May 26, 2009
May 24, 2009
Independents are important. While they may not care enough to donate to a campaign, volunteer for said campaign, or provide the grassroots infrastructure necessary for a successful campaign, they provide something better: cultural cover. And by that I mean, they allow us to seem more "cool," as the kiddos say these days. Individual rights? Not cool. Respecting the unborn? Also not cool. Expecting our leaders to value philosophy over rhetoric? The most uncool of all. Who bases things on a grounding philosophy anymore? So 18th century.
We need more leaders like Colin Powell to attract these valuable independents. Like them, he knows the importance of not really having any grounded principles, voting based on important concerns like skin color or an ability to read pretty words off a teleprompter, and perhaps most crucial, a politician's ability to sound tolerant of other opinions (even if he or she isn't).
I've always longed to be part of a political party that had absolutely no parameters set for inclusion (even supporting said party in presidential races.) After all, Powell knows best. Had we listened to him, the GOP would have nominated a moderate to run in 2008, instead of conservative firebrand John McCain.
Good luck Gen. Powell, and by all means, CK, shut up.
May 23, 2009
May 18, 2009
...the president of Trinity Washington University denouncing the "religious vigilantism" of those who opposed Obama's visit and calling their protests "an embarrassment to all Catholics."
Video of wild-eyed religious vigilante being taken away by Notre Dame security, and by wild-eyed religious vigilante, I of course mean an 80 year old priest
"The real scandal at Notre Dame today is not that the president of the United States is speaking at commencement," McGuire said. "The real scandal is the misappropriation of sacred teachings for political ends. The real scandal is the spectacle of ostensibly Catholic mobs camping out at Notre Dame for the specific purpose of disrupting the commencement address of the nation's first African American president. This ugly spectacle is an embarrassment to all Catholics. The face that Catholicism shows to our new president should be one marked with the sign of peace, not distorted in the snarl of hatred."
What does the race of the president have to do with pro-life demonstrations? Why did the president of Trinity feel the need to make note of Obama's race? We know why, of course, to tar their opposition as racists and to try and scare them into silence and compliance.
McGuire continued, "The religious vigilantism apparent in the Notre Dame controversy arises from organizations that have no official standing with the church, but who are successful in gaining media coverage as if they were speaking for Catholicism. . . . They have established themselves as uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize. Theirs is a narrow faith devoted almost exclusively to one issue. They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living. They mock social justice as a liberal mythology."
And here be what I'm calling the Hucktard Canard. We've seen Mike Huckabee regularly deploy a similar argument against small government acivists, that if the government doesn't offer up a large number of social programs, people will starve in the streets. It's bullshit of course, and we all know that. Small government conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians don't mock social justice as a liberal mythology, they mock the incredibly stupid idea that social justice can only be achieved through government force.
Liberal Catholics buy into this bullshit, lock, stock and barrel. Even the Vatican, to its own detriment seems to favor the Eurosocialist approach, as it won't come out and endorse capitalism. These people seem to think that if the government isn't doling out aid to people in its inefficient and corrupt way (not to mention the forceful seizing of funds from other citizens in order to do this), that the vacuum will remain unfilled, and people will go hungry, homeless and naked.
It just isn't so, nature abhors a vacuum, and inevitably churches, non-profit organizations and individuals would move in to help as needed, and they often outperform the government, in both services delivered and efficiency, and it's all done on a volunteer basis. People chose to help, as opposed to making the right decision with the threat of government power being held over them.
May 10, 2009
May 05, 2009
From TechRepublican's blog:
Recovery.org has a nice breakdown of stimulus spending by state, county, and city. And how they managed to get that domain, I don't know - I'm guessing it cost a pretty penny.
At today’s Conservative Blogger’s Briefing, hosted by Robert Bluey at the Heritage Foundation, Onvia CEO Mike Pickett and CTO Eric Gillespie spoke about their project, Recovery.org – a new website designed to track where YOUR taxpayer money is going.Recovery.org is a technological solution to government transparency that is doing exactly what the White House intended to do already, but hasn’t yet done with Recovery.gov.
April 30, 2009
April 19, 2009
Ryan announced he has filed an exploratory committee to run for Senate on his Twitter feed. He'll be running against Michael Bennet, who was nominated in place of Ken Salazar when Salazar was sucked into the Obama administration. While I don't find Bennet personally offensive, I don't consider him trustworthy - he made a commitment to superintend Denver Public Schools for five years but left after just three. Many people in DPS feel that Bennet used the district as a stepping stone.
Ryan Frazier is qualified, knowledgeable, and inspiring. I've considered him one of the fresh faces to watch in the new GOP since I heard him speak several months ago, and I'm excited that he's decided to make the plunge to run for Senate. He's someone we can trust to watch out for us.
April 15, 2009
Also, a good roundup of photos and other goodies from the demonstrations today.
April 09, 2009
The same poll also found that 76% of independents worry that government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. Independents oppose Mr. Obama's proposed budget by a 55%-37% margin.
