The London Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk continues it titillating countdown of the 100 most influential American conservatives and we are getting down to the nittty gritty, the top 50.
Actually, it is from 41-60, but at least we are getting away from the cellar-dwellers!
One very perplexing choice is Connecticut Independent Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman, who comes in at 47, behind political columnist Robert Novak. Sen. Lieberman also made the liberal version of this list. I hardly think that Sen. Lieberman can really count as a conservative, but because the Democrat party is so far to the left, in that context Sen. Lieberman really is a conservative. But, still not one I would count on my top 100.
A real silly choice, no offense, is First Lady Laura Bush who is in at 59. The reality is that Mrs. Bush is not exactly a conservative nor a serious policy maker. It is well known that she is not on the pro-life side of the abortion debate and she has wade into policy in regards to "women's" issues and maybe a little human rights thrown in since she commented strongly on the disastrous Saffron Rebellion in Burma, or Myanmar. Mrs. Bush does not really get to be this far up if at all on this list.
It seems like the commentator class is bunched up here with Sean Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" on the Fox News Channel and his own radio talk show at 44, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol at 48, and William F. Buckley founder of National Review at 49. Rich Lowry, the National Review editor comes in at 53.
That is about right.
By the end of the week, we should see if this list gets any better. I, for one, would put Mr. Hannity in the top 20 along with fellow radio talker Laura Ingraham who has a number one New York Times bestseller, "Power To The People" still selling well.
That is half the fun of this list. Getting to write about who should really be on or off.
More tomorrow.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Supreme Court-Another Reason To Vote Republican In '08
In today's Wall Street Journal http://opinionjournal.com, Orin Kerr has a frightening article concerning supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her blatant abuse of power and infringement on a co-equal branch of government.
I confess, I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do know that the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government are separate, yet co-equal branches of government. The legislative can not tell the executive how to do its job and vice-verse. Neither the legislative or executive branch can tell the supreme court how to do its job, which should be simply whether or not laws meet constitutional muster, not one's personal or political belief.
Until now.
Justice Ginsburg dissented from a 5-4 ruling last year in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. The ruling was in reference to a statute as to when discrimination claims must be filed. No big deal, right? It would not have been except that Justice Ginsburg explained that the purpose of her dissent was "to attract immediate public attention and to propel legislative change." Really? I just did not know that the unelected Justice Ginsburg thinks that is her role as an associate justice on the federal supreme court.
Of course a Democrat House of Representatives passed a "corrective" measure on July 31, 2007 and the senate's favorite drunkard, Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass) introduced a parallel bill with 21 co-sponsors. President Bush has announced that when the bill eventually gets to his desk, he will rightfully veto it.
What Justice Ginsburg did is a clear breach of the separation of powers. It is not the supreme court's job to influence legislators to pass laws to its liking. Justice Ginsburg could have simply voted on the merits of the statute itself, and explained why she thought the way she did. In legal terms, not pushing a legislature to make law.
That is what the Massachusetts judicial supreme court did in its infamous ruling on "legalizing" same-sex marriage. It ordered the Massachusetts legislature to make a law regarding legitimizing same-sex marriage. Essentially, the supreme judicial court became the originating legislative body, not the lower or upper house of the General Court.
This kind of overreach should be reason enough to vote for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. This is a perfect advertisement for the smart candidate. Tie the fringes that people like Justice Ginsburg represents as a threat, and she is, to legislative and executive independence.
In reality impeachment proceedings should begin, but will not, against Justice Ginsburg for admitting that she wanted to use her dissent on this case to influence legislation.
In lieu of impeachment, it is all the more reason that voters need to really look at all the candidates and figure out which ones would be more likely to appoint those with judicial restraint vs. those who would appoint those with no restraint whatsoever. The choice is clear. Any of the Republicans will nominate those who show restraint. The Democrats? Former President Clinton appointed Justice Ginsburg. Enough said.
I confess, I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do know that the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government are separate, yet co-equal branches of government. The legislative can not tell the executive how to do its job and vice-verse. Neither the legislative or executive branch can tell the supreme court how to do its job, which should be simply whether or not laws meet constitutional muster, not one's personal or political belief.
Until now.
Justice Ginsburg dissented from a 5-4 ruling last year in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. The ruling was in reference to a statute as to when discrimination claims must be filed. No big deal, right? It would not have been except that Justice Ginsburg explained that the purpose of her dissent was "to attract immediate public attention and to propel legislative change." Really? I just did not know that the unelected Justice Ginsburg thinks that is her role as an associate justice on the federal supreme court.
Of course a Democrat House of Representatives passed a "corrective" measure on July 31, 2007 and the senate's favorite drunkard, Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass) introduced a parallel bill with 21 co-sponsors. President Bush has announced that when the bill eventually gets to his desk, he will rightfully veto it.
What Justice Ginsburg did is a clear breach of the separation of powers. It is not the supreme court's job to influence legislators to pass laws to its liking. Justice Ginsburg could have simply voted on the merits of the statute itself, and explained why she thought the way she did. In legal terms, not pushing a legislature to make law.
That is what the Massachusetts judicial supreme court did in its infamous ruling on "legalizing" same-sex marriage. It ordered the Massachusetts legislature to make a law regarding legitimizing same-sex marriage. Essentially, the supreme judicial court became the originating legislative body, not the lower or upper house of the General Court.
This kind of overreach should be reason enough to vote for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. This is a perfect advertisement for the smart candidate. Tie the fringes that people like Justice Ginsburg represents as a threat, and she is, to legislative and executive independence.
In reality impeachment proceedings should begin, but will not, against Justice Ginsburg for admitting that she wanted to use her dissent on this case to influence legislation.
In lieu of impeachment, it is all the more reason that voters need to really look at all the candidates and figure out which ones would be more likely to appoint those with judicial restraint vs. those who would appoint those with no restraint whatsoever. The choice is clear. Any of the Republicans will nominate those who show restraint. The Democrats? Former President Clinton appointed Justice Ginsburg. Enough said.
Words Of Wisdom From Tony Blankley
On the Real Clear Politics website today http://realclearpolitics.com, former Washington Times editorial page editor, Tony Blankley, has some words of warning for small tent Republicans.
Mr. Blankley is saying that just because a candidate is not "pure" on one issue does not mean that one is not a conservative.
Mr. Blankley takes to task critics of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, including one writer who compared Mr. Huckabee to Huey Long, George Wallace and other assorted bad southern politicians. Of course, the same said writer failed to mention the worst southern pol of our time, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. There are legitimate reasons to question Mr. Huckabee. Today on the Hugh Hewitt radio show http://hughhewitt.com, Mr. Huckabee said that he would be in favor of a nationwide smoking ban in the workplace. Not exactly a states-rights position. Also, it is a fact that Mr. Huckabee raised taxed in Arkansas. And, Mr. Huckabee did not exactly clean house of many of Gov. Clinton's appointees to state posts. Maybe Mr. Huckabee did not want to spend his whole governorship that dirty. But, these issues do not make Mr. Huckabee any less of an overall conservative.
Even the same can be said, less, of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Yes, he dead wrong on the social issues and fuzzy on immigration, but he has some conservative credentials that can not be ignored.
To elaborate on Mr. Blankley's basic point, the modern Republican party, and the conservative dominance did not and can not happen without all the three legs on the stool together. That three-legged stool are fiscal/economic/small government conservatives, social conservative and foreign policy/defense hawks. Ronald Reagan took all three groups to victory twice. George H. W. Bush brought them along in 1988, could not keep them in 1992. Former Kansas senator Bob Dole had the same problem as former President Bush, not being able to get all three groups together. President Bush has come close, but with his approval ratings in the 30 percent range, some are peeling off and going to the multitude of Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential race.
Maybe that is part of the problem. The coalition is fractured because so many are running and there is no clear front runner for the Republican nod.
We have to hope so. If it is Mr. Giuliani, he will need a miracle to put the three parts of the pie together again. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will not have the same problem as many social conservatives are beginning to warm to his candidacy. Mr. Romney has a good amount of fiscal/small government conservatives and he is a foreign/defense policy hawk. Same for former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Many have looked to Mr. Thompson as the next Ronald Reagan, but remember folks, there will never be another Ronald Reagan. The next president if he is a Republican has a chance of making a new chart for himself, like President Truman did from FDR and President Kennedy from President Truman. Oh, even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain at least is two out of three. One has to question the sanity of anyone who advocates open borders and still believes we are fighting a global war of Islamofacsist terror.
But, here is the crux of Mr. Blankley's argument. Stop looking for purity. Be ready to support the Republican candidate for even if it is Mr. Giuliani, that will be at least OK compared to a President Clinton, or Obama, or. . .STOP! You get the picture!
Mr. Blankley is saying that just because a candidate is not "pure" on one issue does not mean that one is not a conservative.
Mr. Blankley takes to task critics of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, including one writer who compared Mr. Huckabee to Huey Long, George Wallace and other assorted bad southern politicians. Of course, the same said writer failed to mention the worst southern pol of our time, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. There are legitimate reasons to question Mr. Huckabee. Today on the Hugh Hewitt radio show http://hughhewitt.com, Mr. Huckabee said that he would be in favor of a nationwide smoking ban in the workplace. Not exactly a states-rights position. Also, it is a fact that Mr. Huckabee raised taxed in Arkansas. And, Mr. Huckabee did not exactly clean house of many of Gov. Clinton's appointees to state posts. Maybe Mr. Huckabee did not want to spend his whole governorship that dirty. But, these issues do not make Mr. Huckabee any less of an overall conservative.
Even the same can be said, less, of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Yes, he dead wrong on the social issues and fuzzy on immigration, but he has some conservative credentials that can not be ignored.
To elaborate on Mr. Blankley's basic point, the modern Republican party, and the conservative dominance did not and can not happen without all the three legs on the stool together. That three-legged stool are fiscal/economic/small government conservatives, social conservative and foreign policy/defense hawks. Ronald Reagan took all three groups to victory twice. George H. W. Bush brought them along in 1988, could not keep them in 1992. Former Kansas senator Bob Dole had the same problem as former President Bush, not being able to get all three groups together. President Bush has come close, but with his approval ratings in the 30 percent range, some are peeling off and going to the multitude of Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential race.
Maybe that is part of the problem. The coalition is fractured because so many are running and there is no clear front runner for the Republican nod.
We have to hope so. If it is Mr. Giuliani, he will need a miracle to put the three parts of the pie together again. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will not have the same problem as many social conservatives are beginning to warm to his candidacy. Mr. Romney has a good amount of fiscal/small government conservatives and he is a foreign/defense policy hawk. Same for former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Many have looked to Mr. Thompson as the next Ronald Reagan, but remember folks, there will never be another Ronald Reagan. The next president if he is a Republican has a chance of making a new chart for himself, like President Truman did from FDR and President Kennedy from President Truman. Oh, even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain at least is two out of three. One has to question the sanity of anyone who advocates open borders and still believes we are fighting a global war of Islamofacsist terror.
But, here is the crux of Mr. Blankley's argument. Stop looking for purity. Be ready to support the Republican candidate for even if it is Mr. Giuliani, that will be at least OK compared to a President Clinton, or Obama, or. . .STOP! You get the picture!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Evangelicals Turning Left? I Don't Think So!
In this past Sunday's New York Times magazine, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html, writer David D. Kirkpatrick writes an exhaustive story that essentially says the evangelical Christian votes are up for grabs in the 2008 election and many may vote for a Democrat and leave the Republican party.
Not so fast Mr. Kirkpatrick!
Some of what is written is true. There is angst among evangelical and traditional Christian voters. Many are not happy with the Republican candidates running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Many feel that the Bush administration threw them under the bus and no longer addresses its concerns forcefully as it once did. Many are like the rest of America, frustrated with the war in the Iraq theatre of the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
What Mr. Kirkpatrick failed to really get into in this article was a fact that evangelical and traditional Christians are not all of one mind on all issues. They never have been and never will be.
The majority of those who identify themselves as evangelical and or traditional voters are still Republican and will vote that way in 2008. But, if the Republicans nominate a Rudy Giuliani, there may be less of them voting. That is just the facts.
What is happening is that many younger evangelical preachers are not focusing on the hot-button type of issues and they are also trying to paint a better face on a movement that has been vilified in a media culture that thinks that evangelicals are nothing but know-nothing hayseeds.
Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback church here in Orange County, California, is one of the most successful pastors in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. And that is because he is talking about purpose. His first mega-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Church" and the latter best selling "The Purpose Driven Life" are about the fact that God does not put people here on earth to sit back and let things happen. Pastor Warren is trying to preach that every life that is given by God has meaning and these are ways to find that niche. Some would say one's God given gifts. And, even Mr. Kirkpatrick has to concede that on the hot-button issues, Pastor Warren is an unabashed traditionalist. It is just that Pastor Warren may not have the gift of rough and tumble politics.
Yes, it is true that there always has been an evangelical left and it is still a minority within evangelical circles.
Many on the evangelical left have championed the "green" movement. Some others are more committed to helping the economic poor and disenfranchised in American society. Not one thing wrong with any of that. Many on all sides have been doing these things all along. It is just now many are becoming vocal on that front and giving the impression because many of the younger people are led to these concerns that they are not traditional in the political issues of abortion, same-sex mariage, prayer in schools. That is wrong.
Many evangelicals and traditionalists are not happy having to be involved in the political world. And that is the real issue.
For many decades before, evangelicals were really not encouraged to be part of the society at large even to the point of not voting. That gave the so-called Mainline Protestants, the Episcopal Church, the Presbytarians, the Methodists and the like an unfair advantage.
Then all the social issues of the 1960s and 1970s came to roost and that led to a rethinking of the sit back and let things be. People like the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. D. James Kennedy and Dr. James Dobson began to get involved in Republican politics. And that changed a lot about the Republican party and they found a lot of new voters.
Some of the issues that got these and many others concerned are still with us. And some have accelerated at break-neck speed. Evangelicals gained many new allies among traditional Mainliners and Roman Catholics and even traditional Jews. The fact is that politics is not pretty and some things get in the way, such as a war against radical Islam that may take some focus off the concerns of the majority of evangelicals.
The fact is that the Democrat party will not address much of what drives them. Infact when many know how much the Democrats depend on secular and even people outright hostile to evangelicals or any religion, they realize that while the Republican party has not been that great to many of their concerns, they will do one of two things. Not vote or be more engaged and expand the debate beyond the hot button issues. It will take more than the Democrats throwing more money down the government rathole to lift people out of poverty and the government can not get them out of spiritual poverty, which grips all social economic groups.
A lot of the angst is what is also affecting most Americans. The war. Period.
