Tea Party Should Not Be A 'Third' Party

There has been a great deal of angst among the Lefty Lib community regarding the emergence over the past year or so of what has become known as the 'Tea Party' movement. The liberals who now control the Democratic Party should be concerned, because they and their political leaders led by President Barrack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have awoken a sleeping giant.

That sleeping giant is the true Conservative movement that the majority of Americans feel a natural affinity towards. The people who make up real main-stream America. Hard-working, family-rearing, tax-paying, God-fearing, America-loving, law-abiding folks who want government out of their lives. Who recognize that low taxation, modest regulation, secure borders, and the teaching of and support for American exceptionalism are the true path to lasting recovery, not the socialist style policies of the Obama administration.

That sleeping giant has been embodied by the Tea Partiers. The term, based on the 'Boston Tea Party' protesters of Revolutionary War days, evolved from those people at the grass roots levels of the Conservative movement who held and/or attended town hall meetings that sprang up across the nation during 2009 in response to the various government takeovers, bail outs, and spending programs enacted and proposed by Obama and the liberal Democrats.

Since those numerous and emotional town hall events, the Tea Partiers have taken to the internet, the radio waves, and the blogosphere to continue to push a return to basic, traditional American values and away from the government entitlements, social programs, and massive spending undertaken by the Dems.

But a problem has cropped up among some within the Tea Party movement itself. They have become so disenchanted, rightly in many cases, with some recent and current Republican politicians that they have floated the possibility of becoming their own 'third party' in American politics. This new formal 'Tea Party' would be wholly conservative in every way.

There is one major flaw to such an idea. It is a loser.

The only people who would actually benefit from a third 'Tea Party' made up of conservatives would be the Democratic Party and all of it's ultra-liberal politicians, consituencies and benefactors. Such a party would basically amount to a splitting up of the Republican Party, leaving the Dems to dominate organized politics for the forseeable future, and dooming America to their socialist tendencies, the very programs and ideals that the Tea Partiers stand against.

The 'Tea Party', such as it is, should remain exactly what it is - a movement. It should never try to become a third political party, thus damning itself to the destruction of the very causes for which it was established. What it should do, however, is hold Republican politicians at every level - particularly at the state and national levels - to traditional American and Conservative standards and values.

Remaining organized, active, and vocal will ensure that no longer will the Republican Party nominate a Progressive candidate as it's standard bearer, as it has in recent years with both George W. Bush and John McCain. Instead the Republican Party will have as it's out-front leaders those who support less governmental spending and intervention in our lives, lower taxes, a strong military, secure borders, a judiciary that interprets rather than creates laws, and programs and policies aimed at keeping America strong and independent.

Those on the leading edges of the various groups that make up the most vocal sections of the Conservative movement in America must keep the heat on the politicians and the Republican Party as a whole, while at the same time tempering and better channeling the emotions of those who would sabotage the Party and imperil it's future from within. Only by sticking together and remaining strong will we be able to overcome the Liberals, the Progressives, and the Democrats, elect conservative Republican majorities, and begin to roll back the Obama policies, dismantle the Obama programs, and return America to common sense.

Smerconish Begins to Show His True Stripes

An article for the Philadelphia Inquirer, as politically liberal a rag as exists anywhere in America today, titled "Sorry, but for me, the party is over", written by local quasi-celebrity Michael Smerconish was published in that paper's Sunday, February 21st edition 'Currents' section.

In this article, Smerconish reveals what every true local Philadelphia Republican has known for more than a year. The man who has billed himself as THE local Republican voice, who glommed on to the popularity of programs such as Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor", and who attached themselves at the hip to commentators such as Sean Hannity, is in fact not a Republican after all.

The article, which carried a secondary headline where it continued on page C3 titled "Parting ways with the party, after 30 years", reveals that Smerconish recently had an epiphany of sorts. And he had it while standing in line at, of all places, the DMV. The Inquirer, of course, then bent over backwards to advertise this alleged political change away from conservatism. But is it really a change at all?

