Conservative Blog Therapy

Human Events TV

2009-02-26T14:53:00.002-05:00

Human Events now offers video!

Zo on gay marriage...

2008-11-21T10:19:00.001-05:00

I love this guy.

Help fight teenage affluenza...

2008-11-19T13:43:00.002-05:00

... it's rampant across the U.S.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

2008-11-10T09:49:00.001-05:00

The Onion - The revelation that Obama's candidacy was the only thing that gave their lives any meaning has caused many supporters to wander aimlessly:

Newt in 2012?

2008-11-08T12:40:00.005-05:00

I have to say, I'd love it. Aside from his meanderings on the subject of global warming, Newt is amazing. Baggage? Yes, but the MSM is going to attempt to knee-cap any conservative in the race, so why not bring out the big gun?

Newt/Palin or Newt/Jindal... yes, please!

Here's the story from Novak:

... It would be a rocky road for Gingrich to the nomination, much less the presidency, but there are no other serious candidates inside the party at the moment.

It is clear that Republicans are unanimous in trying to avoid a repeat of what happened this year, and there is a surprising consensus that McCain was going in the wrong direction and was the wrong candidate.

What one GOP critic calls Gingrich's "unlimited energy supply" must be overcome by anyone opposing him. Several old Republican hands feel that Gingrich in 2012 is no more outrageous than Ronald Reagan was in 1980.

What is certain is that Gingrich has the desire and the will. He has a deep-seated ambition. He had not even settled into the House speaker's chair in 1995 when he confessed to me his presidential desires for 1996. That was not to be, but he never abandoned the personal dream and is ready to pursue it now.

Here's Newt's site called American Solutions. Also, here's Newt.org.

UPDATE: Yes, this is a good idea!

What we can learn from the UK...

2008-11-06T12:09:00.004-05:00

Melanie Phillips writes a great piece today titled Preventing National Suicide - Tips on conserving and protecting from across the pond. Here is the closing half:

... Obama believes America has to expiate its sins: both its original, Founding sins of slavery and racism, and its latter-day sins against the world of Islam. Britain likes the sound of that. It wants America to be humbled. Nations, it thinks, cause wars. Arrogant, hubristic, imperial nations like Bush’s America cause big and horrible wars. By contrast transnational institutions — such as the sacred UN or EU — promote civilised “engagement” with the enemy to discuss grievances and reach compromises. So it is thrilled that Obama will get out of Iraq and talk to Iran and may even force wretched Israel (which Britain blames for Everything Bad in the World) to give away the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem to the Arabs.

The fact that such actions would leave Iraq in chaos, empower Iran still further, destroy Israel’s security and imperil the free world doesn’t trouble it at all. And if Obama, under the responsibility of office, should change from an appeaser to a war leader in America’s national interest, then Britain’s new found love for America would revert once again into rage and disdain.

Of course. transnational progressivism, multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism. and all the rest of it do amount to a national suicide note. The reason Britain has embraced them is because, for the past several decades, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been systematically hollowing out its values and its defences.

The result is a cultural vacuum which is steadily being filled by radical Islamism. Paralyzed by its “universal” value system of multiculturalism and minority rights, Britain is failing to assert its own civilisational principles against the cultural onslaught being mounted by Islamists. Accordingly, it is permitting the spread of Muslim enclaves governed by a parallel jurisdiction of sharia law — the steady creation of a “state within a state” — encouraging the development of sharia finance, and permitting Saudi money to fund British universities and other institutions.

Millions of Britons are appalled by the implosion of British culture, identity, and values. But they find themselves politically disenfranchized, because the Conservative party does not understand that British values are under attack. And Republicans should take careful note of this in order to recognize a similar danger and dilemma facing them following their defeat.

The British Conservatives think that, to regain power, they have to show they have broken with cultural conservatism and go instead with the way society has changed — gay rights, green politics, anti-racism. What they have failed to grasp is that such change has turned values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced a sentimentalised, cruel, oppressive and perverse society — one where burglars go scot-free but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the opprobrium that will follow.

The Conservatives don’t realize that by embracing such “change” they are endorsing a kind of enslavement. They don’t realize that the first duty of a conservative is to conserve that which is precious and protect it against attack. The result is that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the absence of conservatism, and yet more still think the Conservative party is just a bunch of opportunists who don’t have any principles. Why vote for the progressive wannabes, after all, when you can have the real thing?

The challenge for conservatives on both sides of the pond is to find a way of conserving the essential values of Western Civilization and defend them against the onslaught being mounted against them both from within and from without — but to do so in a way that is generous and big-hearted rather than narrow and sectarian, and embraces rather than repels.

Very well-done, I think. It won't be easy, as anything conservative is often painted as hateful and mean by the U.S. media. Is a humbled, apologetic United States really a good thing for the rest of the world? I don't think so, but I guess we'll see.

A post-election letter from Mark Alexander...

2008-11-05T13:52:00.004-05:00

Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post is fantastic. It's worth subscribing and/or donating if you're so inclined.

The quote below (in bold) is spot-on:

Fellow Patriots,

Tuesday, 4 November 2008, is a date which will live in infamy. While most presidential elections are followed with calls for unity by both candidates, Barack Obama issued no such call in his speech last night, with the possible exception of his observation, "I may not have won your vote tonight, but ... I will be your president, too."

Of course, none was expected - liberals have elected a Socialist with deep ties to cultural and ethnocentric radicalism, and his executive and legislative agenda poses a greater threat to American liberty than that of any president in the history of our great republic.

Obama has twice taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." He has never honored that oath, and, based on his policy proposals and objectives, he has no intention to honor it after again reciting that oath on 20 January 2009. Obama seeks to, in his own words, "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

For that reason, this morning, the symbol of our national heritage of liberty, the American flag atop the 35-foot mast at our editorial offices, was respectfully lowered, inverted, and raised to full mast as a sign of national distress. It will remain inverted until next Tuesday, when we right it in honor of Veterans Day.

Today, at least 55,805,197 Americans are concerned for the future of our nation's great tradition of liberty. Some 63,007,791 Americans have been lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a state of what is best described as "cult worship" and all its attendant deception.

One of our editors, a Marine now working in the private sector, summed up our circumstances with this situation report. It aptly captured the sentiments around our office:

"It's been tough, fellow Patriots; tough to stomach the idea that more than half of my fellow citizens who vote, have booted a genuine American hero to the curb for a rudderless charlatan. What a sad indictment on our citizenry that some are so eager to overlook his myriad flaws - his radical roots, his extreme liberalism, his utter lack of experience or achievement. Barack Obama is the antithesis of King's dream: He's a man judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character. If it's God's will that Barack Obama is our next president, then so be it. We Patriots will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and wade back to the war front, intent on liberty or death."

This battle is lost, but the war is not. Let's roll.

Mark Alexander,
Publisher

Indeed. Yes we can.

Uncommon Knowledge - An interview with Thomas Sowell on "A Conflict of Visions"

2008-11-05T12:25:00.002-05:00

Click the image above to be taken to Part I of V, where Thomas Sowell describes the critical differences between interests and visions. Interests, he says, are articulated by people who know what their interests are and what they want to do about them. Visions, however, are the implicit assumptions by which people operate. This idea elevates to politics, where visions are either “constrained” or “unconstrained.”

Here are the links and brief descriptions of the other parts:

Part II - Sowell describes the constrained and unconstrained visions of the law, noting that the former applies to John McCain and the latter to Barrack Obama.

Part III - Speaking of the differing visions of war, Sowell says the constrained vision is never surprised by war, while the unconstrained vision almost always is.

Part IV - Is John McCain’s the constrained vision of the economy, and is Obama’s the unconstrained? According to Sowell, the distinction is sadly not that clear.

Part V - Thomas Sowell discusses the dangerous unconstrained vision of Barack Obama and other elites. And what will happen if this vision scores a three-house sweep on Election Day? Sowell says we may have reached “a point of no return.”

The End of Journalism

2008-11-04T16:24:00.003-05:00

Victor Davis Hanson nails it:

There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored. ...

... The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

Read it all.

Point of No Return

2008-11-04T16:10:00.004-05:00

Mark Steyn speaks for me:

...To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving “fetuses” of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex — voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely “present”?

The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting “present”, you can stand down.

Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from “community organizer” to the world’s President-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.

Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the “Now what?” questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don’t want it, vote accordingly.

Here's the whole article on NRO.

Top Ten Reasons to Vote for McCain/Palin

2008-10-31T09:15:00.007-04:00

Mona Charen:

10.) John McCain is much, much funnier than Barack Obama. But then, almost everyone is.

9.) John McCain is a passionate patriot who has always been, and will always be, guided by what he thinks is best for America. He can trace his ancestry back to an officer on Gen. George Washington's staff and his family has served the nation nobly in war and peace ever since. McCain believes in winning wars.

8.) McCain's intimate familiarity with military matters also makes him less biddable by the armed services. He was able, when most others (most notably his opponent) were not, to see that a change of strategy in Iraq -- not a retreat -- was needed. He brings an informed skepticism to military procurement requests as well.

7.) As he told Rick Warren, McCain believes that there is evil in the world and that it must be confronted. While Mrs. Obama and many others seem to think that our enemies will purr like kittens once we inaugurate a black man with an Islamic middle name, that is dangerous fantasy. When asked for an example of evil, McCain mentioned al-Qaida putting explosive vests on two mentally impaired girls and blowing them up by remote control in an Iraqi marketplace. Obama, whose turn of mind is different, cautioned that the problem is sometimes us: " a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

6.) McCain may not be a Ph.D. economist, but he understands that raising taxes and adopting protectionist trade policies will deepen and prolong this recession. Nor would he permit Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to push through the "card check" law -- a union-backed measure that would reverse 73 years of labor law in this country by scuttling the secret ballot in union elections. Even George McGovern has denounced this job-killing, freedom-smothering law that Obama supports. Greater unionization will translate into lost productivity, inflationary pressure, and fewer jobs.

5.) John McCain will try to protect the unborn. Barack Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate ever to win a presidential nomination. Obama has promised to back the Freedom of Choice Act as his first presidential act, which would invalidate all restrictions on abortion at any stage of gestation -- and even in cases where babies are born alive after an attempted abortion.

4.) McCain will employ diplomacy, not worship it. Obama is deluded about the power of "talks." In 2007, he proposed, regarding Iran's nuclear program: "if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior."

3.) John McCain has said that his models for good judicial picks are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Senator Obama will pick Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich (just kidding, but his choices won't be far off).

2.) McCain's health care proposal will improve the world's best health care delivery system. He proposes to reform the most distorting aspect of our current system (the tax break for employers) and give the tax break to individuals instead. It is McCain's proposal, not Obama's, that will give individuals the choice to stay with the plan they have or take the tax credit and shop around (in a market enlarged by permitting interstate insurance). Obama's plan, by contrast, is a key first step to achieving his oft-repeated preference for a single-payer system like Canada's. By forcing employers to provide certain (as yet unspecified) benefits or pay a tax ("play or pay"), Obama's plan will encourage employers to dump more and more people into a government-run health insurance system like Medicare. Word to the wise: In Canada, they are seeking to reduce wait times for care. One province reported waits of 26 weeks for hip replacements, and others are trying to ensure (without success) that cancer patients are treated within 4 weeks of diagnosis.

1.) The financial crisis and looming recession, combined with President Bush's low approval ratings, have set the stage for this election to be a pivot point in American history. If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats control large majorities in the House and Senate, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate will move the country decisively in the direction of dying Europe -- low productivity, high joblessness, low birth rates, high taxes, and limp foreign policies. The triumvirate will do this at a time when a vibrant America is more necessary than ever -- with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, Pakistan teetering, al-Qaida regrouping, China and Russia telegraphing hostility, and Iraq just barely emerging into the sunshine. This election has become about far more than John McCain versus Barack Obama; it has become about whether the United States will remain the champion of freedom -- economic and political -- or whether we will join the queue of formerly great nations now struggling to pay for all the social welfare "benefits" their aging and lazy populations demand.

And if you need some more help, read the always-insightful Charles Krauthammer's latest:

...This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.

The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.

You may also want to read a fantastic Digest at the Patriot Post... The Audacity of Deception, by Mark Alexander.

Unless, of course, you don't want to worry about paying your mortgage anymore. In that case, vote for Obama:

A Random Rant from "Zo"

2008-10-24T10:41:00.004-04:00

Posting has been on hold for some time, but this seemed too good not to share!

This guy is now officially one of my conservative heroes:

While you're at it, check out The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama.

...and for a little comedy, Palin breaks the tie in the dance-off:

And Fred Thompson chimes in too:

Failure to expand oil production caused by Democrats

2008-08-07T17:05:00.006-04:00

From James B. Edwards, former Secretary of Energy under Ronald Reagan:

... The Democrats in Congress have blocked every attempt to drill offshore and in ANWR. Let's review that history:

-- 1984: Reagan recommended that we drill in ANWR and offshore, but a filibuster by Senate Democrats kept the measure from coming to a vote.

-- 1995: Republicans prepared to take up the battle again, and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Clinton, a Democrat, vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling.

-- 1998: The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there was significant oil in ANWR, mostly in the western part of the "1002" area. Estimates ranged from 5.7 to 16 billion barrels.

-- 2000: George W. Bush pushed to perform exploratory drilling for oil and gas in and around the refuge. The Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in mid-2000 to allow drilling. In April of 2002, the Democratic Senate rejected it.

-- 2005: The Republican-controlled House of Representatives again approved drilling but the House-Senate Conference Committee later removed the provision.

-- 2005: The Republican-controlled Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling as a part of the federal budget resolution for fiscal year 2006. The provision was removed due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter promising they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.

-- 2005: Republican Ted Stevens attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic senators led a successful filibuster of the bill on Dec. 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill.

-- 2008: President Bush pressed Congress to reverse the ban on offshore drilling in ANWR, in addition to approving the extraction of oil from shale on lands owned by the federal government. Congress has done nothing. In three Western states, it estimated that we have 80 billion barrels of oil recoverable from shale. We also have proven technology to extract this oil. Congress won't allow it.

The congressional moratorium on offshore drilling was first enacted in l982 and has been renewed annually. The Democratic party is owned and directed by radical environmental groups. The National Resources Defense Council is one of the groups that has brought the suit to block the refineries from expanding and also has fought the construction of new refineries. This is one of the same groups that have kept us from building any more nuclear generating facilities in America. Some of the same groups are trying to block the use of coal for electrical generation.

