Is our two-party system working?

Medved (my hero) has some thoughts on the idea that a 3rd Party candidate is what America needs right now.

Utah has finally got something right

READ THIS ARTICLE on the potential passing of a referendum in Utah that will finally allow parents to send kids to the best schools possible, instead of where Uncle Sam (and Aunt Hillary) want them to go.

John Stossel presents his case for why this is such a great idea.

Why are Conservatives so mad at eachother?

Tony Blankley of the Washington Times offers his thoughts on why it is Conservatives seem so angry lately. It's a great wake-up call to those of us on the Right who don't want to sacrifice the 2008 election just to prove how "right" we think we are.

Culture of Corruption is a two-way street

The Democrats ran on a platform of ethics and reform, but have steadily spent much of their time having to spin their own scandals since November of last year. Today it's Hillary and her fellow New York Senator, Charles Schumer, who are dealing with corruption. They both took money from a scientist whose laboratory suddenly received $900,000 in federal grants via legislation both Senators voted for.

I've little interest in going tit-for-tat between GOP and Democratic scandals because, frankly, we'd be here all day. What I am interested in is the American public not being so naive as to believe the Democrats again when they say that they are the party of high morals and ethical conduct.

Blog to follow (of course).

Does a Pro-Life candidate really matter?

Conservative columnist George Will offers his take on the very real chance that a pro-choice candidate (Giuliani) is nominated next year by the GOP. Furthermore, Will explains why the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade might not be all it's cracked up to be.

The friend of my enemy is my...

...future President? Hillary Clinton is the most popular Presidential candidate among Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. Don't believe me? Read more here.

The War on Terror: At the movies

Mark Steyn's latest column is a commentary on our nation's inability to separate the world of Hollywood from the real one.

"...enjoyable as they are, pop-culture metaphors aren't really of much use, especially when you're up against cultures where life is still defined by how you live as opposed to what you experience via media. It seems to me, for example, that when anti-war types bemoan Iraq as this generation's Vietnam "quagmire," older folks are thinking of the real Vietnam — the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and whatnot — but most anybody under 50 is thinking of Vietnam movies: some vague video-store mélange of The Full Metal Deer Apocalypse." (New York Sun)

"Fair" is a four-letter word

Democrats are attempting to block Representative Mike Pence's (R-IN) legislation that would forever ban the Fairness Doctrine (a law that allowed the Federal government to punish radio and television stations for failing to be "fair-and-balanced" that was repealed in 1987, by a Democrat-controlled Congress). The WSJ editorial page explains why supposed champions of free speech (Liberals) are working so hard to prevent Rep. Pence from bringing the measure to a vote in the House.

This story isn't as much about the blind hatred the Left has for popular talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as it is about their gross misunderstanding of what exactly a "free market" is.

Air America failed. Jane Fonda's all-feminist, all-the-time network failed. CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined bring in half the audience Fox News does on a nightly basis. Republicans have won the White House 5 out of the last 7 elections. Rush Limbaugh has 30 million weekly listeners.

Maybe, just maybe, there is an ulterior motive by Liberal Democrats in Congress to keep alive a bill (the Fairness Doctrine) that could effectively silence their critics? Maybe, just maybe, the timing of more and more conservative platforms gaining ground in getting our message out since 1987 has something to do with our political success at the ballot box, and the Left realizes they no longer corner the market on information?

Ahh, but that sounds like right-wing conspiracy stuff...

Krugman at it again

The same Paul Krugman whose book was reviewed in an article I linked last week went on the attack in Sunday's NY Times, calling GOP Presidential candidates unreasonable and fear-mongers for "over-hyping" the threat Iran and her proxies (i.e. Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon) pose our country.

Apart from being an economist who knowingly misrepresents economic trends to promote his Socialist agenda, Krugman is simply a bad journalist and dead-wrong on nearly everything he says. He writes:

"Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general. "

The "base" he is referring to is the from the same Party that was created in 1856 to free the slaves from an institution that the Democrats and Whigs had not the moral clarity nor the political courage to end. Reminiscent of Barack Obama's 2006 quote that, "The same people who won't vote for me because I'm back are the same who won't vote for me because of my politics," Krugman has aided in the Left's ever-increasing descent into the irrational and irresponsible fear-mongering that they falsely accuse the Right of.

