-
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
June 18, 2013 | 105 comments
-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Special Report
Sean Hannity and the Importance of Reagan Conservativism
Conservative Victory tour debuts at Reagan Library as Obama damage mounts.
(Page 4 of 5)
The waters of economic wreckage rise! How exhilarating!
What a wonderful treat to move from the Age of Reagan to the Age of Obama if you work for AT&T, Deere or Caterpillar or Verizon. OK, so you will lose your choice of doctors because your health care costs will go up. So you lose your job because your employer simply can’t afford you anymore. So your shares in the company stock are worth less and beginning to drain your retirement fund or that money you invested for your child’s education. So you make a heck of a lot less than $250,000 a year and your taxes are going to go up. So the IRS is busily hiring 16,000 IRS agents to keep track of whether or not you have a government-approved insurance policy. So you weren’t exactly told the truth about all this. So what? What’s the big deal?
Question: What was the liberal response to this news? As The Prowler right here at the American Spectator has reported:
On Friday White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett were calling the CEOs and Washington office heads of the companies that took the financial hits and attacked them for doing so. One Washington office head said that the White House calls were accusatory and “downright rude.”
Now, Congressman Henry Waxman is launching a congressional investigation and demanding internal documents, e-mails etc. In other words, America’s descent into the dark world that Reagan described as the path “down to the ant heap of totalitarians” is picking up speed.
Isn’t it great to see that sense of desperation, hopelessness, and — yes — fear in the eyes of our fellow citizens as they behold the personal consequences of government-induced economic wreckage once again? Not since Jimmy Carter and those wonderful days of yore when you had to wait in endless lines just to fill your car with gas while losing your job and paying for basic groceries in double-digit inflation rates have Americans been having such a great time.
Having fun yet? No?
In writing Conservative Victory Sean Hannity has written a book that has an urgent relevance to what is going on in America right this minute — while we are increasingly caught up in the quicksand of a downward spiral of events that make the book necessary in the first place. Every candidate for office anywhere on the ballot should be reading this book.
The Conservative Victory tour Hannity launches today can effectively be seen as the opening bell in the fight to lead America out of the disastrous mess into which Obamanomics and socialist/social justice/progressive liberals are steadily leading America. There is nothing new about the so-called “change” Barack Obama has brought to this country. It has been tried around the world for over a hundred years — failing every single time.
Some version of the contrast between the Obama and Reagan worldview could and can be seen vividly in the side-by-side economies of East and West Berlin or North and South Korea. Not to mention the Soviet Union itself. The collapse of the latter, onto the “ash heap of history” it should be recalled, was predicted by Reagan to catcalls of derision by his leftist critics. But in fact you don’t have to leave the country to see the consequences of unchecked leftist policies, as Reagan well knew. Even the Nation magazine admitted in an otherwise adoring profile of Obama the presidential candidate that the grinding poverty of the South Side of Chicago wasn’t dented by Obama’s community organizing.
Now, AT&T, Verizon, the Deere Company, Caterpillar and some New Hampshire ski resorts are learning the same lesson as those poor souls in North Korea, East Berlin and the South Side of Chicago.
As Gomer Pyle used to say: Golllllleeeey Ned!
Ignoring the central principle that the free market cures poverty — while socialism and social justice/liberalism/progressivism or whatever you choose to call it spreads poverty — is not simply to ignore the economic reality of our time or any time. It is, as Ronald Reagan came to understand in his bones, to willfully reject a central moral truth of human life. Which is to say, expressed in the terms Reagan himself used in his 1964 speech A Time for Choosing, the difference between Reaganomics and Obamanomics is whether the American people move towards “the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
In launching the tour for his book from Reagan’s library, by coincidence just less than a year from the centennial of Reagan’s birth and just over a week following the health care debacle in Washington, Sean Hannity is shining the light on Reagan’s hard earned wisdom even as the consequences of The Age of Obama begin to spread like an economic pandemic before our eyes. Reagan’s wisdom? That “regardless of their humanitarian purpose those who would sacrifice freedom for security have, whether they know it or not, chosen this downward path.”
The fight to get America moving into the future again, towards the “bright dawn ahead” that was once called Reagan’s “morning in America” is on.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (112) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/30/sean-hannity-and-the-importanc
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JimBob| 3.30.10 @ 8:05AM
I will reserve judgement on Hannity's book because I haven't read it, but I've listened to his radio show and watched him on Fox enough to know he gets one thing about Reagan wrong, Foreign Policy. Sean comes across as an unrepentant Neocon whereas Reagan was more of a traditional Republican. John Patrick Higgins author of "Morning in America" a book William F. Buckley said helped him finally understand his old Ronald Reagan.
How Reagan Beat the NeoCons
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06.....gewanted=1
Melvin| 3.30.10 @ 8:29AM
Jim Bob, are you sure that Professor Diggins wrote Morning in America and not Troy? I cannot seam to match the author with the title.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 10:49AM
Even Hunter Thompson wrote that Reagan was "the last great American."
But I like silent Cal the best; the less you say, the better. As the chattering classes grow more chattery, we will appreciate Coolidge more.
JimBob| 3.30.10 @ 8:44AM
Sorry Melvin, Diggins changed the name of the book before it went to the publisher.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....p;n=283155
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.10 @ 8:45AM
Melvin,
When you see the word "neo-con" spat out, you are simply seeing isolationism.
...what I call the "eskimo complex" because the eskimos just kept moving north until they settled in a place no other tribe wanted.
"neo-con" spitter = "isolationism"
Here in Texas, we have a tradition of the "peace officer" rather than the "policeman". When I hear someone use the phrase "policeman of the world", I sorta' automatically plug in the term "peace officer" instead.
I am certainly willing to pay taxes for those "peace officers", and pay tribute to them with deep thanks as well.
I hope Hannity does well, and I have ordered his book.
maverick muse| 3.30.10 @ 9:43AM
"When you see the word 'neo-con' spat out, you are simply seeing isolationism."
Ken,
Neoconservatives support the military complex and international interventionism, as well as domestic interventionism, having birthed the DHS.
If you are referencing "isolationists" as those against military interventionism running our nation's international policy, look into the Libertarian platform.
Spitting "neocon" is the Alinsky socialist Democrat manner referencing as vile their own feudal competitor to rule over the socialist global order.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 3:16PM
"look into the Libertarian platform."
