Mackubin Thomas Owens of National Review writes a hilarious article today on the abject silliness of threats of secession from the liberals...
On the other hand, it might be fun to consider the possibilities that blue-state secession would provide. Red-state Americans who have grown weary of being lectured by their moral and intellectual "betters" from the precincts of the Massachusetts witch-burners and slave-traders might just say: "Go ahead, punks. Make my day."
To begin with, where would the blue-state secessionists get the military force they would need to vindicate their action? After all, to paraphrase Thomas Hobbes, principles, no matter how noble, are mere wind without the sword. Most U.S. servicemen come from the red states, or from the red counties of the blue states. The blue states have made it next to impossible for their citizens to own firearms, so they can't count on "a people, numerous and armed" to vindicate their secession.
The other part that is pretty silly is that even in the blue states, most of them have large sections of rural counties that voted for Bush. Are only selected counties going to secede? The far left has gone completely looney over the election. Hey, you may think we are dumb but our votes count the same as yours!
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
President Bush has announced that he is replacing retiring Secretary of State Colin Powell with current National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. I was never much of a fan of Powell, who seemed far too interested in being conciliatory even in a post-9/11 world. Rice seems to have a better grasp of what is needed in the stark reality of a world where you are either with us or against us in the war on terror.
What is sad is that Rice, who I believe is the first black female to serve as Secretary of State, will no doubt face attack from liberal blacks because she has failed to be properly obedient and has defiantly left the liberal plantation. Someday the majority of blacks will realize that liberals aren't interested in blacks gaining positions of authority, equality and power; rather they are interested in seeing that the right kind (i.e. liberals like Barack Obama) of blacks get into positions of power, blacks who remain servile to their liberal masters and don't get uppity when Jesse Jackson tells them what to think.
What is sad is that Rice, who I believe is the first black female to serve as Secretary of State, will no doubt face attack from liberal blacks because she has failed to be properly obedient and has defiantly left the liberal plantation. Someday the majority of blacks will realize that liberals aren't interested in blacks gaining positions of authority, equality and power; rather they are interested in seeing that the right kind (i.e. liberals like Barack Obama) of blacks get into positions of power, blacks who remain servile to their liberal masters and don't get uppity when Jesse Jackson tells them what to think.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Will he never learn?
Michael Moore, millionaire "friend" of the working man, is planning a sequel to his vitirolic Fahrenheit 911. No doubt he will spin even more lies and no one in the "mainstream" media will question him. I guess he see the possibility for more profit from his lemming like followers who believe any garbage he spews as long as it impugns the President. The obese, unwashed bearded one pontificates the same line that so many bitter losers on the Left throw out these days: Americans MUST have be duped or stupid to vote for Bush.
"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information [in this election] and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."
Educate and enlighten us? At least the Lefties mostly recognize that Bush won this time, but now explain it away with arrogant claims of superiority. At least people in the red states are smart enough to bathe occasionally, you corpulent pig.
Michael Moore, millionaire "friend" of the working man, is planning a sequel to his vitirolic Fahrenheit 911. No doubt he will spin even more lies and no one in the "mainstream" media will question him. I guess he see the possibility for more profit from his lemming like followers who believe any garbage he spews as long as it impugns the President. The obese, unwashed bearded one pontificates the same line that so many bitter losers on the Left throw out these days: Americans MUST have be duped or stupid to vote for Bush.
"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information [in this election] and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."
Educate and enlighten us? At least the Lefties mostly recognize that Bush won this time, but now explain it away with arrogant claims of superiority. At least people in the red states are smart enough to bathe occasionally, you corpulent pig.
A muderer goes to his reward...
With the death of Yasser Arafat, the "civilized" world is tripping over itself in offering condolences, the same condolences they withheld from the Israeli victims of his murderous machinations. I came across a good summation of his life on National Review, and it is even more bloody than I thought.
Arafat's death could lead to a renewed effort at peace in the Middle East but I doubt that will happen. No doubt the PLO will pick a new leader who mirrors Arafat and the bloodshed will continue.
One side note as I read the NR article, and it came at ths point...
In the resulting battle, the Palestinians killed all nine Israeli athletes by grenade and gunfire, as well as murdering a German policeman. Five of the terrorists were killed in the struggle, but German authorities managed to capture the remaining three. True to form, Arafat's organization responded the following month by hijacking a Lufthansa jet and taking the passengers hostage. The Germans capitulated, releasing the killers.
What happened to the Germans? They used to be the most feared military might in Europe, maybe the world outside of the U.S. and today they are nearly as emasculated as the French. Granted, we don't want a militaristic Germany to deal with anymore but it is amazing how a power like Germany can slip in obscurity and weakness so quickly...
With the death of Yasser Arafat, the "civilized" world is tripping over itself in offering condolences, the same condolences they withheld from the Israeli victims of his murderous machinations. I came across a good summation of his life on National Review, and it is even more bloody than I thought.
Arafat's death could lead to a renewed effort at peace in the Middle East but I doubt that will happen. No doubt the PLO will pick a new leader who mirrors Arafat and the bloodshed will continue.
One side note as I read the NR article, and it came at ths point...
In the resulting battle, the Palestinians killed all nine Israeli athletes by grenade and gunfire, as well as murdering a German policeman. Five of the terrorists were killed in the struggle, but German authorities managed to capture the remaining three. True to form, Arafat's organization responded the following month by hijacking a Lufthansa jet and taking the passengers hostage. The Germans capitulated, releasing the killers.
What happened to the Germans? They used to be the most feared military might in Europe, maybe the world outside of the U.S. and today they are nearly as emasculated as the French. Granted, we don't want a militaristic Germany to deal with anymore but it is amazing how a power like Germany can slip in obscurity and weakness so quickly...
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Overreact much?
I am sure the media will make a big deal of this. Apparently some dude snuck into Ground Zero in Manhattan and offed himself. He was supposedly distraught over Bush winning. He didn't leave a note (real smart if you are making a point) but his friends are sure he was totally bummed about Bush being reelected...
Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.
"I'm absolutely sure it's a protest," Mary Anne Mauney, Veal's supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. "I don't know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic."
Now, I would have been upset had Kerry won. Very upset. I sure wouldn't kill myself or move to Canada. This will no doubt be shoved at Bush as evidence of how "divisive: he is. Fact is, the guy must have been a bit wacked anyway. Sorry to sound callous, but let's keep some perspective here. I am sure his fiancee is pleased that he future husband cared so little about her that he would kill himself over an election.
I am sure the media will make a big deal of this. Apparently some dude snuck into Ground Zero in Manhattan and offed himself. He was supposedly distraught over Bush winning. He didn't leave a note (real smart if you are making a point) but his friends are sure he was totally bummed about Bush being reelected...
Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.
"I'm absolutely sure it's a protest," Mary Anne Mauney, Veal's supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. "I don't know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic."
Now, I would have been upset had Kerry won. Very upset. I sure wouldn't kill myself or move to Canada. This will no doubt be shoved at Bush as evidence of how "divisive: he is. Fact is, the guy must have been a bit wacked anyway. Sorry to sound callous, but let's keep some perspective here. I am sure his fiancee is pleased that he future husband cared so little about her that he would kill himself over an election.
At first the vitriol of the left was funny, but it is starting to get less so. Now it is just getting ugly. Slate is running a series of liberals trying to explain what went wrong, and I came across this one from Jane Smiley which can be summed up as: people in red states are violent and ignorant louts, except those who voted for Kerry. People in blue state are wise and benevolent except those ugly ignorant louts that voted for Bush. Here are some choice quotes:
The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not.
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states.
The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.
Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory (my note: like most liberals, Ms. Smiley is ignorant of the Bible and repeats these canards, when anyone who has studied the Bible knows that it is in fact completely consistent. The facts don't matter to Ms. Smiley), and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.
The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.
What is REALLY bothering Ms. Smiley and others in the self-described liberal elite is that we didn't listen to them. They TOLD us how to vote and they of course are smarter than us, so why didn't we listen to our betters? Heads up Ms. Smiley. You may be a brilliant writer, but you and your ilk have no monopoly of complex thought, perhaps even just the opposite. Read a text on systematic theology and tell me how ignorant religious types are. You won't of course, because in your ignorance and arrogance you refuse to recognize those who are your intellectual equals or superiors that don't walk in rigid, unthinking lockstep with liberal orthodoxy. Being a closed minded liberal doesn't change your close mindedness, it only makes you wrong and hypocritical.
The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not.
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states.
The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.
Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory (my note: like most liberals, Ms. Smiley is ignorant of the Bible and repeats these canards, when anyone who has studied the Bible knows that it is in fact completely consistent. The facts don't matter to Ms. Smiley), and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.
The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.
What is REALLY bothering Ms. Smiley and others in the self-described liberal elite is that we didn't listen to them. They TOLD us how to vote and they of course are smarter than us, so why didn't we listen to our betters? Heads up Ms. Smiley. You may be a brilliant writer, but you and your ilk have no monopoly of complex thought, perhaps even just the opposite. Read a text on systematic theology and tell me how ignorant religious types are. You won't of course, because in your ignorance and arrogance you refuse to recognize those who are your intellectual equals or superiors that don't walk in rigid, unthinking lockstep with liberal orthodoxy. Being a closed minded liberal doesn't change your close mindedness, it only makes you wrong and hypocritical.
Viva le revolution!
What is going on? I was watching the McLaughlin Group on Friday, and weenie Lawrence Kudlow was talking about secession, and I think he was serious! Eleanor Clift said that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, we would have "revolution" in this country. Now if you are scared of letting people vote about abortion, what makes you think poeple who voted to make it illegal are going to suddenly rise up? What are the blue staters goign to rise up WITH? They are as disarmed as an army under a President Kerry! We have all of the guns kids! You banned them in all of your cities, we are chock full of pickup trucks with gunracks. Bring it on! (just kidding!)
Many lefties are threatening to move to Canada or Europe. Talk about taking your ball and going home. I will personally drive anyone from the area to the Canadian border or an airport to fly one-way to Europe. While they are at it, take Alex Baldwin/Michael Moore/Al Franken/Susan Sarandon et al with you.
A funny side note while reading Slate/MSNBC. You should hear the left calling for an abolition of the electoral college, the same system that dleivered their boy Bill Clinton two terms with less than a majority of the vote. He likely would have still beaten Dole, but you take Perot out of the equation and run Clinton in a run-of against Bush Sr. and we might have a different result. The revisionist history is incredible! Another interesting way to look at the world. Democrats have lost 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections...
What is going on? I was watching the McLaughlin Group on Friday, and weenie Lawrence Kudlow was talking about secession, and I think he was serious! Eleanor Clift said that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, we would have "revolution" in this country. Now if you are scared of letting people vote about abortion, what makes you think poeple who voted to make it illegal are going to suddenly rise up? What are the blue staters goign to rise up WITH? They are as disarmed as an army under a President Kerry! We have all of the guns kids! You banned them in all of your cities, we are chock full of pickup trucks with gunracks. Bring it on! (just kidding!)
Many lefties are threatening to move to Canada or Europe. Talk about taking your ball and going home. I will personally drive anyone from the area to the Canadian border or an airport to fly one-way to Europe. While they are at it, take Alex Baldwin/Michael Moore/Al Franken/Susan Sarandon et al with you.
A funny side note while reading Slate/MSNBC. You should hear the left calling for an abolition of the electoral college, the same system that dleivered their boy Bill Clinton two terms with less than a majority of the vote. He likely would have still beaten Dole, but you take Perot out of the equation and run Clinton in a run-of against Bush Sr. and we might have a different result. The revisionist history is incredible! Another interesting way to look at the world. Democrats have lost 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections...
We got lucky...
Not necessarily about the election itself, but rather about the radical homosexual agenda that got too greedy. Fox News reports even some homosexual advocates are starting to see it....
"I think it hurt," said Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts, the state that set off the firestorm last November when its high court ruled that gay couples have the right to wed.
Frank is among many political observers who credit the anti-gay marriage amendments with giving the president's conservative base a reason to go to the polls in crucial battleground states like Ohio.
"It gives them a position to rally around," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who once served as San Francisco's mayor. "That whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon. People aren't ready for it."
The key is here is Feinstein's comment. They went too far too fast. The homosexual modus operadi has been to slowly subvert their way into normal society, lulling us asleep to gain acceptance. The primary mode has been popular entertainment where homosexuals appear like just harmless, quirky people.
A homosexual "rights" group spokesperson denied that gay marriage was the sole cause...
Crunching the numbers, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force denies that gay marriage alone boosted turnout among evangelical Christians in Oregon, Ohio and Michigan, the three swing states where constitutional amendments were on the ballot. Bush voters also were motivated by the president's stands on abstinence-only sex education and a ban on late term abortions, said Matthew Foreman, the group's executive director.
"It's sickening and fascinating that when one in five voters said 'moral values" was the most important issue for them, pundits immediately equated that with gay marriage alone," Foreman said. "To pin all of this on 'the gays' is wrong."
Guess what, all of these issues lumped together form a core belief system about sexual morality, because we consider homosexuality to be immoral. Homosexuality is just the most vocal and repugnant of these immoral behaviors, so it gets the most play. Make no mistake, it was the threat of gay marriage that motivated Christian voters to finally get off our collective duffs. Mr. Foreman points out that in some Bush states, openly gay people were elected to statewide offices. He makes a great point without even knowing it...
WE DON'T HATE GAY PEOPLE!
But while we are willing in many cases to let gays live whatever lifestyle they choose, we also will not let them remake our society into their image. Marriage is ordained of God, and is so ordained as the union of one man and one woman.
This should be a lesson to us. I fully expect the homosexual movement to immediately start to work again to pervert marriage by more subtle means. That is why it is important that we stay on the fight, that Christians do not fall asleep again, that we support President Bush's agenda especially concerning judges and we NEVER abandon what God has taught.
Not necessarily about the election itself, but rather about the radical homosexual agenda that got too greedy. Fox News reports even some homosexual advocates are starting to see it....
"I think it hurt," said Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts, the state that set off the firestorm last November when its high court ruled that gay couples have the right to wed.
Frank is among many political observers who credit the anti-gay marriage amendments with giving the president's conservative base a reason to go to the polls in crucial battleground states like Ohio.
"It gives them a position to rally around," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who once served as San Francisco's mayor. "That whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon. People aren't ready for it."
The key is here is Feinstein's comment. They went too far too fast. The homosexual modus operadi has been to slowly subvert their way into normal society, lulling us asleep to gain acceptance. The primary mode has been popular entertainment where homosexuals appear like just harmless, quirky people.
A homosexual "rights" group spokesperson denied that gay marriage was the sole cause...
Crunching the numbers, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force denies that gay marriage alone boosted turnout among evangelical Christians in Oregon, Ohio and Michigan, the three swing states where constitutional amendments were on the ballot. Bush voters also were motivated by the president's stands on abstinence-only sex education and a ban on late term abortions, said Matthew Foreman, the group's executive director.
"It's sickening and fascinating that when one in five voters said 'moral values" was the most important issue for them, pundits immediately equated that with gay marriage alone," Foreman said. "To pin all of this on 'the gays' is wrong."
