Friday, February 29, 2008

Clinton's Demise Serves as Warning to Both Obama and McCain Campaigns

by Matt Towery - February 28th, 2008 - Townhall.com

For Obama, his time to be vetted will likely come sooner rather than later. It will be a test by the media elite to see if the candidate they love has the stuff to make them proud. That test will be tame by most standards of the past.

For McCain, it will come later. It will be vicious. And it will be designed to make Obama the next president of the United States. Those who will attack McCain may not themselves even realize or admit their true reasons for hitting him so hard.

What the press calls vetting is a two fold process. One is simply making candidates fully explain vague and superficial rhetoric. The other is demeaning any position that is at odds with liberal orthodoxy.

It will be interesting to see what the press does with Obama. He is probably the greatest example we have ever seen of flowery pretentious rhetoric that means little when you break it down. Sometimes it even contains blatant contractictions, such as when he talked about gun control and claimed to embrace the right of an individaul to own a gun for personal defense as stated in the Constitution. He then, in the same explanation, lauded a law which was specfically intended to take away guns and deny the right to own guns existed. Say that again Obama? The press ignored the contradiction then. They will be embarrased if they don't press him on this at some point.

John McCain is going to be "vetted" with the second process. As noted in the article.
For McCain, it will come later. It will be vicious. And it will be designed to make Obama the next president of the United States.
No one who has watched politics in America for a while will be surprised when they go after McCain. Numerous experts predicted the opening salvo by the New York Times over the "sex" scandal. (A Democrat friend came up with the best proposed response for McCain I heard. At 71 years old McCain should have simply grinned and said, "Thank you, thank you.") Before it is over that weak first attempt will be seen as fairly moderate. MCain better be ready.


Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Black Hillary Supporters May Be
Receiving Death Threats

by Marc Sheppard - February 26th, 2008 - The American Thinker

Earlier this month, popular black author and talk-show host Tavis Smiley disclosed death threats he'd received from those accusing him of blasphemy against their black prophet. Then, at Saturday's Smiley-hosted State of the Black Union forum, Congressional Black Caucus member Stephanie Tubbs Jones lent credence to Smiley's claim by suggesting that many black elected officials not swearing allegiance to Obama have also been the target of violent threats.

While widely ignored by the mainstream media, the implications here are nothing short of momentous. The very prospect of physical intimidation as a means of garnering political compliance from Americans awakens frightening images of the thuggish antics of one William M "Boss" Tweed in mid-nineteenth century New York.

The author is certainly working hard to not identify the most obvious example of similar behavior. The antics of the Tweed machine were mostly about power, not race. A more obvious and more recent example of this behavior is the Klu Klux Klan. These were white racists who intimidated white officials for daring to exhibit apostasy on their view of race.

It was the Republican Party which resisted that pressure and fought for equality for 100 years before a Republican, Everett Dirksen, wrote the 1964 civil rights bill that ended the ability of the KKK to intimidate white officials by creating government power as a counter balance.

However it is disingenuous of the author to try and pretend the current pressure of the racists in the black community to intimidate their peers is something new. Campaigns claiming Republicans are killers for not supporting particular laws, radio spots that claim voting Republican will mean "they take away your right to vote", calling blacks who express any conservative views "Uncle Toms" along with "hater, sellout and traitor", insistence that the party of Lincoln is the racist party . . . these are all common tactics of the black Democrats who are the enforcement brigade of the Democrat Party. Their intimidation tactics continue this day.

This is about political power. Just as the KKK was an intimidation power to keep whites on top, the defenders of black privilege and special rights, are delirious with the idea that "one of theirs" could have the most powerful position in the world. Barack Obama is a minority activist. He is not "one of theirs" just because he is black, but also because he is following the script for political power that black leaders have practiced since the 60s. It is the reason that anyone in the black community who is a conservative still registers and votes Democrat irrespective of the issues of the two parties. Intimidation.

In a discussion about the waste and corruption of a former black school Superintendent from a local county here in the Inner Banks, one of the people who was demanding that the conduct be ignored actually snarled at me, "It don't matter, it's our turn on top."

What this article ignores is that white liberals are being targeted with similar tactics of intimidation but with less overt threat. Some part of that may explain the unwillingness of liberal press to point out the inconsistencies of Obama's positions, and the ridiculousness of some of his followers almost blind allegiance.

I think that this excess of threatening violence against anyone, black or liberal, who does not get in line . . . may be the best thing that could happen to end the intimidation. In the late fifties and early sixties, jokes about the KKK started to become popular, even as the KKK turned up the volume of their hate. That is now starting and it indicates the end of the power. No one can withstand being laughed at.

A recent article pointed out that comedians are starting to make fun of Obama and his supporters. Beth Gorham of the Canadian Press wrote of this phenomenon in her article "Obama faces parodies, questions about his promises in Democratic race."


Websites . . . are poking fun by asking if Obama is indeed the Messiah or relaying messages like "Barack Obama remembered your birthday" and "Barack Obama carries a picture of you in his wallet."

Saturday Night Live entered the fray last weekend by skewering sycophantic journalists in a mock debate where the moderator confessed to being clinically diagnosed as "an Obamaniac" and being "totally in the tank" for Obama, like "everyone else in the news media."


The article mocks Obama by calling him such names as, "The Prophet", "His Hopeness" and "The Chosen One" in addition to the "Messiah" reference.

This is at least a start. Another important step will occur when people in the black community start to realize that allowing themselves to be intimidated by these tactics of fear has simply replaced the KKK with an equally reprehensible group of black racists who dictate who they can vote for and how they must think. The American dream is about individual freedom, not group power.

Political intimidation must end. Freedom is what America stands for. Intimidation is incompatible with that belief. Arguing that there is always intimidation is not acceptable. Free speech demands that persuasion be uncoerced. We ended slavery because it was a violation of everything our nation stands for. We must end this intimidation for the same reason.


Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Fred Smith Washington County BBQ

The Washington County Fred Smith BBQ on the 100 County BBQ Tour was a resounding success. It was held at the Vernon James Center on the outskirts of Plymouth, a really great facility. There have been more than 95 BBQs so far and there are still 9 to go. The number adds up to more than 100 because some counties are getting more than 1.



Robert Partin (seated above) was working registration for the campaign this night.



There was such a large number coming in that some had to move over to the dinning tables to find room to fill out the registration forms.



Joe Avery, Republican Party District Chairman, greeted old friends and made some new ones while he supported Fred.



Powellsville Mayor Tom Asbell (seated left) and Town Commissioner Buck Carter (standing with Mr. Smith) talked with Fred about issues affecting their town. Perrytown Fire Chief Bud Lee (seated on right) listens in.




The crowd ulimately grew to around 140. With over 60 at the Tyrell County BBQ at noon, we had a great turnout for Eastern North Carolina.



Master of Cermonies for the evening was Harvey West. He introduced Lloyd Jones (not shown) who gave the invocation.



Washington County Republican Party Chairman Eddy Browning gave the welcome.



Bob Partridge led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance.



Trudee Farley sang the national anthem.



After everyone had been fed, local Supporter Bill Schultz stood with Senator Fred Smith while he waited for the event to get started.

Harvey West gave Fred's introduction, which was followed by playing the standard video about Fred. The Video always ends with the playing of the Lee Greenwood written campaign song.