You mean rightwing libertarians possessing no genuine morals. Good thing you libertarians
are so fratricidal; otherwise you might get more small-morals libertopians directly involved in electoral politics.
I am thankful for small favors.
William R| 3.30.10 @ 5:11PM
Ken, you don't even know what isolationism means.
Len| 3.30.10 @ 9:05AM
Old Texican, I don't give a crap what you do in your little mind, the US constitution makes no room for policing the world, so clearly you and your ilk think the US constitution only something that interferes with your imperialistic agenda.
Let me ask you this, particularly as the rest of the world has not granted us authority to police them, how do you feel when they police us, maybe by defending a sovereign nation such as Iraq? A sovereign nation which we attacked under the false pretext of their having dirty bombs which were going to employed against us.
JP| 3.30.10 @ 9:15AM
Len,
Get over it. Most people have moved on. Your canned talking points are getting a bit long in the tooth. You might as well complain about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident or the Zimmerman Telegram for all the good it will do you.
Len| 3.30.10 @ 9:28AM
Right JP. What was I thinking, getting out of line like that? Bending back over now, and being a good little boy.
Oh, I apologize for the canned thoughts also. Clearly I am only repeating someone's talking points, and unable to do anything other than rehash old arguments. More so, by using these "canned thoughts" I CANNOT HAVE BEEN saying anything that is true or bears examination.
Please forget I said anything, or worse yet brought such things as constitutionality or rights into the debate.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.10 @ 10:21AM
Len,
maverick muse,
Mr. Obama Thanks you for your vote.
Margie| 3.30.10 @ 2:04PM
Amen.
Ace| 3.31.10 @ 10:48AM
Mr. Obama is not isolationist. He has simply continued the same warmongering policies of Bush under the cover of being a so called "liberal".
Jason| 3.31.10 @ 5:21PM
Obama Lied, People Died!
damn, doesn't have the same ring to it.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 3:19PM
"Clearly I am only repeating someone's talking points, and unable to do anything other than rehash old arguments."
Good, you finally 'fessed up, Len.
maverick muse| 3.30.10 @ 10:02AM
"To win the hearts and minds of the enemy" in Islam is the impossible charge given to our military first by GWBush, now Obama.
That might sound good from a podium, but it is only the means to establish a never ending war. Taking the battle to our enemy rather than fight them inside America? Think again.
The world's original Christian native populations throughout the Middle East are being exterminated by the aftershock of American interventionism diplomatically propagandized as spreading "democracy".
Ordering American soldiers into Afghanistan to abide by the Karzai 12 Rules of Engagement leaves our troops vulnerable to sabotage and death by restraint from self defense. American blood shed in Afghanistan is of less value to their Tribal Culture than camel's blood. No Muslim heart is won over by the sacrifice of American troops; rather, Jihad is emboldened.
Domestically, the Muslim-American Sharia anti-constitutional dogma is not only taught in American chartered Islamic schools but is funded by taxes and not held to any federal curriculum standards. So far as Constitutional Rights are concerned, this generation of our government authoritarians award them to illegal aliens and enemies of the state while actively rescinding citizens' rights with the full force of our government's federal socialists.
maverick muse| 3.30.10 @ 10:15AM
Our military is prohibited from protecting our borders by recent presidential Commanders in Chief.
Our neoconservative politicians have joined with the Democrats to establish for instance NAFTA that only profits international globalization at the cost of American citizens and local (real) American businesses. It is the interest of internationalists to destroy any local entities. Even our military funding is now being directed not to protect the USA but to merge with foreign "allies" who historically have consistently only used America for their own defense and their own best SOCIALIST interests.
As when the neoconservative Nixon designated Communist China as our new favored nation in order for easy profits, American consumers saved pennies at the cost of destroying our nation's industrial base and our economic stability.
NavyBrat | 3.30.10 @ 12:16PM
"A sovereign nation which we attacked under the false pretext of their having dirty bombs which were going to employed against us."
Sure Len. Because Iraq was such a better place before WE came in & screwed it all up, right? There weren't any torture chambers, summary executions of dissedents in front of their families (if the families were even spared), gas attacks on Kurds, & "rape rooms." Oh yes, it was SO much better. As for your idiotic asseretion that there were no dirty bomb materials, maybe you missed this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
And this:
www.americanthinker.com/2005/0.....ellow.html
Now some of us who've read more sources than just what we've been told can make a connection. In Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor," the author talks about when he & his SEAL team found the vans suspected of carrying the mobile centrifuges that Saddam had. His team found the vans on the Syrian border, & according to him, "whatever was in there had been removed, and in a hurry." I don't know about you, but this is good enough for me. Go pitch your fart in a gale logic about how wrong we were to invade Iraq elsewhere. No one here's buying it.
Len | 3.30.10 @ 12:43PM
Too many idiots. First I didn't say that Iraq didn't have dirty bomb material, but that was an excuse for violating the US constitution. You say it's a different world , I say amend the US constitution. The federal government is the agent of the people acting in their separate polities, and as such may not be act without a grant of power from the people. Anything else makes the people the subjects and not the sovereigns.
As far as your first point it is meaningless, as what people do in another country to themselves does not confer any right to us to intervene. The one nation ever on this earth to directly to submit to God(Israel) was never told to go out and wage war to better other nations, but to be a light on a hill, so how is that the US has somehow been exalted to greater status than even a nation in covenant with God. If that is meaningless(in other words "no God", then who exactly who be giving us the right to interfere in other nations business?
Len | 3.30.10 @ 12:44PM
Horrible typos.."who exactly gives us the right".
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 3:22PM
"Horrible typos.."then who exactly who be giving us the right to interfere in other nations business?"
What can we expect from a libertarian?
NavyBrat | 3.30.10 @ 12:54PM
"First I didn't say that Iraq didn't have dirty bomb material, but that was an excuse for violating the US constitution."
Then explain why you called it a "false pretext." To any normal person, reading that statement belies what you said above. I agree that it's not our place to go & save every single wretched soul on the face of the planet. However, the fact that the CIA, MI6, the French DGSE, & the Germans ALL said that Saddam's WMD program was a problem DID present a legit concern to our country. So much so that most Dems in BOTH houses of Congress were as gung ho as they could be when the invasion was put to a vote.
