Moving on...

Moving to new blog at http://inthepass.wordpress.com/

I could make up some cool story - but I just like wordpress better... See you there.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Worse than Hillary?

This just in:

John McCain is a man of honor. A man of integrity. A man of courage. A man of conviction. I may not agree with every position he takes, but that certainly doesn't mean he isn't a conservative. And no disagreement can possibly make him worse than Hillary Clinton would be for our country, or for the conservative values and principles we know are essential for our nation's future.

Man of Honor: No. He is not. He is a malicious back stabbing moderate "democrat" who remained in the Republican party only because it made his liberal ideas play better in the media. As was said about TR: "When you close your eyes, He sounds like a democrat." I intend to show him the exact same perspective of party loyalty that he has shown to us. When the conservatives were in control of the party, his loyalty to the party was zilch. He undermined so many of the conservative principles that created the modern Republican party; there is not room to count.

Worse than Hillary? Well, yes he is. Far worse than Hillary actually. With Hillary in power, the entire world will be reminded at how dangerous liberalism is. Evidently, it's time for a reminder.

It seems to me that on two of the most critical issues we face, John McCain has rock solid conservative credentials.

First, without question, he is the most qualified, most experienced, most capable of all of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, dealing with national defense and combating radical Islamist extremists. He knows how to deal with these issues and approaches them from a conservative point of view.

I've heard of many logical falacies, but what is this? An obsolete war record; then endless drumbeat of his POW status? And just what is the conservative point of view? His views are more along the lines of the Roosevelt's than any conservative that I know. Expansionist military policy? In order to sell his war, W presented it as a war of affirmative (if preventive) self defense. At which point the real conservatives were going, well, that didn't work out. Preventive self defense is a dead policy. It was only W and his cronies (McCain in this instance), who redefined the terms and went back to the nationbuilding strategy that has doomed the typical Democratic position.

John McCain may not be as conservative as some would like, but I submit that he is far more conservative than many believe. To call him the Republican "establishment" candidate ignores his long record of independence.

Note to Blake: That is what an "establishment" means: a moderate/liberal socialist who is a Republican instead of a Democrat. If the establishment Republican votes his conscience WITH the socialists, then I'm even less likely to promote him to higher office.

Whether he is the perfect conservative poster child or not, John McCain is that candidate. And he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But to do so, he needs conservative Republicans to provide their wholehearted support, not ammunition for the opposition. If we do not, we may well be faced with what I consider to be the most unacceptable scenario I can imagine – Hillary Clinton, president of the United States of America.

One socialist or the other - let me think.... Blake: If McCain is elected (which he will not be - not without a LOT of conservative votes, and they aren't going to be there), then he will be a disaster for both the party and the country. If Hillary is elected: Then the most widespread and unified resistance against her reign will immediately be apparent, then perhaps we will only have 4 to 8 years of destructive activity to the county. 4 years of McCain? Followed by how many years of Democratic socialism?

The best argument in fact is that Republicans must sacrifice McCain to save the Republican Party and return the party back to it's conservative bent. I'm cool with that.

Powered by ScribeFire.

McCainia

Says John:

"It shows one thing: I'm the conservative leader who can unite the party," McCain told The Associated Press after easing past former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for his first-ever triumph in a primary open only to Republicans.

Uniting the party with 36% of the vote? OK?
"Conservative Issues:
Immigration? Wrong - wants "amnesty" by another name.
Free Speech? Wrong - McCain - Feingold anti political speech law.
Gun Control? Wrong - Likes the "assault weapons ban", "Saturday night special" bans, and laws requiring "smart gun locks" None of which have ANY beneficial results and have no place in a "conservative" platform.
Taxes? Wrong - Voted against the "Bush tax cuts" multiple times.
Life? Wrong - Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research - unlike all of the other republican candidates.
Life? Wrong - Does not support the repeal of "Roe v Wade" because: "I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Even the pro-abortion legal experts recognize the it is bad law, so at least support it for that!

Conservatives used to have a term for elected Republicans who did not represent the "conservative" aspects of the Party: RINO Republican in Name Only. So what do we call a conservative in name only? I suspect that in any head to head competition against either Obama or Clinton, given the similarity of their views on just about everything; that the name would be LOSER.

So if you are going to lose anyway? Why not vote for the candidates who appeal to at least a portion of your platform?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Give them what they want?

The problem is that even if you wanted to give "them" what they want, their wants often, (and must eventually), exceed your ability to give. Consider Kendel Williams of Orlando, who died because his car had a manual transmission instead of an automatic.

Neither of the men knew how to drive the car because it had a stick shift and instead shot the man, Marchione said.

Even life becomes cheap when everything else is free.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Guns Versus Paper

California Dreaming:

On the day of her husband's release, Thomas-Harris spent about 45 minutes with prosecutors and begged for "a piece of paper" that would shield her, Booth said. Prosecutors tried to get her an emergency protective order, but Lindars was on vacation in Oregon and wasn't expected back for two weeks.

