Monday, December 31, 2007

Thanks For A Great 2007

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in this blog.
I want to really thank those that take the time to comment. I read them all and occasionally it provides new blogging material. I do like the ones that are from the other side. That is the point of this blog. For me to comment and some to take issue and both of us are happy for getting our point of view to a wide audience.
And a big thanks to Pat Jenkins, Closet Republican and those who regularly read and comment. We are in for a big 2008.
It is with great humility that I thank you all for your interest and please, keep reading and commenting.

HAPPY 2008 And Some Predictions To Go With That Toast

Since everyone else thinks that they are seers into the future and it is the last day of 2007, I will take a stab at some predictions for 2008.

Of course this is all done with a wee bit of just guessing and a little silliness. You will have to figure out what is serious and is my just being silly.

So, here are some fearless predictions for 2008 in categories no less!


1) Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president.

2) Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee for president.

3) Mike Bloomberg, so-called independent mayor of New York City will run for president as an independent. He will ask soon to be former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be his veep and Sen. Hagel will say aye.

4) Mitt Romney will as former senator and current Republican opponent Fred Thompson to be his vice-president and Mr. Thompson will accept.

5) Barack Obama will graciously ask Sen. Hilary Clinton to be his vice-president and she will say no. In a daring move to try to win some southern states, Sen. Obama will ask Arkansas Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln to be his veep. It will be seen as a not-so-subtle slap at Sen. Clinton. Sen. Lincoln will accept.

6) Because Mr. Bloomberg is a liberal, he will take away crucial votes from Sen. Obama.

7) California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will endorse Mayor Bloomberg for president.

8) Mitt Romney will be elected the 44th president of the United States. Mr. Romney will keep the core of red states and possibly take three marginally blue states due to the Bloomberg candidacy.

9) Mr. Bloomberg will not win one state. He will be the liberal Ross Perot.

10) President-elect Romney will make a very serious attempt to include Democrats in his transition team and the cabinet.


1) The situation in Pakistan will get worse and the January parliamentary elections will be postponed until February at the earliest.

2) The situation in Iraq will continue to improve but with some hiccups. There will be more political accommodation between the factions and the will be a 25,000 troop reduction by the end of 2008.

3) There will be a serious terrorist attack on the United States just before the presidential election. It will be spectacular and some of it will be stopped, but enough will happen that will be very serious.

4) Osama bin-Laden and none of his cronies will be captured in 2008.


1) The Green Bay Packers will meet the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42 and the Packers will win.

2) The Boston Celtics will play the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA Finals and win the NBA championship, 4 games to 2.

3) The Detroit Red Wings will play the Ottawa Senators in the NHL Stanley Cup Finals and Ottawa will win the cup, 4 games to 3. Sorry Anaheim Ducks fans!

4) The Los Angeles Dodgers will be in the World Series in 2008. Not sure who they will play. And even less certain is that they will win the World Series. But, it will have been 20 years since the Dodgers last won the World Series defeating the Oakland A's. Hope springs eternal.

5) There will be a winner of horse racing's triple crown (The Kentucky Derby, The Preakness Stakes and The Belmont Stakes).


1) Britney Spears will end up in jail due to a DUI charge and for good measure child endangerment. Lil sis, Jamie Lynn Spears will have a miscarriage.

2) Three strikes and yer out and that will be the fate of Lindsey Lowlife, er Lohan. She will end up with her friend, Britney, in the slammer.

3) An anti-war movie will be nominated and win the Academy Award. Do not know which one. American Gangster and or 3:10 To Yuma should be nominated, but neither one will be.

4) There will be many more celebrities that come out of the closet and announce their homosexuality. They will do so to oppose Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney because of his support for a federal law banning same-sex marriage.

5) Congress will get involved and try to pass legislation against the paparazzi. It will not get far and cement this congress as a "do-nothing" congress.

6) More big names will get caught on video and or audio tape saying awful things and "rehabs" will be working overtime.


1) Despite predictions of an abnormally high hurricane season, there will be less hurricanes than in 2007.

2) The drought gripping Atlanta and much of Georgia will end in 2008.

3) It will be colder than normal in the west, warmer than normal in the east. The Midwest and the plains will be colder.

4) More and more scientists will come out to debunk "global warming".

5) California will have a normal rainfall this season.

Well, those are my predictions. You will have to guess as to which ones are serious predictions and which ones are in jest. Please offer some of your own. And, most of all, have a safe and sane and a

Sunday, December 30, 2007

The Rev. Mike And Sen. McCain And Tag Teamming

Is just me or does the Rev. Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor of Arkansas and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, current Republican senator from Arizona sound an awful lot alike? Do you not notice that in their harsh criticisms of former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, they go a lot out of their way to say how bad Mr. Romney has been to each of them?
Well, in a cursory look at today's New York Times, one those candidate comparisons show that the Rev. Mike and Sen."F--- You" McCain take rather eerily similar stands on major issues.
Both are in agreement, as are the other major Republican candidates featured, in not having a withdrawal timetable for troops in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. All except Ron Paul that is.
Both men are for a free market solution to health care access. There are a little bit o' differences, but both are right on this issue.
As an aside. There is not a health care "crisis" in the United States. It is access to affordable health care. When the DDBMSM spouts out numbers like there are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance, there is no breakdown as to reasons why. And that is very important to have a clear understanding as to what the issue of health care is all about.
On taxes is where the two differ.
We know that the Rev. Mike favors the so-called "fair tax" which is a regressive 23 to 30% sales tax on all Americans. And in a strange twist the Rev. Mike would give cash payments to every family to cover sales taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. That clashes with the fact that he voted against all the Bush tax cuts. And there is the usual trying to eliminate deficit spending. Also, he wants to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and exempt estate taxes on estates under $10 million dollars in value.
Neither the Rev. Mike or Sen. "F--- You" McCain talks about the flat tax, which is the fairest, correct way to raise revenue.
On the issue of whether or not the Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed, both favor that. Both men favor sending the terrorist detainees to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. And, once on American soil they would eventually be given lawyers and muck up the civilian legal system for years. Also, the suspects are better protected on the military base in Cuba than if they were in the United States. And, if God forbid there was any kind of assault by terrorists trying to free those held, one should rather that happen in Cuba than on American soil.
And on interrogation, no difference as both men oppose "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include waterboarding. For the record, interrogators should be allowed to carry out what they can to prevent any potential future terror attacks on the United States. A little waterboarding to Khalid Sheik Mohammad led to the capture of many terrorists. Both men are absolutely wrong in this issue.
On illegal immigration, both men are changing their tune on it.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain was a co-sponsor of the near-disaster Kennedy-McCain "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. And he has long been in favor of the so-called path to citizenship. And yet, he does not have the guts to call it amnesty, which is what then President Reagan said it was in 1986.
It was during the tumultuous debate that Sen. McCain showed disdain for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) questioning anything about the bill that he tore into Sen. Cornyn beginning with "F--- You! I know more about this bill than you do." Hence, Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
The Rev. Mike also supported this bill-scam.
But now, Sen. McCain is a light hawk as he favors the border fence and says that "Securing the border is the first and foremost priority." And the Rev. Mike wants you to believe that he would be even tougher as he would give illegal aliens 120 days to leave the United States and register so that they could return. And the Rev. Mike would deploy more border patrol agents, 23,000 in fact. And, to his credit, he would finish the border fence by 2010.
However, both came to this epiphany when every bit of reputable polling data showed that Republican voters and activists were against the "comprehensive" bill-scam and want the fence built now, in its 851 mile entirety. And, most want no "path to citizenship." To quote radio talk show host Laura Ingraham "ETL"-Enforce The Law.
And, for those who believe in the globalony warming scam, both men favor a mandatory can-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause so-called global warming.
The fact is that there is little difference between the two men, which leads to speculation that if either were to become the Republican nominee for president, God forbid, the vice-presidency is good for the taking. Why else would both talk each other up while tearing down the most serious threat to either's candidacy, Mr. Romney?
And, all of that is why neither will gain the Republican nomination for president and will not be considered for the second spot. Both the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain are running on the backs of potential independent voters, not Republicans. It may be a great general election strategy, but not a primary strategy. Which is what party people vote on. And, Republican voters will vote for the Republican they believe will win the general election. Independents could care less.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Please, Pollsters, Let US Vote!

