I’m feeling pretty crappy today, coughin’ and sneezin’ and hackin’. and have had nothing to do but read on my iPad. I found these three gems you might like.
To Newt or not to Newt, that is the question. Here’s an essay from American Thinker: “The Case for Gingrich” by Bruce Walker:
There are many problems that conservatives should have with a President Gingrich. His personal life has been speckled with adultery. He has flip-flopped on global warming. His firm has profited, though modestly, from the housing debacle (although there is no hint of wrongdoing on Gingrich’s part.) Gingrich sounds very wonky for a conservative who wants to lead a revolution; conservatism is not, in essence, detailed. Basic principles, nearly all of which devolve choice to the individual or the state government, are clear, few, and brief.
Nevertheless, there is a compelling case for Gingrich as the Republican nominee. He is both glib and brilliant. In this respect Gingrich resembles much more the parliamentary pugilist Winston Churchill, who also had very heavy baggage, than Ronald Reagan, who gave “The Speech” ten thousand times. Like Churchill, who mastered much more than just politics, Gingrich is an historian, a fiction writer, and a dozen other things.
He will not be stumped by the media. In fact, Gingrich will have the knowledge to actually embarrass the automatons who read teleprompter questions. More pointedly, Gingrich has the best chance of any Republican to display Obama before America in a “deer in the headlights” moment. Our current president is a profoundly ignorant man whose ignorance is masked by equally ignorant and wholly programmed media.
Yet what Obama doesn’t know can hurt us, and a single slip in the debates could cost him — and perhaps his party — five percentage points in the general election. That could not only seal the presidential election, but also swing dozens of House and Senate races and turn a presidential victory into a presidential landslide. People are scared now, and a man who obviously grasps the present crisis can be a valuable electoral asset. […]
Here’s another essay from American Thinker that will have you asking more questions: “Dreams From My President” by Randall Hoven:
[…] Obama loves the idea of putting the collective above the individual — not just in the sense of “common defense,” but in the very way we each carry out our lives. A self-reliant person, pursuing her own “private, individual” dream, is the cynic without hope. (Obama can read minds, apparently.) To be on the side of the angels, you must be part of the collective, transforming the world.
Obama’s words are alarming and scary to me. I see tyranny emanating from their penumbras. How is “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence all that different from “pursuing our own private individual dreams”? Would Obama like to replace that phrase in the Declaration with “collective transformation of the world”?
But to many other people, those words speak directly to their hearts. And that is, down deep, what I think separates “liberals” and “conservatives.”
I once read a liberal who, when confronted with facts and data indicating that letting individuals arm themselves with firearms actually led to fewer violent crimes, said, “But is that the way we want it to work?”
Here the guy had a problem (violent crime) that was solved by freedom (letting people do what they want), yet that upset him. Since the solution did not come from some kind of coordinated, collective action, he would rather live with the problem than solve it.
I, on the other hand, would be willing to live with the freedom, even if it meant marginally more violence. I also think that the evidence shows that freedom actually does solve the kinds of problems Obama cites: war, poverty, ignorance, conflict, famine, strife. I’ve written on that before. But I confess, it’s not the evidence that drives me; it’s my values. I value freedom. […]
And lastly, a must-read gem from from Big Peace, that has a pic of the peace-loving Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the ceremonial leader of the only all-Muslim SS Division in World War II: “Understanding Socialism’s Role in the Roots of Islamic Terrorism” by Kerry Patton:
Terrorism: is it about religion or is it really about something else?
We have all heard the quote, “My enemy is your enemy, and therefore you are my friend.” While this quote makes sense and may hold some credibility, it is often too simplified. Since the horrific terrorist attacks of 9-11, we have heard extensive debates about the religion of Islam. When President Barrack Obama took office, many began to discuss socialism. Those who discuss socialism often discuss it in terms of the internal economic destruction of the United States and Europe. Have terror specialists missed the true underlying foundation of today’s war on terror?
Long before the twenty-year reign of the Troubles in Ireland (the period of ethno-political strife in Northern Ireland during the 1960s through the 1980s) was the rise of Irish Nationalism. Some claim everything taking place in the late 1800s to early 1900s in Ireland was an attempt to defeat British rule. Maybe that was the case, but simultaneously few realize those attempting to defeat the British were also Socialists, and American-born Eamon De Valera was a major leader in the Irish movement.
Born in New York in 1882 of an Irish mother and Spanish father, young De Valera quickly found himself growing up in Ireland. He studied mathematics, language, and English Rule at Blackrock College in Dublin, later immersing himself in Gaelic culture by joining the Gaelic League in 1908. The Gaelic League served as his social conditioning influencer—it was a key recruitment center for up-and-coming revolutionists.
The Gaelic League was formed to bring back the origins of Irish culture. To have the most pure form of culture, though, language was critical. The League pushed to have its citizens renounce the English language and speak Gaelic. Because of its difficulty in learning, Gaelic would later become the official language used by the Óglaigh na hÉireann (Irish Republican Army) in an attempt to surpass British communicative intelligence interception and maintain pure nationalistic pride.
Make no mistake, though, that the IRA and its political arm Sinn Fein were not all for the betterment of Ireland. They aligned themselves with the German Nazis time and again prior to and long after World War II. Not only did they directly communicate with German Nazis, they collaborated with American Nazis who would serve predominantly as logistical arms support mostly within the northeastern seaboard of the United States.
As time went on, the Irish Republican Army, like the German Nazis of World War II, aligned themselves with Middle Easterners. Of note, not all of the Middle Eastern comrades of the IRA or Nazi Germany were Islamists. With that in mind, the IRA and Nazi Germany embraced Islamists equally to those believing in different religious theology. Hitler was known to love the Bosnian Muslims of the Hanjar SS Division. […]