Many are weary of the Iraq theatre. Many feel that President Bush blew it. Many feel it is time to declare victory and come home. And that is the overriding issue. Will it be in November 2008? Depends on where we are. If it appears that things are still good, the Republicans will be rewarded. If not, many will just not vote. Few will vote for any Democrat because they will realize that, as many feel that the Republicans use them, the Democrats will just get their votes and ignore or go against all that they believe. And that would be tragic.
Evangelicals are at a crossroads, but I do not think that they are becoming any more to the left as any other group. They are just tired of being used at election time. And that is not good because they need to be engaged and stay in the debate.
I think that Mr. Kirkpatrick will be proven wrong and evangelicals will stay in the Republican corner for they did not get anything better with another of their own in the White House, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. They only got worse. And I do not think they will let that happen again.
Not so fast Mr. Kirkpatrick!
Some of what is written is true. There is angst among evangelical and traditional Christian voters. Many are not happy with the Republican candidates running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Many feel that the Bush administration threw them under the bus and no longer addresses its concerns forcefully as it once did. Many are like the rest of America, frustrated with the war in the Iraq theatre of the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
What Mr. Kirkpatrick failed to really get into in this article was a fact that evangelical and traditional Christians are not all of one mind on all issues. They never have been and never will be.
The majority of those who identify themselves as evangelical and or traditional voters are still Republican and will vote that way in 2008. But, if the Republicans nominate a Rudy Giuliani, there may be less of them voting. That is just the facts.
What is happening is that many younger evangelical preachers are not focusing on the hot-button type of issues and they are also trying to paint a better face on a movement that has been vilified in a media culture that thinks that evangelicals are nothing but know-nothing hayseeds.
Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback church here in Orange County, California, is one of the most successful pastors in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. And that is because he is talking about purpose. His first mega-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Church" and the latter best selling "The Purpose Driven Life" are about the fact that God does not put people here on earth to sit back and let things happen. Pastor Warren is trying to preach that every life that is given by God has meaning and these are ways to find that niche. Some would say one's God given gifts. And, even Mr. Kirkpatrick has to concede that on the hot-button issues, Pastor Warren is an unabashed traditionalist. It is just that Pastor Warren may not have the gift of rough and tumble politics.
Yes, it is true that there always has been an evangelical left and it is still a minority within evangelical circles.
Many on the evangelical left have championed the "green" movement. Some others are more committed to helping the economic poor and disenfranchised in American society. Not one thing wrong with any of that. Many on all sides have been doing these things all along. It is just now many are becoming vocal on that front and giving the impression because many of the younger people are led to these concerns that they are not traditional in the political issues of abortion, same-sex mariage, prayer in schools. That is wrong.
Many evangelicals and traditionalists are not happy having to be involved in the political world. And that is the real issue.
For many decades before, evangelicals were really not encouraged to be part of the society at large even to the point of not voting. That gave the so-called Mainline Protestants, the Episcopal Church, the Presbytarians, the Methodists and the like an unfair advantage.
Then all the social issues of the 1960s and 1970s came to roost and that led to a rethinking of the sit back and let things be. People like the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. D. James Kennedy and Dr. James Dobson began to get involved in Republican politics. And that changed a lot about the Republican party and they found a lot of new voters.
Some of the issues that got these and many others concerned are still with us. And some have accelerated at break-neck speed. Evangelicals gained many new allies among traditional Mainliners and Roman Catholics and even traditional Jews. The fact is that politics is not pretty and some things get in the way, such as a war against radical Islam that may take some focus off the concerns of the majority of evangelicals.
The fact is that the Democrat party will not address much of what drives them. Infact when many know how much the Democrats depend on secular and even people outright hostile to evangelicals or any religion, they realize that while the Republican party has not been that great to many of their concerns, they will do one of two things. Not vote or be more engaged and expand the debate beyond the hot button issues. It will take more than the Democrats throwing more money down the government rathole to lift people out of poverty and the government can not get them out of spiritual poverty, which grips all social economic groups.
A lot of the angst is what is also affecting most Americans. The war. Period.
Many are weary of the Iraq theatre. Many feel that President Bush blew it. Many feel it is time to declare victory and come home. And that is the overriding issue. Will it be in November 2008? Depends on where we are. If it appears that things are still good, the Republicans will be rewarded. If not, many will just not vote. Few will vote for any Democrat because they will realize that, as many feel that the Republicans use them, the Democrats will just get their votes and ignore or go against all that they believe. And that would be tragic.
Evangelicals are at a crossroads, but I do not think that they are becoming any more to the left as any other group. They are just tired of being used at election time. And that is not good because they need to be engaged and stay in the debate.
I think that Mr. Kirkpatrick will be proven wrong and evangelicals will stay in the Republican corner for they did not get anything better with another of their own in the White House, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. They only got worse. And I do not think they will let that happen again.
More Observations On Conservatives From Britain
Today is the second installment of a series in the London Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk on the 100 most influential conservatives in the United States.
So far it has been interesting and some of it is what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom.
In the installment today, it is from 61-80.
Coming in at 61 is the governor-elect of Louisiana, congressman Bobby Jindal. Mr. Jindal has been a fast-rising star within conservatism and the Republican party and the crushing victory last week for the governorship of Louisiana should have easily propelled him into the top 50.
Radio talker Michael Savage is on this list at number 63. I think it is a bit too high for Mr. Savage. Mr. Savage is a brilliant man, but sometimes that brilliance comes off as a bit arrogant and I do not think, overall, he should be in this high a category of influence. Mr. Savage should be in the 81-100 category.
In the what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom category is former secretary of state James Baker. Maybe the fact that Mr. Baker is a somewhat anti-Semite gets him even considered conservative. As if there is no anti-Semitism on the left! But having Mr. Baker as the 66th most influential conservative in the United States is way too high. Mr. Baker is a middle of the roader tried and true. Mr. Baker should not be on this list.
Surprisingly, actor Chuck Norris comes in at number 71. The fact that Mr. Norris is backing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for president must have gotten him this high of a ranking. But, I think it is because Mr. Norris is a rarity in the Hollywood crowd. An unabashed conservative Republican. I may rethink my thought on this ranking and maybe Mr. Norris should be higher.
Two powerhouse political commentators are numbers 76 and 77. Tony Blankley and Charles Krauthammer. I think they are too low on this. Both have much more influence on conservatism and commentary. The other commentator in this grouping, Pat Buchanan in at number 80 is way too high. Ol' Pat is good at turning a phrase but since his quixotic quests for the presidency and leaving and coming back to television makes him little if any influence at all. A sympathy choice.
Again, I would have to comment that what passes for conservative in the United Kingdom is quite different than what conservatism is here. And, putting relics like Pat Buchanan higher than he belongs does not help.
But, all in all this is a very interesting and instructive for the next Republican presidential candidate no matter out of who is still in the hunt. For it is what the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, Europe, will be able to use as what it will be like to deal with a new administration that will be different from the Bush administration. If the Republican candidate wins the 2008 election and I think that will happen.
Stay tuned for more analysis tomorrow.
So far it has been interesting and some of it is what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom.
In the installment today, it is from 61-80.
Coming in at 61 is the governor-elect of Louisiana, congressman Bobby Jindal. Mr. Jindal has been a fast-rising star within conservatism and the Republican party and the crushing victory last week for the governorship of Louisiana should have easily propelled him into the top 50.
Radio talker Michael Savage is on this list at number 63. I think it is a bit too high for Mr. Savage. Mr. Savage is a brilliant man, but sometimes that brilliance comes off as a bit arrogant and I do not think, overall, he should be in this high a category of influence. Mr. Savage should be in the 81-100 category.
In the what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom category is former secretary of state James Baker. Maybe the fact that Mr. Baker is a somewhat anti-Semite gets him even considered conservative. As if there is no anti-Semitism on the left! But having Mr. Baker as the 66th most influential conservative in the United States is way too high. Mr. Baker is a middle of the roader tried and true. Mr. Baker should not be on this list.
Surprisingly, actor Chuck Norris comes in at number 71. The fact that Mr. Norris is backing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for president must have gotten him this high of a ranking. But, I think it is because Mr. Norris is a rarity in the Hollywood crowd. An unabashed conservative Republican. I may rethink my thought on this ranking and maybe Mr. Norris should be higher.
Two powerhouse political commentators are numbers 76 and 77. Tony Blankley and Charles Krauthammer. I think they are too low on this. Both have much more influence on conservatism and commentary. The other commentator in this grouping, Pat Buchanan in at number 80 is way too high. Ol' Pat is good at turning a phrase but since his quixotic quests for the presidency and leaving and coming back to television makes him little if any influence at all. A sympathy choice.
Again, I would have to comment that what passes for conservative in the United Kingdom is quite different than what conservatism is here. And, putting relics like Pat Buchanan higher than he belongs does not help.
But, all in all this is a very interesting and instructive for the next Republican presidential candidate no matter out of who is still in the hunt. For it is what the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, Europe, will be able to use as what it will be like to deal with a new administration that will be different from the Bush administration. If the Republican candidate wins the 2008 election and I think that will happen.
Stay tuned for more analysis tomorrow.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Interesting Observations From Accross The Pond
The London Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk is running a series on the top 100 conservatives and liberals in the United States.
The series starts from 81-100, working its way down to the number one conservative in the United States.
So far, some surprises.
For instance, Henry Kissinger comes in at number 95. The fact that Mr. Kissinger made a 100 top conservative list is amazing in and of itself. But, then again in Britain, Mr. Kissinger may pass as a conservative.
Also on the list is talker Bill O'Reilly at number 82. Mr. O'Reilly never calls himself a conservative. But that does not mean that he is not a conservative. Most of his views are clearly right of center, even if he does not say so.
Political guru Michael Barrone comes in at 87. Again, I would not say that Mr. Barrone is necessarily a conservative, but certainly leans right.
Author Ann Coulter is in at number 84 and that is way too low for her influence among conservatives. Miss Coulter should be in the top 50 at least.
Go to The Telegraph for yourself for the next several days as I will and see if you think as The Telegraph does. So far, that is mixed bag. We shall see.
The series starts from 81-100, working its way down to the number one conservative in the United States.
So far, some surprises.
For instance, Henry Kissinger comes in at number 95. The fact that Mr. Kissinger made a 100 top conservative list is amazing in and of itself. But, then again in Britain, Mr. Kissinger may pass as a conservative.
Also on the list is talker Bill O'Reilly at number 82. Mr. O'Reilly never calls himself a conservative. But that does not mean that he is not a conservative. Most of his views are clearly right of center, even if he does not say so.
Political guru Michael Barrone comes in at 87. Again, I would not say that Mr. Barrone is necessarily a conservative, but certainly leans right.
Author Ann Coulter is in at number 84 and that is way too low for her influence among conservatives. Miss Coulter should be in the top 50 at least.
Go to The Telegraph for yourself for the next several days as I will and see if you think as The Telegraph does. So far, that is mixed bag. We shall see.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
And The Red Sox Win The World Series. . . UGH!
OK, I know. I did not call the 2007 baseball playoffs too well. And tonight, the Boston Red Sox put a last nail in the coffin of predictions that I made throughout this run.
At the beginning of this baseball season, I somewhat predicted that the Los Angeles Dodgers would make the World Series, possibly playing the New York Yankees or the Anaheim Angels*. Boy, was I wrong on that count!
When the playoffs did finally arrive and the Angels were in, I was on that bandwagon. Too bad that bandwagon drove off the cliff without a single playoff win, being swept by, TA DA, the Boston Red Sox. Then the Cleveland Indians won their series and I jumped on that bandwagon. At least they made it a series but in typical Indians fashion, they blew a three games to one lead against, you guessed it, the dreaded Boston Red Sox.
I just could not believe how the National League playoffs went. Who would have thought at the beginning of this season that the Arizona Diamondbacks would be playing the Colorado Rockies for the right to be the National League team in the World Series? Well, you could have said I had the joys of adult beverage if I told you that in April. And the Rockies, who are the Rockies? How did they get into the World Series? Smoke and mirrors?!
Well, there you are. The Colorado Rockies and the Boston Red Sox in the 2007 World Series.
I suppose in retrospect, it was too much to ask for the Rocks to slay the dragon that is the Boston Red Sox, but hope springs eternal, right? For the Rocks, it sprung a deluge they could never recover from and were swept four games to zero and the Red Sox can raise the banner again at Fenway Park at the beginning of the 2008 baseball season.
And at the beginning of the 2008 season, 30 teams will think they will be in the World Series and then reality will set in. Just ask the Colorado Rockies.
At the beginning of this baseball season, I somewhat predicted that the Los Angeles Dodgers would make the World Series, possibly playing the New York Yankees or the Anaheim Angels*. Boy, was I wrong on that count!
When the playoffs did finally arrive and the Angels were in, I was on that bandwagon. Too bad that bandwagon drove off the cliff without a single playoff win, being swept by, TA DA, the Boston Red Sox. Then the Cleveland Indians won their series and I jumped on that bandwagon. At least they made it a series but in typical Indians fashion, they blew a three games to one lead against, you guessed it, the dreaded Boston Red Sox.
I just could not believe how the National League playoffs went. Who would have thought at the beginning of this season that the Arizona Diamondbacks would be playing the Colorado Rockies for the right to be the National League team in the World Series? Well, you could have said I had the joys of adult beverage if I told you that in April. And the Rockies, who are the Rockies? How did they get into the World Series? Smoke and mirrors?!
Well, there you are. The Colorado Rockies and the Boston Red Sox in the 2007 World Series.
I suppose in retrospect, it was too much to ask for the Rocks to slay the dragon that is the Boston Red Sox, but hope springs eternal, right? For the Rocks, it sprung a deluge they could never recover from and were swept four games to zero and the Red Sox can raise the banner again at Fenway Park at the beginning of the 2008 baseball season.
And at the beginning of the 2008 season, 30 teams will think they will be in the World Series and then reality will set in. Just ask the Colorado Rockies.
Is The Republican Presidential Field A Good One?
It is a serious question. Whether or not the Republican presidential field is good, but more importantly a relatively conservative one?
Well, Charles Krauthammer in Friday's Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com tries to assure the faithful that it is a good and a conservative field.
Mr. Krauthammer points out some of the not so wonderful things that Ronald Reagan did as president. Such as granting amnesty to then only three million illegal aliens. Appointing Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the federal supreme court. And before Mr. Reagan became president, when he was governor of California, Mr. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law at the time in 1969. Mr. Reagan conceded later that it was the single worst piece of legislation he signed as California governor and became an ardent defender of life. Also, to be fair about the Anthony Kennedy appointment to the supreme court, that was because Robert Bork was defeated by the senate and the next appointee, federal appeals court judge Douglas Ginsburg, had to withdraw due to it coming out that he used marijuana in college and, unlike William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Judge Ginsburg did inhale. Justice Kennedy was a bad third choice who could make it through a Democrat senate and a wounded Reagan presidency due to the so-called Iran-Contra affair.