Smerconish goes to get his license renewed and the clerk asks him at one point as to whether he would also like to change his voter registration party affiliation. Why this is an appropriate question for some clerk at the DMV to be asking in the first place is never revealed, nor ever fully explored by the allegedly dogged journalist.

Smerconish then goes on to reveal that this was his "hallelujah" moment. One can imagine a mystical light shining down on him from above and revealing that he is actually not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat, but instead he is that most cherished of ideals. He is an "Independent" thinker, beholden to no party values! Hallelujah!

He has the clerk switch his voter registration status from 'Republican' to 'Independent', leaving behind his party of the past three decades. Smerconish writes that in doing so he is better reflecting his personal values. He claims that actually, he is "not sure if I left the Republican Party or the party left me. All I know is that I no longer feel comfortable."

Now let me state before I go on that I myself have switched my formally registered political affiliation a few times over the years. As I have explained in full detail before here at this blog, during my 20's in the 1980's I was a fully-indoctrinated liberal Democrat. It was at some point during the first Clinton administration where I had my own 'hallelujah' moment, realizing that my values and positions had evolved to conservative ones. I made the switch to Republican and have not looked back.

During the time that I was a registered Democrat, however, I switched my party affiliation from Dem to Republican a couple of times. Each time I did so at the request of and specifically for my father, who was involved in the political process and publicly supporting Republican candidates such as John Egan for Mayor of Philadelphia. I would always switch back to Dem following the election cycle, and remained so until making the permanent switch during the mid-90's.

However, unlike the spineless Smerconish, I did not ever try to paint myself with the brush of mediocrity that is the act of being a registered Independent. Smerconish tries to make himself out to be some sort of victim to the system. "Where political parties used to create coalitions and win elections, now they seek to advance strict ideological agendas."

Malarkey! Political parties have existed in America since the earliest decades of our founding, particularly in the years following George Washinton's first Presidency. From those early parties like the Whigs through to Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" Party to today's liberal-dominated Democrats, political parties have displayed polarizing differences in their platforms and in their personalities.

Smerconish tries to defend his decision by pointing to a handful of examples of party inclusion of disparate ideas and visions. In every party there will always be individuals who are slightly moderated from the main party platform and ideals. But you rarely, if ever, can find a full-on conservative Democrat or a full-on liberal Republican, especially among the politicians.

That may prove Smerconish's point, that the parties are indeed ideological, but the fact of the matter is that situation has been in existence since those early years of our Founding Fathers. It didn't suddenly happen in the last election cycle. It didn't slowly develop in recent decades. Political party ideology has been around forever.

The fact is that Smerconish began broadcasting full-time in the early years of the George W. Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He took up the Republican mantle fully, supporting most Bush policies and positions vocally and publicly, including the use of torture on terrorist suspects.

Over the next half-dozen years, Smerconish became a quasi-celebrity, his public conservative positions landing him gigs as a guest host for O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and his largely conservative writings leading to New York Times best-sellers. Smerconish made a lot of money and gained a measure of celebrity in these years thanks to what were perceived to be his intact, well thought-out, mature political and social positions.

But what also was going on is that Smerconish was doing all of this while working at a local Philadelphia radio station. He was not a nationally syndicated host with a vast network of listeners supporting him, he was broadcasting in one of the most liberal cities in America. His stated positions made him a number of political enemies, and shut him out of a number of local sources.

Realizing over time that he was not going to break out nationally as had people like Beck and Hannity, Smerconish saw himself stuck in Philly and treading water. Then suddenly it happened, the savior, Barack Obama, came along with his glib tongue and his two faces. Smerconish began earlier than most to sense the momentum of the Obama campaign, and the alleged Republican talk radio host did the unthinkable in endorsing Obama for President.

It was in this moment that those of us who had suspected for years that Smerconish was simply a charlatan opportunist, using 9/11 and the Republican Party popularity of the early part of the last decade to his advantage, got our proof of that as fact.

