Friday, December 08, 2006
This is in reference to a column he wrote (www.pragerradio.com) in reference to the newly elected Keith Ellison, congressman from Minnesota, and that he will be taking the oath of office on the Koran rather than the Holy Bible. Prager had the nerve, the nerve I tell you, to suggest that he not take the oath on the Koran but instead on the Holy Bible as have every other congressman, Christian or not, has done in the previous 230 years of America.
Well, after that firestorm, Mr. Prager amended that to let Mr. Ellison take the oath on the Koran and the Holy Bible. Still, no one has looked at this as multiculturalism and multireligiousity gone amok.
But look, no one is saying that Mr. Ellison can not practice Islam, but what Islam supports and runs counter to is the Sharia law, based in part on the Koran. Not to go into the history of the Sharia, but lets just say it is alive and well in Saudi Arabia.
Like it or not, our founding was based in the strong belief of many of the founding fathers in the Christian belief that all comes from God, including law. That is something Mr. Ellison and most Christians can in fact agree on. So, why the resistance and intransigence by Mr. Ellison and the CAIR crowd? Because it would put Islam as equal with Christianity and thus one does not really know if when the United States constitution conflicts with Shari, where will Mr. Ellison's loyalties lie? How will he vote? No answer on that because no one wants to bring up those points.
I say that Mr. Ellison should take the oath with both the Koran and the Holy Bible as a recognition that the Holy Bible is the basis for law and order and that the Koran is the holy book of the God he worships. That is what Mr. Prager has come to.
Rather than to out and out lie as the opponents of Mr. Prager do by saying that he said in his column that this would lead to a neo-Nazi wanting to do the oath on Mein Kampf, read the column.
I think we should have a reasonable debate on this issue, but I also think that Mr. Ellison should be thankful that this is happening here, not in the land of Islam.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
This is what we waited for? To suck up to Iran and Syria with nothing in our hip pocket? To seriously consider the Palestinians "right of return", which will wipe out the State of Israel?
Firstly, let me be blunt. I don't trust anything James Baker is involved in. Ever since he was in charge of prepping then President Ronald Reagan in the first debate with Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984, which was a disaster, there has been less to trust. And, I will say it, he is an anti-Semite. The infamous line, "F--- the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway." says it all.
Then look at the rest of the panel, an average age of 67. Sixty-seven?! Where is someone who has been post cold war? Of course, for different reasons, one can not trust a panel that former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Indiana).
The prescription that this "Study Group" is for retreat and defeat. That simple.
fortunately, President Bush is not saying "Gee, thanks I will do all 79 recommendations today!" No, Mr. Bush is saying he will wait until the more serious Pentagon report comes out. Also, the administration immediately dismissed direct talks with Iran and Syria.
At least when then President Reagan finally talked seriously with the Soviet Union, he was holding all the good cards in the deck. What do we have now to even seriously think about conversing with Iran and Syria? Nothing.
The bottom line, Mr. Bush should have said, "Thank you very much for all your hard work, considering when you were in Iraq, only one of you got out of the Green Zone. I will read and consider what you have recommended." Then, he should have thrown it in the trash can.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
In his piece, he says it like it is. Conservatism did not lose but the Republican party lost its way. He offers the Reagan prescription, not the give in to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" formula for certain disaster for the Republican party.
Boldness, not cowardice, will bring the Republicans back to control not only the congress but the White House in 2008.
For instance, many of the Republicans who lost in the house were moderates, to the left of President Bush and rank-and-file Republican voters. My theory is that in a marginal district, given the choice between a moderate Republican and a Democrat, the Democrat will win. Why would those voters want watered-down Democrat lite when they can have the real thing?
But because California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won reelection in convincing manner, many tout him as a future for the GOP. NOT!
Why you may ask?
During the last weekend of the campaign, his reelection all but assured, he did not campaign for fellow Republicans down ticket. Instead, he campaigned for five bond measures to "rebuild" California. They were assured of passing and all did by varying percentages.
But, there were other candidates like Lt. Governor candidate Tom McClintock that could have used some face time with Gov. Arnold. After all, McClintock made nice with Gov. Arnold and staved off a conservative revolt. The thanks he got was like all other Republican candidates was get to the back of the Arnold bus. By the way, McClintock lost by only two percent.
To build a party, you must all be together, after all, it is a coalition. When personalities get in the way, as it has with Gov. Arnold, then what could have been is that-what could have been.
Take New York state. Gov. George Pataki ran 12 years ago as a conservative and party builder. Since then he built a cult of personality and decimated the Republican party in New York. The only candidate to get 40 percent or more of the vote in the last election was the candidate for Controller-he still lost.
The worst case is the money that the NRSC spent on Sen. Lincoln Chafee to try to get this least Republican reelected in Rhode Island. Now, he is still holding up a vote on UN ambassador John Bolton. And to top it off, he is thinking of leaving the Republican party. That is the thanks we get supporting a moderate.
Here is a clue about those who are moderates. It is not all about you. It is about building up a party with some different elements. Some may not be social conservatives and that is ok. Some may not be fiscal hawks and that is ok. All should at the very least believe in the core of the party values.
But, alas, these days the moderates, driven by the DBDMSM are convinced that they are the saviors of today's Republican party. We won the White House in 1980 with conservative Ronald Reagan. We won the complete control of congress in 1994 overwhelmingly with conservatives. It is conservatives that always seem to have to help the moderates, never the other way around.
Moderates in the Republican party today seem to only be looking out for number one-themselves. Conservatives look for the whole party, including moderates.
For the above reason, I'll always take a conservative over a moderate GOPer any day!
Saturday, November 11, 2006
My question is, will they realize that raw power does not matter if you tolerate the corruption that was rightfully exposed in the 1990's?
It appears that maybe the case if they elect John Boehner (R-Ohio) as minority leader. I think that would be perfect irony. I mean, why did Ken Blackwell lose his bid for governor? Mike De Wine reelection to the senate? Because the Ohio GOP was so corrupt that the governor, Bob Taft, had to plead no contest in court. No, Mike Pence (R-Indiana) is the right choice. New face, committed Reagan conservative. One who will hold the Democrats accountable.
And why would Republicans elect Roy Blunt as minority whip? He is a huge part of the problem. He still does not get that the "earmarks" that went up from 1,500 to 15,000 is part of the problem. John Shadegg (R-Arizona) is a much better choice.
I say ask the questions. What they need to know before the leadership elections on Wednesday is where the grassroots stand on major issues and and they perceive the election loss of congress. I mean, some governorships are easy to explain and are not potentially as long term as congress.
What the Republican party needs to do is twofold. Reinjuvenate the conservative coalition. It does not help when just before the election, former house majority leader Dick Armey is blaming conservative Christians. Nor for now DBDMSM author David Kuo to blame White House insiders for disrespecting conservative Christians and not being enthusiastic about President Bush's faith-based initiative. Stop the finger pointing. We are all conservatives and, if we respect each other will have a fair hearing and up and down votes on issues that concern both, which is the vast majority of issues.
After that, have new leadership that remembers what the Republican party is all about. It is the real reform party. We don't stand for watered down liberalism, being better at making the trains run on time so to speak. When the Republican party came to power in both houses in 1994, it was on reform. What happened is we got drunk on power and many within our great coalition just could not take it anymore. Only new faces and aggressiveness can bring about reform. We have to be worried when in consistent polling data after the elections, many thought the Democrats would be better and keeping government spending and the size of government under control better than the Republicans.
Go to Truth Laid Bear and ask the questions they will ask. Also, look for new people to lead. It is the only way we can reform and lead back in congress.
It has, for most of my 42 years on God's green earth been left of center. It has been not exactly a supporter of Ronald Reagan's two runs for governor or president. It rarely supports any Republican candidates for office, but did endorse Governor Arnold this year.
But it goes beyond that. It is the culture of the newsroom and the editors and the lack of understanding the diversity of the area that they cover.
If the Washington press corps is hovering around 90% in favor of Democrats and their policies, do you not think it is the same at the Times? Do you not think it permeates in the way that a story is covered, and what kind of story is pursued? Of course it does and conservatives have come to realize that the Times does not care about having a conservative readership.
I am not suggesting that they become a shill for conservative Republicans, but for all the left wing criticism of Fox News Channel, it does make a concerted effort to present both sides to a story. It does cover stories that the DBDMSM won't. That is why it is so popular.
Look at the way that the recent election was covered. It was tilted worse than an old pinball machine in favor to the Democrats. It never refers to current house minority leader Nancy Pelosi as a left winger. In the prism of the DBDMSM, there are no left wingers. But, any casual observer would have to see that Mrs. Pelosi is a left winger. So are many of the incoming chairs to the house and senate committees.
While the Republicans deserved in a sense the beating we took, where is the story about what the Republican party will do now?
The most glaring problem, not just with the Times, but in general, how religion is covered. Only when there is scandal does the DBDMSM seem to care. Does any one over at the Times ever do positive or in depth articles about evangelical Christians, observant Jews and mainstream Islamics without and slant or bias? No. But, you will see how they are mocked or treated with such disrespect. I mean, we all know that Pastor Ted Haggard had a seedy life with drugs and a gay prostitute. But, had there been any articles about the good and positive things that the New Life church had accomplished? We are treated to how terrible it is that the IRS is going after very left wing All Saints Episcopal Church, or as I refer to it as All Socialists. Where were they when the IRS during the Clinton administration went after a church in upstate New York and took away their tax-exempt status?
It is, simply put, the world view of the average journalist today that vanity and celebrity is good. Modesty and piety are a thing of the past and should not be taken seriously. Social justice is ok. Personal behavior does not matter unless one is being exposed for seemingly hypocritical behavior. Big government is good. Small government bad. Feeling is better than thinking.
That is why the Times will not change. Any owner will face the same problem unless they set down serious guidelines. Such as having a balanced op-ed page where multiple points of view are on display. Occasionally, have a pro conservative point of view in an actual editorial.
Have people that can write a coherent story about religion with some basic knowledge, not an agenda.
Don't look at conservatives as an expendable potential readership.
And maybe, don't be shy about how journalism is presented. In other words, make clear that "analysis" is really a point of view and don't hide behind that word.
The irony is that recently, the top 25 newspapers in the United States went down or flat in circulation. Except one. Do you know what that is? The New York Post. Some call it a tabloid rag, but it is the ONLY newspaper in the United States that has had consistent growth. Maybe it is because when you read the Post, they do not hide what they are.
Maybe that is what the DBDMSM should look at.
The culture of the newsroom has to change. Until then, conservatives will stop buying the Los Angeles Times and the other DBDMSM newspapers until they are treated with respect. Afterall, most American cities are now down to one newspaper. That alone one would think would make them MORE, not less, to reach out to a wider audinence.
Now, I will read the New York Post as I am watching FNC!
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Well, we do need to clean house and senate. So far that is a mixed bag. In the senate, Mitch McConnell will be the minority leader. Maybe Trent Lott will be the minority whip. I am not sure how that will play out. I like Mitch McConnell. He will give the Democrats fits. But Trent Lott, I wonder how that will play out. I think the senators need a fresh and engaging face. One thing is who they get to recruit candidates in 2008, when they have a good chance to take the senate back. Rumors are John Ensign of Nevada has the inside track. I think that is a good choice.
In the House, it is murky.
There are three candidates. They are John Bohener, I think a mistake. Also Mike Pence, a Reaganite and a much better choice. Also, Joe Barton of Texas, also a Reaganite. That is what we need, some one who remembers what it means to be a Republican.
It is not to have "earmarks" or cravenly keep raw power. It is not to try to keep scandalous people and encourage them to run for reelection. We probably lost at least 10 seats because of just that!
We need to stop being watered down Democrats. We need to stand on what got us the majority in 1994 in the first place. We need to reinvigorate the Contract With America. The Republican party was founded and thrived on reform. Not to expand government, one of the great failings of the present Bush administration.
One other thing. WE MUST get all 50 state parties in order. We need to, if it takes the next RNC national chairman to do it, get strong chairmen and recruit good candidates to run everywhere. We can not give up on places in the Northeast. We can't keep running squishy moderates who do not give the voters in this part of the country a real choice. Remember, they took a brunt of losses last night. Yea, we can lose a couple of election cycles in Massachusetts, but people will take a look if we provide a viable alternative. I would refer anyone to read "Painting The Map Red" by Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) for a roadmap. New York state should not suffer because soon to be former Governor George Pataki made it all about him at the cost of building a viable Republican party. Note that Governor Arnold!
That maybe a good long term strategy. Right now, we need to show America that we listened and will return to our roots at the national level. We have to keep that in mind at the state level as well.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Firstly, a lot of the loss is easy to explain. Hardly a chance to keep Tom Delay's and Mark Foley's seats. But they should be easy GOP recaptures in 2008. We may lose the senate, but I do not think any of this is all bad.
Remember, there will not be a huge mandate and there is still President Bush who will finally have to use the veto pen. Many of the Dem gains are on the backs of moderates that may not be comfortable with the potential shenanigans of the leadership. Maybe it will force the president to increase the troops in Iraq and finish the job and get a majority of troops home.
Looking ahead to 2008, all bets have to be off. Both parties have wide open races to the presidential nomination and that will be good for both.
The Dems will not have overwhelming majorities in either the house or Senate. They will overreach and the voters will remind them in 2008.
Since I am in California, this is a BRIGHT spot for the GOP.
Governor Arnold having a landslide, taking along conservatives Tom McClintock, Tony Strickland and Steve Poizner to constitutional offices.
Won't hold my breath about any gains in the state legislature.
But, having a strong Republican governor will probably put California in play in 2008. WOW! A real big state in play for the White House!
Also, the big five bond measures that Gov. Arnold backed look like they will pass. But, there is still law and order as Prop. 83, Jessica's Law is passing with ease. Also, abortion parental notification is neck and neck. Surprisingly, Prop. 90, the eminent domain measure is passing up against a barrage by opponents.
So, nationwide not good, but in California, a good night for the GOP.
Now, on to 2008!
Monday, November 06, 2006
I will not make a recommendation for the United States senate as, for whatever reason, the Republicans did not put up a serious candidate. I will vote for Republican Richard Mountjoy, but I can not ask all fellow Californians to do the same. So, here goes.
Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is not a Reagan conservative, but who is now a days? But, he will not raise taxes and, occasionally stumbling has back conservative positions. He should win in a rout over socialist, er Democrat Phil Angelides. But remember TO VOTE!!!! There are some other races.
Lt. Governor: Tom McClintock. He IS the Reagan conservative and was really the better choice over Arnold in the recall election in 2003. But, alas, it was not the right time. Because he smartly did not lead a conservative revolt against Arnold, he will ride the coattails.
Secretary of State: Bruce McPherson. Like Arnold, a moderate but a Republican and will not let any shenanigans be pulled off by the Dems come election time in 2008.
Controller: Tony Strickland. Like Tom McClintock, a conservative. Someone we can trust with writing the checks. Also, has a great TV ad campaign as "Tony the Tiger"
Treasurer: Claude Parrish. A solid Republican. Has an uphill fight, but if it is Arnold's landslide night, he may ride the coattails.
Attorney General: Chuck Poochigian. Unfortunately, he is running against Jerry Brown and even now he can win a statewide race and looks conservative compared to Angleides. Any other year, Chuck would win, but this may be the only bright spots for the Dems in California.
Insurance Commissioner: Steve Poizner. He will bring respectability to this office. Ironically, it was in the middle of a corruption scandal when the GOP last had this office. Won't happen under Poizner. Not taking any insurance money.
On the propositions, I will just give the recommendation. Please refer to your sample ballot booklet for details.
1A) NO, 1B) NO, 1C) NO, 1D) NO, 1E) NO, 83) YES, 84) NO, 85) YES, 86) NO, 87) NO, 88) NO, 89) NO, 90) YES.
All I can write is that while I believe that it will be a great night in the rest of the United States for the Republicans, it will even be better here in California.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The race in Ohio is actually tightening up as Sen. Mike De Wine is now down in single digits. Just last week, the Democrat challenger Sherrod Brown was up by as much as 12% in some polls. May not be enough to pull a win, but that should not stop the effort to GOTV.
Same in Montana, given up for dead three weeks ago. Sen Conrad Burns and Jim Tester are in a dead heat. The same for Maryland Lt. Governor, Michael Steele vs. Ben Cardin. Tied at 47%. Even Democrats are worried that "Republican" Sen. Lincoln Chaffee is now back within striking distance.
Even in many of the endangered house races, Republican candidates that have been down are gaining ground. There is even a report in National Review online (www.nationalreview.com) that turnout will be low in North Carolina, where there is a barnburner of a race between Congressman Charles Taylor and former pro quarterback Heath Schuler. That may mean, low turnout, Republican hold.
Despite what the DBDMSM says, that some seats are already being written off by Republican strategists, don't believe it. That is what they said in 2002 and what they tried to say in 2004. Because of the Republican GOTV machine, they were proven wrong. I think we are about to do it again.
As pointed on by Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt's site (www.hughhewitt.com) Republicans are going to vote as if this was a presidential election year. That will offset any supposed high Democrat turnout.
John Kerry opened his yak and the GOP came home to snatch defeat. Maybe a long headline on Wednesday morning, but there is no denying that Republican voters are coming home and keeping congress in GOP hands.
Friday, November 03, 2006
House of Representatives:
Yea, yea I know, but Mark, the polls, the polls! I mean, the Arizona senate seat is in play! They Dems are pouring money everywhere, we can't stop this juggernaut and that is because the drive-by, dinosaur MSM says so!
But that is it. The drive-by, dinosaur MSM has been so in the tank for the Democrats that Republicans are coming home and making all the senate races too close to call.
Yes, despite what the DBDMSM says, Sen John Kerry's slam on the the United States armed forces is resonating with the Republican base and I am certain even fair independents and Democrats. The hysteria of Howard Dean is rearing its ugly head and Nancy Pelosi is being let loose to rain terror on the Pennsylvania countryside is finally waking up the fence sitters.
All campaigns throw money at races they know they can not win. Look at President Bush in 2000. He spent quite a bit of money here in California with no chance of even making it close. But, it may Al Gore have to spend time and money here, taking him away from an area that he could have had more in his camp. That is what is happening in Arizona. So, fellow 'Zona GOPers, don't be fooled! GET OUT AND VOTE!
The reason I believe that the DBDMSM does not get the real dynamics of the race is because they are the DBDMSM!
They have no idea how conservatives communicate around their prism.
As reported earlier this week in the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) Republicans are more online than Democrats. Conservative blog and information sites are more than 2-1 outhit over liberal blog and information sites. Also, there is talk radio. Even with the feeble attempts by bankrupt Air America to make a breakthrough, talk radio is still dominated by conservatives and or libertarians. Of course there is Fox News Channel, the most popular cable news network in the United States. It takes two liberal slanted DBDMSM networks, CNN and MSNBC just to try to keep up with FNC.
We know that we will not get a fair shake on the DBDMSM networks unless we are conservative critics like Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough or Dick Armey.
So, since they are not really taking the pulse of the American public as a whole, we are getting skewed, and screwed, polls and downplaying GOP votes and voters.
Come election night, when the Democrats do not take the House or Senate, what will the DBDMSM have to say then? Will they even know what hit them?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
He says that he is sorry that his words may have been misinterpreted and that he did not mean to imply anything negative about those serving in the armed forces.
Too bad that he also did not take the time to apologize about the comments earlier this year that troops were breaking down the doors of innocent Iraqis in the dead of night and torturing them. He said that with no proof.
Or how about when he came home from the war that he says he was proud to serve in, Vietnam. He testified at length to the senate about all the horrible things that American soldiers did to Vietnamese, comparing them to Gengis Khan. As a sidebar, don't you love the way he said Gengis Khan?
No, Sen Kerry won't apologize for all of that. He said that he was proud of what he did when he came back from Vietnam. Oh, and by the way, he said that in his apology statement that is on his website(www.johnkerry.com).
Hence, he did not really apologize. He is still fighting the Vietnam war. Somebody needs to tell the junior senator from Massachusetts that the Vietnam war ended in 1975, in no small part because of the contributions of a Democrat dominated congress in refusing to aid the beleaguered South Vietnamese government.
So, what does all of this mean?
It means that you can do something about it on Tuesday. GO AND VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!! That is the only way to keep Sen. Kerry and his ilk on a leash. Electing the Democrats in the majority only means that they will try to stop funding in Iraq and eventually in Afghanistan and pull back from the War Against Terror.
Then, Sen Kerry can really apologize for opening his mouth so close that he blew another election for the Democrats.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
What transpired is glib remarks about getting an education or those students maybe ending up in Iraq from the intellectual Sen. Kerry.
Oh, sure after he was caught not only in our local fish wrap (www.pasadenastarnews.com) and on youtube, he offered, well not an apology but an asinine diatribe saying that the comment was in reference to President Bush. Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the reference to President Bush since he did not use his name at all.
But, Sen. Kerry, trying to buck up another loser in Angelides has maybe turned this midterm election back to helping the GOP keep the majorities in both houses.
Let me be clear, this is the pattern of Sen. Kerry, to denigrate those who, in this war, volunteered to sign up in the US armed forces. The message was quite clear from Sen. Kerry. Get an education or you will end up as one of the bumpkins fighting in Iraq.
Sen. Kerry can not spin this as a Republican or Rush Limbaugh spin job. Here is what Sen Kerry said, verbatim:
"You know, education, if you make the most it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you'll get stuck in Iraq."
Funny, I did not see George W. Bush's name anywhere in that glib, flippant remark.
Of course not as that what it was not about. It was a slam on the military that Sen. Kerry has so loathed since he served in the Vietnam war. It is infact what left wingers really think about the military and those that serve in it.
It is why he and his ilk fight against ROTC programs on high school campuses throughout the United States. It is he and his ilk that fight recruiters at high school and college campuses. Afterall, a high schooler can pay for and have an abortion, but don't let that recruiter get 'em!
What this shows is the left's utter disregard for the military and those that serve in it. It shows that portraying the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror as a failure, they are indirectly saying our soldiers are part of the reason. It pollutes the leftist cannard that only poor people serve in the military.
I would like them to tell that to the family of marine J.P. Blecksmith, who was killed in the battle of Fallujah. He came from San Marino, California, a very wealthy suburb of Los Angeles. He only graduated from West Point and came from a long line of military "losers".
This genie does not get back into the bottle. It is already out and making the Democrats very uncomfortable in the waning days of this mid-term election campaign.
So, what is the gift Sen. Kerry gives this time? Not only the guaranteed reelection of Gov. Schwarzenneger but keeping the GOP in control of congress. If this does not motivate disgruntled conservative Republicans, nothing will.
Friday, October 27, 2006
The House of Representatives:
Democrat net gain +8
Republican Democrat Ind.
58 41 1
Republican net gain +3
Now before you say, how do we gain 3 seats in the senate, follow me.
The so-called big six, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Montana, and Virginia will all stay in the GOP column. Don't get me wrong, they will all be close, maybe only a few thousand votes in each race. But, they will stay GOP. I think the Republicans get Maryland and maybe the easiest of these races. Also, look for Tom Kean, Jr. to take New Jersey and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard to take Michigan. Also, don't count out Minnesota congressman Mark Kennedy squeaking by in Minnesota. It may offset any of the above that may not turn out for the GOP.
How do I get here?
Simple, the countinous onslaught by the dinosaur MSM that this is going to be a tidal wave for the Democrats. Also, the same folks trying to supress conservative, Republican voters will backfire as it as since 2002 when they also thought the same thoughts of takeover of the senate and the house.
The Democrats biggest problem is that they do not have a plan for anything. Chairman Howard Dean says as much. The only plan is they are not George W. Bush, and their blind hatred of him is worse than anything.
Disenchanted conservatives, I am one, are coming home as noted in an earlier post. We realize that a Republican majority will get conservative judges appointed and possibly to the supereme court. Also, we will not see a tax hike. Trust me, W does not make the same mistake as Bush 41. And in the most important issue of the day, President Bush and the Republicans are the only ones who can fight the War Against Terror with clarity and conviction. The Democrats have not offered any way to counter that as a grown up party.
Here is a chance to make them grow up. Keep them out of the majority until they can act like they care.
