I'm a Pundit Too

Friday, August 31, 2007

Unmaskig The Politicians

Another week during the highly expedited presidential election season and we have more and more candidates getting caught with their proverbial pants down. Every campaign season seems be about the same thing these days. How can the candidates portray themselves as something they are not. The election season doesn’t necessarily have to be for President of the United States, it could be for the mayor of Baltimore. Every candidate tries to make themselves relatable to the average citizen, or to a particular segment of the population, but the extent that some go to has become somewhat extreme, if not entertaining.

In Baltimore, where I currently reside, the mayor’s race is heating up. The current mayor, Sheila Dixon, has been in office since taking over after the former mayor Martin O’Malley became Governor. She, as well as most of the other major candidates for the office, has been members of the city council for at least the past 10 years. During that time we have seen the murder rate consistently hover around 300 per year. For a city such as New York or Chicago, those numbers would be welcome, but with a population of just over 600,000, it ranks the city as one of the deadliest in the country. The rhetoric coming from the mayor’s office and the other candidates is that it is mostly “thug on thug” crime, most of which have drug ties. Is this supposed to make us feel safer? I see that they have identified the problem, but why haven’t they done anything to remedy the problem? All of the candidates proclaim that they are tough on crime; but if after more than 10 years in positions of power within the city you have not accomplished anything on crime, why should anyone take you seriously on crime issues?

This past week, the news came out of Washington that the Republican Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig, was arrested 3 months ago in an airport bathroom in Minneapolis for lewd conduct. Craig was accused of peering into a stall at another man, a plainclothes police officer, and making signals to the effect of soliciting lewd behavior. The senator pleaded guilty to public misconduct in hopes of making it all go away. He maintains that he is innocent and that he is not gay. My problem is not whether or not Senator Craig is gay, that is between Craig and his family and God. I take issue with another politician putting on a front to get elected. If the senator is gay and had been honest about it, would he have been elected? We do not know for sure, but if he is gay, he obviously hid it for one reason or another.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has brought back memories of the 1996 presidential campaign season with the disclosure that Norman Hsu, a Clinton campaign donor and fundraiser, has an outstanding arrest warrant for fraud in California. Mr. Hsu has reportedly raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for various candidates over the years, sometimes from questionable sources. As you may recall, the 1996 Clinton/Gore campaign was embroiled in a fundraising scandal when it was revealed that some of the contributions came from questionable Chinese sources. Senator Clinton has tried to distinguish her campaign as above the fray when it comes to fundraising, but it is getting harder to believe when we see more and more stories of close associates of Clinton’s being investigated and convicted of questionable bookkeeping of campaign financial records.

Then there is John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina, who is also running for President. Mr. Edwards has been campaigning on the notion that there are 2 Americas; one for the rich and powerful, and one for the rest of us poor slobs. He embarked on a poverty tour earlier this year to highlight the plight of the poor and downtrodden. During his tour he collected speaking fees of $55,000 for speaking to college students about poverty. That news was tempered with reports that he was paying $400 for a haircut. The Edwards campaign said that the speaking fees and the exorbitant haircuts were an oversight. Now the news has come out that while speaking out against poverty, Edwards was heavily invested in a company that was foreclosing on Katrina victims. Mr. Edwards has said that he is divesting the interest he had in the company. Again, when your actions speak louder than your words, you have a problem.

As the election season heats up, especially with several states vying to be the first to hold their primaries, we can expect to see more and more candidates, from both sides, showing their true colors. I know it is too much to ask, but wouldn’t it be nice if politicians actually stood for something beyond their own personal and political gains?

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Will Petraeus Report on the Troop Surge Really Matter?

On September 15th, General David Petraeus, the commanding General in Iraq, will deliver his report to the President and Congress on the progress of the troop surge. Almost immediately after Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be the next commander in Iraq, the same politicians who voted to confirm him started to ridicule and question his ability to lead. The troop surge is the increase of 20,000 new troops being sent to Iraq to provide security in Baghdad and Al Anbar. The surge was initiated in February and just recently the last of the 20,000 new troops arrived in Iraq. The democrat controlled Congress has debated ever since over the outcome of the plan.

In June, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the war is lost and the surge is a failure. Let me remind you that not all of the 20,000 troops had arrived in Iraq, but yet Senator Reid has declared himself a prophet. He can foresee the future. Reid could see in June that we were going to lose. Or was it that he wanted the surge to fail for political reasons? Before the insults start, and I am inevitably called a variety of names, which by the way none of them are new, allow me to complete my diatribe.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has stated that she has already made up her mind that the surge has failed. She has said that it doesn’t matter what the commanding General in Iraq says in September, she believes it has failed. Even after good news was reported in Iraq, Pelosi said that the political situation hadn’t improved, so the military advances meant nothing.

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin went to Iraq and actually admitted that the troop surge was in fact working. He then decided that he needed to instruct the Iraqi Parliament to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq. He said that the political environment in Iraq had not progressed far enough so Prime Minister Maliki needed to go. Have you noticed a trend yet?

House Majority Whip James Clyburn has said that if the report from Petraeus is good, it could be a big problem for Democrats. He was referring to the 47 Blue Dog Democrats that would then feel compelled to keep the troops in Iraq until victory is ultimately achieved. Many on the left have spun his remarks to say that he was not referring to the Democrats being politically invested in the defeat of our troops. If the Blue Dogs will be swayed by good news from Iraq and the rest of the Democrats will not be, what exactly are we supposed to think? If news that our troops are winning does not change the Democratic policy of surrender and defeat, then one can only surmise that they are only interested in our defeat.