All this is going on while we import more and more oil. ...

Inflating our tires isn't a bad idea by itself, but Barack Obama implying that it can solve our need for more domestic oil/energy is completely ridiculous. We need to drill in ANWR ...through a caribou's skull if necessary! I don't see why it would be, but it makes a good point.

Diamond Rio sings 'Presidents Day'

2008-07-29T14:55:00.003-04:00

A good friend just sent me this song and I thought it was worth sharing. There's not enough of this type of thing on the radio these days...unless you listen to country music!

Very good stuff. Here's the song/video:

Levin on Rush Limbaugh...

2008-07-29T13:57:00.007-04:00

Mark Levin is a fantastic radio host himself, and is right on track with his nomination of Rush for Man of the Year over at Human Events:

... What is it about Rush that drives the left crazy (that is, crazier than they already are)? The answer is actually quite simple: Rush is the most important voice in the conservative movement. Others want to be, some claim to be, but he is. More than any conservative politician, columnist or pundit, Rush speaks for us. His opinions are principled and consistent. He has a brilliant mind and a voracious appetite for knowledge and truth, all of which he uses behind his golden EIB microphone to teach and persuade as he cuts through the daily media clutter. He has the guts to say what so many of us are thinking to ourselves. And Rush’s likable and optimistic personality and entertaining style attract increasing numbers of conservative adherents. Liberals consider Rush and his talk show the greatest threats to their agenda and pursuit of power, and they’re right. ...

Click the photo or link above to read the whole thing. You can go to WRVA.com to listen to Rush live noon to 3:00pm every Monday-Friday.

I completely agree with Levin. Rush is fantastic, and is without a doubt the most influential leader in the conservative movement. Listen to him whenever you can!

Click here for Rush's home site.

Mac Johnson talks straight...

2008-07-23T12:57:00.003-04:00

Since you're reading this blog, you're probably a political junkie like me and are well-aware of the recent snubbing that McCain received from the NY Times. As usual, Mac Johnson gets straight to the point in his latest effort:

To: Senator John McCain
Evil Republican Standard Bearer
Washington, D.C.

From: Pinch Ahmadinejad Sulzberger
Editor-in-Chief-for-Life, New York Times
New York, NY

Re: Submission (yours)

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for your recent unsolicited editorial submission to the New York Times. While we appreciate your desire to have your piece published in America’s newspaper of record, we regret that we cannot use it at this time.

We understand that you have had many thoughts published in the New York Times in the past, and that you have enjoyed fawning coverage by both our editors and reporters for years. However, it has recently come to our attention that you are, in fact, a Republican. We therefore cannot publish any more of your work until after you have lost the upcoming Presidential election. We encourage you to submit bitter critiques of conservative figures after that time.

We hope that you do not take this rejection personally, as you have been very useful to us in the past, and -- like all good manipulable politicians -- you care deeply about how you are described in our venerable and uppity pages. But you must understand that our past praise of you was conducted only with the hope of damaging other leading Republican figures with whom you disagreed. Now that you are the leading Republican figure, our only hope is to damage you, the Anti-Barack. May you cease to threaten the coming 1000-year peace of the Dalai Obama’s reign. (Hock, Patooie!)

Oo, that reminds me, please (for old Time’s sake) post the following classified employment advertisement in the Senate break room. We suddenly have a position available.

Wanted: Republican or near-Republican Senator to serve as “iconoclastic maverick” in the eyes of the World’s Most Important Newspaper. Must be willing to criticize own leaders, comrades, underlings and especially the Party’s base. Must love pets and illegal aliens. Veteran status a plus. Only non-smokers, please.

Again, thank you for all your many past services, sucker.

Peace out,

Pinch

P.S. We would, of course, be willing to reconsider your article if you are willing to submit a revised “second draft” of the work. Please change “victory” to “American withdrawal and apology” wherever it appears, and offer to serve (if asked) in the upcoming Obama administration. Also, please try to work in a reference to speculators contributing to Global Warming. Thanks.

P.P.S. The newsroom says “Hi.”

Perfect. The straight-talk express just got hoisted by it's own petard.

Wright vs. Right... has America really been so terrible to black folks?

2008-05-11T22:33:00.010-04:00

I've been meaning to post this for some time. It was forwarded to me from a friend, and at the very least it's a much-needed counterpoint to the white-guilt narrative that is so pervasive in our society.

Pat Buchanan wrote A Brief for Whitey back in March. It's part of a politically incorrect dialog that is long overdue in this country. Let me know what you think:

... Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

I'm not always with Pat, but I am here. He's an impressive individual, whatever you think about him. Frankly, I'd vote for him before McCain at this point... easy. I guess I'm a racist for even posting this!

On a much lighter note... "My Dad's not a racist, he's just stupid":

Happy Mothers Day from Planned Parenthood

2008-05-11T11:12:00.004-04:00

Sorry to post this on Mother's Day, but this is too disgusting not to share. Celebrate Mother's Day by killing babies... beautiful. (hat tip HotAir)

Update: Star Parker discusses Obama's beliefs on abortion and wonders Is Obama Really the Man Blacks Need?

... Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision last year upholding the constitutionality of the ban on partial birth abortions, Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C. Condemning the court's decision, he said that it was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" legal abortions.

Criticizing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, Obama said, "Justice Kennedy knows many things, but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Of course, Kennedy's job is not to be a doctor, but to be a judge. And in doing so, he included in his opinion testimony of a nurse who participated in a partial birth abortion procedure:

"The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out ...The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out ... Now the baby went completely limp. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta, and the instruments he had just used."

Thus the end of what, for Obama, was "potential life."

Nat Hentoff, no conservative, but a libertarian who writes for the "Village Voice,'' calls Obama the "infanticide candidate."

In a recent column, Hentoff noted that, while in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This Act addressed cases where, during an abortion procedure, the live infant was actually born. The Act would have banned killing the living child.

Responding to John McCain's remarks delivered the other day at Wake Forest University about law and judges, Obama contrasted McCain's pledge of "judicial constraint" with his own concept of legal activism.

Obama said he'd seek out judges "who are sympathetic to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless."

Aside from this bizarre idea about the role of law, what irony there is in hearing this from a man with zero empathy for our most vulnerable -- the helpless infant in the womb.

For the 90 percent of blacks who are casting votes for Obama, know that almost 50 million children have been aborted since Roe V. Wade in 1973, a third of which were black babies. Is this really the man whom our community needs?

Answer: No.

And here's Dinesh D'Souza wondering if this barbaric road is where secularism is leading us?

Rush: God's Creation Is So Complex and So Massive, We Are Insignificant

2008-05-10T14:34:00.007-04:00

Rush Limbaugh had a great commentary yesterday that included discussion of the spectacular and devastating eruption of the Chaiten Volcano in southern Chile. Here is a part that I enjoyed:

For those of you buying into this silly compact fluorescent lightbulb scheme, when you look at these pictures from the UK Daily Mail, I want you to try to convince yourself that the type of lightbulb you use matters a hill of beans to anything, when you look at the raw power. And then after you do that, after you ask yourself, after you tell yourself how worthless, how irrelevant, I should say, the kind of lightbulb you use is, I then want to ask you, "Are you one of these people that's bought into this silly notion to unplug your toaster and all of your electronic appliances when you're not using them?"

You might want to do that to save electricity, that's fine. But if you're doing it to save the planet, I want you to take a look these pictures and ask yourself if unplugging your Sunbeam toaster, your Mr. Coffee, your cell phone charger, will matter a hill of beans to the climate of this planet. If you answer yes, you have a serious vanity problem, or worse: Your life is meaningless and you'll be talked into any scheme or hoax to believe in in order to make you think your life has a purpose, such as saving the planet. You're simply helping a bunch of socialists tear down the greatest capitalist system on the face of the planet if you go along with this rotgut garbage.

Amen. Let's sue Al Gore.

NY Times gets spanked by Craig Ferguson

2008-04-28T12:40:00.004-04:00

Craig Ferguson is outstanding... this just cements it: (hat tip HotAir)

Watch it all - Craig Ferguson at the 2008 White House Correspondents Dinner: Part I, Part II

Update: Sticking with the theme of the leftstream media getting spanked, here's George W. getting appropriately testy with white house reporters. Awesome... where's this been Georgie???

Newsflash: Obama is an all-too-typical politician...

2008-04-08T10:41:00.005-04:00

... and that's not a good thing for someone whose campaign is based on change and hope. Barack Obama lies like a Clinton:

David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, also lies like a Clinton:

Lies, lies, lies:

Dueling fools

2008-04-05T23:57:00.003-04:00

I'm sorry... I just don't think I can vote for this guy. How can he accept Letterman's premice that we're deserving of hatred around the world? I may be with Ann Coulter on this one. Hillary may actually be better. God save us from Obama though.

Hey John, global warming/climate change is a hoax. You look like an idiot answering Letterman's inane comment about how we're the bad guys with an inane comment of your own about how we're going to join in the international effort to stop global warming.

John Kerry: Obama will be a great President because we're all bad people... and he's black

2008-03-22T09:25:00.008-04:00

I've caught as much of Rush possible lately, and at the end of today's show he played some clips of 'the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam' talking about how great President Obama will be for this country... because of, well, the color of his skin. Keep helping John!

Here's the transcript with El Rushbo's comments:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's how difficult it's going to be for Barack Obama to keep race out of his campaign. When you've got idiots like the haughty John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) out campaigning for you, you're rolling the dice. (laughing) Last Monday, Kerry did an interview with the New Bedford Standard Times. It's in Massachusetts, the New Bedford Standard Times editorial board, and of course they taped him. An unidentified reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives Obama credibility on that score?" Kerry had said that Obama's blackness and Muslim background is his main qualification for office, and would help him with American foreign policy, and the reporter said, "What gives him credibility on that score, particularly?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: It would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people, if we can elect an African-American president, a young leader who is obviously visionary and got an ability to inspire people. It would give us an ability to talk to those countries, to, in some cases, go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise. I think in the end, um, he has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism, to maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.

RUSH: Man, this is what I mean. When you got guys like this speaking for you, you have no control over. Do you realize what you just heard? This is the former Democrat presidential nominee, and he has just encapsulated here the liberal Democrat view of this country where it comes to race: "We are guilty!" Whatever anybody, particularly our enemies - whatever radical Islam thinks of us - they're right. We are guilty, because we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes and all that. And we need to elect an African-American president, a young leader, obviously visionary, to show the rest of the world that we are who we say we are as a people. To bridge the divide of religious extremism? (laughing) Kerry said this on Monday. I don't think Jeremiah Wright was a common household name at that time. (laughing) Bridge the divide.? He has created the divide! He's widening the divide! He's dredging the divide! He's dumping the sand of the divide on both sides of the shore. But Kerry wasn't through. The reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives him credibility on that score, again?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: Because he's African-American! Because he's a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. His life story, you know, a Kenyan father who abandoned him and he was raised by a single parent and -- and -- and found the purpose and values to go to college and make something of himself. That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything.

RUSH: Folks, I'm sitting here laughing because it's Friday, it's the end of the show, but this is outrageous, though. This is just... What must John Kerry think of his own country in order to say these kind of things? That only Obama, because he has a Kenyan father, his life story...? He hasn't had any oppression in his life. He wasn't raised as an African-American. He wasn't down for the civil rights struggle. He has no ties to that. That's what the black community was worried about when Obama first announced. That's what "Magic Negro" is all about. That's what "Is he black enough?" was all about. He found the purpose and values to go to college, make something of himself? That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan? What? He went to college? It's an important lesson to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? This is ass backwards. This is 180 degrees out of phase. What ought to be happening here is that we ought to be telling some of these other places what's wrong with them and because if they don't fix it they keep attacking it, they are in peril. Did you see, by the way, the story that the Saudi Arabian government is going to start training 40,000 new imams to try to deal with this Wahhabi sect that's causing all the grief? So anyway, there you heard it: John Kerry (the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam), speaking Monday to the New Bedford Massachusetts Standard Times editorial board.

END TRANSCRIPT

I'm not proud to say this, but I truly despise the elitist, socialist Senators from MA... right up there with Al Gore, lefty Hollywood boneheads and Code Pinko.

Related, from the great Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters.

Also related (only because it further exposes Kerry) is this HotAir video of YAF's Jason Mattera catching up with Sen. John Kerry and confronting him about his unsubstantiated, troop-smearing testimony:

Link: sevenload.com

And here's Glenn Beck on Black Liberation Theology... terrifying.

Comedy Gold: The Daily Show makes fun of Berkley hippies and Code Pink

2008-03-12T11:40:00.006-04:00

Jon Stewart going conservative??? Not likely, but it's nice to see The Daily Show smack the loony left for once... hope to see more.

This is absolutely outstanding: (hat tip HotAir)

Semper Fi Rob Riggle!

Related: TDS and Jon Stewart may not be going conservative just yet, but playwright and film director David Mamet is.

Update: Michelle Malkin has much more on Berkeley.

BMI Special Report: Global Warming Censored

2008-03-05T09:13:00.007-05:00

A must-read report from the Business & Media Institute:

Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change “debate’s over.” It isn’t, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” thrown in to undermine them.

Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called “consensus” on the issue.

• Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.

• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

• What’s It Going to Cost?: All “solutions” have a price, but the cost of fighting global warming was something you rarely heard on the network news. Only 22 stories (11 percent) mentioned any cost of “fixing” global warming. On the rare occasion cost came up, it came from the lips of a skeptic like Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch (D), who said one climate change bill in Congress “would cost $6 trillion.”

• CBS the Worst: Journalist/global warming advocate Scott Pelley helped CBS be, by far, the worst network. Pelley argued in 2006 that he shouldn’t have to include skeptics in such stories because “If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” In 2007, he helped ensure only four skeptics were included by CBS – and not a single one was a scientist. Compare that to the 151 people used by the network to promote global warming hysteria. The wildly one-sided outcome was not surprising given remarks by some of its other journalists. Harry Smith declared that “There is, in fact, global climate change” on the Aug. 7, 2007, “Early Show.”

• ABC the “Best”: Despite its over-the-top climate hypocrisy of jet-setting journalists around the world to cover climate change, ABC included more skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than either NBC or CBS. Still, the network has plenty of work to do. Bill Weir made the outrageous claim during the Nov. 18, 2007, “Good Morning America” that “all these scientists” urge immediate action to stop global warming. Weather personality Sam Champion even referred to the most recent U.N. climate report as “unequivocal” and “definitive.

Read the Full Report. Video from Fox & Friends here.

