American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
Not everyone needs or should have a college education.
As I have listened to and read the seemingly endless news stories about the cost of a college education today, the problems of obtaining loans and grants for tuition, the amount of debt many students are burdened with after graduation, and the extent of defaults on student loans, I have changed my attitude about the importance of a college education.
I have a college degree, and my career has been largely based on my education.After dropping out of college and a long delay in returning, I did not graduate until I was in my 30s, then entered public accounting and quickly went into practice on my own.For the past 50 years, almost everything I have accomplished in business has been based on or greatly influenced by my education and professional training.So, for me, a college education proved to be a major asset and the foundation of my livelihood.
However, I now believe we place too much emphasis on a college education and, what’s more, the particular college or university our young people attend, such as the “Ivy League” schools.It has become far too important to many parents that their children not only attend college but one with a prestigious reputation, such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Stanford, MIT, or Cal Tech, etc.
Although my career has been based on my education, the particular school I went to didn’t matter one bit.Throughout my long business and professional career, no one ever asked me what school I attended or what my grade point average was.It didn’t matter, and they didn’t care. People only care that you can perform.If you can’t do that, a degree from the most prestigious university in the world won’t help.
I have concluded that teaching our children how to function in the world at large is not stressed enough: how to balance a checkbook, manage a budget, how our economic system works, and how to provide a service that people are willing to pay for.
Easy for me to say, you may think.After all, I have a college education.True.But, my experience over 50 years has led to the conclusion that not everyone is college material.
Recent reports indicate that a very high percentage of America’s students now drop out of high school, because the education they are receiving is not relevant to them.Greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging more young people to attend a technical or trade school, such as computer technology, hotel or restaurant services, construction trades, health care techs, auto mechanics, bookkeeping and office management, etc.
Walter Gardner, writing in the Sacramento Bee, noted: “”By requiring virtually all students to take courses specifically designed for the college-bound, we unavoidably set the stage for failure.The truth is that not all students have the desire or the ability to pursue a four-year degree.And when they see little or no connection between what they’re forced to study and their future plans or interests, they either act out or drop out…According to Alan S. Blinder, former vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the only jobs that will be safe in the next two decades will be those that can’t be delivered offshore electronically.As a result, plumbers, electricians and auto mechanics, for example, will be earning a comfortable living, while their academically educated counterparts will be at risk of having their jobs terminated.” (“U.S. needs to learn that college isn’t for everyone,” By Walt Gardner, Sacramento Bee, April 11, 2008).
A college education may well be the preferred choice from an academic point of view, but it is not particularly important for most occupations.Europe has had a system of apprenticeships that dates back to the Middle Ages, and something along those lines in America today makes sense to me.
Mr. Gardner also made the following observations, among others:
>Our competitors “routinely sort out students into academic and vocational tracks without any compunction.”
>”Singapore undertakes this differentiation with its primary-school leaving exam, and Finland does so based on grades at the end of the ninth grade…Not surprisingly, both countries have remarkably high graduation rates…”
>Not to be outdone, China in the early 1990s overhauled its schools to place greater emphasis on job training.”
>For the United States, the time has come to disabuse itself of the comforting delusion that college is for everyone.”
We should stop warehousing young people in our colleges and wasting valuable resources in the process. But, that’s just my opinion.
Everyone seems to be weighing in on whether President Bush should attend the Olympics in China. Just about every major politician in America and Europe and, of course, most political pundits, are giving President Bush unsolicited advice on how he should deal with the Chinese regarding Tibet.
It’s easy to give advice: Bush should not attend the opening ceremonies or he should not go at all because of the Chinese repression of the Tibetans. We, that is, the United States, should stand in solidarity with the Tibetans, and the President should teach China a lesson, show them that the world disapproves of their brutal policy of repressing dissent. But, does anyone really believe the Chinese would be influenced by this, other than being angered?
Given the fact that “saving face” is such an integral part of the Chinese culture, chances are they would be highly offended. National leaders invariably react to perceived insults, and being slighted or lectured is not easily forgotten or forgiven, especially by those in other cultures where they often have long memories.
Paul Jacob notes, “…the Olympics has long been about politics: but almost always the errant politics of puffed-up nationalism, from a deviant French judge to despots seeking to mask their sinister statecraft in the spirit of athletics.” (Don’t go, President Bush, don’t go, Townhall.com, April 13, 2008).