Can you believe it? It is almost here! The Iowa caucuses and the first opportunity for Americans to vote for their preferences in the 2008 presidential contest between the Democrats and Republicans.
But, those pesky pollsters are ruining the great American franchise by imperfect data and swaying people based on said imperfect data.
In the last presidential election, erroneous exit-polling data gave a false impression that the Democrat nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass) was going to win the election. Because of that and the semi-close vote in Ohio, many conspiracy theorists say that the election was, once again, "stolen". And, some of the claims are based on. . .bad exit polling data.
Therein lies a huge problem in the American body politic.
There are so many polling organizations out there and each has a "scientific" way of divining the will of the people.
Each major broadcast network does polling, usually with a newspaper. You know, ABC-Washington Post. CBS-New York Times. NBC-Wall Street Journal. Then the news networks also have one. Opinion Dynamics for the Fox News Channel and the granddaddy of pollsters, Gallup for CNN/USA Today. And, lesser newspapers also have polling firms that work with them. And lest we forget the "independent" pollsters like Scott Rasmussen, John Zogby and the like. One election cycle and John Zogby was the go-to guy because of his "accuracy" then the next cycle it is Scott Rasmussen. And on, and on , and on it goes.
The public is all but convinced that the polling data is so accurate that when it goes the other way, then there must be something wrong.
No, that is not the case for there is one thing that all pollsters seem to forget. The most important poll of all is when said voter actually casts their vote in a booth or the privacy of their own home via absentee ballot.
If pollsters were right, the 1980 presidential contest may have turned out more like 2000 as all the major pollsters of the time said that the election was too close to call. Republican Ronald Reagan vanquished President Jimmy Carter taking 44 states and 51% of the vote in a three-man race.
If pollsters were right, there should have been a President Michael Dukakis in 1988. After all, once the respective party nominating conventions were over, then Gov. Dukakis, the Democrat, had a 17 point lead over then Republican Vice-President George H. W. Bush.
But my all-time favorite is the 1982 election for governor of California. It pitted the then mayor of Los Angeles, Democrat Tom Bradley against the Republican state Attorney General, George Deukmejian. Mr. Bradley was black and Mr. Deukmejian was Armenian. All the polling data showed that Mr. Bradley was going to beat Mr. Deukmejian and rather handily. Come election night and all said pollsters still said, based on "exit" polls of voters leaving the voting booth that the election was in the bag for Mr. Bradley. All but one stuck to it. ABC News took a hard look at their data and concluded that Mr. Deukmejian had indeed won the election. The others had to say that it was too close to call. ABC was correct. Why?
Because they were the only ones who accounted that there was something new called absentee balloting. The Republicans took advantage in the liberalizing of how one could obtain an absentee ballot and many of those that requested and received them were Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Deukmejian. And, he needed every vote as he went on to win the governorship by a scant 50,000 plus votes. That election ushered in a 16-year era of Republican governors in Sacramento.
The reality is that polling, for the most part, is a totally inexact science. And, it never really accounts for people telling a pollster what they think they want to hear. And that voters really do change their minds. Voters lie.
Oh, sure, the polling companies make sure to cover themselves with a "margin of error" of anywhere from three to five percent, depending on the sample polled.
It really does not matter.
Next Thursday, thousands of Iowans will go to certain areas of the state and caucus for the candidate they like and that is the first semi-vote. The real vote comes a week later in the snow-driven mountain state of New Hampshire.
No matter what happens I hope that those in each state confound the pollsters and vote the way they want to vote.
That would be one way to get back at the pollsters!

Hope All Had A Great Christmas

Now that the day is done, I hope that everyone had a great Christmas.
Christmas, for me, is a time to really ponder why we are here and that God gave us his only son to eventually die for us to redeem us. It is an amazing act that He did in giving us the gift of Jesus Christ.
But, like everyone else this time of year, it is often hard to keep that focus. You know, chasing around town for that last minute "perfect" gift. For once, this year I was all done with time to spare. Thus, I was able to enjoy watching the last minute crazy people from a distance. Usually, I am one of them.
Then there are the parties. You know, work, friends, church. They are usually well meaning events, but they tend to often add stress to an already stressful time of year.
The key to it all being a success is to think and be like a kid. Really. It is all about the excitement and anticipation. As we get older, it is having the joy of my wife or son get really excited over that special gift. Or, your humble blogger putting on a silly, singing elf hat that has a ball that gyrates with Burl Ives singing "Have a holly, jolly Christmas". I mean, it is the only time of year we all get to be a kid again.
It is a very special time of year.
But, before we can blink an eye, it is going to be the new year.
For me, the political junkie, it will be time to pick the presidential candidates of the major political parties, and hopefully elect a Republican successor to President Bush. Regular readers know I am for that being Mitt Romney.
But, most important, is to keep that Christmas spirit near and dear to our hearts as long as we can. It is after all the memories that make each Christmas special in its own way.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Tracking Santa

It is almost the magic day, Christmas Eve.
And, if you have children who are anxiously awaiting the visit from jolly ol' St. Nick, aka Santa Claus, here is a site for you.
This is where everyone with a computer and Internet access can go to track the man in the red suit as his reindeer take him around the world to deliver presents to all the good boys and girls.
It is just one of the wonderful joys of the Christmas season. There are so many joys and it is a kind of second Thanksgiving for many, including myself.
If I do not have the chance to do so, here is wishing you a

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Last Minute Books

Please look at the right side of the blog as I have listed but a few, last minute Christmas or if you are really lazy, New Year's gifts.
The latest that I am reading is "What Is So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza. It is a direct answer to all of the secular, atheist tomes that are talked about now. It is a good reminder about what the Christian faith is all about at its core and it is riveting in direct rebuttal to many of the claims of the secularists and atheists. A wonderful gift.
And, I have linked to the Amazon web site if you want to order online. If not, I would recommend getting these books through a book club or if you must go to a book store, try Borders and or a local bookseller. A great one in Pasadena, California is Vroman's.
Happy shopping and Merry Christmas!

The Rev. Mike And The Not-So-Fair Tax

Even though this is the Christmas season, I can not let this day go by without another reminder a Rev. Mike Huckabee Republican presidential candidacy is a disaster for the GOP.
The Rev. Mike has jumped aboard the "Fair Tax" express and has become the only presidential advocate in either party and of all the candidates.
To the Rev. Mike's credit, at least he is talking some kind of tax reform. I wish that all of the Republican candidates would take some kind of stand on tax reform, not just cuts. However, the plan the Rev. Mike advocates is the worst of the reform plans and one aspect is a bald-face lie.
Lets examine what the "Fair tax" is.
The "Fair tax" is nothing more than a national sales tax. Most advocates say it would be roughly about 23%. And, there are some economists who say the real figure is about 30%. Either way, in a consumer-based economy, this is a disaster. Also, there is no real aspect as to whether it will be on every purchase made or selectively on some items. Details, details!
As a resident of California, the land where anything and everything is taxed whether it moves or not, I will look at this from my perspective.
The California sales tax starts at 7.25%. Counties can vote to make the sales tax higher. Here in Los Angeles county, the sales tax is 8.25%. Now, if I where to purchase, oh say a new car, let us assume the "Fair tax" is in effect. The car that I really like is say $25,000, a pretty average price. There are many other extras, but let us talk about the California sales tax, in Los Angeles county and if there was a 23% and 30% "Fair tax". Here is the break down.
My $25,000 car becomes $32,812.50c at an 8.25% California sales tax and a 23% "Fair tax". And keep in mind, these are the sales taxes only, not anything else. If there is the 30% "Fair tax, then the $25,000 car becomes a $34,562.50c car, before I decide on any thing else. And, that is "fair"?
And, what if the "Fair tax" is extended to food and grocery purchases? It would have to be. In other words, every purchase that you make will be subject to being taxed. Period.
It is the most regressive tax because it will make the consumer even more penny-pinching than many have to be now. And, there would be no avoiding it unless you purchase in what will be a growing underground economy.
A big claim of the Rev. Mike is that it would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service. Oh, really? It would do not such thing. Who does the Rev. Mike think will be in charge of compliance? The Holy Ghost? No, it may change the name, but it would be a different kind of IRS and it would be potentially more vindictive and vicious in going after legitimate businesses to insure compliance.
And, something that is not talked about, pro or con, is the fact that it would be the way that illegal aliens could say that they do pay taxes. And, with paying taxes, they would expect to be taxed with representation, right? Thus, the opening to give illegal aliens full amnesty. Think about that, "Fair taxers"!
No, there not a perfect way for the citizenry to pay taxes, but the "Fair tax" is the worst idea because it would do more economic harm than good. It would be a tax that is totally dependent on the whims of a free market economy, which sometimes include such things as inflation. I, for one, advocate the flat income tax, but that is for another posting.
Those that support the Rev. Mike need to take a closer look at the "Fair tax" and the good Reverend's tax record as governor of Arkansas. Remember, there is more to being a good Republican than one's record on social issues.

Tony Blair Converts To Catholicism

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has a Christmas gift for the world as he has become a convert to the Church of Rome, the Roman Catholic church.
As a protestant, I see this as a good thing if it is for the right reasons, to strengthen his relationship with God through being saved by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost.
Here comes the but.
But, there is rampant speculation as to why now has Mr. Blair gone from being a member of the Church of England to the Church of Rome.
Some believe there is a political calculation and there may be some truth to that.
It would come as a blow to the Anglican church to have a sitting prime minister go from the reformation church to the Roman church. Say one thing and the United Kingdom. They may not like religion in politics, but they do like their leaders, elected and titular, to be protestant Christians, even if in name only.
Then there is the fact that some of Mr. Blair's public positions and votes as a member of the House of Commons smack right up against the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, especially in regards to the life issue and one concerning Sunday trading. Sunday trading may be a real issue in the UK as it is not that much of an issue here in the states.
These are issues that Mr. Blair, now out of elected politics, will have to deal with. And, if his denominational conversion is genuine, he will be guided by the Holy Ghost, and that will be a welcome position.
HT: London Daily Telegraph:

Friday, December 21, 2007

Is The Rev. Mike A Democrat Plant?

In another amazing turn of the surging Rev. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential race, the former Arkansas governor is now taking shots at a real conservative, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
This leads to a serious question.
Is the Rev. Mike a plant by the Democrats?
I ask somewhat tongue in cheek, but really, how can the Rev. Mike take shots at the man that has been credited with bringing congress to Republican hands in 1994?
We all know that the more that the DDBMSM takes a real look at the record of the Rev. Mike as governor of Arkansas, the more it looks like that other charlatan from the town of Hope, former president William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. The Rev. Mike raised taxes and did nothing to end the most regressive of taxes, on food. The Rev. Mike did not meet a clemency or a commutation that he did not like. Hell, Gov. Clinton let more people get executed in Arkansas than the good Rev. Mike! His foreign policy is not much different from that of President Clinton. Why, the good Rev. Mike says one of those he seeks advice from of foreign policy is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Mr. Friedman is as liberal elitist as one can get.
So, the Rev. Mike, led by the new national campaign chairman, Ed Rollins, is attacking someone on the consistently conservative side, Mr. Limbaugh, because like many of us he has done some actual looking into his record as governor of Arkansas.
Mr. Rollins accuses Mr. Limbaugh of not seeing the candidacy of the Rev. Mike very seriously. And, Mr. Rollins accuses Mr. Limbaugh of being part of a Washington-New York liberal axis.
If that is not enough, Mr. Rollins on Chris Matthews' Hardball on MSNBC accused one of Mitt Romney's advisers, Ron Kaufman, of being an atheist.
What has happened in reality is that the Rev. Mike has not taken this campaign seriously and it shows.
He hires a one-hit wonder in Mr. Rollins to shepherd this shoe-string candidacy to the promised land. Mr. Rollins last success was getting former President Ronald Reagan a near 50-state sweep in the 1984 presidential election year. A blind, three-legged dog could have done that with an enormously popular Mr. Reagan.
So, full of himself, Mr. Rollins tried to get H. Ross Perot into the White House in 1992. Thanks to that wondrous effort, we got stuck with President Clinton for two terms.
And, wanting to show his establishment chops, he worked for former New Jersey governor Christie Todd Whitman, one of the most obnoxious blue-bloods the Republicans have ever produced. Mr. Rollins bragged about paying black, Christian ministers to suppress the black vote and deliver the governor's mansion to Mrs. Todd-Whitman. Not that it was proven, but the fact that Mr. Rollins would even joke about that should be enough to realize, this is not the guy you want to take your campaign to the next level.
But, the ever forgiving Rev. Mike got Mr. Rollins aboard.
And the thanks that conservatives get is a slap in the face because some, like Mr. Limbaugh and many others, have looked at the Rev. Mike's record and seen that in reality, the good Reverend is possibly a closet liberal. He sure governed like one. Just because there is an R after the name, it does not mean that one is a true Republican.
If the Rev. Mike thinks that only social conservatives vote in Republican primaries, he may be in for a rude shock come January 3, 2008. There are also fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The fiscal conservatives are embarrassed that they have defended the spending policies of the previous, Republican congress. The foreign policy hawks actually want victory in the War Against Islamofascist Terror.
And, these people are just part of a mix when it comes to the general election. And, without total support from each other, a Republican candidate is certain to lose. And, that loss would be a stinging rebuke of the Republican party if the Rev. Mike is the nominee for president.
It is just a fact and the Reverend's people, led by Mike himself, just can not bring themselves to that reality.
So, Rush Limbaugh has to remind them, and the thanks he gets is cheap shots.
Again, is the Rev. Mike just a Democrat plant? Let the record speak for itself.

Monday, December 17, 2007

How Can ANYONE Compare The Rev. Mike To Ronald Reagan?

