“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Plato

  • Daily Quote:

    "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."

    Mahatma Gandh

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 91 other followers

  • Subscribe

  • Advertisements

Posts Tagged ‘Conservatives’

Making Sense of the Trump Election

Posted by Steve Markowitz on November 20, 2016

With the presidential election behind us, pundits attempt to analyze and explain the results.  Some on the Right interpret the Trump victory as a conservative mandate.  Others on the Left blame Hillary Clinton’s poor campaigning skills or the low intelligence of voters for the loss.  Such conclusions from both sides miss the greater meaning of the election, which is a continuation of the political paradigm shift worldwide.

In the United States the shift began with the Tea Party after Obama’s first election.  It continued with Democrats losing power in both subsequent mid-term elections.

trumpThe United Kingdom voted for Brexit, to disconnect themselves from the European Union.  Similar to the US presidential election, expert pollsters indicated Brexit would not occur.  Just like in the United States the People proved the experts out of touch.

The paradigm shift is the result of the failure of Progressive governments to meet the needs of the People.  While governments bailed out banks in 2009 to the benefit of the wealthy, and continually come up with social programs for the less fortunate, they have ignored the needs of the middle class whose financial well-being has been eroded.

The forces that led to Brexit and the election of Donald Trump will continue to pick up momentum.  As governments continue with the same failed policies, they will lose legitimacy and be voted out.  These forces will likely lead to the breakup of the European Union, as well as increased European nationalism.

John Mauldin recently published an article titled This Could Be Our 1989” that helps explain the eroding authority of Progressive governments.  He begins by quoting Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education who correctly said:

“All these details of the Trump platform are still important, but strike me as less relevant to what we can expect going forward.  The more I look at it, the less it seems to me that the election results are less about what Trump believes and more about what he represents: a fundamental shattering of an old paradigm.  And I’m finding the widespread commentary that this represents some kind of triumph of racism, misogyny, etc. etc., to be superficial and even preposterous.  And you know this if you visit with any regular voter.

What lies in ruins here is not common decency and morality – much less the character of a whole people and nation – but rather an anachronistic, arrogant, entitled, smug, conceited ruling elite and ruling paradigm.  You can see this in the clues that show that the vote was not so much for a particular vision of one man, but against a prevailing model of managing the world.” [Emphasis added.]

Mauldin then goes on to offer some logical conclusions relating to not only the Trump election, but also the paradigm shift in political power unfolding before us.  This includes:

  • When I read (somewhat bemusedly) that the halls of power in Europe are in an uproar over our election, I think that they should be. Not because Trump is now president but because elites everywhere – the people who “know” how the world should be run and expect the “little people” to stay in line – are an endangered species”.  Yes, these elites have much to fear as they watch their base of power disintegrate.
  • “It is up to the leadership of countries and communities to make sure that everyone is protected – equally – and to do so without burdening future generations with the task of paying for the solutions they come up with.” For decades governments worldwide have ignored the plight of the middle class who are now revolting at the ballot box.
  • The old institutions are not up to the task of managing a world awash in massive and ever faster technological and social changes that are not leaving us enough time to adjust. We went from a world where 50% of us worked on family farms to where less than 2% do today, but that took 8-10 generations.”  Many of the institutions that Mauldin is referring to were created shortly after World War II.  It is not surprising that they are not working in this rapidly changing world.  Expecting the ruling political class to implement change that while necessary, would diminish their power, is illogical.  It is also not surprising that the old guard claims that incoming change endangers society.

Mauldin concludes that those shaking at the idea of a Trump presidency should “get a grip”, reminding us that the power of US presidents are quite limited by the Constitution.  While Progressives, including the current president, have suggested that the Constitution should be a living document that can be morphed to their political agenda, many in this country, including real conservatives, conclude otherwise.  Strict interpretation of the Constitution and the powers it gives the office of the presidency inhibits any president, including Trump, from significant overreach.

The American People have spoken.  They are demanding change and have elected Donald Trump to carry out that mandate.  Time will tell if he is up to the task.  Should he not, he will be voted out by the same group that have given him the office he will shortly command.


Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Trump, the Ultimate RINO

Posted by Steve Markowitz on March 6, 2016

Sometime in the not too distant past a new term entered American lexicon; RINO.  Google the word RINO and the following definition appears:


The definition of RINO is instructive in today’s political environment.  It helps define the current state of the Republican Party and more specifically the meteoric rise of Donald Trump in the Party’s presidential nominating process.

There is significant discontent within the Republican Party, especially by those who consider themselves conservative.  This discontent emanates not only from the direction the Country is travelling and the fact that conservatives feel marginalized, but also by the Republican Party’s inept response to the Progressive agenda associated with the modern Democratic Party.

President George W Bush’s policies clearly defined him as a RINO.  George W. Bush was no fiscal conservative, not only increasing deficit spending, but also supporting fiscal policies that fed into crony capitalism.  As a result of America’s discontent with the state of the economy and the ill-advised war in Iraq, Americans voted for the charm of Hope and Change and elected a radical Leftist, Barack Obama, president.

The change Obama brought to Washington quickly became unpopular, not only with conservatives, but also more moderate Americans.  Two years after his election, America sent a clear message to Washington giving Republicans an historic majority in Congress, as well as significant gains at the state level.  These gains can in art be attributed to the grassroots efforts of the Tea Party.

As unpopular as Barack Obama’s presidency had become, he was able to secure a second term.  Some of the blame for Obama’s reelection rests with the Republican Party’s inept political strategies and disjointed policies.

The discontent among conservatives and Republicans continued with the 2014 midterm elections.  Once again Republicans saw huge gains, now controlling both houses of Congress and making further advances in statewide elections.  This Republican victory should have resulted in a legislative agenda that promoting the will of more conservative Americans.  Instead, Republicans squandered the advantage.  Conservatives saw no perceptible change in the Country’s direction.  This, in a nutshell, explains discontent that has morphed into outright anger for many Republicans.

Shortly after the 2014 midterm elections, the Republican Party’s power elite decided to anoint one of its own, Jeb Bush, as the candidate of choice.  A massive war chest was collected that the Party hoped would lead to Jeb Bush’s nomination (coronation?).   The rank and file would have none of this.  Bush’s rejection was total.  The people have spoken and that is a good thing.

As is often the case when people feel marginalized, currently the case amongst many in the Republican Party, emotions overtake common sense.  A large minority in the Republican Party are exhibiting this emotional response by supporting Donald Trump.  Why understandable, this reaction will not promote the policies or values desired by conservatives.

Donald Trump has been a master at understanding and taking advantage of Republican anger.  He in fact may become the Party’s nominee.  This troubles to this Blogger given Trump’s history, irrespective of than contemporary words.  History shows Trump’s disdain for core conservative beliefs on both economic and social issues.  That history shows a man who used crony-capitalism and litigation to achieve success in business.  It shows a man who was more likely to support Progressive policies, rather than the Constitution.  It seems likely that Trump’s supposed conversion in the past year has been made for personal gain, rather than seeing the light.  Finally, it is difficult to believe that if elected president, Trump would not revert back to the same philosophies that made him successful in the business world.

Trump’s often repeated claim is that he will “make America great again”.  Yet there is no substance behind this claim.  In fact, a true conservative would instead say that government can’t make a country great.  Only the People can make a country great.  In this respect Trump’s battle cry sounds eerily similar to Obama’s “Hope and Change” message of eight years ago.

It is ironic that much of the anger currently being exhibited by Republicans at their party is the result of the power elite and RINOS who run the Party.  While Donald Trump is certainly an outsider as it relates to the Republican Party, he is a life-long member of the power elite and certainly the most famous contemporary RINO.

Donald Trump’s rise to power in the current primaries also emanates from the Party being fractured with too many candidates splitting the anti-Trump vote.  For many of us the candidate we would like to see nominated is already out of the race.  It is now crunch time and we are down to two realistic choices; Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.  While Ted Cruz is not without warts, he is the last man standing if the Republican Party wants to run a conservative against Hillary Clinton.  That makes the choice easy for this Blogger.

