Sunday, September 28, 2008
America will see the light...God help us
The country will come to its sense before the election. No way, with all thats going on in the world, can the country be handed over to a community organizer. McCain was a little soft on Obama, and McCain needs to press him for specifics he doesn't have. Im so tired of listening to Husseins empty platitudes that go unchallenged by the press. For example, he says he's for nuclear power, but not storing the waste....what stupidity...thats like saying I'm for ice cream, but don't want to pollute the country with a dairy operation. All of Obamas arguments run you around an exhaustive circle...when you get back to where you started, nothing gets done.Once the country realizes what is at stake, they will see the reform ticket of McCain and Palin the sensible choice in troubled and dangerous times.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Brilliant Obama
We will see how articulate and sharp Obama truly is if we can ever pull him out from behind a teleprompter. His liberal Harvard law professor calling him brilliant, probably because he was soaking and parroting the liberal maxims that this so-called professor was spewing. Give me a break.
Obama, when speaking off the cuff, indicates that he also believes that he’s more intelligent than the rest of us, that he has brilliant arguments to establish world peace, that by constraining energy supplies we can make our economy grow, that we feebly cling to our religion and guns, that American’s are far behind Europeans because we don’t speak French.
Funny, the America I know has developed break through technologies, medicine, products, engineering, and I don’t recall any other country in the world managing to land on the moon recently (although Americans did it almost 40 years ago). And guess what, we didn’t need to speak French to do any of those things.
In my opinion, if not for America, the world would be a cesspool. God bless America. Obama thinks like a liberal. Americans are buffoonish braggarts, who need to be taken down a notch. He will be the President to do that without doubt. I still waiting to hear his brilliant arguments and plans
Obama, when speaking off the cuff, indicates that he also believes that he’s more intelligent than the rest of us, that he has brilliant arguments to establish world peace, that by constraining energy supplies we can make our economy grow, that we feebly cling to our religion and guns, that American’s are far behind Europeans because we don’t speak French.
Funny, the America I know has developed break through technologies, medicine, products, engineering, and I don’t recall any other country in the world managing to land on the moon recently (although Americans did it almost 40 years ago). And guess what, we didn’t need to speak French to do any of those things.
In my opinion, if not for America, the world would be a cesspool. God bless America. Obama thinks like a liberal. Americans are buffoonish braggarts, who need to be taken down a notch. He will be the President to do that without doubt. I still waiting to hear his brilliant arguments and plans
Sunday, July 6, 2008
McCain going 'Center' on Wrong Issues
McCain is going to the 'center' on the wrong issues. Reneging on bordersecurity first, and focusing on immigration reform is a loser. Touting free trade versus fair trade is a loser. The blue collar folks are watching their jobs exported overseas, while immigrant replacement workers pour in with H1B visas, and as illegal immigrant workers further suppress their wages. McCain better wake up.
Even the Obamanator is finding room to McCain's'right' to run issues at our RINO nominee. That is exactly what Bill Clinton did to George H. Bush and Bob Doyle, and smoked their a$$es likecheap cigars. Before long, Obama's going to have a drilling proposal that's better than McCain's (as John will still be babbling about how he won't drill in the Grand Canyon). Where are the pros, and why does the GOP always have a collection of idiots that can't ever seem to connect the dots?
Even the Obamanator is finding room to McCain's'right' to run issues at our RINO nominee. That is exactly what Bill Clinton did to George H. Bush and Bob Doyle, and smoked their a$$es likecheap cigars. Before long, Obama's going to have a drilling proposal that's better than McCain's (as John will still be babbling about how he won't drill in the Grand Canyon). Where are the pros, and why does the GOP always have a collection of idiots that can't ever seem to connect the dots?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Back To 1978...
Obama will be the time machine that takes us back to 1978. Gas lines and out of gas signs on stations throughout the country.