However, would the President’s boycotting the opening ceremonies or the Olympic events really accomplish anything, except perhaps to induce some sort of reprisal? Thinking back to the 1980 Olympics, a total of 16 countries, led by the United States, either did not attend the games or were not represented by their national flags, in protest for the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets later retaliated by leading a boycott of the 1984 summer Olympics in Los Angeles, which resulted in 14 nations not attending (Wikipedia). The athletes paid the price for the political posturing of their respective nations.
What sort of blowback might we experience this time if the President cancels his plans to attend the opening ceremonies and/or the games in China?
Expressing disapproval is always tempting. However, what may be suitable for individuals does not necessarily also apply to nations. China and the United States are inextricably tied to one another in commerce, and the Chinese are heavily invested in the U.S. through the purchase of our bonds, which puts them in a position to seriously impact both our currency and our economy.
We often hear about “quiet diplomacy,” and attending the Olympics in China can provide an opportunity for President Bush to talk directly with Chinese leaders about human rights and Tibet. U.S. National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, “…called the boycott issue a ‘bit of a red herring,’ arguing that the international community would be better served using its leverage with China to pressure it to hold talks with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama…We think it is very important to deal with the Tibet issue, but we think the best way to do that is through the kind of diplomacy we have been undertaking, not by the kind of frontal confrontation that is being suggested by some.” (Yahoo news, April 13, 2008).
As offended as I may personally be by China’s brutal repression, and as difficult as it is to refrain from speaking out, I believe that both we and the Tibetans will be better served by “quiet diplomacy” on the ground than ineffectual political posturing from afar.
Campaign finance has been a problem in American politics for 140 years, dating back to the Naval Appropriations Bill in 1867.
In the 1800s, people who wanted a position in government could openly donate to a politician running for office with the understanding that if the candidate won, they would be rewarded with a job. People still contribute their services in the hopes of getting a job in the administration of the candidate they support. So, what’s changed?
Since 1867, fifteen federal laws have been adopted in an effort to regulate the flow of money from private interests to politicians and presumably to level the playing field for candidates. (Source: campaignfinancesite.org):
1867: The Naval Appropriations Bill “prohibited officers and employees of the government from soliciting money from naval yardworkers.”
1883: The Civil Service Reform Act “extended the above rule to all federal civil service worker(s)…”
1905: Teddy Roosevelt’s Message to Congress, in which he proposed that “(a)ll contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”
1907: The Tillman Act “prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates.”
1910-11: The Federal Corrupt Practices Act - established disclosure requirements for U.S. House and Senatorial candidates.
1925: The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (Revised)
1940: Hatch Act Amendments “set limits if $5,000 per year on individual contributions to a federal candidate or political committee…”
1943: The Smith-Connally Act “extended to unions the prohibition on contributions to federal candidates from corporations and interstate banks…”
1944: The “first political action committee (PAC) was formed by Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)…to raise money for re-election of” FDR.
1947: The Taft-Hartley Act “made permanent the ban on contributions to federal candidates from unions, corporations, and interstate banks…”
1967: House Campaign Financial Reports (were) collected for (the) First Time.
1971: The Federal Election Campaign Act: “…created (a) comprehensive framework for regulation of federal campaign financing of primaries, runoffs, general elections, and conventions.”
1971: The Revenue Act “created public campaign fund for eligible presidential candidates…”
1974: FECA Amendments (Post-Watergate) “provided (the) option of full public financing for presidential general elections, matching funds for presidential primaries, and public funds for presidential nominating conventions – Set spending limits for presidential primaries and general elections, and for House and Senate primaries.”
1976: Buckley v. Aleo challenged restrictions in FECA as unconstitutional violations of free speech…
1979 : FECA Amendments “increased amount volunteers could contribute in-kind (use of home, food, vehicle) from $500 to $1,000 – Raised threshold for reporting contributions…”
2002: The most recent effort to reform campaign finance is the McCain-Feingold bill, named for “its primary sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI),” which bans soft money – “unlimited contributions to the national political parties for ‘party-building’ activities.” (opensecrets.org, What’s The Issue?, 1/19/05).
Other provisions of the bill ban “ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. Additionally, the legislation requires groups spending more than $10,000 a year on TV ads to disclose who paid for them.”
It’s obvious that the failure to regulate campaign finance certainly is not for lack of trying. The theory generally seems to have been that if we could just get money out of the equation, the political process would somehow eliminate corruption and favoritism. But, I submit that’s just wishful thinking, because it’s counter to human nature. People invariably look for loopholes in such laws, which are generally circumvented almost as fast as they are put on the books.
Dating back to Teddy Roosevelt, the most popular response to the inherent weaknesses in campaign finance legislation has been the notion that the process should be financed by the federal government.