Click
here to listen to what is a really great campaign song.




Fred gave his usual great speech. One person in the audience compared his enthusiasm and effectiveness to Skip Holtz, a known motivational speaker.


Fred talked about why he is going to all the effort to visit all 100 counties in North Carolina at least once each during this primary campaign. He tells about growing up in the Methodist Orphanage in Raleigh, and the struggles in business which ultimately were rewarded by success.

Senator Fred Smith spoke of his love for our State of North Carolina, and his belief that government is out of touch with what the majority of people want. He talked about the things that make us great and the things that help us enjoy the freedom of our great nation America. These talks are always a great dialogue.

The crowd was a good one, and the speech was interrupted by applause on many occasions as Fred hit on the points that people really care about.




When he finishes his speech there are always a great number of people who want Fred to autograph his biography for them.Fred really lives the theme of his autobiography, "The difference between good and great is a little extra effort." The Washington County stop on the Fred Smith Statewide BBQ Tour was a resounding success thanks to all the great people who came out.


Obama's Appeal Depends On Your
Definition Of Change

by Stuart Rothenberg - February 25th, 2008 - Real Clear Politics

In politics, the devil is always in the details, and except in rare cases, Obama has either avoided them or, more importantly, failed to note the obvious contradictions in his message and his record.

[snip]

When he [Obama] was asked by Leon Harris how he reconciles his support for the D.C. gun ban, which was declared unconstitutional by a federal court last year and which bars all handguns not registered before 1976, with his statement that he has "no intention of taking away folks' guns," Obama launched into a confusing explanation of "conflicting traditions in this country."

He ended his monologue by saying, "We can have a reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people's traditions." But the D.C. gun ban is based on the premise that the Second Amendment doesn't give individuals the right to own a gun.

You therefore have to ask, "Does Obama think we are so stupid we do not realize the contradictions in his positions? Or is he so duplicitous he thinks he can continue to con the American people with feel good rhetoric that he does not truly believe?"

Obama continues his campaign of lofty rhetoric and happy predictions of unity with people who are diametrically opposed to the tyrannical socialism at the heart of his campaign. Socialism has always failed. It will not succeed this time because the "happy hater", Barack Obama, sells it with glowing but dishonest prose.


One Party Rule Is Held At Bay

Judge Robert Holt Edmunds, Jr. is an important man to conservatives and the people in North Carolina who believe in the rule of law. As he notes in his speeches before various groups in his campaign to retain his seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, he is the primary target of the Democrat Party this year. Judge Bob Edmunds holds the balance of power on our politicized courts. The Democrats hold the Governorship, the Senate and the House. If they defeat him they will control the courts as well, and they want it all.

One man, Judge Bob Edmunds, is the only man keeping the Democrats from holding ALL power in the state of North Carolina. With the corruption displayed by Democrats in the Legislative branch (proven by the number in jail or under indictment), there is little doubt that this campaign to unseat Judge Bob Edmunds has but one purpose. That is to remove the block from overturning convictions of corrupt Democrats that one power rule could allow. The Democrats also want to assure that gerrymandering done to continue holding unjust political power is not challenged by an ethical judiciary.




There is an excellent posting by the News & Observer outlining the details of Judge Edmunds career which can be found here. Wikipedia has additional information here (though it is important to remember the strong liberal bias of this group). There is a nice summary on the Downeast Republican web site which can be found here. The official North Carolina court biography can be found here.

The highlights are that Judge Edmunds has been a naval officer, assistant district attorney, assistant U.S. attorney, U.S. attorney (appointed by Ronald Reagan), associate judge on the N.C. Court of Appeals, and was elected to the N.C. Supreme Court in 2001, defeating an incumbent Democrat.

Judge Edmunds has been a great Justice, repeatedly defending the independence of the judiciary and the ethical need for following the rule of law. Without him, government in North Carolina would be much worse. We need to support him. Conservatives would be in serious trouble if we lose this last branch of government to liberal dominance and the rule of law is abandoned.


Two Great Articles!

Today we have two great articles about the ongoing New York Times fiasco where they tried to derail John McCain's Presidential race.

McCain and the Times: the Real Questions is an absolutely hilarious account of the Times explanation of what they were trying to do.

Sex Scandal At The New York Times is a great explanation of what happened, and a comparison to an earlier LIE by the New York Times that exposes their arrogant disdain for truth.


School Suspends Teens For Wearing Crucifixes

by Staff - February 25th, 2008 - Associated Press (Fox News)

A pair of Albany teenagers suspended for "gang-related behavior" because they were wearing crucifixes say they were only wearing gifts from their mothers.

Jaime Salazar, 14, his friend Marco Castro, 16, were suspended from South Albany High School recently after they refused to put away the crucifixes they were wearing around their necks.

Salazar said Principal Chris Equinoa saw his necklace and told him to put it away. "I was like, why?" Salazar said. "He says it's related to gangs."

Salazar said he argued and was sent to the office. Instead, he went home. Later, he received a note saying he had been suspended for five days for "defiance and gang-related behavior."

When you start to regulate speech, you lose the ability to maintain a free society. We would not have a problem with gang activity if we did not have a court system that has so sided with criminals that you can't remove criminals from society. They are returned again and again to prey on society. I don't believe, or care, if gangs are using Christian symbols for gang activity. I do care that bureacrats are trying to defend themselves from gangs and claim the right to stop me from wearing a crucifixe whether I am in a gang or not. That limits free speech.

There are intelligent ways to cope with this . . . unless of course you live in a society that is dominated by "the rule of judges". It is impossible to make sane laws or rules when the judges are insane.


Monday, February 25, 2008

Forget Global Warming:
Welcome To The New Ice Age

by Lorne Gunter - Monday, February 25, 2008 - National Post

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 [Canadian] 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.

Chicken little is alive and well and dressed in an Al Gore costume. There has been some global warming during the last 150 years since the end of the little ice age. It was never reasonable to assume it was caused by man. Then again the people who were promoting that didn't care whether man caused it or not. They wanted political power and would say anything that would allow them to persuade people to blame someone, in this case anyone who drove a car.

However the real requirement is that we get control of our energy resources and assure we have enough. Man needs energy. Man really needs energy if we are heading into another little ice age. We must start producing petroleum from whatever sources are available, especially if it is within our national borders so it does not damage our balance of trade. We also need to push for a reasonable nuclear energy program that builds environmentally safe nuclear plants based on the existing nuclear designs that have worked and proven themselves.

We cannot continue to allow environmental extremists to frighten people about energy production. Carbon dioxide is not the enemy. Expensive energy is the enemy.


The Perfect Storm for Conservatives

... If They Don't Blow It

by Nina May - February 24th, 2008 - Townhall.com

So what we are seeing on the horizon is a perfect storm for a group bound by common philosophy that is at odds with all the participants in the 2008 presidential elections. If conservatives would take a moment from eating their young, look up from the bloodied carcass of fallen comrades they have abandoned in the hunt for perfection, they would see a perfect storm on the horizon.

Very interesting article about the propensity of the Republican Party to reject out of hand . . . for fellow Republicans . . . the Chrisitan Charity they claim to believe in.


