Why The Next Reagan?

Bruce Walker writing for the American Daily gives a glowing report as to why he believes Fred Thompson is the next Ronald Reagan for the Republican Party.


If you like Ronald Reagan (I did) and if you like Fred Thompson (I do), then you really should read Walkers Conservative reasoning.



Why the Next Reagan

By Bruce Walker
The American Daily

I have written a couple of articles, beginning in January (before Fred Thompson’s name was even being mentioned as a presidential candidate, much yet as the "Next Reagan") that Fred Thompson is the next Ronald Reagan of the Republican Party. Since my January article (which was entitled "The Next Reagan") the pundits first scoffed, then puzzled, and now rush to demonstrate just why Fred Thompson is not the next Reagan.

Many of the points that I made in my first two articles “The Next Reagan” and “Yes, the Next Reagan” are irrefutable: Fred Thompson is a great communicator, at home as much in front of the microphone as the camera, as comfortable with a group of people informally as he is in giving a serious speech; he is a man who believes that the republic has chosen him, and not the only way around (he is ambitious to do good, not ambitious to be ambitious); his life has been a study in character, with not even the hint of serious ethical problems; and he is almost impossible not to personally like because his decently and humanity toward everyone is unchallengeable; and what he says is what he believes. That sure sounds like Ronald Reagan.

Fred Thompson is also someone who has been in Washington enough to understand the nature of the its problems (eight years in the Senate is much more experience than Obama or Edwards have had, and Thompson worked on the Watergate Hearings in the 1970s and knew Hillary Clinton from that experience.) Yet Fred Thompson has been away from Washington since 2002. Hillary, Obama and Edwards all had something to do with what has happened in Iraq, because all were members of the Senate during that period. Many of the Republican candidates have also had something to do with what has happened in Iraq (Giuliani and Romney being the major exceptions.) Thompson, however, can run as a genuine outsider and as someone who can actually offer solutions to the problems we face in our war on terrorism.

But there is a much more important reason why Fred Thompson is the “Next Reagan.” He is the only Republican candidate besides Ronald Reagan in the last forty-two years who is a genuine and unqualified conservative. It is a fascinating bit of trivia that the book which most influenced the young Fred Thompson was Phyllis Schlafly’s masterpiece, A Choice Not an Echo. That book, published in 1964, noted that the Republican Party had been hijacked by what we would call RINOs since 1940, when Wendel Wilkie, a Democrat turned Republican, won the Republican nomination. There followed a succession of RINOs – Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon (presciently seen for who he was by Schlafly in 1964.) Barry Goldwater was, of course, conservative but he ran a year after a Democrat president was assassinated; he presented an angry picture to the American people; and, critically, he divided the Republican Party.) After Goldwater Republicans chose Nixon twice, then Ford, and then – finally! – Reagan. But who followed Reagan? George H. Bush, Dole, and George W. Bush.

This is the critical difference in the Thompson candidacy: he is an unapologetic conservative who, like Reagan, is impossible to demonize and who communicates very well, and he will run for the White House as the last true conservative candidate of the Republican Party in the last twenty-two years. Also, like Reagan and unlike Goldwater, Fred Thompson is deeply liked within the Republican Party and his nomination will not cause the schism that the Goldwater nomination did in 1964, but rather a rallying effect like Reagan in 1980 (his loyal friendship to John McCain will help on that score.)

As I have noted in many articles in the past, the Battleground Poll, the most respected and accurate of all bi-partisan polls, which reveals the internals of the poll to the public, has consistently shown in eight consecutive polls spread out by many months or years since 2002 that about sixty percent of the American people consider themselves “conservative” or “very conservative.” This poll explicitly gives the responders the option of choosing, instead, to be considered a “moderate,” “liberal,” “very liberal,” or “don’t know.” Six out of ten Americans, in every single Battleground Poll over the last seven years, have rejected being considered a “moderate” or “don’t know” or “liberal” or “very liberal” and have instead called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative.” The last poll, in January 2007, showed exactly the same ideological division in America. Fred Thompson will win because he is a great communicator, a likeable and decent man, a natural leader, a recognized figure, a unifier – yes, all that – but Fred Thompson will because the Republicans in 2008 will, for the first time in almost a quarter of a century, nominate a genuine, authentic conservative, someone who truly represents who Americans feel. That is why he is the Next Reagan.

Bruce Walker has been a published author in print and in electronic media since 1990. He is a regular contributor to NewsByUs, Conservative Truth, American Daily, Enter Stage Right, Intellectual Conservative, Web Commentary, and Men’s News Daily. His first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie by Outskirts Press was published in January 2006.


