, a conveniently timed effort to limit these groups when they could possibly be used to defeat him, even though it was apparent that eventually that act would further the conservatives spiral away from their principles, and even hurt the party in the coming years. 

Hayworth voted for Sabes-Oxley, a bill that imposed obtrusive accounting regulations on businesses. Many firms have reported sending their work overseas because of the expenses caused by his bill.

Interestingly, in 1998 Hayworth also voted for increasing high-skill foreign work visas.  When an Arizona software engineer wrote a letter telling opposing this, his response was that if he did not vote for the measure,  firms would send their business overseas.

Hmmmm…….

He voted for No Child Left Behind.  This was one of the Bush Administration policies that the Greyfalcon most opposes, and educations on both sides of the political spectrum say this is a hinderance to them.

And off course, he was one of the five major names in the Abramoff scandal.  He has been accused for receiving $100,000 from Abramoff, though he claims he only received $2,200, and that the rest of the money in question was merely the Indian tribes showing their appreciation for all the great work he had done for them.

Remember, Palin went after Republicans in Alaska for corruption.  Some have said her support for McCain over this guy means she is establishment owned.  That kind of  in crowd mentality has led these same people to demand she supports someone who has been FAR from a Washington outsider.  I believe she quietly affirmed her committment to opposing corruption in BOTH parties.

But regardless of all this and more (looks like he hooked his wife up with $100,000 in campaign money for a political services) I JUST DO NOT LIKE THIS GUY. 

I don’t like his stupid smirk, and the way that he insults people when they ask him about this stuff.  So much of what he says sounds to me like a much of half-ass excuses, and he sounds like a talk show host more than a candidate to run for office. 

And I never hear him say, “I am sorry”, or “I showed bad judgement in getting involved with this stuff.”  Hayworth’s attitude seems to be, “that’s just how we do business……… in Washington.”

And he actually got roughed up by Campbell Brown Chris Matthews, and even Rachael Maddow!    Hayworth’s  kind of -sort of birther stuff, and then his  retract and skirm maneuver made him easy prey for them.  Not a promising sign. 

I am not saying that someone is wrong for voting for Hayworth over McCain, McCain has certainly lost the favor of many conservative voters.  But I do reject the notion that Hayworth is such a great and principled conservative that if someone supports McCain, they are  ”selling-out”, and that not backing Hayworth is some betrayal of the conservative movement.

Sounds like that MTV marketed counter-culture stuff.  These people are not purple haired punk rockers, they are RUNNING FOR OFFICE, FOR THE RIGHT TO GOVERN THIS NATION.  I am not voting to make a statement, I am voting to get good, talented people into a position were they can stop the government’s slide into financial oblivion, and  take the reigns of power without screwing up.

And I want them to realize that they work for us, and I don’t think that this Hayworth guy has done or said anything to indicate that he understands this.  He demonstrated a clear sense of entitlement when he suggested that he was a Tea Party candidate, and when he used his radio show to “test the waters” for his entering the race.

I am sure the station owners loved having their business being used to reelect this guy.

It may be a matter of the Obama McCain dilemma, where conservatives choose McCain because they thought Obama would be much worse.  And if one thinks McCain is a good candidate, that’s OK too. 

I do agree with McCain on the Iraq war and the Surge, and I also like his pro-life stance.  And I also think he has done good work on the healthcare debates, and he did not vote for the healthcare bill.  Hayworth says that McCain becomes a conservative when it is election time, but his own track record on conservatism is not exactly stella.  Actually, it kind of stinks. 

We keep hearing how great Hayworth is on the border, but the problem is not the law, the problem is better enforcement of existing laws.  Nearly every conservative I know off agrees that we cannot send 12 to 20 million people back to Mexico.  I opposed the 2006 immigration bill because without the establishment of solid goals and measures to major reductions in the number of illegal crossings, the bill would have been a message that once you got over the line, you could be given amnesty.  

But mass deportation efforts would require the kind of  government expansion and regulation that conservatives patently oppose.  Though criminal illegals should be sent out of the nation and reported to ICE, we do not need the Million Man Round Up to create more division in this nation.

I would vote for McCain over Hayworth if I lived in Arizona.  Just like I voted for McCain over Obama in 2008.  I disagree with his campaign finance reform, position on the Bush tax cuts and his support for a form of Cap and Trade, but I also think that he is a good man.  I do not have the same feeling for Hayworth, on top of all the concrete problems with his political career.

There are a number of great grassroots candidates that are running this year, including Marc Rubio, Chuck Devore, and Allen West.  They are true conservatives who deliver a clear and personal message.  They are also positive and intelligent, and they do not rely on boring cliques to make their case.

I think the idea that Sarah Palin or anyone else owes it to the movement to back Hayworth marginalizes  the value of their endorsement of candidates the calibre of these and other truly consistent conservatives.