Posted in Conservatism, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bloomberg Attacks Ivy League Liberals

Posted by Steve Markowitz on June 4, 2014

Last week former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the commencement speech at Harvard University.  With some refreshing candor, Bloomberg castigated Ivy League schools for their censorship of those with conservative views.  Bloomberg’s comments in the video below included:

  • There’s a word for that idea: censorship.  And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism.  Think about the irony:  In the 1950s, the right wing was attempting to repress left wing ideas.  Today, on many college campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species.”
  • There was more disagreement among the old Soviet politburo than there is among Ivy League donors”.
  • Neither conservatives nor liberals have a “monopoly of truth or God on its side.”
  • After saying that 90% of Ivy League employees’ contributions in the 2012 presidential campaign went to Obama, Bloomberg concluded “you really have to wonder whether students are being exposed to the diversity of views that a great university should offer”.

The facts that Bloomberg states should be enough to cause concern as to the direction free speech and thought in our institutions of higher education.  The fact that they are repeated by the very liberal Michael Bloomberg is telling.  They may indicate a man concerned with his own constituent’s close-mindedness. On the other hand, Bloomberg may be concerned that inhibiting free speech has dangerous consequences for his liberal views when the inevitable occurs and the Right once again becomes the prevalent power in the country.  As history has shown, after the genie is left out of the bottle, re-corking it becomes problematic.

Posted in Political Correctness, Progressives | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Race Baiting by the Left

Posted by Steve Markowitz on February 9, 2014

Leftist politicians and their allies in the mainstream media have created the false narrative that racism in the United States only/mainly emanates from those with conservative political leanings.  This is not accurate today nor has it been correct throughout most of American history.  For example, Republicans were the anti-slavery party since Lincoln’s time, a fact that resulted in African-Americans historically voting Republican until more contemporary times.  Only when it became politically expedient during since the 1950s did the Democratic Party drop its segregationist roots.

As the Democratic Party became the dominating political force within the African-American community, they and their partners in the mainstream media have resorted to the use of race baiting for political gain.  A recent example was the tweet by MSNBC relating to a Super Bowl ad that displayed a biracial family.  That tweet claimed conservatives would disapprove of the ad because it featured a biracial couple.  MSNBC retracted the tweet and apologize for it, but only after significant backlash created on the Internet.

MSNBC is the mouthpiece for the Progressive Left.  Its latest use of race baiting to attack opponents follows a similar attack it made relating to a photograph of the Mitt Romney family that included its African-American grandchild.  While it also apologized for that tasteless attack, the many times the network and its political allies use such attacks indicate more than mere mistakes or bad judgment.

The Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby, recently posted the op-ed Political values aren’t coded in skin color that appropriately castigates liberals on these race baiting.  These attacks fan the flames of racial division and damage the country’s cohesiveness, dividing us into ever-increasing subsets of society.  Given that these attacks have gone more mainstream since the election of the country’s first African-American president makes the tactic even more politically divisive.

Jacoby also admonishes Republicans, in this case Ann Coulter, on the way they respond to political battles that could be used as racial wedge issues by the Left.  The op-ed is posted post in full below.

Political values aren’t coded in skin color, by Jeff Jacoby

A FEW DAYS before the Super Bowl, MSNBC embarrassed itself with an obnoxious tweet implying that “rightwing” conservatives are such bigots that they were bound to “hate” a Cheerios commercial featuring a biracial couple and their adorable daughter, Gracie.  The backlash was blistering and instantaneous, and the cable channel apologized and deleted the tweet.

When it comes to playing the race card against anyone to its right, MSNBC is a recidivist.  The smear over the Cheerios ad came just a few weeks after an on-air panel smirkingly joked about Mitt and Ann Romney’s newly-adopted black grandson and how incongruous he appeared in the family’s Christmas photo.  That flap also triggered an uproar, followed by multiple apologies.

