by Patrick J. Buchanan
Other than being the highest-profile Republican victims of Tea Party candidates, what do Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter have in common?
Other than being tea party insurgents who routed establishment Republicans in high-profile primaries, what do Joe Miller, Marco Rubio, Christine O'Donnell, Pat Toomey, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado and Mike Lee in Utah have in common?
The answer, writes Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner, is that all the former are pro-choice on abortion, all the latter pro-life.
Tea Party types and pro-life conservatives seem to be twins separated at birth. Carney continues: "Almost without fail the strongest advocates of limited government in Congress are pro-life and vice versa. Think of (Jim) DeMint and (Tom) Coburn in the Senate and Ron Paul and Jeff Flake in the House. They top the scorecards of the National Taxpayers' Union and also have perfect scores from National Right to Life."
Carney's point: While all Tea Party insurgents and Tea Party-backed candidates seemed to agree on the economic issues -- deficits, debt, taxes, Obamacare -- they also seem united on other issues. Looking at the down-ballot battles in 2010, being pro-life is just one of them.
Three Iowa Supreme Court judges who ruled that the state constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages were denied retention, and Gov. Terry Branstad campaigned for giving Iowans a referendum to decide if they wish to outlaw it.
Tea Party types and Iowa conservatives were not only opposed to the idea of men marrying men, they detest the idea of judicial dictatorship.
In Arizona, Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative, which prohibits race, gender and ethnic preferences, won with 60 percent of the vote. Michigan, California and Washington have already adopted the Connerly amendment.
Tea Partiers also united to back the Arizona law that requires cops to determine the immigration status of any whom, in a routine police encounter, they suspect of being an illegal alien.
Passage of the law last April brought crazed comparisons with Nazi Germany. Opponents tended to go mute, however, when they learned that 70 percent of America stood with Arizona. GOP candidates for governor subsequently ran on pledges to adopt similar statutes.
In Oklahoma, a proposition to prohibit use of Shariah law in state courts passed with 70 percent. Shariah law is the basis of law in many Muslim countries, as the Bible was once the basis of much law in America.
What do these overlooked stories of Election Day 2010 teach?
Far more than the Beltway Right, the Tea Party is in tune with the heart of America -- not only on taxes, spending and Obamacare, but on social, cultural and moral issues. National Republicans may stay out of these bloody battles, but they hold great potential for bringing out voters and driving wedges through Obama's national base.
Consider. Establishment Republicans recoil from the issue of gay marriage. But, in 2008, while McCain was winning 5 percent of the African-American vote in California, blacks in California, urged on by pastors and preachers, voted 70 percent to outlaw same-sex marriage.
The pro-life position is also a far more popular cause among black and Hispanic Americans than is the Republican Party.
Oklahoma's prohibition against any use of Shariah law should be seen as a cry from the heart of America that we are and wish to remain a Western nation, a predominantly Christian country, and we wish to be ruled by our Constitution and laws enacted pursuant to it.
The national outpouring of support for Arizona after that state came under attack for its law requiring suspected illegal aliens to show ID demonstrates how explosive the immigration-amnesty issue is. Republicans should not run away from it, for our elites are further out of touch with the people on this issue than any other.
As for the Connerly amendment abolishing affirmative action, if the GOP wishes to win in 2012, the party will put this measure on every possible state ballot, especially crucial states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What this panoply of issues testifies to is the true identity of the Tea Party. These folks are not single-issue voters, and they are not motivated by pocketbook issues alone.
They have seen the America they grew up in virtually vanish.
Look at how far we have traveled.
We seem no longer able to balance our budgets, win our wars or secure our borders. Compared to what our culture was, it is a running sewer today. Working-class wages and middle-class incomes seem to have been stagnant for decades. Factories and jobs continue to hemorrhage to Asia. Company towns become ghost towns. Made in China has replaced Made in America. And as one drives through cities and suburbs, one encounters vast concentrations of people who speak some language other than our own.
The Tea Party people are rising up to take their country back, and that's why they're not going away.
_____
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sharia-Compliant in America
by Gary Bauer
Liberal judges are increasingly looking to the laws of foreign countries to help them determine the outcomes of the legal cases before them in U.S. state and federal courts. It may not be long before they begin to write their opinions with an eye on the laws of foreign cultures, too.
