WEEK OF FEBRUARY 1, 2009

Republican National Committee picks new Chairman

Republicans on Friday elected former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele as the new Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele won out over incumbent Michael Duncan and four other candidates for the position of head of the Republican Party. After five rounds of voting, only Steele and South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson remained standing in contention. Steele gained the necessary votes in the sixth round. He will serve a two year term. Although he is considered to be a conservative, most agreed that he was the most moderate of all of the candidates who were running for the position.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Is the Honeymoon Coming to an End?

According to the latest Rasmussen survey, as reported at Free Republic, Americans’ support for President Obama’s $900 billion Economic Stimulus Package has dropped from 45% to 42% during the past week, while opposition to the Bill rose from 34% to 39%. Currently 19% are undecided, down from 21%. The survey also found that 46% of Americans think that the administration’s plan will do too much, while 42% believe it will do too little. Apparently, the remaining 12% did not understand the question.

Survey details are available at rasmussenreports.com.

Will these latest figures bring about a reduction in the enormous size of the pork-bar…oops, I mean, economic stimulus legislation? Probably not. At best, they may strengthen the spines of some Senate Republicans who would otherwise never let principle stand in the way of doing what was deemed popular with the swirling masses. Who knows, even John McCain might now oppose the package when it comes to a showdown vote.

By now, everyone is aware of what took place earlier this week over in the House of Representatives. barred from having little if any voice in crafting the Stimulus Bill by the dictatorial procedural rules imposed by House Fuehrer Nancy Pelosi, House Repub- licans, joined by 11 Democrats, decided instead to achieve the small victory of denying the Bill any modicum of bipartisanship by voting unanimously against it. If Senate Republicans can duplicate this feat, the Economic Stimulus Package of 2009, with its massive increases in the National Debt, will belong completely to the Democrats. It will be totally up to them to explain this debacle to voters in 2010 and 2012, and to the future generations of Americans who will be picking up the tab while at the same time trying to determine how to save Social Security and Medicare. What could be described as being almost humorous if it were not so serious, too many of today’s politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, do not care, simply because they will not be running for re-election at that time.

What is vexing to the American public is the recent news concerning the use of the bailout money that has already been given to financial institutions. Reports that it was used to purchase new corporate airplanes, refurbish a CEO’s office, and to pay corporation officers large bonuses despite incompetent performance make further belated Christmas presents from the government questionable to say the least.

Nothing expresses this discontent better than an attachment to an e-mail that I recently received from a fellow conservative. The attachment were two purported letters regarding the bailout of the major auto companies. I have not been able to verify the authenticity of the letters, but that is not what is important here. Rather, what is important is the type of thinking that seems to prevail in America today. For the simple reason that I cannot vouch for the letters’ authenticities, I will change the names from those that appeared in the message that I received.

Letter #1

Letter #2 (A supplier's response)

Perhaps the Federal Government does have an obligation to correct the irrational decisions made in the 1970s and again in the 1990s to put people into homes that they could not afford to pay for, then to block efforts to more closely regulate the financial institutions that were playing fast and loose with the mortgages and securities that resulted from those irrational decisions. However, it is not the government that will suffer. The American taxpayer will pay, both now and in the future because, in reality, it is the taxpayers who have the money, not the government. On the other hand, maybe some good will come of it if we, the taxpayers, get a little smarter about how we vote when we go to the polls to elect those people who make the decisions. Let’s hope so.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Turning the Screws, Part II 

The President’s Stimulus Spending Bill includes providing $5.2 billion for the activist organization ACORN, to mention just one abhorrent factor in the Bill. I have therefore decided to modify my proposal introduced in my article Turning the Screws, below. The new arrangement is this. If even a single Republican senator votes in support the Stimulus Bill with that provision still included, and that Republican is allowed to remain a member in good standing in the Republican Party for more than a month (allowing for whatever parliamentary process is required to dismiss him or her), I will henceforth withhold any donations or contributions whatsoever to any or all Republican Party organizations until such time as said senator is denied party funding and is defeated in his or her next primary election. 

The time for Republicans to come together is now, rather than after this Bill is passed. Now is the time to send a new message to America.

Meanwhile, I strongly praise and commend the House Republicans for voting en masse against the Bill. It feels good to be a proud Republican once again, at least for now. 

I hope that many of my fellow Republicans will join me in this effort.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Another "Day That Will Live in Infamy" 

January 28, 2009. Remember this date, Americans. Remember it as the date when a Democratic House of representatives approved a boondoggle $900 billion spending bill that will do very little to accomplish its intentionally misstated purpose, that being, to provide relief to an economy in recession. It should be renamed the Pork Bill of 2009, or the Beginning of the End for Democrats Bill. Remember it in 2010, Americans. Remember that every Republican in the House voted against it; not MOST Republicans, but EVERY Republican. And they were joined by 11 Democrats, placing the “bipartisan” label on the wrong side of the vote from the President’s and the Speaker’s perspectives. Lest you forget the date and what happened before the 2010 election rolls around, we will send out occasional reminders.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced that all of the Republicans in the Senate have the same courage, convictions, and intelligence to vote against the Bill when it comes to a vote in that august body. There is little doubt that the president will offer a change here and there to the House Bill to make some Republicans wobbly. There are also a few who have never seen a big-spending bill that they didn’t like, and some who think that across-the-aisle cooperation on issues such as this to be, for some unknown reason, admirable. Remember these people as well, Americans, in 2010.
_______________________

Related Articles:

Republicans find their voice
By MIKE ALLEN & PATRICK O'CONNOR & JONATHAN MARTIN
January 27, 2009 at Politico.com

Congressional Republicans, who only weeks ago were sheepish about their own electoral failures and cowed by Obama's polish and popularity, are suddenly punching back — hard — on both sides of the Capitol.