The Democrats have tried to change their strategy of late. As more and more good news from Iraq comes out, the party leadership has tried to shift the focus off of military success to political success of the fledgling Iraqi government. Senator Hillary Clinton has changed her position to one of a hawk that would leave the troops in Iraq for at least 2 years after her hopeful election as President. She has gone from staunch supporter of her vote to send the troops, to Bush lied to me to get my vote, to I would bring them home as soon as I am elected, to now I would leave them there to finish the job. Is it any wonder she has the highest negative ratings of any of the current crop of candidates for President? It is very hard to support a candidate that decides which position to take on an issue by licking their finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

I admit that the news from Iraq over the past few years has not always been very good. I also admit that the Iraqi government has not done enough to help unite the opposing factions. We should not arbitrarily pull our troops out of Iraq, or leave them in Iraq just because it will benefit one political party or the other. I will admit defeat when I see it, but we are not there yet; especially when the report from Petraeus has not even been written up. I must ask a few questions of my friends that oppose the war. Is there any circumstance that you would admit that we have won? If the report from Petraeus comes out in a few weeks with all benchmarks met and the security of Baghdad and Al Anbar is under control; will it be a good thing for the United States and Iraq or a bad thing? Sadly, I believe that the Democratic leadership is anchored to the defeat of our troops and the Iraqi government; and nothing will change their minds.


Can We Do This BEFORE The Democrats Figure It Out?

Bipartisan stupidity. That is the best way to describe the past several years. I am absolutely convinced that our government is in a contest to see which party can become the most hated. Republicans lost control of Congress because they were incredibly stupid. Democrats took power, promising change, only to have Congressional approval ratings at an all time low.

Let's take a look back. I'm not going to go to far back, just to the beginning of the "W" term. When Bush took office, he couldn't wait to have the Kennedy clan over for dinner and a movie and a handover of some of the biggest flaws in the federal government. Teddy started writing and Bush started signing. A government controlled by the party of small government and fiscal conservatism got really big and spent a ton of cash. The republicans allowed massive government expansion, education being one example. As we are all aware, the Constitution clearly leaves public education in the hands of the states. But that didn't stop them. They expanded Medicare and put in place some really great reforms that we wont be able to afford in the very near future. The next president gets to figure out how to go back in time to fix this one.
After 9-11, Bush declared a war against terror to go on the offense and defend this country. Not a bad idea, one that most conservatives support. Well, except for that little not securing the southern border that allows gang members who are on al-Qaeda's pay roll to sneak into our country thing. Ron Paul is a conspiracy nut

Bush took us into Iraq, again, something that most conservatives support. Except for that little issue of not implementing a counter-insurgency strategy years ago which is a large part of the reason we are now fighting an insurgency. Oh, and not take flak jackets from admin clerks and redistributing them to people being shot at on a daily basis. Ron Paul is a loser

While this was all going on, we had Republicans going out of their way to send earmarks to their stockbrokers and bookies. I admit that I am exaggerating on that one, but not by much. We had a nice chap who was on some counter-pedophile committee sending IMs to children, obviously because he was running a covert operation. Speaking of covert, the administration allowed a CIA desk jockey and her hubby to spread one of the biggest lies in the history of the CIA. Of course the administration fought this lie by allowing a prosecutor to continue to investigate and ask questions long after he was well aware of exactly what happened which led the people of the country to think that the administration was hiding something. Ron Paul is a dork

This allowed the Democrats to jump up with their anti-war signs while yelling "Culture of Corruption" at the top of their lungs. Amazing how the corruption they were yelling about was only wrong when it was on the Republican side, but I won't get into the double standard thing just yet. They took power promising to end the war and promising to end corruption.

Then came the day after they regained Congress. They put together an ethics reform bill. And by reform, I mean they made certain that they were in complete control of all corrupt activities by ensuring that only their buddies would be able to slip earmarks past the people of this country. Great reform, making certain that earmarks have to go through a rigorous process of being approved by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi during a secret meeting in a sound proof vault.

They did manage to get a lot done to end the war in Iraq. Harry Reid told us that it was lost, that the generals in charge were incompetent, and then tried his best to make sure our troops couldn't get access to the brand new equipment that Congress was complaining they didn't have, completely ignoring the fact that the reason they didn't have it until now was because it didn't actually exist last year. Was that last one too fast for you? Equipment was developed to help our troops protect themselves from the IEDs we hear so much about. Some of this was so new, that the Pentagon did not have the money to actually purchase it until that bill was signed. That would be the bill that Congress sent to the President that they knew he would veto. The delayed getting them this equipment because they were busy playing politics. Ron Paul Can't Win

But have no fear. Bush knew how to strike back at the Democrats. He knew how to bring them to their knees and make them quake in fear. He had Ted Kennedy draw up an immigration bill that granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, which was in direct conflict with what conservatives were begging the President to do. The President pushed this bill knowing that it had no support amongst voting conservatives. In fact, polls showed that it didn't have the support in the liberal ranks either, who said they wanted border security before any reform bill. The President and the Democratic controlled Congress managed to put all of their efforts into a reform bill that was actually less popular than a war in the Middle East that many Americans thought we were losing at the time. I had no idea that something like this could be done until after it happened. If you are crying or even feeling suicidal at this point, I understand. You may want to cheer yourself up by reading something funny at another blog.