PS. Len, don't worry bro. I'm not so petty that I'd sharpshoot you on typos. I make my share too.
JP| 3.30.10 @ 9:09AM
Like all great Politicians, Reagan used the neo-cons like he used the paleocons, like he used the Country-Club Republicans, etc... and like all great leaders, Reagan was essientially cut-off, alone. No one with the exception of his wife really got know the Man Behind the Smile -not even his children.
To say that Reagan that Reagan beat the Neocons misses the point. A great politicians makes alliances based on how usefull a group can be to him at any given point. Politicians have thier notorious Favor Bank. Reagan was no different. You make your deposits into the Favor Bank with the expectations that one day you will be able to make withdrawls. And Lord help the person(s) who make an overdraft (see Admiral Poindexter and David Stockman).
Len| 3.30.10 @ 9:21AM
Reagan talked a good game, but it's always actions that matter. He supported the growth of medicare, medicaid and social security. The US constitution grants no authority for such, but it does say that my rights are not to be disparaged, and it is certainly my right to retain the fruits of my labor, and have them forcibly taken from and given to someone else.
What about the dept. of Education? Reagan was big on that, yet on Aug. 18th of the federal convention that power was considered and REJECTED as to be delegated to the federal government. Let's not stop now, how about Reagan's unconstitutional war on drugs? Under what power given to the federal government does that fall.
Wait there's more, Reagan violated the US constitution by giving arms and financial support to other countries, in particular 5.5 billion to one Saddam Hussein. On a roll baby! What about the military presence in countries worldwide? The US constitution makes no mention of such, and clearly only gives power for bases here in the US.
Yeah, Reagan is clearly worthy of being an icon of limited government. No, Reagan was merely constitution trashing president, who grew the office whereby we now have presidents firing the CEOs of private businesses, and leading the charge in taking over many more. Reagan enabled lawlessness in this country, for that is what you have when a man takes it upon himself to go beyond the authority granted to him by the sovereign people, and make himself the authority of what a president and government is allowed to do.
Liam| 3.31.10 @ 5:01AM
Reagan had to fight a recalcitrant democrat congress for many of those years; he had to make deals with those snakes so he could get funding to rebuild our Carter decimated military.
Screw yourself.
maverick muse| 3.30.10 @ 9:28AM
As an influential American, Ronald Reagan's virtues far transcended his faults. But as a politician, those with whom he chose to work, or agreed to work with under direction from the RNC (VP Bush) were not of the same mind as he. "Voodoo Economics" makes that case clearly.
Once the Progressive Party retired from attempting to win and lead the American majority of votes, their socialist members had already organized to preempt both major parties. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The neoconservative PC socialists did permeate the Republican Party just as the other Alinsky style brand of socialists had usurped the Democrat Party.
Now given the Tea Party revolt against political corruption in Washington that includes protesting the Republican neoconservative participants and PC protocol that enables socialism, the neoconservative Republican leadership is using Palin to coax her fans into the neoconservative big tent that has no room for Constitutional Conservatives, Classical Liberals, or Libertarians whom the neoconservatives tag as political radical extremists deserving prosecution for sustaining the Constitution that the neoconservatives would disregard for convenience to assume the authoritarian leadership of the newly crafted federal socialism. Hannity and company are neoconservatives who participate in political assassinations of Constitutional Conservatives.
Hannity appropriately reminds Americans of the glorious words that Ronald Reagan felt inspired to say despite his neoconservative speech writers. But since it is really the neoconservatism where Hannity is aligned, Hannity is trumping Reagan to prostitute, fronting for the neoconservatives who saw Reagan's administrative vulnerabilities and honed in to abuse his better judgment with their powerful influence. They used Reagan while he was alive. Hannity uses him now that he is a historical figure.
Hannity's book, if written by himself, would contain no more than his talk show rhetoric.
Jeffrey Lord commends Reagan's words and would lead his unobservant reader to assume the "lost link" that would connect Reagan with Hannity. No neoconservative opportunist is Reagan.
Too many socialist/neoconservatives have hijacked "Reaganite" identities, a convenient facade hiding their opportunistic neoconservatism, willing to suck dry the bones of Reagan in order to transpose themselves as Reagan's voice.
Reagan's fault lay not in his ideals, but that in his own "trust but verify" theme, he himself trusted without verifying neoconservatives, only recently identifying themselves as such (pirating in order to revise the definition of "conservative" in their self designation). Reagan delegated authority to powerful Republican-neoconservatives in his administration. In order to accommodate bipartisanship, Reagan allowed and signed his own amnesty for illegal aliens, hardly doing conservatism good in that.
When Newt Gingrich was House Speaker, you never heard Hannity fault Newt's pork barrel spending legislation enacted often by abusing the previously barely touched Deem and Pass. Not until the Democrats removed the Republican Congressional Majority did Hannity ever start his lament of corruption, only in response to the Democratic criticism that proved effective in elections. During this past potus election campaign that began a year too soon has never ended, whenever Republicans were under immense fire, Hannity falsely claimed to be a Libertarian in order to claim "sanctuary" from his own excessive neoconservatism that exploits taxed citizens. It isn't the neoconservative socialism that Hannity decries, but only the costs of socialism that are never admitted upon the introduction of a new socialist program or bureaucracy.
Reagan's trust without personally researching the truth or fraud of neoconservatism, delegating as was his manner, is the bane of his administration's legacy. Despite all of Reagan's presidential virtues, the neoconservative element within his administration (exemplified, for instance, by VP G.H.W. Bush and Bill Bennett his Sec. of the new socialist bureaucracy Dept./Education) established his paramount domestic failure, having addressed major social problems with socialist quick fix federal measures. For example, the Dept. of Education has not only failed to cure American student illiteracy via federal mandates on schools, but that federal bureaucracy has removed all personal responsibility from students to practice lessons daily until they are learned correctly. This does not even recognize the obscene perversions of civic and personal morals, and the socialist propaganda as "government" being mandated as curriculum. Nor does this recognize the empowerment over the last century of the Teachers Unions that protect the worst members and produce the worst results.
Hannity promotes Reagan's finest lines delivered. But Hannity uses Reagan's promotion to promote neoconservatism, and call it by Reagan's name.
Hannity is no scholar, only a political hack who makes his fortune promoting the socialist neoconservative Republican party that crafted the DHS, as if that is what Reagan saw as the morning in America.
