Posts Tagged ‘conservative’

Yet Another Vile Liberal (And Is There Any Other Kind?) Busted For Faking Hate Crimes Against Conservatives

May 3, 2013

I have detailed several examples of this crap on my blog.  There was the case of the liberal who vandalized a Democrat headquarters in Colorado in a deliberate effort to blame Republicans.  I recounted the case of a liberal woman who literally carved swastikas on her own body in an attempt to frame innocent people for a bogus “hate crime.”  There was the case of a liberal public school employee who started a movement to brand Tea Party protestors as racist bigots by encourging liberals to infiltrate the movement with hateful signs.  I have also pointed out that the media is now INFAMOUS for screeching hate against the Tea Party when they have done NOTHING wrong even as they have continually covered up the liberal and Democrat-praised Occupy Movement whose members have been arrested going on eight-thousand times for crimes including rape and actual terrorism.  I’ve documented that we can go back to Saul Alinsky encouraging liberal demonstrators to show up at Republican events wearing KKK outfits to falsely insinuate that racists are pro-Republican.

It doesn’t even matter to Democrats that they steal their targets from the Nazis.  These people are THAT wicked.

The leftist-owned mainstream media is all over this: they falsely accuse conservatives all the damn time at the very highest levels.  And of course they are joined by uber-Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

I’ve pointed out that this is so damn typical of the left it is beyond unreal.  And documented cases of where liberals tried to pull their crap off on me.

This crap happens all the time on the part of the left because they are bad people with no morals and no decency and no integrity and no honor whatsoever.

At least this one got busted (Note that this psychotic fraud is an “award-winning” blogger from a known liberal and pro-Democrat Party organizaton):

Lib Blogger Meg Lanker Allegedly Faked Rape Threat from Conservative
By Howard Portnoy | May 02, 2013 | 14:55

If you can’t beat ‘em, frame ‘em. That in a nutshell would appear to be the motivation behind Think Progress award-winning blogger Meg Lanker-Simons’s false claim that she had been threatened with a hate crime via social media. On Wednesday, she was charged by University of Wyoming Police with faking her own threat.

Trib.com reports that Lanker-Simons was charged with interfering in a police investigation, which is a misdemeanor. University police say that Lanker-Simons admitted to authoring an anonymous threat of sexual violence targeted at her on Facebook last week.


Lanker-Simons accused an anonymous source of posting a threat of rape on the Facebook page ‘UW Crushes’ on April 24. But the citation issued Monday claims Lanker-Simons admitted to making the post, then lying about it….

The post, purported to be the work of an out-of-control conservative detractor, read:

I want to hatef**k Meg Lanker — so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its [sic] hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and she’s gonna be a good Republican b**ch.

Trib.com notes that Lanker-Simons has been in similar situations in the past. She reported receiving a death threat via email in March 2011 just before syndicated columnist Ann Coulter was to visit the University of Wyoming.

The message, which was emailed to the Star-Tribune, read, “If I see her I will send her to Hell with one shot and you can bet I wont [sic] miss.”

Cross-posted from Liberty Unyielding.

And by “busted” I mean “arrested” by the police:

Liberal Blogger Cited For Allegedly Faking Facebook Rape Threat And Blaming It On Conservative
May 1, 2013 by Ben Bullard

A liberal University of Wyoming student who routinely berates conservatives on her blog and college radio show has been charged for allegedly staging an anonymous rape threat against herself and attributing it to a fictitious conservative Facebook poster.

Meg Lanker-Simons, whose cognitive dissonance blog last year even garnered her an honor from liberal spigots Mother Jones and Think Progress, was cited by University of Wyoming police for interference with an investigation and making false statements to the police department, following this rape threat she allegedly made against herself on the “UW Crushes” Facebook page, posing as a close-minded conservative creep:

I want to hate f**k Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bit*h.

The threat gave Lanker-Simons, pictured, the opportunity to scold the allegedly phony, would-be “hate f**ker” on her award-winning blog, where she called the threat “disgusting, misogynistic, and apparently something the admins of this page think is a perfectly acceptable sentiment.”

In 2011, Lanker-Simons reported she’d received an emailed death threat, which was allegedly timed to coincide with a campus visit from conservative columnist Ann Coulter.

“The message, which listed Lanker-Simon’s address and included a description of her car, was emailed to the Star-Tribune,” reported the Casper Star Tribune of the 2011 incident.

H/T: campusreform.org

These liberals are demon-possessed people.  There is no other way around it.

Liberals are people who live in a world of lies.  They are people who prefer lies and hate the truth.  Falsely slandering conservatives is merely the next logical step to actualizing the world of  lies that they live in.

And the demon-possessed mainstream media propagandists are on their side.

Advertisements

June Jobs Report: Disgraceful Job Numbers For A Completely Failed President

July 6, 2012

80,000 jobs.  Do you know how pathetic that is?  We need an absolute minimum of 125,000 jobs a month (in light of our 313 million citizens it’s more like 200,000) just to begin to keep up with population growth.  And when you consider Obama’s godawful labor participation rate and the number of working-age Americans who have just been cast out during the cancer of this presidency, it is an abject disgrace.

But here’s the thing: you listen to Obama campaign and you’d think the last four years didn’t happen.  He’s mouthing the same garbage that he was blathering when he was running for president in 2008.  Nothing bad has happened (“the private sector’s doing fine”) or it’s anybody and anything else’s fault but the man who sits behind “the buck stops here” desk in the Oval Office.

Barack Obama is the most narcissistic, the most ignorant, the most naive and the most demagogic president America has ever seen.  Bar none.

Obama told us that the answer to the bad economy was a government takeover of the private economy via his stimulus.  He took office when unemployment was 7.6 percent.  If his stimulus passed, he promised, unemployment would never get to 8 percent – and in fact by this time (July 2012) unemployment would be 5.5 percent.  History proves that Obama was completely wrong and has absolutely no idea whatsoever how to get an economy moving.  All he can do is count on people to believe the same lies he’s been making for years and idiotic things.

One of the idiotic things you’ve got to believe is a flip side of Obama’s “I’m the president who got bin Laden” argument.  On this view, had George Bush had another term or even two more terms, he never would have been able to get bin Laden.  And of course Bush couldn’t have got bin Laden because he’s not Obama, and only Obama could have ever got bin Laden.  It doesn’t matter if the military loved Bush far more than Obama, or that the esprit of the CIA was far, FAR higher under Bush; only Obama could possibly have got bin Laden.  End of discussion.  It wasn’t just a matter of time as Bush said it would be; it was Obama personally nailing bin Laden with his sheer magnificent wonderfulness.

If you apply this same mindset to Bush and the economy, we had a terrible economic hit (actually caused by liberals who recklessly ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground, but that’s another story) and as Bush left office we were lost 700,000 jobs in just one month.  And the religious doctrine that all Democrats must believe as an article of their faith in messiah Obama is that if Bush were still president today, we would have continued to lose 700,000 jobs every single month and unemployment would be 30 percent today.  And of course Obama’s otherwise godawful performance now looks GREAT if you consider the 30 percent unemployment that we would of course had had under George Bush.  Never mind facts like no recession has ever lasted forever; and never mind that there have only been TWO times when America didn’t come roaring back from a bad recession and both occurred under socialist presidents (Obama and FDR).  The average recession lasts 11 months.  And historically we get very strong recoveries out of recessions.  But if Bush were still president it would have lasted forever and ever and ever.  And only messiah Obama can possibly deliver us.  Because Mitt Romney is the devil.  And do you want a rich, evil, vulture capitalist vampire monster to be your president when you could have more Obama instead???  Hint: if you say “yes” you’re clearly a racist.

So we listen to Democrats demonize “the failed Republican policies” that got us into this terrible mess and we believe their narrative that of course Obama must never be blamed for anything negative but must be given total credit for anything positive.  We are taught to not remember that George W. Bush – who himself inherited a terrible recession with the DotCom bubble burst that happened on Clinton’s watch and which wiped out $7.1 trillion in American wealth – ended his presidency with a 5.26 percent overall unemployment rate.

5.26 percent.  That’s not bad for a president who inherited the DotCom bubble collapse which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and annihilated 78% of the Nasdaq Exchange valuation before we here hit on 9/11 due to Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and intelligence budgets while he emboldened Osama bin Laden into believing that America was a paper tiger.

If we extrapolate pure liberal demagoguery and simply utterly refuse to consider history, then Obama is the answer.  Otherwise this pathetic president truly and profoundly sucks.

So let’s let the messiah who has an average unemployment rate of 9.16 percent through June 2012 assure us that the president who had a 5.26% unemployment rate was terrible for jobs.  And we’ll believe him because this is God damn America and God damn America is under a spirit of delusion.

Yesterday (July 5) I had CNBC’s Larry Kudlow program on, and Kudlow had two economists representing a liberal (Dean Baker) and conservative (David Goldman) perspective.  Baker had an optimistic view, believing that the Labor Department release today would show that we created a lousy but-comparatively great 165,000 jobs in June; Goldman believed the report would be even worse than the economists’ consensus view of 125,000 jobs and we’d get only 100,000 jobs.  To make it even more interesting and show just how LOUSY liberals and liberalism are, Baker demagogued Goldman and accused him of merely ticking off “talking points” as compared to Baker who was of course examining the NUMBERS.

And Dean Baker documented just who was the ideologue living in a world of talking points: 80,000 jobs.  Not even HALF of his shockingly idiotic estimate.  And it was the conservative and his “talking points” who was right, right, RIGHT.

If it was a street fight, Goldman would be standing over Baker’s corpse and liberalism would be lying on the street DEAD.  But you just can’t kill this failed ideology of liberalism off in a “civilized” world.  They just get to keep screeching to fools and counting on the fact that there will always be ignorant, stupid, depraved people who believe that somebody else ought to be forced to support their failed lifestyles.

Stop and think about the difference of this “cancer presidency” and the Reagan recovery.  As voters considered re-electing Ronald Reagan, GDP was surging to 8.5 percent.  Under Obama, it’s 1.2 percent and we’re facing a double-dip recession.

Newsbusters has a great documentation of how incredibly propagandist the mainstream media was.  In May, 1984, when the jobs report for Ronald Reagan reported 269,000 jobs, the New York Slimes actually arbitrarily revised it DOWN by 19,000 jobs to 250,000 ostensibly to keep the numbers in increments of 50,000.  So if the New York Times were fairly “reporting” on Obama today, we’d have only 50,000 jobs created, wouldn’t we?  And whereas Obama’s numbers keep getting revised DOWN, Reagan’s for some mysterious reason were being revised UP: the revised jobs report for May, 1984 actually showed growth of 363,000 jobs.   Compare that to Obama’s jobs number above – recognizing that Reagan’s number was when we had a population of 235 million people versus 313 million today – and tell me that Obama isn’t wildly failing the American people.

The worst lies, according to the “lies, damned lies and statistics” proverb, are statistics.  And when liberals control the statistics, you get great news being depicted as lousy news and you get lousy news being depicted as great news.

Your biggest problem in being able to know the truth is that most of our “journalists” are Marxist propagandists who could have easily fit in at TASS during the Soviet days.

Ultimately communist “journalists” blamed seventy years of bad weather for why they couldn’t keep up with Ronald Reagan and an America that was being ran under conservative Republican policies.