Anyway, there it is, the Republicans keep the majority and the Democrats have their bloodbath when they throw out Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from their leadership positions.
Come back next week to see if their are any changes.
While Cardin has the disingenuous ad from Democrat hack Michael J. Fox lying about his position on stem cell research, which he voted against before it became the Democrat cause celebre, Steele has a perfectly good retort in this ad on his website (www.steeleformaryland.com). It is his sister, telling the truth about her big brother and she has multiple sclerosis.
When Cardin is not using actors to lie for him, he won't answer questions in a debate and ducks them outright due to the time worn "scheduling conflict."
Steele is getting endorsements from unlikely sources such as Russell Simmons, hip hop impresario. He will get the 25 percent of the black vote that he will need to beat this hack into the ground. I think that he is the kind of candidate that moderate blacks can vote for and be proud just as I would if I could vote in Maryland.
It is not his race but what he stands for and not afraid to take on the Democrat establishment that can't stand the fact he left the plantation and is, horror of horrors, a Republican!
Please, send some cash to Steele (www.steeleformaryland.com) so he can get the message out and beat this Cardin fellow into the ground.
Michael Steele is going to be but one story of the many Republican victories on November 7 that the media will have to explain in this
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Thank you for coming home and getting ready to vote the Republicans back to congress and keeping the House and Senate in Republican hands.
I am with you that there have been many disappointments, but just today, thanks to the House Republicans, President Bush signed to Border Fence bill into law. Don't think that would have come out of a Democrat congress.
How about the war effort? If the Democrats were to take congress, eventually they will do what they did in the waning days of the Vietnam war. They will just cut off funding, thus ending the mission and forcing our troops home before the mission is done.
If that does not satisfy you, just think of a Democrat senate that blocks a well qualified conservative to sit on the supreme court. Don't think that would not happen? Think again. Also, think about what the state supreme court in New Jersey ruled in regard to same sex "marriage".
These are not scare tactics. These are the realities.
Now that many fence sitters are thinking again, they are coming home and getting to work doing early voting and volunteer work. That is what we need to do.
Remember, we have no allies in the dinosaur MSM so we should just avoid dealing with them seriously.
I tend to agree with Dean Barnett's analysis at Hugh Hewitt's site (www.hughhewitt.com) that this is beginging to look a lot like 2002, when the Republicans made gains in both the House and Senate.
I am not sure about gains in the House, but if we roll a perfect six in the big contested senate races, I think we can get Michigan, Maryland and New Jersey. Even with a couple of losses (maybe Ohio and Rhode Island), it would be a possible two seat gain. Throw Minnesota in the mix as Mark Kennedy is getting traction in new polling.
By coming home and keeping the Republican majority in both houses, conservatives will have more of a say as we will have been the ones to save the congress.
Think about that and get out and vote and volunteer to help the GOP anywhere you can.
Thank you for coming home.
In that series, Fox played Alex P. Keaton, a young upstart who was a Reagan Republican being raised by '60s parents. Very early on he made clear that he was not anything like Keaton, but was infact as liberal as his shows parents in real life. It was then that he lent his name to liberal and Democrat causes.
So, why is anyone surprised that he would in probably a worse stage of Parkinson's disease make disengeous ads demonizing Republicans who may not support embryotic stem cell research, which has not been promising at all?
Because, he is and has been a Democrat, not that theres anything wrong with that.
What is the fraud is that he has only become an activist since being diagnosed with the disease.
Fox is not being used by the Democrats. He is one of them who just happens to have a debilitating disease and is desperate to find a cure, any way, anyhow.
I don't blame him.
But, junk science can not be started that may have a Orwellian end that will be worse than what may be the cure.
For the record, I do not think these ads are going to change many minds.
Sen Jim Talent (R-Mo) will win reelection. Michael Steele will be the next Republican senator from Maryland.
What is true that if Fox wants to get involved in the political arena in this way, get ready for the criticsim. He is no different from any one else just because he does have Parkinson's disease.
The truth is, Fox has always been a Democrat and should be clear about that.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
I know, you are not going to vote because the New York Times says you won't.
The Los Angeles Times says that because you are not going to vote, the Democrats are going to gain seats in Red America.
I can go on and on, but I know this is nothing but...BULL!
As we speak, I am sending $30 to the RNC. If every Republican in the United States did that, we could change the course of this election and gain seats in both the House and Senate.
Do you know that Michigan, Maryland and New Jersey are in play? Well, they are and $30 can go a long way to elect Mike Bouchard in Michigan, Mike Steele in Maryland and Tom Kean, Jr. In New Jersey.
Do you know that the Democrats are so running out of cash that Chairman Howard Dean is trying to take a $10 million dollar loan just to keep some balance with the GOP effort?
Also, don't think that because you live in a very safe GOP area or deep in Dem America that it does not count.
Look at California.
Gov. Arnold has a commanding lead in the polls, but that means nothing. Send money and take time to phone bank. That will help keep the governor's numbers high and elect Tom McClintock, a Reagan Republican, as lieutenant Governor and Chuck Poochigian as Attorney General. It will also send back Congressmen Richard Pombo (CA-8) and John Doolittle(CA-11) with large majorities that make the Democrat effort a waste of time and money.
The only way we will stay in the majority and see any immigration reform, appointment of conservative members of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, and win the War Against Terror is by sending back a GOP majority to congress.
Most importantly, DO NOT LET THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR MSM ALLIES tell you what to do!! They are telling you not to vote and yet you will be the first to complain when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid go after the President because they still can not get over not stealing the 2000 election. DO NOT LET THEM STEAL this election. By the "reporting" and "analysis", they are saying some dumb things. And by suppressing your vote, they are stealing this election, plain and simple.
But, now is the time.
Let us put our money and time where our mouths are and get the GOP back in the majority.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
They have not covered the fact that reliably Democratic California is turning Republican in a hurry and it will turn almost all of the constitutional elected offices in the hands of the GOP.
A lot of people, fellow Republicans and especially conservatives, don't think that Gov. Arnold is a real Republican. Well, he is a Republican as one can be married to a Kennedy! But seriously, on the issues that count to Republicans and even conservatives, he has been on the right side. He has, to use a so 1990's term triangulated the Democrats and they could not have done better in nominating far-left Phil Angelides to be their standard bearer.
That has led to Gov. Arnold having a lead of anywhere from 10-15 percent in any given poll. That means that all of the other candidates are within striking distance and keeping other Democrats from breaking 50 percent or better.
Only former Gov. Jerry Brown has got as high as 50 percent in his race for attorney general. That more goes to name recognition, so take 10 percent off of that and he is not very far ahead of Republican Chuck Poochigian.
This means that Republicans, moderates and conservatives, will be in control in Sacramento. Maybe they will even pick up a couple of Assembly seats and even a Senate seat.
Why has the MSM not talked about this?
Because, you see, this is a Democrat year. They are going to storm back in control of congress in record numbers. Maybe they will even have enough senate seats to impeach President Bush.
Just a little hyperbole.
Seriously, the MSM can not talk about any GOP success. That is not part of the game plan. We have stories about the Democrat taking on the Republicans in red country. Tell that to the so-called endangered GOP reps in Connecticut that will win reelection and thus keep the House in Republican control.
I think this is indicative about the fact that polling weighs heavily to the Democrats and that when there will be "surprises" on Nov. 7, excuses and conspiracy theories will rear their ugly head.
Just remember, there are Republican success stories and California will be one of them.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Here are the top-five reasons:
1) Turnout. I believe that Republican voters are smart enough to see that the MSM has made what amounts to a last stand as far as their relevancy is concerned. They really do believe that Democrats will turn out in droves and take over by possible substantial margins the House and the Senate. There is no evidence of this, even the most partisan MSM analyst will admit this. Yes, Democrats are more enthusiastic about their candidates than Republicans. But, because the MSM is trying to channel this election in their favor, many will stay home, thinking it is in the bag. But, because of the superior Republican get out the vote-aka GOTV-planning and the low expectations, they will get the maximum of Republican voters out and stop any potential bleeding. One bit of history. Republican voters tend to vote in midterm elections, Democrats do not.