In this amazing political season death march, the latest explanation on the rise of the Rev. Mike Huckabee is that he is somehow channelling former President Ronald Reagan.
You think that I am wrong?
How many pundits and bloggers have written or said something along those lines?
The question is, where in the name of Almighty God is there any comparison?
When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1976 and in 1980, he did not run as a big government conservative. Mr. Reagan ran on the platform of a smaller government, less taxation and regulation. And, in 1980, Mr. Reagan ran on the Republican platform that called for eliminating the Departments of Education and Energy, two Democrat boondoggles if there ever were any.
What does the Rev. Mike call for? Well, he wants a nationwide smoking ban for starters.
Now, I like a cigar every once in a while, and I do not like smoking, but I also believe that until smoking is made totally illegal, one should have the right to light up in public, not inside a public building or workplace, but outside. And, that should be left up to cities, counties and maybe states.
The Rev. Mike also wants to continue No Child Left Behind. Well, I think it is a good idea since the schools get so much money from the federal government. But, if the Rev. Mike really wants to sound like Mr. Reagan, how about cutting the funding for the Department of Education, eliminate the department and return education to the state level?
In defense of the Rev. Mike, I have not heard any of the serious Republican candidates call for eliminating the Department of Education. Unfortunately, I am more with, gulp, congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) on this one.
And, in calling for the "fair" tax, a national sales tax, the Rev. Mike is pursuing the most regressive tax of all, on consumption. And, it will never eliminate the IRS, just change the way the IRS does business.
When Ronald Reagan fought for tax reform in the late 1980s, it created the closest to a flat tax the United States has had since the income tax was imposed in the early 20th century.
And on foreign policy, the Rev. Mike sounds more like Dennis Kucinich than Ronald Reagan.
The Rev. Mike calls for talking to Iran, comparing our "relationship" to warring siblings. Huh? And the Rev. Mike calls for closing down Gitmo and backs strict interrogations guidelines and does not seem to grasp the serious war the United States is in with radical Islam.
Now, Mr. Reagan did not talk to the slew of leaders of the Soviet Union until Mikhail Gorbachev came along. Mr. Gorbachev was relatively young and seemed very willing to be accommodating. Have we heard any of that from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Is he just a sibling that needs a talking to?
And, when all of left-wing Europe and the Democrats in the United States did not want Pershing II nuclear weapons in Europe to act as a deterrent against the Soviet Union, Mr. Reagan did not just shrivel up and say OK. The missiles went in and in can be said that was one of the reasons that Mr. Gorbachev had to broker a serious deal on reducing nuclear weapons, something never done before.
And, the Rev. Mike seems very interested in class warfare. The Rev. Mike is talking about the power brokers and referring to the Club For Growth as the Club For Greed. These are not things that Mr. Reagan would have ever done.
No, there is not a lot to compare the Rev. Mike to Mr. Reagan. Not in style or substance.
There is just no way an objective person can say, with a straight face, that the Rev. Mike is in any way like Ronald Reagan. That is an insult to Mr. Reagan.

Thoughts On The 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat Version

In reaction to a comment left on my analysis of the Republican presidential race over the weekend, in fairness I will now comment on the race among the Democrats for the 2008 presidential nod.
Did anyone see the photo of a haggard Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York) in today's Drudge Report One has to hope that if she were to win the whole thing it can clear up some of those worry lines, but read on.
I feel like the only conservative to cite that Sen. Clinton may not be the Democrat nominee for president. I have been saying that there is something about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) that will draw more from Democratic voters. And, it appears to be happening.
The Democrats are not like the Republicans have been. There is not any kind of anointing among Democrat voters. Thus, that is why after all these months of Sen. Clinton having over the top poll numbers and people thinking that all she needs is the tiara.
So, it appears that Sen. Obama should win the Iowa caucus. And worse for Sen. Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards may very well pull in second, leaving her at third place.
And, just a little advice from a Republican for Sen. Clinton. I think she should lock former President Clinton up somewhere at least until the Iowa caucuses are finished. It does not help when Mr. Clinton comments that he is surprised at how well she is doing in Iowa and that she may lose that state.
Anyway, it appears that Sen. Obama is the anti-establishment candidate and this time may very well be in the catbird seat rolling into New Hampshire. There, independents can vote in the Democrat primary and I think there is going to be a lot more interest from independent voters in the Democrat primary versus the Republican primary. And, that should help Sen. Obama. Here I think is the beginning of the end of the John Edwards candidacy. Democrat voters in New Hampshire are not going to get into the "Two Americas" that Mr. Edwards is basing his whole campaign on. And, after New Hampshire is South Carolina in which Sen. Obama will walk away with that state.
Where does that leave the vastly second tier of Democrat candidates?
Oddly enough, I think that Sen. Joe Biden may emerge as the top of the second bananas. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who should be the front runner, is fading quickly and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) is not much of a factor. And, no doubt that congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) will get his fair share of the fringe vote, but as he was in 2004, Mr. Kucinich be no factor, just a gnat.
Sen Biden may be able to keep going just a little more, but even he will fade away.
So, in the end, it will be a three person race. Sens. Cilinton and Obama and Mr. Edwards.
In the end, I really believe that Sen. Obama is much more inspiring to Democrats and he will be the Democrat nominee for president.
Imagine that. A Mormon on the Republican side against the first black on the Democrat side. Now that is the kind of election that is going to be very interesting.

Letter To The Editor

I, your humble blogger, wrote a letter to the editor that was actually published in today's Pasadena Star-News http://www.pasadenastarnews.con/letters/ci_7739001.
The letter was in reaction to a ridiculous piece I commented on "Strolling Through The Daily Fish Wrap", Sunday, November 25.
Normally, I would not recommend to read such trash, but I do in this case to understand fully the threat that we face in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror-from within http://pasadenastarnews/com/opinion/ci_7550457.
Once you read the piece and my reaction, you be the judge.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Notes On The Presidential Campaign, Republican Version