Etch Yesterday in Stone as Rare Proud Moment for Congressional GOP
By BEN DeGROW
January 29, 2009 at Mt. Virtus

It’s not often that I can say Congressional Republicans make me proud by their actions. So let’s etch January 28, 2009, in stone as one of those momentous occasions.
_______________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Turning the Screws 

I assumed that, after November 4, the telephone calls from various Republican or conservative groups seeking monetary contributions would end. Instead, although they have decreased, a few are still coming. An example is a call that I received last week from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) seeking my support. Although I have supported the NRCC in the past, I felt that budgetary considerations prohibited me to do so this time, inasmuch as I had just made, what for me, was a significant contribution to another group. 

Had I thought about it at the time, however, or if they call again, my response would sound something like this. “I will start out with a commitment for X dollars, to be paid after the vote is taken on the Democrats’ $825 billion stimulus package. However, for every Republican in the House that votes in favor of the Bill, I will deduct Y dollars from my contribution. For every Republican Senator that supports it, I will triple the amount of the deduction. Whatever is left is yours to keep.” 

My reasoning is this. If any senators or representatives buck the party’s opposition to the stimulus package, the NRCC is not doing its job and should not be rewarded. There have been enough rewards given for incompetency in the first bailout package--a boondoggle that is contrary to conservative principles. Secondly, those Republicans in Congress who vote in support of the Bill have not earned my continued support, and I refuse to provide it. 

I believe that if enough conservatives in America who would adopt this approach when solicited to support Republican congressional organizations such as the NRCC, it would send a loud and clear message to the party’s leaders that we expect them to become more effective in bringing about party unity.  

This strategy will not prevent the Bill from being approved in the House of Representatives, but it could preclude its passage in the Senate if party unity were to be achieved. The question remains, is the party’s leadership sufficiently effective to bring this about? If it is not, my message to them will be, “Don’t call me, I'll call you.”

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

A Speech That All Americans Should See and Hear 

For many Americans, speaking out against Islamic extremism is not considered to be fashionable, especially in this new era of “change” and “hope”. It does not fit into the conceptual mold of “political correctness”, which is rapidly replacing freedom of speech and rational expression that have formed the bulwark of American discourse for well over two hundred years.

This article will even be considered by some to be just another example of “fear-mongering”, the favorite term of those who are either too preoccupied to consider the threat or so naively idealistic that they believe that if we were more responsible “world citizens”, that there would be no problem. 

However, for the rational thinker, the video that is linked below presents a realistic appraisal of the threat that western civilization faces today, presented by a person who personally lived through the realities of that threat. It presents a woman who was born and raised as a Christian in Lebanon, speaking before the Heritage Foundation on September 27, 2006. The woman is Brigite Gabriel, who is described by the Heritage Foundation as:

Ms. Gabriel speech was entitled “Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.” This is the same title as a book that she has authored. The video takes almost an hour in its entirety, the last thirty minutes of which is a question and answer session with her audience. It can be seen in its entirety at the Heritage Foundation website.

Although she makes many salient points in her speech, there were two that were most important in my opinion. Although she mentioned it only briefly in the question and answer session, what we see taking place in Europe today is exactly the same as took place with disastrous results in Lebanon during her childhood. She stated that Europe is rapidly becoming “Eurabia”, thanks to its tolerant and liberal policies of encouraging Middle Eastern immigrants to migrate to Europe. As happened in Lebanon, the fast-growing Muslim community is gradually approaching the time when it outnumbers the Europeans themselves. Although she does not mention it in her presentation, the results of this policy are already being seen. Just recently, Shariah law became a legal alternative to British Common Law by the government there. In the Netherlands, a court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician, Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders, on trial for making anti-Islamic statements in a controversial film equating Islam with violence, according to the BBC.  In France, there are suburban Paris neighborhoods where even the police are afraid to enter. Ms. Gabriel points out that by the year 2050, the Muslim population in Denmark will exceed that of the native Danes.

The second major point of her speech is that it is past time for moderate Muslims, especially those in America, to stand up and condemn the activities of their counterparts who are promoting Islamic Jihad. Extremist Muslims, she says, constitute only 1 to 30 percent of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, but the remaining moderate Muslims, for the most part, have been silent. She was especially critical of American groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) who usually seem more concerned with explaining away and supporting extremists’ activities than they are on soundly criticizing them for their behavior. In fact, according to the website report posted by an organization named “Anti-CAIR”:

Meanwhile, many Americans, including some easily duped members of Congress, defend CAIR as being a staunch defender of Muslims’ civil rights in America. 

This is a long video presentation, and unless you have an hour to spare, you might check back later. Ms. Gabriel is so compelling as a speaker that you might find it difficult to leave once the video begins. It is, however, a presentation that all Americans should see and hear, especially if they believe that the threat facing us is not serious or worth their time. I am sure that Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg would agree in this assessment.
_________________________________ 

I would like to thank Mr. Nagy Edward Michael, who was born in Egypt and now resides in Canada, for bringing this video to my attention. Mr. Michael was raised as a Coptic Christian who, like Ms. Gabriel, witnessed the horror and intolerance that non-Muslims regularly encounter in the Muslim world. I would also like to thank Nancy Lee Garcia of Superior, Montana, who first received the link to the video and forwarded it to me.
__________________________________
Correction: Mr. Michael now resides in Texas and is an American citizen. My apologies for the error.

Related:

See  Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan discusses the fallacies of extreme Islamic doctrine in a debate on Al jazeera television, Click HERE
______________________________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE