This weekend America celebrates the life of one of our all-time greatest citizens. Martin Luther King Jr was a man whose actions and influence were immeasurable and invaluable. He was a man of courage. A man of God. A man of the Constitution. His convictions were solid, and he made the ultimate sacrifice for his cause. Amen.
It’s hard to think of Dr. King without a deep sense of warmth overcoming you. He made America a better country. He made us all better people. He gave us hope and vision. If I had the opportunity to meet anyone in history, Dr King would no doubt be in my top 5 and probably more like top 3. Rarely does such a man come along and I look forward to someday shaking his hand in the afterlife.
As a conservative, my deep admiration of Dr King sometimes surprises people. Usually those people are liberals who hold the belief that conservatives are generally racists. I’m not sure exactly why they think that but I have my theories, and I think much of it has to do with comments like the ones I will make today. We’ll see. At any rate, when my mind turns to Dr King I often reflect on what he did, what he died for, and if his dream has truly been realized. That is today’s post.
What is not disputed about Dr King is what he fought and died for. Dr King believed in equality. He often quoted the Declaration of Independence along with many of the scriptures as he forwarded his cause that all men are created equal and all human life has value. In short, Dr King was a man who believed in liberty, and he died fighting for liberty. He joined the hundreds of thousands of Americans throughout history who made the ultimate sacrifice for the one thing that we have demonstrated amazing courage in defending…liberty. He may not have died in uniform, but that doesn’t make his sacrifice any less significant. Martin Luther King gave his life so that others can be free. There is nothing more American than that.
However, as I look back over the past few decades I wonder how much his sacrifice helped, and how much it has been exploited. For one, black leadership has been severely lacking. I’ve posted on this before so I’ll just hit the highpoints. Since Dr King’s death, we’ve seen men like Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step forward as leaders of the black community. The problem is they all failed to carry on Dr King’s cause and message. Instead, they fostered divisiveness, contempt and resentment. Their message was one of entitlement. Their message was one of class warfare. Dr King preached that we are all in this together, while these men preached more of an “us against them” message, and I think the black community has suffered because of it. No doubt these men achieved a lot of personal gain both financially and politically because of their message, but they have overall done very little to further King’s cause and to benefit America’s black population and America as a whole.
Our national political leaders haven’t done much better, and I think Dr King would be incredibly disappointed in both political parties if he were alive today. The Democrats have carried the same tired message since the 60s, a message of governmental intervention. “We’re the government, and we’re here to help.” It sounds good on the surface, but history has taught that it’s not the answer to our problems. They feel the government has a responsibility to take care of the problems of the poor (often considered the same problems in the black community) and they teach that the private sector can’t be trusted to address these problems. They carry out their plan with a tax-and-spend agenda that seeks to redistribute income from the haves to the have nots, while along the way spewing a lot of rhetoric that often propagates resentment and class warfare amongst the people. This fosters a sense of entitlement in the black and impoverished community that the Democrats are all too eager to reinforce. They feel it’s the government’s job to provide for its citizens. In the process, they campaign on promises of giving. They are the party of the government entitlement. They are the party of the government handout. Someone on this site recently asked me why blacks and minorities favor the Democrats so overwhelmingly, and I think that the above explanation is responsible for a lot of that. Minorities (many of whom live in poverty) hear the message of handouts and, naturally, support the party providing those handouts. But there’s a big problem with that.
My last comment will no doubt bring charges of racism from skeptics. So be it. I’ve been called many names, most of them don’t stick. I am not a racist in that I believe in equal rights for all law-abiding human beings, and I don’t believe one’s race should change that or that any one race is superior to the other. But I do believe that the black community has been misled by the Democrat party in the sense that they’ve been convinced that the government must provide for them rather than the individual providing for themselves. This breeds complete dependence on the government amongst a large segment of the population, and since only one party champions this agenda it essentially leads to dependence on that one party, assuring that they have the votes to gain and stay in power. But what good does it do for the individual. Dr King died for liberty. I ask: What liberty does one have when they depend on the government for housing, education, healthcare, employment, and sometimes food and living expenses? Is this the liberty that King gave his life for? Of course not.
A wise man once said that this democracy will fail the moment the people realize they have the power to vote themselves rewards from the treasury. When that happens, the people give up their liberty to gain those rewards. I dare say that we are seeing much of that today, and the latest campaign verifies that thought every day. How many people base their vote on what the candidate promises to give them from the treasury? Again, this is not the liberty that King died for. In a way, I’m accusing many in the black community of selling out Dr King and his dream of liberty and equality so they can have their piece of the government pie.
We have to look no further than Hurricane Katrina to see the implications of what I’m talking about. Despite the claims of many, especially among the black and democrat leadership, that disaster was not about race. The charges that Bush ignored things, or doesn’t care about black people are beyond ludicrous. Many people of all races suffered terribly from that storm. Many people, of all socioeconomic background and status, lost their homes. But who was left stranded in the city, neck deep in the putrid water? It was the poorest citizens. Why? Because the poorest of citizens depend on the government for security. They have no means to care for themselves, so when times are bad they rely on the bureaucracy to care for them, which will ultimately leave you wading through neck deep filth fighting for your life. Meanwhile, those who are self-dependent were able to escape the storm’s path. They lost property, but saved themselves. Katrina was a tragic metaphor for how we have failed in helping the poor amongst us. More government is not the answer. Yet, the promises continue and the Democrat leaders keep with their game of class warfare and race baiting. They’ve made Katrina a race issue, and many in the black population have bought off on it without realizing that depending on the government is ultimately self-destructive.
This is not to say that all liberals have ill intentions. I think many have genuine desires to help the needy and truly feel the government is the best way to do so. It’s the political leadership that I criticize because they exploit those feelings for political and partisan gain.
The Republicans hold some blame as well. The black community simply doesn’t vote for Republicans. I’ve offered a partial explanation for that above, but I also think there is more to it. It’s a common misconception that conservatives don’t care about blacks or the poor. This is, of course, absolutely asinine. Conservatives are very generous people. We give lots of money to lots of charity programs to help those in need. Look at the statistics and you’ll see how generous conservatives truly are. If we didn’t care, we simply wouldn’t give. The difference is that we don’t think the government is fit to handle such a task, whereas our charity of choice specializes in doing these things. We see money in the hands of the bureaucrats as money that is wasted or inappropriately spent. Here’s a simple analogy: If I pull up to a stoplight and see a homeless person holding a “will work for food” sign, I won’t give that person money because, chances are, he will spend it on booze or drugs. However, I will most certainly give money to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen without reservation. Why? Because then I know my money is used properly, to actually help people who need help. Therein lies the difference. I equate giving money to the government as giving money to the homeless guy on the street. Chances are it will not be used properly. There is simply too much bureaucracy for the government to be able to effectively provide so much to so many without screwing it up like we saw during Katrina. Many conservatives feel the same way and are considered cold and heartless because of it. Over the years, this has been manipulated to paint conservatives as people who don’t care. Since we oppose government entitlements and handouts, we are made to look as though we oppose helping the poor. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of our core principles.
The problem is that conservatives have done very little to defend themselves. We should be echoing the above paragraph at every opportunity. Instead, we allow others to paint us as cold-hearted and anti-black without answering the charge. As a result, blacks and the poor have become anti-conservative and anti-Republican. This is where the GOP has failed. And now, many of the GOP politicians have migrated to the Left on government spending and advocate big government in a lame attempt to help their image and gain votes. It really is quite nauseating to see Republican leaders sell out their conservative principles to pander to the poor. This is not the way to attract the minority vote because it looks phony. The right way is to echo the message that conservatives DO care, that we very much want all people to prosper and be wealthy and the way to do this is with less goverment.
So, in many ways, Dr King's dream has been realized, but we still have a long way to go and it starts with putting an end to the politics and class warfare. I will keep up the fight because I believe we CAN achieve his vision. We owe it to him, to our country, and to ourselves.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
FLINT, Mich. (AP) — A judge says a man charged with raping women he's accused of abducting from Flint-area shopping malls must undergo testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
But the American Civil Liberties Union is complaining there hasn't been a finding of probable cause that Kevin L. Thomas of Iron Mountain committed the assaults.
Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton says his office asked for the tests so that the women wouldn't have to wait months for results.
But defense lawyer Anthony Pappadakis says Leyton's motion is premature.
The 32-year-old Thomas faces 18 charges stemming from the three incidents in October. The charges include first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, carjacking, assault and armed robbery.
The ACLU is at it again, fighting for the "rights" of criminals while trampling the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process. No probable cause? He's been charged with rape. That's not reason enough to perform STD testing on the man?
Does the victim have any rights here? In my opinion, a woman victimized by rape has the right to know if she may have been infected with HIV or hepatitis. Is the ACLU not concerned about that right? She's suffering enough as it is without the added stress of waiting for months to know what her attacker may or may not have transmitted to her. Plus, it's well documented that treating HIV and hepatitis early can have an impact on the severity of the disease. Hospitals require any worker who suffers a high-risk needle stick to start antiviral medication at once, and they require this for a reason. The treatment works. And diseases like Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, if left untreated, can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause chronic pain, scarring and even infertility. But that's not important to the ACLU.
What's important to them is standing up for the rapists of the world to ensure their rights aren't violated by their victims.
But the American Civil Liberties Union is complaining there hasn't been a finding of probable cause that Kevin L. Thomas of Iron Mountain committed the assaults.
Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton says his office asked for the tests so that the women wouldn't have to wait months for results.
But defense lawyer Anthony Pappadakis says Leyton's motion is premature.
The 32-year-old Thomas faces 18 charges stemming from the three incidents in October. The charges include first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, carjacking, assault and armed robbery.
The ACLU is at it again, fighting for the "rights" of criminals while trampling the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process. No probable cause? He's been charged with rape. That's not reason enough to perform STD testing on the man?
Does the victim have any rights here? In my opinion, a woman victimized by rape has the right to know if she may have been infected with HIV or hepatitis. Is the ACLU not concerned about that right? She's suffering enough as it is without the added stress of waiting for months to know what her attacker may or may not have transmitted to her. Plus, it's well documented that treating HIV and hepatitis early can have an impact on the severity of the disease. Hospitals require any worker who suffers a high-risk needle stick to start antiviral medication at once, and they require this for a reason. The treatment works. And diseases like Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, if left untreated, can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause chronic pain, scarring and even infertility. But that's not important to the ACLU.
