Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2013
Friday, September 24, 2010
Essay: The Choice
It doesn’t matter who the candidates for the US House of Representatives are in your district, or who the candidates for the US Senate are in your state (if one of your seats is up for election this year). It’s very easy to decide who to vote for.
Here’s a handy guide.
• If you approve of the job the US Congress has done for the last four years under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, you should vote for Democrats for the House and Senate to keep the same leadership in charge. If you disapprove of the job the Reid-Pelosi Congress has done, you should vote for Republicans to give the Congress new leadership.
• If you believe you and the country are better off now than in 2007 when the Democrats took control of the Congress, you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If not, you should vote for the Republican candidates.
• If you support the restructuring of our healthcare system passed this year (called “Healthcare Reform” by the Democrats who voted for it and “ObamaCare” by the Republicans who opposed it) you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If you oppose the new healthcare law, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you support keeping taxes at their present level, you should vote for the Republican candidates. If you support raising taxes to their old levels, before Bush became president, you should vote for the Democrat candidates.
• If you think the record deficits of the past two years under President Obama and the Democrat Congress are a serious problem for the future of the country, you should vote for the Republican candidates. If you think record deficits and massive increases in government spending are a good thing, you should vote for the Democrat candidates.
• If you are among the 47% of Americans who pay no Federal Income Taxes, who are thus benefited by government spending and taxing other citizens more, you should vote for Democrats. If you pay taxes, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you approve of the government bailout and takeover of GM and Chrysler, you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If you think government taking over large sections of the economy is a bad idea, you should vote for the Republican candidates.
• If you think the huge “stimulus” bills have helped the economy, and the deficits are worth it, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you believe that President Obama is a strong and experienced military leader who can win the war in Afghanistan, stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and keep the country safe from terrorists, you should vote for Democrats. If you don’t think so, you should vote for Republicans to provide balance in Washington.
• If you think that open borders and unlimited illegal immigration are not a threat to Americans’ culture, standard of living and safety, if you approve of the US government suing Arizona over its immigration law and if you think creating incentives to give citizenship to “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” (take your pick) is a good idea, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you think that ever-larger government, growing numbers of public employees and large increases in government employees’ pay during a recession are bad for the economy and a danger to liberty, you should vote for Republicans. If you support increasing the size and cost of government every year, you should vote for Democrats.
• If you think we need more regulation on small business, you should vote for Democrats. If you think the increasing burden of regulations on small business is one of the things that are killing job growth, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you think our current economic problems, which started under President Bush and the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2007, are all Bush’s fault, you should vote for Democrats. If you think the policies followed by President Obama and the Democrat congress over the last two years have made the economy worse, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you think parents should be able to chose what school to send their kids to, you should vote Republican. If you think they should go to whatever school the government says, you should vote Democrat.
• If you think America should be more like European high-tax, high welfare countries, you should vote for Democrats. If you think America should be more like it always was, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you are for shutting down international trade through trade barriers and high tariffs, and are willing to accept the damage to the economy to support the unions in certain industries, you should vote for Democrats. If you are aware that free trade always increases economic activity, and that the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill in 1930 turned a recession with 9% unemployment into a depression by 1932 with 25% unemployment, as international trade collapsed, you should vote for Republicans. (Yes, this question is worded in a more biased manner than the others, as so many people are ignorant of basic economics. See this column by the brilliant economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell, for a fuller explanation of how killing trade kills jobs: http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/taxation/4258-Unhappy-Birthday-Hawley-Smoot.html. Better yet, read his terrific books Basic Economics and Applied Economics.)
• If you thought Republican scandals in 2006 were a good reason to vote Democrat, then you may want to consider the growing list of Democrat scandals since then, including among others Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, William Jefferson Clinton, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Jesse Jackson. Jr. If you think Speaker Pelosi has done a good job of eliminating corruption and “draining the swamp,” as she promised, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.
Of course, you may come down on different sides on different questions. No problem, just put all the “Vote Democrat” reasons on one list and all the “Vote Republican” reasons on another list. Then give each reason a value of three for “highly important,” two for “important” and one for “not important.” Add up the totals and vote for the candidates of the party with the highest score.
Don’t let local considerations or the individual candidates sway you from your course. This is a watershed election. The fundamental transformation of America into something different than it was or was intended to be, promised by President Obama and the Democrats, is well underway, and will likely be irreversible if they continue to hold all power after November. Do you think that’s a good thing, or do you want to keep the America we grew up in? That’s the choice.