2) Money. The Republicans have more money in the bank and will use it wisely where they will get the most bang for the buck. Also, that effort will be made in the 72 hour GOTV marathon that will get the most Republican voters to the polls.
3) National Security. Yes, there have been a few polls that say the voters trust the Democrats more than the Republicans, but that will not correlate come election day. Right now, they have no plan for Iraq, North Korea, Iran or any other hot spot. Because, as you will see in reason four, polling is being done intentionally overusing Democrat leaning voters. Try asking real independent voters and Republicans.
4) Lying Polls. The MSM is most transparent in this area. In almost any given poll, the pollsters are polling more Democrats than Republicans, thus skewing any poll to make them look good and the Republicans look bad. Also, they are relying on registered voters over likely voters. Why? Because, registered voters favor Democrats because more people in many parts of the country are registered Democrats. But, likely voters favor Republicans because Republicans actually vote. Why was Rassmussen closest to the exact election results in 2004? Because he used likely voters to sample Too bad the MSM won't do that.
5) There is no realignment in this election. Michael Barone in the latest US News and Report (www.usnews.com) said that even if the Democrats do indeed take one or both houses of congress, it will be by a slim margin. So, what may happen is that voters will send a message to the Republicans and it will be a slight Democratic majority at worst. But, Republican voters will be motivated to see that does not happen.
We know that the next three weeks will try to make this a redeux of 1994, but it won't happen.
Republican party chairman Ken Mehlman said it best. The Democrats were not prepared for the 1994 Republican onslaught that was a realignment election. This year, the Republicans are, and that might be in the words of Karl Rove, the October Surprise.
Friday, August 25, 2006
The flap occurred when an Indian-American campaign worker for opponent James Webb, the Democrat candidate, was following Sen. Allen around on a day of campaigning and Allen, maybe or maybe not knowing, was videotaped pointing him out to the crowd and the senator then referred to him as a "macaca", an alleged slur that the overwhelming
majority of Americans never heard of.
For the record, it is allegedly a North African or Southern African term for monkey. Sen. Allen would have probably been better off calling him a monkey in the first place.
While many Americans were looking up this in their political correctness
dictionaries, the Washington Post felt this was such an outrage that there was three days worth of front page coverage on this.
Somehow, this "racial" slur does not warrant three days of coverage essentially calling Sen. Allen a racist.
Not only that, but it was rightfully pointed out, of course excessively, that the campaign worker is an American and infact Virginian born and raised.
I don't think that one thoughtless comment in the heat of the moment of a campaign automatically disqualifies one from running or even being considered a front runner for President of the United States. In two years, no one will remember this comment. People will remember that Sen. Allen defeated a one-time Republican who ran as a Democrat because he could not defeat the incumbent in a primary and is only running because he opposes the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror.
What the MSM should be focused on is what kind of record does James Webb have. How does a conservative suddendly throw all of the conservative positions overboard he held in a pique because he does not support our role in Iraq? What does he plan to do differently? Does he support the Ned Lamont position of cut and run and "work with our allies and talk to our enemies."?
But, alas, it is more important to see if a dumb comment by an incumbent warrants the news page, the front page no less, rather than where the opponent stands on current affairs.
It makes me wonder why the Islamofacists want to kill us since we really seem to care about real issues, only facades.
Monday, August 14, 2006
The fact that Sen. Lieberman is an Americans For Democratic Action lifetime 80 percent rating does not seem to matter.
Yet, the media is all but in bed with Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee and wondering why he has a serious Republican challenger in Cranston mayor Steve Laffey.
Records and general approach do matter and Sen. Chafee is the worst Republican in the senate.
According to the American Conservative Union, Sen. Chafee has a lifetime 37 percent rating. That is worse that moderate Republican Senators Olympia Snowe(50 percent) and Susan Collins(55 percent), both of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn) at 45 percent.
What is more a test of party loyalty other than one vote or issue is the fact that in the 2004 presidential election, Sen. Chafee also bragged that he infact did not vote for President Bush, instead writing in former president George H. W. Bush's name.
Now, one does not doubt that Sen. Lieberman voted for John Kerry in 2004 and certainly for Vice-president Al Gore.
And the reward for overall party loyalty, an upstart Ned Lamont with the help of the radical lefty bloggers, beat Sen. Lieberman and want him to be stripped of all his committee posts.
So, back to Sen. Chafee.
The media is trying to paint Sen. Chafee as a "moderate" Republican who mostly votes with the party (see www.pasadenastarnews.com) Friday, August 11) when the opposite is true. Sen. Chaffee is so disloyal that he would essentially vote against President Bush in a close election in 2004. Infact, Rhode Island Republicans need to rid themselves of this Democrat lite and elect Steve Laffey.
Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Laffey would lose big and that Sen. Chaffee has at least a 50/50 chance at winning. Polls show both behind the presumptive Democratic nominee. If Mr. Laffee does win the Republican nomination, like the Democrats, Republicans will close ranks and deliver the money that Mr. Laffey needs to be competitive and potentially a winner.
Party loyalty does mean something. Sen. Lieberman has been a loyal Democrat and got thrown overboard by some radicalized Democratic primary voters. Sen. Chafee deserves to be thrown overboard for a Republican candidate that will at the very least support the president or presidential candidate for election.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
It is because Mr. Bush said a word that the CAIR crowd has already condemened that we are framing what the War Against Terror is all about.
It is not about subjugating that masses of Islam to Christian rule or to convert them to Christianity. It is to take the fight to those that have so scared the majority of peaceful adherents to Islam. They are to be called by their proper name-Islamofacists.
Mr. Bush has done his best to point out that most Islamics are peaceful people and trying to do their best to follow their religion to the best of their understanding.
What Mr. Bush has failed to do until today is frame the War Against Terror in undeniable terms. To refer to the thugish adherents as what they are. Today in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Mr Bush, praising British officials fot thwarting the next 9/11, he said "Islamofacists" and it is about time.
Of course the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) went ballistic because Mr. Bush took the gloves off. We need the gloves to come off and call the enemy what it is and to continue the fight, whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq or the shadowy world that is Islamofacist terrorists.
Now, Mr. Bush must not succumb to Democratic and left-wing opinion and try to take back that comment. He must continue to say the I-word every chance he gets. It frames the debate and takes it out of the leftist shadows and the "gray areas" that they so like.
Like it or not, this is a titanic struggle of good vs. evil. Not Christianity vs. Islam, but good people of both and the Jewish faith, the world's three monotheistic religions fighting those who will pervert Islam and throw the world to a dark age of misogynist rule under a caliphate or caliphates.
Now, President Bush that you have said the I-word, keep it up. Let the American people and the enemy know that we know what we are up against.
apparently, more than 20 individuals were plotting to fly aboard airliners from Great Britain to the United States, use some kind of liquid explosive and blow up the planes, simultaneously as on 9/11 and kill maybe thousands of people. Unlike 9/11, there would be no survivors.
Anywhere from six to 20 planes may have been used in this mayhem.
But, because Great Britain realizes at some level they are in a War Against Terror, or maybe the years of dealing with the Irish Republican Army(IRA), the so-called civil liberties of the suspects were not an issue. When the plot was discovered and verified, the authorities stepped to the plate and hit a grand slam, nabbing much of the conspiracy before the attacks could occur.
With lightning speed, police in Birmingham nabbed as many as 24 terrorists and of course there are probably more. But the British are on the case and looking for all the potential thugs with vigor.
It is a stark reminder of the world that we live in. It is a world in which Islamofacists are going to stop at nothing to rain terror and subjugate the world under their fanatical view of Islam. These are not people who want to negotiate anything. They want what they want and, with the promise of 72 virgins in "paradise" if they martyr themselves, we must do all that we can to prevent and stop the terrorists where ever they are and with all means that democratic nations have at their disposal.
One wonders if the Democrats were in control would there be anything of this nature being prevented or even stopped? With Connecticut Democrats drinking Kool-aid and voting for Ned Lamont to run for the United States senate, it is a resounding no. But I believe that the American voters are smarter than that and will keep Republican majorities in both houses of congress.
It is events like this that make Americans realize that President Bush is trying all that he can to keep America safe and willing to do almost anything.