Hannity's rants as a terrier guard dog are for the Neoconservative Socialist Republican Party.
The ONLY legitimate claim to being any sort of conservative that Neoconservatives have is TO CONSERVE THE OLD WORLD MEDIEVAL FEUDAL ORDER via Ivy League elitist authoritarian socialism in America that mandates "appropriate PC behavior" required of all subjects who have no such thing as the "nonexistent" unalienable rights (ask Pres.Wilson), let alone Constitutional Rights.
Beyond bail-outs, Hannity has never mentioned the gross unconstitutional executive orders from GW Bush his last weeks in office forming completely insulated autonomy for the Sec. of the Treasury to be the national czar of the economy, ready for the next Goldman Sachs rape of America.
Roy| 3.30.10 @ 10:03AM
Horse crap.
Norman Podhoretz would love to see a President Palin and said as much in the Wall Street Journal.
The Daily Kos and the NY Times, but I repeat myself, must laugh their butts off every time they see conservatives wasting their time on rants against "neoconservatism".
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 3:24PM
"butts off every time they see conservatives wasting their time on rants against "neoconservatism".
Worse, many are small-morals libertarians.
Ace| 3.31.10 @ 10:53AM
"Worse, many are small-morals libertarians. "
As if neoconservatives and Republicans cannot be possessed of small morals.
Dan Hirsch| 3.30.10 @ 10:06AM
"There you go again."
“It's not that Democrats don't know anything, it's that so much of what they know is wrong."
Maverick muse you are one of those Democrats. I lived under Reagan and you do not know anything whereof you write. Not nothing.
- Ronald Reagan
'nuff said.
JP| 3.30.10 @ 10:20AM
Maverick,
You lost me on the feudal order thing. Instead of subscribing to some outrageous motives, could it be that the East Coast Rockefeller Republicans just have different philosophical ideas than the Main Street Republicans?
To govern is to make choices and alliances. President Reagan confected several different alliances both within the GOP and without. In most cases he dealt with these sects quite well. It is interesting that each different segment of the GOP now claims that they are carrying the Reagan Mantle. He was that good of a politician. Each sect within the GOP believed that Reagan was thiers.
But I don't think there is anything nefarious about the Moderate to Liberal Wing of the GOP. The truth be told, the nation is not as liberal as the grass root Democrats, but not as conservative as the grass root Republicans. I don't like this anymore than you do, but it is a fact that must be faced. The genius of Reagan is that he took this nation down a far more conservative path thier they realized. And unlike Obama, Reagan was able to co-opt many Dems along the way. And while the legacy of Reagan became a thin gruel, it did survive. Something I truly don't believe will be the case with Obama.
No there isn't a conspiracy. If you wish to convert the voters to your way of thinking, get out there and stump.
Pingback| 3.30.10 @ 9:34AM
Age of Obama vs. Age of Reagan. « PoliticallyEmpowered.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Deborah D | 3.30.10 @ 9:56AM
Thanks for this article, Mr. Lord. I really enjoyed your stories about Reagan's early days as he was formulating his thoughts and ideas about the future of the country. That truly does have great relavance to our current situation.
I particularly like your reminder: "Ronald Reagan would be the very first to say -- he himself understood intuitively -- that the fight to regenerate both America the country and the larger world is never over. Regeneration is in fact an eternal requirement of life itself."
Remember during Clinton's era they all thought the "end of history" was upon us and all would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows after the wall came down. Well, it never is the end. It's usually just the beginning of something else equally dangerous and frightening. From terrorism to a renewal of the Left in the United States when we thought they were done, but were really just a sleeper cell just biding their time.
God bless the soul of our wonderful Ronald Reagan (he's got to be frowning at the current GE commercials, however!) -- I hope he's smiling down on us with encouragement to "fight to regenerate both America the country and the larger world."
Bless you too, Mr. Lord.
Dan Hirsch| 3.30.10 @ 10:01AM
Oh, Youth, ignorant youth! Come on, Len. Every pot head of the sixties knew you never believed all the lies taught to you in school!
Len, if you think Reagan trashed the Constitution, you are either stunningly ignorant of history, stunningly misinformed, or stunningly stupid. So how are you stunning?
Social Security was passed by that Constitution burner FDR, Medicare and Medicaid appeared during the LBJ's terms. Budgets are drafted and passed by the House - not the President. Cooperative Houses often took direction from the President, like say in 2009. During Reagan's term I believe the phrase Dan Rostenkowski (Nancy Pelosi, circa 1980's) used was 'Mr. President your budget was DOA when it got here' (to the House.)
Do not blame Reagan for Democrats' deeds.
As to giving arms to foreign countries, FDR gave millions of dollars worth of arms to the Communists in MOSCOW! Every American President since Wilson (Democrat) has given foreign aid to foreign countries.
Foreign bases? Harry Truman (Democrat) left us in Germany and Japan, he got us into Korea, too. JFK got the shooting started in Vietnam, LBJ expanded it and Nixon wastefully won the battle, but let the victory escape when Teddy Kennedy led the Democratic controlled House to cut ALL funding from the South, denying them even ammo!
Where did Reagan take us in 8 years? Into and out of Grenada in a month; out of Beirut; our hostages out of Iran; never into the Falklands.
Sir, your ignorance is so complete, I offer you a Reaganism, wear it with pride today: "“It's not that Democrats don't know anything, it's that so much of what they know is wrong." And you Len are one of those Reagan Democrats.
Be still until you have something to talk about that actually did happen, please.
Len| 3.30.10 @ 12:33PM
How to deal with stupidity. Did I say Reagan originated Social Security? No, I said he pushed it, he got behind it, he supported it. Same for the other unconstitutional agencies and programs I mentioned. As president he was responsible to the sovereign people to veto such violations as not having authority granted, and further as the executive to not even allow such agencies to operate. How is his pushing such illegal programs not trashing the US constitution?
Frankly I tire of idiots like you who rant about isolationism. You rant about isolationism as if somehow some divine authority has called on us to the world's problem solver. If by isolationism you mean adhering to the limits of the US constitution for common defense, then yes, I am an isolationist.
If the world has so changed that of necessity(BS) we need to have a worldwide military involvement, then go to the sovereign people and appeal for an amendment to the US constitution for such power. To act without such power granted is make oneself above the law, above the people, and yes it is trashing the US constitution.