There is no way that anyone who took any time to evaluate a politician's actual record before endorsing them, as a public personality with a radio talk show in a major market should, could ever find anything other than the facts. Those facts were that simply from his voting record and previous public associations, Barack Obama was one of the most, if not the single most, liberal members of the United States Senate.

Michael Smerconish threw in with Obama because he saw the momentum switch, believed strongly that Obama was going to win, saw that Obama was articulate and intelligent, and further believed that the sun was setting on the ideology of conservatism. Smerconish basically glommed on to the next big thing to maintain his local audience relevancy.

In the beginning it was actually a good thing to say that he was a Republican who was supporting Obama. In that way, Smerconish could actually try to portray himself as not being ideological himself, despite what was out there in the public purvey for the past half dozen or so years.

But as time has gone on, Smerconish has become more and more enamored with the Obama celebrity himself, tossing aside the substance of the issues for increased access to the administration. Thanks to his position as 'the Republican talking head who supports Obama', Smerconish was actually given the first live radio broadcast, interview, and listener question-answer session from inside the White House with the new President in August of 2009.

A man whom I happen to admire, Glenn Beck, has been an outspoken registered Independent for some time now. But with Beck there is a major difference. He legitimately sees and eloquently expresses his own ideology of American exceptionalism, pointing out with detailed precision how leaders of both parties have been led astray by political and social 'progressivism' and calling for a return to the Constitutional direction of the Founders.

Whatever their motivations, I still believe that whether it be in Beck's principled stand against progressives or in Smerconish's unwillingness to publicly embrace either his change to liberalism or that he has no political backbone, registering as and championing oneself as a registered 'independent' is a bit disingenuous. There is no doubt that Beck's conservative lean would, for example, find him in the voting booth ever pulling the lever next to the name of any current Democrat, while there are any number of Republicans who share his basic ideals.

In contrasts to Beck's independence status, Smerconish is simply a fraud. He is an opportunist who now sees his best opportunity at continued celebrity by casting in with Obama and his liberal followers. Smerconish is waiting for this type of characterization. He is waiting for it and expecting it so that he can use it as well. He is waiting for conservatives to let loose on him for his alleged betrayal.

No, this indictment of Michael Smerconish and his allegedly changed political positions and resulting party registration change do not stem from feelings of betrayal. They come from a long-held belief that the man is all about himself, not any true, bedrock values or political positions. He has no political backbone whatsoever, and has only proven his irrelevancy with this registration switch. That is one man's opinion based on what I have seen and heard.

It is also my opinion that this move to alleged 'independence' is only itself a temporary move. Right now, Smerconish senses the unsure direction of the future political winds as Obama's plans prove to be the socialist failures that many of us predicted. I predict here that Michael Smerconish's political independence itself will not last, and that it is only a matter of time, and more security in the direction of those future political winds, before the big 'R' is back, or before the big 'D' takes a permanent place on his voter registration.

For local Philadelphia morning drive-time radio listeners, you do indeed have a choice. The intelligent, articulate, personable Bill Bennett can be heard by sliding your radio dial over to 990AM weekdays from 6am-9am. There, Bennett's 'Morning in America' program is a part of the "intelligent, conservative talk" that local station WNTP offers each weekday. The one thing that Bill Bennett will never be accused of by anyone is being spineless, and you won't ever see him change his political affiliation for career or financial expediency.

Palin's People Power

As someone who is completely sold on her, it is very difficult for me to understand how anyone outside of absolute liberal ideologues can not get the whole Sarah Palin thing and not like the woman as much as I like her.

The self-described 'hockey mom from Wasilla' has more real world human substance and experience to her than the vast majority of U.S. Senators and Congress persons, and had more executive experience at the time of last year's elections than the Democratic presidential candidate and ultimate victor Barack Obama.

The fact is that Sarah Palin is viewed publicly through two lenses, the two that have the American public as polarized as they have ever been at any time in the nation's history since the Civil War.