And Obama is one of those Marxist ideologues trying to explain away failure and marginalize Reagan.  He makes me SICK with his rabid dishonesty.

Obama keeps demonizing Romney as standing for the “same failed Republican policies of the past.”  JUST LIKE RONALD REAGAN’S.

If you want to see “the failed policies of the past” you just take a look at Barack Obama’s utterly failed liberal policies of the last four years.  And as much as Obama has demonized George W. Bush, Barack Obama has never once even in his very best month been anywhere CLOSE to George Bush’s very worst month of unemployment.

Bill O’Reilly interviewed Bill Clinton and asked a question: Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama – who collected the largest revenue?

O’REILLY: I didn’t mind paying you that but do you know between… among you, Obama and Bush who had the highest tax receipts of all three of you? Do you know? Bush. So under prosperity the tax cuts under Bush more money flowed into the federal government.

Bill Clinton didn’t know (or more likely, knew but wouldn’t answer) and shook his head without responding: Bill O’Reilly supplied the answer: George Bush.  And that is because Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

For the record, if Barack Obama were held accountable to the labor participation rate that he inherited from George Bush, unemployment would be well over 11 percent right now.  The only reason that Obama’s unemployment number is as “good” as 8.2 percent is because Obama has destroyed millions of jobs and driven millions of Americans completely out of the work force where they are simply not even counted by the Labor Department.  The fact is that 88 million working-age Americans are not in the work force because of this completely failed presidency.  And the far better U-6 unemployment measurement has unemployment at 14.9%.

For the record, Bush’s U-6 rate was more than five points lower at this point in his presidency as he faced re-election.  To go with a 5.5 percent U-3 rate which is nearly three points lower.  But, hey, whatever we do, let’s not go back to “those failed policies.”

The “failed Republican policies of the past” don’t just refer to George Bush in late 2008 ( Democrats want you to believe that Bush was only president for the last few months of 2008 because the rest of his presidency looked pretty darn good); they refer to Ronald Reagan.

Let me tell you liberal pukes something: Ronald Reagan didn’t fail at NOTHIN’.

I wrote an article describing the grim economic indicators that were facing Ronald Reagan when he took office in 1980.  Jimmy Carter had said of the crisis, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Unlike Jimmy Carter – and at this point it is very obvious to say, unlike Barack Obama – Ronald Reagan had a solution.  Under Reagan’s leadership, the US economy soared into the stratosphere.  Bill Clinton became part of that Reaganomics solution when he acknowledged that “the era of big government is over” and cooperated with the Republicans who had swept both the House and the Senate in a landslide when he too had failed to accept that conservative policies WORK.

It is a solution that Barack Obama has dedicated his entire life to destroying.  Which is why Obama has never and never WILL succeed as president.

If I had Barack Obama’s performance, I would resign.  I would have held a press conference and declared, “I’m sorry.  I thought I had a plan to turn this economy around.  Clearly I was wrong.  It’s time for me to step aside and allow someone with better ideas and better leadership to help the American people.”

But Barack Obama doesn’t give one miserable rat damn about the American people.  All the people whose support Obama rode to victory are the worst impacted by the disgrace of the Obama economy: black unemployment, Hispanic unemployment, female unemployment, college-age unemployment are utterly pathetic.  Last month in the “Obama recovery” minorities suffered miserably; this month their suffering got worse.  The unemployment rates for blacks shot up to 14.4 percent (14.8 percent prior to ‘seasonal adjustment’). Barack Obama is to these people as Adolf Hitler was to Germans, promising a government Utopia and producing nothing but abject ruin.

Barack Obama has declared war on the United States of America.  But instead of bullets and bombs, he has waged his war with massive and unsustainable government spending and joblessness.

Now Official: Arizona Shooter Jared Loughner A Bush-Hating Liberal

January 18, 2011

One can only look at the moral and psychological insanity of the left and whistle in amazement.

The demonic left heard that a Democrat U.S. Representative had been shot (never mind that she was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House) and immediately concluded that a Republican conservative tea party member – well, make that ALL Republicans, ALL conservatives and ALL tea party members – were guilty of the crime.

Democrats IMMEDIATELY resorted to the worst kind of demonizing, hatred and lies:

Arizona State Rep. Linda Lopez – a leftwing Democrat – stated:

”the shooter is likely, from what I’ve heard, an Afghan vet..”

Why would this vile woman falsely demonize our war veterans?

All you have to do is contemplate the title of an article I wrote on April 14, 2009: “Obama Administration Says Americans Should Fear Their Combat Veterans.” The article referred to an Obama DHS memo that warned that war veterans were to be considered dangerous rightwing extremists.

But that was a lie.  Jared Loughner never served a day in the military, let alone pull a combat tour.  In fact, the Army threw him out of one of their recruiting stations when they found out he was a pothead.

But let’s see.  According to the Gallup polling:

“Support for legalizing marijuana is much lower among Republicans than it is among Democrats…”

Rep. Lopez also immediately blamed the tea party for the assassination.

Paul Krugman demonstrated that all you have to do these days to get a Nobel Prize is be a far-left liberal ideologue.  His column demonizing conservatives for the Arizona shooting was published all of 2 hours after the event.  And like everything else the man has ever said, not a single word of it was anything short of propaganda (not to forget to mention the fact that Krugman has his own documented “gale of anger” problems).