While all of this is happening, the Democrats are orchestrating one catastrophe after another. Did I mention that the majority leader proclaimed that the war was lost and that the generals were incompetent? This was so stupid that it didn't even sit well with people who do want to bring our troops home. Some of the anti-war movement is smart enough to know that you don't say things like this on television because the enemy watches television. So do the troops you are calling incompetent losers.

In their efforts to end the "Culture of Corruption" the tried passing the above mentioned ethics reform which did nothing more than ensure that they were the only ones allowed to pass illegal earmarks. They also launched countless investigations against the administration, the USAG being one of the bigger examples. Doug Patton said it very well in an article over at humanevents. The president should have simply sent Gonzales up to Capital Hill with a single note card on which were written the following words, which he could repeat over and over to every question: "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Next question." That is in fact all he needed to say. This turned into a scandal for two reasons. The Democrats were on a massive fishing expedition. Gonzales, knowing they were going fishing, took the bait. He walked into a trap despite the very obvious signs that said "This is a freaking trap, don't walk in here" that were displayed.

The Democrats also took on another huge issue, domestic spying. Pay no attention to the fact that the use of the word domestic is purely political. Pay no attention to the fact that previous court rulings have declared that the program is in fact a power granted to the President by the Constitution and that this means Congress CANNOT pass a law that takes away that power. Also pay no attention to the fact that the President somehow is too stupid to simply point out this fact to Congress while he flips the middle finger at them. The Democrats took on this issue by passing a law giving the President this authority, which is exactly the opposite of what they said they were going to do. Of course Harry Reid informed us that the bill only passed because the Republicans rubber stamped it like they do everything else for the President. You know, the good ole "Minority Party Rubber Stamp." You might want to read that last sentence twice if you aren't getting my point here. Harry Reid is a moron, that's what I'm saying.

Power in Washington doesn't change because someone inspires people to vote for them by standing up and proclaiming all of the great and wonderful things about this country. Power changes because the people get sick of whoever is in charge for whatever reason. When the Democrats make everyone angry, the Republicans take back Congress. When Bill Clinton's presidency is scared by a sex scandal, his own VP can't get elected. This is pretty much because the people who support the politicians who are screwing up decide to stay home. They are angry, and they protest by not voting, or by voting for a 3rd party scrub with no shot at winning. So what in the world will happen next year when America goes to cast it's vote? After a horrible Congress is replaced by a horrible Congress, which side will have control? After a supposed conservative President expands the government welfare system, will conservatives risk installing another RINO? Look around the left wing blogs and you will find people complaining about the Democratic candidates. Look around the right wing blogs and you will find people complaining about the Republican candidates. As a side note, if you happen upon a Ron Paul forum in your search, you will find that he is the only man who can save America and that he will clearly beat any Democratic candidate because everyone in the country wants him to win and his extremely low poll numbers are the result of the massive corporate-media empire controlled by space aliens who are building a one world government. Other than that, you will find that America is sick and tired of the people in Washington right now.

The much-smarter-than-you-and-I people on television who get paid tons of cash to tell us their opinions and predictions that never come to pass will tell who they think will win and they will give you a zillion reasons why. I am going to make my prediction now. Late next year, tens of millions of Americans will go to the polls to vote for a new President and to vote for some Senators and Representative. Much of this will be done on the new touch screen computers that are of course rigged to give the vote to the Republicans but somehow messed up last year. I predict that the combination of these electronic machines and the frustration of the voters will cause a tear in the space time continuum that will cause our galaxy to implode. And to be honest, this is probably the best outcome for all of us. Conservatives need to figure this whole thing out before the other side does.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Most Electable or Most Qualified

Will Conservatives nominate a candidate who can beat the Democratic nominee? Or will we nominate the best person for the job, who ends up letting Hillary into the White House.

I'm not going to go deep into who is the best person for the job, because I just don't know right now. But I do have some theories as to who will do what against whomever. Who can beat the current Democratic front runners? Thompson, Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Ron Paul?

Let's first take a look at Rasmussen. They have not only the primary races, but have also put together some head-to-head polls, pitting certain Republicans against certain Democrats.

First we will look at Ron Paul. He pretty much loses big against Hillary and against Obama, which of course is due to some big media, corporate empire conspiracy. I'm certain that Alex Jones has all the answers at his web site where you can also find out that 9-11 was an inside job and the V-Tech killings were a CIA brain washing experiment. He gets less that 35% against both candidates.

McCain is neck and neck with Hillary, only 2 percentage points separating them. Hillary and Obama are both well ahead of Mitt, 51% to 40%. McCain could give the Democrats a run, but in the end I think he loses, and there is no way he is going to get the nod after the immigration foul up. Mitt is popular, but not that popular.

Fred Thompson still has not announced, yet he is only 3 points shy of Hillary right now. Would making it official give him a boost? Will waiting it out just a bit longer help or hinder? I have no freaking clue. He is the politician, which means he has a bit more experience at getting elected, so I'll let him figure that out. I think that if he did get the nod, he would slap Hillary or Obama silly at every debate. Not only does he have a commanding voice, but he knows the words to use.