Democrat falacies include, but are not limited to the following:
Democrat theory 1. There is no disparity between oil demand and supply, and speculators and evil oil companies are driving the prices up.
Every great lie is embedded with a little truth. Speculation does drive prices up, but it drives them down as well. Our issues our complex, too much spending (by Democrats and RINOs) devaluing the dollar...but the elephant in the living room is that world demand is exceeding current production levels. Thats what is driving the speculation up and up. With no anticipated increases to that production now or in the future, oil will climb higher and higher. Enter stage right, the Democrats, who will open up supply by taxing oil companies to buy votes by redistributing money to lower income to buy gas. But doesn't that raise demand, just what they say they don't want to do? How does that increase supply? With Democrat sponsored new taxes on oil, oil companies will reacte by moving their operations offshore and continue to sell their product to the growing global market. This will drive prices far above the point to where any confiscation of oil company profits to distribute to the poor will help at all. I'm afraid the Democrats, short of nationalizing oil companies as the Socialist dictator Hugo Chavez recently did, can't put the global genie back in the bottle. This is where the Democrat party is moving, replacing free enterprise with Government run energy companies, healthcare, and housing.
Democrat theory 2. Higher gas prices will reduce demand and accelerate adaption to alternative energy.
Although this theory runs directly counter to the Hussein plan to redistribute money to buy gas, then its obviously an attempt to buy votes because even Democrats can't be that stupid (although many of their supporters are). The idea that the poor will buy green energy rather than oil is a pipe dream....even ALGORE's carbon footprint is 20 times the average American just heating and cooling his 20,000 mansion ….and fueling up the private jet he sports around in...yes...even though he nailed a few solar panels on his roof, it wasn't enough. Alternate energy is expensive and inefficient compared to oil, but I guess the poor will have to suck it up for the sake of environmental extremism. Yeah Democrats. This is why Democrats support public schools, as they continue to roll out people who cannot read, write, or think.
Democrat falacies include, but are not limited to the following:
Democrat theory 1. There is no disparity between oil demand and supply, and speculators and evil oil companies are driving the prices up.
Every great lie is embedded with a little truth. Speculation does drive prices up, but it drives them down as well. Our issues our complex, too much spending (by Democrats and RINOs) devaluing the dollar...but the elephant in the living room is that world demand is exceeding current production levels. Thats what is driving the speculation up and up. With no anticipated increases to that production now or in the future, oil will climb higher and higher. Enter stage right, the Democrats, who will open up supply by taxing oil companies to buy votes by redistributing money to lower income to buy gas. But doesn't that raise demand, just what they say they don't want to do? How does that increase supply? With Democrat sponsored new taxes on oil, oil companies will reacte by moving their operations offshore and continue to sell their product to the growing global market. This will drive prices far above the point to where any confiscation of oil company profits to distribute to the poor will help at all. I'm afraid the Democrats, short of nationalizing oil companies as the Socialist dictator Hugo Chavez recently did, can't put the global genie back in the bottle. This is where the Democrat party is moving, replacing free enterprise with Government run energy companies, healthcare, and housing.
Democrat theory 2. Higher gas prices will reduce demand and accelerate adaption to alternative energy.
Although this theory runs directly counter to the Hussein plan to redistribute money to buy gas, then its obviously an attempt to buy votes because even Democrats can't be that stupid (although many of their supporters are). The idea that the poor will buy green energy rather than oil is a pipe dream....even ALGORE's carbon footprint is 20 times the average American just heating and cooling his 20,000 mansion ….and fueling up the private jet he sports around in...yes...even though he nailed a few solar panels on his roof, it wasn't enough. Alternate energy is expensive and inefficient compared to oil, but I guess the poor will have to suck it up for the sake of environmental extremism. Yeah Democrats. This is why Democrats support public schools, as they continue to roll out people who cannot read, write, or think.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Narrowly Missing a Civil War
How can 4 Supreme Court Justices redefine the 2nd Amendment?
