Great comment by Monty in response to this post by “Ace” at AoSHQ on the continued hypersexualization of the tween and teen pop culture: Katy Perry To Her Tweener Girl Customers: Have Sex, It’s So Awesome!!!
For those stigmas to work, one must buy into the judgmental God.
Well… God is judgemental. That’s His basic job description, in fact. If you don’t like being judged, then religious faith probably isn’t for you. (And I use “you” in the general, not specific, sense here.)
Shame has a valuable role in advancing civilization. Shame indicates a strong moral component in a society. (“I’m not ashamed of what I am!”, I hear all the time. “That’s the problem,” I respond. “You should be.”)
Sexual mores change all the time. It’s a pendulum, and it tends to swing back towards chastity and fidelity when the social costs of promiscuity become too great to bear. Paternity of children, sexual jealousy, and the institution of marriage all factor into it. If you accept the axiom that the family is the core building block of civilization (as I do); and that the family unit is composed of man, wife, and children (as I do); then it leads you inexorably to the conclusion that any social change that damages that basic building block is necessarily injurious to the cause of civilization as a whole.
Women suffer more than men from sexual promiscuity, fair or not. That’s what’s so socially perverse about promoting “sexual freedom” among young girls: it’s basically telling them to do the worst possible thing for themselves. And it’s not really possible to undo the damage later in life, when you wish you’d done things differently. (Children born from a thoughtless drunken roll in the hay will not magically disappear just because you feel sorry about it.)
I also think that an over-emphasis on the sexual act itself damages the non-sexual aspects of male/female relationships. If the only way that males and females can relate to each other is through coitus, that’s just really sad.
Posted by: Monty at September 27, 2010 02:25 PM
Monty makes a great point about “sexual freedom” being the worst thing possible for young girls (and unmarried girls/women in general, in my opinion). As I commented when I shared this link on my Facebook:
I think ‘Ace’ is a little off on the average age when girls *give away* (not “lose”, no one just “loses” their virginity, they *give it away*) their virginity. I know at least one person who gave theirs away in 8th grade at 14. Their rationale was that they didn’t want to go to HS a virgin. And this was back in 1995. And our society has become extremely more sexualized in the last 15 years. My best guess is that the average age for first-time sex is 6th-7th grade, so around 12-13-14 years old.
This stuff is celebrated and promoted by liberals, because they WANT tweens and teens having sex. Because the more sex they have, the more “unwanted” pregnancies occur and the more women they can push to have abortions. Gotta keep the abortion industry going.
In addition, liberals win even if the tweens and teens decide not to get abortions. The more single young mothers they have, the more people they have on welfare.
And this is why I have repeatedly stated that social conservatism is tied directly to fiscal conservatism and cannot be ignored. The hypersexualization of society is tied in directly to the welfare state, which affects every taxpaying American citizen.
Unfortunately, I don’t think even those people who claim to have a problem with Katy Perry marketing to tweens and teens to have sex will agree that the logical ideal solution is to frown upon *all* promiscuous sex and to promote the ideal of saving sex for marriage. I believe that when our culture and society separated sex from marriage — where it’s primary focus was to be to express love between spouses and procreation — that is where we started to go downhill.
So this is not just a problem among the tween and teen community. This is a problem for people of all age groups. Afterall, you can’t say that it’s okay for someone in their 20s or 30s to have promiscuous sex, but frown upon it for tweens and teens. What’s the difference? There are the same risks of STDs and “unwanted” pregnancies and single motherhood no matter the age group. The problem is that even while people will condemn the message of Katy Perry — and social liberals in general — when it comes to tweens and teens, I bet most aren’t willing to condemn it for the unmarried of all ages.
And that’s the problem. All they’re doing is saying “don’t have sex when you’re a tween or teen, because it’s not good to be a tween or teen single mother or get an STD at that age. BUT, go ahead and have all the sex you want once you’re legal, because (apparently) it’s quite alright to be a single mother or contract an STD in your 20s!”
The simple solution is to go back to promoting — promoting, not legislating — the ideal of waiting to have sex until marriage. Unfortunately, not enough people are willing to do that.
Great comment (from the link above):
My 9 year old asked for Katy Perry on her MP3 player. After reading some of the lyrics, I declined and told my daughter that it was trashy and inappropriate. I have found that a display of distaste is much more effective than shock!shock! at some of this garbage.
Posted by: MDH3 at September 27, 2010 03:09 PM
Having raised [almost, I think] a stepson, son and identical twin girls, I can vouch for the importance of a nose wrinkle and “that is so vulgar” response when they try to push your buttons. My house was always filled with the kids and their friends. We had rules- shoes and hats off, greet the parents, and out of the family room every 45″ for fresh air and food.