But, Ronald Reagan ran as an unabashed conservative Republican and transformed the Republican party from the WASP, elite, country-club party that did not mind going along to get along with Democrats to the party that gave Gen. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, the first blacks to be secretary of state.
Maybe that is why there is so much anxiety about the current crop of candidates. No one seems to, on the surface, be running like Ronald Reagan did. Mr. Reagan ran on a platform of smaller government, even eliminating the department of education and energy which were and are boondoggles. And, Mr. Reagan was a tried and true anti-communist.
The issues have changed and yet they have not. Today, the federal government is so multi-tentacled that it is involved in so much of the states affairs that the founding fathers must be rolling in their graves. There is a serious enemy we are at both a hot and cold war with, radical Islam.
So, where is the candidate that is saying not only that taxes are too high and there is a serious need of a tax overhaul? Well, there is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who backs the so-called "Fair tax" that would be a consumption tax or a federal sales tax.
And as far as the size of government, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney can say he has a record of not only not raising taxes as the governor but cutting the state payroll.
The War Against Islamofacsist Terror is a unifying banner that most Republicans, save for Texas congressman Ron Paul, are running on at some degree. All the top candidates, Mr. Romney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson and Arizona senator John "F--- You" McCain are talking about it and none is shying away from the reality that this is going to be a long, titanic struggle against a form of Islam that would take the world back almost a milenia.
The question is, why is there so much anxiety about this campaign?
Some of it is Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media driven. Since the DDBMSM is in bed and charting the victory of Sen. Hilary Clinton, they are making a lot of the fact that some Republicans are voicing their displeasure with all of the candidates. I do not know who most of these people the DDBMSM find to talk to are. Simple truth. As in 2006, the DDBMSM is going to make things really bad for the Republicans in hopes of driving down the base. It did not work then since the Republicans did not suffer the kinds of losses that they should have in a second-term mid-term election.
And there is a sad fact that there is a Bush Fatigue Syndrome, BFS, among many Republicans and many of the strongest supporters of the war. When a president has approval ratings in the 30s, there is a lot of room for pessimism. But, if as we are seeing improvement in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, eventually President Bush's approval numbers will go up. Even getting into the low 40s would improve the mood of pessimistic Republicans.
Then there is the Rudy Giuliani candidacy. It is the liberal Republicanism of the 60s and 70s rearing its ugly head. It is not a winning Republicanism. To Mr. Giuliani's credit, he was a relatively conservative mayor of New York City. But, that is really pretty liberal to the rest of the Republican party and United States. A lot of reliably conservative Republicans are lining up to support Mr. Giuliani's candidacy. Why, I can not say. Mr. Giuiliani is the poster boy for the Democrat lite theory. If a Republican runs as a moderate and there is a Democrat and not much really separates the two, voters almost always elect the Democrat. And, that is the potential of Mr. Giuliani, to lead the Republicans to defeat by not offering the voters a clear alternative to whoever the Democrats nominate.
But, as far as a field of candidates, I will take ANY Republican over any Democrat any day. And the Republican candidates, even Mr. Giuliani, are running as conservatives. And that is a good thing. It shows that the policies that Mr. Reagan espoused and tried his best to govern by has taken hold enough in the Republican party that no candidate if he or she wants to win the nomination for president can run as a liberal Republican.
So, even if it is hard to believe, these are good candidates and one of them, I hope Mitt Romney, will make an excellent conservative Republican candidate and one who can win in November, 2008.
Well, Charles Krauthammer in Friday's Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com tries to assure the faithful that it is a good and a conservative field.
Mr. Krauthammer points out some of the not so wonderful things that Ronald Reagan did as president. Such as granting amnesty to then only three million illegal aliens. Appointing Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the federal supreme court. And before Mr. Reagan became president, when he was governor of California, Mr. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law at the time in 1969. Mr. Reagan conceded later that it was the single worst piece of legislation he signed as California governor and became an ardent defender of life. Also, to be fair about the Anthony Kennedy appointment to the supreme court, that was because Robert Bork was defeated by the senate and the next appointee, federal appeals court judge Douglas Ginsburg, had to withdraw due to it coming out that he used marijuana in college and, unlike William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Judge Ginsburg did inhale. Justice Kennedy was a bad third choice who could make it through a Democrat senate and a wounded Reagan presidency due to the so-called Iran-Contra affair.
But, Ronald Reagan ran as an unabashed conservative Republican and transformed the Republican party from the WASP, elite, country-club party that did not mind going along to get along with Democrats to the party that gave Gen. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, the first blacks to be secretary of state.
Maybe that is why there is so much anxiety about the current crop of candidates. No one seems to, on the surface, be running like Ronald Reagan did. Mr. Reagan ran on a platform of smaller government, even eliminating the department of education and energy which were and are boondoggles. And, Mr. Reagan was a tried and true anti-communist.
The issues have changed and yet they have not. Today, the federal government is so multi-tentacled that it is involved in so much of the states affairs that the founding fathers must be rolling in their graves. There is a serious enemy we are at both a hot and cold war with, radical Islam.
So, where is the candidate that is saying not only that taxes are too high and there is a serious need of a tax overhaul? Well, there is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who backs the so-called "Fair tax" that would be a consumption tax or a federal sales tax.
And as far as the size of government, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney can say he has a record of not only not raising taxes as the governor but cutting the state payroll.
The War Against Islamofacsist Terror is a unifying banner that most Republicans, save for Texas congressman Ron Paul, are running on at some degree. All the top candidates, Mr. Romney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson and Arizona senator John "F--- You" McCain are talking about it and none is shying away from the reality that this is going to be a long, titanic struggle against a form of Islam that would take the world back almost a milenia.
The question is, why is there so much anxiety about this campaign?
Some of it is Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media driven. Since the DDBMSM is in bed and charting the victory of Sen. Hilary Clinton, they are making a lot of the fact that some Republicans are voicing their displeasure with all of the candidates. I do not know who most of these people the DDBMSM find to talk to are. Simple truth. As in 2006, the DDBMSM is going to make things really bad for the Republicans in hopes of driving down the base. It did not work then since the Republicans did not suffer the kinds of losses that they should have in a second-term mid-term election.
And there is a sad fact that there is a Bush Fatigue Syndrome, BFS, among many Republicans and many of the strongest supporters of the war. When a president has approval ratings in the 30s, there is a lot of room for pessimism. But, if as we are seeing improvement in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, eventually President Bush's approval numbers will go up. Even getting into the low 40s would improve the mood of pessimistic Republicans.
Then there is the Rudy Giuliani candidacy. It is the liberal Republicanism of the 60s and 70s rearing its ugly head. It is not a winning Republicanism. To Mr. Giuliani's credit, he was a relatively conservative mayor of New York City. But, that is really pretty liberal to the rest of the Republican party and United States. A lot of reliably conservative Republicans are lining up to support Mr. Giuliani's candidacy. Why, I can not say. Mr. Giuiliani is the poster boy for the Democrat lite theory. If a Republican runs as a moderate and there is a Democrat and not much really separates the two, voters almost always elect the Democrat. And, that is the potential of Mr. Giuliani, to lead the Republicans to defeat by not offering the voters a clear alternative to whoever the Democrats nominate.
But, as far as a field of candidates, I will take ANY Republican over any Democrat any day. And the Republican candidates, even Mr. Giuliani, are running as conservatives. And that is a good thing. It shows that the policies that Mr. Reagan espoused and tried his best to govern by has taken hold enough in the Republican party that no candidate if he or she wants to win the nomination for president can run as a liberal Republican.
So, even if it is hard to believe, these are good candidates and one of them, I hope Mitt Romney, will make an excellent conservative Republican candidate and one who can win in November, 2008.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Say It Is Not So?!
It appears that the University of North Dakota is succumbing to the most insidious political correct move and dropping the sports teams Fighting Sioux nickname http://www.in-forum.com.
For a long time, UND was telling anyone who would listen that they would not bend under any circumstances.
But the evil NCAA has put the pressure on the UND administration and unless the university can get the support of the area's Sioux tribes within three years, say goodbye to the Fighting Sioux's.
In the silliness of this push by the politically correct NCAA, the UND will be able to use the Fighting Sioux name if any of the teams make the NCAA playoffs. And, to make matters most confusing, it will be a no-no to have the logo at the local sports arena, the Ralph Engelstad Arena. But, if the logo is "permanent", such as those in granite, that will be allowed to stay.
Because of a few rabble-rousing American Indian groups, the NCAA has been on a purge of any university or college sports nickname that has any Indian theme, even if it is not "offensive".
The Florida State Seminoles faced the same ultimatum and was able to garner enough support from the local Seminole tribes that they get to keep the Seminole name. No word as to whether the thousands of fans that engage in the "Tomahawk Chop" especially during football games will be hauled off and prosecuted.
Several large newspapers in the United States no longer use any sports team nicknames in the line scores because they do not want to offend the American Indians. Two of the most notorious newspapers are the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the Portland Oregonian. Never mind that these names have been around for a looonnnggg time. These arbiters of "good taste" say rather than possibly offending a certain group, they will just put the city name in the line score. I wonder if Vikings or Twins or Timberwolves or Wild are offended in Minnesota. Or how about Trail Blazers or Beavers in Portland?
While the NCAA is making sure that the American Indians are not offended, how about making sure that "amateur" athletes are properly compensated instead of colleges and universities having to skirt regulations and making innocent athletes out to be common criminals?
Hopefully, the Fighting Sioux will be able to talk reasonably and sensibly with the local Sioux tribes and be able to keep and honorable nickname that is well known in college sports, particularly ice hockey.
But, no thanks to a gutless NCAA, the Fighting Sioux may have to become the Igloos.
Oops! The Eskimos may get upset and what will the NCAA do then?
For a long time, UND was telling anyone who would listen that they would not bend under any circumstances.
But the evil NCAA has put the pressure on the UND administration and unless the university can get the support of the area's Sioux tribes within three years, say goodbye to the Fighting Sioux's.
In the silliness of this push by the politically correct NCAA, the UND will be able to use the Fighting Sioux name if any of the teams make the NCAA playoffs. And, to make matters most confusing, it will be a no-no to have the logo at the local sports arena, the Ralph Engelstad Arena. But, if the logo is "permanent", such as those in granite, that will be allowed to stay.
Because of a few rabble-rousing American Indian groups, the NCAA has been on a purge of any university or college sports nickname that has any Indian theme, even if it is not "offensive".
The Florida State Seminoles faced the same ultimatum and was able to garner enough support from the local Seminole tribes that they get to keep the Seminole name. No word as to whether the thousands of fans that engage in the "Tomahawk Chop" especially during football games will be hauled off and prosecuted.
Several large newspapers in the United States no longer use any sports team nicknames in the line scores because they do not want to offend the American Indians. Two of the most notorious newspapers are the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the Portland Oregonian. Never mind that these names have been around for a looonnnggg time. These arbiters of "good taste" say rather than possibly offending a certain group, they will just put the city name in the line score. I wonder if Vikings or Twins or Timberwolves or Wild are offended in Minnesota. Or how about Trail Blazers or Beavers in Portland?
While the NCAA is making sure that the American Indians are not offended, how about making sure that "amateur" athletes are properly compensated instead of colleges and universities having to skirt regulations and making innocent athletes out to be common criminals?
Hopefully, the Fighting Sioux will be able to talk reasonably and sensibly with the local Sioux tribes and be able to keep and honorable nickname that is well known in college sports, particularly ice hockey.
But, no thanks to a gutless NCAA, the Fighting Sioux may have to become the Igloos.
Oops! The Eskimos may get upset and what will the NCAA do then?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Disasters Bring Out The Worst In Democrats
Today, I am embarassed more than usual to be from the left coast. Particulary California.
Our Lt. Governor, Democrat John Garamendi went on an unbelievable rant on lefty blowhard Chris Matthew's "Hardball" show on MSNBC.
Mr. Garamendi was supposedly talking about the recent horrible wildfire situation here in the Golden State. But, somehow, Mr. Garamendi found a way to work in the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. The full rant is on the MSNBC website via Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com.
Mr. Matthews starts out by asking Mr. Garamendi if the federal government is doing all that it can to help California, as if it is the federal government's total responsibility. Mr. Garamendi starts out by saying it is doing all that it can and then launches a broadside against President Bush who will be coming to California Thursday to survey the damage himself.
If memory serves me right, the same people like Mr. Garamendi were the first blowhards to rail how slow President Bush was to respond and visit New Orleans. As if somehow, President Bush could have prevented the disaster of Hurricane Katrina with Superman-like powers.
But, that was not it for Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi went on to agree with a very loaded question from Mr. Matthews that President Bush's visit was nothing more than a PR stunt. Probably not unlike Governor Arnold or maybe even a visit Mr. Garamendi may have made. Oh no, when a compassionate, liberal Democrat visits a disaster zone, it is to asses the damage and promise to hand out the goodies.
In the middle of that, Mr. Garamendi, in the most sarcastic tone, says that they will be "polite" when President Bush comes to visit. So big of him!
But, here is the topper and how Mr. Garamendi gets the war in the Iraq theatre in on a firestorm.
Mr. Garamendi said that if President Bush would bring home California National Guard troops, maybe they can help with the fire situation.
What Mr. Garamendi implies that the whole of the California National Guard is in Iraq. WRONG! At most there are only 2,500 out of a total of 20,000. The fact is that there are many National Guard soldiers helping in a multitude of roles.
What, is the National Guard nothing more than a super fire and police force in the eyes of Mr. Garamendi? I think so.
Another thing about this disaster. California is more than prepared and all the levers of government are working together. There are thousands of people at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium. But there are no riots, no rapes, no shooting, no mass murders as was reported during the bleak first 48 hours of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. People of all groups and income levels are toughing it out.
But, this is not enough for the John Garamendi's of California. There is always a need for these political hacks to slam the president for the war in the Iraq theatre. They are perpetuating a myth about state's National Guard's are all in Iraq.
Thankfully, the voters of California did not reward this cretin with the governor's office. We have been making some bad mistakes the last several elections with the Gray Era and Governor Arnold running as a moderate conservative and governing like his drunkard inlaw, Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass.). But we did not hand the governor's office over to this schmuck.
For when Democrats are in charge during a disaster, they show why they should not be in charge of anything.
Our Lt. Governor, Democrat John Garamendi went on an unbelievable rant on lefty blowhard Chris Matthew's "Hardball" show on MSNBC.