We are all much relieved that the SCOTUS overturned the DC handgun ban. However, we were one vote from the court rewriting our Constitution based on their own opinion.
Dumb ass unelected judges have reached out of their box, and have taken over the role of legislators. This is a dangerous trend that will not leave democratic solutions as options, but armed revolution.
Judges would do well to examine there role in our Government and decide to use restraint rather than activism, to give democracy a chance to resolve the issues of the day.
We are all much relieved that the SCOTUS overturned the DC handgun ban. However, we were one vote from the court rewriting our Constitution based on their own opinion.
Dumb ass unelected judges have reached out of their box, and have taken over the role of legislators. This is a dangerous trend that will not leave democratic solutions as options, but armed revolution.
Judges would do well to examine there role in our Government and decide to use restraint rather than activism, to give democracy a chance to resolve the issues of the day.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What Kind of Leader do We Want?
The America I grew up in no longer exists. I think it started to fall apart in the early 60's, about when I was in the third grade. That was the last time I stood for the Lord's prayer at the beginning of class. The pillars of morality began to collapse there, for me, and that implosion hasn't stopped for the last 40 years. Beatniks, then Hippies, led us into a strange world whose vision was based on anarchy. Like John Lennon's "Imagine", the goal of no country and no religions all coming together to create a society of free loving peaceniks living free of war, ambition, and greed.
I've been around, and will never believe in the altruism of man. That is the foundation of atheism, that man is naturally good and should be his own God. Secular Humanists have busily been building their own tower of Babel while failing to recognize their own nature in a fallen world. Each man, regardless of motives, is stuck with his own demons which holds the potential of unleashing oppression on those who stand in their way. Make no mistake, good men are far and few between who lack the guidance of Almighty God.
As Proverbs proclaims, a fool declares there is no God. Whom shall we be lead by? Do you trust the judgement of man, or prefer to be led by men under the judgement of God? Consider the consequences of future elections.
I've been around, and will never believe in the altruism of man. That is the foundation of atheism, that man is naturally good and should be his own God. Secular Humanists have busily been building their own tower of Babel while failing to recognize their own nature in a fallen world. Each man, regardless of motives, is stuck with his own demons which holds the potential of unleashing oppression on those who stand in their way. Make no mistake, good men are far and few between who lack the guidance of Almighty God.
As Proverbs proclaims, a fool declares there is no God. Whom shall we be lead by? Do you trust the judgement of man, or prefer to be led by men under the judgement of God? Consider the consequences of future elections.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Marriage is NOT a Right
Marriage is NOT a right. The state can legally stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. The notion that marriage is a constitution right is silly at best, and dangerous at worst (if courts rather than legislatures decide the issue).
The state legislature (we the people) decide what licenses our state issues. The judiciary has overstepped its bounds once again. Thugs in black robes are ill advised to overrule the will of 'we the people'. Activitist judges are making a mockery of our form of government, and they need to be made to answer (impeached or removed). This cannot be tolerated, whether we agree or disagree with the ruling. Courts CANNOT become legislatures by legal fiat. What they are doing in California is a power grab and unconstitutional. The Courts domain is to determine if an existing law applies to a case or does not. It is not their job to determine lack, and then fulfill the law by rule. That’s what elected legislators do on our behalf. We live in a democracy, not under the thumb of unelected dictators of public policy.
Gays are turning this into a civil rights issue. Its clearly not. Gayness is an identity, not a race or gender. Gays can get licenses to marry members of the opposite sex with no prejudice. If Gay marriage is wanted, then Gays should pursue through their elected representatives. Winning this decision may have been one step forward, but there will be two steps back as the backlash kicks in. Real Americans will not be ruled this way.