Guess what, all of these issues lumped together form a core belief system about sexual morality, because we consider homosexuality to be immoral. Homosexuality is just the most vocal and repugnant of these immoral behaviors, so it gets the most play. Make no mistake, it was the threat of gay marriage that motivated Christian voters to finally get off our collective duffs. Mr. Foreman points out that in some Bush states, openly gay people were elected to statewide offices. He makes a great point without even knowing it...
WE DON'T HATE GAY PEOPLE!
But while we are willing in many cases to let gays live whatever lifestyle they choose, we also will not let them remake our society into their image. Marriage is ordained of God, and is so ordained as the union of one man and one woman.
This should be a lesson to us. I fully expect the homosexual movement to immediately start to work again to pervert marriage by more subtle means. That is why it is important that we stay on the fight, that Christians do not fall asleep again, that we support President Bush's agenda especially concerning judges and we NEVER abandon what God has taught.
Friday, November 05, 2004
This was an interesting factoid from USA Today...
Democrats will make a mistake if they view this election as an opportunity just missed. In 15 elections since World War II, only two of their presidential candidates have won a majority of the popular vote. Seven Republicans have done so, and now the GOP has controlled Congress for much of the past decade. Clearly, big questions are ahead for the oldest political party in America.
Huh, I would have thought just the opposite. Kind of lays to rest the myth of the Democrats as being the party of the people...
Democrats will make a mistake if they view this election as an opportunity just missed. In 15 elections since World War II, only two of their presidential candidates have won a majority of the popular vote. Seven Republicans have done so, and now the GOP has controlled Congress for much of the past decade. Clearly, big questions are ahead for the oldest political party in America.
Huh, I would have thought just the opposite. Kind of lays to rest the myth of the Democrats as being the party of the people...
So that's how democracy is supposed to work!
I was perusing CNN.com's story on the reaction to the election results on America's campuses and came across this gem....
Senior Ravi Shah was unhappy about Bush's win but had hope for the future. "If Bush actually learns from his mistakes, and uses the next four years to implement the things that 49 percent of America that didn't vote for him wanted to see happen, [then it's OK]," he said.
So, according to Ravi, if Kerry won we should follow his agenda because America wanted change. If Bush won, we should still follow Kerry's agenda. Makes perfect sense. Heck why even have an election at all?! What about the wishes of the 51% (which I believe is a majority) who DID vote for Bush? What we want is diametrically opposed in many cases to what the 49& (otherwise known as the "minority" or as Ahnuld sez "the losers") want, so given that we won doesn't it make sense to go with out agenda? Why is it when lefties win, they have an agenda and when we win we need to be bipartisan?
The scary thing is that this double standard makes sense and seems fair to those on the Left...
I was perusing CNN.com's story on the reaction to the election results on America's campuses and came across this gem....
Senior Ravi Shah was unhappy about Bush's win but had hope for the future. "If Bush actually learns from his mistakes, and uses the next four years to implement the things that 49 percent of America that didn't vote for him wanted to see happen, [then it's OK]," he said.
So, according to Ravi, if Kerry won we should follow his agenda because America wanted change. If Bush won, we should still follow Kerry's agenda. Makes perfect sense. Heck why even have an election at all?! What about the wishes of the 51% (which I believe is a majority) who DID vote for Bush? What we want is diametrically opposed in many cases to what the 49& (otherwise known as the "minority" or as Ahnuld sez "the losers") want, so given that we won doesn't it make sense to go with out agenda? Why is it when lefties win, they have an agenda and when we win we need to be bipartisan?
The scary thing is that this double standard makes sense and seems fair to those on the Left...
Aaawww, ain't this cute!
Some students in lefty Boulder, CO are staging a protest by holing up in the school library.
"We want them to reassure us that our fears are misguided and that the government is doing everything in its power to prevent our futures from being destroyed," said senior Brian Martens.
The students said they were not protesting this week's election, but said they were worried about the huge national debt run up during the first four years of the Bush administration, along with military recruitment in schools and other issues.
Where are the adults? Why, right on the side of these kids of course!
Boulder High teacher James Vacca expressed pride in the students for staging the protest.
"In an age where narcissistic college students riot in an inarticulate drunken stupor, you have students here at Boulder High School, principled, thoughtful and yet scared of four more years of pre-emptive war, the Patriot Act and an increase in militarism at school through the No Child Left Behind Act," he said.
Hmm, the kid's rationale sounds suspiciously just like that of teacher James Vacca....must be a coincidence. I assume that by "militarizing" the schools, they are referring to not being able to deny reasonable access to schools by military recruiters, recruiters for the same military that is the only thing standing between these hippie wannabee dope smokers and Islamic terrorists who would like nothing better than to behead them.
On second thought, it isn't cute. Someone needs to tell these kids, the parents and the teachers that the 60's are over. Go back to class, we are in a war to protect idiots like them from being killed by terrorists. The American people voted by a margin of around 4,000,000 to re-elect President Bush and stay the course. This is democracy kiddies, get used to it!
Some students in lefty Boulder, CO are staging a protest by holing up in the school library.
"We want them to reassure us that our fears are misguided and that the government is doing everything in its power to prevent our futures from being destroyed," said senior Brian Martens.
The students said they were not protesting this week's election, but said they were worried about the huge national debt run up during the first four years of the Bush administration, along with military recruitment in schools and other issues.
Where are the adults? Why, right on the side of these kids of course!
Boulder High teacher James Vacca expressed pride in the students for staging the protest.
"In an age where narcissistic college students riot in an inarticulate drunken stupor, you have students here at Boulder High School, principled, thoughtful and yet scared of four more years of pre-emptive war, the Patriot Act and an increase in militarism at school through the No Child Left Behind Act," he said.
Hmm, the kid's rationale sounds suspiciously just like that of teacher James Vacca....must be a coincidence. I assume that by "militarizing" the schools, they are referring to not being able to deny reasonable access to schools by military recruiters, recruiters for the same military that is the only thing standing between these hippie wannabee dope smokers and Islamic terrorists who would like nothing better than to behead them.
On second thought, it isn't cute. Someone needs to tell these kids, the parents and the teachers that the 60's are over. Go back to class, we are in a war to protect idiots like them from being killed by terrorists. The American people voted by a margin of around 4,000,000 to re-elect President Bush and stay the course. This is democracy kiddies, get used to it!
Thursday, November 04, 2004
A tale of two winners...
Yahoo! has an AP report on Bush's press conference today where he promised to spend the political capital he has earned....
"I earned capital in the campaign — political capital — and now I intend to spend it," he said at a news conference 24 hours after securing his second term.
Exactly right. Why in the world would he back down now, when he got such a huge vote of confidence from the American people?
In another story from Yahoo! Arlen Spector, the soon to be chairmen of the Senate judiciary committe, my least favorite non-Democratic Senator has other ideas. Even though he pushed back a strong challenger in his primary, a solidly conservative challeneger, largely with the help of President Bush, Spector now plans to waylay any prolife judicial nominees. As America clearly gets more conservative, Spector doesn't want any conservatives on the bench...
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
"The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
How dare he scold the President like a school boy? He likely wouldn't have won his primary without Bush, and now he tells Bush to be "mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning"? I thought on election night that it wouldn't be a bad thing for Spector to lose, now I am even more uncertain his reelection was a good thing. I have already written my Senators to urge them to block Spector's nomination to the Judiciary charimanship. He further whines...
A former district attorney, Specter also bemoaned what he called the lack of any current justices comparable to legal heavyweights like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Thurgood Marshall, "who were giants of the Supreme Court."
"With all due respect to the (current) U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said.
You know why we don;t have any? Because you rolled over for Ted Kennedy and helped keep Robert Bork, one the greatest legal minds in American history, of the High Court and you rolled over every time liberals attacked a Bush nominee. The great legal minds will not accept nominations because they don't want to go through the approval process that you helped make so personal and brutal. The ad hominem attacks mean that candidates have to have no postions at all or be really quiet about them to get on courts. It is your fault we lack "giants" on the court Senator!
FYI, I consider Scalia and Rehnquist to both be great legal minds, despite what Spector says. I am guessing he thinks HE is a great legal mind and worthy of a seat on the High Court. Think again.
Yahoo! has an AP report on Bush's press conference today where he promised to spend the political capital he has earned....
"I earned capital in the campaign — political capital — and now I intend to spend it," he said at a news conference 24 hours after securing his second term.
Exactly right. Why in the world would he back down now, when he got such a huge vote of confidence from the American people?
In another story from Yahoo! Arlen Spector, the soon to be chairmen of the Senate judiciary committe, my least favorite non-Democratic Senator has other ideas. Even though he pushed back a strong challenger in his primary, a solidly conservative challeneger, largely with the help of President Bush, Spector now plans to waylay any prolife judicial nominees. As America clearly gets more conservative, Spector doesn't want any conservatives on the bench...
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
"The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
How dare he scold the President like a school boy? He likely wouldn't have won his primary without Bush, and now he tells Bush to be "mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning"? I thought on election night that it wouldn't be a bad thing for Spector to lose, now I am even more uncertain his reelection was a good thing. I have already written my Senators to urge them to block Spector's nomination to the Judiciary charimanship. He further whines...
A former district attorney, Specter also bemoaned what he called the lack of any current justices comparable to legal heavyweights like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Thurgood Marshall, "who were giants of the Supreme Court."
"With all due respect to the (current) U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said.
You know why we don;t have any? Because you rolled over for Ted Kennedy and helped keep Robert Bork, one the greatest legal minds in American history, of the High Court and you rolled over every time liberals attacked a Bush nominee. The great legal minds will not accept nominations because they don't want to go through the approval process that you helped make so personal and brutal. The ad hominem attacks mean that candidates have to have no postions at all or be really quiet about them to get on courts. It is your fault we lack "giants" on the court Senator!
FYI, I consider Scalia and Rehnquist to both be great legal minds, despite what Spector says. I am guessing he thinks HE is a great legal mind and worthy of a seat on the High Court. Think again.
Please note that the National Review posted the same point at 2:53 PM I made on my blog at 9:55 AM, that the Dems threw everything they had at Bush and still lost big...
When the turnout improves, the Democrats would sweep into office, they kept telling themselves.
Well, turnout did improve to the best level since 1968, and the Republicans won. Not by a landslide, but decisively. The only big races that went right for the Democrats were Ken Salazar and Barack Obama.
All of the biggest guns in the left's arsenal - Hollywood, the trial lawyers, the unions, the New York Times, CBS, newly-minted strident liberal talk radio, bombastic and inaccurate "documentaries," all of the skewed members of the MSM... all of them brought their A-game, threw themselves into this fight... and lost to the blogs, talk radio, alternative media, conservative religious groups, and a well-organized GOP ground game.
It's over. None of the left's old tools works anymore. They have to scrap it and start over, and that's why you see the weeping and the wailing and the hair being pulled out.
Almost word for word to what I said. I should get a job at National Review!
When the turnout improves, the Democrats would sweep into office, they kept telling themselves.
Well, turnout did improve to the best level since 1968, and the Republicans won. Not by a landslide, but decisively. The only big races that went right for the Democrats were Ken Salazar and Barack Obama.
All of the biggest guns in the left's arsenal - Hollywood, the trial lawyers, the unions, the New York Times, CBS, newly-minted strident liberal talk radio, bombastic and inaccurate "documentaries," all of the skewed members of the MSM... all of them brought their A-game, threw themselves into this fight... and lost to the blogs, talk radio, alternative media, conservative religious groups, and a well-organized GOP ground game.
It's over. None of the left's old tools works anymore. They have to scrap it and start over, and that's why you see the weeping and the wailing and the hair being pulled out.
Almost word for word to what I said. I should get a job at National Review!
Wait, there is more! Also from The Nation, what we can expect from the Angry Left in the days ahead. Here's a hint, it is NOT a recognition of Bush's win and a renewed civility...
The fight is over.
Let the fight begin.
First, we grieve for what was lost--the opportunity, which flickered for a moment early on election day and then died, to steer the nation onto a more reasonable and less destructive path. At the same time, we salute the efforts of those many millions who mobilized themselves to achieve a better outcome.
Next, we are angry about what the election of George W. Bush portends for the country. Bush's victory will tighten the grip of the Republican Party's virtual monopoly on the institutions of the federal government. The checks and balances on presidential power contemplated by the country's Founders are in tatters. Bush's election gives him the chance to shape the Supreme Court to his purposes: two branches of the government possibly lost in a single election. Roe v. Wade and a host of other protections of basic human rights are at risk. Bush is bound to try to assist the Christian right in its fantastical efforts to "Christianize" public institutions. Further inroads into the liberties of Americans are likely, through a "Patriot Act II" and other legislation as well as by executive fiat. In the near term, a terrible acceleration of the violence in Iraq may be in the offing. In the longer term, new aggressive wars may be launched. The transfer through regressive tax cuts of hundreds of billions more from the poor and the middle class to the rich and the super-rich has been announced.
Anger should lead to action. TV anchors and the candidates themselves call for a new civility and ask the public to "come together" as one people. Pay no attention. The progressive movement in this country has suffered a huge reversal. But the struggle for the country's future--and its very soul--was anything but settled. It will be renewed at a higher level of intensity, and for higher stakes. There must be a fierce, protracted resistance in defense of democracy. The Nation dedicates itself to this cause. As a journalistic institution unbeholden to and uninfluenced by any economic interest or political power, we will continue to provide truthful information not available on a timely basis--or sometimes at all--from the mainstream news media, which too often during the campaign took slanders and pumped them up into running news stories while failing to hold the Administration accountable for its exaggerations and outright lies.
What might the Democratic Party learn from this election? First, that a posture of meekness, resignation and accommodation leads to failure. At no time during the campaign did the Democratic candidate discuss in an honest way the single most important issue facing the country: how to disengage from the war in Iraq. Second, that money, while it can indeed make a major difference, is not the party's problem; the familiar excuse that Republicans raise more campaign funds was extinguished this year. Nor was the country at large indifferent to Bush's alliance with industrial plunderers and his shameful schemes to dismantle social, economic and environmental protections; almost half the electorate voted against these things.
So even though the people have spoken, screw them because the Left doesn't like what they have to say. The people have spoken, now they must be broken! They just don't know what is good for them! They must be remolded into the liberal ideal! Reeductaion camps in the Soviet Union got a bad name, let's try them again!
The Angry Left refuses to bow when beaten, refuses to follow the gracious example of John Kerry and concede with dignity and civility. The angrier and more unreasonable they get, the more they make the case for conservatives. Keep it up guys!
The fight is over.
Let the fight begin.
First, we grieve for what was lost--the opportunity, which flickered for a moment early on election day and then died, to steer the nation onto a more reasonable and less destructive path. At the same time, we salute the efforts of those many millions who mobilized themselves to achieve a better outcome.