The Fierce Urgency Of Lies

By Lance Fairchok - February 25TH, 2008 - American Thinker

Grown men weep in his presence, women faint, and thousands scream his name like a rock star. The liberal press prints glowing tributes to their new progressive prophet, calling him "the triumph of word over flesh" and other absurd and profoundly unwarranted accolades. Obama, a very junior Senator, will guide us to a Utopia that has yet to be defined, an America that the left envisions but cannot quantify; but rest assured it will be swell.

[snip]

What we hear from Obama is the eternal mantra of the socialists; America is broken, millions have no health care, families cannot afford necessities, the rich are evil, we are selfish, we are unhappy, unfulfilled, without hope, desperate, poverty stricken, morally desolate, corrupt and racist. This nihilism is the lifeblood of all the democrat candidates, even "hope you can believe in" performers like Obama.

Actual America is a completely different place. America is the place that the world is fighting to get into . . . not the depressing picture that Obama paints. Other nations put up walls to keep their people in. We are concerned with walls to keep out the huge number clamoring to get in. Obama translates that into a need to take care of any who want to come. Any anecdotal evidence of a perceived wrong is magnified and turned into an obligation to have the American taxpayer (you know . . . that rich white guy everyone hates) pay to fix the problem and also pay to have a bureaucrat watch him intensely to assure he does not wiggle out of his obligations.

Actual America is a place where half of those called "poor" own their homes. Three quarters own their cars. Nineteen out of twenty have Color TVs and Microwaves. Democrats talk about the forty one million who don't have health insurance, including nine million children. They never mention that six million of the children are eligible for health insurance now and their parents are simply too lazy to fill out the paperwork that would get them free coverage. The parents know that if anything happens they can go to the local emergency room and it will be covered for free, so why bother filling out papers?

We have repeatedly created "entitlement" programs that are justified as a helping hand to the needy. The programs are immediately turned into a free ride for the greedy.

That is not the message Obama sends. He is going to "bring us together" in a great bi-partisan epiphany. Sounds great? He is really going to take the money of those who have it, the "rich", and spread more money around in free rides for the greedy through stupid rules and incompetent bureaucracies. His definition of rich is a real surprise to those who are going to be taxed.

That is the reality of what he promises.


Howard Dean To Ask If McCain Is Breaking Campaign Finance Law

by Staff - February 24th, 2008 - ABC News

Dean accused McCain of breaking the very campaign finance law he championed in the U.S. Senate. "He has made a career out of posing as a reformer. And the truth is that his reforms that he's proposed are for everybody but him."

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers responded to the DNC's press conference by pointing to Dean's own actions when he ran for president in 2003. "Howard Dean’s hypocrisy is breathtaking given that in 2003 he withdrew from the matching funds system in exactly the same way that John McCain is doing today."

I love it. Here are two hypocrits on public financing fighting a battle over the idiocy of the system each has lauded when they wanted to feel superior about their so-called opposition to corruption.

As much as I have come to accept that John McCain is the best alternative of the finalists in this Presidential campaign, and have thus rallied to support him, I cannot avoid a degree of amusement at his current predicament. Abandoning free speech and implementation of a federal elections commission to regulate who can say what in a campaign was always an evil proposal. Since McCain was so self righteous in his belief in this system, it is vindication that he is now the target of the very regulators that he empowered.

In a related issue, even getting a vote to allow him to not be held to the limits of bureacratic oversight is being blocked by his chief rival at this point, Barack Obama. Click here for an explanation of how Obama is using the undemocratic process by which a Senator can block a President's nominee to keep McCain from getting a vote to allow him to opt out of the outrageous restrictions on freedom which the current law represents.

If McCain loses as a result of this idiocy, he cannot blame anyone else.

ROTFL


The Truth About Michelle Obama's 'Working Class' Credentials

by Sharon Churcher - February 23rd, 2008 - Daily Mail (London)

"For the past year (she and Barack) have jetted around the country with Oprah Winfrey and Robert De Niro, enjoying penthouse parties and living the high life," he said.

Perhaps, when she contrasts her current red-carpet lifestyle with the unassuming world of South Euclid Avenue, she genuinely may think that her childhood was impoverished. And the one thing that is certain about the incredible Mrs O is that she never intends to have to live that way again.

This is a very interesting article about the childhood of Michelle Obama. It helps to explain the class and race warfare rhetoric of someone who has nevertheless personally attained so much wealth. The total contrast with her personal success in a nation that rewards hard work while she remains so fervently bitter about that same nation is a microcosm of the dichotomy in modern race relations.


'Crumbling elegance'? Do me a favour.
Let's get real about Cuba

by Chris Walker - February 24th, 2008 - The Independent (London)

Cuba is a textbook example of how political mismanagement can push entire nations to the breadline. Economic statistics are wrapped up in propaganda. Thus we are told the economy surged 12 per cent last year, and wage growth was 5 per cent. The reality is that average incomes are estimated at $15 (£7.60) a month and the population live close to poverty. More than 50 per cent of housing is unsanitary.

Supposed achievements of Castro's Cuba are cleverly put out for external consumption – mainly the high level of literacy and the very low level of infant mortality. But given the absence of a free press in Cuba, it is hard to be sure that even these achievements are real. Talk of doctors begging tourists for aspirins hardly equates with a thriving health system.

The inability of some people to understand one simple basic fact about wealth is sad. Wealth is created by hard work rewarded by a free enterprise system. It does not exist in a vacuum. Individual freedom is a necessity. Socialism has failed every where it has been tried and individual freedom always dies along with the economic failure. However those who want to believe in socialism still fool themselves into believing clever arguments that distort the facts.

One thing is true about socialism. No one can believe anything that its adherents say. Cuba is an abysmal failure. Yet Harry Belafonte and various other advocates of a "living wage" have convinced themselves that America would be better off emulating Cuba. The stunning stupidity required to compare these two nations and believe Cuba has any lessons to teach us cannot be refuted by reason. I use "living wage" as an example of the self delusion of socialists because it is one that is so often touted as what we need here in America.

"Living wage" is the process of allowing government goons to force one person to pay another person more money than they are worth in a free martketplace. The institutional evil necessary to enforce this redistribution of wealth is the transfer of power to government. It gives government officials the power to determine what portion of your personal wealth you are allowed to keep.

This power always destroys the willingness of people to work hard. It thus destroys the wealth of a nation. Cuba is just the latest example.


Sunday, February 24, 2008

Mitt Romney Will Be Back

"When Romney did disappointingly on Super Tuesday, he met with his staff the next day like a businessman. He read the delegate and expense numbers, confirmed how unlikely it was to catch McCain in delegates and, surprisingly quickly, pulled the plug during a thoughtful speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee 48 hours later that left little doubt he'd be back in GOP politics.

A week after that, again surprisingly quickly during such a healing period, Romney heartily endorsed McCain and, literally, stepped aside on that stage and off.

Now, instead of a public plea for more money to cover the massive debts of his yearlong failed effort, here's what you get at the Romney campaign's shuttered website."

- - Andrew Malcolm





When someone has class, it shows.


Saturday, February 23, 2008

New York Times Editor Blames Readers
For Dustup Over John McCain Article

by Kenneth R. Bazinet - February 23rd 2008 - Daily News

"I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot," Keller added.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn't get it.

"Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story."

There it is. The New York Times has decided that it is not that they ran a hit piece on John McCain. No. The problem is that all of their readers were just too stupid to understand the subtle point they really made.


