One. Mark Steyn takes on extremist Muslims in Canada — and absolutely shreds them.
If you’ve been following the Canadian government attempts to quash free speech in Canada at the behest of extremist Islam, you need to see this interview. Heck, watch it anyway. It’s a very long clip, but well worth your time.
The three young Muslims are well spoken, but they come off as absolutely whining. I say this objectively! People have a right to say their piece. They DON’T have the right to A) have an audience or B) prevent someone else from having his say.
Two. A belated happy Mother’s Day to all you Moms out there. This was played in my church on Sunday, Absolutely hilarious. The lyrics are in the expandable column on the right-hand side at the link here.
Three. If you missed the “Battle at Kruger” on Sunday’s National Geographic Channel, you can catch a repeat performance at midnight on May 14, 4 p.m. May 18 and 4 p.m. May 22.
Here is part of the Nat Geo special that deconstructs the battle. The special was quite valuable because it explained that the bull leading the water buffalo was young and inexperienced, as were the six lions, which helped set up the chaotic nature of the fight.
Four. It’s stuff like this that gives Christianity a bad name. Every time I see one of these late-night preachers, they’re always asking for money. And more money. And still more money.
Can anyone find in the gospels where Jesus told people they needed to bring Him money before He would give His forgiveness, His grace, His love? Can anyone find a scripture reference to setting up “seed money” for getting rich and healthy? Can anyone cite where Paul, Peter or John — or Moses, Isaiah or Daniel — preached that you must send a $$$ donation in order to reap riches and health and peace of mind on this earth?
Good grief. First off, if this were really true, everyone would be doing it. Second, this man will not save your marriage or your mortgage or your health if you make him rich. Turn to the Lord, not phony “pastors.”
Posted by Republicanpundit on May 14th, 2008 in Uncategorized
The dye is set. Liberals are already telling the white folks they should not use race to vote against Obama, meanwhile, 92% of black folks are voting for him and there does not seem to be a problem.
That is going to be the mantra for the next five months.
I own my vote. Nobody else does. I will vote, or not vote for someone for any reason I want, and it is nobody else’s business.
You are a young man who suffers from seizures as a result of a childhood injury. Your own limitations have inspired you to teach children with disabilities. In order for you to pursue that noble career, you must employ the use of a dog who can signal you when a seizure is coming, and carries a pack containing items for people to use to help you in the event you are disabled by a seizure. The dog is essential for you, without him you cannot do your job. In many ways he is your hero at the ready.
You’ve completed most of your education and now you must have classroom experience. Many of your students are muslims who say that your dog offends them. You know that many muslim taxi drivers will not transport blind people with seeing eye dogs, but it never occurred to you that the presence of your dog in the classroom could create such hostility.
A young Somali student threatens to kill your dog. The school officials defend the religious freedom of that child, claiming it is a ‘misunderstanding’. Still you fear for the safety of your dog, and in turn your own safety. The dog is not only your loyal companion but he is a working dog.
It’s probably not the kind of ringing endorsement John McCain would like to see or hear but it’s the best I can do. There is a lot of discontent, still, with our apparent nominee, the results of which is a great deal of crosstalk and name-calling within the Republican Party. When pointing out why there is this discontent, people were told they couldn’t vote for whomever they previously supported, that they had to vote for McCain. Those same ones who would order our vote also extrapolate that our vote must be accompanied by monetary support. On the one hand, those people are right. On the other, they have no right to order anyone else to do as they’re told.
This “shut up and get in line” attitude is a symptom of a larger problem, not only with the Republican Party but politics in general across all parties.
First, let’s look at how those who would “order” us to vote for McCain are wrong. They have not the right to order our votes to their satisfaction while we have the right to use our vote however we please. Our right to our own vote at our own discretion is one of the hallmarks of a free people. If our votes are ordered, how is the Republican Party any different from the Democratic Party with their superdelegates who can override the will of the people? To go down this path is to submit to the will of an elite governing body which is anathema to the founding precepts of this nation.