Giuliani is the only guy beating Hillary right now in the head-to-head. This is considered a strange thing given the fact that the right doesn't like his stance on, well, every single social issue. He is great on certain issues such as crime and national defense. Not so good on things like abortion. I think that if he assures conservatives that he will install good judges, he can get around that issue to some extent, but abortion is one of the biggest issues he is fighting. He is also not trusted by conservatives when it comes to gay issues. I personally don't get half of that, but us conservatives are very religious and this is a big deal. On the other side, Democrats are against gay marriage also, so what is the real effect.

Rudy is running very high mostly because he is America's Mayor. He is now being criticized for missteps after 9-11. But he did display a great deal of courage and leadership. He misspoke about how much time he spent at ground zero, but he was there getting dirty and doing his job.

So let's break this down. Hillary Clinton is going to be the democratic nominee. I have no doubts at all. She is polling well ahead of Obama and Edwards. She has been forgiven by most of the anti-war left for her vote, and many have forgotten half of the things that she has said and done that would make most people exclude her altogether. That is one advantage of being a Democrat, the fact that most things are only wrong if done by a Republican. If you call it a right wing conspiracy or tell everyone that Bush tricked you, you are forgiven. Carl Rove immediately stepped up attacks against her when he resigned, attacks that may continue for a while. He does this knowing that he is hated by the left because he got Bush elected and he is a demon who eats puppies and helped design the Halliburton Hurricane machine that killed all the poor black people after Katrina. What I'm trying to say is that Rove's words against Hillary give her strength with Democratic voters. Interestingly Dick Morris says that the best thing that can happen to the Republicans is a Hillary ticket because Republicans would go vote just to defeat her. Is this what Rove is thinking? Would those same people vote to defeat her if they had to vote for Giuliani to do so? Again, his stance on abortion kills him with a lot of voters.

Giuliani has appeal from both sides. There are liberals out there who support the war effort and like a guy like Rudy who has left leanings. There are conservatives who forgive his stance on abortion, and will vote for him to ensure the defeat of Hillary. Rudy could actually win New York, and if he is given the support of The Governator, may actually pick up California. California is a stretch, but the right tactics could get it done. You have to not only consider how many votes will be gained, but how many will be lost by an issue. The anti-war crowd is angry that they haven't gotten their way yet, and may be no-shows. This gives Rudy another advantage in California.

This is also going to come down to how things go in Iraq. Contrary to MSM belief, things are much better than they were BP (before Petraeus). He has lifted the morale of the troops and has turned many of the Iraqi insurgents against Al-Qaeda. They are starting to realize that they will be allowed to get into the politics once they agree to act like politicians. Even many who have opposed the war for years are agreeing that the current strategy is working. Attacks are decreasing and Iraqi forces are getting trained so that they can take over security. This is bad news for Democrats, but Hillary is good enough to take all the credit for the successes.

Another issue is the economy. Lack of regulations on the sub-prime markets has turned our economy on its head. Many will blame Bush for this despite the fact that this was done by the marketplace and there was nothing any president could have done. Hillary is adding a bail-out to her platform, which would have catastrophic ramifications down the road. If the government bails out everyone who is about to lose a house, we will have problems. But people don't think about long term issues when they are in trouble now. What is needed is controlled actions by the Federal Reserve, then Congress needs to put some regulations in place regarding the sale of Adjustable Rate Mortgages. This is what needs to be done, but as long as she is talking about a bail out, she will get support. However, this is going to be mostly cleared up by Election Day, so it won't help her as much as she may think.

I think that if Giuliani gets the nod to run against Hillary, his choice as VP is going to be vital. I know that he likes McCain, but Conservatives don't. Rudy already has the abortion issue against him, he cannot add the issue of John "Immigration Reform" McCain. This will cost him support with from the left and the right. Polls claim that the majority of Americans were against the bill, and that they want a secure border. Rudy may do well to look at the second place candidate, Fred Thompson. Fred could give him more of the Conservative base, especially in the south. This also gives him someone who economists may like. Fred is a tax reform type of guy who believes in business. This is of course assuming Rudy wins the nod instead of Fred, but I'm going with how it looks at the moment. Things may very well swing when he makes it official.

On another note, I don't like the fact that this is how I may be forced to make my decision. I don't think I really want any of the candidates to win. I disagree with all of them on too many issues, but God help us if Hillary or Obama were given the power to surrender to Iran, create socialized medicine, raise taxes on businesses and then for some damned reason, bomb Pakistan.

Labels: ,

Monday, August 20, 2007

carnival of political punditry - August 19, 2007

Welcome to the August 19, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry. I'm a little out of it today so I won't be doing any commentary. I did take a look at the articles and they are certainly up to par. Far Left, Far Right, and everything in between.

joetab24 presents Rights posted at My Thoughts, saying, "This article discusses the nature of rights."

Koranteng Ofosu-Amaah presents Africa, 1999 posted at Koranteng's Toli, saying, "Get to know your local strongman."

Sammy Benoit presents Barak Obama IS black enough But he ISN'T Smart enough ! posted at YID With LID.

Lucynda Riley presents Americans unhappy about inflation and Bush is shocked!!! posted at The Traveling Man.

mcmorlod3 presents Presidential Election 2008 posted at Election 2008, saying, "This post allows you to comment on the upcoming 2008 presidential election..."

Scholars & Rogues presents Rudy Giuliani: Everything you hate about Bush, and worse posted at Scholars and Rogues.