They NEED us, WANT us to set those limits and boundaries to make them feel safe. Yes, I know my girls stashed unapproved tops or dresses to change into when they left the house a couple of times, but what was important is that they knew it was wrong and I could tell by how bratty they were the next day due to the guilt. They need the limits- gives them something to push against.
Now 28, 22 and almost 21, all of them have told me that they loved the fact that if they were at all uncomfortable about something, they could say “My parents would kill me, and you’d probably be next”. All of their friends understood.
I do happen to agree with Ace, there is a huge attempt to hypersexualize kids at younger and younger ages, but there are repercussions for these campaigns. Anyone remember thongs for 8 year-old girls from Abercrombie and Fitch? That was such a disaster, they had to come up with the Hollister chain to recoup profits.
Posted by: Museisluse at September 27, 2010 04:51 PM
Via Jonn Lilyea at This Ain’t Hell: Abusing detainees at Guantanamo; the horror, the horror
Yes, that’s right, the only thing this reporter could find to complain about is that detainees only get one ice cream each.
The ice cream rationing has now led the journalist to question Guantanamo Bay’s motives, suspecting that it might be an attempt to reduce spending.
Next thing you know, they won’t be allowed sprinkles or gummy bears on their single serving of ice cream.
Doug Powers at Michele Malkin’s place writes:
When the jack-booted era of Bush/Cheney came to a close I thought such human rights nightmares had ended, but apparently this kind of thing is still allowed in a so-called civilized society. Let’s just call it what it really is: Dairyboarding!
The Jawa Report has a picture of the actual sign on the refrigerator which proves the crime against humanity.
Okay, I’m convinced now. Prior to reading this article, I thought America was a great country. But now, after reading about how we’re denying Islamic terrorists more than one ice cream… G*D DAMN, AMERICA!!! Thank you, MF-ing media, for making me see the light about how EEEEVIL and HORRIBLE is America and our baby-killing, terrorist-torturing military.
I wonder if they have a “scoop Nazi” at GTMO. “No scoop for you! NEXT!”
Okay, one new thought… RCP has one poll on the House race in Delaware (from PPP in early September) shows the Democrat leading the two possible GOP candidates by 16 and 18 points.
Why does anyone think a state that is going to elect a Democrat to the House this year really wants to send a hardcore conservative about whom there are a lot questions to the Senate?
Remember, Delaware has one house seat, so it’s the same electorate. Do you really think they are going to split their ticket for a Democrat and O’Donnell? This is probably one of 3 or 4 Democratic pickups in the House this year but on the other hand they are just dying to send a Palin/DeMint backed candidate to the Senate?
How does that make any sense?
I just read this dribble and shake my head.
Back in 2008, all these eeyore squishes did was tell conservatives that we had to support RINOs in general elections, because “the time for voting for conservatives is in the primaries”.
Well, now that we have a conservative vs a RINO and people are leaning towards voting for the conservative, out come the Squishy eeyores to move the goal posts and say “well, what good does it do to vote for the conservative when they probably won’t win in the general election vs the Democrat?”
Goal posts successfully moved.
Well, what good does it do to have a bunch of RINOs in the GOP who end up voting with the Democrats on key statist legislation like Cap and Trade and will not fight to repeal the statist monstrosity that is Obamacare?
These people don’t seem to understand that just having a majority of Republicans in office does not equate to having a majority of conservatives in office willing to fight against Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s — AND the RINO’s — statism.
These people just don’t seem to get that the GOP doesn’t care about conservatism, it cares about power. That is why they push people like Dede Scozzofava, Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski and now Mike ‘Cap and Trade’ Castle. I don’t care who you are, if you are stupid enough to support and push Cap and Trade, you have NO business being anywhere near public office.
These people also don’t seem to have a memory that goes back even 5-10 years when the GOP had the leadership in Congress. Did the GOP push conservatism? Nope. They were Democrat/Statism-lite… which is why we VOTED THEM OUT OF POWER IN 2006!
The goal is to have a conservative GOP leadership and majority, not a Republican leadership and majority. Having a strong conservative GOP minority willing to fight and block and provide conservative alternatives to Democrats’ and Obama’s statism is better than having a RINO GOP majority which just gives us Statism-lite.
Some good comments:
I live in Ohio as you can tell by my moniker. We have Voinivich. I heard today that son of a bitch will be reaching across the aisle to be the 60th vote for the new small business bill the Dems are pushing right now. Nothing demoralizes our side more than knowing the guy you voted for over the Dem is helping the Dems. He’s retiring. He doesn’t give a flying you know what. It’s not the first time either. He joined McAmnesty in the gang of 14 and a bunch of other Rino shit. Screw the Rino’s. I’d rather march on the enemy with people I can trust. And who knows, Maybe she can win.