However, I don’t see how that would be much different than the present situation. The administration of a government financed system would undoubtedly become as convoluted and ineffective as the one we have now, the primary difference being who would be in control. With the government financing and running things, it’s bound to become more bureaucratic, but would still be subject to political influence, just with different players.
One alternative proposal is to simply require that all political contributions be immediately disclosed to the public on the Internet, including the sources of the money, so everyone could see who is supporting and financing the various candidates.
As usual, when it comes to regulating behavior, there are no easy answers.
We hear a lot about negotiating with our enemies as the only way to solve problems that might otherwise lead to conflict or to resolve the situation we are currently dealing with in the Middle East. But, those who advocate this course of action as the only truly viable option generally do not understand or fail to recognize the consequences of being unwilling to use force.
In a review of Jewish Encounters, written by Ruth Wisse, Rabbi Benjamin Blech poses the question, “If Jews are so smart, how come we are so stupid?”
“To reflect upon the story of modern-day Israel’s struggle for survival, it seems as if unparalleled naivete is the national credo. Continually threatened by Arab countries clearly declaring their intent to destroy it, Israel pursues a policy that believes in arming its enemies in order to gain greater security. As Abba Eban famously put it, Israel is the only country in the world that wins wars and then sues for peace…To put it bluntly, where are our vaunted brains when it comes to politics and power?…In the latest in a series called Jewish Encounters, the eminent Harvard Professor of Yiddish Literature Ruth Wisse tackles this conundrum in her book aptly titled Jews and Power…It is a grave mistake to ignore the stated intentions of Israel’s enemies. Unilaterally giving up Gaza or any other territories is viewed as weakness, as well as a sign of the power of terrorism to achieve its ultimate ends. The only peace that can come from the abandonment of power is the peace of the dead, destroyed by their unwillingness to face reality.” (emphasis added).
Throughout history, there have been many leaders who lived by the sword, destroying entire societies and killing great numbers of people in the process, always in the name of power and riches, or to advance their religious beliefs. And, without exception, they have never been benevolent.
History is replete with stories of conquest to expand or retain power. Some of the better known examples (in no particular order) are: Attila The Hun, Alexander the Great (Greek, one of the most successful military commanders in history, undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the known world); Adolph Hitler (killed six million Jews and Gypsies plus millions of Europeans and Russians); Josef Stalin (Russia – killed an estimated 20 million of his own citizens); Pol Pot (Cambodia – annihilated between one and two million of his own people); Kim Il Song (North Korea – caused the deaths of millions of both North and South Koreans); and the Roman Empire, to name just some. No doubt you can think of many more.
In their quest for power and treasure, or in furtherance of their religious beliefs, they were all responsible for the deaths of millions of people. And, they ruled with an iron fist, often killing for no other reason than to terrorize or allowing their troops to kill and pillage as a form of recompense for their service.
So, if the lesson of history is that those who seek to expand their power by force are unrelenting and unforgiving, often putting their enemies to the sword, what are we to make of our current adversaries, the Islamofascists? They have clearly articulated their intention to destroy Western civilization, killing themselves and innocent women and children without compunction in the process, torturing captives without mercy, all in the name of their religion.
Do we really expect such people to honorably “negotiate” to resolve their differences with the West?
The idea that “we,” as in America, have brought this on ourselves because of our arrogance and policies toward their societies is naïve at best, stupid at worst. There is absolutely no evidence that our Muslim enemies will deal with us (“negotiate”) honestly and fairly without our using a credible threat of force. Such thinking is both foolish and dangerous.
Teddy Roosevelt (1858-1919) is famously credited with quoting the West African proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,” in dealing with the party bosses who threatened to “ruin” him when he was Governor of New York (1899-1900). It seems to me that this maxim also applies to negotiating with our Muslim adversaries. Theirs is a culture that interprets unwillingness to use power and force as weakness.
However, carrying a “big stick” must also imply a willingness to use it. Without that, it amounts to nothing more than hollow rhetoric. Being prepared to use the “big stick’ of our military power in dealing with our enemies must be a given, clearly understood by all, in order to be effective.
The following quotations don’t really need any explanation (Source: brainyquote.com). In my opinion, they are all self-evident truths, obvious in their implications and portent. Who authored them?
I’ll give you a clue: None of them are contemporary. (My comments are in parenthesis.)
“A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay for it.” (Almost 50% of American workers do not pay any income tax at all.)
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (An article of faith that I believe is true.)
“Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” (Considering the political landscape today, we seem to be rapidly falling into this trap.)
“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?” (Money still talks and controls the levers of power in America.)
”Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” (A thought-provoking truth illustrated by the difference between America and Socialist or Communist societies.)