This is what years of self-dilution and liberal indoctrination gets you: paranoid fear of the very people who are trying to protect you. The Left in America fear the Right more than they do our real enemies (who mean them actual physical harm). While Democratic candidates squabble over who will surrender in Iraq first, or who can promise a more bloated federal government and welfare state than the others, GOP candidates are discussing the dangerous times in which we live, and how best to move forward post-Bush. The only American politicians you should "fear" are ones who want to turn us into Europe.

Fool me once, shame on you...

Iran is side-stepping the economic sanctions that the United States led the effort in placing on the world's largest sponsor of terrorism by doing business with countries that don't care about the sanctions. Republicans in Congress helped pass a resolution identifying the Iranian terrorist organization, the Revolutionary Guard, a terrorist organization, and the Democrats now say it was too harsh and provoking of us to do so. This from the same people who said we needed stronger sanctions and diplomatic overtures in the first place.

You see, when Democrats have an idea that is actually given a try (i.e. stronger sanctions by President Bush instead of using military force to stop Iran's nuclear program), but that does not work, their answer is never that the idea was either bad or needs force behind it, but simply that it would have worked if a Democrat had been in charge. Magically and miraculously Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs would have laid down their arms and animosity if John Kerry had been in office because he would have asked nicer.

Iran is a real threat, and is a trading partner with the two countries in loudest opposition to even stronger economic sanctions: China and Russia. When do we stop worrying about what the "world" thinks, and start acting in our own interest to stop these madmen in Iran?

It's not fair

Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox for winning their second World Series this decade. Great pitching, timely hitting, and superior defense seems to lead to victory in baseball. You wouldn't know this from watching Chicago Cubs baseball, but it's actually true.

At least we (Cubs fans) won't have to hear about how unlucky and cursed Bean-town is anymore and the nation can focus on our misery instead. 100 years seems like just the right amount of time for a team to suffer, right God? You only made the Hebrews wander for 40.

And a vote for Hillary Clinton will win you...

...A Trillion-dollar tax-hike! Yay!!! Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is a close friend and political ally of the Clintons, and has proposed tax reform that (surprise, surprise) is meant to take from the rich to give the poor. Isn't it nice that Democrats are so generous with other people's money. What would we do if we didn't have hacks like Rangel telling us how much we are owed from the efforts of other people with nicer cars?

The Wall Street Journal editorial page sheds some light on the murky (shallow) waters of Democratic tax policy.

Don't worry readers, there will be a blog to follow shortly.

Some hard facts on abortion

UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Who's having abortions (age)?52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Who's having abortions (marital status)?64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

Who's having abortions (religion)?Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Who's having abortions (income)?Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

Why women have abortions: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

At what gestational ages are abortions performed:52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Likelihood of abortion:An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.

Abortion coverage:48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

The right to a right to life...

by: R.J. Moeller

Ronald Reagan, in a State of the Union address some 25 years ago, said about abortion: “If it is not the murder of an innocent baby, then we should not only tolerate it, but encourage it. But, if it is the taking of an innocent life, then we must do everything in our power to put an end to it.” I believe that this is the greatest moral dilemma of this, and perhaps any, generation.

Slavery was a moral abomination that was tolerated by millions around the world for centuries. In England, it took the courageous and sustained efforts of abolitionists like William Wilberforce over decades to enact legislation to end human trafficking. In America, we fought a Civil War over it. From the arrival of the first African slaves to the shores of Virginia (Jamestown) in roughly 1620, to the Emancipation Proclamation more than 200 hundred years later, the existence of slavery was accepted and expected by too many Americans.

The “choice” to use slaves was justified in many ways, but the thrust of the argument for continuing its practice boiled down to two factors: convenience (including economic factors) and a supposed “right” to slaves as property (reducing of slaves to chattel), which allowed practitioners of slavery to argue property rights rather than civil ones.

The Civil War began because the South told the Union that it was their right to live and conduct business as they saw fit. While that concept is undoubtedly an essential principle of our free market democracy, if abused and manipulated to include the enslavement of any man, woman, or child, it must (and did) give way to morality, ethics, and human decency.

It goes unquestioned in contemporary culture that slavery was wrong, and that the “choice” whether or not to own slaves, or even the “right” to that choice, should never have superceded the obvious right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that is the bedrock of our society and government.

I suppose you can in some sense understand the South’s anger and resentment. Their entire livelihood was based on the cheap manual labor of other humans they considered at best 3/5’s of a person. Ending slavery would mean the overhaul of the economic system that had been in place for 200 years. Higher production costs and shortages in the labor force would be inevitable results of Emancipation. Nothing riles the human spirit more than the impeding of Man’s ability to earn a living…except the impeding of that man’s ability to make as much, for as little cost, as he had been making before.

But no one with a conscience today feels the least bit sorry for the loss of plantation owner’s “rights” or ability to “choose” regarding slavery. It was wrong, and we appeal to society’s moral consciousness when we collectively say that the institution of slavery, and subsequent decades of institutional racism, was (and is) categorically evil and immoral.

Since 1973 some 50 million babies have lost their lives before ever taking their first womb-free breath. Sanctioned by the government, and systematic in its practice, abortion sees to it that 4,000 “fetuses” end up in garbage bins every single day in the United States. Pro-choice advocates insist that because a Supreme Court (the same institution that at one time reaffirmed slavery and segregation) in 1973 found a non-existent Constitutional right for a mother to be able to kill the child inside her, it is no business of the society or government at-large to condemn her “choice”.

Let’s call a spade, a spade here. Liberalism is the ideology that champions abortion, and every single Democratic candidate for President not only agrees that a woman’s “choice” outweighs the sanctity of human life, but that the Federal government should subsidize that choice. Liberal Democrats have made their own choice regarding abortion, and it is one that must not be brushed aside or ignored in the same pluralistic, relativistic way differing views of religious faiths are in the country.

Many in the media and academia seek to set the terms of debate surrounding abortion as one that pits open-minded people versus close-minded ones. If you are some wacky religious nut on the Right, you have no sympathy for rape victims and reckless college coeds who were unlucky enough to get pregnant.

Pro-choice is the term given to the supposedly more enlightened among us. They are the ones who are more compassionate and understanding of the difficulties life and children can throw our way. They are the ones with tolerant, open minds who recognize not all Americans’ have the same moral compass as Bible-thumpers from Red-State USA.

Reagan’s question, I believe, is one we’ve never yet seriously dealt with. Is abortion murder?

Our courts send mixed messages when they uphold Roe v. Wade, yet then convict Scott Petersen for the double murder of his wife Laci and the unborn baby inside her at the time she was thrown into a California bay. Our media sends mixed messages when it presents innocents’ deaths in Iraq as being an unspeakable horror, yet rationalizes away abortion as a necessary “right” for any progressive society.

Our government sends mixed messages when it allows a 12 year old girl to abort a fetus without parental consent, yet requires a 16 year old boy who has grown up driving tractors on his parents farm in southern Illinois to acquire a parent’s signature confirming that he completed 50 hours of monitored driving before he can get his license and drive to Dairy Queen.

Abortion is the extermination of something. Whether or not it is a life has apparently been left up to science, and determined by when a baby can live outside its mother’s womb. This however may be an even weaker argument for Pro-choicers than the made-up “right” 7 judges found in the Constitution 34 years ago. Science changes on a daily basis. A family friend recently had premature twins nearly four months early. A few decades ago, this would be unthinkable, but as technology increases, so does the time frame within which abortion remains morally acceptable decrease.

Just like slavery in 17th and 18th century America, abortion must be decided on upon a moral basis. There are core, fundamental questions involved here: Are we more interested in some rights (like, to choose) than we are in others (like, to life)? We’ve let science and the decision of 7 un-elected judges decide a moral issue like abortion, but is it possible they’re as wrong about it as they were slavery? If, for the sake of argument, the Supreme Court or Congress one day declares abortion “murder”, will we be looked back upon by future generations with the same disdain we do plantation owners in the 19th century?

In 1856, a new political party began in a small Wisconsin town as a response to slavery. Challenging the Democrats and Whigs on their inaction regarding what the founders of the Republican Party believed to be the moral dilemma of their generation, the GOP was considered inconsequential for the entire four years it took them to gain control of the White House. Abraham Lincoln emerged from a movement of people who were no longer interested in the rationalization of slavery, and the empty promises by politicians to change the system. Is it time for another such change in American politics?

