An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Archive for 20 December 2007
One of my readers suggested that, no matter who the Republican nominee is, the 2008 GOP primary will be marked by a tear between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives have looked at Rudy Giuliani leading the national polls for much of the year, and asked in disbelief to their coalition partners, â€˜how can you support that guy?â€™ Now fiscal conservatives, and perhaps hawks, are looking at Huckabee and asking the same question to social conservatives.
This reader contended that even if some consensus nominee wins, both factions will look at the other with greater suspicion. “Yeah, we’ve been through a lot of fights together since the 1970s, but how can I trust them as allies when they were eager to give the nomination to that guy?”
This leaves me confused as to what kind of conservative I am, because I’m sitting in the middle and asking both of these questions. If you really think about it they are the same question. How can you support a liberal for the nomination? This question is even more frustrating when we have solid conservatives to choose from. Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter would do just fine. They are candidates that both factions of the party could rally behind, but for some reason my fellow evangelicals have been enamored by the Baptist preacher image. My criticisms of Huckabee have nothing to do with him being an evangelical, but about him being a liberal. Don’t get me started on Rudy.
I’ve been wondering what’s with all the division myself. When did the Republican party become so extremely divided? Aren’t Pubbies suppose to be the party of conservatism? Not just fiscal, not just social, but totally conservative?
I’m not a one issue voter. I’d prefer if the candidate was ‘right’ on all the issues I consider important, but odds are, that’s not really possible. For example, if I have six issues I’m very passionate about, and there is one candidate who satisfies 5 of those issues, 2 who are with me on 4, 2 who stands on only 1 or two issues, who do you think I’m going to support? The one who is against the majority of my beliefs? I don’t think so! I’ll be supporting the guy…or lady….who is strong on those five.
I don’t understand someone who claims to be conservative, yet supports someone who is anti everything what I believe conservatism stands for, and pro what the other side sees as important. (This is why I find it so amazing that the ‘polls’ claim Rudy Guiliani is out front.)
The real question should be: Who will be the strongest Commander in Chief?
To answer that question, you should look at each and every candidate, on both sides. Does this candidate support our military? Does that candidate want to protect the citizens here at home? Does that guy believe in growth, or does she want to take away profits and distribute them to others who didn’t earn them? Is there anything positive about stripping citizens of their rights to placate a few ‘squeaky wheels’? Does this one believe oppressive taxation? Does that one believe people can make better decision how to spend, or save, their own money? Is preserving life important? Should people be accountable for their actions?
The list of questions is long, as it should be. The answers could mean the survival of the United States.
My most sincere apologies, but your recent behavior has left me with no choice but to ban future comments. While you may not be aware, this blog is read by quite a few people in many different states, and a number of different countries. Remember this the next time you decide to comment in any public forum.
One piece of advice:Â Humor is a wonderful thing.
H/T: Texas Fred
Looks like B. Hussein doesn’t fall into that category.
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature â€” to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted â€œpresent,â€ effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
Sometimes the â€œpresentâ€™ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.
If a man won’t stand up for what is right, even if it’s not popular, I sure as hell do NOT want him in charge of an entire country.
Voting present â€œwas a standard practice in Illinois,â€ Mr. Obama said Thursday in an appearance on ABCâ€™s Good Morning America show.
Well, then, there are some pretty linguine spined types in Illinois, now aren’t there.
Mr. Obamaâ€™s aides and some allies dispute the characterization that a present vote is tantamount to ducking an issue. They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy.
If he believe they were ‘unconstitutional’ then he should have voted NO.
I’m not too fond of any ‘lawmaker’ voting ‘present’. They are either for, or against, an issue. Show some cajones for the love of pete!
Nabbed from Ick!
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committeeâ€™s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears â€œbite the dust.â€ In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new â€œconsensus bustersâ€ report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
â€œMany of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,â€ Paldor wrote.
What a shocker! There are scientists who debunk the church of global warming and can’t get published.Â We DO still have a 1st Amendment, don’t we?Â Granted, that doesn’t mean much in the rest of the world, but it sure as hell mean a LOT to me!
Read the rest.
Republican Fred Thompson said Thursday there should be few if any exceptions when it comes to enforcing U.S. immigration laws, or the flow of illegal immigrants would continue.
