'Wise Latinas' feeling their oats

Check out Auster's consecutive articles on the subject, here and here. (Note: I've embedded the links to the articles in the order they were posted at VFR)

Read More

The specter of Specter and the United States government

So Arlen Specter done went and done it. Will wonders never cease! Question: Have you ever wondered how much ridiculousness can be crammed into a single article?

Let's see now, Specter's defection is said to possibly give the Democrats 60 votes, which we later read all hinges on Al Franken's prevailing in Minnesota.

The article declares Specter's switcheroo to be a stunning turn of events, and Specter himself said of his decision, as quoted in the article, that the Republican party had moved too far to the right. Hmmm, that sounds oddly familiar for some reason.

Back to the Franken hinge on which this whole proposition of the Senate Demos gaining that magical and coveted sixtieth vote supposedly turns, it is stated that in the event that Franken wins his lawsuit, this would result in the denial of the chance for Republicans to stall legislation. The chance? What chance? Oh, I get it, the specter of the chance in hell Republicans had of stalling democrat legislation in that body when Specter was still donning the mask of a Republican day before yesterday.

No, we're not done yet...

In the next sentence we read that the news of Specter's defection -- brace yourselves for it! -- shocked Senate Republicans who had been hanging on to their ability (otherwise known as their chance in hell) to block legislation by a thread (would that be an actual thread, or a proverbial thread? Methinks it is/was the specter of a thread in any case.)

Accordingly, we read further that Senator McConnell called an emergency meeting of party leaders who had -- brace yourselves again 'cause this is a biggie! -- no forewarning of Specter's intentions to defect. No; not even the specter of the specter of a forewarning, apparently.

Democrats, it is said, were, ahem, jubilant about the development. Apparently Specter's specter even had Senate Demos buffaloed.

Hussein allegedly said to Specter over the phone "we are thrilled to have you." This specter of being genuinely thrilled was skillfully and artfully done, I'm sure.

The Vice President, it is said, had been arguing for weeks the position with Specter the specter that the Republican party had drifted away from him ideologically, that Specter was [now], due to this drift of the Republican party, closer to the democrats. Yes, the specter of Specter was among the few "Republicans" marching in step.

And etc...

Did I say "ridiculous?" What I meant to say was how much idiocy can be crammed into a single article? Well, besides the amount that the writer is solely responsible for himself, apparenly about as much as can be exhibited in a single day by the specter of leadership on Capitol Hill. Anyway, good riddance to that piece of garbage. Here's hoping he'll start a trend in which several others we know of will enter upon their own specter of defections from Republican ranks.

Read More

On Obama's speech and Governor Jindal's response

I watched the entirety of the president's speech last night, and, of course, the president is in a league of his own when it comes to speechifiying. Let there be no doubt, he is made for public speaking, or is it that public speaking is made for him? I can certainly see how people can be drawn into his web of deceit.

Contrast the President's speech with Governor Jindal's response, and, well, you get the impression of a rank amateur (Jindal) going up against a seasoned professional (Obama). Hey!, I'm just being honest here. Certainly my positions are more in line with Governor Jindal's than they will ever be with President Obama's. An ability to speak well doesn't equal an ability to govern well, and vice versa. But all the hype about this guy Jindal being some kind of Reagan incarnate was quickly laid to waste last night, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Did anyone else get the impression from Jindal's delivery that he thought he was telling a bedtime story to a bunch of kindergartners? Was anyone else insulted by this mode of delivery? Forget about his tacit embrace of open immigration and multiculturalism, his delivery ... sucked!; he bombed it bigtime! I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I guarantee you she would have delivered a much better, much more adult-like response. And by the way, conservatives are, in the truest sense of the word, adults. Therefore they require an adult message, for all you juvenile republicans out there.

Read More

Allow me to put to an end...

...all the hype and the hope.