In the last 24 hours, I have some to several conclusions about how the Republican campaign for president is going to pan out or at least how it will end up before the much anticipated Super Duper Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Boldly, I will write that former Arkansas governor, the Rev. Mike Huckabee will NOT be the Republican nominee for president in 2008. And, he will never be considered for vice-president by any of the serious contenders. Most of why has been done by the Rev. Mike himself. Now, tomorrow I will read the Rev. Mike's interview in the New York Times magazine. Yes, I get the Sunday New York Times but it is all I can stomach! Anyway, the problem is that because the fact that Rev. Mike played dumb and asked the question and Mormon belief that Jesus Christ and Satan were brothers, people will read the interview hoping for other gems from the Rev. Mike. Maybe the rest of the interview will be dull and that was all that was there. We will know for sure tomorrow.
The downhill spiral began when the Rev. Mike aired television and online advertisements touting himself as a "Christian" leader. Now, anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a devout Christian and want to see people of good faith and morals serving the public. Yes, it would be wonderful if they were all Christians and Jesus Christ was president. But, the wisdom of Almighty God is that in this land, people of many faiths live side by side. Thus, we should elect people true to their faith and beliefs and yes, that will be part of that person's being. Hence, Sen Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn) would fit that model as an observant, Orthodox Jew. But, there is no quicker turnoff to the majority of people, Christian or not, than saying "I am a Christian leader."
And of course, the DDBMSM reminded us that the Rev. Mike was one of only three Republican candidates that said they do not believe in the theory of evolution. More DDBMSM cannon fodder.
And , the same DDBMSM is all over the Rev. Mike like bees to honey. So, we have to depend on Matt Drudge to get some Democrats to admit they are building up the Rev. Mike because he was seen as easy road kill. Funny how the elites like to use such down home terms when referring to some one like the Rev. Mike.
Another bad sign is that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani seems to be "Where's Waldo?" as he seems to have been put down by the Rev. Mike's guerrilla forces. Suddenly, the snowbirds in Florida are for the Rev. Mike and Brother Mitt as the latest Rassmussen Reports poll shows. Mr. Giuliani is faltering in Michigan and has no hope in Iowa and New Hampshire. Throw in South Carolina and it will not matter for Mr. Giuliani what happens on Super Duper Tuesday. He will have already been thrown under the bus by the voters. Take that, Mr. Frontrunner!
The problem with Mr. Giuliani is that he has followed the front runner strategy. Playing it safe and hoping that other candidates implode or fall under their own weight or other candidates just fade away. But wait! The Rev. Mike on the Christian flank and Brother Mitt on the Mormon side. Throw in war hero John "F--- You" McCain and Hollywood hero Fred Thompson and suddenly, voila! It turns out that Mr. Giuliani is the one falling under his own weight and maybe even imploding. Mr. Giuliani needs to get some New York fight in him or this whole approach ends his serious candidacy before Super Duper Tuesday.
Speaking of a couple of also-rans, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain seems to be picking up some stream at least in the friendly confines of New Hampshire. It is where he scored the impressive 2000 victory over then Gov. George W. Bush. Too bad that was at the hands of crossover Democrat and independent voters and few Republicans. And, as noted by Hugh Hewitt, that maybe the case here. But, at least Sen. "F-- You" McCain is fighting the good fight and standing by President Bush concerning the surge in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. And, while he continues to argue foolishly against waterborading and other enhanced interrogation techniques, he believes in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, something the Rev. Mike does not have a clue about. Either Sen. "F--- You" McCain or congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Cal) will make a great Defense Secretary in the next Republican administration.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson finally came out of the cave of hibernation to roar in that debate debacle last Wednesday that he was not going to play the hand game regarding global warming debate. Mr. Thompson wanted to actually talk about it. Good for him! Mr. Thompson at least talks about conservative issues and does have some ideas, but there is no more proof that he got into this race too late that his refusal to raise his hand got him the headline in the last debate. But, because he is trying to put forth conservative ideas, he may just earn the vice-presidential spot on the ticket.
And, you thought I was going to forget about Brother Mitt Romney, the real frontrunner and the one who has the ideas, means and ability to see this all the way through. Tomorrow, barring a moronic line of questioning by Tim Russert, Mr. Romney will appear on Meet The Press on NBC. He will show why at the end, most Republicans will pull the lever, punch the hole or press the electronic keypad for him. And, why that is will all lead back to his religious liberty speech at the George H. W. Bush Presidential library in Texas. Mr. Romney was the antidote to the fire and brimstone of the Rev. Mike and laid out the kind of president we will have with Mitt Romney.
Some other points to make about Mr. Romney.
If Sen. Hilary Clinton is the nominee of the Democrat party, Mr. Romney has already ran and beat out a woman when he became governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
The ideas are that he already left as governor of Massachusetts with a health care plan in place. That is a very large domestic issue to many Americans. Mr. Romney can say that he looked at the issue and sought a solution with a beyond overwhelming democrat legislature. Take that, Mrs. Clinton!
Mr. Romney knows that the real battle of the 21st century is with radical Islam, not fellow believers in the United States. He calls them what they are, radical jihadists and has not backed down. Mr. Romney has the temperament and knowledge of the threat to take it head on.
The means is that Mr. Romney has the money all by himself to take on whoever the Democrats throw at us. People may criticize that fact, but if we are believe that people are not giving money to Republicans as they are to Democrats, then this does become an easily solved problem.
Boy, is it not going to be fun from here to the convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota?!

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Re: Iowa-January 3, 2008 Can Not Come Soon Enough!

Today, another droning Republican debate was held in Des Moines, Iowa and sponsored by the Des Moines Register.
In and of itself, this should have been a smack-down, but it was not and there are reasons for that.
Firstly, why in the name of God Almighty would the Des Moines Register invite the latest incarnation of Harold Stassen, Alan Keyes, to this debate? Is it not enough that there is the Holy War between Southern Baptist Mike Huckabee and Mormon Mitt Romney? What, we needed the fringe Roman Catholic to mix it up a bit?
And the "moderator", Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn, who is this lady? And why, once again, do these "moderators" think that asking moronic questions? Like her asking all the candidates if they thought global warming was a man-made problem, to please raise their hands. Well, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson finally had enough and said that he was not doing any hand shows today. Can I hear an amen, brother?! And, Mr. Thompson asked for time to actually answer the question and the "moderator" said no. Come on, we do not want to actually hear what the candidates have to say about the issue of global warming, just if they buy that man is primarily responsible for it.
But, of course there is always the Rev. Mike Huckabee to create another slam at the Mormons. It was revealed that in the New York Times Sunday Magazine to be published this weekend, Rev. Mike asks the reporter this gem, "Is it true that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" OH BOY! This from the man who prides himself on being the only candidate with a theological degree. Where did the Rev. Mike get that degree, from a correspondence course?
Funny, there were no questions on illegal immigration, the issue that REPUBLICAN voters actually care about. Why would "moderator" Washburn ask questions on that subject?
From my observations, Mitt Romney came away a winner. He looked and acted presidential and was able to engage the candidates, especially Mr. Thompson with good-natured humor. Fred Thompson finally showed up and also looked very good and gave good answers. Mr. Thompson has got to be on Mr. Romney's short list for vice-president. The Rev. Mike somehow thinks that it is the federal governments role to fund music appreciation programs in the schools. Small ideas equal small candidate. The others, including Rudy Giuliani and John "F--- You" McCain were left in the dust. And, of course there is Harold, er Alan Keyes. Nothing like putting the wind in a bag and watching Mr. Keyes exhale.
Thankfully, we only have 22 more days of this insanity, and with the Christmas and New Years holidays coming up, even less time before the voters of Iowa put us out of our misery. Until New Hampshire!

How To Keep The Riff Raff Out Of Your City Park

Where I live in Pasadena, California is a stone's throw away from the wealthy enclave of San Marino. Many a prominent people have lived there and were founders of this city. Railroad baron Henry Huntington, Gen. George Patton, Don Wilson. Now, two of these names mean nothing to those that live outside of this area, but trust me, they are historical names here.
San Marino has very little in terms of industry or even a tax base like another wealthy city in this area, Beverly Hills. But it has something that has stuck in my craw for a long time now. A fee to use the only park in the city, Lacy Park. And, better yet, it is for those that do not live in San Marino.
In a rare moment of agreement with the Los Angeles Times, columnist Steve Lopez got a taste of what the city has been doing for many years now.
When Mr. Lopez took his wife and 4 year-old daughter, the non-residents over 5 years old had to pony up $4 dollars each. Oh, and this is on weekends only.
For the Forth of July fireworks show, non residents have to fork out $10 dollars each for the privilege of stepping onto the hallowed grounds of Lacy Park.
Did I mention that this park also has a gate all around it?
Now, some will ask, what is wrong with a city making some money to maintain a public park.
Well, for one the residents of San Marino do not pay any admission fee. They want non-residents to pay up. Also, there is a little something called the state government, which has doled out quite a large sum of money for park upkeep. Usually, governments like public parks not to charge fees and if they do, it should be also charged to the residents.
Unfortunately, it is clear what the city of San Marino is doing. It is keeping those who they deem "undesirable" from just walking into their precious park and, oh my goodness, having a good time with their children and or enjoying the peace and serenity.
Here are some quotes from city leaders that Mr. Lopez wrote in his column.
Councilwoman Betty Brown explained why the fence was built in the 1970s,
"In the 1970s there were a lot of people coming and smoking pot in the park. It was an unpleasant place because so many people were bringing their kids there."
Now, I do not advocate smoking pot in the park, but is that not what a park patrol and police departments exist for? If there is a strong law enforcement presence and a zero tolerance, that is one way to discourage that problem. And, I believe some of those potheads were probably children of those who lived in San Marino. Just a thought.
Matt Ballantyne is the city manager. He said that because of the passage of the infamous Proposition 13 which kept property taxes from going through the roof and bankrupting home owners, cities lost a lot of money that ended up in the state capital, Sacramento, and was doled out to individual counties and cities. And, Mr. Ballantyne cited the lack of a tax base that could pay to keep the park open every day. Huh? A public park usually is open every day of the year and usually closed from 10pm to dawn. And, going back to that park patrol or police presence, there should not be a problem keeping the park "open"
The topper comes from city councilman Bob Twist, who had this logic,
"Its a private park and belongs to the city, so the city has control over it."
Really? Since when do "private" parks get state funds? And where does it say on the sign that Lacy Park is a "private" park? And, if it is a "private" park, does the city really have control over it?
I really understand that a high end city like San Marino wants to preserve its way of life, not to be bothered with the same dilemmas that all the surrounding cities have, like the riff raff that use public parks. But, charging those who do not live in the city, to go on land that everywhere else is free, smacks of beyond elitism. It is discrimination.
A solution of this problem is that the city take total control of the park. Not accept any government funding of any kind in any way. Sell the park to private ownership but with the stipulation that it must be maintained as a park. Then charge everyone an entry fee with a discount for San Marino residents and a higher fee for non-residents. Thus, everyone gets to put their money where there mouth is.
But a city showing blatant discrimination as San Marino is doing is over the top. It has been going on for years and, thanks to an intrepid columnist at the Los Angeles Times, maybe something can be done about this.