Count me among those who can’t imagine anyone this side of the fever swamps viewing that sweet Cheerios ad or the Romneys’ quiver full of grandchildren with any kind of racial disapproval, let alone one driven by politics.  That some on the left can so casually traffic in such slander reflects nothing but their own bigotry against conservatives.

If you asked me, I’d have said that was self-evident. (As a right-winger with kids of different colors, I may be biased.)  But Jim Lindgren, a law professor and sociologist at Northwestern University, decided to double-check.  He turned to the General Social Survey, a comprehensive national survey that for years has been compiling sociodemographic statistics on US residents — including (among many variables) data on respondents’ political leanings and the racial makeup of their families.

Not surprisingly, Lindgren found, there was nothing in the data to back up MSNBC’s suggestion that conservatives are more likely than liberals to frown on biracial families.

“Among families with step-children or adopted children,” he wrote for The Volokh Conspiracy, a legal blog hosted by The Washington Post, “11 percent of conservatives were living in mixed-race households compared to 10 percent of liberals.”  Broadening the analysis to include families with biological children of an interracial couple (like Gracie in the Cheerios spot), Lindgren found that 11.9 percent of self-identified conservatives live in mixed-race families compared to 11.4 percent of liberals.  When the numbers were sorted by party affiliation, they showed 9.5 percent of Republicans living in mixed-race families vs. 11.2 percent of Democrats.  Crunching the stats by both race and ideology, 2.0 percent of white conservatives live in mixed-race families, while 2.4 percent of white liberals do.

None of these differences are statistically significant.  Taken together, they reinforce the ugliness of MSNBC’s taunting insinuation that to be politically right-of-center is to be racially intolerant, or that there is something inherently liberal in forging ties of love across the color line.

But there is also a message here that conservatives and Republicans should be taking to heart, one that has nothing to do with liberal closed-mindedness.

In the ongoing debate over immigration reform, there are reasonable arguments on all sides — arguments about the economic, social, and environmental impact of increasing the number of immigrants, sealing the US-Mexican border, or offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.  What is not a reasonable argument, it seems to me, is the claim that more immigrants must mean fewer Republicans.

“At the current accelerated rate of immigration — 1.1 million new immigrants every year — Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade,” writes Ann Coulter in a recent column.  She cites a wide swath of polling data showing that most immigrants not only come from “societies that are far more left-wing than our own,” but that “they bring their cultures with them.”  Hispanic and Asian immigrants may have little in common economically or culturally, but “both overwhelmingly support big government, ObamaCare, affirmative action, and gun control. . . . How are Republicans going to square that circle?”

But that kind of essentialist argument is as flawed as the claim that interracial families must be left-wing, or that a conservative message of liberty, opportunity, and patriotism can only appeal to voters with white skin.

For more than half a century after the Civil War, blacks were a solid Republican constituency, and the most Democratic-leaning states were the most hostile to black voting rights.  Yet attitudes change — sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not — and voting patterns with them.  Political values aren’t coded in our DNA. Party loyalty isn’t a function of immigration status.

Where do you stand on amnesty?  Whom you support for president?  Would you ever watch MSNBC?  If you’re looking for the answers in the color of your skin, you’re definitely doing it wrong.

Posted in Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Another View for Republicans

Posted by Steve Markowitz on November 23, 2012

Yesterday we posted Jim Mahoney’s pessimistic view for the Country’s next four years.  Today we post a commentary by Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen that was sent in by Blog reader John, which while not more optimistic, makes suggestions for the future of the conservative movement.

As Rasmussen points out, the only strong Republican showing in the popular vote of a presidential race was by none other than Ronald Reagan, perhaps the only true conservative nominated by the Party in modern times.  Reagan’s conservative philosophies did not interfere with his connection to many subsets of the population including blue-collar Democrats.  Reagan achieved this remarkable feat by being able to communicate with Americans of varied social strata.  He made it evident that he loved the American people, even those that disagreed with his political stances.  Mitt Romney’s “47%” statement was interpreted by many as a disconnect a with some of these subsets.