As to the tired old Jefferson argument, our commerce was being attacked in a significant manner, and Jefferson went to the congress for the authority to act. Case closed.
victor| 3.30.10 @ 3:04PM
Len:
"As to the tired old Jefferson argument, our commerce was being attacked in a significant manner, and Jefferson went to the congress for the authority to act. Case closed."
Obviously, as Dan pointed out, you did believe the lies in American History class in whatever decade you were in.
Jefferson sent a task force to deal with the pirates. in 1802 Congress passed a law to empower Jefferson in combatting the pirates, while not being a formal declaration of war, did give Jefferson the authority to conduct the Barbary Wars.
Now it is "Case Closed".
Richard Baker| 3.30.10 @ 10:39AM
Len:
So you are advocating an America First isolationism? Your ilk seems to think that unless we are attacked in the center of your hometown then we have no interests beyond the Golden Gate or the Outer Banks. Do you get out much? Answer this question, then. What Constitutional authority did Mr. Jefferson have for using the Navy and Marines against the Barbary Pirates in 1805?
Derek Leaberry| 3.30.10 @ 11:47AM
Sean Hannity seems to be a nice enough guy but he's hardly an original thinker. Listening to him on radio blabbing banalities lifted from The Weekly Standard, National Review and the usual suspects in conservative journalism is an act of penance. His favorite word is "unbelievable." Or is it "incredible." No matter. Hannity's book is surely a scheme to cash in on the current conservative angst. It's probably mostly ghost-written by some hired hack.
What people of Hannity's ilk fail to accept is that the Bush obsession with Iraq was the major reason for the Democratic renaissance in 2006 and 2008. Barack Obama, who I would admit is a vile individual who hates the historic American nation as his parents did, is president today because of George W. Bush's misguided and foolhardy Iraqi adventure.
Jeffrey Lord| 3.30.10 @ 12:05PM
Derek...
You say: "Hannity's book is surely a scheme to cash in on the current conservative angst."
Not so. The proceeds are going to charity. This is a guy who spends endless hours organizing concerts to raise money for the kids of soldiers killed in the war. If you don't agree with him, fine. But the portrait you paint is distinctly not true.
Derek Leaberry| 3.30.10 @ 1:23PM
Thanks for the information, Mr. Lord. It is a fine thing for Sean Hannity to do. Although I find Sean Hannity to be a big bore, I have found him to be a pretty nice fellow on the air.
Tim| 3.30.10 @ 11:50AM
The neoconservatives were instrumental with their money and backing , in giving us the serial traitor to conservatism ,John McCain.
Those neoconservatives seem to have been willing to sell out fiscal conservatism and social conservatism for their agenda.
Many of We , The Tea Party Rebels don't trust neoconservative agendists.
Tim| 3.30.10 @ 1:57PM
5% of the Tims are givimng the rest of us a bad name.
victor| 3.30.10 @ 3:06PM
Hey Tim(on the Right Side),
Tim(on the wrong side), probably voted for McCain in one of those open primary states that were targeted by Marcos Moussaka and other lefties.
That is how we got stuck with McCain
roger | 3.30.10 @ 12:27PM
ObamaCare got you sick? This podcast will make you feel better! www.cashbeechcroft.podomatic.com
From a rising star in the REAL conservative movement.
George S| 3.30.10 @ 12:28PM
I'm sorry, but I refuse to look to Hannity as some sort of conservative intellectual. His book is a day late and a dollar short-- the conservative road map to victory was paved, polished and opened for traffic when the health care bill was passed by the House last year. We know what is at stake and we are taking care of it.
This is not to say that talk radio is irrelevant; it is crucial for the democratic process because it fills the First Amendment void left by the MSM. But these radio guys are information sources, not the fount of political philosophy. By looking back to "What Would Reagan Do" is a childish intellectual endeavor, for the appropriate question is what would the Founders do (since we are looking back in history, anyway) if an issue came before the Constitutional Convention. Those answers are in the historical record and it takes a knowledge of history to disseminate that information to the public. Yet today, we lack that historical and cultural perspective for a host of reasons and talk radio is the only outlet that is even attempting to hold on to our traditional values.
Reagan, God rest his soul, was certainly beloved by the American people; but they also voted for the Democrats in his Congress that thwarted most of his attempts to scale back government growth. Very much like Reagan was his counterpart Hatcher in Great Britain, who also was powerless to roll back the NHS because the welfare state's tentacles were so enmeshed in the culture.
Hannity, and other intellectual wanna-be's, have to first address the issue of WHY government has grown before they can attack it by exhorting us to "return to our principles". That requires looking forward, not backward to Reagan, for a good percentage of the American public pay no income taxes and therefore see the government from the perspective that any reduction in its size would be a loss for their economic situation. Since we have reached that stage, it will take quite a bit of persuading for most people to change their spots and see the benefits of a limited government.
The Founders knew the dangers of state expansion by doling out cash from the federal treasury in exchange for votes. The next conservative intellectual has to devise a message to show why the Liberal Welfare State must go. It can be done, but not by a radio host - their job is to shout out the injustices of the liberal agenda. We can take it from there.
Drew| 3.30.10 @ 12:39PM
Sean Hannity is a joke. And a bad one at that.
Nobody ever accused Ronald Reagan of being a pointy-headed intellectual. But he did at least graduate from college with a degree in Economics. And he added to his resume as President of the Screen Actors Guild. And certainly no one ever accused hom of personal dishonesty.
Contrast that with Sean Hannity - a college drop-out who sole claim to fame is working as a radio shock-jock. And a man who's so busy wrapping himself in faux-patriotism that he manages to bill his "charity" for private jet and limousine travel while handing out a pitiful 3.68% of proceeds to the supposed beneficiaries.
http://gawker.com/5498035/righ.....ue&s=i
Ronald Reagan truly was a great President. I certainly didn't agree with every policy he promoted - but I still voted for him twice.
But once criminals and charlatans like Sean Hannity became the face of Conservatism - you lost me.
victor| 3.30.10 @ 3:15PM
Hey Drew,
That has already been debunked six ways to Sunday.
Schlussel has been outed as a fringe kook.
My wife and I had the pleasure(?) of hearing her implode while interviewing Bob Grant.
He said something innocuous and she went ballistic.
