A conservative voice
Ken Buck, the Weld County, Colorado District Attorney, is running for the US Senate seat that Michael Bennett was appointed to last year. Buck is quite a successful DA--crime is down 40% in Weld County--with a good sense of humor, common sense, and a down-to-earth demeanor.
I met him at a meet and greet session Friday Nov 15th at the El Paso County Republican Party headquarters. He answered every question plainly and directly, starting out with several of his own topics. The first was the problem of education which he said was made worse by federal government interference. The second was the housing problem--the Feds created the problem by trying to social engineer home ownership. His third topic was the horrific state of US energy policy. The Department of Energy is a failure, he said. We should drill everywhere and exploit the natural resources of Colorado and elsewhere.
The Federal government should stay out of social issues according to Buck; instead, they should concentrate on what they're supposed to do but haven't been doing a good job of: securing our borders, fighting our enemies and maintaining a sound currency. He is for a strong defense but said that we simply can't afford to be in the empire-building business. In Afghanistan, for example, he says our goals ought to be to prevent a terrorist haven, stop the opium trade, and promote stability in Central Asia. As a DA, he is definitely not in favor of giving terrorists the civilian prosecution or closing Gitmo. read more »
Words have meaning and consequence
There are four ideas coming from the left that spell death for liberty and democracy. The first of these is "political correctness."
Political correctness is an attempt to control speech and ultimately thought by making it unacceptable to use certain words and phrases while at the same time promoting acceptable words and phrases. It began as early as the first century AD when the Roman writer Tacitus famously followed the literary convention of the time and called a "spade" an implement for digging. More recently, it's been around since the 1980s when conservative commentators started calling the left on it. Lesson one: the true believers of the left never give up.
Recently it's gotten a whole lot worse. There is no longer a "war on terror;" instead acts of terrorism are "man-made disasters." Illegal aliens are simply undocumented. The examples are legion.
At the same time, it is apparently just fine to refer to Tea Party protesters as "tea baggers" after some (fortunately) undefined homosexual practice and to label protesters at town hall meetings as "right-wing extremists."
What does all this political correctness get us? The shooting at Ft Hood by a man identified as having terrorist connections and ambitions. Although he was shot while in the act of shooting his defenseless fellow soldiers, the media continue to refer to him as "the alleged gunman." His terrorist connections were first revealed in the British press; only three days later did the information begin to appear here. read more »
Former Hitler Youth Warns America
Defeating the Totalitarian Lie by Hilmar von Campe, 2008. ISBN 978-0-9815091-9-8.
I had read about this book last fall when it was first released and, reading about it again recently, finally bought it and read it. I am certainly glad I did.
von Campe was forced to join the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) as an adolescent. Not a Nazi, he nevertheless fought what he believed was a patriotic war for Germany. After the war he came to realize the enormity of the crimes perpetrated by the German people in the name of National Socialism--and how the National Socialist Party fooled the German people into going along with it.
He became--in his words--a true Christian and joined movements for peace and reconciliation. He worked for them for over twenty years before becoming an entrepreneur and factory owner in Mexico; now he lives in the United States. Reading his background, one could easily believe he became a "peacenik" or some kind of radical anti-war leftist of the Code Pink variety. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And truth is his main theme. He faced the brutal truth of his and his country's Nazi past. He understands the truth of Marxist socialism as well and tells us how it is simply a variety of the same totalitarianism that motivated the Nazis. The same for radical Islam. All are equivalent forms of totalitarianism: what Mark Levin has called "statism;" the elevation of the state over the individual.
He believes that America today is moving in the direction of totalitarianism and he shows us how and why. It is a sobering analysis. What can overcome this march toward socialism? According to von Campe: only truth, embodied in moral renewal, and our love of freedom. read more »
How about Aiding the Enemy
Although Michelle Malkin makes an important case for 14 murder charges not 13 against Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadi murder suspect (shown in the accompanying UK Telegraph composite photo), there does appear to be at least one more charge that should be brought by his command against him.
Article 104 of the Uniform code of Military Justice defines the crime of Aiding the Enemy. This crime is committed by any person who, without proper authority, communicates or corresponds with the enemy, either directly or indirectly. Those who violate article 104 shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. (Complete text below)
The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the Congress on September 18, 2001 defines the authority to use military force against those nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.
ABC News reports Thursday evening that Hasan "used multiple e-mail addresses and screen names as he contacted several jihadist web sites around the world." ABC News also reports, "In addition to his contacts with suspected al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen, authorities said there is evidence he contacted other radical sites and individuals, including some in Europe." read more »
The problem with hate crime legislation is that it creates special classes of minorities who receive greater protection from harassment via harsher penalties for their would-be assailants. One upshot of this approach is that groups perceived as chronically threatened because of their identity are given greater benefit of the doubt in bias-motivated crimes they commit against other groups.
If there were ever a group that U.S. law should consider shielding through hate crime legislation, it is: Americans. The U.S. should be uniquely interested in protecting its citizens against attacks for being residents of this country, in the same way it protects its citizens against foreign attacks and its soldiers against enemies on the battleground.
If there were ever a setting in which pro-American hate crime protections should be enforced, it is in the military. American soldiers, more than any other group, actively display dedication to pro-American ideals.
If there were ever a cultural group in modern times that has demonstrated persistent, widespread hostility toward and willingness to engage in violent attacks against Americans, especially Americans in the military, it is radical Islamists.