What's important to them is standing up for the rapists of the world to ensure their rights aren't violated by their victims.
Monday, January 14, 2008
I have to hand it to Dick Morris. Once again, he proved that he knows the Clintons all too well. Last week, Morris predicted that Hillary would insert race into the campaign. The reason: To get people talking about Obama's race and not the issues. We all know what husband BJ said. We all know what Hillary said about Dr King, LBJ and the civil rights movement. And now, what is everyone talking about?
Personally, I think both comments were harmless. This may be the first time you ever hear me defend the Clintons. Bill's "fairy tale" remark was referring to Obama's position on the war. Hillary was making the point that effective change requires effective political leadership. I don't think Hillary was taking a shot at Dr King or trying to diminish his role in history. But some members of the media picked it up and ran. Soon, Bill was bowing down at the altar of Al Sharpton and Hillary was back tracking as well. But her back tracking also included a few shots at Obama in the realm of "they are misrepresenting what I said".
Now, Obama never commented on Hillary's comments before that, so I think she was trying to bait him and it worked. Before too long, Obama was down in the mud with her. And now everyone is talking about race, which is exactly what the Clintons wanted.
Some may say that I'm giving Billary too much credit. I don't think so. Bill is a master politician and his wife isn't too far behind. Manipulation is their specialty and I think this was all deliberate. The Clintons wanted race on the forefront and now they have it. Obama's mistake was answering their petty charges and getting in the mud with her. Big mistake. Suddenly, the Democrat party seems to be divided along racial lines.
It's always been my contention that Democrats are the party of racism. In my mind, there is nothing more racist than government handouts and affirmative action, both of which are centerpoints of Democrat domestic policy. But I never thought I'd see two Dem candidates divide the party like this. It's not accidental, folks. This was manufactured by the Clintons. After all, you don't hear much discussion about gender, do you?
Obama may end up benefiting. I know many African-Americans who looked at him as uppity and "not black enough". That may change for him. But there's no doubt that Hillary will benefit. If you get people talking about race - something they weren't talking about before now - then eventually people will ask if a black man can beat the republican in the general election. That kind of doubt is exactly what Hillary wants.
Personally, I think both comments were harmless. This may be the first time you ever hear me defend the Clintons. Bill's "fairy tale" remark was referring to Obama's position on the war. Hillary was making the point that effective change requires effective political leadership. I don't think Hillary was taking a shot at Dr King or trying to diminish his role in history. But some members of the media picked it up and ran. Soon, Bill was bowing down at the altar of Al Sharpton and Hillary was back tracking as well. But her back tracking also included a few shots at Obama in the realm of "they are misrepresenting what I said".
Now, Obama never commented on Hillary's comments before that, so I think she was trying to bait him and it worked. Before too long, Obama was down in the mud with her. And now everyone is talking about race, which is exactly what the Clintons wanted.
Some may say that I'm giving Billary too much credit. I don't think so. Bill is a master politician and his wife isn't too far behind. Manipulation is their specialty and I think this was all deliberate. The Clintons wanted race on the forefront and now they have it. Obama's mistake was answering their petty charges and getting in the mud with her. Big mistake. Suddenly, the Democrat party seems to be divided along racial lines.
It's always been my contention that Democrats are the party of racism. In my mind, there is nothing more racist than government handouts and affirmative action, both of which are centerpoints of Democrat domestic policy. But I never thought I'd see two Dem candidates divide the party like this. It's not accidental, folks. This was manufactured by the Clintons. After all, you don't hear much discussion about gender, do you?
Obama may end up benefiting. I know many African-Americans who looked at him as uppity and "not black enough". That may change for him. But there's no doubt that Hillary will benefit. If you get people talking about race - something they weren't talking about before now - then eventually people will ask if a black man can beat the republican in the general election. That kind of doubt is exactly what Hillary wants.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
I just love being right. So anytime science vindicates me or my positions I will echo the findings. I recently posted about immunizations and the myths surrounding them. Years ago, some science journal decided to publish some poorly constructed study about autism and Thimerosal, an antiseptic additive used in vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination.
Some hack in the science world noticed that autism rates were increasing dramatically and he felt that this had to be related to immunizations, since our immunization rates have also gone up dramatically over the past several decades. His study was published in a British science journal and before too long it caught on in the US. Add a few celebrities and political names, ie RFK Jr, and soon the hysteria set in. Parents began withdrawing their children from immunization programs, and refusing very important vaccines out of fear of autism. Lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits began to build. The vaccine manufacturers began to panic.
Keep in mind that there have been many studies on this and some of those predated the study that induced all of this panic. Those studies showed thimerosal to be safe and not linked in any way to neurologic disease, including autism. Of course, science has never stopped people from taking drastic, irrational action (anyone remember what happended with DDT? How many people die every year from malaria since we banned it on bad science?). So the fear of lawsuits basically led the vaccine manufacturers to remove thimerosal from their vaccines in 1999 despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting such action. As a sidenote, this action alone could potentially be harmful since the reason for having thimerosal in the vaccine came about after several children died from a staph infection they received from a contaminated vial of vaccine. This didn't happen once the thimerosal was added. Granted, there are other ways to keep the vaccine clean, but still this was something that didn't have to be done given the actual evidence.
Anyway, the California Dept of Developmental Services has just completed a study that basically blows RFK Jr's cause completely out of the water and (hopefully) ends the discussion altogether. They've been tracking autism rates with close scrutiny since 1999 to see if there would be any impact from withdrawing the thimerosal. This is classic epidemiology. If a disease is caused by a particular agent, then removing that agent will lead to a decrease in the disease rate. So what did they find in California? Interestingly, the rate of autism has actually INCREASED since we stopped giving our children thimerosal in their vaccines.
Does this mean thimerosal provided an element of protection from autism? Of course not. But it does confirm the generally agreed upon theory regarding the increasing rates of autism. Basically, autism has increased because we have gotten better at screening for it, recognizing it, and diagnosing it properly. In the past, these children were simply labelled as "mentally retarded" because we didn't know much about autism. Now, we are diagnosing them appropriately. Plus, we have developed some screening tools to pick up on the diagnosis at younger and younger ages, and we are doing better at instructing parents on what signs to look for. So technically autism the disease is not increasing in frequency, but autism the diagnosis is. Make sense?
It is my sincere hope that this new study ends the discussion completely, and parents stop endangering their children with silly myths. But, somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if nothing changed.
Some hack in the science world noticed that autism rates were increasing dramatically and he felt that this had to be related to immunizations, since our immunization rates have also gone up dramatically over the past several decades. His study was published in a British science journal and before too long it caught on in the US. Add a few celebrities and political names, ie RFK Jr, and soon the hysteria set in. Parents began withdrawing their children from immunization programs, and refusing very important vaccines out of fear of autism. Lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits began to build. The vaccine manufacturers began to panic.
Keep in mind that there have been many studies on this and some of those predated the study that induced all of this panic. Those studies showed thimerosal to be safe and not linked in any way to neurologic disease, including autism. Of course, science has never stopped people from taking drastic, irrational action (anyone remember what happended with DDT? How many people die every year from malaria since we banned it on bad science?). So the fear of lawsuits basically led the vaccine manufacturers to remove thimerosal from their vaccines in 1999 despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting such action. As a sidenote, this action alone could potentially be harmful since the reason for having thimerosal in the vaccine came about after several children died from a staph infection they received from a contaminated vial of vaccine. This didn't happen once the thimerosal was added. Granted, there are other ways to keep the vaccine clean, but still this was something that didn't have to be done given the actual evidence.
Anyway, the California Dept of Developmental Services has just completed a study that basically blows RFK Jr's cause completely out of the water and (hopefully) ends the discussion altogether. They've been tracking autism rates with close scrutiny since 1999 to see if there would be any impact from withdrawing the thimerosal. This is classic epidemiology. If a disease is caused by a particular agent, then removing that agent will lead to a decrease in the disease rate. So what did they find in California? Interestingly, the rate of autism has actually INCREASED since we stopped giving our children thimerosal in their vaccines.
Does this mean thimerosal provided an element of protection from autism? Of course not. But it does confirm the generally agreed upon theory regarding the increasing rates of autism. Basically, autism has increased because we have gotten better at screening for it, recognizing it, and diagnosing it properly. In the past, these children were simply labelled as "mentally retarded" because we didn't know much about autism. Now, we are diagnosing them appropriately. Plus, we have developed some screening tools to pick up on the diagnosis at younger and younger ages, and we are doing better at instructing parents on what signs to look for. So technically autism the disease is not increasing in frequency, but autism the diagnosis is. Make sense?
It is my sincere hope that this new study ends the discussion completely, and parents stop endangering their children with silly myths. But, somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if nothing changed.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My endorsement for President...
I am a conservative and a traditionalist, so naturally that's what I look for in a candidate. That doesn't necessarily mean that I will always vote Republican. There are many Blue-Dog Democrats who won in '06 that I would support for President. Unfortunately, none of them are running. For some reason, the Democrat party is running 3 radical Left politicians which risks alienating a lot of voters. Hillary is phony and much too ambitious. Edwards is an ambulance chaser who would steal your wallet if you turned your back on him. And Obama? Well, to be honest, I like him as a man. I read his book and I truly feel he is honest and devoted to his family. He is a good husband and a good father. However, his Senate record consists of many "present" votes rather than yes's and no's. He gives a good speech, he is honest, but he is a coward. There is no other way to put it. He inspires people because he speaks with passion and makes us feel good, but he has no substance. There is no way he would ever have my vote unless he showed a little backbone and took a stand for something.
First and foremost, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. He must be willing to defend this country with ferocity. He must be unwilling to defer our sovereignty to a UN committee and never allow US troops to serve under UN command. Military experience is not a requirement, but is certainly a bonus. NONE of the Democratic candidates have demonstrated the qualities that I look for as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, I have sincere concern for the military should any of them take over as President.