Permission to forward, post or publish this piece is granted by the author. Permission to edit it to reflect your own views is not granted—write your own damn essay!
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He has published three books: “CYA: Protecting Yourself in the Modern Jungle,” “Chaos for Breakfast” and “The Good Bits.” He blogs at www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com.
Here’s a handy guide.
• If you approve of the job the US Congress has done for the last four years under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, you should vote for Democrats for the House and Senate to keep the same leadership in charge. If you disapprove of the job the Reid-Pelosi Congress has done, you should vote for Republicans to give the Congress new leadership.
• If you believe you and the country are better off now than in 2007 when the Democrats took control of the Congress, you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If not, you should vote for the Republican candidates.
• If you support the restructuring of our healthcare system passed this year (called “Healthcare Reform” by the Democrats who voted for it and “ObamaCare” by the Republicans who opposed it) you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If you oppose the new healthcare law, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you support keeping taxes at their present level, you should vote for the Republican candidates. If you support raising taxes to their old levels, before Bush became president, you should vote for the Democrat candidates.
• If you think the record deficits of the past two years under President Obama and the Democrat Congress are a serious problem for the future of the country, you should vote for the Republican candidates. If you think record deficits and massive increases in government spending are a good thing, you should vote for the Democrat candidates.
• If you are among the 47% of Americans who pay no Federal Income Taxes, who are thus benefited by government spending and taxing other citizens more, you should vote for Democrats. If you pay taxes, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you approve of the government bailout and takeover of GM and Chrysler, you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If you think government taking over large sections of the economy is a bad idea, you should vote for the Republican candidates.
• If you think the huge “stimulus” bills have helped the economy, and the deficits are worth it, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you believe that President Obama is a strong and experienced military leader who can win the war in Afghanistan, stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and keep the country safe from terrorists, you should vote for Democrats. If you don’t think so, you should vote for Republicans to provide balance in Washington.
• If you think that open borders and unlimited illegal immigration are not a threat to Americans’ culture, standard of living and safety, if you approve of the US government suing Arizona over its immigration law and if you think creating incentives to give citizenship to “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” (take your pick) is a good idea, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you think that ever-larger government, growing numbers of public employees and large increases in government employees’ pay during a recession are bad for the economy and a danger to liberty, you should vote for Republicans. If you support increasing the size and cost of government every year, you should vote for Democrats.
• If you think we need more regulation on small business, you should vote for Democrats. If you think the increasing burden of regulations on small business is one of the things that are killing job growth, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you think our current economic problems, which started under President Bush and the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2007, are all Bush’s fault, you should vote for Democrats. If you think the policies followed by President Obama and the Democrat congress over the last two years have made the economy worse, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you think parents should be able to chose what school to send their kids to, you should vote Republican. If you think they should go to whatever school the government says, you should vote Democrat.
• If you think America should be more like European high-tax, high welfare countries, you should vote for Democrats. If you think America should be more like it always was, you should vote for Republicans.
• If you are for shutting down international trade through trade barriers and high tariffs, and are willing to accept the damage to the economy to support the unions in certain industries, you should vote for Democrats. If you are aware that free trade always increases economic activity, and that the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill in 1930 turned a recession with 9% unemployment into a depression by 1932 with 25% unemployment, as international trade collapsed, you should vote for Republicans. (Yes, this question is worded in a more biased manner than the others, as so many people are ignorant of basic economics. See this column by the brilliant economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell, for a fuller explanation of how killing trade kills jobs: http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/taxation/4258-Unhappy-Birthday-Hawley-Smoot.html. Better yet, read his terrific books Basic Economics and Applied Economics.)
• If you thought Republican scandals in 2006 were a good reason to vote Democrat, then you may want to consider the growing list of Democrat scandals since then, including among others Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, William Jefferson Clinton, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Jesse Jackson. Jr. If you think Speaker Pelosi has done a good job of eliminating corruption and “draining the swamp,” as she promised, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.
Of course, you may come down on different sides on different questions. No problem, just put all the “Vote Democrat” reasons on one list and all the “Vote Republican” reasons on another list. Then give each reason a value of three for “highly important,” two for “important” and one for “not important.” Add up the totals and vote for the candidates of the party with the highest score.
Don’t let local considerations or the individual candidates sway you from your course. This is a watershed election. The fundamental transformation of America into something different than it was or was intended to be, promised by President Obama and the Democrats, is well underway, and will likely be irreversible if they continue to hold all power after November. Do you think that’s a good thing, or do you want to keep the America we grew up in? That’s the choice.
