One of the few openly conservative, Republican people in Hollywood is Pat Sajak, host of the 25 year old Wheel Of Fortune television game show. Because he is who he is, only Mr. Sajak could have written this gem from Human Events http://humanevents.com:
If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, its those of us who live in the sheltered, privilaged arena of celebrityhood.
Can I get an AMEN, brother?!
The point of Mr. Sajak's column is that it really should not matter what the celbutard class says about who they are voting for and that you should too. And Mr. Sajak defends the right of those in the celbutard class to speak up on issues of the day. But, Mr. Sajak points out that because they are celebrities, people pay attention. And read his O. J. Simpson example.
People like Mr. Sajak make sense and that is probably why so few like Mr. Sajak end up becoming celebrities.
From what I see, it is emotional train wrecks with no strong foundation of any kind turn to becoming actors and actresses, singers, musicians, and other assorted entertainers. I know, that is not fair to lump everyone into the train wreck category, but it does appear that many of today's stars are just one step away from doing themselves in. That is sad. But, it does not mean that they have any vast knowledge of current events any more than you or I.
Like Pat Sajak who has had his head screwed on straight, there are some others, but they are so few real great examples for young people to look up to. And that is the real sad part.
So, to paraphrase Mr. Sajak, let the celebutard class make their endorsements, and take it with a grain of salt and inform yourself on the issues and who you are going to vote for.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
CNN-Conspiracy News Network
Hey, did you hear about the Republican YouBoob, er YouTube, debate last night? You know, how the host CNN let a bunch of Democrat political hacks ask questions, even though it was supposed to be undecided, Republican voters?
Of course, CNN does not know what to do. Shortly after the "debate", former Education Secretary and current radio talk show host Bill Bennett had to let the world know that the questioner who was the retired brigadier general asking about gays in the armed services was the leader of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Steering Committee for Sen. Hilary Clinton. How could Mr. Bennett know and no one else putting this "debate" together know? And why was Keith Kerr in the audience and given another chance to push a Democrat talking point?
Too many people, including many conservatives, are giving CNN correspondent Anderson Cooper a pass on this. NO WAY! No pass here. Had Mr. Cooper not went to this Mr. Kerr in the audience and given him a platform, there may have been a case that Mr. Cooper had no idea about Mr. Kerr's credentials. Mr. Cooper is feigning plausible deniability.
Michlle Malkin http://michellemalkin.com has blown this wide open when she found that there were people directly working for the Obama and Edwards campaigns asking questions that, surprise, made it to the air.
Now, why the Conspiracy News Network headline?
Because by the time they got to a question from a YouTuber for congressman Ron Paul, it was about the so-called North American Union and the role of such bogeymen as the Council On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Make Mr. Paul seem like a real whack job, which he obliged.
Mr. Paul is off the reservation on many an issue. But he is spot on on many issues, particularly on domestic issues. And he is raising a lot of money, much more than the DDBMSM flavor of the moment, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. He does deserve a serious question. I guess compared to the question about the Confederate stars and bars battle flag, it was a kind of serious question.
In thinking more about last night's fiasco, I would not be opposed to having that kind of forum, but with a lot more vetting and a serious moderator that would let all the candidates answer questions, not just the ones that may embarrass the most any given Republican candidate.
And the fact that because there was no serious vetting of the questions, most were Democrat talking points, which only means that CNN has no clue on issues that matter to Republican voters, such as the War Against Islamofacsist Terror or the role of the armed services in that fight. Or whether the size of the armed services should be increased. Or about overall national security. Or about reigning the the Leviathan of an ever growing federal government. No, we were treated to conspiracy, why Rudy Giuliani rooted for the Red Sox and a man asking a second amendment question holding a shot gun.
But, there must be credit given.
Somehow, the CNN censors, or vetters, let a question get on the air from a black gentleman from Los Angeles who laid out the conservative agenda and asked why more black Americans do not vote more for the party that really has their best interests, the Republicans. That was a question every single Republican candidate had to answer. But, only Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Huckabee got to give an answer. I wanted to know what Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John "F--- You" McCain, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and yes, even Ron Paul, thought about that.
The format was awful and the vetting of questions from the YouTube audience was even worse.
And that is why no one really watches CNN news any more. The mask is off and it is why it is the Conspiracy News Network
Of course, CNN does not know what to do. Shortly after the "debate", former Education Secretary and current radio talk show host Bill Bennett had to let the world know that the questioner who was the retired brigadier general asking about gays in the armed services was the leader of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Steering Committee for Sen. Hilary Clinton. How could Mr. Bennett know and no one else putting this "debate" together know? And why was Keith Kerr in the audience and given another chance to push a Democrat talking point?
Too many people, including many conservatives, are giving CNN correspondent Anderson Cooper a pass on this. NO WAY! No pass here. Had Mr. Cooper not went to this Mr. Kerr in the audience and given him a platform, there may have been a case that Mr. Cooper had no idea about Mr. Kerr's credentials. Mr. Cooper is feigning plausible deniability.
Michlle Malkin http://michellemalkin.com has blown this wide open when she found that there were people directly working for the Obama and Edwards campaigns asking questions that, surprise, made it to the air.
Now, why the Conspiracy News Network headline?
Because by the time they got to a question from a YouTuber for congressman Ron Paul, it was about the so-called North American Union and the role of such bogeymen as the Council On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Make Mr. Paul seem like a real whack job, which he obliged.
Mr. Paul is off the reservation on many an issue. But he is spot on on many issues, particularly on domestic issues. And he is raising a lot of money, much more than the DDBMSM flavor of the moment, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. He does deserve a serious question. I guess compared to the question about the Confederate stars and bars battle flag, it was a kind of serious question.
In thinking more about last night's fiasco, I would not be opposed to having that kind of forum, but with a lot more vetting and a serious moderator that would let all the candidates answer questions, not just the ones that may embarrass the most any given Republican candidate.
And the fact that because there was no serious vetting of the questions, most were Democrat talking points, which only means that CNN has no clue on issues that matter to Republican voters, such as the War Against Islamofacsist Terror or the role of the armed services in that fight. Or whether the size of the armed services should be increased. Or about overall national security. Or about reigning the the Leviathan of an ever growing federal government. No, we were treated to conspiracy, why Rudy Giuliani rooted for the Red Sox and a man asking a second amendment question holding a shot gun.
But, there must be credit given.
Somehow, the CNN censors, or vetters, let a question get on the air from a black gentleman from Los Angeles who laid out the conservative agenda and asked why more black Americans do not vote more for the party that really has their best interests, the Republicans. That was a question every single Republican candidate had to answer. But, only Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Huckabee got to give an answer. I wanted to know what Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John "F--- You" McCain, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and yes, even Ron Paul, thought about that.
The format was awful and the vetting of questions from the YouTube audience was even worse.
And that is why no one really watches CNN news any more. The mask is off and it is why it is the Conspiracy News Network
Henry Hyde 1924-2007
Today the United States lost a great leader and patriot as former congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill) died at hospital in Chicago.
Mr. Hyde should be remembered for many things, such as being a passionate defender of the unborn and led the passage of the Hyde amendment banning federal dollars being used to perform abortions, being a strong conservative in a moderate Illinois state Republican party, being a leading voice for a strong, aggressive foreign and defense policies. But, Mr. Hyde will forever go down as the leader of the House of Representative managers in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
During that trying time in American history, Mr. Hyde did not shy away or try to cut a deal. Mr. Hyde met the matter head on and pursed impeachment to its conclusion. Because Mr. Hyde chose to follow the law, he gained the scorn of the pro-Clinton crowd and suffered the humiliation of having an illicit affair from the 1960s become public. That's how the Clinton crowd played, trying to change the subject rather than face the reality of the serious charges brought against President Clinton. But not even that indignity stopped Mr. Hyde.
For that alone he deserves respect. Many of his fellow impeachment managers did not fare well in the 2000 elections. A California congressman, James Rogan, lost his bid for reelection. Mr. Hyde won and kept winning until he retired from congress in 2006.
Mr. Hyde served 16 terms or 32 years in the House of Representatives and was in when the Republican party suffered the humiliation of the Watergate mess and when the Republicans took control of congress in the 1994 midterm elections.
As chairman of the House International Affairs committee, he joined with then President Clinton opposing the 1973 War Powers Resolution and that was a principled move as some harder-line Republicans were trying to use that to curb President Clinton from sending troops to Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia.
Mr. Hyde was a man of great principles and that is sorely lacking in so many of the political class on both sides of the aisle in this day and age. Mr. Hyde was one of the strongest anti-abortion members of the House and never backed down. And, Mr Hyde was committed to stopping the scourge of HIV-AIDS as he led passage of a bill that funded prevention programs in developing nations. For that, Mr. Hyde was ahead of the curve on that issue.
There have been few men or women who had the commitment like that of Henry Hyde in my 43 years on God's earth, but I am thankful he was in this time and is a lesson for all who aspire to the political arena. God Bless Henry Hyde.