Most believe that the War in Iraq is the moral crisis of our generation. Some believed Vietnam was. Yet the loudest critics of military action against self-described enemies, whether you think it justified or not, are the same who remain silent as 4,000 (more than the total number of troops who’ve died in Iraq so far) completely innocent lives are snuffed out every single day of the week.

If you are angry that blood has been spilled for oil, how can you ignore blood spilled for convenience?

Move over Moveon.org

The anti-war crowd in this country appears to be dwindling and losing steam (i.e. hot air). Radical groups like Code Pink and Moveon.org are conceding that the prospects of any potential president pulling troops out of Iraq anytime before 2009 are bleak.

Maybe that's because grown-ups in both political parties have prevailed in showing the American people why it is we MUST stay until the job is done, and due to the fact that things are categorically getting better on the ground over there???

Our premature pull-out from Vietnam was shameful and disastrous...thankfully we have enough sane heads in Congress and the White House to know better than to repeat that same selfish mistake.

Medved on Rudy's Abortion Stance

What is it exactly that Rudy Giuliani believes regarding abortion? With recent denouncements coming from leading Christian Conservatives, the former Mayor of NYC has taken a beating from Pro-Lifer's. But, what has he actually said about his own stance on the issue?

Michael Medved expounds on this in today's USA Today.

A Real American Hero

President Bush honored the latest recipient of the Medal of Honor yesterday in a ceremony at the White House. The Navy Seal who gave his life in Afghanistan two years ago was killed in action while climbing a hill to send a clear transmission that his unit was in need of a pick-up. Under heavy enemy fire, the brave Seal took it upon himself to save the lives of others, knowing full well he very likely would not make it out alive. His parents said their son had been everything that's good about the human race.

Hear, hear!

Liberal Economist: Oxymoron (unless you write for the NY Times)

"Economist" Paul Krugman is a columnist for the NY Times and has written a book entitled: The Conscience of a Liberal. Reviewed by Pulitzer-prize winner, and professor of history at Standford University, David Kennedy, the book is a smorgasbord of liberal propaganda...or better said, anti-conservative propaganda.

In the book, Krugman says that the Rambo movies, not the perpetual inability of liberal Democrats to demonstrate they have the slightest clue in matters of national security, is what created the aptly applied stereotype that Liberals are weak in the war on terror.

Yeah, and institutional racism was ended, like George Clooney said during his Best Supporting Actor's acceptance speech last year, when Hollywood gave a black woman an Oscar before it was politically correct.

Liberals love inaction on important economic and national security issues so they can have their scriptwriters concoct a self-congratulatory historical narrative later and give each other awards for it.

Republicans 1, Socialized Medicine 0

by: R.J. Moeller

This week, the President’s veto of the SCHIP program (which gives families making $40,000 a year or less eligibility for free health insurance for their children) was described by everyone from Chris Matthews on MSNBC to folk-rocker Paul Simon on the steps of the Capitol Building as a heartless refusal to help the children. Refusing themselves to bother with facts, context, or honest reporting, the media and her cohorts in Congress failed to explain to the public that what the Democrats were proposing was a massive expansion of the Federal government’s control over healthcare. Families making up to $80,000 in some states would be eligible for free healthcare from Uncle Sam; even those who already have coverage and are doing fine.

It was a blatant and transparent attempt by the Democrats to bring nationalized healthcare to the United States for every citizen (something most coherent people know is failing in Canada and Europe as we speak). Instead of engaging in an open and honest debate concerning what role our Federal government should play in the daily lives of Americans, and to what extent that government “owes” its people with free stuff, Democrats launched ad campaigns and flew in outspoken entertainers in an attempt to browbeat Republicans and Moderates into effectively handing the reigns of healthcare over to a governing body and its endless bureaucracies that currently have an 11% approval rating (more than 20 points lower than even President Bush).

The Republicans, led by President Bush, were seeking to expand SCHIP, but so that it included all of the recipients it was created in the first place to help: poor children. That was never brought up, nor was why it is exactly Democrats are so intent on increasing the centralized power Washington already possess. I’m thinking their original commercial idea of having Nancy Pelosi sitting on top of a pile of tax payers’ money while explaining the perks of Socialism didn’t test too well with the 18-75 crowd.

Anti-Americanism is born in America

The London Times offers this editorial as explanation for why it is the best critics of America always seem to come from within our own free, prosperous borders. Columnist David Gerard has hit the nail on the head as far as this blogger is concerned.

