A Little Campaign Humor
By Conservative Hawk | May 13, 2008
After that display from Barack Obama and his 60 states, I thought we could all use a bit of campaign humor (as if that wasn’t funny enough) so I decided to post this You Tube video that I found very funny.
Topics: Barack Obama, Conservatism, Conservative, John McCain | 4 Comments »
Really? 57 States?
By Conservative Hawk | May 12, 2008
Ok. Even I didn’t believe Obama said this until I saw It. If anyone knows where I can get the entire speech, I would love to see the whole thing.
My reason for posting it is because, if Obama really did say this in a non-joking way, you will never see it in the mainstream media. When George Bush mispronounces a word, we hear about it from the drive-by media until we cant stand it anymore. So, since you probably wont see this from the drive-by media, here you go. If this was serious, I am really scared that this guy could get elected.
Topics: Barack Obama, Conservatism, Conservative, Drive-By Media, Economy, John McCain, Taxes | 2 Comments »
Republicans Are On The Brink Of Extinction
By Conservative Hawk | May 9, 2008
Russ Stewart is an attorney at law in Illinois and a brilliant political strategist and analyst. He writes, and I completely concur, with his analysis of the 2008 election.
Make no mistake about it: The Republicans are on the verge of eradication, if not extinction. If they don’t want to suffer the fate of the Federalists or Whigs, who vanished in the 1800s, their solution is simple: Lose the 2008 presidential election.
Let the country repudiate, and then forget, the Bush Administration.
In fact, the 2008 contest is really about future failure, not future “change.” Given the intractable situation in Iraq, coupled with a worsening economy – especially $4-a-gallon gasoline, inflation, and the collapse of the real estate market — the next president confronts a world of woe, and likely failure. It will be Jimmy Carter, Part Two.
To be sure, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain want to win in 2008. But that winner will be a loser in 2012. The 2008 outcome will either reaffirm the country’s two-party system, or precipitate a transitional non-party system and future political realignment.
Throughout American history, presidents have been categorized as transformational, transitional or transient. Among the transformational, who prompted and presided over a major national political and ideological realignment, were Thomas Jefferson (1800), Andrew Jackson (1828), Abraham Lincoln (1860), Franklin Roosevelt (1932) and Ronald Reagan (1980). In those elections, their minority party surged into the majority.
A transitional president occupies the White House at the culmination of his party’s decline, often facilitating it. That includes John Adams, elected in 1796, John Quincy Adams (1824). James Buchanan (1856), Herbert Hoover (1928), and Jimmy Carter (1976).
As for transient presidents, they simply occupy the office during a period of their party’s ascendancy, or as a temporary aberration.
If McCain wins, he’ll be a transitional figure, presiding over the eradication of the Republican party, and precipitating a generation of Democratic dominance. If Obama wins, he’ll also be transitional, destroying the existing Democratic coalition, and precipitating an anti-Obama Republican resurgence. If Clinton wins, she’ll be transient figure, governing like husband Bill, keeping the Democratic coalition intact, but enraging and motivating conservatives.
From a Republican perspective, the best scenario is that Democrat Obama gets elected president, governs as a liberal, pulls U.S. troops out of Iraq, fumbles some foreign crises, fails to cure the economy, and is a one-termer. The estrangement of Hispanics and white, working-class Democrats from Obama, coupled with the takeover of the Democratic party by blacks and white liberals, would insure a Republican win in 2012. Plus, Republicans would rebound in the 2010 congressional elections.
From a Democratic perspective, the best scenario is that Republican McCain gets elected president, keeps U.S. troops in Iraq, fails to cure the economy, and is a one-termer. Democrats would keep control of Congress in 2008, rack up huge majorities in 2010, and sweep to an overwhelming victory in 2012.