And maybe, she doesn’t want to see the people who put their trust in her, and in this movement, get played for fools. 

We do not agree with these sentiments and comments denigrating all Republicans and conservatives as corrupt and dishonest.  But these sites show how easy it may be to use these pseudo ”Consistent Conservatives” to damage the GOP brand beyond repair, and diminish the credibility of the Tea Party’s committment to the whole nation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPBQwxL3ekM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2B-KSHzZiE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZnusktn2fI

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/16/hayworth-birther-identity/

http://groups.google.com.pk/group/alt.politics.republicans/browse_thread/thread/a4d4bc3954c04b7d

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WmeaywMcCE

ARLEN SPECTER AND KEVIN McCARTHY A CONTRAST THAT WORKS FOR THE GOP

On FOX Sunday, Arlen Specter and Kevin McCarthy showed what they were about.   Specter, who recently switched parties because to was apparent he would not win the 2010Pennsylvania  Republican Primary, advocated the Obama Administration’s agenda, while McCarthy spoke on the prospects of the Republicans retaking the House in November.  This is the kind of contrast that will work for the GOP this fall.

Chris Wallace asked Spector about how the Obama Administration asserted that the Stimulus Package would keep unemployment below 7.7%, and that it would have been 9% without it.  Spector replied that it hadn’t worked work out quite as well as they wanted it too, but that “most would agree that it saved the nation from a 1920′s style depression.”  This statement is a media ready sound bite, and does not stand up to strong economic examination.  They have never established the cause and effect relationship between this $800 billion dollar boondoggle, and the fact that the nation’s economy has not collapsed.  The people worked harder and cut costs to make their businesses and household’s work, and they are trying to give the credit to themselves. 

This is why the people are angry, because of the disconnect with reality that people like Spector demonstrate on a regular basis.

Republican California Congressman Kevin McCarthy shows the kind of understanding that will serve the GOP cause well.  McCarthy recognized that the falling poll numbers of Congress “do not mean that the people are happy with the Republicans”.  McCarthy is leading the operation to hep Republicans win in November, but says that he wants the priority to be on helping America and not just helping the party.  He believes that Republicans can win the House next year, and that their margin of advantage over the Democrats with likely voters is “probably four points higher” than the 47% to 44% advantage they have now.

If GOP speaks the language of the American Experience instead of the langauge of party opportunism, they have a chance to be very successful in not only winning the Congress back, but in creating a situation where they can bring some Democrats on board with them to provide a better direction for our government.

But they must stay away from promoting candidates that represent the corruption and failures of the 2006 Republican defeat.  This includes those who were defeated themselves in 2006 because of doing the very things that the people rejected the Republicans for in the first place.

BLACK SABBATH THE WORLD’S FIRST CHRISTIAN METAL BAND?

“You listen to Black Sabbath?”  “You must be a Satin worshipper!”  How many times did we hear that, back  in the seventies and eighties?  Many assumed because of the name that the boys from Birmingham were celebrating the joys of selling ones soul to the devil.  But if one listens and reads the lyrics, you find that the opposite is true.  Upon closer examination, Black Sabbath is actually condemning the very things that they are accused of  promoting.

In the late 1960′s, vocalist Ozzy Osbourne, guitarist Tony Iommi, bassist Geezer Bulter, and drummer Bill Ward made a fateful decision.  They changed their name from Earth to Black Sabbath, and they decided to play dark music.  Ozzy Osbourne says that they used to rehearse near a movie theatre where Boris Karloff’s horror movie “Black Sabbath”, was playing.  Ozzy explains “Isn’t it weird that people pay money to get the crap scared out of them.  That’s when we decided to play scary music.”  

At that time Geezer Butler was big into magic and the new age mystical thing. He had been given a book that was about the occult, and he kept it in a book-case near his bed.  Geezer says that one night he was awakened to the sight of a hooded man in a black cloak at the foot of the bed.  “I couldn’t see  his face.”  He said that he watched the man take the occult book out of his bookcase and then he left.  Geezer thought it was a dream but “when I got up the next morning, only that book was gone!”

Geezer told Ozzy about the encounter, and Ozzy wrote the lyrics to “Black Sabbath”, the first song on their debut album by the same name.   As far music supposedly getting people to worship the devil, Black Sabbath had the opposite effect.   When I first heard this song on headphones, IT SACRED THE HELL OUT OF ME! 

Geezer reveals “The way I saw it, as far as this occult thing goes, I saw it as a sign that I needed to either get in all the way or get out completely.  I choose to get out!”   

The song ends with “Satan’s coming round the bend, people running cause they’re scared, the people better go and beware.  Oh no, please no!”   The song is not about how cool Satan is, but about how it sucks when he comes for you.