The Daily WTF presents Tribute to Rove: The Top Five Karl Quotes posted at Daily WTF, saying, "A sarcastic, satirical, and fantastically witty look back on Karl Rove's best moments, from a blogger who's a little bit of Jon Stewart, a little bit of Stephen Colbert, a little bit of Bill Maher, and a whole lot of cynical towards the current state of America's political system."

Shaheen Lakhan presents Implications of War in Northern Uganda on Mental Health posted at GNIF Brain Blogger.

Ian Welsh presents Jose Padilla, née Winston Smith, Found Guilty posted at The Agonist, saying, "Padilla's trial was an Orwellian parody of justice. Finding guilty a man who has been systematically tortured to the point of delusion, to the point of being unable to cooperate in his own defense, is nothing to celebrate. It was the justice system and American ideals on trial here, and they tragically, tragically lost. We all lost."

phil F. presents NY State Watch: Spitzer Perseveres Bruno Bullying posted at e-news daily.

Phil B. presents The World Needs a Stronger International Police « Phil for Humanity posted at Phil for Humanity, saying, "Your local neighborhood has a police force, your town has a police department, and even your country is policed, so why is there no one to police the world?"

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page

Technorati tags:

, .

Friday, August 17, 2007

I Am An Evangelical. Why Does That Scare You?

Evangelical, fundamentalist, and Christian conservative are all terms that have become a lightning rod for debate and scorn from many on the liberal side of the aisle. The often controversial Rosie O’Donnell has even gone as far to claim that evangelicals were far more dangerous to our country than Al-Qaeda. The very admission that I am an evangelical Christian causes some to start to hyperventilate as they rail against my faith. I would like to analyze a few of the most common terms used to describe myself and others who believe as I do, and try to come to an understanding as to what is so frightening to those on the other side of the philosophical spectrum.

Before we start the discussion, I believe it is only fair to express my beliefs so that there is no doubt as to where my thoughts and opinions are coming from. I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. I believe that God did in fact create the earth, and everything else, in 7 days. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He was born of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem. He ministered for 3 years and was crucified on the cross. He was buried in a tomb, and rose from the dead 3 days later. He came to the earth to sacrifice himself for each and every one of us, even those who choose to reject him, so that we would have a way to get to heaven. All we are asked to do in return is to acknowledge that we are sinners, meaning not perfect, and pledge to follow Jesus and his teachings. These are a few of my core beliefs that all of my decisions, morals, and values are based upon.

Merriam-Webster defines the word fundamentalist as a member of the 20th century Protestant movement that emphasizes the literal interpretation of the Bible as being fundamental to Christian life and teaching. For anyone who has read the Bible, I am unsure as to why the very mention of the word, fundamentalist, would conjure up such feelings of angst and sometimes fear. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, not just those who agree with us. He also taught us to live our lives as living examples of Christ. We all fall short of that example, but we continually strive to achieve that goal.

Webster defines the word evangelical as being in agreement with the teaching of the Christian gospel, especially as it is presented in the four gospels. An evangelical also emphasizes the salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual. This definition as well does not portray the vilified portrait of one who seeks to destroy our country.

I realize that there are Christians out there who do more damage than good, by there actions and attitudes about those who do not believe in Christ. I am speaking about the type of Christians like the Westboro Baptist Church. You may recall that this church goes to funerals of soldiers to hold signs that say “Thank God for IEDs”, “Soldiers Die, God Laughs”. Their message is that because of the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles in the United States, God is punishing us with the war in Iraq and terrorism. These Christians are not the typical evangelicals. They do not represent, in my opinion, what it means to be a follower of Christ. I am not a theologian, but my interpretation of Jesus’ teaching shows that he went out to meet with the adulterous woman, an unthinkable act of the time, and helped her to see the error of her ways. I do not see Jesus holding a picket sign outside her house and yelling insults at her from the street. I believe that we could look at any group of people and find a few bad apples. Why is it that all Christians are lumped together with those who blow up abortion clinics “in God’s name”?

Most of the evangelical Christians that I know are ready and willing to share their faith at a moments notice, but they are not the ones that yell and scream insults at homosexuals to try to convert them. No one is ever truly persuaded using strong arm tactics. “A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” I am unsure of who first coined that phrase, but it holds true to Christianity, politics, or anything else you can think of.

I spoke to a local pastor, one in which I look up to with great respect as a man and a teacher, about what he felt Christians should be doing in the secular/political world. He believes that if Christians would truly be followers of Christ, we could make an enormous contribution to our nation. He sees the role of Christians as one of defender of the helpless. Just look at the story of British statesman William Wilberforce, made into the movie “Amazing Grace”. His deeply held faith convicted him that slavery was wrong and that it should be stopped. One man’s convictions started the debate to end slavery in Great Britain. I believe that is what being a Christian in our country and throughout the world is about. By living my life as a living example of Jesus Christ, I will work to end the injustices in our country and around the world.

Many people are terrified of evangelical Christians being in positions of power. They point to President Bush and say that he has overstepped his bounds in his thirst for war in Iraq. We can debate that over and over again, but how is that decision and example of how Christians would work in a position of power? Where did his faith play a role in that decision? In my opinion, he believed that there was injustice under the rule of Saddam and that played a key role in his decisions. Is the President a perfect Christian? Am I a perfect Christian? The answer is a resounding no. There are no perfect Christians. We all fall short of the glory of God, but we all continue to strive to be better Christians. As I become a better Christian, I become a better man, husband, father, friend, employee, and yes even a better writer.