Mr. Hyde should be remembered for many things, such as being a passionate defender of the unborn and led the passage of the Hyde amendment banning federal dollars being used to perform abortions, being a strong conservative in a moderate Illinois state Republican party, being a leading voice for a strong, aggressive foreign and defense policies. But, Mr. Hyde will forever go down as the leader of the House of Representative managers in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
During that trying time in American history, Mr. Hyde did not shy away or try to cut a deal. Mr. Hyde met the matter head on and pursed impeachment to its conclusion. Because Mr. Hyde chose to follow the law, he gained the scorn of the pro-Clinton crowd and suffered the humiliation of having an illicit affair from the 1960s become public. That's how the Clinton crowd played, trying to change the subject rather than face the reality of the serious charges brought against President Clinton. But not even that indignity stopped Mr. Hyde.
For that alone he deserves respect. Many of his fellow impeachment managers did not fare well in the 2000 elections. A California congressman, James Rogan, lost his bid for reelection. Mr. Hyde won and kept winning until he retired from congress in 2006.
Mr. Hyde served 16 terms or 32 years in the House of Representatives and was in when the Republican party suffered the humiliation of the Watergate mess and when the Republicans took control of congress in the 1994 midterm elections.
As chairman of the House International Affairs committee, he joined with then President Clinton opposing the 1973 War Powers Resolution and that was a principled move as some harder-line Republicans were trying to use that to curb President Clinton from sending troops to Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia.
Mr. Hyde was a man of great principles and that is sorely lacking in so many of the political class on both sides of the aisle in this day and age. Mr. Hyde was one of the strongest anti-abortion members of the House and never backed down. And, Mr Hyde was committed to stopping the scourge of HIV-AIDS as he led passage of a bill that funded prevention programs in developing nations. For that, Mr. Hyde was ahead of the curve on that issue.
There have been few men or women who had the commitment like that of Henry Hyde in my 43 years on God's earth, but I am thankful he was in this time and is a lesson for all who aspire to the political arena. God Bless Henry Hyde.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The GOP You Boob, Er You Tube Debate Fiasco
After watching the last portion of the Republican YouTube debate on CNN, I agree with radio talker Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com that this is not the way important issues of the day should be debated. It was, in a word, bizarre.
Having written that, a very important fact will not be noted in the DDBMSM. That the Republican candidates endured the inane questions and the Anderson Cooper handoffs to the candidate that he thought the general questions would hurt the most while the Democrat presidential candidates will not appear on one sponsored and questioned by the Fox News Channel. For according to the Democrat candidates, Fox News is biased to the right. And allowing a Hilary Clinton plant to not only ask a YouTube question, but continue as a member of the audience shows no bias to the left?
So, for just showing up, the Republican candidates can not say they ran away the way Democrat candidates are from Fox News.
But, that does not mean that this format, in which people submit questions via the internet is any better than having inane people like Chris Matthews of NBC do the questions.
So, some observations.
Mitt Romney is looking more and more presidential every day and may have pulled away tonight and the national numbers may finally catch up with the Iowa and New Hampshire numbers. John "F--- You" McCain looked like he could have said that several times in the debate. But, so long as he makes an issue out of how Americans treat potential terrorists and whether or not terror suspects are "tortured", Sen. "F--- You" McCain looks weaker and weaker. Ron Paul got the conspiracy question of the night about the push for a so-called North American Union. And, Mr. Paul did not disappoint by saying a lot about nothing and agreeing with the basic premise. Mike Huckabee could be the comedian in chief, and while the shtick is good now, it won't last in the long run. Duncan Hunter continues to run for Defense Secretary and his honest answer about homosexuals serving openly in the armed services may come back to haunt him. Where was Tom Tancredo? And the front-runner, Rudy Giuliani? Well, trying to stick it hard to Mr. Romney over hiring illegal aliens. But, this may have been one of Mr. Giuliani's weakest performances to date. Oh, and Fred Thompson was acting like the vice-president he may be. And, Mr. Thompson will take it if asked!
But come on, some of the questions.
Like the aforementioned one by the retired general about homosexuals openly serving in the armed forces. Had the You Boob people and CNN done some real vetting, this would have never made it to the debate. At least not from a Hilary Clinton plant. And to give this Brigadier General Kerr a chance to further his cause because he was in the audience was bad. See if this would happen in a Democrat You Boob debate.
Then there is the always pressing national issue of the old stars and bars Confederate battle flag and whether or not it should be a state flag or part of a state flag. It is an issue, but not in this debate.
And why not end this insipid debate but with a question to Mr. Giuliani as to why he cheered on the Boston Red Sox to a World Series triumph after Mr. Giuliani's beloved New York Yankees were knocked out of the playoffs?
There were few if any serious questions about the War Against Islamofacsist Terror or the events in the Iraq theatre of this war. But, the first 35 minutes were on questions about illegal immigration. Now, it is an important issue, but it is within the national security question and the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. Most of the illegal alien questions asked and "vetted" by YouTube and CNN were to make the Republican candidates all sound like the increasingly paranoid Pat Buchanan.
We have seen it all in this death march of a presidential campaign, but one thing that needs to go away for a long time is this YouTube format. It does not give the people a larger voice for it is not just anyone ask any questions and what is vetted is a freak show in and of itself. Improve the format and take it out of the hands of CNN, and maybe a real discussion about real issues will happen. Until then, it will be a freak show.
Having written that, a very important fact will not be noted in the DDBMSM. That the Republican candidates endured the inane questions and the Anderson Cooper handoffs to the candidate that he thought the general questions would hurt the most while the Democrat presidential candidates will not appear on one sponsored and questioned by the Fox News Channel. For according to the Democrat candidates, Fox News is biased to the right. And allowing a Hilary Clinton plant to not only ask a YouTube question, but continue as a member of the audience shows no bias to the left?
So, for just showing up, the Republican candidates can not say they ran away the way Democrat candidates are from Fox News.
But, that does not mean that this format, in which people submit questions via the internet is any better than having inane people like Chris Matthews of NBC do the questions.
So, some observations.
Mitt Romney is looking more and more presidential every day and may have pulled away tonight and the national numbers may finally catch up with the Iowa and New Hampshire numbers. John "F--- You" McCain looked like he could have said that several times in the debate. But, so long as he makes an issue out of how Americans treat potential terrorists and whether or not terror suspects are "tortured", Sen. "F--- You" McCain looks weaker and weaker. Ron Paul got the conspiracy question of the night about the push for a so-called North American Union. And, Mr. Paul did not disappoint by saying a lot about nothing and agreeing with the basic premise. Mike Huckabee could be the comedian in chief, and while the shtick is good now, it won't last in the long run. Duncan Hunter continues to run for Defense Secretary and his honest answer about homosexuals serving openly in the armed services may come back to haunt him. Where was Tom Tancredo? And the front-runner, Rudy Giuliani? Well, trying to stick it hard to Mr. Romney over hiring illegal aliens. But, this may have been one of Mr. Giuliani's weakest performances to date. Oh, and Fred Thompson was acting like the vice-president he may be. And, Mr. Thompson will take it if asked!
But come on, some of the questions.
Like the aforementioned one by the retired general about homosexuals openly serving in the armed forces. Had the You Boob people and CNN done some real vetting, this would have never made it to the debate. At least not from a Hilary Clinton plant. And to give this Brigadier General Kerr a chance to further his cause because he was in the audience was bad. See if this would happen in a Democrat You Boob debate.
Then there is the always pressing national issue of the old stars and bars Confederate battle flag and whether or not it should be a state flag or part of a state flag. It is an issue, but not in this debate.
And why not end this insipid debate but with a question to Mr. Giuliani as to why he cheered on the Boston Red Sox to a World Series triumph after Mr. Giuliani's beloved New York Yankees were knocked out of the playoffs?
There were few if any serious questions about the War Against Islamofacsist Terror or the events in the Iraq theatre of this war. But, the first 35 minutes were on questions about illegal immigration. Now, it is an important issue, but it is within the national security question and the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. Most of the illegal alien questions asked and "vetted" by YouTube and CNN were to make the Republican candidates all sound like the increasingly paranoid Pat Buchanan.
We have seen it all in this death march of a presidential campaign, but one thing that needs to go away for a long time is this YouTube format. It does not give the people a larger voice for it is not just anyone ask any questions and what is vetted is a freak show in and of itself. Improve the format and take it out of the hands of CNN, and maybe a real discussion about real issues will happen. Until then, it will be a freak show.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Bold Prediction
This is my prediction for the upcoming Iowa Caucus for both the Democrat and Republicans.
For the GOP, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will win. Period. Here will be the second place finisher, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Why? Because when the GOPers go to caucus, they do not want to throw their votes away. And while the majority will go with Mr. Romney, those that will not vote that far, yet, will create the Thompson firewall. I am sorry to say that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani will finish no higher than forth. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee will be the third place finisher.
