More About This Website

LowDownCentral is your one-stop source for incisive political and conservative social commentary -- infused with a twinge of humor.

Contributing Writers

LDCLTimage.jpg

LANCE THOMPSON

lancet@q.com

ROSE PEDENKO

ldcpedenko@hotmail.com

 

LDCTSimage.jpg

TANYA SIMON

lowdowncentral_ts@yahoo.com

PAULINE BOREN

conservativecook@gmail.com

    

 

 

 

 

Login
LowDown Commercialism
Google
THE NEWS YOU NEED TO KNOW

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36981179?GT1=43001

TWITTER

TODAY ON LDC

 

 

 

Entries in 2012 Election (2)

Tuesday
Jun012010

Two Term or Not to Term

 

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon 

Between President Nixon’s pressured resignation and Bill Clinton’s Pants on the Ground deliberate misstatements under oath, the word “impeach” was seldom used with legitimacy.  However, by mid-summer 2009 (six months after the inauguration of the man whose middle name rhymes with “pain”) “impeachment” has been Twittered, Googled, Facebooked, texted, and even “whispered” (surprisingly) by those with buyer’s remorse.  Twelve months later it is being shouted from America’s rooftops. 

Recently, Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), unwittingly provided a ray of hope in that someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.  Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is even saying this could be President Barack Obama’s Watergate.  This also means Joe Sestak is not the brightest Crayola in the box, but we digress. 

The very name Barack Hussein Obama is sending chills up and down the collective spine of Americans.  There are still those that scoff at the seemingly xenophobic vocalization of his middle name as being racist.  But Americans have quickly learned that being labeled a racist is part and parcel of this administration’s progressive as well as regressive tactics. 

The course this President has set is due to surrounding himself with ideological quacks and cons inside the administration and supported by dutiful drones like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid--all intent on steering the United States into a Marxist-lite firestorm.  It began with the GM takeover, under the guise of saving it from bankruptcy, and now, the BP oil spill may have provided the catastrophic event they were waiting for.  As Senator Bill Nelson suggests, "If this thing is not fixed today, I think the president doesn't have any choice, and he better go in, completely take over…."  And the latest push for Financial Reform may end up plugging up all the loose ends. 

They (Obama & Company) are masters of deflecting attention from one crisis to another to distract Americans long enough to cement their progressive agenda.  Perennial campaigning and near record-setting rounds of golf for a sitting President are their way of saying, “Keep your eye on the ball and you’ll forget all that other stuff.” 

Starting with the top dog and working downward, there are more fools and fruitcakes in charge than Nixon had plumbers, except this time they are (laughingly) referred to as czars, appointed by and answering only to the President.  Congress has, in effect, rendered itself inutile as it cedes and/or is robbed of its one-third checks and balances power.  Even a new Republican majority will be hard-pressed to reverse the current damage and what lies ahead when much of this administration’s agenda bears its rotten fruit. 

The current list of czars is only the tip of the iceberg.  Now comes Arif Alikhan and Kareem Shora, appointed to posts at the Department of Homeland Security by Janet Napolitano .  The announcements emphasized the words “devout Muslims.”  We cannot recall when any other U.S. government official was sworn in and the words “devout Catholic,” “devout Protestant,” “devout Jew” or “devout atheist” were added as a tagline.  The fact that Muslims – devout or otherwise – are included as integral parts in the security of this country is frightening.  What next, Tony Villaraigosa as Border Czar? 

Coincidentally, another member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council is Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and President of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.  From Socialist President Woodrow Wilson to Socialist President Woodrobama, Americans have never had more cause for grave concern. 

American culture is based in the ideology of freedom.  To say this administration, in concert with senators and congresspersons intoxicated with the idea of omnipotent power, has betrayed every trust sacred would be a gross understatement.  Our free enterprise system, and thus our liberty, are victims of a new Night and Fog-like Decree: where one by one, ownership of our intellectual property, business profits, and homes, are being abducted and shot down by a progressive agenda the masses do not even comprehend.  Day by day the murky pictures coming out of the White House become clearer as they continue to herd us over a financial cliff. 

And now, even the American media are taking a jaundiced view of the person upon whom they heaped unadulterated – and undeserved – praise, having hawked, peddled and schemed on his behalf, all of which brought him to the ultimate seat of power.  The liberal press has been slow to catch on that “transparency,” once a clever campaign gimmick, is now biting them where it hurts: access to their Chosen One.  Even the Huffington Post, sanctioned source of information that it has become, was surprised that Obama breached years of protocol by leaving White House without the press with him. Timely press conferences have been replaced with the Elmer Fudd-like blips and bloopers of White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. 