BTW, The Small business bill gives tax breaks to small business to them if they spend their money the way the government wants them to.
Posted by: Ohio Dan at September 12, 2010 11:39 PM
Never, ever, ever, ever, trust a RINO.
On balance, their betrayals hurt us more in the long run.
They switch parties. They HATE conservatives, they agitate against conservatives in the press, the MSM uses them to hurt conservatives, the MSM uses them for cover in liberal policies claiming to the public that this was bi-partisan legislation, Obama will use them to claim bi-partisanship……
These are just some of the reasons they hurt the Republican brand.
There are reasons why DeMint says he would rather have 30 Conservatives than 60 Rinos.
Posted by: pam at September 12, 2010 11:41 PM
The whole judicial appointee argument is bunk as long as Grahamnesty sits on that committee. To those making that argument, it isn’t O’Donnell that is crazy, it is you.
Kagan could have never made it out of committee, but good Ole’ candy-ass RINO, you know that guy who called his own party racist, thought she was an honorable woman.
O’Donnell supporter: Castle voted for cap and tax, has a lifetime ACU of 52%, and an F rating from the NRA.
Castle supporter: She’s craaaazzzeeee1111111eleventy!!!.
You are either a conservative, or you are nothing more than a power hungry whore that sells out principles for temporary power.
You are everything that is wrong with the GOP.
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at September 12, 2010 11:53 PM
House Republicans who received campaign donations from environmental groups helped make up the narrow margin of votes needed to send the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill over to the U.S. Senate. The legislation passed by a vote of just 219 to 212 on Friday with critical assistance from eight Republicans.
They are: Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle (Del.)
Anyone so economically-illiterate and gob-smackingly stupid as to think that slipping the US economy a fucking suicide pill is a fabulous idea is unelectable.
Posted by: Waterhouse at September 12, 2010 11:59 PM
Oh, yeah, this surely makes me feel better about Castle:
Funny thing: As RINO as he is, I think he would have escaped this if he hadn’t voted for Cap ‘n’ Trade. The irony: I think he only voted for it to shore up his lib credentials in DE. I honestly think he wouldn’t have done it a year ago.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 13, 2010 12:15 AM
In other words, he has no principles and wouldn’t think twice about screwing over conservatives — and the nation as a whole — on key statist legislation Just like RINOs like John McCain did all throughout the Bush Administration when the GOP had the leadership in the House and Senate.
Again, it does not matter if the GOP has a majority in Congress, it matters that the GOP has a conservative majority willing to fight to stop and repeal statist legislation. If we’re going to just go back to get the same RINO Statist-lite GOP we had from 2000-2006, we don’t gain a thing.
This reiterates my main point. We were told by “moderates” and RINOs that the Primary is where we get to vote for those politicians who mirror our principles. After that, in the general election, vote for the Republican who wins the Primary. There were no exceptions as far as “unless we tell you that your candidate can’t win” or “unless we tell you that your candidate is crazy”. But now, we’re being told that the rules have changed. Now, our moral betters are telling us “sorry, we lied. You can only vote for whom we deem okay for you to vote.” Brilliant.
As much as the crazy label is thrown around can’t help make you think of how that has been used in the past by others against political opponents.
This is a primary. You choose to support someone because you believe they can win the general and not because you agree with their political positions. Others feel that if you can’t vote for the person you agree with in the primary where can you vote for them?
Since you can’t argue with her political positions, you have intimated that she is crazy. As you said about ODonnell before. Way to keep it classy.
Posted by: polynikes at September 13, 2010 11:30 AM
Also, to the complaint that O’Donnell is “crazy”… the argument from “moderates” and RINOs is that we need to accept RINOs, so long as they vote the right way. And they point to “moderate” Democrats whom the Democrat Party accepted in order to get their majority. Well,
(1) those “moderate” Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming, and bribed, to vote with the Democrat leadership. We all know RINOs don’t mirror their Democrat counterparts. They go “maverick” and screw the Party over for their own personal political benefit and celebrity. So accepting RINOs does us no good. And
(2) the Democrats also accepted crazy nutjobs like Al Franken in order to get their majority. So one can argue that “moderates” need to accept some nutjob conservatives, so long as they vote the right way.
If the ends is that we get Congressmen and Senators who vote the right way, who cares if some are nutjobs? Do the Democrats care about their nutjobs? No, they care that they vote the right way come legislation time. And with regards to conservative nutjobs who will vote the right way on key legislation vs RINOs who go “maverick” at the most inopportune times for their own benefit, I’ll choose the nutjob every time.