For all the vicious hate and lies from the left, what we found when we actually looked at the facts is that Jared Loughner had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007.  That grudge predated Sarah Palin; it predated the Tea Party movement; it predated the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama.  And to go further, we find that, in fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans.  And we find that while Loughner nowhere in any of his writings or videos mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his über-leftwing belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

So let’s set aside the circumstantial evidence that Jared Loughner was far more leftwing than he was rightwing.  Let’s set aside the fact that he was a devotee of The Communist Manifesto.  Let’s put aside the fact that “A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as ‘left wing’ and a pot head.'” Let’s put aside the fact that Loughner never listened to conservative talk radio, surfed conservative sights, or read conservative writers like Mark Levin.  Let’s even put aside the fact that Jared Loughner loved far-left conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change”.  In the words of a friend:

“There was a lot of talk about lucid dreaming and understanding reality. . . . And there were a lot of books and movies . . . things that I never would have heard about or watched — things like Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracy.”

According to reviews, Zeitgeist is anti-Christian, anti-George Bush and anti-capitalism.  And I just scratch my head bleeding wondering which of the two parties would be those three things.  The plot of Loose Change can be summed up in three words” Bush did it.

Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner never bothered with rightwing stuff.  Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner filled his sick mind with leftwing stuff.

Let’s just put aside the facts which all line up to say that if Jared Loughner was anything, he was a far-left liberal loon.

And let’s just put the icing on the cake.  Was Jared Loughner a conservative or was he a liberal?  Let’s ask the liberal “newspaper of record,” a.k.a. The New York Times:

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”

Bingo.  If The New York Slimes says it, it clearly must be true.

Jared Loughner was a liberal.

If you listen to or watch or read any source that ever once mentioned that right wing rhetoric or conservative anger or any such thing contributed to the Tucson, Arizona shooting, you are tuning in to a demonstrated source of propaganda and lies.

Every Democrat politician (and like the demons who called themselves “Legion, for we are many” in Luke 8:30, they are legion) and mainstream media figure who alluded to conservative anger in this tragedy should be forced to resign in disgrace for their disgrace of the truth.

Truth Among Murder Victims As Left Tries To Make Jared Loughner A Republican

January 11, 2011

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”  Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” – John 18:37-38

Well, one thing’s for sure: the truth sure isn’t what the Democrat rhetoric is spouting in the aftermath of the Tucson, AZ shooting that resulted in the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords among 19 shooting victims, with six killed.

I was amazed to see the thousands of hits an old article I wrote had recently generated.  The reason?  Democrats who had demonized Sarah Palin for her “targeting strategy” – which Democrats themselves routinely do – are now demonizing her again because one of the vulnerable districts Palin identified well over a year ago was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ District 8.

As Democrats galore shrilly and viciously attack Sarah Palin for her “targeting,” what is conveniently ignored is that liberals not only targeted Gabrielle Giffords for defeat, but literally said “she’s dead.”

But “what is truth?” for these people?  An inconvenient obstacle to be overcome, at most.

I was also amazed that the White House literally used Fox News to pass off clear and demonstrable lies associating a conservative organization with Jared Loughner.

Incredibly, the Pima Country sheriff – elected as a Democrat – without a single shred of supporting evidence, has repeatedly denounced conservatives as being somehow to blame for the shootings in blatantly partisan and irresponsible manner.

“What is truth?”  Don’t ask Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

And then there are the “Jared Loughner Facebook accounts” which “have all right wing books, websites, and people that he points to.”  Just more false flag operations by Democrats to falsely associate conservatives with the psycho assassin.

This crap just never ends. It doesn’t matter to these lying propagandists one iota that if anything, Jared Loughner was a liberal, rather than any kind of conservative.

Here’s yet another depraved Democrat attempt to deceive:

Loughner “Republican” Voter Registration faked. Three points that demonstrate that.
Posted on 01/10/2011 6:14:13 AM PST by Lazamataz

This document is circulating, purportedly showing Jared Loughner is a registered Republican.

There are two reasons why the document is faked, and one official proclamation that undermines it:

  • TUCSON is spelled TUSCON. People who live in a city do not mispell it’s name.
  • If you go to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website and put in the address listed on this “registration” it comes up in Senator District 26. This fraud voter reg says District 27. (Hat tip, Brytani)

A blatantly partisan ideologue Newsweek “journalist” isn’t one bit disappointed in the sea of lies that characterize the Democrat response to this tragedy.  Far from it:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

This little Joseph Goebbels minion basically wants Barack Obama to deliver a “State of the Reich” Address and demagogue this tragic shooting into a demand to round up all the conservatives and put them in camps.

The strategy that the little Newsweek rodent recommends has been successfully tried in the past – by one Adolf Hitler.  Let us hope that the “new bipartisan Obama” (although there is this caveat) is now getting his advice from more humans and fewer rodents.

Democrats and their media lackeys are decrying the “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric which caused this shooting en masse.  And, of course, they mean “conservative” and “Republican” “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric.

But why would anyone think that?  Apart from the fact that they are ideologues and propagandists, I mean?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that Jared Loughner EVER listened to “right wing talk radio,” or supported Sarah Palin, or was a member of the tea party, or even cared about charged political issues such as health care.  The evidence is, rather, that he was severely mentally sick and living in his own twisted world.

They make the prima facia claim (with little or no supporting argument) that the angry partisan political climate can set off the mentally unbalanced.  Which is itself a mentally unbalanced claim to make.

A few things, there.  First, if this is so, and they really believe that, then how do they justify the eight incredibly angry years of “Bush derangement syndrome”?  Why was it not true when Republicans were in power, but not true now that Democrats are in power?  The mainstream media is far too pathologically biased and dishonest to show you that the WORST “climate of hate” comes from the left.

Second, why do Democrats, if they really believe their own crap, continue to make such bitter and polarizing comments if such comments can push the already unhinged over the edge?  Take our liberal propagandist “sheriff, for instance:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country, is getting to be outrageous,” Dupnik said Sunday.

It’s clear who the sheriff has in mind. As he told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country. … We as a country need to look into our souls and into our hearts and say is what we’re doing really in the best interest of this country, or is there something better we can do.”