Mr. Garamendi was supposedly talking about the recent horrible wildfire situation here in the Golden State. But, somehow, Mr. Garamendi found a way to work in the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. The full rant is on the MSNBC website via Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com.
Mr. Matthews starts out by asking Mr. Garamendi if the federal government is doing all that it can to help California, as if it is the federal government's total responsibility. Mr. Garamendi starts out by saying it is doing all that it can and then launches a broadside against President Bush who will be coming to California Thursday to survey the damage himself.
If memory serves me right, the same people like Mr. Garamendi were the first blowhards to rail how slow President Bush was to respond and visit New Orleans. As if somehow, President Bush could have prevented the disaster of Hurricane Katrina with Superman-like powers.
But, that was not it for Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi went on to agree with a very loaded question from Mr. Matthews that President Bush's visit was nothing more than a PR stunt. Probably not unlike Governor Arnold or maybe even a visit Mr. Garamendi may have made. Oh no, when a compassionate, liberal Democrat visits a disaster zone, it is to asses the damage and promise to hand out the goodies.
In the middle of that, Mr. Garamendi, in the most sarcastic tone, says that they will be "polite" when President Bush comes to visit. So big of him!
But, here is the topper and how Mr. Garamendi gets the war in the Iraq theatre in on a firestorm.
Mr. Garamendi said that if President Bush would bring home California National Guard troops, maybe they can help with the fire situation.
What Mr. Garamendi implies that the whole of the California National Guard is in Iraq. WRONG! At most there are only 2,500 out of a total of 20,000. The fact is that there are many National Guard soldiers helping in a multitude of roles.
What, is the National Guard nothing more than a super fire and police force in the eyes of Mr. Garamendi? I think so.
Another thing about this disaster. California is more than prepared and all the levers of government are working together. There are thousands of people at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium. But there are no riots, no rapes, no shooting, no mass murders as was reported during the bleak first 48 hours of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. People of all groups and income levels are toughing it out.
But, this is not enough for the John Garamendi's of California. There is always a need for these political hacks to slam the president for the war in the Iraq theatre. They are perpetuating a myth about state's National Guard's are all in Iraq.
Thankfully, the voters of California did not reward this cretin with the governor's office. We have been making some bad mistakes the last several elections with the Gray Era and Governor Arnold running as a moderate conservative and governing like his drunkard inlaw, Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass.). But we did not hand the governor's office over to this schmuck.
For when Democrats are in charge during a disaster, they show why they should not be in charge of anything.
Glenn Beck, A Conservative Moron
Radio talker Glenn Beck is in hot water and rightfully so for comments he made on his radio show yesterday about the awful fires gripping Southern California.
Mr. Beck said that it was A-OK that some homes were burning, assumed, because they were anti-American types living in Malibu, California. No doubt, it is an area where the rich and Hollywood types live. There is also Pepperdine University and Serra Retreat Center. Yes, some actors homes were threatened. Some that the DDBMSM said were threatened were the homes of Mel Gibson and Kelsey Grammer. They are both considered conservatives. And, for Mr. Beck, is the fire looking for the liberal, anti-Americans home to burn? I do not think so.
Regrettably, this fact came from the left-wing media group Media Matters http://mediamatters.org, but when they are right, I will give them credit for exposing ill-timed and offensive rantings by one of our own.
The exact quote is this:
I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their home in a forest fire today. There are a few people who hate America. But I don't think the Democrats are those. I think there are those posing as Democrats that are like that.
There is not a lot to disagree with on the surface. But, Mr. Beck blows his whole comment by saying some of these anti-Americans are losing their homes in a forest fire.
Fires, and these are just garden variety fires for some have merged creating a perfect storm of raging fire, do not discriminate. A lot of very pro-American people have lost everything material near and dear to them such as photos, family heirlooms and the like. What is fortunate is that so far there has only been one death.
We on the conservative side have called out left-wing hate peddlers such as any given host on the Air America network and they have deserved it. Last week, when one of their hosts fell down on a walk in an apparent drunken stupor, that would be Randi Rhodes, another host tried to make it that she was attacked by the "right wing hate machine." The real story is much more sad than that.
So, I am calling out Glenn Beck and calling for him to apologize for out of line comments.
We can not have any credibility if we are not willing to police our own.
Mr. Beck said that it was A-OK that some homes were burning, assumed, because they were anti-American types living in Malibu, California. No doubt, it is an area where the rich and Hollywood types live. There is also Pepperdine University and Serra Retreat Center. Yes, some actors homes were threatened. Some that the DDBMSM said were threatened were the homes of Mel Gibson and Kelsey Grammer. They are both considered conservatives. And, for Mr. Beck, is the fire looking for the liberal, anti-Americans home to burn? I do not think so.
Regrettably, this fact came from the left-wing media group Media Matters http://mediamatters.org, but when they are right, I will give them credit for exposing ill-timed and offensive rantings by one of our own.
The exact quote is this:
I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their home in a forest fire today. There are a few people who hate America. But I don't think the Democrats are those. I think there are those posing as Democrats that are like that.
There is not a lot to disagree with on the surface. But, Mr. Beck blows his whole comment by saying some of these anti-Americans are losing their homes in a forest fire.
Fires, and these are just garden variety fires for some have merged creating a perfect storm of raging fire, do not discriminate. A lot of very pro-American people have lost everything material near and dear to them such as photos, family heirlooms and the like. What is fortunate is that so far there has only been one death.
We on the conservative side have called out left-wing hate peddlers such as any given host on the Air America network and they have deserved it. Last week, when one of their hosts fell down on a walk in an apparent drunken stupor, that would be Randi Rhodes, another host tried to make it that she was attacked by the "right wing hate machine." The real story is much more sad than that.
So, I am calling out Glenn Beck and calling for him to apologize for out of line comments.
We can not have any credibility if we are not willing to police our own.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Shouldn't Being A Man Of Faith Be Enough?
This past weekend, the Republican presidential candidates spoke to a gathering of Christian conservatives in Washington, D. C. under the banner of Values Voter Summit. All did themselves well and even the Mormon candidate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney impressed this tough crowd.
But the question still lingers around Mr. Romney and that Mormon thing.
Why?
Can it not be enough that Mr. Romney is a man of faith? Does it have to be the "right" one?
Clearly, out of the top tier Republican candidates, Mr. Romney is the most likely church-goer followed by Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. It is known that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson rarely, if ever, attends church. Ditto for the alleged Republican front-runner, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
So what if there are profound differences between Mormon doctrine and traditional Christian doctrine? The fact is, Mr. Romney is a man of his faith, his understanding of Jesus in the Mormon tradition.
And, that is enough for me.
I am more confident in a man, or woman, who has a strong faith and can be counted on to be in the front line of defending the first amendment given right to have their freedom of religion, not from religion.
Hence, I have a lot of confidence that Mr. Romney and his faith will be a strong guide of his potential presidency. It may be a very profound deepening of that faith that made Mr. Romney more open about how that faith will sometimes translate into his social vision in regards to such hot-button issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in the public schools.
While the Values Voters tended to be traditional, evangelical Christians, no one can doubt that many Mormons are at the very least sympathetic with their agenda. Same for those who are traditional Jews and even Islamics. And it is that alliance that can and should lead to Mr. Romney eventually gaining the Republican presidential nomination.
There are a large minority of Republicans that would like nothing more than to dispatch these Value Voters. They are seen, short-sighted, as a liability. The question for these Republicans is simple. Would have Ronald Reagan won two terms as president without these voters? No way!
Values Voters are a part of the great conservative coalition that includes economic, defense and social conservatives. If one is pushed out, the rest splinter and the coalition falls apart. That is a real fact and those Republicans have nothing to back up their mythical theory that there would be any other voters to replace those social conservatives.
Back to Mr. Romney.
It is more important to have a serious man or woman of faith to be on our side. So what if they happen to be a Mormon? I, for one, do not fear that on Inauguration Day, suddenly 20,000 young, well dressed men will ride out of the White House to turn all of the United States into a Mormon fortress. I do not worry that a President Romney will consult Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints president, Gordon Hinckley, on any decision. Period.
So, I think that it is important that we who want to see the kind of judges that can rollback some of the excesses of the current socialists and their judicial allies support a candidate that has made a serious commitment to that end. And that candidate is Mitt Romney, a man of faith.
But the question still lingers around Mr. Romney and that Mormon thing.
Why?
Can it not be enough that Mr. Romney is a man of faith? Does it have to be the "right" one?
Clearly, out of the top tier Republican candidates, Mr. Romney is the most likely church-goer followed by Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. It is known that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson rarely, if ever, attends church. Ditto for the alleged Republican front-runner, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
So what if there are profound differences between Mormon doctrine and traditional Christian doctrine? The fact is, Mr. Romney is a man of his faith, his understanding of Jesus in the Mormon tradition.
And, that is enough for me.
I am more confident in a man, or woman, who has a strong faith and can be counted on to be in the front line of defending the first amendment given right to have their freedom of religion, not from religion.
Hence, I have a lot of confidence that Mr. Romney and his faith will be a strong guide of his potential presidency. It may be a very profound deepening of that faith that made Mr. Romney more open about how that faith will sometimes translate into his social vision in regards to such hot-button issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in the public schools.
While the Values Voters tended to be traditional, evangelical Christians, no one can doubt that many Mormons are at the very least sympathetic with their agenda. Same for those who are traditional Jews and even Islamics. And it is that alliance that can and should lead to Mr. Romney eventually gaining the Republican presidential nomination.
There are a large minority of Republicans that would like nothing more than to dispatch these Value Voters. They are seen, short-sighted, as a liability. The question for these Republicans is simple. Would have Ronald Reagan won two terms as president without these voters? No way!
Values Voters are a part of the great conservative coalition that includes economic, defense and social conservatives. If one is pushed out, the rest splinter and the coalition falls apart. That is a real fact and those Republicans have nothing to back up their mythical theory that there would be any other voters to replace those social conservatives.
Back to Mr. Romney.
It is more important to have a serious man or woman of faith to be on our side. So what if they happen to be a Mormon? I, for one, do not fear that on Inauguration Day, suddenly 20,000 young, well dressed men will ride out of the White House to turn all of the United States into a Mormon fortress. I do not worry that a President Romney will consult Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints president, Gordon Hinckley, on any decision. Period.
So, I think that it is important that we who want to see the kind of judges that can rollback some of the excesses of the current socialists and their judicial allies support a candidate that has made a serious commitment to that end. And that candidate is Mitt Romney, a man of faith.
Ahead Of The Curve Once Again
I will now, in your mind, pat myself on the back for once again being ahead of the curve on another issue.
The issue was a recent episode of the CBS "crime drama" "Cold Case" in which a group of Christian youth gang up on a high school girl that turns out to be the school slut. And they punish her by, I kid you not, stoning her to death. And to boot, the youths are quoting from the Holy Bible as they slam a rock on the poor girl's head.
I refer you to the post "Television Channelling Democrat Talking Points" from October 3, 2007 for more.
But, in an article in the New York Post http://nypost.com/seven/10222007/tv/right_slams_cold_case.htm yesterday, a group called the Culture And Media Institute http://cultureandmediainstitute.org joined the chorus in slamming this particular episode of the "crime drama" for a very disparaging view of practicing Christians and their views on premarital sex.
Of course, the episode showed that all the youths were not what they claimed to be. All were portrayed as having sex and for good measure, one is even gay.
The point is this. When shows use a genre such as a crime drama to push a political and social agenda, they are no longer entertaining but spewing propaganda.
I am of the nature that when I want to go to a movie and or watch a television show, I want to be entertained, not lectured to . I do not care from what side of the political spectrum it comes from.
And a show such as "Cold Case" stops the entertaining and begins to apply early 21st century pop psychology to old cases, it becomes a caricature of itself.
I admit that I probably watch way too much television but sometimes, as in the case of "Cold Case" it helps to know what the socialists are thinking and projecting. And to be ahead of the curve once again.
The issue was a recent episode of the CBS "crime drama" "Cold Case" in which a group of Christian youth gang up on a high school girl that turns out to be the school slut. And they punish her by, I kid you not, stoning her to death. And to boot, the youths are quoting from the Holy Bible as they slam a rock on the poor girl's head.
I refer you to the post "Television Channelling Democrat Talking Points" from October 3, 2007 for more.
But, in an article in the New York Post http://nypost.com/seven/10222007/tv/right_slams_cold_case.htm yesterday, a group called the Culture And Media Institute http://cultureandmediainstitute.org joined the chorus in slamming this particular episode of the "crime drama" for a very disparaging view of practicing Christians and their views on premarital sex.
Of course, the episode showed that all the youths were not what they claimed to be. All were portrayed as having sex and for good measure, one is even gay.
The point is this. When shows use a genre such as a crime drama to push a political and social agenda, they are no longer entertaining but spewing propaganda.
I am of the nature that when I want to go to a movie and or watch a television show, I want to be entertained, not lectured to . I do not care from what side of the political spectrum it comes from.
And a show such as "Cold Case" stops the entertaining and begins to apply early 21st century pop psychology to old cases, it becomes a caricature of itself.
I admit that I probably watch way too much television but sometimes, as in the case of "Cold Case" it helps to know what the socialists are thinking and projecting. And to be ahead of the curve once again.
Fortney Apoligizes-Then Cries
California congressman Fortney Stark, Democrat, caved into pressure put to him by Republican lawmakers and apologized for nasty, beyond the pale, comments about the upholding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, Iraq, and the troops. Then, according to Fox News http://FoxNews.com, Fortney went to the Democrat side of the House and sobbed for roughly five minutes.
All I can say is what a wuss!
Just last week in defiant tones, Fortney said the following:
I do not respect the commander-in-chief who keeps the troops in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress.
Beautiful!
This was after Fortney said that President Bush likes seeing American soldiers get their heads blown off for his pleasure. And that led to the firestorm of controversy.
There is no question that we live in uncivil times and that it is so bad it goes onto the floor of the House of Representatives. But, that is no excuse to make such ridiculous statements that are not so much harmful to the president for he is a big boy and can take anything thrown his way. But, it is offensive to the very troops that Fortney claims he supports.
I am glad that Fortney realized that he went over the line and did apologize. But to cry about it? Was Fortney upset that he was criticized by conservatives who called him out on such a stupid, hurtful comment? No one knows.
But, Fortney learned a lesson.
Fortney learned that one can not say what ever they want and be immunized and that what is said does not matter.
As noted, if it was reversed and a Democrat president was as harshly criticized by a Republican, you could not get me to a keyboard fast enough to slam the Republican. No one should say what was said.