States issue marriage licenses to protect children, and promote the raising of the next generation. Marriage is a necessary institution to birth, nurture, and educate that generation. This is critical to the survival of the state. Licensed marriage has no other purpose for the state. Same sex marriages are not equal in this respect. Single parenting or adoptions are not entitlements to marriage licenses. The state sets the conditions for marriage, and it choose wisely to promote heterosexual marriage to successfully raise up the next generation of tax paying citizens.
Homosexual marriage has no benefit to the state. In fact, homosexual sex is generally unhealthy and spreads disease and injury throughout the society. Despite denials, STDs run rampant between homosexual and bisexual communities. It is not in any states interest to promote any sexual proclivity by license whether its homosexuality, bisexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, or fathers marrying daughters, mothers marrying sons, or brothers marrying sisters. Marriage is designed to protect the children of heterosexual unions. That’s it.
The state legislature (we the people) decide what licenses our state issues. The judiciary has overstepped its bounds once again. Thugs in black robes are ill advised to overrule the will of 'we the people'. Activitist judges are making a mockery of our form of government, and they need to be made to answer (impeached or removed). This cannot be tolerated, whether we agree or disagree with the ruling. Courts CANNOT become legislatures by legal fiat. What they are doing in California is a power grab and unconstitutional. The Courts domain is to determine if an existing law applies to a case or does not. It is not their job to determine lack, and then fulfill the law by rule. That’s what elected legislators do on our behalf. We live in a democracy, not under the thumb of unelected dictators of public policy.
Gays are turning this into a civil rights issue. Its clearly not. Gayness is an identity, not a race or gender. Gays can get licenses to marry members of the opposite sex with no prejudice. If Gay marriage is wanted, then Gays should pursue through their elected representatives. Winning this decision may have been one step forward, but there will be two steps back as the backlash kicks in. Real Americans will not be ruled this way.
States issue marriage licenses to protect children, and promote the raising of the next generation. Marriage is a necessary institution to birth, nurture, and educate that generation. This is critical to the survival of the state. Licensed marriage has no other purpose for the state. Same sex marriages are not equal in this respect. Single parenting or adoptions are not entitlements to marriage licenses. The state sets the conditions for marriage, and it choose wisely to promote heterosexual marriage to successfully raise up the next generation of tax paying citizens.
Homosexual marriage has no benefit to the state. In fact, homosexual sex is generally unhealthy and spreads disease and injury throughout the society. Despite denials, STDs run rampant between homosexual and bisexual communities. It is not in any states interest to promote any sexual proclivity by license whether its homosexuality, bisexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, or fathers marrying daughters, mothers marrying sons, or brothers marrying sisters. Marriage is designed to protect the children of heterosexual unions. That’s it.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
School Harrasses Six Grader Over Pro Life Shirt..Thomas More to the Rescue!
School Harasses Minnesota Sixth Grader Wearing Pro-Life T-shirts; Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public-interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit defending the Constitutional rights of a sixth grader to wear t-shirts to school that express his pro-life beliefs. The lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Hutchinson Middle School located in Hutchinson, Minnesota. The sixth grader, referred to in the lawsuit as “K. B.” because of his age, is a Christian who believes that abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent life and a grave offense to the Law of God.
School officials, including the principal and several teachers, on over a dozen occasions during April 2008, told “K. B.” not to wear the t-shirts, publicly singled him out for ridicule in front of his classmates, removed him from class, sent him to the principal’s office, forced him to turn his pro-life t-shirt inside out, and threatened him with suspension if he did not stop wearing the offending pro-life t-shirts.
During the period in question, “K. B.” wore three different t-shirts, all produced by the American Life League, a national Pro-Life advocacy group. The t-shirts contained such pro-life messages as, “Abortion… growing, growing, gone, ” “What part of abortion don’t you understand?” and, “Never Known – Not Forgotten.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This courageous young Christian was ridiculed and threatened by teachers for expressing his deeply held beliefs. These school officials clearly violated the U. S. Constitution and the school’s own written Dress Policy which specifically states it is not intended to abridge the rights of students to express political or religious messages.”
