Danny.Riley.Blog

Cloudy With a Chance of – What did he Just Say?

2009-10-05T16:22:00.001-05:00

(I know, it’s been forever since I’ve blogged here. That’s all I’m going to say about it.) :)

So we took the kids on a “family date” to see “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” the other day. It looked funny in the previews and it had been while since we tested Roland’s ability to sit still for an hour and a half. Yes, it was funny. And yes! Roland sat still for the most part.

However, 10 minutes or so in the movie, someone referred to the town that the movie was about as a “hell hole”.

What??

The movie was based on a children’s book. Think “hell hole” was in the book? Somehow I doubt it. Fortunately the rest of the movie went fine.

This got me thinking today about how different things are these days. I don’t remember my parents having to worry about what new phrase I might repeat after going to see a KIDS movie when I was young. Maybe they did. I know there was a lot of…um…adult…innuendo then, as there is now, but outright bad language? I’m not so sure. And to tell the truth, I doubt movies like Shrek that are full of innuendo would have been accepted by a lot of parents when I was young.

Sometimes we will watch and older cartoon with the kids and we’ll notice how one character might call another one an idiot or call them stupid. And we are floored that we were allowed to watch things like that. Yet, we barely notice when the word “hell hole” is used in a movie.

This is light in comparison, but it is something else I think about a lot. We were watching Mickey Mouse Clubhouse with the kids a couple of months ago and Goofy said, “You know what, chicken butt” to another character. Now, I’ll be honest. I laughed my butt off when he did that. :) And being more honest I’ll admit that I say that to my kids a lot now. But I can remember a time in my life when “butt” was off limits. Now it’s being said on Mickey Mouse Clubhouse!

And don’t even get me started on the state of “family hour” programming, if there is such a thing any more. There’s another word for “butt” that is off limits for my kids that you can’t watch a show with anyone over 18 as a character and not hear it. We like to settle down with the kids at night and watch a few minutes of what we consider a “safe” show. If it is a show that Beverly or I actually care to watch, it usually is a cake decorating or cooking type show. But those still have language that is unnecessary.

Why is every curse word except the F-word fair game these days? Oh, except for god da**. They can say the D-word but not God in front of it. Classy, huh? I just don’t get it.

We’ve pretty much taken the approach that it’s impossible to shield our kids from this kind of language now. Kinda sad, but that’s the reality for us anyway. We’ve scaled back the TV shows we watch significantly but as I said it’s pretty much unavoidable unless we stopped turning the TV on altogether. While that may be tempting at times, I don’t think it would really solve the problem either. It would delay it though I suppose.

If they repeat a word that shouldn’t then we tell them never to do it again and why. It actually has worked pretty well so far. Any time someone says, “Oh my God” on TV (and you know, they aren’t actually talking to God), one of the kids will point that out and say, “they shouldn’t say that, Daddy”. So that gives me some comfort. I do just wish it wasn’t so easy for kids to hear that kind of stuff though.

Oh well. This wasn’t really about anything other than some rambling. You probably wish you had your 5 minutes back now. Sorry. :) Feel free to chime in with thoughts if you have any.

Question: What lessons do you hope to instill in your kids?

2009-06-18T08:05:00.004-05:00

(Note - This is mostly a rant sessioin. Obviously I want to instill a lot more than just these two lessons in my kids.)

1. When you get married, MOVE OUT!
I've noticed a bit of a trend lately with some youngins getting married and then moving in with one of their parents instead of moving out on their own. Observe this passage in scripture:

Genesis 2:24 - For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

It doesn't get any more clear than that, folks. When you get married, you need to be on your own with your new spouse. I'm sorry if I offend someone out there, but that's how I feel.

The only exception I will make to this is if my kids have found a place to stay and the wedding date happens to be before they can move in. While that could be considered poor planning on their part, I'm not going to be crazy with this rule. But they don't need to get married with the intent of staying with me indefinitely. I'm sorry, but once they have decided to live with someone else, they've decided not to live with me.

The main lesson I'd want to teach here is that when they get married, they need to be ready to build their lives together on their own. And I don't think moving in with their parents and still having some dependence on them is a good way to do that. I'd love for my kids to live close to me when they get married. Just not with me.

2. If you aren't legally allowed to get married without my permission, WAIT!
Along the same lines as that last one - I've seen a couple of people get married before they are 18 and thus ask their parents to sign a paper saying they are allowed to do so. Again, I don't want to offend anyone, but that's just crazy to me.

I don't see any harm in waiting. Maybe that's because I started dating my future wife in high school and we didn't get married until we were 21. I can simply say that we were definitely not ready to get married before we were 18 even though it is obvious we would still be married now.

The main lesson I'd want to teach my kids with this one is that they need to make sure they are really ready to face the world on their own. And I don't think anyone can claim that at 17 years of age or younger in this day and age.

Question: What's a good book to read at the beach?

2009-06-15T07:39:00.002-05:00

So it seems like every week one of my friends on Facebook is saying they are going to the beach. School is out and a ton of people choose the beach as their summer vacation destination. My wife and I are planning a trip to the beach later this year. If I had not already read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, it would have been perfect for our trip.

Why? Simple reason really. It is a BIG BOOK!

The book pictured is 1192 pages. So you could start it and pretty much guarantee yourself that you will not ever finish it while you are on your trip. It took me a very long time to read it. I think my wife read like 5 books in the time it took me to read that one.

Plus it's a really good book too. I read it last year because I heard it mentioned a lot during the presidential primaries. Even though it was written over 50 years ago, it is very relevant today.

To summarize the plot - The political leaders of our country keep passing laws to control/restrict our businesses. To the point that the executives of those businesses shrug their shoulders (hence the title) and leave. As that happens, the world starts to fall apart.

It is a very political book. But I think the story is good even if you don't care for the politics very much. And even though I felt Ayn Rand may have over-exaggerated the problems with a government that goes out of control, I think it gives interesting insights on what can happen when we give up the freedom's that our forefathers fought so hard to secure for us. And it definitely can give a different perspective on how politicians can spin even the worst ideas and situations into something positive.

I should mention that it is not a Christian novel. Ayn Rand was an atheist and she takes several jabs at religion in this book. If you can't or don't want to read anything with that type of content, then don't get this book. I will say that I think she makes some good points, but clearly I disagree with most of her perspective there.

Anyway, if you are planning a trip to the beach and would like a book that you can get lost in while relaxing in the sun, I think this is a good one. Just be sure to pack some sunscreen. :)

Question: What activity or behavior should be a crime?

2009-05-28T09:02:00.001-05:00

I think the vast majority of reasons that people use for honking their car horn constitutes being a crime. In my opnion, car horns could pretty much be removed and roads would be much safer than they are now.

Some examples:

- Honking your horn at the driver next to you while driving down the interstate to because you recognize them and want to give them a shout out. Um, have you ever thought that staring at them and causing them to stare at you means their are two people NOT STARING AT THE ROAD?? Not to mention that this behavior often causes windows to be rolled down and people to try to talk to each other. Oh, and the potential effect of startling the other drivers around you. So yeah, very dangerous.

- Honking your horn to get the person in front of you to move at a green light if they happened to be doing something like blinking when the light turned green. Give them a few seconds people!

- Honking your horn because someone doesn't drive the way you think they should. Okay, I know that cars were created so your awesome skills could be put on display, but give the rest of us a break. Sure, there are a ton of folks out there who probably should not have a license, but honking your horn at them is not going to make them realize that. And again, it probably scares the and everyone else who you are not directing your anger at.

I'm sure car horns had a purpose when cars were first invented, but I find them very unnecessary now. And I think if we can be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt which places no one but ourselves in danger, then there should be tickets for honking your horn for stupid reasons which could definitely harm others.

Question: What would be the pros and cons of legalizing Marijuana?

2009-05-18T07:51:00.001-05:00

This is a question that gets brought up a lot lately. I guess that will continue as Marijuana use gets to be more accepted. I remember not too long ago that pot use was considered to be much the same as many other illegal drugs. Now, especially since it's been approved for some medicinal applications, very few people seem to be surprised when they hear about or see another person smoking pot.

Do I think Marijuana should be legal? Well really the question is - should ANY DRUG be illegal? The Libertarian in me would love to say that there should be no laws against drug use. And to tell the truth, I'd go along with that if people could be trusted to be responsible with drugs and alcohol. But I'm already scared enough to drive at certain times at night when statistics show more people are likely to be driving under the influence of alcohol. So while I think it is really unconsitutional to prohibit any drug use, it's not really practical to say anything goes. If we are all being honest, the laws against the "hard" drugs are there to protect everyone involved. Yes, I know the argument that if you made them legal then the excitement about breaking the law would go away and then people would be more responsible. But I can't say I see that's the case with alcohol even though it's legal. There would have to be a limit on the legal use of these other drugs, as there is with alcohol. That limit would still be broken and lives would still be shattered, as it is with alcohol.

So I guess the way I'm going answer this question is to say that legalizing Marijuana would have the same pros and cons as legalizing alcohol does...

Pros:

- More people would know what the limits are and would consider the consequenses of breaking those limits.

- Taking pot off the street and putting it into the hands of regulators would likely help more responsible people from getting into too much trouble with the drug. For instance, if pot could be categorized like beer, wine, hard liquor is now, people would know how much they can take to fall within the legal limits.

- Realizing that you have a problem with addiction to pot and getting help would be easier than it is now. In that at least you can admit it and people will be somewhat more accepting. Much like alcohol is now. Let's face it - if you admit a problem with something that is legal like alcohol or gambling, people look at you differently than if you admit a problem with something illegal like pot or cocaine.

Cons

- Well, think about all of the cons related to alcohol being legal. Again, lives are shattered every day by alcohol use. People are killed. Families are broken apart.

- I can't say I know much about the effects of marijuana use. For instance, how many joints would it take to have the general side effects of a can of beer? Or should that question be the other way around (how much beer = 1 joint)? Sure, it depends on the individual user's tolerance but you see what I am getting at. I'm left to assume that marijuana is generally stronger than your basic alcoholic beverage. That being the case, then we are introducing a more dangerous drug into our society. There would clearly be consequences to that.

- All of the drugs in this discussion are gateway drugs. A little bit of alcohol many times leads to wanting more alcohol, or stronger alcohol. So a little bit of pot would likely lead to wanting more pot, or stronger pot.

So in summary - in a perfect world, marijuana would be legal because people would take it responsibly. But we are not in a perfect world so it's probably best to have as few legal drugs as possible.

Question: What's the least fun you've ever had at a place that was supposed to be fun?

2009-05-01T12:53:00.001-05:00

Ok, I know I know. I was gonna blog more and then I stopped blogging....Again. Sorry. Ok, enough of that. Let's get on with the answer...

The year was 2001. Beverly (my wife) and I were in our early 20s. We still sorta followed the music that was popular at that time. Several bands we liked were going to be there. Creed was one of the headliners and we really liked them. Here is the lineup that year if you would like a little bit of nostalgia.

http://www.thebealestreetmusicfestival.com/2000-bealestreetmusicfestivallineup.htm

So us and another couple bought tickets. We were really excited. This was the first year where they had three days of music by a bunch of artists we actually like. Should be a lot of fun, right?

Wrong.

So the first night we get there and the main band we wanted to see was Creed. We thought we'd bring our lounge chairs and find a place to set up and just enjoy the scenery for a little while until an hour or so before Creed was supposed to take the stage. That didn't work out at all. For one, no chairs allowed. For two (is that even a term? oh well), it started raining really hard soon after we got there. And when I say hard I mean I think a tornado was close or something. We were watching Percy Sledge (of "When a Man Loves a Woman" fame - yeah, that time slot was pretty weak) and the bottom fell out. Completely miserable.

So after the rain stopped a bit, the ground was muddy. Not Woodstock muddy I guess, but still pretty darn muddy. And tons of people started flowing in the place. Before long, it was pretty much shoulder to shoulder traffic across the entire park.

Oh, and I haven't mentioned the alcohol. Now, I understand that those types of events are for partying and drinking. And even though we weren't really into that kind of thing, we knew most of the people there would be. What we did not expect was the huge crowd that basically made it impossible not to get stuff poured all over you. I think we had as much beer on us as the other folks had in them.

So anyway, we make our way over to the stage where Creed was going to be performing. The band performing at the time had just came on. Their name was Sevendust. I think I'll call them Satan's Minions or some such name like that though because they sounded more like something straight out of Lucifer's lair than anything I'd ever experienced before. Lots of yelling and screaming. Several fans in the crowd with bongs and who knows what else. Scared us to death (almost literally it felt like).

Good times.

So Satan gets off the stage and we wait for Creed to show up.

And wait...

And wait...

It's so long that one of our group decides to go back to the car and wait for us to be done. Yeah, he decided hanging out in a parking garage by himself would be more fun than waiting on and eventually watching one of the top bands of that day perform.

So Creed finally performs. Still a ton of people. Not as many crazy folks doing drugs in our area anyway, but it was really crowded and people were shoving and spilling beer all over us. Creed put on an ok show from what I recall and from what we were able to catch between watching them and trying not to get trampled on.

By the end of the night, we were completely exhausted. We went back the next couple days but didn't stay long either day really. It kept raining and the crowds were still crazy. But we had spent the money and there were a few bands we wanted to see so we braved the elements for those few bands and left ASAP each day.

That was the first and only time I've ever been to the Beale Street Music Festival. And the last time too. Never again. Never. Again.

When people tell us they are going and act excited we pretty much laugh in their face now. We are clearly not the type of people who that event is meant for. And that's fine by us.

A Quick Reminder

2009-04-15T12:46:00.001-05:00

Ok, so this blog isn't titled Danny Is RIGHT any more, but the fact is that I'm still RIGHT. The proof is all over the news today. I just finished browsing around the news and here are some of the headlines:

From DrudgeReport - "TAX DAY BECOMES PROTEST DAY"
From CNN - "'Tax Day Tea Party' protesters gather in Washington. Watch Now: Live on CNN.com"
From NPR - "Why Protest Big Government With Tea On Tax Day?"

I could go on and on, but when I say all over the news I really mean it. Browse around just a little bit and you'll see it. Watch the news on TV today or tonight and it will be on there.

In case you don't get to it and the news passes, here is an article that explains it pretty well and should be accessible for a while. Basically, "Tea Party" protests are being organized across the country today to rise up against high taxes and our government's crazy spending and over-reaching influence in our lives.

So why does this mean I was RIGHT. Observe some quotes from some of my previous blog entries:

From this entry:

So lets say Obama wins and the scenario I mention above happens over the next two years. We'd have a Democrat Congress that isn't doing what their constituents want them to do and an already angered Conservative\Republican base. Which means that we have a great chance at major changes to Congress in just two years. Liberals likely will not put up challengers to the Democrats, and they may be angry enough not to vote (just like conservatives did two years ago and likely will do again this year). But REAL conservative candidates will start to surface. And they will take seats away from the Democrats. They may even challenge the Republicans and win, thus making the party more conservative.

From this entry

I also think it's interesting that some of the most moderate Republicans lost their seats last night. Everything is being set up nicely for a major movement back to the RIGHT. The Democrats will not lead this country in the direction that their liberal constituents want them to, but their agenda will be liberal enough to fire up a conservative backlash. We've voted out the folks on "our side" who weren't conservative enough. Now it's time to go back to the drawing board and find the folks that are.

And one more (which is really a quote from somewhere else but it was on my blog so I'll take semi-credit :))

In the past two years, I found that when the young people heard the message of liberty, they overwhelmingly responded favorably, fully realizing the failure of the status quo and the need to once again endorse a system of self reliance, personal responsibility, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy while rejecting the cradle-to-grave nanny state all based on the rule of law and the Constitution.

To ignore the political struggle and only "hope for the best" is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

All those who care -- and especially those who understand the stakes involved -- have an ominous responsibility to energetically get involved in the battle of survival for a free and prosperous America.

So clearly something is brewing. These Tea Parties have nothing to do with Republicans (although the GOP sure is trying to get some credit in every way possible). They have nothing to do with Democrats. They have everything to do with AMERICANS who are getting FED UP with our government trying more and more to control our lives.

This sentiment originated with the original Boston Tea Party of course. And although it isn't being mentioned much today, Ron Paul supporters held some Tea Parties over a year ago that are likely where the organizational roots of today's protests come from.

This has the potential to escalate to exactly what I predicted during the final stages of the last presidential election. These protests are going to cause politicians to take notice. And they will create future politicians. This potential not only makes me RIGHT, but it also makes our country better.

Question: What are you doing to help the environment?

2009-04-05T08:31:00.001-05:00

Well. actually, not a whole lot.

I don't use compact fluorescent lights because I can't get past the warnings on the box (if you have no idea what i am talking about, take some time to read up on how dangerous CFLs can be).

I don't buy carbon offsets and likely never will. I don't think the amount of harm we are supposedly doing to our environment can truly be measured. And if it could, what's the guarantee that we can fix it by planting trees (or by paying someone to plant them)?

I don't plant trees. I don't even have any trees in my yard. However, I would like to plant a couple in my yard sometime. I doubt I'll ever participate in an event where people plant trees just for the environment though.

I don't drive a hybrid. Too expensive right now. There are only a couple of models where you can expect the premium on price to match the gas savings. Plus I'm perfectly happy with the payment I have on the vehicles I have now that get around 25 mpg. Which is $0 per month.

And I don't take public transit. It's not offered in my area. If it was, I doubt I'd take it every day. I wouldn't mind car pooling if someone wanted to keep my 10 hour day work schedule. Even then, not sure I would do that every day.

So I guess you get the point. I'm clearly not all that concerned about the environment. Do I support measures do use clean energy? Sure. As long as they don't force me into something that alters my lifestyle too much. I'd love to reduce our dependence on oil, coal, etc. I'm all for wind and solar energy . But only when the technologies have been established enough to make the transition easy and not too costly.

The main problem I have with most of the environmental talk today is all of the scare tactics that are being used. When I was a kid, there was a hole in the Ozone. Now, there is Global Warming. I believe we were supposedly in danger of an Ice Age before we had a hole in the Ozone. What will they find next when they determine that the Earth maybe isn't warming like they thought it was? And what will they try to force on us to "keep it from getting worst", or to "protect our planet so our kids and grandkids can enjoy it"?

Quick note about Coach Cal

2009-03-30T13:35:00.001-05:00

Ok, so I'm reading\hearing a lot of folks saying that Coach Cal will not take a job offer from Kentucky because of some commitment to Memphis or because his family wants to stay here.

That's wishful thinking, folks. He may have stuck around in previous years because his daughter attended school here. But she's in college now. I don't think being as close to her is near as important now as it may have been before.

As for the commitment to Memphis, it's very true that he has built the program here. If he stays long enough, he could build a lasting legacy for himself and the program. Much like has been done at schools like Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, etc.

So, I put the odds of him leaving at about 60-40 in favor of him leaving. It is Kentucky after all. It doesn't get much bigger than that in the basketball world. There is a lot of immediate prestige there. Going to be hard to turn that down.

Should be interesting. Hopefully he'll stay. Likely he won't.

I can play along with the spirit of wishful thinking though - maybe he'll make his players learn how to shoot free throws too! :)

Question: Where was your first kiss

2009-03-24T07:10:00.002-05:00

I was in the second grade at Horn Lake Elementary School. There was a red headed girl (I think her name was Vicki) in my class. One day during break a few other girls in our class tackled me (yeah, I was short and skinny...so yeah, girls could tackle me easily) and then pulled Vicki over to me and she kissed me on my lips. My first (well kinda) real kiss on the lips.

There are two things that I'll never forget about that experience though. One is that when they brought Vicki to me, they were dragging her as if to force her to do it....but she was smiling about it the whole time. So at least I can say she wanted to kiss me anyway. Even though right after she ran off like she was mad.

The other thing I'll never forget is that I came down with mono like a couple of weeks after that kiss. My parents told me mono was called the "kissing disease" so I was convinced for months that Vicki gave me mono. Needless to say, I never tried to kiss her again. :)

Question: What book would you recommend to someone who could use a good laugh.

2009-03-18T12:41:00.001-05:00

I read "Praise Habit: Finding God in Sunsets and Sushi" a couple of years ago because someone read an excerpt from it during the worship time at church.

David Crowder is one of my favorite Christian artists. If you've listened to his music, you know that he is quite....um...different. So I had expectations that this book would be the same. I was not disappointed.

This book is a short book - only 185 pages. And it is a fast read. David Crowder has a way with words, whether it be in his music or his writing.

I'd recommend this to anyone who needs a laugh for two reasons. One would be because Mr. Crowder is simply a funny guy. The other is because the general topic of learning how and why to praise God should cheer anyone up.

You can find this book on Amazon by clicking on the link below...

http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Habit-Finding-Sunsets-Sushi/dp/1576836703/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237397558&sr=1-1

Question: What would be your Native American\Indian name?

2009-03-11T07:20:00.001-05:00

Mine would probably be "Keeper of Useless Information"

In my family, I'm the one who somehow knows the answers to some of the crazy Trivial Pursuit questions. I don't know why I know this stuff. But if I ever hear it, it usually sticks around in my memory for a while.

I also follow a lot of blogs on Google Reader. I am currently subscribed to 178 feeds. Which means I read a lot of stuff that is pretty useless. Sometimes family or friends will be talking about something and I'll bring up a related story from a blog I read. Most of the time, they just give me a funny look and move on. Sometimes they laugh because they know I probably read it on some obscure blog.

Sometimes my...um...well I'll call it a gift :)....is useful though. If I ever hear an artist sing, I can usually remember how they sing. This is helpful when I am around people who ask, "Who sings that?" Ok. Ok. That maybe happens once a year. But at least I'm a hero at that moment. That is until the follow up question, "Why did you know that Britney Spears sings that song?" :)

Blog Changes

2009-03-10T07:42:00.001-05:00

A quick note. I have set up a new domain to house all of my online activity - DannyRileyOnline.com.

My blogs are still available under their old addresses, but they will redirect to DannyRIleyOnline. This blog goes to blog.dannyrileyonline.com.

Also, I have changed the title of all of my blogs. This one is now known as Danny.RIley.Blog.

Question: What item(s) have you bought based on an infomercial?

2009-03-10T07:18:00.002-05:00

I bought a Beavis and Butthead DVD set a couple of years after the show went off the air. The infomercial had me laughing enough to decide to call and order the set.

Not sure how many of you have actually "called the number on the screen", but that is a pretty weird experience. For one, the people on the other end talk REALLY SLOW. Also of course, the person was...um...not American.

One day when my kids are A LOT older, I'll get to show them my collection classic American Television. That I "acted now" and bought "before supplies run out!" :)

Question: What's the last place you visted that made you home-sick?

2009-03-07T10:14:00.001-06:00

Answer: Disney World, September 2001

My wife and I were at Disney World during the 9/11 attacks. We were at Magic Kingdom preparing to go eat some lunch. When we asked the hostess if they were seating for lunch yet, she told us they may not be serving meals at all that day.

Right about that time, an announcement came over the loud speakers telling us that the park was closed and we were to leave immediately. No explanation. Some people gathered around a staff member and asked what was going on. She said that some people were flying planes into buildings and they were evacuating all heavily populated areas across the country.

We were supposed to fly home the next day. Obviously we weren't flying anywhere any time soon. Disney gave us free passes for a day to make up for us having to leave early. When we went back the next day, it was very surreal. It was hardly the "Happiest Place on Earth" that day.

I could go on and on about our adventure, and may just do so some day. That Friday, we decided to take a bus home instead of waiting for the airlines to be able to fly planes again. Riding the bus was one of the worst experiences of our lives. Mark my words - we will NEVER do that again. Maybe a train, but surely not a bus.

So yes, we were very homesick during the final days of that trip. It didn't phase us that long though. Our next trip was out of the country. :)

Question: What is one of your favorite movie lines?

2009-03-06T07:29:00.001-06:00

Answer: "It wasn't me"

This is one of my favorite movies. Yes, I know - it's a pretty dumb movie. But I still laugh every time I watch it.

We use "It wasn't me" all the time in our house in the same context as Fred Randall used it in this move. (You'll have to watch it to find out what I mean) :)

Another of my favorite quotes from Rocket Man - "I'm 30 years old. I'm almost a grown man."

Question: What words do you hate?

2009-03-05T07:29:00.002-06:00

The F Word
I think this is probably the only cuss word I can say I've never uttered (except maybe to quote someone else saying it - even then I'm not sure). I hardly cuss at all as it is, but this one really gets to me. I can't really explain why I hate it so much. It's not from an "I'm better than you" perspective. It's more because I simply don't like the sound of it. I say "freakin" quite a bit as a replacement word. But I don't really think that's any better. "The F Word" has a worse connotation of course, but really the intent any of these slang\cuss words is the same.

African American
Unless you moved from Africa to America during your lifetime, you are not an African American. I'm not a European American. I'm an American. And I'm considered to be "white". That doesn't bother me. If being called "black" bothers you, I'm sorry. Come up with something else than "African American" though.

Mr Obama
Or Mr Bush with our last president. I hate when people refer to a president as "Mr" and then his last name. I'd rather them just say "Obama" or "Bush". His title is "President" until he is out of office. When I hear people say "Mr" it always makes me think that they do not really want to regard him as our president. So it seems disrespectful.

I will say that this does not bug me as much as it used to since I've noticed the news media referring to Obama this way. Mainly because I know that the folks in the media probably wish Obama could be president forever. I still don't like it though.