GOP Keeps Two Congressional Seats

Believe it or not, yesterday were two special elections for congressional seats in Ohio and Virginia. Since they were both Republican seats and the Republicans kept the seats, the DDBMSM decided to bury the story.
The two elections were to replace congressmen who died in office. The Ohio election was to replace Paul Gilmour and the race in Virginia was to replace Jo Ann Davis.
In Ohio, Bob Latta defeated the Democrat challenger, Robin Weirrauch, 57% to 43% It is a reliable Republican district that has not sent a Democrat to congress since the 1930s. Mr. Latta's father, Delbert Latta, held the same seat for over 30 years. The Democrats made the Republicans spend a little money but it was money well spent.
In Virginia, it was not even close as Republican Rob Whitman defeated Democrat Iraq war veteran Phil Forgit, 61% to 37% http://pilotonline.,com.
The key to these victories were two fundamentals. Taxes and illegal immigration.
The DDBMSM does not want to report the fact that two Republican candidates ran for congress and said they would not back tax hikes and were for enforcement of United States borders. But, that is what Messrs Latta and Whitman did and they won.
These will be the top domestic issues of the election in 2008.
The DDBMSM is now pushing the economy and health care, which by sheer coincidence I am sure, are the leading Democrat domestic talking points. And yes, some Republicans don't want to talk about taxes and illegal immigration.
But, the American people do and are going to tire really fast about the Republican holy war between The Rev. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. For the record, it is the Rev. Mike that keeps this going, not Mr. Romney.
And, since the Democrats could not take either of these seats, this does not bode well for them.
The latest Gallup poll shows that while President Bush's ratings are up to 37%, congressional ratings are at 22%. And, who is in control of both houses of congress? Why, it is the Democrats.
The DDBMSM has been trying to lay the seeds for a Democrat juggernaut in 2008, with Sen. Hilary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama winning the White House and the Democrat control of congress expanding.
But, if yesterday's results are any indication, the Democrats better be prepared to possibly lose control of one or both houses of congress and not retake the White House.
A lot can happen in 11 months.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Lawrence O'Donnell Is A Disgusting Human Being And A Lousy Roman Catholic

This past weekend, political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell went on an absolute insane rant against the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons. The reason is because he thought that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in his speech last Thursday should have addressed Mormon doctrinal issues, and Mr. Romney did not.
In the rant, Mr. O'Donnell said that church founder Joseph Smith was a racist, a criminal and a rapist. The racist issue is the only one worth commenting because until 1978, blacks were not in the Mormon priesthood, which is all male. Since then, the LDS have thrived with blacks and are strongly evangelizing in Africa as well as South America.
Because Mr. Romney said that he would not reject the "Faith of My Fathers", Mr. O'Donnell did not like that because of some of the bad aspects of Mormonism.
He cited the church and polygamy saying that the only reason the church gave up the practise of multiple wives was so Utah could become a state in 1890. Never mind that Mormons had settled Utah in 1850 and practiced polygamy for 40 years before there was a revelation that the practice should end.
Be it for me to determine whether or not those are truly divine revelations or just convenience. I will let almighty God be the judge of that one.
But, back to Mr. O'Donnell.
Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt talked to Mr. O'Donnell and asked him serious questions about his Roman Catholic faith.
Mr. O'Donnell told Mr. Hewitt that he was baptised a Roman Catholic in his first week of life.
Something annoying about many of the Roman Catholics I encounter. Most say they are Catholic, and if saying they are Christian it is as an afterthought. Mr. O'Donnell does not realize that when one is baptised, it is to become a Christian, not a Catholic, a Lutheran, an Episcopalian or any other denomination. It is to become a Christian.
Mr. Hewitt went on to ask Mr. O'Donnell if he was still a practising Roman Catholic. Then Mr. O'Donnell went into a quite honestly dumb answer saying that people have a very elastic relationship with and cited with bizarre pride numerous political liberals such as Sens. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and even throwing in Rudy Giuliani who are all divorced and still say they are Roman Catholics. However, if they take Holy Communion have divorced people, they are committing a sin in Roman Catholic teaching.
But, it just gets better.
When Mr. Hewitt asked Mr. O'Donnell if he attended the Mass, Mr. O'Donnell got out the rubber band again and went on the "elastic" point again. Eventually, Mr. O'Donnell conceded that he went to the Mass occasionally. Yes, I bet for Christmas and Easter. Again, according to Roman Catholic teaching, one must attend the Mass weekly to receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
When Mr. Hewitt asked whether Mr. O'Donnell was a misogynist, Mr. O'Donnell had to work the wheels to answer what Mr. Hewitt was leading to. If it is wrong for women to not be ordained in the Roman Catholic priesthood. At least Mr. O'Donnell thinks it is wrong, but cited that it is not in the church's interest because they are having trouble funding single men with no dependents in the priesthood. Huh? What a load of poo-poo!
There is so much more, and I really think you need to go to Hugh's website and if nothing else read the transcript of the interview. It is mind blowing.
Mr. O'Donnell tried to say that being a Roman Catholic is a hard definition. That is because Mr. O'Donnell keeps playing with rubber bands, you know, for that elasticity. I think being a Roman Catholic is something I will leave to an RC to define better than I, a Protestant.
Mr. O'Donnell said that whenever Mormons find a change in their doctrine, it is for political reasons and because it is a political religion.
The most instructive aspect of Mr. Hewitt's interview is when he point blank asks Mr. O'Donnell if he would say all the same things he said about the Mormon faith about Islam. Mr. O'Donnell showed what kind of "man" he is because he said the following.
Oh, well, I'm afraid of what the...that's where I'm really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do. Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They're not going to ever take a shot at me. Those other people, I'm not going to say a word about them.
What I take from this abhorrent semi-Roman Catholic is this. He really hates Mitt Romney and uses his religion against him. It is so much easier to slam the faith than the man. And, he is a sissy. I on this blog constantly criticize radical Islam and want to defeat them in the theatre of ideas and in the battlefield of war. Mr. O'Donnell has to admit that Mormons are nice people. No Mormon is going to take him out. But say one thing about the evils, and I mean evils, of radical Islam, the way mainstream Islam treats women, children and even animals, and whoops, I've got to hold back because they might come after me.
Mr. O'Donnell, be a man and apologize to Mr. Romney for your hatred and stand up to the Islamofascists and call them what they are, evil.