Next, we are angry about what the election of George W. Bush portends for the country. Bush's victory will tighten the grip of the Republican Party's virtual monopoly on the institutions of the federal government. The checks and balances on presidential power contemplated by the country's Founders are in tatters. Bush's election gives him the chance to shape the Supreme Court to his purposes: two branches of the government possibly lost in a single election. Roe v. Wade and a host of other protections of basic human rights are at risk. Bush is bound to try to assist the Christian right in its fantastical efforts to "Christianize" public institutions. Further inroads into the liberties of Americans are likely, through a "Patriot Act II" and other legislation as well as by executive fiat. In the near term, a terrible acceleration of the violence in Iraq may be in the offing. In the longer term, new aggressive wars may be launched. The transfer through regressive tax cuts of hundreds of billions more from the poor and the middle class to the rich and the super-rich has been announced.
Anger should lead to action. TV anchors and the candidates themselves call for a new civility and ask the public to "come together" as one people. Pay no attention. The progressive movement in this country has suffered a huge reversal. But the struggle for the country's future--and its very soul--was anything but settled. It will be renewed at a higher level of intensity, and for higher stakes. There must be a fierce, protracted resistance in defense of democracy. The Nation dedicates itself to this cause. As a journalistic institution unbeholden to and uninfluenced by any economic interest or political power, we will continue to provide truthful information not available on a timely basis--or sometimes at all--from the mainstream news media, which too often during the campaign took slanders and pumped them up into running news stories while failing to hold the Administration accountable for its exaggerations and outright lies.
What might the Democratic Party learn from this election? First, that a posture of meekness, resignation and accommodation leads to failure. At no time during the campaign did the Democratic candidate discuss in an honest way the single most important issue facing the country: how to disengage from the war in Iraq. Second, that money, while it can indeed make a major difference, is not the party's problem; the familiar excuse that Republicans raise more campaign funds was extinguished this year. Nor was the country at large indifferent to Bush's alliance with industrial plunderers and his shameful schemes to dismantle social, economic and environmental protections; almost half the electorate voted against these things.
So even though the people have spoken, screw them because the Left doesn't like what they have to say. The people have spoken, now they must be broken! They just don't know what is good for them! They must be remolded into the liberal ideal! Reeductaion camps in the Soviet Union got a bad name, let's try them again!
The Angry Left refuses to bow when beaten, refuses to follow the gracious example of John Kerry and concede with dignity and civility. The angrier and more unreasonable they get, the more they make the case for conservatives. Keep it up guys!
Hillarious!
I normally don't read left wing stuff because it makes me mad, but now it just makes me laugh! I am reading David Corn of The Nation, and his doom and gloom is sweet to behold!
It's another four years--this time with a legitimate win behind him--and the prospects for George W. Bush's second term are grim. He is stronger politically; the Democratic opposition is weaker, especially in the Senate, where the Republicans gained several seats and closed in on a filibuster-proof super-majority. Bush and the GOP demonstrated that they could locate and mobilize their voters. The Democrats--even with big-money efforts (America Coming Together and its ad-buying sister outfit raised and spent more than $200 million)--could not match them. Bush now has more power than he did before the election. He will use it. And he is likely to adopt the game plan that served him well at the start of his first term: Move fast and move hard.
This was so tyical of leftist denial of reality....
But it was not just the Kerry campaign that fell short. The party professionals have much to answer for. The organizers did not churn out the necessary Democratic voters. The Dems in charge of Ohio misread the reality on the ground.
Uh, Dave the turnout was huge and it helped BUSH! The Desm churned all they could, and even by outright fraud still fell way short. Newsflash, the American people are not liberal, they are at heart conservative. The turnout awoke the sleeping conservative giant and revealed the left for what it is: anti-American, anti-religion, anti-freedom. If another 10 million people had voted, Bush would have won by even more!
I normally don't read left wing stuff because it makes me mad, but now it just makes me laugh! I am reading David Corn of The Nation, and his doom and gloom is sweet to behold!
It's another four years--this time with a legitimate win behind him--and the prospects for George W. Bush's second term are grim. He is stronger politically; the Democratic opposition is weaker, especially in the Senate, where the Republicans gained several seats and closed in on a filibuster-proof super-majority. Bush and the GOP demonstrated that they could locate and mobilize their voters. The Democrats--even with big-money efforts (America Coming Together and its ad-buying sister outfit raised and spent more than $200 million)--could not match them. Bush now has more power than he did before the election. He will use it. And he is likely to adopt the game plan that served him well at the start of his first term: Move fast and move hard.
This was so tyical of leftist denial of reality....
But it was not just the Kerry campaign that fell short. The party professionals have much to answer for. The organizers did not churn out the necessary Democratic voters. The Dems in charge of Ohio misread the reality on the ground.
Uh, Dave the turnout was huge and it helped BUSH! The Desm churned all they could, and even by outright fraud still fell way short. Newsflash, the American people are not liberal, they are at heart conservative. The turnout awoke the sleeping conservative giant and revealed the left for what it is: anti-American, anti-religion, anti-freedom. If another 10 million people had voted, Bush would have won by even more!
Fox News reports on a "protest" in the People's Republic of Portland, OR. It was all of 100 people. I guess Fox was waiting for some major blow-ups that never happened, so even this hilarious gathering of pot heads and tree huggers warrants making the news. Hey kids, it wasn't even close. The rest of the country picked Bush. So much for Mrs. Edwards dire warning of blood in the streets if Kedwards lost. I loved this line:
One held a sign reading: "Let's do what Kerry wouldn't — revolt."
Like these wussy boys would take up arms for any cause. There is nothing better than the impotent rage of losers like these people, who STILL can't figure out how Bush, whom they allege is stupid, got elected AGAIN and by a much larger margin and got a bunch of help in Congress to boot. Even their own state of Oregon passed an anti-gay marriage bill! That was as shocking as Derek Jeter being elected mayor of Boston. The next guy says something true, although he doesn't understand the ramification of it...
One demonstrator, Eric Blickenstaff, 30, of Portland, lost his brother in the war in Iraq. Spc. Joseph M. Blickenstaff died last December when his combat vehicle tumbled off a dirt road in central Iraq.
"This is the international sign for distress," said Eric Blickenstaff, holding an upside-down American flag. "Our country is in distress. The religious right won the election."
Note that he is given legitimacy (the original article is from the AP) because his brother died in the war in Iraq, despite the fact that he died in a car accident which happens every day right in America. It seems a shame that he dishonors his bothers service in this way. He might be surprised to find that of the 57 million people who voted for Bush, many of them are in the religious right and GASP they have a right to vote as well!
The funniest thing about this whole deal is how shocked they are. Liberals threw EVERYTHING they had into beating Bush. Millions spent by George "legalize dope" Soros and the 527s. Slanderous statements by leftists for the last two years accusing Bush of being the next Hitler. The left pulled out all of the stops and swung for the fences in this election. What they got was an infield pop-up and a disastrous loss in state after state. Now they still have Bush, but now he has a MANDATE, having increased from a 500,000 deficit in the popular vote to a 4,000,000 margin.
The big question between now and the next big set of election in 2006 is whether or not the Democrats learn from this debacle and change, or whether they dig their heels in and become even more irrelevant. Does the base of the Democrats, the silent majority of Catholics and blue collar workers, demand the party come back to it's roots or does it become even more radicalized, on the loony fringe of the Left living in the fever swamps of Bush conspiracy theories? Zell Miller writes about the fall of the Democrats in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it is good stuff. Part of it is reproduced here by the National Review (FYI, I refreshed The Corner blog on National Review online about 500 times on Tuesday. I am not kidding). Zell's best line is near the end…
When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.
And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.
And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.
And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.
Amen to that Zell.
One held a sign reading: "Let's do what Kerry wouldn't — revolt."
Like these wussy boys would take up arms for any cause. There is nothing better than the impotent rage of losers like these people, who STILL can't figure out how Bush, whom they allege is stupid, got elected AGAIN and by a much larger margin and got a bunch of help in Congress to boot. Even their own state of Oregon passed an anti-gay marriage bill! That was as shocking as Derek Jeter being elected mayor of Boston. The next guy says something true, although he doesn't understand the ramification of it...
One demonstrator, Eric Blickenstaff, 30, of Portland, lost his brother in the war in Iraq. Spc. Joseph M. Blickenstaff died last December when his combat vehicle tumbled off a dirt road in central Iraq.
"This is the international sign for distress," said Eric Blickenstaff, holding an upside-down American flag. "Our country is in distress. The religious right won the election."
Note that he is given legitimacy (the original article is from the AP) because his brother died in the war in Iraq, despite the fact that he died in a car accident which happens every day right in America. It seems a shame that he dishonors his bothers service in this way. He might be surprised to find that of the 57 million people who voted for Bush, many of them are in the religious right and GASP they have a right to vote as well!
The funniest thing about this whole deal is how shocked they are. Liberals threw EVERYTHING they had into beating Bush. Millions spent by George "legalize dope" Soros and the 527s. Slanderous statements by leftists for the last two years accusing Bush of being the next Hitler. The left pulled out all of the stops and swung for the fences in this election. What they got was an infield pop-up and a disastrous loss in state after state. Now they still have Bush, but now he has a MANDATE, having increased from a 500,000 deficit in the popular vote to a 4,000,000 margin.
The big question between now and the next big set of election in 2006 is whether or not the Democrats learn from this debacle and change, or whether they dig their heels in and become even more irrelevant. Does the base of the Democrats, the silent majority of Catholics and blue collar workers, demand the party come back to it's roots or does it become even more radicalized, on the loony fringe of the Left living in the fever swamps of Bush conspiracy theories? Zell Miller writes about the fall of the Democrats in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it is good stuff. Part of it is reproduced here by the National Review (FYI, I refreshed The Corner blog on National Review online about 500 times on Tuesday. I am not kidding). Zell's best line is near the end…
When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.
And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.
And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.
And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.
Amen to that Zell.
A couple of predictions for the next four years...or at least wishes...
- We end up mostly out of Iraq by the end of 2005. I expect we will leave a permanent base or two, much like we did with Germany, Italy and Japan. Hopefully something in the southeast so we have a port and easy access to both the Persian Gulf and perennial trouble maker Iran (see below)
- We end up doing something to rein in Iran, maybe by blowing up their nuke facilities or letting the Israelis do it. Nothing happens with North Korea, but it doesn't get worse.
- Yasser Arafat dies and goes straight to hell to be bunkmates with Mohammad Atta and other fellow terrorists, and after the bloodshed of his succession the Palestinians either elect a new nutcase or they get a moderate that doesn't have blood on their hands that Bush can start working with immediately.
- Colin Powell leaves the admin, and with his departure we take a stronger stance on Taiwan. We can't in good conscience fight for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and abandon Taiwan to Communist China.
- The Federal Marriage amendment makes it out to the states. We cannot have a system where one state allows gay marriage and the rest don't. The rest of the nation has made it clear with an 11 for 11 sweep of laws preventing gay marriage that we are not willing to conform to Mass, and I think given the chance the people of Mass will also reject gay marriage. That assumes that they actually get a say.
- Tort reform makes progress. This is huge, and I think would have a great impact on our economy. Rather than spending tons of wasted money of legal fees that produce nothing but more legal fees, that money could be better spent on a variety of productive tasks, creating jobs instead of eliminating them.
- Bush gets three nominees to the Supreme Court, probably one moderately conservative and two more strict interpretationist judges. At least one minority and one woman. We could see Roe v. Wade fall by 2007, and when the sky doesn't fall afterward that is one less wedge issue for the Left to cry about.
- A flat tax gets serious consideration and at worst the tax code gets dramatically flattened.
A lot of this stuff, especially anything to do with social security, needs to happen quickly while the Dems are still stunned and it is not an election year. 2005 is going to have to be huge for Republicans, and for cryin' out loud they need to do something about spending like a drunken Democrat (yes, that was a slam on Teddy Kennedy)
- We end up mostly out of Iraq by the end of 2005. I expect we will leave a permanent base or two, much like we did with Germany, Italy and Japan. Hopefully something in the southeast so we have a port and easy access to both the Persian Gulf and perennial trouble maker Iran (see below)
- We end up doing something to rein in Iran, maybe by blowing up their nuke facilities or letting the Israelis do it. Nothing happens with North Korea, but it doesn't get worse.
- Yasser Arafat dies and goes straight to hell to be bunkmates with Mohammad Atta and other fellow terrorists, and after the bloodshed of his succession the Palestinians either elect a new nutcase or they get a moderate that doesn't have blood on their hands that Bush can start working with immediately.
- Colin Powell leaves the admin, and with his departure we take a stronger stance on Taiwan. We can't in good conscience fight for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and abandon Taiwan to Communist China.
- The Federal Marriage amendment makes it out to the states. We cannot have a system where one state allows gay marriage and the rest don't. The rest of the nation has made it clear with an 11 for 11 sweep of laws preventing gay marriage that we are not willing to conform to Mass, and I think given the chance the people of Mass will also reject gay marriage. That assumes that they actually get a say.
- Tort reform makes progress. This is huge, and I think would have a great impact on our economy. Rather than spending tons of wasted money of legal fees that produce nothing but more legal fees, that money could be better spent on a variety of productive tasks, creating jobs instead of eliminating them.
- Bush gets three nominees to the Supreme Court, probably one moderately conservative and two more strict interpretationist judges. At least one minority and one woman. We could see Roe v. Wade fall by 2007, and when the sky doesn't fall afterward that is one less wedge issue for the Left to cry about.
- A flat tax gets serious consideration and at worst the tax code gets dramatically flattened.
A lot of this stuff, especially anything to do with social security, needs to happen quickly while the Dems are still stunned and it is not an election year. 2005 is going to have to be huge for Republicans, and for cryin' out loud they need to do something about spending like a drunken Democrat (yes, that was a slam on Teddy Kennedy)
FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
Tuesday was a day of winners, and dare I say it, losers. The American people were the big winners as we showed up in huge numbers, and proved an important point: high voter turnout does NOT mean huge numbers of votes for Democrats.
President Bush got a decisive win, and the country got even more conservative. The House got more conservative. The Senate got more conservative, and sent a warning to obstructionists: fillbuster judicial nominees and you could be the next Tom Daschle. The state governments got more conservative as the GOP increased it's hold on Governor's mansions. The south got more Republican as many conservative Democrats are gone, replace by Republicans (like my congressman Ken Lucas, a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat replaced by a Republican). The Zell Millers of this world are a thing of the past.
I don't think you can overemphasize this. Conservatives, especially Christians, finally woke up. Other than pockets of liberalism in the northeast and the pacific coast, the country is a sea of red. Even states that Kerry won in middle America like Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin were VERY competitive and Bush certainly could have contested the results given the squirrely nature of the new voter registrations and other shennanigans. Michigan went to Kerry in spite of an overwhelming victory for the gay marriage amendment, but that is due to the residual and diminishing influence of big labor. Wisconsin and Minnesota are less liberal now than they were in the past.
Some of my winners and losers:
Winner: Country Music Television Loser: MTV
Winner: Conservative talk radio Loser: Pitiful "Air America" (hard to be an avowedly liberal radio station when even liberals are afraid to use the term)
Winners: Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Jerry Falwell, President Ronald Reagan Losers: Al Franken, Michael Moore, George Soros, Howard Stern, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore.
