Politics a la Michael Moore

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15

Imagine this scenario. It is January 20, 2009; Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office. This is what I call the era of politics a la Michael Moore. In this setting, we will have reached the lunacy and psychosis of a world gone mad, the world of Michael Moore. In other words, we will have handed our nation over to the likes of Michael Moore, the New York Times, Move-on.org and the rest of the extreme left.

Yesterday, I was talking to my brother, (let's call him Jerry to protect his identity.) He said if McCain gets the nomination, he will not vote in the general election in effect giving the election to Hillary Clinton or worse yet Obama. I used to think it was only Democrats with whom you could not have a rational discussion. I guess that is no longer true. This is insanity at its nadir.

It is at the very least disturbing and at the most infuriating to watch how Democrats slowly dismantle everything that keeps us safe, that keeps our taxes low and that keeps this economy growing.

During the state of the union speech, there was one thing that was clearly evident, the disdain the Democrats showed for the president. When the president talked about keeping the tax cuts permanent, only the Republicans stood up and clapped, when the president talked about the success of the surge, only the Republicans stood up and clapped, and when the president talked about extending FISA (more about that later), only the Republicans stood up and clapped. From the war in Iraq, the surge, the economy, taxes, the expressions on the Democrats were the same. One can only conclude from that that the Democrats will raise taxes, retreat from Iraq in defeat, and take away every measure that keeps this country safe.

What was striking is when the cameras panned the faces of Obama and Clinton. Both sat with their arms folded and expressionless. They knew the country was watching, and this was exactly the body language they wanted to express, derision for all of Bush's policies whether good or bad. It took a herculean effort to watch the state of the Union with Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house, behind Bush. Pelosi's expressions would have made for a great segment for Tonya Reiman's segment on body language on the O'Reilly Factor. After the state of the Union, Pelosi made several derisive remarks stating the surge was a failure. It doesn't matter how much success there is in Iraq, the Democrats will always tout defeatism, and once in power they will retreat.

Monday, a cloture vote on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, failed 48-45. Both Obama and Clinton voted against it. The FISA amendments expire on Friday. FISA is necessary for our intelligence agencies to gather the required information to keep us safe. The bill was produced by the senate select committee on foreign intelligence, and Democrats had no problem passing the bill last October.

The FISA Bill has been responsible for:

Insight and understanding leading to disruption of planned terrorist attacks

Prevention of efforts of an individual to become a suicide operative

Prevention of instructions to a foreign terrorist associate about entering the United States

Prevention of efforts by terrorists to obtain guns and ammunition

Prevention of terrorist facilitator plans to travel to Europe

Prevention of terrorist efforts to disguise their appearance

Information on terrorist money transfers

Identifying information regarding foreign terrorist operatives

Understanding international al-queda networks

Plans for future terrorist attacks

Movements of key extremists to evade arrest

The Democrats have been responsible for undermining everything concerning the war on terror including the Patriot Act.

It doesn't matter what evidence is shown the Democrats, the mantra, "Bush lied, people died" will forever remain in their psyche.

Last Sunday, 60 minutes interviewed the Sadaam Hussein interrogator known to Sadaam as Mr. George. Mr George said Sadaam and he had a close relationship because he was his only contact for months. Mr George, a native of Lebanon, spoke fluent Arabic. He said Sadaam didn't expect the US to invade. He said Sadaam lied about his WMDs because he did not want Iraq to know he had gotten rid of them. He also said he purposely forged documents to show the US. He also said Sadaam had every intention to reconstitute his WMD program both nuclear and biological. All leading Democratic senators believed we should have gone into Iraq (except for Obama and a few other senators), and every intelligence agency said he had them. In addition, we know Sadaam was sending 25,000 dollars to families of suicide victims, and he had meetings with top Al-Queda officials. Al-Zarqawi stayed in Baghdad. The Democrats are the ones not telling the truth.

Clinton's tax increase proposals, particularly her support for a higher capital gains tax, can be painted, accurately, as foreshadowing doom for the economy.

Jerry, you know my brother for whom I gave a different name says he would rather Hillary be president than McCain. That is in effect what sitting out the election means. His rational is that Hillary will screw up the next four years so much; the electorate will have no choice but to put into office another Republican instead of 8 years of McCain. There are sure a lot of assumptions in that assessment. First, no one knows what will happen in four years. Four years in politics is an eternity. Second, we do not know what Republican candidate will come forward. Third, Hillary can destroy this country in four years, and it can take years to recoup.

A good number of people, not even Jerry, understand the consequences of what would happen if a nuclear device were detonated. Panic would ensue, the stock market would crash throwing the world economies in turmoil, and unemployment would skyrocket. It's questionable whether or not we would see a recovery from such a scenario in our lifetime. The terrorists understand this better than we do.

William Perry, Ashton Carter and Michael May After the Bomb

First and foremost, the scale of disaster would quickly overwhelm even the most prepared city and state governments. To avoid repeating the Hurricane Katrina fiasco on a much larger scale, Washington must stop pretending that its role would be to support local responders. State and local governments — though their actions to save lives and avoid panic in the first hours would be essential — must abandon the pretense that they could remain in charge. The federal government, led by the Department of Homeland Security, should plan to quickly step in and take full responsibility and devote all its resources, including those of the Department of Defense, to the crisis.

This is a hard truth to absorb, since we all would have a strong instinct to flee. But walking toward the suburbs or sitting in long traffic jams would directly expose people to radiation, which would be the most intense on the day after the bomb went off. After that, the amount would drop off day by day (one-third as strong after three days, one-fifth as strong after five days, and so on), because of the natural decay of the radioactive components of the fallout

After such an attack however, we will respond in kind. If the Democrats are in power, that may even be questionable. They may have decimated our military to such an extent, we won't have the resources to fight.

Jerry even went so far as to say McCain is like Schwarzenegger, but I disagree. When Schwarzenegger was voted into office, we did not know who he really was or what he really believed in. There was no record to go by. We now know Schwarzenegger is no Republican, he is a Democrat dressed up in Republican's clothing. We know McCain. We know he is a maverick on a lot of issues, but we also know he will keep us safe.

There is a lot to not like about John McCain, but there is also a lot we can also agree on. In my post, the best man for the Job – Mitt Romney. I write about John McCain:

What do conservatives like about McCain?

He is prolife. he is pro nuclear power, he believes in cutting spending, and he is a great advocate against pork barrel spending. He would be good in the war on terror for the most part, ---

Admittedly, I will have to suck it up when I vote for him because of his stance on a myriad of issues, immigration, global warming, and the list goes on. But, I know I will be relatively safe, and he will continue to fight an aggressive war on terror instead of rolling over and laying dead for the New York Times, and I don't have to worry about the era of politics a la Michael Moore.

Hillary Clinton will be just plain dangerous. McCain might cost me a little in the pocket book, but at least I won't be dead.

There is one caveat to all of this. When the military comes home, the men and women from our armed services will be for the most part conservative. They will come home with a better understanding of the world, and what is at stake. It may give us hope yet that all may not be lost.

This is not the time for sitting out the election, staying home and playing tiddlywinks. We can't afford Hillary Clinton for even one year. If John McCain is our nominee, Republicans need to unify and vote for him. There is too much at stake.

Quote of the day

From www.hispanicpundit.com

“Many progressives seem to think we can transform America into a vast college campus where food, shelter, and recreation are all provided for us and the only crime is to be mean to somebody else, particularly a minority.”

— Arnold Kling

Bush's last State of the Union address January 2008

It wasn't so much the content of Bush's state of the Union that was revealing. It was the reaction of the audience. "No New taxes!"



This is what the Democrats want to retreat from. It doesn't matter what success there is in Iraq, the Democrats still preach defeatism.



The Democrats also did not stand up when President Bush asked to extend the FISA overseas wiretapping this Friday.

This should be a warning to all. Democrats in power will mean higher taxes for all and less security. To see what this FISA vote means, read Jed Babba in Human Events FISA cloture vote failed Monday.

This should be a reminder to all. San Jose police in a sting operation uncovered IED bombs that could be detonated using cell phones. It was called operation meltdown.

“The idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I can’t imagine.” Romney GOP debate

ABC has thus far had the best debates. MSNBC's debate was the boorish usual debate it always has, and the old questions were asked and rehashed a zillion times. In other words, it was a snooze fest. Guliani reiterated for the thousandth time about giving the Saudis back their check, McCain kept going over his same mantra about how the GOP is with him (Not!), and Romney looking presidential, went over his tax record again. Huckabee, well, he is becoming a non-entity in this race to the White House, but he continued trying to convince us that fees are not taxes. Maybe Schwarzenegger might agree with him. How about some new material?

It is widely known the media by and large has a liberal bias except for a few unconventional outlets such as Fox. So why do the GOP candidates continue to debate at these formats? - Because they don't want to appear as cowards. In an instant, the blogosphere can now keep the media accountable. In one GOP debate MSNBC planted questions from so-called independents. Within the hour, the blogosphere was abuzz. It had vetted the plants, and discovered by using mere Google searches that the questions were posed by liberal activists.

During Thursday's debate, it was evident from the style of the questioning that MSNBC was going to continue to throw out soft ball and "gotcha" questions that had nothing to do whether or not the candidate was capable of being commander in chief. The following "gotcha" question posed by Brian Williams is an example.

Williams: Governor, we've got an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll coming out in the morning that says, among a lot of other things, 44 percent of respondents say a Mormon president would have a difficult time uniting the country. And I know you've answered similar questions about what you were able to do with the Catholic vote in Massachusetts, but 44 percent nationally, is a large number.

In the same poll, it said an evangelical preacher would have a 46%, (a higher percentage than Mormons) difficulty in uniting the country, but Bryan neglected to ask Mike Huckabee the same question. It is obvious to anyone by now that Mike has no chance of coming close to the nomination. This question was made to make Romney look like an idiot: Romney answered it fine, "I don't think for a minute that people will say they won't vote for a secular position based on a candidate's church."

And of course there was the mention of how Guliani thought of McCain's endorsement by the NY times. For conservatives, that would be a reason not to vote for McCain. The left doesn't understand this.

There have been some 11 or 12 debates thus far, and there is still a lot that has not been said. Who knows about the new energy bill that Bush (rapidly becoming one of those progressives except for the war) signed after being approved surreptitiously by both the house and the senate, a bill that is going to kill a lot of jobs. What do the candidates think about it? Does McCain regret the McCain-Feingold bill? What about McCain putting Dr Juan Hernandez, a former employee of President Fox and an open-border immigration proponent as McCain's Hispanic outreach director? What about drilling for oil? McCain is against the drilling in Alaska, a pinprick of a cold and bitter wasteland in the middle of nowhere. I didn't hear anything about nuclear energy. I didn't hear anything about immigration. I didn't hear anything about how Bush saved the economy from going into a recession after 9/11, and how well the economy has been doing since then. The candidates acted as if we were already in a recession. The candidates should have been more upbeat on the economy. And, the war on terror was barely even mentioned.

We need debates in the style of the French when Nicolas Sarkozy debated Segolene Royale. In that debate the candidates sat at a round table, and they discussed what they would do in depth to solve France's problem. It wasn't about the ten second sound bite.

There were some interesting observations however.

Russert asked McCain about his assertion that he didn't know much about the economy. McCain then lied and said he never said that, and that he was very well versed in economics and he didn't know where Russert had gotten that quote. I guess Alzheimer's must be setting in with 72 year old McCain since it was just a few weeks ago he had stated he didn't know much about the economy but he was reading Greenspan's books. www.factcheck.org came up with several other instances of his dubious knowledge on the economy. What was most puzzling is Russert stopped there and didn't press him on it. The reason of course is the Media's desire to pump up John McCain and deride Romney.

McCain continued his rant on global warming. His argument goes something like this. If global warming is not true we will still have a cleaner planet no down side, but if global warming is true, we will have saved the planet. That sounds nice, but it's hogwash. I like the fact he is for nuclear energy even if it is because of global warming. However, he wants to institute a cap and trade system. Europe's cap and trade system has been an abysmal failure. He talked about a catastrophe fund for Florida and related it to global warming, "We are seeing more and more violent weather patterns," McCain said. McCain believes we need a global agreement. Do we really want other governments telling us what to do? I am sure Europe will do what is in the best interest of the United States. McCain also said he was working with Lieberman on a cap and trade system. McCain is always working with some Democrat on something, and he knows Lieberman is the most palatable of the Democrats to the GOP. I respect Lieberman a lot and his stance on the war, but he is social on everything else. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the global warming myth McCain has embraced, and he will institute policies on global warming that are anathema to the conservative base.

Rush Limbaugh has stated that if McCain were to be elected president, he would tear the Republican Party asunder. That is for you to decide. If McCain is nominated, I will support him because he is 100 times better than Hillary, and he does have some good attributes like his character and his stance on the war on terror. I do believe though once we get to winner take all states where independents can't cross over, McCain will lose front runner status. McCain has lost his conservative base. To date Romney still has the most delegates, but the polls have Romney and McCain running neck and neck in Florida with Guliani a distant third. Time will tell.

The other candidates support global warming if you can believe it, but they won't destroy the economy with global warming policies as McCain will do.

As much as I dislike Ron Paul on foreign policy, I like what he says about congress' willingness to overspend and deflate the dollar. In his remarks, he mentioned we are spending ourselves into oblivion, and he believes in lower taxes and deregulating the economy. He mentioned in particular the Sarbanes-Oaxley act. For all of you neophytes in accounting who don't know what the Sarbanes Oaxley act is – it was congresses overreaction to the Enron and World-Com debacle post dot-com. There were some good provisions like making the CEOs sign off on the company's financials making them more accountable, but it could have been called the full-employment act for accountants. The cost for public companies to do audits has been significantly increased. I doubt this act will have any impact on CEOs or interested parties that are determined to embezzle funds from their companies. Its only effect will be to increase the cost of doing business, and that cost will be passed on to the consumer.

Huckabee loves the idea of his fair tax and abolishing the IRS. Does anyone thing we will ever get rid of the IRS? Who is going to administer the flat tax? It will have to be some bureaucracy. The idea that the fair tax is a panacea for the ills of our tax system is foolish. Those who are already retired or who are living on their savings will be taxed twice since their earnings have been taxed once, and they will be taxed again with a consumption tax. In addition, the housing market will be thrown in disarray since the mortgage deduction will go away. You think the markets are in a downturn right now, wait until you see Huckabee try to pass a flat tax. Of course, then there is congress. Reagan tried to overhaul the tax system, and because of the myriad of special interest groups, he made a tax system that was difficult to understand to a tax system that was impossible to understand. A flat tax will only pass in Huckabee's delusional mind.

I shudder to think what this country will look like in four years if Obama or Hillary becomes president. I hope Republicans can get their act together and realize what is at stake this election.
 

Edward Morissey at Captain's Quarters makes a commpelling case for Mitt Romney. Click on Captain's Quarters.

Stimulus package and China

Don't you love this new stimulus package? Bush sends us a check, but in order to send us a check he must borrow from China. We consumers go out and buy Chinese products. The money China receives from our purchases, they use to buy more treasuries helping once again to finance our debt, and the cycle continues.

Don't you love the irony?

 

Mark

California Propositions

I thought I would put California propisitions and my recommendations on how you should vote.

