PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Sowell: Are Republicans "Due"?




FrankRep
01-20-2010, 11:57 AM
After the Republicans went from being the dominant party, at both the state and national levels, just a few years ago, and got clobbered at the polls by the Democrats two elections in a row, some people think the Republicans are due to make a comeback in this fall's elections. by Thomas Sowell


Are Republicans "Due"? (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5867-are-republicans-qdueq-)


Thomas Sowell | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
20 January 2010


When a baseball player has come to bat after failing to get a hit twenty times in a row, some fans say he is "due" for a hit. But statisticians say he is no more likely to get a hit in this at bat than at any other time. In other words, there is no such thing as being "due."

After the Republicans went from being the dominant party, at both the state and national levels, just a few years ago, and got clobbered at the polls by the Democrats two elections in a row, some people think the Republicans are "due" to make a comeback in this fall's elections.

Maybe it will happen. The polls show that the voting public is getting more and more fed up with the Obama administration and with both houses of Congress that are dominated by Democrats. But, when election day comes, nobody can vote for polls. It still takes a candidate to beat a candidate — and the question is whether the Republicans come up with the kinds of candidates that can win.

Those of us who are not Republicans nevertheless have a huge stake in this fall's elections, because the current administration in Washington is not merely deficient but dangerous, both at home and abroad.

In just one year in power, the Obama administration has not merely tripled the deficit and circumvented the Constitution with their "czars" who rule by decree, but have moved to dictate the medical treatment of all Americans — which is to say, they are moving toward getting the power of life and death, to add to all the other powers they have seized.

Increasing numbers of Americans are saying that they are having trouble recognizing the country in which they were born and grew up. They will have even more trouble recognizing America if the Washington juggernaut does not lose a substantial part of its power in this year's election.

The dangers are not only in domestic policy but even more so in the Obama administration's foreign policy. Their diddling around while fanatical leaders of a terrorist-sponsoring nation like Iran are moving toward producing nuclear bombs can take us and the world to a point of no return.

No nation on earth will let three of its cities be annihilated by nuclear bombs without surrendering. The fact that the United States has never surrendered may make it difficult for Americans even to imagine that it could happen, much less what a horror it would be to live under hate-filled fanatics like the current Iranian leaders. But Japan had likewise never surrendered in its entire history until it was hit with two nuclear bombs.

Unlike us, Iranian leaders — going back to the Ayatollah Khomeini — have said plainly that they are willing to see their country destroyed as the price of destroying the enemies of Islam — which, in their view of the world, includes the United States.

Perhaps serious sanctions might have been enough to stop the Iranian nuclear program a few years ago, by crippling their economy. But nobody in the West had the stomach for that.

The longer we wait, the higher the price goes — the price of either action or inaction.

Just three years ago, the people currently at the top in Washington — including President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — were ready to turn tail and run in Iraq.

Former Ambassador John Bolton has written a book titled "Surrender is Not an Option." But that is an option for the kind of people at the top in the Obama administration.

It would take a leader with extraordinary courage, pride in America and dedication to the values, traditions and the people of America, to stand up to enemies who could annihilate Los Angeles, Chicago and New York with nuclear weapons.

Does this sound anything like the president who has gone around the world apologizing for this country and literally bowing to foreign leaders?

The stakes in this fall's elections go far beyond the fate of either the Republican party or the Democratic party. The fate of America is on the line. The Republicans need to understand that — and to understand that they are not simply "due" because of polls.

They have a job to do, and what will happen to our children and grandchildren will depend on how well they do it.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5867-are-republicans-qdueq-

Aratus
01-20-2010, 01:21 PM
all we thoroughgoing AU~H2O REPUBLICANs are TOTALLY OVERDUE for an apt & wise guy or gal
to be more Ms. or Mr. Republican than SENATOR ROBERT TAFT EVER WAS! this is LONG overdue!!!