Question: What would set this country straight

2009-03-04T07:09:00.001-06:00

(Note - I read this morning about a new service called Plinky that posts daily questions for people to answer. If you answer the question, it can post your response to a blog, twitter, facebook, etc. I thought I'd try it out since it seemed like it could be fun. Here is my first answer...)

Answer : for people to take responsibility for their own problems.

Change I can believe in

2009-02-04T10:55:00.001-06:00

We're only two weeks into Obama's administration and things are already starting to look brighter.

Republicans can't get by with looking like they support Obama's policies. Doing that would make them lose votes. So, they are having to talk and act like they really care about conservative polices. Which means they have to oppose pretty much everything Obama is doing.

But don't be fooled. It's not because they really don't want to pass pork-filled bills. The last few years have proved that they love to do that. They are just playing party politics. Overall, it's still a good thing though. When they see that their numbers increase by being conservative, hopefully there will be some lasting change in their platform.

This article lays everything out in a little bit more detail. Full text below...

By opposing Obama, Republicans might make the GOP conservative again

A Republican Realignment

By Jack Hunter

When every single Republican in the House voted against President Barack Obama's $800 billion stimulus package last week, many conservatives cheered, while also saying that it was "too little too late."

Perhaps. But I say better late than never. This is a perfect example of how important it has been for Republicans to lose the election.

Imagine this week, if President John McCain spent time meeting with leaders of both parties, business execs, and economists and worked overtime to build a bipartisan consensus on his own stimulus package. Given his theatrics during the election — like when he suspended his campaign to meet with Democrats and Republicans to fix the economy — this scenario is not hard to imagine. If he was president today, McCain the bipartisan bridge-builder would likely be presenting his own billion dollar economic bridge-to-nowhere, much like Obama.

Unlike Obama, McCain would have received significant Republican support. Even though members of the GOP disagreed with former President George W. Bush's expansion of the government, Congress continued to write endless blank checks, increasing the national debt astronomically. I don't remember hearing as much criticism from mainstream conservatives in print, TV, or radio about reckless spending under Bush as I do now under Obama. If McCain was president, it's safe to say House Republicans would not be as unified in opposing a stimulus package.

But House Republicans have put up a united front when it comes to Obama's stimulus plan. Writes conservative columnist Robert Stacy McCain, "Man, if all it took to get Republicans to vote conservative was to elect a Democratic president, this is a change I can believe in." Indeed. Yesterday's "we must support the president" big government economics is rightfully seen today as "socialism." And whether out of principle or partisanship, it's refreshing to see Republicans standing on conservative principle once again.

Watching a television news story about Obama's stimulus package, my girlfriend, who not only voted for Obama but has the bumper sticker to prove it, said to me, "I'm not an economist, but doesn't spending money you don't have make the situation worse? Doesn't it just devalue the dollar even more?" I'm not an economist either, but I did manage to pass basic math in high school. And unless the rules of math have changed recently, my girlfriend is absolutely right.

The larger financial crisis we face in the years to come is the house of cards we call our economy, in which we constantly inject more paper money into an already devalued and weak system, much the same way a heroin addict shoots up to temporarily ease his pain. The addict can keep shooting up, and it will continue to make him feel better in small increments, but unless he goes cold turkey and endures the hardships of withdrawal, he will die. So-called "bailouts" or "stimulus packages," whether served up by Republicans or Democrats, are temporary stop-gap measures, both emblematic and symptomatic, that will eventually lead to complete financial collapse. You can't spend what you don't have.

The Republicans currently do not have the numbers to stop this stimulus package and other examples of reckless spending yet to come. But with no liberal Republican president to please and a liberal Democratic president to oppose, the GOP might become useful to conservatives again.

However, Republicans could also be distracted by partisanship.

Their obsession with Bill Clinton in the 1990s was more about being against a Democrat than about standing for conservative principles.

My biggest problems with Clinton remain his open borders policy, his reckless spending, and his foreign intervention in the Balkans, Somalia, and Haiti. Most conservatives still obsess over Monica Lewinsky.

As with Clinton, conservatism cannot simply mean being against Obama, and intelligent folks on the right would do well to leave such petty nonsense to the unintentionally comedic Sean Hannity and the intentionally-comedic Stephen Colbert.

Maybe, after four or eight years of Obama, a realigned, more conservative and mature Republican Party will be better positioned to rein in an economy and country constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss.

The Light of Conscience

2009-01-23T07:32:00.001-06:00

As I mentioned in my previous entry, I'm going to try to write about some different things on this blog. Something happened last night that I didn't full grasp until this morning. I figured I would share.

First, a bit of scripture. Romans 2:14-15

Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong. They demonstrate that God's law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right.

In this passage Paul is explaining that no one can say that God is unfair to those that have not heard of or read the Law (what we would consider our Bible today) because everyone has a conscience that comes straight from God. If they choose to obey that conscience, then that means they have a heart that is willing to follow Him.

Last night was a fairly typical night in the Riley household. Kelsey is in a phase now where she likes to wear dresses. And when I say "dresses", that means changing clothes a couple of times a day. Last night was no exception. When I got home she was wearing her "jammies" and asking Bev if she could put on her Sleeping Beauty dress. I told her I would help her change. But that it would be her last change for the night.

Well about ten minutes later, she decided she wanted to wear her Cinderella dress. I told her no more changes. She pitched a little fit. I told her it was either the Sleeping Beauty dress or her jammies. She cried. I told her stop crying, go to her room, and put her jammies on. She did. As I said, a fairly typical night. At least with a 4 year old girl who likes to dress up anyway. :)

Beverly and I resumed our viewing of Lost (I love DVRs), Kelsey and Roland played for a while. No time-outs. No spankings. The situation was over. Or so I thought...

About thirty minutes later, Kelsey walked up beside the couch and said something like, "Mommy and Daddy, I just wanted to tell y'all that I'm sorry for pitching a fit about the dress and that I hope you'll forgive me and I'm sorry."

Beverly and I were completely floored, Kelsey was whisked up to the couch with us, we thanked her for saying sorry, and told her of course we forgive her. Kelsey started balling and I think Bev started to choke up some. Bev explained to her that we will forgive her just like God forgives us all when we do wrong and that His forgiveness really means much more because Jesus gave his life for use to be able to be forgiven. What a great moment. Likely one I'll remember for a long time.

Our little girl is growing up. And her conscience is developing before our very eyes. I look forward to the day that I can refer to Kelsey as my sister and be more proud of that than calling her my daughter.

Tuesday Thoughts

2009-01-20T07:51:00.001-06:00

Yeah, it's been a while since I've blogged. This blog has mostly focused on political news and I'm kinda burned out on that right now. Maybe that will change. Not sure. Maybe I'll try to post a few things about my other interests. They would probably be just as boring though. :)

Some things on my mind today:

Super Bowl

Well, I'm pretty disappointed that the Giants couldn't keep it together at the end of the season, but I can't say I'm surprised. I think the Super Bowl will be good this year. I expect the Steelers to win, but would kinda like to see the Cardinals surprise everyone (again). The Cards will have to put a lot of points on the board early if they want to win. The Steelers just have to play like they've been playing for...well...all year.

Changing of the guard

Yeah, today is inauguration. I think it's pretty interesting how the media is hyping Obama up so much. Everyone expects this man to save us from all of our troubles. I thought that might die down a little bit after he was elected. After all, we all realize that he's just one man, right? And that he has to deal with some crazy fools in Congress to get anything done....right? Guess not everyone realizes that.

Very few are focusing on how he has already had to backtrack on many of his campaign promises. If he keeps doing that, many of the things I've predicted will happen. He will anger his base. Backtracking on immediately shutting down Guantanamo Bay has probably already fired up a lot of people.

I also think it's pretty interesting that pretty much everyone agrees that tax cuts are going to help us work through the remainder of the economic mess we are in. Funny how that happens.

I'm also getting pretty mad about all the hatred toward President Bush. He has dealt with a LOT during the last eight years. There is way too much history being rewritten concerning him already. We all need to put ourselves in his shoes and think about how we might have handled the situations he's been put in. Sure he's made some mistakes. Have any of you made any mistakes over the last eight years? Give him a break. He's not going to be remembered as the best president in our history. But he's definitely not the worst either. He helped bring us through some really rough times. He stuck with it. I don't know that I could have done the same. And I hope that Obama (and all of us for that matter) has learned a bit about courage and humility from George W Bush.

Take some time to pray for our country today. Ask the Lord to guide our new president. And to use the spirit of change that is so prevalent right now in a way that leads more people to Him.

Article of the day

2008-12-23T07:26:00.001-06:00

I thought this Washington Times story was good enough to warrant it's own full entry on my blog instead of just sharing it on my Google Reader Shared Items site. I'm sure most of you have heard all the jokes and complaints about how much time President Bush spends on vacation. Well, now we find out he's been spending a lot of that time doing more for our country than he could have done sitting in the Oval Office.

This is one thing that I've always admired about President Bush. If there is one thing his legacy will show, it's that he always stood up for his convictions. Even when they haven't been popular and even when everyone around him seemed to disagree. Some might call that stubborn. Some might call it heroic.

Anyway, below is the article in its entirety. I hope you enjoy. And I hope you all have a great Christmas.

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately

EXCLUSIVE:

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country.

On Monday, the president is set to make a more common public trip - with reporters in tow - to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, home to many of the wounded and a symbol of controversy earlier in his presidency over the quality of care the veterans were receiving.

But the size and scope of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's private endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen far exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the effort.

"People say, 'Why would you do that?'" the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. "And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be - to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish."

Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.

"I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. "She has been very reassuring, very calming."

Mr. Bush also has met privately with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, according to White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. Many of those meetings were outside the presence of the news media at the White House or at private sessions during official travel stops, officials said.

The first lady said those private visits, many of which she also attended, took a heavy emotional toll, not just on the president, but on her as well.

"It is just so unbelievably emotional to be with the families, for everybody involved. I mean for us and for them and for everyone," she said in a telephone interview with The Times on Saturday. "I'm very aware of how emotional it is and how draining it is for the president and for me, too. Both of us. But I think we do support each other, not by saying anything so much, but just by the comfort of each other's presence, both when we are with the families and then afterward when we are alone."

Mr. Cheney similarly has hosted numerous events, even sneaked away from the White House or his Naval Observatory home to meet troops at hospitals or elsewhere without a hint to the news media.

For instance, Mr. Cheney flew to North Carolina late last month and met with 500 special-operations soldiers for three hours on a Saturday night at a golf resort. The event was so secretive that the local newspaper didn't even learn about it until three days after it happened.

Mr. Cheney and his wife, Lynne, also have hosted more than a half-dozen barbecues at their Naval Observatory home for wounded troops recovering at Bethesda Naval Hospital and Walter Reed and their spouses and children.

The vice president said Mr. Bush "feels a very special obligation to those who he has to send in harm's way on behalf of the nation, and a very special obligation to their families, especially the families of those who don't come home again."

"He, in his travels, spends time with the families of the fallen. If he goes down to Fort Bragg, he'll often times pull together the families of guys who were stationed at Bragg and killed in action, and spend time with the families," Mr. Cheney told The Times in an interview last week.

Mr. Bush did just that when he visited Fort Bragg, N.C., in 2002, rallying 2,000 special-operation soldiers stationed at the base, which would send thousands of men to the two wars, hundreds of whom would never return. "I want their families to know that we pray with them, that we honor them, and they died in a just cause, for defending freedom, and they will not have died in vain," he told the troops, his voice choking with emotion and his eyes welling up with tears.

That same month, in St. Petersburg, Fla., the president broke down in tears as he addressed the parents and family of one of the first soldiers to die in Afghanistan. "I know your heart aches, and we ache for you. But your son and your brother died for a noble and just cause," he said as a tear rolled down his right cheek.

He stopped his speech, overcome by emotion as the crowd stood and cheered. His chin still quivering, he smeared away tears, smiled and shrugged his shoulders. Those were public events, but mirrored the scores of private meetings where emotions also ran deep.

"I do get a little emotional because it's - I'm genuine when I say I'll miss being the commander in chief," the president told The Times. "I am in awe of our military. And I hold these folks in great respect. And I also sincerely appreciate the sacrifices that their families make."

Mr. Bush sees his job as providing comfort to those who have sacrificed so much. "The definition of comfort is very interesting. Comfort means hug, comfort means cry, comfort means smile, comfort means listen. Comfort also means, in many cases, assure the parent or the spouse that any decision made about troops in combat will be made with victory in mind, not made about my personal standing in the polls or partisan politics."

Asked where he gets the strength to meet with the families of soldiers whom he - as commnder in chief - sent to their deaths, he turned stern.

"You have to believe in the cause. You have to understand that - and believe we'll be successful. If I didn't believe in the cause, it would be unbelievably terrible. I believe strongly in what we're doing. I believe it's necessary for our security. And I believe history will justify the actions. ...

"The interesting thing is, most of our troops fully understand this. They know we must defeat the enemy there so we don't have to face them here. And in a place like Iraq, they fully understood that Iraq was a front for al Qaeda. And they saw their mission as one of defending America by defeating al Qaeda," he told The Times.

Meeting with the families of the fallen has allowed the president to step out of the bubble that often surrounds him, to meet real people. "I find out a lot about the individuals when the families come and see me, because one thing they want to do is, they want to share. They want to share pictures or letters or moments.

"And I ask them to describe their loved one. What should I know about this person? Or they volunteer - 'You'd like this guy.' And many of them have said - it's amazing, the comforter in chief oftentimes is the comforted person - comforted because of their strength, comforted because of their devotion, comforted because of their love for their family member. And a lot of them said, Mr. President, please know that my child wanted to do this."

Mrs. Bush said she, too, is moved by their private meetings with relatives of the fallen.

"Visiting with the families of the fallen is one of the most touching, moving parts of this job that George has. I remember best the most recent, which was on the Intrepid on Veterans Day, when we met with nine different families. I remember them all very well, but one story that stands out in my mind was this sister who had written a biography of her brother that she lost.

"So she asked if she could read it to us. ... It represents every single family that wanted us to know about their loved ones, and what they were like, what their sense of humor was like, what they liked to do, and what they were good at."

The first lady said that many of the meetings have been kept private because "these are such personal times when people grieve. And we grieve with them. And these are not times when you would want a camera in the room or other people around. They are very emotional, personal times.

"And for all of these families to be in a room with the commander in chief who made the decision to send their loved one in harm's way is, you know, a wrenching time for us and for them. For all of us, the consequences of the choices that a commander in chief makes are clear. It's all about them, and their grief."

Some private meetings with soldiers have been publicized at the request of the soldiers themselves. When Mr. Bush met with Spc. Max Ramsey, who lost his left leg in 2006 while serving in Iraq, and Sgt. Neil Duncan, a double-amputee injured in Afghanistan in 2005, it was Sgt. Duncan who asked for news coverage.

"I wasn't sure my buddies would believe me," Sgt. Duncan said, joking with the president. When Mr. Bush had visited him at Walter Reed, the sergeant had vowed to run again, and did so on the White House South Lawn's jogging track in July 2007.

Although it was a Wednesday, Mr. Bush - who had scheduled a brief run - pulled the two soldiers through the trees to the White House pool after their jog.

"The group of us just sat there for like two hours maybe and chatted. On a whim, he just took two hours out of his schedule. ... We talked about personal things, how he feels about the war, what's been hard, what it's like being the president, some of the most difficult times for him. It was very, very cool - priceless."

Sgt. Duncan said he's glad he got the media to cover what otherwise would have been a private visit. "I thought it would be good for other soldiers to see that. It was a personal accomplishment - I wanted my family and my friends and people that I know and people I've never met to see it."

The vice president, who has been derided in the media as "Darth Vader," also has operated outside of the limelight to support wounded troops and their families even though he could have made political hay if he had made them public. He and his wife have hosted wounded troops and their families at his residence at the Naval Observatory, arranging for big-name country singers, such as Charlie Daniels and Sara Evans, to provide entertainment.

Pressed whether he ever considered allowing rap music at one of his barbecues for the troops, the vice president laughed.

"No rap, no. The country and western is sort of a compromise between old folks - you know, the big band sound of the '50s and the rappers that the younger generation understands," he said.

Actually, Mr. Cheney did manage to connect troops at his home with the "American Idol" television phenomenon in February, when he hosted an event for about 50 wounded troops at the Naval Observatory that showcased Melinda Doolittle, the big-voiced singer who was a finalist on the sixth season of the hit show.

On June 30, the vice president - code-named "Angler" by the Secret Service for his love for fly-fishing - staged a fly-fishing event on his lawn with a group of wounded troops being helped out by the charitable organization Project Healing Waters.

Rather than the usual rubber waders and camouflage fishing hat, the vice president sported a dark suit, a white shirt, green tie and business shoes but still managed to show off his favorite fly-fishing cast to the troops. Instead of water, he aimed for a bright green patch of grass as the smiling military men and their wives picked up tips and practiced themselves.

• Jon Ward contributed to this report.

Yep, must be about race

2008-12-08T12:14:00.001-06:00

Ok, I know this is probably a product that won't be used much, even by its target audience. But I have to point it out.

There is a new browser out there called BlackBird. And as you probably guessed, it's target audience is black people. When I first read about it I just thought it was pretty silly, but after thinking about it some more I kinda got burned up.

Here is the article I read that pointed to this site. Check out the comments. Many of them explain my thought process. Such as what kind of news would it make if there was a "WhiteBird" browser - one that was all about finding and socializing with white people? Think that would stir some people up?

I think this comment speaks volumes...

Ok, as a member of the black community, I must say this is not the way to go and I haven’t even tried it out. We must stop creating a “black” this and a “black” that! Can’t we figure out another way for the tech community to recognize our presence? Just because you slap “black” on something doesn’t make it automatically accepted. What’s next? A browser for black basketball players, podcatchers for blacks… Please stop the madness… Ok, stepping down off the soapbox…..

And this one...

Okay, as a member of the white community, I totally agree with you. The civil rights movement heroically fought to end segregation, yet this site is totally self-segregating. It is counter productive to an integrated society.

MLK just rolled over in his grave…

And one more...

Really? Really? I am black and I find this to be a complete waste of time and a set back for what they believe they are trying to achieve. People scream about equality but continue to separate themselves from the pack.

I look forward to the web browser for light skinned African Americans, dark skinned African Americans, bald headed African Americans, African American doctors, etc. You know, I really think we can dig down deeper and segregate the African American community a little more.

Those folks are exactly RIGHT! There is no reason for there to be a separate browser for a certain ethnic group. It's RACIST to only care about what is going on with people of your own skin color. And speaking as a software developer, it's STUPID for software developers to accommodate racists in this way.

Hey, here's a novel idea. Build a browser with a feature called "Favorites" or "Bookmarks". This feature will allow people of ALL skin colors and interests to save sites they like to visit. If you find a site you like, you can email it to friends\family who share your same interests and they can "bookmark" it too if they want. That way, people can make up their own mind about what they like. Wow, what a simple concept that should be easy to implement. Oh....wait...

Catching up

2008-11-25T07:20:00.001-06:00

A few things have been on my mind the last few days...

Auto Bailout

Yeah, I'm a bit late in saying something about this. There are a couple of things that I think we should all keep in mind:

1. This bailout and all of the others that have and will happen are LOANS! I don't know why people keep getting all upset and say that the government is taking ownership in these companies. That's simply not true. This "bailout" would be a loan that would be paid back likely within 5 years (assuming things get better for the companies receiving money). We need to worry less about the government ownership than we do whether or not the government needs to be stepping in at all. Which brings me to..

2. The auto companies can go bankrupt and still be in business. Bankruptcy does not mean that you close your doors tomorrow. We all probably know someone whose gone through bankruptcy. And what did they have to do? They had some of the things they owed money on taken away from them and they had to start over. The same would happen to GM, Ford, and Chrysler. If you ask me, this should have happened a LONG TIME AGO. How many brands does GM have that are either redundant or unprofitable. Heck, for you folks living in and around Memphis, how many GM related car dealerships are there around here? And how many Toyota, Honda, and Nissan dealerships are there? I think there is something to be said about that. There is a LOT of fat that needs to be cut out from these American car companies. If the government gives them a loan, we are just prolonging the inevitable. Just like with all of the other loans.

Sports talk

I'll start with the NFL. Wow, what a great season this has been so far. Quite a few surprises. Of course, I'm still happy that the Giants are doing as well as they are. And that Eli continues to improve, especially in leadership. They are definitely going to be in the playoffs, but I'll not say they are definitely Super Bowl bound. Last year proved that anything can happen in the postseason. I think their main competition will end up being the Cowboys. As for the AFC, it's going to be really close. The Titans probably needed their loss Sunday more than they will admit publicly. I think it's between them and the Patriots, and then the Colts or Jets as spoilers. You can't ever count Brett Favre out if he's in the playoffs. Again, it's been a great year. Can't wait to see how it all plays out.

Next, College Football. Yet another year that the BCS is going to be a disaster. If Alabama loses to Florida, there will be a ton of one-loss teams expecting to play for the championship. This is a good thing though. I guarantee a playoff system is being discussed way more seriously than it ever has before.

And finally, I have to pick on the Memphis Tigers basketball team a little bit again. I didn't watch any of the game the other night, but the news yesterday morning was that they continued to miss their free throws. Coach Cal, was losing a championship not enough? I don't know that many are expecting the Tigers to make it as far as they did last year, but they CANNOT WIN if they won't fix this problem.

Facebook

I've had several people tell me that Facebook was cool and that I should sign up. But I've for the most part avoided most of the social networking stuff, so I never signed up. Well, my wife Beverly signed up on it a week or so ago and liked it quite a a bit. Which finally got me interested enough to sign up. If you are on Facebook and aren't in as my friend yet, either search for me (Daniel Riley in Horn Lake, MS) or put a comment here on how to add you and I'll do so. I'm sure there is a way to post a link to my profile here or something, but I can't access Facebook from the computer I am on right now. I'll look into adding a more permanent link on this blog somewhere.

I hope all of you have a great Thanksgiving. Be sure to take a moment to thank God for all that you have.

Ron Paul is RIGHT

2008-11-12T09:54:00.001-06:00

That title shouldn't surprise anyone who reads this blog. And neither should the content. From this article:

Commentary: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track

By Ron Paul
Special to CNN

The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

Once it's figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.

In the rise and fall of the recent Republican reign of power these past decades, the goal of the party had grown to be only that of gaining and maintaining power -- with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government.

Most Republicans endorsed this view in order to achieve victories at the polls. Limiting government power and size with less spending and a balanced budget as the goal used to be a "traditional" Republican value. This is what Goldwater and Reagan talked about. That is what the Contract with America stood for.

The opportunity finally came in 2000 to do something about the cancerous growth of government. This clear message led to the Republican success at the polls.

Once the Republicans were in power, though, the promises faded, and all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats.

The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.

But what the Republican leadership didn't realize was that ALL spending is a tax on middle-class Americans through price inflation and that eventually the inevitable consequence is paying for the extravagance with a financial crisis.

Party leaders concentrated only on political tricks in order to maintain power and neglected the limited-government principles on which they were elected. The only solution for this is for Republicans to once again reassess their core beliefs and show how the country (not the party) can be put back on the right track. The problem, though, is regaining credibility.

After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people. But that's what must be done.

Otherwise, Republicans can only mimic Democrats and hope for an isolated victory here and there. And that's just more of the same that brought on the disintegration of the party.

Since the new alignment of political power offers no real change, we will remain on the same track without even a pretense of slowing the growth of government. With the new administration we can expect things to go from bad to worse.

Opportunity abounds for anyone who can present the case for common sense in fiscal affairs, for protection of civil liberties here at home, and avoiding the senseless foreign entanglements which have bogged us down for decades and contributed so significantly to our fiscal and budgetary crisis.

During the debates in the Republican Presidential primary, even though I am a 10-term sitting Representative Member of Congress, I was challenged more than once on my Republican credentials. The fact that I was repeatedly asked how I could be a Republican when I was talking a different language than the other candidates answers the question of how the Republican Party can slip so far so fast.

My rhetorical answer at the time was simple: Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world

How can a party that still pretends to be the party of limited government distance itself outright from these views and expect to maintain credibility? Since the credibility of the Republican Party has now been lost, how can it regain credibility without embracing these views, or at least showing respect for them?

I concluded my answer by simply stating the Republican Party had lost its way and must reassess its values. And that is what needs to be done in a hurry.

But it might just take a new crop of leaders to regain the credibility needed to redirect the Party. It certainly won't be done overnight. It took a long time to come out of the wilderness after 40 years of Democratic rule for the Republican Party to take charge. Today though, time moves more quickly. Opportunities will arise. The one thing for certain is that in the next four years we will not see the Republic restored. Instead the need for it will be greater than ever.

The problems are easily understood and the answers are not that difficult. Abusing the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution can be reversed. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the needed reforms, it can lead the way and regain its credibility. If power is sought for power's sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition.

In the past two years, I found that when the young people heard the message of liberty, they overwhelmingly responded favorably, fully realizing the failure of the status quo and the need to once again endorse a system of self reliance, personal responsibility, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy while rejecting the cradle-to-grave nanny state all based on the rule of law and the Constitution.

To ignore the political struggle and only "hope for the best" is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

All those who care -- and especially those who understand the stakes involved -- have an ominous responsibility to energetically get involved in the battle of survival for a free and prosperous America.