Lost in the “shellacking” that Democrats took on Election Day was news of a first-of-its-kind state constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma. Voters there passed an amendment that prohibits courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.
At first glance, the part of the amendment that prohibits Islamic law might seem unnecessary. There was no great movement among Oklahoma’s 30,000 Muslims to institute Sharia law. But there have been cases in America in which Islamic law has been considered.
In New Jersey recently, a family court judge refused to issue a restraining order against a Moroccan Muslim who had raped his wife. The judge concluded that no sexual assault had taken place because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex.
“This court believes,” the judge wrote in his opinion, “that [the husband] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Thankfully, an appellate court overturned this absurd decision.
The Oklahoma constitutional amendment, passed with 70 percent of the vote, was preemptive in nature. Preemptive of what? Perhaps that’s a question the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) could answer.
Its Oklahoma affiliate filed a lawsuit, and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order to block the new amendment. The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a requested preliminary injunction.
Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, suggested that the amendment discriminated against “religious minorities” and that it would “infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans—including the right to wear religious head scarves in driver’s license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills, or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs.”
But Sharia means much more than the right to wear a headscarf. Most constitutions of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference Member States cite Sharia as a source of legislation. Not coincidentally, those countries’ governments are disproportionately represented among the world’s worst violators of human rights and religious freedoms.
Sharia was written into the new Iraqi constitution in 2005. It states that “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a foundation source of legislation. . . . No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.”
Iraq’s Chaldean and Assyrian Christians are on the verge of extinction because, as one Christian leader in Iraq put it last year, “It seems that Iraq is one step closer to becoming an Islamic state intolerant of non-Muslims.”
So-called moderate Muslims insist that Sharia means different things in different places. There’s truth to that. In Afghanistan, Sharia means stoning alleged adulterers. In Sudan, Sharia prescribes amputations for petty crimes. In Nigeria, Sharia means that blasphemers are burned alive in a ring of gasoline-soaked tires.
Some Muslims insist that Sharia would apply to Muslims only. In Great Britain, for example, numerous Sharia courts have been established to settle certain disputes among the country’s growing Muslim population.
But in Muslim-majority countries, Sharia is often applied not only to Muslims but to non-Muslims too. A Christian woman in Pakistan was recently sentenced to death for blasphemy after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.
A woman in Iran faces stoning for alleged adultery. After an uproar ensued, Iran deputy foreign minister, Hassan Ghashghavi, said, “We live in an Islamic country and we act according to the Koran’s sentences. Even if 100,000 must be executed, we will carry out the Koran’s sentences.”
And what would happen to Muslims like the New Jersey rape victim who wish to be tried under civil rather than Islamic law?
It’s telling that at a time in America when Christian doctors are being ordered to set aside their religious beliefs in order to perform abortions, Muslims may be close to gaining more rights to elevate their religious precepts over civil law.
And at a time when American courts agonize over whether lethal injection may be too painful for coldblooded killers to endure, the religion of peace prescribes punishments aimed at inflicting as much pain as possible, often against the innocent.
Liberal judges have used foreign law in their decisions on everything from upholding race-based admissions at public universities to legalizing sodomy.
They are wrong to do so. We are a society based on Judeo-Christian principles of civilization. Neither modern Europe’s secularist bias nor the world’s Sharia-based Islamic regimes have anything better to offer than our own founding ideals.
____
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for W orking Families.
Liberal judges are increasingly looking to the laws of foreign countries to help them determine the outcomes of the legal cases before them in U.S. state and federal courts. It may not be long before they begin to write their opinions with an eye on the laws of foreign cultures, too.
Lost in the “shellacking” that Democrats took on Election Day was news of a first-of-its-kind state constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma. Voters there passed an amendment that prohibits courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.
At first glance, the part of the amendment that prohibits Islamic law might seem unnecessary. There was no great movement among Oklahoma’s 30,000 Muslims to institute Sharia law. But there have been cases in America in which Islamic law has been considered.
In New Jersey recently, a family court judge refused to issue a restraining order against a Moroccan Muslim who had raped his wife. The judge concluded that no sexual assault had taken place because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex.
“This court believes,” the judge wrote in his opinion, “that [the husband] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Thankfully, an appellate court overturned this absurd decision.
The Oklahoma constitutional amendment, passed with 70 percent of the vote, was preemptive in nature. Preemptive of what? Perhaps that’s a question the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) could answer.
Its Oklahoma affiliate filed a lawsuit, and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order to block the new amendment. The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a requested preliminary injunction.
Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, suggested that the amendment discriminated against “religious minorities” and that it would “infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans—including the right to wear religious head scarves in driver’s license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills, or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs.”
But Sharia means much more than the right to wear a headscarf. Most constitutions of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference Member States cite Sharia as a source of legislation. Not coincidentally, those countries’ governments are disproportionately represented among the world’s worst violators of human rights and religious freedoms.
Sharia was written into the new Iraqi constitution in 2005. It states that “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a foundation source of legislation. . . . No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.”
Iraq’s Chaldean and Assyrian Christians are on the verge of extinction because, as one Christian leader in Iraq put it last year, “It seems that Iraq is one step closer to becoming an Islamic state intolerant of non-Muslims.”
So-called moderate Muslims insist that Sharia means different things in different places. There’s truth to that. In Afghanistan, Sharia means stoning alleged adulterers. In Sudan, Sharia prescribes amputations for petty crimes. In Nigeria, Sharia means that blasphemers are burned alive in a ring of gasoline-soaked tires.
Some Muslims insist that Sharia would apply to Muslims only. In Great Britain, for example, numerous Sharia courts have been established to settle certain disputes among the country’s growing Muslim population.
But in Muslim-majority countries, Sharia is often applied not only to Muslims but to non-Muslims too. A Christian woman in Pakistan was recently sentenced to death for blasphemy after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.
A woman in Iran faces stoning for alleged adultery. After an uproar ensued, Iran deputy foreign minister, Hassan Ghashghavi, said, “We live in an Islamic country and we act according to the Koran’s sentences. Even if 100,000 must be executed, we will carry out the Koran’s sentences.”
And what would happen to Muslims like the New Jersey rape victim who wish to be tried under civil rather than Islamic law?
It’s telling that at a time in America when Christian doctors are being ordered to set aside their religious beliefs in order to perform abortions, Muslims may be close to gaining more rights to elevate their religious precepts over civil law.
And at a time when American courts agonize over whether lethal injection may be too painful for coldblooded killers to endure, the religion of peace prescribes punishments aimed at inflicting as much pain as possible, often against the innocent.
Liberal judges have used foreign law in their decisions on everything from upholding race-based admissions at public universities to legalizing sodomy.
They are wrong to do so. We are a society based on Judeo-Christian principles of civilization. Neither modern Europe’s secularist bias nor the world’s Sharia-based Islamic regimes have anything better to offer than our own founding ideals.
____
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for W orking Families.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Yesha Council Cartoon Tells Obama: Don't Play G-d
by Gil Ronen
A new cartoon history of the Jewish people packs 3,500 years into 3.5 minutes -- and ends with a message to US President Barack Obama. The cartoon was produced by the Yesha Council, a semi-official federation of the heads of local authorities in Judea and Samaria.
The Yesha Council under its present leadership -- Chairman Danny Dayan and Director Naftali Bennet -- earned a reputation for effective and creative advertising with a campaign a year ago that improved Judea and Samaria's public image. The campaign featured child actors dressed up as biblical figures and the slogan -- "Judea and Samaria, every Jew's story."
It now remains to be seen if the new cartoon will be similarly successful.
A new cartoon history of the Jewish people packs 3,500 years into 3.5 minutes -- and ends with a message to US President Barack Obama. The cartoon was produced by the Yesha Council, a semi-official federation of the heads of local authorities in Judea and Samaria.
The Yesha Council under its present leadership -- Chairman Danny Dayan and Director Naftali Bennet -- earned a reputation for effective and creative advertising with a campaign a year ago that improved Judea and Samaria's public image. The campaign featured child actors dressed up as biblical figures and the slogan -- "Judea and Samaria, every Jew's story."
It now remains to be seen if the new cartoon will be similarly successful.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Veterans Day Thank You
by Jackie Gingrich Cushman
This week we celebrate Veterans Day, a day of appreciation and gratitude for all who have served in the United States Armed Forces.
My grandfather served as a career Army officer. My father grew up moving from base to base as his father was ordered to different locations by the Army. They lived in Kansas, Germany, France and Columbus, Ga., where my father graduated high school.
When I was young, we traveled as a family to the Panama Canal Zone, where my grandfather was stationed. I don't remember the canal, but I do remember playing cowboys and Indians with my Aunt Candy, who is six months older than I am.
We would run from tree to tree, taking cover and exchanging fire. Whoever was wounded or killed would pop back up a minute later, ready to get back in the battle.
This version of war was a child's game, full of innocence. We didn't understand that, in real life, war has terrible consequences. We just knew that, in the game we were playing, the bad guys lost and the good guys won.
The reality of war is different -- it's ugly, it's deadly, and unfortunately, sometimes it's unavoidable. When it is unavoidable, we are lucky to have men and women who are willing to serve our country and make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary.
We are a nation born out of war. We declared ourselves independent from the British in 1776. It took us eight years to earn our independence from the British through the American Revolutionary War.
It is fitting that a book about George Washington's heroic service as commander in chief of the Continental Army comes out the week of Veterans Day -- "Valley Forge," by Newt Gingrich, my father, and Bill Forstchen. Washington was appointed the commander in chief in the spring
of 1775. Not only was he the commander in chief, but at the time, he was the only member of the Army.
"Washington is at the heart of American exceptionalism because it's at the heart of the American experience," said Dad this week. "Bill Forstchen and I wrote 'Valley Forge' because we think there's a tremendous lesson to learn from how Washington took the rejection of the British, which was the Declaration of Independence, and created the replacement of British military power with the modern American Army, which was an extraordinary achievement. ... Washington emerged as father of our country because he had the sheer courage to go through a winter at Valley Forge with 14,000 troops, no food, two axes initially to build housing, and his courage and his honor and dignity are the base in which this whole country resides. ... You can't imagine America without George Washington."
Our nation was born through the trials of war. The union was saved the same way.
Abraham Lincoln, elected Nov. 6, 1860, was determined to save the union. "The campaign had been impassioned and contentious. More than 80 percent of eligible voters turned out. Lincoln received 59 percent of the electoral votes, but less than 40 percent of the popular vote," I write in my upcoming book, "The Essential American: 25 Documents and Speeches that Every American Should Own" (Regnery). "In the 17 weeks between Lincoln's election and his Inaugural Address, seven states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, seceded from the Union."
While he hoped for peace without war, he was determined to keep the nation united.
Lincoln's Inaugural Address placed the onus for potential war on the Southern states, "In your hands, my dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
War came.
Four years later, Lincoln was re-elected. He delivered his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865.
"The dome that had been half-complete at the time of the first inaugural, with a crane sticking out of the top, had been completed. The Union Army had been victorious in recent battles, and the war's final outcome was all but determined. Slaves had been freed, and the Capitol was surrounded by the biggest crowd to date, with half of them reported as 'persons of color.'"
The clouds broke and the sun came out, as Lincoln began to speak. Through the guidance of divine providence, the leadership of Lincoln and the service of our soldiers, the union was saved.
As we remember and honor those who have served our country, we should remember that our country would not survive without the service of all our brave women and men.
Thank you for your service to our country.
____
To find out more about Jackie Gingrich Cushman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
This week we celebrate Veterans Day, a day of appreciation and gratitude for all who have served in the United States Armed Forces.
My grandfather served as a career Army officer. My father grew up moving from base to base as his father was ordered to different locations by the Army. They lived in Kansas, Germany, France and Columbus, Ga., where my father graduated high school.
When I was young, we traveled as a family to the Panama Canal Zone, where my grandfather was stationed. I don't remember the canal, but I do remember playing cowboys and Indians with my Aunt Candy, who is six months older than I am.
We would run from tree to tree, taking cover and exchanging fire. Whoever was wounded or killed would pop back up a minute later, ready to get back in the battle.
This version of war was a child's game, full of innocence. We didn't understand that, in real life, war has terrible consequences. We just knew that, in the game we were playing, the bad guys lost and the good guys won.
The reality of war is different -- it's ugly, it's deadly, and unfortunately, sometimes it's unavoidable. When it is unavoidable, we are lucky to have men and women who are willing to serve our country and make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary.
We are a nation born out of war. We declared ourselves independent from the British in 1776. It took us eight years to earn our independence from the British through the American Revolutionary War.
It is fitting that a book about George Washington's heroic service as commander in chief of the Continental Army comes out the week of Veterans Day -- "Valley Forge," by Newt Gingrich, my father, and Bill Forstchen. Washington was appointed the commander in chief in the spring
of 1775. Not only was he the commander in chief, but at the time, he was the only member of the Army.
"Washington is at the heart of American exceptionalism because it's at the heart of the American experience," said Dad this week. "Bill Forstchen and I wrote 'Valley Forge' because we think there's a tremendous lesson to learn from how Washington took the rejection of the British, which was the Declaration of Independence, and created the replacement of British military power with the modern American Army, which was an extraordinary achievement. ... Washington emerged as father of our country because he had the sheer courage to go through a winter at Valley Forge with 14,000 troops, no food, two axes initially to build housing, and his courage and his honor and dignity are the base in which this whole country resides. ... You can't imagine America without George Washington."
Our nation was born through the trials of war. The union was saved the same way.
Abraham Lincoln, elected Nov. 6, 1860, was determined to save the union. "The campaign had been impassioned and contentious. More than 80 percent of eligible voters turned out. Lincoln received 59 percent of the electoral votes, but less than 40 percent of the popular vote," I write in my upcoming book, "The Essential American: 25 Documents and Speeches that Every American Should Own" (Regnery). "In the 17 weeks between Lincoln's election and his Inaugural Address, seven states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, seceded from the Union."
While he hoped for peace without war, he was determined to keep the nation united.
Lincoln's Inaugural Address placed the onus for potential war on the Southern states, "In your hands, my dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
War came.
Four years later, Lincoln was re-elected. He delivered his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865.
"The dome that had been half-complete at the time of the first inaugural, with a crane sticking out of the top, had been completed. The Union Army had been victorious in recent battles, and the war's final outcome was all but determined. Slaves had been freed, and the Capitol was surrounded by the biggest crowd to date, with half of them reported as 'persons of color.'"
The clouds broke and the sun came out, as Lincoln began to speak. Through the guidance of divine providence, the leadership of Lincoln and the service of our soldiers, the union was saved.
As we remember and honor those who have served our country, we should remember that our country would not survive without the service of all our brave women and men.
Thank you for your service to our country.
____
To find out more about Jackie Gingrich Cushman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security
by Michael Savage
How President Obama is destroying America from within -- and what we must do to stop him
Michael Savage is not one to mince words -- that's what's made him one of the most popular talk-radio hosts in America, and a four-time New York Times bestselling author to boot. Now, in his latest blockbuster, Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security, Savage . . .well, savages President Barack Obama for everything he's doing to destroy our country from within. But unlike other books on Obama, Savage shows you specifically and in detail the numerous ways that Obama's policies affect you, your family, and the nation. Moreover, he goes beyond pointing out the problems Obama has created to offer a solid set of solutions.
"Barack Hussein Obama is tearing down everything that was built before this man was even born," writes Savage in his Preface. "Mark my words: History will show that Obama the Destroyer-in-Chief is impoverishing the middle class with taxation, regulation, and a desecration of our cherished freedoms. Moreover, as I will demonstrate in this book, Barack Obama is a naked Marxist-Leninist whose sole ambition in life is to transform America into the USSA: The United Socialist States of America."
For Savage, poverty is more than just an economic issue. As he sees it, Obama is destroying the country by creating a poverty of the body, mind, and spirit that impoverishes how we think, feel, and view ourselves as a people, while robbing our personal freedoms and bankrupting our clout as the leader of the world. Trickle Up Poverty shows how Obama is circumventing the Constitution to push through his radical agenda -- and, most important, how we can restore our country to the power and prestige that Barack Obama and his corrupt and degenerate "czars" are trying to destroy.
In Trickle Up Poverty, Michael Savage reveals:
* Impoverishing the Middle Class: How Obama's confiscatory taxes, the socializing of our health-care system, and other legislative initiatives are taking away our earnings and our power to choose how we live our lives and putting it in the hands of corrupt and pro-Socialist cohorts
* Erasing Our Border with Mexico: How the Homeland Security department that can't shoot straight is gutting the Constitution in the name of protecting illegal aliens when it should be focusing on keeping out the terrorists and drug dealers
* Defunding the Military and Putting Our Troops in Harm's Way: How Obama's beatnik policy of taking apart our nuclear arsenal and destroying NASA, while implementing PC Rules of Engagement that don't allow our troops to protect themselves, is dangerously weakening our security and ending our military dominance
* Lining the Pockets of His Wall Street Buddies: How, while our 401(k)'s suffer, Obama and his Wall Street heavy contributors are creating their own legislation that is driving down stock prices while allowing his biggest campaign contributors to make trillions of dollars
* Propagandizing the Media: How Obama's administration has systematically overrun the media, once a forum for free speech, in a hostile takeover with threats and false promises that serve only to pull the wool over the sheeple's eyes
* Ignoring the Tea Party—the Voice of the People: How Obama is blatantly disregarding, and even suppressing, the fastest-growing collective voice in the nation right now -- while his Union-Crony Purple Shirts have shown up at town-hall meetings and peaceful protests to intimidate and antagonize the democratic process
* Obama the Pan-Leninist: How Obama dreams of becoming the leader not of the free world, but the regulated world, in which everything from speech to health care to energy is controlled by a world government which he leads
And make no mistake, warns Savage: Unlike previous presidents who consulted with Congress seeking its cooperation to implement new initiatives, Obama operates as if his wishes are the law of the land. "As you'll see in this book, Barack Obama uses any means necessary -- including circumventing the Constitution -- to get his way. Why? He's living in a dream world acting as if his wishes are the sole determinant for the future of America."
How President Obama is destroying America from within -- and what we must do to stop him
Michael Savage is not one to mince words -- that's what's made him one of the most popular talk-radio hosts in America, and a four-time New York Times bestselling author to boot. Now, in his latest blockbuster, Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security, Savage . . .well, savages President Barack Obama for everything he's doing to destroy our country from within. But unlike other books on Obama, Savage shows you specifically and in detail the numerous ways that Obama's policies affect you, your family, and the nation. Moreover, he goes beyond pointing out the problems Obama has created to offer a solid set of solutions.
"Barack Hussein Obama is tearing down everything that was built before this man was even born," writes Savage in his Preface. "Mark my words: History will show that Obama the Destroyer-in-Chief is impoverishing the middle class with taxation, regulation, and a desecration of our cherished freedoms. Moreover, as I will demonstrate in this book, Barack Obama is a naked Marxist-Leninist whose sole ambition in life is to transform America into the USSA: The United Socialist States of America."
For Savage, poverty is more than just an economic issue. As he sees it, Obama is destroying the country by creating a poverty of the body, mind, and spirit that impoverishes how we think, feel, and view ourselves as a people, while robbing our personal freedoms and bankrupting our clout as the leader of the world. Trickle Up Poverty shows how Obama is circumventing the Constitution to push through his radical agenda -- and, most important, how we can restore our country to the power and prestige that Barack Obama and his corrupt and degenerate "czars" are trying to destroy.
In Trickle Up Poverty, Michael Savage reveals:
* Impoverishing the Middle Class: How Obama's confiscatory taxes, the socializing of our health-care system, and other legislative initiatives are taking away our earnings and our power to choose how we live our lives and putting it in the hands of corrupt and pro-Socialist cohorts
* Erasing Our Border with Mexico: How the Homeland Security department that can't shoot straight is gutting the Constitution in the name of protecting illegal aliens when it should be focusing on keeping out the terrorists and drug dealers
* Defunding the Military and Putting Our Troops in Harm's Way: How Obama's beatnik policy of taking apart our nuclear arsenal and destroying NASA, while implementing PC Rules of Engagement that don't allow our troops to protect themselves, is dangerously weakening our security and ending our military dominance
* Lining the Pockets of His Wall Street Buddies: How, while our 401(k)'s suffer, Obama and his Wall Street heavy contributors are creating their own legislation that is driving down stock prices while allowing his biggest campaign contributors to make trillions of dollars
* Propagandizing the Media: How Obama's administration has systematically overrun the media, once a forum for free speech, in a hostile takeover with threats and false promises that serve only to pull the wool over the sheeple's eyes
* Ignoring the Tea Party—the Voice of the People: How Obama is blatantly disregarding, and even suppressing, the fastest-growing collective voice in the nation right now -- while his Union-Crony Purple Shirts have shown up at town-hall meetings and peaceful protests to intimidate and antagonize the democratic process
* Obama the Pan-Leninist: How Obama dreams of becoming the leader not of the free world, but the regulated world, in which everything from speech to health care to energy is controlled by a world government which he leads
And make no mistake, warns Savage: Unlike previous presidents who consulted with Congress seeking its cooperation to implement new initiatives, Obama operates as if his wishes are the law of the land. "As you'll see in this book, Barack Obama uses any means necessary -- including circumventing the Constitution -- to get his way. Why? He's living in a dream world acting as if his wishes are the sole determinant for the future of America."
Political Judges
by Thomas Sowell
Results of the recent elections showed that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with "public servants" who act as if they are public masters. This went beyond the usual objections to particular policies. It was the fact that policies were crammed down our throats, whether we liked them or not. In fact, laws were passed so fast that nobody had time to read them.
Whether these policies were good, bad or indifferent, the way they were imposed represented a more fundamental threat to the very principles of a self-governing people established by the Constitution of the United States.
Arrogant politicians who do this are dismantling the Constitution piecemeal-- which is to say, they are dismantling America.
The voters struck back, as they had to, if we are to keep the freedoms that define this country. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by getting rid of those who circumvent it or disregard it.
The same thing applies to judges. The runaway arrogance that politicians get when they have huge majorities in Congress is a more or less common arrogance among federal judges with lifetime tenure or state judges who are seldom defeated in elections to confirm their appointments to the bench.
It was a surprise to many-- and a shock to media liberals-- when three judges on Iowa's Supreme Court were voted off that court in the same recent elections in which a lot of politicians were also sent packing.
These judges had taken it upon themselves to rule that the voters of Iowa did not have the right to block attempts to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Here again, the particular issue-- so-called "gay marriage"-- was not as fundamental as the question of depriving the voting public of their right to decide what kinds of laws they want to live under.
That is ultimately a question of deciding what kind of country this is to be-- one ruled by "we the people" or one where the notions of an arrogant elite are to be imposed, whether the people agree or not.
Those who believe in gay marriage are free to vote for it. But, when they lose that vote, it is not the role of judges to nullify the vote and legislate from the bench. Judges who become politicians in robes often lie like politicians as well, claiming that they are just applying the Constitution, when they are in fact exercising powers that the Constitution never gave them.
If they are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians.
Media liberals, who like what liberal judges do, spring to their defense. The media spin is that judges were voted off the bench because of "unpopular" decisions and that this threatens judicial "independence."
Results of the recent elections showed that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with "public servants" who act as if they are public masters. This went beyond the usual objections to particular policies. It was the fact that policies were crammed down our throats, whether we liked them or not. In fact, laws were passed so fast that nobody had time to read them.
Whether these policies were good, bad or indifferent, the way they were imposed represented a more fundamental threat to the very principles of a self-governing people established by the Constitution of the United States.
Arrogant politicians who do this are dismantling the Constitution piecemeal-- which is to say, they are dismantling America.
The voters struck back, as they had to, if we are to keep the freedoms that define this country. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by getting rid of those who circumvent it or disregard it.
The same thing applies to judges. The runaway arrogance that politicians get when they have huge majorities in Congress is a more or less common arrogance among federal judges with lifetime tenure or state judges who are seldom defeated in elections to confirm their appointments to the bench.
It was a surprise to many-- and a shock to media liberals-- when three judges on Iowa's Supreme Court were voted off that court in the same recent elections in which a lot of politicians were also sent packing.
These judges had taken it upon themselves to rule that the voters of Iowa did not have the right to block attempts to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Here again, the particular issue-- so-called "gay marriage"-- was not as fundamental as the question of depriving the voting public of their right to decide what kinds of laws they want to live under.
That is ultimately a question of deciding what kind of country this is to be-- one ruled by "we the people" or one where the notions of an arrogant elite are to be imposed, whether the people agree or not.
Those who believe in gay marriage are free to vote for it. But, when they lose that vote, it is not the role of judges to nullify the vote and legislate from the bench. Judges who become politicians in robes often lie like politicians as well, claiming that they are just applying the Constitution, when they are in fact exercising powers that the Constitution never gave them.
If they are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians.
Media liberals, who like what liberal judges do, spring to their defense. The media spin is that judges were voted off the bench because of "unpopular" decisions and that this threatens judicial "independence."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)