Got that? The shooting was motivated by the rhetoric of “one party” — the Republicans — trying to stop the Democrats from making this “a better country.” Talk about “hate speech.”

Let me ask you, just for the sake of argument.  Suppose that there is some crazed liberal out there in the wings.  And said crazed liberal hears his law enforcement say, “We see [the Republican] Party trying to block the attempts of [the Democrat] Party to make this a better country.”  And, of course, he’s aghast.  What can be done to stop this evil Republican Party from keeping the Democrats from finally making this “a better country”???

Something must be done.  Someone must act.  By any means necessary.  Including – maybe even embracing – violence.

How does this not follow on their own rhetoric???

Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

The president beamed his command into my brain to bring a gun to the Republican congressman’s meet-and-greet.

Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?

“Yes!  YES!  Get in their face.  With a gun!  And then pull the trigger!”

Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”?  With said “enemies” being Republicans?

“My client says he had to punish those Republican congressmen.  He says the president commanded him to kill those congressmen.”

Now, to set the record straight, having pointed out just a few of Obama’s comments, I don’t think Obama was calling for violence.  Because, apparently unlike Democrats, I possess the moral intelligence to understand that he was using the same sort of common metaphors as Sarah Palin has when she has said, “Don’t retreat, reload.”  And, on the flip side, I realize that if Sarah Palin is a disgrace, then the president of the United States is far more so, given the very office from which he has said these things.

A reasonable person can’t help but be confused at the constant double-standard that comes from Democrats.  If this kind of rhetoric is wrong, if it leads to violence, then why do they keep doing it themselves???  And why do they denounce Republicans even while they themselves are doing the very thing they say is evil to do???  And how do their skulls not explode from containing all the contradictions???

Let me offer something that happened to me a couple of years ago to show how political rhetoric – whether “angry” or “hateful” or not – has little if anything to do with setting off an unhinged mind.

A very sweet lady in my church asked several of her friends to help her with a big garage sale she wanted to have.  Being a sweet lady, she asked the police if it was okay to put out signs around town notifying drivers of her yard sale.  Which most people just do.  And, being a sweet lady, when the police told her people weren’t supposed to put out such signage, she didn’t do it.  Which meant that her yard sale – with all the effort that went into it – was twisting in the wind.

So I made a nice, big sign that said “Yard Sale” along with the address, drove to the main drag in town, and waved that darned thing around to first the northbound traffic, then the southbound traffic, and so on and so forth.  And when I came back a couple hours later, I was assured that my incredibly soul-numbing boredom had not been in vain: a lot of people suddenly started showing up.

I love sweet little old ladies.  And don’t you dare mess with one while I’m anywhere nearby, if you like your teeth.

Well, all that was to bring up something that happened while I was holding that sign that merely said “YARD SALE” with a house address.  A woman walking on the sidewalk came up to me, took a look at the sign, and screamed, “Yard Sale!  YARD SALE!”  And just went off on me in an uncontrollable rant for two or three minutes.

I never said a single word to her.  There was no point.  She was clearly not in her right mind, and there’s no point trying to argue with or reason with deranged people.

And the point is, anything can set these people off.  Absolutely anything.  Even the words “Yard Sale” on a cardboard sign, accompanied by the probably wide-eyes of a helpless man staring into the bulging eyeballs of the insane.

It’s not a matter of “avoid the anger.”  Avoid everything.  Shut down the economy.  Close the stores.  Stay in your homes.  Shut off all the television and radio stations.  Make tinfoil hats.  Because even your very thoughtwaves can set these people off.

So this notion that Republicans and conservatives must “tone down the hate” – while of course Democrats may continue to feel free to unleash hell – is so paranoid and so unhinged that I can’t help but watch these Democrats and these reporters and see the face of that whacked-out woman going off on me about my yard sale sign.

Sheriff Dupnik saying that what people hear on the radio and on television makes them do the things they do could well come right out of the brain of Jared Loughner, who merely replaces “radio and television” with “government.”  It’s equally insane.

I can easily picture the “sheriff,” and liberals like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow cringing in lead-lined bunkers hoping that their tinfoil hats are thick enough to prevent Sarah Palin – who already lives rent-free in their heads – from taking over that final molecule and forcing them to do her evil bidding.

That’s basically the message of the left right now: “Put on your tinfoil hats, people!  Because your all in danger of having your minds commandeered by rightwing hate!”

And, at risk of boring you, that was precisely what Jared Loughner’s disturbed and paranoid brain feared: mind control.

This Jared Loughner guy wasn’t livid over ObamaCare or the stimulus or anything based in reality; he was frothing at the mouth over the government being behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, he was furious over the government taking over our brains by controlling grammar, he was enthralled with his bizarre dreams, that sort of thing.  He was as disconnected from politics as he was from the rest of reality.  Loughner once confronted Rep. Giffords with a question that made no sense.  And when she basically ignored it, his warped mind apparently fixated on her.

To make the Democrats’ despicable argument all the more so, based on their view, you could reasonably blame Gabrielle Giffords for the shooting.  Jared Loughner was listening to her, and she clearly didn’t say the right thing – which incited him to violence.

Every single journalist and every single politician who demands that people – and particularly conservative people – tone down their political views should be immediately discredited as nothing more than despicable ideological hacks.

What we are seeing is the murder of seven victims.  Not just six.  The seventh is truth, which is now being contorted and ripped beyond the breaking point for the sake of partisan political ideology.