Winner: The Heartland Loser: Hollywood
Winners: The Vietnam veterans Losers: The Jane Fonda, every war is the "next Vietnam" types
Winner: New democracies Losers: Bitter, weak European former powers
Winner: Fox News, the bloggers, The Wall Street Journal, the National Review Losers: The "main stream media", the New York Times/Washington Post, NBC/ABC and especially CBS
Winners: The NRA, National Right to Life, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Concerned Women for America Losers: MoveOn.org, the ACLU, the NAACP, the union bosses, NARAL and other baby muderers, American United for the Seperation of Church and State, Log Cabin Republicans
Winner: God's plan for marriage Losers: the radical homosexual rights movement
Winners: Conservative Catholics Losers: "in name alone", "social justice" catholics
Winners: Evangelical, born again, dare I say "fundamentalist!" Protestants Losers: world appeaser, gay friendly liberal "Christians"
Big Winner: American democracy Big Loser: The angry left thugocracy
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Much has been made recently about the dislike, even hatred, of President Bush amongst the European elites. The Guardian of London was sending voters in Ohio demands to vote for John Kerry, in the hopes of educating the poor ignorant masses in America's heartland. Ohioans told them to get bent.
Is this perhaps a bit of jealousy? Could it be that with a more obsequious John Kerry in the White House, Europeans hope they will be made to feel relevant and powerful again? It must be difficult to go from being the center of the world's culture and military might to a washed up bunch of has-been nations, full of socialized medicine and lazy workers. The whole of Europe combined couldn't begin to challenge the U.S. militarily. Their impotence must be frustrating, given how they rail against the U.S. like a small child. The world has moved past Europe and they just don't see it. Europe is dying, and as Mark Steyn writes in the Chicago Sun-Times:
So this is no time to vote for Europhile delusions. The Continental health and welfare systems John Kerry so admires are, in fact, part of the reason those societies are dying.
He goes on to blast this notion that Canadians have such a great heath care system and we should get our drugs from them...
I'm Canadian, so I know a thing or two about prescription drugs from Canada. Specifically speaking, I know they're American; the only thing Canadian about them is the label in French and English. How can politicians from both parties think that Americans can get cheaper drugs simply by outsourcing (as John Kerry would say) their distribution through a Canadian mailing address? U.S. pharmaceutical companies put up with Ottawa's price controls because it's a peripheral market. But, if you attempt to extend the price controls from the peripheral market of 30 million people to the primary market of 300 million people, all that's going to happen is that after approximately a week and a half there aren't going to be any drugs in Canada, cheap or otherwise
After much stonewalling, the Province of Quebec's Health Department announced this week that in the last year some 600 Quebecers had died from C. difficile, a bacterium acquired in hospital. ... It's a bacterium caused by inattention to hygiene -- by unionized, unsackable cleaners who don't clean properly; by harassed overstretched hospital staff who don't bother washing their hands as often as they should. So 600 people have been killed by the filthy squalor of disease-ridden government hospitals. That's the official number.
One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy, decrepit health care system, and kindly progressive Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border. If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than government health care.
Why don't people get this?
Is this perhaps a bit of jealousy? Could it be that with a more obsequious John Kerry in the White House, Europeans hope they will be made to feel relevant and powerful again? It must be difficult to go from being the center of the world's culture and military might to a washed up bunch of has-been nations, full of socialized medicine and lazy workers. The whole of Europe combined couldn't begin to challenge the U.S. militarily. Their impotence must be frustrating, given how they rail against the U.S. like a small child. The world has moved past Europe and they just don't see it. Europe is dying, and as Mark Steyn writes in the Chicago Sun-Times:
So this is no time to vote for Europhile delusions. The Continental health and welfare systems John Kerry so admires are, in fact, part of the reason those societies are dying.
He goes on to blast this notion that Canadians have such a great heath care system and we should get our drugs from them...
I'm Canadian, so I know a thing or two about prescription drugs from Canada. Specifically speaking, I know they're American; the only thing Canadian about them is the label in French and English. How can politicians from both parties think that Americans can get cheaper drugs simply by outsourcing (as John Kerry would say) their distribution through a Canadian mailing address? U.S. pharmaceutical companies put up with Ottawa's price controls because it's a peripheral market. But, if you attempt to extend the price controls from the peripheral market of 30 million people to the primary market of 300 million people, all that's going to happen is that after approximately a week and a half there aren't going to be any drugs in Canada, cheap or otherwise
After much stonewalling, the Province of Quebec's Health Department announced this week that in the last year some 600 Quebecers had died from C. difficile, a bacterium acquired in hospital. ... It's a bacterium caused by inattention to hygiene -- by unionized, unsackable cleaners who don't clean properly; by harassed overstretched hospital staff who don't bother washing their hands as often as they should. So 600 people have been killed by the filthy squalor of disease-ridden government hospitals. That's the official number.
One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy, decrepit health care system, and kindly progressive Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border. If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than government health care.
Why don't people get this?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Opinion Journal. com has an interesting quote from John Kerry in the Washington Post...
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
As James Taranto asks, does that mean that the death of a U.S. soldier is more meaningful if it happens under the auspices of the UN? This is why it so important to listen not to what John Kerry says today but to look at what he has done in the past. He may say now that he will never surrender U.S. soveriegnity to the UN, but his actions and occasional slips say otherwise. The left wants to replace "One Nation Under God" with "One Nation Under Kofui Annan".
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
As James Taranto asks, does that mean that the death of a U.S. soldier is more meaningful if it happens under the auspices of the UN? This is why it so important to listen not to what John Kerry says today but to look at what he has done in the past. He may say now that he will never surrender U.S. soveriegnity to the UN, but his actions and occasional slips say otherwise. The left wants to replace "One Nation Under God" with "One Nation Under Kofui Annan".
Even the liberal members of the media have noted Teresa Heinz Kerry's unbelievable remarks regarding First Lady Laura Bush, that is that she never had a real job in adulthood, which suggest that she is either completely unaware that Mrs. Bush was a teacher and librarian (which I think count as real jobs) or willfully taking a shot at her for staying home later to raise her children. Either way, it is insulting and says an awful lot about the Kerry's elitist attitudes. Johnnie Boy is hunting geese at a farm in Ohio today, I guess we should ignore his 20 year record of opposing gun rights because he allegedly shot a goose. Just like we are required to ignore twenty years of voting against every military system that has made out country's military the strongest in the world because he went to Vietnam for a whopping 4 months.
Susan Konig takes THK to task in an editorial on NationalReview Online. Every time she opens her mouth she says something stupid. It has to be hard, seriously, when you are that wealthy and never have to watch what you say to all of a sudden have to watch every little comment. She provides constant fodder, and no doubt constant headaches, for John Kerry's campaign team.
I loved the caller to Fox News this morning who stated that she stayed home to raise her children so they would grow up to be like Laura Bush, not like Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Susan Konig takes THK to task in an editorial on NationalReview Online. Every time she opens her mouth she says something stupid. It has to be hard, seriously, when you are that wealthy and never have to watch what you say to all of a sudden have to watch every little comment. She provides constant fodder, and no doubt constant headaches, for John Kerry's campaign team.
I loved the caller to Fox News this morning who stated that she stayed home to raise her children so they would grow up to be like Laura Bush, not like Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Thank you!
A brilliant piece by Catherine Seipp today, raising the question of whether low voter turnout is such a bad thing if those who don't turn out are uninformed morons...
But why should the lazy-idiot demographic be encouraged to influence society even more than it already does?
We spend so much time in handwringing over low turnout but honestly I would rather people who can't be bothered to learn even the rudiments of the issues stay home. Granted I spend more time looking at politics than the average person, but everyone should have at least a clue about what is going on. Ultimately, if you are too stupid to know the difference between Bush and Kerry, please stay home!
A brilliant piece by Catherine Seipp today, raising the question of whether low voter turnout is such a bad thing if those who don't turn out are uninformed morons...
But why should the lazy-idiot demographic be encouraged to influence society even more than it already does?
We spend so much time in handwringing over low turnout but honestly I would rather people who can't be bothered to learn even the rudiments of the issues stay home. Granted I spend more time looking at politics than the average person, but everyone should have at least a clue about what is going on. Ultimately, if you are too stupid to know the difference between Bush and Kerry, please stay home!
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Where is the outrage?
I don't suppose we will hear from the ACLU and Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State on this. As usual, another Democratic presidential nominee is working the pulpit of black churches for votes when a conservative would be tarred and feathered for daring to do the same thing.
This is especially vulgar.
Speakers avoided criticizing President Bush by name, since they were in church, but he was indirectly vilified.
Former Rep. Carrie Meek said Kerry is "fighting against liars and demons. ... He challenges the man who walks with a jaunty step." She rocked her hips in an imitation of Bush's swagger as the congregation cheered and Kerry laughed from his high-backed seat behind the pulpit.
Suppose a white politican made fun of Jesse Jackson by imitating a black person's walk or speech mannerism? I expect the PC police would be all over them. Who are the "demons and liars" she is referring to? Is it OK to call Kerry a demon? Many in America cry out against Christians speaking their minds but are OK with outright character assasination and distortion behind the pulpit, as long as liberals benefit from it.
Kerry doesn't even try to hide what he is doing...
In Florida, Kerry, who is Catholic, also attended Mass at St. James Catholic Church. Aides said it was for his own personal worship rather than for any campaigning.
The report did note that Bush did not campaign today, rather than whoring for votes in churches he would never normally step foot in like Kerry. Black Christians deserve better than to be pandered to by the likes of Kerry and Jesse Jackson.
I don't suppose we will hear from the ACLU and Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State on this. As usual, another Democratic presidential nominee is working the pulpit of black churches for votes when a conservative would be tarred and feathered for daring to do the same thing.
This is especially vulgar.
Speakers avoided criticizing President Bush by name, since they were in church, but he was indirectly vilified.
Former Rep. Carrie Meek said Kerry is "fighting against liars and demons. ... He challenges the man who walks with a jaunty step." She rocked her hips in an imitation of Bush's swagger as the congregation cheered and Kerry laughed from his high-backed seat behind the pulpit.
Suppose a white politican made fun of Jesse Jackson by imitating a black person's walk or speech mannerism? I expect the PC police would be all over them. Who are the "demons and liars" she is referring to? Is it OK to call Kerry a demon? Many in America cry out against Christians speaking their minds but are OK with outright character assasination and distortion behind the pulpit, as long as liberals benefit from it.
Kerry doesn't even try to hide what he is doing...
In Florida, Kerry, who is Catholic, also attended Mass at St. James Catholic Church. Aides said it was for his own personal worship rather than for any campaigning.
The report did note that Bush did not campaign today, rather than whoring for votes in churches he would never normally step foot in like Kerry. Black Christians deserve better than to be pandered to by the likes of Kerry and Jesse Jackson.
Friday, October 08, 2004
I ran across Mark Robert's blog based on someone else's blog posting. Still checking it out, but he has some interesting stuff. He is doing a series on how the church should react to homosexuals and I think he has a good blend of standing on biblical authority and it's utter condemnation of homosexuality as well as a Christian understanding that we all sin. This passage was one of the best I have read on how the church is seen by and sees homosexuals....
A common objection to what I’ve just goes like this: “So you’re telling me that I can come to your church, but I can’t be openly gay. And you’re telling me that you will love me, but not affirm me. And you’re telling me that I can be in your church, but that I cannot be an elder or a pastor. This is a double standard. It’s not loving and it’s not inclusive.” My response is to point out that we aren’t singling out gay and lesbian people for special treatment (or mistreatment, as they might claim). This is exactly how we deal with all sinners (and we all are sinners). We invite sinners to church, but don’t affirm their sin. We seek to love sinners, but not accept their sinfulness. We allow sinners to fill our pews – otherwise nobody would be in church, including pastors – yet we do not ordain those who say that they intend to keep on sinning. To this the gay person would object, “Yes, but I don’t think my behavior is wrong!” To which I would say, “Yes, that’s the rub. That is indeed the difference. But it’s a real difference, not something we can pretend doesn’t matter. If we believed that your sexual behavior was okay, then we’d be in a completely different position altogether. But my church and I have chosen to stand on the bedrock of biblical authority. So, here we stand, and we can do no other. I’m sorry this seems so unloving to you.”
Well said. We cannot turn away homosexuals who are hurting and seeking Christ, but on the other hand we must never seem to be affirming their choice of a homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is a sin, like many others, but it seems to be one where people want it both ways. I get angry or jealouos and recognize it as sin. Not that it is less sinful but I recognize it and seek to avoid it. Many homosexuals seem to demand that the church ignore their sinful behavior and refuse to even admit homosexuality IS a sin. To be a Christian, one needs to turn from sin not demand sin be accepted. We all sin and always will, but you can't be forgiven if you don't think you need forgiveness.
A common objection to what I’ve just goes like this: “So you’re telling me that I can come to your church, but I can’t be openly gay. And you’re telling me that you will love me, but not affirm me. And you’re telling me that I can be in your church, but that I cannot be an elder or a pastor. This is a double standard. It’s not loving and it’s not inclusive.” My response is to point out that we aren’t singling out gay and lesbian people for special treatment (or mistreatment, as they might claim). This is exactly how we deal with all sinners (and we all are sinners). We invite sinners to church, but don’t affirm their sin. We seek to love sinners, but not accept their sinfulness. We allow sinners to fill our pews – otherwise nobody would be in church, including pastors – yet we do not ordain those who say that they intend to keep on sinning. To this the gay person would object, “Yes, but I don’t think my behavior is wrong!” To which I would say, “Yes, that’s the rub. That is indeed the difference. But it’s a real difference, not something we can pretend doesn’t matter. If we believed that your sexual behavior was okay, then we’d be in a completely different position altogether. But my church and I have chosen to stand on the bedrock of biblical authority. So, here we stand, and we can do no other. I’m sorry this seems so unloving to you.”
Well said. We cannot turn away homosexuals who are hurting and seeking Christ, but on the other hand we must never seem to be affirming their choice of a homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is a sin, like many others, but it seems to be one where people want it both ways. I get angry or jealouos and recognize it as sin. Not that it is less sinful but I recognize it and seek to avoid it. Many homosexuals seem to demand that the church ignore their sinful behavior and refuse to even admit homosexuality IS a sin. To be a Christian, one needs to turn from sin not demand sin be accepted. We all sin and always will, but you can't be forgiven if you don't think you need forgiveness.
This is scary....
Fox News is reporting that a computer disk was found in Iraq containing detailed information on schools in the United States. If we don't keep this terrorist enemy in check, how soon can it be before we suffer the horror of a Beslan in the U.S.? I wonder where it came from, since according to Kerry we aren't really fighting terrorists in Iraq....
Fox News is reporting that a computer disk was found in Iraq containing detailed information on schools in the United States. If we don't keep this terrorist enemy in check, how soon can it be before we suffer the horror of a Beslan in the U.S.? I wonder where it came from, since according to Kerry we aren't really fighting terrorists in Iraq....
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Simply an excellent piece in the National Review today. Paul Kengor looks at the hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to the so-called separation of church and state. As Kangor rightly points out, if Bush even walks near a church pulpit he is derided and attacked as a zealot seeking to turn America into a theocracy. Yet Democrats routinely show up in the pulpits of black churches making overtly political speeches and there isn't a peep from the media.