Those who would order our votes are right in the sense that protest voting does nothing but give more power to others who might cause more damage than the one we are protesting. Along with the right to vote, we have a duty to choose from among the proffered candidates the one who is likely to do the least amount of damage during his term of office. I honestly believe John McCain will do the least amount of damage during his term than either Obama or Clinton, whichever finally gets the nod from the superdelegates.
While I have a lot against McCain, there are some things upon which I can agree with him. I agree upon nothing with either Democrat candidate. This election year is a perfect storm brewing. When Noam Chomsky can admit loudly and publicly that “they” no longer have to hide their true agenda, you begin to see the consequences of electing either Democrat to the office of the Presidency. With what is sure to be a Democratic majority in both Houses with the kind of agenda the Democrats are advocating, there is no limit to the number of attacks to our freedoms they can launch, while conversely calling it freedom, selling us a false bill of goods.
We don’t have the luxury of “teaching the Republicans a lesson” this election if we are to avoid the communist/socialist state that is to be imposed upon us by allowing the Democrats full power. There are any number of attrocites with which they can hit the people broadside, including rewriting our Constitution to harness more power to themselves.
If you think this duty is too onerous, think about the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the White House and Pentagon try to paint a unanimous opinion that the soldiers want to be there doing what they’re doing, we know deep down that isn’t so. There will be some, although perhaps only a small minority, who don’t want to be there, don’t believe in the mission there, but who are still there doing their duty. If they can do their duty when their lives are on the line, how small a duty is it for us to vote the path of least damage?
On the bright side, just because we might be “required” to vote for McCain, it doesn’t mean we have to cast our votes, sit at home, and wait for doom. Nor does it mean that we have to financially support this candidate as some claim. To me, a financial donation is like giving tacit approval to a candidate with whom I have strong disagreements, thereby compromising my own principles in the bargain. If I compromise my principles once, I’ll be expected to do so again and nothing will ever change. We will have given them the power to continue moving away from the principles that made this country exceptional. I can’t do that. Others may not have that problem but that’s their decision.
Instead, now is the time to become ever more active and let it be known that while we might not have much choice this election, we find this candidate lacking in profound ways and continue to hold the “conservative” feet to the fire in this election and those to come.
This the most amazing viral vid I’ve seen in a while: Lions vs. water buffalo vs. crocs. Big hat tip to Ace of Spades. For some reason I missed it the first time around, but it has 30 million hits on YouTube and won YouTube’s 2007 award for eyewitness video. More here.
Brings back memories of the Old Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom.
Great comment by “Spartan” on Ace’s site: “Yawn. You can see this every Sunday from the first week in September to January. The Detroit Lions race to an early lead, sit on it, then lose in the end.”
Two. This is the most hilarious and sidesplitting political parody since Jib-Jab’s 2004 “This Land Is My Land” sung by Bush and Kerry. No, scratch that. This is far superior.
Attack of the Show on the G4 cable network did a little reworking and slight rewriting.
Warning: put down your drink. NOW.
Hail Cobra!
Three. You’ve undoubtedly heard of Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled. It’s making waves, all right. Atheists definitively don’t like it. Those like NRO’s John Derbyshire dismiss it and anything related to God creating the world as—my words here—absurd piffle.
What I like about Expelled is that it asks questions—questions that are not supposed to be asked, because like global warming, the matter of evolution versus God creating the world “has been decided,” thank you very much. Whether you think intelligent design is a valid theory or not, whether it’s pseudo-science or plausible, it deserves to be explored and NOT dismissed out of hand because people who believe in God (and even some who still question God) are challenging the church of Darwinism.
Here’s the extended (7-minute) trailer for the film that explores just such questions that aren’t allowed to be asked in schools:
What’s wrong with following the evidence where it leads? Why are we continually being force-fed Darwinism when our naturally curious minds challenge Darwinism? This leads to the next point.
