Category: Politics

Martha Coakley is the Democrat in Massachusetts who is running for the US Senate in the seat vacated by Ted “Kopechene” Kennedy’s death. It is encouraging to me to know that Coakley is seeking to keep alive the Kennedy tradition of saying off the wall irrational things.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/16/ma-sen_coakley_calls_curt_shilling_another_yankees_fan.html

In the one above, Martha, obviously clueless about Major league Baseball, notes that the Boston Red Sox hero of the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees was in reality always a Yankees fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ-ZeLSZPc8&feature=player_embedded

In the one above Marvelous Martha the Mouth says that devout Catholics “Probably Shouldn’t Work in Emergency Rooms since their faith might come in conflict with proposed health care legislation that will not allow people to not participate in medical procedures that violate their faith convictions.

Finally there is Coakley’s reporter incident where one of her Democratic campaign operatives muscled a pesky reporter who was asking to many questions of Coakley to the ground. There are photos of Coakley staring at the incident and yet she has said on record,

“I know there were people following, including two from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking,” Coakley told reporters during an appearance at Kit Clark Senior Services in Dorchester. “I’m not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I’m not privy to the facts. I’m sure it will come out, but I’m not aware of that.”

Conclusions,

1.) Martha Coakley is brain dead and thus the perfect person to sit in Ted Kennedy’s old seat.

2.) The Democrats, when operating in Mordor, don’t believe they have to run legitimate candidates because they believe that it is a given that whatever brain dead thuggish Democrat they put forward will be elected.

3.) Democrats believe that freedom is the citizenry being free to do exactly what they tell the citizenry to do.

“One in five terror suspects released from the Guantanamo Bay prison has returned to the fight, according to a classified Pentagon report expected to stoke an already fierce debate over President Barack Obama’s plan to close the military prison.”

AP News Report

The mind boggles at this news. Would have our grandparents have tolerated a 1943 news report that came out saying that One in five unsuccessful Kamikaze pilots returned to the cockpit after the US Commander in Chief released them? Would the English have been content to have heard that One in Ten German pilots responsible for dropping ordinance on London during the Battle of Britain returned to their roles as bombardiers upon release by Winston Churchill? Would the Russian population been content to know that Stalin had released German tank Captains who had been captured in the Battle of Kursk — one in Twenty of whom returned to fight again on the Russian front?

What else can it be called but insanity to capture enemy combatants on the field of battle only to turn around and release them so that they can kill more Americans?

A country that does this is not serious about its war effort and does not care about its servicemen. If this report is true this is all we need to insist that the troops be brought back home. Why would we support a war effort when the Commander-in-chief is championing a policy that increases enemy troop numbers so as to better kill American service personnel?

This is insanity! As far as I’m concerned this is grounds for impeachment. Is this not a high crime and misdemeanor? Is this not treason against America?

I can’t believe there is not outrage across the country. There should be burning effigies in Capitals all across America at this news.

And if we can’t get this much, at least some Republicans ought to run some Willie Horton type adds against their Democratic opponents this fall. Instead of the face of Willie Horton the face of Mohammad Ahmed could be superimposed.

I’ll even provide the language that could be used in such an ad.

As the face of the candidate rises on the screen the voice over says,

“(Republican Candidates name) ________ supports not giving Muslim combatants a second chance to kill more sons and daughters of America than they did the first time when they were captured on the battlefield.”

Go to a screen showing a coffin draped with an American flag with a Islamic Crescent Moon and Scimitar in the background.

Slowly cue up the face of the Democratic opponent.

“(Democratic Candidates name) ___________ supports releasing Muslim combatants fully knowing that 20% of Muslim combatants will return to the battle field with the purpose of killing American son’s and daughters.”

Vote for the life of your Son and Daughter

Vote Republican

The American Pravda media are having a meltdown over Sarah Palin the likes I’ve not ever seen since they destroyed the career of Dan Quayle. From the cover of Newsweek that clearly was seeking to trivialize Palin to David Brooks to Bob Schieffer to Chris Matthews the Fascist media are coming unglued over Palin. It has gotten so bad that one of the major media cable shows had a roving reporter attack a 13 year old Palin fan for not knowing why she supported Palin.

