The Seduction of Lindsey Graham

From American Thinker
By Nancy Morgan

According to most conservatives in South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has officially gone over to the dark side. Under the guise of 'bipartisanship,' Graham has signed on to one of the left's most ambitious plans to impose a socialist agenda in America - government control of the formerly free market through implementation of cap-and trade, the 1,400 plus page Waxman-Markey bill approved earlier this year by the House.

The main (scientifically unproven) premise of cap and trade is that the earth is melting and government must step in to save the world. Of course, it will be expensive, but hey, this is Mother Earth we're talking about. And its urgent and essential that the government immediately establish a $700 billion "market" for business to buy and sell "steadily declining number of permits for creating carbon emissions."

In a New York Times Op-Ed Graham co-authored with Sen. John Kerry cutely entitled 'Yes We Can' (get it?) Sen Graham states "..we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security." Huh?

Conservatives disagree. Conservatives, real conservatives, believe the fact based studies based on science that stand in direct opposition to the dire reports issued by bureaucrats at the United Nations and embraced as fact by the left.

Conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation, outlines the additional costs that will be imposed on every American families if cap and trade is enacted. Residential electricity costs will zoom up by 90%, nearly 1.9 million jobs will be lost by 2012 overall, and the economy will lose nearly $10 trillion in gross domestic product by 2035. Just what the economy needs, right?

Lindsey Graham was elected to serve as United States Senator in 2002. He was easily re-elected in 2008, largely due to the support of conservatives. Conservatives like founder and past president of the low country's South Strand Republicans, John Bonsignor. John and his wife campaigned hard for Graham, based on their belief that Graham would govern as a conservative. Meaning, lower taxes and less government.

"Graham is disappointing," states Bonsignor, "He campaigned as a conservative but his record is moderate left." When asked if he would vote for Graham now, Bonsignor stated emphatically, "No," citing Lindsey's support for Sotomayor, his support for TARP funds, and the final straw, his support for cap and trade.

Sen. Graham's own website states, "Graham is known as a leader who never abandons his independence or strays from the conservative reform agenda." This is no longer true.

Graham has been seduced by the left. He has adopted one of their most successful tactics, promising one thing while delivering the quite the opposite. Though it's impossible to know what is in another man's heart, actions always speak louder than words. And Graham's actions clearly show that he has signed on to the leftist agenda. Possibly hoping to earn the coveted 'maverick' label and media kudos formerly enjoyed by his good buddy John McCain. But he is doing his own party no good.

Graham has come to exemplify the growing disconnect between conservatives and the Republican Party. He believes he knows best, and if the people that elected him disagree, he tells them to just "chill out," as he did at a recent townhall meeting in Greenville. The same townhall meeting where one of his constituents called him a traitor.

That townhall received little media attention. What did receive national media coverage was Graham's recent interview where he attacked Glenn Beck, the left's favorite target. "Glenn Beck does not represent the thinking of the Republican Party," Graham stated. How he knows this is a mystery, as he went on to say he never watches the Glenn Beck Show. Go figure.

Graham may be right about one thing: Glenn Beck clearly represents the thinking of conservatives, not the GOP. And Sen. Lindsey Graham is now willingly spouting the talking points of the left and abandoning the conservative principles that got him elected. He has been seduced by the left and his reward is ever more national face time and political influence.

Enjoy the ride, Lindsey. More and more South Carolinians, this author included, are comparing you with our real conservative Senator, Jim DeMint, and you're coming up way short. Keep in mind that we have long memories while the fawning media currently singing your praises have short ones. Your love affair with the left, whether it be seduction or statutory rape, betrays the conservative principles that you claimed to hold. And we don't like it one bit.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com. She lives in South Carolina.

