No more hating and dissing the Republicans, okay? Obama is the new President, we know that and accepted the will of the people of the United States. But that doesn’t mean it’s end of deaf Republicans and conservatives still out there in the nation. I know there are some of you among the Deaf community but too afraid to come out, fearing being ostracized from the community by the cultural Deaf militants who are obviously supportive of Obama and his Change agenda. Be courageous and stand up for Republican principles and conservatism.
Mike McConnell of Kokonut Pundit has created a new blog – Deaf Conservative Republicans.
According to him in the first blog today:
The Deaf Republicans 2008 blog was phased out and no longer functioning. Instead, I set up a new blog without the year and changed it to “Deaf Conservative Republicans” since conservatism is what many of us Republicans believe in.
Mike is asking anyone who is a deaf conservative Republican can contribute to the blog with a piece or two, contact him there in the new blog linked above. You’ll be seeing few from me in the near future.
The deaf conservative Republicans are here for good and it ain’t over for GOP. Not by a long shot.
11/10/2008 at 10:01 PM
At least y’all be tied up for the next 8 yrs.
11/10/2008 at 10:04 PM
Well, perhaps someone should tell Mike not to diss the liberals. After all, one gets what one dishes out
11/10/2008 at 10:05 PM
correction: dis
11/10/2008 at 10:37 PM
With the lack of Republician platform items to benefit deaf and HOH people in this election, one would hope that they could do better by the next one. There is time for them to come up with ideas to include us more in the American society.
Until that happens and until it compares favorably with the Democratic platform, I will remain a Democrat, as will most of our community. There are too many of us who are not yet fully participating citizens and that must be improved before we can see the value of a Republican representation.
11/11/2008 at 1:14 AM
Hmmm, who dissed Truman? I am old enough to insure you that Truman was a great guy, simple but with a great head on his shoulders. He was the kind of President that the United States needs more of.
11/11/2008 at 1:19 AM
Richard, never say never. Just as no one predicted 9/11 no one knows what will happen over the next 1, 2 3, or 4 years. At least there were no terrorist attacks after 9/11 or more than 7 years to date. I can see already Islamic terrorists are rubbing their hands with glee seeing that an Obama administration will soon take place.
11/11/2008 at 1:22 AM
@ @ (for those who don’t know, this means rolling eyes)
11/11/2008 at 1:56 AM
mcconnell, it was during George W. Bush’s presidency that terrorists attacked on American soil for the first time in history. Point being it had nothing to do with the President’s party. To believe otherwise, or even to imply we are any more vulnerable with a Democratic President, is to be … “out of touch”. No one can ever claim it was either party’s fault. When Bill Clinton was President, he had a Republican majority senate. The terrorists attacked the United States, not a political party.
11/11/2008 at 2:37 AM
Sure! I’d like to make a donation. A cent. How do I make a donation? LOL!
Knowing Republicans(in-name-only) being greedy. I bet they’d accept a cent! LOL!
Blogger’s edit: Corrected your message. It’s RINOs.
11/11/2008 at 3:28 AM
Tayler, it means that Bush did his job helping protect Americans. I made my point CLEAR in my example of 9/11.
During the Clinton administration you had Jamie Gorelick who helped create this “wall, ” a pre-Patriot Act “wall” that assuredly prevented any communications between intelligence agents (ie CIA, FBI) and criminal investigators (e.g police). She was personally responsible on placing a key obstacle ensuring that no cooperation take place between law enforcements and intelligence operations. Had there been clear channels prior to 9/11 the attacks could have been prevented. This “wall” was instituted sometimes before the Clinton administration and was followed through during it. This was all related to FISA. It was Bush who helped knock down that “wall” with the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. It took a 9/11 Commission in 2004 to find out how these attacks happened. It was none other than Jamie Gorelick who helped block all communication channels between law enforcements and federal agencies. So, it didn’t matter during the Clinton administration if you had a Republican majority senate. Though what mattered was that the senate passed a re-authorized Patriot Act in 2006 that finally helped tear down that wall.