The Misnomer of Conservatism

by Bruce Walker - February 23, 2008 - The American Thinker

As we "conservatives" thrash about trying to find who is a real conservative, we should also seek to find what we mean by conservative. Conservatism, supposedly, is like a stool with three legs: Fiscal, Social, and National Security. Those three concerns are what identify those of us on the "Right." Yet those of us who call ourselves conservatives see the silliness of that definition. If there were no national security threat, would those "National Security" conservatives cease to be conservative? No, of course not. If the national debt and entitlements were not obscenely vast, would those "Fiscal" conservatives cease to be conservative? Again, no. If Roe v. Wade were overruled and Americans began returning to churches and synagogues, would "Social" conservatives whither away? The very question seems absurd.

Why, then, do we have so many problems identifying what conservatism is in American politics? There is an easy, though not simple, answer to that question: What we have come to call "conservative" or the Right is a group of principles whose definitional names have been invented by those who hate those principles.

When Skip Stamm came to the Al-Pam Conservative Club meeting in Elizabeth City last year he brought with him a test that was supposedly able to identify which political label applied to someone. What was really interesting was the amazing results of the test that night, typical of most groups. People who had absolutely opposite opinions on some issue were given the exact same label. People who agreed on more than 70% of the issues would be labeled completely different.

The test dramatized two things.

1. The popular groupings (which are the subject of the article above) are highly suspect overall and do not provide a reliable way to classify people.

2. We need to be more sensitive to someone's overall view of issues and not let one or two issues define them.

The Democrat Party and the Republican Party have two different world views. They are differentiated by our appreciation of freedom for others. If you accept that everyone else should be allowed freedom to do as they wish as long as they don't harm another, you are a conservative. If you think that no one should be allowed more freedom (or success) than another, you are a liberal.


Times Kicked In The Smear

By Carl Campanile - February 23rd, 2008 - New York Post

More than 2,400 readers swamped The New York Times yesterday with letters condemning its shoddy story suggesting that John McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist - and the angry mob included many Democrats and independents who had been die-hard fans of the paper.

Times executive editor Bill Keller said he was taken aback by the record number of hostile comments - the most ever received by the paper about a story - because the widespread denunciation covered the entire political spectrum.

The New York Times printed many of the letters on their web site. A fellow blogger noted that among these letters not ONE referred to their story as lies. With the bluntness of many Americans, who can believe that NOT ONE reader called them liars. The New York Times is still spinning this story even as they try and end its impact on their crediblity.

Another blogger pointed out that since the New York Times endorsed both Hillary and McCain in the primaries, if Obama is the Democrat candidate, doesn't the Times have to stand by their endorsement of McCain. That makes him their candidate in the general election, right?

ROTFL!


Friday, February 22, 2008

McCain Turns Tables On Times

by Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - February 21st, 2008 - Politico

The piece about McCain’s friendly relations with a telecommunications lobbyist — long-discussed in political circles and planned for weeks by McCain operatives — was the first test of his ability to confront a public-relations crisis since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee.

But the reaction may have said as much about the mindset of the conservative movement on the brink of the general election as it did about McCain and his team.

“Even if they want to quibble within our own tribe, they’ll circle the wagons when we’re attacked by the Times,” said McCain campaign senior adviser Charlie Black.

I love it. A 71 year old Republican with a gorgeous rich wife is accused of having a sexual relationship with a young woman half his age. Just the idea that John McCain is a sex symbol made my day. Conservatives rule!

Even better, after the waffling refusal of George Bush to ever get combative with the press, the way John McCain responded is awesome. He came out with all guns blazzing. It is time Republicans stopped tip toeing around the media acting like their accusations have to be treated with respect. They are biased liars and adversaries and need to be treated as such.





CNN included these photos of John with his wife Cindy (top), and Vicki Iseman (the reported lobbyist) with their story.


Thursday, February 21, 2008

Obama's Silver Tongue Is Forked

by Ken Blackwell - February 21st, 2008 - Townhall.com

Noting that some argue the Second Amendment only grants state governments the power to arm National Guard units, Mr. Obama said he rejected that view in favor of the widely held belief that the Second Amendment—like the rest of the Bill of Rights—involves rights held by American citizens.

The Drudge Report last week even carried the story with the title, “Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights.”

But that title was wrong.

Because later in that same story it says that in the same news conference where he spoke of an individual right in the Second Amendment, Mr. Obama also said he supports the DC gun ban. This is the absolute ban on handguns and readily usable firearms in the city of DC that is at issue in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

[snip]

That’s like saying you have the right to worship as you choose, but the government has the power to ban attending church. Or that you have the right to free speech, but that government has the power to stop you from speaking about any subject it wants. Or that you have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but that anything the government wants to search at your house is automatically reasonable.

It is interesting that Ken Blackwell, Thomas Sowell and Michael Steele are attacking the duplicity of Barack Obama. Most conservative comentators are steering clear of direct attacks. That is because there is still in America a double standard about race. If Obama succeeds in nothing else, it would be nice if he could actually help us reach the point that we can have a dialog about the campaign issues without race trumping everything else. However only black conservatives are allowed to criticize Barack Obama.

Or maybe they are just 3 conservatives with enough guts to not care about the racial hypocrisy of the MSM . . . or the concern by conservatives to not be criticized. We wouldn't want to be unpopular now would we?


Wednesday, February 20, 2008

So What Would It Take To Alarm You?

by Mark Steyn - February 14th, 2008 - Macleans (Canada)

My book's thesis — that most of the Western world is on course to become at least semi-Islamic in its political and cultural disposition within a very short time — is "alarmist."

The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you? The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia — Islamic law — to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." No alarm bells going off yet? Can't say I blame you. After all, de facto creeping sharia is well established in the Western world.

Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? I see female Muslim medical students in British hospitals are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Would it be alarmist to bring that up — say, the day before your operation?

The politically correct adherence to multiculturalism is rapidly becoming treason. Hillary and Barrack both seem afflicted with the disease which Mark Steyn, with his usual touch of humor, castigates in this article.

The lack of alarm is alarming.

Take this:
What does it mean when 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to first cousins and 70 per cent are married to relatives? At the very least, it tells you that this community is strongly resistant to traditional immigrant assimilation patterns. Of course, in any society, certain groups are self-segregating: the Amish, the Mennonites and whatnot. But when that group is not merely a curiosity on the fringe of the map but the principal source of population growth in all your major cities, the challenge posed by that self-segregation is of a different order.

There are now towns in northern England where cousin marriage is the norm: Pakistanis aren't assimilating with "the host community"; the host community has assimilated with Pakistan. Again, if you had told a Yorkshireman in 1970 that by the early 21st century it would be entirely normal for half the kindergarten class to be the children of first cousins, he would have found it preposterous.

It is preposterous. But this is the future of the world if the "tolerance loving", "diversity embracing", "politically correct" liberals and progressives don't wake up. In truth, the only thing that will cause them to wake up is if those of us who see the problem start voting our alarmism. It is time to be alarmed. Read this article and take action NOW!



Monday, February 18, 2008

Che Guevara And The Obama Campaign

by Humberto Fontova - February 18th, 2008 - Human Events


"The U.S. is the great enemy of mankind!" raved Ernesto "Che" Guevara in 1961. "Against those hyenas there is no option but extermination. We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies' very home, to his places of work and recreation. The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we'll destroy him! We must keep our hatred against them (the U.S.) alive and fan it to paroxysms!"