Their sneering, elite condescension is fast becoming the norm for today’s militant atheism. The first one, Dr. P.Z. Meyers, says with nobles oblige that atheists don’t want to take away religion from believers because that would be like taking away your comforting knitting. Oh, how snobbinsh can you get, sir?
Don’t ever believe today’s militant atheists when they say they have nothing against religion or don’t want to take it away. THEY DO. Their aim is to destroy all religion, which they believe will open up a glorious age of scientific advancement.
Never mind that the vast majority of the world’s greatest universities were founded by Christians. Never mind that such clowns as these three militant atheists are standing on the shoulders of giants in the sciences, who were themselves Christian or believers of another faith. Never mind that science has not once disproven anything in the Bible. Seriously—science never has. Not archeology, not physics, not medicine…
Atheists have theories, which Dawkins describe as so “beautiful.” And God has truth, which is the essence of beauty.
This whole Darwinism vs. creationism argument is yet another fight in which both sides are at loggerheads. And even though my sympathies are with creationism, I really do find the offensive sneering and jeering coming more often from the other side. However, a rejoinder that comes from the creationist side — “have fun in hell!” — does absolutely no good. (I know, I’ve stupidly and shamefully used it myself.) I like Ben Stein’s approach better. Let’s ask questions instead. Lay out the facts, not accusations. Lay out the competing theories, not sneering condecension.
Five. When the James Franco World War I action/adventure movie Flyboys was first promoted in the summer of 2006, I was quite happy. Finally, a modern movie featuring American fighter pilots in the Great War! But I never saw it in the theaters, even though the trailer looked great, because the reviews utterly panned it.
Well, I finally saw it this week, and it wasn’t half bad, even though the amazing historical inacurracies — some of them incredibly and bafflingly bad — were quite annoying. How hard is it to make a movie that’s thrilling, exciting AND true to history? Good grief. Many of the numerous mistakes would be known only to those who know something about World War I airplanes, tanks and the actual timeline of history, except for the annoying portayal of dogfighting as if they were using jet planes instead of early biplanes and triplanes. A couple of the situatiuons are so laughable as to be insultingly riduculous, especially one scene where the main hero lands his plane in the middle of No Man’s Land to rescue a fallen team mate trapped under his plane. The whole scene is so stupid that I want the movie’s makers to tell me that something like that actually happened, instead of the director, producer, etc. holding their audience in such contempt that they would think we’d accept such a scene without laughing out loud.
Anyway, end of rant. Here is the trailer from that movie:
What a wasted opportunity to make a far better movie. SIGH.
It’s a shame such a brilliant conservative mind has so much trouble with his ego. Don’t get me wrong, OC was a little bit entertaining at first. But, for me, it got old fairly quickly.
In all honesty, I hope it’s over. It is time to get serious about taking on the Dems and their destructive policies for this country.
Looks like Obama takes North Carolina and Hillary takes Indiana. No surprises.
Hillary survives, and will most likely easily win the next contests, West Virginia and Kentucky.
UPDATE 9 p.m.:
So…what’s next? I mean, after WV and KY? Tonight may most likely mean that more superdelegates will commit to Obama, making him the all-but-assured noiminee. Why, you say? Hillary’s margin in Indiana doesn’t appear to be all that impressive, while Obama’s in NC appears commanding. (That could change when final numbers are in, but we’ll see.) I wouldn’t call Hillary a spoiler — far from it, because she really is in this to win, and has a decent chance — but Obama appears to have had a better night than she did.
Bottom line, this thing isn’t over. Not by a long shot.
UPDATE 9:20 p.m.:
I wonder if Obama supporters think that Obama’s overwhelming claim to the black vote by 91 to 6 in North Carolina is in any way troubling? What this and similar margins tell me is that it doesn’t matter what Obama says or does or who he associates with. He’s teflon to them. Considering that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between his positions and Hillary’s (or Edwards, Dodd’s, Richardson’s or the other hapless defunct Dem candidates, for that matter) then the only conclusion is that they vote for him because he’s black.