Well it's about time...

Bill Cosby has been traveling the country since 2004 with a message for his fellow African Americans: stop thinking and acting like victims! He's received constant criticism from the likes of Al Sharpton for imploring black men to stay with their children, and for the culture of "blame white people first" to stop being the crutch millions lean on when their own lives don't work out the way they wanted.

With his most recent book, Come on People, Cosby is actually getting favorable reviews from his previous critics. But of course Al Sharpton, in this Washington Times story, has to remind everyone just how unjust our justice system is, and how Cosby should focus more on that.

Don't listen to him, Bill, and keep up the good fight. You're a braver man than most to take on the disingenuous race-baiters who feed off social and ethnic divisions in this country.

Why are we Conservatives?

This Washington Times editorial examines what conservatives should do in this complicated, pivotal time in our Party's political history. Reagan's dead, Bush (who fell short on many conservative principles) is almost out of office, and the future is staring us right in the face...and her name is Hillary Clinton.

A great, thoughtful, hard-hitting piece that is worth the read!!!

Steyn on Gore

From the Australian News, Mark Steyn offers his thoughts on Comrade Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. A must-read for fans of all things "green".

"Well, the average US household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours of electricity. In 2006, the Gores wolfed down nearly 221,000kWh.

221,000kWh? What's he doing in there? As his spokesperson explained it, his high energy usage derives from his brave calls for low energy usage. He's burning up all that electricity by sending out faxes every couple of minutes urging you wastrels to use less electricity. Insofar as he's made any contribution to global peace, it's in persuading large swaths of a narcissistic Western world to busy itself with non-solutions to pseudo-crises to such a distracting degree that al-Qa'ida may wind up imposing the global caliphate without having to fire a shot."

Kiss-and-tell...and go to jail for two months

A Muslim couple in Malaysia are in legal trouble after being caught "making out" in a grocery store's parking lot and then causing a five-car accident.

There is actually a department of the government in that country that seeks out cases like this in order to render judgment against single men and women being alone. And the Religious Right in America is too extreme, Rosie O'Donnell?

When a "good death" stops being good

This is a must-read article by Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY dealing with the topic of a "good death" a.k.a. Euthanasia. In ever-growing numbers, doctors, hospitals, and even hospices are condoning the premature ending of people's lives due to living wills.

Dr. Mohler cites a recent editorial in the Washington Post by a woman who had very different thoughts about euthanasia after surviving breast cancer last year.

A Jew's Perspective on the Ann Coulter controversy

In case you didn't know, Ann Coulter found her way in to a controversial conversation again during her recent appearance on a show on CNBC that no one watches. I've linked a transcript so you can judge for yourself what she said regarding Christians being "perfected Jews."

Dennis Prager is a leading voice for Jewish Americans, and offers his humble perspective on what Ms. Coulter had to say.

Is the mainstream media changing its anti-war tune?

The lead up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq saw many pundits' positive view of the conflicts. As things have become more and more difficult for our troops and diplomats in the Middle East, the press has been unrelenting in their criticism of the war.

Surprisingly, now that things have turned around, even in the brazenly anti-Bush Washington Post, some optimism has begun to shine through. New York Post columnist, John Podhoretz explains why this is a good thing...even it is two years late.

What's in a terrorist?

From the Wall Street Journals' editorial page today regarding Iran's Revolutionary Guard being named a terrorist organization by Congress:

"That's something both Democratic politicians and Bush administration policy makers might consider in their respective internal debates over whether the IRGC should officially be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. For the administration, which has been mulling the issue since at least August, a terrorist designation for the IRGC is one further way to penalize Iran unilaterally as efforts to obtain a third round of international sanctions stall at the U.N. Security Council. But the Russians, Chinese and some of the Europeans are said to fiercely oppose the move, in part because much of their business in Iran runs through IRGC-controlled enterprises."

Our Silent Allies

We have friends inside Iran, but they are in need of our direct support. Many are unhappy with the theocratic regime that has so dominated every aspect of life there since 1979. If we are serious about avoiding military conflict with the Iranian government, we must take these dissenters seriously and aid them in any ways possible.

The Washington Times says that the time is coming when Iran's religious dictatorship will be forced to choose between "Planes or Bombs". Follow the link here to read more.

