The Most Terrifying Words in the English Language

By Andrew Sumerea

Anyone who has been awake for the last twenty-five years should know that the uniquely institutional American sin of racism has long been a thing of the past. From our new President's election, to the phenomenal success of Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods, to the domination of the entertainment and professional sports industry, the clear acceptance and, rather, love and appreciation of blacks by a vast majority of Americans is very evident to those who wish to see the obvious. An honest assessment of the last election must conclude that Obama got more votes because of the color of his skin than were cast against him for it.

From the Desk of an Eternal Optimist:

An Open Letter to Conservatives

Rep. Tom Price (R) GA 

A leading Conservative in the House and chairman of the Republican Study Committee

Dear Fellow Conservative:
 
Election Day 2008 produced a liberal governing majority that no one envisioned even as little as two years ago.  The Democrats control both chambers of Congress as well as the Presidency.  And while they are motivated by politics rather than solutions, Americans perceive them as the true agents of change and reform.

Buried within election data is troubling news. The Republican Party is losing grassroots support, and conservatives are peeling away from the party.  According to exit polls, one-in-five self-identified conservatives voted for Barack Obama, clearly illustrating the Republican Party’s inability to project conservative values with credibility.

And this reality has been manifested into a set of greater truths: Americans in 2009 believe that Republicans are tied to the status quo, cannot be trusted on the issues that matter most to them, and are incoherent when articulating a positive vision for the future.

But in light of this, I believe Republicans, by firmly embracing conservative solutions-based traditions, can rise again and set the best course for America.  From the desk of an eternal optimist, better days are ahead.

Before coming to Congress, I helped transform the Republican Party in the State of Georgia from permanent minority party status to a governing, conservative, principled and solutions-based majority.  Now, it is some of the most fertile ground for conservatives in the nation.  This happened in Georgia because of a commitment to what is at the core of leadership: to lead with principle!  Yet right now, conservatives are correct about a Washington in which too few are fighting consistently for their values and concerns.

The Republican Party is at its best when its leadership has a bold vision and is rooted to conservative principles: personal responsibility, liberty, limited government, traditional values, providing for the common defense, and optimism about the future. But Republicans seem to have lost the ability to intelligently or ideologically define these principles and convey them to the American people.

Moreover, elected conservative leaders need to act immediately in order to facilitate the rebuilding of the Republican Party and reconnect it to the conservative movement.

• Back to basics: The first step starts with a little bit of self-reflection and “re-learning” the core principles of conservatism.  Only through understanding the past can our core principles be applied and developed into meaningful solutions to tackle the challenges facing America.

• Party of Solutions: A new Republican platform of ideas and language must be created and championed, built on a foundation of conservative solutions.  It will also need to be built from the ground up from fresh and innovative ideas.

• Rebuild the party’s infrastructure and coalitions: There must be a specific focus on nurturing the grassroots, shoring up ties with existing coalitions and leading thinkers, and creating new infrastructure to meet the challenges of politicking in a new century.

•  Hold Democrats accountable: This begins with a proactive and coordinated strategy between elected conservative leaders and outside allies.  Americans need to be reminded on a daily basis that Democrats want to play politics and centralize power, raise taxes, cut defense spending, and undermine traditional values.

•  Go on offense, engage and educate: Yes, Virginia, someone in Washington is fighting for you.  And when Republicans stay on offense and engage, then it garners attention and provides opportunities to educate every American on conservative solutions that work.  Look no further than the Energy Revolt on the floor of the House of Representatives this past August which gave Republicans a needed voice and identity.

• Remain unified and disciplined: Hostile Democrat majorities and liberal special interests are more energized than they have been in decades.  Without unity and discipline, the differences between the two parties become blurred, and conservatives have every right to question allegiance to Republicans.

•  Reclaim the American lexicon: Democrats have been successful in altering the mindset of what made this nation great through language and institutions. Once, Americans valued “responsibility,” “self-determination,” and “hard work.”  Now, these ideals have been replaced by fuzzy appeals to “diversity,” “fairness,” and “social justice.”  No longer can Republicans cede the language or institutions.