Since state legislatures elected in 2010 will redistrict congressional boundaries for 2012 and the next decade, a Democratic sweep that year would reduce Republicans to nuisance levels thereafter. The Democratic U.S. House majority could exceed 350. With a discredited McCain in the White House, a Democrat would win in 2012 – but not necessarily the 2008 Democratic loser.
But from a realistic perspective, a McCain win would prompt the collapse of the two-party system. Why should any future Democratic presidential contender raise and spend $150 million, and slog through the primaries? Why not run for president as an independent?
If Obama is nominated in 2008, but loses to McCain, his supporters will blame white “racists” in general, and the Clintons in particular. If Obama is not nominated, he will blame the “bitter” guns and God crowd. Whatever the outcome, he will definitely run again in 2012.
If Clinton is nominated, but loses to McCain, her supporters will blame blacks and white liberals for not embracing her candidacy, and Obama for not motivating them. Obama’s backers will counter that she “stole” the nomination, ran a negative primary campaign, and didn’t deserve to be elected. If Clinton loses the Democratic nomination to Obama, her presidential dreams are finished. But if she wins, but loses the election, she would certainly try again in 2012.
And that’s where it gets interesting. Why run for president as a Democrat when it is possible to get on the ballot as an independent? Since it does not require a majority to be elected president, and since both Obama and Clinton have broad support, why not run for president on a third-party ballot?
For Obama, that’s a win/win situation. If Obama loses in 2008, “black rage” will be epidemic, and directed primarily at conservative white Democrats. Given his black/liberal base, there’s no doubt that he could get the signatures to secure a ballot line in every state. In a multi-candidate race, Obama would be favored.
The Republicans’ fundamental problem is that the country is growing ever more liberal on cultural issues, while the Republican message of a strong national defense, limited government and tax cuts has grown irrelevant. The Bush Administration is seen as incompetent on economic and military matters, and Republicans are viewed in urban areas as intolerant (anti-gay rights, anti-abortion) or just plain wrong (pro-gun) on cultural matters.
In the past two presidential contests, the country was evenly divided, with 40-45 percent of the electorate embracing cultural conservatism and the Republicans, an equal number embracing cultural liberalism and the Democrats, with the unaffiliated balance, roughly 10-15 percent, categorized as “floaters,” providing the winning margin. Those floaters swung heavily against the Republicans in 2006, and should do likewise in 2008.
Throughout U.S. history, presidential incompetence and unpopularity have resulted in party withering, but not implosion. After the Great Depression caused Hoover’s demise in 1932, the Democrats kept the White House for 20 years. After the inept Carter lost in 1980, Republicans reigned for 12 years.
The difference in 2008 is twofold. First, while the Democrats are divided along economic, racial and cultural lines, they are united by one common attribute: their intense dislike of Bush. All Democrats want “change.” But for Obama supporters, that change is a utopian vision of peace, harmony, and a generous welfare state. For Clinton supporters, that change is personal, consisting of economic relief, a job, and survival.
Obama supporters would never even consider backing McCain; they just wouldn’t vote. Some Clinton supporters, especially Asians and Hispanics, would vote for McCain, but against every other Republican.
And second, there is no overriding issue (like slavery or an economic depression) to polarize the country and prompt Republicans to abandon their party. The general fatigue with Bush and Iraq has propelled the floaters to the Democrats, and that should suppress the 2008 Republican presidential vote to 45 percent or less.
But Clinton backers’ hostility toward Obama, based on his race and philosophy, is palpable. The presumption has been that McCain will lose the Rust Belt industrial states, and California, to any Democrat. If 2004 Bush states Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada flip to the Democrats in 2008, the Democrat wins. But if Clinton backers in California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey and Michigan defect to McCain, then Obama loses one or more of those states, and the presidency.