Is this really the best place and best time to make our stand for a deep red Senate?
I thought the primary was exactly where we do this. Remember? Argue it out in the primary and get together in the general. That’s what we were told was a good strategy, right here on this blog.
I look forward to Ace & Co.’s hearty endorsement for her after she wins the primary.
Posted by: countrydoc at September 13, 2010 11:40 AM
And another who echoes my earlier point about her supposed “craziness” not mattering, so long as she votes the right way:
It doesn’t matter if O’Donnell wins; it only matters that Castle loses. Castle is the same thing as a democrat. And, we will have one less RINO to contend with in 2012.
So what if she’s nuts. As if she’d be the only one. Besides, all she has to do is run her mouth on Fox and vote the way Miller, DeMint, Angle, and Rubio tell her to. How hard can that be? [ … ]
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at September 13, 2010 11:46 AM
This is the way that Castle votes and they’re calling O’Donnell crazy? Oy vey. And this is in addition to Cap-n-Trade!
Castle’s BI-PARTISAN votes:
Impeachment investigations for Pres Bush for “lying” about Iraq.
Defunding missile defense.
Drivers licenses for illegals.
No-confidence vote against the surge.
Can’t wait for Castle’s presser with Obama, endorsing him for 4 more years!
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 11:54 AM
AMEN to all of this:
Sorry Ace, but if I had to choose, I’d throw out Castle.
A guy who can’t break 60% support for the party he supposedly represents is a major power-broker in a close Senate.
IMO, the last thing we need are more RINO power-brokers.
We don’t need control of the Senate this cycle. I think it has been argued at least to a draw on the merits of a weak Senate majority populated by RINOS, vs a strong Conservative minority in the Senate with the prospect for more gains in ’12.
We expect to have control of the House, which should be all the buffer we need to defang Obama’s agenda, and demonstrate a set of principles for further gains in ’12.
I don’t have a vote in Delaware, so my opinion matters little. But I’d look at people like McCain & Graham and Specter and Jeffords and ask you to remember how often you have hated yourself “the morning after”?
If being a liberal means never having to say sorry, being a conservative to me means never having to regret your vote for opportunistic career politicians.
I think those of you who are hell-bent-for leather to have a Senate majority are letting yourselves forget just why the Republican brand was in the shitter last couple of cycles.
I think you are emotionally tied to the prospect of giving the left the what-for, to salve just how badly you felt the last couple of cycles.
I think we are better than that when push comes to shove. Yes, we’d all love the instant gratification of taking control of the Senate as well — but at what cost?
If we learn nothing else from the Left’s march through the institutions, it must be that an ideological war is one that spans many elections, and many generations, with many individual battles.
You do not have to win all the battles. For the sake of our country, we must win the war.
Ideological wars are not won in single elections. But they can be significantly derailed by single elections where a minority set of principles is given much larger influence over the majority platform.
When these sorts of people must be feted just to get them to not torpedo critical legislation, you risk watering down that legislation to the point that it leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth and accomplishes little if any of what it set out to do. When critical legislation fails, it counts against the movement – not against that little egomaniac with disproportionate power. Witness: John McCain et al.
Posted by: krakatoa at September 13, 2010 11:56 AM
And, yes, let us not forget all the different ways that McCain SCREWED Conservatism over the past 10 years. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, going against the Bush Tax Cuts because of a class warfare rationale, just to name a few. And those are KEY, important issues, so the whole “70% for – 30% against” BS does not cut it. When the 70% is meaningless legislation and the 30% is Statist legislation, the RINO is no better than a Democrat and is actually WORSE for watering down the Republican brand and making it Statist-Lite, as the RINOs did from 2000-2006.
Geez luiz, if this is true… I have to research it to verify it, but if true, Castle’s supporters are the nutjobs. We do NOT need a Statist like this in the GOP. If it is between Castle and the Democrat, just let the Democrat win. We do NOT need any more Statists in the GOP. PERIOD.
Castle’s BI-PARTISAN votes:
Tax hikes, card check, pork bills, light-bulb bans, 10-commandment bans, drilling bans, in-state tuition campaign-finance reform, TARP legislation, Disclose Act, extension of McCain/Feingold to the Internet.
Doubling of S-CHIP, a “bipartisan” tax-dollar giveaway to Planned Parenthood.
Castle votes with Pelosi 72% of the time.
Can’t wait for the MSM and Obama to boast how the climate change Republicans fended off vicious attacks from that fringe/extreme/marginalized Conservative Tea Party movement.