Copyright ©2007 AmericanDaily.Com

President Attempts Reawakening of Senate Illegal Alien Bill


There seemed to be a round of agreement that the Senate legislation on immigration was dead last week. I have come to find out from Newt Gingrich that is not the case. Apparently President George W. Bush in an ever increasing bolt from those who elected him is going to utilize political strong arm tactics in an attempt to push the outrageous immigration bill through the Senate.


It is mobilize the Conservative Forces time and do what I thought would be unthinkable: Oppose the Presidential wishes toward the Senate!

Gingrich: GOP Must Transcend its Association with Bush

Apparently Newt Gingrich gave a dismal assessment of the GOP if voter association remains with George W. Bush during the 2008 elections. The meaning of course that the Republicans will not only have lost both Houses of Congress but would lose the White House as well.


Gingrich has accused Bush of screwing the Republican Conservative revolution initiated by President Ronald Reagan.


I agree with Gingrich on the Bush debacle. The early years of his Administration the agenda (at least in the First Administration) had spot on goals. The problem became dismal choices in the decisions to find a path to the goals. Once it became apparent that the execution of Executive decisions was faulty, the Bush Administration kept looking for paths leading away from the debilitating quick sand it always seemed to step into. Anti-Bush bureaucrats in government (Democratic and Republican appointees past and present) and fringe Leftist Democrats made sure the Bush Administration kept finding the quick sand via lies and half-truths and rarely (if ever) the whole truth.


After Congress left the Executive Branch/Legislative Branch alliance by the defeat of the Republican majority, the Bush Administration became an absolute lame duck. The only political leverage the Bush Administration retained was the veto and negotiated comprise with Leftists.


Thus early bad decisions on how to reach goals has led to a disastrous Presidency.


Gingrich is correct partly in his assessment of distancing Republicans from George W. Bush, yet not totally.  The early aim of fighting terrorism on to wherever it may lead is a good thing. The War on Terror must not be given up, rather the War has to be fought smarter and with the aggressive means to discover the path to victory. A few civilians may die but that is the casualty of a war that Middle Eastern Muslims and global Islamist civilians support (America is viewed as Christian Crusaders). The victory over Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan in WWII was won with huge enemy civilian causalities. These civilians absolutely supported their government’s war goals. Why would anyone expect a difference in the War on Terror? The terrorists (Palestinian and global Islamists) certainly expect that the death of civilians will force Western oriented nations to offer defeat, and the West should respond in kind.


Anyway that is my passionate belief about the current War. Newt Gingrich addresses other political issues in his GOP assessment.


You can watch the speech given to an American Enterprise Institute location HERE (I am unsure how long that link will be available). You can read the report provided by Fox News/AP HERE.



Gingrich Forecasts GOP Losses in 2008

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer
Friday, June 08, 2007
Fox News

WASHINGTON Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency.

Addressing a conservative organization, the former House Speaker never mentioned the president by name, but his political point was clear.

"If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to" win, Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute.

Gingrich, a former Georgia congressman, is considering a White House run, with an announcement likely in the fall.

He has roundly criticized the Bush administration in recent interviews, describing the White House as dysfunctional and saying the president has driven the party into collapse. While he refrained from direct criticism Friday, he cited failures in Iraq, border security and the response to Hurricane Katrina as signs of a broken government.

His comments come just days after a Republican presidential debate in which GOP candidates criticized Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.

The biting words surprisingly have been uttered while the president is overseas attending an economic summit with other world leaders.

In the speech, Gingrich handicapped the current GOP field _ and the prospect of Fred Thompson joining the race.

He praised Rudy Giuliani’s handling of crime as New York City mayor, saying that experience and his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have propelled his candidacy. Gingrich contended that Giuliani’s image on national security would offset his more liberal positions on social issues.

"In a world where a nuclear weapon could eliminate an American city in seconds, he has a very strong case," said Gingrich. "He has certainly done better so far than people would guess."

He said Sen. John McCain of Arizona has more to overcome, including explaining his positions on immigration and campaign finance regulation.

"If you were to handicap this race, he has the greatest challenge in a Republican primary," Gingrich said.

Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, is a "very formidable" candidate, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a "very serious person who is working very hard," Gingrich said.

Gingrich, who helped shut down government over spending fights with the Clinton administration in the 1990s, said Republicans must offer a more dramatic platform for remaking government that focuses on private-sector innovation.

In a glimpse of what his candidacy might look like, he said he would shut down public schools that aren’t performing and offer a $20 billion reward for the first private company that successfully completes a Mars mission.

"Somebody would be there and back about 40 percent of the way into the NASA process," he said.