In this MoveOn.org mentality, our elected representatives need to cool their jets and think about what they say. Both sides. There is a difference what I write on this blog and what an elected official says and or writes. An elected official represents more than his or her political party.
I am not saying that there should not be a discourse, just that it can and should be thoughtful, not a 20 or 30 second sound bite.
That is what this all comes down to. Stop with the 30 second sound bites and think about what is said.
Let us keep the pressure on politicians to stop with this gutter politics and start working on the issues.
If congress wants to get out of the 11% approval funk, they can start by shutting up and working together to get some good legislation through.
Or they can sob, like Fortney.
All I can say is what a wuss!
Just last week in defiant tones, Fortney said the following:
I do not respect the commander-in-chief who keeps the troops in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress.
Beautiful!
This was after Fortney said that President Bush likes seeing American soldiers get their heads blown off for his pleasure. And that led to the firestorm of controversy.
There is no question that we live in uncivil times and that it is so bad it goes onto the floor of the House of Representatives. But, that is no excuse to make such ridiculous statements that are not so much harmful to the president for he is a big boy and can take anything thrown his way. But, it is offensive to the very troops that Fortney claims he supports.
I am glad that Fortney realized that he went over the line and did apologize. But to cry about it? Was Fortney upset that he was criticized by conservatives who called him out on such a stupid, hurtful comment? No one knows.
But, Fortney learned a lesson.
Fortney learned that one can not say what ever they want and be immunized and that what is said does not matter.
As noted, if it was reversed and a Democrat president was as harshly criticized by a Republican, you could not get me to a keyboard fast enough to slam the Republican. No one should say what was said.
In this MoveOn.org mentality, our elected representatives need to cool their jets and think about what they say. Both sides. There is a difference what I write on this blog and what an elected official says and or writes. An elected official represents more than his or her political party.
I am not saying that there should not be a discourse, just that it can and should be thoughtful, not a 20 or 30 second sound bite.
That is what this all comes down to. Stop with the 30 second sound bites and think about what is said.
Let us keep the pressure on politicians to stop with this gutter politics and start working on the issues.
If congress wants to get out of the 11% approval funk, they can start by shutting up and working together to get some good legislation through.
Or they can sob, like Fortney.
Monday, October 22, 2007
GO ROCKS!
Regrettably, I have been totally wrong about who would be in the 2007 World Series.
But, I have one more chance to make it right now that the teams have finally been decided.
Last night, the dreaded Boston Red Sox defeated the Cleveland Indians to become the American League champs and will take on the Colorado Rockies.
Who? The Rockies? Where the heck did they come from?
Out of nowhere and that is what makes it really possible that the National League, the real major league, will finally win a World Series.
The Rockies have no names to speak of, but a lot of grit, determination and most importantly, they got hot when it counted and hence, they are in the World Series.
So, I will boldly predict that the Colorado Rockies will defeat the Boston Red Sox, four games to two.
And, the drought will be over as the Senior circuit will finally redeem itself.
___________________________________________________
On another sports subject, I can not explain the UCLA Bruins.
One week, they look like garbage against the worst Notre Dame team in most of our lifetimes. You would have thought that Knute Rockne was dug up and played that game.
The Bruins also looked like crap against Utah earlier this season.
So, who would show up against the number 10 or 12 California Golden Bears?
Why, of course the team they really are capable of being and they smacked the Bears all the way back to Berkley.
Now, if they can actually win between now and when they play USC at the end of the season, now that is gonna be one barn burner!
But, I have one more chance to make it right now that the teams have finally been decided.
Last night, the dreaded Boston Red Sox defeated the Cleveland Indians to become the American League champs and will take on the Colorado Rockies.
Who? The Rockies? Where the heck did they come from?
Out of nowhere and that is what makes it really possible that the National League, the real major league, will finally win a World Series.
The Rockies have no names to speak of, but a lot of grit, determination and most importantly, they got hot when it counted and hence, they are in the World Series.
So, I will boldly predict that the Colorado Rockies will defeat the Boston Red Sox, four games to two.
And, the drought will be over as the Senior circuit will finally redeem itself.
___________________________________________________
On another sports subject, I can not explain the UCLA Bruins.
One week, they look like garbage against the worst Notre Dame team in most of our lifetimes. You would have thought that Knute Rockne was dug up and played that game.
The Bruins also looked like crap against Utah earlier this season.
So, who would show up against the number 10 or 12 California Golden Bears?
Why, of course the team they really are capable of being and they smacked the Bears all the way back to Berkley.
Now, if they can actually win between now and when they play USC at the end of the season, now that is gonna be one barn burner!
Saturday, October 20, 2007
A Good Saturday For Republicans
Today, Saturday, October 20, 2007, has been a good day for the Republican party.
In Louisiana, the voters sent a very loud and clear message in electing Republican congressman Bobby Jindal as the next governor.
And there will be no runoff.
In the quirkiness that is Louisiana, this is technically the primary. However, if candidate A gets 50% plus one, the election is over. And, Mr. Jindal has 54% of the vote.
It is a repudiation of the inept "leadership" of governor Kathleen Blanco, Democrat. During the height of the crippling Hurricane Katrina, between her and the equally inept New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, an amazing American city was sent into utter and unnecessary chaos because they were too busy snipping each other. Hundreds of school buses sat idly in New Orleans while the poorest of the poor that did not leave for higher ground were held hostage to ineptness.
Somehow, Mr. Nagin was reelected mayor. But, Mrs. Blanco saw that she would not fare as well statewide and decided to retire. She did not want to get an asswhooping that Mr. Jindal was going to deliver.
And, in this quirky election, Mr. Jindal did deliver. And, Mr. Jindal has pledged to clean up the corruption that makes the corruption in Washington look like child's play. Good luck. Mr. Jindal will need it!
And in the Values Voters conference in Washington D. C., former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney scored a very narrow victory in the group's straw poll. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist preacher, came in a close second.
And in this unique poll, there was an internet version in which Mr. Romney won and the poll done on site in which Mr. Huckabee won. But overall, Mr. Romney won the straw poll by a narrow 30 votes. But, a win is a win and Mr. Romney was much better received by this crowd than former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, the supposed Republican front runner.
Despite the DDBMSM attempt to say that Republicans and in particular social conservatives, are in a funk, there are a lot of people ready to support the candidacy of Mitt Romney.
My theory about the funk is this.
Unlike the Democrats that have been out of the White House for seven plus years, the Republicans are still there. The Democrats are fired up. They really believe that they can put up a fire hydrant or Sen. Hilary Clinton and they will return to the promised land of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. But, Republicans are just waiting to see how this all hashes out. When voting actually starts, the Republicans will be just as excited as Democrats, especially if Sen. Clinton does look like she will be the Democrat nominee for the White House.
I would ask all to look at 1988. Michael Barone http://usnews.com has and thinks this could be that kind of election.
But, I think that two very important things happened today that should get the Republican faithful excited.
Booby Jindal, from a family of Indian immigrants, is the next governor of Louisiana. And Mitt Romney is finally breaking through with influential evangelical leaders.
And that is a good thing for the Republican party and the United States.
In Louisiana, the voters sent a very loud and clear message in electing Republican congressman Bobby Jindal as the next governor.
And there will be no runoff.
In the quirkiness that is Louisiana, this is technically the primary. However, if candidate A gets 50% plus one, the election is over. And, Mr. Jindal has 54% of the vote.
It is a repudiation of the inept "leadership" of governor Kathleen Blanco, Democrat. During the height of the crippling Hurricane Katrina, between her and the equally inept New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, an amazing American city was sent into utter and unnecessary chaos because they were too busy snipping each other. Hundreds of school buses sat idly in New Orleans while the poorest of the poor that did not leave for higher ground were held hostage to ineptness.
Somehow, Mr. Nagin was reelected mayor. But, Mrs. Blanco saw that she would not fare as well statewide and decided to retire. She did not want to get an asswhooping that Mr. Jindal was going to deliver.
And, in this quirky election, Mr. Jindal did deliver. And, Mr. Jindal has pledged to clean up the corruption that makes the corruption in Washington look like child's play. Good luck. Mr. Jindal will need it!
And in the Values Voters conference in Washington D. C., former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney scored a very narrow victory in the group's straw poll. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist preacher, came in a close second.
And in this unique poll, there was an internet version in which Mr. Romney won and the poll done on site in which Mr. Huckabee won. But overall, Mr. Romney won the straw poll by a narrow 30 votes. But, a win is a win and Mr. Romney was much better received by this crowd than former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, the supposed Republican front runner.
Despite the DDBMSM attempt to say that Republicans and in particular social conservatives, are in a funk, there are a lot of people ready to support the candidacy of Mitt Romney.
My theory about the funk is this.
Unlike the Democrats that have been out of the White House for seven plus years, the Republicans are still there. The Democrats are fired up. They really believe that they can put up a fire hydrant or Sen. Hilary Clinton and they will return to the promised land of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. But, Republicans are just waiting to see how this all hashes out. When voting actually starts, the Republicans will be just as excited as Democrats, especially if Sen. Clinton does look like she will be the Democrat nominee for the White House.
I would ask all to look at 1988. Michael Barone http://usnews.com has and thinks this could be that kind of election.
But, I think that two very important things happened today that should get the Republican faithful excited.
Booby Jindal, from a family of Indian immigrants, is the next governor of Louisiana. And Mitt Romney is finally breaking through with influential evangelical leaders.
And that is a good thing for the Republican party and the United States.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Fortney Stark Is An Idiot And A Godless Heathen
Hey, I can not let the left wingers have all the fun in denigrating! Sorry if the headline is a bit offensive.
Who is Fortney Stark and why is he an idiot?
Fortney Stark is a Democrat congressman from the Bay Area of California, of course, and quite possibly one of the most vowedly left-wing member of congress.
The reason Fortney is an idiot is the comment he made today, on the floor of the House of Representatives no less, regarding the fact that he and the Democrats fell short in overriding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP scam to make middle-class children "poor" and in desperate need of government provided health care.
Here is the gospel according to Fortney: http://FoxNews.com
Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you are going to fund the war? You don't have the money to fund the war or the children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can't get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.
The whole comment is obscene because, when the left wing is going down, they use "the children" as Saddam Husein used the human shields before the United States liberated Iraq. And the thought that any president, Democrat or Republican, somehow is enjoying seeing brave, young Americans give their lives for something greater than themselves. Unlike Fortney's comments, these young Americans who are volunteering to join the armed services with absolute knowledge that they may go to Iraq and or Afghanistan or another theatre in the War Against Islamofascist Terror and not come back alive are brave, not cowering behind "the children."
Also, I would like to ask Fortney what he means by innocent people. Does he mean the al-Queda fighters targeting Americans? How about Iranian agents who may also be trying to harm Americans?
This stream of consciousness, and I believe the real way many Democrats feel about President Bush, is telling for the stark-no pun intended!-no holds barred honesty.
But worse it is led by the first vowedly atheist member of congress. And, I think that has a lot to do with the vitriol.
Fortney, or as he has been called in the DDBMSM "Pete", had listed his "religion" as Unitarian Universalist. It is not really a religion as it basically promotes an anything goes religion. Believe in anything or nothing. And Fortney, openly admits that he does not believe in God. It is prerogative and his right. But, just as someone like Fortney would accuse some conservative and or fundamentalist Christian of making awful comments and calling for their repudiation, I call on Fortney to at the very least take back his comment about President Bush wanting to see young American's heads blown off for some kind of amusement. And, I would feel absolutely the same way is a Republican congressman had said the same about a Democrat president in a time of war.
It is not as President Bush wants no increase in the SCHIP scam, just not as expanded and not as much.
And I for one wish that the Democrats would make a valid argument as to the merits of their expansion of the SCHIP program without trotting out unsuspecting children. And if they are, they should at the very least find truly needy children, not middle class children that may not ever be in need of government health care.
Here is a clue. When the Democrats trot out the children, hide your wallets and make sure to lock up your children so they are not part of the Democrat victim parade.
There is a time and place for political hyperbole. And even some rough language. But, there is no place to accuse any president that has our young men and women in the armed services in harm's way of having some perverse enjoyment seeing their heads blown off.
Fortney Stark not only owes the president an apology, but our truly brave young Americans who are in the armed services in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, and "the children" for using them as props to make political points.
America is better than this.
Who is Fortney Stark and why is he an idiot?
Fortney Stark is a Democrat congressman from the Bay Area of California, of course, and quite possibly one of the most vowedly left-wing member of congress.
The reason Fortney is an idiot is the comment he made today, on the floor of the House of Representatives no less, regarding the fact that he and the Democrats fell short in overriding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP scam to make middle-class children "poor" and in desperate need of government provided health care.
Here is the gospel according to Fortney: http://FoxNews.com
Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you are going to fund the war? You don't have the money to fund the war or the children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can't get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.
The whole comment is obscene because, when the left wing is going down, they use "the children" as Saddam Husein used the human shields before the United States liberated Iraq. And the thought that any president, Democrat or Republican, somehow is enjoying seeing brave, young Americans give their lives for something greater than themselves. Unlike Fortney's comments, these young Americans who are volunteering to join the armed services with absolute knowledge that they may go to Iraq and or Afghanistan or another theatre in the War Against Islamofascist Terror and not come back alive are brave, not cowering behind "the children."
Also, I would like to ask Fortney what he means by innocent people. Does he mean the al-Queda fighters targeting Americans? How about Iranian agents who may also be trying to harm Americans?
This stream of consciousness, and I believe the real way many Democrats feel about President Bush, is telling for the stark-no pun intended!-no holds barred honesty.
But worse it is led by the first vowedly atheist member of congress. And, I think that has a lot to do with the vitriol.
Fortney, or as he has been called in the DDBMSM "Pete", had listed his "religion" as Unitarian Universalist. It is not really a religion as it basically promotes an anything goes religion. Believe in anything or nothing. And Fortney, openly admits that he does not believe in God. It is prerogative and his right. But, just as someone like Fortney would accuse some conservative and or fundamentalist Christian of making awful comments and calling for their repudiation, I call on Fortney to at the very least take back his comment about President Bush wanting to see young American's heads blown off for some kind of amusement. And, I would feel absolutely the same way is a Republican congressman had said the same about a Democrat president in a time of war.
It is not as President Bush wants no increase in the SCHIP scam, just not as expanded and not as much.
And I for one wish that the Democrats would make a valid argument as to the merits of their expansion of the SCHIP program without trotting out unsuspecting children. And if they are, they should at the very least find truly needy children, not middle class children that may not ever be in need of government health care.
Here is a clue. When the Democrats trot out the children, hide your wallets and make sure to lock up your children so they are not part of the Democrat victim parade.