Republicans and more specifically conservatives must clearly define their movement going forward.  If it truly believes in the Constitution, then it must be consistent in its interpretations.  Who one sleeps with, once choice of or use of contraceptives, or one’s religious beliefs (or lack of)  are legitimate subjects for personal discussion, but have no place in governmental policy.  The same is true for crony capitalism that benefits Party members in favored industries.  Republicans are branded, often correctly, of supporting their own special interests.  Many voters believed that a Romney presidency would have not changed the crony capitalism or special interest politics in Washington, but would have merely turned it over to different groups.  Many therefore felt more comfortable sticking with the devil they knew.

Rasmussen’s comments are worthy for conservatives to consider that are concerned with the direction of the Country.  Only by simplifying the Party platform to only include: 1) conservative and noninterventionist government/economic policies and 2) a coherent foreign policy, can the Party once again become one of the People.

Respecting Voters Matters More Than Policy, A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

The Republican Party has won a majority of the popular vote just once in the last six elections. That dismal track record followed a party revival in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan led the GOP to three straight popular vote majorities.

To understand what went wrong, it’s important to remember Reagan was an insurgent candidate who defeated the Republican establishment of his era.  When Reagan left office, however, the old establishment reasserted control. They consistently nominated candidates for president who opposed Reagan in 1980 and consistently lost elections

The difference is that Ronald Reagan believed in the American people and was skeptical of government.  Today’s Republican establishment believes in government and is skeptical of the American people.  That’s why most Republican voters today believe the party is out of touch with the base.

Consider Mitt Romney’s infamous comments about the 47 percent who are allegedly dependent upon government.  After the election, Romney even said that President Obama won by giving “gifts” to these dependent Americans.  The Republican establishment grumbles about makers versus takers.

Reagan had a different view.  He asked, “How can we love our country and not love our countrymen?”  When he passed a major tax reform bill, he was proud that it removed millions of low-income Americans from the income tax rolls.  Reagan looked at low-income Americans and saw people who wanted an opportunity to work hard and get ahead.  He saw a nation that was happy to extend a helping hand to all who were willing to work.

Today’s Republican establishment looks at the same group and declares them to be deadbeats waiting for a gift from the rest of us.  Today, voters still agree with Reagan on this point. Fifty-nine percent think the first $20,000 anyone earns should be tax free. Just 24 percent are opposed.

Remember, Reagan’s view won a majority of the vote three times in three elections.  Without Reagan, the GOP establishment has won a majority twice in the last 11 tries.

For Republicans to win again, they will have to respect the people they want to represent. This cannot be faked and will likely require substantive changes in party leadership.  A good starting point would be to recognize that tens of millions of Americans see an economy that is rigged in favor of those who are already well off. Rather than complaining about it, Republicans could address the issue by cutting government programs that benefit the wealthy.

One example, recently brought to light by Hurricane Sandy is the government practice of subsidizing flood insurance for those fortunate enough to own beachfront property.  That’s a program that benefits the well-off more than anybody else, and only 31 percent of voters think it should continue.  There are plenty of other perks like this that could be eliminated.

On a grander scale, lower- and middle-income Americans would like to see all personal tax deductions eliminated for those who make more than $250,000 a year.  That’s consistent with the stated Republican goal of major tax reform and lower tax rates.

And the GOP could turn its budget-cutting attention to the corporate welfare programs that are costing the nation tens of billions of dollars every year with little public support.

But more than any specifics, Republicans need to believe and convey an attitude that is based upon basic  American principles of fair play and ensuring that every American has a chance to pursue their dreams. 

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A Conservative African-American Speaks Out

Posted by Steve Markowitz on August 25, 2012

Lee from New Jersey sent in the piece below that eloquently expresses the frustrations many Americans feel towards with Barack Obama.  It is authored by Mychal S. Massie, an Afircan-Amercanand former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives; and a member of its’ parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.  His blog, The Daily Rant, is located at http://mychal-massie.com/premium/.