Our girl promises to "negotiate" with Iran to avoid war

Senator Clinton is as stupid as she is cunning. She's got millions believing that she is in any conceivable way a legitimate choice to be Commander-in-Chief. This weekend Clinton promised to "talk" with Iran and "negotiate" in order to appease their anger.

"If the US took military action as a result, she said, 'I would hope that the world would see that was an action of last resort, not first resort. Because we need the world to agree with us about the threat that Iran poses to everyone'." (Jerusalem Post)

We don't owe an explanation to any country if we are attacked, or perceive that we could be attacked. The rest of the world would be all too happy (at first) if we were crippled by an Iranian nuke. Why must we wait for their approval? Is that what a Commander-in-Chief does: wait for a thumbs up from the EU and negotiate with terrorists???

Enjoy reaping what you sow American Democratic voters...

More on Nobel's Prize

Here's an interesting column from the Washington Times that offers some perspective on Alfred Nobel and his prizes.

"Industrialist Alfred Nobel instructed in his will that the Peace Prize be given to individuals and organizations working for 'fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace conferences'."

Krauthammer on Hillary

What makes Hillary so formidable a political opponent, you ask? Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer fills us all in.

"Even Clinton's response to a debate question on torture -- "As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period" -- is elegantly phrased to imply an implacable opposition to torture, and yet leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances a president would do what she had to do, i.e. authorize torture, regardless of the express policy.

Clinton rarely falters. Always careful, always calibrated, always leaving room for expediency over ideology. That's Clintonism, of both marital flavors. Gender sensitivity prevents me from calling her the consummate needle-threader. Consider her instead Columbus' match as the Great Navigator."

An Inconvenient Person

The pompous, blowhard known simply as "Gore" won the most meaningless award this side of a Tony: the Nobel Peace Prize (London Telegraph). Why is it no longer a legitimate measure of anything worth measuring? Recent winners include: Jimmy Carter (you might remember him from such disasters as "his presidency" and his recent book calling Israel an apartheid) and the late yet not-so-great Yasser Arafat (renowned terrorist and murderer).

Even in England, where most Brits think as highly of Americans as we do of people from Alabama (it's a joke, people), they see through the staggeringly unimportant and devalued honor of winning a once respected prize. (Time of London)

Another take on GOP presidential hopefuls

Ms. Coulter, as always, has her own very strong opinions on all the "Rudy and Mitt aren't real Republicans" chatter out there. It's worth a read...

Is America holding Israel back?

Typically, when Israel and America are mentioned in the same sentence, it's in reference to some Zionist conspiracy in the current administration...but Cal Thomas suggests that perhaps we're actually hindering, not helping, the Israeli cause by forcing them to capitulate to their Arab-Muslim neighbors.

Europe is a Joke

Jonah Goldberg tells us why the EU isn't working, and how smaller countries are exploiting the false sense of security it provides them when they join it.

Bravo, Mrs. Cheney!

Wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, showed tremendous patience and grace by appearing on The Daily Show with John Stewart last night. While only there to promote her new book, John-boy couldn't help but bring up Iraq. The priceless thing was that Mrs. Cheney handed Stewart's rear to him, and did it with a smile on her face.

PLEASE watch the interview and enjoy Stewart's inability to come off as a jerk to the 2nd Lady.

p.s. Tell me if you notice anything missing from, or different about, the pictures that label the two-part Lynne Cheney interview as compared to the other segments on the page I linked???

Whose side are they on?

In California, San Fransisco to be precise, the scales of justice seem to be tipped in favor of illegal immigrants over the interests of our own citizens and country.

The Washington Times reports that a district judge is banning the Department of Homeland Security from sending out letters that warn employers of the penalties for hiring illegals.

WHAT?!?!? Has the world gone mad? Should the United States Postal Service be liable for delivering the notices too?

Heart vs. Head

by:R.J. Moeller


I am a Conservative Christian, and with the presidential election of 2008 on the horizon, the same question continues to perplex me: Where does one draw the line between heart and head in deciding who to vote for? I consider myself a thoughtful, pragmatic young man, but it would be insincere for me to pretend that my faith is not the epicenter of my decision-making.

So what’s a God-fearing Conservative to do in ’08?