• Broaden the appeal: Republicans win elections when they run on an across-the-board conservative solutions-based agenda. However, the appeal must be broadened to acknowledge and embrace the demographics in our country.  Failure to do so will relegate the party to permanent minority status.

My letter ends with a direct appeal to you.  With continued optimism and clarity of purpose, action can be taken to rebuild the Republican Party, reconnect it to its conservative roots and provide the solutions to tackle the challenges facing America. Last week’s principled and unified opposition to a big-government spending spree that would mortgage our nation’s future and prolong economic strife was just the beginning. Please join me and set us on the course for a better tomorrow.

Yours truly,

Tom Price, M.D.

 Alan Alda is more conservative than people think.

He won't live in Hollywood because of the debauchery there.

Watch this video and decide for yourself

The Next Conservatism, A Serious Agenda for the Future

By Paul M. Weyrich

Hannity's Top 10 Items of Conservatism

http://zshn.fimc.net/

Limited Government, Expanded Popularity

By Quin Hillyer

This is one of those "just for the record" columns. Forget eloquence; this is straightforward information to help defend the cause of real conservatives -- which by definition means "limited government conservatives," which is a redundancy made necessary by the bizarre proliferation of those who claim that "big government conservatism" isn't an obnoxious contradiction in terms.

The question is, what is the record for claiming that advocacy of limited government is a political winner?

The answer is: Abundant political history, specificallyincluding the experience of the Gingrich years that so many falsely claim proves the opposite.

Ronald Reagan, obviously, campaigned strongly for limited government. Despite claims to the contrary, he delivered. His first round of budget cuts, in 1981, were substantial. Rescissions from already passed appropriations meant that domestic discretionary budget authority actually dropped by $6 billion in 1981, and in 1982 the same category dropped by another $21 billion, which was a whopping 15 percent of the total. Budget authority grew by just $7 billion the year after that, leaving it still $20 billion below its 1981 level. It would take another two years for domestic discretionary budget authority to catch up to where it started -- and even that level represented a serious cut in real (after-inflation) dollars.

Yet Reagan was elected with majorities in 49 states, and his vice president was elected to succeed him after a second term that was almost as stringent on such appropriations. Sure, entitlements kept growing throughout Reagan's two terms, but that was merely through formulas already baked into the cake before he took office. The fact remains that Reagan's austerity on annual spending items not only failed to dent his popularity, but quite arguably added to it.

As soon as Reagan left office, domestic discretionary budget outlays began rising at a rapid clip. From $180 billion in 1989, they rose to $260 billion just four years later. Result: The third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, based entirely on two issues, reform and spending control. Further result: The presidency of Bill Clinton.

Just two years later, the Gingrich brigades rode the same two Perot issues, ethics reform and balanced budgets, to a majority. Bill Clinton was chastened enough to declare that "the era of big government is over" -- a declaration he had to make because it was politically popular to do so. But even though he fought the spending cuts, hard, behind the scenes, Republicans delivered just as Reagan had done. Gingrich himself has written several times (in his books) about what happened next: My then-boss, Bob Livingston (who ranks with Bill Archer of Texas as the most underappreciated but consequential heroes of the Gingrich era), took controls of the Appropriations Committee and bravely doubled the ante on a rescissions package during that first winter and spring. Domestic discretionary budget authority dropped from $262 billion in 1994 to a post-rescission $249 billion in 1995, and $247 billion in 1996. They rose only to $257 billion in 1997 (still below the mark of three years earlier), while the growth of entitlement spending also was slowed and while welfare reform was passed, promising what seemed then to be even more austerity.

I SAW FIRSTHAND what happened during those first two years. I saw Republicans clearly win the budget public relations battle in the winter and spring of 1995, and hold their own during the summer. I saw the rough political equilibrium continue all the way into late November or early December, as long as the "budget shutdown" battle involved only discretionary programs. Then, at the urging of California's Bill Thomas, Gingrich tied a small Medicare issue in with the shutdown battle, whereas the two issues had been studiously kept segregated before. Clinton pounced. The political tide turned. And even then, the ultimate battle could have gone either way. But as moderate Republicans caved, so did Clinton, finally accepting a slightly modified plan that everybody agreed would lead to a balanced budget for the first time in decades.