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 12:10 PM
Bingo, this echoes the point I just made:
I just find it amazing how invested a lot of people here are in supporting a guy who’s got a worse voting record than Arlen Specter.
You all say “Well, he’ll vote with us at least 30% of the time, which is more than Coons would!”. Yeah. Except that when you look at the record of the Specters, Snowes, etc., the problem is that that 30% is always on votes that were completely ours anyway. They’ll vote conservative when we’ve got more than enough votes anyway. Whenever it’s a -close- vote, they always, always vote with the Dems. Their 30% votes are completely meaningless, because they’re always strategically calculated to never actually make a difference.
Posted by: Qwinn at September 13, 2010 12:17 PM
This isn’t about O’Donnell. This is about principles.
Conservatives have much work to do. Education, the press, popular culture and institutional government are all in liberals hands and have been for a very long time. They got there because they were unfailing in prclaming and standing by their sole principle of progressivism. Race, feminism etc were and are all just means to an end.
How do you ever expect anybody to take our (your?) principles seriously if you are willing to abandon them for an empty victory? Believe me they don’t. I think your principles [are] fungable and I’m a conservative. Any smart liberal will know that your priniples are very negotiable (always in their direction – not ours).
Posted by: Repeal at September 13, 2010 12:48 AM
This explains perfectly the point about having conservatives in office, not RINOs who will screw us over on key issues:
The left leaning democrats put up with the blue dogs, and Nelson in the Senate, and look what they got. Healthcare, two Left wing supreme court justices
Nelson voted for Obamacare, and the Dems didn’t need his votes for the Court and let him take a gimme for his reelection because, ta dah, a herd of Rinos trampled over to their side to kill any danger of filibuster.
Today’s yes votes included Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the lone Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to support Kagan when the panel recommended the nomination to the full Senate on a 13-6 vote. Other GOP yes votes came from Richard Lugar of Indiana, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
Nine GOP senators voted for her confirmation… Among them were four Republican senators who will be retiring at the end of 2010, including Sens. Kit Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Mel Martinez of Florida and George Voinovich of Ohio. Other GOP senators who cast an “aye” vote were Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
And need we point out the family resemblance between the Republicans above and Castle?
Posted by: Laurie David’s Cervix at September 13, 2010 12:50 AM
Another point I made earlier:
Blue Dogs dont vote against liberal legislation…. they don’t trash and campaign against liberals, they don’t haunt all the networks spouting conservative talking points against liberals, the press does not use them against liberals, they DO NOT damage liberals one bit.
A Rino is a completely different animal.
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 12:58 AM
Another good point:
Ok it’s DE. Don’t expect to ever have your ‘principles’ win the day if you don’t have the courage of your convictions. You do have those right?
Since fear of defeat prevents us from presenting our arguments in DE then obviously we souldn’t present them in NY, CA, NJ, ME, IL, MD, MA, VT, RI, HI, MI, WI, MN, WA, OR, NH and CT. That’s a majority of the country. We might as well surrender.
Castle will debate with the libs about a slightly smaller tax increase or a slightly smaller expansion of government. He will not debate about actually making government smaller. Some victory.
I believe in smaller government. I believe in the message of smaller government. Everywhere.
Posted by: Repeal at September 13, 2010 01:16 AM
Here, here. Good comment:
What are the odds that Castle is the 51st and final Repub in the Senate this year anyway? My guess is less then 20%. And this is the Castle supporters main argument. He could easily be number 53 or 52 or 50 or 49 or 48 or 47, making their case moot. I think 20% is the high end.
And whats the odds that if the Repubs end up with magical vote number 51 that they actually play hardball on appointments? And whats the odds another gang of 14 developes making hardball nearly impossible anyway?
Now, whats the odds Castle jumps to the Dem party? Or the odds he votes with the dems on most issues giving more cover for the Maine twins? Or goes on meet the press and bashes every conservative and issue?
And how many Senate, Governship, and House seats will be lost in 2012 if the Dems have a 51 Seat Repub majority to slap around and blame? And how many more votes does Obama get in 2012? Remember Clinton in 1996? Maybe 50 is the better number to have in the Senate and look at this as a two election cycle like the Dems in 06 and 08. Make it a one-two double whammy. Sixty is the key number in the Senate, not 51.
I think O’Donnell has a better chance then many are giving her credit aswell. She lost by only 2 points more then McCain lost by in 2008 to a stronger canidate[Biden vs. Coons]. And this election is going to be a tsunami with the 20+% of blacks sitting home in Delaware. And Coons is a crappy canidate. She was losing by only 11 and 7 points in the last two polls I saw against Coons. A victory here should give her some positive mojo. She could win.