For the Dems, Illinois senator Barack Obama will pull off the upset. Sen Hilary Clinton (D-NY) will get no higher than third as former North Carolina senator John Edwards will ride the left-wing populist train to a second place. Why Obama? Why not?! Sen. Obama may make Democrat caucus goers think, Sen. Clinton has huge negatives. She can not beat the top five Republicans head to head, according to a new Zogby poll. Obama has lower negatives, follows the left wing of the party and seems to connect better with the public.
What is great about this prediction is that it is not in stone. It is all about today's events. But, I think that it is going to be this way come January 3, 2008 when the Iowa voters cast the first votes. We shall see and as it gets closer, these predictions can change. I hope they do not.
For the GOP, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will win. Period. Here will be the second place finisher, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Why? Because when the GOPers go to caucus, they do not want to throw their votes away. And while the majority will go with Mr. Romney, those that will not vote that far, yet, will create the Thompson firewall. I am sorry to say that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani will finish no higher than forth. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee will be the third place finisher.
For the Dems, Illinois senator Barack Obama will pull off the upset. Sen Hilary Clinton (D-NY) will get no higher than third as former North Carolina senator John Edwards will ride the left-wing populist train to a second place. Why Obama? Why not?! Sen. Obama may make Democrat caucus goers think, Sen. Clinton has huge negatives. She can not beat the top five Republicans head to head, according to a new Zogby poll. Obama has lower negatives, follows the left wing of the party and seems to connect better with the public.
What is great about this prediction is that it is not in stone. It is all about today's events. But, I think that it is going to be this way come January 3, 2008 when the Iowa voters cast the first votes. We shall see and as it gets closer, these predictions can change. I hope they do not.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Bye-Bye Lott
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss) is finally calling it quits and for this Republican, it is good riddance.
Sen. Lott is going to leave the senate at the end of the year http://FoxNews.com and Republican governor Haley Barbour will get to name a temporary replacement. More than likely, that replacement will run in an election to finish Sen. Lott's term which runs until 2012.
This should be a pretty easy seat for the Republicans to keep. But Sen. Lott has been a bad leader and senator for a while now.
Even before he waxed about how the United States would have been better off if Strom Thurmond won the presidency in 1948, he was a terrible leader who never stood for Republican principles. It was who could get the most at the trough and Sen. Lott was usually at the front of the trough line.
While Sen. Lott came back to be the assistant senate Republican leader, he again was backing the worst piece of legislation in the current congress-the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. Sen. Lott even took it so far as not only to blame conservative talk radio, but sounded like there would be no problem for him if the "fairness doctrine" came back. Too bad many talk radio listeners ever voted for this guy.
Sen. Lott is exactly the case in why term limits are necessary. He has been in Washington for 34 years and is proud of it. No one should be in Washington for 34 years. But, people like Sen. Lott love the power that incumbency breeds. And round and round and the problem does not go away.
So, it is with no regret that I say, Bye-Bye Lott.
Sen. Lott is going to leave the senate at the end of the year http://FoxNews.com and Republican governor Haley Barbour will get to name a temporary replacement. More than likely, that replacement will run in an election to finish Sen. Lott's term which runs until 2012.
This should be a pretty easy seat for the Republicans to keep. But Sen. Lott has been a bad leader and senator for a while now.
Even before he waxed about how the United States would have been better off if Strom Thurmond won the presidency in 1948, he was a terrible leader who never stood for Republican principles. It was who could get the most at the trough and Sen. Lott was usually at the front of the trough line.
While Sen. Lott came back to be the assistant senate Republican leader, he again was backing the worst piece of legislation in the current congress-the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. Sen. Lott even took it so far as not only to blame conservative talk radio, but sounded like there would be no problem for him if the "fairness doctrine" came back. Too bad many talk radio listeners ever voted for this guy.
Sen. Lott is exactly the case in why term limits are necessary. He has been in Washington for 34 years and is proud of it. No one should be in Washington for 34 years. But, people like Sen. Lott love the power that incumbency breeds. And round and round and the problem does not go away.
So, it is with no regret that I say, Bye-Bye Lott.
Good Lord, Archbishop Of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, is the spiritual leader of worldwide Anglicanism, and the Episcopal Church of which I am a member still, for now, is part of the Anglican Communion. But, that does not mean Archbishop Williams knows what he is talking about when it comes to the foreign policy of the United States as evidenced in an interview with an Islamic "lifestyle" magazine.
Archbishop Williams said in the interview http://timesonline.co.uk that the United States wields its power worse that the British did during the height of the British empire. Archbishop Williams said that the United States was "clearing the decks with a quick burst of action that led to the worst of all worlds."
Where shall we begin? How about Britain during the heyday of the empire. Shall we start with a little battle called the American Revolution? Why did Britain fight the colonists for six years with brute force? How about the war with the Boers in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century. It was during the Anglo-Boer war that the term "concentration camp" first came to being. And how about the way that Britain left their colonies in total disarray starting with India in the late 1940s to Rhodesia in 1980 which became Zimbabwe and a hell on earth thanks to Robert Mugabe?
It seems like the old British empire had no problem to use force when they thought it was necessary.
It appears that Archbishop Williams forgets that the terrorist attacks against the United States on 9/11 were caused by Islamic fanatics hell bent on creating a modern Caliphate. For Archbishop Williams continued that American leadership had broken down and that the United States was the only hegemonic power and that its attempt to influence rather than take over by force was not working.
The reason it may not be working is when people like the Archbishop Williams are loathe to criticize the extremism of certain Islamics. Archbishop Williams fails to point out the horrors of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the monstrous abuse of women in most Islamic nations. No, Archbishop Williams finds time to praise the praying five times a day as allowing the remembrance of God in their daily rhythm of prayer. What Archbishop Williams should have asked is what are they praying for, or against.
And the harshest criticism of Islam? Is that its political solutions were not the most impressive. Not impressive? How about abysmal and downright abominable?
No, Archbishop Williams saves the best slams for the United States. A direct quote:
The chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God's purpose for humanity.
Maybe it is because American Christians are always seeking to know what that is and the people of Britain have given up because the Church of England is led people like Archbishop Williams who do nothing to expand the faith. Maybe it is because American Christians have a better understanding of the Holy Bible and are trying to liberate a people that have been prisoners of circumstance through no fault of their own.
A point of note.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair nominated Rowan Williams to succeed George Carey. And the Queen Ok'ed it. Mr. Blair is on his way any day now to becoming a Roman Catholic. And what better way to sabotage the Church of England by having a sycophant, defender of Islam at the expense of the Christian faith? No conspiracy theory, just a question.
Archbishop Williams may preside over the collapse of the Anglican Communion and this solidifies the fact that he may very well be in over his head. Archbishop Williams should stick with Christian spirituality and leave the heavy lifting of liberating the oppressed to the United States.
Archbishop Williams said in the interview http://timesonline.co.uk that the United States wields its power worse that the British did during the height of the British empire. Archbishop Williams said that the United States was "clearing the decks with a quick burst of action that led to the worst of all worlds."
Where shall we begin? How about Britain during the heyday of the empire. Shall we start with a little battle called the American Revolution? Why did Britain fight the colonists for six years with brute force? How about the war with the Boers in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century. It was during the Anglo-Boer war that the term "concentration camp" first came to being. And how about the way that Britain left their colonies in total disarray starting with India in the late 1940s to Rhodesia in 1980 which became Zimbabwe and a hell on earth thanks to Robert Mugabe?
It seems like the old British empire had no problem to use force when they thought it was necessary.
It appears that Archbishop Williams forgets that the terrorist attacks against the United States on 9/11 were caused by Islamic fanatics hell bent on creating a modern Caliphate. For Archbishop Williams continued that American leadership had broken down and that the United States was the only hegemonic power and that its attempt to influence rather than take over by force was not working.
The reason it may not be working is when people like the Archbishop Williams are loathe to criticize the extremism of certain Islamics. Archbishop Williams fails to point out the horrors of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the monstrous abuse of women in most Islamic nations. No, Archbishop Williams finds time to praise the praying five times a day as allowing the remembrance of God in their daily rhythm of prayer. What Archbishop Williams should have asked is what are they praying for, or against.
And the harshest criticism of Islam? Is that its political solutions were not the most impressive. Not impressive? How about abysmal and downright abominable?
No, Archbishop Williams saves the best slams for the United States. A direct quote:
The chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God's purpose for humanity.
Maybe it is because American Christians are always seeking to know what that is and the people of Britain have given up because the Church of England is led people like Archbishop Williams who do nothing to expand the faith. Maybe it is because American Christians have a better understanding of the Holy Bible and are trying to liberate a people that have been prisoners of circumstance through no fault of their own.
A point of note.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair nominated Rowan Williams to succeed George Carey. And the Queen Ok'ed it. Mr. Blair is on his way any day now to becoming a Roman Catholic. And what better way to sabotage the Church of England by having a sycophant, defender of Islam at the expense of the Christian faith? No conspiracy theory, just a question.