Foreign policy should be "America First". That means taking on China economically. That means taking care of US corporate interests. That means doing whatever it takes to make America energy independent, regardless the consequences for OPEC. That means cutting foreign aid with a broad knife to any country that is not 100% supportive of our policies, including Mexico. And that means removing ourselves from the UN as soon as possible.
As for domestic policy, here are the key components that I value in a candidate, in order of importance:
- Social Security - I have heard a sound, detailed plan for saving Social Security from only one candidate...the candidate I am endorsing. Both Republicans and Democrats are deeply lacking on this issue. No one wants to tackle it, and I think it's the biggest domestic issue this generation faces.
- Immigration - Tonight I heard my candidate say that America 'should be a nation of tall fences and wide gates where we control when to open those gates'. Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm ALL FOR immigration, but our laws must be enforced and our borders must be secured and it must be done NOW.
- Healthcare - Any candidate that wants socialized medicine will get nothing but strong resistance from me. Socializing our medical system will ruin quality of care, and access to care will vanish...all at great cost to the treasury. My candidate should be deeply concerned about the number of uninsured citizens in this country, and will put forth a plan to improve access to care via the free market with minimal government interference.
- Energy - Improve technology for cleaner energy and take steps towards energy independence. But that's all long-term stuff. What about short-term? My candidate has to advocate for more nuclear power to help our energy needs while allowing technology time to come up with something better.
- Environment - I believe in responsible policy. I care about the environment. I'm an outdoorsman and a hunter, and it's hard to find more dedicated conservationists than hunters. I want to protect the earth, but I want to do it based on sound science and with methods that will not harm our economy or job market. It can be done, and it doesn't require panic or hysterics.
- Taxes - Must be reduced. My candidate has already advocated for abolishing capitol gains taxes, the AMT, the Death Tax and implementing a fair tax system. A true conservative must fight to shrink the government and MEAN IT! This is one of my biggest gripes with Bush and the Republicans. Spending is out of control. Earmarks have become ridiculous. This must stop. Washington has to stop wasting money and balance the budget, and they need to do this with lower taxes. It can be done.
As far as values are concerned, the ideal candidate must have a strong values system, something unwavering, which means that he must have a religious background. Any candidate who conjures their own set of values will falter in difficult times. Moral relativists can not lead a nation. The ideal candidate will appoint Judges who uphold what is written in the Constitution, not apply their own vision to it. I refer especially to the TENTH AMENDMENT, which many judges conveniently ignore in order to create law and impose their own beliefs on the American people. This must stop and the President must appoint judges who will stop it. The President must be willing to do the unpopular thing if it's the right thing. The President must not govern by polls.
With all this in mind, there are only 2 candidates that meet my criteria. Duncan Hunter has a phenomenal platform and will make a great running mate for the eventual nominee, but he is too deep in the polls to win and he needs to work on his delivery to connect with voters. Therefore, I endorse Fred Thompson for President. He is a true conservative with a solid values system who will be strong on foreign policy. He will likely drop out if he doesn't win in South Carolina, but I am not picking winners, I am picking my ideal candidate.
Vote for Fred!
First and foremost, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. He must be willing to defend this country with ferocity. He must be unwilling to defer our sovereignty to a UN committee and never allow US troops to serve under UN command. Military experience is not a requirement, but is certainly a bonus. NONE of the Democratic candidates have demonstrated the qualities that I look for as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, I have sincere concern for the military should any of them take over as President.
Foreign policy should be "America First". That means taking on China economically. That means taking care of US corporate interests. That means doing whatever it takes to make America energy independent, regardless the consequences for OPEC. That means cutting foreign aid with a broad knife to any country that is not 100% supportive of our policies, including Mexico. And that means removing ourselves from the UN as soon as possible.
As for domestic policy, here are the key components that I value in a candidate, in order of importance:
- Social Security - I have heard a sound, detailed plan for saving Social Security from only one candidate...the candidate I am endorsing. Both Republicans and Democrats are deeply lacking on this issue. No one wants to tackle it, and I think it's the biggest domestic issue this generation faces.
- Immigration - Tonight I heard my candidate say that America 'should be a nation of tall fences and wide gates where we control when to open those gates'. Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm ALL FOR immigration, but our laws must be enforced and our borders must be secured and it must be done NOW.
- Healthcare - Any candidate that wants socialized medicine will get nothing but strong resistance from me. Socializing our medical system will ruin quality of care, and access to care will vanish...all at great cost to the treasury. My candidate should be deeply concerned about the number of uninsured citizens in this country, and will put forth a plan to improve access to care via the free market with minimal government interference.
- Energy - Improve technology for cleaner energy and take steps towards energy independence. But that's all long-term stuff. What about short-term? My candidate has to advocate for more nuclear power to help our energy needs while allowing technology time to come up with something better.
- Environment - I believe in responsible policy. I care about the environment. I'm an outdoorsman and a hunter, and it's hard to find more dedicated conservationists than hunters. I want to protect the earth, but I want to do it based on sound science and with methods that will not harm our economy or job market. It can be done, and it doesn't require panic or hysterics.
- Taxes - Must be reduced. My candidate has already advocated for abolishing capitol gains taxes, the AMT, the Death Tax and implementing a fair tax system. A true conservative must fight to shrink the government and MEAN IT! This is one of my biggest gripes with Bush and the Republicans. Spending is out of control. Earmarks have become ridiculous. This must stop. Washington has to stop wasting money and balance the budget, and they need to do this with lower taxes. It can be done.
As far as values are concerned, the ideal candidate must have a strong values system, something unwavering, which means that he must have a religious background. Any candidate who conjures their own set of values will falter in difficult times. Moral relativists can not lead a nation. The ideal candidate will appoint Judges who uphold what is written in the Constitution, not apply their own vision to it. I refer especially to the TENTH AMENDMENT, which many judges conveniently ignore in order to create law and impose their own beliefs on the American people. This must stop and the President must appoint judges who will stop it. The President must be willing to do the unpopular thing if it's the right thing. The President must not govern by polls.
With all this in mind, there are only 2 candidates that meet my criteria. Duncan Hunter has a phenomenal platform and will make a great running mate for the eventual nominee, but he is too deep in the polls to win and he needs to work on his delivery to connect with voters. Therefore, I endorse Fred Thompson for President. He is a true conservative with a solid values system who will be strong on foreign policy. He will likely drop out if he doesn't win in South Carolina, but I am not picking winners, I am picking my ideal candidate.
Vote for Fred!
Monday, January 07, 2008
New Hampshire eve....
Tomorrow the first primary votes are cast, and here are my predictions:
- Obama wins by double digits. I've posted before about how important Iowa is to Democrats and the tendency for a "follow the leader" mentality in that party, ie John Kerry. Obama's win in Iowa may not have assured his nomination, but it certainly made him the hands-down favorite. With a win in Iowa, he raises the hammer to drive the final nail into the coffin of the Clinton campaign.
- Hillary gets nasty. Don't count her out. Dick Morris, who knows the Clintons as well as anyone, predicts that she will play the race card. Her last-gasp desperation tactic will be that a black man can't get elected in America. Of course, she will be subtle about it but that will be the message nonetheless. I think Morris is spot on. I've wondered how Clinton could get muddy with Obama without a backfire and this may be it. We'll see.
- McCain wins. This will be the beginning of John McCain's presidential nomination. 3 months ago I didn't think he had a chance, but it's funny how Rudy's numbers seemed to tumble in correlation with Hillary's. It's almost like GOP voters wanted a Rudy-Hillary match or none at all for the former mayor. So I think McCain edges out Romney which (considering the investment Romney made in New Hampshire) basically knocks Romney pretty much out of it. Granted, he won't exit until he loses in Michigan, but this is the beginning of the end for Mitt. McCain will go on for the nomination and, in my opinion, wins the general election in a landslide. Can you imagine? A first term junior Senator with a very flaky voting record running against arguably the most respected man in the Senate on both sides of the aisle? And one of the few politicians respected by voters nationwide? No contest. McCain's biggest obstacle is the nomination. If he gets it (and I think he will), he has the general election in the bag.
- Huckabee fades. Finally. I watched the debate and this guy seems absolutely clueless. He dodges more questions than Bill Clinton, which brews a nauseating sense deep in my gut. He may win South Carolina, but that will be it.
- Richardson dumps Hillary and takes Obama as his new best friend. I've been impressed at how Richardson has been campaigning, not to win the election but to be Hillary's choice for a running mate. Oops. Now he has to nudge his way in with Hagel, Clark and Lieberman. Good luck with that, Billy.
- Ron Paul refuses to go away. Does anyone else want to swat this lunatic? Paul isn't even a Republican, so why is he running in the GOP race? Libertarianism in its purest form is just as dangerous as socialism and, for the LAST TIME, isolationism DOES NOT WORK. How many wars will the US have to fight before the libertarians admit to that morsel of logic? Anyone voting for this numbskull should perform an immediate self-assessment on their level of sanity. It's time he climbed back onto his starship with Kucinich and returned to Mars.
WEP will soon be issuing my official endorsement for President. I haven't done this before but I have a good reason. As a Florida voter, registered as an Independent, I am not allowed to vote in the primary election. That's unfortunate because I would like a little say in who the candidates will be instead of accepting what the two parties give me. It's a shame that I have to declare myself a Democrat or a Republican in order to have that say, and I refuse to do it. So I'll voice my opinion on this site and issue the first official When Evil Prospers endorsement. Stay tuned my brave and faithful readers, and God bless you all for tolerating my gab!
- Obama wins by double digits. I've posted before about how important Iowa is to Democrats and the tendency for a "follow the leader" mentality in that party, ie John Kerry. Obama's win in Iowa may not have assured his nomination, but it certainly made him the hands-down favorite. With a win in Iowa, he raises the hammer to drive the final nail into the coffin of the Clinton campaign.
- Hillary gets nasty. Don't count her out. Dick Morris, who knows the Clintons as well as anyone, predicts that she will play the race card. Her last-gasp desperation tactic will be that a black man can't get elected in America. Of course, she will be subtle about it but that will be the message nonetheless. I think Morris is spot on. I've wondered how Clinton could get muddy with Obama without a backfire and this may be it. We'll see.