Is that the change that black Americans really want? A president who has the same skin color? That’s not change. Obama makes excuses for the same failed things that have kept blacks down since the post-Civil Rights era — everything his ex-pastor/spiritual mentor/representative of the black community “rev.” Wright stands for. Is that the “change” they really want? Good grief.
UPDATE 11:30 p.m.:
Could Hillary lose Indiana too? It’s now 51-49, with 92% reported. Whether she barely wins or barely loses, look for a hard push to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates.
UPDATE 12:20 a.m.:
Hillary’s barely won Indiana, but I agree with Steve (in the comments) that her poor showing tonight means that, despite her certain victories in WV and KY, she won’t be the nominee. However, I still don’t think it’s over until I actually hear her say “it’s over” and “I release all of my delegates to Barack Obama.” Until that happens, it’s still game on. (Or Obama is actually nominated, whichever comes first.)
It’s just awful: 10,000 people alone in one town in Burma from the cyclone that recently roared through. British aide workers fear that as many as 50,000 or more may be dead; we don’t know because Burma’s rulers are, well, what they are.
Help is pouring in from around the world, including from — yep — the United States.
Could this calamaty have been avoided? Yes, but that rant is for another time. Right now, they need help and prayers.
It hasn’t been an uphill climb, it’s been a vertical slope for conservatives in this election. Yet so many still have faith even after things like this:
John McCain is gambling on a general-election strategy that relies on winning over conservative Democrats and independents, breaking with President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 game plan of focusing on the party’s core voters.
“This time, we are working to get a larger share than normal of independents and conservative Democrats, mainly because our own base is narrower than four years ago,” said McCain campaign senior adviser Charles Black, who has been a part of every GOP presidential campaign since Ronald Reagan’s nomination run in 1976.
The Arizona senator has spent his time campaigning on Democrats’ ground since he sewed up the Republican nomination March 4.
He is on a weeklong tour to discuss his concern over health care costs, and recently completed a weeklong tour of impoverished areas where Republicans don’t often campaign. That included a high-profile visit to Inez, Ky., where former President Lyndon B. Johnson announced his war on poverty and the place former Democratic presidential hopeful and former Sen. John Edwards visited during his own populist campaign.
Some of Mr. McCain’s tactics make it seem as if he is chasing Mr. Edwards’ Democratic supporters by adopting a populist criticism of “greedy” corporate CEOs and by traveling to New Orleans to deliver a rebuke to Mr. Bush — the city Mr. Edwards used to launch, and later end, his own presidential bid.
And with this populist message, is McCain concerned that he might alienate his own base? No. It’s never been his strategy to win over conservatives:
Noting there are more Democrats and independents up for grabs than in recent elections, Frank J. Donatelli, the Republican National Committee’s deputy chairman, says Mr. McCain needs a center-right coalition to win, just as the Democrat will need a center-left coalition.
“We intend to beat them to the center,” he said.
The risk for Mr. McCain’s appealing to the center is that occasionally he will have to “cross pressure” his base on certain issues and causes, which inevitably will rub orthodox conservatives the wrong way and worsen his relations with them.
The problem is that McCain isn’t conservative. He is doing what he believes is right; he doesn’t believe in conservative principles. He has spent far too much time in Washington DC. He believes that the time is now to end the power of conservatives in the republican party. He thinks there is a vast middle of unmined voters, but there is a flaw in his thinking:
“It ignores the reality that it is the people on the right who are the activists in the party,” said pollster and strategist Michael McKenna, who said those voters make up Republicans’ get-out-the-vote effort.
“How is Ohio or Pennsylvania or Missouri going to be won by someone with no phone banks, no micro-targeting, no get-out-the-vote effort? Short answer: They are not going to be won. The fundraising numbers are a reflection of this phenomenon.”