And what happened to Republican congressional majorities in 1996? Next to nothing. A few seats lost, but the GOP still maintained control in both chambers. And then, right up into September of 1998, with domestic discretionary spending growth still having been kept within reasonable bounds, all the prognosticators were expecting GOP House gains of as many as 30 seats. But House Republicans overplayed their impeachment hand by insisting on rules for impeachment proceedings that were unnecessarily stringent; in return for holding the moderates in line on those rules, Gingrich allowed a huge jump in discretionary budget authority.

The capitulation on such spending was astonishing: from $270 billion to $307 billion in one year. And retribution was swift: Although nobody in print (but me) foresaw GOP losses even as late as election eve, House Republicans lost five seats in 1998 -- a stunning under-performance in expectations of between 20 and 35 seats. What had happened? Disgusted fiscal conservatives stayed home in droves; that's what.

Rush Strikes Back at 'Turncoat' Colin Powell By: Phil Brennan

Talk show legend Rush Limbaugh wasted no time in answering Colin Powell after the former secretary of state said on CNN that the Republican Party should stop listening to the radio host. 

On Monday, Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners that what Powell was doing was telling the GOP to throw them under the bus. 

"I think Powell's premise is all wrong," Limbaugh said. "The Republican Party needs to stop listening to me. Basically, what that means is the Republican Party's gotta throw you overboard. The Republican Party can't win as long as it is defined by people like you and me, those of you in this audience." 

Powell is a bit late in telling his party to stop listening to him, Limbaugh said, noting that the party had already stopped listening to him. 

"The simple fact of the matter is, folks, what makes this funny to me is that the Republican Party's not listened to me in the last two years," he explained. "And you might even say in matters of policy and so forth, the Republican Party hasn't been listening to me for the last six years. 

"And you might even say that the Republican Party is in the situation it's in precisely because of the people like Colin Powell and John McCain and others who have devised this new definition and identity of the party which is responsible for electing Democrats all over this country." 

After recalling that Powell voted for Barack Obama, Limbaugh charged that the Bush administration's first secretary of state was upset because he said that Powell's endorsement of Obama was about race. "These things are supposed to go unsaid," Limbaugh said. 

Limbaugh also took aim at GOP presidential candidate McCain.

"The Republican Party nominated Powell's perfect candidate. The guy's going after moderates, independents, Democrats, a guy who is not conservative at all, McCain, didn't stand up for much conservative [principles], and he's out there now saying he won't support Palin if she seeks the presidency again, or he might not."

Turning back to Powell, Limbaugh said Powell "insists that conservatives and Republicans support candidates who will appeal to minorities like I guess McCain who led the effort for amnesty. He insists that conservatives and Republicans move to the center like McCain, who calls himself a maverick for doing so. 

"General Powell insists that conservatives and Republicans provide an open tent to different ideas and views, like I guess McCain, who repeatedly trashed Republicans and made nice with Democrats. I mean, their tent's big, they just don't want us in it." 

Having been what Limbaugh described as Powell's ideal candidate, after McCain won the GOP at the last moment, Powell switched sides. 

"Once McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate, largely by independents and Democrats voting in Republican primaries, Colin Powell waited 'til the last minute, when it would do the most damage to McCain and the Republicans, and endorsed Obama. And when I said it was largely about race, that's what set 'em all off. You're not supposed to say these kinds of things. This is supposed to go unspoken. 

"Let me get this straight," Limbaugh said. "The guy who has supported the Republican candidate for president should be thrown out of the party. That would be me. But the guy who bolted and sabotaged the Republican nominee by endorsing the Democrat candidate should stay in and be part of the team that determines what the Republican Party is going to be. The turncoat, General Powell, is the one who the party is gonna listen to? McCain's a moderate. I supported McCain. Powell, who wants a moderate, did not support McCain."