- McCain wins. This will be the beginning of John McCain's presidential nomination. 3 months ago I didn't think he had a chance, but it's funny how Rudy's numbers seemed to tumble in correlation with Hillary's. It's almost like GOP voters wanted a Rudy-Hillary match or none at all for the former mayor. So I think McCain edges out Romney which (considering the investment Romney made in New Hampshire) basically knocks Romney pretty much out of it. Granted, he won't exit until he loses in Michigan, but this is the beginning of the end for Mitt. McCain will go on for the nomination and, in my opinion, wins the general election in a landslide. Can you imagine? A first term junior Senator with a very flaky voting record running against arguably the most respected man in the Senate on both sides of the aisle? And one of the few politicians respected by voters nationwide? No contest. McCain's biggest obstacle is the nomination. If he gets it (and I think he will), he has the general election in the bag.
- Huckabee fades. Finally. I watched the debate and this guy seems absolutely clueless. He dodges more questions than Bill Clinton, which brews a nauseating sense deep in my gut. He may win South Carolina, but that will be it.
- Richardson dumps Hillary and takes Obama as his new best friend. I've been impressed at how Richardson has been campaigning, not to win the election but to be Hillary's choice for a running mate. Oops. Now he has to nudge his way in with Hagel, Clark and Lieberman. Good luck with that, Billy.
- Ron Paul refuses to go away. Does anyone else want to swat this lunatic? Paul isn't even a Republican, so why is he running in the GOP race? Libertarianism in its purest form is just as dangerous as socialism and, for the LAST TIME, isolationism DOES NOT WORK. How many wars will the US have to fight before the libertarians admit to that morsel of logic? Anyone voting for this numbskull should perform an immediate self-assessment on their level of sanity. It's time he climbed back onto his starship with Kucinich and returned to Mars.
WEP will soon be issuing my official endorsement for President. I haven't done this before but I have a good reason. As a Florida voter, registered as an Independent, I am not allowed to vote in the primary election. That's unfortunate because I would like a little say in who the candidates will be instead of accepting what the two parties give me. It's a shame that I have to declare myself a Democrat or a Republican in order to have that say, and I refuse to do it. So I'll voice my opinion on this site and issue the first official When Evil Prospers endorsement. Stay tuned my brave and faithful readers, and God bless you all for tolerating my gab!
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Star pitcher Roger Clemens and his ex-trainer Brian McNamee were asked Friday to testify before a congressional panel on Jan. 16, according to media reports. Also called were fellow Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte and former Yankee position player Chuck Knoblauch, as well as Kirk Radomski, the former New York mets clubhouse attendant who alledgedly dstributed performace-enhancing drugs to players, reports said.
I am a baseball fan and in certain circumstances Roger Clemens's (or anyone else's) steroid use may be an issue. However, I haven't figured out why Congress is getting involved in this matter. Isn't this an issue for Major League Baseball to handle?
The nitwits in Congress obviously have too much time between meeting with lobbyists and attending $500-a-plate fund raisers, so they have to fill their schedule with inconsequential matters like Roger Clemens and his potential steroid use. If only we lived in a country where this was the most pressing of issues. Last time I checked, Social Security remains an impending disaster, illegal immigration threatens to bankrupt hospitals across the southwest, and we are still not energy independent. But those things can wait. We need to get to the bottom of this Roger Clemens steroid issue.
I wonder how much longer the American people will tolerate this madness from their elected leaders. They pass laws fluffed with earmarks and unnecessary spending, all while running for president as the "candidate for change". Change? Unless they start addressing the important stuff, and ignoring the unimportant stuff, then there is no change happening.
I'm sure the pundits on ESPN feel the Clemens issue is important. I'm sure there are die-hard baseball fans across the nation who agree. But I say let MLB figure it out. We don't pay our Congressman to interview baseball players. We pay them to solve problems. Perhaps one day they'll start doing their job.
I am a baseball fan and in certain circumstances Roger Clemens's (or anyone else's) steroid use may be an issue. However, I haven't figured out why Congress is getting involved in this matter. Isn't this an issue for Major League Baseball to handle?
The nitwits in Congress obviously have too much time between meeting with lobbyists and attending $500-a-plate fund raisers, so they have to fill their schedule with inconsequential matters like Roger Clemens and his potential steroid use. If only we lived in a country where this was the most pressing of issues. Last time I checked, Social Security remains an impending disaster, illegal immigration threatens to bankrupt hospitals across the southwest, and we are still not energy independent. But those things can wait. We need to get to the bottom of this Roger Clemens steroid issue.
I wonder how much longer the American people will tolerate this madness from their elected leaders. They pass laws fluffed with earmarks and unnecessary spending, all while running for president as the "candidate for change". Change? Unless they start addressing the important stuff, and ignoring the unimportant stuff, then there is no change happening.
I'm sure the pundits on ESPN feel the Clemens issue is important. I'm sure there are die-hard baseball fans across the nation who agree. But I say let MLB figure it out. We don't pay our Congressman to interview baseball players. We pay them to solve problems. Perhaps one day they'll start doing their job.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
WEP has returned from the holidays. I hope everyone had a safe and Merry Christmas. Before I post today, I want to send a special prayer for Benazir Bhutto, her family and supporters, the people of Pakistan and America. The radical Islamists once again show that they have hardly retreated into the shadows. Bhutto was a friend of the West. She believed in democracy, equality and basic human rights. She rejected much of the old Sharia that so many radical Muslims embrace, and she was murdered for it. Now, an entire nation is ready to be ripped apart at the seams while Musharraf appears powerless to stop it. Make no mistake, this is a very dangerous situation with implications for every citizen of the world. Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons and if Musharraf loses control of those the Iranian threat suddenly becomes minute in comparison.
On a related note, I'd like to point out yet another tasteless moment from John Edwards. He called Pervez Musharraf after the murder of Bhutto, apparently to urge the Pakistani president to continue to press for democracy in his counry. This was moments after a major political figure was assassinated and the entire country was on the verge of brutal riots, and John Edwards - someone with absolutely NO political power or position in our government - decides to put in a personal phone call. Huh? Pretentious doesn't begin to describe this. Tacky, inappropriate, arrogant, assuming would all fit as well, insert your own synonym, but this is a prime example of the type of person John Edwards is...delusional AND cocky.
And let's not leave out Mike Huckabee, who (along with every other presidential candidate) attempted to capitalize on the situation by claiming (along with every other presidential candidate) that HE was best suited to deal with similar international incidents as president. My guess is that Huckabee probably couldn't find Pakistan on a map, but that's another post. The actual reason why I singled him out of the crowd of buzzards is because during his opportunistic stumping he made a statement regarding his concern for martial law in Pakistan and how much longer this would go on. Apparently, no one informed Mikey that martial law ended over 2 weeks ago. Yeah, and this guy wants to be president? I don't care how close you are to Jesus. If you can't keep up with current events in the Muslim community, especially ones involving nuclear nations, then the White House is the last place you need to be.
Meanwhile, here is a link to the latest info from Iraq with an excerpt below:
BAGHDAD — Iraq's interior ministry spokesman said Saturday that 75 percent of Al Qaeda in Iraq's terrorist network had been destroyed this year, but the top American commander in the country said the terror group remained his chief concern. Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was due to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.
On a related note, I'd like to point out yet another tasteless moment from John Edwards. He called Pervez Musharraf after the murder of Bhutto, apparently to urge the Pakistani president to continue to press for democracy in his counry. This was moments after a major political figure was assassinated and the entire country was on the verge of brutal riots, and John Edwards - someone with absolutely NO political power or position in our government - decides to put in a personal phone call. Huh? Pretentious doesn't begin to describe this. Tacky, inappropriate, arrogant, assuming would all fit as well, insert your own synonym, but this is a prime example of the type of person John Edwards is...delusional AND cocky.
And let's not leave out Mike Huckabee, who (along with every other presidential candidate) attempted to capitalize on the situation by claiming (along with every other presidential candidate) that HE was best suited to deal with similar international incidents as president. My guess is that Huckabee probably couldn't find Pakistan on a map, but that's another post. The actual reason why I singled him out of the crowd of buzzards is because during his opportunistic stumping he made a statement regarding his concern for martial law in Pakistan and how much longer this would go on. Apparently, no one informed Mikey that martial law ended over 2 weeks ago. Yeah, and this guy wants to be president? I don't care how close you are to Jesus. If you can't keep up with current events in the Muslim community, especially ones involving nuclear nations, then the White House is the last place you need to be.
Meanwhile, here is a link to the latest info from Iraq with an excerpt below:
BAGHDAD — Iraq's interior ministry spokesman said Saturday that 75 percent of Al Qaeda in Iraq's terrorist network had been destroyed this year, but the top American commander in the country said the terror group remained his chief concern. Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was due to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.
Monday, December 24, 2007
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us." When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: "'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"
Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him." After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead." So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
--Matthew 1:18 - 2:23 New International Version
Merry Christmas to all! May God keep you and yours safe this holiday season!
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us." When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: "'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"
Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him." After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead." So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
--Matthew 1:18 - 2:23 New International Version
Merry Christmas to all! May God keep you and yours safe this holiday season!
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Harry Reid seems to have changed his mind about some things in Iraq:
4/19/07: “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq,”
12/21/07: "The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that."
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
And here is Steven Milloy's latest column on the recent Energy Bill passed by Congress. A sample follows: "First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year? The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an inconsequential amount?"
4/19/07: “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq,”
12/21/07: "The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that."
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
And here is Steven Milloy's latest column on the recent Energy Bill passed by Congress. A sample follows: "First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year? The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an inconsequential amount?"
Thursday, December 20, 2007
I've made my thoughts about Mike Huckabee known, but the latest headline on his campaign is beyond ridiculous. I don't like the guy's politics and will most certainly NOT vote for him in the primary, but he is getting a raw deal on this Christmas ad fiasco.