Given that not a single Repbulican House member voted for the Democrat's so-called "stimulus package" (I heard earlier today Obama call it a "recovery package" -- something about the word "package" used to describe an 825 Billion dollar, out-of-thin-air Marxist redistribution scheme doesn't set quite well with me) which was easily passed in the leftist controlled HoR, will the Republicans in the Senate stand firm with, and emulate their lower-house colleagues?

No.

The John Galt Option is sounding better all the time. You see, "a country boy will survive," and this country boy has absolutely no interest in indebting his great, great grandchildren with a debt they cannot pay (not to mention that they didn't themselves assent to) before they're even born. So you democrats can take your "stimulus" package and screw yourselves with it. As for me and my house, we will not participate.

Read More

Listen up Sean

For the umteenth time, we have a Senate makeup which is virtually filibuster proof.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night, nunoff election eve for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Chambliss was a guest on the show and a lot was made (by Hannity) of the fact that the Republicans enlisted the help of Governor Palin while the Democrats kept Obama off stage in Georgia.

As you know by now Chambliss won the runoff by 20 points. The point though is this, while Hannity was beating the drum that Obama's non-appearance in support of the Democrat opponent of Chambliss was some kind of indication that Obama is a coward, given that Obama ought to be doing all in his power to make the U.S. Senate filibuster proof per the cause of the Democrats, he seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that on the things that matter most -- on the key issues -- the Senate is already, or, as I've said before virtually filibuster proof. Those key issues of which I speak are so-called 'comprehensive immigration reform', reinstatement of the gun ban, etc.

It's not about Democrat vs. Republican per se, it's about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. And there are at least a couple of Democrats in Republican garb (or RINOs if you prefer) who still hold seats in the U.S. Senate, of which John McCain is one. Harry Reid recognizes this, but somehow Sean Hannity doesn't.

Read More

The late election and what it portends for immigration restriction

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order.

Read More

No more loans to illegals

Here is Tom Tancredo on the proposed bailout:

Dear Colleague,

In the midst of the turmoil in our financial markets, we should take pause to reflect on the lessons we have learned in the past few years. With the benefits of that wisdom, we can include the prudent provisions that will close loopholes in any potential “bailout” legislation. One such suggestion is to incorporate safeguards to verify the legal residency and identity of potential homebuyers to ensure that illegal aliens are not obtaining federally backed home loans.

I sent a letter to the Secretary of HUD a year ago about this very concern. I also pressed the agency to disclose the extent to which this type of fraud is contributing to volatility in the mortgage markets. I believe this kind of fraud has contributed to the tumult we are seeing in the headlines daily.

I have seen this ugly issue up close, as a Colorado-based mortgage fraud ring in which realtors, loan officers, and sales agents were indicted and arrested for obtaining federally-backed loans for some 250 unqualified buyers by manufacturing false financial information, fraudulent identities, and bogus citizenship documentation. All of the 191 houses involved were purchased with HUD-guaranteed loans. According to one expert, banks in Colorado alone lose upwards of $75 million per year to fraud – so I can only imagine what the numbers are like nationally.

I recognize that any infusion of foreign investment – especially now – is a welcome addition to our capital-starved market. But there is a difference between the wealthy foreign real estate investor or financier of a vacation home, and the inherently unreliable illegal aliens who are prone to fraud and may be forced by circumstances to return to their home nation at any point. Certainly, we should seek to differentiate between these two categories of buyer.

Including a mechanism to make sure that taxpayers are not providing any assistance to illegal aliens, or absorbing any bad debts owed to financial institutions (such as mortgages) by illegal aliens is a “must” for any “bailout” legislation. If such protections are not included in the package, I hope you will join me in opposing its passage.

We need to ensure that the ‘American Dream’ remains within reach of American families – and that means enacting some long overdue safeguards that prevent illegal aliens and their unscrupulous allies in the financial industry from undermining its integrity.