ZerObama| 3.31.10 @ 5:06AM
Drew, stop your vicious lies about Hannity.
You're the damned criminal here.
Len| 3.30.10 @ 12:51PM
A preemptive strike..if any more idiots are going to reply to posts by attacking what I said, please give a constitutional argument for such, and/or actually refute what I said about Reagan concerning his violations of the US constitution, otherwise you're only spouting so much drivel.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.10 @ 1:19PM
Len,
Mr. Obama Thanks you for your vote. He calls you a "useful idiot". Enjoy
Chuck| 3.30.10 @ 1:00PM
Hannity correctly stresses the importance of Reagan conservatism but in the last election cycle favored Romney who is hardly a Reagan conservative. In fact Romney is a social liberal, fiscal liberal with taxpayers both in Massachusetts and the nation bearing the burden of Romneycare. Also Romney has dissed Reagan in the past. I hope Hannity has another candidate in mind for 2012.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.10 @ 1:22PM
Heh, Chuck!
Hannity certainly does, and you will never guess who......until 2011.
Pingback| 3.30.10 @ 1:03PM
The News Factor, an informative online Conservative News Magazine » Sean Hannity and links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 3.30.10 @ 1:25PM
Mr Lord --
Ronald Reagan was clearly underestimated by liberals (and some conservatives), and he was also clearly treated unfairly by many. His diaries reveal him to be a man of considerable depth and thoughtfulness.
I would not be tempted to describe Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as men of depth or thoughtfulness, and since you draw this comparison, I take it up.
Reagan was not a bombastic militarist. (This is one of the areas in which those who opposed him and those who supported him often misunderstood him.) Reagan defied many in his party by choosing to trust the Soviets.
Reagan did not engage in fear-mongering. I try to imagine him blubbering on television like Glenn Beck, or whimpering in fear of terrorism the way conservatives now do, or playing the victim the way Sarah Palin has gotten so good at doing.
Reagan inspired irrational anger on the left, it is true, but I don't think it compares to the anger on the right today: 16 HOURS a day of radio spews lies about Obama, while Fox News has completely abandoned its role as a news agency (with whatever conservative bent) and become a PROPOGATOR and advocate on behalf of specific legislation and on behalf of tea party rallies. Fox News has regularly endorsed the idea that Obama is a communist -- which is NOT true -- and it has propounded the notion that animates many Tea Partiers that somehow Obama is not a citizen of this country. Again, this is simply and manifestly FALSE.
To be sure, both sides engage in demented political rhetoric. It's now the American Way. But right wing talk and Fox News are considerable sources of irrational, inflammatory political rhetoric, and there is no comparison between it and whatever puny resentments liberal reporters had towards Reagan in the 1980s.
Tim| 3.30.10 @ 2:04PM
It's amusing to read your post because back in the 1980's liberal readers of the day were excoriating Reagan as a war monger, racist and dunce. It was a far from puny resentment.
Liberal Reader| 3.30.10 @ 2:15PM
Maybe so. Reagan also won in 84 by a huge landslide, and he garnered the votes of many Democrats. Reagan did NOT preach foolish sermons characterizing Democrats as wicked communists; he did NOT demonize his opponents. Indeed, he famously worked with O'Neil to get things done on behalf the country.
So whatever "excoriating" some on the left engaged in, it was a) not too effective; and b) severely limited by the number of news media willing to carry it.
There were never 5 or 6 liberal radio talk show hosts booming nonsense and lies about Reagan 16 hours a day, 5 days a week, and to try to claim that Dan Rather's half hour in the evening was somehow the equivalent of that is -- I'm guessing -- more hopeless an argument than you'll be willing to attempt.
Brian72| 3.30.10 @ 2:52PM
Clueless. The three evening news broadcasts, their corresponding Sunday morning political talk shows, plus the NYT and WaPo leading the content of almost all of the nation's newspapers dominated the scene, with very little rebuttal of their neo-Eurosocialist policy preferences.
There was no talk radio, no FOX News, no conservative internet communities. There were only a few magazines, a handful of columnists who were relentlessly attacked and demonized along with the conservatives they supported.
Why do you think LBJ famously concluded he had lost the American people when Walter Cronkite declared the Vietnam War unwinnable?
Most people trusted these news outlets for information. They exploited that trust to feed America opinion and propaganda disguised as hard news reporting. Just look at Dan Rather's career.
Today's "new media" is a response to the decades long corruption of the press in America. They are fundamentally dishonest, and have been for at least two generations.
The people are voting with their dollars and their remotes. The traditional liberal dominated newspaper is irreversibly declining, as is the broadcast evening news model.
The WSJ is now the best newspaper in America, and the most successful. FOX News just had it's best quarter ever, following up several years of stomping the crap out of MSDNC and the propaganda creation of liberal billionare Ted Turner, CNN.
The monopoly is over, forever. It is finally a new day.
H| 3.30.10 @ 10:09PM
Democrats ARE wicked communists......
ZerObama| 3.31.10 @ 5:08AM
Yeah, commies like Liberal Reader and Drew.
Drew| 3.30.10 @ 2:24PM
Keep on trotting out False Equivalences.
Sure - some people complained about Reagan.
But the fact of the matter is that Reagan inherited a (tiny) Republican majority in the Senate and a massive Democratic majority in the house. Yet despite this, House Speaker Tip O'Neill was able to work with Reagan to pass laws that ended up working for the benefit of the country as a whole. O'Neill certainly didn't agree with Reagan on everything - but he wasn't so hyper-partisan and obstructionist that he - and Congressional Democrats - would vote in lockstep to actively try and destroy a Presidency.
See http://www.usnews.com/blogs/wa.....dlock.html
Compare that with today's idiocy: Where Congressional Republicans don't even vote for bi-partisan Budget panels they themselves sponsored - because doing so might be seen as "supporting" President Obama in the eyes of shitheads like Hannity and Limbaugh.
Sorry, but with people like John Boehner ranting his nonsense, and the liars on Fox News outright lying ("Obama is a racist/Nazi/Socialist") - there is little chance of doing much constructive in a bi-partisan manner.
Its an evil stew you've managed to cook up.
Brian72| 3.30.10 @ 2:56PM
I suppose that the traditional media establishment has no role in "cooking up" this toxic stew by their decades of shilling for leftist policies and the politicians who push them, as well as helpfully attempting to destroy anyone who disagrees.