Al Gore was the worst perpetrator of this, but Kerry is starting to show up in predominately black church pulpits. The worst part abotu this is the fact that Kerry has little business speaking on matters of faith when he goes to such lengths to distance himself from his own faith. Look at his speeches in the northeast and see how many references to his "faith" you find. Some of rhetoric that Gore spewed included suggestions that Bush was responsible for the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas. Keep in mind these are the same Democrats who cried foul when Bush's father rightly pointed to the example of Willie Horton as proof that "Iron Mike" Dukakis was soft on crime.
Moving on to Pittsburgh, on November 4, Gore held a rally at the Wesley AME Zion Church. Reverend Gore ascended the pulpit, where he screamed: "Then they rose up like a mighty army and they went to the polls! Let us vote together on Tuesday!" As he had before other African-American audiences, Gore pointed to the murder of James Byrd Jr., a black Texan dragged to his death by three white men in 1998 during the governorship of George W. Bush. He warned of the strict-constructionist judges that a President Bush might appoint, judges of an earlier era when a black American was considered three-fifths of a person.
Gore also made this interesting observation....
From there, the vice president traveled south to address a congregation in Memphis, where he seemed to boil down the choice between him and Bush to one between good and evil. "Deep within us," he said, "we each have the capacity for good and evil. I am taught that good overcomes evil if we choose that outcome. I feel it coming. I feel a message from this gathering that on Tuesday we're going to carry Tennessee and Memphis is going to lead the way." (Remember: George W. Bush cannot describe Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as evil; but Bush himself can be described as evil by Democrats.)
Can you imagine the outcry if you replaced Gore with Bush as the speaker and Bush with Kerry as the target? Oh the hate speech, the evil jingoism, the simple minded black and white absolutism!
Bush is a theocractic Nazi who must be kept as far away from the pulpit as possible but Kerry is a man who should be heard in every pulpit in America? The hypocrisy is amazing! Even noted Christian Hillary Rodham Clinton got in the act...
It wasn't just Gore who had been prescient: According to the New York Times, senatorial candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton stumped in seven churches in seven hours on Election Day alone.
Double standard anyone?
Al Gore was the worst perpetrator of this, but Kerry is starting to show up in predominately black church pulpits. The worst part abotu this is the fact that Kerry has little business speaking on matters of faith when he goes to such lengths to distance himself from his own faith. Look at his speeches in the northeast and see how many references to his "faith" you find. Some of rhetoric that Gore spewed included suggestions that Bush was responsible for the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas. Keep in mind these are the same Democrats who cried foul when Bush's father rightly pointed to the example of Willie Horton as proof that "Iron Mike" Dukakis was soft on crime.
Moving on to Pittsburgh, on November 4, Gore held a rally at the Wesley AME Zion Church. Reverend Gore ascended the pulpit, where he screamed: "Then they rose up like a mighty army and they went to the polls! Let us vote together on Tuesday!" As he had before other African-American audiences, Gore pointed to the murder of James Byrd Jr., a black Texan dragged to his death by three white men in 1998 during the governorship of George W. Bush. He warned of the strict-constructionist judges that a President Bush might appoint, judges of an earlier era when a black American was considered three-fifths of a person.
Gore also made this interesting observation....
From there, the vice president traveled south to address a congregation in Memphis, where he seemed to boil down the choice between him and Bush to one between good and evil. "Deep within us," he said, "we each have the capacity for good and evil. I am taught that good overcomes evil if we choose that outcome. I feel it coming. I feel a message from this gathering that on Tuesday we're going to carry Tennessee and Memphis is going to lead the way." (Remember: George W. Bush cannot describe Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as evil; but Bush himself can be described as evil by Democrats.)
Can you imagine the outcry if you replaced Gore with Bush as the speaker and Bush with Kerry as the target? Oh the hate speech, the evil jingoism, the simple minded black and white absolutism!
Bush is a theocractic Nazi who must be kept as far away from the pulpit as possible but Kerry is a man who should be heard in every pulpit in America? The hypocrisy is amazing! Even noted Christian Hillary Rodham Clinton got in the act...
It wasn't just Gore who had been prescient: According to the New York Times, senatorial candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton stumped in seven churches in seven hours on Election Day alone.
Double standard anyone?
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
ZOWIE!
I didn't see the VP debate last night but by most accounts Cheney kicked around Edwards, as I expected eh would, coming across as a serious and mature statemen to Edwards boyish looks and inexperience. Cheney slammed Edwards for not showing up to work in the Senate, for his work in driving OB/GYNs out of business through frivolous lawsuits and made a great point that Kerry changed course on Iraq when it seemed Howard Dean was gaining ground and he needed to look more dovish. I loved this quote from David Frum...
Yes it's true: The Bush administration has sometimes changed its mind about how to fight this war. Kerry can't make up his mind whether to fight it--or even whether there's a war on or not.
Edwards is the candidate of the future, but not now. He will be very tough when he runs for the nomination in 2008 and will give Hillary a run for her money. I hope President Bush takes his cue from Cheney and takes the gloves off a bit in the next debate.
I didn't see the VP debate last night but by most accounts Cheney kicked around Edwards, as I expected eh would, coming across as a serious and mature statemen to Edwards boyish looks and inexperience. Cheney slammed Edwards for not showing up to work in the Senate, for his work in driving OB/GYNs out of business through frivolous lawsuits and made a great point that Kerry changed course on Iraq when it seemed Howard Dean was gaining ground and he needed to look more dovish. I loved this quote from David Frum...
Yes it's true: The Bush administration has sometimes changed its mind about how to fight this war. Kerry can't make up his mind whether to fight it--or even whether there's a war on or not.
Edwards is the candidate of the future, but not now. He will be very tough when he runs for the nomination in 2008 and will give Hillary a run for her money. I hope President Bush takes his cue from Cheney and takes the gloves off a bit in the next debate.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Here is another doozie. This one is from mormon supreme leader Gordon Hinckley. Hinckley just lost his wife and this was his comment...
"There is no association richer than the companionship of husband and wife, and nothing more portentous for good or evil than the unending consequences of marriage," he said.
I love and revere my wife as much as any man, but the richest and most precious association in my life is the relationship I have with Christ. My wife is my companion, my best friend and the mother of my precious children, but Christ is my Lord and my Savior. When you think you are going to become gods in the next life, no wonder you place the relationship with your celestial spouse over Christ. After all, who will Christ be to you when you are a god with your own world full of your creations?
"There is no association richer than the companionship of husband and wife, and nothing more portentous for good or evil than the unending consequences of marriage," he said.
I love and revere my wife as much as any man, but the richest and most precious association in my life is the relationship I have with Christ. My wife is my companion, my best friend and the mother of my precious children, but Christ is my Lord and my Savior. When you think you are going to become gods in the next life, no wonder you place the relationship with your celestial spouse over Christ. After all, who will Christ be to you when you are a god with your own world full of your creations?
Egad!
I am reading over the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage of last weekend's mormon General Conference, and came across this gem of a quote...
" 'We are teaching a lady who is blind and nearly deaf. She wants to know if the Book of Mormon is true. What shall we do?' asked a zone leader in England [once]. . . . I said to the zone leader, 'Have this sister hold her copy of the Book of Mormon and turn its pages very slowly. When she has done this, have her ask if it is true.' Though she could not read nor hear the words, she felt the spirit and power of the Book of Mormon, and it changed her life." Elder H. Bryan Richards Second Quorum of the Seventy
So let me get this straight. So now we don't even have to read or hear the words of the Book of Mormon to know that it is "true"? She really could be flipping through a recipe book or Maxim magazine, and never know the difference. The Bible is God's Word, but it is not the book itself or the paper or the print, it is the Living Word that is Holy. This exemplifies the inane theology of mormonism. You are asking God to tell you the truth of a book that you cannot read and have not heard. I would never ask someone to tell me the Bible is true by thumbing through it's pages. You know the Bible is true by hearing the Word and by God changing your heart. This makes the paper and binding into some sort of magic talisman, replacing the Living Word with an inanimate object. If that is not idolatry I don't know what is!
I am reading over the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage of last weekend's mormon General Conference, and came across this gem of a quote...
" 'We are teaching a lady who is blind and nearly deaf. She wants to know if the Book of Mormon is true. What shall we do?' asked a zone leader in England [once]. . . . I said to the zone leader, 'Have this sister hold her copy of the Book of Mormon and turn its pages very slowly. When she has done this, have her ask if it is true.' Though she could not read nor hear the words, she felt the spirit and power of the Book of Mormon, and it changed her life." Elder H. Bryan Richards Second Quorum of the Seventy
So let me get this straight. So now we don't even have to read or hear the words of the Book of Mormon to know that it is "true"? She really could be flipping through a recipe book or Maxim magazine, and never know the difference. The Bible is God's Word, but it is not the book itself or the paper or the print, it is the Living Word that is Holy. This exemplifies the inane theology of mormonism. You are asking God to tell you the truth of a book that you cannot read and have not heard. I would never ask someone to tell me the Bible is true by thumbing through it's pages. You know the Bible is true by hearing the Word and by God changing your heart. This makes the paper and binding into some sort of magic talisman, replacing the Living Word with an inanimate object. If that is not idolatry I don't know what is!
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Har har har...
Crosswalk.com has a news story today about a school in Michigan that did a terrorism response drill involving the bombing of a school bus. Sounds good? The problem is that the fictional terrorists were homeschool advocates...
According to the Muskegon Chronicle newspaper, the exercise was designed to "simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called 'Wackos Against Schools and Education,' who believe everyone should be home schooled."
Normally I would brush this aside as just harmless. However, two facts leap out at the reader. 1) Had they used almost any other group as a fictious terrorist like radical environmentalists, animal rights activists or Muslims (all three of which have a serious and longstanding record of terrorism, unlike homeschoolers who mostly want to be left alone), they would have felt the wrath of the ACLU, CAIR etc. 2) There is a pervasive hostility to homeschooling amongst the pseudo-intellecutal elites, and the secular culture in general. This may be a response to the liberal hegemony of union run failed public schools or a reflection of the real disdain and hostility of the culture as a whole towards Christians. Regardless it was done in poor taste and homeschoolers have every right to be outraged.
Crosswalk.com has a news story today about a school in Michigan that did a terrorism response drill involving the bombing of a school bus. Sounds good? The problem is that the fictional terrorists were homeschool advocates...
According to the Muskegon Chronicle newspaper, the exercise was designed to "simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called 'Wackos Against Schools and Education,' who believe everyone should be home schooled."
Normally I would brush this aside as just harmless. However, two facts leap out at the reader. 1) Had they used almost any other group as a fictious terrorist like radical environmentalists, animal rights activists or Muslims (all three of which have a serious and longstanding record of terrorism, unlike homeschoolers who mostly want to be left alone), they would have felt the wrath of the ACLU, CAIR etc. 2) There is a pervasive hostility to homeschooling amongst the pseudo-intellecutal elites, and the secular culture in general. This may be a response to the liberal hegemony of union run failed public schools or a reflection of the real disdain and hostility of the culture as a whole towards Christians. Regardless it was done in poor taste and homeschoolers have every right to be outraged.
Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, made a great point at a recent luncheon reprinted in Southern Seminary Magazine. Dr. Mohler stated five characteristics we should seek in a new generation of pastors and the third one was the recapturing of expository preaching, preaching the Living Word of God. As Dr. Mohler rightly states, too many pastors use a verse of scripture as a launching point for their sermon and that is the last time God's Word is preached from the pulpit. Too many sermons I have listened too have focused on church governance and Christian living (which are important) and too little on the Word. The church has become too enamoured of The Purpose Driven Life and the Left Behind series, substituting second and third hand Biblical knowledge for direct preaching of the Word.
I know that conventional wisdom holds that you need to make sermons "relevant". At church last weekend, the youth pastor preached and as part of his sermon used a video clip from Disney's The Lion King as an illustration. Don't get me wrong, he is a great guy and a good youth pastor. However, it wasn't a very good use of video, the sermon was way off from an exegetical standpoint and he didn't seem to recognize the pagan viewpoint of Simba talking to his dead animal father at the bequest of a witchdoctor monkey. There comes a point where you have to let the Word and the Holy Spirit speak for themselves. We are in a sad state indeed when a Disney movie with talking animals is needed to make a point about a Biblical passage.
Charles Spurgeon filled the hall with thousands when he preached, and even a cursory look at his sermons shows a solid expository style and a reverence for the Word of God. He preached the Word and God took care of the rest. We too often feel that we have to carry the load when getting the message out. Preach the Word of God and He will see to it that the audience is there. It is true that we must be disciples, carrying out the Great Commission but we must also be servants and not assume that we have a better plan than God. To paraphrase another pagan themed movie, if you preach it they will come. Our goal ought not be to fill churches with hundreds of lukewarm Laodiceans. Better to preach the Word of God to 50 committed believers than to 500 casual "Christians". We are not doing them a favor or the church a favor by given them a watered down, more palatable Gospel. The Gospel is loving but it is also stern, and in an effort to not scare people away the church is in danger of losing it's very foundational truths, without which we see apostasy and falling away like the Episcopalians. Evidence shows that the conservative, Bible believing *GASP* FUNDAMENTALIST churches are the ones that are growing, not the liberal, go along to get along denominations.
I know that conventional wisdom holds that you need to make sermons "relevant". At church last weekend, the youth pastor preached and as part of his sermon used a video clip from Disney's The Lion King as an illustration. Don't get me wrong, he is a great guy and a good youth pastor. However, it wasn't a very good use of video, the sermon was way off from an exegetical standpoint and he didn't seem to recognize the pagan viewpoint of Simba talking to his dead animal father at the bequest of a witchdoctor monkey. There comes a point where you have to let the Word and the Holy Spirit speak for themselves. We are in a sad state indeed when a Disney movie with talking animals is needed to make a point about a Biblical passage.
Charles Spurgeon filled the hall with thousands when he preached, and even a cursory look at his sermons shows a solid expository style and a reverence for the Word of God. He preached the Word and God took care of the rest. We too often feel that we have to carry the load when getting the message out. Preach the Word of God and He will see to it that the audience is there. It is true that we must be disciples, carrying out the Great Commission but we must also be servants and not assume that we have a better plan than God. To paraphrase another pagan themed movie, if you preach it they will come. Our goal ought not be to fill churches with hundreds of lukewarm Laodiceans. Better to preach the Word of God to 50 committed believers than to 500 casual "Christians". We are not doing them a favor or the church a favor by given them a watered down, more palatable Gospel. The Gospel is loving but it is also stern, and in an effort to not scare people away the church is in danger of losing it's very foundational truths, without which we see apostasy and falling away like the Episcopalians. Evidence shows that the conservative, Bible believing *GASP* FUNDAMENTALIST churches are the ones that are growing, not the liberal, go along to get along denominations.
Big Time!
President Bush was in Southwest Ohio yesterday and drew a crowd estimated at 50,000 to the rally. Read that again: 50,000. Bush is extremely popular in this part of the state as well as state wide. Peter Bronson of the Cincinnati Enquirer points out that there was only 7 days notice of his coming, so they managed to draw that big of a crowd on very short notice. Pretty impressive stuff!