Proposition 92 - Community colleges Vote yes, keeps junior colleges inexpensive without increasing your taxes.

Propsition 93 Lenghtens Politicians Terms Vote No. A yes vote would lengthen the politician's terms, therefore vote no.

Propositions 94,95,96,97 - Indian Casinos - Vote no - benefits casinos at taxpayer's expense.

The best man for the job – Mitt Romney

Expect Mitt Romney's coffers to start overflowing with money since I am endorsing him.

 

This election cycle has been somewhat frustrating to say the least. Who is the best man for the job? On the one hand we need someone who can beat Hillary or God forbid Obama, and on the other hand we need someone who will hold to traditional conservative values. We constantly hear from both the right and left that Reagan conservatism is dead, but I disagree. When Reagan left the Democratic Party, he was quoted as saying, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, they left me." I see the same thing happening to traditional conservatism. What wins elections is traditional conservatism. The Democrats are winning because we are abandoning the conservative principles Reagan embodied.

What happened to our conservative values? In Bush's first term, he did some great things. He avoided a recession by enacting the Bush tax cuts. The pundits projected a recession. Kennedy, Reagan, Guliani, Bush and others have all enacted tax cuts that stimulated the economy and filled government tax coffers of the Federal government even though the left continues to say supply side economics do not work. Bush has always come down on the side of life. After 9/11, he aggressively went after the terrorists, and he successfully rooted out the Taliban and Al-Queda terrorists camps in Afghanistan. He then turned his efforts to Iraq. This was a good thing because every intelligence agency believed Sadaam Hussein had WMDs. I still believe he had them because he had eight months to get rid of them and there was circumstantial evidence he had them. His mantra, "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists," proved to be short-lived. Bush became soft on dealing with terrorist nations succumbing to pressures by the far-left. For the first seven years of his presidency he didn't veto a single bill, he refused to close the borders, he refused to fire incompetent personnel like Mineta and Rumsfield, He was about to nominate the neophyte Harriet Miers to the Supreme court until there was an uproar by Bush's own conservative party, he refused to change his strategy in Iraq until after the blood bath in the house and senate and Rumsfield finally stepped down, he has fallen for the leftist agenda of global warming. He also is following Hillary's lead by bailing out the subprime mortgages even though it was the mortgagee's irresponsible behavior that caused the quandary in which they currently find themselves.

And now it's legacy time. Spending is out of control? The dollar has fallen 40% against major currencies – In that Ron Paul has it right. And, we are on the verge of another recession. So, where is Bush? He is in the Middle East trying for another peace process and trying to give away more Israeli land. Why is it every time a president wants to create a legacy, he heads straight for the Middle East to try and create another peace that will never happen? The perfidy of the Palestinians is proven as soon as they receive their goodies. There will never be peace. They don't want peace. The Palestinians only feign friendship to achieve their goal of destroying Israel and the West. If Bush were so sure of this peace process, why did he show up in Ramallah with 1500 secret service agents backed up by the IDF and Shaback from Israel?

Why is it likely the Democrats will regain the White House? Bush derangement syndrome has taken over. Liberals and Democrats still believe the election was stolen from them. Democrats are highly motivated to vote this election cycle, and they can feel the taste of power on their lips. Reagan conservatism the hallmark of what makes us strong and what makes this economy grow is rapidly dissipating. Bush and many Republican senators (Rinos or Republican in name only) have become as progressive as the liberals making in many respects the two parties indistinguishable. I am tired of hearing the term "compassionate conservatism." Republicans are disenchanted with the candidates, and are feeling apathetic about the process. They better wake up! I want to return to the traditions that made the Republican Party great.