For more, check out BMI's previous report on the on the great Global Warming hoax: Fire & Ice.

Also, here are some telling media quotes about global warming:

“What’s your best advice to me and families like me who really want to be responsible and pay even more, but do the right thing because we know this is an issue?”
-- Ann Curry, NBC “Today” Jan. 31, 2008

“I’m on the prowl for victims, converts in our growing movement.”
-- Matt Lauer, NBC “Today” Jan. 25, 2008

“Like the warming scientists are seeing in Greenland and the North Pole, the prime suspect behind the melting at the South Pole is global warming. Manmade carbon dioxide and other gases trapping heat that may well be warming the waters in the coldest police on earth.”
-- Anne Thompson, NBC “Nightly News” Jan. 14, 2008

"Al Gore, sexy man. The thinking girl's thoroughbred."
-- Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2007

“The human race is doomed.”
-- Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone Nov. 1, 2007

“Public awareness [about global warming] lagged behind, partly because of a disinformation campaign funded by the fossil-fuel industry.”
-- Bill Blakemore, ABC “World News with Charles Gibson” Sept. 23, 2007

“There’s great concern about the impact of the melting ice on the wildlife in that area. For example, the loss of Arctic ice could mean the loss of the homeland for polar bears.”
-- Sam Champion, ABC “Good Morning America” Sept. 18, 2007

“Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on Wednesday.”
-- Jeremy Lovell, Reuters Sept. 12, 2007

“[G]lobal warming may hasten the destruction of some of the world’s most treasured buildings and heritage sites.”
-- Mark Phillips, CBS “Evening News” June 19, 2007

“Scientists say the world’s temperature will rise about two degrees in the next 50 years no matter what we do, but if we act now it might level off after that.”
-- Bill Blakemore, ABC “World News Sunday” April 1, 2007

"It's surreal to have pre-eminent scientists tell us very seriously that civilization as we know it is over ... The scale is unprecedented. It touches every aspect of life."
-- ABC News correspondent Bill Blakemore in the Summit Daily News, March 13, 2007

“Global warming is not coming; it is here.”
-- Alexander Wolff, Sports Illustrated March 8, 2007

“Consider the case closed on global warming.”
-- Bryan Walsh, Time magazine Feb. 19, 2007

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
-- Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe Feb. 9, 2007

“The top climate experts from all around the world, speaking with one voice, issued a blunt and bleak assessment today on global warning. There was no ambiguity in their words.”
-- Charles Gibson, ABC “World News” Feb. 2, 2007

“Do people here know that very likely in the next – well – several decades all of this is going to be under water?”
-- Harry Smith, CBS “Early Show” Feb. 1, 2007

"Never has good weather felt so bad. Never have flowers inspired so much fear. Never has the warm caress of a sunbeam seemed so ominous. The weather is sublime, it's glorious, it's the end of the world."
-- The Washington Post, Jan. 7, 2007

“So I’m running in the park Saturday in shorts thinking this is great but are we all gonna die?”
-- Meredith Vieira, NBC “Today” Jan. 7, 2007

Also, you may already know that John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November.

He's now saying that Al Gore should be sued "to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” Video:

More from the great Noel Sheppard - CNN: Climate Conference Attendees Are Like Flat Earthers

The Audacity of Hope Hollywood...

2008-03-04T09:12:00.005-05:00

Saw this on Fox & Friends this morning:

Life immitates art, or art influences life?

Update 3/5: Speaking of audacity... saw this eye-opening (for those who might not already see the audacity, shallowness and arrogance of Obama-hype) clip on HotAir this morning:

From one of the HotAir commenters: “There is nothing the American Left seeks more than the approval of the International Left.”

And then there's the other side of the coin... can you imagine that NBC would feature a plot line in which an Arizona senator and former POW is discovered to be a two-time murderer and a cannibal? Of course you can.

How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?

2008-02-29T11:04:00.002-05:00

Are we really that far away from this?

Quote of the day...

2008-02-29T10:20:00.002-05:00

"...then voters need to understand that the supposed “new politics” of Obama smells very similar to that of the same old lies and empty rhetoric we have heard from the Beltway for decades. And without that “new politics”, Obama is nothing more than an empty suit with a pleasant voice. "

The ice is back...

2008-02-26T11:16:00.005-05:00

Yup, and apparently thicker than ever. And let me guess... all of you worshiping at the feet of Al Gore will now say that it's getting colder because of global warming, right? Or is it now "climate change" and man is still to blame for the cold?

News flash shocker... maybe THE SUN has something to do with it!

Here's the latest on the cooling globe from yesterday... Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age:

... Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

...

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

This stuff just makes me want to go fire up my SUV and let it run all day long in the parking lot. Bite me Al, you narcissistic blowhard. Sheesh.

Update 2/27: More on the widespread global cooling.

Rush chimes in on the above link in the update:

You have Obama and his followers, and you're not going to talk his followers out of him with standard political jargon or criticism because they're not with him because of politics. He's not running a political campaign. He's leading a movement out there. By the same token, manmade global warming is a total hoax. It has no basis in fact, and yet it has acolytes out the wazoo. We have people going out and living their lives and changing their lives to account for this hoax and this manmade global warming that's destroying the planet, that they have been led to believe they are responsible for in part, and so they gotta do things to absolve themselves of their sin. So, they're putting in these screwy little spaghetti lightbulbs, they're driving strange cars, they're using something other than toilet paper in the bathroom, whatever number of things. No matter what you tell 'em, they go out and watch Gore's movie. You can point out every factual error in Gore's movie. "No. It's bad. It's bad. That movie is the truth."

When people become attached to a movement, a person or whatever on the basis of faith, you got problems trying to separate 'em, because faith is what? Faith is loyalty. It is support of the unknown or something that cannot be proved. It can't be proven, it can't be disproven, as far as the faithful are concerned. Obama has a bunch of faithful, and so does the manmade global warming hoax.

The Audacity of Obama

2008-02-21T07:25:00.017-05:00

Just words...

I thought I'd post a roundup of recent Obama items that I found interesting. I know I'm missing some things, so look for the post to grow in the next few days. Let me know in the comments if you have something worth adding.

This columm from Charles Krauthammer last week nails it:

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns - boat, shoe, clock - by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

A platitude salesman indeed. But you know the veneer is wearing thin when the Washington Post points it out.

I haven't read Robert Samuelson before, but Rush read his must-read piece yesterday aptly titled The Obama Delusion:

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

...

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media - preoccupied with the political "horse race" - have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

The last week has certainly been a different one for the Obama campaign. He's now the clear front-runner. McCain and Hillary are on the attack. The platitudes are becoming more transparent, and Michelle Obama certainly hasn't helped.

Karl Rove goes into more detail with Obama's new vulnerability:

... Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, (video part I, part II) he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

...

He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left. ...

We're being Obamboozled! Here's a video worth watching from Debbie Schlussel:

And here's Michelle Malkin's take on Michelle Obama:

...I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it’s what happens when an elite Democrat politician’s wife says what a significant portion of the party’s base really believes to be the truth: That America is more a source of shame than pride. ...

And here is a reaction from an Obama supporter... how's that for hope and pride!

Update 2/25 - Bill Kristol writes today that it's all about him: (funny SNL video of the last debate to the right)

...Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

If global warming gets any worse...

2008-02-20T14:36:00.005-05:00

...we'll all freeze to death:

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Click the global warming label below for more recent posts on the subject of global ~~warming~~ cooling.

Looking for Conservative Leadership in Congress?

2008-02-12T06:53:00.000-05:00

Start with Jim DeMint. The junior senator from South Carolina has stepped up as a true conservative hero. I've had a number of posts recently that focussed on the great work that Sen. DeMint is doing. Here's another one with some of his comments from CPAC last week.

Senator DeMint answers whether or not the GOP is still lost:

A year ago we were coming off a stinging defeat at the polls. There was a strong debate within the Party about why we lost so badly. Some argued that the electoral rebuke was a direct result of the war in Iraq, which at the time was not going well. Many who made this argument felt that there were no other significant factors in our loss. In other words, they felt that absent the war in Iraq, the Republican Party would have been just fine and therefore we should change nothing about our Party and just hope for good news in Iraq.

Others, like those of us on this panel, argued that there was something much bigger going on. We argued that the Party had forsaken the principles on which it was founded. We looked around and we saw the seeds of our own destruction all around us.

Skyrocketing federal spending, unprecedented growth in the size of government, a failure to address the looming entitlement crisis and the shameless proliferation of congressional earmarks were all hallmarks of Republican rule in Washington. It was no wonder that we lost.

One reason I think we are still lost is that those of us who saw these warning signs ahead of time have still not convinced a majority of our colleagues to see things our way. That said, we are making some progress.

Many of us here have paid special attention to the congressional earmarking process this year because we believe that it has been a root cause of our downfall. After all, if Republicans cannot be responsible with the little things like earmarks, how are we going to address the big problems facing the nation?

...

But it isn’t just on the fiscal front that we have fallen short. Conservatives believe that the Republican Party succeeds as a coalition. We believe in the three-legged stool of limited government, national defense and traditional American values. We need to get back to that third leg of the stool.

Since the 1970s evangelicals and faith-based voters have cast their lot with the Republican Party. These voters, of which I am one, have put their trust in the Republican Party to do everything in its power to end the legalized killing of the unborn. They have trusted us to defend the sanctity of marriage. And, just as important, they have trusted us to preserve the basic family unit, because they understand that strong families make strong nations.

Without a proper emphasis on the role of the family in our society, we are missing a huge part of the puzzle. It is families that instill character in our young ones. It is families that provide stability and structure as children grow into active citizens.

Now, many voters are looking around and feeling a cultural slide. They are feeling again under attack from forces that they cannot control. Whether it be the elites in academia who preach absolute moral equivalence or the mainstreamers in Hollywood pedaling a degrading product, folks are feeling as if they are under assault. Conservatives need to do a better job of leading in this regard.

...

I still have an unshakeable belief that at their core, the American people are conservative. The problem in Washington, and in our Party in particular, is that we have stopped listening. As conservatives, I believe it is important that we remain optimistic about the future of the country and our Party.

Remember, President Lincoln understood that he could win the Civil War while losing every battle. He and Grant understood that in the end it was a game of numbers. Not only was their cause Just and True, it was backed by numbers.

Our cause today is Just and True and we have the numbers to make it happen. We just need to stay focused on our principles and remain persistent. Our beliefs are sufficient to lead this country and our Party as we go forward.

Preach on my brother!

Bonus video: Newt at CPAC - A Conservative Declaration of Independence

Bush finally commits to securing the southern border...

2008-02-11T17:11:00.000-05:00

... of Mexico!!!

Unbelievable. You just can't make this stuff up.

Speaking of unbelievable... how about a Che flag hanging in Obama's new campaign office in Houston?

Update 2/12: Rush is on the story today...

Melanie Phillips on Rowan Williams: Dhimmi - or just dim?

2008-02-10T21:42:00.000-05:00

I'd say possibly both.

It's a must-read article from the woman who wrote Londonistan. She concludes:

... Dr Williams says he has been misunderstood. Tellingly, his website statement makes no defence at all of this devastating renunciation of the doctrine of equality before the law. This omission suggests that at least someone at Lambeth Palace understands what Dr Williams actually said only too well.

The lecture and radio interview were bad enough, heaven knows. But this statement on his website raises yet further concerns. How can the Archbishop of Canterbury put out such a seriously misleading and, in parts, demonstrably false statement? It moves this affair on from questions about judgment — which are serious enough — to questions about integrity. Either Dr Williams really does not understand what he himself said — in which case he is a fool; or he understands exactly what he said and is trying to pretend that he didn’t say it — in which case he is a knave.

Either way, he has done great harm to his church and is a danger to his country (although through this furore he has also, unwittingly and ironically, set back the agenda of Islamisation by stealth which had been making such headway; hence the very carefully modulated support for him by such Islamist strategists as the Muslim Council of Britain). He should stand down and the courageous and sharp Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali — a man whose life is now in danger for having spoken the truth about Islam in a Britain whose religious and cultural identity he actually defends, but about whom Dr Williams has said not one word in support — should take his place.

Now that really would be a statement in defence of Britain and western civilisation.

Read it all.

For more of what's going on in the Episcopal Church, check out Stand Firm.

Update: Bryan from HotAir provides this clip of Dr. Williams' comments from the AP:

Susan Easton adds this in her column titled Archbishop of Canterbury Gone Bonkers:

... For those who might not be up to speed on Sharia law, it is not like The Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. It is not just Holy Law; it is wholly Holy secular law too. It is the all-inclusive law as imposed by a theocratic state. It governs everything from banking to marriage. And it carries some pretty heavy penalties, from cutting off the hands of thieves to stoning women caught in adultery, even if the adultery stems from a gang rape. It also looks the other way when fathers, brothers, or uncles kill family females who dare to date outside of Islam. These are known as “honor killings.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury supports his partially pro-Sharia law position by citing the inherent inequity which ensues when Catholic adoption agencies discriminate against gay couples. Of course, there are no gay people in Iran according to Ahmadinejad so that isn’t the best illustration the Archbishop might have chosen to make his point. In fact, instances of sharia law being carried out within British Muslim communities have been reported. A young man who knifed someone was judged by a Sharia court and let out on the streets when his family compensated his victim financially. ...

Mike Pence challenges John McCain at CPAC

2008-02-09T17:38:00.000-05:00

Mike Pence is one of the true conservative leaders in the House. He spoke at CPAC last week and has posted his speech up at Human Events. Here's a snippet of the challenge: (video here)

You need enthusiasm. Foot stomping, flag-waving, crawl-over-broken-glass-to-vote enthusiasm.

The kind we had for Reagan.

Senator McCain, as much as it would please you to have that kind of enthusiasm from conservatives, it would please conservatives even more to have reason to give it. We long to once again feel that authentic spirit of hope and optimism for our county.
And I have to say, when you spoke yesterday, there were times that I sensed it was possible.

Your commitment to our troops and winning the war on terror was, of course, never at issue, but your unequivocal pledges on other conservative points are what hearten us most.

You promised a clear conservative approach to government:

• To make the tax cuts permanent
• To fight big government spending
• To veto any bill with earmarks and roll back entitlement programs
• To secure our borders first
• To appoint judges who will interpret the law and not make it
• To stand without apology for the sanctity of life

And you told us that you are not in the habit of making promises you don’t intend to keep.

These are the specifics that conservatives need to hear and keep hearing.

But now it’s time for deeds. You can begin keeping those promises today.