Archbishop Williams may preside over the collapse of the Anglican Communion and this solidifies the fact that he may very well be in over his head. Archbishop Williams should stick with Christian spirituality and leave the heavy lifting of liberating the oppressed to the United States.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Strolling Through The Daily Fishwrap
Today being Sunday, it is the day I like to actually read the Sunday newspapers. That would be The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and my hometown newspaper, the Pasadena Star-News.
I expect the bizarre and strange in the two Times' newspapers, but not what I was treated to in today's Pasadena Star-News http://pasadenastarnews.com.
In a screaming headline right on page one was this gem:
"King For A Day"
Ah, no big deal, sounds like one of those kooky high school stories in which a guy runs, wins and shakes things up a little. WRONG!
In this case, one Andrew Gomez ran and won for the local city college, Pasadena City College. Oh, did I mention that Andrew is really a girl and is "in transition" to become a boy?! This is under the "You can not make this stuff up" category.
This is a big month for "Andrew" for this is when he finally told "his" mom about changing from gal to guy. And of course he decided to run for the PCC homecoming king. Busy times for "Andrew".
So, how does "Andrew" begin this process of changing genders? For starters, "he" "binds" "himself", meaning tries to decrease the size of the breasts. You know, that gets to be a real drag when one is changing genders. Kind of like a guy who wants to be a gal but still has that problem of the penis.
"Andrew" hopes to have surgery and realizes it will not happen for a long time. And don't forget the specialists, the male hormones, and so many other changes that "Andrew" has to make before the transformation is complete.
Maybe "Andrew" should seek professional guidance, one that will present all sides so that "he" makes the right decision, not one that is on a whim and gets a lot of publicity.
Here is a howler. Sue Talbot, the campus advisor to the United Rainbow Alliance which is a support group to homosexual and "transgendered" students says of young Gomez, "He is a low-key person." Low-key?! Parading around as a male when still a female? Taking a stand for the other "transgendered" people? Oh, sure "he" is real low-key.
I understand being gay or lesbian. I do not understand nor believe that it is the right thing to do to change ones gender. It is the way that God intended. If one is sexually attracted to the same gender, one can make an argument that it is also the way God intended. Again, I may not agree, but I get that more than someone who is unhappy with their gender and want to be "reassigned."
For gay and lesbian groups to be supportive of this sets their cause back a long time. It makes a mockery of what they want to achieve.
This is just a warm up for the op-ed piece by a local freelance writer and vowed atheist, Hannah Naiditch, who yearns for the days that all was well in Iraq and when Saddam Hussain was in charge keeping order.
Miss Naiditch justifies Mr. Hussain's reign of terror due to those that ruled Iraq were all dictators before him. Funny, I believe there was that empire, oh yes, the Ottoman Empire, that ruled Iraq for many a century before the British came in and invented Iraq, forcing Sunni and Shite Muslims together. And for extra added intrigue, Kurds were thrown in the mix.
But, Uncle Saddam took care of all of that.
According to Miss Naiditch, all lived in harmony and peace. And the Christians also were a-ok. After all, former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, was a Christian. All lived side by side and some friendships were formed and some were married. And, as long as they did not upset Uncle Saddam and stayed out of politics, all was well. According to Miss Naiditch, Uncle Saddam was a predictable dictator.
And, a socialist too. For he provided subsidized housing, cheap energy and subsidized agriculture, public health and schools. And such a good guy Uncle Saddam was that he promoted literacy and art. Of course, if you just kept to yourself and did not stand in Uncle Saddam's way, this was the promised land.
All this leads to when the United States invaded in 2003 to liberate the Iraqi people. That is when the wonders of Saddam fell apart. You know, all the bodies piling up on the streets or floating down the Tigris river. I guess Miss Naiditch forgot about when Uncle Saddam wanted to teach those bad Kurds, you know, those "politically involved" people who was boss, and during a war with Iran during the 1980s he gassed whole villages and at least had the decency to bury those he gassed to death. Or how about all the mass graves that have been found and are continuing to be found all over Iraq? Well, these people just got in the way, I guess.
Miss Naiditch uses typical talking points that the left has used over a century now. Call it an updated version of "Better Red than dead". Miss Naiditch really believes that life was better with Saddam in charge for 25 years as a brutal dictator. That an eight year war of attrition with Iran was better. That when that did not work, take on the small fry in the neighborhood and invade Kuwait. Because of that, the United States and a coalition forcibly removed Saddam and his forces from Kuwait. A direct result was a sanction regime that was a total fraud. While there was the so-called food for oil, Uncle Saddam was lining he and his family's pockets while people were suffering shortages of all kinds. Oh, I'm sorry, that was ok until the United States actually finished what should have been done in 1991 and removed a coward Uncle Saddam.
Miss Naiditch should be ashamed of herself for writing such revisionist history and outright lies. The only truth is that because of the vise that Uncle Saddam has on his nation, we did not realize the extent that the people had such real pent-up hostilities that have not completely played out. Some peaceful co-existence.
Some Sundays when reading the local fishwrap can be enlightening, and even fun. But this Sunday was like a bad joke and the real paper will be published tomorrow.
Links to above stories:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_7552453 for the homecoming "king"
http://pasadenastarnews.com/opinion/ci_7550457 for the Hannah Naiditch column
I expect the bizarre and strange in the two Times' newspapers, but not what I was treated to in today's Pasadena Star-News http://pasadenastarnews.com.
In a screaming headline right on page one was this gem:
"King For A Day"
Ah, no big deal, sounds like one of those kooky high school stories in which a guy runs, wins and shakes things up a little. WRONG!
In this case, one Andrew Gomez ran and won for the local city college, Pasadena City College. Oh, did I mention that Andrew is really a girl and is "in transition" to become a boy?! This is under the "You can not make this stuff up" category.
This is a big month for "Andrew" for this is when he finally told "his" mom about changing from gal to guy. And of course he decided to run for the PCC homecoming king. Busy times for "Andrew".
So, how does "Andrew" begin this process of changing genders? For starters, "he" "binds" "himself", meaning tries to decrease the size of the breasts. You know, that gets to be a real drag when one is changing genders. Kind of like a guy who wants to be a gal but still has that problem of the penis.
"Andrew" hopes to have surgery and realizes it will not happen for a long time. And don't forget the specialists, the male hormones, and so many other changes that "Andrew" has to make before the transformation is complete.
Maybe "Andrew" should seek professional guidance, one that will present all sides so that "he" makes the right decision, not one that is on a whim and gets a lot of publicity.
Here is a howler. Sue Talbot, the campus advisor to the United Rainbow Alliance which is a support group to homosexual and "transgendered" students says of young Gomez, "He is a low-key person." Low-key?! Parading around as a male when still a female? Taking a stand for the other "transgendered" people? Oh, sure "he" is real low-key.
I understand being gay or lesbian. I do not understand nor believe that it is the right thing to do to change ones gender. It is the way that God intended. If one is sexually attracted to the same gender, one can make an argument that it is also the way God intended. Again, I may not agree, but I get that more than someone who is unhappy with their gender and want to be "reassigned."
For gay and lesbian groups to be supportive of this sets their cause back a long time. It makes a mockery of what they want to achieve.
This is just a warm up for the op-ed piece by a local freelance writer and vowed atheist, Hannah Naiditch, who yearns for the days that all was well in Iraq and when Saddam Hussain was in charge keeping order.
Miss Naiditch justifies Mr. Hussain's reign of terror due to those that ruled Iraq were all dictators before him. Funny, I believe there was that empire, oh yes, the Ottoman Empire, that ruled Iraq for many a century before the British came in and invented Iraq, forcing Sunni and Shite Muslims together. And for extra added intrigue, Kurds were thrown in the mix.
But, Uncle Saddam took care of all of that.
According to Miss Naiditch, all lived in harmony and peace. And the Christians also were a-ok. After all, former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, was a Christian. All lived side by side and some friendships were formed and some were married. And, as long as they did not upset Uncle Saddam and stayed out of politics, all was well. According to Miss Naiditch, Uncle Saddam was a predictable dictator.
And, a socialist too. For he provided subsidized housing, cheap energy and subsidized agriculture, public health and schools. And such a good guy Uncle Saddam was that he promoted literacy and art. Of course, if you just kept to yourself and did not stand in Uncle Saddam's way, this was the promised land.
All this leads to when the United States invaded in 2003 to liberate the Iraqi people. That is when the wonders of Saddam fell apart. You know, all the bodies piling up on the streets or floating down the Tigris river. I guess Miss Naiditch forgot about when Uncle Saddam wanted to teach those bad Kurds, you know, those "politically involved" people who was boss, and during a war with Iran during the 1980s he gassed whole villages and at least had the decency to bury those he gassed to death. Or how about all the mass graves that have been found and are continuing to be found all over Iraq? Well, these people just got in the way, I guess.