So on to the candidates -

Fred Thompson – In Fox's January 10^th debate, Fred seemed to awake from his slumber. Out of all the candidates, he performed the best. His one liners like, "You know the war in Iraq is going well since it's no longer on the cover of the New York Times" struck a chord with conservatives. I like his positions. I like what he believes in. He is a true Reagan conservative, but he is barely scraping the single digits in the primaries and polls. One is forced to ask – Does Fred really want the job? I am not sure if an avuncular, laid-back, staid character can beat a Democrat in this general election.

Ron Paul – He does keep the debates lively, but he is a terrorist's best friend. He doesn't believe we should be anywhere except at home. I just wish Fox would have granted him the same courtesy ABC did, and not allow him in the debates. You know there is a problem when his followers are the neo-Nazis, the 9/11 truthers, and every other fringe group on the planet.

John McCain – This is a guy who still doesn't get it. He is too old, but that is not even half the problem with McCain. McCain does not have a conservative base. Independents are voting for him, not conservatives. Any time he was battling on the Senate floor, it was against his fellow conservatives, never against the liberals.

What do conservatives like about McCain? He is prolife. he is pro nuclear power, he believes in cutting spending, and he is a great advocate against pork barrel spending. He would be good in the war on terror for the most part, but it stops there.

McCain is a thorn in the conservative's side on most issues. He wants to close Gitmo, and he is against interrogation techniques like water boarding which have proved to be very effective in finding terrorists - he calls it torture. He is against opening up Anwar for drilling for oil. He was against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. To be fair, he does say now, he wants to make these tax cuts permanent. These tax cuts have been credited with avoiding a recession after the dot-com crash and 9/11. He was the sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill. This bill was funded in large part by the left-wing Magnate George Soros. This turned out to be a very detrimental bill against the Republican Party. McCain has also fallen for the global warming scam, and wants to enact a carbon tax. John McCain engineered the gang of 14. This was an attempt to appease the left in the appointment of our judicial nominees. This riled his conservative base.

What put the nail in McCain's coffin, however, was his shamensty bill that he tried to shove down America's throat with his cohort Ted Kennedy. He went so far as to call those conservatives who disagreed with him xenophobes and on the wrong side of history. This was an immigration bill three times as thick as the Bible. January 10^th's debate still showed how clueless he was on the whole process. McCain now says he believes in a virtual fence, but doesn't mention a real fence. It doesn't help to have an open border's president who was in bed with the former president Fox from day one. Instead of importing Mexico's poverty, we should have been encouraging Mexico to foster free markets and to purge the country of its corruption. The American people do not trust the government, and until a fence is built across the border, the American people will continue to distrust the government. The laws on the books need to be enforced. The notion that you have to pick up 12 million illegals and deport them is a non-starter. By enforcing the laws already on the books, illegal immigration will begin to reverse itself. Illegals will continue to come and make the dangerous trek across the border if we continue to be a magnet. We build the fence, we enforce the laws, and then we can have a reasonable work program for those jobs Americans don't want. But each step has to be done independently and effectively before the next step can take place. I understand there are individuals who have been here their entire lives with illegal status through no fault of their own. These should be looked at on an individual basis. You can not solve the chaotic immigration mess by introducing more chaos.

McCain made a stunning admission last week saying he really doesn't understand the economy, but he was reading Alan Greenspan's book, The Age of Turbulence." I don't really want a president who doesn't understand the economy. Do you? McCain is a maverick who will have conservatives pulling their hair out in exasperation by the end of a McCain administration.

Mike Huckabee – Some evangelicals still have this suicide pact with Mike. It doesn't matter how disingenuous Mike is. As long as he says he is prolife and Christian, they will jump off the golden gate bridge with him. I have written extensively on the naïveté of Mike Huckabee from the economy to foreign policy. In one instance he stated, "I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Express last night." And to that I say Huh? On immigration, in his state he granted in-state tuition to illegals, but now on his website he has a nine point hard-line plan against illegals that he lifted from the pages of National Review. He saw the polls that he needed to be hard on immigration so he found a plan fast. So, one must question his authenticity. He recently came out and said we need a constitutional amendment against anchor babies. Illegals come here for the purpose of having their babies in the United States. This gives the baby citizenship, and allows the baby to petition his/her parents at the age of majority for immediate residency, and then grants the parents to petition their kids for immediate residency. This begins an unstoppable chain migration. I am for a constitutional amendment of this sort. But, make no mistake Huckabee is no conservative.