Thompson was responding to a question from a man who told of a friend who is a chicken farmer and has to hire workers from Mexico, hoping they have legal status.
While the U.S. president represents that chicken farmer, Thompson said, he also represents millions of other people and future generations who want the nation’s laws enforced.
“It is not good, in my opinion, for our country to start becoming dependent on a constant flow of illegal immigrants that are usually less educated and come here only because they’ll work cheaper than somebody else will,” he said. “And when and if they were to assimilate into American society, we would need another 11 or 12 million (illegal immigrants), and another 11 or 12 million after that.”
Thompson said the legal immigration system in the U.S. has inefficiencies and people get caught up in the bureaucracy. But he said the rule of law must be the top priority.
“We have to look out No. 1 for what is right, what is the law. If you’re coming and saying ‘It’s against the law, but,’ I think you’ve got to have a very good reason, and I very seldom see a reason that justifies the ‘but’ if it’s against the law.”
This ain’t rocket science people! You have an invasion, mostly coming from the south, and the only way to stop it is to enforce the law. How hard is that to understand?
When the same man pressed Thompson further to talk about his plan for illegal immigrants already in the country, the former Tennessee senator said he believes the issue will be resolved through “enforcement by attrition.”
Thompson proposes cutting off incentives to illegal immigrants. That means keeping employers from hiring them in the first place, and sealing the borders to keep illegal immigrants going back and forth between jobs and family. He said it also means shutting down sanctuary cities and keeping illegal immigrants from getting college and other breaks.
What person, in their right mind, believes that giving “freebies” to those who break the law is a good idea, and will stem the flow?
After the event, Thompson was asked by reporters what should happen to children who are born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. _ making the children citizens _ if their parents are deported.
“The parents make that decision, just as parents would under any circumstances,” he said. “If they are going to be leaving the country, I would expect them to make the decision to take their child with them. But, if they make other arrangements with a loved one or someone who is here for that child, then they could do that, too.”
End the ‘anchor baby’ nonsense. How many women have made their way across the border, illegally, just to give birth, believing they’ll have a free ride?
When asked if the policy allowing those children to have U.S. citizenship should be altered, he said that would require a difficult change to the Constitution.
“That’s not really as much of a current issue in terms of our illegal immigration problem as chain migration is,” he said. “These children can be used as so-called anchor babies and they can grow up and bring in many, many other members of their family. I think that ought to be limited … to spouses and children. I think that’s where our concentration needs to be focusing.”
The 14th Amendment gave citizenship to freed slaves, and that was a very good thing. Using that same amendment as a tool for illegals is not.
President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shared a laugh yesterday at the Department of Energy. The House approved a $555 billion bill 272-142 to finish work on the Hill for the year. Mrs. Pelosi called it “the will of the Congress.”
Excuse me?? The ‘will of the Congress’? Since when it is the will of the Congress?? Hey bimbo….it’s the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! Ya twit! YOU work for US!
As many as 1 million teachers, school administrators, support workers and school volunteers will undergo criminal history reviews â€“ including fingerprinting of all educators â€“ under a massive school safety effort that will begin next month.
Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott and other officials spelled out details of the four-year program Wednesday, saying it will ensure that school districts don’t hire individuals who might pose a threat to children.
Obviously, this is way past due! If they really CARE about the kids, the unions won’t have an issue. Naturally, they will though, cuz it’s not really about the kids, it’s about THEM!
A West Memphis police officer responsible for the shooting death of a 12-year-old boy says he is resigning from the force to take a better-paying job, but also in order for the community to begin healing.
Sgt. Erik Sammis, whose last day is Friday, laid out his reasons for resigning in an impassioned letter released Wednesday by Chief Bob Paudert.
The loss of a child is never easy. Being the cause of that loss must be just as difficult. Pray that the healing of a community can begin.
One of three British residents newly returned from the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was ordered Thursday to face an extradition hearing for allegedly belonging to an al-Qaida terrorist cell in Spain.
Jamil el-Banna, 45, of Jordan, flew back to Britain under police guard late Wednesday, five years after he was seized in Gambia and handed over to U.S. authorities.
El-Banna, who appeared in a London court with a long straggly gray beard, said he would refuse to go to Spain voluntarily. Prosecutors accuse him of belonging to an al-Qaida terror cell between 1996 and 2001.