On one side are the former mainstream media outlets such as the majority of the nations daily newspapers, weekly news magazines, and it's network television outlets such as ABC and CBS. These outlets became partisan shills for the Democratic Party in general and ultra-liberal, sometimes communist and socialist world views decades ago.

On the other side are large swaths of the new media, including talk radio and much of the internet. Ultra-conservative talk hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and conservative websites such as TownHall.com present Palin favorably, sometimes heroically.

Meanwhile the 'fair and balanced' folks at Fox News channel walk a middle line, but because they don't outright dump on her or present her unfavorably, as those old school network news programs will do regularly, Fox is seen as cow-towing to the Right.

The fact is that Sarah Palin, no matter what her political future might hold, is the single most influential woman in America today not named Oprah Winfrey, and that galls many liberals. The reason that her popularity causes them so much consternation is not so much her political potential, but her personal beliefs, her unwavering public presentation of those, and her popularity in lieu of those positions.

The former Sarah Heath is a family woman, first and foremost. She is said to have eloped with her high school sweetheart and husband of 21 years, Todd Palin, back in 1988. The two have what is described almost universally as a strong, solid, loving marriage. They have five children: sons Track (20) and Trig, who was born early last year with Down syndrome, and daughters Bristol (19), Willow (14) and Piper (8) years.

Born a Roman Catholic, Palin has tried a couple of different Christian churches in adulthood, and has been an outward Christian her entire life. She has also always been a champion for the cause of life, highlighted by her own personal decision to have Trig even though it was known that he would be born with Downs.

You would have to go a long way to find someone who is more socially or politically conservative than Ms. Palin. She has described abortion as an "atrocity", supports oil exploration in ANWR in her home state of Alaska, opposes same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research, supports the death penalty in most cases, and is a lifetime member of the NRA.

Since most Americans describe themselves as 'conservative', and since the majority of Republican Party members have demonstrated since last year's election that they share Palin's position on these key issues, it is not very hard to figure out her popularity with real people.

People who describe themselves as conservative like Sarah Palin a lot for these reasons. Many others respect her, even when they disagree with her politics, because she is a strong wife, mother and female role model who stands by her family and her convictions.

They also see her dealing with many of the same problems that they themselves have had to deal with, from her oldest son entering and serving in the military, to her oldest daughter becoming pregnant as a teenager, to her young baby born with a disability. People see Sarah Palin as a real person.

Her detractors have very little to stand on in the way of substance. They claim that she lacks experience, but voted a man into the presidency with none of the same concern, even though he had even less than she. They say that she is from a 'hick' state, or challenge her education credentials, as if they only people who qualify for national office are from New York or California or some other big state, and who graduated from Harvard or Yale. Some even hold the fact that she is extremely attractive against her as well.

Perhaps her biggest problem or challenge to overcome is her handling of that former mainstream media. She seems to have failed to grasp that people like Katie Couric and Barbara Walters not only do not share her political and social views, but would like to and are in position to torpedo her message. She continues to allow interviews where these networks do not broadcast live, and instead edit her to the worst possible outcome, pandering to their dwindling liberal audience.

Sarah Palin has just released a book titled 'Going Rogue' that has been a #1 best seller for months, even though the book was just officially released and went on sale yesterday. The pre-sales broke records for a reason: because a huge number of Americans not only like her, but also relate to her and are intrigued by her personal and political journey.

Sarah Palin may never become the President of the United States. She will most certainly always have her detractors because of her political and social positions. But if she maintains those positions she will remain wildly popular, and she will indeed be a force in the 2012 Republican Party challenge to reclaim the highest office in the land. It will be Sarah Palin's people power that keeps her in that position of influence.

How to Deprogram a Liberal in One Year or Less

So what do you do when you realize that everything you've ever thought and believed no longer worked for you? Where do you go when the bubble of progressive politics bursts in your face and you're left in the leftist place on earth? It seems that the choices are as follows: either you cling to your beliefs even more zealously and attack anyone who dares to disagree. Or, if you're like me, you embark on a journey of discovery and recovery.