The Thomas More Law Center is being assisted by Minnesota attorney Paul Taylor, an affiliated attorney with the Law Center.
Brandon Bolling, the Law Center attorney assigned as lead counsel stated, “The Supreme Court has held it permissible for public schools to limit student speech only when there is an actual and substantial disruption of school activity. That is not the case here. The only people who took issue with the Pro-Life t-shirts were the school’s employees — in fact, if any one caused any disruption, it was the school’s employees, by their constant public harassment of our client because they disagreed with his pro-life message.”
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at http://www.thomasmore.org/.
Join the fight...join Thomas More Law Center.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public-interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit defending the Constitutional rights of a sixth grader to wear t-shirts to school that express his pro-life beliefs. The lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Hutchinson Middle School located in Hutchinson, Minnesota. The sixth grader, referred to in the lawsuit as “K. B.” because of his age, is a Christian who believes that abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent life and a grave offense to the Law of God.
School officials, including the principal and several teachers, on over a dozen occasions during April 2008, told “K. B.” not to wear the t-shirts, publicly singled him out for ridicule in front of his classmates, removed him from class, sent him to the principal’s office, forced him to turn his pro-life t-shirt inside out, and threatened him with suspension if he did not stop wearing the offending pro-life t-shirts.
During the period in question, “K. B.” wore three different t-shirts, all produced by the American Life League, a national Pro-Life advocacy group. The t-shirts contained such pro-life messages as, “Abortion… growing, growing, gone, ” “What part of abortion don’t you understand?” and, “Never Known – Not Forgotten.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This courageous young Christian was ridiculed and threatened by teachers for expressing his deeply held beliefs. These school officials clearly violated the U. S. Constitution and the school’s own written Dress Policy which specifically states it is not intended to abridge the rights of students to express political or religious messages.”
The Thomas More Law Center is being assisted by Minnesota attorney Paul Taylor, an affiliated attorney with the Law Center.
Brandon Bolling, the Law Center attorney assigned as lead counsel stated, “The Supreme Court has held it permissible for public schools to limit student speech only when there is an actual and substantial disruption of school activity. That is not the case here. The only people who took issue with the Pro-Life t-shirts were the school’s employees — in fact, if any one caused any disruption, it was the school’s employees, by their constant public harassment of our client because they disagreed with his pro-life message.”
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at http://www.thomasmore.org/.
Join the fight...join Thomas More Law Center.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Obama Quits Trinity
Foxnews.com
Obama said he was deeply disappointed by the remarks and Pfleger apologized, but Clinton’s campaign still demanded Obama specifically reject the latest remarks.
By dropping his 20-year membership, Obama is taking the most definitive stand to date against the church.
He suggested that the Pfleger backlash was the deciding factor for him.
“It’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me, even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles,” he said, praising the congregation and church leaders for their work in the Chicago community.
“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace, so our faith remains strong and I suspect we will find another church home for our family.”
That's Obama's response???? He is sorry for the trouble his candidacy has had on the Trinity Church??? Huh???
What about the hateful rhetoric? What about his judgement of belonging to a "church" for the last 20 years that seems to be very comfortable spewing the worst kind of anti-American garbage I think I've ever heard? That's called 'worship'? The worship service at Trinity sounds more like a rally at a Blank Panther's convention. Whats next, "kill Whitey" shouted to the heavens?
My fellow Americans, we cannot risk allowing this dangerous man to run our country. As much as I despise John McAmnesty, Osama Obama would not just be a liberal President, but would be a President that supports policies that America's enemies endorse themselves. What has America become, that a candidate endorsed by Hamas would receive the nomination of a major political party in the United States? This will force me to vote for another GOP RINO against my will. What are the choices now? We can't just let it go and wait for 2012.
Beam me up Scottie!
Obama said he was deeply disappointed by the remarks and Pfleger apologized, but Clinton’s campaign still demanded Obama specifically reject the latest remarks.