There is a time and place for political hyperbole. And even some rough language. But, there is no place to accuse any president that has our young men and women in the armed services in harm's way of having some perverse enjoyment seeing their heads blown off.
Fortney Stark not only owes the president an apology, but our truly brave young Americans who are in the armed services in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, and "the children" for using them as props to make political points.
America is better than this.
And Americans Wonder Why Values Are In The Toilet
Chalk up another victory by the relativists in Portland, Maine.
It appears that high school students are not young enough to give condoms and other forms of birth control.
In the wisdom of the Portland School Committee, the King Middle School will become the first middle school in Maine to offer the full range of birth control. Oh, many middle schoolers are as young as 11 years old and no older than 13!
According to the Associated Press story http://yahoo.com, because five out of 134 students who visited the King's school health center admitted to having sex, this seemed to get the school committee involved.
Here is a choice quote from one Ricahrd Veilleux:
This isn't encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexual activity.
Get it? Because five students admit to having sex, the school is now obliged to offer all the range of birth control. Not just condoms, but patches, birth control pills, anything in the birth control field.
Amazing!
But what the article did not really talk about is that these sexually active students do NOT have to ask for parents permission.
It is sad enough that kids as young as 11 years old maybe engaging in sex, but the fact that they can go to their school and ask for birth control without parental notification is another sign of the state interfering in the role of parents and usurping their proper authority.
I know, there are some, and a minority to be sure, of parents that would freak out over the fact their child is engaging in sex at such an age and become potentially abusive, but the majority should want to know and steer their children in the right direction.
This stupidity means that the State knows best. That they can be "neutral" and offer birth control to 11 year olds.
There is no neutrality in this. The King school will be in an area that they have no business to be in.
Children at this age should be thoroughly discouraged from sexual activity, period. And that is the role of the parent.
When there is no parental guidance, then the school has a moral responsibility to notify a parent when their child, remember as young as 11 years old, come for birth control. How about the school nurse saying no, that you should not be engaging in sex at that age, period?
Americans are tired of the state interfering in clearly parental issues. Parents involved in their children's life should not be "neutral" on there sexual activity. It does not help when a school usurps that role.
And those of us who see this as a tragedy wonder how much further in depravity will we go before we rise up and say "No more! It is enough!" and take back our children.
It appears that high school students are not young enough to give condoms and other forms of birth control.
In the wisdom of the Portland School Committee, the King Middle School will become the first middle school in Maine to offer the full range of birth control. Oh, many middle schoolers are as young as 11 years old and no older than 13!
According to the Associated Press story http://yahoo.com, because five out of 134 students who visited the King's school health center admitted to having sex, this seemed to get the school committee involved.
Here is a choice quote from one Ricahrd Veilleux:
This isn't encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexual activity.
Get it? Because five students admit to having sex, the school is now obliged to offer all the range of birth control. Not just condoms, but patches, birth control pills, anything in the birth control field.
Amazing!
But what the article did not really talk about is that these sexually active students do NOT have to ask for parents permission.
It is sad enough that kids as young as 11 years old maybe engaging in sex, but the fact that they can go to their school and ask for birth control without parental notification is another sign of the state interfering in the role of parents and usurping their proper authority.
I know, there are some, and a minority to be sure, of parents that would freak out over the fact their child is engaging in sex at such an age and become potentially abusive, but the majority should want to know and steer their children in the right direction.
This stupidity means that the State knows best. That they can be "neutral" and offer birth control to 11 year olds.
There is no neutrality in this. The King school will be in an area that they have no business to be in.
Children at this age should be thoroughly discouraged from sexual activity, period. And that is the role of the parent.
When there is no parental guidance, then the school has a moral responsibility to notify a parent when their child, remember as young as 11 years old, come for birth control. How about the school nurse saying no, that you should not be engaging in sex at that age, period?
Americans are tired of the state interfering in clearly parental issues. Parents involved in their children's life should not be "neutral" on there sexual activity. It does not help when a school usurps that role.
And those of us who see this as a tragedy wonder how much further in depravity will we go before we rise up and say "No more! It is enough!" and take back our children.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Thompson Slams Rudy-And So Does Rudy To Himself
FINALLY!
I feel like the broken clock that is right at least twice a day on the issue of whether former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is a real Republican.
But fellow Republican candidate, former senator Fred Thompson, said what I have been saying all along. I almost feel like I should get credit for Mr. Thompson using very similar language I have said about the fact that Mr. Giuliani had the nerve to support then Democrat gasbag governor Mario Cuomo in the Republican tidal wave of 1994. Well, Mr. Thompson jumped on that recently in speeches this week. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that when Republican George Pataki did win the New York state governorship, Mr. Giuliani opposed Mr. Pataki's tax cuts.
Ah, but Rudy himself seems to be very confused.
Today, thanks to Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com we got to hear from then Mayor Rudy himself.
I ran for mayor as a Republican, although I am not a very partisan one. I also ran on Liberal Party ticket, which might be confusing.
DUH!
That was Mr. Giuliani in an interview with Charlie Rose.
So, this seeming savior for the Republican party thinks that the way to Mecca is through the New York Liberal Party?
And thus, one of the many problems of Rudy Giuliani as he tries to win the Republican nomination for president.
At least when Ronald Reagan left the Democrat party, he left their craziness behind in total. But, because Mr. Reagan was once a Democrat, he was able to communicate the ideas that many who still thought they were Democrats and win converts. It was not because Mr. Reagan wanted to be all things to all people.
And, for Mr. Thompson, it is something to point out and continue to attack Mr. Giuliani.
The problem for Mr. Giuliani is that he has not said that he is a conservative and thus supportive of basic conservative ideas of smaller government, morality and a strong military and national defense.
That is why Mr. Giuliani can not break out of the 20s for support among likely Republican primary/caucus voters.
But, no one else can seal the deal at this point.
With Iowa moving the caucus to January 3, 2008 (why not Christmas Eve!), someone has to break out and fast. Whoever wins Iowa will have a huge momentum going into the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries. And that will more than likely be the Republican nominee.
February 5.
That will not be the way this is done.
Having noted the obvious, it is time for the leaders not just to slam their perceived opponents but to articulate what they would do.
And that is, while I appreciate Mr. Thompson noting serious defects in Mr. Giuliani's Republican credentials, Mr. Thompson and the rest of the field need to tell Republicans what they are for. Just pointing out the obvious, while tantalizing in the hand to hand combat of the primary campaign, is not going to win primaries and defiantly not the general election.
Having someone who has the partisan baggage of questionable party loyalty is not going to gin up the base and that is the danger of a Giuliani candidacy.
It is good when someone finally points out the obvious and will not back down. Thank you Fred Thompson.
I feel like the broken clock that is right at least twice a day on the issue of whether former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is a real Republican.
But fellow Republican candidate, former senator Fred Thompson, said what I have been saying all along. I almost feel like I should get credit for Mr. Thompson using very similar language I have said about the fact that Mr. Giuliani had the nerve to support then Democrat gasbag governor Mario Cuomo in the Republican tidal wave of 1994. Well, Mr. Thompson jumped on that recently in speeches this week. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that when Republican George Pataki did win the New York state governorship, Mr. Giuliani opposed Mr. Pataki's tax cuts.
Ah, but Rudy himself seems to be very confused.
Today, thanks to Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com we got to hear from then Mayor Rudy himself.
I ran for mayor as a Republican, although I am not a very partisan one. I also ran on Liberal Party ticket, which might be confusing.
DUH!
That was Mr. Giuliani in an interview with Charlie Rose.
So, this seeming savior for the Republican party thinks that the way to Mecca is through the New York Liberal Party?
And thus, one of the many problems of Rudy Giuliani as he tries to win the Republican nomination for president.
At least when Ronald Reagan left the Democrat party, he left their craziness behind in total. But, because Mr. Reagan was once a Democrat, he was able to communicate the ideas that many who still thought they were Democrats and win converts. It was not because Mr. Reagan wanted to be all things to all people.
And, for Mr. Thompson, it is something to point out and continue to attack Mr. Giuliani.
The problem for Mr. Giuliani is that he has not said that he is a conservative and thus supportive of basic conservative ideas of smaller government, morality and a strong military and national defense.
That is why Mr. Giuliani can not break out of the 20s for support among likely Republican primary/caucus voters.
But, no one else can seal the deal at this point.
With Iowa moving the caucus to January 3, 2008 (why not Christmas Eve!), someone has to break out and fast. Whoever wins Iowa will have a huge momentum going into the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries. And that will more than likely be the Republican nominee.
February 5.
That will not be the way this is done.
Having noted the obvious, it is time for the leaders not just to slam their perceived opponents but to articulate what they would do.
And that is, while I appreciate Mr. Thompson noting serious defects in Mr. Giuliani's Republican credentials, Mr. Thompson and the rest of the field need to tell Republicans what they are for. Just pointing out the obvious, while tantalizing in the hand to hand combat of the primary campaign, is not going to win primaries and defiantly not the general election.
Having someone who has the partisan baggage of questionable party loyalty is not going to gin up the base and that is the danger of a Giuliani candidacy.
It is good when someone finally points out the obvious and will not back down. Thank you Fred Thompson.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Mitt Gets Welcome Evangelical Support
The Mitt Romney campaign for president has obtained a very important supporter in Bob Jones III, the chancellor of Bob Jones University in South Carolina.
You remember ol' Bob Jones? In the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that this bastion of evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity was "anti-Catholic" because of real theological differences.
Oh, the "Straight Talk Express" of Sen. John "F--- You" McCain made so much out of the past statements of the university's founder, Bob Jones regarding the Roman Catholic church and the theological differences. Some people don't get that is why there are Protestants. We who are Protestants do not have theological agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
But, how times have changed.
Dr. Jones III took a look at the Republican field, found that the candidate that will best promote a social conservative agenda is former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. Dr. Jones III puts it bluntly. Its all about beating Hilary. As in New York senator Hilary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee.
If there are serious theological differences between Bob Jones University, a Baptist university, and the Roman Catholic Church, then supporting a practicing Mormon must be like supporting a Martian.
But, times and issues have changed.
It is Mr. Romney, who has become a convert to the social conservative agenda, who can carry the day over lapsed Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani, sometime Christian former Sen. Fred Thompson and Baptist, nee Episcopalian Sen. "F--- You" McCain. That is the conclusion of a serious religious conservative. And it shows that the opposition to Mr. Romney is beginning to crumble. That is a good thing.
A reminder to my friends who are on the fundamentalist side of Christianity. We are not electing a Pope or Presiding Bishop or president of a denomination. We are going to be electing the President of the United States. And, we should be looking at one that will address the issues that are of concern to those of us who see the decline of American society.
No, a president can't change in one fell swoop. But, he or she can set the tone.
And, if a Bob Jones III can see that a Mormon can make a difference, then those who still oppose Mr. Romney are doing so out of outright religious bigotry. And that would be ironic.
Time for those who are religiously bigoted to try to look past the Mormonism of Mitt Romney and what he would do as president to pursue the agenda that we all support.
You remember ol' Bob Jones? In the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that this bastion of evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity was "anti-Catholic" because of real theological differences.
Oh, the "Straight Talk Express" of Sen. John "F--- You" McCain made so much out of the past statements of the university's founder, Bob Jones regarding the Roman Catholic church and the theological differences. Some people don't get that is why there are Protestants. We who are Protestants do not have theological agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
But, how times have changed.
Dr. Jones III took a look at the Republican field, found that the candidate that will best promote a social conservative agenda is former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. Dr. Jones III puts it bluntly. Its all about beating Hilary. As in New York senator Hilary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee.
If there are serious theological differences between Bob Jones University, a Baptist university, and the Roman Catholic Church, then supporting a practicing Mormon must be like supporting a Martian.
But, times and issues have changed.
It is Mr. Romney, who has become a convert to the social conservative agenda, who can carry the day over lapsed Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani, sometime Christian former Sen. Fred Thompson and Baptist, nee Episcopalian Sen. "F--- You" McCain. That is the conclusion of a serious religious conservative. And it shows that the opposition to Mr. Romney is beginning to crumble. That is a good thing.
A reminder to my friends who are on the fundamentalist side of Christianity. We are not electing a Pope or Presiding Bishop or president of a denomination. We are going to be electing the President of the United States. And, we should be looking at one that will address the issues that are of concern to those of us who see the decline of American society.
No, a president can't change in one fell swoop. But, he or she can set the tone.
And, if a Bob Jones III can see that a Mormon can make a difference, then those who still oppose Mr. Romney are doing so out of outright religious bigotry. And that would be ironic.
Time for those who are religiously bigoted to try to look past the Mormonism of Mitt Romney and what he would do as president to pursue the agenda that we all support.
Some Baseball Thoughts
Ok, ok, I know. There will not be a Freeway Series this year. And the Chicago Cubs, yet again, leave their fans in the dumps after being swept right out of the first round of the playoffs. Ditto the Anaheim Angels*. Three and out at the hands of the dreaded Boston Red Sox. Out of nowhere has come the Colorado Rockies and poof! they are in the World Series. And, one bit of good news is that one more win and the Cleveland Indians will dispatch the upstart Rockies after beating the aforementioned Red Sox.
Can you imagine what the television gurus are thinking? Colorado and Cleveland? Zzzzzzz. But, I think it will be a great World Series. Sure, it ain't the Freeway Series that at the beginning of every baseball season I dream of, but the veteran Indians will show the upstart Rockies how it is done. The television people are counting the dollars lost and alleged lack of interest of fans who, allegedly, will not turn to watch because it is not between two titan, east coast teams. Yea, and the Subway Series between the New York Mets and Yankees several seasons ago were real great for the Fox Television Network. NOT!
Anyway, I think that it will be the Indians in six games. And another team that has not won in my 43 years on God's earth will put that to rest. And then the Cubs have to win one and the Freeway Series has to happen and then the good Lord can take me if he wants!
The good thing is that it is about time that it is not the so called big teams of the east in the World Series. It shows that two teams that are not exactly rolling in the free agent market can win and get to the big dance at any given season. And that is what it is all about.
Final thought.
GO TRIBE!
Can you imagine what the television gurus are thinking? Colorado and Cleveland? Zzzzzzz. But, I think it will be a great World Series. Sure, it ain't the Freeway Series that at the beginning of every baseball season I dream of, but the veteran Indians will show the upstart Rockies how it is done. The television people are counting the dollars lost and alleged lack of interest of fans who, allegedly, will not turn to watch because it is not between two titan, east coast teams. Yea, and the Subway Series between the New York Mets and Yankees several seasons ago were real great for the Fox Television Network. NOT!