Whether this party comes together to support you as the nominee depends on your actions. So I offer you this challenge:

If you will continue to run on conservative issues and continue to build a solid conservative team and ticket, we can and will support you and work our hearts out to elect you as the 44th President of the United States.

You’ve claimed the Reagan mantle. Show us you know how to use it.

Senator McCain, if you continue to embrace the right, the right will embrace you.

Right on. I'm not holding my breath though. J-Mac has some serious work to do and he's not the type to try that hard when facing right.

If you're interested to read McCain's speech at CPAC... here it is.

Update: Mark Steyn cuts through the tough talk:

... For a certain percentage of voters, McCain is tonally a conservative, and that trumps the fact that a lot of his policies are profoundly unconservative. He won New Hampshire because if you stuck him in plaid he'd be a passable Beltway impersonation of the crusty, cranky, ornery Granite Stater. The facts are secondary that, on campaign finance, illegal immigration, Big Pharma and global warming, the notorious "maverick's" mavericity (maverickiness? maverectomy?) always boils down to something indistinguishable from the Democrat position. ...

Here's the video of Steyn Mark speaking at CPAC if you're interested... he's great.

Update #2: Jed Babbin agrees:

If CPAC were a NASCAR race, Mike Pence would have lapped the rest of the field. It would cost John McCain little to act on Pence’s advice. And it could win him the White House if he does.

The 'lesser of three evils' arguement...

2008-02-09T14:17:00.000-05:00

Danny Vice shared some good and thoughtful points in a comment on one of my recent posts. I thought it was worth sharing up here on the main board.

Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here.

This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals - although he has earned the angst of true conservatives.

But how is handing all three branches of our government over to far right liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?

There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanantly as well as our country with them.

Anti McCain commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.

Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years.

This would give liberals what they will regard as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left. It will be a flamingly liberal mandate we can't play games with.

My daughters will come of age in the next 4 to 8 years, and I'd rather have 50% of McCains ear than 0% of a destruction bent liberal's ear.

Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they may throw the entire country into a liberal spin that can take a decade(s) to pull back out of.

There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues? We need some sort of conservative edge on every core issue we can get.

Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck....

But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government.

We do not have the same crop of liberals we had before the Bush2 presidency. They are bent and twisted in a way that makes Clinton look almost conservative (which is why she's sinking in the polls.

I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here, that we can't afford to fall asleep on.

Give it some thought, friends.

Principle vs. pragmatism. Listen to Ann Coulter for the other side of the arguement. We'll be talking about this a lot for the next 8 months, I'm sure.

John Bolton, speaking at CPAC, agrees with Danny:

Some real 'straight-talk'...

2008-02-09T14:01:00.000-05:00

...from the fantastic S.C. Senator Jim DeMint on the pending "political" stimulus package: (thanks Jay)

He makes McCain look more like a manure salesman with a mouth full of samples, eh?

'I have a plan to destroy America'

2008-02-09T13:06:00.000-05:00

I had never read this before today. Michelle posted it this morning and I thought it was worth sharing in it's entirety here.

Richard Lamm, former Democrat Governor of CO, gave this speech at a conference sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington in 2004:

I have a plan to destroy America
by Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra – ”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” – this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please – if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed – please, please – don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” – Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Snopes has more context here that includes a summary of the reaction from the crowd after the speech was delivered. Truth sometimes hurts.

Al Gore on ice...

2008-02-08T14:40:00.000-05:00

Shocker... global temperatures closely track solar cycles. In other words, it's the sun, stupid:

... Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

...

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

I'm with Bryan that maybe we should "stop suffering from collective delusions of grandeur and realize that nature outsizes us in ways we don’t yet comprehend."

A message from a Republican staffer on the Hill...

2008-02-08T11:36:00.000-05:00

As Michelle says... where they know John McCain the best:

John McCain is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. That is unfortunate, and I am sad to say that I cannot support him – as is the case with many people I know – for many of the reasons explored repeatedly on NRO and other places. As a Hill staffer, those of you who share my view and I know what is at stake – at least as much as anyone… from the confirmation of judges to the War on Terror and beyond. But, as a Hill staffer, many of us find him to be a petty, often vindictive man who treats people – from Senators to junior female staffers – disrespectfully and, frankly, without the manners appropriate for a Senator, much less a President.

His votes and stances are a matter of record and have been fully explored in many places. But we, as Hill staffers, have seen his personal vitriol up close and personally. Whether it has been personal confrontations with Senators or his cussing out of and demeaning comments toward staffers – whether it was his arrogance and dismissal of concerned conservatives displayed during the “Gang of 14” or his or his staff’s constant, repeated – often vindictive and very personal – undermining of conservative principles in the immigration debate – John McCain has proven time and time again that his worthiness to lead our Party, much less our nation, is more than questionable.

I believe it matters who you choose to follow. The “lesser-of-two-evils” argument is always compelling, but I simply have come to the conclusion that John McCain, for all his patriotism, is not the kind of man I want to follow and that I want to represent me, my country and my Party. ...

Read the rest if you need help staying positive and focused.

Michelle is on the subject in her own words:

... Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.

Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.

If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base. Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom group for their endorsements. ...

I'm looking forward to listening to Rush today, and I agree with his brother that critics of McCain's critics should chill.

Glenn Beck on why he can't vote for McCain...

2008-02-07T22:46:00.000-05:00

Unlike Glenn, I don't think I can vote for McCain unless I become an alcholic:

AllahPundit has some of Juan McCain's CPAC speech here if you missed it. Figures that he would have stacked the room with as many supporters as they could find...weak. Bryan has video of McCain's reception, and here's Laura Ingraham introducing Romney...and slapping McCain while she's at it.

Michelle has lots of McCain coverage here.

Why does God's saving grace allow so many to live as lukewarm Christians?

2008-02-07T22:32:00.000-05:00

Mark Driscoll hosts an "Ask Anything" session at Mars Hill Church in Seattle:

Here's a larger part of the sermon on grace.

A closer look at McCain's ACU Ratings...

2008-02-03T16:48:00.000-05:00

I've now heard John McCain on numerous occasions tout his lifetime 82.3 rating from the American Conservative Union when confronted with questions regarding his issues with the conservative base. Not surprisingly, there's more to the story.

Randall Hoven takes a closer look at those ratings and how they fare relative to others in Congress:

Senator John McCain's lifetime rating of 82.3% from the American Conservative Union is often cited as proof that he is conservative. Here is a closer look at that 82.3 rating.

First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for example, scored 64 and 75, respectively, in 2006.

Generally, McCain has voted less conservatively in more recent years. His average for 1990-97 was 88, but was only 74 for 1998-2006. Below are his yearly ratings since 1990.

Year / ACU Rating

2006 - 65
2005 - 80
2004 - 72
2003 - 80
2002 - 72
2001 - 68
2000 - 81
1999 - 77
1998 - 68
1997 - 80
1996 - 95
1995 - 91
1994 - 96
1993 - 83
1992 - 85
1991 - 86
1990 - 87

...

What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).

I'm with Mr. Reagan in feeling that John McCain doesn't like me much.

Also, Thomas Sowell on McCain's straight ~~talk~~ lies.

The GOP May Regret Raising McCain.

McCain wins Florida...

2008-01-30T10:05:00.000-05:00

For what it's worth, if McCain is now the presumptive Republican nominee I'm leaning towards voting for Obama in the VA primary. He's black, has a deep voice and is a good speaker you know. He's also for change and hope. I'm feeling better already!

If we're resigned to a liberal in the White House, let's please have it be a Democrat liberal... and I seriously just can't stomach Hillary.

Dan Riehl has similar thoughts.

The Ultimate Jew chimes in...

SOTU: The difference between Democrats and Republicans...

2008-01-28T23:03:00.000-05:00

Republicans stand for tax relief:

(Thanks Bryan)

[I]n a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress, conservatives risk becoming irrelevant

2008-01-28T09:59:00.000-05:00

Carol Platt Liebau:

...Given his record, it’s entirely possible that a President McCain could get a lot done with a Democratic Congress. The problem is that his “achievements” could become the stuff of conservative nightmares. Any Republican more comfortable taking questions from Tim Russert than Sean Hannity is hardly well-positioned to resist leftward pressures from the Washington establishment.

Conservatives must be aware that, liberated from the constraints imposed on him by a campaign, a President McCain would lack any incentive to continue even the grudging outreach he’s offered them so far. What’s more, McCain surely would know, given the gravity of the issue, that he could count on Republican support for a vigorous prosecution of the war on terror – along with a few Democrats who would, no doubt, gladly help him out in exchange for his support on an important domestic issue.

Given his admirable record in the war on terror, even a President McCain is infinitely preferable to any Democrat alternative. But any Republicans who support McCain in the primaries should understand that they risk driving conservatism to the sidelines at home.

Here are some other related links:

McCain’s billionaire national finance co-chair Jerry Perenchio - Michelle Malkin

Remind me again which party’s presidential nomination John McCain is running for?

All McCain posts - Michelle Malkin

'Straight Talk' Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth - Ann Coulter

Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Sixty Votes Coalition PAC, says he won't vote for McCain against Hillary - Wes Vernon

McCain's Age - Thomas Sowell

... Quite aside from age, there is all too much evidence already that John McCain is not the kind of man who has given in-depth thought to many of the serious issues on which he shoots from the hip, which some people equate with "straight talk."

The media have dubbed him a "maverick," which is another way of spinning the fact that he is headstrong and unreliable.

Senator McCain's teaming up with Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration, and with equally left-wing Senator Russ Feingold to violate the First Amendment in the name of "campaign finance reform," are classic examples of a loose cannon.

Senator McCain is not a bad man. He has some admirable qualities. But there are plenty of good people who would be dangerous in a job for which they are not suited.

Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said that some people "may do the worst of things without being the worst of men." The White House is not the place for that.

'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms - David Limbaugh

Update 1/29/08: I heard this today and it was awesome... I'm thankful that Bryan clipped it. Rush Limbaugh was asked to shut up about McCain today, so he did:

And here's a new ad: McCain = Hillary

A 27% swing in the polls that the media is completely silent on...

2008-01-26T12:51:00.000-05:00

Melanie Morgan talks about an important and huge swing in the polls:

... If this were a perfect world, 53-year-old Debbie Lee of Surprise, Ariz., would be able to stand before a bank of microphones under the klieg lights of a national televised debate by all the leading Democratic candidates.

The mother of fallen soldier Marc Alan Lee, the first Navy seal who was killed fighting the terrorists in Fallujah over a year ago, would have the opportunity to speak to Sens. Obama, Clinton, Edwards and yes, even the mental midget Dennis Kucinich.

"I have just returned from Iraq after spending two weeks in the war zone. I have seen myself where my son died and the stunning changes that have resulted in Iraqis who are now reporting insurgent activities, stopping the maiming and killing of innocent civilians and American troops.

"Please tell me why you won't acknowledge that my son's spilled blood has made a difference in securing our country?"

I think that we all know the answer to that question.

Democratic presidential candidates realize that if they congratulate our troops for their successful efforts in Iraq, the virulent, hate-filled ranks of their liberal, blame-America-first base will revolt against them.

And at the end of the day, politics and power are far more important to the Democratic nominees for president than is the blood of our soldiers in the name of freedom and security for all Americans.

Is this the hollow platform upon which the leaders of the Democrat party really wish to stand?

Apparently, yes.

An inspirational commercial from the Marines

2008-01-20T23:21:00.000-05:00

Be grateful and proud America:

(hat tip Michelle)

Thompson best represents conservative principles...

2008-01-11T09:09:00.000-05:00

Good news for Fred!

The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.

Update: And here's the latest ad running now in South Carolina:

Update: On Fred's Withdrawl

'Hillary's real god is political expediency'...

2008-01-10T16:29:00.000-05:00

Tough talk from the left:

Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.

Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.

...

The Clintons live to campaign. It's what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight. The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I'm skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?

...

But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.

Ouch!

Fred Thompson's plan to reduce federal government spending...

2008-01-10T15:10:00.000-05:00

Here's the intro:

In 2007, the federal government's spending rose to an astounding $2.8 trillion-- the equivalent of $22,000 per household. Growth in federal government spending, however, rarely translates into better services for the American people. Solutions for many public policy problems are best found in the private sector, and then at the State and local level--not in Washington, DC. Indeed, the federal government loses billions every year due to ineffective programs, poor management, waste, and fraud. And, the problem is getting worse. Within the next five years, federal spending is expected to reach more than $3.2 trillion, or about 20 percent of our economy; more than half of this amount is mandatory spending for entitlements. Increasing government spending is not the answer to our country's problems. It is time to get it under control with better solutions and better management of our federal government.

Click here for the rest... great stuff!

Rush discusses the terrifying global cooling and banning lightbulbs...

2008-01-03T19:10:00.000-05:00

Rush on the banning of incandescent lightbulbs:

... Just like that, the Congress and the president banned incandescent lightbulbs. Now, what this is, folks, is death by a thousand little cuts. This is how liberty dies: drip, drip, drip, until eventually we have the Grand Canyon that's been created. "The federal law that bans the incandescent lightbulb in favor of the earth-friendly alternatives..." The Wall Street Journal had a commentary by a guy named Brian Carney.

I'll tell you what makes me mad about this. The government is taking away the need or drive for companies to produce products that are so good that people want to buy them -- you know, capitalism? What instead now is going on, is the government telling us what products we have to use, what products we have to buy, and what products we can't because they're not going to be available. Not even a peep! Nobody said a word. (New Castrati impression) "We're saving the planet, Mr. Limbaugh! I'm sure you don't care about it, but we're saving the planet. These lightbulbs are destroying the planet with global warming." It's ignorance, absolute ignorance and stupidity! How long have we been using the incandescent lightbulb? When did Edison invent the incandescent lightbulb, in the 1800s, right? We've been using the incandescent lightbulb over a hundred years. Will somebody tell me how much the temperature went up in the world because of incandescent lightbulbs? Zilch, zero, nada! In fact, I have from our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, the latest globally averaged satellite temperatures, and I hate to tell you that the globally average temperature of the planet has not warmed in six years, and it is still well below 1998. ...

Whatever the globe is doing regarding temperature, we're not controlling it. I blame the sun... and Al Gore.

John Eldredge on fatherhood and how a boy becomes a man...

2008-01-01T21:47:00.000-05:00

John Eldredge is fantastic. I've read both Wild at Heart and Way of the Wild Heart. Watching these videos reminds me that I had meant to go back and read them both again... they're that good.