But today, a huge "Thank you" to Great Britain for stopping the next 9/11
Thursday, August 03, 2006
What the media has not asked except for columnist Cal Thomas (www.townhall.com) is what is a married man with seven children doing gallivanting around Malibu getting drunk and hanging all over very attractive women and eventually meeting his fate?
The problem is selective morality.
It seems that to many people, ranting about the "fucking Jews" is of more consequence than what kind of husband and father and yes, role model he is.
I think it is all relative. No one thing is worse than the other.
What is bad is that Mr. Gibson has had an ongoing love other than his wife, who he himself referred to as a saint for putting up with him. That love is the bottle.
The bottle, Demon rum, the Devil's urine, whatever one wants to refer to it as, has such a stranglehold on Mr. Gibson that he fit the classic pattern of an alcoholic.
When first confronted by deputy James Mee, who for the record is Jewish and thus part of the conspiracy, he was sheepish and genuinely ashamed of his actions. Then he got angry and belligerent and then, well you know the rest.
Why would a man with such talent that he produced the hauntingly wonderful "Passion of the Christ" have this serious problem? How does it affect the relationship with his wife and children? Where does it come from?
No one knows that for sure, and not even Mr. Gibson, but by focusing on the drunken comments, those who should be concerned about the family that is his are taking their eye of the ball. Thus, the serious problem of his alcoholism, which it is known to make sane people insane, is not addressed.
For the record, I admire Mr. Gibson for his holding on the the traditional Roman Catholic church. As a Protestant and a Christian first and foremost I do not agree with many of the theological teachings of that church, but he does have the conviction to take a serious stand for Jesus Christ from that tradition.
My hope is that faith is what leads to recovery and peace for Mr. Gibson and that it renews him, his wife and family. That is the real issue. The anti-Smithson that his deep in his soul will also work itself out in recovery and that will be a positive for all concerned.
What should be of more concern to Americans is the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or as Michael Medved (www.michaelmedved.com) refers to him as Ahmadiwhackjob.
He is the leader that the French foreign minister thinks the west can deal with.
To list all of his off the chain statements would take multiple postings, but his latest solution to the war in the mideast seems simple enough. An immediate cease fire. Where have we heard that before? But the long term solution to Mr. Amadinejad is the elimination of Israel. One can not make this stuff up.
The difference between Mr. Gibson, he is a loudmouth drunk at worst. He is not in charge of a nation, let alone his personal life at the moment. Mr. Ahmadiejad is the leader, or co-leader, of a growing nation that is restless to exert its rising power and sees a State of Israel as getting in the way of that. This is a leader who may within a short time be the triggerman of nuclear war when Iran develops nuclear weapons. This is the real threat to America and the west.
The troubling aspect is while President Bush maybe the only one that realizes the stakes in this showdown between Israel and Hezbollah, those around him are waffling.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is waffling, but that is alas what a diplomat does.
Many of Mr. Bush's close aides and advisors are suggesting a phased in cease fire. A loss for Israel and the United States in the War Against Terror.
It is no secret that Mr. Ahmadinejad is pulling the strings of Hezbollah and Sheik Nasrallah, or nauseating. If the threat of Nasrallah to strike Tel Aviv is carried out, it will be from direct orders of Mr. Ahamdinejad and that will lead to "uncharted waters"
We must not lose sight of this.
Yes, Mel Gibson having such hostile feelings to Jews is troubling, but having a real anti-Semite in charge of a nation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a recipe for real trouble and serious consequences for the United States
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Let us be frank, Israel is on the front line in the War Against Terror and they have been getting tormented by rocket attacks from Hamas in the "Palestinian" territory in the south and Hezbollah rocketeers from the north. NO nation, not the United States, not even France, would take it and fight "proportionately." We, and anyone else would fight back with all our might and crush the enemy.
That is what Israel is doing. They are showing the folly of the so-called UN "peacekeepers" and that they are one sided when a bomb hit and four "peacekeepers" were killed. If they were actually doing "peacekeeping" we would not be watching this war in real time day after day, night after night.
Israel is doing what it has always done. Fight back against unprovoked aggression and showing that it will fight back in kind.
But, the appeasement crowd is saying that there should be an immediate, unconditional cease fire. They think that Secretary of State Rice should do something like "shuttle diplomacy" which is always bad news for Israel. They even think that one can negotiate with terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas.
It is this muddled thinking that never achieves anything but giving in to the terrorists or their patrons. It is time to not take peace at any price but to fight for freedom and to defeat terrorists and their patron states.
We and Israel cannot be taken seriously in fighting terrorism if we negotiate with them. Israel is taking the first step in defeating the terrorists.
The United States should support Israel and not even talk of any kind of cease fire until there is no more Hezbollah military wing and Hamas is cut off. Only then will there be any kind of possible negotiations and only that they will recognize the right of Israel to exist and accept the two-state program.
appeasement will not work. It just delays the inevitable and emboldens those seeking to terrorize. That can not be acceptable. Israel must prevail and another theatre in the War Against Terror will be won.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Mr. Buckley decided, of all places, to air his grievances against President Bush on the CBS Evening News over the weekend.
It is not enough that Mr. Buckley said that Mr. Bush is not a true conservative-he is not in the Reagan model, but he is defiantly a conservative. He also pronounced the Iraq effort in the War Against Terror as a failure and did all of this on the den of the MSM iniquity-CBS!
It is fair to say that Mr Buckley is the Grandfather of the movement that conservatives are today. But, conservatism and the world has changed. It is no longer good to say what we are against, but we should say what we are for. That is what Mr. Reagan did and what Mr. Bush is doing. I admit, I favor more the Reagan approach to government, but it will not happen. It has not happened in 12 years of Republicans controlling congress. It will not happen when they retain congress after the November election. But if we accept some government, lets make it conservative as possible.
Also, I am fearful that because our new enemy is Islamofacism, Mr. Buckley may not have the stomach for the long and hot war that it will be. There will be mistakes made, to be sure, but to not take the fight to the heart of the enemy will only weaken us and we will not win. I commend Mr. Bush for seeing this clearly even if there are steps back. I think that Mr. Bush has got to tell the American people and the world what our enemy is and what we will do to stop it. No more Mr Nice Guy. Time to make an "Evil Empire" speech or a series a la Reagan.
But Mr. Buckley while entitled to his opinion needs to look at the big picture. That conservatism is a collection of different parts and that when they come together, there is no stopping it. When people like Mr. Buckley fall for the liberal-socialist trap and go off the reservation, it weakens the conservative movement.
Now more than ever we need the movement together, especially with the toughest election season since Mr. Bush became president.
Remember that in November. And for Mr. Buckley, you may need to ride off into the sunset and let the new forces of conservatism have its day.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
The difference in this war vs. Most other wars is the proxy and not proxy terror groups that are at the forefront of the war.
We all know that Al-Queda is in a league all its own and that nations in and out of the Middle East fear them. They are adept and slinking into troubled nations, as they did in Afghanistan and are now doing in Somalia.
But then there is Hamas and Hezbollah that are backed terror groups, primarily by Syria, which also like Saddam's Iraq, a Baathist regime and the real threat to the world, Iran.
We are watching the fuselage in the Middle East and there is no doubt that the proxy war fought by Hamas and Hezbollah will lead to all out war with Syria and eventually Iran.
At some point, we will not be able to stand by idly and watch, we will have to back Israel in this battle. It does not matter to Hamas and Hezbollah if Israel went back to 1967 borders or 1948 borders and gave up "East" Jerusalem. There will be not satisfaction until the Jewish and Christian "Infidels" are driven into the sea.
A sidebar. There are many who, as I do, sympathize with Palestinian Christians. But, in reality they will suffer the most in an Islamofacist Palestinian state. They will be persecuted for being Christians and "Infidels" and will yearn for the days that Israel was in control when they can practice their religion freely. Just ask the Maronite Christians in Lebanon how they have fared under Islamic rule and being part of the power structure in name only.
And if that were to happen, do not expect peace for as they have for centuries the Arabs will fight each other.
So, there is no choice but to back Israel in this titanic struggle and the possibility of ousting Bashar al-Assad is tantalizing. A free Syria may be the key to offsetting a growingly hostile Iran, again the threat to the world, even more than North Korea.