Permission to forward, post or publish this piece is granted by the author. Permission to edit it to reflect your own views is not granted—write your own damn essay!
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He has published three books: “CYA: Protecting Yourself in the Modern Jungle,” “Chaos for Breakfast” and “The Good Bits.” He blogs at www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Playing the Race Card
Couple of the Racist Protesters.
When they attribute all opposition to a black politician to racism, or excuse the corruption of black politicians like Roland Burris and Charlie Rangel because of race, they feed racism. Which black leaders and liberals want to keep alive, as their support base depends on it. Where would they be without racism to blame and to fire up their supporters? As long as racism can be used to give power to some black leaders and to liberal Democrats, racism will be alive and well in America, because they will feed it.
As long as it's "racist" to condemn the ghetto life style of violence, drugs and anti-education, blacks will suffer most, but their leaders won't care, because power matters, not the fate of poor black folks. As long as it’s “racist” to point out that it’s blacks who most often murder black kids and victimize other blacks, the violence will continue. (See the Burr Oak Cemetery scandal. If Burr Oak had been white owned and run, Al Sharpton and Jackson would be on TV every day, using it.)
You hear on TV that a black man can’t get a cab at night, when a white man can, because of racism, even though most cabs are driven by minorities, not white rednecks. Maybe they should do a study to prove it. How many cabbies are robbed and murdered? And what is the race of the perpetrators, when known? Do blacks rob cabs no more frequently than their proportion in the population? Or do the cabbies have good reason to be afraid for their lives? How about some data? Or is asking for the facts “racist” in itself?
While gathering data, what is the proportion of the races of perpetrators of violent crimes, when known? How many blacks are murdered by blacks versus by whites? How many whites are murdered by blacks versus by whites. Dare we ask?
John Kass reported in the Chicago Tribune that Jessie Jackson had attacked Budweiser for the company's supposed racist policies, pouring a Bud on a Chicago street with the immortal words, "This Bud's a Dud!" Bud got the message and gave Jackson's sons exclusive distribution rights, after which, with money in the family pocket, Jackson discovered that Budweiser was okay on race after all. Stories like that make racists out of folks the KKK never could touch.
When Democrats vow that no one appointed by corrupt Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich will be seated, then seat Roland Burris because he's black--and cap that by taking no action when it turns our Burris was bidding for the seat with Jessie Jackson Jr. (Candidate #5 on the tapes)--it breeds racism.
Am I a racist for opposing Obama's policies? I think Dr. Thomas Sowell is the smartest economist in the country, promote his books like Basic Economics, and wish politicians would listen to him. I'm very sorry that Michael Steele was defeated for the US Senate by a white Democrat. I supported Sen. Ed Brooke against the white, liberal Democrat, Paul Tsongas, who defeated him. I think liberal Democrats who attack black conservatives are the real racists, incensed that these "uppity blacks" don't follow the party line and instead think for themselves.
But in our topsy-turvy world, citing any evidence that you are not a racist is evidence that you are a racist. So you can plead guilty, or plead innocent, which according to Democrats proves you are guilty.
More on Racism in tomorrow's blog:
Former President calls Barack Obama a “black boy,” says Obama not qualified.
http://goodtimepolitics.com/
and:
http://www.nmatv.com/video/3390/Archives:-Jimmy-Carter-Calls-Obama-a-
Guess racism still alive with some folks.
Jimmy Carter's Ill-Advised Effort to Atone
http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2009/09/17/jimmy_carters_ill-advised_effort_to_atone
Excerpt: There isn't a living political expert from that bygone era who doesn't know that gubernatorial candidate Carter -- running against the progressive Carl Sanders -- said many times in public appearances that he was a Lester Maddox Democrat. That doesn't mean Carter was spewing racial epithets. It does mean that he "played the race card" himself to get elected. What's unfortunate is that Carter now has chosen to flip that race card over and play it for the opposite effect he sought a generation ago. Though no racist himself, Carter now perhaps is seeking atonement for his campaign rhetoric of years past.
Jimmy Carter's racist campaign of 1970
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jimmy-Carters-racist-campaign-of-1970-59499482.html
Excerpt: Readers should refer to Stephen Hayward's The Real Jimmy Carter if they want a taste of the out-and-out racism that Carter employed in order to defeat moderate former Gov. Carl Sanders for the Democratic nomination that year. As Hayward's book points out:
· Carter's top campaign staffers were spotted distributing grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm celebrating with two black men. Sanders was a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, and in the photograph he was celebrating a victory with two players who were pouring champagne over his head. Carter's leaflet was intended to depress Sanders's white vote.