I wrote another piece recently for American Thinker, a letter of amends to conservatives. In it I described why I transformed from a Berkeley leftist to a talk radio loving conservative the last 1 1/2 years. I realized the Democratic Party wasn't what I thought, that it had mutated into something mean and rough, and that I had probably been living in a fantasy world all along. I very much appreciated the outpouring of support, wisdom, and forgiveness from American Thinker readers.

Many said something to the effect of: Robin, congrats, but what in the world took you so long? So let me explain. I wasn't just your garden variety liberal who voted Democrat and that was about it. I was a true believer. A zealot. Like many leftists who had abandoned Judeo-Christian religion, I worshipped at the altar of liberalism. For instance, I never missed watching the Democratic National Convention. I watched every speech, with tissue box handy. (What kind of a freak was I anyway?) The Democratic Party symbolized hope, love, compassion, promise, everything that was good and holy in the world. I gave money, my time, my heart, my soul. I cried with joy when Democrats won; I was distraught when they lost.

I was programmed from birth to be a devout liberal. My dad, a hard working first generation Russian Jew, would lecture me on a regular basis, "The Democrats are the party of the little people. The Republicans are the party of the rich guy." He would also get a little weepy when he watched the DNC (so that must be where I got it from). One of our rare moments of bonding was reading the newspapers together on opposite ends of the couch, interrupting each other with stories about the bad Republicans and the heroic Democrats.

When I was in high school in the early 70's in New York, I wrote impassioned essays on civil rights and on feminism. In college, in the days before universities became indoctrination factories, I searched for politically left classes, and took every one I could find. I spent years in consciousness raising groups lambasting male oppression with other angry feminists, and yelled "Two Four Six Eight, Pornography is Woman Hate," at numerous marches.

When I was 26, I parked myself in the People's Republic of Berkeley, CA, the epicenter of the far left. I came as a liberal but soon morphed into a leftist as most people here do. In Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and the outlying towns, there is no Republican Party. Literally. There are only Democrats running against other Democrats. I recall years ago going to vote at a time when there were separate lines for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats' line was a mile long. The Republican's was free and clear. After we all stood there waiting for 45 minutes, a brave young man walked up to the Republican booth and quickly voted. I still recall the cackles and giggles as we pointed and stared at this odd, exotic bird that had come to perch for a brief while.

So maybe you get now how hard it was, how disorienting and destabilizing and crazy making it was, when I realized about 1 1/2 years ago that I no longer believed in liberalism. I walked around in a confused state for weeks. Being a Democrat, a liberal, a far left radical from Berkeley was a big part of my identity. So who the heck was I if I weren't a leftist? And what in the world would I do, given that my husband, all my friends, and all my psychotherapist clients were liberal and I would be public enemy #1 if I told anyone? Converting from Islam to Judaism, yet still hanging out in front of the old mosque in Kabul, probably would have been easier.

After weeks of shuffling around like a zombie, it was time to do something about it. The first step, I decided, was deprogramming myself from decades of liberal propaganda. Out went books by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and various 9/11 conspiracy books. In came Mark Levin, Ben Stein, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand. I heard something vaguely about Talk Radio, so I scanned my AM dial, and found Michael Savage. I was shocked and offended by his diatribes -- but also oddly intrigued. I found many others: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Boortz, Medved, all of whom became my "sponsors" in recovery this last year. I found wonderfully insightful websites like American Thinker.

To my disbelief, the more I listened and read, the more these folks made sense. For instance, at first I couldn't understand why so many conservatives expressed concern about morality issues, like gay marriage. Berkeley is Lesbian Central, and I know many good hearted gay people. But the more I learned, the more I started getting the larger picture; that conservatives were not necessarily impugning the character of gay people, but they were alarmed at the breakdown of traditional values. If the basic structure of society goes, e.g., traditional marriage, religion, patriotism, common language, what remains? If everything becomes fluid, what is there to hold onto? Without any moral structure and traditions, a society descends into anarchy and mob rule, as it is clearly doing today.