Rudy Guliani – I like Rudy Guliani, but his personal life is a weight around his neck that might cause him trouble. He is trying a dangerous strategy by ignoring the political process until Florida. If it works, it will be a work of genius. Ron Paul even beat him in New Hampshire. The beginning states do give candidates momentum; it allows them to raise money if they come in the top tier. Rudy is good on the war on terror. He is even good on the economy, supply-side economics, but he is prochoice and liberal on other social issues. He is better than most, and New York is a good example. He turned that city around. But, in California, conservatives voted for Arnold Schwarznegger instead of Tom McClintock believing Arnold was the only one who could beat the Democrat governor Gray Davis, and now Arnold has turned out to be a nightmare. What we have in California is just another Democrat in office. I do not believe Rudy will be anything like Arnold, but I am no longer convinced Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary.

Mitt Romney – He does need to win Michigan to continue to be a contender but, he may be the best choice with the most experience up against a Democrat. The more I listen to him the more I like. I am not too concerned about his Mormonism for this reason. I have known a lot of people who are Mormons, and they are good people. When one is brought up in a faith their entire life, it is very difficult to leave that faith unless there are some extraordinary circumstances. You bring up your children in that faith. By leaving the faith, you are basically saying that what you lived was a lie, not something easy to do. I also believe that if one were to study Mormonism, there would be no other conclusion one would come to except that Mormonism was based on a lie. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology stated, "If you want to become rich beyond your imagination, create your own religion." But, unless one actually made the effort to study his own religion outside of what his religion teaches, why would he leave? We know this - Mitt Romney does stand for both the social, foreign and economic values that conservative Christians stand for.

There was huge controversy with President Kennedy and his Catholicism. Catholicism isn't considered a cult, but Kennedy was sleeping with every woman he encountered, so as John Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"

Romney was at one time prochoice, but he now states his is prolife. I take him at his word. With Huckabee it's different, because Huckabee changes his mind on a dime.

As governor in 2005, Romney wrote the following:

I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."

Romney has the most experience of all the candidates. As CEO of Bain & Company, he successfully turned the company around. In 2002, he took the helm of the troubled Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, and cleaned it up turning the financial problems into a profit. As governor of liberal Massachusetts, he addressed the immediate problems of Massachusetts failed health care policy.

He also understands the true threat of Islamic terrorism.

In 2007, Romney stated at a conference held in Sea Island Georgia:

Now, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative. Neither was Ronald Reagan, by the way. And perhaps some in this room have had the opportunity to listen, learn, and benefit from life's experience - and to grow in wisdom, as I have. My life experience convinced me that Ronald Reagan was right. I'm a conservative that gets the job done. And you don't just have to take my word for it; you can just look at my record."

If we want to win elections, we need to embrace Reagan conservatism not abandon them. When Obama speaks of change, he speaks of socialism and raising taxes. I for one don't want that kind of change. When he speaks of unity, he speaks of agreement with the Democratic Party. We have a two party system because we do not have unity – isn't that the point?

Anyone of the Republican candidates will be 100 times better than any of the Democratic candidates except maybe Ron Paul.

Conservatives need to rally around whoever the nominee is and vote this election season, because the worst of all worlds would be to have a Democrat in power. With a Democrat, we would be defenseless in the war on terror, and we would head towards the socialism of Europe and the populism of Latin America.