There is no denying that a huge segment of Obama Fever supporters are also the most extreme followers of socialist and communist ideology. Obama responds to their support with mild comments. When his followers posted the Che Guevara faced communist flag in his campaign headquarters it was "inappropriate". Obama insists it was an "unofficial" headquarters. Obama provides little clarity whether supporting Che Guevara was what he found inappropriate or whether publicly acknowledging Guevara support was the problem.





Sunday, February 17, 2008

Who Is “Fascist”?

by Thomas Sowell - February 13th, 2008 - Townhall.com



Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Liberal Fascism. As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss — and a major loss.

Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.

This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time — and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.

I have long been amused by the insistence of socialist extremists that they can hurl the insult of fascist at anyone who they see to be politically to their right. It simply proves they are ignorant of the definition of the word. Since fascist means a single party system with a dictator using the military against civilians for government control of economic enterprise. To hurl the insult is the supreme irony since they are the only current practitioners of anything similar.

Whenever I have pointed this out they just look confused and then angry.

Another favorite insult the left hurls at those they see as on the right is nazi, which again means National Socialist. The leftists who are hurling the insults are the socialists. The reality is that they simply use any negative they can to insult their opponents wihtout really understanding what the insult means. This is standard practice of fascists and nazis. There is a famous view that people demean others with what they see as their own weaknesses. The socialists and other liberal extremists certainly give great credence to that concept every time they call conservatives fascist or nazi.


Myths About Illegal Immigration

by Dr. Jameson Taylor - February 13th, 2008 - John W. Pope Civitas Institute

Myth #10: Illegal immigration is necessary to prevent the Social Security and Medicaid systems from running out of money.

Response: According to the
Center for Immigration Studies, the average age of immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the United States is “40.5 years compared to 35.9 years for the average native.” The average age of new arrivals (since 2000) is 29.4 years. All this is to say that immigration will have little positive impact on the elderly-dependency ratio or on the viability of Social Security. Thus the Social Security Advisory Board cautions that while the “entry of immigrants and their fertility rates will have some mitigating effect on the overall aging of the population,” the impact “is likely to be very slight.”

This is an important addition to the dialog about illegal immigration in America. I recommend you read all 10 myths and the responses.


Saturday, February 16, 2008

At Last, It Feels Like a New Day

by Katherine Curtis Stethem - February 14th, 2008 - New York Sun

The telephone rang early yesterday morning. My husband Patrick was leaving for work, having been kissed quickly and told to drive carefully. I hurried back to the kitchen to answer the phone before the ringing woke the children. The information delivered by the voice of a friend in tears took my breath and I raced back to the garage to find my husband.

"
Imad Mugniyah is dead."

Imad Mugniyah is, most tragically, a Stethem household name. His career of terror and exploits of destruction are well known to our family. One incident in particular is all too close to home. Imad Mugniyah was the
Hezbollah mastermind of the 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacking during which U.S. Navy Diver Robert Dean Stethem was brutally tortured and then murdered.

The memory of Robert's bravery and heroism during his ordeal was formally recognized and forever preserved for posterity in the commissioning of the USS Stethem, an Aegis class guided missile destroyer. The ship motto is "Steadfast and Courageous," a fitting tribute to this brave American son lost all too soon.


I remember the tears that welled up during the recounting of this braves mans torture at the hands of the terrorist Imad Mugniyah many years back. Israel has rid the world of an evil man. The determination and will of Israel are an example of what wins wars in the long run. It is not the pacifist who is always willing to talk with the terrorist who wins wars . . . or even ends wars. It is the heart of the warrior, who keeps fighting and seeking the end of the evil who keeps a nation free. They end wars with victory.

There is no greater quote about the warrior than the one uttered by George Patton in the face of some who were mourning the death of brave men, "Don't mourn that men such as these died. Thank God that men such as these lived."

God bless U.S. Navy Diver Robert Dean Stethem. He was a man. He was an American. I am glad that the Stethem family can take comfort in resolution of the fate of his killer. I simply ask you to take a moment and pray that our nation continues to give us such citizens. It is the sign of a great nation that it creates great men and women. We must remain supportive of the ones who are carrying the battle for us this day. God bless them too.


Friday, February 15, 2008

Pledge Of Allegiance - Red Skelton

This has been going around the Internet for a while. It is simply awesome.

Some of you may remember Red Skelton but he passed away before some of you were born. Red Skelton was a good & funny man. He also ended every show by saying, 'GOOD NIGHT AND GOD BLESS'.

This explanation of the Pledge of Allegiance is something Red Skelton said 38 years ago. Take a moment and listen to it (from 1969). It is important that you listen to the very end!! Eerie! How could he have known . . . . ?

I pledge allegiance . . .


Close The Enthusiasm Gap
With Straight Talk About Hope

by Lorie Byrd - February 15th, 2008 - Townhall.com

[Michael] Steele spoke about “hope” in [a] speech [at Civitas] last year and put the same thoughts into An open letter to the Republican Presidential Candidates. Steele wrote:

“For years, I sat in audiences and listened as politicians tried to win over voters, especially minority voters, by talking about hope. "Hope is on the way”, “keep hope alive”, “hope you have a nice day!” But our communities demand more from its leaders than “hope” because hope by itself is not a strategy. Hope doesn’t protect you from terrorists, hope doesn’t lower your taxes, hope doesn’t help you buy a home, and hope doesn’t ensure quality education for your kids. What we Republicans can speak to and the kind of leadership Americans demand (and we can provide) affords every citizen the opportunity to turn their dreams into reality and their hopes into action for themselves and their families. Without action, hope passively waits on others to solve problems. Without action, hope looks to next year instead of doing the hard work required today. Without action, hope is powerless to transform lives.”

I too heard Michael Steele at the Civitas meeting last year and remember the standing ovations that his speech inspired. He inspired me with the same vision and commitment to conservative ideals exemplified in the letter quoted from above. I remember the commitment to dreams of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the way he inspired people with his belief that dreams are what make America great. We need more leaders that can inspire dreams . . . rather than talk about hope.





Dreams are valuable. Hope is like smoke, ephemeral and wispy. Steele is right. It is action that we need. Michael Steele is the kind of intelligent and articulate leader that the Republican Party is looking for. No one would make a more outstanding Vice President. I second Lorie's nomination.


Ronald Reagan Would Back McCain

by Michael Reagan - February 14th, 2008 - Newsmax.com

Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues.

Unlike my father, a lot of conservatives stayed home in 1976, and we got four years of Jimmy Carter, whose main legacy was to drive the Shah of Iran from power and create the Islamic Republic of Iran with a bunch of wild-eyed mullahs running the show. He also gave us 20 percent inflation and long, long lines at the gas pumps. And don’t forget 440 days of Americans held hostage by the mullahs.

By staying home those conservatives made possible the future election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We are still suffering from the legacy of James Earl Carter, thanks to the conservatives who refused to follow Ronald Reagan’s example and instead sulked at home while the nation was being handed over to the worst president in American history.