I say vote your consciences. Vote for the best man or woman and let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: Keven at September 13, 2010 01:54 AM
AMEN to all of this:
I was assuming we were all on the same side (other than that snark about Move-on but thats ok), I get both of your arguments completely.
I used to make them myself just a few years ago.
For me, the clear evidence shows that it has not worked, government is bigger than ever, we are losing more and more citizens.
How much longer can conservative politics win? How can conservative candidates campaign against healthcare? They cannot even campaign against ANY entitlement NOW. SS? Medicare? Federal Education?
We need VERY strong men and women for this…not weak Rinos (which is what defines a rino…weakness)
This is where Rino propaganda comes into play, it is not about leaking “secrets”, it is about them being unable and unwilling to articulate and teach liberty and conservatism in the press.
They work against us in the press because they want to be re-elected by buying votes with entitlements.
This gets us no where.
It gets worse every year the public more dependent on gov for their very lives, and their livelihoods.
So again, it is you guys who want to keep the same strategy year after year, maybe you are both correct, and I am wrong.
But I don’t see a speck of evidence that your way is working.
I think we ought to at least give the tea party a chance and see if they can get rid of as many rinos as possible, scare the rest into not running, and even give some who are weak chance to go before the press and press for conservatism, now knowing that a large group (tea parties) has their back.
Why isn’t it worth a try?
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 02:12 AM
I don’t expect to roll back to before the new deal in one election. But I don’t expect to EVER get there if we don’t fight for our position.
We fight for our position by standing up for what we believe in all venues and articulating our values. People will listen. They are correct. That is assuming mine are the same as yours.
Fear of losing or desire for worthless power will not get us anywhere.
By worthless I mean the type of power we have held in the past wherein our side grew the government. (50’s, 70’s, 90, 00’s) That is why people think there is no difference between the two parties.
If we ever actually want to win, and I mean ideas not individuals then we must stand behind our ideas. The liberals did and they managed to transform this nation into a Euro state despite the Constitution.
That is the power of standing behind your ideas.
Posted by: Repeal at September 13, 2010 02:24 AM
Well here we are, the PPP folks, who we must remember are liberal and favor Dems, have done a poll since the Palin and DeMint endorsements and DIABLO Castle has fallen slightly behind. That represents a HUGE swing.
It also represents DE voters possibly picking up on the fact that 99.9% of the negative crap about O’Donnell that is out there is unsubstantiated BS and the other .1% is distortion.
And no, this is NOT a “purity” issue. Castle doesn’t have enough “conservative” in him to be enriched to weapons grade Republican.
And no, the “only Castle can win” argument is pure BS. That argument never was very good and using it became ludicrous after 2008.
In any case it will be over for the primary after tomorrow.
Posted by: Vic at September 13, 2010 06:40 AM
Well I have just read the first 100 comments and it is simply a repeat of the same tired arguments from the past two weeks.
We have reached an impasse in which neither side is going to budge. When this argument first started I looked at Castle’s record and said to myself this guy is a flaming shitbag DIABLO; no way I can support him. But I saw all of the stuff about what a loon O’Donnell was and I said WTF? can’t the Repubs in DE get their shit together? My first post was “we have lost this race already, neither candidate is worth a shit”.
But then I started looking into all the allegations. I found they were ALL either distortions or BS rumor in the same manner as the Palin attacks of 2008. That is when I said better O’Donnell support.
The Palin and DeMint weighed in with their support.
Posted by: Vic at September 13, 2010 06:55 AM
I have been in a lot of the threads, but what is the deal with O’Donnell and her house being paid for by the campaign?
Like a lot of people in politics with little money, her house in the city IS her campaign headquarters. She runs her campaign out of the same house she lives in (rents). She used some campaign funds to help pay that rent. That is perfectly legal AND is not unethical.
Look back through some of Fox’s articles from the past several weeks. They looked into a lot of this stuff and seemed to be OK with what she had done and her explanations. Add to that the fact that NONE of the attacks that have been posted on here ever provides a link to anything of substantive evidence, or the link provides a site with an ax to grind and the article is distorted as hell (Weekly Standard civil suit article)
Also, I would submit that Palin and DeMint with their political connections would be a lot better able to sift out the BS from the truth than any of us and their endorsement in this case means even more than it normally would.
Posted by: Vic at September 13, 2010 07:36 AM
In other words, Congressman Castle is the quintessential Democrat Statist residing in the Republican Party, working to move the Party leftward. Brilliant:
From Castle’s web page: “Congressman Castle is the quintessential moderate, both in ideology and in temperament, and knows how to work across the aisle.”