It is only a matter of time before Kerry yanks his ads totally from Ohio. If he doesn't score big in the debates he may need that ad money to focus on states he should win but is losing ground in, like Wisconsin and Minnesota. Some states are clearly a lost cause at this point, even states that Gore won like Missouri.
Somewhere Hillary Clinton is smiling and preparing her announcement speech for 2008.
President Bush was in Southwest Ohio yesterday and drew a crowd estimated at 50,000 to the rally. Read that again: 50,000. Bush is extremely popular in this part of the state as well as state wide. Peter Bronson of the Cincinnati Enquirer points out that there was only 7 days notice of his coming, so they managed to draw that big of a crowd on very short notice. Pretty impressive stuff!
It is only a matter of time before Kerry yanks his ads totally from Ohio. If he doesn't score big in the debates he may need that ad money to focus on states he should win but is losing ground in, like Wisconsin and Minnesota. Some states are clearly a lost cause at this point, even states that Gore won like Missouri.
Somewhere Hillary Clinton is smiling and preparing her announcement speech for 2008.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
I thought of this Kerry analogy while reading posts on the World Mag blog...
Kerry and his supporters respond to virtually any critique by screechnig about his Vietnam service. How dare you be critical of a war hero! (ignoring how critical they were of Bob Dole, a legitimate war hero who suffered real wounds). Kerry isn't the first man to win acclaim in war and then betray his fellow soldiers and shame his nation.
Benedict Arnold was a celebrated war hero, having fought alongside Ethan Allen in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga. Reagrdless of his prior military exploits, he is branded one of histories great terrors, with a name that has become synonymous with treasonous behavior. John Kerry should keep that in mind, being a war hero (however dubious) one day doesn't mean you get a free pass forever.
Kerry and his supporters respond to virtually any critique by screechnig about his Vietnam service. How dare you be critical of a war hero! (ignoring how critical they were of Bob Dole, a legitimate war hero who suffered real wounds). Kerry isn't the first man to win acclaim in war and then betray his fellow soldiers and shame his nation.
Benedict Arnold was a celebrated war hero, having fought alongside Ethan Allen in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga. Reagrdless of his prior military exploits, he is branded one of histories great terrors, with a name that has become synonymous with treasonous behavior. John Kerry should keep that in mind, being a war hero (however dubious) one day doesn't mean you get a free pass forever.
I was listening to Bob Burney yesterday and he was quoting from an L.A. Times (registration req'd) expose on TBN. Now I am not a fan of the L.A. Times and doubt a lot of what they say, but this story rings pretty true to me based on what I have seen and what others have said about TBN.
Apparently the foudners of TBN's "ministry", Paul and Jan Crouch, live quite the lavish lifestyle. Now I don't mean he has a new car. I mean they live in 30 luxurious houses paid for by the faithful contribution of well-meaning poor folks who don't know a shyster when they see one. They fly in a private jet. They earn over $700,000 between the two of them. They operate at a huge multi-million surplus and yet still wail and beg for money during "Praise-a-thons".
Now I know that the servant is worthy of his hire. I don't begrudge anyone their salaries. I do object to what is an obvious abdication of responsibility and stewardship. I don't think there is even a little bit of Gospel basis for their lifestyle. I think they hoodwink poor old ladies out of their money and do so in the name of Christ Jesus. I can think of few things worse than using the Gospel to steal from the flock. Perhaps almost as badly, this gives ammunition to the opponents of the Gospel. "See how guillable these people are, no wonder they believe in fairy tales about a guy dying on a cross and being resurrected." The church does not need this sort of attention. We should be focusing on the Good News, not on snake oil salesmen who lie their way into riches.
The main problem is Biblical illiteracy. People who know little about His Word are easily swayed by ouot of context and mistranslations of the Bible, because they don't know better. There are a myriad of problems caused by this and only one sure solution: read it!
Apparently the foudners of TBN's "ministry", Paul and Jan Crouch, live quite the lavish lifestyle. Now I don't mean he has a new car. I mean they live in 30 luxurious houses paid for by the faithful contribution of well-meaning poor folks who don't know a shyster when they see one. They fly in a private jet. They earn over $700,000 between the two of them. They operate at a huge multi-million surplus and yet still wail and beg for money during "Praise-a-thons".
Now I know that the servant is worthy of his hire. I don't begrudge anyone their salaries. I do object to what is an obvious abdication of responsibility and stewardship. I don't think there is even a little bit of Gospel basis for their lifestyle. I think they hoodwink poor old ladies out of their money and do so in the name of Christ Jesus. I can think of few things worse than using the Gospel to steal from the flock. Perhaps almost as badly, this gives ammunition to the opponents of the Gospel. "See how guillable these people are, no wonder they believe in fairy tales about a guy dying on a cross and being resurrected." The church does not need this sort of attention. We should be focusing on the Good News, not on snake oil salesmen who lie their way into riches.
The main problem is Biblical illiteracy. People who know little about His Word are easily swayed by ouot of context and mistranslations of the Bible, because they don't know better. There are a myriad of problems caused by this and only one sure solution: read it!
Good stuff...
Eschatology makes my head hurt normally, but the Evangelical Outpost has a nice summary of eschatology and a spirited but generally courteous discussion to follow. Nice to see a decent Biblical argument that (at least so far in the posts) has not turned ugly...
Eschatology makes my head hurt normally, but the Evangelical Outpost has a nice summary of eschatology and a spirited but generally courteous discussion to follow. Nice to see a decent Biblical argument that (at least so far in the posts) has not turned ugly...
When is a strike not a strike?
Teachers in Kentucky are staying home Monday to protest against increases in health insurance costs. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that my kid's teachers in Kenton County are joining in and we were notified today that the kids would be staying home on Monday. Not a big deal for us since my wife is a stay-at-home mom but those kids with working parents will need to find an alternative that will cost them. Almost every employer in the country is raising the empoyees share of health insurance. We don't all walk out.
If teachers think they are getting a raw deal, let them find other jobs. I get that they love their jobs (at least some of them) but this is the reality of the situation. With skyrocketing health costs due to excessive litigation, everyone is forced to pay more to subsidize the trial lawyers (just ask John Edwards). In order to eat up part of the teachers increased costs, that means the money has to come from somewhere. Either something else gets cut or taxes get raised. IT HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. You can't just arbitrarily take the money out of a magic basket of gold. Socialized medicine is clearly not the answer, so we need to look hard at alternative ways to decrease the costs of health care. In the meantime, the teachers have decided to place the burden on working Americans to make their petty point.
You say you are in this profession for the kids. Really?
Teachers in Kentucky are staying home Monday to protest against increases in health insurance costs. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that my kid's teachers in Kenton County are joining in and we were notified today that the kids would be staying home on Monday. Not a big deal for us since my wife is a stay-at-home mom but those kids with working parents will need to find an alternative that will cost them. Almost every employer in the country is raising the empoyees share of health insurance. We don't all walk out.
If teachers think they are getting a raw deal, let them find other jobs. I get that they love their jobs (at least some of them) but this is the reality of the situation. With skyrocketing health costs due to excessive litigation, everyone is forced to pay more to subsidize the trial lawyers (just ask John Edwards). In order to eat up part of the teachers increased costs, that means the money has to come from somewhere. Either something else gets cut or taxes get raised. IT HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. You can't just arbitrarily take the money out of a magic basket of gold. Socialized medicine is clearly not the answer, so we need to look hard at alternative ways to decrease the costs of health care. In the meantime, the teachers have decided to place the burden on working Americans to make their petty point.
You say you are in this profession for the kids. Really?
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Just a riot!
David Korn, Washington editor of the leftist magazine The Nation and author of the cleverly named book The Lies of George W Bush, was on Fox News tonight as a guest on John Kasich's show Heartland. He was scrambling to try to defend Dan Rather and the obvious lies he spouts night after night about his forged memos. The new latest defense is that while the memos are indeed lies, is that it is conservatives who are muddling the real focus here, which liberals think should be on the accusations made in an admittedly false document!
Excuse me?
If I put out a memo, proved to be false, that John Kerry had carnal knowledge of sheep last week, even if it is proved to be false we still should focus on the allegations and not on the false memo? What kind of tortured logic is that? This is how far the Left has fallen off the sanity bandwagon, and yet they wonder why Bush keeps climbing in the polls even in formerly safe Gore states like Minnesota.
We should demand that CBS come clean about who gave them the memo. They are clearly covering it up out of embarrassment. CBS should expose the source of these bogus memos and admit that they are false and what their role has been in trying to cover it up.
Another week goes by and the focus is on Vietnam and this time an obvious desperation ploy to slam the President with a bogus memo that even if it were true no one would care about! The American people are more concerned with the last 3 years and who is best able to lead us in the war on terror over the next four years. It is Kerry who has made this campaign about the past and it is going to cost him the election (along with his being a far leftist, East Coast elitist liberal).
David Korn, Washington editor of the leftist magazine The Nation and author of the cleverly named book The Lies of George W Bush, was on Fox News tonight as a guest on John Kasich's show Heartland. He was scrambling to try to defend Dan Rather and the obvious lies he spouts night after night about his forged memos. The new latest defense is that while the memos are indeed lies, is that it is conservatives who are muddling the real focus here, which liberals think should be on the accusations made in an admittedly false document!
Excuse me?
If I put out a memo, proved to be false, that John Kerry had carnal knowledge of sheep last week, even if it is proved to be false we still should focus on the allegations and not on the false memo? What kind of tortured logic is that? This is how far the Left has fallen off the sanity bandwagon, and yet they wonder why Bush keeps climbing in the polls even in formerly safe Gore states like Minnesota.
We should demand that CBS come clean about who gave them the memo. They are clearly covering it up out of embarrassment. CBS should expose the source of these bogus memos and admit that they are false and what their role has been in trying to cover it up.
Another week goes by and the focus is on Vietnam and this time an obvious desperation ploy to slam the President with a bogus memo that even if it were true no one would care about! The American people are more concerned with the last 3 years and who is best able to lead us in the war on terror over the next four years. It is Kerry who has made this campaign about the past and it is going to cost him the election (along with his being a far leftist, East Coast elitist liberal).
Friday, September 17, 2004
John Kerry pretending to be a champion of Second Amendment rights has always been laughable and hasn't worked in the least. He may assume that all gun owners and hunters are rubes, but we know a decoy from the real thing when we see them. Dressing up like a hunter and cavorting for the cameras in blaze orange doesn't wipe away the stain on 20 years of voting for every gun control bill that came along.
Kimberly Strassell, on OpinionJournal.com, is glad that Kerry has finally given up pretending to be a friend of hunters and gun owners. She repeats one of my favorite quotes of the election season (other than Howard Dean saying that Job was his favorite book in the New Testament)...
Take, for instance, a July interview in which he was asked what kind of hunting he preferred. Here was our Nantucket Natty Bumppo's response: "Probably I'd have to say deer. . . . I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach."
What she fails to point out, as have most commentators, is that while crawling on your stomach is NOT how you hunt deer, more importantly NO ONE hunts deer with a "12-gauge double barrel", trusty or not. True, so states require you to use a shotgun when hunting deer but in those states almost everyone uses a pump or semi-auto. I don't know that I have ever seen a double-barrelled shotgun that has rifling for shooting slugs. I know of NO ONE that shoots deer with a "12-gauge double-barrel", trusty or otherwise.
John, you aren't fooling anyone. Embrace your east coast liberalism. It is probably better to lose honestly for what you are than dishonestly pretending to be something you are not.
Kimberly Strassell, on OpinionJournal.com, is glad that Kerry has finally given up pretending to be a friend of hunters and gun owners. She repeats one of my favorite quotes of the election season (other than Howard Dean saying that Job was his favorite book in the New Testament)...
Take, for instance, a July interview in which he was asked what kind of hunting he preferred. Here was our Nantucket Natty Bumppo's response: "Probably I'd have to say deer. . . . I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach."
What she fails to point out, as have most commentators, is that while crawling on your stomach is NOT how you hunt deer, more importantly NO ONE hunts deer with a "12-gauge double barrel", trusty or not. True, so states require you to use a shotgun when hunting deer but in those states almost everyone uses a pump or semi-auto. I don't know that I have ever seen a double-barrelled shotgun that has rifling for shooting slugs. I know of NO ONE that shoots deer with a "12-gauge double-barrel", trusty or otherwise.
John, you aren't fooling anyone. Embrace your east coast liberalism. It is probably better to lose honestly for what you are than dishonestly pretending to be something you are not.
Pat Crowley writes in the Cincinnati Enquirer about the political dichotomy between Ohio and Kentucky. Because we sit on the border and a large percentage of Cincinnati's workers live n Kentucky, we see a little of both worlds. In the Presidential race, it is a tale of two cities (or states in this case). Ohio is inunudated with candidates. Bush, Cheney, Kerry and Edwards are all over Ohio. In Kentucky, while we get the TV and radio ads since they originate in Ohio, the candidates are nowhere to be seen. He hots on a bigger issue with this comment...
But there is a also a deeper reason why Kentucky is almost certain to be a red state this year, and it explains why Kerry is going to have a hard time winning.
Parties can't win with near hatred for their opponent but only lukewarm support for their own nominee. Ask the Republicans about 1992 and 1996. The party couldn't stand Clinton, but the GOP faithful roused little passion for his opponents.
The same dynamic is happening this year. Democrats are working hard to defeat Bush on issues such as Iraq, the economy, the deficit and more. Against a stronger opponent I'm convinced Bush would be in serious trouble.
But Kerry does little to raise the juice of most voters. He's there because the Democrats, at least nationally, currently have a very thin bench. He was the best they had, but that's probably not going to be good enough.
I've said it before, John Kerry is the Democrats Bob Dole. We expected Dole, a legitimate war hero, to just show up and the contrast between him and draft dodger Bill Clinton would lead to him sailing into the White House almost unopposed. Unfortunately, conservatives were uninspired by Dole and didn't show up. Heck we didn't show up all that much in 2000 and Bush won. His support amongst the religious right is at it's peak and I expect my peeps will show up in droves nationwide.
Also, Cincinnati and southwest Ohio in general are far more conservative than Toledo and Cleveland, probably due in part to our proximity to Northern Kentucky.
Things are starting to sound grim in the Kerry camp. With basically six weeks to go, Kerry keeps sliding. Unless something dramtic happens soon, this race might be over. I know nothing is over until the votes are counted (or recounted and re-re-counted until the Democrats and their lawyers have had enough), but Kerry needs to find some momentum fast. The big opportunity might be the debates but when he shows up on national TV and comes across as haughty and dour (which he will), I doubt he will inspire much confidence. If he loses, I imagine the Swift Boat Vets will have played a large part, as here we are in mid-Septmeber and he is spending all of his energy defending his increasingly dubious Vietnam war record. You live by the sword and die by the sword. Kerry got his wish and this election is all about his war record, it just didn't work out quite like he had hoped.
But there is a also a deeper reason why Kentucky is almost certain to be a red state this year, and it explains why Kerry is going to have a hard time winning.
Parties can't win with near hatred for their opponent but only lukewarm support for their own nominee. Ask the Republicans about 1992 and 1996. The party couldn't stand Clinton, but the GOP faithful roused little passion for his opponents.