 

 

 

 

Mike Huckabee lies again - UPDATE

From Saturday night's debate


From www.michellemalkin.com

Huckabee accused Romney of not supporting the surge before he did. Romney campaign sends this in rapid response…

Tonight, Huckabee Accused Gov. Romney Of Not Supporting The Troop:

Huckabee Said He Supported The Surge Before Romney. “I supported the president in the war before you did. I supported the surge when you didn’t.” (ABC/WMUR, [Unverified Transcript], Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/5/08)

One Year Ago, Gov. Huckabee Did Not Offer His Support For The Surge:

Gov. Huckabee, January 2007: “Well, I’m Not Sure That I Support The Troop Surge.” MSNBC’s NORAH O’DONNELL: “We have a Rudy Giuliani, who supports the president’s plan on Iraq. We have Governor Mitt Romney, who also supports a troop surge. How are you different from any of those candidates.” HUCKABEE: “Well, I’m not sure that I support the troop surge, if that surge has to come from our Guard and Reserve troops, which have really been overly stretched.” (MSNBC’s “Live,” 1/24/07)

Huckabee will do whatever it takes to get elected and his gullible flock of evangelicals will give him a pass. See post below

Mike who?

"I would rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian" Martin Luther

I believe Huckabee will be a trivia question in a few years from now. He will not get the nomination (I believe) , but what happened in the Iowa Caucuses is disturbing.

I am an evangelical Christian, and something happened yesterday that I long believed. There is a contingent of evangelicals out there that will blindly follow a man regardless of who he is for the mere fact that he says he is a Christian and pro-life. The obdurate conscience of these evangelicals is not easy to change irrespective of any facts that might be presented.

We always hear about the elder who swindled his congregation out of lots of money from some scheme he cooked up, because the congregation trusted him. On the one hand, the congregation wants to trust everyone regardless of who the person is under the false assumption that this is what the Bible teaches. Unscrupulous people choose churches because they understand the gullibility of church-goers. All evangelicals are guilty of this to some extent. Even in our church, there have been people who attended asking for money and once given the money, the person was never to be seen again. The evangelical needs to scrutinize more, and stop blithely following his faith with his/her eyes shut.

In the lips of him that hath discernment wisdom is found; But a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding Proverbs 10:13

 It didn’t matter that Huckabee understands nothing on foreign policy, and that he wants to play Kumbaya politics with terrorist countries. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019217.php

 It didn’t matter that Huckabee’s liberal agenda was one of raising taxes and spending http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2007/12/man-behind-rhetoric-mike-huckabee.html

 It didn’t matter that Huckabee is a protectionist proving his ineptitude about how protectionism has always destroyed economies.

 It didn't matter that Huckabee received the endorsement of the Leftist NEA. The NEA has never before endorsed a Republican candidate.

 It didn’t matter that Huckabee went on the Jay Leno show saying that he did not know there was a strike when in fact he did know. This was proven later by the fact he went in to the show through another entrance to avoid the picket lines.

 It didn’t matter that he decried the current administration’s foreign policy by saying Bush possessed a “go-it-alone arrogant bunker mentality.”

 It didn't matter that he ran afoul of the Arkansas ethics committee during his tenure as governor, which resulted in the payment in several thousand dollars of fines.

 It didn’t matter that he said he was not going to show a negative ad by showing it to the press knowing it would be shown free nationally including Iowa. (He lied).http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2007/12/ad-that-was-not-to-be-by-mike-huckster.html


 It didn’t matter that this negative ad which denounced Mitt Romney’s ads for not being truthful was not truthful either. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_attack_ad_runs_after_all.html

 It didn’t matter that he lied about having a theology degree when in fact he doesn’t.

In spite of it all, the evangelicals showed up in droves at the Iowa Caucuses (60% were evangelicals) for the simple reason that Huckabee says he is a Christian and pro-life. Dr Phil, says, “Past Behavior is indicative of future behavior,” but for this contingent of evangelicals it didn’t seem to matter. His past behavior didn’t matter. What mattered was what he said period.

Would these same evangelicals follow a man over a cliff as long as he said he was Christian and pro-life.

That is a recipe for disaster.