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

On topic, here's Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church talking about the future of men in the Christian church:

The similarities between Joel Osteen and Stuart Smalley

2008-01-01T16:00:00.000-05:00

Bezel333 does some really good work:

I saw Joel with Chris Wallace last week and this really struck me also:

The full interview with Wallace is here for part I and here for part II.

I have to agree with Bezel333. Joel preaches a positive message, but it might as well be Tony Robbins or some other non-Christian message. His message does not seem to be be based in scripture and he does not preach out of the Bible.

Joel's idea that he wants to "cast a wide net" says it all to me... that it's more about selling candy-coated platitudes that are easy to swallow than it is about challenging people with the often-difficult truth. He seems more interested in talking about his word than about His word.

Click here for more on Osteen. And even better, here.

Update: Ken adds this page of posts in the comments.

Update #2: Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle has some great insights on Joel:

Check our their YouTube channel for more great sermons from Pastor Mark.

Fred's Message to Iowa Voters

2007-12-31T17:36:00.000-05:00

Fred is the conservative choice. Please consider giving him your vote:

Movie recommendation...

2007-12-30T23:50:00.000-05:00

Can you dig ol' Sachmo swinging in the beautiful High Society!

High Society is seriously one of our favorite movies of all-time. Frank Sinatra, Grace Kelly (her last movie) and Bing Crosby - plus the awesome Louis Armstrong - all singing songs by Cole Porter in beautiful old Newport, RI. What else could you possibly want?

The movie was released in July of 1956. It's an oldie but a goodie. Definately worth checking out if you're looking for something to put a smile on your face.

Click the image to the right for the trailer hosted by Bing Crosby.

It's tough to choose one, but this is probably my favorite scene in the movie with Frank and Bing... awesome:

Book recommendation...

2007-12-30T23:30:00.000-05:00

Star Parker says Carson is a man worth listening to, and I'll take her word for it:

Here are a few snippets I've extracted from a lengthy interview done with Carson by the Academy of Achievement, in which he was inducted a number of years ago:

Growing up poor and "at risk": "Once I recognized that I had the ability to pretty much map out my own future based on the choices that I made and the degree of energy that I put into it, life was wonderful at that point. I used to hate my life up until that point because I hated being poor."

Personal responsibility: "My mother was a person who would never accept an excuse from my brother or myself. It didn't matter what the situation was. If you came with an excuse, she would also say, 'Do you have a brain?' After a while it became clear to us that no excuse was acceptable, so we became pretty creative."

Family: "The more solid the family foundation, the more likely you are to be able to resist peer pressure. Human beings are social creatures. We all want to belong, we all have that desire. If the family doesn't provide that, the peers will, or the gang will."

Priorities: "The most important thing to me is taking your God-given talents and developing them to the utmost, so that you can be useful to your fellow man."

God and America: "(God) has become an essential part of my life and my being. ... When we created this nation, we believed in God. ... .I believe that's one of the reasons ... we got to be so great, so quickly."

It'll be my next purchase.

Frederalism

2007-12-29T18:29:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lame title, but I thought you may want to check out Fred Thompson on Federalism:

Thanks to Jay for the tip.

Update: Here are some comments from Fred up in Iowa:

"I will not be devastated if I don’t do this. I want people to have the best President that they can have," Thompson said, adding later, "I’m offering myself up."

He explained it further in his usual plain-spoken manner, using the analogy of a "marriage" between him and voters.

"You know, if one side of the marriage has to really be talked into the marriage, it probably ain't going to be a good deal for either one of them. But, if you mutually think this is a good thing, in this case, if you think this is a good thing for a country, we can have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together," Thompson said of his presidential hopes.

And if the country accepts Thompson’s "proposal?"

"You’ll probably have the disadvantage of someone who probably can't jump up and click their heels three times, but [I] will tell you the truth and you’ll know where your President stands all times," Thompson said.

And here's Fred talking sense on H&C a couple of nights ago:

And here is a highlight reel from last night with Chris Wallace:

The Huckablundering Train Wreck

2007-12-28T23:05:00.000-05:00

(Click the pic to the right for a good article from Doug Giles)

I've been overwhelmed with things at home of late, so there hasn't been much time or energy left for much-needed blog therapy. Things are looking up this week though, so hopefully there will be some therapeutic posting in the near future.

As Ann Coulter says:

Huckabee is a "compassionate conservative" only in the sense that calling him a conservative is being compassionate.

Anyway, this slow-motion Huckabee train wreck is fascinating. I'd like to do my small part in speeding it up for everyone's sake. Seriously, for all of those people who are considering Mike Huckabee for President... please reconsider:

Normally, a negative CNN piece on a Republican candidate woundn't be surprising, but he's gotten a pass from the MSM recently and this clumsiness on foreign policy is frightening.

Round-ups worth checking out are all over the place, but start here and here at STACLU and then go here at HotAir.

I was excited about Huckabee early on, but I want a conservative president before a Christian one... and Mike has had so many blunders lately it's painfully obvious that he's not the man I'm looking for (that doesn't sound right). Foreign policy and national security are huge, as is cutting taxes and fiscal conservatism. The only candidate I see with the conservative creds out there is Fred, and I agree with John Hawkins:

As usual, I agree with Thomas Sowell:

... Republicans, as usual, seem to have more people who would make good presidents than people who would make good presidential candidates. Unfortunately for them, we have elections instead of coronations.

Fred Thompson seems to have the best policy positions and the best political track record among the Republican candidates -- and the least effective presentation of himself.

If Senator Thompson can beat the odds and become president, he would probably be better than most of those who have been in the White House in recent times -- though that is not extravagant praise. ...

Please consider Fred Thompson for President:

Christmas Ads...

2007-12-19T19:57:00.000-05:00

Huck kicked 'em off with the now-famous "floating cross" that was really just a well-positioned and well-lit bookcase:

Very strong, but we now expect nothing less from Mike. Don't know what the big deal about the cross in the background is. Some people are surprised to find that Christmas has something to do with... Christ. It's a well-done ad. He's clearly got a good marketing team doing the video. Very strong.

Now let's go to Rudy with a little less Christmas (although that sweater is about as Christmas as you can get), and a little more ass-kick...

Sticking with the strength. Not bad. Could he look any more odd in that sweater though?

~~McCain skips Christmas altogether and promises it won't be easy:~~

Update... the McCain Christmas ad is here:

(sigh) Sorry John, but it's (still) over.

Silky Edwards goes for what will possibily go down as the all-time worst Christmas ad/message:

Wasn't that awful? On message, just pathetic though.

Obama invites the whole family... what, no O?

Happy Happy!

Now if this ad from Chillary doesn't terrify you, nothing will:

That is unbelievable. ~~Liberalism~~ Socialism right there for all to see... giving us big government gifts we don't want, but yet are forced to pay for. Isn't she ~~wonderful~~ horrifying?

Mitt? Fred?

Update: Fred adds his holiday ad to the mix... my favorite:

Well done Fred. That was great!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Update: Nathan Tabor writes a column titled Culture, Character and Christmas Ads where he concludes:

Now, it would be extrapolating a bit much from these ads to determine on their basis alone who is and is not fit for higher office. However, in the midst of the scripted world of presidential campaigns, it is often the little moments which betray flashes of a candidate’s character or innermost thoughts.

When it comes to selecting one from among ourselves for the office of President of the United States, other qualities are subordinate to the content of the candidate’s character. It is character which allows men and women in high office to face difficult decisions without buckling, and where the future of our nation is concerned, nothing less than the best will do.

Right on.

Rep. Steve King on Fred Thompson...

2007-12-18T11:32:00.000-05:00

A strong endorsement:

There are things I like about Romney and Huckabee... and many things I like about Duncan Hunter, but I've decided that I'm with Fred.

Update: An unauthorized, but outstanding ad from John Hawkins at Right Wing News:

From John:

If Fred wants to win the election, all he has to do is put this in constant rotation in Iowa and his victory would be guaranteed...or he would actually drop into last place. One or the other.

RedState agrees:

We have waited a long time for a candidate who puts substance over style. Now is the time for him and for his supporters to put their noses to the grindstone and realize his vision.

Fred Thompson for President.

So does PoliPundit:

Fred Thompson would be one of our great presidents, and he would change the political landscape of the United States. He should be the Republican nominee in 2008.

Yes!

Ronald Reagan on Christmas...

2007-12-17T22:06:00.001-05:00

From the Patriot Post:

“The Nativity story of nearly twenty centuries ago is known by all faiths as a hymn to the brotherhood of man. For Christians, it is the fulfillment of age-old prophecies and the reaffirmation of God’s great love for all of us. Through a generous Heavenly Father’s gift of His Son, hope and compassion entered a world weary with fear and despair and changed it for all time. On Christmas, we celebrate the birth of Christ with prayer, feasting, and great merriment. But, most of all, we experience it in our hearts. For, more than just a day, Christmas is a state of mind. It is found throughout the year whenever faith overcomes doubt, hope conquers despair, and love triumphs over hate. It is present when men of any creed bring love and understanding to the hearts of their fellow man. The feeling is seen in the wondrous faces of children and in the hopeful eyes of the aged. It overflows the hearts of cheerful givers and the souls of the caring. And it is reflected in the brilliant colors, joyful sounds, and beauty of the winter season. Let us resolve to honor this spirit of Christmas and strive to keep it throughout the year.” - Ronald Reagan

Amen.

If you one of those people that curl up into the fetal position anytime the word Jesus or Christ is mentioned, then you DO NOT want to listen to the free audio of Glenn's stirring rendition of the Christmas story. FREE AUDIO.

Send the ACLU a Christmas Card...

2007-12-17T09:07:00.000-05:00

(Crossposted from Stop The ACLU)
Its become a popular yearly tradition now to send the Anti-Christian Liars Union grinches a Christmas card. I personally think its ineffective, and that the money you waste on a stamp for the organization to toss in the shredder would be better served towards a good cause. So, I encourage you to save that money, dig a little deeper, and contribute to an organization that fights the ACLU and defends Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, and the ACLJ are both great organizations that defend Christmas each year. The Alliance Defense Fund does it for free. Why not help groups like that out this year?

However, from experience last year...I know that many will insist on sending the ACLU a Christmas card. Afterall, it is tradition. If that is how you want to make your message...we have some great greeting cards and postcards available at our online store. Plenty of other great Christmas gifts too.

Send your Christmas card to the ACLU at:

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York , NY 10004

Revisiting the Clinton Record...

2007-12-15T14:14:00.000-05:00

John Hawkins: 14 Questions I'd Ask Hillary After I Hooked Her Up to a Lie Detector:

Few politicians in America have as much scandal, sleaze, and controversy surrounding them as Hillary Clinton and perhaps none of them, with the exception of her husband, has been given a bigger free pass.

As Peggy Noonan once said, "People have pointed out (Hillary's) ethical lapses for so long that they seem boring, or impossible to believe. ‘That couldn't be true or she wouldn't be running for president.’ This thought collides with ‘And we already know all this anyway.’ Her campaign uses the latter to squash the latest: ‘old news,’ ‘cash for rehash.’"

With that in mind, here are 14 yes or no questions I'd like to ask Hillary after I hooked her up to a polygraph machine, assuming that she hasn't gotten so good at lying that she could beat the machine.

Read the great questions here.

(John's latest column breaks down all five of the top tier GOP contenders if you're intereseted)

Brent Bozell also wants to revisit the Clinton record:

How easy it would be to make a list of all the things the press could do to clear the cobwebs with thorough investigations (as opposed to the infrequent and incomplete spurt of a few negative stories). Reporters could draw up a quick list of "old news" about Hillary Clinton's record of public malfeasance that Bill knows full well have never been resolved:

1. Hillary ordering around the White House staff to fire seven workers in the White House Travel Office for financial mismanagement, with Billy Dale accused of embezzlement. Hillary then lied to a grand jury about how she was not really involved in the firing scheme, even though staffers were writing there would be "hell to pay" if they didn't do Hillary's bidding. Billy Dale's life was ruined. Two years later, it took a jury two hours to acquit him of all charges. Why did she do that? What would voters think, Mr. President?

2. Hillary making a mysterious $100,000 profit off a $1,000 investment in cattle futures with Tyson Foods lawyer Jim Blair making her trades. Was this a bribe for the governor's wife? It certainly didn't fit Hillary's first fairytale explanation: that she made the trades just reading the Wall Street Journal. Would more focus on this still-unresolved scandal help Hillary's campaign, Mr. President?

3. Hillary's staffers rifling through Vince Foster's office for documents in the hours after Foster's death in Fort Marcy Park. One man seen leaving the scene with documents was White House aide and Hillary protege Craig Livingstone. What was he taking away? Why won't anyone in your administration give an honest answer, Mr. President?

4. Hillary's Rose Law Firm records "disappeared," only to reappear in the White House residence after years of requests for documents from the independent counsel investigating her lawyering for her corrupt business partner Jim McDougal. What were they doing right outside Hillary's private office, Mr. President?

5. Hillary demanding the need for a White House database of friends and enemies. The Clinton White House was found to be in possession of over 1,000 FBI files of Republican White House employees. At the center of the controversy again: Craig Livingstone, who told friends he was Hillary's hire. Why were they there? How were they used?

In each of these cases - and so many more! - the Clinton-adoring media pulled a collective hamstring and retired before the scandal was ever resolved.

No time now, but more to come...

Murdock examines Huckabee’s Earthly record

2007-12-14T15:31:00.000-05:00

Derek Murdock drops a hammer in Huckabee: Holy Man and Heretic:

The Republican presidential race has devolved into holy war. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney recently told voters he believes “Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.” Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee subsequently asked a writer, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

How this will cut taxes or kill terrorists remains elusive. These theological niceties also distract from the urgent task of examining Huckabee’s Earthly record. His background and positions should scare the hell out of GOP primary voters.

...

Mike Huckabee is smooth, relaxed, and quick-witted. We soon will learn if that is enough to trump Republican heresy on education, taxes, spending, crime, terrorism, and ethics.

Read the rest. I could toss a bunch more links on top of this column, but I think that's enough of a drubbing for one post... ouch.

Update: Couldn't resist adding Peggy Noonan's column (not a Huck slam) from earlier today in which she wonders if Republicans are becoming a different kind of party.

The Republican race looks - at the moment - to be determined primarily by one thing, the question of religious faith. In my lifetime faith has been a significant issue in presidential politics, but not the sole determinative one. Is that changing? If it is, it is not progress.

Read the rest.

Also, Prager has a good article in a recent post that's worth reading if you missed it.

