Mark Levin says conservatives must rally now if we are to get what we want…
…and what America needs.
Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.
Obama and Clinton being children:
There’s a bold line between idealism and fantasy,
neither of them have grown enough to know the difference.
With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.
McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)
McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.
It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.
Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?
Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.
Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:
Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.
Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…
I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.
…and endorses Romney.
Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.
And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:
After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.
I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.
I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.
And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.
I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.
Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.
Riehl ponders:
Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain – an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?
We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:
“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,†said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”
My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.
This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.
Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:
- He can win
- He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
- He believes America’s best days are ahead of it
And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?
So where did McCain differ from the ACU? The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.
Barb has an excellent post on bringing Motherhood to it’s deserved place of honor. And it’s funny too.
The Clerk was obviously a career woman, poised, efficient, and
possessed of a high sounding title like,
‘Official Interrogator’ or ‘Town Registrar.’‘What is your occupation?’ she probed.
What made me say it? I do not know.
The words simply popped out.
‘I’m a Research Associate in the field of
Child Development and Human Relations.’The clerk paused, ball-point pen frozen in midair and
looked up as though she had not heard right.
See twistedlogic’s take: Mothers are worth a lot more than they’re paid.
And, McCain winning in Florida is NOT good news.
To all y’all who just may think the IRS will voluntarily tell you how much they owe you, be careful. Somebody else thinks you exist.
Things that should tip you off:
So just in case you get one of these emails, kindly do the whole world, and especially yourself, a big favor. Just delete it or report it as spam so your email service provider can improve their filters against such scams.
Hat tip to thatmarkguy.
Update: Bumped, Will and I have been going at it for a few days. Read the comments…
The Study:
In the UCSF study, researchers found that men in a clinic for HIV-positive patients who had a history of having sex with men were 13 times more likely than other HIV-positive patients to get a particular form of community-associated staph infection called MRSA USA300. But this does not mean that there is a new “gay” form of MRSA, the study’s authors say. USA300 has been around since 2002 and has appeared in at least 38 American states among heterosexual and homosexual patients. What is new is the rapid rate the bacteria spread among this particular population of gay men, studied between 2004-2006. Why these men are more vulnerable than the heterosexuals studied is still a question. Researchers stopped short of labeling USA300 a sexually transmitted disease, but they did note that the infections in the men they studied were commonly found on parts of the body where skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activity.
The Rebuttal:
Gay men’s health advocates point out that MRSA can be spread through any kind of skin-to-skin contact, either sexual or nonsexual, without regard for sexual orientation. And they have been very critical of the media for its focus on the sexual aspects of the story. “It’s very unfortunate,” says GMHC’s Stackhouse. “It’s very stigmatizing, it’s alarmist, it’s homophobic and it’s just unnecessary.”
There you have it. Just because the disease can be transmitted by other forms of skin-to-skin contact, the fact that it is 13 times more likely to occur in those who engaged in homosexual relations than in those who didn’t means it’s homophobic to consider homosexual behaviour an increased risk for MRSA.
In comments following the video I found this observation:
“its no the ppls fault its the roads not being salted fault”
Obvious schooling and literacy issues aside, this is a supremely immature reasoning and conclusion. But I fear it is all too commonplace today.
To read the comment literally, we see the fallacy of blaming an inanimate, amoral object. But to take the apparent, obvious, or implied meaning, the government is to blame.
Because the government wasn’t there to plow and salt the roads, these people have suffered damage to their property and cars. That’s what is being said.
What about life requires that the government be responsible for such things? Sure, the government owns and is responsible for maintenance of the roads. But are they required to avert any “act of God”, preventing them from hampering the free exercise of stupidity on the part of the citizens of that government?
I would argue that the government has a reasonable obligation to work to maintain the safety of those things it owns and maintains for specific use and benefit of it’s citizens. If inclement weather is expected and normal, reasonable foresight should be employed to allow an efficient and orderly clearing of the snow or ice. But the government bears no responsibility beyond reasonable protection.
These people driving, and every person engaging in the fruits of freedom and/or liberty, take their safety and security into their hands. Each person is responsible for acting in a manner which minimizes risk to themselves and others on their own. Not because the government requests or requires them to, but because it is the right thing to do.
The government does not have the power in and of itself to say that speeding is wrong. Instead, it has the responsibility demanded by ethics to set reasonable restriction to promote the maximal good to each individual while not inhibiting the liberties of all.
So these people in the video went out on a snowy day with the responsibility to be aware their cars would not operate in the way they are used to them operating. They should have driven at much slower speeds and operated generally with much more caution.
As technology builds up, shielding us from elements of nature, we tend to forget that nature is a much more powerful force than technology and operates on rules much more established and concrete.
Drive at your own risk.
Found in the Chicago Defender:
With the presidential race in full swing, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could have a huge impact on the nation’s electoral system forever. It revolves around an Indiana statue that requires voters to show current state issued photo identification when they cast their ballots. Last Election Day, 61-year-old Valerie Williams attempted to vote in the lobby of her retirement home as she had the past two elections.
She and 31 others affiliated with the case [were not allowed to vote after failing to provide photo ID]. Most failed to comply with the law because they lacked the transportation to get to the local voting office to convert their provisional ballots into actual votes or couldn’t afford state issued identification. They represent as much as 12 percent of all voters, a disproportionate number of them elderly, poor, minorities or disable, who do not have government-issued photo identification.