Q. Why is my stomach lurching at these words?
Posted by: alwyr at September 13, 2010 09:36 AM
Gotta include the insight from the ‘Maha Rushie’ on this matter. From his show today: Republicans Are Blowing Their Best Chance to Beat Liberalism
[ … ] I said, “The thing that concerns me the most is that we are, the Republicans are, blowing the single greatest opportunity we have ever had to blow liberalism out of the water forever and to establish a party that can roll back big government, intrusive government, and fix this once and for all. I don’t know why we don’t learn from the eighties. I don’t know why people do not learn that liberalism fails and is misery every time it’s tried.”
And somebody brought up the Delaware race, and I said, “Well, you know, I have no brief for Christine O’Donnell. But I’m just going to tell you a Senate full of Mike Castles is not gonna get us anywhere. It’s gonna get a bunch of Republicans their chairmanships on the committee but it’s not going to do anything to reverse Obamaism. Not one thing. If that’s our majority with a bunch of Mike Castles there, we’re in trouble.” I was the only one at the table who thought this. Yeah. And this was a table of Republican conservatives. I was the only one, at least the only one who was willing to say it. I think some people did chime in later to one degree or another. (interruption) Some were Northeast Republicans, yeah. Some were Northeast Republicans. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not trying to put feathers in my cap. That’s not the point here. It’s just that in a lot of places Republican victory is all that matters, no matter who the Republican is. And now the Republicans and some official Republicans are actually in a panic over the fact that this Christine O’Donnell woman is leading Castle by three points. [ … ]
This blogger’s theory is that, well, some of these people who are ripping into Angle and ripping into Christine O’Donnell are really insecure about their own status in the ruling class and they want to remain in it, and they see what the power brokers of the ruling class are doing opposing the Palins, the O’Donnells, the George Demos’s, all these Tea Party people, and they’re taking their lead from that. They don’t want to lose their status in the ruling class. The reason why it’s interesting to me is because on the surface it is hard to understand. Okay, here are conservative candidates. We have to acknowledge every candidate is going to have some baggage, personal and otherwise. But if you have a moderate RINO Republican versus a conservative Republican, and both have baggage, I mean it’s unreal to think that the RINO Republicans are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. Why all of a sudden do we now want the RINOs, after all these years and years and years of somewhat unity on the conservative side saying RINOs are not good for the party, not good for the country? So this guy’s theory on status intrigued me. I’m still examining it, still looking into it. I’ll find the blog. I’ll read the exact words to you.
[ … ] “Leftists try to rationalize the hatred by claiming that Palin is an extremist, but that is easily disproved by comparing where she stands on various issues versus how many Americans hold the same views. Moreover, if she truly were an extremist, she wouldn’t be a threat because she would have no electoral base. No, the best explanation for the left’s bizarre Palin obsession is status-anxiety. Status-anxiety occurs when a person believes that their position in a real or imagined social hierarchy is threatened. Leftists react emotionally to Palin because of the threat she poses to their own individual sense of status. All their other arguments are just put forth to rationalize that emotional reaction.
In short, it is not the ideas she puts forth, it’s that someone like her is significant at all.”
This blogger goes on to say that this is the same kind of thing that may be happening out there in the upper tiers of conservative intellectualism, which you’ll find the same attitudes about Palin as you’ll find on the left. You’ll find the same attitudes about this Christine O’Donnell woman in Delaware, Sharron Angle, or the guy in Alaska that beat Murkowski. “Leftism at its heart holds that a small percentage of humans have a vastly superior understanding of everything compared to ordinary people. The point of leftism is to empower these superior individuals to impose their superior understanding upon society by the force of the state. Leftists must be viewed by themselves and others as superior human beings if they are to have a claim to power and status.” And then along comes somebody who does not fit their mold, who is more popular, makes more sense, has a bigger electoral base than they do, and there you have the threat. It gets back to Mr. Codevilla, ruling class versus country class. It gets back to the high school clique versus the people not in it. Essentially we never get outta high school. The problem is that the people in the cliques, the minority, the elites, the superiorists, now have a stranglehold on the country. [ … ]
One of the ways they talk about Castle is, “I am not ‘anti-Mike Castle,’ but I do have a problem with someone who was willing to destroy the economy by signing on to Nancy Pelosi’s cap-and-trade plan.” There are people attacking Castle that way, but the point is they’re doing it on his issues; they’re doing it on his ideas. Nobody is out there calling him names. “The vigorous attacks on Castle have been focused almost exclusively on his record and policy prescriptions. Almost none of the attacks on O’Donnell focus on her policies or political agenda,” which, if you’ve been paying attention, is true. Not one attack on Christine O’Donnell because of what she believes. No, she sued a think tank, got the IRS after her, other personal attacks they’re going after her with. That’s why I keep saying I guess Mike Castle is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow; he doesn’t have any baggage. There’s not a person in the country that could run for office that doesn’t have any baggage. [ … ]