Update #2: The Republican Jimmy Carter? Many comments here at HotAir. Ann Coulter certainly thinks so:

And Mitt responds to the above "Republican Jimmy Carter" Foreign Affairs link by suggesting that the Huckster is running for the wrong party. Indeed.

I would probably/reluctantly vote for Huckabee against Hillary or Obama (unlike some conservatives), but he seems too much like a charismatic George Bush to me, and that's no compliment. No more compassionate, big government conservatives please. As Prager says... compassion is great on the micro/individual/personal level, but on the macro/country/governmental level we need standards - and a strong conviction that there is such a thing as right and wrong that's worth fighting for. I like Mike and admire many of his positions, but this country needs a strong CEO for President, not a Pastor.

Mitt, Fred or Duncan (maybe even others) before Mike.

Update #3: Steven Mosher disagrees:

... Finally and most importantly, Huckabee is right on the issues. He equally and eloquently defends the right to life of the unborn, and the right to bear arms of the people. He is pushing for the abolition of that most-hated American institution, the Internal Revenue Service, and its replacement by a simply and fair levy on consumption. As a former governor, he talks about rejuvenating the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by ceding authority back to the several states. He is a friend of Jeffersonian democracy and a foe of the centralization of power in Washington. If all this isn't Reaganesque, what is?

I knew Ronald Reagan. I once even had the honor of writing a speech for him. And I admit that Mike Huckabee does not have the same star quality about him as the late great President. Who does? But Huckabee has the same ah-shucks demeanor, the same unforced eloquence, and the same grace and good humor under pressure. And increasing numbers of ordinary Americans-the same good folks who voted for Ronald Reagan by the millions-are mighty impressed.

Check out his website... it's a great one.

More commentary and video of Huck's foreign policy here at HotAir.com.

Martha Zoller at Human Events: "Mike Huckabee is not ready for prime time on foreign policy."

The Charlatan and the Charade...

2007-12-13T21:32:00.000-05:00

More on Algore and his incomprehensible ego from Noel Sheppard:

It's one thing to make a movie based almost exclusively on junk science and well-documented falsehoods whilst traveling the world evoking hysteria you yourself are financially benefiting from.

However, it is something else altogether to attend an international meeting, with delegates from every country on the face of the planet present, and disparage the nation you used to serve. (truly disgraceful video available here)

Read the rest of the post here. (above photo takes you to a different Noel Sheppard post)

Barbara Walters shocked to recieve a religious Christmas card...

2007-12-13T20:05:00.003-05:00

Yes... it's come to this. A vapid talk show host worrying about offending non-Christians with a Christmas card celebrating the reason there is a Christmas to begin with.

You seriously can't make this stuff up: (hat tip Allah)

Link: sevenload.com
How will agnostics and atheists and Muslims react? IT'S CHRISTMAS YOU ~~MORON~~ *&%#@! They'll appreciate recieving a Christmas card from President Bush and go on with their days. Sheesh!

Magnificant by Hillsong:

Sen. Tom Coburn on the UN: People who don’t have to file expense reports don’t keep their receipts...

2007-12-13T13:59:00.000-05:00

Common sense talk from Sen. Coburn:

We live in an unusual time in which some American politicians are so preoccupied with an anti-President Bush bias that they are willing to oppose common sense transparency measures and look the other way in the face of obvious corruption and mismanagement at the U.N. The greatest threat to the U.N.’s credibility is not our foreign policy, but the U.N. itself.

Congress can take a bold step toward increasing the credibility of U.N., and also itself, by doing the unexpected thing and maintaining this common sense transparency provision. Taxpayers expect elected officials to safeguard their money, not the U.N.’s penchant for secrecy.

I'm not holding my breath.

For ongoing news on the UN, check out Eye on the UN.

Global Warming fear mongering is more about Socialism than saving the planet...

2007-12-11T21:45:00.000-05:00

Check in with heroic (IMAO) Senator Inhofe on the latest news from the Senate.

Considering Mitt Romney for President...

2007-12-11T20:50:00.000-05:00

Let's start with Dennis Prager who says that it's values that matter, not theology:

[T]he theological beliefs of a public figure should matter only when one is choosing a theological leader, never a political leader - unless those beliefs form the basis of social and moral values that one abhors. It is very important to know the theological beliefs of one's clergyman or the head of one's seminary, but as far as the head of one's country is concerned, only his moral and social values matter. I would much sooner vote for an agnostic whose values I shared than for a believing Christian or Jew whose values I did not share.

I couldn't agree more with that. Spot on.

Now, if you didn't watch/listen to it last week, please take 20 minutes to listen to Romney's "Religion in America" speech:

I was thoroughly impressed with that speech. Awesome. It has me giving Mitt a second look and I'm liking what I'm seeing/hearing. Is he too polished... too slick of a politician? I thought so, but I'm becoming a Mitt fan. I just wish Thompson would make a move!

Finally, click the magazine cover in the top right of the post (or here) for National Review's endorsement. This critique of Huck's foreign policy acumen from yesterday is also worth reading... clearly a primer for the Romney endorsement as Huck and Mitt are the two getting most of the attention at the moment.

I'll add more to this post later. In the mean time, consider Mitt Romney for President.

Update: More commentaty from RedState.com :

... The most important thing for me, however, is that wherever the candidates stand from issue to issue, I believe that Mitt Romney will make the best President of the group. I believe that he will be the best person at managing the monster that is the federal bureaucracy, shrinking its size, and advancing conservative causes wherever there is opportunity.

This country and this Party need Mitt Romney.

Peggy Noonan has some thoughts on the speech too that are worth checking out.

Giles: We're heading for 'more trouble than a naïve, giggly good-looking drunk chick sportin’ a mini skirt at a Tommy Lee keg party'

2007-12-09T19:44:00.000-05:00

Doug Giles is (accurately) shooting from the hip again:

Hey America... we’re not invincible. I know it looks like it, but believe it or not there have been powerful civilizations that are now a cartoon of what they use to be, and it would be the height of hubris to think that this party will never end no matter what we do.

...

So what can the young God- and country-loving dude do? Well, you (and 45 year old guys like me) can do the opposite of what the secularist weeds want us to do, namely:

1. Embrace our faith like never before.
2. Revolt against the immoral vomit.
3. Cheer on traditional values.
4. Applaud and own our culture.
5. Quit being squishy wusses and steel up our will.
6. Spit out babies.
7. Tell foreign invaders to come here correctly or go back to their sucky countries.

To be continued...

Check out Doug Giles at www.clashradio.com. Read his weekly columns here.

The Future of the Conservative Movement...

2007-12-07T23:21:00.000-05:00

...with Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint: (Hat tip Allah)

There is hope.

Jim DeMint is #2 in the list of the most conservative Senators from the American Conservative Union . Check out the others.

It depends on what your definition of 'for' is...

2007-12-03T21:28:00.000-05:00

Paul Greenberg - Slick Willie rides again:

Of course Bill Clinton was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. It's proven unpopular. It would be different if the war had gone better, as it has in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton's still for that one.

There's a phrase for someone who'll stick with you through thick and then and in-between: A man to tie to. Bill Clinton's the opposite. Not only does he disappear when the going gets tough, he was never with you from the first --at least to hear him tell it. With him, history is one of the plastic arts.

There is no surer guide to William Jefferson Clinton's view of the past than what is popular in the present. All of his statements supporting the war in Iraq now have become, in a Nixonian word, inoperative. Down the memory hole they go, as if they'd never been uttered.

...

But now that the war had been fought and won, Slick Willie was all for it. He was not about to desert his country in its hour of victory. If a single personal experience made me resolve never again to trust anything Bill Clinton said, that was it.

Was his ex-post-facto support for that war just an innocent lapse of memory, or of character? Me, I've always had the greatest respect for Bill Clinton's memory.

Now he's back playing games with the past again. But never fear, should the long light of history reveal that in the end this long, long struggle in Iraq has bolstered freedom and stability in that always-volatile part of the world, rest assured, Bill Clinton will have been for it all along.

Also, from Bruce Walker:

Bill Clinton is alive and well in his familiar persona as a pathological liar. Bill goes to Iowa and tells a group of Democrats that even if Hillary was not his wife, he would be there to campaign for her to be president – which is to say, he looked Iowans dead in the eye and lied to them. Bill maintains that he always opposed the Iraq War – which is to say, he pretends historical records do not exist, so he lies to us. Bill informs us that he wants his presidential archives released, but that somehow "George Bush" is at fault – which is to say, Bill lies again.

When Bill Clinton lies, his mendacity is not nuanced or weighted anymore. He tells us whoppers. He talks to us like a five year old boy talks to prying parents. He speaks as if he expects people to believe him, even when any sane person would know that he was lying.

...

In our hearts, we expect the Clintons to be crass, bullying liars. So, while it is perfectly thinkable to have a bumper sticker that proclaims "Bush lied, people died," it is perfectly unthinkable to have a bumper sticker that states the truism "Clinton lied, people died." No, because all of us know when Bill or Hillary are lying (it is when their lips are moving.) The only bumper sticker that makes sense of the hypnotic spell that Bill and Hillary have cast upon the American people would be this: Clinton lied, people yawned.

Duh... his mouth was moving.

Randy Travis - On The Other Hand:

Not a Randy Travis fan yet? It's just a matter of time.

The Truth Project - Understanding the Christian Worldview

2007-12-01T18:53:00.000-05:00

I've been watching these remarkable videos from Focus on the Family over the past few weeks with some friends. Here is a brief description of The Truth Project:

This is the extended trailer for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. The Truth Project is an innovative DVD curriculum that teaches viewers how to develop a systematic and comprehensive biblical worldview. Educator Dr. Del Tackett is both engaging and winsome as he teaches Christians to apply biblical truths to every area of life.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

Here is the extended trailer/preview:

A couple of informational videos...

Who is Dr. Del Tackett?
What is Worldview?

More videos...how does our culture answer these questions below?

What is Truth?
What is the meaning of Life?
Who is God?
What is church?
What is evil?

What is right and wrong?

Also, here's an article from Del Tacket titled Why Is a Christian Worldview Important?...

[B]y diligently learning, applying and trusting God’s truths in every area of our lives, we can begin to develop a deep comprehensive faith that will stand against the unrelenting tide of our culture’s non-biblical ideas. If we capture and embrace more of God’s worldview and trust it with unwavering faith, then we begin to make the right decisions and form the appropriate responses to questions on abortion, same-sex marriage, cloning, stem-cell research and even media choices. Because, in the end, it is our decisions and actions that reveal what we really believe.

Click here to learn about getting involved.

Horticulture Journalism 101...

2007-11-29T10:48:00.000-05:00

Fall usually isn't the time for planting, but that hasn't stopped CNN.

HotAir and Michelle Malkin have been leading the coverage on this, and MM.com is now linked in the headlines at Drudge, along with Newsbusters and Politico... awesome.

Let's start with this video montage from HotAir last week... the politics of planting:

Now head over to Michelle Malkin for the Drudge-linked post on the Republican debate last night...Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants.

Go to NewsBusters for all of the CNN bias coverage you can stand.

Human Events has coverage here:

Retired Brig. Gen. Keth Kerr who was featured as a "spontaneous" questioner on CNN's YouTube Republican Debate on Wednesday night is actually an operative in the Hillary Clinton campaign.

...

So Hillary’s campaign strategy obviously goes beyond planting friendly questioners at her own appearances. It now includes sending her lieutenants (in this case a General) into the enemy (GOP) camp in an “Operation Harassment.”

It is more than a little ironic that the "don't ask/don't tell" policy that Kerr -- a Hillary Clinton operative -- was attacking was in fact implemented as official military policy by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

... and more on Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr here.

Audio: Michelle talks about it with Glenn Beck on his show this morning.

Update 11/30: Michelle Malkin continues the coverage with CNN’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Also - surprise, surprise - one of the questioners was a CAIR intern! You seriously can't make this stuff up!

Here she is talking about CNN's "veritable greenhouse" on Fox & Friends this morning:

The story of J-Mac... Unbeatable. Unrelenting. Unstoppable.

2007-11-27T20:46:00.000-05:00

This YouTube video was posted in September, but the game took place on February 15, 2006. I hadn't heard of high school senior Jason McElwain before, but what a truly remarkable and inspirational story:

Wow. More video/news coverage from CBS here.

Prager: It is not true that the world hates America

2007-11-26T21:28:00.000-05:00

According to Dennis' latest column, it's the left that hates America:

One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world - so widely held it is not disputed - is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats' major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.

But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world's left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America.

...

It makes perfect sense that the left around the world loathes America. The final question, then, is whether this loathing of America is characteristic of the American left as well. The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left, loathes that America.

So what America does the American left love? That is for those on the left to answer. But given their beliefs that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, it is a fair question.

Do you disagree?

Here's a google search on "hate america" with some examples of hating America, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the VRWC against America. Sheeesh.

Related...The Media, Their Polls and the False News They Produce.

Much more at Newsbusters and the MRC.

Inhaling the truth...

2007-11-25T09:59:00.000-05:00

Doug Giles with a surprising take on Obama's confession that he used to smoke dope:

Sir Winston Churchill used to suck down cigars and scotch like there was no tomorrow while dictating to his female secretary whilst butt naked. Would you vote for a dude now who did that? Of course you would. You voted for Bill Clinton.

Were this week’s confessions by Obama motivated by some supposed dirt Hillary has on him? Who knows, and who cares? If that’s the worst she has on him I say Obama can exhale because the Clintons are dirtier than Howard Stern sitting in the Mojave desert eating a mud pie and chasing it down with a cup of dust. You can relax, BO.

Now, obviously, because I’m a conservative I would never vote for the young senator—but I do appreciate Barack and even Rudy for being honest and owning their checkered pasts. It’s refreshing to hear the truth every now and then in a milieu that’s ripe with bull such as “I didn’t inhale; it wasn’t my fault; I did not have sex with that woman; and I never flip flopped.”

He likely won't be at the top of the Dem ticket this time, but Oprack Winframa is here to stay.

Save the planet... don't have kids? (updated)

2007-11-23T21:42:00.001-05:00

Please God, save us from ourselves... literally:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

It's an extreme stance which one might imagine is born from an unhappy childhood or an upbringing among parents who share similar, strong beliefs.

Good grief! Where have we heard this before... the environuts taking their twisted logic to the point where the answer is human extinction? Start here.

From LifeSite.net:

Global populations have been falling dramatically and few countries of the developed world have a fertility rate higher than bare replacement level. Recent statistics have shown that nearly 40 per cent of the world’s countries have fertility rates from 0 to 2.4 children born per woman, whereas the bare minimum replacement level is 2.1.

