Carville to the Left: Conservatives Aren’t Racist. - Erick’s blog - RedState

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Friday, October 16th at 4:15PM EDT

Whoa. Really? Who knew.

Brian, over at The Conservatives, has a post up looking at James Carville’s recent survey, which involved a discussion with a bunch of conservatives.

You and I could immediately guess what came of this, but it was news to Carville and the left.

Conservatives are not racist.
Conservatives are convinced Obama is pushing socialism.
Conservatives don’t care for the GOP leadership either.

I could have told you all those things. Naturally, though, liberals aren’t so sure about the race thing.

Go check out the whole post.

Do the RNC, NRCC, and Dede Scozzafava condone eugenics and sterilization of the poor and minorities? - Erick’s blog - RedState

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Friday, October 16th at 8:28PM EDT
10 Comments

I hate to have to ask the question, but in light of this news broken by Michelle Malkin today, we must.

Scozzafava is the proud recipient of the Margaret Sanger award given by an abortion group in New York.

Margaret Sanger was a noted eugenicist. Though Planned Parenthood, the group Sanger found, denies it, evidence from a variety of sources points out that Sanger was a big supporter of sterilization of minorities.

In 1939, Sanger created the Negro Project, which the left has tried to discredit, but was very much real. Sanger advocated sterilization and abortion for lower income black women."

more

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Russian security advisor: We reserve the right to nuke you preemptively

posted at 6:12 pm on October 14, 2009 by Allahpundit

Just a little follow-up to Ed’s post earlier, tracking the progress of The One’s global disarmament efforts.

Hey — the committee did say that Nobel was aspirational.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”

Gulp. If I were in Georgia — or in any other country Russia considers part of its sphere of influence — that formulation would make me pretty anxious…

In the interview, he takes a swipe at the United States and NATO, saying that the alliance “continues to press for the admission of new members to NATO, the military activities of the bloc are intensifying, and U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive exercises to improve the management of strategic nuclear weapons.”

more

Pelosi Key to GOP 2010 Playbook

Republicans hope linking House speaker to Democrats can turn centrist districts

The Wall Street Journal

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 12, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009. (AP)

WASHINGTON -- Republicans are stepping up attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, deciding that a major part of their 2010 electoral strategy will be linking Democratic candidates to her.

The approach emerged last week when the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, issued a statement saying it hopes Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, puts Pelosi "in her place" on Afghan policy. The statement accused Pelosi, a California Democrat, of putting party politics ahead of national security in her cautious statements on expanding the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

Pelosi Thursday called the statement sexist. "It's really sad. They really don't understand how inappropriate that is," she told reporters. "I'm in my place. I'm speaker of the House, the first woman speaker of the House. And I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. That language is something I haven't even heard in decades."

In response, Joanna Burgos, an NRCC spokeswoman, said in a statement that Pelosi "self-righteously believes she is better suited to craft our country's military policy" than is Gen. McChrystal.

Republicans tried to stanch their party's bloodletting in 2006 by linking Democratic candidates to the San Francisco lawmaker, who appeared on track to become speaker if the Democrats retook the House. Last year, Pelosi was already speaker, but her party didn't also control the presidency. Now, with Democrats holding huge congressional majorities and with Barack Obama in the White House, Democrats are more easily tied to just about anything coming out of Washington. Thus Republicans are betting that voters now associate the House speaker with policies that make them uncomfortable, like generous government spending and a cap-and-trade system for fighting global warming.

In a recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, 44% of respondents had negative feelings about Pelosi and 27% had positive ones, with the remaining 29% either neutral or not sure. Among independents, 53% viewed her negatively and just 20% positively.

White House Tries to Strike Down Insurance Industry Criticism Ahead of Key Vote

The health insurance industry sharply escalates its criticism of the Senate health care bill, charging that the legislation would shift costs to privately insured people, raising the price of policies.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

(AP).

The White House fired back Monday at the health insurance industry for issuing a study that claims the health care reform bill working its way toward a key vote Tuesday will raise the cost of individual coverage by hundreds of dollars a year.

Linda Douglass, spokeswoman with the Office of Health Reform, said in a statement that the timing of the study, released just hours before the Senate Finance Committee is set to vote on its bill, raises questions about its legitimacy. She joined other Democratic officials in trying to keep the analysis from gaining traction.

"This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," she said. "It comes on the eve of a vote that will reduce the industry's profits. It is hard to take it seriously."

But America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry group that sent its member companies the new study late Sunday, stood by the findings.

more

U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

Free speech death watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, yesterday.

It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's "negative stereotyping."

And the worst aspect of this and all such measures is that the "Incitement" and the "hatred" are in the eye of the beholder. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as hate speech. The Founding Fathers tried to protect Americans from tyranny by protecting free speech. Now our free speech is threatened, and tyranny will take advantage of that. But we still have the First Amendment, right? Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn't that easy to dismiss this:

6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we're protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed "hate speech" that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

Planet Earth (Nasa)
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly."

more