In a year when the democrats have formed a circular firing squad, an effective conservative would walk away with this election but since we don’t have that, many of us have pinned our hopes on the VP selection, hoping that the bone McCain might toss his base is someone we can depend upon to bring our concerns to the table.
However this doesn’t lend any reason for conservatives to hope. With McCain opting for the middle, his Veep will likely be a moderate. Can McCain win enough democrats and independants?
My math suggests that means he is chasing about 8 percent of the electorate, while ignoring or angering about 40 percent — the self-identified conservatives,” Mr. McKenna said.
To some critics, Mr. McCain has acted as if he was somehow unaware of just how much his sponsorship of campaign finance regulations, one-time opposition to the Bush tax cuts and support of Mr. Bush’s immigration policies had infuriated some leaders and grass-roots activists on the right.
It isn’t a good sign that McCain is unaware of the principles of his own party. It isn’t a good sign that he is oblivious to the concerns of his ‘base’, and it isn’t a good sign that he campaigns in John Edward’s footsteps. It isn’t a good sign that John McCain is his own Rev. Wright…
For Labour, it was the worst election in 40 years. In a massive turnout, the Conservative Party took 256 seats in parliament, along with control of 12 town councils and 44% of the vote. Labour and moderate Liberal Democrats got to split the remains, and even the Liberal Democrats ,with 25%, won more than Labour.
The reasons cited in the article are as follows:
At a time of high oil prices, Labour taxed motor fuel and, for good measure, threw on a $16 daily “congestion tax” in the city of London. It also made a $5 billion raid on company pensions, which had been the best of Europe, and left British pensioners poorer.Prime Minister Gordon Brown also imposed a 10% payroll tax that was so ill-received it drove angry fishmongers in the Labour stronghold of Bury (now turned Tory) to yell “Brown Out” until the tax was withdrawn.
In London, green taxes were tacked onto everything from renewable-energy schemes to plastic bags. This month, Londoners are bracing for a $50-a-day tax to be slapped on those driving SUVs or luxury cars.
Labour officials were amazingly clueless about the burden these green taxes placed on ordinary Britons and merrily proposed more.
“If someone drops litter, they should be arrested,” Livingstone threatened during his campaign, thinking his resolve would impress rather than infuriate voters with its ecologically correct pettiness in a city otherwise awash in real crime.
Every tax and intrusion imposed by Labour in recent years was justified as being for voters’ “own good.” Ending global warming, reducing carbon footprints, lowering carbon emissions and raising public funding of renewable energy — all were excuses used to hit the voters’ pocketbook with more taxes.
Read the whole. The consequences of their policies should be a lesson to our own government. Given their propensity to use the same excuse as the British government: “Every tax and intrusion imposed by Labour in recent years was justified as being for voters’ “own good.”, I doubt they’ll take much notice of what happened there. Whether by a monarchy or a committee (in this case Parliament and the Labour Party) excesses are still excesses. How many times have we’ve heard that same tired excuse over the years with its ever more increasing use during the 2008 campaigns?
When members of the Kennedy dynasty endorsed Obama, I could see why they claimed he reminded them of JFK. Obama, himself, invoked Reagan a time or two drawing upon similarities. I found nothing wrong with that, in my, perhaps peculiar, worldview. However, the similarities turned out to be spun fantasies.
When you hear Obama giving speeches, you feel good. You feel good about yourself and the people around you. In the cold harsh light of day away from the speeches, you had to struggle to pinpoint anything of substance. This is why Obama couldn’t wrap up the nomination. The longer he took doing so, the more likely something would come along and derail his campaign, which is exactly what happened. His mentor, by Obama’s own admission, was found to be an America hater. Oh, they talk about the racism, the racist comments, and try to make it all about race, but the underlying sore was the hate America sentiment. America became everything bad once again and reduced Obama’s oratory to the same commonplace level as every other candidate in the race. That along with unguarded comments made to an elite group in San Francisco is making of Obama’s campaign the inevitable trainwreck.