A United Nations report showed in August this year that 28 per cent of the world’s countries allow abortion on demand. 84 per cent of the wealthier countries allow abortion on eugenic grounds for “foetal impairment”; 78 per cent allow it on “economic or social” grounds and 84 per cent of wealthy countries allow abortion in cases of rape or incest.

But not everyone is as sanguine about humanity’s impending self-induced extinction. Mark Steyn wrote last year that the falling fertility levels in Europe and the formerly Christian west will spell the end of western civilization. “We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world,” Steyn wrote.

“Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries....Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone.”

Mark Steyn on the "logical reduction of environmentalism:

Hat tip to HotAir with Save the planet: Have an abortion.

Oh, and how can we save the planet? It's so obvious!

Update: Right on queue, Mac Johnson chimes in with some outstanding commentary:

... But don’t think I am critical of the eco-sterility cause. For once, I have found a leftist movement that I totally agree with. Leftist should not breed under any circumstances. If we can get 100% compliance on this point, we’re just one generation away from a better world. I think it’s fair to say that Vernelli and her kind are absolutely correct: the fewer children they have, the better.

It amuses me greatly that the greatest political proponents of evolutionary theory today, western leftists, are about to be its most recent victims. I can assure you that no species, no group, no community has ever successfully evolved childlessness as one of its defining characteristics. The dinosaurs and the Shakers tried, but for some reason they’re not around today to share their wisdom on the subject.

By contrast, social conservatives the world over, many of whom reject or question evolution as a theory, are all set to be the theory’s great winners, since they maintain the traditional love of family. But then it doesn’t matter who believes Mr. Darwin. It just matters who has kids. The future belongs to those who send descendants there.

The future will not belong to those that commit evolutionary suicide because they are fretting overly about their carbon footprint. It is safe to say, therefore, that the future will not belong to sterile vegan animal rights activist environmental patients.

Whew! One less thing to worry about.

Wouldn't that be nice!

Kathleen Parker also chimes in with Survival of the Stupidest.

Thanksgiving links...

2007-11-21T22:37:00.000-05:00

Start with Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post. Then check out their Family Thanksgiving Quiz with your kids.

Then check out Newt Gingrich discussing how to Make Thanksgiving Meaningful Again.

Robert Huchinson talks about The Biblical Roots of Thanksgiving.

Jennifer Rubin says we have a lot to be grateful for this Thanksgiving.

Ken Connor wonders if Americans really understand to whom they should be thankful.

Michelle Malkin says before Thanksgiving brings out the worst in you, stop before you gripe.

Archbishop Charles Chaput thinks this is a time for acknowledging our dependence on God.

Ollie North is thankful for people like John Bolton who expose the U.N.

God bless you all... have a wonderful and happy Thanksgiving.

Considering Duncan Hunter...

2007-11-19T20:33:00.000-05:00

Jay from STACLU wonders Why No Push For Duncan Hunter?: (Rush too)

[T]he point I’m trying to get at is the unfair treatment by the MSM towards Duncan Hunter. I’ve also been curious as to why so many conservatives are backing liberals like Rudy Giulliani and questionable characters like Mitt Romney. Why is so little attention being paid towards a solid conservative like Duncan Hunter?

I agree.

Here is where he stands. Please consider Duncan Hunter for President.

(Video to the right is Hunter's appeal to conservatives)

Update: Here is a strong endorsement of Hunter from Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post:

The consensus among the chattering class is that this presidential cycle features no clear heir to the Reagan mantle. Yet of the declared candidates, conservatives outnumber the media-dubbed triumvirate of Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Most notable among them is Duncan Hunter, the California representative who hails from The Gipper's lucky city of San Diego.

...

Every characteristic touted as a distinguisher for another candidate is one Hunter also demonstrates. He combines the military service and acumen of McCain with the border-security stances of Tom Tancredo, he's been a consistent defender of human life and traditional families in law and he has a firm grasp of the principles of constitutional law. He has as much or more experience as a legislator than most of his primary contenders.

A true Patriot, Hunter proclaims, "America is a great nation because America is a good nation. God still loves this nation. We are still a people of character and strength and kindness. And so with faith in God, with confidence in the goodness of the American people, let's win this race for the United States presidency."

Read about all of the Presidential candidates at the Patriot Post.

Ann Coulter on Hunter:

Top 10 Anti-Pork Senators

2007-11-14T00:02:00.000-05:00

From the Club for Growth:

Today, the Club for Growth released its 2007 Senate RePORK Card, compiling a scorecard of all senators’ votes on fifteen anti-pork amendments throughout 2007. These amendments were offered by taxpayer heroes Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC).

“For all the talk about fiscal responsibility, it is clear that many senators are more interested in securing pet projects than living up to their campaign promises,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Fortunately, taxpayers can look at the Club for Growth’s House and Senate RePORK Cards and hold their senators and representatives accountable for wasting taxpayer dollars on hippie museums and beaches.”

1. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.)
Score: 100%
Ratio: 15/15

2. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.)
Score: 100%
Ratio: 13/13

3. Richard Burr (R.-N.C.)
Score: 100%
Ratio: 15/15

4. John McCain (R.-Ariz.)
Score: 100%
Ratio: 2/2

5. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.)
Score: 93%
Ratio: 14/15

6. Saxby Chambliss (R.-Ga.)
Score: 93%
Ratio: 14/15

7. John Ensign (R.-Nev.)
Score: 93%
Ratio: 14/15

8. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.)
Score: 92%
Ratio: 11/12

9. John Barrasso (R.-Wyo.)
Score: 90%
Ratio: 9/10

10. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.)
Score: 87%
Ratio: 13/15

Much appreciated guys! Shocker... no Dems on the list?

CFG homepage.

Keepon dances to the Spoons "Don't You Evah"

Hillary Clinton: I'm So Glad You Asked!

2007-11-13T12:55:00.000-05:00

Mac Johnson is, again, awesome:

America’s trust in the Clintons suffered a horrible blow last week, when it was discovered that Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff had planted the “spontaneous” questions being asked by audience members at an Iowa campaign event.

"They were canned,” Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff (a Grinnell College student attending the performance) said of the questions that Clinton took. In a remarkable coincidence, Clinton’s answers seemed quite polished -- almost prepared, really.

This was truly only a coincidence, though, according to Clinton’s widely trusted campaign staff, which at first denied planting any questions. Then, under a gathering mountain of evidence, her staff admitted planting one question, but claimed that no one told Clinton there was a planted question in the crowd or with whom the fraudulent question had been planted. In other words, Clinton called on the correct person, who asked the correct question, to which Clinton gave a very specific answer, but Clinton did not inhale before giving that answer.

The staff also claimed that the only time they have ever planted a question in the audience was the one time they got caught doing so. And if people were dumb enough to believe that line, the divorce rate would be a lot lower.

In yet another remarkable coincidence, shortly after claiming they have never planted any other question, the Rev. Geoffrey Mitchell, a Democrat minister came forward to report that a Clinton staffer had tried to convince him to ask a planted question at a different dog and phony show in Iowa.

Clinton’s staff immediately denied this, then provided a parsed explanation of the denial. Sure a staffer talked to the man, they said, and they discussed the general concept of questions as a grammatical concept, but nobody was asked to ask any questions – and, besides, the staffer and the Reverend Mitchell were old buddies just talking about politics and the whole thing is therefore just a misunderstanding. Rev. Mitchell denies knowing the staffer at all, except by name. Apparently, the first question the staffer should have asked the Reverend was “You aren’t an Obama supporter, are you?”

See -- it’s a misunderstanding.

But let’s get back to the original incident and marvel at how well the answer fit the question, which was planted, but totally unknown to Sen. Mrs. Bill Clinton:

Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff: “As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming." Clinton then went on to describe her plan for saving the world

Well, of course it’s usually young people that ask that question, the staff tells the old folks to ask about social security and prescription drugs.

Everything would have gone just fine with the planted question, except that Gallo-Chasanoff, apparently new to the Democrat Party’s style of politics, decided to reveal the dishonesty. "[T}hey wanted a question from a college student,” Ms. Gallo-Chasanoff later told reporters. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask].”

In light of these damaging revelations of Clinton’s claimed ignorance of the malfeasance of a senior staff member, and maybe some other guy who was probably just misunderstood by the long-time friend he had just met, Sen. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been anxious to talk to members of the press to explain things, and I’m proud and quite shocked to say that I was granted an interview with her this weekend, shortly after I received a new 12-cylinder Audi A8L from an unknown benefactor (a remarkable coincidence). A transcript is below: ...

Read the rest.

Check out The Hillary Project too!

Hyping an atheist fantasy movie for kids just in time for Christmas... (updated)

2007-11-13T11:15:00.000-05:00

Brent Bozell writes about The Christmas-Crushing Movie:

... The media have played happily along in disguising Pullman's religion-bashing. On NBC's "Today," weatherman Al Roker delighted in making "The Golden Compass" the fall book selection of "Al's Book Club for Kids." Pullman appeared on NBC to deny that he was really promoting atheism. He touted letting the reader decide what the author intended, in a "democracy of reading." The closest he came to atheism was saying the book championed "open-minded intellectual curiosity." If that sounds like a transparent dodge, it certainly was. He told the students asking questions to think of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the menace in Pullman's trilogy isn't called the Caliphate, and its hideous monsters aren't mullahs. They are cardinals and priests, and the heroes are an atheist former nun and two rebellious gay male angels.

The atheists may be angry that the movie waters down Pullman's anti-religious message, but they can take comfort in the fact that many parents (and grandparents and even godparents) will, sadly, buy the hype over this movie and buy this trilogy of vicious anti-religious books for the young readers in their lives. To the Christian book buyer, beware: Instead of celebrating God's son born in the flesh, you'll be celebrating God being killed so that man can advance to true consciousness. ...

Read it all.

Also, Newt Gingrich discusses The (Anti-Religious) Bigotry of the Elites:

... Of course, when it comes to official anti-religious bigotry, not all religions are equal.

Did you know that, while religious images are under assault across the nation, in nine Western states the courts have ruled it constitutional for public schools to require a three-week course on the Islamic faith -- a course in which all junior-high students are mandated to pretend they are Muslims and offer prayers to Allah?

This is the same court, mind you, that infamously ruled (in the case brought by atheist activist Michael Newdow) that it is unconstitutional for students to mention "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. ...

Check out Newt's new movie called Rediscovering God in America.

Update: Pastor Paul Edwards has an interesting take on the movie:

... Our response should not be to merely paint Pullman as a liar and deceiver, denying that the Church he depicts exists. On the contrary, we should agree, at least in part, with Pullman that such a Church has existed—and still exists—but that it is not the genuine Church, as Pullman leads his readers to believe.

If “The Golden Compass” is a lie passing itself off as truth, is the appropriate course for us to run from it, to bury our heads in the cultural sand, pretending that, if ignored, challenges to the faith aren’t real? Would you deem it a valid response if your college freshman merely ran from the challenges to her faith she can expect from her atheistic philosophy professor? If not, why would you encourage your children to run from the challenges to their faith implicit in Pullman’s trilogy?

It seems to me the proper response from those who are convinced of the truth ought to be to engage error, not run from it. Rather than fearing our children might read a book or see a film that challenges their faith, such a scenario presents us with an opportunity to teach them to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

We should be willing to read the books and see the movie with our children (of the appropriate age and level of maturity), engaging the difficult issues raised by Pullman, and allowing the True Compass, the Word of God, to guide us into all truth—to bring to light the hidden things of darkness. If true followers of Jesus Christ boycott “The Golden Compass” we run the risk of validating Pullman’s thesis that Christians suppress and control, rather than engage in open and honest debate in a vibrant, passionate and intelligent defense of the faith.

Why not counter Pullman by being a living demonstration of the Church he fails to portray in his trilogy rather than validating him by being exactly what he says we are?

Great points.

Prager on the latest issues of Rolling Stone...

2007-11-13T10:52:00.000-05:00

Dennis Prager says To Understand the Left, Read this Issue of Rolling Stone:

... But even if no foul language were used by so many of those interviewed in Rolling Stone, the absence of serious thought would be enough to fear leftist influence on the country.

Some examples:

Jane Goodall: "We seem to have lost the wisdom of the indigenous people, which dictated that in any major decision, the first consideration was, 'How will this decision we make today affect our people in the future?'"

The romanticizing of "indigenous peoples" is a popular leftist myth, believed not because it is true - "indigenous people" were just as cruel and raped the land just as much as later groups - but because it is a way of attacking the Western societies and cultures that replaced "indigenous peoples."

Bill Maher: "... [in 2003], it was a relatively small number of young Muslim men. Now, thanks to this clash of civilizations we've created, the threat could come from anywhere."

According to Bill Maher and many others on the left, we Americans created this clash of civilizations. Presumably, prior to 2003 the Islamic world was morally similar to Western civilization. This, too, is a dogma of the left: Before our invasion of Iraq, the Muslim world was populated by peaceful young men; violent Islamists were made by America, not by any aspects of Islamic culture and values. Maher should tell that to the Armenians, to the blacks of the Sudan, to the Israelis, to the Algerians who have lost tens of thousands to Islamic terror, and to the others murdered and maimed by young Muslim men prior to America deposing Saddam Hussein. As noted by a Labor member of the British Parliament in the Guardian this past Sunday:

"Ten years ago, in November 1997, 50 Swiss tourists rose early to visit the Valley of the Kings across the Nile from Luxor in Egypt. Suddenly from the hills came a group of Islamists. They shot, disembowelled and decapitated the tourists." While the American president was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush.

Bill Maher on Republican opposition to radical changes and expenditures to fight carbon emissions: "I don't understand what any person doesn't get about 'You're going to die too!' I mean, do they have their own air? I could understand that, because they're selfish pr--ks by nature: 'I've got my own air. What do I give a s--t?'"

Another central leftist dogma: Conservatives aren't merely wrong, they're "selfish pr--ks by nature." That's why, as regards manmade global warming leading to catastrophe on Earth, the left doesn't address the challenges posed by many dissenting scientists. The left merely dismisses them as either paid by industry (the Newsweek cover story explanation for all dissent on this issue) or as human beings so selfish by nature that they even deny their own impending deaths.

Princeton Professor Cornel West: "... a morally insensitive period from Reagan to the second Bush, when it was fashionable to be indifferent to the suffering of the most vulnerable."

Again, the vileness of conservatives.