Post-election thoughts

2008-11-05T07:02:00.001-06:00

Well, I guess I can say it was nice not having to stay up all night if I wanted to hear the results. The McCain campaign pretty much unofficially conceded to news reporters at about 9:00 when it was announced that Obama had won Ohio. And I will of course take this moment to remind you of this statement made by yours truly back in February:

Many conservatives will not vote. Obama will take the "undecided" vote and will be the first president in a long time to mobilize the young vote. There will be those that vote against him because he's black, but it won't be enough to give McCain a win. Obama will get at least 55% of the vote.

So there you have it. Barak Obama will be the next president of the United States. Any of you who are fearful of this need to get used to it now.

So yeah, Obama didn't get 55% of the vote, and that is likely due to McCain being able to inspire the evangelical vote more than I anticipated with his choice of Sarah Palin as VP. But I was still RIGHT for the most part. Obama won because he mostly had people voting FOR HIM. McCain lost because he mostly had people voting AGAINST OBAMA. You cannot win an election if people's motives are to keep the other guy out of office.

And reports last night and early this morning are that Obama was able to mobilize the young vote, which is something Democrats have tried to do for years with little success. We should all at least be able to recognize that he ran a really organized an effective campaign. He raised the money he needed to raise and he used it wisely.

And Democrats did not get the filibuster-proof majority that the press was salivating over and that was scaring some conservatives into voting for McCain. It's not what the Democrats wanted, but it does put Obama in a good position to push his real agenda. So now maybe we'll find out what that is exactly. :)

I also think it's interesting that some of the most moderate Republicans lost their seats last night. Everything is being set up nicely for a major movement back to the RIGHT. The Democrats will not lead this country in the direction that their liberal constituents want them to, but their agenda will be liberal enough to fire up a conservative backlash. We've voted out the folks on "our side" who weren't conservative enough. Now it's time to go back to the drawing board and find the folks that are.

The RIGHT Policy - Part 4 - Final Thoughts

2008-10-29T12:30:00.001-05:00

In the previous articles in this series, I made it pretty clear that neither of the major party candidates offer much for a real conservative to vote for. So what does that mean a conservative should do? Here are the best options in my opinion:

1. Vote for another candidate

I'm going to say on the front end that this is what I am going to do. At the voting booth, my vote is likely going to Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I suggest that you go to his site and look over his policies. Clearly if I am voting for him, I must think he is RIGHT. Chuck Baldwin seems like a really decent man and he seems to really understand what our founding fathers intended for our country when they formed out government. He was a big Ron Paul supporter and Ron Paul has endorsed his candidacy. Will he win? Nope. He probably won't even get 1% of all votes cast. But I'm definitely not voting for Obama, and I can't vote for McCain so I'm going to vote for the candidate whose views match mine the most. If you look over his site and views and decide that his religious views scare you, I have this to say to you:

- Check your premises and read the statements of our founding fathers.

- Consider Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. Libertarians don't inject their faith into their issues as much, but they are very conservative for the most part. As I've said before, I consider myself very much a libertarian, so a vote there is a good one.

So now the obvious question is whether or not I am just throwing my vote away since I admitted above that likely less than 1% of the country will vote for any particular third-party candidate. And here are my answers to that:

- I'm not throwing my vote away if I vote for the candidate I BELIEVE IN.

- In many ways, votes equal money for the candidate\party that gets the votes. I want more money and recognition going to the views I support.

- If the Republican Party is supposed to be the party for conservatives and they have moved away from that platform, they do not deserve our vote. The only way we are going to move them back to the RIGHT is to make them afraid that their jobs are in jeopardy if they don't

2. Vote for McCain out of fear

That is, fear that the Democrats will control the legislative and executive branch. And fear that their advantage in the Senate could reach the filibuster-proof level of 60 votes. And that they will work toward control of the judicial branch through executive appointments and legislative approvals.

I admit, this is a legitimate fear. Obama is definitely has socialist tendencies. I don't buy into all of the fear that is being spread around about him but he will push policies that will make our government bigger. And a Democrat Congress probably won't fight it too much.

Still, we need to remember this. The new Congress will only have 2 years before the next Congressional elections. At which point all of the House candidates and many Senators will be chosen. If the Democrats start doing things that are totally crazy, then they will be voted out. They know this so they will practice at least some restraint. And Obama may practice some restraint also since he'll have to think about re-election in 2012. The Republicans had a pretty big advantage during the first six years of Bush's presidency and they were nothing close to conservative. I have no doubt that a full Democrat advantage will be very similar. Nothing too far left. A lot of compromises. And a very angered base.

So lets say Obama wins and the scenario I mention above happens over the next two years. We'd have a Democrat Congress that isn't doing what their constituents want them to do and an already angered Conservative\Republican base. Which means that we have a great chance at major changes to Congress in just two years. Liberals likely will not put up challengers to the Democrats, and they may be angry enough not to vote (just like conservatives did two years ago and likely will do again this year). But REAL conservative candidates will start to surface. And they will take seats away from the Democrats. They may even challenge the Republicans and win, thus making the party more conservative.

So yes, full Democrat control for even a short while is scary, but I'm willing to take that risk out of the hope that our country will reject them handily in a couple of years. Also, I know I've said this a lot but I have to remind you of this once again - John McCain IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. A vote for McCain is really just a vote against Obama. What makes you think McCain's legislation will be any different than Obama's? And what makes you think voting for McCain will move the country to the RIGHT? Why would the Republicans learn any lessons if we keep giving them power?

Finally, I want to make one last argument for voting third party. This is something that I read in an email and I think it is very valid. I live in Mississippi. The handful of readers of this blog either live in Mississippi, Tennessee, or Arkansas. Take a look at this map. All of our states are voting for McCain. If you want McCain to win out of fear of what Obama will do, then you are ok. But you have a chance to make a strong statement. Every vote for a Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr is a vote against Republicans. Every vote is a REJECTION of where the Republican Party is headed. Make them take notice. Make them reflect. Make them scared.

A nice break

2008-10-17T07:55:00.001-05:00

Last night, McCain and Obama gave some really funny speeches at a charity dinner. Well worth a watch if you have time.

Here is John McCain's speech

And here is Barack Obama's

The RIGHT Policy - Part 3 - Economy

2008-10-16T16:07:00.001-05:00

It's been over a month since my last entry in this series. Wow, a lot of stuff has happened in politics since then huh. And most of it has been related to the economy. I wish I would have had time to put more thoughts down but things have just been too busy.

The economy is really the issue that brings everything together, which is why it's the last main policy item I wanted to deal with.

I'll start by breaking up economic policy into a few categories.

Taxes

All of a sudden Republicans and Democrats want to cut taxes. That is something I should consider a success, right? Well, maybe if they would CUT SPENDING it would be a success. Now they basically want to buy votes by claiming they will cut taxes.

Here's the facts - your taxes are going to go up. And very soon. Regardless of who is elected president in a few weeks. The Bush tax cuts are about to expire and Congress is absolutely not going to put anything worthwhile in their place right now. Our national debt is way too big. We may get some stimulus checks (as I said, buying votes) but I'd be really surprised if anyone got a real tax cut.

We can't cut taxes and go crazy with spending at the same time. It's a formula for disaster as we are seeing right now. Bush got the tax cut part right, but not the spending. Obama and McCain will do the same.

I'll touch briefly on what the RIGHT tax policy would be. I'd be ok with a fair tax (sales tax). I'd be more ok with no income tax at all. Think about this - Ron Paul said we could do that if we could cut our government spending down to 2001 levels. What would we have to cut to get to that? Well, a significantly reduced military presence in foreign countries would take care of most of it. But we'd also have to cut\eliminate spending in some of these other areas also.

Entitlements

These are things like Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc, etc. Not really hearing anyone talking about doing anything but making these larger, huh? Yep, no real conservative choice here either.

The biggest things you'll hear about these are, "we have to take care of the children" and, "we have to take care of the elderly". That's code for "we have to take your money and give it to someone else". Which might be ok to most people if it didn't include, "but first we have to run it through some huge crazy government bureaucracy."

So how to deal with these? I'd love to say we could cut the vast majority out entirely but that ain't ever going to happen. I do think people younger than 35-40 should be able to opt out of Social Security if we want. So something close to what Bush had proposed a few years ago.

As for Medicare and Education, I think the less direct Federal involvement the better. The key to these is to have them as close to the individual level as possible, and folks making policy in Washington are no where close to that. I think we could significantly improve our health care and education situation if the federal government were largely out of it. I've said before that I think that Medical care could be handled much better if it were in the non-profit\religious sector. I continue to believe that, as it gets even closer to the individual that way.

Overall, the first thing we need to realize is that throwing more money at these programs is not going to make them better. If you have bad management or too much red tape, all the money in the world won't help.

"Pork Barrel" Spending

Or, more accurately - how our bills are packaged. It is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE for our legislative bills to be filled with crap that is in no way related to the intent of the original bill. We need bills where everything in them has a certain theme, and where every individual item gets a real vote. So yes, if 50 Senators add something different to a bill, all 50 items should get voted on. It's the only way to hold our Congress accountable for what goes into a bill, it's a great way to KNOW WHAT IS IN A BILL, and it's a great way to deal with corruption. John McCain has been horrible during his campaign of saying that Obama voted for this or against that. When the reality is that all of their votes can be said to be for or against anything. It's simply misleading to say a person is against tax cuts when he votes no on an energy bill that includes a tax cut for some crazy unrelated thing. Make the bills simpler and with a consistent theme.

Foreign Policy

As I mentioned above, if we would cut out some of the situations we are in outside of our country, we would be much better here. We could do things with our military personnel like strengthen our borders (which would not only protect us from our enemies but would also create more jobs here for our own citizens). We could also move some of the money that is going to our military to things like producing our own energy, which will make us more money and (again) create more jobs. We've been focusing way too much on other countries when we have serious problems here. We need to get our priorities RIGHT. If the American people want to send aid to other countries, we should send it on our own. The government does not have to steal from us to do it.

Ok, so as you can see and as I stated above, our economic policy really is what brings all of the other issues together. I didn't mention social issues, but that's an easy one to correlate. Our tax code affects things like gay marriage because of insurance deductions, tax structures for married people, etc, etc. And the government has no business spending money on things like abortions and stem-cell research. My social issues article dealt with these directly.

To summarize, this is really the overall theme for the way I see things. The federal government is WAY too big. It was originally intended to provide guidelines for the individual states and provide backup where necessary. It's turned into an entity that basically is controlling everything we do. This cannot continue. There is no way that a few people in Washington can know how best to govern 300 million people.

It's pretty clear that our country is not headed in the RIGHT direction. The next and final thing I'd like to discuss in this series is some of my thoughts on what the future probably holds and how I think we can turn things around. More soon...

Monday Thoughts

2008-10-06T07:39:00.001-05:00

A couple of things on my mind this morning...

Football

Wow, what a crazy football year it's been already, in both College and the NFL. It seems any team is beatable on any given day. I'm sure y'all know what\who I want to talk about though - the Giants! Wow, what a whoopin' they put on the Seahawks yesterday! Even with out their "star receiver", they put points on the board just about every time they touched the ball. Eli is looking so much like Peyton did in years past. Spreading the ball around, making play changes at the line, throwing the ball where it needs to be thrown. The Giants really are looking good right now. Still a long way to go of course, but what a great start.

JT's choice

On Saturday, JT wrote that he had decided that he could not vote for John McCain after McCain voted for the bailout. And he mentioned a lot of the things I wrote about in my last blog post. And at the end, he said he'd be writing in a vote for Ron Paul. This is something that I've thought about quite a bit. I'm not sure what I'm going to do just yet, but I am getting to the point that I can't see my self voting for John McCain either. And I want to take this opportunity to urge each of you to follow your convictions in this matter. It's not about "pinching your nose" and voting for the lesser of two evils. it's not about voting against one particular candidate. It's about voting for the person YOU BELIEVE IN. Even if that means you have to write that person in. So JT, thanks for leading by example here. You won't regret it.

More on the bailout

2008-10-03T13:03:00.001-05:00

Well, the House of Representatives just passed the bailout. President Bush will likely sign it in a few hours. Sad, but not surprising.

I do have one thing to bring up that no one is really talking about though - John McCain is practically basing his entire economic policy on cutting "pork-barrel spending". Excuse me, not cutting...ELIMINATING. As a matter of fact he's said he will veto any bill with pork in it and he'll make the people who put it in there famous.

Well, Senator McCain, what about the bailout bill that YOU VOTED "YES" ON YESTERDAY??!!! What about all the pork in that bill that caused it to go from $700 billion to $850 billion??!!! What about the following items - do they count as "pork"?!!

A $2 million tax benefit for makers of wooden arrows for children; a $100 million tax break to benefit auto racetrack owners; $192 million in rebates on excise taxes for the Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum industry; $148 million in tax relief for U.S. wool fabric producers; and a $49 million tax benefit for fishermen and other plaintiffs who sued over the 1989 tanker Exxon Valdez spill.

What about all of this, Mr McCain? Why didn't you vote against it, why didn't you "name names"??!!!

How can we trust you are going to cleanup Washington if you don't even practice what you preach in the first high-profile chance you've had to do so???!!!!

If you can't tell already, this really burns me up. How did our political process get so corrupted?

We reap what we sow

2008-09-30T07:49:00.001-05:00

I haven't said much of anything on the bailout situation. My last entry was a copy of a Ron Paul article on the subject. And I've shared a ton of articles in my "Items if Interest"\Shared Items page. I am working on a fairly extensive entry about economics in my "RIGHT Policy" series which will address it somewhat. But as you can probably imagine, I do have a lot of thoughts about this deal and have a little bit of time to discuss it this morning.

Basically, the title says it all. We are reaping what we sowed. This problem goes back to a decision in the 1990s to loan money to people who could not afford to pay it back. Even with the timing, I do not blame that all on Bill Clinton. We had a Republican Congress, then we elected a Republican president, and we re-elected Republicans into Congress up until two years ago. Fact is, both Republicans and Democrats have their names all over this one. Congress made some really bad decisions and now they want us to trust that they know how to fix it.

Even worse, people have been able to see the potential problems with this sub-prime garbage ever since the policies were put in place. Below I have the text from an article WRITTEN IN 1999!!! about how risky it was to lower the loan approval process and loaning money to people with poor credit. So, people who understand finances knew this was dangerous, but they were under a lot of political pressure to ignore the danger. Bankers and mortgage brokers are much to blame here for taking on the risk of course, but they probably felt they had no choice with the promises of the reward and their obligation to their shareholders to produce a certain value.

What's the fix? Well, I'm a bit torn here. If Congress is partially to blame, they may shoulder some of the responsibility to help us out. As the article below states, putting policies in place to bail us out of a mess is something that has been done before. But at the same time if something is done to fix the current mess, we also need to do something to make sure we keep from getting into the same mess again. That is what I see missing from the bailouts as they are proposed right now. It's like they are saying, "we all messed up so now lets just make someone else (taxpayers) fix it." If they do that, WHAT WILL MAKE THEM LEARN THEIR LESSON?!! So I'm leaning toward the idea that we need to let this work itself out via normal market procedures. The hard thing to deal with there is that things could get REALLY BAD. Meaning many people, including myself and all of you, could suffer.

So for now, I'm going to just say I'm happy the vote failed yesterday. I still feel like there isn't as big a rush on this as President Bush and Congress are saying. Sure, the longer we wait, the more banks that will fail. But someone will pick things up from there. And if providing a ton of money to banks is the fix, then we can do that later if it becomes evident that it is the only way out. I think we just all need to calm down a little bit and see where this goes to over the next few weeks\months. Also, keep in mind that Congress is supposed to be adjourned FOR THE YEAR right now. Think they might want to be pushing this through so they can go home?

Anyway, that's enough for now. Here is the article I mentioned earlier...

September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Ron Paul is RIGHT

2008-09-24T10:06:00.001-05:00

Ok, I know that title doesn't surprise you at all. But if you've been following the news commentary on the big government bailout that is being discussed, you probably have seen Ron Paul. He's finally getting his due credit for being right over the last 15 years or so about the causes of the mess we are in. The folks who thought he was nuts just a few years ago are seeing just how RIGHT he was. So just about every news channel wants to talk to him right now.

Yesterday, CNN gave Ron Paul the chance to write a commentary on the bailout and where it will lead. Full text below...

Commentary: Bailouts will lead to rough economic ride

Story Highlights

Ron Paul: Too much government meddling in economy caused crisis

Paul says the bailouts are another case of excessive intervention in economy

The government isn't letting the market adjust prices to lower levels, Paul says

Paul: Bailout will only increase financial instability in the long run

By Ron Paul
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who ran for his party's nomination for president this year. He is a doctor who specializes in obstetrics/gynecology and says he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s and was elected again to Congress in 1996. Rep. Paul serves on the House Financial Services Committee.

(CNN) -- Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.
Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.

Are you sure, Pat?

2008-09-16T11:06:00.001-05:00

Pat Buchanan is a big fan of Sarah Palin. I'm a pretty big fan of both, so you'd think I'd agree with most of what Mr. Buchanan writes about Gov. Palin. But I'm not so sure this time. From this article, discussing Gov. Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson last week:

“Palin assured the group of her strong support for Israel, of her desire to see the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and of her opposition to Iran’s aspirations to become a nuclear power, according to sources familiar with the meeting.”

...

Palin also volunteered that the Russian invasion was “unprovoked,” though Georgia attacked South Ossetia first. She followed up by saying that Georgia and Ukraine should be brought into NATO.

Would that mean America would have to go to war with Russia on behalf of Georgia in any new conflict, asked Gibson.

“Perhaps so,” said Palin.

....

In fairness to Palin, on issues like NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, her answers reflect the views of the man who chose her. She has no option at present but to follow the line laid down by Scheunemann.

But make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.

Wasilla, Alaska, is not a natural habitat of neoconservatives.

And her unrehearsed answers to Gibson’s questions reveal her natural conservatism. Asked if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine, Palin asked for clarification. “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “Do we have the right of an anticipatory self-defense?”

Yes, said Palin, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against (the) American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Exactly. The intelligence must be legit and the threat “imminent.”

Interviewed by Alaska Business Monthly in March 2007 on the surge, Palin said, “I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place.”

That is not the language of empire or “benevolent global hegemony.”

Palin may disappoint many conservatives in the next seven weeks by having to parrot the McCain-neocon line on NATO expansion, NAFTA and a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. But the battle for Sarah’s soul is not over.

For, again, the lady is no neocon. Nor is the husband Todd, First Dude of Alaska and former member of the “Alaska First” Independence Party.

Pat, I really want to agree with you here, but I have to admit that some of Gov. Palin's comments made me wonder if she is buying into the neocon viewpoint. I fear that even if she is not in full agreement, she will go along with what is presented to her as the more popular view. This is what President Bush did and it has led us to where we are today.

But I understand that anyone being picked as VP has to tow the line of the top ticket candidate quite a bit. Should Sarah Palin become president at some point, my hope would be that she will "clean house" in a way that shows where her true convictions are. Until that happens, I'm not going to write her a blank check with my support.

The RIGHT Policy - Part 2 - Social Issues

2008-09-15T13:43:00.001-05:00

The next bit of policy I'd like to consider in this series is social issues. This includes areas such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. I'll touch on my personal thoughts on these issues then talk about how the next president can influence them.

I'll start with abortion. I've made no secret about my pro-life position in this regard. I find no reason to kill a baby. In the very, very few cases of pregnancies from rape or incest, adoption is a great option. There are plenty of people out there that can provide a good home for a baby. In cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, the doctor and mother\family should make this decision. If the baby has to be removed to save the mother, that does not mean the baby has to be killed also. There are all kinds of stories of babies surviving after being delivered very early in term.

As far as government involvement in this issue is concerned, I have two somewhat competing thoughts. I'd love to see a federal ban on abortion, with some protection for doctors should they decide the mother's life is in jeopardy. Again, not protecting doctors so they can kill the baby, but protecting them should the baby die after all attempts are made to keep both mother and child alive. Our constitution guarantees the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Protecting the life of the unborn is paramount to that.

If a federal ban cannot be done, I'd be fine with the federal government staying out of the issue entirely. Leave it up to the states. Fact is, most states would ban abortions, which is definitely an acceptable compromise. But under no circumstances should their be federal support or provisions for abortions.

Next, embryonic stem cell research. I'm against the harvesting of embryonic stem cells strictly for the purpose of scientific research. However, if an already collected stem cell (such as one being saved for in-vitro fertilization) is going to be destroyed, I'm fine with using it for research instead. I read that embryos used for in-vitro can be kept for 5-10 years. After that, they can be destroyed. It makes no sense to me to destroy them if they can be used for some good.

Should the federal government fund stem cell research? Nope. The government doesn't have to be involved in this research for it to be successful. So if the federal government can figure out a way to allow embryonic stem cell research in a morally acceptable way, I'm fine with it. Also, there is plenty of good research that shows that adult stem cells could have as much promise and embryos. We should put as much effort into that as possible. But again, if an embryo is already going to be destroyed, I think it's acceptable to study it in a lab first.

And I must say this - I don't believe any embryo should be destroyed. Period. So yes, from my perspective in-vitro fertilization should not be done at all if it at some point requires the destruction of an embryo. That's the logical conclusion. I readily admit that in-vitro has helped a lot of people, but I cannot support its use and be consistent in my views. Innocent human life cannot be destroyed for any reason.

The last specific issue I'll address is homosexual marriage. First, homosexual behavior is dangerous, abnormal, and wrong. And if our government can pass laws made to protect us from dangerous behavior (ie: making us wear seat belts), then there is no reason that they can't do the same related to our sexual preferences. But this is unrealistic. If they stopped homosexual behavior, they'd have to stop some heterosexual behavior also. So this is not really whether or or not we can stop people from being gay. We can't. As Christians, the only thing we can do is reach out to homosexuals as we reach out to all sinners and try to help them turn away from their sin. We all sin. We all need a Savior.

So we are left with whether or not they should be allowed to get married. To answer that, we should look at why they want to get married in the first place. From a government\policy standpoint, it's because married people receive certain tax and insurance benefits. Well the tax benefit is easy. Get rid of it. Get rid of most taxes and then it won't matter. More on that when I deal with economic policy. I'm not sure if the government makes the rules on how insurance companies treat single and married couples. If so, they shouldn't. At which point anyone can put anyone else on their plan. Insurance companies could then handle this however they wanted. That's RIGHT, private enterprise could actually handle something without the government being involved! Go figure. :)

So yeah, from a government\policy perspective, there's not really any reason to have a law one way or the other related to homosexual marriage. There may be some policies related to who gets what when a spouse dies. This can be handled simply with a will. Not much else to say there. After that, if an organization wants to give a couple a piece of paper that says they are married, we can't do nothing about it. The government does not have to be involved in marriage at all.

Wow, this is getting pretty long. I do need to spend a little bit of time talking about where the candidates stand on these issues though.

Starting with abortion. Let's get a couple of recent quotes from Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

OBAMA:

Look, I've got two daughters, nine years old and six years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. Now, so -- it doesn't make sense to not give them information.

PALIN:

(on the birth of her son, who has Down's Syndrome)

"We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives.

"We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."

(on her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy)

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

I have to say I find Senator Obama's comments ridiculous, deplorable, sad, etc, etc. To even see him use the term "punished with a baby" made me lose what respect I might have had for him up to the point that I read that. I can say with certainty that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. I pretty much already felt that way but that quote solidified it. I will not vote to put a man in office who has that perspective about a human life.

So what about McCain's record on abortion? Well, he picked Palin as his VP, which shows he definitely respects the pro-life view. He says he's pro-life and his voting record reflects that. He does want exceptions made in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in jeopardy. And he has voted yes on a few bills that had provisions that would fund abortions under certain circumstances. I haven't really studied those though, so it could be that they were thrown in as part of a larger bill that he voted yes on. Not using that as an excuse, but it would make sense. Overall, he definitely has a pro-life history.

Real quick on the others - McCain and Obama are both for funding embryonic stem cell research. Neither is very conservative there. And I've seen nothing that says either McCain or Obama want to allow gay marriage, but they do not favor a ban on it either.

Ok, I know I said this is getting pretty long and I just kept going, so now I'll try to wrap things up a bit. One of the main areas where the president can influence social policy is in his judicial nominations. And to be honest, I'm not sure what either candidate will do here.

McCain voted for President Bush's Supreme court appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Good. But he was also a part of the horribly unconstitutional Gang of 14. Bad. I'm unconvinced he will place strict constitutionalists on the bench. It's 50-50.

Obama? Well, I'm pretty convinced he will not put a conservative on the bench. And I've already said he won't get my vote because of the abortion issue. Not really much more to say there.

In fact, I'm going to go as far as saying that one of the main reasons I'd vote for McCain would be to keep Obama out of the office. McCain is a fairly safe bet as far as holding to socially conservative viewpoints. Even if he's not fully on board, he wouldn't go against them because of the damage that would be caused to himself and the Republican party if he did. He won't be as conservative as President Bush, but he'd be infinitely better than Barack Obama. And a McCain presidency means that Sarah Palin gains more notoriety, along with her pro-life views. I've pretty much said this in previous posts, but truly the best thing to like about John McCain is his choice of Sarah Palin as VP.

So now we are starting to get somewhere. In summary, I don't think there is a conservative case to be made for voting for Barack Obama. And John McCain has actually shows that he can be conservative in a very important area. Abortion has been THE ISSUE for me in past elections. I'm really struggling with whether or not that will be the case this year.