Miss Naiditch uses typical talking points that the left has used over a century now. Call it an updated version of "Better Red than dead". Miss Naiditch really believes that life was better with Saddam in charge for 25 years as a brutal dictator. That an eight year war of attrition with Iran was better. That when that did not work, take on the small fry in the neighborhood and invade Kuwait. Because of that, the United States and a coalition forcibly removed Saddam and his forces from Kuwait. A direct result was a sanction regime that was a total fraud. While there was the so-called food for oil, Uncle Saddam was lining he and his family's pockets while people were suffering shortages of all kinds. Oh, I'm sorry, that was ok until the United States actually finished what should have been done in 1991 and removed a coward Uncle Saddam.
Miss Naiditch should be ashamed of herself for writing such revisionist history and outright lies. The only truth is that because of the vise that Uncle Saddam has on his nation, we did not realize the extent that the people had such real pent-up hostilities that have not completely played out. Some peaceful co-existence.
Some Sundays when reading the local fishwrap can be enlightening, and even fun. But this Sunday was like a bad joke and the real paper will be published tomorrow.
Links to above stories:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_7552453 for the homecoming "king"
http://pasadenastarnews.com/opinion/ci_7550457 for the Hannah Naiditch column
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Australia Swings Left
In national elections today, Australia decided that 12 years of conservative rule was enough and swept the Australian Labour Party (ALP) to power, brushing aside one of President Bush's strongest allies in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, Prime Minister John Howard.
And, if losing the majority was not enough for the Liberal party, not liberal in the left-wing sense, Mr. Howard will lose his parliamentary seat to the ALP candidate http://abc.net.au.
The ALP will have 86 seats to the Liberal-National party coalition of 64 seats according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation projections.
However, there should not be anything to be read in this for the upcoming presidential elections.
Mr. Howard was prime minister for 12 years and the Australian economy is humming along. It is that Australians felt comfortable voting for the ALP rather than against the Liberal-Nationalist coalition. And, unlike the Democrats here in the states, the ALP, which is left-wing, has vowed not to change much and that made the electorate comfortable. It was not so much a change because the ruling party were bums, but that people wanted to see if the ALP had given up its hardcore, left-wing ideology and will govern responsibly.
So, it is a blow to President Bush, but it is not something for the Democrat candidates to get excited about. After all, there is an election in November, 2008 and things will not stay the same and it all depends on the candidates and who can pull off the votes in the key areas of the United States.
And, if losing the majority was not enough for the Liberal party, not liberal in the left-wing sense, Mr. Howard will lose his parliamentary seat to the ALP candidate http://abc.net.au.
The ALP will have 86 seats to the Liberal-National party coalition of 64 seats according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation projections.
However, there should not be anything to be read in this for the upcoming presidential elections.
Mr. Howard was prime minister for 12 years and the Australian economy is humming along. It is that Australians felt comfortable voting for the ALP rather than against the Liberal-Nationalist coalition. And, unlike the Democrats here in the states, the ALP, which is left-wing, has vowed not to change much and that made the electorate comfortable. It was not so much a change because the ruling party were bums, but that people wanted to see if the ALP had given up its hardcore, left-wing ideology and will govern responsibly.
So, it is a blow to President Bush, but it is not something for the Democrat candidates to get excited about. After all, there is an election in November, 2008 and things will not stay the same and it all depends on the candidates and who can pull off the votes in the key areas of the United States.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
Here is a wish that all accross this great land, the United States of America, that all have a wonderful, safe and Happy Thanksgiving.
I will be giving thanks that I have the freedom to worship God and am a Christian. I also give thanks to those most important in my life, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast, our son and our dog, Scout, the Wonder Dog. And I give thanks to our extended family and friends. And I give thanks to those who are making the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefields in the front lines in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. They deserve our love and thanks. I give thanks to those that have been in our lives but are no longer with us. I hope that they are having the eternal banquet in Heaven today and everyday. I give thanks for being able to write this blog and to be able to share my thoughts and views with a large audience. I give thanks for being an American. It is the greatest gift.
There is so much more to be thankful for, but not enough time.
One last thought.
We do not have to put aside one day to show and share our thanks. We should be doing that every day.
I will be giving thanks that I have the freedom to worship God and am a Christian. I also give thanks to those most important in my life, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast, our son and our dog, Scout, the Wonder Dog. And I give thanks to our extended family and friends. And I give thanks to those who are making the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefields in the front lines in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. They deserve our love and thanks. I give thanks to those that have been in our lives but are no longer with us. I hope that they are having the eternal banquet in Heaven today and everyday. I give thanks for being able to write this blog and to be able to share my thoughts and views with a large audience. I give thanks for being an American. It is the greatest gift.
There is so much more to be thankful for, but not enough time.
One last thought.
We do not have to put aside one day to show and share our thanks. We should be doing that every day.
Find Out The Conservatives In Hollywood
I have checked out a new website that purports to know all about celebrities and their political alliances.
http://www.celebpolitics.com gives us the skinny on where our leading lights of the la-la land industry stand.
A complaint is how they attribute who is or is not a conservative or conservative leaning. It is based on political statements and or campaign contributions.
So, how does Morgan Fairchild end up as a conservative when her money has gone well on the liberal side? Or how about they attribute a living conservative instead of citing the late great Jimmy Stewart?
Well, it is interesting and worth a comment or two if you should stray over there.
HT: Confessions of A Closet Republican http://republicaninthearts.blogspot.com
http://www.celebpolitics.com gives us the skinny on where our leading lights of the la-la land industry stand.
A complaint is how they attribute who is or is not a conservative or conservative leaning. It is based on political statements and or campaign contributions.
So, how does Morgan Fairchild end up as a conservative when her money has gone well on the liberal side? Or how about they attribute a living conservative instead of citing the late great Jimmy Stewart?
Well, it is interesting and worth a comment or two if you should stray over there.
HT: Confessions of A Closet Republican http://republicaninthearts.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Back To Reality And Some Mitt Romney News
Now that the family vacation is over, it is time to get back to my pontifications on the real world and the latest assault on the Mitt Romney campaign by a "push polling" firm is a good place to start.
As it appears that Mr. Romney is the front runner not just in Iowa but by a wide margin in New Hampshire, the desperation sets in. It sets in when a polling firm called Western Wats based in, of all places, Utah, begins "polling" New Hampshire voters with leading questions about Mr. Romney and his Mormon faith.
No one really knows who was behind this "poll" and some bizarre speculation is that the Romney campaign itself was behind it. Other speculation is that the Rudy Giuliani campaign was behind it as if Mr. Romney wins the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary, this would be a potential death-knell for the Giuliani campaign. That is plausible. But, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain came out rather quickly in denial and denunciation. So, maybe, the McCain people were turning the tables using religion against Mr. Romney. Again, no one knows who hired this polling firm and what the real motive is.
But, motive is not important. How the polling was done with questions about Mr. Romney and his Mormon faith is.
Again, for the umpteenth time, by voting for Mr. Romney one does not endorse his religion or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is voting for a candidate that will best carry out the job of president. Nothing more and nothing less.
What was done here and what was done to Sen. McCain in 2000 in South Carolina were unnecessary, desperate moves going after a candidate personally. In 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush supporters spread all sorts of rumors and innuendos and went after an adopted child of Sen. and wife Cindy McCain, saying that-horrors-the child was b-l-a-c-k! Da Horror! Oh, for the record, the child is from Bangladesh, not Africa. It was bad politics then as it is now to lead people away from a candidate based on religion.
This does not hurt Mr. Romney but only solidifies that he is the front runner for the Republican nomination for president. If one does not believe that, look at Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com and note that Mr. Romney has the lead in Iowa, New Hampshire and tied in South Carolina. Mr. Romney is also second in Michigan and will catch up in Florida. Mr. Romney also should take some delegates in California as he will win some congressional districts, which is how the California Republicans will distribute the delegates to the Minnesota nominating convention.
So, this goes with the territory, but this is bad territory and one that no one should be in this territory.
As it appears that Mr. Romney is the front runner not just in Iowa but by a wide margin in New Hampshire, the desperation sets in. It sets in when a polling firm called Western Wats based in, of all places, Utah, begins "polling" New Hampshire voters with leading questions about Mr. Romney and his Mormon faith.
No one really knows who was behind this "poll" and some bizarre speculation is that the Romney campaign itself was behind it. Other speculation is that the Rudy Giuliani campaign was behind it as if Mr. Romney wins the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary, this would be a potential death-knell for the Giuliani campaign. That is plausible. But, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain came out rather quickly in denial and denunciation. So, maybe, the McCain people were turning the tables using religion against Mr. Romney. Again, no one knows who hired this polling firm and what the real motive is.
But, motive is not important. How the polling was done with questions about Mr. Romney and his Mormon faith is.
Again, for the umpteenth time, by voting for Mr. Romney one does not endorse his religion or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is voting for a candidate that will best carry out the job of president. Nothing more and nothing less.
What was done here and what was done to Sen. McCain in 2000 in South Carolina were unnecessary, desperate moves going after a candidate personally. In 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush supporters spread all sorts of rumors and innuendos and went after an adopted child of Sen. and wife Cindy McCain, saying that-horrors-the child was b-l-a-c-k! Da Horror! Oh, for the record, the child is from Bangladesh, not Africa. It was bad politics then as it is now to lead people away from a candidate based on religion.