National Review Jumps On The Romney Bandwagon

In a very important development for the Mitt Romney campaign, the bible of conservatism, National Review magazine has endorsed Mr. Romney for the presidency
It is very important because it is the publication that conservatives go to. The best and the brightest conservatives are there as well as the Weekly Standard. Sometimes, the two publications meet. Writers often write for both publications.
In the endorsement, National Review calls Mr. Romney the most viable conservative candidate. It also gives Mr. Romney the credit he deserves for moving to the pro-life position and for maintaining traditional marriage. It is much harder for people to move from a liberal to conservative position on abortion and traditional marriage. And, that means it is harder to go the other way. Easy to be loved by the DDBMSM and the usual suspects, but then totally cheapened politically.
This is important and shows that while there is, possibly, a Huckabee "surge" it may be artificial and media driven. People really paying attention are looking at the big picture, not purity. Nobody should be looking for that, but to bring someone along on critical issues like life and traditional marriage and for good measure border enforcement, shows that it is the ideas that matter. We have to put a face, personality and temperament, and National Review knows that is Mitt Romney, Republican nominee for president and, God willing, the next president of the United States.

Monday, December 10, 2007

A Sad Weekend For The Episcopal Church

As of this past Saturday, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin (California) is no more having voted at it's diocesan convention to sever all ties to The Episcopal Church. And it is a sad day indeed.
The vote of delegates to sever ties and align with the traditionalist Province of the Southern Cone in South American was not even close, 173-22, well over the two-thirds vote necessary to secede from the Mother Church
Of course, the DDBMSM wants all to believe it is all about homosexuality why this diocese and several others are poised to follow suit. It is only but a part of it.
The Diocese of San Joaquin is very traditional as it had been one of three Episcopal dioceses in the United States not to recognize or ordain women to the priesthood. And to many, that has been the start of this war between traditionalists and modernists.
One of the issues that should be troubling is the fact the the Episcopal Church is on record as in effect saying that one does not have to believe in Jesus Christ to get to heaven. It has rejected resolutions at the last two nation General Conventions affirming belief in Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the life everlasting. The dominant modernists believe that it is too constricting and that it is not in good interfaith practice and dialogue.
That alone is enough to drive traditionalists away. The open lack of basic Christian belief is appalling.
The real reason, I believe, that more parishes and dioceses are not following San Joaquin is simple. It will cost a lot of money and the traditionalists may lose in the end, in the courts. The court battles will be over who actually own the churches and properties, the diocese or the individual parishes.
Courts across the United States have been split on the issue. Here in California there are four churches trying to leave the Diocese of Los Angeles and the modernist leadership of Bishop John J. Bruno. Of course the bishop and diocese have been fighting and this will end up in the California supreme court. If the state supreme court rules in favor of the diocese, no more churches will leave and Episcopal diocese. If the court rules for the churches, it could open some flood gates.
If the case of a whole diocese leaving ends up in the United States supreme court, and it very well might, the same holds true, only it will be on a nationwide scale.
Thus, if the supreme court were to rule that a diocese and or church could leave the Episcopal Church and keep its name and property, the total schism of the Episcopal Church will be complete and that may be the only true way to know how parishes and dioceses really fell about the battle between modernists and traditionalists.
It is awful because the Episcopal Church has always stood a middle ground on structure and or theology, even in defining itself as Catholic, not Roman Catholic, and Protestant. It has left room for what amounts to free thinking on both traditionalist and modernist sides. And the problem has been the modernists in control of the hierarchy and thus an overwhelming influence on what kind of lay leadership takes place, especially on the diocesan level.
Because there has always been a strong balance, the center held. Now, one side is overwhelming the other and they feel abandoned and with that have no choice but to leave.
The irony is that the so-called Presiding Bishop, Kathryn Jefferts Schori, is leading the threats to take the San Joaquin diocese to court to seize their property. So-called Bishop Schori sees this as rejecting her authority. HELLO?! Is that not what the Episcopal Church is doing forcing schism within the world-wide Anglican Communion? By rejecting the majoritarian view in regard to the ordination of the first openly gay bishop, Vicky Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in a "committed" relationship with another man, so-called Bishop Schori is doing exactly what she will accuse the Diocese of San Joaquin of doing.
Somehow, this train wreck had to occur and the legal battle I am afraid will determine the outcome. And that will be quite a few years and even more uncertainty.
I can only think that God is in heaven weeping over more division in His church.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

NBC Blinks FOR The Troops

Apparently, the NBC television network has decided to air the commercial from Freedom's Watch thanking our troops and wishing them a Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays. A wise move on NBC's part.
Suddenly, the erstwhile Alan Wurtzel, the head of the television network's standards and practices decided that it would be OK for the commercial to show the Freedom's Watch website address. As late as yesterday, Mr. Wurtzel was saying that as far as showing the website address was equal to airing a "controversial" commercial and that it goes against the network's decades-long policy. Backpedaling today, Mr. Wurtzel had to concede that the content of the commercial does not violate the network policy.
It never did.
The issue was the website address and the fact that Freedom's Watch is a pro-Republican group and makes it very clear. But its website is a clearing house of other websites where people can go to show gift and financial support for the troops.
NBC did not listen to raving loons like their resident lefty, Keith Olbermann and realize that when you are in the dumpster in ratings and in the midst of a seemingly endless writer's strike, maybe not turning down commercials and making a little money are not bad things.
Oh, and a little reminder to all the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" advocates, this would have to be done if you had your little law. See how "fairness" can bite ya in the rear?

More Of The Rev. Mike's Bad Past

The Rev. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, is rising in the polls. Allegedly. And with that rise perpetuated by a DDBMSM trying to find a beatable Republican for St. Hilary or Barack the Destroyer, we are coming to find some rather bizarre aspects about the former Southern Baptist preacher.
According to this gem on the Drudge Report, the Rev. Huckabee answered a 200 question questionnaire when he was running for the United States senate against Sen. Dale Bumpers.
The Rev. Huckabee said that AIDS patients should be quarantined from the general public, wanted little if any federal funding to find a vaccine and or cure for AIDS and that homosexual behavior was the primary reason for the spread of AIDS. And he also called for Hollywood celebrities to dig deep in their wallets if they wanted to find a cure.
Now, before one says all of that is true, the problem is that the Rev. Huckabee sounds a lot like the Lyndon Larouche crowd and that is not good.
The problem with the quarantine that the Rev. Huckabee supported is that by 1992 when he was running for the senate is that by then it was known that AIDS was not spread by casual contact but by bad sexual behavior, a valid point.
Also, now as a candidate for president, the Rev. Huckabee he says that it was OK for the United States supreme court to strike down anti-sodomy laws and that he does not have a problem with what adults do in their own bedrooms. And the Rev. Huckabee says that if he is elected president, he will lead a public-private partnership to find a realistic cure for HIV-AIDS.
In 1992, in the same questionnaire, the Rev. Huckabee said the following:
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."
And the anti-Mitt Romney crowd calls him a flip-flopper!
And in today's Los Angeles Times comes this about the over reaching of then Gov. Huckabee in seeking the parole of rapist Wayne DuMond.
Mr. DuMond claimed to be born again and saved and became a Christian while in prison serving a life plus 20 year sentence for the kidnap and rape of a high school cheerleader who it turned out was a distant cousin of then Gov. Bill Clinton. A lot of Christians took interest in this case and put pressure on by that time then Gov. Huckabee to either commute Mr. DuMond's sentence or get the Arkansas parole board to set him free.
So, Gov. Huckabee went so far as to write a "Dear Wayne" letter to Mr. DuMond telling him of his desire to see him released from prison by parole. And the governor was worked over by Mr. DuMond's "spiritual director", another pastor, the Rev. Jay D. Cole.
Gov. Huckabee had a closed door meeting with the parole board and exerted enough pressure that the board voted 4-1 to grant Mr. DuMond parole-and shipped him off to Missouri, one of the few states that would take in Mr. DuMond.
When Mr. DuMond was finally released in 1999, he went to Missouri and in less than a year, he went from kidnapper and rapist to rapist and murderer. So much for finding Jesus in prison.
This reminds me of the flack that then Gov. George W. Bush, a fellow evangelical as his the Rev. Huckabee, when while running for president in 2000, he had another case of a prisoner finding Jesus in prison.
Her name was Karla Faye Tucker, convicted murderer, who was on the infamous death row in Huntsville, Texas.
Gov. Bush had immense pressure to commute Miss Tucker's sentence to life in prison. Even Pope John Paul II got into the act. Then Gov. Bush was accused of mocking her television appearances in which she pleaded for mercy. Too bad Gov. Bush never did mock Miss Tucker, as it is one those left-wing lies that become truth. Gov. Bush did not commute the sentence and Miss Tucker was rightfully executed.
Why is all of this important?
Because it goes to the heart of the Rev. Huckabee. He is really no different from any other politician. While Mitt Romney is raked over the coals for changing some positions, the Rev. Huckabee goes from damning homosexuals to hell to what they do is their business. And that he is easily taken in by a jailbird with a compelling story that he found Jesus while in prison.
It also is troubling that when the National Intelligence Estimate report came our earlier this week regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities, Rev. Huckabee had no idea what reporters were talking about and blamed the staff for not keeping him informed. HUH? Does the man not listen to radio, watch television or read a newspaper?
Now is not the time to look at a lacking political hack to lead the United States in the next four and or eight years. We already had that in the Rev. Huckabee's predecessor, former President Clinton.
Now we need a leader who understands the threat and blood lust of the radical Islamists and is not afraid to take it on. We need a leader who is not going to put the United States on a diet. We need a leader that will fight to change the tax code that makes sense. We need a leader to bring as many together as possible, not drive apart.
Thus, the more we learn about the Rev. Mike Huckabee, the less there is to there and why this meteoric rise will be a fall on the sword.