The same dynamic is happening this year. Democrats are working hard to defeat Bush on issues such as Iraq, the economy, the deficit and more. Against a stronger opponent I'm convinced Bush would be in serious trouble.
But Kerry does little to raise the juice of most voters. He's there because the Democrats, at least nationally, currently have a very thin bench. He was the best they had, but that's probably not going to be good enough.
I've said it before, John Kerry is the Democrats Bob Dole. We expected Dole, a legitimate war hero, to just show up and the contrast between him and draft dodger Bill Clinton would lead to him sailing into the White House almost unopposed. Unfortunately, conservatives were uninspired by Dole and didn't show up. Heck we didn't show up all that much in 2000 and Bush won. His support amongst the religious right is at it's peak and I expect my peeps will show up in droves nationwide.
Also, Cincinnati and southwest Ohio in general are far more conservative than Toledo and Cleveland, probably due in part to our proximity to Northern Kentucky.
Things are starting to sound grim in the Kerry camp. With basically six weeks to go, Kerry keeps sliding. Unless something dramtic happens soon, this race might be over. I know nothing is over until the votes are counted (or recounted and re-re-counted until the Democrats and their lawyers have had enough), but Kerry needs to find some momentum fast. The big opportunity might be the debates but when he shows up on national TV and comes across as haughty and dour (which he will), I doubt he will inspire much confidence. If he loses, I imagine the Swift Boat Vets will have played a large part, as here we are in mid-Septmeber and he is spending all of his energy defending his increasingly dubious Vietnam war record. You live by the sword and die by the sword. Kerry got his wish and this election is all about his war record, it just didn't work out quite like he had hoped.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
As I was reading OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web today, I came across this quote from Robert Kuttner in the Boston Globe...
John Kerry is in trouble because the Bush campaign has seized control of what psychologists call the "frame" of this year's presidential contest. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and company have framed the election starkly: Bush will keep us safe in a time of terror. He will put money in people's pockets by cutting our taxes, and somehow that will also be good for the economy.
This is a telling quote. To leftists like Kuttner, ALL tax dollars belong to the government and they determine how much we should get to put in our pockets. To conservatives, it is OUR money and WE should decide how much to send to the government. Kuttner's blind ideology shows further in this paragraph....
For Kerry and for Democrats, the frustrating reality is that everything important about George Bush and his presidency is a lie. Bush himself is far more of a phony. As several biographies have documented, he virtually fell upwards, benefiting from family connections to survive a dissolute youth, draft avoidance, and several business failures. But Bush has seized the iconography of the honest cowboy, the regular guy clearing brush on his Texas ranch, the war hero arriving by fighter plane to rescue America. That Kerry actually served in combat, that he made his way upwards with far less family help, gets buried under the smears.
BUSH is living a lie? Kuttner aparently takes at face value the hit jobs done by leftist "biographers", and yet discounts eye witnesses of John Kerry's self-inflated war exploits. Kerry is in trouble not because of framing the election. Kerry is in trouble because he is what his detractors claim: an elitist liberal who is pretending to be a moderate. He predicated his entire campaign on being a war hero 30 years ago, and it turns out that he lied about big chunks of that (like the memory seared-seared!- into his mind about a false trip to Cambodia. Lies about being wounded when in fact they were self-inflicted. Lies about his fellow servicemen and women when he got back to the states. Lies, lies and more lies.).
Kerry opened the Pandora's Box of Vietnam and now he has to deal with it. Kuttner and his ilk can't imagine that everyone in America doesn't agree with them, so they must have been duped by Bush because he is so clever. Or is he stupid? Or cleverly stupid? Kuttner is like most New Englanders/East Coasters, he is outraged that the rubes in fly-over America would dare question the judgement of the Boston and New York media outlets. Here's a hint Robbie, America has moved past you people. It was your lies and bias that forced us to find alternate methods of information gathering. First talk radio, which people like you villified as causing the Oklahoma city bombings, and then the internet and finally Fox News. You brought this upon yourselves just as surely as Kerry did by running on a platform of "I served in Vietnam, elect me!"
John Kerry is in trouble because the Bush campaign has seized control of what psychologists call the "frame" of this year's presidential contest. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and company have framed the election starkly: Bush will keep us safe in a time of terror. He will put money in people's pockets by cutting our taxes, and somehow that will also be good for the economy.
This is a telling quote. To leftists like Kuttner, ALL tax dollars belong to the government and they determine how much we should get to put in our pockets. To conservatives, it is OUR money and WE should decide how much to send to the government. Kuttner's blind ideology shows further in this paragraph....
For Kerry and for Democrats, the frustrating reality is that everything important about George Bush and his presidency is a lie. Bush himself is far more of a phony. As several biographies have documented, he virtually fell upwards, benefiting from family connections to survive a dissolute youth, draft avoidance, and several business failures. But Bush has seized the iconography of the honest cowboy, the regular guy clearing brush on his Texas ranch, the war hero arriving by fighter plane to rescue America. That Kerry actually served in combat, that he made his way upwards with far less family help, gets buried under the smears.
BUSH is living a lie? Kuttner aparently takes at face value the hit jobs done by leftist "biographers", and yet discounts eye witnesses of John Kerry's self-inflated war exploits. Kerry is in trouble not because of framing the election. Kerry is in trouble because he is what his detractors claim: an elitist liberal who is pretending to be a moderate. He predicated his entire campaign on being a war hero 30 years ago, and it turns out that he lied about big chunks of that (like the memory seared-seared!- into his mind about a false trip to Cambodia. Lies about being wounded when in fact they were self-inflicted. Lies about his fellow servicemen and women when he got back to the states. Lies, lies and more lies.).
Kerry opened the Pandora's Box of Vietnam and now he has to deal with it. Kuttner and his ilk can't imagine that everyone in America doesn't agree with them, so they must have been duped by Bush because he is so clever. Or is he stupid? Or cleverly stupid? Kuttner is like most New Englanders/East Coasters, he is outraged that the rubes in fly-over America would dare question the judgement of the Boston and New York media outlets. Here's a hint Robbie, America has moved past you people. It was your lies and bias that forced us to find alternate methods of information gathering. First talk radio, which people like you villified as causing the Oklahoma city bombings, and then the internet and finally Fox News. You brought this upon yourselves just as surely as Kerry did by running on a platform of "I served in Vietnam, elect me!"
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
I am sure this will be even-handed....
Richard Ostling, a well-known writer on religious subjects, writes about a new PBS show called The Question of God, a show purporting to examine the question of the existance of God. Red flags immediately go up, as the show looks specifically at Genesis and is hosted by unabashed liberal Bill Moyers.
Ostling wonders aloud if Christians and other people of faith will be overjoyed by the mere raising of the question by PBS...
Believers may be so pleased PBS is even taking the God issue seriously and portraying Lewis' conversion that they'll overlook the tilt against belief.
In a word, no. Ostling goes on to say...
So Question unwittingly indicates that faith remains on the defensive among cultural elitists, notwithstanding popular-level revivals and the supposed Twilight of Atheism proclaimed in a new book by Alister McGrath, a Lewis-style atheist turned Oxford theist.
The programs seem to reflect less of Nicholi, a churchgoing Protestant, than of Tatge, a former Catholic on a "faith journey" wed to an agnostic who co-produced.
So we have a panel of people mostly hostile to faith and a few weak-kneed believers. PBS has tried hard to produce shows about faith but invariably falls short. This may be due to a combinaton of fearing to cross the imaginary line between church and state or it may be based in the inherent leftist hostility to faith. Most likely it is a combination of the two. It is virtually impossible to find common ground behind the self-appointed cultural elites who sneer at people of faith and those same people of faith who disdain the cultural elites. Those in the middle are like those who are lukewarm in the church of Laodicea "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of My mouth." (Rev 3:15-16).
If you deny God in all of His Glory to appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals in academia and Hollywood, you lack the changed nature of a Christian. If you are one of th elite and profess a strong faith, you find yourself outcast and ridiculed like Mel Gibson. It is imposible to please the world and please God at the same time, so everyone must choose who they serve. Like Joshua, me and my family choose the Lord.
Richard Ostling, a well-known writer on religious subjects, writes about a new PBS show called The Question of God, a show purporting to examine the question of the existance of God. Red flags immediately go up, as the show looks specifically at Genesis and is hosted by unabashed liberal Bill Moyers.
Ostling wonders aloud if Christians and other people of faith will be overjoyed by the mere raising of the question by PBS...
Believers may be so pleased PBS is even taking the God issue seriously and portraying Lewis' conversion that they'll overlook the tilt against belief.
In a word, no. Ostling goes on to say...
So Question unwittingly indicates that faith remains on the defensive among cultural elitists, notwithstanding popular-level revivals and the supposed Twilight of Atheism proclaimed in a new book by Alister McGrath, a Lewis-style atheist turned Oxford theist.
The programs seem to reflect less of Nicholi, a churchgoing Protestant, than of Tatge, a former Catholic on a "faith journey" wed to an agnostic who co-produced.
So we have a panel of people mostly hostile to faith and a few weak-kneed believers. PBS has tried hard to produce shows about faith but invariably falls short. This may be due to a combinaton of fearing to cross the imaginary line between church and state or it may be based in the inherent leftist hostility to faith. Most likely it is a combination of the two. It is virtually impossible to find common ground behind the self-appointed cultural elites who sneer at people of faith and those same people of faith who disdain the cultural elites. Those in the middle are like those who are lukewarm in the church of Laodicea "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of My mouth." (Rev 3:15-16).
If you deny God in all of His Glory to appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals in academia and Hollywood, you lack the changed nature of a Christian. If you are one of th elite and profess a strong faith, you find yourself outcast and ridiculed like Mel Gibson. It is imposible to please the world and please God at the same time, so everyone must choose who they serve. Like Joshua, me and my family choose the Lord.
'tis a glorious day in Northern Kentucky, as our new Wal-Mart Supercenter has opened in Fort Wright, providing a plethora of inexpensive products and friendly, non-union employees. Never again will I darken the door of our local Krogers, with it's poor selection, terrible prices and rude employees!
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Jonah Goldberg of National Review has a scathing critique of both Dan Rather and Big Media in general regarding the fraudulent memo's regarding Bush's service record.
These are a few of my favorite lines from Goldberg...
Anyway, let me make one directly partisan point while I'm at it. Dan Rather considers it outrageous and offensive that anyone would question the judgment that led to this situation. He defends what appear to be very shoddy methods (reading letters over the phone to sources, asking sources not to talk to the press, etc.), as if only a "partisan" or a fool would question them.
Well, if you agree with Rather, maybe you should give just a smidgen more slack to George W. Bush about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's sources were more solid by several orders of magnitude than Rather's, and yet it is "obvious" to so many that Bush lied while Rather deserves the benefit of the doubt. George W. Bush had the head of the CIA, the intelligence agencies of all our allies, the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and most of the establishment media generally backing his understanding of the threat from Iraq. Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes — not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan — Ben Barnes — a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true.
That puts it pretty succintly. I have said over and over again what a hypocritical party the Democrats are. Bush serving in the National Guard rather than going to Vietnam disqualifies him as Commander-in-Chief but Clinton dodging the draft entirely was irrelevant. MoveOn.org's ads are perfetcly legal, nay wonderous expressions of our First Amendment rights but the Swift Boat Veteran ads are deceitful and shold be silenced. What Rather is outraged about is that anyone would dare question him, as he thinks we are still in a world with three equally biased news stations that provide all of the news the public gets. Surprise Gunga Dan, we no longer rely on CBS/ABC/NBC, in fact I and many others never watch the network news channels. Rather is a relic, a dinosaur of an age gone by and he isn't smart enough or man enough to realize it.
These are a few of my favorite lines from Goldberg...
Anyway, let me make one directly partisan point while I'm at it. Dan Rather considers it outrageous and offensive that anyone would question the judgment that led to this situation. He defends what appear to be very shoddy methods (reading letters over the phone to sources, asking sources not to talk to the press, etc.), as if only a "partisan" or a fool would question them.
Well, if you agree with Rather, maybe you should give just a smidgen more slack to George W. Bush about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's sources were more solid by several orders of magnitude than Rather's, and yet it is "obvious" to so many that Bush lied while Rather deserves the benefit of the doubt. George W. Bush had the head of the CIA, the intelligence agencies of all our allies, the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and most of the establishment media generally backing his understanding of the threat from Iraq. Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes — not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan — Ben Barnes — a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true.
That puts it pretty succintly. I have said over and over again what a hypocritical party the Democrats are. Bush serving in the National Guard rather than going to Vietnam disqualifies him as Commander-in-Chief but Clinton dodging the draft entirely was irrelevant. MoveOn.org's ads are perfetcly legal, nay wonderous expressions of our First Amendment rights but the Swift Boat Veteran ads are deceitful and shold be silenced. What Rather is outraged about is that anyone would dare question him, as he thinks we are still in a world with three equally biased news stations that provide all of the news the public gets. Surprise Gunga Dan, we no longer rely on CBS/ABC/NBC, in fact I and many others never watch the network news channels. Rather is a relic, a dinosaur of an age gone by and he isn't smart enough or man enough to realize it.
Speaking punishing criminals (or the lack thereof)....
Fox News reports that model citizen Brian DeVries is being released from prison in San Jose, California. So what? Well Mr. DeVries is what we like to call a serial sex offender. According to Fox, he has molested at least 9 young boys in New Hampshire, Florida and California. That is just the ones we know about. Now he is leaving prison and moving to Washington state, where perhaps he will have some anonymity? His parents are ecstatic...
"I think (the judge) made the right decision," DeVries' father, Barry, told reporters outside court. "Now he goes on with his life."
What about those 9+ boys he molested? Can they get on with their lives? Or has he scarred them for life? He has been in this treatment program for violent sex offenders since 1997, a whopping 7 years. 7 years. That is less than one year for every boy he molested, every life he destroyed.
The two psychologists who examined DeVries disagreed as to his readiness to rejoin society. The one who supported releasing him says...
"I think we have to allow people to change," Charlene Steen, a psychologist who evaluated DeVries and testified on his behalf, said Monday. "He has clearly changed his behavior ... He's done everything in his power not to reoffend."
Of course he hasn't reoffended, he has been locked up! I am all for people changing their lives, but we ought not put the children of Washington state at risk to see if DeVries is cured. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior, child molestation doubly so. He has been castrated, but my understanding is that is off limited efficacy. Homosexuality and pedophillia are mental disorders, so I would expect we will be hearing about another victim of Mr. DeVries in the not too distant future. Why do we let predators out on the street?
Fox News reports that model citizen Brian DeVries is being released from prison in San Jose, California. So what? Well Mr. DeVries is what we like to call a serial sex offender. According to Fox, he has molested at least 9 young boys in New Hampshire, Florida and California. That is just the ones we know about. Now he is leaving prison and moving to Washington state, where perhaps he will have some anonymity? His parents are ecstatic...
"I think (the judge) made the right decision," DeVries' father, Barry, told reporters outside court. "Now he goes on with his life."
What about those 9+ boys he molested? Can they get on with their lives? Or has he scarred them for life? He has been in this treatment program for violent sex offenders since 1997, a whopping 7 years. 7 years. That is less than one year for every boy he molested, every life he destroyed.