My faith in Christ is my guiding compass. Just because my guiding compass is my faith, does that make my values, morals, decisions, or opinions any less valid than yours? Your compass has been determined undoubtedly by many things throughout your life. It is comprised of your experiences growing up, at work, at school, with your friends, or even the news networks. I do not discount your ideals because they do not agree with mine, I may debate or argue with you over them, but I do not discount them. It is not place to judge anyone. It is my goal to try to show you a tiny bit of Christ by the way I live my life. I pray that it does not offend you, but it will not change my faith or my desire to show you the way to Christ.


Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Anti-antediluvian: Couple new Fellow Bloggers.....

Anti-antediluvian: Couple new Fellow Bloggers.....

Sunday, August 12, 2007

carnival of political punditry - August 12, 2007

Welcome to the August 12, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.

Troy Stouffer presents Expert Analysis Or Egomania? posted at I'm A Pundit Too, saying, "Each and every time you turn on the local, network, or cable news the “experts” are pontificating over their particular area of expertise. They make predictions about everything under the sun from global warming and the current political campaigns, to the economy and the stock market. The amusing aspect of this nightly “expert” analysis is that a few months or years down the road, the experts are all shocked at the outcome. The shocking aspect is that the same news producers continue to trot out the same shocked experts to provide the “expert” analysis on the topic of the day."

Sammy Benoit presents YID With LID: Democrats Suck up To Daily Kos Hate Site posted at YID With LID.

Chris Moreau presents The Politics Hour posted at ChrisMoreau.com, saying, "I've had it with the left and the right..."

I personally enjoy reading people's gripes about Republicans and Democrats.
If you are sick of it all, this is a good one for you. I don't condone everything Moreau says, but he has a point.

Charles H. Green presents We've All Caught the Detroit Disease posted at Trust Matters, saying, "As the US car industry continues its inexorable decline it's worth looking at why and asking if the rest of the country is also exhibiting the symptoms of the "Detroit Disease"."

This is a good one if you enjoy discussing economics as much as I do. If you don't enjoy it, read this anyways, you may learn something.

Alvaro Fernandez presents Training the Aging Workforce posted at SharpBrains: Your Window into the Brain Fitness Revolution, saying, "In the debate about social security and health care, we are often forgetting this important demographic trend and how to turn it in our favor."

Jack Le Moine presents Another Nutty Lawsuit posted at Jack Le Moine's Blog

Jack Le Moine presents Yet ANOTHER Big Bucks Lawsuit posted at Jack Le Moine's Blog

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Bush Growls; Dems Kowtow (Limerick and Poll) posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

I think I'm going to have a chat about this one in the discussion forum this week.

Jeremy Hitchcock presents Fruit of the War Crimes posted at WTTF: Welcome to the Future, saying, "A nation united... against underpants."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page

Technorati tags:

, .

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Expert Analysis Or Egomania?

Each and every time you turn on the local, network, or cable news the “experts” are pontificating over their particular area of expertise. They make predictions about everything under the sun from global warming and the current political campaigns, to the economy and the stock market. The amusing aspect of this nightly “expert” analysis is that a few months or years down the road, the experts are all shocked at the outcome. The shocking aspect is that the same news producers continue to trot out the same shocked experts to provide the “expert” analysis on the topic of the day.

Let’s start with the economy and the so-called experts that are all over the news analyzing the current economic health of our country. It does not matter what they predict, in 3 months when the quarterly reports come out, they will inevitably be shocked at the results. They are either much higher or lower than the “experts” predicted and they are left to explain why their predictions were wrong. All the while, they pompously tell us why they are the experts and how even though they were wrong, they were actually right.

We have presidential candidates that are running on the “2 Americas” theory. They believe that there is the America for the rich, which by the way all of the candidates are part of, and the America for the rest of us poor slobs. They cite numbers about the poverty rates in the U.S. and how they will change the lives of the masses. One question I have is that we have had the “War on Poverty” since 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson enacted several programs meant to end poverty in the United States. How is it that we have fought this “war” for 43 years and we still have “2 Americas”? The experts in the campaign tell us that we need more reform to end the poverty. Reform in political speak is more bloated government programs and much higher taxes for all of us, not just those in the “rich” America. By the way, the economic experts would actually be right for once if the proposals were ever implemented.

The experts also love to try to be prophetic with the weather. I am not talking about your local weatherman; there are plenty of jokes about weatherman and their forecasts. I am speaking of the experts predicting the hurricane seasons. How many experts did we hear tell us that 2005 would be as bad as it was? How about 2006? 2006 was predicted to be just as bad as the year before, but we ended up with just a few named storms with no storm making landfall in the United States. Now we have heard that the initial predictions for 2007 were too high and the experts have lowered their numbers. You can be sure that come next hurricane season the same experts will be on TV warning us of the doom to come.

I am not a global warming advocate nor am I a scientist; I freely admit that I am just a regular guy with an opinion. The global warming scientists have been warning us for the past 25 years about how the end is near and the point of no return is rapidly approaching. What I don’t understand is that we can’t predict what the weather will be like tomorrow or next month or even how many hurricanes we will see, but yet the experts tell us that we will see the ice caps melt within our lifetime. Like I said above, I am no expert and am very cynical on global warming, but when you have experts blaming global warming for the bridge collapse in Minnesota last week, or for even the mine collapse in Utah this week, how can anyone take them seriously?