In fact, it may be California, home state of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that puts McCain in the White House. California’s black population is just six percent, while the Hispanics are 32 percent, and account for 21 percent of the voters. In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton won 68 percent of the Hispanics, and 65 percent of the age 18-29 Hispanics. If half of those Hispanics opt for McCain, that would be a 2-3 percent diminution in the customary Democratic vote. John Kerry beat Bush by 1,235,659 votes (54 percent) in 2004, and Al Gore beat Bush by 1,293,774 votes (53 percent) in 2000. Hispanics will be a fifth (2.5 million) of a potential 2008 turnout of 12.5 million. Against Obama, McCain has a chance to win California; and if he takes the state, he’s president.
The bottom line: In any capitalist political system, there are ideological parties – one more conservative, and one more liberal. Those triumphant capture the floaters. There is also an ebb and flow; parties are not ascendant perpetually. America is moving left, but when it becomes too liberal, there will be a reaction, and conservatives will take over.
Yet a Republican collapse and disappearance would not mean a one-party system. The Democrats would then split into liberal and conservative factions. And the ebb and flow would continue. 2008 will be a transformational election.
Topics: Barack Obama, Conservatism, Conservative, Democrat, Economy, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Republican | 4 Comments »
Vote For Change in ‘08
By Conservative Hawk | May 8, 2008
Change. We voted for change in 2006 and Barack, Hillary and a couple dozen other politicians are calling on us to vote for it again in 2008. Lets have a quick recap of the change we got in 2006:
1. The average price of a gallon of gas in 2006 was $2.19. Just a short year and a half after we elected “change”, gas is now averaging $3.90 per gallon.
2. Unemployment in 2006 was 4.5%. One and one half years after we changed the control of gorvernment - unemployment is 5%.
Cutting to the chase - The Democrats have caused inflation to go to record highs, the housing market plumetted by over $1 trillion (Trillion, with A T) dollars and more American homes are in foreclosure than ever before.
Democrats want to elimnate George Bush’s tax cuts for the the rich and then chide you for calling a tax increase. Well, let’s see here. Have a look at the chart below and see for yourself
|
INDIVIDUALS |
Under B.J. Clinton |
Under G.W. Bush |
% of Reduction |
|
$30,000 income |
$8,400 |
$4,500 |
46.4% |
|
$50,000 income |
$14,000 |
$12,500 |
10.7% |
|
$75,000 income |
$23,250 |
$18,750 |
19.4% |
|
MARRIED COUPLES |
Under B.J. Clinton |
Under G.W. Bush |
% of Reduction |
|
$60,000 income |
$16,800 |
$9,000 |
46.4% |
|
$75,000 income |
$21,000 |
$12,500 |
10.7% |
|
$125,000 income |
$38,750 |
$31,250 |
19.4% |
If Barack or Hillary are elected, they vow to allow the tax cuts to expire. So, If you are single and paying $4,500 now and after the Dems take control you pay $8,400, is that not a tax increase?
And now, the American people are poised to elect even more Democrats to congress and turn the White House over to a Democrat. GO FOR IT, I SAY. You deserve everything you get if you want to dump more of societies ilk (democrats) on Congress.
Topics: Conservatism, Conservative, Democrat, Economy, Taxes | 4 Comments »
Operation CHAOS Chalks Up Another Win
By Conservative Hawk | May 7, 2008
Indiana democrats go for Clinton. Well, some anyway.
“The only reason Mrs. Clinton won Indiana was because of Rush Limbaugh and Operation Chaos. Operation Chaos was responsible for 7%, she got a seven-point bump as a result of Operation Chaos” - Obama campaign.
“If it hadn’t been for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, he likely would have won in Indiana, too.” - Sen. John Kerry.
The Obama campaign and Sen. John Kerry both attribute Clinton’s win in Indiana to Rush Limbaugh and Operation Chaos, claiming up to 7 percentage points of Clinton’s victory were the result of the operation. That means Clinton’s 52-48 victory over Obama would have been a 55 - 45 Obama victory had it not been for Rush Limbaugh.