Unlike the game of Rock, Paper Scissors; paper provides no protection. The issue is absurd on it's face. A protection order is a piece of paper with words on it. Nothing more. The paper has value only to those who are inclined to obey the law. Even if she had received that piece of paper, the police were minutes away when seconds counted. What are the odds that the man with malice aforethought would wait for the police? Yeah. Right.

Now there is one more victim of anti-gun policies. When will they realize that anti-gun policies are literal death to the defenseless?

I'm not holding my breath.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Evangelicals are Easy

Evangelicals are easy

As much as I love the Evangelical Blogs and Columnists, the ease to which they fall for pick up lines is scary. Janet Folger, “FAITH2ACTION” on WND sums up the reasons to support Huckabee (Chuck Norris? his reasons aren’t
any more sound.):

“The only top-tier guy we can count on to stand for a Human Life and Marriage Amendment.”

We all know that human life is the code phrase for abortion and embryonic stem cell research (abortion). There is no movement on these issues at all right now, and not just because Bush is against them. Abortion is a legal minefield and with the exception of Supreme Court Nominees, PresidentHuckabee would have no more power than Citizen Huckabee. Stem cells might actually be an issue, though the science on this is rapidly turning. No one, not even Huckabee is advocating a ban on embryonic stem cell research, only on the federal funding of it. In that, he is no different that others in the field. So with regard to Life Issues, I’ve read nothing to indicate that the Huckabee would be any better than any other “republican” running, and a lot to indicate that he would be worse. Despite being a good idea, the marriage amendment is not going to happen. And even if it would, the president has NO role in approving it. Reference the following from usconstitution.net on the 4 ways that an amendment to the constitution is ratified:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

Aside from the fact that these two issues are going nowhere; what about other issues? What about:

Taxes, *not good – he raised them and can’t explain clearly without being apologetic or blaming the courts, (which puts him on par with what Romney did for same sex unions). Everybody says that they will lower taxes, so no real differentiation there. And his “great” idea for new “fair tax” is DOA in any legislature, but especially in one controlled by social demorats.

Education and Arts *not good – he wants to spend more money just like he did in AR. (This is the apologetic part where he says that education is a good thing...)

Energy Independence *not good – no mention of drilling in AK or the continental shelf, just exploration. We already have China drilling off the coast of Florida and doesn’t have the gravitas to advocate drilling where we already know there is oil. Lots of mention of conservation and alternative energy – sounds like a Democrat.

HealthCare *not good – He wants a nationalized children’s health care - got that. We have already seen where the SCHIP is already used and the markedly growing percentage of enrollees that are NOT children. This is nothing but nationalized health care incrementalism – as it is under Bush. And he advocates a national smoking ban? Don’t get me started on private property rights.

Agriculture
*not good – more money yet again.

Huckabee is a big government populist. He couches his ideas in the realm of Christian-speak and Compassion (just like GW), and pitches the government law or program to give you what you want. The problem is that – as Reagan is famous for saying, Government that is big enough to give you what you want, is big enough to take everything you have. Or in the words of Rush Limbaugh: We got what it takes to takes what you gots…

The same political philosophy that allows you to spend other people’s money on healthcare, arts, education, and livelihood; is the same political philosophy that allows you to use that same power to take faith out of schools, engage in confiscatory tax policies that discourage economic growth, make you pay for someone else’s abortion or self-destructive lifestyle. It is the same philosophy that has the government breaking in your door to take your child because they disagree with your health care decisions, ignoring your right to school your children as you choose, and violating your rights to self defense and firearms. All in the name of public good.

Mike Huckabee’s platform is a study in contradictions, but only because he is basically advocating the pro-life democrat position of a few years back. Aside from the gun control position, I have a very hard time differentiating his positions from Sen. Harry Reid of NV. He is nothing but a Christian liberal socialist running on a feel good platform. And the Evangelical Right has for the most part, fallen for it.

Evangelicals are easy. Pity they don't make a morning after pill for political office elections.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Effective Faith?

Walter Williams's Wisdom:

A society's first line of defense is not the law but
customs, traditions and moral values. These behavioral norms, mostly
transmitted by example, word-of-mouth and religious teachings, represent a body
of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They
include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal,
shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might
call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. Policemen and laws can never replace
these restraints on personal conduct. At best, the police and criminal justice
system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society.

In this context; Christians have relegated themselves to
placing their faith at the last resort - instead being on the front line. It
seems that only after failing to even try to influence the "customs,
traditions, and moral values," by placing them in their proper context in
a free society; we then turn to the mere color of Christianity that must be
enforced by the threat of law. In doing so, we deny the power of the Holy
Spirit to convince men of their sin. Relegating God to a relatively powerless
being who must use the power of the state as its "last desperate line of
defense" for what He created.