Gingrich: GOP Must Transcend its Association with Bush
John R. Houk
© June 9, 2007

Gingrich Forecasts GOP Losses in 2008
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
© 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.  

George Soros – The Antichrist?

I received this as part of the Blind Conservative Group (registration only) I belong to via emissives.com. The email post was by a member known as CD.”



Soros is the embodiment of evil to American conservatives. In saying that I love it when someone paints a picture depicting old George as the Anti-Christ. This in fact is what author Paul R. Hollrah is doing.



Frankly I do not agree with Hollrahs logic on Soros being the Anti-Christ; however there is a difference between THE Anti-Christ and many anti-Christs. The former is the evil being managed by Satan (of the Revelation of St. John) to hand total physical and spiritual control of the earth to Satan. The later is a reference to human individuals that operate under the oppressive domination of an anti-Christ spirit.



An example of the later would be Adolf Hitler. Nearly the whole spectrum of Christianity can agree on that person. Various divisions will name others having an anti-Christ spirit that includes liberals and conservatives over the 20th and early 21st centuries. I will not debate the validity of those depictions, for that will just lead to a religious debate that people simply will not budge on.



But Soros! Now there is a guy that could be a candidate for an anti-Christ spirit. According to Hollrahs guess THE Anti-Christ will be a Jew. I assure you, many agree with that guess and many believe it will be a European or an Arab. It is just up for grabs in the theory/conspiracy realm. Old George is simply to old to fit the bill as THE Anti-Christ, however I believe one is coming soon.



A quick editors note on Hollrahs essay: the Blind Conservative format posted by CD was somewhat jumbled. Thus I guessed on the grammar and punctuation in many places. If I screwed up the original, my apologies to Paul R. Hollrah.





Something to think about.



George Soros – The  Antichrist?

Paul R. Hollrah

Author: Paul R.  Hollrah

Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Date: May 10, 2007



George Soros



Why have once-great bastions of freedom, the Western media, become the purveyors of lies, leftist propaganda, and everything else that coarsens and degrades Western civilization?  FSM Contributing Editor Paul R. Hollrah has a chilling theory about the possible reality of the Antichrist. Is he here now?



George Soros – The Antichrist?

By Paul R. Hollrah



I am not a big believer in the concept of an antichrist. Its all far too mystical for me and Im not into mysticism. I grew up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, where Church dogma has always held that the Pope is the antichrist. According to the Lutheran Book of Concord, Smalcald Articles, and Part 2:IV:10, the pope  is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against  Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power.



It is true, the papacy has taken on an aura of princely splendor over the centuries, but to  believe that one of those popes who date back to Christs apostle, Simon Peter could be the antichrist is a stretch; too much of a stretch for me.



However, I may be in  the early stages of an epiphany. If the antichrist represents the ultimate evil, as religious fundamentalists tell  us, then could it be that much of the unrequited evil we find in the world today  is the work of the antichrist?  Could that be the reason why the civilized world is faced with a holy war  at the hand of Muslims; men who strap suicide bombs to the bellies of their  women and children?  Could that be  why the people of the once-Christian nations of Europe suddenly and quietly  acquiesce to the invasion of Islam?



Why have those  once-great bastions of freedom, the western media, become the purveyors of lies,  leftist propaganda, and everything else that coarsens and degrades western  civilization?  And why have the  leaders of one of our two great American political parties sold their souls so  shamelessly and so cheaply in the pursuit of political power?



So, if all of this  can be attributed to the antichrist, who is he? According to the  website Countdown to Armageddon, The Antichrist could well rise out of the  current chaos in the former Soviet Union.  The prophet Ezekiel names him as the ruler of Magog, a name that Biblical scholars agree denotes a country or region of peoples to the north of  Israel.  Many have interpreted this  to mean modern day Russia.  His  power base will include the leading nations of Europe, whose leaders, the Bible  says, will give their power and strength unto the beast.



The Bible even  gives some clues about his personal characteristics.  The prophet Daniel wrote that; he will have a fierce countenance or stern look, and will be more stout than his  fellows more proud and boastful.



So who could it be?  Arthur W. Pink, author of The Antichrist, tells us, The Antichrist will be a Jew, although his  connections and his sphere of influence will by no means confine him to the  world of Jewry.



So, just for the sake of argument, lets consider György Schwartz who was born on August 12, 1930, in Budapest, Hungary. His father, Teodoro Schwartz, a Hungarian Jew, was captured by the Russians during World War I but escaped and made his way back to Budapest.  He was reunited with his family and eventually became a teacher of Esperanto.



György was thirteen years old when the Nazis invaded Hungary on March 19, 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944) and began exterminating Jews.



Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia, tell us that Schwartz worked briefly for the Jewish Council, an organization established by the Nazis to deliver deportation messages to Jewish lawyers. However, when his father became concerned for his safety he sent György to live with a non-Jewish government official, posing as his godson.



A year later, in 1945, Russian forces swept through Budapest. But the devastation of house-to-house fighting was not the only disaster that would befall the Hungarian people that year.  By August of 1945, the hyperinflation rate in Hungary had grown to 50% per month, and just four months later the inflation rate reached several hundred percent per month. It was in that volatile economic arena, where the Hungarian government maintained two separate monetary units;  that our subject learned to make money trading currencies.



György escaped the Soviet occupation by participating in an Esperanto youth congress in 1946, most likely in Sweden, and the following year he migrated to _England_(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). He graduated from the prestigious _London School of Economics_(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics) in _1952_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952) and in 1956 he moved to the United States.



Oh, and the name Schwartz?  That was changed in 1936 when the Schwartz family became concerned about the Nazi threat to Jews.  They chose the name

Soros,  a Hungarian name which, according to Wikipedia, means next in line, or designated successor.



György Schwartz is now George Soros, the man who generously shares his multi-billion dollar fortune with the enemies of America, the man who gave Democrats $23.6 million in 2003-04 to defeat George W. Bush, the man who has totally subverted the American left and purchased the soul of the Democrat Party; the man who now conspires to  purchase a Democratic president who will obey his every whim.



Could it be? Its a very scary thought.

Republican Presidential Ifs all Surrounding a Thompson Entrance

I was reading an article attributed to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann in the Jewish World Review today. The article seemed very supportive of Fred Thompson to commit for a run for the Republican nomination for President. I myself believe that Thompson is an articulate persona as President Reagan was. I believe he will appeal to the Christian Right, right wingers such as the NRA and so forth.


The Morris/McGann article questions Thompson’s reluctance to enter the race early might be a death knell to a later entry. The article reasons a later entrance will imply an image of a lack of stick to it-ness which portrays leadership fragility in confronting a wild cat say like Hillary Clinton.


Morris/McGann point out that an early entrance by Obama circumscribed a Gore entry on the Democratic side; thus Thompson entrance NOW could circumscribe a possible Newt Gingrich (who I also like) entrance into Presidential politics.


Then Morris/McGann goes into all the what-ifs the Republicans and Thompson might face as Super Tuesday approaches in February 2008. Morris/McGann accuses Rudy Giuliani as being in the mold of old Rockefeller (pro-business yet center/left). The implication being if Thompson does not enter soon, Giuliani will have nearly unstoppable momentum. Giuliani is quite popular with everyday Joe Republican because of the strength of leadership he demonstrated during 9/11.


I personally think that Giuliani has too many skeletons in his closet to defeat a cagey Clinton gang. Because of Giuliani’s skeletons it would be tough to attack Clinton skeletons. I don’t think Newt Gingrich can defeat the Clinton Gang; he just comes across as too nice of guy for the old wild cat gang. I do believe Gingrich would make an excellent leader as President; one does not acquire Speaker of the House without skills. Unfortunately those are closed door skills that politicians rarely show publicly. I do not think Newt’s open door election skills can compete with the Clinton gang. I betray my disdain for Mormonism as a cultic off-shoot from Christianity that has the appearance of ancient Gnostics more than the orthodoxy practiced by Christians. Mitt Romney morals may be impeccable, but it would be like voting for an anti-Christian. However I have to tell you, I would vote for Romney before I would for any Left Wing Democrat.


I am sure there are other Republicans I am leaving out; however the ones I have written about are the ones I am thinking about (I guess I could throw Brownback in there and maybe others). It is the idea of a slick speaker and a quick wit like Fred Thompson that I am really drawn to. In that I am like Morris/McGann: RUN FRED, RUN…NOW!  

O What a Wicked Web We Weave When We Set Out to Deceive

I was not a fan of ex-Senator George Allen. When the early spotlight was on him as a potential Presidential candidate he just imploded with public character flaws. These are not the kind of flaws the Republicans could afford in a future Presidential candidate.


In 2006 Allen became embroiled in an unexpected challenge from a Democrat who was famous as a novelist. Apparently Webb’s fiction writing skills did well for his campaign for he now is the Senator of Virginia, winning a very slim victory over Allen.


Now I say Webb’s fictional skills were awesome because Webb did not beat Allen on his character flaws, rather Webb weaved a tail of bad ethics in Allen reporting his income. The lie coupled with Allen’s character flaws cost him his Senatorial seat and possibly ruined his political career.