I am constantly at odds with a small number in the Republican Party who claim to be heir to the Reagan legacy but who don't remember his legacy accurately. They agreed with Reagan on a couple of points, but have not really studied Reagan and have simply ignored much of his legacy. Reagan called himself a libertarian-conservative. He lived it. That meant that individual freedom was as important to him as the love of our nation that fostered his commitment to defeating communism.

As noted on this blog before, there are a couple of current policies of the Republican Party that I think would have been abhorent to Ronald Reagan. As much as I dislike them though, I stay a Repubilican for the same reason that he stayed a Republican . . . and that Abe Lincoln stayed an American even while the scourge of slavery was the law of the land in part of our nation. Nothing is perfect no matter how great. This nation has always been the greatest nation on earth because of the concept of individual freedom which has been fostered by the form of government our forefathers created for us. While slavery was the law of the land, we were not living up to our highest ideals. However at the right time, 500,000 Americans died for the abstract concept of freedom for others. That is part of why America is great. Today we are fighting for our own freedom, and freedom for others.

The Republican Party is the one party that is committed to that form of government that inspires people to die for abstract intellectual ideals. It has been such since Abe Lincoln and others created the Republican Party 150 years ago.

As noted in this article, we are in a war. If we do stupid things we could lose that war and lose our freedom in the process.

Mike Reagan ends his article with:
Let me say this. There has been plenty of battling in the primaries, and I’ve been in the middle of the battle, but until now haven’t committed myself to any candidate, waiting until we had a nominee.

That’s over.

If John McCain is the nominee of the party, this Reagan will happily campaign with him. The alternative is unthinkable to anyone who loves this nation.

I agree.


Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Today We Made It Official

I have been planning to run for congress since last November 13th. I made the decision after taking a few months to consider the implications of the campaign and what it would cost in time and effort. However everything until now has been like preseason. Today we made it official. We started the day in Windsor at the Board of Elections office for Bertie County. There we picked up the forms needed and had Shirley Davenport, Bertie County's Director of Elections (a super nice lady who does her job impressively) validate that we were registered in Bertie County. She also notarized the form listing the name that I would use on the ballot, "Dean Stephens".




Next Bud Lee and I drove to Raleigh to file the forms. Bud offered to ride along because it was such a long drive for such a short stay.




When we arrived it was already after 12:00 and luckily there was only one other candiate ahead of me in the line. That candidate was Joe Johnson, who is running for Supernintendent of Public Instruction. I met Joe last fall at the Al-Pam Conservative Club Christmas Party.




The young lady who was handling candidate filings was very helpful and agreed to pose for a picture of me handing over the filing fee.




Next I had to get the Campaign Finance Instructions, and validate that I had received them. 10 minutes in Raleigh and we were all done. Since we were well ahead of schedule, Bud and I decided to drop by the campaign offices of Fred Smith who is running for Governor and say hello to couple of friends. Jonathan Hill, Fred's Campaign manager was there and we talked a little politics.




After that, Bud and I headed home. Bud is the Fire Chief at Perrytown and he was committed to an evening training session, so being ahead of schedule meant he would have some time before he had to attend. I really appreciated his riding along. It would have been a boring ride otherwise. Thanks Bud.


Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Obama's Commie Confederates?

Little Green Football discovers something very interesting.

Republicans campaigning for president in South Carolina are routinely called upon to take a position against the Palmetto State's flying of the Confederate battle flag near the Capitol in Columbia. Imagine what would happen if reporters found the stars and bars flying in a GOP candidate's campaign office. Some campaign worker would be out of a job, and the candidate himself would have great difficulty living it down.




Not surprisingly, this is a story about media double standards. The Little Green Footballs blog notes that cameras from Houston's
KRIV-TV caught a glimpse of a different invidious flag hanging on the wall of what the narrator describes as a new Barack Obama campaign office in Texas' largest city. During a report on the run-up to the March 4 Texas primary, the KRIV camera pans past a Cuban flag with an image of Che Guevara, an ally of communist dictator Fidel Castro. Guevara presided over show trials and executions of Castro enemies after the communist takeover of Cuba in 1959 before leaving Cuba in 1965 to foment terror and revolution elsewhere in the Third World.

Does Che Guevara symbolize the kind of "change" Barack Obama wants to bring to America?

Obama's Web site announces that the office is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign." But it is yet another indication of how creepy his supporters tend to be. And, as we said, if this were a Republican and a Confederate flag, the calls for him to denounce it would be deafening by now.


Obama Skirts The 'L' Word

by Diana West - February 8th, 2008 - Townhall.com

The National Journal ranked Sen. Barack Obama the No. 1 liberal U.S. senator of 2007. Sen. Hillary Clinton came in somewhat less left-wing at No. 16.

Horrors. According to his press notices, Obama isn't supposed to be any kind of a liberal at all -- let alone "Number One" -- but rather the great non-partisan hand-holder and country re-maker. As in: "We (have to) decide to join hands and remake this country."

Liberal. Extremist. Liberal and extremist are the two words that describe Obama and neither is being used by the MSM to describe him. It is hard to understand why. Listen to him and it is clear the remake of our nation Obama intends is to end free enterprise and turn control of our nation over to government bureacrats. What was it Ronald Reagan said? Beware of anyone who says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

They never are. It is all about power, just as it is about power for Obama. Barack Obama is anti-war. Militantly anti-war for America, just like all of his socialist backers. The anti-war movement here in America has never been honestly anti-war. They are simply anti-war for America. War by anyone against us is always okay.

You can take this to the bank. Barack Obama is exremely partisan just like every other extremist liberal who hates our economic system. Barrack Obama hates free enterprise America. He loves what America can become after he changes it. What does he want to change it to? The same socialist system that has failed everywhere it has been tried. Change you can believe in is not new after all. It is change to the same socialist state the democrats are always pushing for. What is new about that? The happy smile that Obama uses to explain the changes he wants to make?

Meet the liberal extremist Barack Obama. The happy hater.


Fred Smith BBQs Getting Larger
As Campaign Heats Up

Kinston High School in Lenoir County was a milestone for the Senator Fred Smith 100 County BBQ Tour, the 68th BBQ Tour event was the last BBQ of 2007. Click on the title to this article above and you can see from the map Fred has been to every region of North Carolina as the sea of red on the map indicates.

However as the Tour comes to its close, the BBQs of 2008 are getter bigger and bigger. One of the last in our area is about to happen, and it is generating huge excitement. On Monday February 25th, 2008 at 6:30 PM Fred Smith is coming to the Vernon James Center in Plymouth, Washington Couty, North Carolina.




Fred always talks about why he is going to the effort to visit all 100 counties in North Carolina at least once each during this primary campaign. He tells about growing up in the Methodist Orphanage in Raleigh, and the struggles in business which ultimately were rewarded by success.




What is clear is how many people are coming to love this man as they get to know him well. As the campaign covers the state more and more people are showing up. Last night they had the 89th BBQ in this incredible effort to get out and meet the people of NC. Click here to read the News & Observer article about the event.





As usual Fred's speech was interrupted by applause on many occasions as Fred hit on the points that people really care about.

When he finishes his speech there are always a great number of people who want Fred to autograph his biography for them.

Fred really lives the theme of his autobiography, "The difference between good and great is a little extra effort."

The Washington County BBQ is going to be a great campaign rally for all the people who are coming to love this great man. Come out on February 25th to meet Fred Smith personally. You will not be sorry you did. This is going to be a huge rally as the 100 County BBQ Tour comes to an end.