Anyway, I think that it will be the Indians in six games. And another team that has not won in my 43 years on God's earth will put that to rest. And then the Cubs have to win one and the Freeway Series has to happen and then the good Lord can take me if he wants!
The good thing is that it is about time that it is not the so called big teams of the east in the World Series. It shows that two teams that are not exactly rolling in the free agent market can win and get to the big dance at any given season. And that is what it is all about.
Final thought.
GO TRIBE!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Memo To GOP-FIght For California In '08
Yes, you are reading the headline correctly. The Republican presidential candidate in 2008 can and should fight for the wacko Golden State of California. Oh, not necessarily to win outright but to force the Democrat candidate to spend time and money and away from trying to take a Republican state like, maybe, Ohio or Florida and holding all their blue states.
Now, the statistics are daunting for the Republicans to try to make the race interesting here in the Golden State. The Democrats have won the last four presidential elections here, starting with former president William Jefferson Blythe Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry. The Golden State is nothing but a cash cow for both parties. Other than fund raisers, neither party candidates spend time here.
But, there are two things that can change the dynamic and if neither comes to pass, it still is time for the Republicans to make a serious challenge here in California.
For one, the presidential primary will be on February 5, 2008. It was moved up from June to have some impact on who the parties nominate for president. On the same date will be a ballot initiative that will change the way the electoral college votes here are distributed.
In the past the winner of the state took all 55 electoral votes. If the initiative passes, it will make a two-tier distribution. Two votes are automatic to the winner of the most votes in the state. But, the other 53 will go by the winner of the congressional district. Thus, the Republicans would possibly win 22 or as many as 25 electoral votes. That would offset a possible loss of Ohio or Florida. It would make both parties have to spend time here. The Democrats hate it, the Republicans are, correctly, looking at a real way to make California relevant in the election itself. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska have a similar system and it has worked fine.
Even if the initiative does not win, there are demographic reasons why the Republicans need to make a serious effort.
The Democrats strength is in two areas of the state. The nine Bay Area counties, led by Alameda (Oakland) and San Francisco, and Los Angeles county. California is like two totally different states. Most of the coastal counties are Democrat or Democrat leaning. Sure, there are some Republican pockets like San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Mecca to the GOP, Orange and San Diego counties, but it is mostly liberal and Democrat country.
On the other hand, the Republican strength is like a spine down the middle of the state. From Northern California to the Mexican border is the Republican stronghold. These are growing counties with wide suburban and exburban area, ripe for the Republican picking. And here the other way are some Democrat pockets like Sacramento in the north and much smaller Imperial county in the south, but by and large, the fastest growing area in this state is in the Republican spine.
How do these Republican voters get excited if the election is already in the bag for the other side?
The conventional wisdom is there are six to maybe eight states in play for either side. The Democrats would love Colorado, Virginia or maybe Florida or Ohio. The Republicans would love Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
My thought, the switches will be less than those states. Maybe New Mexico goes back to the Democrats and New Hampshire to the Republicans. Look at Nevada as a possible swing state.
Ohio is a swing state, but will lean to the Republicans. Forget the Dems taking Florida. It is still a reliable Republican state. Virginia will stay Republican, as well as Colorado, but marginally.
Minnesota is a swing state despite the huge gains made in 2006 by the Democrats. Michigan will go GOP if Romney is the nominee. Wisconsin will be a huge catch for the Republicans, if they can keep the votes relatively honest in Milwaukee.
So, both parties may have to think out of the box. The Republicans can do worse than looking at California to build strength if not in 2008, maybe 2012. Forget New York. If Sen. Hilary Clinton is the nominee, she could take 70% of the vote without a blink. Pennsylvania is a lock for the Dems.
I think that the Republicans are going to have to go for broke this presidential election and making a play for California is one way to do it. Anything to drain the Democrat bank account and candidate time is worth it.
Now, the statistics are daunting for the Republicans to try to make the race interesting here in the Golden State. The Democrats have won the last four presidential elections here, starting with former president William Jefferson Blythe Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry. The Golden State is nothing but a cash cow for both parties. Other than fund raisers, neither party candidates spend time here.
But, there are two things that can change the dynamic and if neither comes to pass, it still is time for the Republicans to make a serious challenge here in California.
For one, the presidential primary will be on February 5, 2008. It was moved up from June to have some impact on who the parties nominate for president. On the same date will be a ballot initiative that will change the way the electoral college votes here are distributed.
In the past the winner of the state took all 55 electoral votes. If the initiative passes, it will make a two-tier distribution. Two votes are automatic to the winner of the most votes in the state. But, the other 53 will go by the winner of the congressional district. Thus, the Republicans would possibly win 22 or as many as 25 electoral votes. That would offset a possible loss of Ohio or Florida. It would make both parties have to spend time here. The Democrats hate it, the Republicans are, correctly, looking at a real way to make California relevant in the election itself. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska have a similar system and it has worked fine.
Even if the initiative does not win, there are demographic reasons why the Republicans need to make a serious effort.
The Democrats strength is in two areas of the state. The nine Bay Area counties, led by Alameda (Oakland) and San Francisco, and Los Angeles county. California is like two totally different states. Most of the coastal counties are Democrat or Democrat leaning. Sure, there are some Republican pockets like San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Mecca to the GOP, Orange and San Diego counties, but it is mostly liberal and Democrat country.
On the other hand, the Republican strength is like a spine down the middle of the state. From Northern California to the Mexican border is the Republican stronghold. These are growing counties with wide suburban and exburban area, ripe for the Republican picking. And here the other way are some Democrat pockets like Sacramento in the north and much smaller Imperial county in the south, but by and large, the fastest growing area in this state is in the Republican spine.
How do these Republican voters get excited if the election is already in the bag for the other side?
The conventional wisdom is there are six to maybe eight states in play for either side. The Democrats would love Colorado, Virginia or maybe Florida or Ohio. The Republicans would love Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
My thought, the switches will be less than those states. Maybe New Mexico goes back to the Democrats and New Hampshire to the Republicans. Look at Nevada as a possible swing state.
Ohio is a swing state, but will lean to the Republicans. Forget the Dems taking Florida. It is still a reliable Republican state. Virginia will stay Republican, as well as Colorado, but marginally.
Minnesota is a swing state despite the huge gains made in 2006 by the Democrats. Michigan will go GOP if Romney is the nominee. Wisconsin will be a huge catch for the Republicans, if they can keep the votes relatively honest in Milwaukee.
So, both parties may have to think out of the box. The Republicans can do worse than looking at California to build strength if not in 2008, maybe 2012. Forget New York. If Sen. Hilary Clinton is the nominee, she could take 70% of the vote without a blink. Pennsylvania is a lock for the Dems.
I think that the Republicans are going to have to go for broke this presidential election and making a play for California is one way to do it. Anything to drain the Democrat bank account and candidate time is worth it.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Young People Are Not Enamored By Christianity?
An article in USA Today http://USAtoday.com that was published on Thursday paints a very uphill battle for the Christian faith among young people in the United States.
The article sites a book based on research by The Barna Group, an evangelical organization that analyzes religious trends, that says people in the always popular 18-29 age group are turned off by their perception of Christianity and the most highlighted negatives are the "judgementalism" and "anti-gay" attitudes of Christians.
The writer of the article, Adelle M. Banks of the Religion News Service really went after the modernists bogeymen, "judgementalism" and "anti-gay"
According to Miss Banks, the author of "UnChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity", David Kinnaman says the following:
"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the. . .defining response of the Christian church in the next decade. The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."
Hmm, what a loaded bunch of rhetoric considering that this is all based of a sample of 867 young people, 440 non-Christians and 305 active churchgoers.
According to the findings, 91% of non-Christians said that Christianity has an anti-homosexual image, 87% said too "judgemental" and 85% that it is hypocritical.
Now that I have presented the basis of the article, here are some observations.
It is not a good thing to use a mere 867 people and claim that is the prevailing view among young people about Christianity. The article implies that it is irreproachable to mend these young people's perception and understanding of the Christian message.
The fact that three points of note, views on homosexuality, "judgementalism" and hypocrisy, show the biases of both the book author, Mr. Kinnaman and the article's writer, Miss Banks.
How about the fact that when there is trouble, there are the multitude of Christian agencies from multiple denominations that are usually first on the scene to offer assistance? The Salvation Army was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina faster than the Louisiana National Guard.
It was Christian relief agencies that swarmed all over Asia in the wake of the Christmas earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia.
Also, what about the fact that it is Christians that run almost all of the rescue missions in most of the United States major cities? Take care of the homeless?
I will be the first to write that there is a lot of carnage in the dispute between Christians about homosexuality and there are flamethrowers on both sides who site the Holy Bible to prop up their view concerning homosexuality. But, if there are such disputes, why are these young people unaware that there are many Christians that are very sympathetic with homosexuals and are very welcoming to those who are gay or lesbian?
Also, I will agree that we who are Christian do often tell others what we are against and not what we are for.
Where I find all of this information faulting is the fact that there is an absolute hunger among this young group for something other than what this secular world offers. And that is where the church in general fails to go after the most vulnerable group in positive ways.
The reason that God gave the gift of Jesus Christ was to save people from their own ways and to show the ways of an almighty God.
The message of Jesus Christ is that the world can be better if people turn to God.
If there was not a hunger for faith, spirituality or whatever one wants to call it, then someone like Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California would not have one of the largest selling books of all time, "The Purpose Driven Life" which is a clear, positive message about Jesus Christ.
Pastor Warren was cited in the article and said something profound:
"The church will become know more by what it is for than what it is against."
AMEN, BROTHER!
Poor Pastor Warren ran into trouble when he hosted a conference on AIDS in Africa at his church earlier this year and invited two United States senators, Sam Brownback (R-Kans) and Barack Obama (D-Ill) because of inviting Sen. Obama because he is pro-abortion. Now, if we are going to change anyone, especially another professing Christian as is Sen. Obama, on an faith issue, we do not close the door. Clearly a case of what some Christians are against more than what they are for.
Sadly, politics has been a reason that there is such hostility between Christians and non-Christians and even among Christians. I for one believe in using the terms traditional and modernist rather than the political labels conservative and liberal in discussing affairs of church and faith. That maybe a little start.
I think that if nothing else, the article and book gives those of us who are Christians a way to take the negatives and make them positives. After all, that is what Jesus Christ did.
The article sites a book based on research by The Barna Group, an evangelical organization that analyzes religious trends, that says people in the always popular 18-29 age group are turned off by their perception of Christianity and the most highlighted negatives are the "judgementalism" and "anti-gay" attitudes of Christians.
The writer of the article, Adelle M. Banks of the Religion News Service really went after the modernists bogeymen, "judgementalism" and "anti-gay"
According to Miss Banks, the author of "UnChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity", David Kinnaman says the following:
"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the. . .defining response of the Christian church in the next decade. The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."
Hmm, what a loaded bunch of rhetoric considering that this is all based of a sample of 867 young people, 440 non-Christians and 305 active churchgoers.
According to the findings, 91% of non-Christians said that Christianity has an anti-homosexual image, 87% said too "judgemental" and 85% that it is hypocritical.
Now that I have presented the basis of the article, here are some observations.
It is not a good thing to use a mere 867 people and claim that is the prevailing view among young people about Christianity. The article implies that it is irreproachable to mend these young people's perception and understanding of the Christian message.
The fact that three points of note, views on homosexuality, "judgementalism" and hypocrisy, show the biases of both the book author, Mr. Kinnaman and the article's writer, Miss Banks.
How about the fact that when there is trouble, there are the multitude of Christian agencies from multiple denominations that are usually first on the scene to offer assistance? The Salvation Army was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina faster than the Louisiana National Guard.
It was Christian relief agencies that swarmed all over Asia in the wake of the Christmas earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia.
Also, what about the fact that it is Christians that run almost all of the rescue missions in most of the United States major cities? Take care of the homeless?
I will be the first to write that there is a lot of carnage in the dispute between Christians about homosexuality and there are flamethrowers on both sides who site the Holy Bible to prop up their view concerning homosexuality. But, if there are such disputes, why are these young people unaware that there are many Christians that are very sympathetic with homosexuals and are very welcoming to those who are gay or lesbian?
Also, I will agree that we who are Christian do often tell others what we are against and not what we are for.
Where I find all of this information faulting is the fact that there is an absolute hunger among this young group for something other than what this secular world offers. And that is where the church in general fails to go after the most vulnerable group in positive ways.
The reason that God gave the gift of Jesus Christ was to save people from their own ways and to show the ways of an almighty God.
The message of Jesus Christ is that the world can be better if people turn to God.
If there was not a hunger for faith, spirituality or whatever one wants to call it, then someone like Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California would not have one of the largest selling books of all time, "The Purpose Driven Life" which is a clear, positive message about Jesus Christ.
Pastor Warren was cited in the article and said something profound:
"The church will become know more by what it is for than what it is against."
AMEN, BROTHER!
Poor Pastor Warren ran into trouble when he hosted a conference on AIDS in Africa at his church earlier this year and invited two United States senators, Sam Brownback (R-Kans) and Barack Obama (D-Ill) because of inviting Sen. Obama because he is pro-abortion. Now, if we are going to change anyone, especially another professing Christian as is Sen. Obama, on an faith issue, we do not close the door. Clearly a case of what some Christians are against more than what they are for.
Sadly, politics has been a reason that there is such hostility between Christians and non-Christians and even among Christians. I for one believe in using the terms traditional and modernist rather than the political labels conservative and liberal in discussing affairs of church and faith. That maybe a little start.
I think that if nothing else, the article and book gives those of us who are Christians a way to take the negatives and make them positives. After all, that is what Jesus Christ did.
Jonah Knows Best
I urge all readers of this blog to go to National Review Online http://nationalreview.com and read Jonah Goldberg's piece on Ronald Reagan.
It is what many people on the center right say including Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com and myself.
Ronald Reagan was unique to his time. The right man at the right time. The conservatism that he espoused was right at the time.
Today, the issues are different and the fight for our survival is different. Some, like taxes and the proper role of government never go away. But, what can be learned from Ronald Reagan is the resolve and willingness to adjust the methods, but never waver from the message and the result.
One thing is clear. Conservatism is not just about saying no to change. It is to effect change that takes what is best from the past and adjust it to today. For instance, raising taxes does not make an economy better. Breaking up the traditional family, mom and dad and kids, does not make for a better society. There are many other examples.
So, we have to look at those who are running as a conservative Republican, look at their record and make an educated decision on who best to lead the Republican party to victory in 2008.
And, you know where I stand.
Mitt Romney has a chance to become a conservative hero and I believe that he will rise to the challenge.
It is what many people on the center right say including Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com and myself.