Friday, December 07, 2007

NBC Loves The Troops. . .NOT!

Ahh, that paragon of objectivity, the National Broadcasting Corporation or as it is commonly known as the last-place television network, NBC, will not allow Freedom's Watch to put on a commercial supporting the troops this Christmas season.
One has to ask why? What gives? You mean a television network, a part of the public trust as our friends on the left like to say, will turn down an ad to support and say thank you to the men and women in uniform serving all around the world?
Start with the why.
According to Alan Wurtzel, the network's head of standards and practices the network had to reject the commercial because Freedom's Watch wanted to put put their website address in the bottom of the commercial. So what? Is that not what every commercial does now a days? The reason becomes clear. Because if the network allowed the url to be shown, viewers would have gone to the Freedom's Watch website and found out that-please friends, take a deep breath, Freedom's Watch is a conservative organization and worse, worse, they say the following:
For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interest groups and their left-wing allies in government.
on their website. And they also have links to other websites that do raise funds and items to send to the troops.
But, dammit, this group is conservative and they have the nerve to say so.
So, Mr. Wurtzel went into overdrive explaining that it is a decades-old policy that the network does not accept advertising on controversial issues. One would not think that a thank you to the troops would be controversial. But, Mr. Wurtzel went on to say the commercial itself was not the issue, but that pesky website address was. Why, if they just took that out of the commercial, there would be no problem.
But, that is the problem.
And, there is no question that NBC is engaging in censorship.
So what if Freedom's Watch is a conservative group? Are adults not able to make up their own minds? And so if one goes to the main website to find another to show some kind of support for our troops? Are they really going to be scarred for life?
No, not at all.
I mean, if you watch NBC with any regularity, you know they have a public service announcement called "The More You Know" which is a front for pushing a lot of left-wing items. It is like the feminists, gay-rights, name the lefty group, gets one of the network stars to promote the cause celebre for that PSA. There is never one that promotes oh, maybe attending a house of worship or keeping families together, you get the idea.
But, this Mr. Wurtzel may have left the cat out of the bag.
In true Keith Olberman conspiratorial fashion, Mr. Wurtzel said that Freedom's Watch intentionally did not drop the NBC request for Freedom's Watch to drop their website address so that the network would not accept the commercial and thus the organization would get a lot of free publicity.
No, conservatives do not play the victim game. Nor do conservative organizations.
The commercial is legitimate, NBC's objection is not.
While NBC has no problem contributing to the Pornification of America as Laura Ingraham refers to it, accepting an advertisement supporting the men and women serving in the armed forces, with one website address because it is a conservative political group and one would think it is the end of civilization in the rarefied world of NBC.
Freedom's Watch could have done some George Soros shell game and hidden itself, but it did not and does not and is not trying to draw attention to itself to push its agenda. What this exposes is the fact that NBC made a calculated decision and admitted that it may have been all cooked up to draw attention to the events.
Is it any wonder why NBC is in the tank in television network ratings?
When they have a Keith Olberman reaction because the organization has been caught, it shows that they are trying to push their agenda and that is the issue.
NBC should give Freedom's Watch free time in prime time and put the issue to rest. But that would be easy. And, NBC could not play the left's favorite game-victim.

HT: The Drudge Report
Freedom's Watch

Thursday, December 06, 2007

So, Where Is The Democrat, Gay Left Outrage?

Few will know of this sordid tale because the Idaho Statesman, or any other newspaper seems to care because a gay Democrat aide to a United States senator was busted trying to arrange for sex between he and a 13 year old boy. Oh, and for good measure, he wanted to include another male in this innocent romp.
James "Mike" Mc Haney was the scheduler for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) until he was busted for attempting to sexually exploit a minor.
Now, I do not bring this up to go on some kind of gay-bashing. No, quite the opposite.
What I want to know is why is this not front page news? Why are the gay rights defenders being silent about this? Is this not a case of an abuse of power?
First, it is not front page news because the DDBMSM does not want it to be. It is much more important to out a closet case, in their mind, like Larry Craig than to report on a potentially dangerous child molester. The fact that Mr. Mc Haney is gay and hoped to have a three-way with a 13 year-old boy is irrelevant. That Mr. Mc Haney was going after a child is the relevance. If Larry Craig's bathroom experience is not his first time seeking sex with another man, then this could not the first time Mike Mc Haney was trying to pick up a young boy. More than likely, he may have succeeded at one or more times.
Why is the gay left silent? Well, for one, Mr Mc Haney worked for the radical Human Rights Campaign group. Mr. Mc Haney is one of their own. And, admitting that a gay man would even think of molesting a young boy would play right into the hands of those that are anti-gay and think all gay men go after young boys. Hey, a pervert is a pervert. When an adult seeks to have sexual relations with a child, it is sick whether it is opposite or same sex. Period. But, again, like a battered wife, the gay left has to stay silent. The cause of equality is much more important than turning in one of their own for doing what still is a very unspeakable crime.
And, yes, whenever an adult is dealing with a child, or in this case trying to molest a child, it is the greatest abuse of power known. That Mr. Mc Haney would prey on an unsuspecting young boy is abusing adult responsibility.
So, say this along with me:
A pervert is a pervert. We do not care if they are heterosexual or homosexual. Whenever an adult seeks to have sex with a child, it is wrong. No one or group should cover or stay silent.
This is another case in which the left thinks that the issue, in this case gay rights, is more important than righting a wrong. No one should be protecting Mr. Mc Haney if he is a child molester. So what, those that think that gay men are more predisposed to this "lifestyle" are going to think it anyway. But those that may be able to change their views about homosexuals and or homosexuality are going to think that those who believe this is a predisposition may be right.
The Democrat, gay left needs to wake up and get rid of their trash and let the chips fall where they may. If not, protecting child molesters like James Mc Haney is going to be the least of their problems.