· "The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr."
· Carter criticized Sanders, a former governor, for preventing Alabama Gov. and notorious segregationist George Wallace from speaking on Georgia state property. "I don't think it was right for Governor Sanders to try to please a group of ultra-liberals, particularly those in Washington, when it means stifling communication with another state," said Carter.
· "'I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time,' Carter told a reporter. Carter also said to another reporter, 'I can win this election without a single black vote.'"
· Upon receiving the endorsement of former Democratic Gov. Lester Maddox, Carter responded by praising the life-long segregationist: "He has brought a standard of forthright expression and personal honesty to the governor's office, and I hope to live up to his standard." Maddox had not only refused to serve blacks in the restaurant he once owned, but he had also greeted civil rights protestors with a gun, and made sticks available to his white customers with which to intimidate them.
Democrats Jumping the Race-Card Shark
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/democrats_jumping_the_racecard_1.html
Excerpt: Tuesday, a Congressman from my home state of Georgia, Rep. Hank Johnson said that if the House didn't censure Joe Wilson, then folks would "put on the white hoods and roam the countryside." Congressman Johnson seems to have forgotten that most of the KKK men, to whom he is referring, were Democrats, the architects and masters of real Southern Apartheid, Jim Crow. Heck, Senator Byrd is still there and he was one. A rather inconvenient fact, however, is that the only reported act of racial violence so far happened on Tuesday on a public school bus in St. Louis and the offenders were black, the victim white. An apparently unprovoked attack on a high school student took place over - get this - a seat on the bus. The irony is downright nerve-wrenching. A black student beat the white student to the cheers of his black classmates and the bus driver supposedly did nothing to intervene. KKK in reverse? That's a lot more violence than Rosa Parks got over her seat on the bus. In fact, Rosa Parks wasn't on the receiving end of anything more than arrogant stares. Police suspect race was the motivating factor in the St. Louis school-bus attack. Now, it's pretty darned hard to polarize the entire white-conservative citizenry in pure Alinsky fashion. Evidently, though, this is going to be the line of attack. What's obvious, however, is that this is the most desperate move yet to shore up the failing grades of a president in over his head. And it certainly does appear orchestrated. DNC, anyone?
When they attribute all opposition to a black politician to racism, or excuse the corruption of black politicians like Roland Burris and Charlie Rangel because of race, they feed racism. Which black leaders and liberals want to keep alive, as their support base depends on it. Where would they be without racism to blame and to fire up their supporters? As long as racism can be used to give power to some black leaders and to liberal Democrats, racism will be alive and well in America, because they will feed it.
As long as it's "racist" to condemn the ghetto life style of violence, drugs and anti-education, blacks will suffer most, but their leaders won't care, because power matters, not the fate of poor black folks. As long as it’s “racist” to point out that it’s blacks who most often murder black kids and victimize other blacks, the violence will continue. (See the Burr Oak Cemetery scandal. If Burr Oak had been white owned and run, Al Sharpton and Jackson would be on TV every day, using it.)
You hear on TV that a black man can’t get a cab at night, when a white man can, because of racism, even though most cabs are driven by minorities, not white rednecks. Maybe they should do a study to prove it. How many cabbies are robbed and murdered? And what is the race of the perpetrators, when known? Do blacks rob cabs no more frequently than their proportion in the population? Or do the cabbies have good reason to be afraid for their lives? How about some data? Or is asking for the facts “racist” in itself?
While gathering data, what is the proportion of the races of perpetrators of violent crimes, when known? How many blacks are murdered by blacks versus by whites? How many whites are murdered by blacks versus by whites. Dare we ask?
John Kass reported in the Chicago Tribune that Jessie Jackson had attacked Budweiser for the company's supposed racist policies, pouring a Bud on a Chicago street with the immortal words, "This Bud's a Dud!" Bud got the message and gave Jackson's sons exclusive distribution rights, after which, with money in the family pocket, Jackson discovered that Budweiser was okay on race after all. Stories like that make racists out of folks the KKK never could touch.
When Democrats vow that no one appointed by corrupt Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich will be seated, then seat Roland Burris because he's black--and cap that by taking no action when it turns our Burris was bidding for the seat with Jessie Jackson Jr. (Candidate #5 on the tapes)--it breeds racism.