Next up will be economic issues. Stay tuned...

Jason Whitlock is RIGHT

2008-09-11T12:49:00.001-05:00

All I can really say to this is WOW! This dude hit the nail on the head. From this article. Full text below:

Sad to say, but Young's problems were predictable

By Jason Whitlock

I'm going to do my best to avoid turning this into an I-told-you-so column.

But the truth is, I told you before the 2006 draft that Vince Young was primed for NFL failure. He entered the league with an attitude, mindset and supporting cast totally unprepared to survive the pressure, challenge and responsibility that goes along with the most prestigious and difficult job in all of sports.

When I explained all of this in 2006, my naive and misguided critics called me an Uncle Tom. Yeah, they ripped me for attempting to issue a young black kid a warning about what awaited him in The League and the attitude he would need to cope and excel.

Some people foolishly think it's every black media member's job to assist in the mental and emotional crippling of black youth. We're supposed to blow rainbows up the asses of every black athlete who "makes it" and assure him/her that anyone who utters a word of criticism is a jealous bigot or irrational sellout.

So, no, I'm not surprised Vince Young tried to quit in the middle of Sunday's game after throwing a second interception and hearing boos from Titans fans frustrated by his inability to read a defense or throw accurately. I'm not all that shocked that two days later Jeff Fisher called the police and asked them to hunt down his inconsistent quarterback. I'm not surprised the Titans team psychologist is apparently worried that Vince Young is suffering depression.

And I'm really not surprised that Vince Young's mother told The Tennessean that her baby boy needs a little space and a lot of love and support.

The question is, when Young rebounds from his emotional abyss and recovers from his knee injury, what kind of love and support are we going to give him? Are the people who already love Young going to replant their heads in Young's rear end and their hands in his wallet? Or will a few people within Team Vince do the right thing and level with him about what he needs to do to make it in the NFL as a quarterback?

Vince Young, like a lot of young African-American men, desperately needs to hear the truth from the people who love him. Too often we pave the road to failure for black boys by believing the cure for bigotry — and there is still plenty of bigotry in America — is the ability to recognize it in (and blame it for) everything. That cure has more negative side effects than most of the drugs trumpeted by the pharmaceutical companies in television commercials. That cure serves as a convenient crutch, and turns a talent such as Vince Young into a quitter the moment adversity strikes. That cure helped land Michael Vick in jail.

Everyone told Vince Young and Michael Vick the NFL would be easy. They'd revolutionize the QB position with their legs, and they could pop bottles, roll with a posse and pretend to be Jay-Z in their spare time.

It just doesn't work. Not for Young or Vick. Not for Matt Leinart. Not for anyone who wants to star at the position and avoid the boo-birds.

No one revolutionizes the starting quarterback position. The position revolutionizes the person playing it. Just ask Donovan McNabb. He figured it out and changed his game. Over the objection of idiots, McNabb developed his skills as a pocket passer. He concentrated on becoming a student of the game. If he can stay healthy over the next three or four years, McNabb will surpass Warren Moon as the best black quarterback ever to play the game.

Unfortunately, there are still people, especially black people, who don't appreciate McNabb. They think he let "us" down by de-emphasizing his athleticism, and they criticize him for being cozy with his organization the way Peyton Manning is with the Colts and Brady is with the Patriots.

McNabb doesn't get to enjoy the luxury of being a company man the way other franchise QBs in their prime do.

But McNabb has never threatened to quit or asked out of a game because the Philly fans were too rough. McNabb understands that in some instances the scrutiny of a black quarterback might be a tad more intense than that of a white one. He also understands that the best way to combat it isn't whining. It's performance. It's work ethic. It's professionalism.

It's not a coincidence that McNabb comes from a supportive, two-parent household.

I bring that up not to castigate Vince Young and his mother. I don't even know the story of Young's upbringing.

I raise the issue to point out that in modern professional sports — with the astronomical players' salaries — ownership and management examine the upbringing of the athletes and factor that into their decision-making.

Vick's failure, Young's potential failure and the guaranteed money they were given will make ownership more reluctant to anoint another kid from the 'hood a franchise quarterback straight out of college.

It's not about color. It's about fitting the profile of someone who can handle all that goes along with being an NFL quarterback. If I'm an owner, I spend my quarterback dollars on young men who were raised by strong fathers. It wouldn't be an infallible system, but on average I bet I'd hit more winners than if I turned over the leadership of my team to a kid who isn't used to having a strong male authority figure.

As black people, we need to ask ourselves whether we are doing a good job preparing our boys for positions of immense leadership, responsibility and scrutiny.

You are going to get criticized playing quarterback. If your instinct is to dismiss the criticism as racist, maybe you shouldn't play the position. If you are surrounded by people who spend every waking minute telling you that you can do no wrong and that everyone who criticizes you is a bigot, then maybe you shouldn't play quarterback.

The position requires thick skin and genuine self-confidence. If you need four or five male groupies with you at all times, a half million dollars of jewelry around your neck and wrists and a dozen tattoos to feel confident, then maybe you should play wide receiver or start rapping.

The average NFL fan has no idea how much time a franchise spends working on self-esteem issues with a typical player. You think these guys are self-assured. Many of them are not. They self-medicate with booze, drugs, steroids, bling, women and attention-getting stunts such as name changes.

Remember when Terrell Owens' assistant claimed he had 25 million reasons to live? It was an accidental moment of clarity and honesty. Too many players have their whole sense of self-worth tied up in their contracts.

It doesn't take much to crack a man with no real identity, especially if he's grown accustomed to having all of his shortcomings rationalized.

Quotes of the day

2008-09-10T12:57:00.001-05:00

I read a couple of interesting opinion articles today that I thought were worth sharing. Well, one is really more of a press release, but it's definitely an opinion. Both have to do with the "RIGHT Policy" series that I'm working on.

First, liberal "scholar" (I guess that is the best term) Camille Paglia wrote this article for Salon.com. It's a pretty interesting article. She mainly wanted to address how Sarah Palin is a "real feminist". I don't really have much of an opinion in that regard, but she make some good point. I recommend you read the entire article, but the quote I want to share today is this one...

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.

She has some really crazy views, but at least she admits that abortion is indeed murder. Most liberals would never admit this of course. But she is RIGHT. She goes on to talk about how the way liberals defend the pro-choice viewpoint will never work, so they are left with attacking pro-life women.

And the second thing I want to share is Ron Paul's press release today. Some excerpts...

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

---

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

---

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

Well, this is what the series I'm working on is really all about I guess. I'm really torn here. Ron Paul is exactly RIGHT that we are not going to change anything if we keep holding our nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. But some things about the (yes, minor) differences in Obama and McCain's policies are down right scary. Some things about liberal platform are extremely dangerous. Can I live with voting for someone who I know will lose or not voting at all even when the consequences could affect our country for many years to come? Tough decision indeed.

Peggy Noonan Is RIGHT

2008-09-05T07:49:00.001-05:00

The Sarah Palin train is still rolling along. Since McCain introduced her as his VP pick, the news media can't stop talking about her. Many conservatives are now energized to vote. James Dobson said for the first time that he can feel comfortable voting for McCain because of Palin. Rush Limbaugh said he is considering giving money to the McCain campaign because of Palin. And on and on.

Gov. Palin gave her acceptance speech the other night, and like 40 million people watched. Almost as many watched her as watched Obama's speech, which I think was the most watched convention speech in history. So people are still very interested in Sarah Palin and the attacks on her don't really seem to be working very well.

This brings me to Peggy Noonan's article today. I've linked to Ms. Noonan a few times before. I just like the way she states things. Some excerpts:

Sarah Palin killed. And more than killed.

Much has been said about her speech, but a few points. "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick" is pure American and goes straight into Bartlett's. This is the authentic sound of the American mama, of every mother you know at school who joins the board, reads the books, heads the committee, and gets the show on the road. These women make large portions of America work.

She has the power of the normal. Hillary Clinton is grim, stentorian, was born to politics and its connivances. Nancy Pelosi, another mother of five, often seems dazed and ad hoc. But this state governor and mother of a big family is a woman in a good mood. There is something so normal about her, so "You've met this person before and you like her," that she broke through in a new way, as a character vividly herself, and vividly genuine.

Her flaws accentuated her virtues. Now and then this happens in politics, but it's rare. An example: The very averageness of her voice, the not-wonderfulness of it, highlighted her normality: most people don't have great voices. That normality in turn highlighted the courage she showed in being there, on that stage for the first time in her life and under trying circumstances. Her averageness accentuated her specialness. Her commonality highlighted her uniqueness.

She seemed wholly different from, and in fact seemed a refutation to, all the men of Washington at their great desks who make rules others have to live by but they don't have to live by themselves, who mandate work rules from which they exempt Congress, for instance. They don't live by the rules they espouse. She has lived her expressed values. She said yes to a Down Syndrome child. This too is powerful.

What she did in terms of the campaign itself was important. No one has ever really laid a glove on Obama before, not in this campaign and maybe not in his life. But Palin really damaged him. She took him square on, fearlessly, by which I mean in part that she showed no awkwardness connected to race, or racial history. A small town mayor is kind of like a community organizer only you have actual responsibilities. He wrote two memoirs but never authored a major bill. They've hauled the Styrofoam pillars back to the Hollywood lot.

This was powerful coming from Baberaham Lincoln, as she's been called.

By the end, Democrats knew they had been dinged, and badly. After the speech they descended on cable news en masse with the dart-eyed, moist-browed look of the operative who doesn't believe his talking points. They seemed like they were thinking, "I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well." Actually they haven't seen it before in that Palin is something new, but they have seen it before in terms of what she said.

Which gets me to the most important element of the speech, and that is the startlingness of the content. It was not modern conservatism, or split the difference Conservative-ish-ism. It was not a conservatism that assumes the America of 2008 is very different from the America of 1980.

It was the old-time conservatism. Government is too big, Obama will "grow it", Congress spends too much and he'll spend "more." It was for low taxes, for small business, for the private sector, for less regulation, for governing with "a servant's heart"; it was pro-small town values, and implicitly but strongly pro-life.

This was so old it seemed new, and startling. The speech was, in its way, a call so tender it made grown-ups weep on the floor. The things she spoke of were the beating heart of the old America. But as I watched I thought, I know where the people in that room are, I know their heart, for it is my heart. But this election is a wild card, because America is a wild card. It is not as it was in '80. I know where the Republican base is, but we do not know where this country that never stops changing is.

...

John McCain also made a speech. It was flat.

Love that last line! So clearly there is still a lot of excitement for Palin and still not so much for McCain. I think Noonan hit the nail on the head when she talked about how Palin seems average, like someone we know. Like I said last week, she seems normal.

I'm getting the feeling that I'm not the only one that kinda wishes the ticket could be flipped. :)

The RIGHT Policy - Part 1 - Foreign Policy

2008-09-04T13:59:00.001-05:00

In a blog entry last week, I said that I wanted to put together a series on policies that I think conservatives should look for in a candidate. I decided to start the series with the topic that my perspective has changed the most on. That of foreign policy.

If you followed the primaries at all, you'll know that Ron Paul sounded more like the Democrats than the Republicans with regards to foreign policy. You'll also know that I was a big fan of Ron Paul. So clearly I had to reconcile the two, as it is obvious I'm not a liberal\Democrat.

I want to start with a bit of a history lesson. Many today think that being "conservative" includes a believe in a "strong military", mostly meaning that we need to spend a lot of money on our military so that we can face any challenge. As is pretty obvious in recent history, many have used this ideology to promote things like invading Iraq (twice) and forming and participating in alliances such as NATO and the UN. Something we've also seen a lot of lately is giving the president full power to send out military into an area, with or without approving votes from Congress.

However, that is not the traditional conservative viewpoint. This is actually the viewpoint of a group of people that are now called or neoconservatives or "neo-cons". While somewhat based on the conservative movement, neo-cons did introduce some major new ideas that was not included in previous conservative platforms. Related to foreign policy, here is an excerpt from this wikipedia article about neo-cons:

As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which also sometimes exhibits a non-interventionist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

If this sounds new to you, you may be wondering - what is the traditional conservative view? I'm glad you asked! :)

By definition, "conservative" indicates that proponents seek to keep to the traditional way of doing things, based on a particular standard. So there are conservative Christians who seek to use the Bible as the standard. People who hold to a conservative political viewpoint seek to stick to the Constitution and the subsequent documents\statements by the framers of the Constitution as the standard. With that in mind, here is a quote from George Washington's farewell address in 1796.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

And here is an excerpt from our Constitution explaining the rights of Congress (from Article 1, section 8):

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I've read that these types of declarations require a two-thirds vote, but I've not found that in the text. So I'm going to take the "conservative" approach and not state that it does. :)

Regardless, we can get from those two statements alone that many of our recent foreign relations moves haven't exactly been done in a traditional\conservative way.

So what am I driving at here. Well, put simply - we should have never used the force we have in Iraq or Afghanistan (or anywhere else) without a full Declaration of War from Congress. What presidents are doing now by seeking resolutions that allow them to use force at their discretion and what Congress is doing by granting them is just a way for both of them to skirt their Constitutional mandate. It's basically a way for the president to get all of the blame if something goes crazy and for members of Congress to to say they didn't intend for things to get so crazy. I believe we could have gotten such a declaration of War for Afghanistan, and I think that is appropriate. With Iraq, I'm not so sure. If there were a declaration, so be it. If not, we shouldn't be there.

As for the entangling alliances stuff, I've never thought we should be in the UN or NATO. We have no business letting agreements with other countries potentially get us into situations where we have no business. Examples of this would be Bosnia, Somalia, and the first Iraq conflict.

Somewhat related is the placement of all of our military bases across the world. This is something that Ron Paul opened my eyes to. Think about this for a minute - what would we think of other countries put military bases in our country? How would you like to have a German military base in your backyard? And what if Germany started doing things internationally that we did not agree with while they had bases in your backyard? Now you probably can figure out why some Muslims consider us evil. Base in Saudi Arabia? Check. Huge support for Israel, a country that is considered enemy-number-one to many of the citizens of Saudi Arabia? Check. Making it easy for those citizens to to gather support for hating us? Check! So yes, I think we should get our military out of those countries, which will restore their sense of sovereignty and give them less reasons to hate us. And bring our troops home to protect our borders.

In addition, we should end our tight alliances with countries like Israel. They can take care of themselves. If they are attacked, we can figure out what to do about it at that time.

Our main goal should be PROTECTING OURSELVES! If a country asks us for help, take it to Congress. Otherwise, STAY OUT OF IT! We are not the world's police.

Ok, so after all of that, let's look at the two candidates.

Obama: Well, Obama says he was against Iraq from the beginning, but I'm not sure I buy that since he wasn't in a national position at the time. He says he'd focus on going after bin Laden. Could be true I guess but nothing he's done supports that. I could see an Obama foreign policy looking a lot like the Clinton policy. Remember how we were attacked during the Clinton presidency and did NOTHING about it? That's what I figure Obama would do. Doesn't want to ruffle any feathers. Also recall that Clinton had a chance to capture bin Laden and did not take advantage. Did not even go to Congress about it. I know Obama is not Bill Clinton but I really don't see any liberal\Democrat acting any differently.

There is one thing that I do find interesting about the Democrat platform. From this link:

We believe we must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability-to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities

That looks a lot like the neo-con policy, huh? But it's still definitely not conservative.

McCain: This one should be obvious after reading everything above. McCain is the poster-child for an aggressive foreign policy, and many of the other neo-con policies. He's said we could\should be Iraq for 100 years. I have no doubt he'd take us into war with Iran if given the slightest reason to do so. In the early days of his presidency, he would probably us into stuff like the Russia\Georgia conflict just to show he's serious. Go to Congress first? No way.

So yeah, nothing much for me to like with either candidate in this regard. Neither is going to focus on our own defense. Both could put us into some very dangerous predicaments. I'm pretty scared about this one. Tensions in some areas of the world are escalating and our current foreign policy tends to stick us in the middle of them.

So I'm left with hoping\praying that something will change with our foreign policy. It's sad to me that conservatives have moved away from the traditional ideology. But it's not too late or too hard to turn back. I did it. Only 50-100 million more people need to do the same. :)

I'll be looking at other policies to determine what the RIGHT way to vote is. More to come...

A little bit more about Gov. Palin

2008-08-29T13:22:00.001-05:00

I've had a few conversations with some people since it was apparent that Gov. Palin would be McCain's VP nominee. Some of the main points that have been made...

- This is clearly an attempt to appeal to women who are mad that Hillary did not get the nomination. No one knows how effective this will be, but there are surely some women out there that really like the idea of a woman being the next in line for president should something happen to the (really old dude) McCain.

- She doesn't have much experience, but she is the only one on either ticket with executive-level political experience. All of the others have only served in statehouses and\or the Senate. So it can said (and has been) that she has more experience than any of the folks on the tickets. Also, her lack of experience and the fact that she is a hunter, mother of five, etc, etc makes her seem like a "normal" American. She's not rich (I assume - at the very least she's not near as wealthy as the other candidates). She's not a lifetime politician. When is the last time we had anyone that we could really relate to as president or vice-president? This could play in her favor also.

- This pick is very risky for McCain. Even though the first point above is valid, asking some men to vote for a woman is gonna be a tough sell. There are a lot of people that don't think women are qualified to handle the stresses of the oval office.

As I said earlier, I think it's a pretty good pick for McCain even with the risks. The strategy here is clear. With all indications of this being a really close election, she could have a pretty big impact. Should be interesting...

Sarah Palin is RIGHT!

2008-08-29T10:27:00.001-05:00

Back in February, I posted this entry about my predictions for the outcome of the election. On the VP picks for each candidate, I said this about McCain:

McCain's VP will either be some old, crusty, white dude that he's been saying support him (like Jack Kemp) so that he can use the "experience" mantra to get support. Or it will be some young, charismatic, white dude so that he can show that he's "willing to listen to new ideas". And by "new" I mean "conservative". He'll probably try to get someone that is a far right conservative, but I'm not sure if they will accept. Don't be surprised if Mike Huckabee ends up being his VP in an attempt to woo Christians to vote. It won't work.

And this about Obama:

I don't see it being Hillary or John Edwards. Hillary would never accept and Obama would never offer after the way she and Bill have and will continue to treat him. John Edwards was a disaster of a VP nominee in 2004. Obama is too smart to try that again. I figure he'll go for an older white dude to try to help with the race issue that he will continue to deal with, and with the 'inexperience" issue. I don't expect his ticket to be a very liberal ticket. His ticket will be fairly middle-of-the-road and will be full of energy and charisma.

So I guess I proved with Obama's pick that I kinda knew what I was talking about, eh? :)

And with McCain I was kinda right. I said he'd pick some young conservative dude. Well, I was surely wrong about the "dude" part. :) But she is definitely young and definitely conservative.

In case you haven't heard, McCain named Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice. Mrs. Palin has been gaining quite a bit of notoriety over the last few years in Alaska, and for all the RIGHT reasons!

For some history on her, check her wikipedia page. Also, check this blog entry from some site I've never heard of about why McCain should choose her. A few that I like:

REASON #9: PALIN PUTS PRINCIPLE AND THE PEOPLE FIRST
After her initial, unsuccessful, run against him for the Governor’s office, former Alaska Governor Murkowski appointed Palin Ethics Commissioner of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. If Murkowski figured this appointment would pressure Palin into overlooking misbehavior by her fellow Republicans, he figured wrong. Within a year, Palin resigned in a very public protest over the ethics displayed by Alaska’s Republican leadership, filing a formal complaint against Randy Ruedrich, who was not only a fellow Oil and Gas Commissioner, but also the chairman of Alaska’s Republican party.

If Senator McCain wants a running mate willing to be a maverick to Party, but never to Principle, he need look no further than Sarah Palin.

...

REASON #7: PALIN IS A REFORM GOVERNOR WITH BIPARTISAN APPEAL
Palin doesn’t just criticize pork-barrel spending – she slashes it. A few days after she assumed office as Governor, she put the Westwind II jet her predecessor had purchased up for sale, on eBay. The jet eventually sold, in 2007, for $2.7 million, slightly above its 2005 purchase price. Palin canceled roads and construction projects designed to benefit friends of the prior administration.

REASON #6: PALIN IS A FEMININE FEMINIST, WITH HOMETOWN, NOT HOLLYWOOD, VALUES
1960s feminists regarded men as oppressors, and considered marriage a state akin to slavery or rape. They struggled to convince each other, and often themselves, that “a woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle.” They treated with contempt women who married, had children, or violated their strict dress code (no heels, no makeup, no dresses, no color that mud doesn’t come in).

Palin’s is a feminism of a different, newer sort – call it ‘Feminism 2.0’ – a feminism that is not hostile to men, and that respects and honors women who work hard to balance a traditional home life with professional ambitions. Palin works hard to achieve such a balance: three days after giving birth to her fifth child, for example, she conducted a meeting concerning a proposed natural gas pipeline.

Palin met her husband, Alaska’s First Gentleman Todd Palin, at Wasilla High School, where she was point guard for her basketball team, the year they won the championship. A feminist who also enjoys being feminine, she ran for, and won, the “Miss Wasilla” beauty pageant, a race in which she also won “Miss Congeniality,” an award unlikely to be awarded to many feminists of earlier vintage. She is, similarly, a member of Feminists for Life, an organization whose mission would have been inconceivable twenty years ago.

REASON #5: PALIN IS UNAPOLOGETICALLY PRO-LIFE
As the mother of five children, ranging in age from 19 years to 4 months, Palin brings a kind of authority to her pro-life stance that will complement well Senator McCain’s pro-life position.

Palin has also risen courageously to the challenge of having a child diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Her commitment to the sanctity and value of every human life helps highlight concerns regarding Obama’s position on late-term (actually, post-natal) abortion.

REASON #4: PALIN IS COMFORTABLE WITH AND LOVED BY BLUE-COLLAR VOTERS
Though Joe Biden talks a great deal about his blue collar roots (and about pretty much every else), any claim he may have to being just one of the people fell away years ago. Biden’s been a Beltway insider since Nixon was President, having been first elected to office in 1972.

Palin, on the other hand, is blue collar to the core. A life member of the NRA, she hunts and fishes, and the man she loves is an oil rig worker and commercial fisherman, who races snowmobiles for fun.

So I have to give McCain a bit of credit here. He seems to have really chosen the best nominee.

(An aside - A lot of folks don't think the VP pick is all that important. I really couldn't disagree more. We need to remember that they are the president of the Senate, the next in line should something happen to the president, and that they really can have a big impact on the decisions the president makes. So someone like Palin who seems to really stand by her convictions could be a major contributor to McCain's policy.)

I kinda wish the ticket could be reversed. :)

Since everything is in full swing now as far as the presidential campaign goes, I'd like to start a series on characteristics\policy positions that I (and all conservatives IMO) should look for in a candidate for president. I've made it clear that I don't think there is any real difference between the two candidates, and I'll have a really hard time voting for either of them. But, do either have enough good characteristics to make them a "safe" candidate to put into the White House? That's what I want to explore and I invite you along for the journey. More soon...

Pat Buchanan is RIGHT...Again!

2008-08-15T11:58:00.001-05:00

Wow, this is going to go down as one of my all-time favorites from Mr. Buchanan, especially if our involvement in the Russia\Georgia conflict continues to escalate.

Here is an excerpt from this article, which I highly recommend you read in its entirety. I've bolded the first sentence because it's something I think we all need to chew on it a little bit...

Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?

Yep, must be about race

2008-08-14T14:39:00.001-05:00

So this is a headline on the Drudge Report right now...

WHITES NO LONGER MAJORITY BY 2042...

A couple of thoughts....

1. Why are we speculating what things are going to look like 34 YEARS FROM NOW anyway?! We have no idea what groups might be moving in or out of the country within the next 10 years, much less the next 30. What if companies like the one my good friend John Williams is employed at decide they want to continue to outsource some of their business to Mexico, which causes a huge boom in their economy, which causes many of them that are here now to decide to move back? Heck, what if we buy Mexico (as I have proposed before) and Hispanics become the majority overnight? What if some sort of famine\plague\act of war ends up wiping out a huge area of the country and thus turns our racial demographic upside down? My point is - we have no idea what the future holds. This study is not credible at all.

2. This is actually just a copy of someone else's thoughts, but he is exactly RIGHT! From this article:

The New York Times reports that "ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation's population in a little more than a generation." But ethnic and racial minorities already comprise a majority of the nation's population. The current U.S. population is about 300 million. There are roughly 46 million Hispanic Americans, 40 million African Americans, 35 million Irish Americans, 16 million Italian Americans, 15 million Asian Americans, 10 million Polish Americans, 3 million Greek Americans, and 3 million Russian Americans. That's a majority right there, and I've left out a bunch of ethnic groups.

What the Times really means, of course, is that "Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites." We've become so accustomed to this arbitrary definition of "ethnic and racial minorities" that it's easy to lose sight of how bizarre it is. Is there a single objective criterion that unites these particular ethnic and racial minorities while distinguishing them from all the excluded groups? Is there any rational reason why a descendant of Spaniards, say, should count as a real minority, whether or not his ancestors spent time in Latin America, while a descendant of Italians does not? What is it, exactly, that makes Indians more ethnic than Albanians?

While some Americans view the arrival of the milestone heralded by the Times with horror, others see it as a sign of progress. I'd say obsessing about it one way or another indicates a lack of progress.