Obama made people feel good. Mrs. Obama made people feel angry because she was angry. Obama has great oratory skill, which is something he has in common with both of the aforementioned presidents. I believe one of the reasons why Mrs. Obama was sent into a sort of exile was because she didn’t make people feel good. Given what has now been made public about the good Reverend, one can perhaps understand why. She and the reverend share the same worldview of America which has undone the feel good politics that husband and protege, respectively, tried to neutralize. While he can repudiate his erstwhile pastor, he can’t so easily repudiate his wife of many years.
While most won’t have the words to explain it, there are likely many of his supporters who feel betrayed right now, without really understanding why or how. He was their savior, although they couldn’t say from what, just as JFK and Reagan were saviors during their respective tenures. What they were being saved from was their own self-hate.
It wasn’t JFK’s policies, nor Reagan’s. It wasn’t their accomplishments nor their mistakes. They certainly weren’t infallible. However, both possessed in common, a deep abiding love for this country and its people. These things exuded from them every time they addressed the nation. It wasn’t just their oratory but the fact that their feelings for this country shone through the words. They told us we had reason to be proud of who we are and what we stand for and gave us more reasons, in case the ones we had weren’t enough. They celebrated the great things about this country while working on rectifying the bad.
That’s what we miss when we say we miss Reagan. We miss the celebration of America, with all its warts and blemishes, as well as its beauty marks. I feel badly for those who missed the Reagan years… and the Kennedy years. They don’t know what they missed and won’t understand it until they experience it for themselves.
I’m not going to revel in the opposition’s disappointment. Instead, I’m going to commiserate. We conservatives were looking for the same thing in a president and what we got was: John McCain.
It’s not about the long war. It’s not about the illegal immigration issues. It’s not about taxes and the federal deficit. Yet, at the same time it’s all of those things and more. If this country is to be turned around in the right direction, we need another Reagan, or JFK if you prefer, someone who’s deep and abiding love for this country and its people outweighs everything else.
Obama promised change and hope; the change and hope that most don’t have the words to express. He promised a greater America because he made the people feel good. Obama almost had it in his grasp, but the people found out that their savior has feet of lead, instead.
1 c. misinformation
1 c. deception
1 t. narcissistic agenda
2 heaping T. self-righteousness
1/4 c. stupidity
Mix these ingredients and set aside. Label it “Media”.
In small teacup add the following:
6oz. boiling hot voters looking for anything from tax relief to entitlements, depending on persuasion and level of dependence on government.
Let steep with
*illegal immigration
*higher prices - used to be called inflation
*national security concerns
*confusion on the environmental debate
Season to taste with doses of “Media” to confuse the issues and create a distraction.
Call this - “tempest in a teacup”
Serve with three of the worst candidates in the history of the country ripened with crooked fundraisers, stupid decisions, and phony preachers.
Voters will vomit it up and be forced to eat it again and again until they stand up and tell their leaders they have had enough.
I had a very interesting experience this morning. I called the Laura Ingraham Show and told her call screener I was deeply troubled by the voracity of consevative talk radio’s assault on Obama. I explained that Hillary could take this nomination away from Obama and, because she’ll be allowed to blur the lines and because McCain isn’t the strongest candidate, win this election in November. I said it bothered me that talk radio appears to be rooting for a Hillary candidacy. This took less than 10 seconds. He hung up on me. No “Thanks for calling” “Hold on, you’re wrong” or “Go to Hell!” He just hung up.
So, understanding the purpose of Operation Chaos (as stated by Rush Limbaugh) - to keep this nomination fight going through the Democrat convention and damage both candidates so much that neither can win - why is the assault largely against the weaker of the two candidates? Is it that a fight for the nomination, a Hillary win, and a Hillary presidency would be ratings (and financial) GOLD for talk radio?
It’s my contention that when in a gun fight you take out the other side’s best shooter first. Maybe that’s why OC bothers me so much. It seems more self-serving for conservative media and ratings than caring for who wins this election.