Am I a racist for opposing Obama's policies? I think Dr. Thomas Sowell is the smartest economist in the country, promote his books like Basic Economics, and wish politicians would listen to him. I'm very sorry that Michael Steele was defeated for the US Senate by a white Democrat. I supported Sen. Ed Brooke against the white, liberal Democrat, Paul Tsongas, who defeated him. I think liberal Democrats who attack black conservatives are the real racists, incensed that these "uppity blacks" don't follow the party line and instead think for themselves.
But in our topsy-turvy world, citing any evidence that you are not a racist is evidence that you are a racist. So you can plead guilty, or plead innocent, which according to Democrats proves you are guilty.
More on Racism in tomorrow's blog:
Former President calls Barack Obama a “black boy,” says Obama not qualified.
http://goodtimepolitics.com/
and:
http://www.nmatv.com/video/3390/Archives:-Jimmy-Carter-Calls-Obama-a-
Guess racism still alive with some folks.
Jimmy Carter's Ill-Advised Effort to Atone
http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2009/09/17/jimmy_carters_ill-advised_effort_to_atone
Excerpt: There isn't a living political expert from that bygone era who doesn't know that gubernatorial candidate Carter -- running against the progressive Carl Sanders -- said many times in public appearances that he was a Lester Maddox Democrat. That doesn't mean Carter was spewing racial epithets. It does mean that he "played the race card" himself to get elected. What's unfortunate is that Carter now has chosen to flip that race card over and play it for the opposite effect he sought a generation ago. Though no racist himself, Carter now perhaps is seeking atonement for his campaign rhetoric of years past.
Jimmy Carter's racist campaign of 1970
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jimmy-Carters-racist-campaign-of-1970-59499482.html
Excerpt: Readers should refer to Stephen Hayward's The Real Jimmy Carter if they want a taste of the out-and-out racism that Carter employed in order to defeat moderate former Gov. Carl Sanders for the Democratic nomination that year. As Hayward's book points out:
· Carter's top campaign staffers were spotted distributing grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm celebrating with two black men. Sanders was a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, and in the photograph he was celebrating a victory with two players who were pouring champagne over his head. Carter's leaflet was intended to depress Sanders's white vote.
· "The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr."
· Carter criticized Sanders, a former governor, for preventing Alabama Gov. and notorious segregationist George Wallace from speaking on Georgia state property. "I don't think it was right for Governor Sanders to try to please a group of ultra-liberals, particularly those in Washington, when it means stifling communication with another state," said Carter.
· "'I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time,' Carter told a reporter. Carter also said to another reporter, 'I can win this election without a single black vote.'"
· Upon receiving the endorsement of former Democratic Gov. Lester Maddox, Carter responded by praising the life-long segregationist: "He has brought a standard of forthright expression and personal honesty to the governor's office, and I hope to live up to his standard." Maddox had not only refused to serve blacks in the restaurant he once owned, but he had also greeted civil rights protestors with a gun, and made sticks available to his white customers with which to intimidate them.
Democrats Jumping the Race-Card Shark
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/democrats_jumping_the_racecard_1.html
Excerpt: Tuesday, a Congressman from my home state of Georgia, Rep. Hank Johnson said that if the House didn't censure Joe Wilson, then folks would "put on the white hoods and roam the countryside." Congressman Johnson seems to have forgotten that most of the KKK men, to whom he is referring, were Democrats, the architects and masters of real Southern Apartheid, Jim Crow. Heck, Senator Byrd is still there and he was one. A rather inconvenient fact, however, is that the only reported act of racial violence so far happened on Tuesday on a public school bus in St. Louis and the offenders were black, the victim white. An apparently unprovoked attack on a high school student took place over - get this - a seat on the bus. The irony is downright nerve-wrenching. A black student beat the white student to the cheers of his black classmates and the bus driver supposedly did nothing to intervene. KKK in reverse? That's a lot more violence than Rosa Parks got over her seat on the bus. In fact, Rosa Parks wasn't on the receiving end of anything more than arrogant stares. Police suspect race was the motivating factor in the St. Louis school-bus attack. Now, it's pretty darned hard to polarize the entire white-conservative citizenry in pure Alinsky fashion. Evidently, though, this is going to be the line of attack. What's obvious, however, is that this is the most desperate move yet to shore up the failing grades of a president in over his head. And it certainly does appear orchestrated. DNC, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