By dropping his 20-year membership, Obama is taking the most definitive stand to date against the church.
He suggested that the Pfleger backlash was the deciding factor for him.
“It’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me, even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles,” he said, praising the congregation and church leaders for their work in the Chicago community.
“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace, so our faith remains strong and I suspect we will find another church home for our family.”
That's Obama's response???? He is sorry for the trouble his candidacy has had on the Trinity Church??? Huh???
What about the hateful rhetoric? What about his judgement of belonging to a "church" for the last 20 years that seems to be very comfortable spewing the worst kind of anti-American garbage I think I've ever heard? That's called 'worship'? The worship service at Trinity sounds more like a rally at a Blank Panther's convention. Whats next, "kill Whitey" shouted to the heavens?
My fellow Americans, we cannot risk allowing this dangerous man to run our country. As much as I despise John McAmnesty, Osama Obama would not just be a liberal President, but would be a President that supports policies that America's enemies endorse themselves. What has America become, that a candidate endorsed by Hamas would receive the nomination of a major political party in the United States? This will force me to vote for another GOP RINO against my will. What are the choices now? We can't just let it go and wait for 2012.
Beam me up Scottie!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
ExxonMobile Rejects the Gay Agenda
FOXBusiness
While Rockefeller family’s attempt to get oil giant ExxonMobil to focus more on climate change got more publicity, there was another resolution that went before shareholders today as well--gay and lesbian rights.
ExxonMobil (XOM: 90.43, +0.63, +0.70%) shareholders voted down a resolution to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Exxon’s non-discrimination statement on Wednesday. Approximately 40% of Exxon’s outstanding shares voted in favor of the clause, but it was not enough to send the issue to the oil company’s board of directors.
Well, three cheers for Exxon. At least the shareholders haven't yet swallowed ethe koolaide of the homosexual agenda. We can at least congratulate them for opening a new front in the culture war despite high gas prices.
While Rockefeller family’s attempt to get oil giant ExxonMobil to focus more on climate change got more publicity, there was another resolution that went before shareholders today as well--gay and lesbian rights.
ExxonMobil (XOM: 90.43, +0.63, +0.70%) shareholders voted down a resolution to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Exxon’s non-discrimination statement on Wednesday. Approximately 40% of Exxon’s outstanding shares voted in favor of the clause, but it was not enough to send the issue to the oil company’s board of directors.
Well, three cheers for Exxon. At least the shareholders haven't yet swallowed ethe koolaide of the homosexual agenda. We can at least congratulate them for opening a new front in the culture war despite high gas prices.
Friday, May 23, 2008
More Thoughts on Gay Marriage
The 'gay identity' gives homosexuals release from the anxiety of not fitting in within sexual norms.Gay sex by practice is unhealthy, and should never be encouraged by any state in the form of marriage licenses. This is folly, and makes no sense.Why anyone is gay can be attributed to complex developmental factors, and to some degree, physiological factors that may make them more predisposed. There is NO gay gene. The manifestations are complex, as no one person with this proclivity is homosexual for the same reason. You can observe the range of manifestations parading down the street during a gay pride celebration.The gay agenda wants us to believe that once gay, always gay. In the same sense that once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic may have some truth. Alcoholism is likewise attributed to predisposed physiological and developmental/environmental factors. The crime to homosexuals is the establishment of a permanent 'gay identity’. Homosexuals who might want to pursue treatment have no options. It’s a hopeless situation for those who want try to understand , treat, and potentially manage their proclivity. However, having a sexual preference does not entitle anyone to marriage rights in our society. Certainly the courts do not have the authority, and only the legislature (we the people) can and should decide.It is appropriate that heterosexual marriage, as the institutional cradle to nurture and raise the next generation, be fully encouraged, endorsed, and given preference by the state for its own survival. There is no compelling interest for the state to license or endorse homosexuality.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Mother of all Dilemmas
With the polls trending away from McCain, evidenced by a recent Zogby poll indicating that Obama has an 8 point lead, it may be the GOP is overestimating the effect the Rev Wright Pastergate episode had on public opinion. McCain seems to be making no headway in pulling the GOP base together, which is not making his prospects brighter as time goes on. McCain had his head handed to him recently when, in typical maverick fashion, he criticised the NC GOP for the Rev Wright ad they were running against Democratic opponents running in the State gubernatorial race. The maverick thought the ad was not 'representative' of the kind of campaign he wanted to run. Unfortunately, the ads had nothing to do with him or his campaign. The NC GOP told McCain to go pound sand. McCain's lack of appeal to conservatives may cause the base to abandon the GOP ticket entirely for unlikely allies in the Libertarian Party, or even to write in their own choices.