Quoting CBS’s Chip Reid (regarding the drastic BP Oil spill): “…critics on Capitol Hill just weren’t buying what the White House was saying about the government’s role in all of this and whether they could do more.”  That’s a harsh statement from the network that cheapened their once powerhouse status. 

This President was swept into office by being the first campaign to effectively harness the power of the internet: to organize and rally the uneducated, and cajole the elites (the easiest to dupe) that real transformative change could take place.  Had the majority not been so awed by the oratorical smoke and mirrors, they might have realized the true intent.  The same internet, laden with first person proof of his radical agenda, will also, unfortunately for Barack Obama, be the powerful broom that sweeps him out of that office in 2012. 

 

Wednesday
Nov122008

Nothing in Moderation

by Lance Thompson

In the wake of the presidential election, some Republicans are recommending that the party should soften its views, back away from hard-line conservatism, and blur the differences between us and the Democrats. These people are called moderates, and the prescription they offer is deadly.

The Democrats did not win with a moderate candidate. Barack Obama was the nation’s most liberal Senator until he became the nation’s most liberal president. John McCain, on the other hand, was a moderate Republican, with a record of reaching across the aisle and favoring Democrat views on issues such as immigration, global warming, and tax cuts. This moderate candidate was clobbered by his immoderate opponent.

In response to the election, moderates will say that we must follow the trend, that Republicans should embrace the issues the Democrats won on. They encourage us to abandon conservative principles, evolve with the times, and adopt positions more in line with the Democrats, who scored many victories.

But we can never out-Democrat the Democrats. The closer the GOP gets to Democratic principles, the less reason there is for Republicans to exist. Why would a Democrat vote for a watered-down version of his own party? We will not only fail to woo Democrats with a slightly less-liberal version of their own platform, we will also alienate the ideological conservative core of our own party.

If liberals are right, and most of the nation subscribes to their principles of peace at any cost, of punishing success with high taxes and redistribution of income, of turning America into a nanny state where all people are dependent on the government for their needs, of opening our borders and legitimizing illegal aliens, of crippling industry as a sacrifice to the false faith of global warming, then conservatives are wrong and should retire from politics.

But if conservatives are right that freedom must be defended at all costs, that success is the well-earned reward of individual initiative, that government should be small and unobtrusive, that our borders must be secure and that immigrants must follow our laws, that global warming is a chimera whose remedies will cripple our economy, then why should we moderate our views at all?

If conservatives are right, what value is there in diluting our just cause? Would you trust a business partner who is moderately honest? Would you place your life in the hands of a moderately skillful surgeon? Would you be happy in a marriage to a moderately faithful spouse? Then what value is there in a moderately conservative candidate? To whatever extent he departs from conservative principles, he is to the same extent departing from the proper course.

Moderate Republicans have already diluted tough immigration laws, voted for the financial bailout bill, and blamed the failure of the incompetent McCain campaign on Sarah Palin--the most promising new conservative in a quarter of a century. How much more damage can they do to conservative principles if their views shape the future of the GOP?

Moderate candidates do not prevail. Voters don’t rally to the banners of moderate candidates. Moderate candidates are compromised in their principles by definition.

Moderate voters are equally uninspiring. These are the ones who aren’t interested in the campaign during the primaries, don’t focus on the issues until the last few weeks or even days of the campaign, and haven’t made up their minds until the last minute. Moderate voters don’t knock on doors, work the phone, send out e-mails and plant yard signs. Moderate voters do not contribute to campaigns or financially support candidates. Moderate voters are the casual observers at the fringe of the fight, with little invested in either outcome.

The reclamation of the GOP will not be accomplished by moderate candidates or constituents. The beacon for Republicans is not straddling a fence or sitting in the middle of the road. Our destination is defined by strong, unyielding conservative principles. There is no need to qualify our creed with labels such as "compassionate conservatism" or "new conservatism."

Much effort will be required to rebuild the Republican Party. That effort will only be rewarded if we start with a solid foundation. We must not build the future of our party on the shifting sands of moderation, but rather on the solid bedrock of conservative principle.

 

----- Original Message -----