Brilliant analysis!
ZerObama| 3.31.10 @ 5:10AM
We won't be happy until you evil commies are boiling in this 'evil' stew!
Tim*| 3.30.10 @ 2:25PM
Gee Other Tim Dude , It's a Conspiracy to Confuse !
Tim*| 3.30.10 @ 2:36PM
Golly Gee Liberal Reader Man !
It was "Trust But Verify " under Reagan.
" There You Go Again " Rewritin' History !
Margie| 3.30.10 @ 2:38PM
This was one of the most wonderful and encouraging to the conservative cause articles I have read all year. Bravo, Mr. Lord!
You put it together so well, made it a brief history lesson, proved without a doubt for anyone who may have had one, that Sean Hannity is one of us, showed readers who may not know it how wonderful Ronald Reagan was, and may have even converted some sitting on the sidelines to join our cause.
I never heard the story of the model ship America that he built while he was being prepared by in his heart to become President. (That's how I look at it). During Reagan's time I was oblivious to politics, utterly. So I missed him, you could say. When I discovered Rush on the radio I got very interested, to the point of voting Republican for life, and will never turn back. I was told by someone that I was cut from the Reagan mould and didn't know what that meant but soon discovered that it was one of the best compliments I could have ever received and will never forget it. That man who told me was a Special Ops Military man from Nam, good old BBM from the old Lucianne.com chat room days. It was called The Alley, in case anyone here might have been there. It was kinda like here, where fellow conservatives got to become friends in the cause of conservatism.
Sean Hannity is a GREAT American! God bless him and God bless all of our Soldiers in the conservative cause!!
Margie| 3.30.10 @ 2:39PM
*s/b "being prepared by God in his heart", above.
Margie| 3.30.10 @ 2:48PM
Liberal Reader & Drew sitting in a tree
k-i-s-s-i-n-g
First came lies
then came slander
then that begat the life time panders!
victor| 3.30.10 @ 3:21PM
Margie:
"panders"
Aren't those the cute black and white bears in the Bronx Zoo or somethin?
George Soros| 3.30.10 @ 3:26PM
Len, Maverick Muse, Liberal Reader,
Thanks, useful friends, I'll take it from here!
One of my idols used to bang his shoe, and tell everyone that America will hang itself.
Well, with all those damned patriots like Reagan, Limbaugh, and Hannity, it was taking too long.
So I had to step in with the money I got shorting the pound, and the dollar, betting on freedom's failure, and do something about it!
(Hey, my accent is less noticable in print!)
So I began seeking out communists already entrenched in American politics, and used an old fashioned method:
BRIBERY! Work's every time it's tried!
Once I had fools like Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Frank, (He's useful, though I hate queers!) Dodd, and others on my payroll, I planned this next offensive with my rich socialist friends, Kennedy, and Roosevelt, at Jay's secret compound in West Virginia. It was a chance to make fun of those rednecks that fill the middle of this doomed nation.
We knew we couldn't use the old guard, so our mission was to find some young figurehead to manipulate.
It was Kennedy who came up with the idea of using Obama, because he knew everyone would be afraid to criticize him, because he was sort of black. That Teddy, what a genius! I'd say God Bless his soul, if I believed in God or souls. I've certainly never seen evidence of souls, from my personal experience.
I admit I had some misgivings, because I hate Kaffirs, almost as much as I hate Jews!
But it seems to be working out beautifully so far.
All we have to do is get that big eared monkey elected one more time, and we will rule the world!
We are debating what to re-name the country, once we're finished re-making it.
Soroslavakia? Has a certain ring to it!
CHOU!
Margie| 3.30.10 @ 4:35PM
Georgie Porgie puddin' n' pie
Kissed Obama and made him cry
When ol' Teddy dropped dead-O-my
Scott Brown's election made 'm sigh-sigh-sigh
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.10 @ 3:27PM
Margie, fellow Americans, listen to the last verse carefully.
This is for you, Margie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q9mQ0a--jM
Ken (OLd Texican)| 3.30.10 @ 3:57PM
Fellow Americans,
The only question remaining: Are we still the "free" and the "brave"?
I think enough............ENOUGH...of us are here in America.
If we are not free enough, or brave enough........then give our country to the Lib Readers and all the other Soros' pawns...and be done with it.
God rescue America!
Will we help?
Margie| 3.30.10 @ 4:51PM
Beautiful. I ALWAYS cry. I'm such a weakling. I never heard all of the words. If I did I've forgotten them. So thanks so much.
I'm encouraged to fight the fight more reading this article. We need MORE encouraging articles like this! In the spirit of Ronald Reagan, which is the spirit of freedom, which is the Spirit of God.
Look at this verse~ "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." 2 Cor. 3:17.
Now how can ANYBODY say, after reading that verse, that America is NOT a gift from God?
Northern Rebel| 3.30.10 @ 3:52PM
Pandas are part of the beaver community, Victor.
WAKE UP| 3.30.10 @ 4:42PM
LEN: what's your take on the flying of planes into buildings, killing ONLY civilians, in an undeclared act of war - vis-a-vis the Constitution ? You silly boy.
Len| 3.30.10 @ 5:58PM
Pay attention moron, I said Iraq. I know it's hard for folks who naturally think that their opinion goes straight to God's ear, to actually bother reading what someone said, but just try it.
Gotta love the other idiots like Old Texican who just continue to attack me with insinuations about my political stance, without ever trying to prove me wrong. Old fool of course just refused to address my challenge concerning the US constitution and the facts concerning Reagan's violations of said instrument, and will likely ever do so, as he and his ilk actually don't care for it, or it's restraints. Probably talks a lot about our forefathers and the framers, but never bothered reading any of the ratification debates, or any other relevant history, or men like Jefferson and Dickinson, and sure thinks he would have fit right in.
I have to say what great hope it gives me to see many so-called conservatives just gloss right over silly little things like the US constitution with it's few and defined powers, and believe they are actually embracing the principles that birthed this country.
In a spirit of generosity I'll help Old fool out. Unfortunately old fools like him believe everyone is either one of him, or one of them. Well I ain't either. I believe Bush 2 trashed the US constitution and violated our rights, the rule of law, and I believe Obama has done so also. In all honesty Lincoln was the worst, followed by FDR, and now Obama followed by GB2.