As a conservative, one VP choice that won't help him with conservatives is Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Crist is a first class RINO, who supported legislation to provide voting rights for release felons, and is on board with the man made global warming hoax.
These two, McCain and Crist, would further divide the GOP from its base, and I hope the Maverick has more sense than to choose Crist as VP. He may feel beholden to him for his well timed endorsement in the Florida primary, but this will not balance the ticket where it needs help.
No conservative is looking eagerly to vote for this ticket, and may go with the nuclear option and not support it at all, which will have the consequence of putting an ill prepared President in office on the whimsical hope that a true conservative will emerge in 2012. I sympathize with that point of view, but going through another 'Jimmy Carter' administration is too painful to imagine. This election is the mother of all dilemmas for Conservatives.
As a conservative, one VP choice that won't help him with conservatives is Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Crist is a first class RINO, who supported legislation to provide voting rights for release felons, and is on board with the man made global warming hoax.
These two, McCain and Crist, would further divide the GOP from its base, and I hope the Maverick has more sense than to choose Crist as VP. He may feel beholden to him for his well timed endorsement in the Florida primary, but this will not balance the ticket where it needs help.
No conservative is looking eagerly to vote for this ticket, and may go with the nuclear option and not support it at all, which will have the consequence of putting an ill prepared President in office on the whimsical hope that a true conservative will emerge in 2012. I sympathize with that point of view, but going through another 'Jimmy Carter' administration is too painful to imagine. This election is the mother of all dilemmas for Conservatives.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
We were Democrats once...
I really miss the Democrat Party, before it became such a mess. I actually voted for Jimmy Carter...my first Presidential election. I didn’t know any better. Jimmy looked harmless enough, a Southern religious man, or so I thought. My congressman was none other than Albert Gore. Young and full of hope, the idealism of the party was intoxicating. Al Gore, at that time, was a pro-life blue dog, a Vietnam War veteran, a young man who seemed to possess the values of our region and culture. I met Al Gore several times when he would periodically appear at the Court House for community meetings, and he graciously helped me out a few times . Then, it happened.
Going back to my first mistake….Jimmy Carter. The country was furious at Gerald Ford for the Nixon pardon, at least that was the main thing I heard in my little circle. The Republicans were corrupt, and we needed a change. Sound familiar?
Well folks, we got change. Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, high gas prices, long gas lines, and a major foreign policy disaster in Iran. Then I changed, and joined the Reagan revolution. The Gipper was remarkable communicator, who talked of a shining city on a hill, of small government, and the power of the individual. He confronted evil, and called it as he saw it. I was so taken with this leader; I joined the military to do my small part of fulfilling his vision for this country.
Then, it happened again. Enter stage right, the resurgence of Rockefeller Republicanism with the election of George H. Bush. I voted for him, hoping for the best, but it was a lesser of two evils choice. Then Bob Doyle came along, and I was presented again with an uninspiring lesser of two evils choice. George W. Bush, what can I say? John McCain, I could weep. As for Al Gore, he's not a well man, completely unhinged, wide eyed, and truely frightening to see how the demon that crawed inside his head has ravaged the poor boy. Now where do I go?