Huh? I admit it’s sad that people are turned away from polls when people there could verify their identity. Maybe the law could allow for group living facilities which have already verified ID can speak for their members… but that gets into a whole ‘nother can of worms and allows further loopholes for fraud. Maybe states should have a cheap or free ID for those who don’t drive (Like California, I got my first official ID, which was not a drivers license, at 14 for less than 20 dollars).
When the elections can hinge on as few as 100 votes such as Florida in 2000, each vote counts. While you are worrying about disenfranchising (a big word which is used as a bugbear in our fearful society) the poor and elderly (popular poster-children of the bugbear bearing social activists). I’m worried about disenfranchising (see, I can use it too) myself and the millions of other voters who have worked hard and taken the appropriate steps to ensure I have proper identification necessary to function in this society. It is a slight requirement. We are aware of the need and we have a whole year, or two, to get it before needing it for the election.
You may not be aware of the severity of the issue: In Seattle, WA, hundreds of votes are entered by people all listing the Postal Office as their “home”. The assumption is their transients, but there is no proof of that. Any Joe or Sally with nefarious intent could easily register and vote, even though it is against the law to misrepresent your address on voter registration. The difficulty lies in verifying the address of the voter.
Requiring ID puts additional responsibility on the voter, but we do not live in a society where all things are given to us. Instead, we are given reasonable requirements and then allowed to do as we please.
Voter ID is a simple and effective way to mitigate the issue of voter fraud. Fraud disenfranchises everybody, lessening the effectiveness of each and every one of our votes.
Apparently it’s a GOP issue. The Democrats don’t want to stop any fraudsters, phonies, gangs, or assorted nefarious election scammers from exercising their desire to break the law and disenfranchise all of us law-abiding citizens. It’s those nasty Republicans who want to safe-guard the election for us average Joe’s and Jane’s by requiring reasonable levels of identity security into the process.
See my previous post on this for my solution to electronic voting, vote fraud, and voter ID.
Either it pays for itself or it’s 4 billion of your dollars down the hole in 5 years.
The State of California (sometimes it’s more a state of mind than anything substantive) is facing a 14.5 billion dollar shortfall, and yet, in their reckless pursuit of assuaging all societal inequities, the majority of the Democrat Legislators and the Republican Governator are seeking to enact socialized medicine in California.
Using additional fees on each and every employer, worker, and hospital, plus a $1.75 tax hike on each pack of cigarettes, the system seeks to ensure universal coverage in the Golden State.
California’s big problem right now is that it’s legal climate has driven all meaningful business out of the state. It is getting more and more uneconomical to maintain a business in the state as stifling and confiscatory taxes, fees, and regulations increase alarmingly.
As businesses flee the state and close down, revenues will continue to decrease in an increasing trend.
California is a good example of liberal policy carried to it’s logical conclusion.
Soon, my parents and siblings and relatives will be waiting in line at the clinics to received government-mandated testing and/or procedures.
Think I’m getting a bit apocalyptic? What about the push to require the HPV vaccination of all girls? Somebody somewhere will have some golden idea that sounds great and looks like the “greater good” and someone else will believe them. That’s all it takes where there is no accountability and more stultifying bureaucracy.
The health care plan aims to extend insurance to roughly 70 percent of the state’s uninsured population by expanding government health programs, forcing businesses to provide coverage to workers or pay a fee to the state, and imposing new taxes on hospitals and tobacco. If the proposal wins the support of the Legislature, voters would have to approve a ballot initiative in November in order for it to become law.
In a best-case scenario, the plan’s revenues would cover its costs in the first year, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill wrote in her review released Tuesday evening. However, by the fifth year, she estimates the program’s annual costs would exceed revenues by $300 million.
From the San Jose Mercury News.
Read more articles on this, from Google.
And what about the plans being touted by each and every Democrat running for president? If the State of California will suffer this badly, let us just tank the entire US economy while we’re at it.
Remember, reform is not worthwhile if it makes the problem worse.
McCain and the Gang of 14. Listening recently to Michael Medved, who has endorsed McCain, I was appalled by an apologist he had on as a guests’ argument that the Gang of 14 was a farsighted and wise investment by McCain in the continuing success of the Republican party.
We had a majority and were not defending anything. We weren’t trying to kill all filibusters, only judicial filibusters which are not strictly constitutional.
Hugh Hewitt has this to say:
The damage to the GOP was instant and immense. Not only were fine judges sacrificed to John McCain’s ego, many in the base simply tuned out the GOP from that moment forward. Why work that hard and invest that much in a party that cannot deliver on its pledges even when gifted with 55 seats?  Why fight for a majority that would not fight? Ohio’s Mike DeWine, an otherwise reliable conservative, never recovered with the Buckeye State’s GOP base and lost his seat in 2006.  Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee was also turned out, though the party’s bill of grievances against Chafee was much longer than just the Gang of 14.
There were other stumbles along the way to the loss of six seats in the fall of 2006, but the McCain Gang’s coup in the Spring of 2005 started the slide. And for what? White and White argue that we should be grateful for the successful confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and Judges Brown, Pryor and Owens.
Read it and turn McCain out on his ear. I have no patience for that man.
Flying recently across the country after spending time in California introducing my girlfriend to my parents, odd things happened on the SWA flight. It seems the cockpit comedy common to that favored of low-cost airlines went a bit too far. We were the last two left on the flight when it landed.
After we landed, I found this video of the cockpit antics which led to the disaster you may have heard about.
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Aeros 2.0 by TheBuckmaker.com