Obamageddon!

zz,br/>

Why I Hate Obama's America

By Ben Shapiro

According to the left, I am now a member of a treasonous group. I cheered when President Obama and his newly made-over milquetoast wife made asses of themselves in Copenhagen while attempting to wheedle the Europeans into granting Chicago the 2016 Olympics. And I gnashed my teeth when the Nobel Prize Committee decided to fete Obama with the Peace Prize. So, that makes me an America-hater.

"Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?" asks Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, singling out Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as paradigmatic of the conservative "hate America" movement. "The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition."

No, Eugene, that isn't the problem for us. Here's our problem: President Obama seeks an America that resembles modern France far more than the free and prosperous America our forefathers fought and bled and died for. President Obama's America is not America: It is the United Nations writ large, with socialist redistribution at its center and moral relativism at its core. I root against President Obama's America because I don't want to see it become a reality. And the only way it will become a reality is if President Obama is able to make it a reality.

And so I root for events that drain away Obama's political capital.

I rooted against him when he visited Copenhagen to bring the Olympics home. That's not because I opposed the Olympics going to Chicago -- a Chicago Olympics would have been great. I rooted against Obama because if he had achieved his goals with regard to the Olympics, too many Americans would have thought that such success somehow legitimated his agenda here at home -- an agenda totally at odds with all notions of constitutionality, limited government, and liberty of enterprise and thought. By winning in Copenhagen, he would have raised his chances of ramming through his domestic and foreign policy programs -- and that's the last thing I want to see.

I was enraged when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's not simply because I think he didn't deserve it, though he clearly doesn't. It's because the Peace Prize was just another sop to Obama's inflated ego. It was a blatant attempt by the "world community" to hand Obama a personal consolation prize for his fiasco in Copenhagen. It was their attempt to screw his courage to the sticking place, to reinforce his self-inflicted perception that he is a world leader destined to direct America toward a more global future.

The Nobel Committee gave Obama the Peace Prize because he has already demonstrated real commitment to undermining American strength on the world stage, and they want to see him follow through on that commitment.

In short, I don't root against President Obama because I hate America. I root against President Obama because I hate his vision for America. It is those like President Obama who see America as a dark and dangerous place that requires earth-shaking change along European lines.

It is those like President Obama who feel that Americans are nothing special -- and that America is nothing special. As Obama himself put it: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, America is not exceptional -- it's just because we live here that we feel it is. And the American people are not exceptional -- they are merely Greeks or Brits or Russians or Chinese or Frenchmen born within our borders, with values no better or worse than their foreign compatriots.

Obama's belief in America's unexceptionalism -- his view that America's government, not her people, is the formative force in her values; his view that the American people bear the stain of racial, sexual and military guilt; his view that America must abandon her scrupulous adherence to equality of opportunity in favor of equality of result, traditional morals in favor of alternative ethics, and liberty of enterprise in favor of redistributionism -- that set of beliefs is antithetical to what makes America great.

So yes, I hate Obama's America. Because Obama's America isn't America -- it's the European view of America, implemented from high office. Opposing the total redefinition of America isn't anti-American; it's patriotic. And opposing those, like Obama, who push for that drastic redefinition, isn't "hating America" -- it's fighting in favor of the America that ended slavery, built the greatest economic empire in world history and liberated tens of millions around the globe. If that isn't patriotic, I don't know what is.


Mr. Shapiro is a student at Harvard Law School. He is the author of author of "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House", "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future" (Regnery, a Human Events sister company and "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctinate America's Youth" Thomas Nelson).

Following Outcry, Vatican Newspaper Criticizes Obama Peace Prize

Notes president's questionable record on abortion and war

From LifeSiteNews
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Following an outcry from pro-life organizations in response to Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi's expression of "appreciation" for the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has published an editorial strongly criticizing the award.

After noting the irony of giving a peace award to a president who is continuing to fight two wars begun by his predecessor, author Lucetta Scaraffia notes that Obama's "oscillating policy" in Iraq and Afghanistan is "very similar to that held by the president towards the great bioethical issues, besides those regarding abortion, which have caused such controversy among American Catholics."