If independents continue looking more like Republicans, especially on deficits, spending and the economy, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats could be in for a rough ride.
Independents aren't starting to look like Republicans, Mr. Rove. The Democratic party has moved so far to the left with the election and subsequent blind support of President Obama that it is becoming harder and harder for any rational person to continue supporting the Dems. Obama is not polarizing the country - he is giving the majority of the country a common enemy in the socialization of our economy and the "Blame America First" mentality. A few more years of this, as independents begin to recognize that the goal of the far left is the destruction of our country's foundations, and the country may well be nearly as united against the far left as we were after the September 11 attacks.
Obama isn't dividing the country, he's uniting it - but not in the way he hoped. After Carter came Reagan, after Obama will come another era of conservatism. Obama's greatest gift to our country may end up being the two presidential terms after he leaves office.
April 03, 2009
March 27, 2009
Chad and I obviously have differing opinions on the illegal immigration problem, but I thought I'd take the time to offer why it is I'm so virulently opposed to any sort of amnesty, because I think it ties into the argument between Goldstein and Patterico are having over intentionalism and language.
I fully believe that to reward illegals with citizenship is completely counter to the founding principles of our nation, the idea that all men are created equal under the law. We fought one horrible bloody war to make that happen, and countless skirmishes, both in the courtrooms, in elections, and in some cases in the streets to try and make that happen. We're not perfect, and we never will be, but overall we've done pretty damn good.
Offering up any sort of mass amnesty is rewarding illegal behavior, the government loses its ability to say that all are equal under the law under its rule, which will critically undermine the ability of the government to administer the law. After all, why shouldn't you get a pass for violating the law, the government not only refused to punish lawbreakers, they rewarded them for their lawbreaking! And maybe some other schmuck on trial when you're up for jury duty. Every trial could become a trial against the government and justice system. If this were to happen, odds are the government would try and remove the public from the administration of justice, just to try and restore order. Not a good thing.
Then you have the resentment that comes with it, the fact that illegals will be despised because they received special favors from the government. This will inevitably lead to social tensions and severe division within the nation. Beyond that you have the logical disconnect of having tens of millions of people who are escaping nations that are criminally corrupt and don't administer the law fairly or equally, by demanding that a nation that isn't (on the whole) corrupt and does administer the law fairly and equally. You can't, and Americans won't pretend you can like the government demands they do.
The problem for Amnesty proponents is that to go forward with an Amnesty is that doing so is directly counter to the principles laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution isn't a set of rights that the government doles out or administers, it is an acknowledgment of the rights of the American people. When the government deviates from the Constitution, it does so only so far as the American public will allow it to. If the government moves to create an amnesty, at some point, the American public may well choose to slap the government back into compliance with the contract it signed.
March 26, 2009
"Over 50 million people voted for me and Sarah Palin - mostly for Sarah Palin," McCain said to an eruption of laughter. But "there was a sizable majority of the other party returned to Congress. And, elections have consequences. Elections have consequences. And these consequences we are seeing now in full display."I'd like to amend his statement to say that primary elections have consequences. Because, be honest, would anything Obama has done be that much different if McCain had won?
March 13, 2009
Dem caller: You insulted the president! How dare you call him an idiot.Ah, indeed. How does that make sense? But Mark should realize that we're living in a sound bite culture, and he should really be more careful with his words. Wouldn't want to turn off idgit voters.
Levin: Well, I think he is an idiot and he's a bad president. Whatcha think about that, you drone!?
Dem caller: He's only been in office 52 days! You haven't given him a chance!
Levin: Do you think this idiot's doing a great job?
Dem caller: I think he's doin' a good job, yeah!
Levin: So you can think he's doing a good job, but if I say I think he's doing a bad job, I get "He's only been in office 52 days. That's not enough time to judge." How the hell does that make any sense?!
March 09, 2009
March 05, 2009
Two men* enter, one man leaves. Guess which one leaves.
*Yeah, I know it's a stretch to call David Frum a "man."
March 04, 2009
One of the biggest failures in 2008 was the GOP's acceptance of the left's false premise that it was Bush, the GOP and corporate greed that caused the collapse of the financial system, not disastrous policies that encouraged, even forced banks and financiers to offer loans to people who clearly were not going to be able to pay them, spearheaded by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and most other Democrats. McCain pretty much paralyzed himself as far as offering an effective response by accepting the Democrats' premise, by the time he even began to try and turn that ship around, it was too late. Where did that get us?
Not to go Huck on y'all, but it actually reminds me of the parable about building on the rock. Every time we accept the Left's false premises, we build on sand, and that building will collapse. This is a point that Jeff Goldstein has been hammering on for ages, particularly when it comes to framing language...though perhaps not with as many New Testament references.
March 03, 2009
I'm just nine minutes into Mark Levin's show from today, and he's already called out David Frum, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, John Derbyshire, and Jonah Goldberg.
It's a thing of beauty.
59 queries taking 0.1464 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.