AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

If your schooling was so excellent, why can't you write an English sentence with any consistency? Why do you know nothing about history? Why can't you understand the political system? Why does logic escape you?

My two older kids went to a Montessori elementary school. In fifth grade, they studied how a bill becomes law. My daughter's class researched drilling for oil in the ANWAR. The kids found such drilling a threat to the environment and, on a trip to DC, presented their findings to Senators Kennedy and Kerry.

My ex-husband may be your age: he was born in 1942. Educated in Massachusetts, Florida and Maine, he attended public schools with the exception of two years at a prep school in Maine. He never had a course in government nor in economics. I consider the education he received inferior to mine.

And, I was never told by you that you are married. I am surprised. It is hard to imagine a woman putting up with the crankiness you exhibit here.

Why doesn't the word anarchism appear twice because conservatism in its most extreme form contradicts the notion of government? Furthermore, why would you, of all people, put anarchy on the left side of your equation?

DISCLOSE ACT back on the calendar...

We must stop this 1st Amendment killing legislation. They are trying to stop our voices! ...

We have received information from Capitol Hill regarding the "Disclose Act" and we must work to defeat this bill. The vote is expected to take place tonight or tomorrow. We encourage you to find out more information about the DISCLOSE Act in the links below.

On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (McCain- Feingold) - a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority Leadership are making it a priority to pass this bill. This bill is designed to take away the influence of Tea Party and other conservative groups in the upcoming November election. We feel like this bill will be successfully challenged in the courts, but the ruling will not come before the November election.

An exemption has been carved out for the Labor Unions and other leftist advocacy groups. The NRA was also exempted so they would not actively oppose it.

Roll Call Magazine reports today that they have carved out even deeper exemptions in order to assure passage and we believe it clearly shows the intent of the bill is to diminish the effectiveness of Tea Party groups and other newer conservative advocacy groups.

"Facing wide-ranging blowback from an exemption tailored for the National Rifle Association, House Democratic leaders have decided to expand the carve-out from disclosure requirements in a campaign finance measure they are trying to pass this week.

The new standard lowers the membership requirement for outside groups from 1 million members to 500,000. Those groups would still need to have members in 50 states, have existed for 10 years and can accept no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporate or union sources. The broader bill, called the DISCLOSE Act, comes in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision in January that struck down limits on corporate and union spending in elections. The bill would force groups participating in elections to name their top donors, among other changes."

... on the left side ... !?

Your statement actually does demonstrate the arrogance of liberals, you think your opinions are the only correct ones and that you are the moderate and center of the road position, which I believe is so far wrong as to be laughable

One of the reasons I believe I am correct on this is the fact that I grew up in a Democrat household and we talked politics virtually every day.

Nevertheless, I believe my experience deserves very serious consideration as being very valid for what it was.

By virtue of what? Because he was not as liberal as you?

I am not here to be liked

Example, if all evidence that I see and understand from history indicates the Nazis align more with what is now considered to be leftist idealogy, then that is what I am going to say.

Quote:

Example, if all evidence that I see and understand from history indicates the Nazis align more with what is now considered to be leftist idealogy, then that is what I am going to say.

Listen, you dishonest, delusional, uneducated bigot, what you "see and understand" is unique to you. Very few others see and understand what you do. Perhaps, you have a drinking problem.

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
Elena Kagan — Obama’s Political Operative on the Supreme Court?

Confirmation hearings for Obama Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan are set to begin on Monday and the debate over her nomination is about to hit fever pitch. According to the Associated Press:

Opponents and backers of President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens stepped up their efforts with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Kagan’s less than a week away. Republicans are increasingly under pressure from conservative activists to oppose Kagan or block a vote to confirm her, while the White House is working with Democrats to dispel doubts that could mar her so-far smooth path to a lifetime spot on the nation’s highest court.

Of course, we already know Kagan is a liberal activist with a thin resume, little legal experience and no judicial experience. But what other doubts might the White House need dispel?

Well, let’s start with documents released by the Department of Defense that clearly show Kagan’s unlawful mistreatment of our nation’s military while she served as Dean of Harvard Law School. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called attention to these outrageous documents in a statement earlier this week.

As you may recall, Kagan kicked military recruiters off the campus of Harvard Law School, allegedly in opposition to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (a policy crafted by her former boss President Bill Clinton). The Obama White House has claimed from the beginning that Kagan followed the law and did what she could to accommodate the U.S. military. But the documents tell a different story.

According to Sessions: “The documents show that Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard’s policy, without basis or notice, in order to block the access of recruiters—not to accommodate them. They show that she defied federal law, forcing the Department of Defense use [sic] its legal authority to bring Harvard into compliance. They show that she did not ensure access to military careers, but that the Office of Career Services prevented the military from even posting a job opening. They show that she sanctioned a demeaning, second-class entry system for the military that the Department of Defense made clear was intolerable.”

And then there’s this related piece from columnist and president of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney. Gaffney notes that Harvard Law School accepted $20 million from members of the Saudi Royal Family to establish a Center for Islamic Studies and Sharia Law while Kagan served as Dean.

For those who practice it, Sharia, known as the “path” in Arabic, is a set of controversial laws that guide all aspects of Muslim life. Some interpretations have been used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation, female genital mutilation and stoning. Homosexuality, by the way, is punishable by death or flogging under Sharia law, which is an interesting contradiction to note regarding Ms. Kagan. While she was busy fighting for gay rights in the military she was openly courting a brand of radical Muslim law that condones the execution of homosexuals.

There were other “doubts” regarding Ms. Kagan raised in the press this week. Say, for example, the video that surfaced this week showing Kagan in 2006 praising retired Judge Aharon Barak during a ceremony at Harvard when she was Dean of the Harvard Law School. Judge Barak, described by Judge Robert Bork as perhaps “the worst judge on the planet,” was a radical activist during his time on the court.

In fact, here’s what he wrote in his 2006 book The Judge in a Democracy: "a good judge is a judge who, within the bounds of legitimate possibilities, makes law that, more than other law he is authorized to make, best bridges the gap between law and society and best protects the constitution and its values.” He also says that judges should go "beyond actually deciding the dispute."

Listen, you dishonest, delusional, uneducated bigot, what you "see and understand" is unique to you. Very few others see and understand what you do. Perhaps, you have a drinking problem.

"the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year."

An exemption has been carved out for the Labor Unions and other leftist advocacy groups. The NRA was also exempted so they would not actively oppose it.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority Leadership are making it a priority to pass this bill.

This bill is designed to take away the influence of Tea Party and other conservative groups in the upcoming November election. We feel like this bill will be successfully challenged in the courts, but the ruling will not come before the November election.

"It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here, No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done." *

Roll Call Magazine reports today that they have carved out even deeper exemptions in order to assure passage and we believe it clearly shows the intent of the bill is to diminish the effectiveness of Tea Party groups and other newer conservative advocacy groups.

plainoldme wrote:

Listen, you dishonest, delusional, uneducated bigot, what you "see and understand" is unique to you. Very few others see and understand what you do. Perhaps, you have a drinking problem.

The posts on this thread are so thoughtful.

Quote:

Example, if all evidence that I see and understand from history indicates the Nazis align more with what is now considered to be leftist idealogy, then that is what I am going to say.

Listen, you dishonest, delusional, uneducated bigot, what you "see and understand" is unique to you. Very few others see and understand what you do. Perhaps, you have a drinking problem.