Operation Chaos succeeds again. As I listened to an afternoon show on WLS-AM (The station in Chicago that airs the Limbaugh show), the host of the show had a former B.J. Clinton Administration member claiming that Rush was changing his mind and going for Obama now. The show’s host actually agreed. Now this host is an intelligent man and usually knows what he is talking about, but you can tell that neither he nor his guest really listen to Rush’s show. During that show, he said, no less than 10 times, that he is NOT picking a horse in that race. His objective was ONLY to prolong the democrats race and cause “Chaos”.
So no, he is not chaning his mind and backing Obama…He halted Operation Chaos temporarily and has always believed that when the American people finally get to meet the real Barack Obama, he will be so unpalatable that he will never get elected.
Wishful Thinking: I wish the “drive-by-media” and the intelligent hosts of WLS-AM shows would actally do the research before they speak. Well, actually the media does their research, but they choose to manipulate the facts to further the cause of their horse, Barack Obama.
Topics: Barack Obama, Conservatism, Conservative, Democrat, Hillary Clinton, Operation Chaos, Republican, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Angry Felons March For The Rights of Law Breakers
By Conservative Hawk | May 2, 2008
“Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.” - Abraham Lincoln
I start with that quote to make a point. Whether or not you feel immigration laws are unjust, they are the law and the must, without fail, be followed…or you are a felon.
Yesterday, across the country there were rallies and marches by immigrants (mainly Hispanic) to demand civil rights. The funny thing about demanding civil rights is that when you are permitted to define what civil rights are, you can demand anything you want.
These marchers / protesters were screaming for rights, demanding that we stop deportations immediately and allow everyone to stay in the country. All of this, while they were flying the flag of their home country.
One of the protesters in the Chicago rally stood up and declared that these immigrants are now the majority and they are going to take this country back. If that doesn’t send chills down your spine, I don’t know what will. Let me clarify that…this country belongs to natural born citizens, LEGAL immigrants and naturalized citizens….It is not the protesters country to “take back.” That sounds very militaristic.
Bottom line is this. If you are an illegal immigrant, you have broken our laws. PERIOD. There is no amnesty for you from the law. Think about this comparison - referring to the ILLEGAL immigrants as “undocumented citizens” is exactly the same as referring to a drug dealer as an “undocumented pharmacist”. There are penalties for breaking the law. As soon as we start letting one group break our laws without recourse, every other group is going to demand the same latitude to be permitted to break any law they wish.
Folks, if we don’t get out and vote in force, we are going to lose. Our side of this issue has never been racist, anti-immigrant or any of the many terms the other side uses to describe us. We all respect and welcome immigrants from every corner of the world. We just welcome them when they have followed our laws and have not broken into the country.
Topics: Amnesty, Conservatism, Conservative, Immigration | No Comments »
The Good Reverend Is At It Again…
By Conservative Hawk | April 28, 2008
If you disagree with me from now on, I’m going to tell the world that you are attacking America’s white people. Well, I’m not really going to do that.
But, Reverend Wright will. In his speech to the National Press Club, the good Reverend told the world that the attacks on his racist, hateful speech were not an attack on him, but on the black church. He made it sound as if every black church in the country spews that kind of hatred from the pulpit. If I were a reverend at a black church that doesn’t use the pulpit for the political advancement of one of my parishioners, I would be outraged. I would be standing on the tallest mountain, screaming to the top of my lungs decrying this hateful man.
Let me tell you a little bit about two tv shows I watch every Sunday morning between 7am and 8am on my local Fox channel. The first is Changing Your World With Rev. Creflo Dollar and the second is Believer’s Walk Of Faith with Rev. Bill WInston. Both of these men are black and both are preachers. Their Sunday morning shows are probably the most inspiring services I have seen. So much so, that I make it a point to wake up at 6:30am every Sunday to watch. In fact, Rev. Winston’s church is about 16 miles from my home and if it were a little closer, I would go to his church every Sunday morning.