In the ad, Huckabee basically says that there is a lot of nastiness going on in politics, and that maybe it's a good idea to put that aside and reflect on what's important this Christmas. He refers to family, friends, and celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, which is the reason why Christmas is celebrated and why it is a federal holiday. Naturally, this is enough to have liberals foaming at the mouth, even Catholic League president Bill Donahue called the ad inappropriate. But there's apparently more to the ad. Behind Huckabee is a white bookcase, and the shelves of that bookcase form a cross that appears to "hover" behind Huckabee's head. Donahue says this is a subliminal message and has heavily criticized Huckabee for it. Huh?
Click here to watch this heinous ad
Personally, I think it was well done. Yes, I am tired of all the political ads and we haven't even cast a single vote. So it's refreshing to see a candidate showing his human side, not saying anything derogatory, and wishing viewers good tidings. In short, it was nice. Mike Huckabee is entitled to his beliefs. He celebrates Christmas because of the birth of Christ. That's "what really matters" to him and this ad was partly meant to express that to people. I didn't see anything offensive. I didn't see him thrusting his religion on anyone. He didn't ask anyone to convert to his faith. He made a simple statement about what he believes. Put it this way, had Joe Leiberman run a similar ad in 2000 wishing everyone a Happy Hannakuh, I would have felt the same way, and I certainly would not have been offended or felt as though he was forcing his Jewish faith on me or anyone else. I would have supported Leiberman in doing that as I support Huckabee now.
And the white cross thing is laughable. Yes, I saw the image but it seems purely coincidental. In fact, towards the end it actually resembles an upside-down cross. Maybe Huckabee secretly worships the devil. When you think about it, there are crosses everywhere. Maybe Christians are planning a theocratic coup. You can't spell United States without using 3 crosses, which is the same number that stood on Golgotha the day Christ was executed. Coincidence? Oh, I think not!
But seriously, let's just suppose that it's not a coincidence and the director filmed it that way on purpose. What would the subliminal message be? That Huckabee believes in Jesus? I think he's pretty clear about that. There's nothing subliminal about it. Bill Donahue and the rest of the crazies need to relax a bit. It's okay if a politician talks about Jesus. He's not trying to force you to worship our God. If you vote for him, no one is going to forcibly baptize you.
I never understood the hysteria surrounding Christianity these days. Maybe it's just coming from the left's Bush derangement syndrome, but it seems like whenever a political candidate talks about his faith (especially a Christian faith) the left seems to recoil in horror. There is a fear amongst the lefties of any politician who believes in Jesus. Why? And why now?
For the better part of two centuries this country was run predominantly by Christians. References to America's Christian heritage are everywhere. Our greatest leaders - from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln to Dr King to Roosevelt - were all devout Christians (yes, I said Jefferson). In fact, Jefferson's claim that our basic human rights are endowed "by our Creator" was an incredibly important fundamental principle in the creation of the USA. Not one of them sought to impose this religion on the nation. Not one of them advocated for a theocracy. Yet, I get the impression that that's exactly what the left fears...that a Christian leader or leaders will attempt to transform American into some fanatical Christian theocracy. Again I say, huh?
I don't know, nor have I ever known, a single Christian who would support such an action. First, the Constitution forbids it, and Christians believe, support and abide by the Constitution. Second, the BIBLE forbids it. Jesus Himself said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". This is the very philosophy that found it's way into the first amendment.
America was founded, in part, because people were escaping religious persecution. Protestantism came about, in part, because Christians did not want church leaders to have too much power over them. Let me say it plainly...CHRISTIANS DO NOT WANT AMERICA TO BE A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY. And, even more importantly, CHRISTIANS DO NOT SEEK TO CONVERT ANYONE AGAINST THEIR WILL. That would be a violation of our God's directives.
I can't be much clearer. And, to be honest, I wonder if there is something more to the story. I wonder if lefties fear Christian leadership for other reasons. Oh well, I guess that's another post. For now, I salute Huckabee for his message. I don't think there was anything malicious about it, and I don't think there is anything offensive about it. He doesn't have my vote, but he has my support in this particular matter.
In the ad, Huckabee basically says that there is a lot of nastiness going on in politics, and that maybe it's a good idea to put that aside and reflect on what's important this Christmas. He refers to family, friends, and celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, which is the reason why Christmas is celebrated and why it is a federal holiday. Naturally, this is enough to have liberals foaming at the mouth, even Catholic League president Bill Donahue called the ad inappropriate. But there's apparently more to the ad. Behind Huckabee is a white bookcase, and the shelves of that bookcase form a cross that appears to "hover" behind Huckabee's head. Donahue says this is a subliminal message and has heavily criticized Huckabee for it. Huh?
Click here to watch this heinous ad
Personally, I think it was well done. Yes, I am tired of all the political ads and we haven't even cast a single vote. So it's refreshing to see a candidate showing his human side, not saying anything derogatory, and wishing viewers good tidings. In short, it was nice. Mike Huckabee is entitled to his beliefs. He celebrates Christmas because of the birth of Christ. That's "what really matters" to him and this ad was partly meant to express that to people. I didn't see anything offensive. I didn't see him thrusting his religion on anyone. He didn't ask anyone to convert to his faith. He made a simple statement about what he believes. Put it this way, had Joe Leiberman run a similar ad in 2000 wishing everyone a Happy Hannakuh, I would have felt the same way, and I certainly would not have been offended or felt as though he was forcing his Jewish faith on me or anyone else. I would have supported Leiberman in doing that as I support Huckabee now.
And the white cross thing is laughable. Yes, I saw the image but it seems purely coincidental. In fact, towards the end it actually resembles an upside-down cross. Maybe Huckabee secretly worships the devil. When you think about it, there are crosses everywhere. Maybe Christians are planning a theocratic coup. You can't spell United States without using 3 crosses, which is the same number that stood on Golgotha the day Christ was executed. Coincidence? Oh, I think not!
But seriously, let's just suppose that it's not a coincidence and the director filmed it that way on purpose. What would the subliminal message be? That Huckabee believes in Jesus? I think he's pretty clear about that. There's nothing subliminal about it. Bill Donahue and the rest of the crazies need to relax a bit. It's okay if a politician talks about Jesus. He's not trying to force you to worship our God. If you vote for him, no one is going to forcibly baptize you.
I never understood the hysteria surrounding Christianity these days. Maybe it's just coming from the left's Bush derangement syndrome, but it seems like whenever a political candidate talks about his faith (especially a Christian faith) the left seems to recoil in horror. There is a fear amongst the lefties of any politician who believes in Jesus. Why? And why now?
For the better part of two centuries this country was run predominantly by Christians. References to America's Christian heritage are everywhere. Our greatest leaders - from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln to Dr King to Roosevelt - were all devout Christians (yes, I said Jefferson). In fact, Jefferson's claim that our basic human rights are endowed "by our Creator" was an incredibly important fundamental principle in the creation of the USA. Not one of them sought to impose this religion on the nation. Not one of them advocated for a theocracy. Yet, I get the impression that that's exactly what the left fears...that a Christian leader or leaders will attempt to transform American into some fanatical Christian theocracy. Again I say, huh?
I don't know, nor have I ever known, a single Christian who would support such an action. First, the Constitution forbids it, and Christians believe, support and abide by the Constitution. Second, the BIBLE forbids it. Jesus Himself said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". This is the very philosophy that found it's way into the first amendment.
America was founded, in part, because people were escaping religious persecution. Protestantism came about, in part, because Christians did not want church leaders to have too much power over them. Let me say it plainly...CHRISTIANS DO NOT WANT AMERICA TO BE A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY. And, even more importantly, CHRISTIANS DO NOT SEEK TO CONVERT ANYONE AGAINST THEIR WILL. That would be a violation of our God's directives.
I can't be much clearer. And, to be honest, I wonder if there is something more to the story. I wonder if lefties fear Christian leadership for other reasons. Oh well, I guess that's another post. For now, I salute Huckabee for his message. I don't think there was anything malicious about it, and I don't think there is anything offensive about it. He doesn't have my vote, but he has my support in this particular matter.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
MISSION VIEJO, Calif. A Mission Viejo history teacher is being sued for making what a student calls anti-Christian comments.Capistrano Valley High School sophomore Chad Farnan and his parents filed the lawsuit against James Corbett last week.They allege that Corbett's remarks during an Advanced Placement European history promoted religious intolerance in violation of the First Amendment.Court papers cite classroom tape recordings in which Corbett says "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth," and other remarks that troubled Farnan.
Some of the comments by his teacher, James Corbett, included, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth” and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work.” The comments were made while he was teaching Advanced Placement European history at Capistrano Valley High School.
Corbett also said that Christians want their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Nice.
I completely agree with Chad Farnan and I wish him all the best. I hope that he is vindicated in this lawsuit and the teacher in question is reprimanded. I have said many times that anti-Christian bigotry is the only accepted form of hate in mainstream America nowadays. This is just another example, but there are many more out there. Recently, a commentator with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said this about Mike Huckabee: “If you happen to be walking behind presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee, you might see a small trail of blood and hear a scraping sound. That’s because his knuckles are dragging. This darling of the evangelical right has proven himself to be every bit the caveman we mainstreamers believe him to be.”
And what's interesting is that these are the very people who claim Christians are intolerant! Amazing.
Farnan's claim is that the teacher violated his first amendment right by promoting religious intolerance and hostility towards the student's religion. Liberals often forget that the first amendment protects the "free practice thereof" when it comes to religion, something I'm sure many of them would LOVE to change. In my opinion, I think Farnan has a legitimate gripe, although proving the teacher was prohibiting his free practice of religion may be a stretch. Nevertheless, I hope the young man is successful.
I think a better argument would be one of discrimination. What this guy said was blatant bigotry. Don't believe me? Well, let's take the "Jesus glasses" comment, change one word, and see how it sounds:
"When you put on your BLACK glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your JEW glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your GAY & LESBIAN glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your MUHAMMED glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your FEMINIST glasses, you can't see the truth"
I think my point is clear. I'm willing to bet that CNN, the NY Times and the major networks didn't cover this story, which would hardly be the case if a public school teacher had uttered one of the above remarks to his high school history class. In fact, one of the above remarks probably would have gotten a teacher fired on the spot. But not when that person attacks Christians.