The Republican Party establishment is out trying to, A, tell everybody their RINOs are conservatives. The Democrats are running away from liberalism as fast as they can which they always do every election, and the genuine conservatives are being trashed by everybody while the other candidates are saying that they’re the most conservative out there. It happens every election, don’t misunderstand, but it’s never been like this in our lifetime. Meanwhile, the Democrat media complex is trying to portray the Tea Party and middle America as kooks, as radicals. Now, if Christine O’Donnell is such a crazy and is so unqualified for office why did the state Republican Party nominate her to run against Bite Me in 2008? Only when the sitting ruling class guy comes along and wants to be Senator, which is what happens, it’s like the Specter business versus Toomey, “Well, he deserves our support, been a Republican for all these years. This is how you climb the ladder in party politics and loyalty, there’s a two-way street and so forth.” They’d be supporting O’Donnell now if Castle didn’t want to be a Senator. He’s been governor; he’s been a member of Congress. But I find it refreshing in a way, encouraging in other ways. Everybody is trying to convince voters how conservative they are. All the while, the Democrat media complex is out there trying to tell everybody in the country what a bunch of kooks Sarah Palin is, the Tea Party, middle America, bunch of kooks and radicals. So it really is like Mr. Codevilla said, it’s the ruling class, whatever party identifier attaches to them, versus the everyman.
Pretty shocking headline, huh? Surprised that this is not all over the news? Well, the reason this is not leading news all across the nation is probably because:
(1) Obama’s best buddies were/are domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, etc), so this person would just be on par with their activities and
(2) it wasn’t the founder of a local Tea Party Group, but a founder of an Islamic Charity and they didn’t funnel money to domestic terrorists, but to Muslim jihadists
But just imagine if a local Tea Party group had gotten convicted of supporting terrorists. Think it would be news? With that in mind, ask yourself why it is not news that local Muslim “charities” are supporting Muslim jihad.
Islamic “charities” supporting jihadists: funny how that keeps happening. And it does because there is not the traditional separation between combatant and charitable activities in zakat as there is in the Western tradition, where charitable groups are strictly non-combatant. Rather, Qur’an 9:60 makes no such distinction when discussing groups to whom zakat may be allotted, including those fighting “in the cause of Allah” (jihad fi sabil Allah).
An update on this story, and yet another report related to the “volatile Caucasus.” One can’t help but wonder which attack (or attacks) in our years archived stories about the region might have been the fruits of Sedaghaty’s “charity.”
“Founder of Islamic Charity Convicted,” from Right Side News, September 11:
After a week-long trial, a federal court in Eugene, Oregon has convicted Pete Seda, the founder of an Islamic charity accused of funneling $150,000 to Chechen mujahideen.
Seda, also known as Pirouz Sedaghaty, was charged with conspiring to move money out of the United Sates without declaring it, as required by federal law, and with filing false tax returns to hide the fact that the money ever existed. According to federal officials, Seda accepted a large donation intended to support “our Muslim brothers in Chychnia,” and then surreptitiously shifted the money to Saudi Arabia in the form of difficult to trace traveler’s checks.
Let’s also not forget that it did not make news when the Commies at CODE PINK fund-raised and sent $600,000 to support the terrorists in Fallujah, Iraq in 2005. The same CODE PINK which is best buddies with Obama, Howard Dean and deceased former Congressman John Murtha. CODE PINK’s support of terrorism against the United States was known in 2005. Yet, DEMOCRATS Barack Obama, Howard Dean and John Murtha all associated with them and accepted their support. And, despite that, the American electorate continued to support all three politicians. Despicable.
RELATED: Here’s a story, generating massive national news coverage, of a Tea Party member gunning down her coworkers in Philadelphia. Oops, no, wait… that would be a Muslim woman gunning down her coworkers in Philadelphia and it’s not being covered by national news at all. Imagine that.
Considering we are allowing a Ground Zero Victory Mosque to be built in the heart of New York City and are allowing rioting Muslims in the Muslim World to dictate American policy and freedoms to our President, Secretary of State, SECDEF and leading General in our war effort, it appears to me that ‘the future is now’ and Islamization has already happened.
Via RushBabe in a comment to this post at AoSHQ: September 11th, 2001, In Memoriam
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult.
In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here’s how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. In Russia, grade-schools were attacked. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, beheadings, stoning, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
‘Palestine’ — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
Is this the future of the United States?
Posted by: RushBabe at September 11, 2010 12:43 PM