My point is this - Rev. Wright’s assertion that the black church is all about screaming hatred and racism from the pulpit is a bunch of crap. The two black ministers I mentioned above are black preachers and great men who inspire the good in people. It should disgust them that Rev. Wright is lumping them in with his hate. Let’s compare the two and you tell me if all black churches fall under the rantings of Wright.
This is Bill Winston. He does get very loud and preaches with passion, but listen to his message. Listen to what he is saying and see how inspiring he is for everyone. (You might want to turn your volume down a little bit)
Topics: Barack Obama, Conservatism, Conservative, Reverend Wright | No Comments »
Technical Snafu
By Conservative Hawk | April 25, 2008
We are very sorry for the technical snafu we experienced. Our site went down and we lost EVERYTHING. We have started the process of rebuilding or posts from old records and memory.
You were a subscriber to our blog and we would appreciate it if you would stay with us. Please log back in to the site and re-register. It only takes a minute of your time.
Thank you for your understanding
Topics: Conservatism, Conservative | No Comments »
Dudette…Where’s My Lower Gas Price?
By Conservative Hawk | April 24, 2008
Exactly two years ago today, Nancy Pelosi was campaigning for her fellow democrats, asking the American People to give her the keys to the Speaker’s Office.
During this campaign, she promised that the democrats had a “Common Sense” plan to bring down gas prices. In her April 24, 2006 letter she said:
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
Before we talk about current gas prices, lets look at her plan:
Cracking Down On Price Gouging
Governmental agencies since the Clinton Administration have been “cracking down” on price gouging. The only problem is that the have not found any so far. Currently, governmental agencies are directly responsible for about 20% of the price of a gallon of gas in the form of taxes. In some states, state mandated mixtures account for about another 20% of the price. If the government is going to crack down on price gouging, the need to start with themselves. They are the biggest profiteers in the gasoline market.
Rolling Back the Billions of Dollars in Taxpayer Subsidies, Tax Breaks and Royalty…
First off, this is not a bad idea. Government subsidies to anyone are not good, whether it be in the form of welfare, “free medical care” or subsidies to major corporations. But that is beside the point.
Would anyone like to tell me how this is going to lower the price of gas? If anything, it is going to increase the cost of gasoline. But then again, it doesn’t need to mean anything…just needs to sound nice. We learned that from Barack Obama.
Increasing Production of Alternative Fuels
Two years now….where are they?
Now on to her promise. As I said, it has been two years since she made that promise and lets have a look at where gas prices have gone.
During the period between 2001 and the time the democrats took control of congress, gas prices increased by an average $0.84. That’s 84 cents in six years. Since Pelosi and her democrat ilk took control, gas prices have risen to an all time high, rising by an average $1.24 per gallon. That’s the largest two year gain in the history of gas prices.
Now the Republicans are calling on Pelosi to roll out her plan and she is silent.
Topics: Conservatism, Conservative, Economy, Gas Prices, Taxes | 3 Comments »
Class Envy Is An Ugly Sin
By Conservative Hawk | April 23, 2008
There used to be a time in the United States when one was to be revered for making a success of themselves and improving their lives. But somehow we have become a nation where making money and becoming a success is evil and you are merely someone who exploits the masses.
How did this happen? I’ll tell you. The democrats began giving out “free” government money in failed program after failed program to end poverty. Instead, we have more people living under impoverished conditions than we did when the programs began. What a success.
Now, all we hear is that the Republican’s want to give “tax cuts to the rich” when the “rich” are the ones paying all the taxes. It’s this kind of class envy that makes our society show its uglier side.
If you will indulge me, I would love for you to read this example of how the economy works. Read it all the way through.
How Taxes Work . . .
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.
That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!”
So for those of you who “hate” rich and successful people, you don’t have to look too far for the answer to why corporations keep moving their jobs overseas.
Topics: Conservatism, Conservative, Economy, Taxes | No Comments »