And, oh, who did Obama want to consider for Attorney General?
Jamie Gorelick. Though, luckily she’s not interested in the position but it goes to show just how much Obama is out of touch about Jamie, her “wall” and 9/11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08gorelick.html
Though Obama said he is in support of the Patriot Act with some reservations. Yet Islamic terrorists see him as being the weaker president than Bush. So, that’s no help. I’m sure bringing flowers to despots will be the answer.
11/11/2008 at 8:10 AM
McConnell, if anything we’re more vulnerable now because the BUSH administration has spent most its military resources in Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan. It’s well known things have been heating up there and we’re losing the battle– not to mention the al-Quaeda are getting stronger and more brazen. If we’re attacked now, it’s because Bush failed to do the job he promised after seven years. I’ll also point out our homeland security isn’t what it should be. Seattle ports aren’t as tight as we’d like.
Government gave us barely anything for security. We’re also a border state. AND we caught terrorists on our border with explosives in their trunk pre-9/11 while Bush was in office. HE ignored the warnings.
Lord I don’t know why I came to this blog. I’m NOT a Conservative.
11/11/2008 at 9:34 AM
Have there ever been a deaf member of the John Birch Society?
11/11/2008 at 11:50 AM
What did the 9/11 commission conclude on the report which warned of the imminent attack that George W. Bush ignored? I also recall he was on vacation for a whole month in August – six months after his inauguration?
I know for certain any president would have pushed for improved cross-agency communications, regardless of party affiliation.
11/11/2008 at 5:27 PM
tayler, where were you on Feb. 26th, 1993? and who was the President at the time?
Where were you on April 19, 1995?
I’m sure you weren’t around on Sept. 16, 1920, maybe your grandparents did.
Here’s the rundown list of Islamic terrorist attacks against American citizens and interests since 1972. I hope you are “enlightened” by historic sources that might motivate you to be more familiar with the American history than just posting your nonsense about the US being attacked by terrorists for the first time under George W Bush.
On your second post, every US President traditionally take a month-long “working” vacation in August. The same is true for most members of Congress. Don’t look surprised when Obama take a working vacation in August 2009.
11/11/2008 at 5:30 PM
kim, I always welcome any feedback/insight for my blog.
11/11/2008 at 5:47 PM
You Yanks are so focussed on Islamic Terrorists, that you are blind to the terrorists in your own backyard.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld… indeed, the whole western world.. you really need to brush up on your poltiics and history before commenting on “Islamic” terrorism.
What is American imperialist interference in Iraq? What is America’s threats against Iran? What about America’s oil interests in the middle east? Democracy has nothing to do with it.
And look at Bush, the republican response to Katrina. Look at the republican response to the recent wall street fiasco. 700 billion bucks would buy you guys a decent health system….but it goes against the republican ethos of I’m OK Jack. **** You!
Bush is responsible for making Amricans even more hated than they once were! WAKE UP!
11/11/2008 at 6:30 PM
Tony, you are completely unfamiliar with the history of Islamic conquests since the beginning of Islam: it’s all war, violence, subjugation and enslavement of local/regional populaces, and murder in Allah’s name? Religion of “peace”, indeed. If you try to comment some nonsense about the Crusades, I’ll delete that comment until you come back with all the factual understanding of why and how the Crusades happened in a rational manner. I’m tired of people blaming the Christian Crusades without having a clear understanding of its historic purposes and origins.
Furthermore, I won’t respond to the rest of your anti-intellectual outrage. Sorry.
11/11/2008 at 7:13 PM
Actually I am a lot more familiar with Islam than you seem to think. The point is, I am not blind to the christian, zionist or even nationalist conquests all done in the name of God!
I just don’t fall for the line that America is bringing democracy to Iraq, Iran, Afgahnistan or anywhere else for that matter!