Monday, February 11, 2008

Chris East Announces Campaign At
Historic Chowan County Courthouse

Chris East, our Republican candidate for the North Carolina state house from district two, announced his candidacy today on the steps of the historic Chowan County Courthouse. The district two state House seat covers Chowan, Washington, Hyde and Dare Counties.




At 11 AM, Chris was in Plymouth at the Board of Elections Office to pay his filling fee and he then spoke on the courthouse steps there in Plymouth.




Next stop at 3 PM, Chris East (shown above) had his formal announcement on the front steps of the Chowan County Court House. Bob Steinburg, Republican Chairman for Chowan County introduced Chris.

Chris spoke with great passion about his concerns for the mismanagement of education in North Carolina and the district. He also spoke about the problems with corruption in the democrat party in our area of North Carolina. He hit a number of themes that he promised would be the focus of his campaign for the 2nd District.




After the announcment speech, Chris (shown below) went to the Chowan Herald offices to have his picture taken and meet the Publisher Bob Piazza III.




For the final event of the day, Robert Steinburg, "A Conservative Viewpoint" author, held a reception for Chris' supporters at his home in Edenton.





At the top of the steps, arriving for the reception, are Bill Schultz, Bob Steinburg, Chris East, Eddy Browning and Glenna Browning.




The reception was great, with great food and a warm fire. A perfect conclusion to an enjoyable series of events.


Sunday, February 10, 2008

Williams Is Dangerous.
He Must Be Resisted

The Archbishop's ideas on Sharia and autonomy for faith communities are badly misguided

by Matthew Parris - February 9th, 2008 - The London Times

"You say," said Lord Napier (confronted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in India by locals protesting against the suppression of suttee) "that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

[snip]

Properly understood, the effect of devolving national law and national morality to local and group level is profoundly conservative. Dr Williams's ideas really represent the wilder fringes of a bigger idea: communitarianism. Communitarianism can come in a surplice, a yarmulka or from a minaret and is all the more dangerous because armed with a divine rather than a local loyalty. It almost always proves a repressive and reactionary force, fearful of competitors, often anti-science, sometimes sceptical of knowledge itself, and grudging towards the State.

There is absolutely nothing “left-wing” or woolly-liberal about empowering it. A Britain in which Muslim communities policed themselves would be more ruthlessly policed, and probably more law-abiding than today. But it would be a Britain in which the individual Muslim - maybe female, maybe ambitious, maybe gay, maybe a religious doubter - would lose their chances of rescue from his or her family or community by the State.

The State, not family, faith or community, is the guarantor of personal liberty and intellectual freedom, and it will always be to the State, not the Church, synagogue or mosque, that the oppressed individual needs look.

Liberty and freedom are not simple. As this article suggests, a secular state guaranteeing the freedoms granted to man by God is arguably a conservative principal when the state has always been reasonably fair in its enforcement of these protections. Even here in America, the guarantee of freedom of religion in the Constitution provides freedom FROM religion to those who do not want to be coerced into worship. And as this new confrontation in England shows, there are powerful moral arguments to blur the line.

What is more important? The liberty to not worship or the liberty to enforce church rules? The always blurry line previously allowed any of us here in America to say what we wanted. Now of course the "secularists" in the democrat party argue that to listen to anyone express admiration for our private God is oppressive to the listener. That is a huge movement of the line. Is it fair that a socialist can argue his unreasoned belief in an economic system that has repeatedly failed but a Christian cannot argue his belief in creationism?

Two sentences in this article need to be challenged with intellectual force. 1 - "It [the church] almost always proves a repressive and reactionary force, fearful of competitors, often anti-science, sometimes sceptical of knowledge itself, and grudging towards the State." 2 - " . . . it will always be to the State, not the Church, synagogue or mosque, that the oppressed individual needs look."

The truth or falsity of these two statements is dependent on the relative level of respect for liberty and freedom by the two institutions, the church in question versus the state in question. There is no universal respect for liberty and freedom by the state. I even challenge the accuracy of this statement when applied to a specific state, the democracy of the United Kingdom, as the writer implied. Nor is it true today about America.

Here in America we have granted freedom of religion in our Constitution. However when secularists redefine freedom of religion to be freedom from religion in the absolute they can use it to suppress the rights of Christians against all others simply because they are the majority. At this point a backlash is needed. The state is the ultimate power. As has been proved time and time again, only a universal demand for liberty by the power of a state will assure it. In America, the power is the vote. Our freedom is dependent on the people wanting freedom for everyone. The question is do they still want that?

We need to return to the time when freedom warriors fought for freedom for all more than political power for themselves. That concern for freedom is not reality in America today as freedom is thought to be so secure people can be blase about it. People just assume the state will assure freedom. The premise that freedom is secure is frightening. As our founders warned us, freedom must be secured by each generation. Even more important though is the need to make sure it is freedom for all and not freedom for some small group but denied to others. This article is a reminder of how complicated freedom can be and how easily we can lose it to those who rationalize their justifications.

If you want to live in a state that tells you how to live, fail for one generation to respect liberty and freedom for all.


Saturday, February 09, 2008

Biofuels Deemed A Greenhouse Threat

by Elisabeth Rosenthal - February 8th, 2008 - The New York Times

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

[snip]

The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”

This was predicted by numerous scientists when the original hysteria about bio-fuels was being proposed. However no one would listen because no studies had been done. Now that the studies have been done, you can be sure that the enviro-hysterics will denounce the studies and ignore their results, just as they have with all previous studies that indicated the evidence justifying the hysteria simply does not exist.

For the record, Mars is experiencing global warming, and no one has been able to explain how man could cause it. That questions whether man is causing global warming on earth. And during the Renaisance, world temperatures were warmer than today and none of the dire consequences happened then. In fact it was a great period for man since food production soared. Why was it great for man then but will be a disaster this time?

Global warming is happening. However those who insist man is causing it with greenhouse gases are basing their claim on junk science . . . or as Al Gore does, on total lies. Sort of like the stupid way they rushed us into bio-fuels when the research had not been done. Now it turns out bio-fuels are a short term disaster. Remember that the next time some enviro extremist starts their chicken little mantra.


The Great Neo-Con

Now that you have a guy who could actually win, you don’t want him.

by David Kahane - February 8th, 2008 - National Review Online


You conservatives make me laugh.

Here you have a war hero taking control of your party — a real one, not like our guy last time, what was his name, you know, “Mr. Sixteen Weeks” — and you’re acting like he’s some weird combination of William Howard Taft and Leon Trotsky. Sure, he’s a little nutty after all those years getting his bones re-broken every six months at the Hanoi Hilton, and his hand more or less grazed the cookie jar during the Keating Five scandal, but compared to Mrs. Kazakhstan and the guy who has Tony Rezko for a slumlord, he’s as clean as a freshly wiped baby’s bottom.

[snip]

As for Herself, well… if your side can’t beat a little woman who’s been fighting for change at the highest levels of state and national government for 35 years and hasn’t accomplished a damn thing; who’s a thinly disguised end-run around the 22nd Amendment on behalf of her husband, and who’s a willing helpmate in what’s basically an international criminal enterprise based in the old gangland town of Hot Springs, Ark., then you’re too stupid to elect a president.


I don't know if the writer is really liberal or not, but this is funny!