Although he was granted bail, his extradition hearing was set for next month.
Bail? They granted this excrement bail????
Before the next bullet kills:
Police want to get tougher with handling of non-fatal shootings
In an effort to reduce overall gun violence and homicides, the Milwaukee Police Department is looking for ways to beef up its investigations of non-fatal shootings, a commander said Wednesday.
By treating non-fatal shootings more like homicides, police hope to prevent killings and send a message to the community that any gun violence will be treated very seriously by the department, said Capt. David Zibolski, head of the Homicide Division.
What a novel idea! Treating shootings as a ‘real’ crime. (just a hint of sarcasm)
Bruce Shortt, a nationally-recognized expert on home schooling, says a case in Utah in which a home-school mother was threatened with jail time if she did not enroll her children in public schools is just the latest example of how liberals want government to take control away from parents.
Denise Mafi home schools her three children, but she has been forced to enroll them in the government-run school system. The problem started when Mafi sent in her home-school affidavit to the school district, which it claims it did not receive. Mafi says the school district is the one who lost it. As a result, Judge Scott Johansen, whom Mafi describes as “extremely anti-home schooling,” ordered her to enroll the children in public school.
There’s a darn good reason more and more parents are home schooling.
U.S. soldiers carrying out operations in volatile Diyala province north of Baghdad found mass graves next to a torture center where chains were attached to blood-spattered walls and a metal bed frame was still connected to an electrical shock system, the military said.
The grisly discoveries of the mass graves and torture center near Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, came during a Dec. 8 to Dec. 11 operation that also saw multiple battles between American troops and militants. The military said it killed 24 insurgents and detained 37 others during the operation.
Until the Iraqi people run these SOBs out of their country, they will continue to find such places.
In the latest poll of Republicans likely to vote in the January 3 Iowa caucuses, Rep. Ron Paul is tied with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani — for fourth place.
Paul and Giuliani each polled the support of 8 percent of likely caucus voters, just behind former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who received 9 percent support.
Paul, Giuliani and Thompson all trailed the leading candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, by double-digit margins.
Fourth place is a good spot for them both! Absolute last would be even better.
Right now, we are having a nice thunder storm.Â Yeah.Â As long as I have no place to go today, I don’t mind the rain at all.Â The problem is, when you have satellite internet, your connection comes and goes.Â It’s not the lightening, it’s the heavy rain that causes the problem.Â This annoys me.Â And without my computer, I’ll actually have to DO something….like laundry, or some other irritating chore that is absolutely necessary for the running of a household.Â Well, depending on whether or not we lose electricity.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a ‘legend’.
Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.
This is true. It doesn’t say there were three. Or, that they were kings. Mathew 2:1 – After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem. It could have been one really smart guy from somewhere east of Jerusalem, and that covers quite a bit of territory.
The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.
Maybe, maybe not. I wasn’t there. But just where would the owner of the stable keeps his critters at night? In the living room? And wasn’t Mary riding a donkey? What did they do with it?
He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was “very unlikely”.
What were the weather patterns 2000 years ago? Do we know for sure it never snowed?
In a final blow to the traditional nativity story, Dr Williams concluded that Jesus was probably not born in December at all. He said: “Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival.”
Again, true. We don’t know when Christ was born exactly. Some say around August or September, others have claimed in March or April. And again, does it matter? The early church wanted to draw people away from their pagan rituals. Since there is no exact date for Christ’s birth, it does make sense for them to set aside one particular in that time frame to counter the pagans.
Gervais told Dr Williams he was concerned about “brainwashing” of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas.
As compared to ‘brainwashing’ kids to believe albore is a prophet, as in the ‘church of liberalism’? Gimme a break! There is a major difference. The belief in Santa Claus is believing in the spirit of giving. You know, that selfless act of not expecting anything in return? Something that seems to have been lost. John 3:16 – For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Having faith in something Greater than you is a bad thing? Teaching kids it’s not ok to steal, lie, cheat, to respect their parents, and to forgive is a bad thing? Teaching them there are consequences for their actions is a bad thing? Well, if that’s true, then bring on said “bad things”, cuz Heaven knows, we could sure use it right now!