I've said before, attacking someone for their religious beliefs is fundamentally un-American, UnConstitutional and should not be tolerated in any environment. This teacher deserves a serious reprimand and all teachers must learn a valuable lesson. Your job is to teach our children history, math, English and science while keeping your personal hatred and bias to yourself. If you can't do this, then it's probably time to find a new profession.
Some of the comments by his teacher, James Corbett, included, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth” and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work.” The comments were made while he was teaching Advanced Placement European history at Capistrano Valley High School.
Corbett also said that Christians want their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Nice.
I completely agree with Chad Farnan and I wish him all the best. I hope that he is vindicated in this lawsuit and the teacher in question is reprimanded. I have said many times that anti-Christian bigotry is the only accepted form of hate in mainstream America nowadays. This is just another example, but there are many more out there. Recently, a commentator with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said this about Mike Huckabee: “If you happen to be walking behind presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee, you might see a small trail of blood and hear a scraping sound. That’s because his knuckles are dragging. This darling of the evangelical right has proven himself to be every bit the caveman we mainstreamers believe him to be.”
And what's interesting is that these are the very people who claim Christians are intolerant! Amazing.
Farnan's claim is that the teacher violated his first amendment right by promoting religious intolerance and hostility towards the student's religion. Liberals often forget that the first amendment protects the "free practice thereof" when it comes to religion, something I'm sure many of them would LOVE to change. In my opinion, I think Farnan has a legitimate gripe, although proving the teacher was prohibiting his free practice of religion may be a stretch. Nevertheless, I hope the young man is successful.
I think a better argument would be one of discrimination. What this guy said was blatant bigotry. Don't believe me? Well, let's take the "Jesus glasses" comment, change one word, and see how it sounds:
"When you put on your BLACK glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your JEW glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your GAY & LESBIAN glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your MUHAMMED glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your FEMINIST glasses, you can't see the truth"
I think my point is clear. I'm willing to bet that CNN, the NY Times and the major networks didn't cover this story, which would hardly be the case if a public school teacher had uttered one of the above remarks to his high school history class. In fact, one of the above remarks probably would have gotten a teacher fired on the spot. But not when that person attacks Christians.
I've said before, attacking someone for their religious beliefs is fundamentally un-American, UnConstitutional and should not be tolerated in any environment. This teacher deserves a serious reprimand and all teachers must learn a valuable lesson. Your job is to teach our children history, math, English and science while keeping your personal hatred and bias to yourself. If you can't do this, then it's probably time to find a new profession.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The state of New Jersey today has officially banned the death penalty. This is welcome news to eight of New Jersey's most vile criminals who were on death row when the Governor issued the ban. Among those is Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The case inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.
The Justice system felt Timmendequas deserved to die for his crime. Thanks to the latest efforts by lawmakers, that will not happen. Timmendequas will now spend the rest of his life as a ward of the state. He gets to read books, exercise, watch TV (probably with cable) and eat three hot meals a day while the New Jersey taxpayers pick up the tab for someone who should be executed. I'm sure there are many who think this is good news, not me. But that's a problem the people of New Jersey will have to deal with.
Soon, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments about lethal injection and whether this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This seems laughable at best, but the fact that this has made it all the way to SCOTUS is no laughing matter. How anyone could think that a technique (IV injection) that is used to save lives would constitute cruel and unusual punishment is beyond me. But this is typical from the bleeding hearts who think criminals deserve more pity than their victims. Whatever.
I will be watching SCOTUS with interest. This is the same court that allows elective abortions of human fetuses. I'd like to point out that there is considerable evidence that a human fetus is capable of feeling pain as early as NINE weeks gestation and it is generally accepted that a 13 week fetus most certainly has this ability, yet the Supreme Court feels it is acceptable to inflict pain on these people during the process of killing them. I feel they should weigh this as they hear the arguments on IV injection. If injecting a lethal substance constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, then I'd like to hear how they balance that with a second or third trimester abortion OR a partial birth abortion. It should be interesting.
The Justice system felt Timmendequas deserved to die for his crime. Thanks to the latest efforts by lawmakers, that will not happen. Timmendequas will now spend the rest of his life as a ward of the state. He gets to read books, exercise, watch TV (probably with cable) and eat three hot meals a day while the New Jersey taxpayers pick up the tab for someone who should be executed. I'm sure there are many who think this is good news, not me. But that's a problem the people of New Jersey will have to deal with.
Soon, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments about lethal injection and whether this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This seems laughable at best, but the fact that this has made it all the way to SCOTUS is no laughing matter. How anyone could think that a technique (IV injection) that is used to save lives would constitute cruel and unusual punishment is beyond me. But this is typical from the bleeding hearts who think criminals deserve more pity than their victims. Whatever.
I will be watching SCOTUS with interest. This is the same court that allows elective abortions of human fetuses. I'd like to point out that there is considerable evidence that a human fetus is capable of feeling pain as early as NINE weeks gestation and it is generally accepted that a 13 week fetus most certainly has this ability, yet the Supreme Court feels it is acceptable to inflict pain on these people during the process of killing them. I feel they should weigh this as they hear the arguments on IV injection. If injecting a lethal substance constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, then I'd like to hear how they balance that with a second or third trimester abortion OR a partial birth abortion. It should be interesting.
For any parents out there who are thinking of taking their children to see the latest "children's movie" The Golden Compass, here are a few things to know:
A mysterious, truth-telling compass, shape-changing creatures, ferocious, armored bears racing across snow-covered landscapes, and a scrappy 11-year-old named Lyra Belacqua as the heroine — all that and more are promised in The Golden Compass, a film scheduled for release this December and based on the first volume in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, a Carnegie award-winning series for young adults. But there’s more to these books than a well-told adventure story. Here’s the scoop on this immensely praised but controversial trilogy.
The Christian Church featured in the world of the novels — a parallel world to our own — is portrayed as a powerful group of misguided, sin-obsessed individuals bent on oppressing truth, knowledge, and “every good feeling.” The group is often referred to as “the Magisterium.” In this world, the Authority — the God of Christianity, and also a representative of authority in the general sense — is a tyrannical liar who only pretends to have created the universe and who, by the time the trilogy’s ultimate battle is waged, is a pitifully frail old man who is relieved that someone has come along to put an end to his existence. The character Mary Malone, a former nun introduced in the second book of the trilogy, sums up what would appear to be the author’s view: “The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all.” MORE from CATHOLIC DIGEST
Here is a link to SNOPES, confirming the underlying theme of this movie, and the mission of the leading characters to kill god
A mysterious, truth-telling compass, shape-changing creatures, ferocious, armored bears racing across snow-covered landscapes, and a scrappy 11-year-old named Lyra Belacqua as the heroine — all that and more are promised in The Golden Compass, a film scheduled for release this December and based on the first volume in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, a Carnegie award-winning series for young adults. But there’s more to these books than a well-told adventure story. Here’s the scoop on this immensely praised but controversial trilogy.
The Christian Church featured in the world of the novels — a parallel world to our own — is portrayed as a powerful group of misguided, sin-obsessed individuals bent on oppressing truth, knowledge, and “every good feeling.” The group is often referred to as “the Magisterium.” In this world, the Authority — the God of Christianity, and also a representative of authority in the general sense — is a tyrannical liar who only pretends to have created the universe and who, by the time the trilogy’s ultimate battle is waged, is a pitifully frail old man who is relieved that someone has come along to put an end to his existence. The character Mary Malone, a former nun introduced in the second book of the trilogy, sums up what would appear to be the author’s view: “The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all.” MORE from CATHOLIC DIGEST
Here is a link to SNOPES, confirming the underlying theme of this movie, and the mission of the leading characters to kill god
Sunday, December 16, 2007
And if we're still looking for $50 billion to fix the AMT, consider the recent farm bill that both houses are working on. The Senate on Friday approved a $286 billion farm bill with an election-year expansion of subsidies for growers and food stamps for the poor.
$286 billion to EXPAND subsidies. For those who don't know, one consistent sure-fire result of government subsidies is higher prices. Look at the current price of corn and you'll understand. This is the result of government subsidies in order to increase ethanol fuel. And Congress wants to spend nearly $300 billion to EXPAND these subsidies to other crops like wheat, barley, oat and soybeans. Just wait, the prices for all of these will soon begin to climb the moment this legislation is made into law.
And before you start advocating for the average American farmer, you should know that the vast majority of these subsidies don't go to the poor Midwest farmer working the family plot of a few hundred acres. Oh no. Most of this money goes to major corporations that have bought up these farms all over the country. For those who curse "big oil", you may also want to take a close look at "big corn". You may be surprised at what you find. Check out this article on Archer Daniels Midland, a company that raked in $236 million in corn profits in 2005.
But the Senate wants to limit this. They propose capping payments to anyone who makes more than $750,000 a year. The House wants to cap at $1 million. Bush wants that cap to be $200,000. Apparently that's unacceptable to Congress. Funny, I thought the Dems were opposed to the wealthy. I guess when it comes to "big farming" that's a different story.
I'm sure if Congress adopted Bush's proposal they'd be able to find the $50 billion for AMT relief. Remember, this is a $300 billion bill. Obviously, subsidizing major farming corporations is much more important than fair taxes for the middle class. Who knows, if Congress fixed the AMT there may not be as much of a need for food stamps for the poor.
$286 billion to EXPAND subsidies. For those who don't know, one consistent sure-fire result of government subsidies is higher prices. Look at the current price of corn and you'll understand. This is the result of government subsidies in order to increase ethanol fuel. And Congress wants to spend nearly $300 billion to EXPAND these subsidies to other crops like wheat, barley, oat and soybeans. Just wait, the prices for all of these will soon begin to climb the moment this legislation is made into law.
And before you start advocating for the average American farmer, you should know that the vast majority of these subsidies don't go to the poor Midwest farmer working the family plot of a few hundred acres. Oh no. Most of this money goes to major corporations that have bought up these farms all over the country. For those who curse "big oil", you may also want to take a close look at "big corn". You may be surprised at what you find. Check out this article on Archer Daniels Midland, a company that raked in $236 million in corn profits in 2005.
But the Senate wants to limit this. They propose capping payments to anyone who makes more than $750,000 a year. The House wants to cap at $1 million. Bush wants that cap to be $200,000. Apparently that's unacceptable to Congress. Funny, I thought the Dems were opposed to the wealthy. I guess when it comes to "big farming" that's a different story.