Folks, the principles upon which this country was founded were based on the right of man to be free to pursue what he thought best. It was not to provide for other peoples cares, it was also not to meddle in a man's business, such as what he does in his personal life. It was not to create a great empire spannning the globe, where we administer justice for all, but to be strong enough to protect ourselves from other countries. I frankly tire of the people who totally ignore our meddling in other countries business such as Israel, or Japan, or Iran, yet when people get angry at our meddling act as if we had every right to do so.
I don't want a world wide police force, and I don't want a world wide government with no borders for true representation can only happen at the levels closest to the individual.
I am against medicare and the present healthcare insurance, and I am against laws which tell a person what they may ingest, be it steroids or drugs, or fatty foods. When natural rights are the foundation of law, then each person is understood to own himself and be free to decide for himself what he will do, so long as he harms no one else. Each person is also responsible for himself.
On an international level this applies also, as only where authority has been granted may one act, and no matter how foul and barbarous a regime unless they actually come at us there is no justification for attacking, no more than arresting a man in his house, because he is armed and is known to have violent tendencies. All the silly talk of dirty bombs and nothing but the immoral excuses of those who want the world to be imprinted in their image.
Again I only have a simple request, refute me with facts, and constitutional arguments, otherwise I can only continue to regard you as simple minded blowhards, who like giving their opinions but don't like having to back their opinions up with fact or reasoning.
American| 3.30.10 @ 6:15PM
Doofus. High and mighty creep. Wake up. We live in a world that is not the one you want. No kidding. It's not the one we want either. What the hell is the matter with you you idiot? What the hell do you expect us to do? Vote for Ron Paul? That guy would have us pull our troops out from everywhere. Oh how genius is that?
You are an arrogant S.O.B. Screw you butt wipe.
Len | 3.30.10 @ 8:35PM
Right! Under what constitutional authority do we have troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.? Are you going to seriously tell me that N. Korea is going to invade us? Please make a serious argument showing how having troops spread throughout the world is providing for the common defense. Oh BTW, those guys that flew planes into buildings, remember them? How did that happen when we had troops throughout the world? There goes that argument, but go ahead, please make one. Wait while you're at it tell me how invading a country that never fired a shot on us provided for common defense. After all, with our non protected borders and ports (where our armed forces are actually supposed to be) how hard is it really to get a dirty bomb in here? That is why we invaded Iraq right? nod, nod, wink, wink
ZerObama| 3.31.10 @ 5:13AM
Geez, Len--why so mad? You sound like you need an enema-STAT!
Richard Baker| 3.30.10 @ 6:55PM
Len:
You didn't answer my question.
Len | 3.30.10 @ 8:14PM
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
It's not hard is it?
Len| 3.30.10 @ 8:26PM
Anymore, or do you just want to continue with your false argument concerning isolationism? As if somehow not meddling in the affairs of other nations is a bad thing I might add. When attacked by a nation or country we respond in repelling the invasion until peace is established. That does not mean nation building or pouring billions of our dollars into another at our expense. When attacked by rogue agents we apply the constitutional power of letters of marque and reprise. We never attack another nation that has not attacked us, or else it's certainly justifiable for them to attack us first.
Why do so many of you fake conservatives ignore that the reality that by supporting regimes, giving real aid in money and arms to push an agenda is going to anger people and inspire hate?
Allow me an example; we have nuclear weapons and attempt to dictate to other SOVEREIGN countries that they may not, when we have no such authority. How can this not be seen as a hostile act? Has God somehow set us above nations to be the world's arbiter?
Len| 3.30.10 @ 8:37PM
Hey all you constitution and rule of law lovers have a good night. Thanks for joining with the left wing progressives in destroying the country.
ZerObama| 3.31.10 @ 5:15AM
Hmmmm; methinks Len has 'issues'.
WAKE UP| 3.30.10 @ 11:18PM
LEN : I repeat my question, which you didn't answer.
What's your take on the flying of planes into buildings, killing ONLY civilians, in an undeclared act of war -- vis-a-vis the Constitution ? You silly boy.
JD Jones| 3.31.10 @ 11:49AM
I have listened to Hannity on the radio for years. He is clearly a Rockefeller Republican. In 2008, he pushed for Guiliani, then Romney (both big government, liberal/Rockefeller Republican'ts), and had nothing but negative to say about consistent conservatives like Huckabee, Hunter, and Tancredo.
I have heard conservatives call into his show, and Hannity either didn't understand the question (something he does a lot with liberals and conservatives) or figured out the caller was a consistent conservative concerned about the Republican party being run by Rockefeller Republican'ts.
Having listened to him since he was local here in Atlanta, I get the impression he is an intellectual lightweight whose politics ebbs and flows with whatever maintains his income stream.
I applaud Hannity when he is right, such as his work on behalf of the family members of our military. But Hannity, like the Heritage Foundation, has become merely a mouthpiece for the big government Rockefeller Republican'ts who regularly lose elections.
On too many occasions, Hannity is an embarrassment to us conservatives.
Margie| 3.31.10 @ 12:59PM
You are so full of bolagna.
JD Jones| 3.31.10 @ 2:22PM
Liberals use name calling, whereas conservatives use facts and reason.
Based on your post, which do you think you sound like?
Margie| 3.31.10 @ 5:45PM
Somebody who thinks he's full of bologna.
Margie| 4.1.10 @ 6:37PM
(He's=JD's).
Anyone who could actually try to make the case that Sean Hannity is an embarrassment to conservatives, along with the Heritage Foundation deserves nothing more than: You're full of bologna!
Has anyone else noticed lately that the Lefty liars have been naming Heritage in their posts, to try and discredit them?
The Heritage Foundation has been backing conservatives and conservatism for decades! They may still be giving out free copies of the Constitution by request, I know they used to.
SoCon| 4.1.10 @ 10:44PM
Spot on, Margie; only a liberal hack would attack the Heritage Foundation. Doofus troll Jones.
Jack K| 3.31.10 @ 12:52PM
To the people at these companies who voted for Obama: "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into! I say, LET 'EM CRASH!"
Pingback| 3.31.10 @ 1:01PM
Conservative Victory – The Reviews Are In! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michele San Pietro| 4.2.10 @ 11:25AM
The importance of Reagan conservativism is essential!