This does not hurt Mr. Romney but only solidifies that he is the front runner for the Republican nomination for president. If one does not believe that, look at Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com and note that Mr. Romney has the lead in Iowa, New Hampshire and tied in South Carolina. Mr. Romney is also second in Michigan and will catch up in Florida. Mr. Romney also should take some delegates in California as he will win some congressional districts, which is how the California Republicans will distribute the delegates to the Minnesota nominating convention.
So, this goes with the territory, but this is bad territory and one that no one should be in this territory.
Monday, November 19, 2007
New For The Sports Fanatic
Finally, a new spot for all of us sports fanatics, courtesy of the Real Clear Politics site.
http://realclearsports.com is the place to go to get all the latest sports news and analysis we sports fans crave.
There is no political twist, but compilation of the best sports writing in the United States, no spin.
This is a great site and worth a look several times a day.
http://realclearsports.com is the place to go to get all the latest sports news and analysis we sports fans crave.
There is no political twist, but compilation of the best sports writing in the United States, no spin.
This is a great site and worth a look several times a day.
More Trip Photos
Here are some photos that I promised from our adventure that I called "Scout's Big Adventure"
Upper left photo: One of the residents on the plains of South Dakota, a buffalo.
Upper right photo: The end result of the tour of the Coors brewery, some of the finished products.
Upper left middle: What more can be said, Mt. Rushmore.
Upper right middle: One of the deer that I mentioned in the post on the Mt. Moriah cemetary in Deadwood, South Dakota.
Upper middle left: The top of the Lincoln Highway summit near Laramie, Wyoming.
Lower left: Scout, the Wonder Dog, resting comfortably on a sofa in the Super 8 motel in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
At another time, I will share some more photos.
.
America, The Beautiful Continued
Last time I wrote I would finish tomorrow and that was a week ago.
Sorry for the delay.
When I last wrote, we were in the hauntingly beautiful state of Wyoming on our way to Deadwood, South Dakota, one of the main destinations of our trip.
In 1989, a faltering Deadwood voted and got "gaming" in the town. Then it was probably called what it is, gambling. The gambling saved the town and the HBO series, Deadwood, more than likely revived it.
Driving into the town at night is like driving through a western Las Vegas, without the crowds and the "beautiful" people. It is a different kind of place.
Oddly enough, here was a tough place to find a dog-friendly hotel. But, we did and made the ultimate sacrifice in getting a smoking room. YUK!
After a night of rest, we explored the town taking in the museums and the Mt. Moriah cemetary where Wild Bill Hikock, Calamity Jane and Sheriff Seth Bullock are buried. (See photo above)
Also, it was here we saw nature in all of its glory as we saw a flock of deer just hanging out in the cemetary.
When that was done, we went back to our hotel to prepare for the highlight of the road trip, Mt. Rushmore.
All that can be said is WOW! It is so amazing how this masterpiece of American ingenuity came to be and how hard the work and how long it took to complete what we see today. Amazing!
From there it was a lllloooonnnngggg drive to Denver through Western Nebraska. It was only a seven hour drive. But by the time we got there it was 11pm and we just crashed.
The next day we took a tour of the Coors brewery and that was really great. We learned a lot and there is nothing like the end and the samples. And, Coors is generous. If you are ever in the Denver area, go to Golden and take the tour. It's free!
Another lllooonnnggg drive from Denver to Santa Fe, New Mexico and another late night. But, we got there and the next day, we were able to see all Santa Fe has to offer including the oldest church and first house in the United States. And then we took in the Loretto staircase. Only photos do it justice.
A much shorter drive and we were in Albuquerque. Another cool town and here we were able to take our dog Scout around and she was really happy. So were we.
From Albuequerque, it was more or less getting home, with an overnight in Flagstaff, Arizona.
One more thing, Cracker Barrel restaurant is a find and anyone in California needs to write to get them here ASAP. Their webdress is http://www.crackerbarrel.com.
This road trip is proof positive that America is truly the greatest nation on God's earth. We saw so much in such a short time, but were proud to say we were Americans, even Scout the dog!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
America, The Beautiful
America is an amazing, large, complex, and most of all, beautiful nation as Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and our dog found out this past week on our long awaited road trip through the Rocky Mountains and the great American Southwest.
We started our trip last Saturday and ended up staying in St. George, Utah in the southern and possibly least Mormon part of Utah. Ahh, but there is not a least Mormon part of the state, period. Even there in St. George is a Mormon temple and an seemingly endless, cross less steeples all looking the same. But, we still felt right at home there.
As we drove up deep into Utah, the larger the cities, the more Mormon church buildings there were. And, later on Sunday we ended up in Salt Lake City and at the Mormon Temple, the Vatican of Mormonism. While we were taking our dog, Scout, on one of so many walks, we were encountered by two very lovely and foreign young ladies just outside the Temple Visitor Center. And we took them up on their offer to give us a tour of the Visitor Center and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For full disclosure, Mrs. RVFTLC is not exactly a fan of the Mormon faith. But, she did not say anything more than we were both Christians and not particularly interested in changing our denomination. So, with that upfront, the two young ladies, one from Germany and one from Scotland proceeded to give us the tour and answered our many, genuine questions about the faith and the meanings of certain things. We left each other at the Tabernacle building, were the Mormon Tabernacle Choir perform and it was on very nice terms with a card just in case we were interested in learning more about the LDS. I still have it, but not necessarily to learn more. A memento of our journey into Mormonism in Utah.
We continued into Wyoming and stayed the night in Evanston, Wyoming. Not much to it, but it is the largest town of about 11,000 in Southwest Wyoming. And the next day we continued on to Cheyenne, the capital of Wyoming. Here is several things to note. There are very few real cities or towns in Southern Wyoming. Because of that, there are large swaths of the state in which there is no cell phone coverage. And, Wyoming is mostly flat and, shockingly, plain. It is a haunting beauty in many locales of the state. We finally made Cheyenne on that Monday evening and had a delicious steak dinner. Unfortunately, Scout is allergic to beef and we could not bring her a steak bone. So sad. The next day we tootled around Cheyenne and toured the state capital. An amazing place, as are all state capitals. For each has a history all of its own. And we had a wonderful tour guide. She was very informative and answered all questions that we had. Eventually, we had to say goodbye to Cheyenne and continue on to the main destination of the road trip, Deadwood, South Dakota.
An aside. We are HUGE fans of the HBO series Deadwood. Yes, watching it did makes us feel very dirty after each episode while their was more swearing in that hour on a Sunday than a whole mission on a naval vessel. But, it was an addicting series and it made us want to go to Deadwood and learn more.
Some things we learned on the way. While still in Wyoming, there are really towns that have as population, zero, one and zero. Unbelievable. And, there are a lot of abandoned farms all on the back roads where you can find the aforementioned towns.
Because of time restraints, the rest will be continued tomorrow. Hopefully then, I will have some photos to share with you.
We started our trip last Saturday and ended up staying in St. George, Utah in the southern and possibly least Mormon part of Utah. Ahh, but there is not a least Mormon part of the state, period. Even there in St. George is a Mormon temple and an seemingly endless, cross less steeples all looking the same. But, we still felt right at home there.
As we drove up deep into Utah, the larger the cities, the more Mormon church buildings there were. And, later on Sunday we ended up in Salt Lake City and at the Mormon Temple, the Vatican of Mormonism. While we were taking our dog, Scout, on one of so many walks, we were encountered by two very lovely and foreign young ladies just outside the Temple Visitor Center. And we took them up on their offer to give us a tour of the Visitor Center and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For full disclosure, Mrs. RVFTLC is not exactly a fan of the Mormon faith. But, she did not say anything more than we were both Christians and not particularly interested in changing our denomination. So, with that upfront, the two young ladies, one from Germany and one from Scotland proceeded to give us the tour and answered our many, genuine questions about the faith and the meanings of certain things. We left each other at the Tabernacle building, were the Mormon Tabernacle Choir perform and it was on very nice terms with a card just in case we were interested in learning more about the LDS. I still have it, but not necessarily to learn more. A memento of our journey into Mormonism in Utah.
We continued into Wyoming and stayed the night in Evanston, Wyoming. Not much to it, but it is the largest town of about 11,000 in Southwest Wyoming. And the next day we continued on to Cheyenne, the capital of Wyoming. Here is several things to note. There are very few real cities or towns in Southern Wyoming. Because of that, there are large swaths of the state in which there is no cell phone coverage. And, Wyoming is mostly flat and, shockingly, plain. It is a haunting beauty in many locales of the state. We finally made Cheyenne on that Monday evening and had a delicious steak dinner. Unfortunately, Scout is allergic to beef and we could not bring her a steak bone. So sad. The next day we tootled around Cheyenne and toured the state capital. An amazing place, as are all state capitals. For each has a history all of its own. And we had a wonderful tour guide. She was very informative and answered all questions that we had. Eventually, we had to say goodbye to Cheyenne and continue on to the main destination of the road trip, Deadwood, South Dakota.