Love that last sentence. :)

Attention Mr. Kristol, Russia != Iraq

2008-08-11T15:34:00.001-05:00

In case any of you are confused by the title, the "!=" is a how some computer programming languages say that two things are not equal to each other. So Russia "is not equal to" Iraq. There, you all learned some programming. :)

Now, for the purpose of this blog post. I'm sure some of you have read or heard about the conflict between Georgia (the country, not the state) and Russia. Well, Bill Kristol penned this article in the New York Times about it yesterday. An excerpt:

But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence — about 2,000 troops — fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of — and perhaps destabilizes all of — a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago.

For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine’s. Shouldn’t we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?

Ok, now I'm sure some of you have guessed by my support of Ron Paul's candidacy a few months ago that my perspective on foreign policy may have changed somewhat. While that is definitely true and very likely something I should blog about at some point, I don't think the things I am about to say would have been any different before my perspective changed.

So let's just get it out....

WE CANNOT GET INVOLVED IN THIS CONFLICT

And restate the title...

BECAUSE RUSSIA != IRAQ

Attacking Iraq in 2004 or helping Kuwait fight Iraq off in the early 90s is completely different than helping Georgia in this situation. No one doubted we could defeat Iraq. But no one knows what would happen if we got into a major conflict with Russia, which to me is reason enough to STAY OUT OF this conflict. Our military should not get involved in this. We should not send military aid. If Russia wants to attack Georgia, we should condemn it just as we are now, but that is it.

We are spread thin enough militarily as it is. Messing around with a super-power like Russia (who might I mention probably could assembly some pretty darn powerful allies on its side) would get us into a conflict that would not be worth the time, money, and lives lost.

I feel bad for the people of Georgia, and yes I think Russia is probably being overly aggressive here. But it's NOT OUR BUSINESS. It's time to stop policing the world. Starting now.

Argh!

2008-08-07T15:42:00.001-05:00

Oh man, I just can't believe this. It's really not that big a deal I suppose, but it still kinda burns me up.

I've never thought much about the J.D. Power and Associates automobile ratings. Mainly because one of their major studies, the Initial Quality Survey, is used so often to try to make one manufacturer or another look good. In that survey, they ask people if they are happy with their vehicle or have had any problems after a (whopping) 90 days and then try to say that is some sort of guage for "initial quality". I'm sorry, but after 90 days quality simply can't be determined on any level. The assumption here is that anything major that goes wrong is likely an anomaly. Anyway, that's the side rant. Now for the main one...

From this article...

The study also finds that five of the top 10 problems reported industry-wide in the 2008 Vehicle Dependability Study were also among the top 10 most frequently reported problems in the 2005 Initial Quality Study, suggesting that the problems are identified by owners during the initial ownership period, but have not been rectified by automakers during the three-year ownership period.
The problems include:

Excessive wind noise

Noisy brakes

Vehicle pulling to the left or right

Issues with the instrument panel/dashboard

Excessive window fogging

Chew on that top 5 problems list for a couple of seconds...

...

Now, think about the fact that those complaints are the most popular after 3 years of ownership...

...

OK, now HOW RIDICULOUS IS THAT??!!!

How can you say "excessive window fogging" is a quality issue? Or "excessive wind noise"? Um, what is the definition of "excessive"?? The only one that kinda makes since to me is the instrument panel issues. And I guess maybe the "vehicle pulling to the left or right" issue if it is within the first 30 days. After that, any number of factors can cause that type of behavior. Hardly a quality issue in my opinion.

I'm glad J.D. Power gave a little bit more details on the problems that people are reporting, but they definitely didn't make me feel any more confident in their survey. I'm sure that stuff like "excessive wind noise" or "excessive window fogging" or even "noisy brakes" bothers people, but unless there is an actual problem with the windows or the brakes, those are hardly quality issues that must be addressed by the manufacturer ASAP.

Just plain ridiculous....

Yep, must be about race

2008-08-01T07:05:00.001-05:00

Been a while since I've had something in this series. Frankly, I'm surprised the "players" in today's entry took so long.

So Barak Obama is mentioning his race more and more in his campaign. And John McCain is trying to call him out on it. Here is an article with some details.

As I said above, the only thing I'm surprised about is that it took this long to make race a real factor in the campaign.

So now there is something that really divides these candidates, since they don't differ much at all on policy. Too bad it's something that neither have any control over, so there really isn't any reason for either of them to be talking about it.

These events probably mean things are about to get REALLY UGLY. It can be stopped now of course, but I kinda think both campaigns will want to let it continue to see if it will help either of them.

Or another way to say that- both are willing to further divide our country in order to get elected.

Really sad.

Quote of the Day

2008-07-17T06:57:00.001-05:00

So the story last week about Jesse Jackson saying he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off gets a little more interesting. More of the quote has been leaked. Here it is:

“See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith-based – I wanna cut his nuts out. … Barack – he’s talking down to black people -- telling n------s how to behave.”

That's right people, Jesse Jackson used the N-word. Right there is your proof that he is just as RACIST as the people he has made a career out of destroying.

'Nuff said.

Quote of the Day

2008-07-07T13:55:00.001-05:00

From this article....

If you fill up with ethanol, every time you pull that SUV into the gas station and pump 22 gallons, you starve a poor person for six months.

Well, I was just going to stop there and let the quote and article speak for itself, but I've got to get something off my chest. I've talked about this with several people and I get more angry about it every time it comes up.

We need to give up on this ethanol stuff. The idea of reducing our dependence on foreign oil sounded great when it was first presented, but we now all know that we will never produce enough ethanol to do that. On top of that, study after study has proven that when compared to oil, ethanol is more expensive to produce, take more energy to create (and thus is worse for the environment), and gets worse gas mileage.

The optimist in me tells me that the last sentence above could all possibly be remedied with better technology over time. And I believe that to be true. But at what cost?

Well, we are already seeing that cost when we go to the grocery store. Our Congress once again stepped way over their mandate by requiring that a certain amount of corn be set aside for ethanol production. And we are all suffering the consequences. This has affected virtually every sector of the food industry.

Also, we went from digging underground to get our fuel to getting it from an above ground source? WHAT WERE WE THINKING?!! We do realize that flooding, droughts, and other weather can affect the output of corn, right?!!

Anyway, I'm more and more convinced that our only options for energy are either hydrogen or nuclear. Hydrogen mainly because we'll never run out of the resources needed to make it, and nuclear because we can make that ourselves.

We need to stop pursuing any energy source that depends on non-renewable resources (such as oil and coal) or anything that is very dependent on its environment (such as corn, sugar, etc).

As Mike and I have discussed several times, if we want to use corn, we need to figure out how to make corn in a lab first.

John W and Dave Ramsey are RIGHT

2008-06-27T14:50:00.001-05:00

John W borrowed my theme, so I am going to give him some linky love. :) Go to his blog and read this entry.

Oh, and be sure to go back one entry on his blog and check out his awesome\scary\crazy news from a couple of weeks ago!

Dr. Dobson is RIGHT

2008-06-24T07:25:00.001-05:00

So the headline on Drudge today is about how James Dobson is attacking Barack Obama over some of Obama's statements from a while back. True enough, he did spend a lot of time talking about Obama on the broadcast. But he spent just as much time talking about the problems with Republicans over the last decade or so.

He's really just affirming what I've been saying since it became apparent that John McCain was going to take the Republican nomination. Christian Conservatives don't really have anyone that we can trust this year to champion our causes.

He started the broadcast with some comments about Tim Russert, with a clip from an interview he did on Meet the Press in 1998. In the interview, you'll hear we had the same problems then as we do now - We voted in a bunch of so-called Conservatives and they did nothing.

It looks like this is going to be a horrible year for Republicans and I for one am not upset about that at all. They have to learn not to bite the hands that feeds them so to speak, and this is the year to start that process.

Anyway, if you want to hear the Dr. Dobson's broadcast to get a clearer picture on what all the hubub is about today, click on the link below. I'm not going to say I agree with everything that they got worked up over, but it's still a pretty good listen...

http://www.oneplace.com/common/player/oneplace/CustomPlayer.asp?bcd=6/24/2008&url=http://swn.edgeboss.net/wmedia/swn/oneplace/wm/ffd/ffd20080624.wax&MinTitle=Focus+on+the+Family&MinURL=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/focus_on_the_family/&MinArchives=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/focus_on_the_family/archives.asp&Refresh=&AdsCategory=MINISTRY.FOTF&Show_ID=132

Remembering Tim Russert

2008-06-20T07:55:00.001-05:00

Yeah, I'm pretty late on this one. Truth is, I didn't really find much reason to blog about Tim Russert. I didn't know the man. The only reason his death struck me at all was because I knew like most other people who have spoke or written about him that he was one of VERY few truly objective journalists out there. You all know that I follow politics quite a bit, so of course I've watched Meet the Press quite a bit. I used to watch Fox News Sunday when Tony Snow was the host, but after he left Meet the Press was the only one I cared to watch, and then only occasionally.

Anyway, after the events surrounding his death were explained, it was clear to me that he worked himself into the ground. You rarely see this. It is something to be admired and it is something to be sad about. How much of a "family man" could he have really been if he worked so much? This is something we all of to deal with at points in our lives. I'm sure Tim was the same. It's clear he loved his family very much. But he also loved his profession - a little too much in my opinion.

When discussing Tim Russert's death with my boss the other day, he said that there are some "celebrities" that pass away and you barely notice. And then there are others that you stop and think, "Oh man. That's a shame. He\She will be missed". I think he hit the nail on the head.

Finally, the main reason I wanted to blog about this today was to point you to Peggy Noonan's article on the subject. I think she hit the nail on the head too as far as why the media focused on his death as much as they did. They truly don't understand what being "normal" is. Tim was just a normal guy with a normal background who made it to the top of a world filled with supposed "elites". They were baffled by that, and finally had a chance to explain it after his death. Article is here. Text below. Enjoy.

A Life's Lesson
June 20, 2008

When somebody dies, we tell his story and try to define and isolate what was special about it—what it was he brought to the party, how he enhanced life by showing up. In this way we educate ourselves about what really matters. Or, often, re-educate ourselves, for "man needs more to be reminded than instructed."

I understand why some think that the media coverage surrounding Tim Russert's death was excessive—truly, it was unprecedented—but it doesn't seem to me a persuasive indictment, if only because what was said was so valuable.

The beautiful thing about the coverage was that it offered extremely important information to those age 15 or 25 or 30 who may not have been told how to operate in the world beyond "Go succeed." I'm not sure we tell the young as much as we ought, as clearly as we ought, what it is the world admires, and what it is they want to emulate.

In a way, the world is a great liar. It shows you it worships and admires money, but at the end of the day it doesn't. It says it adores fame and celebrity, but it doesn't, not really. The world admires, and wants to hold on to, and not lose, goodness. It admires virtue. At the end it gives its greatest tributes to generosity, honesty, courage, mercy, talents well used, talents that, brought into the world, make it better. That's what it really admires. That's what we talk about in eulogies, because that's what's important. We don't say, "The thing about Joe was he was rich." We say, if we can, "The thing about Joe was he took care of people."

The young are told, "Be true to yourself." But so many of them have no idea, really, what that means. If they don't know who they are, what are they being true to? They're told, "The key is to hold firm to your ideals." But what if no one bothered, really, to teach them ideals?

After Tim's death, the entire television media for four days told you the keys to a life well lived, the things you actually need to live life well, and without which it won't be good. Among them: taking care of those you love and letting them know they're loved, which involves self-sacrifice; holding firm to God, to your religious faith, no matter how high you rise or low you fall. This involves guts, and self-discipline, and active attention to developing and refining a conscience to whose promptings you can respond. Honoring your calling or profession by trying to do within it honorable work, which takes hard effort, and a willingness to master the ethics of your field. And enjoying life. This can be hard in America, where sometimes people are rather grim in their determination to get and to have. "Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to," said Ronald Reagan.

Tim had these virtues. They were great to see. By defining them and celebrating them the past few days, the media encouraged them. This was a public service, and also what you might call Tim's parting gift.

I'd add it's not only the young, but the older and the old, who were given a few things to think about. When Tim's friends started to come forward last Friday to speak on the air of his excellence, they were honestly grieving. They felt loss. So did people who'd never met him. Question: When you die, are people in your profession going to feel like this? Why not? What can you do better? When you leave, are your customers—in Tim's case it was five million every Sunday morning, in your case it may be the people who come into the shop, or into your office—going to react like this? Why not?

* * *

One of the greatest statements, the most piercing, was something Chuck Todd said when he talked on a panel on MSNBC. He was asked more or less why Tim stuck out from the pack, and he said, "He was normal!" In a city, Washington, in which many powerful people are deep down weird, or don't have a deep down, only a surface, Tim was normal. Like a normal man he cared about his family and his profession and his faith. Pat Buchanan later said they're not making them now like they used to, Tim's normality is becoming the exception. The world of Russert—stability, Catholic school, loving parents, TV shows that attempted only to entertain you and not to create a new moral universe in your head—that's over, that world is gone. He had a point, though it's not gone entirely of course, just not as big, or present, as it used to be.

Which got me thinking about one way in which Tim was lauded that, after a few days, was grating. And what's a column without a gripe? Tim, as all now know, was a working-class boy from upstate New York. But the amazement with which some of his colleagues talked of his background made them sound like Margaret Mead among the indigenous people of Borneo. An amazing rags-to-riches story—he was found among an amazing Celtic tribe that dragged its clubs across the tangled jungle floors of a land called "Buffalo," where they eat "wings" and worship a warrior caste known as "the Bills." Here he is, years later, in a suit. This reflected a certain cultural insularity in our media, did it not? Tim came from a loving home, grew up in a house, in a suburb. He went to private Catholic schools. His father was a garbageman, which when I was growing up was known as a good municipal union job. Tim's life was as good as or better than 90% of his countrymen in his time. His background wasn't strange or surprising—it was normal.

Something not fully appreciated is the sense of particular sadness among conservatives, who felt Russert gave their views and philosophy equal time, an equality of approach. When Kate O'Beirne had a book out on the excesses of feminism a few years ago the only network show on which she was asked to give the antiabortion argument was "Meet the Press." When I was on the book tour in 2000 for "The Case Against Hillary Clinton," Tim's was the only show that asked me to state my case at length, balancing it with an appearance of the same length by a Hillary supporter. I'm not sure network producers understand how grateful—embarrassing word, but true—conservatives are to be given time to say not only what they think but why they think it. Russert was big on why. He knew it was the heart of any political debate.

* * *

On the train coming back from his memorial on Wednesday, I talked to Tom Kean, a former governor of New Jersey and chairman of the 9/11 Commission. He told me of how a few years ago Tim, concerned about nuclear proliferation, invited Mr. Kean and Sam Nunn on "Meet the Press" to talk about it at length. No particular hook, he just wanted to gin up concern in Washington on an issue he knew was crucial. Mr. Kean said he had listened closely to all the journalists the past few days talking about how Tim prepared rigorously, was open-minded, civic minded, serious. He hoped they were listening to themselves, hoped they were reflecting on what they said. Emulation would be good there, too.

Obama is RIGHT

2008-06-16T07:40:00.001-05:00

Bet you never thought you'd see that title, huh? No, I'm not jumping on the Obama bandwagon or anything like that. I just want to give credit where credit is due. From this article, taken during a "sermon" Obama gave yesterday at a church in Chicago...

CHICAGO: Addressing a packed congregation at one of the city's largest black churches, Senator Barack Obama invoked his own absentee father to deliver a sharp message to black men, saying "we need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception."

In an address Sunday that was striking for its bluntness and where the candidate chose to give it, Obama directly addressed one of the most delicate topics confronting black leaders: whether absent fathers bore responsibility for some of the intractable problems afflicting black Americans. Obama noted that "more than half of all black children live in single-parent households," a number that he said had doubled since his own childhood.

Too many fathers are "missing from too many lives and too many homes," Obama said to a chorus of approving murmurs from the audience. "They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it."

...

"Don't get carried away with that eighth-grade graduation," he said, bringing many members of the congregation to their feet, applauding. "You're supposed to graduate from eighth grade."

...

"I know how hard it is to get kids to eat properly," Obama said at the time. "But I also know that if folks are letting our children drink eight sodas a day, which some parents do, or, you know, eat a bag of potato chips for lunch - buy a little desk or put that child at the kitchen table. 'Watch them do their homework."'

...

What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."

Obama spoke of the burden that single parenthood placed on his mother, who raised Obama with the help of his maternal grandparents.

"I know the toll it took on me, not having a father in the house," he continued. "The hole in your heart when you don't have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle - that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my children."

But he also acknowledged his own flaws as a father, citing the breakneck schedule of the campaign and the rare days he spends with his children.

"I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father," he said, "Knowing that I have made mistakes, and I'll continue to make more, wishing that I could be home for my girls and my wife more than I am right now."

As the article mentions, he does sound a lot like Bill Cosby here. This is a message that our country needs to hear, and it's good to see so many people delivering it. Thank you Barack Obama. And a slightly belated Happy Father's Day to all you dads out there.

The future of TV commercials

2008-06-05T13:16:00.001-05:00

Wow! Watch this video...

As I said in the subject line, you just watched the future of TV commercials. How crazy is that??!!

At first it will piss all of us off and we'll be like, "Them SOBs! (excuse my language :)) I can't believe they just interrupted Family Guy with a commercial! Ain't no way I'm watching Bill Engvall now. Bill, you just got erased from my DVR!"

Then we'll be like, "Man, they did it again! That Bill Engvall show was pretty funny though. Maybe I'll watch it this week."

Then we'll just get used to it and won't care. Heck, we probably won't even bother to fast forward through the commercials any more because the station will run one commercial at a time throughout the show and it will be too much trouble to fast forward. And then da man will claim victory.

At least I was RIGHT

2008-06-04T13:12:00.001-05:00

Yeah, I know. Been forever since I have posted anything. I've thought of a few things here and there, but just haven't taken the time to blog about them. Continue to watch my shared items, though. I usually have a decent amount of activity there.

Ok, so there was a scare or two when Rush Limbaugh decided to start "Operation Chaos", whereby he asked conservatives to register Democrat and vote for Hillary during the primaries. But one of my predictions from this blog entry in February has effectively been fulfilled as of yesterday with Barak Obama sealing the Democrat nomination.

Rush had quite an impact on damaging both candidates. For that I give him a lot of credit. He also may have caused one of my other predictions to be wrong - I said that I didn't think Obama would offer Hillary VP and that she would never accept. With all that has gone on since then, nothing would surprise me now. They both have to do some damage control to keep the party united, and coming together as a team would help a lot. Although I think Obama could pick someone else and end up getting more votes, it's hard to say what he will decide at this point.

But I still hold to my original prediction about our next president. Obama is going to win. He's shown himself as even more of a liberal than many originally thought. But you know what? So has McCain. McCain is saying things to attract a constituency that HE CAN NOT WIN. And he's driving conservatives even further away. Read or listen to any conservative commentator and you will quickly find that none of them are excited about McCain.

At this point, I think it's going to be a landslide victory for Obama. We'll just have to see if he says or does anything that ruins his chances. Keep in mind though that McCain is going to have a really hard time attacking Obama on anything, as any negative comments will be painted as being racist - no matter what they are about. Obama has the media on his side more than Bill Clinton had them back in his heyday.

So yep, I was RIGHT. But that doesn't exactly make me feel good at the moment. At this point, I'm just going to pray that the conservatives that are left in Congress after November can make progress on lessening the impact of the crazy liberal bills that are going to flow through Congress over the next couple of years. And then for REAL CONSERVATIVES to run and win in 2010.

Cross post and Items of Interest

2008-05-12T07:31:00.001-05:00

I don't blog often enough to cause any of you to notice my absence last week, but there was a reason for it. Bev and I took the kids to Disney World...aka Mickey World...aka Mickey's house - you get the idea. What a trip. I posted some things about it on my family photo blog if you are interested.

Also, my RSS reader of choice these days, Google Reader, has added a pretty neat feature that I can see myself using quite a bit. I already have an "Items of Interest" section on the right hand side of this blog that includes items that I share out of my feed list. Well, now they allow me to add comments to items that I share, and to share from anywhere (not just from sites on my feed list). You can see all of my shared items, including the comments by going here. It looks like a pretty neat way to provide quick commentary on things I probably would not normally blog about.

John McCain is WRONG

2008-05-01T09:24:00.001-05:00

Ohmagosh. I can't believe the following quote by John McCain in this article:

"America is supposed to help people in rural settings, people like the quilters who are direct descendants of slaves," McCain said. "It's 'give people a hand up.' That's the essence of government."

Ok, this just wears me out. I could go on and on. Heck, I will go on and on a bit...

First, something that my buddy John Thomas said about this - "if that's not the worldview of a quasi-socialist liberal, I don't know what is"

Amen, JT. Amen.

Mr. McCain, you are completely WRONG!! The role of government is not to help people, even if they are descendents of slaves. Who the heck cares who they are descendents of anyway! IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO HELP PEOPLE AT ALL!!!

Our government was created so that everyone would have equal opportunities WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERING. How can you STEAL from one person to help another and call that a good thing? You are directly interfering with the "rich" person's liberty to spend HIS MONEY as HE CHOOSES!!

Yep. I said it - "Liberty". A word too many of us have forgotten. Here's another term - "Pursuit of Happiness". Seems like those are terms in a fairly important document of our country. Seems no one cares about them any more.

I'm more than happy to give to the poor through various charitable donations and services. I don't need the government to do it for me!!

I've said this before and I'll say it again - John McCain, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton are all the same. None of them are conservative. If anyone doubted me before, I don't think you can now.

Voting third party as a protest vote is looking better and better. Let's see how things shake out in those parties. Constitution Party is looking pretty good right now. I'll have more on that as details progress.

News flash

2008-04-14T14:09:00.001-05:00

Ok, this is going to be quick. But, based on the current hot news topic, it has to be said...

ALL THREE MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE ELITISTS.

There are several reasons for this, but here is the number one reason...

THEY THINK THEY CAN SPEND YOUR MONEY BETTER THAN YOU CAN.

That my friends is the definition of ELITIST in my book.

Gold standard explained

2008-04-10T07:13:00.001-05:00

When I began studying Ron Paul, one of his main issues was about getting us back to the "gold standard". Many times when I watched him talk about this, my eyes glazed over a little bit. I'm very interested in economic and monetary policy, but that doesn't mean that I understand all of it. So while what Dr. Paul said made his points pretty well, it was hard for me to grasp it entirely.

Enter the wonderful world of YouTube. Someone has put together a nice video explaining more clearly what Ron Paul and others who hold his view on the gold standard have been saying. I'm not sure I agree with all of the points this guy makes, but I do like the overall presentation.

I recognize that it is VERY unlikely that we will ever get back to the gold standard. But like yesterday's entry about Davy Crockett, I do think it is important for us to think about how our government continues to do things that go directly against its role, as defined in the constitution.

Thanks to JT for passing this on to me.

Davy Crockett was RIGHT

2008-04-09T08:23:00.001-05:00

Thanks, John for posting this on your blog yesterday.

I encourage all of you to read it and to rethink your opinions on the government's role in disaster relief and other types of assistance.

And after that, rethink YOUR role in disaster relief and other types of assistance.

On Memphis' loss

2008-04-08T16:25:00.001-05:00

Ok, I'm a little late on blogging this. But something has been bugging me for a while now and last night's game just magnified it. I was IM'ing someone and I got all fired up about it. Must mean it's time to blog.

Ok, so I'll start with my main point.

FREE THROWS ARE A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF BASKETBALL

Oh, and while I'm at it.

MAKING SHOTS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF BASKETBALL

I'm going to also start out by saying that I do not follow basketball all that much. Heck, I only watched half of the game last night. And have not watched a full game all year, even with Memphis doing as well as they did all year.

The reasons are stated in the points above. I used to love basketball. I used to love Memphis State (no one who reads this blog will be confused by that I'm sure) basketball especially. Now I can't stand to watch it. Because players have forgotten what the goal of the sport is. They are too focused on putting on a show instead of the fundamentals of the game. The last basketball game I went to was a couple of years ago. Both teams shot barely 50%. It made me sick.

So I'm probably going to be the only one in Memphis to say this. They deserved to lose.

I like Coach Cal a lot. I think he's a great coach. I wish he would stay in Memphis until he was ready to retire. The stuff that he's done with the program over at Memphis is awesome. But he simply missed it on this deal. He said free throws didn't matter. To quote the Waterboy - "You wrong Colonel Sanders"...er...Coach Cal.

When his players were missing all those free throws during the season, he should have wore them out. For each free throw that any player missed, he should have had EVERY PLAYER shooting an hour as punishment for the miss. That would have solved the problem.

And it would have brought a championship to Memphis.

Quote of the day

2008-04-08T10:35:00.001-05:00

This article discusses the ongoing rumor that Condoleeza Rice may end up as John McCain's running mate. I found this quote to be very accurate...

Rice is certainly capable enough, but competency — as history has repeatedly and tragically taught us — doesn't qualify a person for politics.

Quite often, in fact, it disqualifies them.

Remembering Charlton Heston

2008-04-07T07:22:00.001-05:00

Charlton Heston passed away last Saturday at the age of 84. Most of you have probably seen some of his movies. Many of you are NRA members, of which he was president and figure-head for several years. I'll probably remember him most for this speech in 1999, which made the rounds through conservative talk radio (and spam emails :)) soon after he gave it.