FrankRep
01-21-2010, 02:13 PM
After the Republicans went from being the dominant party, at both the state and national levels, just a few years ago, and got clobbered at the polls by the Democrats two elections in a row, some people think the Republicans are due to make a comeback in this fall's elections. by Thomas Sowell


Are Republicans "Due"?: Part II (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5874-are-republicans-qdueq-part-ii-)


Thomas Sowell | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
21 January 2010


Some people say that there is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Whether that is said because of being too lazy to examine the differences or because it makes some people feel exalted to say, in effect, "a plague on both your houses," it is a dangerous self-indulgence.

When Republicans were in power, they acted too much like Democrats, with big spending and earmarks, lending weight to the notion that there is no real difference.

Among the differences between the parties is that Democrats are more articulate.

Admittedly, the Democrats have an easier case to make. It takes no great amount of thought, nor much in the way of persuasive powers, to sell the idea of government handing out benefits hither and yon. It is only when you stop and think about the consequences, for this generation and generations to come, that some grim questions arise.

But if Republicans don't raise those awkward questions, and don't take the trouble to explain what is wrong with government playing Santa Claus, then the Democrats can soar on a cloud of euphoria. Sometimes it doesn't matter that you have a better product, if your competitors have better salesmen.

Republicans lag not only in the articulation department, they also lag in seeing the long-run importance of the federal bureaucracy. When the Democrats load the federal bureaucracy with liberals, those liberals stay on during Republican administrations and in many cases can shape the perceptions that reach the media and the public, by the way they present data, hire consultants and make grants.

The Bureau of the Census is a classic example. The tendentious way that data and pie charts are presented provides a steady stream of material for a political and media drumbeat about "disparities" that call for government intervention.

Data on income differences, for example, are presented in a way that suggests that the different income brackets represent enduring classes of people over time, when in fact other studies show that the vast majority of people in the lowest income brackets as of a given time rise out of those brackets over time. More people from the bottom fifth end up in the top fifth than remain at the bottom.

Household income data are presented in ways which suggest that there is very little real improvement in the American people's standard of living over time, and innumerable editorials and television commentaries have elaborated that theme. But per capita income data show far more improvement over time. The difference is that households have been getting smaller but one person always means one person.

Just by deciding what kind of data to present in what way, the Census Bureau has become, in effect, an adjunct of the liberal establishment, even when conservative Republicans are in control of the federal government. This is not necessarily deliberate political sabotage, just liberals being liberals.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has for years repeatedly exposed the fallacies of the inferences drawn from Census data. Yet when Republicans controlled the federal government — as they did for 12 consecutive years, beginning in 1981 — did they try to appoint someone like Robert Rector to a position where they could put an end to tendentious statistics that promote misconceptions with political implications? Not at all.

Too many Republicans don't even know their own party's history. One painful consequence is that too many Republicans act as if they have to apologize for their party's civil rights record — which is in fact better than that of the Democrats.

A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was Republicans whose "Philadelphia Plan" in the 1970s sought to break the construction unions' racial barriers that kept blacks out of skilled trades.

Just as boxers have to do training in the gym and roadwork before they are ready for a boxing match, Republicans need to do a lot of homework before they are ready for their next match against the Democrats.

Related Articles:

Part I: Are Republicans "Due"? (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5867-are-republicans-qdueq-)


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5874-are-republicans-qdueq-part-ii-

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-21-2010, 03:07 PM
Are Republicans "Due"?: Part II (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5874-are-republicans-qdueq-part-ii-)


Thomas Sowell | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
21 January 2010


Some people say that there is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Whether that is said because of being too lazy to examine the differences or because it makes some people feel exalted to say, in effect, "a plague on both your houses," it is a dangerous self-indulgence.

When Republicans were in power, they acted too much like Democrats, with big spending and earmarks, lending weight to the notion that there is no real difference.

Among the differences between the parties is that Democrats are more articulate.

Admittedly, the Democrats have an easier case to make. It takes no great amount of thought, nor much in the way of persuasive powers, to sell the idea of government handing out benefits hither and yon. It is only when you stop and think about the consequences, for this generation and generations to come, that some grim questions arise.

But if Republicans don't raise those awkward questions, and don't take the trouble to explain what is wrong with government playing Santa Claus, then the Democrats can soar on a cloud of euphoria. Sometimes it doesn't matter that you have a better product, if your competitors have better salesmen.