An aside. We are HUGE fans of the HBO series Deadwood. Yes, watching it did makes us feel very dirty after each episode while their was more swearing in that hour on a Sunday than a whole mission on a naval vessel. But, it was an addicting series and it made us want to go to Deadwood and learn more.
Some things we learned on the way. While still in Wyoming, there are really towns that have as population, zero, one and zero. Unbelievable. And, there are a lot of abandoned farms all on the back roads where you can find the aforementioned towns.
Because of time restraints, the rest will be continued tomorrow. Hopefully then, I will have some photos to share with you.
Friday, November 02, 2007
How To Properly Beat Your Wife, Saudi Style
It is absolutely incredible to even write this in this so-called enlightened time, but a leading Saudi cleric on Saudi television explained the, I kid you not, proper way to beat your wife http://FoxNews.com.
While apparently talking to some people, apparently men only, Muhammad Al-'Arifi had this beautiful dialogue:
"Admonish them-once, twice, three times, four times, ten times" he advised "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."
Comment from blogger:
And, this advice guru really thinks that all of this will make one of the wives want to have anything to do with him?
And if that doesn't work?
"Beat them" one of his young advisees responded.
"That's right." Al-'Arifi said.
If you think that is bad, this "cleric" also advises that the men are not to beat their wives on the face. How nice of him. And Al-'Arifi compares this to beating animals and children. You know, don't beat the child and or animal in the face either. The proper way is to slap 'em, right to left.
UNFREEKING BELIEVABLE!
As the television infomercial admonishes, but wait there's more!
This advise guru says the following:
"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall, the beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet.
Blogger comment:
The topper of this "education" and or "advice" is this:
"Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
I can not begin to comment without a slew of profanities that would put a drunken sailor to shame, but I will try.
So, if I understand Al-'Alifi, one should not beat their wife when they are mad? I mean, should the husband wake up in the morning and start the ol' slap to the right and then the left and say "Good Morning! How was that for a wake up call?!"
But remember young charges, it is a human being you are beating. And, is that what we should be doing to fellow humans, especially women? Hell NO!
If this was some creep on American television, he would be arrested at the station and carted off to jail and that would be way too nice.
Remember, this is what the American left wants to accommodate. That it will be A-OK for Islamic men to abuse Islamic women under the guise of multiculturalism.
Every American should watch this with horror and realize that we can not let this become a normal thing in this nation. Or any other nation.
While apparently talking to some people, apparently men only, Muhammad Al-'Arifi had this beautiful dialogue:
"Admonish them-once, twice, three times, four times, ten times" he advised "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."
Comment from blogger:
And, this advice guru really thinks that all of this will make one of the wives want to have anything to do with him?
And if that doesn't work?
"Beat them" one of his young advisees responded.
"That's right." Al-'Arifi said.
If you think that is bad, this "cleric" also advises that the men are not to beat their wives on the face. How nice of him. And Al-'Arifi compares this to beating animals and children. You know, don't beat the child and or animal in the face either. The proper way is to slap 'em, right to left.
UNFREEKING BELIEVABLE!
As the television infomercial admonishes, but wait there's more!
This advise guru says the following:
"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall, the beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet.
Blogger comment:
The topper of this "education" and or "advice" is this:
"Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
I can not begin to comment without a slew of profanities that would put a drunken sailor to shame, but I will try.
So, if I understand Al-'Alifi, one should not beat their wife when they are mad? I mean, should the husband wake up in the morning and start the ol' slap to the right and then the left and say "Good Morning! How was that for a wake up call?!"
But remember young charges, it is a human being you are beating. And, is that what we should be doing to fellow humans, especially women? Hell NO!
If this was some creep on American television, he would be arrested at the station and carted off to jail and that would be way too nice.
Remember, this is what the American left wants to accommodate. That it will be A-OK for Islamic men to abuse Islamic women under the guise of multiculturalism.
Every American should watch this with horror and realize that we can not let this become a normal thing in this nation. Or any other nation.
Romney Gaining In South Carolina
For those who still continue to think the presidential candidacy of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is not going anywhere, here is some news to chew on.
A new Winthrop poll shows that Mr. Romney is tied for for second with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, each at 17% with former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson ahead at 18% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/SC/south_carolina.
And in the period of September 26 to October 29, Mr. Romney averages a 0.3% lead over Mr. Giuliani. And, Mr. Giuliani has fallen as Mr. Thompson is rising.
South Carolina is turning into a two-man race, Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson. And in three other early primaries and or caucuses, Mr. Romney is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan.
Thus, Mr. Romney is gaining ground and by the time these primaries are over, more than likely Mitt Romney will have won them all, clearing the way for a potential huge series of wins on Super Duper Tuesday, February 5, 2008.
The other top candidates, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Thompson and Sen John "F--- You" McCain may get a win or two, but Mr. Romney will win the lions share and two of the three may drop out leaving it a clear two-man race.
For whatever reason, many have underestimated and written off Mr. Romney, but few have followed his private and public sector careers. Sure, many like to talk about a campaign in 1994 in which Mr. Romney clearly ran to the left in Massachusetts, but when he ran and governed in 2002, it was clearly conservative.
And if it is Sen. Hilary Clinton, God forbid, as the Democrat nominee, she and her cronies will also underestimate Mr. Romney. They will be forced to make innuendos and outright lies about Mr. Romney's religion, Mormonism. And, that will backfire big time, as Sen. Clinton can not still figure out her position on granting illegal aliens driver's licences.
I think that South Carolina is a good sign for the Romney campaign and should not and must not be taken lightly.
A new Winthrop poll shows that Mr. Romney is tied for for second with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, each at 17% with former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson ahead at 18% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/SC/south_carolina.
And in the period of September 26 to October 29, Mr. Romney averages a 0.3% lead over Mr. Giuliani. And, Mr. Giuliani has fallen as Mr. Thompson is rising.
South Carolina is turning into a two-man race, Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson. And in three other early primaries and or caucuses, Mr. Romney is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan.
Thus, Mr. Romney is gaining ground and by the time these primaries are over, more than likely Mitt Romney will have won them all, clearing the way for a potential huge series of wins on Super Duper Tuesday, February 5, 2008.
The other top candidates, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Thompson and Sen John "F--- You" McCain may get a win or two, but Mr. Romney will win the lions share and two of the three may drop out leaving it a clear two-man race.
For whatever reason, many have underestimated and written off Mr. Romney, but few have followed his private and public sector careers. Sure, many like to talk about a campaign in 1994 in which Mr. Romney clearly ran to the left in Massachusetts, but when he ran and governed in 2002, it was clearly conservative.
And if it is Sen. Hilary Clinton, God forbid, as the Democrat nominee, she and her cronies will also underestimate Mr. Romney. They will be forced to make innuendos and outright lies about Mr. Romney's religion, Mormonism. And, that will backfire big time, as Sen. Clinton can not still figure out her position on granting illegal aliens driver's licences.
I think that South Carolina is a good sign for the Romney campaign and should not and must not be taken lightly.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
If Mukasey Fails, How About Robert Bork As AG?
The nomination of former federal judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general is in danger because Democrat senators are not happy with some of Mr. Mukasey's answers on torture and waterboarding.
Really, I feel like getting waterboarded listening to these nauseating windbags.
But, if you really want to get the windbags going, there is a way and it is legitimate.
Since there are only 14 months left of President Bush's term in office (yes, he will leave office just like former President Clinton did, peacefully!), President Bush can let the events play out in the senate. The senate judiciary committee can vote not to send the nomination of Mr. Mukasey to the full senate. The senate Republicans make no real effort to force the issue.
Now, President Bush has said that there will not be an attorney general if Mr. Mukasey does not get an up or down vote.
Since that is looking more and more unlikely, President Bush can do something that would make Democrats get violently ill on the senate floor.
Make a recess appointment of former judge Robert Bork as the attorney general.
Why not?
A recess appointment does not need consent of the senate, hence why it is called a recess appointment. And it would serve the Democrats right for not sending Mr. Mukasey's nomination to the full senate. After all, the Democrats have set up these potential prospects by their obstructions.
Can you image what the Democrats would scream on the senate floor? That would be worth the price of admission. I think swear words would fly out of many a senator's mouths.
But, in all seriousness, appointing Mr. Bork would be good because he would be a forceful advocate for the president's judicial and law enforcement philosophy. Mr. Bork has been writing and lecturing and is very much on top of legal things since being railroaded in 1986 as a Reagan appointee to the supreme court.
It would be a real opportunity for the American people to see what they have lost that Mr. Bork was not successfully confirmed to the supreme court in the first place. And it is a perfect opportunity to show conservative Republicans that President Bush has not lost all of his conservative moxie. And moxie it would be.
I think it would be a real shot in the arm to the waning days of the Bush presidency to have a forceful advocate of a stronger, aggressive policy dealing with enemy combatants, the issue of "torture" and a restrained judiciary in general.