Here's an idea: Do not insult or sell our God short. Put Christ where he
belongs, at the first line of not only the defense, but the salvation, of
civilization.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Gun Control, Socialism and Faux Christianity

Now from Nambia comes the Christian Council of Mozambique (CCM). Which for the last 16 years has been doing the "Christian" equivalent of the gun buy back program after being sold on the program by it's socialist branches. It has even been successful (By their definition) since "This seems to have had some effect - for Sengulane claimed that, after
this programme was launched, many more firearms were handed over to the
CCM." So the success of the program is not dependant upon the crime rate, but upon the number of firearms that are handed in?


But the Crime rate, shock of all shocks, is not going down, but UP. Says the German Embassy: "Crime rates
in Namibia are increasing." You might think that the CCM would see the error of it's ways and call for a return to individual rights and the protection of the innocent. You wouild be wrong. The socialist theological answer is after all; it is not only the guns, but social inequality.

Sengulane also argued that the fight against
crime must also involve guaranteeing employment and education for all.
He added that the consolidation of peace involves the equitable
distribution of resources so that nobody feels excluded."God
is so generous that he gave Mozambique sufficient resources for all of
us to live well and not merely to survive", said the Bishop. "But
unfortunately there is a great imbalance in the quality of life people
enjoy"."We must reaffirm peace by fighting
against poverty", he stressed. "It's not a secret for anybody that here
in Maputo we have sophisticated palaces, while on the other side of the
same city there is enormous poverty".

It would be nice if people would actually read their bibles, instead of
listening to people pervert individual verses to their own ends.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Marginalization. Part 3?

So Vox thinks that the Miller ad is just another aspect of the marginalization of Christian influence:

But the fifth possibility is the most likely, and that is the
idea that the Miller Brewing Company simply doesn't worry about
offending Catholics because the Catholic community has proven over time
to be completely toothless despite its large percentage of the
population. It has surely not escaped Miller's attention that Catholics
and other Christians frequently complain about the television shows
coming out of Hollywood, the books being published in New York City and
the subjects being taught in the public schools, and yet they continue
to watch those Hollywood-produced shows, read those New York
City-published books and send their children to those very public
schools.


It is not enough to cry and complain about how awful the
secular culture is, because even if the charges are true, it must be
remembered that it is the Christian dollar that makes most of these
things that the Christian community finds offensive successful in the
first place. Before Christians can hope to change the culture, they
must first change themselves and their patterns of consumption.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Marginalization. Part 2.

This week Rasmussen reports that the top 4 republicans are Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. Shocked I am...

Thompson and Giuliani have been trading places since June, even though, as we all know, Thompson didn't even enter the race until recently. Romney, who had been starting to pick up speed against Giuliani back in late May, immediately fell back and has yet to recover. In a consolation of sorts, it looks like Thompson has pulled most of his support from Giuliani. The reality may in fact be that Thompson is the only choice for the pro-gun constituency. Since as we all know, the other top tier guys all acted against guns, or our ability to talk about them. OOPS, I guess we forgot that Thompson was in on the McCain act as well.

And why was He running from the Values Voters debate? No one expected Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to show in what was effectively a hostile crowd. But Thompson had been hailed as the savior to those looking for a solid principled candidate. His lack of attendance likely hurt him more than any answer he could have given.

If you posit that the Values Voters Debate was the forum for the evangelical right voting block, then once again, the evangelical right opinion is considered not relevant to the campaign. Even if you look at his website today there is no mention of the abortion issue other than the vaguely worded commitment to "promote a culture of life." Whatever that means. The message is the same: The "Evangelical" vote is a given, so don't worry about them.

Christians need to get over their embarrassment at getting the first Clinton elected the first time, and decide what principles they are going to support above personality and party.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The marginalization of the Christian Vote. Part 1.

Courtesy of WND, we have more background on the stifling of rational debate as Jerome Corsi relates:

In a heated conversation at the Friday banquet of Phyllis Schalfly's
Eagle Council meeting in St. Louis last week, Jed Babbin, editor of Human Events,
repeated accusations that I am a "black helicopter Internet conspiracy
theorist" for arguing that the Bush administration is pursing the North
American Union and NAFTA Superhighways through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.

In response, I observed that Babbin has taken Human Events in the
direction of becoming an apologist for the Republican Party, not a
critical forum for conservative debate.

Then Later:

The argument became even
more heated when I pointed out that many moral conservatives, including
myself, are tired of being threatened by Republican apologists of the
disasters that will happen if we fail to vote for Republicans.
Babbin predictably raised the specter of Hillary Clinton,
asserting that by attacking President Bush I was only electing Hillary,
the real enemy Babbin thinks we should be united to oppose.
I tried to explain to Babbin that I am much closer to Richard
Viguerie's position on the question, arguing that the Republican Party
should win our support, not demand it.

The Christian Vote has become increasingly marginalized; and we have only ourselves to blame. The "lessor of two evils" that has dominated "Christian" politics ever since Clinton was elected served only to put us in the position we are now; where there are no pro-Christian candidates in the top tier of either party. (And by their actions, it is obvious that neither Hillary nor Mitt are pro-life, pro-Christian, or pro-liberty in any sense of the word.)

Powered by ScribeFire.