If, say, Rudy Giuliani, who happens to be slightly more liberal on social issues, gets the nod at the Republican National Convention next summer, do we (those terrifying members of the “Religious Right”) really sit this one out in the hopes that a strong message is sent to the Republican National Committee? Do we effectively support Hillary by refusing to support Rudy because he’s a moderate or Mitt because he’s Mormon?

My head tells me that the very notion of this is revolting. Hillary Clinton, for all intensive purposes, is the candidate-de-jour on the Left. She also is, for all intensive purposes, a Secular-Progressive Communist. (But more on that later.) She’s got the money, the name, and the support of most key players in election politics.

What is more, the media already speaks of “Hillary as president” in the past tense. If you thought the thousands of documented cases of Post Election Traumatic Stress Syndrome were bad in 2000 and 2004, wait till you see the billable hours that liberals’ psychiatrists from Malibu to Maryland will be adding to Accounts Receivable come a Hillary loss in 2008. Dr. Phil and Hillary will have to start a new cable network called “L” (think about it).

In Hillary, we will be up against the formidable shock-and-awe, slash-and-burn political tactics of the Clintonistas. Add to that the clout of the mainstream media, the overwhelming majority of American newspaper editorial pages, and the annoyingly consistent drumbeat of support from professors and teachers in American public schools and universities. Factor in also an electorate already showing signs of Republican-fatigue (e.g. the 2006 mid-term elections), and you’ve got a volatile environment within which a GOP candidate is suppose to emerge victorious come next November.

To be fair, my head also tells me that there is plenty to be pleased with in this election cycle as far as my Party is concerned. For starters, the homogeneity found among the Liberal Democratic candidates is not the case on the Right. Primaries are for discussion and debate to find out which direction that Party as a whole will be heading. The Libertarian voice of a Ron Paul (R-TX) is countered by that of the Moral Values-driven Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who in turn is countered by the Pro-Nationalist Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has very different views on coerced interrogation than Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), and they are very real, long-standing distinctions in opinion.

On the flip side of the political continuum, Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards wait till that week’s latest polls are out to tell you if they are for or against bringing American troops home from Iraq. The only thing Obama has going for him is that he wasn’t around when the infamous 2003 vote to authorize military force in Iraq took place. I’ve watched every Democratic and GOP debate thus far, and it is striking just how similar the responses from the Left sound compared to those on the Right. Notice I said “striking” and not “surprising”.

As far as Madame Hillary is concerned, I defy anyone to pinpoint a plan in Hillary’s platform that she’s held for more than two years without drastically changing her public stance on it. (Other than wanting to: become President at any cost, raise your taxes, and create an entitlement-crazy society that becomes addicted to the narcotic-like affect of “free” stuff that only a liberal can, or will, provide.)

My head also tells me that falling on your sword to show just how self-righteous you are is self-defeating and usually unnecessary. The world is anything but perfect, and such is the case with any and every candidate for President. I hate the term “lesser of two evils” but in the admittedly melodramatic examples of WWII and the Cold War, America, in order to win the broader struggle at hand, was forced to work with people and countries that we either despised at the time, or ended up fighting later.

Can’t the same case for defeating the socially and economically destructive forces of liberalism (and eventually socialism) be made as a rallying cry for voters to band together to keep Hillary out of the White House?

This, however, is usually the point where my heart begins to tell my head that he’s come as far as he can go. My heart asks, “But if we compromise the values that define us (i.e. pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage), what are we left with?” Is it more important to have a president that I know completely agrees with my views than say one who I know completely disagrees with them? Do my personal principles trump those of the “greater good”?

These are interesting questions to theorize about and reflect on, but where does that leave the average “values voter” on the Right come November of next year? What do we do when potential candidates appear as anything but our “first choice” for president?

The first thing we all must do is individually decide what truly matters to us. More than that, we should rank and classify those principles we decide upon into categories of Core and Peripheral beliefs. For example: one of my Core beliefs is in the sanctity and preciousness of life. A peripheral belief for me is the tariff policy we may adopt in relations with Finland. One is negotiable, and the other is not.

I believe, as the Founding Fathers did, that God, not Mankind, bestows value and worth onto and into each life. No amount of discussing the “right” of one human to selfishly end that of an another innocent one will ever change my mind. Pro-life is the only, and I mean only, stance a religiously-serious person can have in my view of things. It is not the only issue that matters, but it matters.