McCain’s Life Experiences Will Suit Road Ahead

by Jim Wooten - February 8th, 2008 - Atlanta Journal Consitution

A man who survives torture and five years in a prisoner of war camp most assuredly has the constitution to withstand determined opposition. That opposition comes from unrelenting critics on the left — and from an impatient citizenry grown unaccustomed to the steadfastness required to defeat an often abstract enemy. We are a nation of rationalizers, skeptics and negotiators best defined by Rodney King: “People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?”

We should live in terror that the U.S. president sitting across the bargaining table from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or committing to Israel’s security, or confronting the ambitions of Hugo Chavez, is animated by Pollyannish notions that words and good intentions can substitute for power and resolve. We can’t get along if you want to kill us — and we can’t co-exist if the desire translates into deeds.

The second point about McCain’s life experiences is that with the staying power comes the necessity to understand what is being asked of those who will fight America’s war. In the decades since the draft ended, the nation has rested its national defense burden on volunteers. The result is that key gaps exist in the exposure that most Americans have to the military. We honor and support them, but I don’t think we really know them.

The media are torn between whether to treat them all as heroes or as emotionally damaged victims who need our sympathy and considerable therapy. Most are neither.

I’d welcome a president who knows them, who understands without glorifying the mundane, who connects — who knows firsthand how utterly dishonorable it would be to abandon a cause for which good men and women have died. A president who can be their voice to people who don’t really know them, can ensure that they are not strangers whose sacrifices are betrayed to arbitrary timetables and political expediency.

John McCain is a great American patriot. John McCain is also a man with a huge ego who thinks he is better than you and I. There is a well known belief that your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness. If McCain understands that he could be the salvation of our nation at this time of war. If he fails . . .

However with two socialists (one of them totally against America winning this war) as the opposition candidates, John McCain is our only reasonable choice.


Friday, February 08, 2008

Conservatives Ready to Support McCain

by Ronald Kessler - February 8th, 2008 - Newsmax.com

John McCain made a sale at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

To be sure, there were scattered boos as he tried to make nice to the conservatives he declined to speak to last year.

Some conservatives said they could never bring themselves to vote for a man who voted against President Bush’s tax cuts, was responsible for the campaign finance law, and pushed for amnesty for illegal immigrants. But I talked with dozens of conservative leaders after McCain’s talk, and every one of them thought the Arizona senator sounded the right notes in his speech and said they felt inclined to support him.

What was impressive about McCain’s speech was its sincerity.

I have not been a fan of John McCain for quite a while but that has more to do with his embracing moderate positions on certain issues where I simply disagree. On only a couple of issues has McCain done things that I think are liberal and that really got me mad.

Those two issues?

One, supporting amnesty for people who have entered our nation illegally. I don't believe that John McCain truly appreciates that this invasion is intentional and political, not economic as it is portrayed.

Two, supporting restricting political speech if liberal bureaucrats feel you are wrong. The idea that an elections commission populated by government employees, overwhelmingly democrats, make the decision of whether I can spend money at the end of a campaign is simply grotesque.

On most other issues where we disagree, McCain's position is simply annoying. In most cases it is the reality that McCain is not sufficiently intellectual to understand the evil of socialism. He has not accepted that the failure everywhere it has been tried is evidence enough to oppose socialism.

However during the primary campaign, we have been focused on the disagreements with candidates that we don't support. Now that McCain has been selected, it is important to also recognize the issues on which we agree. I don't believe anyone still in the campaign will be the equal of McCain in fighting the war against the Islamo-fascists. Nuclear bombs have an amazing ability to focus the mind. Thinking about what will happen if we allow the Islamo-fascists to think they are winning and encouraging them to send nuclear bombs to finish the war make it simply a no- brainer. Of the credible candidates left, John McCain is my candidate based on this issue alone.


Thursday, February 07, 2008

Talk Radio Fails Conservatives

by Cliff Kincaid - February 6th, 2008 - Accuracy in Media

Our book, The Death of Talk Radio?, warned about the threat posed by liberals trying to pass into law the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Little did we know that its viability would be in jeopardy from conservatives upset over major figures in talk radio playing favorites in the Republican presidential race. The conservative talk-radio assault on John McCain and Mike Huckabee has backfired in a big way.

Supporters of Huckabee are so angry that they have launched a "Send it Back" campaign, asking people who have copies of books by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to send them back to their authors. They're angry that Limbaugh and Hannity were trashing Huckabee on the air.

Huckabee supporters were angry before the talk radio figures started attacking Huckabee. They started this venomous war and the conservative movement is paying the price. Acting like they are reacting to attacks by traditional conservatives is bizarre. Even before Huckabee's victory in Iowa, the social conservatives started SCREAMING at the Republican Party that they were "mad as hell" and anyone who did not support Huckabee better get out of the way. Their claim that they have previously been disrespected is a joke. How can they claim that George Bush is not one of theirs? Those of us who have been disgusted with Bush and his socialist light "compassionate conservative" message were told loudly to shut up and get in line.

Though I agree with most of Huckabee's positions, especially his position on fair taxes, he has failed to win my support on key points. These include his socialist support for entitlements, his open borders defense of illegal immigration (now repudiated) and his clear lack of appreciation for the potential for nuclear destruction if we do not win the war against radical Islam (Islamo-fascism). I am not an enthusiastic supporter but I could vote for him, long before I could vote for McCain. I have some close friends who are supporters and do it with class. However many of his supporters have sent me numerous emails filled with hate and invective accusing me of believing things I do not believe and denouncing me for not getting in line because they are DUE their turn on top of the Republican Party. (These are emails from Christians?) I still do not understand how they can claim that Bush was not their candidate and their failure to accept they have been on top of the Republican Party for nearly a decade. How can we accept their claim we have disrespected them?

I don't trust John McCain. He is an arrogant hot headed know-it-all who is too intellectually inferior to understand the underpinnings of issues such as free speech, political corruption of our courts, knowing invasion by Hispanics for the purpose of destroying our borders and the lack of credibility that man is causing global warming on Mars.

Huckabee is clearly sucking up to John McCain to try and get the VP slot.

I am not a huge Romney fan, but I could support him. However Romney is gone. I was not happy with Giuliani but I thought he was the best candidate on the issue of the Islamo-fascist war (except McCain who I can't stand for personal reasons noted above). Giuliani is gone. McCain is winning. It is over. As much as I am personally unhappy with the option, I will vote for McCain in the fall. And yet there stands Huckabee and his supporters, tearing at the Republican Party with a viciousness that is unexplainable. They are still furious and attacking what they see as their enemies. They see those of us in the Republican Party (most of whom agree with most of their platform and positions) as people who they insist are not respecting them. They have made me their enemy because they will not even tolerate one iota of disagreement with their agenda.

It is the reason that I wonder how long the current Republican Party can stand? I wonder where the social conservatives (especially evangelicals) think they will go if the Party disintegrates? I wonder who they will align with if they continue to rail at the traditional conservatives who oppose socialism and support free enterprise? Why do they think I am their enemy?

I think of myself as an optimist. Right now I am standing befuddled as to how I see the glass as half full when my Party is disintegrating.

Some Huckabee supporters are becoming a threat to the future of my country if my party is right on the issues. Do they think we can unite the party as long as they continue their venomous war?