Hope you enjoy...

Speech by Charlton Heston
"Winning The Cultural War"
Harvard Law School Forum
February 16, 1999

I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."

There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty ... your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right. Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ... the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know ... I'm pretty old...but I sure Lord ain't senile.

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issues. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our Land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- Long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist. I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe. I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!" But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys-subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "Blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, and new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

Let me read a few examples.
At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive. In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs --- the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not... need not ... tell their patients that they are infected.

At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name. In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery. In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know ... that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said, "black." But it's a no-no now. For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American ...with a capital letter on "American."

Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign. As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly,' (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression? Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.

Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers. I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me!"? If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe. Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people. You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr.King ... who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in VietNam. In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me.

Let me tell you a story. A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word:

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF,
I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF.
I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF,
I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.

Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore: "SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ...." Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied,"but Time/Warner's selling it." Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ... jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office. When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents. When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and block its doorways. When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you...petition them, oust them, banish them. When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, Crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month ...boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

Thank you.

Chuck Baldwin is RIGHT

2008-03-26T13:13:00.001-05:00

I stumbled upon this article from last Friday and thought I'd share....

"He Is Risen"
by Chuck Baldwin
March 21, 2008

On this Good Friday, it behooves us to remind ourselves (Christians should need no reminder) of the significance of this season. Along with the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ forms the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus separates Christianity from all the world's religions.

Furthermore, the overwhelming number of America's founders understood the connection between the Christian faith and the rise of these United States. John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Adams also said, "From the day of the Declaration . . .they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct."

Then, on July 4, 1837, Adams said these words, "Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?"

Daniel Webster also acknowledged the relationship between our founders' Christian faith and America's creation. He said, "Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."

Noah Webster, the man who is called the Father of American Education, said, "Education is useless without the Bible." He also said, "The Bible was America's basic textbook in all fields."

Noah Webster went on to say, "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind, than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

One more quotation from Noah Webster is necessary at this point. He said, "The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."

These sentiments were the sentiments of America from the inception of our great country. Remember, the voyagers of the Mayflower made a covenant between themselves and Almighty God. It is called the Mayflower Compact, and in it they said the reason they had made the voyage and determined to plant a colony in the new world was "for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith."

It was only in the last half of the 20th Century that America began trying to distance itself from our Christian heritage. Yet today, educators, entertainers, chief executives, and politicians are in the process of supplanting our Christian heritage with the pseudoreligions of secularism and multiculturalism.

What many people do not understand is that when America abandons its dependence upon the God of the Bible, it will--at the same time--surrender the very foundation of our liberty and independence. As Thomas Jefferson said, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

Patrick Henry agreed with Jefferson. He said, "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."

As we celebrate the vicarious death and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ, may each of us rededicate ourselves to preserving the great Christian heritage of these United States for our posterity. And this commitment involves much more than attending church once a week or repeating an occasional catechism. It means we must seek to incorporate the principles of liberty and independence into the very fabric of our lives and work. It means we will offer eternal vigilance to the fundamental principles upon which America was built; we will not rest on our laurels. Liberty has no guarantees, no assurances. Each generation must work to preserve, protect, and defend the principles of constitutional government and Christian philosophy, or else liberty is lost.

The angel spoke of Christ declaring, "He is risen." And so He is. And because Christ lives, liberty and freedom may also live. Why? Because "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

HAPPY EASTER!

Up hill both ways...barefoot...In the snow...

2008-03-07T09:32:00.001-06:00

Is it me or is the current policy of letting schools out early just getting ridiculous. We are expecting some snow today in the Memphis area. That's right, we are EXPECTING snow. Because of this, pretty much every school district in the area is scheduling to dismiss students at around noon. Note - the last I heard, the snow was going to start early afternoon and be a pretty light mix with rain until evening at which point it would get a little bit worse and accumulate some. Note 2 - it was 60 degrees yesterday.

This makes me feel pretty darn old. When I was in school, we only got out early if there actually was SNOW ON THE GROUND.

It gets worse though. Several weeks ago, they let schools out early because they were expecting tornados. Again, EXPECTING. When schools let out, it was still sunny outside. Last year they let out early when tornado-type weather was expected and they ended up having hundreds of buses and parents roaming through town during the worst part of the storm.

What happened to the drill where students get out in the hall and duck their heads between their legs in the case of tornado activity? Are they safer in a bus or car than they are in the schools? Heck, are they safer at home than they are at school??!!

I just think this is completely ridiculous. I understand the intent supposed to be to keep kids safer, but I don't see how that is accomplished any more than it was when I was a kid. And it surely causes much more confusion. Over something that MIGHT NOT HAPPEN!!

Just makes no sense. Oh well. Not like much that happens around here makes much sense anyway.

Quote of the day

2008-03-06T07:31:00.001-06:00

"To those weary of life, but who have not the courage to shoot or hang themselves, we recommend a trip to Memphis."

OUCH!

By the way, that quote was in an editorial in the New York Sunday Mercury in 1870!

You can read about that and more about Memphis' violent history in this article.

Random thoughts

2008-03-05T08:07:00.001-06:00

A few things on my mind this morning....

- Well, John McCain pretty much officially wrapped up the Republican nomination last night. No surprises. Huckabee has dropped out. Ron Paul hasn't officially dropped out, and may stay in it until convention. I still wish he would go third party. Oh well. It's kinda fun watching the Democrats fighting. A lot of people think all of this fighting will hurt them when the general election comes around. Well, they'd be right if anyone in America actually paid attention to this stuff. By the time November comes around, very few will even remember that Hillary and Obama are at each other's throats like they are right now. I still hold to my previous statements that Obama will win the nomination and eventually the presidency.

- Memphis is making national news on a weekly basis now. School shootings like 3 weeks in a row and a massacre of 6 people in a home the other night. Yep, lots of good things going on in these parts. I heard someone on the radio asking if the mayor of Memphis should declare a state of emergency because of the crime situation. News flash - you don't have to declare a state of emergency for there to actually be one. And we have been in one for a couple of years now. Declaring one would be admitting something is wrong with this city, which Mayor Herrenton will never do.

- Brett Favre has decided to retire. Assuming he doesn't change his mind, his retirement marks the end of a great era of football. It was really cool watching how much he enjoyed playing the game. He was super talented, yet didn't take himself too seriously. I'd like to say that's because he was raised in the great state of Mississippi. :) I look forward to hearing that accent every week when he becomes a TV analyst.

John McCain is right

2008-02-29T11:54:00.001-06:00

Yep, a DannyIsRIGHT first. Props to John McCain for actually telling the truth...

So he's not RIGHT. But he is right. :)

Monday political thoughts, part 2

2008-02-11T09:50:00.001-06:00

On the heels of my last entry, I want to make a prediction on how things are going to shake out in this election. Just for the fun of it...

As I stated in part 1, McCain will wrap up the Republican nomination by the end of the month. He'll take the remaining liberal states he needs even with Huckabee getting the more conservative states. Huckabee may even give him a good scare, but it will be over soon. McCain's VP will either be some old, crusty, white dude that he's been saying support him (like Jack Kemp) so that he can use the "experience" mantra to get support. Or it will be some young, charismatic, white dude so that he can show that he's "willing to listen to new ideas". And by "new" I mean "conservative". He'll probably try to get someone that is a far right conservative, but I'm not sure if they will accept. Don't be surprised if Mike Huckabee ends up being his VP in an attempt to woo Christians to vote. It won't work.

Barak Obama has all the momentum right now. That is not going to end. He needs to push really hard to get the nomination before convention. Because the Clintons will pull out all the stops at convention. And they will lie, cheat, and steal to get the nomination. Heck, they're probably doing that now! The party will be damaged if it goes to convention. Regardless, Obama will get the nomination. It's hard to say who he will choose as his VP. I don't see it being Hillary or John Edwards. Hillary would never accept and Obama would never offer after the way she and Bill have and will continue to treat him. John Edwards was a disaster of a VP nominee in 2004. Obama is too smart to try that again. I figure he'll go for an older white dude to try to help with the race issue that he will continue to deal with, and with the 'inexperience" issue. I don't expect his ticket to be a very liberal ticket. His ticket will be fairly middle-of-the-road and will be full of energy and charisma.

Many conservatives will not vote. Obama will take the "undecided" vote and will be the first president in a long time to mobilize the young vote. There will be those that vote against him because he's black, but it won't be enough to give McCain a win. Obama will get at least 55% of the vote.

So there you have it. Barak Obama will be the next president of the United States. Any of you who are fearful of this need to get used to it now.

Monday political thoughts

2008-02-11T09:42:00.001-06:00

So quite a bit has happened in politics since my last blog post.

Mitt Romney spoke at CPAC and announced that he's dropping out of the race. Huckabee now takes on the role of spoiler against McCain. I doubt that he can catch up, but he's getting some key endorsements (ie: James Dobson) and he won primaries over the weekend. Still, I suspect the Republican nomination will be over by the end of the month and that conservatives will have nowhere to go this election.

A word about Romney. I find it hard to believe his reasoning for dropping out of the race. To recap, he said he was dropping out because he didn't want it to go to convention, which would hurt the Republican's ability to build a national campaign. And because the War on Terror is so important and Republicans are the only ones who know how to effectively deal with it, he didn't want to jeopardize their chances.

Well, Mitt. Maybe you should have talked to Mike Hucakbee before you did that, huh? He had almost as many delegates as you and he's still running. Now it could still go to a brokered convention. What are you going to do then?

Another weird thing about his reasoning - the democrats are likely going to a brokered convention! His reasoning might make sense if the democrat candidate was already chosen, but right now republicans have no one to beat up on anyway. There's really nothing a national campaign can do until they have a nominee.

I have to wonder what Mitt will do if Huckabee (and Paul - I'm not going to ignore that he's still running like all of the other "media" out there) ends up being able to take the Republican race to convention. I figure he'll be as much a part of it as he can and will still try to get the nomination. So again, his reasoning just doesn't make any sense to me.

Ron Paul sent a message out over the weekend saying that he was going to scale things back a bit on his national campaign since, "With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero". And that he's going to put more focus on retaining his seat in Congress. And that he's not going to run on a third party ticket. I hate that he's made that choice, but I understand the difficulties that he would face if he did switch. His run for the presidency has changed some of my political viewpoints and, as one of his campaign slogans states, has "cured my apathy" in many ways. For that, I am truly grateful for what his "Revolution" has done. Hopefully it will not end here and more candidates with his political leanings will surface in the future. I would like to do a series of posts on some things I've learned and some political positions I've adopted during this process. Hopefully I can do that soon.

The mouse that roared

2008-02-07T09:21:00.001-06:00

Well, after Tuesday many are expecting that John McCain will secure the Republican nomination. I think it's very likely also. It's pretty clear that the party has lost its way.

All of the candidates will speak to the Conservative Political Action Committee today. This may be Ron Paul's best and last chance to appeal to conservatives. His speech starts at 3:30. Looks like they are covering the event online on C-SPAN.

I read a great article today that I want to share with you. If the Ron Paul Revolution is indeed ending soon and he doesn't pursue a third party run for the presidency, this is what I hope for...

The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election

Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.

Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.

He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.

But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along he way.

Barry Goldwater lighted a similar fire with his Conscience of a Conservative. Its truth and arguments were so obvious and so honest that one laughed aloud while reading it. But Goldwater, himself, was doomed to political defeat. And Ron Paul had no chance to win this election either. One could see that when he first opened his mouth.

And yet, the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan. And when those heady days happen a small but hearty band of pioneers, who first had the nerve to join him and start shouting from the street, “They aren’t wearing any clothes,” will be able to say that they could see what the country missed. They were there when history was made.

John McCain and his poorly chosen words, of staying in Iraq a hundred years, have almost guaranteed that he will be the answer to the trivia question, who was the Republican candidate who lost to the ticket that claimed the first woman and black for the presidency? Another question may very well be, “What other candidate ran that year and launched the movement that has dominated national politics for the last generation?”

And the answer will be Ron Paul.

Rush is RIGHT

2008-02-05T09:54:00.001-06:00

Some good quotes by Rush Limbaugh in this Washington Post article today...

If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle.

And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative.

...

If a candidate who is asking me and the American people for his vote isn't particularly conservative on a wide array of issues, I'm going to talk about it. It's not my job to get him elected. . . . I'm in the free speech business. I am not a campaign spokesman. I believe it would be a setback for the Republican Party to attract liberals and independents by being like them in order to attract them.

Amen bro.

Rush hasn't talked about Ron Paul during this primary process, but I firmly believe that he and other conservatives will rally behind Paul if the scenarios I've written about on this blog play out.

Oh, I must point you to the title of the article:

IT''S BETTER TO BE RIGHT ALL OF THE TIME

That's what this blog is all about. Being RIGHT.

Rethinking my last post

2008-02-04T13:59:00.001-06:00

Ok, so I've changed my thinking on my last post. Don't be disheartened - I was still RIGHT. :)

Clearly I had what is RIGHT in mind. But I will say that I took it a bit too far, even if it was mostly joking.

I couldn't vote for McCain tomorrow if I was voting, even if it meant Ron Paul's chances of being president were better in my mind. As a friend pointed out to me, Dr. Paul probably would not bother to switch third party if enough of his supporters switched their votes to McCain in order to basically sabotage the Republican Party. Because he would be discouraged at his lack of votes. Very good point.

So yes, vote on principle over party. But don't be alarmed if McCain runs off with the nomination after tomorrow. Personally I hope he does take the nomination tomorrow for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. But I still wouldn't vote for him. So I will not tell you to vote for him either.

Just something that needed to be said.

BELIEVE!, part 2

2008-02-04T12:33:00.001-06:00

So my last blog post was related to the Giants winning the Super Bowl. And you may recall that I talked about the potential for a Giants win in my "Thinking about Underdogs" blog post a couple of weeks ago. Now, I want to mention the other part of the "underdogs" post, and yes, that means yet another entry about Ron Paul. I'm not gonna give up on him until he drops out. Get used to it. :)

First, I want to mention this article. Pat Buchanan attacks John McCain again, and again, he is exactly RIGHT. Here is an excerpt from the end of the article. I highly recommend you read the entire thing though.

On the two issues where Bush has been at his best, taxes and judges, McCain has sided against him. On the three issues that have ravaged the Bush presidency—the misbegotten war in Iraq, the failure to secure America’s borders, and the trade policy that has destroyed the dollar, de-industrialized the country, and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America—McCain has sided with Bush.

Now McCain is running on a platform that says your jobs are not coming back, the illegals are not going home, but we are going to have more wars. If you don’t like it, vote for Hillary.

And this was to be the Year of Change.

But I want to spend more time talking about something I've heard a LOT lately. I've heard it on the radio and I've heard it from friends. Some folks out there have a candidate that they like, but they think it best to "pinch their nose" and vote for a "frontrunner" for the sake of "party unity". So in other words, vote party over principle. I've heard this excuse for voting for McCain (since he is the current frontrunner) and Romney (instead of voting for Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee since Romney has the best shot at beating McCain).

I want to make clear right now that I could not disagree with this more. If you don't vote on principle, you are THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY. Vote for the person you BELIEVE in. There is no "lesser of two evils" people! If you don't trust them or their views, DON"T VOTE FOR THEM. What makes you believe that one person is better than another if you disagree with them on key positions?? What if those positions end up defining their presidency?? If we don't vote on principle, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE!!! Anyway, I won't spend too much time on this. There is much more I could say, but I'll leave it there for now.

What I want to focus on is tomorrow's Super Tuesday primary. And now I'm going to tell you to VOTE PARTY OVER PRINCIPLE!!

I just blew your mind didn't I? :)

Hang in there and let me 'splain it.

If you vote party over principle, your only option is to vote for McCain. Because McCain has been taking the independent\non-conservative wing of the Republican Party. So Romney\Huckabee\Paul have been splitting the conservative vote. Which means you should give McCain the nomination for the good of party unity. After all, in the general election, he would need the independent votes that Romney and the others wouldn't get, right??

So yes, Republican friends. Vote for McCain tomorrow. Forget your conservatism. He is the "inevitable winner" anyway, so vote for him.

So why am I saying this?

Because if McCain takes enough delegates tomorrow, Huckabee and Romney will drop out of the race. And then conservatism will be lost in the Republican Party.

Which means....

Ron Paul can run third party and fulfill exactly the "underdog" role I mentioned a couple of weeks ago! Woo Hoo! If Ron Paul wants to take this to a brokered convention, I want to keep him from doing it. I respect Dr. Paul a ton, but I just think he's being way to optimistic about his chances in the Republican Party. I think he has better chances with another party and I want him to go for it, starting this week. So if it has to happen by "force", so be it.

So yes, vote party over principle this week. Then vote principle over all in November. That will give us a Ron Paul presidency and a brighter future.

BELIEVE!

2008-02-04T06:51:00.001-06:00

Well, Eli and the Giants made history last night. What an awesome game! One for the ages. In a time of 24 hour sports television and 10 hour pre-game shows, this one will not soon be forgotten.

The Giants have not made it easy on their fans this year, even when they have won. Most of their games, especially the ones that really mattered, have come down to the last couple of minutes. This was a real nail-biter of a season. It was awesome!

Hopefully this will put the critics at bay for a little while. Hopefully the people who say, "Eli will never be as good as his big brother" will change their tone a little bit. Peyton and Eli have their own strengths and weaknesses, but they are both great quarterbacks and they both have a Super Bowl ring. That's all that matters right now.

Pat Buchanan is RIGHT

2008-02-01T07:59:00.001-06:00

Wow. The quote of the year may be this one - "We are an unserious people in a serious time."

From this article. Here is the full text...

Tapped Out Nation

by Patrick J. Buchanan

It was to be the year of change, of new ideas, a new politics.

Yet, as of today, it appears the Republican Party will be led into the future by a Beltway favorite of the media and Washington insider who has spent the last quarter of a century on Capitol Hill.

And the Democratic Party appears about to build a bridge to the past by nominating the spouse of the last Democratic president who has herself been a Washington insider for almost 20 years.

With two-thirds of the nation saying the country is on the wrong course, the two parties are offering candidates both of whom played major roles in setting that course. And neither probable nominee has advanced ideas to deal with the crises America faces, nor even shown any great awareness that the country is in crisis.

The first crisis is fiscal, with the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs about to break the bank as the baby boomers reach early retirement. Add the other entitlement programs, defense and interest on the debt, and this consumes perhaps 90 percent of the budget.

No one is proposing cuts in any major component of the budget. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton is promising universal health care and McCain is promising an expansion of the military. Both favor a stimulus package of roughly $150 billion. As our savings rate is about zero, where are we going to borrow the money for all this?

(Column continues below)

A second crisis is financial. With the economy in danger of seizing up, the Fed has cut interest rates from 4.25 percent to 3 percent in two weeks. This has sent the dollar plunging again. A sinking dollar means surging prices for oil and all those foreign manufactures to which we are now addicted.

As the dollars pour out, nations have started to spend their dollar hoards to buy up this country at the fire-sale prices being offered in the global marketplace.

A third crisis is strategic. With an army of half a million and a Marine Corps a third that size, we are ending our fifth year of war in Iraq and entering the seventh year in Afghanistan. With the Taliban and al-Qaida now re-established and threatening Pakistan, what will it require in blood and treasure to prevent a strategic disaster there?

Mrs. Clinton is committed to a withdrawal from Iraq, but McCain says we will stay 100 years if necessary and warns, “There’s going to be other wars.” But wars against whom? Iran? Pakistan? Russia? North Korea? With the U.S. military stretched to the breaking point and the quality of army recruits falling, who will fight these wars?

Then there is the immigration crisis. It is estimated that there are 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States today, with many hundreds of thousands being added each year.

McCain and Hillary both voted for the amnesty bill, neither is committed to sending back the illegals, and both give only grudging support to the idea of a border fence. How do they propose stopping the scores or hundreds of millions from Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East from breaking into the United States in coming decades? Does anyone see in either Clinton or McCain the resolve to deal with what Americans are coming to believe is a crisis of national identity and national survival?

Then there is the crisis of the American middle class.

As economist Robert Reich writes, the real wages of working men have not risen in 30 years. Families maintained their standard of living three ways. Wives went to work. The men began to work longer hours than in almost any other developed nation. The family’s equity in its home was then borrowed to sustain consumption.

Now, with the middle class tapped out, the home equity used up or declining, and mortgage, auto and credit card debt turning rotten, the U.S. government is going abroad to borrow 1 percent of GDP to hand out in checks in May to get consumers buying again to prevent a recession.

What kind of long-term solution is this?

How can a government as deep in debt as this one, going deeper every day, with the Social Security-Medicare crisis looming, continue to borrow to fight wars, finance foreign aid and defend nations that refuse to make the sacrifices to defend themselves?

America today faces both a fiscal crisis and a currency crisis.

Our dependence on foreign loans, foreign oil and foreign manufacturers is unprecedented.

We are being invaded from the south and seemingly lack the moral fiber to defend our home and throw out the intruders.

We have neither the men nor the weapons to honor all the treaty commitments and war guarantees we have given out to nations all over the world – and McCain plans to add several more.

Yet, we are consumed with the issue of whether Bill Clinton, by comparing Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson, was playing “the race card.”

We are an unserious people in a serious time.

Take a deep breath, people

2008-01-30T14:29:00.001-06:00

So this may not make me very popular with some of you, but I gotta get something off my chest.

So I'm listening to Rush today and at the end of the show he signs off by saying something like , "I'm headed out folks, but before I go I thought you'd like to know that illegal immigrants may get the tax rebates [being discussed in Congress]. Have a nice day".

So I'm like, "huh, that's weird. Maybe I should look that up". And I go to DrudgeReport, since I assume that's probably where Rush found the news. Sure enough, there is this link on Drudge right now...

Illegal Immigrants May Get Rebates as Part of Stimulus Package...

Go ahead and read that article. I'll wait.

...

So let's break this down a little bit...

1. The illegals being discussed are paying taxes.

2. The rebates are for people who paid taxes.

3. Because of 1 & 2, the illegals are gonna get a rebate.

Um...

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

Seriously, some of you folks out there need to calm down a little bit.

It seems like I am constantly hearing that illegals are stealing from Americans because they come here, don't pay taxes, and take advantage of all of the "free" stuff we offer like healthcare and social security. I've never bought into the problem being as bad as some people keep saying it is, but truthfully I've not looked into it enough. And that's a discussion for another day.

Anyway, so now we have illegals who pay taxes. So they aren't "stealing" anything from us as far as government benefits are concerned. Yet they shouldn't get a rebate because they aren't here legally???

You can't have it both ways! If you want them to pay taxes, they should get a rebate if rebates are going out to people at their income level. It's that simple.

Am I defending them coming here illegally? No, of course not. But we really need to put our focus into something else here, folks.

Like maybe pay attention to the fact that someone who is not a conservative is currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. And that said frontrunner wants to give amnesty to all of the illegals, including the ones who aren't paying taxes. How about we focus on that for a few seconds instead of getting all fired up about folks who are paying taxes getting their money back?

Also, to the people who think the IRS should be working with Homeland Security, etc to help find the people who are getting fake IDs. Um, do you REALLY want the IRS to have more power, especially power that involves people with guns? I didn't think so.

CALM DOWN PEOPLE. TAKE A DEEP BREATH. FOCUS!!

Friday Political Linky Love

2008-01-25T10:20:00.001-06:00

A few articles caught my attention this morning, so I figured I'd pass them along. Mainly because they back up my premise the other day that conservatism is under attack in the Republican Party (especially if John McCain gets the nomination), and that Ron Paul would stand a good chance of winning if he ran on a Third Party.

First, this article on Ron Paul's Christian faith and the influence it has on his political life, and the role it should have in our government. One of the best perspectives I've ever read on this subject.

Next, this article by Pat Buchanan on how a McCain presidency would be worse than Bush's from a conservative standpoint. Basically, everything that Bush has done that has been conservative, McCain has voted or fought against. And everything that Bush has done that hasn't been conservative, McCain has voted for.

And finally, this article by Peggy Noonan on really the division that is going on in both Repbulican and Democrat parties. But it does mention the idea that many will not vote this year if a clear conservative is not running on the Republican ticket. (Note - this article got a link on Drudge today, so it may take a while to load)

Great Ron Paul Interview

2008-01-24T09:33:00.001-06:00

I know I'm probably wearing y'all out with Ron Paul stuff again, but I'm not going to stop until the country realizes that I'm RIGHT. :)

I just listened to a great interview with Ron Paul about his opinions on the situations we are facing in our economy right now and thought I would pass it along to any who might be interested.

You can listen by clicking on this link. The interview is titled "January 23, 2008 - Ron Paul Glenn Beck Interview (18 min) Dollar / Economy "...

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/index.html#new

Or you can read the transcript by clicking on this one...

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/4897/

Here are some excerpts that I found pretty good...

GLENN: Okay. So now, you mentioned tax cuts. Congress, both sides of the aisle are talking now about $800 tax rebates to the poorest people in America. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a job created by a guy who's at the bottom of the ladder. This seems just like a plan to get people to spend which to me is what got us here in the first place.

PAUL: Yeah, you are right. And all you do is you encourage consumption and we're overdoing consumption right now. It's not a tax rebate if you send somebody a check for $800 for not paying taxes. That's a welfare check.

