Thread to Post Every Article You See from Conservative Opinion Writers

[DaShi]

Because you can't stop yourselves for some reason. Might as well put them all in one place.

[Kidlicious]

"There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers. "

National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb

http://www.kkk.com/

[Zevico]

There's a certain irony in calling the Democrat party's former armed wing "conservative." Let's take a look at their conservative, definitely-not-left-wing policies:

Repeal the NAFTA and GATT treaties.

Gosh, that sounds pretty right wing. Either that or a union platform. Right wing conservative unions?

...
Hundreds of billions of dollars are sent overseas every year while our people remain in need, our schools need funding, our infrastructure needs rebuilding and our citizens fight to keep their bills paid. This money should be used to support the decaying Social Security and Medicare programs, to help send kids to college, and to rebuild our infrastructure. Keep American Taxes in America!

Gosh, paying taxes to "build infrastructure", "pay bills", "fund schools," help those "in need", support Social Security and Medicare, "send kids to college"? Where have we heard this before?

Cut off trade with countries that refuse to establish strict environmental laws.

More of those right wing conservative union platforms we see these days. Who knew protectionism was dead? It's alive and well in the KKK and the unions.

We should promote a fair system that allows for a clean environment in our own country and does not interfere with the free enterprise system. We also promote an aggressive search for and use of non-polluting and clean energy sources such as solar energy.

"Promote...use of...solar energy"? Why, what other party promotes the use of solar energy and other green energy boondoggles? Could it be the Democrats?

Outlaw the purchase of American property and industry by foreign corporations and investors.

Protectionism etc.

Judging by the above the KKK shares remains a left-wing Progressive political party.

The other Progressive political party, the Democrats, may have abandoned 'White Pride' and the more overt forms of racism but it has not abandoned black radicals like Sharpton or Jackson.

[Uncle Sparky]

Canada's Conservative pride & joy EZRA LEVANT | QMI AGENCY

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...30-100839.html

Mona Eltahawy has made a name for herself in the past year as a critic of the so-called Arab Spring — the violent trend towards militant jihad in the Middle East. In fact, she was arrested in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and assaulted by Egyptian police in jail. She’s a U.S. citizen now, and is a regular commentator on CNN and MSNBC.

Like many Arab intellectuals, she’s a socialist. But she was a critic of Islamic fascism.

But this week she flipped sides — and turned into a bit of an Islamic fascist herself.

Fellow critics of Islamic fascists had bought ads in New York subway stations with a very simple and blunt message: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” And then the ad ends by saying simply, “Support Israel defeat jihad.”

It’s pretty clear who the ad is calling savages: Extremists who use uncivilized means like terrorism to promote their agenda. By using the word jihad, it clearly means Muslim terrorists like al-Qaida, the PLO and others.

The woman behind those ads, Pamela Geller, was forced to go to court to get the New York Metro Transit Authority to run those ads, because they refused on political reasons.

Geller won her suit and the ads finally went up — but not for long. Eltahawy went out into the subways, with a can of spray paint and began vandalizing the posters. This so-called pro-freedom, anti-fascist Muslim became an anti-freedom, pro-fascist Muslim.

A so-called journalist, a so-called American was bringing Muslim Brotherhood-style censorship to America. There’s no other way to describe defacing ads you disagree with. And she went further — spray-painting and pushing around someone who supported the ads and stood in front of them.

Eltahawy was charged with assault. But she hasn’t expressed regret or called it a lapse in judgment or professionalism or even sanity. She has embraced her darker, violent side.

In an Orwellian twist, she has rechristened her censorship free speech, calling her vandalism “protected speech” and her assault “non-violent disobedience.” Nope.

She boasts she’d do it again. Here is a privileged journalist with access to CNN and MSNBC to make her case to argue, to put her ideas forward. But she would rather stop other people from buying a little poster on a wall.

The poster didn’t call all Muslims savages. It didn’t even use the world Muslim. It didn’t even say who the savages were — other than jihadists against Israel. Eltahawy was outraged that Geller’s posters called terrorists “savages.” Why would that bother Eltahawy? Are al-Qaida not savages?

Mona Eltahawy of CNN and MSNBC is a censoring, assaulting apologist for savages. But instead of being fired, it’s a certainty she’ll get even more TV airtime as a reward.

I didn't actually read this because Levant makes me physically ill.

[Dinner]

This is a great idea. If it is just a cut & paste dump with a link then why not just dump them all here in one big consolidated thread? That way Zevico doesn't have to make a new thread each time (a thread which will only get a handful of responses) and the rest of us only have to ignore one thread instead of multiple threads of bull****. This will save everyone time.

[Dinner]

Let's just cut to the chase and distill right winging whining down to its core essence. Here it is on one NSFW link.

http://gay-slaves-of-black-masters.tumblr.com/

[MrFun]

Because you can't stop yourselves for some reason. Might as well put them all in one place.

[giblets]

There's a certain irony in calling the Democrat party's former armed wing "conservative." Let's take a look at their conservative, definitely-not-left-wing policies:

You know that there used to be conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

So we can dump all the liberal threads into Slowwy's thread. This is the christmas in october.

[Zevico]

You know that there used to be conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, right?

Oh yes. Still are.