Republicans lag not only in the articulation department, they also lag in seeing the long-run importance of the federal bureaucracy. When the Democrats load the federal bureaucracy with liberals, those liberals stay on during Republican administrations and in many cases can shape the perceptions that reach the media and the public, by the way they present data, hire consultants and make grants.

The Bureau of the Census is a classic example. The tendentious way that data and pie charts are presented provides a steady stream of material for a political and media drumbeat about "disparities" that call for government intervention.

Data on income differences, for example, are presented in a way that suggests that the different income brackets represent enduring classes of people over time, when in fact other studies show that the vast majority of people in the lowest income brackets as of a given time rise out of those brackets over time. More people from the bottom fifth end up in the top fifth than remain at the bottom.

Household income data are presented in ways which suggest that there is very little real improvement in the American people's standard of living over time, and innumerable editorials and television commentaries have elaborated that theme. But per capita income data show far more improvement over time. The difference is that households have been getting smaller but one person always means one person.

Just by deciding what kind of data to present in what way, the Census Bureau has become, in effect, an adjunct of the liberal establishment, even when conservative Republicans are in control of the federal government. This is not necessarily deliberate political sabotage, just liberals being liberals.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has for years repeatedly exposed the fallacies of the inferences drawn from Census data. Yet when Republicans controlled the federal government — as they did for 12 consecutive years, beginning in 1981 — did they try to appoint someone like Robert Rector to a position where they could put an end to tendentious statistics that promote misconceptions with political implications? Not at all.

Too many Republicans don't even know their own party's history. One painful consequence is that too many Republicans act as if they have to apologize for their party's civil rights record — which is in fact better than that of the Democrats.

A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was Republicans whose "Philadelphia Plan" in the 1970s sought to break the construction unions' racial barriers that kept blacks out of skilled trades.

Just as boxers have to do training in the gym and roadwork before they are ready for a boxing match, Republicans need to do a lot of homework before they are ready for their next match against the Democrats.

Related Articles:

Part I: Are Republicans "Due"? (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5867-are-republicans-qdueq-)


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5874-are-republicans-qdueq-part-ii-

Yes, let's trump around and promote the GOP voted for the CRA, which is a blatant attack on property rights...

johnrocks
01-21-2010, 03:12 PM
I used to really like Thomas Sowell, I guess it's true, 9-11 really did change things.

FrankRep
01-21-2010, 03:15 PM
I used to really like Thomas Sowell, I guess it's true, 9-11 really did change things.
Don't support Thomas Sowell anymore?

FrankRep
01-21-2010, 06:29 PM
From Lee Gonzales:

The present leadership of the Democrats, and for that matter, the Republican leadership will continue to follow the agenda of the Grand Design.{ substitute Communism for terrorism and you'll see the Grand Design unfold before your eyes. Move the pointer to the center for a taste of what the GD is}

YouTube - 1 of 8 The Grand Design World Government 1968 Presentation G E Griffin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBbXzFt9Oyg)

That Grand Design is to continue to vote for more socialism and to work to merge America into larger "trade organizations" always with the goal of an eventual world- wide government in mind, which will then be run a select few. That is why when the Republicans gained a majority in the Senate and in the House in the 1994 election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

Internationalist Insider Newt Gingrich made sure that the Republican newcomers and the "Republican Revolution" didn't upset the apple cart and call for a complete reversal of our foreign and domestic polices. Newt sounded great with his "contract with America" but it was really a contract on America. He continued the same New World Order/ internationalist tax exempt foundation policies.

You have to watch this video on Mr Gingrich:

The Real Newt Gingrich on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/6445068)


Here is our opportunity: If enough Americans catch on via the efforts fo The John Birch Society and spread the word the 2010 and 2012 elections won't be diverted as they were by Gingrich in 1995 thru 1999 to serve the agenda of the internationalists.

Freedom and liberty and our nation's independence can only be achieved not by just changing the parties in power but by changing the philosophy back to the Constitution and the principles of the Founders. More specifically we have to expose internationalists in both parties who don't care who wins and election as long as their polices of the NWO are kept moving forward. That is why The John Birch Society was formed - to get back to the Constitution and to expose people who want to kill us with their New World Order.