Geezer actually wrote most of the lyrics, but on this one Ozzy set the tone for Black Sabbath as a band that guides the listener through the world’ battle between good and evil.

From the same album, “The Wizard” describes a magical stranger that comes to save the people from harm.  “Evil power, disappears, everyone’s happy when the Wizard is near” and “all th people give a happy sigh” demonstrate Black Sabbath’s perspective.  There are powerfully bad forces at work in the universe, and it takes even stronger forces to dispel that evil, and that the evil must always be confronted. 

The next song “Behind the Wall of Sleep” also frames this struggle, ending with “Now from darkness there comes light, Wall of Sleep is cool and bright.  Wall of Sleep is lying broken.”  Once again, the people are delivered from suffering in the world of Sabbath.

Geezer wrote N.I.B. is about Satan falling in love with a human woman and changing, becoming a good person.  That may sound weird to many, but it is a nice thought.

“Wicked World” a song that laments the blight of the less fortunate with “People where on earth are dying of all these diseases”, rounds out an album that throughout engage the subject of  morality and humanity’s value with their driving flowing dark brew of  well-played music. 

Their second album Paranoid continues this theme, with the  song “”War Pigs” denouncing the horrors of war with “Hand of God has struck the hour.” and “on their knees the War Pigs crawling, begging mercy for their sins, Satan laughing spreads his wings. O Lord Yeah!”  Electric Funeral issues a similar warning to the despots with “Evil souls fall to Hell, ever trapped in burning cells.”

Off course I don’t think Black Sabbath is a Christian rock band in the conventional sense of the word.  But most who decried them as a group that promoted Satan obviously didn’t actually listen or read these lyrics. 

And that is a problem that applies to many situations today.

http://thegreyfalcon.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/black-sabbath-the-worlds-first-christian-metal-band/

SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU SAYS SHE DID NOT MAKE A BACK ROOM DEAL

Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu gained notoriety last year for year her decision to support the healthcare reform bill in exchange for a $300 million dollar earmark for her state.  Many who are outraged by this dubbed it the “Louisiana Purchase”.  Mary Landrieu objects to this, claiming that she did not do a deal in “a smoke-filled room”, and that she was merely correcting a mistake made by the federal government.  But her defense of this unpopular manuever demonstrates the real problem with agenda that is being forced upon this nation.

When asked about if she dislikes the term “Louisiana Purchase” for the deal, she replied:

 ”Not only do I dislike it, it’s really a mischaracterization of what happened, it is not a special deal for me, it’s a fair deal for the people of Louisiana.  I’ll tell you what happened, the levees broke, and the hurricane hit and the levees broke.  Our personal income went up 40%, not down, according to the federal government.  It’s never happened in the history of the country and it’s false.  All the extra money, that poured into the state, the federal government claims we are 40% richer.  It’s laughable, it’s a joke.  So we fixed it. When the income goes up by 40%, our Medicare reimbursement drops.”

So let’s get this straight.  Because your state received billions in federal aid, you deserve millions more in federal aid because the federal aid you received was so much that it reduced the amount of aid that you are entitled too.  What is frightening is that a senator expects that to make sense to the people listening. 

She continues: “It’s because of the insurance money that poured in, and the federal funding that poured in, and it arbitrarily and artificially increased our per capita income.  The federal government is saying we are 40% richer, it’s a joke.”

Hold on.  Landrieu is actually claiming that Louisiana has been victimized by all of the federal aid and insurance money that has come to the state to help it rebuild.  This is important on many levels.  First if Louisiana is getting the money from the insurance companies, one would think that would be preferable to them being denied that money.  Second, she is basically saying that if you make more money, the government penalizes you, so it is better to make less so you can get the government to do more for you. 

She is saying this. Mary Landrieu, not Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.  So, Obama should spend less time complaining about talk show hosts.  This time it is a Democrat that voted for the bill he signed that is calling him into question.

Also Landrieu insisted that the federal funding and insurance money “arbitrarily and artificially increased our per capita income.”

Federal spending doesn’t do that …..wait a minute IT DOES!  She is now saying that public sector spending distorts the income figures, making it look like things are improving when they are not.

Where have we heard that before. Oh yeah. THE RECOVERY ACT.  Mary Landrieu is attacking the entire foundation of the Team Obama approach to this economy!

And throughout the interview, she continued to say “it’s a joke”.  Senator Landrieu informed “The governor (R-Bobby Jindal) and I stood shoulder to shoulder to tell the federal government that it is incorrect.  We have always paid 70 cents on every dollar for Medicaid”.  She says with the upper income adjustment, they will have to pay more. 

So the federal government, led by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Frank IS WRONG?  And she is standing with Bobby Jindal, a staunch conservative, against them?  Hmmm….

That is much better campaign material than any Republican member of Congress will get from going on a talk show.