GLENN: Thank you.

...

GLENN: Nobody understands that, well, they say let me give $800 to the poorest, they are really not doing that much because the dollar is worth so little. The poorest are being hit by inflation harder than anybody else.

PAUL: That is exactly right. The do-good liberal who said we have to take care of everybody -- and they are well intentioned. The more debt they run up to give to the poor, the poorer the people get because they cannot keep up. Take, for instance, even Social Security recipients. Their inflation rate might be 10 or 12% and we give them a cost of living increase of 2%. So they're losing. And you just can't keep that cycle going. You have to balance the budget, you have to live within our means and then we have to restore confidence to the dollar. So it's a major, major undertaking. But we have to reverse it.

I think the most immediate thing is to cut back on spending, not increase spending, and get the money back into the hands of the market of savers and investors and people who are spending. But government economic planning does not work and that's what we're coming to the realization.

...

PAUL: Well, it's not easy but what I would do is not want to close down the Federal Reserve because that is dramatic and it wouldn't happen. It would be chaotic, too. All I want to do is legalize the Constitution, let you and me use gold if we want, which means you have to remove sales taxes and capital gains tax off gold and let it circulate just like currency circulated around the world. So if you want to save for your kids' education, you can put them in gold bonds and if the dollar, if you've got, the dollar's going down more rapidly than the price of education goes up, you could save in gold. You could get paid in gold and if we --
GLENN: Hang on.
PAUL: Then paper will not be used anymore.
GLENN: Wait a minute. But what you're proposing, you're this close to being arrested if you -- I mean, if you went and actually did that, they already have. The liberty dollar guys. They have tried to arrest the guy and say, you are trying to compete with the currency of the United States of America. What you're talking about now, you can be arrested for.
PAUL: Yeah. So the Constitution is being violated by law and it's supposed to be the other way around. And this is why I used to term this legalize the Constitution, this legalize gold and silver which is in the Constitution. So you would have to change the tax code. You'd have to persuade the congress to do this, but it would be less chaotic. This is exactly what I proposed in the early 1980s when I was on the gold commission, competing currencies. Economists think you can have competing currencies easier today than in the past because the world's always have competing currencies. Just allow gold and silver to do the same thing.
GLENN: When you were on my program on television, you said something that I didn't correct because I didn't -- I mean, it sounded so outlandish but I let it go because I didn't have the facts and you sounded so convinced of it that I thought, hmmm, I've got to check into that and I'll correct it the next time he's on or I'll correct it the next day. What you said was, if we got rid of the income tax, the Government would still take about the same amount of money in as they had ten years ago.

PAUL: Approximately.

GLENN: We looked into it and it's accurate. Can you explain that and how do we get that message out to people?
PAUL: Well, it's just that the growth of spending is so rapid that people don't realize that freezing budgets would be a tremendous benefit and that's one of my proposals in my economic reforms is just, freeze nondefense and nonentitlement spending which would go a long way to coming to the balance. I think $1 trillion less 10 years ago, I think government was adequate size 10 years ago. But we have this notion that everything that is to have perpetual growth. Just think of our friends in the Republican party that used to run against the Department of Education. What did we do when we finally got in charge? We doubled the size of the Department of Education. We create new departments. We never slow up. Do we do anything to unwind the dependency of the farmers on centralized planning for farmers which pushes cost of food up? You know, it just doesn't make any sense. The people demand change, or they did in '94 and the year 2000, no wonder they're aggravated with us.

...

GLENN: Will you run as a third candidate if you done get the nomination?

PAUL: No, I don't want to do that. I have no plans of doing that. This is a tough enough job right now.

GLENN: Really? Well, why is that? You don't think -- I mean, if it was McCain and Clinton, you don't think there would be a lot of people going, well, jeez, I can't vote for either of them?
PAUL: I think it's the system that bothers me the most. You know, the job of getting on the ballot, I probably spend millions of dollars and half of my effort just wondering if I could even get on the ballot. Then the debates wouldn't be available to me and you probably wouldn't have me on your program or something.

GLENN: Yes, I would.

...

GLENN: I mean, you know, we just -- I just happen to disagree with you, but I respect you, sir, for your opinion. I have said this, you know, behind your back. So let me say it to your face. I think you are the closest we have running to a founding father. You seem to be the only guy who has actually read the federalist papers. So I appreciate your efforts, sir.

Thinking about Underdogs

2008-01-22T12:41:00.001-06:00

I'm sure most of you can think of several ways that the "underdog" has beaten the odds over the last several months. Many examples of this tore up the BCS college football rankings all season long. There are a couple more that have my attention lately...

Eli and the Giants

I'm sure none of you are surprised that I'm mentioning this after my last blog post. But wow, what a great game at Lambeu Field on Sunday. It was exactly what I had hoped it would be. I figured the missed field goals and Favre getting the ball first in overtime would seal the deal for a Packers win, but it didn't. The Giants believed in themselves more and once again the underdog prevailed. Looking ahead to the Super Bowl, the Patriots are favored by about two touchdowns. I don't think it will be a blowout though. I expect a close game like they had when they played each other a few weeks ago. I'm not going to say the Giants will win, but I BELIEVE they can do it.

Ron Paul

Yep, gotta talk about Ron Paul again. He's not doing all that great. He's had more success than some in the media had anticipated. He's had less than what his supporters had hoped for. But he's still fighting and I'd say his odds are still ok. His positions on the economy set him apart from any other candidate on either side and the economy is getting a lot of attention. Plus, today "Jane Roe" announced her support for his candidacy. That could be big for his campaign.

But like the Giants, Ron Paul is still very much an underdog. I'm not going to say he will win. As a matter of fact, I'll go as far as saying he won't win the Republican nomination.

The Republicans have lost their way. McCain has all the momentum and it looks like he will win the nomination. Just that statement alone proves to me that Republicans are not trying to be conservative any more. Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are the most conservative candidates. Fred is likely going to drop out soon. Unless Ron Paul really gets a ton of momentum between now and February 5 (Super Tuesday), he may as well drop out of the race on February 6.

Not the presidential race. The race for the Republican nomination. He should run on a third party ticket. ESPECIALLY IF JOHN MCCAIN WINS.

If McCain wins, there will not be a conservative in the race. He's trying to say he's got a proven conservative record. He's lying. He has fought against conservatism since Bush took office. He authored the most unconstitutional bill in the last few years (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill). He fought for amnesty for illegals. He thinks the government needs to have a bigger role in fighting global warming. HE IS NOT CONSERVATIVE!

If McCain wins, there will not be anyone running who can mobilize Christian conservatives. Especially if he is running against Hillary. I'd be surprised if anyone listened to John McCain and thought he was a man of Faith. I'm fine with him trying to keep it a side issue, but many Christians will not be.

Christians and conservatives will not have anyone who motivates them to vote if John McCain is running against Hillary Clinton. If this happens, people will vote for McCain strictly to vote against Hillary. Clearly that is not good for America, regardless of who wins.

Unless Ron Paul switches to another party.

If Ron Paul is in it, conservatives will have no choice but to vote for him. They should be voting for him now! I have no idea who is voting for McCain now, but I just can't believe conservatives are doing it. I can't believe the Christians are either. Ron Paul will take those votes from McCain. He will take votes from Hillary too. People who are against the war in Iraq and who are for civil liberties will vote for Ron Paul instead of Hillary. If he runs third party, HE CAN WIN IT!!

Just like the New York Giants, I'm not going to say Ron Paul will win the presidency if all of this happens. But I BELIEVE!

And that's enough for now.

I want to end this blog post by urging all of you folks who live in Tennessee and read my blog to take a deeper look at Ron Paul. Tennessee votes in the primaries on February 5. You may have seen the signs that say "Google Ron Paul". Do that. Go to the first few sites that are linked. Go to his campaign site and see what he has to say about the issues. Go to wikipedia and see his record on those issues. Go to YouTube and watch some of the longer videos about him (especially the town hall meetings or the longer interviews he's done with Glenn Beck and Tim Russert). If you will do this, I think you will understand why I think this man is the one who should be the one to lead our country in the next 4-8 years. You may not agree with him on everything, but you will know that he is genuine and he is conservative. If you vote Republican, vote Ron Paul.

Football Fever

2008-01-14T10:32:00.001-06:00

Wow, what a great weekend of football!

Saturday's games weren't all that surprising. Seattle should be glad that Green Bay had a rough first two minutes or it would have been a total butt-whoopin! :) And the Jaguars were complete idiots for playing under the hope that New England would make a mistake. Um, have they not watched the previous 16 games that the Patriots have played? They deserved the loss.

But yesterday's games were quite possibly the best two football games I've ever watched in one day. Of course, it doesn't get much better than both Mannings playing in one day. But then for both games to be so close and have so much energy was really something. The Colts and Chargers left all they had on the field yesterday. The amount of injuries in that game was staggering. But it was the Chargers who played with the most passion and in the end it was the Chargers who deserved the win. I hate that Peyton didn't win, but being realistic, neither of them have a chance against the Patriots anyway.

And then was the Cowboys and Giants. Wow! What a great game for Eli! Maybe, just maybe, he has finally silenced his critics. On paper his performance may not look great. But if you read the reaction from the press and the fans, you'd know that it was 80 yard drive at the end of the first half that won the game for the Giants. In less than a minute Eli and his offense showed Dallas that they were not going to be beaten. I think the Cowboys were completely stunned after that and they never recovered. Of course, I give a ton of credit to the Giants defense too. Those guys are playing inspired football. Playing third stringers in some positions! The Giants front office needs to get on the horn with their defensive coordinator right now and give him a HUGE raise and extension before some team looking for a head coach calls. Try to keep him another year or so guys!

So this weekend the Patriots will likely completely blow out the Chargers. And the Packers-Giants game could be another great one. I'd love to see Eli make it to the Super Bowl, but Favre winning will be an ok consolation prize. Two Mississippi quarterbacks playing for a chance to get to the Super Bowl. It doesn't get any better than that!

Friday thoughts

2008-01-04T12:20:00.001-06:00

Couple of things have grabbed my attention lately...

Iowa Caucus

Well, the first "primary" is over and it went pretty much how the polls were saying it would. Huckabee won on the Republican side and Obama won on the Democrat side.

Ron Paul came in fifth, which was lower than I had hoped. The only good to take out of that is that he was very close to Mcain and Thompson who basically tied for third. And he was way ahead of Gulliani. Paul grabbed a lot of the independent vote, which could help him in future primaries. He's got a long way to go for sure.

But to me the big news from last night's caucus was Hillary Clinton finishing....THIRD!!!! Wow! Now, I realize she basically tied John Edwards in second, but still the fact that she lost by 9% to Obama is pretty surprising. And also surprising is how many independents voted for Obama. This means many people were specifically going to the Democrat primary to vote AGAINST HILLARY. Woo Hoo! Obama has a ton of momentum now. Good to see. Not that I would vote for him or anything, but at least there is a better chance that Hillary will not be president. :)

If the results from last night end up being fairly consistent across the rest of the country, then we'll have a Huckabee vs Obama election. Wow. Two people who we have no idea what they will really do once in office. Kinda scary.

NFL

Playoffs start this weekend. A lot of interesting games were played over the last few weeks that could make the playoffs wide open. On the NFC, I really believe it is anyone's game. New York and Washington have a ton of momentum right now, which Dallas and Green Bay have kinda struggled. On AFC, it looks like the Colts or the Patriots, but I wouldn't be too surprised if Jacksonville or San Diego give them a run for their money. Gonna be fun to watch!

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Ok, so a man buys a portable GPS unit for his car. He's using it to help him get somewhere and it tells him to turn right. So he turns right. Then almost gets killed by an oncoming train.

Here is the article.

Notice the first sentence - "A Global Positioning System can tell a driver a lot of things — but apparently not when a train is coming."

Um...

WHAT??

So a GPS unit is supposed to keep people from USING THEIR BRAINS. How about look right before you turn, buddy. Come on! Last time I check, trains are pretty big and loud.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I have read in a long time! The guy was stupid for sure, but the way the article spins the incident is amazing to me. Not one time did the writer even mention that the driver might have been at fault. Wow.

Another Big Day for Ron Paul

2007-12-17T12:48:00.001-06:00

If you have read any political news today, you will have likely read about Ron Paul supporters breaking another donations record for him yesterday. He took in over $6 million. The Revolution is getting bigger. He is likely going to be all over TV today. He'll be on Glenn Beck's TV show tomorrow. And he'll be on Meet the Press on Sunday. This could be a great week for Ron Paul.

But even if all of this still isn't enough to get him the Republican nomination, the grassroots nature of this movement to elect Ron Paul is much bigger than him. Here is an excerpt from this article which sums up what I mean.

Ron Paul celebrated the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party by raising more than $6.0 million by 8:30 PM pacific time. He has already beaten his own record for the highest fundraising drive of any GOP candidate ever and, at $18 million and counting, he will probably be the best-funded Republican candidate in the 4th quarter. By the stroke of midnight, more veterans, homeowners, businesspeople, and families donated to Ron Paul's campaign than to any other campaign on any single day in history.

...

Ron Paul has already won huge. For his entire political career he has stayed fast to a core principle of governance while his colleagues buckled under the fear of party ostracization. So he took this chance to make his case in front of the public and he won, big time. His campaign did not have an infrastructure or an endowment. He sold only an idea when he motivated hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer their time and donate $23 million over the course of his campaign.

His supporters have also freed him. Just as Nelson Mandela had to be liberated in order to liberate, Paul's ideas ideas of conservatism had to be broken from the bondage of a below-average media and Washingtonian groupthink. To do it he didn't need to convince people that he would be a perfect leader, but that they are better fit to lead themselves. (that's right, I compared him to Mandela).

This is a measurable defeat for Ron Paul's opponents. They locked up inside all day, away from the press. Now they will badger their staffs about the internets and try to invigorate their bases by kicking them harder. They will regret every flip-flop, every public equivocation, and every soul-selling vote- If for no other reason, then because they envy Paul's spending power. (Except Romney who donates to himself).

No doubt, they will all misunderstand this victory as well. They will surely strategize to harness the grass roots. They will search for ways to reconcile a new platform of honesty and public empowerment with their own political ambitions, but they wil miss the point: you cannot pick this new demographic, it picks you.

Regardless of whether Ron Paul is the next President, he has taught hundreds of thousands (see the donations) of Americans that they need not tolerate secrecy and incompetence from a government that is prostituted to special interests. These Americans will be the new politicians in the next ten years. They already have vast networks of passionate, educated supporters united under common causes. The state GOP infrastructures will be wise not to stand in their way. Soon this will nudge-out an entire generation of spineless Washington indoctrination. Many of those who will campaign on Paul's political platform will communicate it with even brighter, more articulate, and more compelling zeal than he. They will be his legacy.

Paul's Constitutionalist platform has become the new populism. In this new era of information exchange, people can finally flourish. Today they proved they can circumvent the media cartel to choose their own front-runner. They have mandated that he discipline their government for violating the terms of its license to exist For their authority they need not cite articles, nor sections, nor amendments. They will invoke their power under the first three words of the Constitution.

To Mike Huckabee - SHUT UP!!

2007-12-13T10:01:00.001-06:00

Ok, so y'all know that I'm hoping that Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination. Realizing that it is unlikely, I've picked other candidates that I would vote for should he not get it. Right now, the only two "front-runners" I know I could vote for are Huckabee and Thompson. Romney has gained some of my respect lately, but I still have a hard time trusting him.

So the news media has really been trying to pick a fight between Huckabee and Romney lately. Their religious faiths are brought up pretty much any time either of them are interviewed. I give Romney a lot of credit for the speech he gave. He said the right things and it came across as heartfelt. I really wish I could say the same for how Huckabee has handled all of this.

He's done two things lately that really have me burned up:

1. He's lied. He has said that he doesn't know enough about Mormonism to be able to make a decision on whether or not he thinks it is a cult. I'm sorry, but this is a LIE. He was a Baptist minister. He is a devout Christian and a theologian. I find it impossible to believe he hasn't researched at least a little bit about Mormonism and made up his mind. He's saying he doesn't know because he doesn't want to admit that he believes it's a cult. Plain and simple.

2. He's attacked Romney's religion. This is the proof to my point in #1. In and interview the other day, he tried to say he didn't know much about Mormonism and then attacked Romney and all Mormons by "asking" whether or not Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus' brother. Don't be tricked by this. He knows the answer to that question. He said this as a direct attack and it makes me SICK! There is no reason for this.

Mike Huckabee, I'm gonna help you a little bit. Here's what you need to say.

"Since I am a born again Christian, I believe that Christianity is exclusive. I believe every word of the Bible was sent to us from God above and that it is to be used when determining what is true and what is not. I may not agree with the religious beliefs of the other people running for the office of the presidency, but I don't have to. Christ disagreed with others around him, yet he still loved them. That is the model that I will follow. Whether or not I believe anyone is part of a cult has NOTHING to do with me being the president of this country. And I REFUSE to discuss this any further. If you ask me any more questions about this, I will not answer them."

That's it, Mike. Leave it at that. Please, SHUT UP!!

Interesting Xmas Fact

2007-12-07T10:47:00.001-06:00

So I have heard a lot that "Xmas" was used by some people and companies to secularize or take the Christ out of Christmas. Well, I heard a commercial on the radio this morning explaining how that was wrong, and I thought it was worth passing on. I looked it up and found this article on Answers.com. An excerpt:

Xmas has been used for hundreds of years in religious writing, where the X represents a Greek chi, the first letter of Χριστος, “Christ.” In this use it is parallel to other forms like Xtian, “Christian.”

Thursday Thoughts

2007-12-06T11:20:00.001-06:00

A few items in the news lately have grabbed my attention...

Bush's Mortgage Solution

Today, Bush is set to announce a plan to help relieve the problems that sub-prime mortgage borrowers are facing. Here is an article with details. In summary, representatives from the mortgage, banking, and investing industries met with Bush and his staff at the White House and figured out a temporary fix may be too keep interest rates from adjusting higher for the next five years for borrowers who...um...borrowed more than they could afford in the first place and will likely face foreclosure when their rates go up.

I have to hand it to President Bush here. He's really come up with something that makes a lot of sense. Many figured the government would have to spend some money to help this situation, and he's avoided that. And he's also not forced the industry to do anything, like some of the democrats wanted to do. This is a very conservative approach to the problem, and I think an agreement between all parties involved is the best solution for right now.

Mitt Romney's Speech on Religion

So today, Mitt Romney has decided to give a speech explaining what role his Mormon beliefs play in his life and in his government policy. While I don't like that he is a Mormon, I think holding it against him is wrong. There are plenty of other reasons for not liking Mitt Romney. :)

Ron Paul has a great quote related to this, which should explain even further why I am a big fan of him...

"We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.

Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.

The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends."

We're Not Gonna Take it Anymore

Two great aspects of this story.

First - I completely missed it in the news last week, but apparently a man in Texas named Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars who were robbing his neighbors house. God bless Texas and their laws that allow this sort of thing, although there is still some discussion going on about whether or not he was within the laws. From what I understand about them, it seems he will be fine though.

Second - And this is how I found out about the story today. A few days ago, the "New Black Panthers" decided they would go to the neighborhood in Texas where the shooting took place and protest the fact that the guy has not been arrested yet. Yes, the shooter was white and the two burglars were black. So they get to the neighborhood and they were...um...greeted by some supporters of Mr. Horn. Here is a long, but really really good video showing how it all went down...

And here is a link to a story that talks about what happened. You can read more about the story on that site also

So, the lessons here:

1. We are tired of the crime going on across our country. This is very similar to the situation in my local community that I blogged about a few weeks ago. COMMITTING A CRIME CAN GET YOU SHOT!

2. We are tired of the race card being brought up in every situation that arises between one or more white people and one or more black people. EVERYTHING IS NOT ABOUT RACE!

Yep, must be about race

2007-11-28T10:20:00.001-06:00

This one is a major ARGH!!! for me. I just can't believe the logic.

So last night I was watching Sports Center and the Pardon the Interruption crew...um...interrupted :)....to talk about Texas A&M and Ole Miss both hiring new coaches recently.

The topic was whether or not they should have looked at more than one coach. Actually, that wasn't the full topic. The topic was whether or not they should have looked at at least one black coach. And both of the PTI guys said YES!!!

WHAT??!!

They said that the Affirmative Action (or whatever it's called) policy in the NCAA to promote more "diversity" in coaching positions should have a stipulation that a black coach is at least interviewed. Even if the school has already pretty much picked the guy (sorry, or gal) they want.

UM....WHAT???!!!!

What kind of stupid logic is that??!!! Come on people!!!

What sense does it make to fly a guy in for an interview that you have no intention of hiring??!!! So we want to get a bunch of folks hopes up that they might get a multi-million dollar job when there is no chance they will be hired??!!! All for the sake of "diversity"??!!!!

They also said a good reason was in case the folks making the hiring decision will have the black coach as a contact several years down the road if they ever have to make or recommend such a position again. That's the only reason that actually made some sense. But, why does it only have to be done for black coaches??!! Heck, call in every coach, assistant coach, water boy, cheerleader, and fan for an interview!! Fill up your rolodex with a bunch of unqualified people just in case you need them later. Heck, call me in! You never know when you might need a software developer one day!

Finally, let's THINK a little bit people! So we call in a bunch of black coaches who aren't gonna get the job. Um, and they start to figure out there is no chance they will get the job. How is that not RACIST??!!!!!!!!!! That is the definition of racism in my book. Picking someone out based on their skin color and treating them poorly.

Just plain stupid. I didn't really care for the PTI folks to begin with. They weren't funny or insightful. Now I can add that they are idiots to the list of reasons why I don't like them.

Ted Nugent is RIGHT!!

2007-11-08T11:39:00.001-06:00

"The second amendment is my concealed weapon's permit".

AMEN!

Here is the video.

Tuesday Thoughts

2007-11-06T07:24:00.001-06:00

Some things have been on my mind the last few days. Time to get them out...

Dog

I'll start by saying that Dog the Bounty Hunter is one of my favorite shows. But I never have claimed to be impartial either. :)

Anyway, so Dog makes a PRIVATE phone call to his son. And says some things that are....well....politically incorrect. I would say racist, but I think if you read his comments in context you will see that he wasn't being racist at all. But he did use a racist slur several times. Then his son decides he's mad at Dog and sells a tape the (again PRIVATE) conversation to the awesome news source that is the National Enquirer. Now Dog's show on A&E has been pulled off the air and all indications are that it will be canceled. Ridiculous! The only good thing here is that his son likely broke the law by selling the tape without Dog's permission, so maybe he'll get in trouble for that.

Don't get me wrong, Dog shouldn't have said what he said. But again, his conversation was in PRIVATE!!! The actions taken against him by A&E are crazy.

Writer's strike

As you know, I'm pretty hard on labor unions on this blog. I think they are unnecessary, have too much power, and promote laziness in the workforce. But, there is a strike going on right now that I think is probably the first one I've seen that I could actually agree with.

Yesterday, television show writers went on strike because they felt they should be paid when the shows that they write gets sold for syndication, DVD sales, and online viewing. They are absolutely RIGHT! While the actors on these shows are good, there can be no mistaking that the real talent is the writers. How many good actors have been on bad shows? Here's an example - how many actors were on Seinfeld but didn't do squat on other shows? What's the reason? Writing!

Am I saying I think the union was a good thing in this case? Maybe. But I also think the writers could have organized this without a union.

Ron Paul's big day

About a month ago, some supporters of Ron Paul put together a website called This November 5th. The goal of this site was to sign up 100,000 people to give $100 to Ron Paul's campaign on November the 5th, for a total of $10 million. Yesterday (November 5th), over $4 million was raised. According to Ron Paul's website, this was done by about 35,000 separate donations. Amazing!

Congratulations to ThisNovember5th.com and to Ron Paul. Really neat to see such an effort do so well, even though its goal was not met. By the way, that is the most any candidate has raised in one day so far in this election cycle. The record is held by John Kerry, who took in $5.1 million when he accepted the Democratic nomination in 2004. That should put some perspective on how strong the Ron Paul Revolution is.

Update on my last entry

2007-10-30T14:12:00.001-05:00

From this article...

An Olive Branch man will not be charged in a Monday afternoon shooting that sent a carjacker to the hospital.

Shelby County Sheriff's Department spokesperson Steve Shular said Keith Gray, 44, would not be charged in a shooting that occurred after his elderly mother was carjacked in the driveway of her Olive Branch home Monday. The carjacking led to a chase between the Gray and her alleged attacker, which ended with the carjacker being shot.

Glad to see the Shelby County Sheriff's Department used some common sense in this matter.

What a great story

2007-10-30T07:30:00.001-05:00

So most of you know that crime in Memphis is out of control. I've blogged about it. My friends have blogged about it. It's on the news. You also know that I live south of Memphis in Desoto County, Mississippi. So I have the luxury of complaining about crime in Memphis and the privilege of living in an area with a much lower crime rate. The reasons for our low crime rate are many. Today, I will point out one that is a mentality of a lot of folks in my state.

IF YOU COME TO MY HOUSE WITH A GUN I WILL SHOOT YOU

From this story...

Police are investigating a carjacking that lead to a chase and a shooting Monday afternoon near Olive Branch, Mississippi.

The shooting happened in an area near the intersection of State Line Road and Riverdale Road in Olive Branch, Mississippi.