President Bush would make history by appointing Robert Bork to be the next attorney general and give the Democrats fits and create a new issue for the 2008 presidential campaign. And that will be welcomed.
Really, I feel like getting waterboarded listening to these nauseating windbags.
But, if you really want to get the windbags going, there is a way and it is legitimate.
Since there are only 14 months left of President Bush's term in office (yes, he will leave office just like former President Clinton did, peacefully!), President Bush can let the events play out in the senate. The senate judiciary committee can vote not to send the nomination of Mr. Mukasey to the full senate. The senate Republicans make no real effort to force the issue.
Now, President Bush has said that there will not be an attorney general if Mr. Mukasey does not get an up or down vote.
Since that is looking more and more unlikely, President Bush can do something that would make Democrats get violently ill on the senate floor.
Make a recess appointment of former judge Robert Bork as the attorney general.
Why not?
A recess appointment does not need consent of the senate, hence why it is called a recess appointment. And it would serve the Democrats right for not sending Mr. Mukasey's nomination to the full senate. After all, the Democrats have set up these potential prospects by their obstructions.
Can you image what the Democrats would scream on the senate floor? That would be worth the price of admission. I think swear words would fly out of many a senator's mouths.
But, in all seriousness, appointing Mr. Bork would be good because he would be a forceful advocate for the president's judicial and law enforcement philosophy. Mr. Bork has been writing and lecturing and is very much on top of legal things since being railroaded in 1986 as a Reagan appointee to the supreme court.
It would be a real opportunity for the American people to see what they have lost that Mr. Bork was not successfully confirmed to the supreme court in the first place. And it is a perfect opportunity to show conservative Republicans that President Bush has not lost all of his conservative moxie. And moxie it would be.
I think it would be a real shot in the arm to the waning days of the Bush presidency to have a forceful advocate of a stronger, aggressive policy dealing with enemy combatants, the issue of "torture" and a restrained judiciary in general.
President Bush would make history by appointing Robert Bork to be the next attorney general and give the Democrats fits and create a new issue for the 2008 presidential campaign. And that will be welcomed.
The Most Influential Conservative American Is. . .You've Got To Be Kidding?!
Well, the London Daily Telegraph finally reached the top 20 most influential conservatives in the United States and the number one is absolutely disturbing.
According to the Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk, the numero uno, the big cheese is. . .former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
UNBELIEVABLE!
As noted in earlier postings on this week-long series in the Daily Telegraph, the newspaper if it is reflective of what the British think are conservatives, they are really on something and it is not good.
Mr. Giuliani has at various times admitted that he is a Republican in name only and not very conservative. Mr. Giuliani's whole reason for running for the Republican nomination for president is 9/11, period. If Mr. Giuliani were running just on his record as mayor of New York City, minus the terrorist attack of 9/11, his poll numbers would be slightly higher than Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, and that is in the single digits.
Mr. Giuliani has taken pains to say that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the federal courts, especially the supreme court. That is to placate social conservative Republicans that want to ban abortions or at the very least overturn Roe vs. Wade. Mr. Giuliani still says that he is "pro choice" on abortion. Mr. Giuliani has not changed his views on same-sex marriage, he is for them. And Mr. Giuliani has not exactly been clear on his economic policies. On the most pressing issue after the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, where he is excellent, illegal immigration, Mr. Giuliani is all over the place. No real position.
So, how does the Daily Telegraph figure that Mr. Giuliani is the most influential "conservative" in the United States? Because he is the Republican presidential front runner and supposedly can beat Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) is a head to head match up.
But, enough of an outrage over the alleged number one influential conservative in the United States.
Much of the rest of the top 20 is more about placement rather than outrage.
General David Petreaus, the head of the coalition forces in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror comes in at a surprising second place. The Daily Telegraph sees Gen. Petreaus as a possible presidential candidate. Now, that is interesting.
Matt Drudge http://drudgereport.com is in as the third most influential conservative in the United States. It is really too bad that Mr. Drudge retired from his radio program earlier this year. While Mr. Drudge has real serious critics on the left, the Drudge Report is, more than anything, a clearinghouse of news, sports, features from Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media publications as well as websites on both the left and the right.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, comes in at number four. I think a bit high but a real top-20 conservative.
The Maharushie, Rush Limbaugh http://rushlimbaugh.com, comes in the fifth spot. Clearly, even after 20 years as a national radio talk show host, Mr. Limbaugh is the most influential conservative in the United States, hands down. No host can claim credit, when there was no serious conservative talk radio or the Internet or other alternative conservative media, for bringing the Republicans control of congress in 1994. It is because of Mr. Limbaugh that there is conservative talk radio, the Fox News Channel, conservative bloggers, and other conservative, alternative media. How he did not get to be number one is amazing.
And I am thrilled radio talker Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com is the fifteenth most influential conservative in the United States. I just finished her latest tome, "Power To The People" and it is one that really hit home. Not just the personal battles she has faced, but her common sense approach to solving problems and a positive outlook. It is something that should, but has been used by most Republicans in recent years. Please, if you have not gotten "Power To The People", get it now.
Vice-President Richard Cheney is in at sixth most influential conservative. The shocker is that Vice-President Cheney is ahead of President Bush, who came in at 21. BTW, the Daily Telegraph explains why that turned out the way it did.
This whole series is very interesting and rather strange as the British have a very interesting perspective on what is a conservative in the United States. A lot of the top 100 should not have been there in the first place. Being totally wrong on the most influential and because of some of the people that did make the cut, really influential conservatives were left off the list.
This is prompting me to think long and hard who are the 100 most influential conservatives in the United States. I think you know who I think is number one, but maybe you think it should be someone different. Any suggestions?
According to the Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk, the numero uno, the big cheese is. . .former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
UNBELIEVABLE!
As noted in earlier postings on this week-long series in the Daily Telegraph, the newspaper if it is reflective of what the British think are conservatives, they are really on something and it is not good.
Mr. Giuliani has at various times admitted that he is a Republican in name only and not very conservative. Mr. Giuliani's whole reason for running for the Republican nomination for president is 9/11, period. If Mr. Giuliani were running just on his record as mayor of New York City, minus the terrorist attack of 9/11, his poll numbers would be slightly higher than Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, and that is in the single digits.
Mr. Giuliani has taken pains to say that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the federal courts, especially the supreme court. That is to placate social conservative Republicans that want to ban abortions or at the very least overturn Roe vs. Wade. Mr. Giuliani still says that he is "pro choice" on abortion. Mr. Giuliani has not changed his views on same-sex marriage, he is for them. And Mr. Giuliani has not exactly been clear on his economic policies. On the most pressing issue after the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, where he is excellent, illegal immigration, Mr. Giuliani is all over the place. No real position.
So, how does the Daily Telegraph figure that Mr. Giuliani is the most influential "conservative" in the United States? Because he is the Republican presidential front runner and supposedly can beat Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) is a head to head match up.
But, enough of an outrage over the alleged number one influential conservative in the United States.
Much of the rest of the top 20 is more about placement rather than outrage.
General David Petreaus, the head of the coalition forces in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror comes in at a surprising second place. The Daily Telegraph sees Gen. Petreaus as a possible presidential candidate. Now, that is interesting.
Matt Drudge http://drudgereport.com is in as the third most influential conservative in the United States. It is really too bad that Mr. Drudge retired from his radio program earlier this year. While Mr. Drudge has real serious critics on the left, the Drudge Report is, more than anything, a clearinghouse of news, sports, features from Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media publications as well as websites on both the left and the right.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, comes in at number four. I think a bit high but a real top-20 conservative.
The Maharushie, Rush Limbaugh http://rushlimbaugh.com, comes in the fifth spot. Clearly, even after 20 years as a national radio talk show host, Mr. Limbaugh is the most influential conservative in the United States, hands down. No host can claim credit, when there was no serious conservative talk radio or the Internet or other alternative conservative media, for bringing the Republicans control of congress in 1994. It is because of Mr. Limbaugh that there is conservative talk radio, the Fox News Channel, conservative bloggers, and other conservative, alternative media. How he did not get to be number one is amazing.
And I am thrilled radio talker Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com is the fifteenth most influential conservative in the United States. I just finished her latest tome, "Power To The People" and it is one that really hit home. Not just the personal battles she has faced, but her common sense approach to solving problems and a positive outlook. It is something that should, but has been used by most Republicans in recent years. Please, if you have not gotten "Power To The People", get it now.
Vice-President Richard Cheney is in at sixth most influential conservative. The shocker is that Vice-President Cheney is ahead of President Bush, who came in at 21. BTW, the Daily Telegraph explains why that turned out the way it did.
This whole series is very interesting and rather strange as the British have a very interesting perspective on what is a conservative in the United States. A lot of the top 100 should not have been there in the first place. Being totally wrong on the most influential and because of some of the people that did make the cut, really influential conservatives were left off the list.
This is prompting me to think long and hard who are the 100 most influential conservatives in the United States. I think you know who I think is number one, but maybe you think it should be someone different. Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)