It is gut check time. We can really say we are fighting the War Against Terror or we can whine about timelines and whether or not we get Osama bin Laden. Do we back Israel with the might of the armed forces of the United States or cave in to international, anti Israeli opinion? Mr. President, we are watching.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
We should also remember those that are far from home defending our freedom in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Japan, Germany, South Korea. It is because of those men and women willing to volunteer to serve their country, the greatest in the history of the world, we are able to celebrate this wonderful day.
May God Bless America, one and all and Happy Independence Day!
Monday, July 03, 2006
My suggestion for Sen. Lieberman is to come on over to the right side, the Republican side. No, you are not a conservative but something very rare these days. An actual, old-fashioned thinking liberal. One who actually thinks there is something special about the United States and believes that our values and our nation is worth fighting for.
As challenger Ned Lamont gains in the polls, Sen. Lieberman may actually lose his primary battle. Today he said that if he lost he would still run as an independent. I hope that he would reconsider and just switch parties.
It is obvious that because he does what the socialist Democrats say does not happen enough, works with the other side, he has fallen out of favor because that means he is working with the devil himself in wackoland-President Bush.
It does not matter that he has a 90 percent plus pro-Democrat voting record since he was elected to the Senate, but work with Mr. Bush and actually support his view on the War Against Terror and the thanks you get is former Vice-President Al Gore giving you a slap across the face when he bald face lied saying he does not endorse candidates in the primaries. Does anyone remember HEE-HAW Howard Dean and Mr. Gore's gushing endorsement of him in the 2004 presidential race?
I admit, I like Sen. Lieberman because he is a man of deep faith and is not afraid to speak his mind. Goes against the leftward mainstream of his party. I believe that if our media was not biased, there would be gushing articles and Sen. Lieberman's face splashed all over our television screens like the last maverick they jumped on-Sen John McCain(R-Ariz). But now, Sen McCain is realizing that they really don't like him. They liked that he was anti-Bush. Now, Sen. McCain is almost fully on board Team Bush and courting Republican voters, who will rightfully determine if he should be the Republican nominee in 2008.
So, what should Sen. Lieberman do? I say really slap the Democrats in the face and come on to the GOP side. Can you imagine President Bush campaigning for his reelection in Connecticut and on election night, when his victory would be announced, another loss for the Daily Kos crowd.
While the PAN under current President Fox has not been quite as friendly to the United States (dumping thousands if not millions of illegal aliens over the southern border), Sr. Calderon should be an improvement. Anything to the right is better than what we have now. Sr. Calderon favors the free market and that can only help Mexico move up. At this point, Mexico can either go worse and start over or see long term reforms go through that will bring up all Mexicans.
But, we are already seeing the PRD calling for "every vote to count"-where have we heard this before?!
The PRD, led by Mexico City Mayor Lopez Obredor, is the Socialist party. Makes the old and dying PRI look like the Republicans here. They are going down to defeat, but taking their cues from the American Democrats and whining that because this election is so close-see Real Clear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com) and we see one percentage point separates the top two leaders. So, as the Democrats have argued in two consecutive national elections that President George W. Bush stole them both. Of course, these are the same people who say that President Bush is a moron.
Anyway, this election will take about a week to hash out and when all is said and done, we will be saying Presidente Calderon. That is good for the United States.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
"Gelding the trilogy may make a few new-age Presbies feel virtuous in the moment, but the likely effect longer term will be to animate the fundamentalists who often give religion a bad name. People who feel the Earth moving beneath their feet-their institutions and faith under siege-tend to seek out something more stable and less fluid.
And ultimately less tolerant."
I can not say it better myself.
Well, the Presbyterians have taken some heat off the Episcopal Church for at their recent national confab, they came up with 12 new ways to say the Trinitarian blessing, Father, Son and Holy Ghost(Spirit).Of course the reason for this is because that all implies that God is a male figure and it might "offend" some people. Most people I know that are literate in the Holy Bible and the times that it was comprised understand that it has nothing to do with male or female. All are one with Christ, male and female, free and slave, bonded and unbonded, and so on, and so on.
So, what are the 12 new variations of the trinity? Here we go:
- Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb
- Giver, Gift and Giving
- Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace
- Lover, Beloved and the Love and Bind Together Lover and Beloved
- Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River
- One From Whom, the One Through Whom and the One in Whom We Offer Out Praise
- Rock, Cornerstone and Temple
- Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides and Storm That Melts Mountains
- Creator, Savior, Sanctifier
- Rock, Redeemer, Friend
- King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love
- One Who Was, the One Who Is and the One Who Is To Come
WOW! Where does one begin?
The fact is that one, maybe two actually refer in any way to Father, Son and Holy Ghost(Spirit). The rest is socialist gobbly-gook. One of my favorites is Rock, Redeemer, Friend. To bad it has nothing to do with God.
But, you have the hand it to the socialists that have seized the Presbyterians church. There is spin.
In an article in the Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) the Rev. Rebecca Button Prichard said, "What people are afraid is that they think we are taking "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" away from them." Do you think?! The Rev. Prichard went on, "We're not. What we want to say is that no word can fully describe God." Then why not just say Yahweh as the ancient Jews did?
I have a good, non offensive way to say the trinity if one must. Try this one: God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is biblical, and takes out the bad patriarchal language and does not stagger into the nonsense the Presbyterians want to engage in.
If the Presbyterians, Episcopalians and other mainline churches wonder why they keep losing members and not gaining, this is one of the many reasons why. The purpose of the church is not to promote a socialist or conservative or other agenda. It is to equip the believers to take the Gospel to those who have not heard the Word of salvation in the Holy Bible. It is to promote God, through belief in Jesus Christ and with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Or Giver, Gift and Giving!
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Imagine this for a moment. You sat home, let encouraged Democrats go to the polls and elect a Democratic House and Senate. President Bush gets another chance to nominate not one, but two, choices on the supreme court. They will replace two liberals. What will President Bush do?
Well, he can't nominate a real conservative say like federal appeals court judge Janice Rogers Brown because the Democrats control the Senate. They already dragged her nomination out for several years before a Republican Senate forced the Constitutional option.
So, Mr. Bush would have to nominate a milquetoast candidate because there is not a Republican Senate.
In 2004, the Republicans increased to 55 seats in the Senate. That is why Mr. Bush could nominate John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
While we all may be upset that the Republicans have made some grievous errors and may blow the immigration bill, remember that in November, go vote, vote for the Republicans and increase the number of Senators especially so that when the time comes, Mr. Bush can nominate judicical conservatives who actually read the United States constitution, not international law.
We saw today what happens when five liberal justices can not read our constitution. Remember that in November!
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Where the Republicans go wrong is not mentioning the two Times newspapers by name as obstructionists and threats to national security. And that makes this a watered-down resolution.
Many blogs like Hugh Hewitt and Carol Platt Libau are rightfully outraged. And I am not outraged but amused. For as much as we like to rightfully call the MSM to the carpet, these feckless politicians need to use them for their own political ends. It is why many are frustrated not just with the Republicans but politics in general.
So, why the shock? I have to admit, I do not know. I do know that this should not be seen as another setback for the Republicans. It just means we have to work harder to elect more Republicans and some with a backbone.
It is why the Osamas and Hamas of the world laugh at us. If these spineless, feckless politicians can not, in a resolution, stand up and call the Los Angeles Times and New York Times obstructionists, potential traitors and wanting an American defeat, then we deserve what we get.
I say, and will, call and e-mail your congressman and demand that the resolution be reworded to include the names of the offending publications.
A note, even though my congressman is a Democrat, if you are in that situation, call or e-mail for him or her to vote for the resolution. For a watered-down one is better than none at all.
It is why we have to elect more Republicans, those not afraid to call those who wish harm against the United States what they are. Fifth Columists for our enemies.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
You didn't? Well, according the the Presiding Bishop elect of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Schori, we do.
In a sermon the Sunday after her dubious election as the next presiding bishop, she wanted to give trust in "Our mother Jesus (who) gives birth to a new creation." and apparently, a new gender.
I have read many versions of the Holy Bible from the King James to the New International Version, and not even in the politically correct version of the the NIV does it refer to Jesus Christ as a mother.