Personally, Mayor Giuliani says he hates abortion and has counseled young couples and mothers to protect the life of their unborn baby by keeping it or giving it up for adoption. Conversely, as a matter of public policy, he says that Roe v. Wade, although a horrendously un-Constitutional decision by the Supreme Court, is currently the Federal government’s stance on the issue and he therefore supports that. It’s not as complicated a stance as the media tries to make it out (in an attempt to drive the Conservative base further apart en route to a Hillary rout), but it is not what the base of the Republican Party wants to here. Not in the least.

Sadly, Rudy also is for Liberal-strict gun control (something not even activist judges or law professors can justify thanks to the 2nd Amendment). He has a proclivity for dressing in drag, and is much more open to the idea of same-sex marriage being universally legalized. Without judging the personal life of a man I know about as well as Hillary knows the truth, it is worth noting that he has been married three times and has been involved in not-so-private affairs with married women.

I’m not trying here to tear Mayor Giuliani down or say that I could never vote for him. But, the constant battle between heart and head that rages inside me demands I more honestly and closely examine him, as well as the other candidates, in the upcoming months of primary and election season. I use him as an example for the simple fact that his views most noticeably differ from my own on issues that are morally important to me.

A candidate who shows charisma, leadership, courage under fire, and the ability to potentially defeat Conservatives’ biggest fear (i.e. four more years of Slick Willy in the White House) must be taken seriously and given solemn consideration. But what do I do if that same candidate supports a social institution that has murdered upwards of 50 million babies since 1972? To make it even more complicated and nuanced, what if he personally abhors the practice but publicly signs off on it? What does that say, if anything, about him that he’s unable or unwilling to make a clear distinction in both arenas?

My point here is this: you should take the time to learn what these candidates really have said, have voted for, and are promising to do if elected. It’s not enough to read bumper stickers and watch an occasional Daily Show to think you’ve got a handle on things. Not even poignant, thoughtful, engaging blogs written by ruggedly-handsome Grad students alone will afford you the comprehensive take on individual candidates that you may be interested in.

Read. Listen. Watch. Read some more. Think through what it is you really stand for and believe in. Find out what makes you tick before you set out to find out what makes them tick. Your head can, and should, influence what is in your heart; but that presumes there is actually something in your head. Don’t sit back and wait for Halloween 2008 to start surfing through Colbert’s MySpace page to decide whom you will vote for.








For another thoughtful take on this "heart v. head" decision: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071010/EDITORIAL01/110100005/1013/EDITORIAL

Coming to an American Medical School near you...

Muslim medical students are refusing to learn how to treat alcohol-related ailments or patients with sexually transmitted diseases on "religious grounds".

Iranian Muslims hate Jews even when they are playing soccer

So much for sports being able to bring the world together...

The Jerusalem Post reports that an Iranian-born German soccer player is refusing to participate in a game this weekend in Tel Aviv. I'm getting tired of writing the phrase "religion of peace" in association with stories proving just how intolerant many Muslims are.

From their mouths to God's ear

Here is what the Democrats had to say regarding their discombobulated views on the War in Iraq and when our troops should come home. FactCheck.org is a bipartisan, trusted website, so don't worry about me passing GOP propaganda off as cold, hard, facts. Read it for yourself and let me know if you would feel safe with any of the Flip-Flop brigade being Commander-in-Chief of the most formidable military the world has ever known.

Pot or Kettle?

The Washington Post is reporting that someone within the Bush administration "leaked" the most recent Bin Laden tape after being asked by the private intelligence-gathering firm that first obtained it to hold-off for a few days. The company, SITE Intelligence Group, claims that this fopaux was costly in that it alerted Al Qaeda to the techniques SITE effectively employs against the ist organization.

So when the Post and New York Times disclose the undisclosed location of CIA prisons in Europe (where ists are held for questioning), or falsely report that we are torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, that is fair game and just good journalism. But when a Bush official sends Fox News or CNN an early copy of a tape that will be coming out a day later anyway, a real crime has been committed.

While it may have been stupid for the Bin Laden tape leaker to do what he or she did, it is reckless and unacceptable that American newspapers would jeopardize the safety of our people, and more importantly, our troops, simply to make Bush look bad in those other stories they willingly leaked. You're not fooling anyone, mainstream media.