Investigators said 71-year-old Bobbie Gray was unloading groceries in the driveway of her south Shelby County home when a man approached her with a shotgun, demanding her car.

...

Gray's son Keith, who was inside her house, came outside when he heard the altercation.

Seeing the carjacker pulling out of the driveway in his mother's car, Keith jumped into his own car and followed the man. The pair traveled nearly three miles during the brief chase.

While driving, the suspect pulled a gun on Keith, who was also carrying a gun. He fired at the suspect.

The carjacker veered off into a field, with Keith in pursuit. There, both men jumped out of their vehicles.

Keith approached the carjacker with his gun drawn and ordered the man to stay still. When the carjacker moved, Keith again fired on the man.

...

Marshall Gray, Bobbie's husband and Keith's father, warned others to be cautious.

"Pass the word on," he said. "You never know the next person you're going to carjack may have a gun bigger than yours in their car."

"What he did, I knew he would. He was trying to protect me," Bobbie Gray added.

AWESOME!!

This is exactly what I want thugs to think about when they think about committing a crime. I want them to think, "If I do this, I might GET SHOT".

Keep in mind though that the story isn't over yet. Mississippi has a "Castle Law" that would allow Mr. Gray to shoot the criminal while the criminal was driving his car. However, the chase actually ended across the state line in Tennessee. Where there is no Castle Law. While I really hope it won't happen, there is a decent chance that charges will be brought against Mr. Gray. From this article...

Mississippi law may be on his side. Reporter Jason Miles looked up what's known as the "Castle Doctrine." It says force can be used in defense of a dwelling or vehicle. Whether that applies once you cross the state line is up in the air.

"We're going to be getting all the facts together to see if there are charges--it's just too early to tell at this point," says Shelby Co. Sheriff's Office spokesman Steve Shular.

It's pretty clear, the son's concern arose from fear. The same concern many of you might have.

"Especially if they say their mother with a shotgun to her head," says Shular.

But he says it would have been safer for everyone if the son would have called 911 and left the pursuit and capture of a suspect to the professionals.

"You have people that could have been put in danger--not only by these cars being side by side, but that weapon going off," says Shular.

One quick question for Mr Shular - How is calling 911 and waiting on cops who might or might not arrive working out for y'all? Hmmm??

Marshall Gray should be considered a hero for standing up to protect his family. I pray to God nothing like that ever happens to me, but I also hope that I would have the guts to take action like he did in that circumstance. And that the LAW would be on MY SIDE.

Oh, and I have to throw this in there for the sake of Gary. From that second article...

"The guy told the guy "you do that stuff in Memphis, but you not going to do that stuff down here!"

An honest politician

2007-10-26T09:18:00.001-05:00

I never thought I'd see the day that a politician would be honest about what they really think. But the day has come. Here is a quote from Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm in this article:

"It's not just about me, me, me. It's about investing in Michigan," she said. "Where's the notion of the common good? It's been lost over decades because there's been ... this idea that it's your money, it's your money.

"What happened to, 'It's your schools, and it's your roads and it's your parks, your libraries?' "

That's right folks. It's not our money. It belongs to the government. Don't be fooled. Most politicians in your state and our federal government believe this too. They are just too scared to say it in public.

In case you think the TRUTH is important

2007-10-24T10:40:00.001-05:00

I'm sure most of you have heard, watched, or read something about the whole "Jena 6" fiasco in Jena, Louisiana. It's made national news. I'm sure no one will be surprised about this, but much of what you've heard about it is wrong. As this article by a reporter for a Jena newspaper points out. I'll post some of the most popular ones that I have heard here, but I recommend reading the entire article if you have time.

Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class.

Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events.

...

Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.

When they were denied entrance by the renter of the facility, a white male named Justin Sloan (not a Jena High student) at the party attacked Bailey and hit him in the face with his fist. This is reported in witness statements to police, including the victim, Robert Bailey, Jr.

Months later, Bailey contended he was hit in the head with a beer bottle and required stitches. No medical records show this ever occurred. Mr. Sloan was prosecuted for simple battery, which according to Louisiana law, is the proper charge for hitting someone with a fist.

...

Myth 7: The Schoolyard Fight. The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a "schoolyard fight." But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school's gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)

When Barker tried to leave through another exit, court testimony indicates, he was hit from behind by Mychal Bell. Multiple witnesses confirmed that Barker was immediately knocked unconscious and lay on the floor defenseless as several other black students joined together to kick and stomp him, with most of the blows striking his head. Police speculate that the motivation for the attack was related to the racially charged fights that had occurred during the previous weekend.

Myth 8: The Attack Is Linked to the Nooses. Nowhere in any of the evidence, including statements by witnesses and defendants, is there any reference to the noose incident that occurred three months prior. This was confirmed by the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, on numerous occasions.

Myth 9: Mychal Bell's All-White Jury. While it is true that Mychal Bell was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury in June (a conviction that was later overturned with his case sent to juvenile court), the jury selection process was completely legal and withstood an investigation by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Court officials insist that several black residents were summoned for jury duty, but did not appear.

Myth 10: Jena 6 as Model Youth. While some members were simply caught up in the moment, others had criminal records. Bell had at least four prior violent-crime arrests before the December attack, and was on probation during most of this year.

This probably could be considered a "Yep, must be about race" entry, since race is the whole reason the Jena 6 craziness has gotten so out of hand. But it's really just another way to show how the mainstream media pushes myths on us on a daily basis. Sloppy journalism has replaced hard work and integrity in the media industry. Truly a sad state of affairs.

Unbelievable

2007-10-05T11:01:00.001-05:00

Well, yesterday Memphis had their mayoral election. They re-elected Willie Herenton to his fifth term. I just can't understand the mentality here. Sure, Herenton has done some good things for the city over the last 16 years, but he's also done some very bad things. People (and businesses) are moving out of the city by the busload, crime is out of control, education is the worst in the state (with Tennessee being one of the worst states in the country).

Herenton's ego is so over-inflated that he doesn't even care about any of the problems of the city. He does nothing about them. He just figures he's popular enough to get elected no matter what happens. And it appears he's right. Apparently he can father illegitimate children, threaten city councilmen in meetings, and be investigated by the FBI yet still get elected as long as he makes sure Memphis gets a new sports stadium every term. UNBELIEVABLE!

It also amazes me that only 38% of the people voted. All the problems and no one cares to get out and cast a vote to fix them? UNBELIEVABLE!

Even though I live in a county that has benefited from Memphis' breakdown, I still have to be in Memphis all of the time for work. And Memphis is still the major focal point of the area. So it is a reflection on the entire mid-south when Memphis suffers. If things were turned around Memphis, my county would reap the benefits too.

People of Memphis, what are you thinking??!! Clearly you aren't thinking at all. UNBELIEVABLE!

The revolution kicks into high gear!

2007-10-03T16:33:00.001-05:00

Yep, this is another Ron Paul post. But it's a short one. Big news today is that Ron Paul raised as much money last quarter as John McCain! It's making the news across much of the mainstream media. It's on Drudge Report. It's everywhere!

This should help his poll numbers for sure. Hopefully he won't be considered a "fringe" candidate any longer.

Even more Ron Paul propaganda!

2007-09-25T09:23:00.001-05:00

I know I'm probably wearing y'all out with Ron Paul articles, but until everyone agrees with me or until he decides it's a losing battle, I'm going to keep on keeping on. :)

Here are excerpts from three articles written by a conservative Baptist pastor in Pensacola, Florida. I'm not going to say I agree with everything this guy says, but he is RIGHT on many of the points he makes in these...

1. From this article:

The main objection I have with the Religious Right is they have (for the most part) given President George W. Bush (and the Republican Party in general) a complete and total pass. Over the past nearly seven years now, Bush and GOP leaders have betrayed most every principle that I ever understood the Religious Right to stand for. Yet, our national Christian leaders (and local pastors throughout America) have been content to look the other way and say nothing. Or worse yet, they have actually defended Bush's liberal, big-spending, anti-freedom, and unconstitutional ways. In a nutshell, for a seat at the king's table, the Religious Right sold out its principles.

Another criticism I have with our national Christian leaders is the seeming shallowness they display. About the only thing a Republican politician has to do to curry favor with our illustrious conservative Christian leaders is to say that they oppose abortion and homosexuality. Whether they actually mean it or intend to actually do anything about it after winning an election doesn't seem to matter to a tinker's dam, however. No, it is actually worse than that. Our Christian leaders do not even seem to understand how to deal with these issues in a constitutional republic.

For example, pro-life congressmen such as Ron Paul of Texas are not "acceptable" to many conservative Christians, because Paul actually wants to honor his oath of office to "support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which means he is not prepared to cede to the federal government that which the Constitution has given to the states. This means that Paul understands that the proper way to handle the abortion issue is to pass a "Sanctity of Life" bill, which would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies (thereby giving them complete governmental protection under the law) and would exempt the issue from the jurisdiction of the Court. This would have the effect of immediately overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand as we know it. However, not only did the entire Republican leadership in both houses of Congress and President George W. Bush not support Dr. Paul when he introduced such a bill, neither did the leaders of the Religious Right.

In fact, as a whole, the Religious Right continues to ignore Ron Paul's candidacy, even though he would probably be the best friend that conservative Christians ever had in the White House. Alas, however, there seems to be a giant disconnect in the thinking of many conservative Christians as to the primacy of constitutional government and how it relates to religious liberty. As a result, many conservative Christians continue to support big government policies, when they are promulgated by Republicans.

2. From this article:

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

...

All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

3. From this article:

The entrance of Fred Thompson in the presidential race immediately took a toll on the Romney campaign. Romney's support is dropping like the temperature in northern Idaho in the wintertime. That trend will probably continue, as more conservatives catch the Thompson wave.

The problem is, Thompson is not a conservative. Worse still (for the GOP), Thompson cannot beat Hillary in a general election. Mark my words, if Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee next November, Hillary Clinton is your next president.

For that matter, I see only one Republican contender who might be able to beat Hillary in the 2008 general election: Ron Paul. Yes, you read it right. Ron Paul.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, conservative Christians will stay home or vote third party.

...

A Republican cannot win the White House without widespread support from evangelical Christians. And Giuliani will never have widespread support from evangelical Christians.

Newt Gingrich is toying with the idea of entering the race, but the truth is out about Newt. His infidelities, his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and his past betrayal of conservative principles precede him. Newt is damaged goods. He has little chance of obtaining the Republican nomination, and even if he did, he has no chance of beating Hillary. None. Zero. Zilch.

The only Republican with the potential to pull an upset victory over Clinton is Ron Paul. He is extremely popular among constitutionalists, independents, and many Christians (including me). He is doing very well in fundraising and on the Internet. And if Paul's message was given a fair hearing, evangelical Christians and traditional conservatives would come to support him.

The only reason that some conservative Christians do not already support Ron Paul is because they, themselves, do not understand constitutional government. Years of Republican chicanery and compromise have taken a toll on conservatives to the point that many of them don't understand truth when they see it. However, this could change. The more people learn about Ron Paul and constitutional government, the more they like him and it.

...

On the life issue, Fred Thompson's record is clearly pro-choice. In 1991 and 1992, Thompson was a paid lobbyist for the pro-abortion organization, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. He also lobbied against the Republican Party's pro-life plank. According to Terry Jeffrey, "[W]hen Fred Thompson was in the United States Senate, both times he ran for the Senate he ran as a pro-choice candidate."

One of the Religious Right's most respected leaders, Richard Viguerie, recently said this about Fred Thompson: "Fred Thompson's record may appear to be 'conservative,' but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President."

Quick notes on the part in that last article about Fred Thompson being pro-choice. One, I have no idea who Terry Jeffrey is. Two, here is an article where Fred Thompson defends himself. I tend to believe Fred Thompson won't do anything that will hurt the pro-life cause, but I'm not so sure he will help it either.

Welcome to America, Mr Ahmadinejad

2007-09-25T07:27:00.001-05:00

I'll admit it. I had assumed that when Iran's president came to speak at Columbia University that it would just be an opportunity for him to state again how much he hates America and our president and that he would go unchallenged. I assumed the liberal students at Columbia would cheer him on and it would be a shameful, disgraceful night.

BUT I WAS WRONG!!!

OH MY GOSH!!! You have to watch this video! Columbia University's president got the chance to introduce Mr Ahmadinejad and he pulled out all the punches! Wow!! Thank you Lee Bollinger for starting the night out RIGHT and saying what we all know to be the TRUTH!

Good article on Ron Paul

2007-09-21T08:46:00.001-05:00

Can't let you go too long without reading something about Ron Paul, now can I? :)

Full text from this article. Pretty long, but a good read...

More Ron Paul Secrets Revealed

by Jennifer Haman

Ron Paul – I like his ideas but they are not practical.

I hear this all the time. Many people like Ron Paul's views, but for some reason, they have decided that liberty is not "practical" and freedom is a "luxury" we cannot afford anymore. But deep down, they really wish it were different. It can be different. The answer is right in front of you: Vote for Ron Paul. The other day a person said to me that they really liked all of Ron Paul's views and ideas, but why vote for him if he can't win? That logic confounds me. Was the person really saying that it makes more sense to vote for someone you don't like, who will get into office and hurt you, just because he has a better chance of winning? It is astonishing the way some people think. In case the news did not get out, the $5000 cash prize for picking the candidate who wins has been cancelled. The only thing you get when you vote for a guy you do not like is policies you do not like – policies that will hurt you, hurt your pocketbook, and hurt your family. Oh, and P.S., Ron Paul is winning, he is winning in debates and straw polls and sweeping the Internet, but the mainstream media does not want you to know so they keep the news to themselves.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running who offers true hope for the people. Perhaps Americans are so jaded that they don't think it is possible to live without tyranny. Perhaps people feel that after decades of being robbed, tricked, lied to, and manipulated that they need to let go of hope and be willing accept that their lot in life will not improve with the next four years so the best they do is vote for the lesser of two evils. This election, for the first time, you don’t have to vote for evil. You have a real choice for once in many decades. Take advantage of it. Dare to dream.

Ron Paul offers the people of this country real hope. He offers protection from (rather than catering to) the corporate big wigs. Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to make your life better. For example:

Ron Paul offers truth. Did you know that it is illegal for a dietary supplement company to make a true statement about its products because the big pharmaceuticals want all your business and cannot stand the thought of you taking a cheap herbal remedy? Ron Paul introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act so that the FDA cannot stand in your way of hearing truthful claims about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. Ron Paul offers hope to your family over the profits of huge companies. Yes, you can have someone on your side.

Did you know that emergency rooms are going out of business because of legislation passed by Congress? Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) physicians who work in emergency rooms are required to provide care, regardless of a person's ability to pay, to anyone who comes into an emergency room. Hospitals are also required by law to bear the full costs of providing free care to anyone who seeks emergency care. Thus, EMTALA forces medical professionals and hospitals to bear the entire cost of caring for the indigent. Many institutions simply cannot afford the strain. Ron Paul seeks to offset those costs with tax credits to physicians with a new bill he introduced.

Ron Paul offers freedom to churches to exercise their freedom of speech in the political arena. Did you know that the IRS has sent notices to more than 15,000 non-profit organizations – including churches – regarding its new crackdown on political activity? Ron Paul writes: "We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced." "The Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats." You don't have to go it alone; you can have a candidate who fights for you.

Ron Paul also fights for a parent's right to raise their child the way they see fit and to make their own decisions about whether to medicate away their child’s behavior. The government wants to take that choice away from you. The government is calling for the mandatory mental health screening of American schoolchildren, meaning millions of kids will be forced to undergo psychiatric screening whether their parents consent or not. Ron Paul introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for the proposal. He also introduced a bill that forbids federal funds from being used for any mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents. The bill is known as "The Parental Consent Act of 2005," or HR 181. Ron Paul will fight the government as it tries to take over the most basic of rights: the right to raise your child.

As far as the working man is concerned, Ron Paul also wants to help out there. He wants to get rid of the Income tax. I hear all the time: that is not practical, that is not possible, and we need the income tax. I say okay, but would you like it if the Income Tax was gone? The answer is always yes. Well, you can have what you want. Under Ron Paul's plan, we only need to return to the spending levels of the year 2000 to be able to eliminate the Income tax. In fact, the Income tax is only one of many, many different taxes and tariffs that the government seizes to collect money and without this one particular tax, the government can run just fine. So, you see, you can have what you want. You really can have freedom. If you truly want to keep your whole paycheck, what is stopping you? All you need to do is vote for Ron Paul.

Do you think your medical information should be kept private? Yes? So does Ron Paul. The government on the other hand disagrees. Under a bill passed a few years ago, rather than protecting the individual’s right to medical privacy, the government issued regulations empowering government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual "needs.'' The regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care database. Ron Paul fought that for you and introduced the Patient Privacy Act to repeal these threats to patient privacy and provide quality health care. Yes, it is possible to get Big Brother off your back and out of your most private and intimate issues. Again, all you have to do is vote for Ron Paul.

Think the Department of Homeland Security is keeping you safe? Think again. Ron Paul explains: "Five years into this new Department, Congress still cannot agree on how to handle the mega-bureaucracy it created, which means there has been no effective oversight of the department. While Congress remains in disarray over how to fund and oversee the department, we can only wonder whether we are more vulnerable than we were before Homeland Security was created." Meanwhile, safer or not, in May of this year Congress voted to authorize nearly $40 billion dollars of your money for the Homeland Security Department. We certainly don’t need more bureaucracy gumming up the works and losing track of important information. Ron Paul wants to end the wasting of our money and find a real way to keep us safe.

In general, government solutions don’t work. You know this deep in your gut. As the years have passed and more and more areas are taken over by the government, your lives get harder, your privacy is lost, and your liberties are seen as distant memories. You work more and more hours and get fewer and fewer benefits each year. The cost of food and fuel has gone up so fast that your tiny raise, if you even get a raise, can’t keep up with the additional expense. Financially, you are moving backwards and your savings are losing more to inflation every year. Education for your children has become shameful. Many people are forced to move just to find school districts that are acceptable. The promises keep coming, but nothing gets delivered. This is because the government is not really there to help you. It is there to help its friends, big businesses and themselves but certainly not you. Ron Paul gave this speech before the House of Representatives on the topic. Does that speech sound like it came from a man who wants to work to continue the status quo or shake things up a bit and help the rest of us? (Please click on it and read it, it is very powerful.)

As Ron Paul knows, political power over others is coercion and more government means more coercion. We don’t need to be coerced any longer. We can have freedom. Ron Paul offers us freedom from improper uses of political power.

Ron Paul is a doctor. Perhaps that is what makes him different. He took the Hippocratic Oath which states in part "I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients." Replace the word patients with citizens and you have the perfect recipe for a President.

Is a Ron Paul Presidency practical? Not only is it practical, but it is realistic, and offers true hope and change for those of us not in the "club." A Ron Paul Presidency will be a Presidency for the people, bringing real change and growth for the general public. A Ron Paul Presidency will offer you all you wish was true, but didn’t think possible anymore. Is it practical to regain our freedoms? Yes. Is it practical to regain our liberties? Yes. Is it practical to lessen the burdens placed on us by our government? Yes, yes, yes. You can have what you want. All you have to do is ask for it by voting for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the only Republican that wants to end the war and prevent a military draft. If that is important to you, then vote for him in the primaries no matter which party you support. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a ballot with two anti-war candidates?

People criticize Ron Paul for wanting to bring the troops home today. Well, in reality, he couldn’t take office until January of 2009, so he could not bring them home before then. That is hardly ending the war today. If in fact we are not being lied to again and the surge is working and everything in Iraq will be hunky dory in just a few more months, the issue will be moot by then. If not, then wasn’t six years enough time to try to get the job done? How many American lives have to be lost to save face? Can’t we end the madness at some point? How can you win a war against a battle tactic (like terrorism) anyway?

Please click on the underlined links in this article. They take you to articles and speeches and bills sponsored by Ron Paul. To truly see the greatness in this man you need to read his words, not mine. I can only hope to guide you to the truth that is Ron Paul. A truth the mainstream media does not want you to see. I bet you didn’t know he polled first after all of the debates and he has been winning in straw poll after straw poll across the United States including Alabama, North Carolina, New Hampshire Taxpayers, New Hampshire (general), and Maryland. Ron Paul also has two second-place finishes and three third-place finishes. But the mainstream media are owned by those corporations that have their hand out at the government trough and are worried it may dry up (Ron Paul turns so many lobbyists away he is known as Dr. No in Washington), so they don’t want you to know about the good doctor. They do not want you to know you have a way out. If nothing else convinces you that should. If they don’t want you to hear about him, he must be good for you.

(Also, keep in mind that Ron Paul does not support big corporate welfare and they do not support him. Please donate whatever you can to his campaign RonPaul2008.com. Believe it or not, even ten dollars makes a difference!)

September 21, 2007

Yep, must be about race

2007-09-18T14:39:00.001-05:00

Well, football season has started. Must mean Donovan McNabb wants to get another race war started. From this article...

Philadelphia Eagles star Donovan McNabb says black quarterbacks face greater scrutiny than their white counterparts.

In an interview on HBO's "Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel" to be broadcast Tuesday, McNabb said black quarterbacks "have to do a little bit extra" because there are relatively few of them, adding "people didn't want us to play this position."

McNabb said if he passes for 300 yards and his team wins by a touchdown, critics will say, "Oh, he could have made this throw here. We would have scored more points if he would have done this."

Asked if white quarterbacks such as Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer are held to the same standards, McNabb replied: "Let me start by saying, I love those guys. But they don't get criticized as much as we do. They don't."

My goodness. So a couple of years ago, black quarterbacks didn't get enough credit for how well they played. Now, the expectations on them are too high. WHICH ONE IS IT??!!!!

Donovan, I know you're having a tough time right now. Just got back from an injury and have had horrible performances the last couple of weeks. But come on man. Do you really think any other high profile NFL quarterback would not be scrutinized the same as you are if they had a different SKIN COLOR? If so, you are an IDIOT. There, I said it. I feel better.

If you want to shut the critics up, how about trying to PLAY BETTER. Prove it on the field, Donovan. That's all you need to do.

Encouraging note of the day

2007-09-13T12:55:00.001-05:00

Wow, this is cool! (when disregarding the swipe at W at the end anyway) From this article.

Eighteenth-century missionaries can rest easily in their graves, said Spengler, a pseudonymous columnist, in the Hong Kong online Asia Times. Chinese are converting to Christianity en masse. Some 10,000 Chinese accept Jesus Christ as their savior every day. That’s every day. The National Catholic Reporter reckons that by mid-century, China will be home to 200 million Christians—the largest concentration in any country. The evangelizing power of American-style Pentecostalism is proving irresistible to millions of Chinese who feel lost in the swirl of rapid economic growth and mass urban migration. The surge of belief is already having an impact on Chinese life. Barred from worshipping publicly, Chinese Christians meet in their homes, and the resulting network of the faithful is already creating a “leaven of democracy” that the communist regime can’t control. “These fearless grass-roots evangelists will do more to bring democracy to the world than all the bluster of President George W. Bush.”

Danny.Riley.Blog

Cloudy With a Chance of – What did he Just Say?

Question: What lessons do you hope to instill in your kids?

Question: What's a good book to read at the beach?

Question: What activity or behavior should be a crime?

Question: What would be the pros and cons of legalizing Marijuana?

Question: What's the least fun you've ever had at a place that was supposed to be fun?

A Quick Reminder

Question: What are you doing to help the environment?

Quick note about Coach Cal

Question: Where was your first kiss

Question: What book would you recommend to someone who could use a good laugh.

Question: What would be your Native American\Indian name?

Blog Changes

Question: What item(s) have you bought based on an infomercial?

Question: What's the last place you visted that made you home-sick?

Question: What is one of your favorite movie lines?

Question: What words do you hate?

Question: What would set this country straight

Change I can believe in

The Light of Conscience

Tuesday Thoughts

Article of the day

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately

Yep, must be about race

Catching up

Ron Paul is RIGHT

Commentary: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track

Post-election thoughts

The RIGHT Policy - Part 4 - Final Thoughts

A nice break

The RIGHT Policy - Part 3 - Economy

Monday Thoughts

More on the bailout

We reap what we sow

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Ron Paul is RIGHT

Commentary: Bailouts will lead to rough economic ride

Are you sure, Pat?

The RIGHT Policy - Part 2 - Social Issues

Jason Whitlock is RIGHT

Quotes of the day

Peggy Noonan Is RIGHT

The RIGHT Policy - Part 1 - Foreign Policy

A little bit more about Gov. Palin

Sarah Palin is RIGHT!

Pat Buchanan is RIGHT...Again!

Yep, must be about race

Attention Mr. Kristol, Russia != Iraq

Argh!

Yep, must be about race

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

John W and Dave Ramsey are RIGHT

Dr. Dobson is RIGHT

Remembering Tim Russert

A Life's Lesson June 20, 2008

Obama is RIGHT

The future of TV commercials

At least I was RIGHT

Cross post and Items of Interest

John McCain is WRONG

News flash

Gold standard explained

Davy Crockett was RIGHT

On Memphis' loss

Quote of the day

Remembering Charlton Heston

Chuck Baldwin is RIGHT

Up hill both ways...barefoot...In the snow...

Quote of the day

Random thoughts

John McCain is right

Monday political thoughts, part 2

Monday political thoughts

The mouse that roared

The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election

Rush is RIGHT

Rethinking my last post

BELIEVE!, part 2

A Life's Lesson
June 20, 2008