And I’ll end by saying this: the record of history could not be more clear: the worse monsters in political history have without fail been those who have demanded that their opponents be silent.  The last thing we should ever want to follow is the political rationale that says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Proof Positive That The Mainstream Media Is The Propaganda Wing Of The Democrat Party

November 1, 2010

We’ve seen it all over the place.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the mainstream media had what Bernie Goldberg described as a “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.”  And he backed it up with cold hard facts.

For the last two years, we have had one crude, dishonest and even vile dismissal of the conservative tea party movement.  With the most vivid example in my memory being CNN anchor Anderson Cooper saying, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.”  Which was a gross, crude sexual pun to describe decent, intelligent people.

The tea party movement was mocked and dismissed by the media until it was obvious they were deliberately lying about the movement; and then the media started to demonize them and label them as racist.  Even though in reality the tea party better reflects the racial composition of the country than any other political movement.

We’ve had the mainstream media bombard us with the message that tea party supporters were some kind of  ignorant, fanatic, fascist hillbillies and tools of some conservative elite puppetmasters when in actual fact they are actually considerably wealthier and better educated than the population at large.

Joe Miller is a case in point.  The Senate candidate from Alaska – who is backed by and who in fact espouses the tea party platform – is not only a West Point graduate, but is also a graduate of Yale Law School.  But since those facts refuted the mainstream media narrative about tea partiers as ignorant hillbillies, they were ignored.

There’s the petty vindictive stuff.  Such as the TV ad that Christine O’Donnell paid to run on a public channel – and even held a rally timed for its airing – only to have the network “conveniently” forget to run it.  Twice.  Like “Oops.  Sorry.  Don’t think for even a second that it’s because government-funded media aren’t in the pocket of liberals, though.”

And there’s the more institutionally biased stuff.  Such as the fact that the mainstream media refused to use the word “extremist” to describe anyone on the left, but ONLY used the word to describe conservatives and tea partiers. Which simply proves that there is an institutional ideological leftwing bias across the board.  When you turn on or turn the pages of any mainstream media bias, you are simply pumping leftwing bias into your brain.

But all of that, as bad as it is, is nothing compared to the true black cockroach souls of the mainstream media and “journalists” of today.

This story says it all.

From RadioViceOnline:

News staff from the CBS affiliate KTVA in Anchorage inadvertently left a message on the cell phone of Joe Miller’s campaign spokesperson yesterday.   Nick McDermott, the KTVA assignment editor, had just ended a phone call with Miller’s spokesperson but missed the ‘end call’ button on his iPhone.

The conversation between McDermott, and those who are assumed to be other KTVA staff, goes on for about one minutes and 15 seconds. The audio and transcript are below. They seem to conspire to create stories that will harm the election efforts of Miller including looking for registered sex offenders and child molesters who happen to support Miller’s campaign. Then they suggest staging a Rand Paul-type moment where someone attacks Miller.

Not surprising to me. Remember, many journalism students join the profession to make a difference, not to report the news. When they realize they are not making a difference — in this case electing their preferred choice for Alaska’s next senator — they start making up the news.

Big Journalism had the breaking story, and Gov. Sarah Palin let the Fox News Sunday audience know about the story this morning during an interview with Chris Wallace. She called the conspirators “corrupt bastards” (video below) this morning and reminded Americans this is just one example of what it has been like for Joe Miller when the GOP establishment, Democrats, the Washington elites, and the left-wing media machine are all gunning for you.

Written transcript follows…

FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you have the experience but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who shows up because that indicates we already know something… [Laughter [INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…

MALE REPORTER: Oh yes…Joe Miller’s…uh…get a list of people/campaign workers which one’s the molester [INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE VOICE: You know that of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.[Laughter]

MALE REPORTER: We need to find that one person… [INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE REPORTER: The one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’

FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that. [Laughter]

FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.

So reporters from a CBS affiliate made a call to Joe Miller’s campaign, and then these people who are so damn smart (versus all the ignorant hillbillies in the tea party movement) forgot to hang up the phone before plotting to destroy the GOP candidate they had just called.  And it was all gloriously caught on air.

Does anyone honestly think any of these people are reporting or covering the political news fairly or honestly?

It’s not enough to call these reporters “leftwing.”  They are fascist.

CBS reporters are talking about deliberately seeking out stories that will “frame” Joe Miller as dangerous or unstable to sow seeds of fear in the electorate.  It’s a “November Surprise,” only they are looking to somehow create it.  And there’s no chance in hell that the Democrat is ever going to face that level of hard-core bias and outright animosity.

Think about this.  This incredibly cynical, deceitful, disingenuous and malicious attitude toward conservatives isn’t just happening in San Francisco; it’s happening in Alaska.  And Alaska is so conservative that the Democrat is only getting 30% of the vote.

If this kind of shocking media bias against the right is going on in a solidly red state such as Alaska, what is going on in your state?  Just how bad is it everywhere else?

As bad as the Democrat Party is, their dishonesty is NOTHING compared to the blatant dishonesty coming from the “journalists” who staff the mainstream media.

They’re supposed to report the truth in an objective, non-partisan manner; instead they look for dirt against conservatives and Republicans.

If the media reported fairly and honestly, we’d be talking about Democrats the way we talk about dinosaurs – as a giant behemoth that died out due to its own stupidity eons ago.  Instead they fabricate one story and falsify one “angle” after another.

And as a result of the mainstream media dishonesty, the Democrat Party has been allowed to become more and more and more corrupt.

Piss off a “journalist” tomorrow.  Vote for Republicans.

Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

September 27, 2010

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

Read And Sign The Mount Vernon Statement

February 17, 2010

I hope that conservative Republicans come up with a modern version of their incredibly successful Contract With America that took the American political universe by storm in 1994.

The Mount Vernon Statement is not such a “contract,” but it provides the foundational premise for one.

