 Click to bookmark this page!
- Contact Me - Include your email address
 Just in case you weren't sure...
Please sign the Ted Kennedy Resignation Petition!
Shameless Self-PromotionBuy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture: The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com

An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!
Perspective Joe
MarianiNumber
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by precision use of American military force
under George W. Bush: 50
million in just two years
Number
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by anti-American Bush-bashing
terrorist-appeasing whining elitists: Zero. Ever.
...The problem seems to
me to be the definition of "free speech".
Liberals define it as anything they want to say
or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends
where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun
for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a
"peace" march, send money to a terrorist
organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an
American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action. ...
Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force. ...Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat. ...Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature. ...
Cavalier's First Theorem: Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Cavalier's Second Theorem: Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.
Cavalier's Third Theorem: Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."
Top News Headlines
Iraq
Blogs
The Messopotamian Iraq at a Glance Iraq the Model
Hammorabi Iraq & Iraqis Nabil's Blog Road of a Nation The Sun of Iraq
Healing Iraq
Iraqi Bloggers Central
The Truth About Iraq Liberating Iraq
Pictures from Iraq The Iraqi Holocaust: a collection
Iraq's Mass Graves
Mudville Gazette: News the media can't use
The Other Iraq: The Iraq you never hear about in the MSM
Michael Yon - Online Magazine Dispatches not filed from the Baghdad Hilton hot tub
 United States Central Command
Humor
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Day by Day:
Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political
bent
The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?
What Kind of Liberal Are You? Save me the trouble
of figuring out what kind of idiot you
are
Blame
Bush Because Bush is to blame... for
everything
Sacred Cow Burgers Web Archive
Satirical Political Beliefs
Test
Communists for Kerry
Cooper's Protester Guide
Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.
Analysis
When Democrats Attack Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)
Was Iraqi Freedom Justified? An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism
How The Left Betrayed Iraq by Naseer Flayih Hasan
Did We Botch The
Occupation? No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the
media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946
and compare.
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq
Pictures from Hate
Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate
Israel/general wacko rallies - by
Zombie
Jihad Watch
2004 Election Links
Looosers: Sorry, Everybody!
Winners: You're Welcome, Everybody!
2008 ElectionPeace Through Strength PAC Duncan Hunter in 2008 official site
Click to join duncanhunterforpresident2008 at Yahoo! Groups
Useful Links
FamilyWishList Share your wish list with friends and family
Virtual Tourist Travel tips from real travelers
RemBot.com Appointment calendar with email/wireless notification
PriceGrabber.com Convenient comparison shopping
Reading
MaterialRightWingNews
The best right-wing news and commentary
GOP USA Commentary
Corner
Men's News Daily The New Media
OpinionEditorials.com a project of Frontiers of Freedom
ChronWatch SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news
American Daily Analysis with political and social commentary
The Conservative Voice Conservative news and opinion
News By Us ...not news bias
IntellectualConservative.com Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
CommonConservative.com Practical conservatism for the common man
USASentinel Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
PhillyFuture.org Philly news and blogs
Now ReadingThe Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism by F. A. Hayek

Articles Previously Published at
Useless-Knowledge.com
- When Good Liberals Go
Bad - 05/29/03 - How Stupid Do Democrats Think You
Are? - 05/31/03 - Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax
Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03 - How Can We Miss The Clintons If
They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03 -
Whining of Mass Distraction: How
To Discredit A President -
06/05/03 - Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
- 06/10/03 - Liberalism: Curable or
Terminal? - 06/14/03 - Filibustering Judges: Hijacking
Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03 -
Is Hamas Exempt from the War on
Terror? - 06/22/03 - How Malleable Is The
Constitution? - 06/26/03 - Rejecting Our Biological and
Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03 - I Need Liberal Assistance,
Now! - 07/02/03 - Bring Them On -
07/03/03 - We Need You Arrogant Warmongering
Americans...Again - 07/09/03 - Much Ado About Nothing, Again
- 07/13/03 - Double Standard: Blindly Blame
Bush - 07/18/03 - Was WWII Also Unjustified?
- 07/20/03 - Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On
It! - 07/24/03 - How To Be A Hypocritical
Liberal - 07/28/03 - The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to
Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03 -What Is 'Good News' To
Liberals? - 08/02/03 - Bush's Big Blunder -
08/06/03 - The Meaning of Right - Why I
Supported the Iraq War -
08/10/03 - More Liberal "Rules" for
Arguing - 08/14/03 - You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take
John Wayne! - 08/19/03 - Where Is The ACLU When It's
Actually Needed? - 08/25/03 - Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten
Commandments? - 08/28/03 - From The Weasels: Thanks For
Nothing - 08/30/03 - The Liberal
Superfriends - 09/02/03 - Liberal Superfriends 2: The
Sequel - 09/05/03 - Saddam and 9/11: Connect the
Dots - 09/08/03 - Throwing Away the Southern
Vote - 11/02/03 - Libya: The First Domino
Falls - 12/20/03 - Is the UN Playing Games with
American Politics? - 03/04/04
Blogs to Browse
Across the Pond
AlphaPatriot
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
DowneastBlog
ElectionProjection
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
LogiPundit.com
MarkLevinFan
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
Moonbattery
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
RadioBS.net
Rebel Rouser
RightThinkingGirl
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
The YNC
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
WuzzaDem.com
|
|
|
 |
|
Monday, January 19, 2004
Which Is the True Party of Inclusion?