Ronald Reagan was unique to his time. The right man at the right time. The conservatism that he espoused was right at the time.
Today, the issues are different and the fight for our survival is different. Some, like taxes and the proper role of government never go away. But, what can be learned from Ronald Reagan is the resolve and willingness to adjust the methods, but never waver from the message and the result.
One thing is clear. Conservatism is not just about saying no to change. It is to effect change that takes what is best from the past and adjust it to today. For instance, raising taxes does not make an economy better. Breaking up the traditional family, mom and dad and kids, does not make for a better society. There are many other examples.
So, we have to look at those who are running as a conservative Republican, look at their record and make an educated decision on who best to lead the Republican party to victory in 2008.
And, you know where I stand.
Mitt Romney has a chance to become a conservative hero and I believe that he will rise to the challenge.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
How One Runs A Campaign And How One Governs Don't Always Jive
Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, is taking a hit from his left on the type of campaign he ran in in 1994 United States senate race against veteran gasbag, Ted Kennedy. Only it is not from Democrats but the most left-wing Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay and lesbian Republicans.
The Log Cabins are running television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire that are using statements Mr. Romney made in the campaign especially damning is how Mr. Romney admits that he was not a fan of the Reagan/Bush years. Mr. Romney also said that he would be better for gay and lesbians than Sen. Kennedy. That has to be a stretch. Maybe Mr. Romney had a mickey slipped to him to make such a claim. But, they are there.
And, no doubt that even in a Republican avalanche that was 1994, Mr. Romney lost to Sen. Kennedy. But, if there is any solace, Mr. Romney came the closest before or since to defeat the icon of the left.
And, Mr. Romney deserved to lose.
Fast forward to 2002 when Mr. Romney ran for and won as governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney moved to the right, as one can get, in Massachusetts on social issues and won.
When the Massachusetts supreme court divined the constitutional "right" to same sex marriage, Mr. Romney led opposition to it and fought against all odds to try to put the question to a vote of the people. Unfortunately, to get a constitutional question on the ballot is almost an act of God and with Democrats in control of the state legislature with roughly 85% of all seats in the House and Senate combined, he failed and his Democrat successor, Deval Patrick, let it die in the state legislature.
Mr. Romney, carefully, said that he would do nothing to change the abortion laws in Massachusetts. Meaning that if the legislature tried to liberalize the law, Mr. Romney would veto it.
As governor, he did not raise taxes and balanced an out of control state budget.
For some reason, gay and lesbian Republicans do not like that.
The reason is obvious.
The Log Cabins in a sense feel that that the Romney of 1994, a loser and on the wrong side of social and economic issues, is better than the Romney of 2007, the very potential Republican nominee for president.
I suppose the fear of the Log Cabins is that a President Romney will appoint just enough justices to the supreme court that will more than likely decide whether there is a federal constitutional "right" to same sex marriage. And, they would be right. It is called a constructionist. Someone who does not divine the constitution to his or her whim, but tries to reason the intent of the authors.
Log Cabins need to do a better job at reaching out-to fellow Republicans-if they expect to change any minds on same sex marriage. Alienating their fellow GOPers makes no sense.
The other aspect is where are the Log Cabins getting the money to put on the television ads? Also, which Republican candidate are they supporting and if that candidate does not win the nomination, will they support the winner? I doubt it.
The interesting meaning of all of this is that sometimes a candidate, in a race for one office will run to the left and when running for another, and this is key, office in a different time, to the right. And for Republicans, the right always wins.
And that is the Romney story. And he is catching hell from a group that calls itself loyal Republicans, but more often than not, sound like Democrats.
For the Log Cabins, they are chewing their nose off for no other reason than to discredit the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. If they want to be recognized and given a place at the table, one would think that they can do better than the lifting for the Democrats.
The Log Cabins are running television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire that are using statements Mr. Romney made in the campaign especially damning is how Mr. Romney admits that he was not a fan of the Reagan/Bush years. Mr. Romney also said that he would be better for gay and lesbians than Sen. Kennedy. That has to be a stretch. Maybe Mr. Romney had a mickey slipped to him to make such a claim. But, they are there.
And, no doubt that even in a Republican avalanche that was 1994, Mr. Romney lost to Sen. Kennedy. But, if there is any solace, Mr. Romney came the closest before or since to defeat the icon of the left.
And, Mr. Romney deserved to lose.
Fast forward to 2002 when Mr. Romney ran for and won as governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney moved to the right, as one can get, in Massachusetts on social issues and won.
When the Massachusetts supreme court divined the constitutional "right" to same sex marriage, Mr. Romney led opposition to it and fought against all odds to try to put the question to a vote of the people. Unfortunately, to get a constitutional question on the ballot is almost an act of God and with Democrats in control of the state legislature with roughly 85% of all seats in the House and Senate combined, he failed and his Democrat successor, Deval Patrick, let it die in the state legislature.
Mr. Romney, carefully, said that he would do nothing to change the abortion laws in Massachusetts. Meaning that if the legislature tried to liberalize the law, Mr. Romney would veto it.
As governor, he did not raise taxes and balanced an out of control state budget.
For some reason, gay and lesbian Republicans do not like that.
The reason is obvious.
The Log Cabins in a sense feel that that the Romney of 1994, a loser and on the wrong side of social and economic issues, is better than the Romney of 2007, the very potential Republican nominee for president.
I suppose the fear of the Log Cabins is that a President Romney will appoint just enough justices to the supreme court that will more than likely decide whether there is a federal constitutional "right" to same sex marriage. And, they would be right. It is called a constructionist. Someone who does not divine the constitution to his or her whim, but tries to reason the intent of the authors.
Log Cabins need to do a better job at reaching out-to fellow Republicans-if they expect to change any minds on same sex marriage. Alienating their fellow GOPers makes no sense.
The other aspect is where are the Log Cabins getting the money to put on the television ads? Also, which Republican candidate are they supporting and if that candidate does not win the nomination, will they support the winner? I doubt it.
The interesting meaning of all of this is that sometimes a candidate, in a race for one office will run to the left and when running for another, and this is key, office in a different time, to the right. And for Republicans, the right always wins.
And that is the Romney story. And he is catching hell from a group that calls itself loyal Republicans, but more often than not, sound like Democrats.
For the Log Cabins, they are chewing their nose off for no other reason than to discredit the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. If they want to be recognized and given a place at the table, one would think that they can do better than the lifting for the Democrats.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Will Chris Matthews Ask Serious Questions About President Bush Siding WIth A Murdering Rapist Against The Will Of The American People?
Sorry for the long title of this post! But, tonight will be another Republican debate and it will be on MSNBC and Chris Matthews will be a moderator. I can leave it at that, but I would like to know, will Mr. Matthews ask the Republican candidates what their stand is on the Jose Medellin issue?
Jose Medellin is drawing international attention as the Mexican national who was convicted of the savage rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 16 and Elizabeth Pena, 14, in 1993.
According to decision of the International Court of "Justice" (my quotations) the aforementioned Mr. Medellin should not be sentenced to death in Texas because he was not told that he could contact a representative of the Mexican consulate as well as the right to remain silent and to an attorney.
Apparently, President Bush tried to put pressure on Texas to vacate the death sentence and the reasoning is that it may affect the way Americans are treated abroad to the whims of other nations legal systems.
Sorry Mr. President, but that just does not wash.
Mr. Medellin was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas where the crimes occurred. Mr. Medellin was aided in this latest scam by the government of Mexico, which does not have a death penalty in law, but is a very corrupt legal system in which the peso or the greenback talks.
So far, there has been no comment from the top-tier Republican presidential candidates as to the indefensible position that the Bush administration is going to argue before the United States supreme court tomorrow on the defendant's behalf.
Will Mr. Matthews spend any time on this very serious issue tonight? I do not think so. But, we can let the White House know how we feel now. Call the White House at 202-456-1414 and let them know how you feel about this. It may change the view and it may not, but it could determine what kind of argument the solicitor general makes tomorrow at the supreme court. Also, call the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500 and let them know that this does not help a party that stands for the rule of law and a federal system that devolves power to the most local level, not some potentates in the Hague. E-mail Chris Matthews at hardball@msnbc.com and let him know to ask the Republican presidential candidates what they would do in this situation.
If Chris Matthews wants people to know that he is not biased against the Republicans, ask him to put these candidates on the record. Time for these people who want our votes to take a stand for America and the rule of American law.
Jose Medellin is drawing international attention as the Mexican national who was convicted of the savage rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 16 and Elizabeth Pena, 14, in 1993.
According to decision of the International Court of "Justice" (my quotations) the aforementioned Mr. Medellin should not be sentenced to death in Texas because he was not told that he could contact a representative of the Mexican consulate as well as the right to remain silent and to an attorney.
Apparently, President Bush tried to put pressure on Texas to vacate the death sentence and the reasoning is that it may affect the way Americans are treated abroad to the whims of other nations legal systems.
Sorry Mr. President, but that just does not wash.
Mr. Medellin was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas where the crimes occurred. Mr. Medellin was aided in this latest scam by the government of Mexico, which does not have a death penalty in law, but is a very corrupt legal system in which the peso or the greenback talks.
So far, there has been no comment from the top-tier Republican presidential candidates as to the indefensible position that the Bush administration is going to argue before the United States supreme court tomorrow on the defendant's behalf.
Will Mr. Matthews spend any time on this very serious issue tonight? I do not think so. But, we can let the White House know how we feel now. Call the White House at 202-456-1414 and let them know how you feel about this. It may change the view and it may not, but it could determine what kind of argument the solicitor general makes tomorrow at the supreme court. Also, call the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500 and let them know that this does not help a party that stands for the rule of law and a federal system that devolves power to the most local level, not some potentates in the Hague. E-mail Chris Matthews at hardball@msnbc.com and let him know to ask the Republican presidential candidates what they would do in this situation.
If Chris Matthews wants people to know that he is not biased against the Republicans, ask him to put these candidates on the record. Time for these people who want our votes to take a stand for America and the rule of American law.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Whose Constitution Does President Bush Enforce?
In what can only be another bizarre move by the Bush administration whereas illegal immigration is concerned, the justice department will file a brief supporting the so-called International Court of Justice, or the World Court, in a case of a Texas death row inmate and thus vacating the death sentence.
President Bush is supporting the ICJ's interpretation of the 1963 Vienna Convention, but not really. http://www.townhall.com. According to the article, President Bush does not agree with the decision but will support it to protect American citizens abroad.
So, what is the decision?
That the ICJ said that convicted rapist and murderer Jose Ernesto Medellin was denied the "right" to contact the local Mexican consulate to get legal advice. The fact that the objection was not raised at trial was irrelevant to the ICJ. The fact that Mr. Medellin did give a written confession also did not matter.
Mexico decided to sue the United States in the ICJ because they do not have the death penalty and the United States does. And, Mr. Medellin is a Mexican citizen. It is not clear if Mr. Medellin was an illegal alien because he has been in the United States most of his life.
So, how brutal was the crime Mr. Medellin and his fellow gang-bangers commit?
Mr. Medellin and four others accosted Jennifer Ertman, 14 and her friend, Elizabeth Pena, 16 as they were taking a short cut home on a railroad trestle. The five cretins then gang-raped the two girls and strangled them to death and their bodies were found four days later.
Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death because the murder occurred during a sexual assault which is a capital offense in Texas.
So, amazingly, this occurred in 1993. Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced in 1994. And, he still languishes on Texas death row while coming up with a despicable way to avoid the state from carrying out the will of the people-his execution.
The United States Supreme Court will take up this case and we know there are several justices who like "International law" and convention over the United States constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer comes quickly to mind.
Hopefully, there will be five sane minds that tells the Bush administration and the ICJ that American law is supreme and what a state decides on these matters is even more supreme.
Now, the president wants to pull out and no longer enforce this aspect of the 1963 Vienna convention treaty. But, not before it tries to commute a legitimate sentence by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas.
It appears that once again, President Bush and the open-borders crowd are willing to cave in rather than side with the United States constitution which is the law of this land, not some globaloney from the Hague.
There has to be a Republican presidential candidate to stand up and say this is an abomination and they would never side with the ICJ on this kind of issue. There is a chance when Republican presidential candidates debate tomorrow evening.
President Bush needs to recognize that this goes against all conservative principles of devolution of powers and is kowtowing to a corrupt nation, Mexico, that cares not a wit about "human rights" but does care about dumping more of its citizens into the United States illegally. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will decide that for him correctly.
President Bush is supporting the ICJ's interpretation of the 1963 Vienna Convention, but not really. http://www.townhall.com. According to the article, President Bush does not agree with the decision but will support it to protect American citizens abroad.
So, what is the decision?
That the ICJ said that convicted rapist and murderer Jose Ernesto Medellin was denied the "right" to contact the local Mexican consulate to get legal advice. The fact that the objection was not raised at trial was irrelevant to the ICJ. The fact that Mr. Medellin did give a written confession also did not matter.
Mexico decided to sue the United States in the ICJ because they do not have the death penalty and the United States does. And, Mr. Medellin is a Mexican citizen. It is not clear if Mr. Medellin was an illegal alien because he has been in the United States most of his life.
So, how brutal was the crime Mr. Medellin and his fellow gang-bangers commit?
Mr. Medellin and four others accosted Jennifer Ertman, 14 and her friend, Elizabeth Pena, 16 as they were taking a short cut home on a railroad trestle. The five cretins then gang-raped the two girls and strangled them to death and their bodies were found four days later.
Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death because the murder occurred during a sexual assault which is a capital offense in Texas.
So, amazingly, this occurred in 1993. Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced in 1994. And, he still languishes on Texas death row while coming up with a despicable way to avoid the state from carrying out the will of the people-his execution.
The United States Supreme Court will take up this case and we know there are several justices who like "International law" and convention over the United States constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer comes quickly to mind.
Hopefully, there will be five sane minds that tells the Bush administration and the ICJ that American law is supreme and what a state decides on these matters is even more supreme.
Now, the president wants to pull out and no longer enforce this aspect of the 1963 Vienna convention treaty. But, not before it tries to commute a legitimate sentence by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas.
It appears that once again, President Bush and the open-borders crowd are willing to cave in rather than side with the United States constitution which is the law of this land, not some globaloney from the Hague.
There has to be a Republican presidential candidate to stand up and say this is an abomination and they would never side with the ICJ on this kind of issue. There is a chance when Republican presidential candidates debate tomorrow evening.
President Bush needs to recognize that this goes against all conservative principles of devolution of powers and is kowtowing to a corrupt nation, Mexico, that cares not a wit about "human rights" but does care about dumping more of its citizens into the United States illegally. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will decide that for him correctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)