In the political world the experts repeatedly use polls to tell us what is going to happen in even the smallest of elections. How many times over the past few decades have they been shocked at the outcome? I can hear the furious typing already, Bush stole the election! Voter fraud! Disenfranchisement! Hanging chads! Please get over it already. For all of your screaming, Bush is still in the White House and will be until January of 2009.

I believe that these experts are glory hounds that thrive on the face time on TV. They live to hear their sound byte on the news or see their pompous smiling face on TV. The producers of these “news” shows put them on for a variety of reasons, except of course for their accuracy. The next time you see an “expert” holding court, remember what they say and predict, because you will see how buffoonish they are when their predictions all fall flat.

Monday, August 6, 2007

carnival of political punditry - August 5, 2007

Welcome to the August 5, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.

Scholars & Rogues presents "Expert" advice on how to survive multiple-city terror attacks: deploy psychic abilities posted at Scholars and Rogues.

Tiffany Washko presents Natural Family Living Blog » Blog Archive » The Lead Toys Fiasco posted at Natural Family Living Blog.

Sagar Satapathy presents How Ron Paul as President Would Affect the US Dollar posted at Currency Trading.net.

Shaula Evans presents The War on Terror Is The War on Drugs... On Crack | The Agonist posted at The Agonist, saying, "The Presidential order giving the administration the power to freeze assets of any person or entity considered to be "undermining" efforts to stabilize Iraq, while potentially apocalyptic, is not extraordinary. The assault on civil liberties under the aegis of the "War on Drugs" presents a long-standing precedent."

Charles H. Green presents Does Trust Drive the Dow? posted at Trust Matters, saying, "When you look at the markets, eras of high trust in business correspond to high returns. What, after all, is buying a stock but trust that the future will be better than the present - which requires trust that the present is running things properly."

Scholars & Rogues presents Reframing the Republican lie about wealth in America posted at Scholars and Rogues. I am leaving my opinion of this at the new discussion forum.

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page

Technorati tags:

, .

Friday, August 3, 2007

Vets For Freedom Needs Your Help

In September, General Petraeus will report to Congress on the status of the mission in Iraq. At that time, members of Congress will decide whether to continue the mission and defeat Al Qaeda, or abandon the mission and surrender to America’s enemies. The stakes could not be higher.

It is absolutely crucial that veterans have a voice in September's debate. And therefore we're asking every Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who believes in the mission - and supports our fellow soldiers and Marines still serving - to converge on Washington, DC on Tuesday, September 18th.

We plan to have hundreds of veterans on Capitol Hill ... and hope you'll be one of them.

We will not be the only group on Capitol Hill in September. At this website you can read about anti-war protesters - and anti-war veterans - who plan to confront members of Congress on September 18th. There will even be Iraq war veterans staging a "die in."

Unlike our opponents, we will not stage protests, chant slogans, or impede the work of government. We will meet constructively with as many members of Congress as we can to express our first-hand experiences and explain why it is important that the sacrifices of our brothers-in-arms not be in vein.

And remember, if you're on active duty - you can still participate. Current DOD regulations allow you to participate as long as you are: 1) out of uniform; 2) not speaking on behalf of "the military"; and 3) not protesting. The same goes for National Guard and Reserve troops. So please join us.

WEEK 4: Sign up Today to Show up on September 17/18

Over 40 Vets for Freedom members joined together on Capitol Hill in July and helped stop Congress from voting to undercut the troops. Don't miss your chance to do the same on September 17 & 18 ... on a much larger scale.

We need you to sign up early. By signing up this week, Vets for Freedom can do the following:

  1. Schedule meetings for you with your Senators and Representative. In July we had to "walk in". On September 18th we want participants to have appointments.

  2. Reserve high-profile speakers to address all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on Monday night (September 17).

  3. Raise money to support the travel and lodging for ALL veterans. We plan to cover all air and ground travel costs, and lodging for the evening of September 17.

So, if you are an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran and are ready to take a stand and join us on Capitol Hill on September 17 & 18, please send an email to events@vetsforfreedom.org. Include the following information:

  1. Name and contact information (primary email and phone number)

  2. Brief military bio

  3. Your home state (and other states in which you have claimed residence)

  4. Your probable means of transportation to Washington, DC

  5. If you will be able to arrive on the evening of Monday, September 17 for the formal in-brief and dinner with guest speakers.

  6. Any questions you might have

Once we receive your information we will schedule meetings with representatives on your behalf and as the date approaches, confirm your lodging in Washington, DC. We are planning on conducting the in-brief on the evening of Monday, September 17 and all the meetings on Tuesday, September 18. For a tentative timeline, see the end of this email.

What Else You Can Do?

If you're not a veteran, but would like to help - here's how:

  1. Donate. In July, thanks to the generous support of hundreds of Americans, we were able to cover the travel of everyone who attended. We hope to do the same in September, but with more veterans, we’ll need more support. We hope you’ll consider a large gift, but we always appreciate any size donation. It was hundreds of smaller donations that covered our July event, and we’d love to do that again.

  2. Get involved in your home state. Last week we asked for State Captains and local volunteers. We still need help. If you’re interested, please review our Week 3 email and get involved. Congress needs to hear from pro-mission veterans and supporters in August - when they’re home meeting with constituents.

  3. Forward this Email. Send this email to everyone you know. Post it on your blog. Print it out and hand it out to friends. Get the word out, so we can get as many veterans on Capitol Hill as possible. Our goal is hundreds of veterans from all parts of our country.