Read More

Leftists shooting themselves in the foot

You'll have to pardon my getting pleasure from this, but I simply cannot help it. I mentioned in the previous post that I'd visited several leftist sites, one in particular, concerning the Palin interview. Well, I've gone back to the site -- which consists of a bunch of radical leftist female Barack Obama supporters -- and here is part of what I found there in a separate entry:

Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

For 19+ months you've tried to run a positive campaign. You've focused on change. You've inspired millions with your message of hope. You've focused on the issues. Now, all of a sudden, with the introduction of Sarah Palin as Republican Vice Presidential candidate, the game has changed.

The Republicans cannot go head-to-head with you on the issues because they know if they try they'll lose. THey have been. They're trying to co-opt your message of change and it's back-firing. They're offering more of the same and they know it. So suddenly it's not about issues anymore, it's about personalities: The grizzled POW and the pert PTA mom.

Here's what I want you to do:

I want you to fight. back. I am giving you permission to get. angry. I want to hear you say, "Enough is enough!" every time you speak. I want you to take on their cynical, half-truth-ridden, insulting-to-all-American-citizens campaign and wrestle it to the ground.

And the author goes on and on and on, building anger and momentum as she goes, about how she's giving Obama permission to go on the attack against the evil, hate-filled, perverted, lying, manipulating, everyone-offending, etc., fundamentalist Christian team of McCain-Palin. Apparently the author is too angry to have noticed that Obama has been on the offensive sticking his foot in his mouth every time he turns around lately, saying stupid things like McCain doesn't know how to send an email and whatnot.

I understand that the introduction of Sarah Palin into the mix put the fear of God into the left which had been just cruising along virtually unopposed, without a care in the world except arrogantly pronouncing how badly they were going to defeat McCain (apparently they don't understand the meaning of the phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), but doesn't the author realize how desperate she's become, in a matter of a couple of weeks no less, and how desperate and potentially harmful are her recommendations to the mild-mannered Barack Obama? And by the way, if the Republicans' tactic, according to this author, of "co-opting" Barack's message of change, is truly backfiring on them, as she further asserts, then what's to worry about, why get so passionate and angry about it; if it's backfiring, that means it's working against the Republicans, right? Call me crazy. LOL

Read More

Attention Republicans:

Sit down, shut up, pay close attention, and take copious notes! You're about to receive an important lecture on what's at stake and what it means to be a good loyal Republican!

When I first opened and read this week's "e-news" message from Mr. Matt Pinnell writing in behalf of the Oklahoma Republican Party, my first instinct was to fire off a fiery rebuttal using this forum as my vehicle. In fact, I actually did so, but I thought better of posting it, opting rather to give my mind and my emotions a few hours to process what it is that Mr. Pinnell is attempting to shame Oklahoma Republicans like myself into doing. In short, Mr. Pinnell, in the name of the Republican Party of Oklahoma, is advising me and other Oklahoma conservatives to violate both the dictates of my conscience and of my principles.

Mr. Pinnell, Director of Operations for the Oklahoma Republican Party, writes:

As I listened to the Sunday political television lineup, a common theme kept arising from both Republican and Democratic pundits: the talk of a wide “enthusiasm gap” between the Republican and Democrat tickets. I would agree that there may be some truth to this, but there certainly shouldn’t be, and let me tell you why.

Six. That’s the only number conservatives need to remember for the next ten months. Create a bumper sticker, iron press it on some t-shirts, get one of those cool Henna tattoos, whatever it takes for you to remember that number.

Why? Six Supreme Court Justices will be over the age of 70 or nearing that age when the next President is sworn into office. Justice Stevens is 87, Justice Ginsburg 74, Justices Kennedy and Scalia 71, Justice Breyer 69 and Justice Souter 68.

Maybe all of them will still be in place eight years from now. Maybe all of them will be retired. These nine Justices protect our fundamental rights as citizens and even govern over human lives. They matter more than the person living in our Governor’s Mansion, more than our local school boards and city councils, and matter even more than who is in control of the U.S. House and Senate. And one person alone has the power to fill empty Supreme Court seats….the President of the United States.