Cornel West: "Black folk in America have never been optimistic about the future -- what have we had to be optimistic about?"

No matter how improved the lot of the vast majority of black Americans, leftists like Cornel West continue to argue that there is no reason for a black American to be optimistic.

Read and listen to Dennis at Townhall.com.

Coulter...Setting the record straight on Joe McCarthy

2007-11-11T09:49:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter discusses M. Stanton Evans new book - Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies:

... Blacklisted by History proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong, including:

-- That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II;

-- That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night;

-- That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs;

-- That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of communism.

Ironically, for all of their love of conspiracy theories - the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears' career, etc., etc. - when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.

Then as now, liberals protect themselves from detection with wild calumnies against anybody who opposes them. They have no interest in - or aptitude for - persuasion. Their goal is to anathematize their enemies. Blacklisted by History removes the curse from one of the greatest patriots in American history.

Read the rest in McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies.

A Veterans Day Tribute...

2007-11-09T14:59:00.000-05:00

In honor of Veterans Day this Sunday, please read this inspirational story from Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post:

In February 1966, five months into his first 13-month tour in Vietnam, Roger’s unit was searching for Viet Cong around Gia Le. Roger had walked point for patrols during the previous four months and had been shot once, so his intuition about the enemy’s presence was acutely tuned.

On a night mission to a small fishing village reportedly occupied by VC, Roger and 12 other Marines were moving down a trail lined with dense bamboo. His squad leader had taken Roger’s position as point man, and Roger’s instinct told him the squad was moving too fast along the trail. So urgent was his sense that something was wrong that he wanted to call out, but did not want to betray their position.

In an instant, gunfire erupted and a series of “daisy-chain” explosions propelled Roger and two other Marines over the vegetation into an adjacent rice paddy. As he slowly recovered from the shock of the concussion generated by the explosions, he could see green tracers from VC weapons cutting up and down the trail.

The ambush was over as quickly as it began, and more than 60 VC emerged like ghosts from the bamboo, killed the wounded Marines on the trail, collected their weapons and disappeared.

As Roger regained his senses, he pulled the other two Marines in the water to the edge of the rice paddy. He then pawed around in the muddy water for his M-14, and crawled back onto the trail to check for survivors among the ten remaining Marines — among his friends. The squad leader had taken 29 rounds. There were no survivors.

Read the rest.

From the NRSC - They give so much so that we may live free:

Anheuser Busch's commercial welcoming back the troops :

Bob Carter Debunks Global Warming Hysteria...

2007-11-09T10:16:00.000-05:00

Powerful stuff... must-watch video for anyone still on the fence. The debate is not over Al, you narcissistic, fear-mongering, hypocritical, bloviating windbag.

Here are four videos that comprise Carter's roughly 37-minute lecture given at the Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation on September 8th, 2007 in Melbourne: (hat tip to global warming truth-teller extraordinaire, Noel Sheppard)

The first of four parts where Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Does this surprise you?

Part 2 - Professor Bob Carter examines more of the data concerning climate change which does not stand up well to convince anyone with a logical mind.

Part 3 - Professor Bob Carter continues looking at the things which are problems to the idea that CO2 is driving climate change.

Part 4 - Professor Bob Carter examines examples of the scientific data being ignored over popularist views about CO2 causing climate change.

Time to go nuclear.

Bonus: An audio message from the Goracle.

And... Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’.

Wishful thinking...

2007-11-08T18:00:00.000-05:00

The straight-talk express. If he was running, I'd be saying "John Bolton for President". He's not, but read this write-up of his new book from Jay Nordlinger and you may join me in the wishful thinking... if you're not already there.

Also, more talk on his book with Cavuto:

On boys being boys...

2007-11-08T17:44:00.000-05:00

Ross Mackenzie writes Rallying Boys to a 'Dangerous' Standard of Normalcy:

... Feminists who would condition us all may argue that boys are doing no worse than before — it only seems that way because girls, liberated at last, are doing better; the real crisis facing boys, they say, is that they’re not enough like girls. Yet something is rendering boys enervated and effete; something is sapping their energy. Midge Decter notes a “shying away from their instinctive restlessness and competitiveness, and, with it, a fading of whatever happened to be the standards of gallantry.”

Maybe it’s the feminist revolution. Maybe it’s divorce and single(-mother) families. Maybe it’s our Spockian mores of child-rearing. Maybe it’s an outgrowth of the relativism that no longer finds innate goodness in America — and so worth defending, and its enemies worth fighting — and likewise no longer recognizes, or values, the goodness inhering in boys.

Click here for the rest of the column.

I haven't read anything from Mackenzie before, but I'm glad to have found him. Click here for Mackenzie's column archives at Townhall.com. Click the picture above to order the book.

An important photo... please share

2007-11-08T11:59:00.000-05:00

Independent military reporter and photographer Michael Yon is amazing.

His latest dispatch titled "Thanks and Praise" is not only a must-read, it's a must-share. He writes:

A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Infantry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. "Thank you, thank you," the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

A picture certainly is worth a thousand words. Please share this and support Michael if you can.

As Bryan over at HotAir points out... we're winning in Iraq, wouldn’t you think this news would be big enough to warrant better placement than page A19? Not for the New York Times.

Giles: PC-riddled Christianity is more dastardly than uncut atheism...

2007-11-08T10:05:00.000-05:00

Get off on your bad self Doug! Damn, he's fun to read. How about this snippet from his latest titled Pusillanimous Pastors are Worse than Strident Atheists:

Look, Christian, if it weren’t for the atheists busting our chops and asking us the tricky questions and bringing up the offensive aspects of Scripture, most of the church wouldn’t lift a manicured, uncalloused finger to investigate such topics and formulate a non-whacked answer to the gloves-off godless inquiries.

So, quit crying church, the atheists are good for you. Embrace them. They’ll put meat on your bones and hair on your chest, Nancy boy.

Frankly, the people who concern me — the ones I think are more malevolent than the obstreperous atheists — are the postmodern prevaricating pastors and priests who sidestep the stout aspects of Scripture because of the pressures of political correctness.

Correct me if I’m mistaken, brethren, but I’m pretty certain that Christ saved his most scathing invectives for the in-house boys who were ashamed of His person, works and word and who bowed to the crowd.

I was thunderstruck the other day at how far the church has moved away from preaching the raw gospel when I happened upon an old black and white Billy Graham crusade on the tube. It had to be at least 40 if not 50 year old footage.

Billy was in his prime. He was young, had dark wavy hair, and he was full of P&V. I’m thinking this is pretty cool. However, let’s check Graham out. Let’s see if he preaches Oprah verses Obadiah like a lot of postmodern therapeutic Tony Robbins wannabe ministers are doing in the pulpit today.

As you can imagine, Billy didn’t play. The man delivered the goods. He didn’t bee-bop and scat around the difficult sayings of Christ and the gospel. He clearly wasn’t on TV preaching to get rich, to sell his latest book, to be Christendom’s playmate of the month, nor to soul stroke an impenitent mob of vapid narcissists.

Graham simply stood up there with boldness and verve and delivered the gospel unapologetically. It was heaven or hell...turn or burn...that came rolling off Graham’s tongue. I was blown away by how non-PC Billy G was. ...

Read it all.

Let's go straight to the man himself... Billy Graham from 1957 in MSG. Examine your heart:

Shawnjor has lots of other clips from Billy Graham up on YouTube... check 'em out!

Steve Jobs: Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

2007-11-07T23:48:00.000-05:00

This video is from earlier this year, but I thought it was worth sharing... Steve Jobs with some good life lessons, giving the comencement speech at Stanford University:

Click here for the transcript over at YouTube.

Polling data: America's Most Widely Held Views

2007-11-07T13:10:00.000-05:00

I am a huge fan of Newt Gingrich. I hope he get's traction with the change initiatives he's promoting.

From Newt's American Solutions comes America’s Red, White and Blue Platforms: (read here)

96% It is important for the President and Congress to address the issue of social security in the next few years.

95% We have an obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation for future generations.

94% Children should be allowed a moment of silence to pray to themselves in public school if they desire.

93% Al Qaeda poses a very serious threat for the United States.

93% In the worker visa program, each worker should take an oath to obey the United States law, and to be deported if the worker commits a crime while in the United States.

93% It is important to acknowledge today that the reference to God in the Declaration of Independence – that we are endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

92% Our focus should clearly be to provide long-term solutions instead of short-term fixes.

91% We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education.

91% We should hold city governments to the same standards for cleaning waste water as are applied to the private industry.

90% We favor a law that allows public school children to take a moment of silence for prayer if they desire.

90% We approve of a Christmas tree or a Menorah being placed on public property during the holiday season.

90% We should give tax credits to homeowners and builders who incorporate alternative energy sources in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy.

Click here for video of Newt speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on November 6th.

You may also want to check out Newt's new movie called Rediscovering God in America.

Darth Vader in Love

2007-11-06T21:36:00.000-05:00

I'd never heard of Peter Serafinowicz before, but he's clearly got some strong comedy kung-fu... and it's time for something light-hearted. If you've got a few minutes, this four-part skit of Darth Vader in Love is fall-on-the-floor hilarious:

Communist Chinese government won't allow athletes to bring Bibles along with them to the 2008 Beijing Olympics?

2007-11-06T18:13:00.001-05:00

Holy intolerance.

Another Sowell quote: What “multiculturalism” boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture — and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.

If you want to 'make a difference', give back the truth...

2007-11-06T08:50:00.000-05:00

Thomas Sowell should be on your regular reading list if he's not already. He has an amazingly clear and concise writing style that is easy to read. He's also thought-provoking and, well, right.

Townhall has all of his columns. Here's his "curriculum vita" if you're interested.

His latest column is titled Stop "Making A Difference":

Making a difference makes sense only if you are convinced that you have mastered the subject at hand to the point where any difference you might make would be for the better.

Very few people have mastered anything that well beyond their own limited circle of knowledge. Even fewer seem to think far enough ahead to consider that question. Yet hardly a day goes by without news of some uninformed busybodies on one crusade or another.

...

Indeed, many who repeat the "giving back" mantra would sneer at any such notion as patriotism or any idea that the institutions and values of American society have accomplished worthy things and deserve their support, instead of their undermining.

Our educational system, from the schools to the universities, are actively undermining any sense of loyalty to the traditions, institutions and values of American society.

They are not giving back anything except condemnation, often depicting sins common to the human race around the world as peculiar evils of "our society."

A classic example is slavery, which is repeatedly drummed into our heads - in the schools and in the media - as something unique done by white people to black people in the United States.

The tragic fact is that, for thousands of years of recorded history, people of every race and color have been both slaves and enslavers.

The Europeans enslaved on the Barbary Coast of North Africa alone were far more numerous than all the Africans brought to the United States and to the 13 colonies from which it was formed.

What was unique about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery, and that it stamped out slavery not only in its own societies but in other societies around the world during the era of Western imperialism.

That process took well over a century, because non-Western societies resisted. White people, as well as black people, were still being bought and sold as slaves, decades after the Emancipation Proclamation freed blacks in the United States.

Those who want to "give back" should give back the truth. It is a debt that is long overdue.

Here's a great collection of Sowell quotes that are worth reading also.

Sowell: "Nothing as mundane as mere evidence can be allowed to threaten a vision so deeply satisfying."

Dinesh D'Souza debates Christopher Hitchens... Christianity vs. Atheism

2007-11-05T21:54:00.000-05:00

Is Christianity the Problem? From 10/22/07, this was an outstanding debate if you missed it. Hosted by Book TV, D'Souza and Hitchens go back and forth on some very thought-provoking topics. Each of these vids is about 9 minutes long... well worth it if you have a little time. (thanks to operationmongoose for the quality video)

1 of 10

2 of 10

3 of 10

4 of 10

5 of 10

6 of 10

7 of 10

8 of 10

9 of 10

10 of 10

Also from D'Souza - The atheist indoctrination project.

There is nothing “repugnant” about waterboarding... (updated)

2007-11-05T15:23:00.000-05:00

So says Deroy Murdock:

It’s not quite torture, but it sure has been painful watching Senate Democrats tie attorney general-designate Michael Mukasey into knots over waterboarding. Responding to their demands that he denounce this interrogation method that simulates drowning, Mukasey Tuesday called it “repugnant to me.”

...

Though clearly uncomfortable, waterboarding loosens lips without causing permanent physical injuries (and unlikely even temporary ones). If terrorists suffer long-term nightmares about waterboarding, better that than more Americans crying themselves to sleep after their loved ones have been shredded by bombs or baked in skyscrapers.

I agree.

Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive says that the U.S. military must run a torture training facility:

Tens of thousands of troops have been through this training and yet somehow the idea that we do these same things to the scum who murder innocents in order to protect innocents is beyond the pale. BS. Why don't we just institute the jihadi draft, make them members of the military and give them a little Resistance love. They have earned it and we can't afford to miss a single tidbit of intel that could help us send more of them along to Allah.

Yup.

Cdr. Frank 'Spig' Wead speaks out also:

Based on lessons learned from survivors of the brutal North Korean and North Vietnam torture of US military prisoners of war, the Department of Defense ordered all branches of the services to implement comprehensive Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs. Every member of Congress should be extremely well versed on the military S.E.R.E. programs since they have had direct oversight and funding of these programs for over 40 years. Viewing the most recent Congressional hearing, one must assume that they are ignorant of or intentionally misrepresent the very programs that they fund and support.

...

Congress, let me ask you a very simple question about your leadership and your sworn responsibility. It is a yes or no question, and you have a personal choice to make.

Would you endorse the use of a waterboard interrogation technique against a terrorist like Mohamed Atta al Sayed, the leader of the highjacking of American Airlines Flight 11 or not. The answer for me is simple: “turn on the hose.” If you answer anything else, then God help America because Tom died in vain.

'Turn on the hose' indeed.

Speaking of torture, I'd rather be waterboarded than have to keep hearing from Keith Olbermann.

Also, from Bryan at HotAir - Video: Lefty whackjobs waterboard themselves, and Video: Code Pinkos waterboard some poor schlep while Diane Feinstein walks on by.

Update: Alan Dershowitz chimes in from the WSJ Editorial Page:

Michael Mukasey, whose confirmation as attorney general now seems assured, is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of "waterboarding" cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents - some of which I disagree with - the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process.

The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans?

Good question... answer undoubtedly not forthcoming.

Oh, and there's an update to one of the links from Bryan above...And the Academy Award for Best Waterboarding in a Protest Scene goes to…. Fake, but accurate, protest waterboarding.