"In receiving the coveted award, Obama should remember that in 1979 he was preceded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who had the courage, in her official statements on the occasion of receiving the award, to remember that the more intense war, with the greater number of 'casualties,' is the practice of abortion, legalized and facilitated even by international institutions," continues Scaraffia.

He also notes the Nobel Committee's inconsistency in giving the award to Obama, but failing repeatedly to give it to Pope John Paul II, despite the former pope's highly significant efforts in favor of peace, including his strong opposition to the Iraq war.

Despite his efforts, says Scaraffia, the pope was considered "too conservative in other ways," and that the fear was that, by awarding the pope, "one important religious confession would be privileged over another." However, this fear of partisanship evidently was overcome in the "much more controversial" case of the selection of Obama, said Scaraffia.

The decision, he concludes, was motivated by "politically correct thinking."

Scaraffia also makes an apparent attempt to rationalize or explain the initial response to the selection of Obama by Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican Press Office.

Lombardi had received the news warmly on behalf of the Vatican on October 9, stating that the news "was greeted with appreciation" because of "the president's demonstrated commitment to promoting peace on an international level and, in particular, in recently promoting nuclear disarmament."

His statement was criticized by pro-life leaders and who noted the destructive record of Obama with regard to the right to life.

In an apparent attempt at damage control in the wake of Lombardi's remarks, Scaraffia reaffirms the spokesman's remarks in the context of his highly critical article, stating that "as the director of the Holy See's Press Office has said, we can only rejoice in seeing the recognition in president Obama of the effort for nuclear disarmament and an undeniable personal propensity towards a policy oriented more to obtaining peace than affirming American power in the world."

Schwarzenegger Defies Voters; Signs Pro-Sodomite Bills Into Law

Yesterday evening Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 54 and SB 572, both authored by Senator Mark Leno, into law. SB 54 requires California to grant all the privileges and rights of marriage to same-sex marriages performed outside of California prior to the passage of Proposition 8 last year. SB 572 requires the governor to declare every May 22 Harvey Milk Day in California.

"This is tragic news for California families," state Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "The governor has chosen to completely undermine the will of the people -- the millions of Californians who have twice stated that they intend for only traditional marriage to be recognized in our state. By signing SB 54, the governor thumbs his nose at the initiative process and the voters who trust that their vote means something.

Last year the governor vetoed a bill identical to SB 572 that would have declared Harvey Milk Day in California. In his veto message, the governor cited the local influence of Milk in San Francisco, stating that Milk's recognition should not be mandated statewide.

"We don't know why the governor suddenly changed his mind and decided to impose a radical social agenda in every classroom," stated England. "One possible explanation is the influence of the governor's Hollywood friends. After a biopic on Milk received Academy Award recognition earlier this year, Hollywood political activists began lobbying the governor to sign the resurrected Harvey Milk Day bill. It seems that the governor places more value in the opinion of his Hollywood friends and their values than the values of the people who voted him into office."

The Harvey Milk Day bill was so controversial that the governor dedicated a phone line in his office to calls regarding Harvey Milk Day.

"The people of California have clearly spoken out against same-sex marriage and Harvey Milk Day, yet the legislature and the governor continue to push their agenda on our children," stated England. "Parents are outraged that their young children -- including kindergarteners -- will be forced to participate in activities 'commemorating' the life of a man known for his sexuality. Parents and voters are deeply disappointed and outraged by the governor's signing of these two unnecessary, agenda-pushing bills."

Read SB 54
Senate Votes for SB 54
Assembly Votes for SB 54

Read SB 572
Senate Votes for SB 572
Assembly Votes for SB 572

Aled Jones - "Always There"

A Homily by Father Franklyn M. McAfee - "Awaiting the New Pentecost"

Homily of Reverend Franklyn M. McAfee, D.D.

Pastor Emeritus

St. John the Beloved Catholic Church McLean, Virginia

September 7 , 2008