Archive from May, 2012
19 May
2012
Posted in: Announcements
By    Comments Off

100th NYYRC Annual Alumni Dinner Gala

100th NYYRC Annual Alumni Dinner Gala

JOIN US AS WE CELEBRATE OUR 100TH ANNUAL DINNER! The Annual Dinner is our Club’s signature event and is attended by members, politicians, and donors from in and around the New York metropolitan area.

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012
6:30PM – 10:00PM
Manhattan Penthouse – 80 5th Avenue (at 14th Street)

Includes passed hors d’oeuvres, a three course dinner, a 3 hour open bar, and a silent auction surrounded by amazing views of Manhattan!

After party at the Ainsworth (26th & 6th)
Drink Specials are $4 Paige Amber Ales, $6 Cosmos
Light Appetizers – on the house

The event will feature actor and talk show host Stephen Baldwin as emcee, and Congressman Louie Gohmert, former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and NY 12th Congressional District Candidate Chris Wight as guest speakers. Also featuring music by Nick Palumbo and the Flipped Fedoras.

NYYRC Member Rates
NYYRC Member Rate Dinner Ticket $165
NYYRC Member Rate Dinner Ticket w. Photo Opp $195

Non-Member Rates
Non-Member Rate Dinner Ticket $215
Non-Member Rate Dinner Ticket w. Photo Opp $265


Table Rate
Table Rate w. Photo Opp $3,250

2 May
2012
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Republican Common Sense vs. Democrat Ideology

There’s a really interesting lesson in messaging when observing President Obama’s claim for a second term, which not only conveniently reinforces his incompetence as U.S. President, but provides further insight into left-wing philosophy. His entire campaign and track record of the past four years is based on hypotheticals and subjectivity. There is very little that reminds voters of his capabilities (with the exception of the one decision he may have actually have gotten right, and by blowing it way out of proportion reminds us that the number of correct decision is in fact only one, but more on this later); rather there is much more about what could have happened, what would have happened, and what might happen next time… with different circumstances of course.

What WOULD Mitt Romney have done with the Osama Bin Laden raid? This of course isn’t helped by Mitt’s own varied nuances on the subject, but Obama’s strongest claim thus far is rooted in the possibility that his Republican opponent may have, could have acted differently. This mentality allows him to seamlessly take credit for many other things as well. There might have been unthinkable death, destruction and atrocity in Libya’s near future through by averting Congressional approval for military action, he prevented it. The lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies in the U.S., must be because of Obamacare. They must be because we have no proof of what would have happened differently had we not adopted the president’s plan.

By inflating and creating problems that may have existed without the course of action taken by the president, he has, by his own account, prevented countless disasters and a vast number problems that don’t actually exist. This allows him to hide the negative results of the actions he took, and run on the hypotheticals of false choices. This is, of course, not an entirely new course of action for presidents who by all objective observation have failed their country; but the extent to which this president demonizes his opposition for actions that were taken on under his own administration is truly unprecedented.

So let’s get back to the messaging part. Focusing your message only on what could have happened differently under a different course of action can arguably be done in any situation to make the alternative seem worse.  But, the hypothetical scenario can’t be proven because it didn’t really happen (that’s why it’s an alternative).  Is a trillion dollar stimulus really that bad when the alternative could have been unimaginable economic catastrophe that sent the nation into unforeseen economic depression?  Who’s to say but, of course, Obama.

This mentality attempts to avert objective comparison and use a hypothetical distortion of causal relationships to prove a point that is essentially not provable. Our current president champions this thinking, but it is particularly noticeable among all socialists/democrats/communists.  (Don’t kid yourself: they want the same things just at different speeds).

Republicanism is grounded in common sense; Democratic philosophy is grounded in ideology. It’s about what is vs. what should be… or what could be… or what might be different if this happened… That is the choice that we have in 2012.