One of the many false narratives created by the Left is that there are no conservative African-Americans.  Their fear of conservatives from minority communities is evidenced by their attacks on those who dare to take on Progressive views and its nanny state philosophies.  Such attacks are similar to those aimed at conservative women.  The Left’s fear of conservative women and African-Americans is well-placed for without strong support and huge majorities from these segments of society, the liberal Left movement will become irrelevant.

Why I Do Not Like the Obamas, By Mychal S. Massie

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s?  Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s?  It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.”  The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas.  As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question,  I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America.  They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.  I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same.  President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.  The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.  Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths.  They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America.  I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies.  He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family.  He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.

He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.  He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman.  He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.  He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support.  He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world).  I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies.  We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies.  And I have open scorn for their playing the race.

It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term.  I could go on, but let me conclude with this.  I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are.  There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.  He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed.  Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled.  Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood … Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders.  He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family.  Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Who’s Watching Which News?

Posted by Steve Markowitz on June 9, 2012

Listed below are the Nielsen ratings for the cable news programs for Tuesday evening, June 5, 2012.  The results are telling with FoxNews thumping the Leftist press by large margin.  This raises a few interesting issues.  First, it is indication that the narrative that more conservative views are not out of the mainstream in America today.  The alternative; those on the Left are less interested in the news than more conservative Americans.

Posted in Mainstream Media | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Herman Cain Attacked by Leftist African-Americans

Posted by Steve Markowitz on October 11, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s improving poll numbers have resulted in vicious attacks from the Left.  Because Cain is African-American, white Leftists fear being labeled “racist” should they attack him.  So instead they delegated assault responsibilities to African-American Progressives.

Recently, African-American Leftists Harry Belafonte and Cornel West went on the attack, both rather despicable displays as posted in the videos below.  Cornel said of Cain that “he needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe“.  How juvenile!  West, a career academic, shows the typical disdain that has become the trademark of the elitist Left.

Belafonte showed no less vitriol in his attack of Cain, accusing the candidate of having “denied intelligence” and being a “bad apple“.  Belafonte also stated that he didn’t “think prayers were created for him“.  Finally, Belafonte completed his rant attacking other African-American conservatives including Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.

The Left has special disdain for African-Americans who refuse to promote the Progressive agenda.   Progressives fear those in the African American community who have become successful and refuse to honor those who make their living serving the social welfare industry.  During the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991, he was nearly “lynched” by the Left and Anita Hill for at worst telling and off-color joke.  In 2004 when Bill Cosby spoke out at what he saw as weaknesses in the African-American community, another woman came out of the closet accusing him of sexual harassment.

Herman Cain made it up through the ranks of corporate America through intelligence, skill and hard work.  It has prepared him well for the nasty side of Leftist politics.  The professional manner in which he has responded to these attacks is one indication of a readiness for higher office.

Posted in Politics, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Maher Spouts More of his Sexism on Palin and Bachmann

Posted by Steve Markowitz on July 16, 2011

This was posted today on Newsbuster.org.  It shows Bill Maher, and his leftist audience who applaud this stuff, to be noting more than misogynistic and sexist deep down to the core.  His words and a link to the video are supplied below.

As Jim Mahoney, who sent this one in, so correctly states:

Two for one from the same show.  First, we have Bill Maher showing why he is the least classy guy on TV as he unleashes a sexist attack on Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin and then tells us it isn’t sexist because they are stupid.   Why is it then that any Conservative who has a legitimate policy disagreement with Barack Obama is automatically labeled a racist.  Nor have I ever heard any conservative say anything remotely this vile about Obama’s intelligence, race or family.

BILL MAHER:  And finally, New Rule: Republicans have to stop thinking up intricate psychological explanations for why liberals don’t like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.  Let me save you all some time.  Are you ready?  Because they’re crazy people, people who are not that bright and full of awful ideas.  Pretty much the exact same reasons we didn’t care for George Bush and made jokes about him.  So trust me, it’s not because they have breast. It’s because they are boobs.