[Tupac Shakur]

If anyone thought that the feisty Biden debate undid the massive damage the president did to himself in the first debate, the news isn't great. Biden does seem to have reversed the speed of Obama's free-fall but not the decline itself. Romney's debate obliteration of Obama - something that, in my view, irreparably damages a sitting president - does not seem to be a bounce, but a resilient jump. It's not going away by itself. That is: not a bounce.

And if you were a low-information voter and watched the first debate with one man with energy and ideas (however deceptive) against a president who looked like he was making small talk with a bore at a cocktail party, you'd pick the challenger yourself. It turns out it wasn't the economy (it's been perking up lately) that's become the main challenge for Obama. Nor the Electoral College. Nor a motivated, radical GOP base. It turns out that the main challenge for Obama's re-election in the final stretch is Obama himself.

I've been pilloried for being excitable about that epic first debate. But just look at that graph above (with heightened sensitivity) of the campaign poll of polls since February and tell me I was wrong.

Romney is now comfortably ahead nationally, gaining four points, as the president has lost three, since that debate. The result is a seven point swing in a couple of weeks, with momentum now firmly in Romney's direction. Momentum matters. Obama had it. He threw it away. It will be extremely hard, with such little time left, to get it back.

As an Obama supporter, I remain committed, if deeply demoralized. The reason for that new ambivalence is not that the reasons for re-electing him have changed - we desperately need to raise revenues to tackle the debt, we cannot launch a new Judeo-Christian war against Islam in the Middle East without igniting an even more ferocious global religious conflict; it's just wrong to cut off healthcare access for tens of millions, while ending homecare for countless seniors, while not even making a dent in the actual budget - because of give-aways to the extremely rich. And the way the Obama campaign had made those arguments clearly and consistently and built a brilliant campaign all the way to the first debate was quite something to behold. To be given a gift like the Romney 47 percent video is a rare event in national politics. To get it in the fall of an election should have made an Obama victory all but assured.

But Obama threw it all back in his supporters' faces, reacting to their enthusiasm and record donations with a performance so execrable, so lazy, so feckless, and so vain it was almost a dare not to vote for him. What he has to do now is so nail these next two debates, so obliterate Romney in both, that he can claw his way back to victory. But if he manages just evenly-matched debates, let alone another Romney win, he's a goner. Elections for president comes down to two individuals. You only get to see them up against each other in the flesh three times. The first time - always the most important - made Romney look like a president and Obama an ex-president. It will take a lot of intelligence, fire and argument to turn that around in the time remaining. And for the first time, after the sucker-punch of the first debate, I'm not entirely sure Obama has it in him.

How Obama Gave The Campaign Back To Romney

[Tupac Shakur]

In so many ways, this is a staggering chart. On October 2, Obama was given by Nate Silver a 97 percent chance of winning. In just two weeks, his odds have sunk to 65 percent. The now-cast for the popular vote is 50-49 percent in favor of Obama. Two weeks ago, it was 52 - 46. Here's a Dishhead bleg: when was the last time that a sitting president in a re-election campaign lost six percentage points in the polls in two weeks in October? There's some stabilization now, but that's because it would be close to mathematically impossible for a collapse that massive to continue indefinitely. If it did, we'd be looking at a Reagan-style landslide for Romney.

I was wrong about that first debate. I was far too optimistic about what would follow. Even in my hysteria, I didn't believe that one debate would hand an entire election to the challenger. But that's how execrable Obama was that night. I suppose the good news is that if one debate can do this much damage, another one or two can repair it some. But the trouble is: the Obama camp did such a good job in defining Romney before the debate that his sudden new personality implant - compassionate, caring, realistic, moderate - didn't just help Romney but also made Obama's campaign seem deceptive and too negative.

That's the trouble when you run against a shape-shifter. He has no shame in jettisoning every position he took in the primaries. That was a different market to sell to. Now he has a new market, so he has new policies and a new persona. In office, he will find a new market to sell to day to day. And the GOP base so wants Obama out of there, and out of history, they don't care that Romney is a self-serving opportunist. He's their self-serving opportunist now. While Obama's supporters are either deeply demoralized, as I am, or so scrupulous on certain issues that they refuse to vote for him.

Bill McGurn is half-right:

Perhaps Barack Obama can reassert himself in Tuesday evening's town hall in Long Island. But his problem is this: In Denver he didn't just lose a debate—he lost the carefully cultivated illusion of a larger-than-life figure who was Lincoln and FDR and Moses all wrapped in one.

That's an exaggeration. I never thought Obama was a demi-God. But I do think his steady accretion of policy gains and the new demography of the US gave him a chance to be a second Reagan in re-shaping America and the world. And I remain of the view that his temperament, policies and persistence remain remarkable strengths. And if he somehow manages to display those qualities again tonight, all is still possible.

But the Obama who showed up on October 3 was not the Obama any of us had seen in five years. Maybe a glimpse or two - I sat through a couple of snore-fests from the guy. But on the most important night of the campaign? I remain baffled. You cannot hide a real person behind a curtain for five years straight. So who was that guy last time around? And will the actual Obama show up tonight?

Reality Check

[giblets]

Just another b.s. narrative about polling trends that probably have more to do with changes in partisan response rates than any actual changes in voter preferences.

[Dinner]

The narrative that "Obama gave the campaign to Romney" is going to have a problem when Obama gets reelected.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Look at the electoral count and cry, righties.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're bragging about those numbers? Dinner - this is bad news for Obama. I have 6 states (including PA), that have now fallen out of guaranteed status for Obama. This election's up for grabs.