As I educated myself, I started thinking and rethinking. I'd wake up in the middle of the night with the sudden realization that deeply held beliefs made no sense. Take the anti war stance of the left. Noble and sanctimonious and all that. But how easy it is to sit back and preach peace when you have an army defending you; to rail against the U.S. when you are protected by free speech laws; to demonize Israel, when you've never lived through the murderous pogroms of Tsarist Russia or the Holocaust. How hypocritical to lambast Big Business while you are making money from their stocks in your mutual fund portfolio (that is, until Obama took over). And how ludicrous to admire Chavez, Castro and all things socialist, when the closest experience you've had to standing on a bread line is queuing up for goat cheese/arugula pizza at Whole Foods.

And this love affair with Radical Islam -- what's up with that? I had previously thought of Islam as a quaint, folksy religion. But when I started actually reading about it, especially Dr. Phyllis Chesler's illuminating books and web site, I realized extremist Muslims were advocating some seriously scary stuff, like destroying Israel and the West. I had been oblivious of the horrendous treatment of women: the honor killings, beheadings, genital mutilation. It now seemed like the height of naivety, if not masochism, to embrace with open arms people who want to kill you. While as a liberal I was socialized to believe everyone was good, all cultures were the same, and We Are The World, We Are The Children, I began to understand that evil exists. The emergence of evil always offers warnings signs, and we ignore them at our peril.

Though exhausted from lack of sleep, I also started waking up. I realized, to my utter incredulity, that conservatives made sense, and that I was one of them. I recalled Mark Twain's quip about his father: When Twain was a teenager, he thought his father was the stupidest man in the world; but when he became a young man in his 20's, his father had many intelligent things to say. Twain couldn't believe how much his father had learned in those years! Like Twain, I grew up and saw the world as it is. Yes it would be nice to save the planet, to eliminate hunger, and to make everyone good and righteous. But humans don't have the power to do that. To walk around, as I did, with utopian images that didn't match reality was to view life through the eyes of a child. An adult understands that civility matters, people need to be held accountable for their behavior, and protecting yourself and your country are moral imperatives.

So it took about a year, but my deprogramming has been successful. I'm comfortable in my own skin, feel more alive than I have in years, and am excited by all I'm learning and becoming. Now when I listen to Sean Hannity's theme song, "Let Freedom Ring," I get a little misty eyed (some things never change). I only hope and pray (yes I'm doing that more too) that the US survives when the Democrats are done "changing" it. But if this lifelong left winger from Berkeley can wake up, hopefully others will also do so before it's too late.