Correctly, all versions of the Holy Bible refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of God. One may have child of God, but not mother.
This is why people like myself wonder where the Episcopal Church is going.
It is one thing to use hokey wording of the trinity blessing, Father, Son and Holy Ghost(Spirit). This past Sunday in the main service, we used, "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer." Why, it is hard to tell if we are in a Christian church with such silliness.
But to refer to the Savior of the world as a mother when he is the Son of God shows bibical illiteracy.
If this is the best that the Episcopal Church can do for the spiritual leader of our flock, it will be an amusing nine years.
While the divinity of Jesus Christ is mocked and new versions of the trinity blessing are being forced down our throats, we who believe in the proper traditions of the church must not leave but stand up and call this mockery what it is. After all, it will be the churches and people who stand for the truth and for Jesus Christ, Son of God and savior of the world, that will thrive and prosper and bring a new generation the Good News of Jesus Christ. Not revisionists without reason.
During World War II, the Los Angeles Times ran many stories about the conflict with the tag line "Cleared by military censors." That is when the Times and much of the American media understood who the enemy was and supported President Franklin Roosevelt and the war effort.
The military did, infact, censor many stories so that the enemy, Germany, Italy and Japan, did not know anything.
That was because we knew we were in a war.
Today, President Bush walks the fine line between the fact we are in a war that the type we have not been in before. But, so that the economy does not go into the tank, we often do not emphasize that we are in a war with an enemy even more brutal than the World War II Axis powers.
And that is why the New York Times and Los Angeles Times feel it is ok to publish stories that clearly give the enemy full knowledge of what we are doing to fight through all legitimate, yet in this case secret, means.
The Los Angeles Times does not really believe this is a war. Or maybe they do not like the fact we are fighting back against radical Islam. Since they are the enemy of the West and especially the United States, they must be ok.
That is all that one can assume by the response that Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus gave in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) show yesterday.
At least Mr. McManus gave an interview with an adversarial voice. The managing editor of The New York Times, Bill Keller, went on CNN for the softball questions.
The Los Angeles Times was once called a "right wing rag" by its critics, but once they changed direction in the 1960s, it was praised by the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post and the big three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC. Talk about an "Axis of Evil." !
Now, the Los Angeles Times is nothing but a left wing rag that seems hell bent on destroying itself from within. While it is at it, it will try to ruin the war effort at every turn.
For President Bush, he needs to talk more and more about not just the war in the Iraq theatre but Afghanistan and world wide so that not just the American people, but the world knows that we are serious.
Maybe then, the declining Los Angeles Times and its allies will understand that it is not about bringing down any given presidential administration, but being prudent, to quote another President Bush. It means not publishing any story in hopes that this President Bush will be brought down.
There is something called patriotism. The Los Angeles Times could practice it sometime.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
To say the least, it was controversial.
The delegates elected a new presiding bishop and chose a woman-the wrong woman, Katherine Schori, Bishop of Nevada.
In and of itself, have a woman as the presiding bishop is nothing I object to. It is that Bishop Schori was the most liberal of the seven candidates. In her acceptance statement, she spoke of the need for universal healthcare, more acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church, a whole host of other liberal social concerns. Too bad she did not address the spiritual needs and or concerns of the members of the church. That would mean Bishop Schori would have to take a strong position, something that unless the is a social conciouness to it, most are unwilling to take.
Then in regards to the gay and lesbian issue, the delegates and bishops did a double take. At one point a resolution passed to ignore the Windsor Report that asked to put a moratorium on elevating non-celibate gays and lesbians to bishops.Then at the end of the day, they did an about face and decided to accept a watered-down support of the Report and thus there will be a moratorium on elevating gays and lesbians to becoming bishops. And that is a good thing.
The Anglican Communion is at the breaking point and because so many liberal Episcopalians do not follow traditional Anglican ethos of using Scripture, tradition and reason to get from point a to b, they are hastening the process.
But someone must have got to them because this watered down acceptance of the Windsor Report will stop the hemorrhaging-for now.
I for one think that many of these liberals do not want to face the prospect of years of spending in courts as more and more parishes and possibly whole dioceses break away. Now those that support the strong liberal positions at the expense of biblical knowledge and practice may actually listen to those who are really moderate and even traditional and find the common ground to spread the Great Commission of delivering the saving message of Jesus Christ.
It is time to work together for the common good of all people, not just the liberal or conservatives favorite group
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The erstwhile senator said that the two soldiers horrific death is a direct result of the failed policy in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror.
So to understand the logic that Mr. Durbin applies, if a police officer dies in the line of duty say doing a drug bust, is that in vain because we are not winning the War On Drugs?
Or if an officer is killed by a drunk driver, is it in vain because there are still drunk drivers and we will never be able to completely stop drunk driving?
Well, at this point, we do not have total control in Iraq. These brave soldiers DID NOT DIE IN VAIN! They died to help a people that have long suffered under the rule of the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.
But to follow the lead of Mr. Durbin and allies such as the 2004 presidential election loser, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis), we should just set a date and whether or not Iraq is functioning and has a stable government, we should get all of our troops out.
The future Defense Secretary in a, God forbid, Democratic administration, C0ngressman John Murtha (D-Penn), said we could just redeploy troops to Kuwait, or Duabi or Saudi Arabia, oh wait we can't do that because Saudi Arabia wants us out of there. Oh well, we can just go to Okinawa according to Mr. Murtha when he was on Meet the Press last Sunday.
I know that Democrats just hate President Bush so much that they do not care who gets hurt in their quest to eventually impeach him because they actually believe that Mr. Bush not only "stole" the 2000 election, but 2004 as well.
I hope that fellow senators call Mr. Durbin to task for dragging the death at the hands of al-Queda in Iraq of two American soldiers who are actually in the front lines in the War Against Terror. Because men like Mr. Durbin are not worthy to be benchwarmers in the War Against Terror.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Today, liberalism of that nature is dead. It now must be called by its proper name-socialism.
It is no longer for the underdog as the whole. It no longer wants to have people of genuine faith-be it Christian, traditional Judaism or Islam as part of a great coalition. It is for government to be a nanny to all. It is against those that are white, traditional males. But if one is a transgendered non European, get to the front of the line for the government handout.
The problem is that modern liberalism-socialism-is the greatest threat to America today. It is the fundamental reason that the Democrats want us to end our efforts in Iraq and not to treat the War Against Terror as a war. For you see, if that is the case, that means we must fund the military and police and other law enforcement. That will take away from some grandiose social welfare program that the socialists can enact and take credit for.
The first thing that the Democrats announce as a way to get control of either or both Houses of congress in an increase in the minimum wage. It is always a jobs killer. They want to increase it to $7.25 an hour. In many cities in which the more radical Democrats control, they have enacted so-called "living wage" laws. Again, for the average small business, it is a jobs killer. A major business will simply pick up and move to a more friendly business climate. Big, socialist dominated cities like Los Angeles wonder why few major companies call Los Angeles their home base. Because with all the regulations, business know they can get a better deal someplace else.
We who are conservative and Republicans seem to be afraid to call modern liberalism what it is. Even Ann Coulter referred to it as the Church of Liberalism. It should be the Church of Socialism.
When we are able to call it what it is, then the American people can make a serious and educated decision as to what way they would like America to go.
At one time, Democrats and Republicans could agree on who was the common enemy. Today, Democrats have absolute hatred of President Bush that they would rather see this nation lose to weaken and possibly impeach him. Many even embrace the radical Islamists because they are the enemy of Mr. Bush. I have a news flash. The enemy of the United States is radical Islam. It is bin Laden, the Taliban and the insurgents in Iraq. They may not like President Bush, but they should be supportive of the effort to succeed in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in getting those responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. They need to stop talking about the date to cut and run from Iraq and to crush the insurgents once and for all in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to take on Iran to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb. But alas, if we do that, it ends the attempt to socialize the United States.
And that is the sorry state of liberalism today in the United States.
The most telling tale is in Connecticut as a reliable liberal, Sen Joseph Lieberman is facing a potentially serious primary challenge. The reason? Because he actually has the nerve to support President Bush and sees that there is a War Against Terror. If he loses, the United States loses and the socialists tighten their grip on the Democratic party.