Democrats lie to win elections against Republicans. That friend is heinous and Webb should be called to the carpet for spinning a lie from laws that were not broken.


Cal Thomas agrees:

‘ACLU Solstice Barn’

A group of Conservative University of Texas Students embarked on a quest to build a politically correct Nativity Scene on their campus. I say “politically correct” because it was built to both satisfy and ridicule the ACLU.


Below is the WorldNetDaily article:


‘ACLU Solstice Barn’

substitutes for Nativity Students’ display on university campus features

Marx, Lenin, Stalin as Wise Men, Pelosi angel


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Posted: December 5, 20065:08 p.m. Eastern


In tongue-in-cheek deference to the American Civil Liberties Union, students at the University of Texas displayed an "ACLU Solstice Barn" on campus, featuring politically correct figures.


"We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger," said Tony McDonald, chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas branch on the Austin campus.


The group, whose plans WND had reported earlier, installed the "crèche" on the West Mall of the campus for display yesterday and today.


McDonald told WND today the reaction by students to the display was overwhelmingly positive.

"Even some liberals got the humor in it and conceded certain positions the ACLU takes are out of touch with the mainstream of Americans," he said.

One visitor turned out to be the ACLU’s top official in Texas, who, according to McDonald, "had to admit that it was humorous."

McDonald said quite a number of students aren’t even aware of the ACLU, and members of his group that manned the display throughout the day had to explain the acronym.

The three Wise Men in the display were Lenin, Marx and Stalin, McDonald told WND, because ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, while leading the organization, was a backer of Soviet-style communism.

As director of the ACLU in 1934, Baldwin wrote an article entitled "Freedom in the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R." in which he said "the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world." He later moderated his views but maintained a commitment to socialism.

The scene also featured a "terrorist shepherd" with a suicide-bomber belt and an angel with Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s face, using a photograph of the soon-to-be speaker of the House from San Francisco. The Marx figure is holding a book with the title "Child Porn."

"The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy Americans’ rights to the free expression of religion," said the Young Conservatives’ Executive Director Joseph Wyly.

Wyly pointed to the city of Chicago’s decision this week to ban advertisements for "The Nativity Story" movie from a local Christmas festival, fearing they might offend non-Christians.

"It’s just more evidence that there is a war on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country," he said.

Graphic Proof of SlantedLeft Media

The blogosphere has busted Reuters on a faked photo provided by an Arab photographer. Whether Reuters knew it was fake and published it anyway or found out after publishing the fake photo is the conspiracist guess.

The Photo was supposed to be of the result of indiscriminant bombing of Beirut. It was fabricate, cloned, faked etc..

The best place to read to see the evidence (so far) is Little Green Footballs. That blog actually provides gif automated images of how the fakery occured. LGF also points out that if the so-called MSM has done this, how much more has been presented as journalistic news that has been faked?


Amnesty Actually Gives More Rights to Illegals than to Citizens

Thomas Sowell has written an editorial that I found at detnews.com. It is a chastisement of the Senate and Democratic Party influence in enabling more rights to illegal aliens than to American citizens.

The Democratic Party has enabled illegal immigrants to be a people with more rights and privileges than American citizens. The DP has even ensured that illegal immigrants are not held accountable for laws that are broken whereas if an American citizen breaks the same law the American citizen is accountable for jail or fines or both.

Is there justice in this ludicrous bias? What is the purpose for Democratic Party support of illegal aliens? This is not justice. It is an effort to build an electorate of foreign born people to disable the law abiding citizenry that has voted Republican.

FBI Access to Billions of Personal Records for Ability to Seize Guns

Anti-gun zealot Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has launched her most recent effort to use Orwellian Big Government in order to seize your guns. In fact, her anti-gun bill was recently reported out of a House subcommittee.

HR 1415 — the McCarthy bill — would require states to "make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under [federal law" [Section 102(c)(1)(A)].

I am not a gun owner, indeed guns tend to spark a bit of unease in my psyche. Nonetheless, the right to bear arms of American citizens is a right explicit in the US Constitution. The reason for the right dates back all the way to the American Revolutionary War when one of the agendas of the British was to disarm rebelling American colonists. The Founding Fathers had a mistrust of government being the sole arbiter of weaponry among its citizens. The Founding Fathers knew the American experiment of a Federal Republic would only be as good as those that governed. Sometimes to address corruption is the same option the Founding Fathers had to make. If that choice becomes the last and final option, the ability to bear arms becomes paramount.

It does not sound nice, it definitely is not politically correct and I hope the American Republican never fails; however a corrupt government must not be allowed to be all powerful.