I’ve been turning this over in my head trying to understand why the media markets are turning inside out over Palin. Here is what I’ve come up with so far.

Race (Tribal thing)

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

At the link above at the 45 second mark Chris Matthews picks up on the racial aspect of Palin’s appeal. Matthews observes that the attendance to Palin’s book signing was “monochromatic.” In the mindset of elitist media figures if a political figure has appeal only to white people then there is certainly something wrong with that person. They don’t take the time to ask’ “why does Sarah Palin predominately attract white people?”

If they asked that question the answer would quickly be seen, by looking at election results, that the reason that people of color don’t turn out for Sarah Palin’s book signing tour is that they consistently vote for cultural Marixsts. Palin clearly isn’t a cultural Marxist, therefore very few non-white people attend.

This reality that people of color are voting for cultural Marxists in overwhelming majorities is something that people largely refuse to consider since such a consideration is not politically correct. What has happened is that minorities have, in Cultural Marxism (neo-Marxism if you prefer) largely filled the role that was filled by the proletariat (working class) in classical Marxism. Minorities are being used, the same way the proletariat was used in classical Marxism, to advance the agenda of the Marxist elite — a Marxist elite that includes major white media personalities like Chris Matthews. Sarah Palin is the anti-thesis of both the Marxist elite and of their rank and file and as such neither people of color, nor the white neo-Marxist elite class are interested in her.

So, perhaps in some sense, Matthews is right that Palin’s success is a Tribal thing but this Tribal thing can’t be explained merely by skin color apart from examining why the Tribes are separating the way they are.

Christianity

This is really part of the mix above. One can hardly talk about race without at the same time talking about culture and one can’t talk about race or culture w/o talking about Faith. The reason that this is so is that culture is race (mentioned above) and faith (mentioned here) incarnated.

Some will disagree with this by noting that culture is only theology (faith) incarnated but I believe if one suggests that culture is only theology incarnated one implies that men are a blank slate that don’t come to cultural animation without theology being written on that blank slate. Clearly, our ethnicity along with our theology inclines us to incarnate our culture in a certain distinct way. No one would expect Reformed Hutu Christians to create the same culture as Reformed Japanese Christians. They both would be incarnating their theology into a culture but their cultures would remain distinct because their ethnicity is part of what their Reformed Christian theology would be poured over.

Anyway, Palin’s attraction to white people is an attraction that can be accounted for by the residual effects of the Christian faith that many white American are still influenced by. The major media hates the Christian faith that Sarah Palin, fortunately or unfortunately, (I think unfortunately) has come to represent. Palin believes in God and worse yet to the neo-Marxist media elite she believes in Jesus. Palin is pro-life. Palin has some sort of inkling of Federalism. Palin is seen as pro-family (though for the life of me I don’t know why). All of these are consistent with a Christian world view.

Try to see this in terms of the anti-thesis. Palin is the cultural Marxist anti-Christ, and the media must destroy her.

Now, it bedevils me to no end that Palin is becoming the poster child for Christianity in the public square. From what I’ve gleaned from her background her Christianity is of the Pentecostal variety. I’m not very comfortable with the thought of a President getting a “word from the Lord” about rather she should nuke Iran.

Charisma

Palin has what all politicians desire and that is charisma. There has not been a political figure with the Charisma of Palin since Jack Kennedy. Not even Ronald Reagan had her charisma. She has a presence that defies explanation. A great deal could change between now and 2012 but if Palin’s Charisma holds until then no other Republican should waste his time running against Palin.

This is not to say that I think Palin is the most qualified Republican, though she certainly is as qualified as B. Hussein Obama to be President. There are several Republicans I would prefer over her. I could never vote for Sarah Palin. It is only to say that if her native ability to connect with middle America remains the way it currently is the nomination is hers to lose.

I observe the Palin phenomenon with a strange attachment. On the one hand I say to myself, “anybody who the major media hates this badly must be a good thing,” while on the other hand I say to myself, “whether she succeeds or fails she will largely define Christianity in the political square and I’m convinced that is a bad thing.”