Tell your buddies. Meet them in Washington, DC. And together, tell your representative where we stand.

Don't miss your opportunity to join Vets for Freedom on Capitol Hill and do your part to support our fellow soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Pete Hegseth
Iraq War Veteran 2005-2006
Executive Director, Vets for Freedom

Click here for more information on Vets for Freedom's "10 Weeks to Testimony."

Basic Timeline for September 17-18

September 17 4-6pm: Reception and Lodging assistance
6-9pm: In-brief & dinner (with high profile speakers)
9pm: Social Event
September 18 9am-12: Meetings on Capitol Hill
12pm-1: Lunch
Afternoon: Large Press Conference
1-5pm: Meetings on Capitol Hill

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Nanny State Politics

A recent study has revealed that teenagers in Great Britain are the worst mannered teens in all of Europe. The study found that the British youth are more likely to have been in fights, use drugs, engage in underage sex(I could not find the study’s definition of “underage”), and rarely sit down to a meal with their parents. Most of the findings of this study are not surprising and probably could have been done in the United States with some of the same results. What I found shocking was the response and the suggested cures to the behavioral problems found in many teenagers.

The British government officials plan to spend 1.4 billion pounds to keep schools open 10 hours a day for art and drama clubs and “out of hours” homework. They hope to promote mothers going back to work full time and to aid “latchkey” children in the after school hours. I am all for art and drama clubs and providing help for the unattended children, but why do they think that the kids will automatically just show up at these clubs? My biggest problem with their ideas is that bureaucrats always believe the best answer to any problem is a government program.

Another issue I have is their desire to draw more mothers back to full time work. Now I realize that some families need both parents to work in order to survive, but I don’t see how a mother being away from her children more hours of the day is a solution to a behavior problem. If the politicians want to find a government program to help, I believe a better program would be finding ways so that one parent could stay at home with the children.

When did we get away from parents actually taking the responsibility for raising their children? This is a problem here in the U.S. and apparently Great Britain as well. Our societies have developed a mentality that the government has all the answers and therefore the responsibility for every aspect of raising our children. We have shirked off our responsibility as parents to teach our children about sex. We have come to believe that the government schools are better equipped to teach our offspring about sex, whether or not we may agree with what they are teaching. We allow the schools to teach our children their values and then question why the kids are so ill mannered.

Of course this mentality of the “Nanny-state” is not exclusive to child rearing, it has taken over almost every aspect of our lives. After all why shouldn’t we have government funded/run health care, or welfare, or retirement? With the bureaucrats record of accomplishments, they are the best equipped to cause the program in question to cost ten times as much and never achieve the promised result. The same politicians with whom we have entrusted our children’s welfare, seem unable to solve the chronic drugs and crime problems in many of our cities.

We need to take responsibility for the education and raising of our children, as well as every other aspect of our lives. There are way too many adults that need to grow up and realize that if they are going to achieve any type of personal, financial, or business success, they need to do it themselves. I can think of no successful person throughout history that has ever had to stop and thank the government for making them a success. Government programs always start out with the best of intentions, but always end up costing way more than predicted and never truly solving the problem they were “designed” to solve.


Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Evil Bush-Chimp Tricked Us -- Again

Once again, it appears that the evil genius neo-nazi warmongering bush-chimp has tricked the democrats. Please note that this is the worst president of all time and that he is incompetent and retarded. I don't know how such a moron can trick Congress so many times, but he has done it again.

"There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is the claim by the all-knowing Schumer while criticizing Justices Roberts and Alito. It seems that if you tell a high school that it is in fact allowed to have rules and guidelines, you hate the US Constitution. This must be true because a Democrat said so. He informs us that these two judges have allowed the USSC to destroy the Constitution and of course offers no explanation for this claim because he is a Democrat and no explanation is required. He said it, and that makes it fact.

The all knowing Schumer also informs us that Democrats were too easily impressed by the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito. That of course means that Judge Timothy Lewis, an African-American, "pro-choice" judge appointed by President Clinton also hoodwinked Congress with his charm when he testified to them about Alito's 'intellectual honesty' and stated "I cannot recall one instance when Judge Alito displayed anything remotely approaching an ideological bent." Of course, the only Democrat who was tricked by this lying judge was Feinstein as she was the only Democrat in the room when this testimony was given.

This is exactly what got them to vote in favor of using force in Iraq. Bush-chimp is just so darned charming. That retard charmed the majority of Congress to authorize the invasion of a country, just like Roberts charmed himself into being confirmed. I don't know exactly how charming someone so stupid has to be to convince the Congress to do this, but someone who is this charming and evil should be sleeping with supermodels.

My guess is that Bush would rather charm Congress than just tell them the truth about a few things. For instance, Bush could easily point out previous federal court precedent in regards to the NSA program that intercepts messages from foreign locations to domestic locations for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. Court precedent has stated that this power is given to the President by Article II of the US Constitution. He could also repeat the decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review: "The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrant-less searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Bush could just tell Congress to go read the info given at powerlineblog. You can read all about it here and here.

It seems of course that Bush would rather rely on charm instead of facts. Were he to stand fast and simply give facts in regards to the War on Terror, the NSA program, the firing of US attorneys AFTER people like Senator Feinstein complained about performance, and other such matters, the Congress would never listen to him. That is why he is continuing to rely on charm. If he can use it to attack a country, he can use it for anything.