“I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” (Think “political correctness” and the never-ending hostility of our political discourse today.)
“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” (Graphically illustrated by the overwhelming presence of “political correctness” in America today.)
“In politics shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships.” (How you ever noticed how political alliances are often like sharks circling prey in the water?)
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” (Seems self-evident to me.)
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” (Just look at the extent of “pork barrel” politics today.)
“The genius of democracies is seen not only in the great number of new words introduced but even more in the new ideas they express.” (The evolution of American English since I was in high school during the 1940s has been a constant source of amazement to me.)
“There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult – to begin a war and to end it.” (Examples: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.)
“There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.” (Consider the role the courts play in modern America, including “legislating from the bench.”)
“The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.” (Another definition of Capitalism vs Socialism and Communism.)
“The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through.” (American society is still largely based on a combination of wealth and lineage dating back to the Mayflower.)
“All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.” (An interesting observation, in light of the current war being waged against America by Islamofascists, which is causing us to voluntarily limit many of our freedoms.)
“Consider any individual at any period of his life, and you will always find him preoccupied with fresh plans to increase his comfort.” (Just human nature, right?)
“There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.” (No comment needed.)
The foregoing observations were all made by Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who visited America in 1831 at the age of 25 and wrote a two-volume study, “Democracy in America,” first published in 1834. His prescient observations are as valid today as they were over 170 years ago and, from the vantage point of having visited here so early in our history, it’s truly remarkable how accurate his conclusions about the contemporary American character and system of government were.
de Tocqueville’s writings are considered one of the most insightful works ever written about America. For my money, they should be required reading for everyone in politics.
THE END OF THE ROAD FOR HRC
By Allan Erickson
4.7.08
The prospects for another Clinton presidency dim moment to moment. Hope hardly flickers.
Hillary has lost a 10 point lead in Pennsylvania according to recent polls. She is running neck and neck with Obama in that state. They say if she loses that primary, it’s over. (But, Bill said if she lost Texas, it was over. She did, and it ain’t over.)
No matter what, she vows to slug it out all the way to the convention.
Her lead in super delegates is being cut daily. Still, she insists on continuing, because she’s “no quitter.”
A growing number of Dem leaders endorse Obama and call for her to step down for the sake of the Party.
Always the Party Pooper, she doggedly perseveres, praying Obama will twist an ankle or gaffe out.
Polls show her negatives are increasing: people don’t trust her.
So, she clings to Rocky Balboa and calls on the President to boycott the Olympics. Desperation conjures up every flying monkey available.
As her numbers decline, the tall tales increase, and the attacks on Obama intensify.
Twelve years ago, she was dodging bullets in Bosnia, she says. Confronted by contradictory evidence, she claims she “misspoke.”
It is revealed she told Bill Richardson Obama cannot possibly beat McCain. Next day, she seems to deny it with so many words no one is sure it’s a denial, and then the day after, she claims she “misheard” the reporter’s question.
She recounts a story about a woman who died in Ohio because a hospital refused to provide care claiming the woman had no insurance. The hospital denies the story and provides proof it is a hoax, asking Hillary to stop telling the tall tale. The Clinton campaign releases a statement saying they “respect” the hospital officials’ version of events.
It may be Obama will suffer for his Rezko association, but many Democrats wince seeing Hillary use dirty tricks against a fellow Democrat.
Seeking to profit from Obama’s pastor’s remarks, she proclaims she would not have attended a church like that. Rev. Wright “would not have been my pastor,” she says.
No one should be surprised she lies, hits below the belt, refuses to quit, and cuts a few crocodile tears along the way.
The Clinton campaign is not about working Americans. It is not about the middle class. It is not about people without health insurance. Her campaign is not about ending the war or bailing out people facing foreclosure. It is not about what is good for the country, or the Democrat Party.
It’s about Hillary.
It has always been about Hillary.
She is addicted to the limelight, addicted to the acquisition of power, and the wielding of power.
From her earliest years it would appear her self-worth has continuously been measured by her performance. Without political success, she feels she has no self worth. Politics is her religion, and her only salvation is through good works.
About 17 months back, Dick Morris said a Hillary presidency would be disastrous, not only because of her socialist policies, her hatred for all things military, and her lack of executive experience. Morris, who worked for the Clintons for years helping Bill get elected, also asserts Hillary is unstable emotionally.
Morris insists Hillary is actually two people. There is the public Hillary, caustic enough as it is, and there is the private Hillary, a woman given to ravings, not bashful about throwing things and breaking the furniture. Morris describes her as someone who “cares deeply about being loved,” she tends to read from a playbook rather than think creatively, and she demonstrates a “cultish adoration of guys with all the answers.”