As I recall Davy Crockette, in a similar situation, said, "You all may go to hell, I'm going to Texas".
Going back to my first mistake….Jimmy Carter. The country was furious at Gerald Ford for the Nixon pardon, at least that was the main thing I heard in my little circle. The Republicans were corrupt, and we needed a change. Sound familiar?
Well folks, we got change. Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, high gas prices, long gas lines, and a major foreign policy disaster in Iran. Then I changed, and joined the Reagan revolution. The Gipper was remarkable communicator, who talked of a shining city on a hill, of small government, and the power of the individual. He confronted evil, and called it as he saw it. I was so taken with this leader; I joined the military to do my small part of fulfilling his vision for this country.
Then, it happened again. Enter stage right, the resurgence of Rockefeller Republicanism with the election of George H. Bush. I voted for him, hoping for the best, but it was a lesser of two evils choice. Then Bob Doyle came along, and I was presented again with an uninspiring lesser of two evils choice. George W. Bush, what can I say? John McCain, I could weep. As for Al Gore, he's not a well man, completely unhinged, wide eyed, and truely frightening to see how the demon that crawed inside his head has ravaged the poor boy. Now where do I go?
As I recall Davy Crockette, in a similar situation, said, "You all may go to hell, I'm going to Texas".
Monday, May 19, 2008
Judicial Activism Runs Amuck in Collyfornia...Again.
Justice Baxter's Dissent
May 15, 2008
It's worth the read:
Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage —an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority....But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will....I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamentalprovisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)
History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.
What is the point of ledgislatures, if unelected thugs in black robes are going to decide what the law should be? At that point, "we the people" no longer run the Government. The Collyfornia Supreme Court has crossed the line. We must decide whether tyrants will rule over us, or whether we will restore our Democratic Republic . Join the fight by joining the Thomas Moore Law Center. Become a card carrying member of the anti-ACLU.
May 15, 2008
It's worth the read:
Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage —an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority....But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will....I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamentalprovisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)
History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.
What is the point of ledgislatures, if unelected thugs in black robes are going to decide what the law should be? At that point, "we the people" no longer run the Government. The Collyfornia Supreme Court has crossed the line. We must decide whether tyrants will rule over us, or whether we will restore our Democratic Republic . Join the fight by joining the Thomas Moore Law Center. Become a card carrying member of the anti-ACLU.
Lay off my wife, please.
by FOXNews.com
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, crying foul over a video made by the Tennessee Republican Party last week, said Monday that his critics should “lay off my wife.”
In the four-minute video produced by the state GOP and now available on YouTube, Michelle Obama is shown delivering a speech in February during which she said: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” The ad then features Nashville voters saying why they are proud of their country.
Asked about the video Monday, Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that it is “low class.” The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination warned that the Tennessee GOP “should be careful” and said he finds it “unacceptable” for them to use his wife in a video.
Well, should we...back off ? Can Michelle Obama unload on the opposition during campaign speeches, and not expect a little blow back? I think not. If the Senator wants his good wife out of the line of fire, his campaign shouldn't put her there in the first place. This is a Presidential race, not a garden party.
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, crying foul over a video made by the Tennessee Republican Party last week, said Monday that his critics should “lay off my wife.”
In the four-minute video produced by the state GOP and now available on YouTube, Michelle Obama is shown delivering a speech in February during which she said: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” The ad then features Nashville voters saying why they are proud of their country.
Asked about the video Monday, Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that it is “low class.” The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination warned that the Tennessee GOP “should be careful” and said he finds it “unacceptable” for them to use his wife in a video.
Well, should we...back off ? Can Michelle Obama unload on the opposition during campaign speeches, and not expect a little blow back? I think not. If the Senator wants his good wife out of the line of fire, his campaign shouldn't put her there in the first place. This is a Presidential race, not a garden party.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