The two psychologists who examined DeVries disagreed as to his readiness to rejoin society. The one who supported releasing him says...
"I think we have to allow people to change," Charlene Steen, a psychologist who evaluated DeVries and testified on his behalf, said Monday. "He has clearly changed his behavior ... He's done everything in his power not to reoffend."
Of course he hasn't reoffended, he has been locked up! I am all for people changing their lives, but we ought not put the children of Washington state at risk to see if DeVries is cured. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior, child molestation doubly so. He has been castrated, but my understanding is that is off limited efficacy. Homosexuality and pedophillia are mental disorders, so I would expect we will be hearing about another victim of Mr. DeVries in the not too distant future. Why do we let predators out on the street?
Speaking of gun control...
One of the last vestiges of the Clinton era died yesterday as the "assault weapons" ban expired. If there was every a piece of legislation that deserved to be let go, this was it. It did nothing to stop crime. A very informative article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer quotes a gun dealer, referring to the sale of the liberal bogeyman, AK-47's....
It never outlawed the sale of AK-47s and SKS assault rifles - Denny (Karen Denny, owner of Land, Air & Sea Inc) said she has sold those every week. Rather, the law restricted the manufacture and importation of new ones.
It is informative that while police chiefs support the ban, the actual cops on the street who are allegedly threatened by these weapons are ambivalent...
The International Association of Chiefs of Police called for members to urge their congressional delegates to extend the ban. But local police officers say they don't expect anything to change.
Gun owners who legally buy the weapons aren't usually those who cause problems with them.
You could buy (and I have) Ruger Mini-14s legally and places like Cabelas had a large stick of high capacity magazines. I have several 30 round magazines for my Mini-14, all legally purchased.
Ultimately, gun control doesn't work because the people who committ crimes are already willing to break the law, so what does one more mean to them? People like me get punished and haven't committed any crimes.
Instead of focusing on the legal gun owners, let's look at the criminals. Rather than letting criminals back on the street after vacations to Federal penitentaries where they worked out, played basketball, watched cable TV and surfed the 'Net on our dime, let's keep then locked up and lets make it less pleasant. Forget having ESPN, get them out working on roads picking up garbage, breaking rocks, digging ditches, doing SOMETHING. Instead of punishing criminals we are warehousing them. Rather than discouraging them from committing crimes, we get them off the street for a couple of years and give them little disincentive to not go back. Prison should be humane but it ought not be comfortable, places for criminals to work out with weights and get proselytized by Muslim extremists. They are being PUNISHED for crying out loud.
One of the last vestiges of the Clinton era died yesterday as the "assault weapons" ban expired. If there was every a piece of legislation that deserved to be let go, this was it. It did nothing to stop crime. A very informative article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer quotes a gun dealer, referring to the sale of the liberal bogeyman, AK-47's....
It never outlawed the sale of AK-47s and SKS assault rifles - Denny (Karen Denny, owner of Land, Air & Sea Inc) said she has sold those every week. Rather, the law restricted the manufacture and importation of new ones.
It is informative that while police chiefs support the ban, the actual cops on the street who are allegedly threatened by these weapons are ambivalent...
The International Association of Chiefs of Police called for members to urge their congressional delegates to extend the ban. But local police officers say they don't expect anything to change.
Gun owners who legally buy the weapons aren't usually those who cause problems with them.
You could buy (and I have) Ruger Mini-14s legally and places like Cabelas had a large stick of high capacity magazines. I have several 30 round magazines for my Mini-14, all legally purchased.
Ultimately, gun control doesn't work because the people who committ crimes are already willing to break the law, so what does one more mean to them? People like me get punished and haven't committed any crimes.
Instead of focusing on the legal gun owners, let's look at the criminals. Rather than letting criminals back on the street after vacations to Federal penitentaries where they worked out, played basketball, watched cable TV and surfed the 'Net on our dime, let's keep then locked up and lets make it less pleasant. Forget having ESPN, get them out working on roads picking up garbage, breaking rocks, digging ditches, doing SOMETHING. Instead of punishing criminals we are warehousing them. Rather than discouraging them from committing crimes, we get them off the street for a couple of years and give them little disincentive to not go back. Prison should be humane but it ought not be comfortable, places for criminals to work out with weights and get proselytized by Muslim extremists. They are being PUNISHED for crying out loud.
Friday, September 10, 2004
An oldie but a goodie!
I came across this editorial by Thomas Sowell, dated in 2000, but it is still as relevant today four years later. Sowell rightly points out the hypocrisy of that day concerning Rosie O'Donnell, darling of the anti-gun, hiring an armed security guard for her kids. He then goes on to make the comparison between armed gun control advocates and opponents of school vouchers sending their kids to private schools that others can't afford. This quote hits the liberal nail on the head...
More than 90 percent of all uses of guns in self-defense do not involve actually firing the weapon, despite gun control advocates' assumption that we are all such trigger-happy idiots that letting ordinary citizens have guns will lead to bullets flying hither and yon. Like virtually every other liberal crusade, gun control is based on the assumption that other people lack common sense and must be controlled by the superior wisdom and virtue of the anointed.
Bingo! You are too stupid to care for yourself, so you need a Hollywood celebrity to tell you how to live and how to think. These self-annointed types include the Teresa Heinz Kerry's of the world (the super rich who assume the middle class are boobs), the Hollywood elite (who think that being able to pretend to be someone else convincingly makes them smart) and the eductaional establishment (who have lived in the academic world so long they have ceased to even recognize the real world off campus). They are the heart and soul of the Democratic party, a party that prefers paternalism to freedom, lemmings to patriots and the U.N. to the Constitution.
I came across this editorial by Thomas Sowell, dated in 2000, but it is still as relevant today four years later. Sowell rightly points out the hypocrisy of that day concerning Rosie O'Donnell, darling of the anti-gun, hiring an armed security guard for her kids. He then goes on to make the comparison between armed gun control advocates and opponents of school vouchers sending their kids to private schools that others can't afford. This quote hits the liberal nail on the head...
More than 90 percent of all uses of guns in self-defense do not involve actually firing the weapon, despite gun control advocates' assumption that we are all such trigger-happy idiots that letting ordinary citizens have guns will lead to bullets flying hither and yon. Like virtually every other liberal crusade, gun control is based on the assumption that other people lack common sense and must be controlled by the superior wisdom and virtue of the anointed.
Bingo! You are too stupid to care for yourself, so you need a Hollywood celebrity to tell you how to live and how to think. These self-annointed types include the Teresa Heinz Kerry's of the world (the super rich who assume the middle class are boobs), the Hollywood elite (who think that being able to pretend to be someone else convincingly makes them smart) and the eductaional establishment (who have lived in the academic world so long they have ceased to even recognize the real world off campus). They are the heart and soul of the Democratic party, a party that prefers paternalism to freedom, lemmings to patriots and the U.N. to the Constitution.
Ah, the American school system, bastion of "Blame America First"
Fifth grade teacher Bob Peterson at Fratney Street School in Milwaukee is teaching his students about the root causes of terrorism. Is he teaching them about radical Islam? Nope. Theocracies versus democracies? Nope. A geopolitical lesson on the thousands of years of turmoil in the Middle East and the clash of cultures between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West? Nope. Bob is using cookies to help kids understand that terrorists kill us because we refuse to share our cookies with them. According to USA Today:
Bob Peterson teaches students that overpopulation and poverty help make it easier to recruit terrorists for attacks like those on Sept. 11, 2001.
Bob is being awarded for his teaching methodology.
Another teacher, Masato Ogawa of Ontario (Ore.) High School , has an even more PC lesson plan…
Ogawa's students discuss the Patriot Act and the U.S. government's treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II and consider whether the government should extend the limits of its authority during wartime.
No mention is made of Islam in the article. Shocking!
Terrorism is not an issue of have's and have not's. Where do these terrorists come from? The heart of the radical Islamic movement is Saudi Arabia, a land with natural riches beyond belief. They pick up their cookies in Mercedes Benz and BMWs. Those who are impoverished in Saudi Arabia are so because they live in a theocratic dictatorship, not because Americans have more cookies.
The problem with terrorism is not a lack of cookies or an uneven distribution of them. The Saudi's do nothing to help their poor oppressed fellow Muslims in politically and strategically insignificant places. It is the Christian missionary worker that is bringing food, education and medical supplies to these people.
Is this the role of public education? Teaching our children at a young age to be ashamed of being American and blaming the victims for the terrorism that takes their lives? There are unfortunately poor starving people all over the world, but it is only from Islam that we get suicide bombers and atrocities like 9/11/01 and the murder of Russian children in Beslan. No plight of poverty provides an excuse for killing 10 year old school children in the name of Allah. As Victor Davis Hanson points out in NationalReview.com, these terrorists are not "screaming "Hail Mary" when they machine gun children in the back, slit the throat of airline stewardesses, or blow pregnant women up on buses across the globe."
Why would a wealthy scion of a rich Saudi family turn into the most hunted terrorist in the entire world, with the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands? Why would gunmen shoot children in a school and laugh at their terror? Why would young men throw away their lives crashing planes into buildings full of innocent people who just want to go about their business? Why would teens strap explosives on themselves to blow up busses in Israel? The only common thread is Islam, and it is past time pretending that it is not.
Fifth grade teacher Bob Peterson at Fratney Street School in Milwaukee is teaching his students about the root causes of terrorism. Is he teaching them about radical Islam? Nope. Theocracies versus democracies? Nope. A geopolitical lesson on the thousands of years of turmoil in the Middle East and the clash of cultures between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West? Nope. Bob is using cookies to help kids understand that terrorists kill us because we refuse to share our cookies with them. According to USA Today:
Bob Peterson teaches students that overpopulation and poverty help make it easier to recruit terrorists for attacks like those on Sept. 11, 2001.
Bob is being awarded for his teaching methodology.
Another teacher, Masato Ogawa of Ontario (Ore.) High School , has an even more PC lesson plan…
Ogawa's students discuss the Patriot Act and the U.S. government's treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II and consider whether the government should extend the limits of its authority during wartime.
No mention is made of Islam in the article. Shocking!
Terrorism is not an issue of have's and have not's. Where do these terrorists come from? The heart of the radical Islamic movement is Saudi Arabia, a land with natural riches beyond belief. They pick up their cookies in Mercedes Benz and BMWs. Those who are impoverished in Saudi Arabia are so because they live in a theocratic dictatorship, not because Americans have more cookies.
The problem with terrorism is not a lack of cookies or an uneven distribution of them. The Saudi's do nothing to help their poor oppressed fellow Muslims in politically and strategically insignificant places. It is the Christian missionary worker that is bringing food, education and medical supplies to these people.
Is this the role of public education? Teaching our children at a young age to be ashamed of being American and blaming the victims for the terrorism that takes their lives? There are unfortunately poor starving people all over the world, but it is only from Islam that we get suicide bombers and atrocities like 9/11/01 and the murder of Russian children in Beslan. No plight of poverty provides an excuse for killing 10 year old school children in the name of Allah. As Victor Davis Hanson points out in NationalReview.com, these terrorists are not "screaming "Hail Mary" when they machine gun children in the back, slit the throat of airline stewardesses, or blow pregnant women up on buses across the globe."
Why would a wealthy scion of a rich Saudi family turn into the most hunted terrorist in the entire world, with the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands? Why would gunmen shoot children in a school and laugh at their terror? Why would young men throw away their lives crashing planes into buildings full of innocent people who just want to go about their business? Why would teens strap explosives on themselves to blow up busses in Israel? The only common thread is Islam, and it is past time pretending that it is not.
Saint Teresa Heinz Kerry, she of the multilingual ketchup dynasty, has weighed in on her husband's proposed socialized medicine plan. Because she is SOOOOO smart and well-spoken, she had this brilliant rebuttal of critics of her husband's plan:
"Only an idiot wouldn't like this…Of course, there are idiots."
If you oppose this plan, you are an idiot. Brilliant! How can you argue with a deeply thought out, logical argument like that? Luckily, as a billionaire widow and wife of a U.S. Senator, Teresa has a keen understanding of the plight of the little man.
"I don't have to sell it — the people want it," The people? She forgot to add the word "little" in front of "people". Like she has any idea what "the people" want. As one of "the people" I am uniquely suited to benefit from a socialized medical plan. Even though I make a very nice salary, with six kids and a spouse that is not employed outside of the home, I have virtually no tax burden. I could take the kids to the doctor with no co-pay perhaps or at least a subsidized co-pay, so it makes great sense for me. But it is bad for the country, and despite the caricature of Republicans set forth by the media, that is to say all we care about is lining our own pockets, I oppose this because despite being good for my wallet it is bad policy for the nation.
This is so indicative of Teresa and her husband's mentality (and Al Gore, Hillary, Michael Moore, the Hollywood glitterati, etc.) Anyone who dares disagree with us is an idiot. There are plenty of people who don't agree with me, many of whom ARE idiots, but not all and disagreeing with me does not make them an idiot. It just makes them wrong. Imagine this line coming from Laura Bush "Anyone who doesn't support my husband's tax cuts is an idiot". Think she would get a free pass from the media? Not hardly.
Teresa then pontificated that those "idiots" who opposed her husband's plan would be voted out of office. Just like the last time socialized medicine was proposed, a bunch of people got voted out of office. Wait a second, it wasn't the opponents of socialized medicine, it was the supporters who "the people" voted out in droves last time. So, who is the REAL idiot here?
Teresa sez: "The common man doesn't look at me as some rich witch."
Wanna bet?
"Only an idiot wouldn't like this…Of course, there are idiots."
If you oppose this plan, you are an idiot. Brilliant! How can you argue with a deeply thought out, logical argument like that? Luckily, as a billionaire widow and wife of a U.S. Senator, Teresa has a keen understanding of the plight of the little man.
"I don't have to sell it — the people want it," The people? She forgot to add the word "little" in front of "people". Like she has any idea what "the people" want. As one of "the people" I am uniquely suited to benefit from a socialized medical plan. Even though I make a very nice salary, with six kids and a spouse that is not employed outside of the home, I have virtually no tax burden. I could take the kids to the doctor with no co-pay perhaps or at least a subsidized co-pay, so it makes great sense for me. But it is bad for the country, and despite the caricature of Republicans set forth by the media, that is to say all we care about is lining our own pockets, I oppose this because despite being good for my wallet it is bad policy for the nation.
This is so indicative of Teresa and her husband's mentality (and Al Gore, Hillary, Michael Moore, the Hollywood glitterati, etc.) Anyone who dares disagree with us is an idiot. There are plenty of people who don't agree with me, many of whom ARE idiots, but not all and disagreeing with me does not make them an idiot. It just makes them wrong. Imagine this line coming from Laura Bush "Anyone who doesn't support my husband's tax cuts is an idiot". Think she would get a free pass from the media? Not hardly.
Teresa then pontificated that those "idiots" who opposed her husband's plan would be voted out of office. Just like the last time socialized medicine was proposed, a bunch of people got voted out of office. Wait a second, it wasn't the opponents of socialized medicine, it was the supporters who "the people" voted out in droves last time. So, who is the REAL idiot here?
Teresa sez: "The common man doesn't look at me as some rich witch."
Wanna bet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)