Which Is the True Party of Inclusion?
Who will the Republicans run for President in 2008? This question came up during a recent argument with a Liberal (a waste of time, more or less, but sometimes useful for sharpening one's mental claws). My answer seemed to shock him. Personally, I'd like to see either Paul Bremer or Colin Powell in the Oval Office, but I don't think the latter will run. Condoleeza Rice would also make a good President, in my opinion, but she needs more public exposure, perhaps as Vice President first. The liberal was stunned by this. He said that it seemed incredibly "progressive" for a Conservative, and that no Republican would ever elect a female or black President. I therefore took the opportunity to enlighten him.
The Liberals like to portray their pet political party, the Democrats, as "the party of inclusion" or "the big-tent party," while denouncing Republicans as anti-minority and anti-women. Historically, nothing could be further from the truth. It's just another Liberal lie.
The first woman in Congress was Jeanette Rankin, a Republican from Montana elected in 1916. Her platform included universal suffrage, Prohibition, child welfare reform, an end to child labor, and staying out of World War I. Does that sound like the anti-woman, warmongering Republican Party the Liberals like to describe? Not to me.
The first black Congressman was Joseph Hayne Rainey, a Republican from South Carolina and a former slave. Rainey's father purchased the family's freedom and became a barber. Rainey was one of the more conservative black leaders during Reconstruction; he favored a poll tax as a requirement for voting, with the revenues devoted to public education (the measure didn't pass). Elected to Congress in 1870, he supported an amnesty bill to remove remaining liabilities on former Confederates while simultaneously promoting a civil rights bill. Does that fit the Liberal profile of Republicans? No.
The first black Senator to serve a full term was also a Republican, Blanche K. Bruce of Mississippi. (Technically, the first black Senator was Republican Hiram Rhoades Revels. He was elected to serve the remainder of Jefferson Davis' term, but did not run for re-election.) Born a slave, he escaped at the beginning of the Civil War and tried to enlist in the Union Army. He was elected to the Senate in 1874, encouraging the government to be more generous in issuing western land grants to blacks and favoring distribution of duty-free clothing from England to needy blacks. Senator Bruce also worked for the desegregation of United States Army units. Again . . . does this fit in with the view of Republicans the liberals force-feed their adherents? Hardly.
The first woman to run for President on a major party ticket, as well as serve in both houses of Congress, was Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican from Maine. Elected in 1940, she supported appropriation for childcare and helped women in military service by establishing WAVES (Women Accepted for Voluntary Emergency Service) and the Army-Navy Permanent Nurses Corps. She worked for retirement benefits, equal pay, and equal rank for women. She then ran for the Senate in 1948 and won, serving for 24 years. During that time, in 1964, Senator Smith ran for President on the Republican Party ticket and received 27 nominating votes at the Republican Convention. Is that the anti-women Republican party the Democrats like to portray? Nope.
After the Democrats blocked the passage of the Republican-backed civil rights bills of 1957 and 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was finally passed despite a Democratic filibuster led by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa), a former Klansman and still a US Senator. It was the Democrats who fought against civil rights, not Republicans. In the House, 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while in the Senate, 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voted against it.
Which political party is really the party of inclusion, and which pigeonholes people based on race, creed, or sex? Which party promotes people based on their individual merits, and which sees people only as representatives of a group? When you look fairly at the facts, the "big tent" the Democrats claim to be under is just a circus tent.
Posted at Monday, January 19, 2004 by CavalierX
 |  |  | Mark from Colorado January 19, 2004 05:53 PM PST
The Democrat party is the party of malcontent voting blocks. The GOP is the party of individuals with strong convictions. Rice would be great on national security issues. But, her pro-affirmative action views and her undefined views on everything else would make it hard for her to win the GOP presidential nomination. I think Bill Frist looks awfully strong right now. But, hey, it's early! |  |
  |  |  | Mike H. January 20, 2004 12:40 AM PST
Hey JM,
I guess the children are going to prove to us why the public doesn't want them. Lot of hatred coming through.
Mike H. |  |
  |  |  | JM January 20, 2004 05:04 AM PST
Yes, Mike H, but I have no problem deleting trash comments, especially those calling for hte deaths of American soldiers. |  |
  |  |  | Joe Bagodonuts January 20, 2004 04:55 PM PST
Cavalier:
I would have thought you might include Bill Frist and Jeb Bush, though I can imagine the liberal horror at having a Bush in the White House for potentially 8 years AFTER W.
Additionally, I think your information was excellent, though a bit dated. What matters is where the republican party is NOW, not in throughout the 1900's. |  |
  |  |  | JM January 20, 2004 08:21 PM PST
Well, one reason I favor Bremer (and a point I can see being used in his campaign ads) is that no one else running will have had experience running a country. Plus, I've seen HOW he runs it... first thing he did was institute a flat tax. Also, remember his background... he's a counter-terrorism expert. Three big items in his favor.
As far as the info going a little far back... you're right, but this was written in response to a specific argument, that the Republicans have never elected blacks or women to high positions. In fact, they're the party that has always done so FIRST! |  |
  |  |  | Virtus February 1, 2004 03:51 AM PST
The reason most blacks where Republican back then (and why Republicans get credit for having the first black elected officials) is because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. |  |
|
|
|