I'm sure if Congress adopted Bush's proposal they'd be able to find the $50 billion for AMT relief. Remember, this is a $300 billion bill. Obviously, subsidizing major farming corporations is much more important than fair taxes for the middle class. Who knows, if Congress fixed the AMT there may not be as much of a need for food stamps for the poor.
And while the AMT remains on the table, Nancy Pelosi and her merry band of fleecers have moved to pass an energy bill that...well...does absolutely nothing good for Americans. The bill requires an increase in automobile fuel efficiency to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and also requires an increase of ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a nearly sixfold increase over expected 2007 production. It also requires new efficiency standards for appliances, light bulbs and commercial buildings.
Pelosi says this will save people money at the pump and put us on the road to energy independence. Sounds great!
But what she didn't say is that ethanol is a very inefficient fuel and, mile-for-mile, is no cheaper than gasoline (in fact, it will likely cost more). So automakers will have to figure out how to build fuel efficient cars that run on inefficient fuel. Sounds expensive to me. She also didn't mention what these government mandates will do to the corn market. How much do you pay for a gallon of milk nowadays? Expect it to go up. She also didn't mention that gasoline use in automobiles accounts for only a small percentage of our foreign oil consumption. She also didn't mention that all of these requirements will increase costs for corporations, who will subsequently pass those costs to us the consumer.
So, we will be putting fuel in our cars that is less efficient and will likely cost more than gasoline, while paying more for milk than we do gasoline, and not getting any closer to energy independence, all while our overall cost of living increases. Thanks, Ms Pelosi and (if he signs it) Mr. Bush.
By the way, there is nothing in the bill that addresses additional domestic oil drilling, especially the prospect of drilling off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico where China and Cuba are eyeballing the rich oil fields. There is nothing about increasing nuclear power, a clean fuel that could greatly reduce our foreign energy dependence. There is nothing about building more refineries, the lack of which contributes greatly to high gas prices.
Oh yeah, Congress still hasn't fixed the AMT.
Pelosi says this will save people money at the pump and put us on the road to energy independence. Sounds great!
But what she didn't say is that ethanol is a very inefficient fuel and, mile-for-mile, is no cheaper than gasoline (in fact, it will likely cost more). So automakers will have to figure out how to build fuel efficient cars that run on inefficient fuel. Sounds expensive to me. She also didn't mention what these government mandates will do to the corn market. How much do you pay for a gallon of milk nowadays? Expect it to go up. She also didn't mention that gasoline use in automobiles accounts for only a small percentage of our foreign oil consumption. She also didn't mention that all of these requirements will increase costs for corporations, who will subsequently pass those costs to us the consumer.
So, we will be putting fuel in our cars that is less efficient and will likely cost more than gasoline, while paying more for milk than we do gasoline, and not getting any closer to energy independence, all while our overall cost of living increases. Thanks, Ms Pelosi and (if he signs it) Mr. Bush.
By the way, there is nothing in the bill that addresses additional domestic oil drilling, especially the prospect of drilling off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico where China and Cuba are eyeballing the rich oil fields. There is nothing about increasing nuclear power, a clean fuel that could greatly reduce our foreign energy dependence. There is nothing about building more refineries, the lack of which contributes greatly to high gas prices.
Oh yeah, Congress still hasn't fixed the AMT.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
To piggyback on my last post, just as Congress whines over not being able to find $50 billion to cut from the budget to allow for eliminating the AMT, I thought I'd include some examples of what they feel is necessary spending. As you read, remember that Congress would rather spend this money on these projects than provide middle class families protection from the heinous AMT. Click here for a full list, but here are a few examples:
$500 million in aid to the Palestinians (in addition to the $400 million already pledged)
$2 million for Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, City College of New York
$1million for Clinton School of Public Service, Little Rock, Arkansas
$3.76 million for LBJ Presidential Library
$2 million for Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation
$4 million Fourteen-Mile CSX Bridge, Alabama
$1 million Irish Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
$9 million Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
$2.4 million Urban Collector Road, Mississippi
$10.6 million National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
$5 million Norfolk (Virginia) Light Rail Project
$2 million Cooling, Heating, and Power at Mississippi State University
$1 million Light Brown Apple Moth (whatever that is?)
These are just a few. As middle class Americans get stiffed with the AMT, YOUR tax dollars will be paying for heating, cooling and power at Mississippi State University!
$500 million in aid to the Palestinians (in addition to the $400 million already pledged)
$2 million for Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, City College of New York
$1million for Clinton School of Public Service, Little Rock, Arkansas
$3.76 million for LBJ Presidential Library
$2 million for Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation
$4 million Fourteen-Mile CSX Bridge, Alabama
$1 million Irish Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
$9 million Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
$2.4 million Urban Collector Road, Mississippi
$10.6 million National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
$5 million Norfolk (Virginia) Light Rail Project
$2 million Cooling, Heating, and Power at Mississippi State University
$1 million Light Brown Apple Moth (whatever that is?)
These are just a few. As middle class Americans get stiffed with the AMT, YOUR tax dollars will be paying for heating, cooling and power at Mississippi State University!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The latest from Washington shows that Congress continues with their same ol' tricks. At center stage is the Alternative Minimum Tax. I'm sure everyone is aware of this. It's an alternative tax put in place in the '60s designed to keep the rich from deducting their way to low tax rates. It makes sense, understanding that the wealthy can afford an army of accountants who are capable of finding write-offs anywhere. But the "makes sense" part of it ends there because the Democrat congress of the 60s, in all their grandiose intelligence and foresight, forgot to index the tax for inflation. So now, 40 years later, average middle class Americans are finding that they trigger the AMT which is usually a rather substantial tax burden that they simply can't afford. Every year more and more American families are forced to pay more than their fair share and it's passed time for Congress to fix it.
So, enter Pelosi's congress. Surely the party of the poor, the champion of the middle class will fix this assault on our middle class families, right? Wrong. Here are the basics of what is going on:
The Dems are prepared to waive the AMT, but this tax accounts for upwards of $50 billion in the federal budget. It's quite a chunk of change and the government supposedly needs that money. So, to offset that loss, the Dems are seeking to (what else) RAISE taxes elsewhere to pay for the fix. Much of this is driven by moderate "blue dog" democrats who demand congress stick to the pay-as-you-go philosophy and will not vote for any taxcuts that aren't accounted for elsewhere, either through other taxes or cuts in spending and there's NO WAY the Dems will go along with spending cuts. Imagine that! Congress showing fiscal responsibility! Obviously, this concept has them all extremely confused, thus adding to the gridlock.
Naturally, the Republicans will not approve ANY tax increase, even one designed to fix the AMT. They feel that spending cuts are the way to go.
No one appears willing to give in. And so the AMT remains in effect, and tax season is just around the corner.
In my opinion, there is NO reason why Congress can't fix this problem. This tax is unfair and places too much financial burden on families who can't afford to give the gov't a big chunk of their salary. There is NO excuse for not fixing this problem...NONE. I don't want to hear it. I'm sick of the finger pointing, the bickering, the blaming. And there are many Americans who agree. If Congress allows one more year to go by while sticking the American taxpayer with this bogus thievery, they will have a lot of questions to answer.
Find a way. That's all there is to it. I don't care if you have to cut your own salaries to help with the effort. Find a way to fix this problem! Congress can cut $50 billion from the budget. It's not that hard. And if it is, send me a copy of the budget and I guarantee I will be able to find $50 billion that doesn't have to be spent. Notice these imbeciles refuse to do away with earmarks as a way to help end this tax. That appears to be off the table. They want to reserve the right to spend America's money on some bridge or park in their respective district, but lack the sack to do something that would actually help the American people. They bellyache about needing the money and not being able to cut so much from the budget while spending our money like trust fund brats out for a night on the town after swiping daddy's visa. There is NO EXCUSE!
And while I appreciate the Republicans digging in on no new taxes, I also demand that they not let this idea keep them from eliminating the AMT. Yes, we shouldn't be raising taxes anywhere, but the reality is that the Dems may not agree to anything without a tax hike, so some compromising may be in order. Why can't they meet half way? How about $25 billion in spending cuts and $25 billion in tax hikes? What's so hard about that?
This is a big issue, and I will be watching it closely. I will include the names of those who put up roadblocks to fixing this issue. The AMT must go. There is NO EXCUSE for not doing so.
So, enter Pelosi's congress. Surely the party of the poor, the champion of the middle class will fix this assault on our middle class families, right? Wrong. Here are the basics of what is going on:
The Dems are prepared to waive the AMT, but this tax accounts for upwards of $50 billion in the federal budget. It's quite a chunk of change and the government supposedly needs that money. So, to offset that loss, the Dems are seeking to (what else) RAISE taxes elsewhere to pay for the fix. Much of this is driven by moderate "blue dog" democrats who demand congress stick to the pay-as-you-go philosophy and will not vote for any taxcuts that aren't accounted for elsewhere, either through other taxes or cuts in spending and there's NO WAY the Dems will go along with spending cuts. Imagine that! Congress showing fiscal responsibility! Obviously, this concept has them all extremely confused, thus adding to the gridlock.
Naturally, the Republicans will not approve ANY tax increase, even one designed to fix the AMT. They feel that spending cuts are the way to go.
No one appears willing to give in. And so the AMT remains in effect, and tax season is just around the corner.
In my opinion, there is NO reason why Congress can't fix this problem. This tax is unfair and places too much financial burden on families who can't afford to give the gov't a big chunk of their salary. There is NO excuse for not fixing this problem...NONE. I don't want to hear it. I'm sick of the finger pointing, the bickering, the blaming. And there are many Americans who agree. If Congress allows one more year to go by while sticking the American taxpayer with this bogus thievery, they will have a lot of questions to answer.
Find a way. That's all there is to it. I don't care if you have to cut your own salaries to help with the effort. Find a way to fix this problem! Congress can cut $50 billion from the budget. It's not that hard. And if it is, send me a copy of the budget and I guarantee I will be able to find $50 billion that doesn't have to be spent. Notice these imbeciles refuse to do away with earmarks as a way to help end this tax. That appears to be off the table. They want to reserve the right to spend America's money on some bridge or park in their respective district, but lack the sack to do something that would actually help the American people. They bellyache about needing the money and not being able to cut so much from the budget while spending our money like trust fund brats out for a night on the town after swiping daddy's visa. There is NO EXCUSE!