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.  Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
  • It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
  • It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
  • It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
  • It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
  • It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

The Mount Vernon Statement site encourages people to come on board and demonstrate their support by signing the statement.  As of my own signing, there are 6,000 signers.  I hope that becomes 60,000,000.

Real “hope and change” will come from returning to and embracing the timeless yet proven-time-and-time-again principles of our founding fathers; not by embracing Barack Obama’s failed policies which actively subvert those timeless constitutional principles.

We can make this country great again, by returning to and honoring the principles that made us great to begin with.

R.I.N.O. Schwarzenegger Now Opposes ObamaCare For Bankrupting States

January 6, 2010

As ABC‘s Jake Tapper points out:

The White House had in the past brought much attention to Schwarzenegger’s previous support for the effort.

So I guess we should all be bringing much attention to the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is opposing the effort now.

Here’s the story:

Schwarzenegger Withdraws Support for Democrats’ Health Care Reform

January 06, 2010 2:13 PM

In his annual “State of the State” message today, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for the health care reform measures Democrats are attempting to finish up in Washington, DC.

While I enthusiastically support health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states get sweetheart deals,” the governor said.

The White House had in the past brought much attention to Schwarzenegger’s previous support for the effort.

Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes,” Schwarzenegger said. “You’ve heard of the bridge to nowhere.  This is health care to nowhere.

He called for California’s congressional delegation to “either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk.”

In the Senate bill, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., secured a deal for the federal government to pick up his state’s share of the Medicaid expansion the bill legislates.

In his weekly address on October 10, 2009, President Obama heralded the “unprecedented consensus that has come together behind” health care reform, noting that Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg “came out in support of reform,” among others, saying “these distinguished leaders understand that health insurance reform isn’t a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, but an American issue that demands a solution.”

And even Ben Nelson is now using the word “mistake” alongside health care.  Or at least you’d get that idea from the Politico article entitled, “Health care Before Economy Was ‘Mistake’“:

In an interview with the Fremont Tribune, Nelson took a shot at President Barack Obama’s priorities, saying the White House should not have put health care ahead of dealing more directly with jobs and the economy.

“I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” Nelson said.

My problem with both men is that they wait until it’s too damn late to come out against a wildly unpopular bill.  Both men seem to believe that one can eat his cake, and have it too.

I am sick to my guts of these “I supported that bill until I opposed it” slimebags in government.

Ben Nelson has the character of a cockroach, which still puts him well ahead of most Democrats.  After voting to destroy our health care system and empower Democrats to destroy Medicare, Nelson started to sing a different tune when his poll numbers started going down to mole man territory.  But Nebraskans can count on Nelson to sell them out the next chance he gets.  After all, he’s a Democrat.  And all you have to do to see that that is what Democrats do is wake up and take a look around.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is reliably conservative like I am reliably liberal.  He has supported gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research (he threw away $6 billion in tax dollars to fund stem cell research that turned out to be a giant black hold boondoggle that produced NOTHING), and global warming.  And health care.  At least until he looked at the polls and suddenly realized that he was on the wrong side.

Hopefully people are smart enough not to believe him when he pretends to be a conservative again.

Schwarzenegger is right about one thing: ObamaCare WILL bankrupt the states.   Just like it will bankrupt Medicare.  That’s how these dishonest Democrat demagogues played make-believe so their bill would sail under the CBO radar and fraudulently appear to be “deficit neutral.”  I just wish Schwarzenegger had cared about that before it was nearly too late to do anything about it.

Navy SEALs Charged: Another Cancerous Case Of Obama Criminalizing Those Who Protect Us

November 24, 2009

Update, April 23, 2010: The 2nd of three SEALs have now had all charges dropped against them.  These were stupid and immoral charges that should never have been made in the first place.  The Obama administration has created a paranoid and toxic atmosphere of political correctness run amok.

Welcome to Obama’s America, where there are only three truly evil acts: 1) being a conservative; 2) working for Fox News; 3) being a patriot who tries to keep America safe from its enemies.

These SEALs are at least guilty of number 3, and are most likely also guilty of 1 as well.  That’s more than enough for Obama.

And of course Fox reported on the story.  But we already know they’re guilty of Crimes Against Obama.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges For Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

“I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that “Objective Amber” planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and “they had been tracking this guy for some time.”

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

I’d first like to thank these SEALs for their service; second, I’d like to thank them for capturing Ahmed Hashim Abed; third, I would like to thank them for giving this slimebag a fat lip.

Let’s assess the record of this administration: repeatedly attempting to contact al-Qaeda — merits a promotion; giving a terrorist murderer a fat lip — merits a court martial.

This is what happens under the Obama worldview that requires providing Miranda rights to terrorists and according them all the rights and privileges of American citizens.

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration declassifying vital intelligence secrets which kept this country safe in order to use it as a political weapon

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration literally attempting to criminalize the role of our intelligence professionals at the CIA for their role in desperately striving to keep this country safe.  Now, surprise, surprise, the morale at the CIA is at a 30-year low (dating back to the last time a Democrat tried to destroy the Agency).

It is a cancer that resulted in a Muslim captain who’d had regular email contact with al-Qaeda as well as “soldier of Allah” on his business card getting promoted to major before murdering 14 human beings and wounding more than 30 more at a military base – as he screamed ‘Allahu akbar!’ – while our own SEALs get disciplined for capturing such murderous bags of slime.

It is a cancer that resulted in five confessed terrorists going from requesting the death sentence at a military tribunal to getting an opportunity to plead not guilty and use the civilian trial Obama gave them as a platform for their jihadist worldview while putting America (and George Bush) on trial.

It is a cancer that has resulted in a president dithering for nearly three full months while ignoring his own handpicked general’s request for more troops in Afghanistan.  While nearly twice as many American soldiers have died (so far!) than died under George Bush.