11/11/2008 at 8:03 PM
In the same respect, I don’t fall for the line the Muslims are really bringing peace to the world, as long as they’re letting their more radical/fanatical brethren have a violent go at the West.
If you don’t believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East or anywhere, then, in my verdict, you do not believe in pluralism at all. Without democracy, there’s no pluralism in the world, political, social and religious.
11/11/2008 at 9:08 PM
Incorrect, Kim.
In any planning the military must consider resources available here in the United States if we’re to conduct a military campaign elsewhere. We are NOT thin on troops here in the United States and that’s just a big myth floating around. There are 1.4 million people who are on active duty as of July 31, 2008, with an additional 850,000 additional people in the reserve. There is 150,000 right now in Iraq, 56,000 in Germany, 33,000 in Japan, 26,000 in South Korean, 31,000 in Afghanistan, 10,000 in Italy, 10,000 in the United Kingdom. And so on. At any one time we have over a million military personnel on active duty in the United States.
Kim, we are not stretched thin by any stretch of the imagination.
11/11/2008 at 9:15 PM
That’s the problem with some “down unders” who think the economy was Bush’ fault regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. LoL. Bush warned Congress about FM and FM back in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, several times in 2007, and again several times in 2008. Heck, both 2003 and 2005 Barney Frank, who sit at the Senate Banking Committee, said that there is no crisis looming for FM and FM. There was a bill introduced in 2005 on helping regulate and oversee better FM and FM. Who shot it down? Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Raines, and few others at the Senate Banking Committee.
Tony, stick your nose elsewhere unless you actually take the time to actually learn and do some research. You couldn’t even get Katrina right, either. The answer to that is look to the former Governor of Louisanna, not Bush.
Holy mackeral.
Tell you what, Tony. I am PROUD of America ever since the day I was born. And what is it to you that countries don’t like the United States? So what? There are countries that do like us and vice versa.
11/11/2008 at 9:23 PM
For a good history, study Neville Chamberlain, PM of Britain and how appeasement nearly cost Britain her country.
11/11/2008 at 9:27 PM
Consider this shocking fact: when Hurricane Katrina was bearing up toward Louisiana, Alabama, parts of Florida and Texas – three Republican governors took initiatives to get the residents evacuate further inland and mobilize its National Guards quicker than the Democratic governor of Louisiana did. All of them have the direct lines to the FEMA and the National Weather Service to prepare for the disaster and the aftermath, only the Democratic leadership of Louisiana was too slow to take emergency initiatives.
11/11/2008 at 11:47 PM
Oh, what Tony does NOT know is that the Federal govt cannot help a state in an emergency situation until a Governor officially requests emergency Federal assistance using the federal uniformed services to help and act as “law enforcement” officials. This has to do with the Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act. Until a Governor officially request emergency help from the Federal government then they and the military could legally begin the mobilization process and give federal assistance. Governor Blanco refused to request and was the last state to officially request federal assistance 36 hours before the storm made landfall. A state that was a bullseye for Katrina.
11/12/2008 at 12:31 AM
Yes, that is true. That’s how the Republican governors took quicker initiatives to get the states ready for Katrina, only the Democratic governor Blanco sat on it indecisively. A request for federal assistance can be had if the situation warrants an immediate need to help out in the aftermath, yet it could have been canceled afterward if a post-hurricane disaster wasn’t all too serious and the clean-up can be done at the local and state levels (with obligatory FEMA phone-line system hooked up for aggrieved/impatient home and business owners).
11/12/2008 at 5:46 AM
Mike et al, You only assume what I do and what I don’t know Mike… and there is only so much space, time and energy to expend in debate…… I didn’t mean to waste my time commenting here, as constructive debate is the first casuality of declamatory statements, beliefs and perspectives of the [whatever]….. I can even predict your response.
Why don’t you make this blog password protected too!