And while I appreciate the Republicans digging in on no new taxes, I also demand that they not let this idea keep them from eliminating the AMT. Yes, we shouldn't be raising taxes anywhere, but the reality is that the Dems may not agree to anything without a tax hike, so some compromising may be in order. Why can't they meet half way? How about $25 billion in spending cuts and $25 billion in tax hikes? What's so hard about that?
This is a big issue, and I will be watching it closely. I will include the names of those who put up roadblocks to fixing this issue. The AMT must go. There is NO EXCUSE for not doing so.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
This was uttered recently by Mike Huckabee during an interview with a New York magazine. To be fair, Huckabee's campaign claims that his comment was taken out of context, and Huckabee himself has already apologized to Romney. Later, he told reporters "After the debate today I went to Mitt Romney and apologized to him. I would never pick out some part of your faith and make it an issue." But isn't that exactly what he did?
Before I get to Huckabee's comment, I want to say a few things about his campaign. Let me preface this by saying that I am a devout Christian. My faith is very important to me and I stand beside my Christian brothers and sisters in the causes we support. With that being said, I think Christians have a bad habit of voting dumb. I don't mean that as an insult. Christians often tend to be suckers. If a candidate happens to be a Baptist minister or is very open about his faith, then many Christians will vote for that person simply for that reason, without knowing much about his platform and positions. That's what I mean when I say "voting dumb". Voting for a candidate just because he is a Baptist minister is just as mindless as voting against him for the same reason. The same can be said about voting for a woman, or a Latino, or an African-American, etc. For me, it's all about the issues. And when it comes to the issues, Huckabee is lacking.
Personally, I think the guy is a phony and I simply don't like him. He is surging in the polls because the Christian block is flocking from Thompson, and because he has performed well in the debate. He has the gift of charm, which is the same gift Clinton rode to the White House. That is reason enough for me not to like him, never mind the fact that his position on the issues is virtually unknown. This guy dodges questions much like a Clinton, but his "aw shucks, Jesus-never-would-have-entered-politics" wit goes only so far. His cutesy responses don't impress me, and they shouldn't impress any responsible voter. I would like to hear from Huckabee's supporters. What would Mike Huckabee do about the chaos on the southern border? What would Mike Huckabee do to salvage the glorious disaster that is Social Security? What would Mike Huckabee do about our foreign energy dependence? What would Mike Huckabee do about terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria? The growing socialist threat in South America? Russia's gradual move back to totalitarianism? What would Mike Huckabee do about our bloated federal government? Tax rates? Out of control spending? Does anyone know? And you're not allowed to look on his website. I've watched the debates, and I have no idea where this guy stands. All I know is that he is quick with a joke, and even quicker with a dodge.
Now, about the Mormon comment. There are few things that get my blood boiling as much as one person attacking the religious belief of another. That ire is amplified when the parties involved are both Christians. For one, Christ taught tolerance and respect. He taught sympathy for those who don't share your beliefs. Second, Christians in this secular day and age face enough resistance from the mainstream without senseless infighting and bickering. Whether it's Catholics and Protestants, Baptists and Methodists, Protestants and Mormons, or whatever, this never ending debate about who is more right is getting quite tiring. We basically believe the same thing, but have some subtle differences in interpreting those beliefs and in how we worship. SO WHAT! I don't think Jesus cares. Enough already. When you take a phony "superior" position and look down your nose on other religions, you give Christianity a bad name, and I won't allow that without a response. My criticism of people like this has ALWAYS been quick and harsh, and it will continue to do so. Radical ideas will not hijack my faith without a fight. In Huckabee's case, it just confirms my suspicion of the man as a hack. This behavior is cheap and petty, and amounts to nothing more than pandering to his building Protestant base. The fact that that base doesn't rapidly reject such behavior is quite concerning.
I'm glad Hackabee apologized, but I don't buy it for a second. In the first debate, he took a cheap (although subtle) shot at Romney's faith and I called him on it. This isn't the first time. And when it happens again, yours truly will be here hammering away. If Hackabee wants my respect, he needs make this issue a non-issue, and not allow any of the pundits to make it an issue. We are all aware of Mitt Romney's faith. We are all aware of Hackabee's faith. Leave it at that. If you want to get into the mud and drag your opponent's religious belief through the mud with you, then I think there will be a backlash. At least I hope so.
And finally, a tip of the hat to Fred Thompson for standing his ground against a blatantly liberal debate moderator today. She tried to get the candidates to take a position on global warming by a "show of hands" without a chance to explain their position, and Thompson refused. His action was applauded and rated very high with focus groups. Perhaps this will light a fire in his campaign. The "most Reagan-like" of all the candidates is still alive, although barely, and if he is going to make a move he needs to do so quickly, or it will be over.
This was uttered recently by Mike Huckabee during an interview with a New York magazine. To be fair, Huckabee's campaign claims that his comment was taken out of context, and Huckabee himself has already apologized to Romney. Later, he told reporters "After the debate today I went to Mitt Romney and apologized to him. I would never pick out some part of your faith and make it an issue." But isn't that exactly what he did?
Before I get to Huckabee's comment, I want to say a few things about his campaign. Let me preface this by saying that I am a devout Christian. My faith is very important to me and I stand beside my Christian brothers and sisters in the causes we support. With that being said, I think Christians have a bad habit of voting dumb. I don't mean that as an insult. Christians often tend to be suckers. If a candidate happens to be a Baptist minister or is very open about his faith, then many Christians will vote for that person simply for that reason, without knowing much about his platform and positions. That's what I mean when I say "voting dumb". Voting for a candidate just because he is a Baptist minister is just as mindless as voting against him for the same reason. The same can be said about voting for a woman, or a Latino, or an African-American, etc. For me, it's all about the issues. And when it comes to the issues, Huckabee is lacking.
Personally, I think the guy is a phony and I simply don't like him. He is surging in the polls because the Christian block is flocking from Thompson, and because he has performed well in the debate. He has the gift of charm, which is the same gift Clinton rode to the White House. That is reason enough for me not to like him, never mind the fact that his position on the issues is virtually unknown. This guy dodges questions much like a Clinton, but his "aw shucks, Jesus-never-would-have-entered-politics" wit goes only so far. His cutesy responses don't impress me, and they shouldn't impress any responsible voter. I would like to hear from Huckabee's supporters. What would Mike Huckabee do about the chaos on the southern border? What would Mike Huckabee do to salvage the glorious disaster that is Social Security? What would Mike Huckabee do about our foreign energy dependence? What would Mike Huckabee do about terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria? The growing socialist threat in South America? Russia's gradual move back to totalitarianism? What would Mike Huckabee do about our bloated federal government? Tax rates? Out of control spending? Does anyone know? And you're not allowed to look on his website. I've watched the debates, and I have no idea where this guy stands. All I know is that he is quick with a joke, and even quicker with a dodge.
Now, about the Mormon comment. There are few things that get my blood boiling as much as one person attacking the religious belief of another. That ire is amplified when the parties involved are both Christians. For one, Christ taught tolerance and respect. He taught sympathy for those who don't share your beliefs. Second, Christians in this secular day and age face enough resistance from the mainstream without senseless infighting and bickering. Whether it's Catholics and Protestants, Baptists and Methodists, Protestants and Mormons, or whatever, this never ending debate about who is more right is getting quite tiring. We basically believe the same thing, but have some subtle differences in interpreting those beliefs and in how we worship. SO WHAT! I don't think Jesus cares. Enough already. When you take a phony "superior" position and look down your nose on other religions, you give Christianity a bad name, and I won't allow that without a response. My criticism of people like this has ALWAYS been quick and harsh, and it will continue to do so. Radical ideas will not hijack my faith without a fight. In Huckabee's case, it just confirms my suspicion of the man as a hack. This behavior is cheap and petty, and amounts to nothing more than pandering to his building Protestant base. The fact that that base doesn't rapidly reject such behavior is quite concerning.
I'm glad Hackabee apologized, but I don't buy it for a second. In the first debate, he took a cheap (although subtle) shot at Romney's faith and I called him on it. This isn't the first time. And when it happens again, yours truly will be here hammering away. If Hackabee wants my respect, he needs make this issue a non-issue, and not allow any of the pundits to make it an issue. We are all aware of Mitt Romney's faith. We are all aware of Hackabee's faith. Leave it at that. If you want to get into the mud and drag your opponent's religious belief through the mud with you, then I think there will be a backlash. At least I hope so.
And finally, a tip of the hat to Fred Thompson for standing his ground against a blatantly liberal debate moderator today. She tried to get the candidates to take a position on global warming by a "show of hands" without a chance to explain their position, and Thompson refused. His action was applauded and rated very high with focus groups. Perhaps this will light a fire in his campaign. The "most Reagan-like" of all the candidates is still alive, although barely, and if he is going to make a move he needs to do so quickly, or it will be over.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary. In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds. "The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline." "From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks." FULL STORY
DOZENS OF ATTACKS. That should stick with you. Waterboarding one person thwarted dozens of attacks, saving how many lives? Hundreds? Perhaps thousands? And yet there are people out there who say it isn't worth it. Rest assured, if their home town or their building was targeted the attitude on waterboarding would change.
I'm glad to see someone from the CIA come out with statements on how effective this technique is. I'm all for it as an interrogation measure. I don't agree that it is torture, but I do agree that it is absolutely necessary as a last resort, and that it saves lives.
DOZENS OF ATTACKS. That should stick with you. Waterboarding one person thwarted dozens of attacks, saving how many lives? Hundreds? Perhaps thousands? And yet there are people out there who say it isn't worth it. Rest assured, if their home town or their building was targeted the attitude on waterboarding would change.
I'm glad to see someone from the CIA come out with statements on how effective this technique is. I'm all for it as an interrogation measure. I don't agree that it is torture, but I do agree that it is absolutely necessary as a last resort, and that it saves lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)