Conservatism is not what it was before FDR and the New Deal. Old line Conservatives like Garet Garret, Albert J. Nock, H. L. Mencken, John T. Flynn, Frank Chodorov, and others like them, were they to walk the earth today, would be considered right wing extreme extremists. FDR and the New Deal succeeded in pulling the continuum of what constitutes liberal vs. conservative to the left so that today’s people can claim to be conservative and still support things like Social Security, Medicare, and other government give away programs.

We are now living in times that represent another lurch leftward in the left vs. right continuum so that if the Obama administration is successful in socializing health care, the way that FDR was successful in socializing old age retirement, today’s liberals will be thought of as tomorrow’s conservatives. This will result in, as an example, tomorrow’s conservatives accepting homosexual marriage as a given but cherishing their conservative pedigree in the fact that they oppose bestiality marriages.

Roosevelt was successful in redefining left vs. right because in his socialism New Deal legislation he bought and created a constituency that would never vote against the money that the Democratic party was committed to giving them. The whole social security scam gave people just enough money to remain dependent upon the government but not so much money that they would ever be anything but dependent. Obama is seeking to do the same thing that FDR did (and LBJ compounded) by creating a constituency that once it gets hooked on the drug of governmental sponsored enterprises (GSE) will never quit voting for the party that got them hooked on GSE. If he is successful in doing this the whole continuum of what constitutes left vs. right will shift once again leftward.

The congressional race in the NY 23rd district is exhibiting why it is not wise for Christians to blindly support the Republican party and why voting third party is a good idea. In that district the Republican party has, by way of a smoke filled room decision amongst party hacks, put forth one Dede Scozzafava as their candidate to fill a seat vacated by the previous Congressman taking the position of Secretary of the Army. The problem with Dede is that she might as well be a Democrat. Her husband has serious ties to ACORN. She is pro baby murder. She is pro buggery marriage. She supports cap-and-trade anti-global warming legislation. She is in favor of the $787 billion Obama stimulus plan. She is a strong supporter of federal “card check” legislation that would force private-sector employers to recognize a union as the sole collective-bargaining agent if a union organizing drive at a given work site generates signatures indicating more than 50 percent of affected workers want to join. In short Dede Scozzafava is a Republican version of Nancy Pelosi.

A funny thing happened on the way to the general election though. Not only is Dede challenged by the expected leftist Democrat (Bill Owens) but the conservative party in New York is running one Doug Hoffman, an accountant by trade with solid conservative credentials. Right now the polls show the Democrat running marginally ahead with Scozzafava and Hoffman splitting the Republican vote.

Now according to the teachings we have seen at various time from those like Gary DeMar, Doug Wilson, Joel McDurmon and others Christians are supposed to hold their noses and vote for Dede Scozzafava simply because she is a Republican and she wouldn’t be as bad as the Democrat Owens. The argument continues that by voting third party we are insuring that the Democrat wins.

Naturally, the response to this is … so what? If we keep supporting the leftist RINO candidates that the leftist in the Republican party keep vomiting forth we are only going to get leftist candidates. If Hoffman and Scozzafava both lose in the NY 23 district race the Republican establishment will have learned (hopefully) to quit running leftist RINO’s. If enough people quit pulling levers for leftist RINO’s they can’t stand eventually some party is going to see that large minority of people and are going to respond to their concerns. But as long as we keep blindly supporting leftist RINO’s like Bush, McCain, Schwarzenegger, Crist, Specter, and Scozzafava, all we are ever going to get is leftist legislation and more leftist candidates.

It’s past time to start questioning any Christian leadership that tells us to get in bed with these leftists by way of supporting them with out vote. Certainly there is no such thing as a perfect candidate but calls in the past to not vote third party and to support McCain were blatantly ridiculous. Similarly, following that same principle that was invoked to support McCain would be equally ridiculous in voting for Scozzafava.

One more thing before I’m finished here. In my estimation Newt Gingrich, in his support for Scozzafava has insured that I will never pull a lever for Newt Gringrich. Gingrich is the preeminent neo-con and his support for this leftist Scozzafava reveals again the Rockefellar Republican instincts he had when he entered into the Republican party circa 1964.