11/12/2008 at 12:36 PM
Well, Tony. Your comments indicated no interest on wanting to debate constructively in the firest place, nor did you show any semblance of knowledge of what really happened in Katrina, for example, thinking it was all Bush’ fault. Otherwise had you known the correct story behind Katrina you wouldn’t have made that comment about Bush and Katrina. Yet, though you *pretend* and *claim* to know something about America even though you don’t live in America but in Australia. And at the same time don’t see how we live here and interact with people here on a daily basis. We have no need to comment derisively about Australian politics to such a degree that make us looking like imbeciles spouting spoon-fed meme of the day thinking we know more about your politics than yourselves.
This is, of course, based on my perspective of what I have read so far and my analysis of this. Though I could be wrong in some areas yet I making this known here for all to see.
And, no, you cannot predict our responses, Tony, unless, of course, you’re Carnac the Magnificent.
11/12/2008 at 1:47 PM
Rob – “On your second post, every US President traditionally take a month-long “working” vacation in August. The same is true for most members of Congress. Don’t look surprised when Obama take a working vacation in August 2009.”
Just want to through this in. Bush’ month long “vacation” was never really a vacation. No President has any real vacation while as President of the U.S. Tayler, be mindful of the fact that President is on duty 24/7. He reads the NIE report EVERY morning. He reads other intelligence reports everyday. It’d be naive for you, Tayler, to think that Bush’ vacation is free from the shackles of his presidential duty to protect America. It isn’t like Bush or any other President would just drop everything and forget business for a whole day, week or even a month in this case.
Tayler, that month-long vacation jibe against President Bush is a non-sequitur. It does not follow. Nor does it make any sense to call it a “vacation” when it really isn’t a vacation that we’d think of as.
Bush will get his real vacations once he leaves office.
11/12/2008 at 1:47 PM
correction: through = throw
11/12/2008 at 6:05 PM
Tony, you blew up any chance of a constructive debate with your flippant outrage, ending with, in your own words, a “***k you!” and telling us to wake up. You have not offer me (or Mike, others) anything substantial for a constructive debate from your first flipped-out post. You didn’t come here for a debate, you come here itching for a fight so you could prove yourself to nobody.
So, you blew it, Tony.
11/12/2008 at 9:47 PM
Rob, I don’t agree with the definition of the term “terrorist” in the pages you linked to in your comment. This could be seen as another scare tactic.
September 11, 2001 was truly an act of terrorism, because the leader, through video and audio messages, continued, and perhaps continues, to terrorize. Also, it pushed to establish the Department of Homeland Security, which none of the previous attacks, that you listed, did.
11/12/2008 at 11:20 PM
Mike McC, I’d deleted a comment that was addressed to you recently.
tayler, according to any dictionary: a “terrorist” is someone who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. Regardless, Islam is considered as the political-religious way of life, in some respects, for the Muslims in the Middle East, however, there are Islamic terrorists who can and will advance the political cause of Islam upon the world by any mean necessary. Make no mistake about that. I would suggest you educate yourself in this site about Political Islam and more specifically, its five principles.
I’m disturbed by your willingness to ignore the past terrorist actions committed against the United States and American lives by violent groups. It saddens me that you have no regard and consideration for such tragic occurrences.
11/13/2008 at 1:04 AM
Thanks, Rob. I imagine it was a bit of a derogatory comment with no substance or signs of intelligence.
Tayler, the simple act of murdering people is terror and the person becomes a terrorist whenever he or she uses politics and/or religion (or the other way around) as a mean to try and instill fear and subjugatation, and forced submission. Oftentimes politcs and religion are so entertwined that Islamic religion becomes their politics who wield it like a weapon through the use of fear upon those who do not agree with their beliefs.
09/23/2010 at 9:29 PM
Deaf Republicans? EWwwwwwwwwwwww! Not me!Im deaf but not stupid enough to be a Republican!