WRITTEN by Robin of Berkeley at AmericanThinker.com on May 21st, 2009

Netanyahu or Livni: Why You Should Care

Approximately three weeks ago the people of Israel went to the polls in order to attempt to elect new leadership to guide them as the troubled Jewish nation moves forward in particularly challenging times. I am no expert on Israel or it's political process, but I am going to try to explain the possible outcomes, as well as to explain why that outcome is important to you. Americans have to begin by understanding that Israeli elections are not as clear-cut as those in the United States. For all of the faults of our own democratic system, all of the intense battles between Republicans and Democrats, Israel's hodgepodge of parties on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum cause extreme confusion. Not only that, but the plethora of parties with competing visions, goals, and ideologies makes it difficult to form a ruling governmental structure. In America it is easy to simply add up the number of Dems and GOP members in the House and Senate to get a picture of who holds the power. When the party in power in Congress is the same as that of the elected President, that party holds most of the cards in getting it's agenda passed. If there is a Democratic Party president with a Democratic majority congress, as there is right now, then liberal ideologies, programs, and laws are going to be front and center. With a Republican president and congress, such as happened in the beginning of the most recent Bush administration for example, then conservative principles, laws, and policies are going to hold sway. There are the same issues of government in Israel as there are in America regarding domestic problems, but in Israel there really is one issue above all others: national security. Israel is surrounded on all sides by neighbors that want to see it wiped from the map, including a few that have actually tried to accomplish just that feat. Against this backdrop was last month's Knesset election which came down to a struggle between former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (pictured on left) and his Likud Party, and the Kadima Party of foreign minister Tzipi Livni (pictured on right.) To understand the importance, think of the Knesset as the Israeli version of America's congress. The Likud Party is a conservative party, and has been either the ruling party in the Knesset or the leading opposition party for over three decades. It calls for a "peace for peace" initiative in regards to its Arab neighbors, meaning that Israel will agree to peace on the condition that her neighbors comply with the same in an overt and verifiable manner. The Kadima Party was just formed in the past few years and is generally considered a more centrist political group. Kadima has been criticized by many because a feature of their Arab policy has been the surrendering of the territory in Judea and Samaria, key territory in properly defending Israel from the attacks of terror organizations such as Hamas. Likud is also more of a free market, small government party, whereas Kadima's economic platform seems to blow with the popular breeze. Unlike here in America where ours is a vast majority two-party system, it is not just Likud and Kadima in Israel. The Labor Party also has strong influence, and there are other smaller parties that have little or no shot at ruling the government outright, but which can and do wield influence by siding with one or the other of the larger parties in helping them to form a ruling government. The recent elections left no clear winner, but they did tilt towards the more conservative groups headed by Netanyahu. It is thus likely that he and Likud will ultimately come to power as the various groups negotiate their particular roles in the government. The importance of Israel to Americans is many-fold, but there are three vital reasons that we need to support a strong, stable Israel. First there is the issue of Israel's vital presence and example as a democracy in the Middle East in the midst of the many dictatorships and theocracies in that unstable region. Secondly is the issue of Israel's political plight as a microcosm of our own. The same problems plague the Israeli population as plague traditional America, an assault on values and basic principles that is led by an overtly liberal press and media. For a conservative government to emerge in that atmosphere should be comforting and encouraging to American conservatives and traditionalists. Finally, but most importantly, is the basic importance of Israel as the home of God's chosen people. The Jews were given this land by God Himself as is told in the Bible in Exodus 23:20-33 in which He proclaims "I will set your boundaries from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines (the Mediterranean Sea), and from the desert to the River (the Euphrates.)" While the new Israel that finally re-emerged into statehood during the 20th century does not stretch that far at this point, it should not be expected to give up any of its lands. God also said here that "I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes." The vast majority of Americans have understood throughout our history that we have been a particularly blessed nation because of our Judeo-Christian foundation on and our continued belief in the one true God. We have risen to new levels of strength and power as a nation in large part thanks to this support of Israel, His chosen people. If you are among the vast majority of Americans who still claim to believe in God, and the clear majority who hold the Bible as the inspired Word of God, then you need to take His proclamations seriously. We need to always concern ourselves with the security of Israel and to ensure that we are prepared to help fight for its continued existence. For this very reason her political choices, which go to the very heart of that security, should be of vital interest to all Americans.