Now, I’m not saying that sexism doesn’t exist and isn’t real.  And we can’t, but we can’t throw around the word “sexist” just to stop people like me from pointing out that Michele Bachmann, now running second for the Republican presidential nomination, isn’t a dangerous nincompoop.  And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of “The Hills Have Eyes,” that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true, not because it’s true of a woman.

Bill Maher’s Sexist Comments on Video

Posted in Bill Maher | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Debt Ceiling Battle

Posted by Steve Markowitz on July 16, 2011

Conservatives, more specifically Tea Partiers and Libertarians, generally get it when it comes to fiscal responsibility.  The United States’ fiscal house is in disarray.  Overspending and deficits are nothing more than stealing from future generations so that the current generation can live better.  How grotesque, how selfish.

While Tea Partiers and Libertarians understand the problem, they seem poorly equipped to create a plan for problem resolution.  Unfortunately, like those on the Left have often done, they have allowed the righteousness of their goals to cloud their ability to create a workable strategy for political implementation.

One that gets not only the problem, but has a plan for achieving the goals, is commentator Charles Krauthammer.  Our Representatives in Washington would do well to read and implement Krauthammer’s plan posted below.

Call Obama’s bluff, by Charles Krauthammer

All of a sudden he’s a born-again budget balancer prepared to bravely take on his own party by making deep cuts in entitlements. Really? Name one. He’s been saying forever that he’s prepared to discuss, engage, converse about entitlement cuts. But never once has he publicly proposed a single structural change to any entitlement.

Hasn’t the White House leaked that he’sprepared to raise the Medicare age orchange the cost-of-living calculation?

Anonymous talk is cheap. Leaks are designed to manipulate. Offers are floated and disappear.

Say it, Mr. President. Give us one single structural change in entitlements. In public.

As part of the pose as the forward-
looking grown-up rising above all the others who play politics, Obama insists upon a long-term deal. And what is Obama’s definition of long-term? Surprise: An agreement that gets him past Nov. 6, 2012.

Nothing could be more political. It’s like his Afghan surge wind-down date. September 2012 has no relation to any military reality on the ground. It is designed solely to position Obama favorably going into the last weeks of his reelection campaign.

Yet the Olympian above-the-fray no-politics-here pose is succeeding. A pliant press swallows the White House story line: the great compromiser (“clearly exasperated,” sympathized a Post newsstory) being stymied by Republican “intransigence” (the noun actually used in another front-page Post news story to describe the Republican position on taxes).

The meme having been established, Republicans have been neatly set up to take the fall if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2. Obama is already waving the red flag,warning ominously that Social Security, disabled veterans’ benefits, “critical” medical research, food inspection — without which agriculture shuts down — are in jeopardy.

The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff.

A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.

The fat-cat tax breaks (those corporate jets) that Obama’s talking points endlessly recycle? Republicans should call for urgent negotiations on tax reform along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission that, in one option, strips out annually $1.1 trillion of deductions, credits and loopholes while lowering tax rates across the board to a top rate of 23 percent. The president says he wants tax reform, doesn’t he? Well, Mr. President, here are five months to do so.

Will the Democratic Senate or the Democratic president refuse this offer and allow the country to default — with all the cataclysmic consequences that the Democrats have been warning about for months — because Obama insists on a deal that is 10 months and seven days longer?

That’s indefensible and transparently self-serving. Dare the president to make that case. Dare him to veto — or the Democratic Senate to block — a short-term debt-limit increase.

This is certainly better than the McConnell plan, which would simply throw debt reduction back to the president. But if the House cannot do Plan A, McConnell is the fallback Plan B.

After all, by what crazy calculation should Republicans allow themselves to be blamed for a debt crisis that could destabilize the economy and even precipitate a double-dip recession? Right now, Obama owns the economy and its 9.2 percent unemployment1.9 percent GDP growth and exploding debt about which he’s done nothing. Why bail him out by sharing ownership?

You cannot govern this country from one house. Republicans should have learned that from the 1995-96 Gingrich-Clinton fight when the GOP controlled both houses and still lost.

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.


Posted in Debt, Deficits, Politics | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »