What follows is an interesting article written for the London Daily Mail by Peter Hitchens, a famous British author and journalist, and interestingly a political independent. We certainly don't manage our affairs in the US in accordance with Brit opinion, but it's always a good idea to know of the opinion of others previously proven of merit; he prompts valid questions of both liberals and conservatives.
He was in the USA on election night and wrote of his impressions. Like him or laugh at him, Hitchens remains popular throughout the world because many citizens of the globe think as he does. Some of you will nod your heads in agreement as you read it; others will frown; and still others will do both. Let's all hope that Mr. Hitchens' "Wave goodbye to America " is premature.
The Night We Waved Goodbye to America... Our Last Best Hope on Earth
London Daily Mail
Peter Hitchens
10 November 2008
Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernize Heaven and Hell - or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead. The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilization. At least Mandela-worship - its nearest equivalent - is focused on a man who actually did something. I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists, or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.
It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books, and Obama calendars, and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be. Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa , are little-read and hard to find.
If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular savior, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.
He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to. Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a 'new dawn', and a 'timeless creed' (which was 'yes, we can'). He proclaimed that 'change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what 'enormity' means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr. Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home!).
I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.
And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated - but rather hesitant - invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will - 'Yes, we can'. They were supposed to thunder 'Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.
Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidized slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.
They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King - in schools, streets, neighborhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joints. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.
If Mr. Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr. Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lots of so many young black men of his generation.
If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination program aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them. And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.
I was in Washington, DC the night of the election. America 's beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street - which runs due north from the White House - the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America , it also now has a new division, and one, which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan. As I walked, I crossed another of Washington 's secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.
They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.
Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique. These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America's conservative party - the Republicans - to fight on the cultural and moral fronts. They preferred to posture on the world stage.
Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US , like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World.
How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?
Monday, February 9, 2009
ESSAY CONTEST
Sponsored by: Longmont Republican Women
Theme:
"What the United States Constitution Means to Me."
Essay should be 500 words or less, typed and double-spaced, and should include a bibliography of any sources used.
Entries will be considered in two categories:
Senior: Students in 11th or 12th grade
Junior: Students in 7th or 8th grade
Prizes will be awarded as follows:
Senior category: First prize $150, Second prize $100
Junior category: First prize $75, Second prize $50
Winners will be notified by March 27th. Prizes will be awarded at a celebratory luncheon on April 16th and will include lunch for the winner and one parent.
Entries must be postmarked by March 6, 2009 and mailed to:
Longmont Republican Women
P.O. Box 1942
Longmont, CO 80502
PLEASE NOTE:
On the back of the essay, include the following: Student's full name, mailing address and telephone number, grade level and school in which the student is enrolled.
(Please do not put students name on the front of the essay.)
For additional information, visit: www.rightforlongmont.com
From a Fiscal Conservative and Taxpayer Point of View.
Marty Neilson
No doubt about it!! The Republicans across the Country and here in Colorado were whopped election 2008. It wasn't all bad, though. In Colorado, fiscal conservatives and taxpayers were winners!! The Colorado ballot was quite long; but, taxpayers paid attention and voted down tax increases, the annihilation of TABOR, and the usurping of citizens' right to petition.
Amendment 51, State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
Voters turned down this sales tax increase by 62% to 38%. I am sure this is not an indication that voters oppose helping in this area; but, they are merely saying enough is enough. Use the taxpayer dollars you get more wisely. I appeared on a radio talk show in opposition to this amendment. As President of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, we oppose tax increases. The State already takes enough of our hard-earned dollars. Voters agreed! Spend it better!
Amendment 54, Restrictions on Campaign Contributions from Government Sole-Source Contractors
Defeated 51% to 49%. Also known as the "clean government amendment", this prevents government entities from sole-sourcing contractors, forcing them to get competitive bids. Should reign in some of that cronyism.
Amendment 59, Education Funding and TABOR Rebates
This was a real win for taxpayers. The amendment defeated by 55% to 45% would have virtually gutted the taxpayer's bill of rights and given government a blank check to spend, spend, spend! Just imagine where Colorado would be in these tough economic times without the spending restraint and the "no new taxes without a vote of the people" provided by TABOR. Even after this sound defeat, the first thing out of Boulder Senator Rollie Heath's mouth is "we need to get rid of TABOR". Guess we know where he stands on voter input!
Referendum O, Initiative Petition Requirements
This was another "end around" taxpayers and citizens. This referendum, if passed, would have made it tougher for citizens to get items on the ballot. Luckily it was defeated 52% to 48%. We citizens can still petition the government without added obstruction.
Marty Neilson
No doubt about it!! The Republicans across the Country and here in Colorado were whopped election 2008. It wasn't all bad, though. In Colorado, fiscal conservatives and taxpayers were winners!! The Colorado ballot was quite long; but, taxpayers paid attention and voted down tax increases, the annihilation of TABOR, and the usurping of citizens' right to petition.
Amendment 51, State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
Voters turned down this sales tax increase by 62% to 38%. I am sure this is not an indication that voters oppose helping in this area; but, they are merely saying enough is enough. Use the taxpayer dollars you get more wisely. I appeared on a radio talk show in opposition to this amendment. As President of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, we oppose tax increases. The State already takes enough of our hard-earned dollars. Voters agreed! Spend it better!
Amendment 54, Restrictions on Campaign Contributions from Government Sole-Source Contractors
Defeated 51% to 49%. Also known as the "clean government amendment", this prevents government entities from sole-sourcing contractors, forcing them to get competitive bids. Should reign in some of that cronyism.
Amendment 59, Education Funding and TABOR Rebates
This was a real win for taxpayers. The amendment defeated by 55% to 45% would have virtually gutted the taxpayer's bill of rights and given government a blank check to spend, spend, spend! Just imagine where Colorado would be in these tough economic times without the spending restraint and the "no new taxes without a vote of the people" provided by TABOR. Even after this sound defeat, the first thing out of Boulder Senator Rollie Heath's mouth is "we need to get rid of TABOR". Guess we know where he stands on voter input!
Referendum O, Initiative Petition Requirements
This was another "end around" taxpayers and citizens. This referendum, if passed, would have made it tougher for citizens to get items on the ballot. Luckily it was defeated 52% to 48%. We citizens can still petition the government without added obstruction.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Republicans Will Keep America Great
Catastrophe is one word which has been used to describe America under Obama’s presidency. The writers are conservative commentators. With a Democratic government around Obama, that “catastrophe” word could be reality for all of us.
The Obama tax plan could increase taxes for small businesses, to be able for government to give money to those who need it, as Obama told an Ohio businessman. But higher taxes mean less operating funds and job creation will be cut. Country wide that will be a hit to the economy, maybe a catastrophe.
The health care plan being proposed will increase coverage, as in entitlement. However, costs will have to be reduced, either through reductions in treatment or pay to doctors and hospitals. Sooner or later that’s a catastrophe, and maybe it will be yours.
You’ve heard of global warming and know that carbon emissions are part of the emergency. The Environmental Protection Agency, under the cover of the Clean Air Act, would like to limit emissions on energy production. With Obama’s help, EPA wants to control emissions on all engines, from lawn mowers to cars and airplanes. I could do without the leaf blower but I may need to use my car or heat my home longer than the government allots. My carbon footprint, under consideration of Longmont government already, will be controlled – or else. The trickle-down , or up, will affect not only the country’s economy and safety but each household.
America has been great, and I’ve felt the 20th and 21st Centuries have been the greatest time in history. I’m not ready to watch America fall into catastrophic decline. We must elect Republicans to government.
McCain and Palin need our vote, and they need Bob Shaffer in the Senate and Marilyn Musgrave as District 4’s representative in House of Representatives.
Vote Republican.
The Obama tax plan could increase taxes for small businesses, to be able for government to give money to those who need it, as Obama told an Ohio businessman. But higher taxes mean less operating funds and job creation will be cut. Country wide that will be a hit to the economy, maybe a catastrophe.
The health care plan being proposed will increase coverage, as in entitlement. However, costs will have to be reduced, either through reductions in treatment or pay to doctors and hospitals. Sooner or later that’s a catastrophe, and maybe it will be yours.
You’ve heard of global warming and know that carbon emissions are part of the emergency. The Environmental Protection Agency, under the cover of the Clean Air Act, would like to limit emissions on energy production. With Obama’s help, EPA wants to control emissions on all engines, from lawn mowers to cars and airplanes. I could do without the leaf blower but I may need to use my car or heat my home longer than the government allots. My carbon footprint, under consideration of Longmont government already, will be controlled – or else. The trickle-down , or up, will affect not only the country’s economy and safety but each household.
America has been great, and I’ve felt the 20th and 21st Centuries have been the greatest time in history. I’m not ready to watch America fall into catastrophic decline. We must elect Republicans to government.
McCain and Palin need our vote, and they need Bob Shaffer in the Senate and Marilyn Musgrave as District 4’s representative in House of Representatives.
Vote Republican.
McCain's Economy Will Create Better America
Democrat candidates’ speeches feature two main points on the economy: it is terrible and only Democrats care.
The economy is not great for some of us and prices are rising, but do the Democrats really care? Gas prices go up but Democrats go home instead of considering ways for America to fill its own energy needs and keep money in America. Republicans, including Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, returned to Congress to urge Democrats to address the issue but no action has been taken.
In the meantime, the daily papers tell us of how many people in America have risen into the ranks of the wealthy. Over 800,000 have wealth of $2 million or more and 604,000 have over $3 million. These people pay 97% of all income taxes, and their wealth is invested in American businesses.
I would like to have their excess dollars handed to me, but the Democratic plan is to take the money through higher taxes. The Democrats can then distribute money to their home districts or set up expensive and wasteful government programs and bureaus to administer the entitlements. Their stimulus plan to fix the economy includes taxing oil companies to fund $1,000 rebates to some families, even those who pay no taxes.
The Democrats' plan will not help the economy but instead create hardships for all, families as well as businesses.
Vote Republican. Vote for Marilyn Musgrave for House of Representatives and Bob Shaffer to the Senate to support the economic plans of President McCain.
The economy is not great for some of us and prices are rising, but do the Democrats really care? Gas prices go up but Democrats go home instead of considering ways for America to fill its own energy needs and keep money in America. Republicans, including Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, returned to Congress to urge Democrats to address the issue but no action has been taken.
In the meantime, the daily papers tell us of how many people in America have risen into the ranks of the wealthy. Over 800,000 have wealth of $2 million or more and 604,000 have over $3 million. These people pay 97% of all income taxes, and their wealth is invested in American businesses.
I would like to have their excess dollars handed to me, but the Democratic plan is to take the money through higher taxes. The Democrats can then distribute money to their home districts or set up expensive and wasteful government programs and bureaus to administer the entitlements. Their stimulus plan to fix the economy includes taxing oil companies to fund $1,000 rebates to some families, even those who pay no taxes.
The Democrats' plan will not help the economy but instead create hardships for all, families as well as businesses.
Vote Republican. Vote for Marilyn Musgrave for House of Representatives and Bob Shaffer to the Senate to support the economic plans of President McCain.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A BRAVE, BOLD ATTACK, MR. SENATOR
Shame on Sen. Ken Salazar for attempting to breathe life into his former aide Betsy Markey’s faltering campaign by calling her opponent, Marilyn Musgrave, an “agent of hate.” (Rocky Mountain News. . . p5 10-16-08). Salazar’s devastating attack on the 4th District Congresswoman follows the same tone of the totally undeserved racial remarks made a few days earlier by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) against John McCain and Sarah Palin.
I don’t know whether Lewis lays claims of being a moderate or not. But I do know that Salazar did –- before he was elected, that is.
One more reason for Coloradans to send Bob Schaffer to the U.S. Senate -- two leftist-liberals embedded there is simply one too many for our politically diverse state.
P.
I don’t know whether Lewis lays claims of being a moderate or not. But I do know that Salazar did –- before he was elected, that is.
One more reason for Coloradans to send Bob Schaffer to the U.S. Senate -- two leftist-liberals embedded there is simply one too many for our politically diverse state.
P.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Who Am I?
I am under 45 years old.
I love the outdoors.
I hunt.
I am a Republican reformer.
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment.
I have many children.
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with
less than 2 years in the governor's office.
Who am I?
I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.
(From forwarded e mail.)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Your Tax Payment is Democrat Economy Solution
The Democrat candidate's speeches have two main points on the economy: it is terrible and only Democrats care.
The economy is not great for some of us and prices are rising, but do the Democrats really care? Gas prices go up but Democrats in Congress went home instead of considering ways for America to fill its own energy needs and keep money in America. Republicans, including Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, were in Washington to urge Democrats to address the issue but Democrats did not return.
We read that the ranks of the wealthy have risen in America. Over 800,000 have wealth of $2 million or more and 604,000 have over $3 million. These people pay 97% of all income taxes, and their wealth is invested in American businesses and industry.
I would like to have their excess dollars handed to me, but the Democrats' plan is to take the money through higher taxes. The Democrats can then distribute money to their home districts or set up expensive and wasteful government programs and bureaus to administer the entitlements. Their stimulus plan to fix the economy includes taxing oil companies to fund $1,000 rebates to lower income families, even those who pay no income taxes.
Elect Republicans to help America create jobs, not raise taxes. Elect Marilyn Musgrave to the House and Bob Schaffer to the Senate.
Friday, September 5, 2008
A letter from an Alaskan RE: Sarah Palin
Submitted by Dana. Unedited to keep the Alaskan "accent".
A letter from an Alaskan re: Sarah Palin---McCain’s pick for VP.
It’s a little long but informative.
Sarah Palin is the USs answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who
thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and
efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments
well, they havent met our Sarah.
As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK,
where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor I can speak with
confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she
portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly
what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if
there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo
and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isnt an
issue here as far as Im concerned) as anyone could ask for at
the head of government.
Sarah is no nave small town mayor she just **started out**
there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this small town
through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her
term having grown to the 4^th largest CITY in Alaska a lot of
growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.
She has EXECTUTIVE experience **running a government**
(something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast,
even John McCain) as Governor of Alaska and got there by
defeating the **incumbent** Republican Governor, who was
definitely part of the old school and who WAS very much in the
pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change
and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!
Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her
approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95%
and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80
percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the
HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.
Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of
Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting
spending in spite of the increased income the state is
currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has
insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into
savings for the future rather than spending, spending,
spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers
to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more
closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies
thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to
their chagrin.
She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we
_all_ face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she
was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless
"laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently)
temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the
pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has
ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in
an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for
the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough
for now. She isnt doing these things to be popular she
is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially
and she can help.
She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent
Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the
support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself -
and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time
totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way.
She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and
is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps
more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her -
she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.
Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going
to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the
job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR
State... we understand she is needed for a bigger
purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill
her shoes here and continue the job.
As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die
or step down or whatever ... Theta, up here in AK we've only
been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in
Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the
USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she
would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no
doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a
second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in
Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.
Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know
he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady
as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President
... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential
candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW
her will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win
by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only
wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of
A. She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong
wind.
Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ...
Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to
vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too
much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race
was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a
little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our
candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all
before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR
GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us
or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the
opportunity.
Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested (and
spam those who arent!).
-Deb Frost in Alaska
A letter from an Alaskan re: Sarah Palin---McCain’s pick for VP.
It’s a little long but informative.
Sarah Palin is the USs answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who
thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and
efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments
well, they havent met our Sarah
As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK,
where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor I can speak with
confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she
portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly
what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if
there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo
and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isnt an
issue here as far as Im concerned) as anyone could ask for at
the head of government.
Sarah is no nave small town mayor she just **started out**
there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this small town
through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her
term having grown to the 4^th largest CITY in Alaska a lot of
growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.
She has EXECTUTIVE experience **running a government**
(something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast,
even John McCain
defeating the **incumbent** Republican Governor, who was
definitely part of the old school and who WAS very much in the
pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change
and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!
Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her
approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95%
and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80
percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the
HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.
Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of
Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting
spending in spite of the increased income the state is
currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has
insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into
savings for the future rather than spending, spending,
spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers
to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more
closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies
thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to
their chagrin.
She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we
_all_ face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she
was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless
"laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently)
temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the
pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has
ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in
an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for
the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough
for now
is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially
and she can help.
She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent
Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the
support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself -
and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time
totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way.
She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and
is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps
more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her -
she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.
Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going
to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the
job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR
State
purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill
her shoes here and continue the job.
As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die
or step down or whatever ... Theta, up here in AK we've only
been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in
Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the
USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she
would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no
doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a
second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in
Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.
Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know
he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady
as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President
... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential
candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW
her will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win
by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only
wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of
A
wind.
Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ...
Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to
vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too
much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race
was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a
little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our
candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all
before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR
GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us
or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the
opportunity.
Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested (and
spam those who arent!).
-Deb Frost in Alaska
Friday, August 15, 2008
WE CAN'T ALL GET ALONG
We can't all get along
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News
mikerosen@850koa.com
Originally published 12:05 a.m., August 15, 2008
Updated 01:43 a.m., August 15, 2008
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/15/rosen-we-the-people/
'We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."
When those words, the Preamble to the Constitution, were crafted, the context was to introduce a document prescribing the foundation, organization and general rules of a new system of government based on a bottom-up model of governance.
Power would derive from the people, not from the "divine right" of a king or from the condescending benevolence or superior wisdom of some ruling elite. Fortifying that document was the Bill of Rights, reinforcing the clear understanding that fundamental rights belonged naturally to individuals and were beyond the whims of government.
Respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives
The phrase "We the people," it should be understood, does not imply that the United States is a commune, a homogeneous collective of like-minded people who all agree on issues of public policy. When Democrats talk of their party as "the party of the people," they tend to apply that in just such a collective - or socialist - sense. As a Republican, I prefer to regard my party as "the party of the person" - the party that better respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives.
That doesn't mean I'm an anarchist or selfish or have no sense of community. I like to think I'm a good neighbor and a good citizen. But I also believe that voluntary, cooperative associations are more desirable and productive than mandatory ones. There have been times when Americans have forged a consensus on vital matters. But even during the American Revolution and World War II there were dissenters, to say nothing of the Civil War. Our motto, E pluribus unum - "Out of many, one" - is an ideal, not an absolute. I have no illusion that people in this or any other nation are of one mind.
"We the people" – a meaningless cliche.
That wonderful, inspirational expression "We the people" has become, all too often, a meaningless cliche. It's repeatedly used by writers of letters to the editor or populist talk-show hosts - both liberal and conservative - who sanctimoniously utter platitudes like: "We must demand that those in our government follow the will of the people, since they work for us."
But which people? The people who listen to left-wing Air America or agree with liberal editorials in The New York Times are not the same people who support the conservative opinions of Rush Limbaugh or agree with free market editorials in The Wall Street Journal.
And politicians don't represent some abstract, unanimous "us."
In the real world of politics, they tend to favor the agendas of the majority of voters and interest groups that put them in office. It's understandable that the minority of voters who supported a losing candidate feel poorly represented, but that's the way elections work. Boulder's "ins" are the "outs" in Colorado Springs.
It's not that "We the people" can't agree on anything, but it's certainly true that we won't agree on everything. Along with some areas of common ground, there are also irreconcilable differences between hawks and doves, seniors and juniors, protectionists and free traders, pro-life and pro-choice, unions and businesses, big government and small, public and private, gays and straights, men and women, blacks and whites, urban and rural, nannyists and rugged individualists, rednecks and hippies, etc.
On most issues, grand and petty, and on the very definition of the "common good," there is no monolithic "we." There's you and me and them. Always has been, always will be.
James Madison spoke of an offsetting multiplicity of factions as preferable to the inordinate influence of a few dominant interests. Minor political parties can be single-minded, purist and uncompromising. That's why they're minor parties with small followings.
Major parties are the clearinghouses of multiple factions, harboring their own internal disagreements while coming together to form a generally like-minded coalition. As Clinton Rossiter observed, "No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties." And, I'd add, no freedom without parties that disagree.
And that, Rodney King, is why we can't all get along.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News
mikerosen@850koa.com
Originally published 12:05 a.m., August 15, 2008
Updated 01:43 a.m., August 15, 2008
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/15/rosen-we-the-people/
'We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."
When those words, the Preamble to the Constitution, were crafted, the context was to introduce a document prescribing the foundation, organization and general rules of a new system of government based on a bottom-up model of governance.
Power would derive from the people, not from the "divine right" of a king or from the condescending benevolence or superior wisdom of some ruling elite. Fortifying that document was the Bill of Rights, reinforcing the clear understanding that fundamental rights belonged naturally to individuals and were beyond the whims of government.
Respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives
The phrase "We the people," it should be understood, does not imply that the United States is a commune, a homogeneous collective of like-minded people who all agree on issues of public policy. When Democrats talk of their party as "the party of the people," they tend to apply that in just such a collective - or socialist - sense. As a Republican, I prefer to regard my party as "the party of the person" - the party that better respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives.
That doesn't mean I'm an anarchist or selfish or have no sense of community. I like to think I'm a good neighbor and a good citizen. But I also believe that voluntary, cooperative associations are more desirable and productive than mandatory ones. There have been times when Americans have forged a consensus on vital matters. But even during the American Revolution and World War II there were dissenters, to say nothing of the Civil War. Our motto, E pluribus unum - "Out of many, one" - is an ideal, not an absolute. I have no illusion that people in this or any other nation are of one mind.
"We the people" – a meaningless cliche.
That wonderful, inspirational expression "We the people" has become, all too often, a meaningless cliche. It's repeatedly used by writers of letters to the editor or populist talk-show hosts - both liberal and conservative - who sanctimoniously utter platitudes like: "We must demand that those in our government follow the will of the people, since they work for us."
But which people? The people who listen to left-wing Air America or agree with liberal editorials in The New York Times are not the same people who support the conservative opinions of Rush Limbaugh or agree with free market editorials in The Wall Street Journal.
And politicians don't represent some abstract, unanimous "us."
In the real world of politics, they tend to favor the agendas of the majority of voters and interest groups that put them in office. It's understandable that the minority of voters who supported a losing candidate feel poorly represented, but that's the way elections work. Boulder's "ins" are the "outs" in Colorado Springs.
It's not that "We the people" can't agree on anything, but it's certainly true that we won't agree on everything. Along with some areas of common ground, there are also irreconcilable differences between hawks and doves, seniors and juniors, protectionists and free traders, pro-life and pro-choice, unions and businesses, big government and small, public and private, gays and straights, men and women, blacks and whites, urban and rural, nannyists and rugged individualists, rednecks and hippies, etc.
On most issues, grand and petty, and on the very definition of the "common good," there is no monolithic "we." There's you and me and them. Always has been, always will be.
James Madison spoke of an offsetting multiplicity of factions as preferable to the inordinate influence of a few dominant interests. Minor political parties can be single-minded, purist and uncompromising. That's why they're minor parties with small followings.
Major parties are the clearinghouses of multiple factions, harboring their own internal disagreements while coming together to form a generally like-minded coalition. As Clinton Rossiter observed, "No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties." And, I'd add, no freedom without parties that disagree.
And that, Rodney King, is why we can't all get along.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)