Obama's Partisans Go After Limbaugh, Specter

There is a new political radio commercial airing frequently on local stations, particularly those with news and news talk formats. In the commercial a smarmy female voice sulks at the audacity of Republicans and in particular the popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh to oppose President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package. The commercial highlights that every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the package. It also plays a clip from Limbaugh's show wherein Rush says "I hope he fails!", in relation to the Obama stimulus bill. The commercial equates opposition to the Obama stimulus bill with being against jobs. The evil, rich Republicans with their 'big business' allies lining up against the 'little guy' to keep him down. Do Democrats really believe that most people are as shallow as to believe that Republicans don't care about people having jobs? About people having the 'American dream' of home ownership and security? Here is what Obama and his liberal Democratic Party partisans want done. They won the election, and so they want Republicans to roll over and take it. They want Republicans in the House and Senate, all of whom were freely elected by their constituents in their home communities, to throw away their own values and beliefs and just cave in to the Obama-mania. Unfortunately for President Obama the simple fact is that while he won the election comfortably, almost 60 million Americans voted against him. Large sections of the country in no way support the radical liberal agenda that he wants to pursue. In fact, millions of Americans stated that they cast their ballot as a protest against the George W. Bush administration as much as for Obama and his plans. The Democrats and their media allies are incensed at Limbaugh for his stand. Why should they be surprised? People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and many others are diametrically opposed to everything that liberals stand for, and these people's names are known to everyone who reads this for a reason. That reason is because almost every single one of those 60 million who voted against Obama, and some of those who voted for him as a protest, see these talk show hosts and authors as their own voice. They have made these people popular by agreeing with and supporting their programs, articles, and books. Of course Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama to fail, and for the exact same reasons that I want Barack Obama to fail, and fail miserably. Because we understand that Obama and the liberals solution to every problem is more government. Create a new agency, a new level of bureaucracy. Create a new department. Finance some new project. All of these things will create new jobs. Sure they will, but who is paying for those new jobs? Those salaries, those benefits? We the people, that's who. And these jobs won't last. They are partisan jobs set up by a partisan liberal administration. The next time that a conservative Republican administration comes to power, and trust me that will be in our lifetimes (possibly as soon as four years from now), those jobs will go out the window. We understand that the real key to significant, long term job creation comes from keeping taxes low, reducing spending in certain areas, keeping the size and scope of Federal government to a minimal level, and allowing the market to create lasting jobs. Making businesses strong results in their expanding and hiring new workers with jobs that last, and that are paid for by those businesses, not we the people. In the political commercials now airing, the real target is Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. The commercial asks whether Specter is going to 'support Rush Limbaugh' and vote his way when the Obama stimulus package goes to the Senate. It is an obvious threat to Specter: vote against us, and you will pay the next time you are up for election. The fact is that Pennsylvania Republicans would be far better off with Specter out and a real, true, conservative-leaning Republican in office. Specter has been called a 'RINO' (Republican In Name Only) for years, and for good reason. The American Conservative Union (ACU) tracks and rates all members of the Congress on their actual voting records. Senator Specter is consistently one of the 2-3 lowest rated Republicans in the entire Senate. He already votes with the Democrats about half the time. For them to threaten him after all the support that he has given them over the decades is political partisanship at its worst. But that appears to be what the Obama folks want. President Obama speaks of breaking down barriers, reaching across the aisle, being inclusive, wanting bipartisanship, ending the political rancor. Then he accuses any Republican who does not support his programs of exactly that. How about this, President Obama? How about you and all of your liberal allies supporting the Republican plans instead? That would show a bipartisan spirit and end political rancor. But it isn't realistic, is it President Obama? The fact of the matter is that the United States remains a divided country. Divided between those who see capitalism and the free market as the best solution, and those who believe that government should be a 'nanny' who takes care of us all. Those who believe that America is the greatest power and force for good that mankind has ever seen, and those who believe that we should be more 'European' and gentile. Those who believe that life is important at every stage and age, and those who believe we should have the choice to selfishly kill another human being when it doesn't suit our lifestyle. Those who believe that the Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. Those who don't believe in throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of tax-payers hard-earned money at every problem and burdening our grandchildren with paying off that debt, and those who are trying to force this exact 'stimulus' program down our throats. Those who dare to take up the mantle of American greatness, and those who fear and even loath its responsibilities. President Obama and his political partisans can go right on attacking Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans in Congress, and conservatives in general. Go ahead, give it your best shot. We're big boys, we can take it. But count on the one thing we absolutely will not do, and that is roll over for the President when we whole-heartedly believe that he is wrong and his program will ultimately hurt America. Barack Obama is overplaying his hand and resorting to the very political partisanship that he claims he is trying to put to an end. As with most people who overplay their hands in any contest, he will find in the end that he wasted a valuable opportunity.