If it is legitimate to draw conclusions about Obama given his association with Rev. Wright, it is likewise legitimate to inquire of Clinton’s motives and methods given her mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky was a Marxist, and brilliant tactician. His approach was essentially two-pronged: get power by any means, and wield it to crush those considered wealthy, privileged, powerful, war-mongering, oppressive, imperialistic, blah, blah.
His is a system drained of morality, an “ethic” of the jungle, where winning is everything and “one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.” (Yikes. In other words, Saul determines what is best for the rest of us, and if that somehow tweeked his conscience, the hell with his conscience! Hillary operates in a similar way it would appear.)
Alinsky wrote two books: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971). He was the high prophet of the science of revolution. Among his rules: (Hillary has learned and applied them well.)
>”My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.”
>”Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”
>”The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends justifies almost any means.”
>Give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): “All effective action requires the passport of morality.”
>”Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
>”Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
>”In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
>”Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
>”The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
With Hillary and others, we are dealing with seriously disturbed disciples of Alinsky, a man who once wrote:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”
Saul passed the torch to Hillary in 1972. Since then she has clawed her way to her current position by any means available: riding Bill’s coat tails through serial infidelities, employing ridicule of the opposition, using polarization, goading and demonizing the opposition, organizing power grabs, appearing moral and middle class, aiming below the belt.
Anyone interested in the dark side of the woman can grab an arm load of books on the subject from any library. Her critics are many, her flaws grievous, her political philosophy bone chilling.
You may not embrace the idea of an Obama presidency, but at least we can thank him for sparing us another Clinton presidency.
The most damaging dimension of a Hillary presidency would be this: at a time when we need to come together like never before, Hillary will tear us apart.
It’s not about America.
It’s not about the poor.
It’s not about the common good, or the general welfare.
I’ve come the conclusion that the beliefs and hence the policies of Liberals are an article of faith based primarily on feelings, whereas Conservatives tend base their thinking more on their assessment of human nature. “One of the older political sayings is that a ‘conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.’” (Arnold Ahlert)
I have no credibility with most Liberals because, after all, I’m firmly in the Conservative camp, a captive of the Right. So, if I and other Conservatives are not to be believed about the rationale for conservatism, how about those prominent Liberals who have changed sides? Are their reasons for becoming Conservatives also not to be believed?
A number of highly regarded Liberals have changed sides, and their conversion to conservatism tells us a great deal about the difference between the two philosophies.
Thomas Sowell: An American economist, political writer, and commentator, and currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In an interview with “The American Enterprise online,” he was asked about having started out as a Marxist. Sowell’s response was: “Yes. The first time I read anything really serious about him was when I was about 19. I remember buying an old, secondhand set of encyclopedias for a dollar and 19 cents…In it was a long piece about Marx with all these quotations from him, and it all seemed to ring so true. Fortunately, even during my period of Marxism I had respect for evidence and logic, so it was only a matter of time before my Marxism began to unravel as I compared what actually happened in history to what was supposed to happen.”
Ronald Reagan (1911-2004): Started his political career as a New Deal Liberal, was president of a union, the Screen Actors Guild, and an active Democrat. “As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative.” (The White House official website). On the difference between a communist and an anti-communist he said, “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” (Ronald Reagan - Remarks in Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987)
David Horowitz, publisher of Front Page Magazine: His “parents were long-standing members of the Communist Party. While still identifying as a Marxist…in 1968 Horowitz wrote several books that were influential in New Left critiques of American society and particularly its foreign policy. He was an editor at the influential New Left magazine, Rampart, and a confidant of Black Panthers leader Huey P. Newton, and cited experiences with his involvement in the Panthers as the primary catalyst for reassessing his views.”
“Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary magazine, said of Horowitz: ‘…David Horowitz is hated by the Left because he is not only an apostate but has been even more relentless and aggressive in attacking his former political allies than some of us who preceded him in what I once called ‘breaking ranks’ with that world. He has also taken the polemical and organizational techniques he learned in his days on the left, and figured out how to use them against the Left, whose vulnerabilities he knows in his bones…” (Front Page Magazine)
David Mamet, American author, essayist, playwright, screenwriter and film director: Recently wrote an article with the intriguing title, “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal, an election-season essay’” (The Village Voice, March 11th, 2008), in which he stated, “The conservative…holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention. I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind…As a child of the ’60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart…I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances…”
So, if my own reasons for being a “conservative” do not pass muster with Liberals, perhaps the reasons of others far more accomplished than I will be acceptable.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