Two of the most loud and proud liberal Democrats in recent memory, Senators Clinton and Obama, are running for President. If one of these two liberals became our next President and had the power to name six Supreme Courts Justices, historians may look back on this presidential race as the most damaging and destructive ever for conservative Republicans. One we as conservatives may never recover from.

You enthused now?

Let me first say that ever since I signed up with the Oklahoma Republican Party to receive their weekly emails a couple of years ago, I've derived little if any benefit from them insofar as the advocacy of genuine conservative principles is concerned. This bunch is so party loyal and utterly unprincipled that if Hillary were to switch to the Republican party and it looked as though she were going to win the nomination, they'd get behind her 100% and argue the exact same points.

Second, in response to Mr. Pinnell's question to Oklahoma Republicans, "you enthused now?", can you imagine a more stupid question to ask conservative Republicans on the heels of regurgitating so much liberal tripe in such a short space; the same sort of liberal tripe, rife as it is with insinuations toward what I presume is his target audience, which has resulted in the so-called "enthusiasm gap" between Republicans and Democrats? There is an enthusiasm gap, it's both profound and real irrespective of his attempts to discount it, but I think Mr. Pinnell fails to understand from whence it emanates, which is the real issue here.

If Mr. Pinnell actually thinks his message resonates with genuine conservative Republicans, he must be living on a whole 'nother planet. I'll resist the urge to say anything more at this point, and leave it to you, if you so desire, to add whatever you like.

By all means, have at it.

Read More

Expanding on my metaphor

I wrote yesterday of my growing impatience with the Republican party, asking why myself and other independently minded conservative Republicans are encouraged and expected to continue to expend our efforts in saving the Republican party as a vehicle for conservatism. As I implied in the post, I can go along with the program for awhile, but my patience is wearing mightily thin at this point.

In the aforementioned blog post, I used the church as a metaphor to the Republican party asking the following question:

At what point does the congregation rise up and demand adherence to the principles of orthodoxy on the threat of leaving the church en masse?

John Savage picks up on this theme commenting on my choice of metaphors:

John writes:

If Terry’s metaphor to a church is right, then it should be apparent that the Republican congregation is quite subservient to authority — probably more like the Catholic laity than a Protestant congregation. Or to venture a different metaphor, pundits like Frum view themselves rather like the board of directors of a business, where they can determine the direction the business is going, and the ordinary stockholders have no real say. The best we can do to protest is not vote for their candidate, in which case we get apoplectic cries of “Traitor!”

While I really wasn't expecting anyone to address the church metaphor directly, I was pleasantly surprised to read that John had done so over at his blog because it gives me a good opportunity to exand upon the thought, since I was pressed for time yesterday when I wrote that.

Though I've never really applied the metaphor to the Republican party in particular that I can recall, I have, nonetheless, used this same metaphor before in relation to our form of government and how in its original design there was a unique balance struck between the several forms of Western style democratic government, and how this relates to, or is derived from, the various forms of church government, each of which has its own principles for distributing authority between the congregation and the church hierarchy.

When John concludes from my metaphor that the "Republican congregation" is obviously quite subservient to authority, he hits the nail pretty well on the head in my opinion. However, being inclined to think at least a little more highly of the Republican congregation than I am of the Democrat congregation, and considering it (the Republican congregation) as being comprised of somewhat more independently minded folks than is the other, my appeal was directed more to that element of the Republican congregation that we might denominate adherents to a proper balance between the various forms of church government, who, when the time is right and the church hierarchy begins to yield to itself more authority than is proper, shaping church policy in open defiance of the boundaries of orthodoxy, and of the congregation itself, will arise and assert its ultimate and final authority over its "leadership" in a way in which cannot be mistaken or misunderstood.

While I'd really like to say a lot more on this, I am again pressed for time, so I'll conclude for now by saying that I'm reminded once more of the immortal words of Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence indeed will dictate that governments [political parties] long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themeselves... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government...

I don't say emphatically that the Republican party has reached that critical point as yet, but all indications seem to me that it is rapidly headed in that direction, as I indicated before.

Read More