Today Obama came out and – while continuing to criticize Bush for not having the right “strategy” – said he intends to “finish the job” without bothering to have any kind of explanation as to what the “job” even is.   Which is to say, some fat load of good his three months of “policy reviews” has done.  Meanwhile, the morale of our troops is sinking, while the morale of the Taliban and the number of the American body count is rising.

And we have Barack Hussein to thank for inflicting us with this cancer.  The sooner he is gone, the sooner our healing from cancer can begin.

Note to fools: there is no CSI Kandahar, and there is no CSI Baghdad.  We cannot possibly ask our soldiers to gather evidence and turn battlefields into crime scenes.  We are worse than idiots for demanding that our warriors on foreign battlefields act like domestic police officers.  It is a blatant category fallacy.

Prayer for Barack Obama:

Psalm 109:8 – “Let his days be few, and let another take his office.”

Sanity Prevails: Scozzafava Drops Out of NY-23 Race

October 31, 2009

A lot of conservative attention is focused on defeating the Democrats’ health care “reform” that would put one-sixth of the economy – and literally peoples’ very lives – under the domination of a partisan, corrupt, and power-hungry federal government.  And that is clearly a good goal.

But the best way to accomplish that end may very well be to secure victories in the three major races in 2009, and allow Democrats’ own fears to jar them back to common sense.

To that end, the news that Dede Scozzafava has dropped out of the race for the 23rd district in New York is welcome indeed.

“In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record,” she said in a statement.

“It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican.”

Her decision came as a Siena Research Institute poll released Saturday confirmed that her support has all but collapsed over the last month. In her statement, Scozzafava acknowledged that while her name will continue to appear on the ballot, “victory is unlikely.”

The Siena poll conducted Oct. 27-29, in line with other recent polls, showed Democrat Bill Owens holding a razor-thin lead over Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, 36 percent to 35 percent.

Scozzafava trailed far behind at 20 percent, with 9 percent of voters still undecided.

I take my hat of to Scozzafava.  She did the right thing for the right reasons.

What could have happened is my personal nightmare scenario, in which conservatives – who easily have the numbers to win – divide themselves rather than unite for the common good.

Obama won Virginia, won New Jersey, and won the New York 23rd district.  Now he is in danger of losing them all, standing as a strident referendum against his agenda.

Hopefully, the quite liberal Scozzafava’s example of withdrawing as the handwriting appears on the wall will be followed by other candidates running against Democrats — whether they be “Republican” or “Independent.”

The New York 23rd district is somewhat strange.  It hasn’t had a Democrat representative since the Civil War era, and yet Obama won it by 5 points in ’08.  The question in this race was clear: would Republicans be able to reassert control, or would Democrats use the momentum from the Obama election to take control?

One thing needs to be pointed out: one of the major reasons that Obama appointed John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army was so Democrats would be able to seize his district from the Republican Party.  Obama won the district in 2008, and the White House believed New Yorkers would say, “Yes, we can!” to Democrat rule.

Time Magazine had this to say:

But then, the race in the 23rd is no longer about local issues. It’s about a Republican Party with little power in the Beltway searching for a way out of the wilderness. And it’s about conservative Republicans sending a message: the future of the party is the conservative base. (It’s also, incidentally, about money; according to the Federal Election Commission, more than $650,000 has flowed to the candidates from independent groups just since Oct. 24.) “The 23rd has as little significance as Gettysburg. It’s just where the armies met,” says Bob Gorman, managing editor of the Daily Times and my old boss. “Everybody was looking for a fight, and that’s where they found each other.”

Well, it turns out that Lincoln’s Union defeated the Democrats’ Confederates at Gettysburg — and the Party that fought to preserve the union ended up winning the war against the Party that wanted to radically change it.

After Lincoln prevailed at Gettysburg, he was able to turn his attention to taking the war to the enemy in the South.  Gettysburg – that little nowhere locale – was the turning point.

I see such a turning point again.

Virginia, and now NY-23 (thanks to Dede Scazzofava’s doing the right thing), are now locks for the Republicans.  And I believe that Chris Christie will hang on to defeat Jon Corzine in the Democrat bastion of New Jersey.

No one can say with confidence what’s going to happen in the race for the New Jersey governorship, but I believe that Scott Rasmussen – who was the most accurate pollster in the 2008 election – will prove right again.  He has Christie up by 3.

Frankly, the right thing for independent candidate Chris Daggett to do is put the interest of the country over his own interest and do the right thing as Dede Scazzofava did.  Scazzofava dropped out to help push an independent over the top; it’s time that independent Daggett did the same to push a Republican over the top.

Ronald Reagan correctly pointed out that conservatives could not win if they divided against themselves.  It’s time we get back to basics and take his advice.

If you think that Chris Daggett staying in the race with his 8% support is more important than stopping the Democrat juggernaut’s drive to impose socialized medicine, then please don’t call yourself a “conservative.”

Dede Scozzafava was liberal on a whole host of positions, and incredibly, she was even more liberal than the Democrat candidate on many issues.  But I have a lot more respect for her integrity and character than I do Chris Daggett if he doesn’t put himself aside and put his weight behind the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win.  I can only hope that Daggett will demonstrate his own character and willingness to put the interests of the nation ahead of his own, and drop out and put his support behind Chris Christie.

What’s at stake in these races is whether we embolden Democrats to pass a liberal domestic agenda, or let them know that they will do so at their gravest peril.

It is widely believed that if Obama loses these races, Democrats will quit following him and start looking to their own political survival.  That will derail Obamacare; it will derail Cap-and-trade; it will put the kibosh on a whole host of incredibly destructive Democrat agendas.

If you are a Glenn Beck-style “conservative independent,” please realize that.