Naturally, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, who adhered to extremist Islamist ideology, sought connections with Al Qaeda, and shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he massacred 13 soldiers and wounded dozens at Fort Hood last week, is being portrayed by the mainstream media and the present administration as a guy who needs OSHA counseling.
Muslim apologists have been telling us to not jump to conclusions (except that the killings were caused by stress), that the murders weren’t related to Islam, that it’s “speculation” that the military ignored warning signs regarding Hasan. We get clueless gems like this from the New York Times on Monday: “It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan.” Wusses like Lindsey Graham don’t help by claiming that the murders were “not about his religion—the fact that this man was a Muslim.” (Wait—isn’t that a conclusion?) It takes a hawk like Joe Lieberman to initiate hearings into Hasan’s conduct and the military’s failure to eject him for anti-American actions in which he engaged for years. read more »
The White House has announced plans to expand its Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. In an address to the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama said the office would reach out to nonprofit organizations and "help them determine how to make a bigger impact...and learn their obligations under the law." From a number of things said in the speech and that have transpired in relation to the economic bailout, those who cherish both religious liberty and sound theology should be deeply concerned.
Under the Bush Administration, those not wanting to pollute the purity of their doctrine by accepting government funds were pretty much free to say "No thank you". However, under the Obama regime, will reluctant religious organizations be permitted to back out amicably? Don't be so sure.
In regards to the bailout of the nation's floundering financial institutions, it has been insinuated that Wells Fargo did not want the government's handout but had its arm twisted by Lurch Jr, Hank Paulson into accepting the funds. For in the glorious opening days of socialism, no organization or individual can be seen as better or sounder than any other without at least some kind of penalty being inflicted.
If an administration at one time as dedicated as that of George W. Bush to liberty and free market principles can begin to nationalize the economy on the turn of a dime, then how much quicker will an administration already dedicated to socialistic principles such as experts being able to order your life better than you jump at the opportunity to manage the minutest aspect of our lives.? read more »
The surest sign that Obama’s presidency is going to turn out to like Bill Clinton’s is that he is already becoming a drag on the Democratic ticket, a state of affairs Clinton took a full six years to realize.
Obama followed around Democratic candidates Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Creigh Deeds of Virginia like a puppy for months during their gubernatorial campaigns. The President made two visits to Virginia to stump for Deeds and three to New Jersey to rally for Corzine, including stops in Newark and Camden two days before the election. On Sunday, Obama exhorted New Jersey crowds, “I want everybody in this auditorium to make a pledge that in these next 48 hours, you will work just as hard for Jon as you worked for me.”
In yesterday’s off-year elections, both candidates were soundly defeated.
In New Jersey, Obama beat McCain by a 16% margin in 2008; this year, the Republican beat the Democrat by 5%, for a 21-point reversal. This, despite the presence of a third-party candidate who took votes away from the Republican and a five-to-one Corzine-to-Christie spending ratio.
In Virginia, Obama beat McCain by 6% in 2008; this year, the Republican beat the Democrat by 18%, for a 24-point reversal. In both Virginia and New Jersey, independents—who voted heavily for Obama and other Democratic candidates in 2008—voted for the Republican candidate in 2009 by a 2-to-1 margin.
Meanwhile, Obama never showed his face in upstate New York’s 23rd congressional district, where Democratic candidate Bill Owens squeaked past Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman with a victory in Tuesday’s special election. Obama didn’t directly endorse liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava, but she received heavily publicized support from ACORN, Obama’s pet community organization, which helped solidify her lack of popularity and set in motion events that led to her withdrawal the weekend before the election. read more »
How Many Economists Does It Take To Enlighten Screw-ups?<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
By Lisa Richards
November 3, 2009
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” read more »
The early 21st century stands as a period of profound moral confusion. On the one hand, mothers and doctors are permitted to crack open the skulls and suck out the brains of nearly-born babies with government sanction under the banner of partial birth abortion. Should these very same people hike into the woods and crack open a bald eagle egg, they could face serious prison time.
It would therefore seem that contemporary society is marked by two seemingly contradictory extremes --- that of extreme license and that of excessive control. However, upon closer inspection it could be concluded that these conditions are not as contradictory as the situation might originally appear. Rather, it would seem each is the result of the systematic removal of the ethical balance provided within the Judeo-Christian tradition with its emphasis upon transcendent standards provided by an infinitely just and loving God.
With the increasing complexity of knowledge and technology, those trained in the acquisition and use of this complex body of thought (those broadly referred to as “intellectuals”) have taken on increased levels of influence and responsibility throughout society. No longer does agriculture or manufacturing dominate society to the degree it once did.
Futurists from Alvin Toffler to Newt Gingrich have characterized the current sociological epoch as information-based, with those manipulating this information from government bureaucrats to Hollywood producers exercising unfathomable power over the composition of the contemporary mind. Therefore, it must be remembered, as Lord Acton is believed to have said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” read more »
The problem with modern-day liberals’ penchant for implementing functions not allowed in the Constitution isn’t just that they’re sticking their noses where they shouldn’t; it’s that it’s distracting them from sticking their noses where they should.
Fresh out of the gate, President Obama decided to continue President Bush’s plan to take over the nation’s largest car companies and banks by tempting them with bailout funds, then tightening the noose and micromanaging them from Washington. Soon after, Obama decided to force taxpayers to guarantee virtually all U.S. mortgages, thus sticking a $5 trillion debt to people who had largely paid their mortgage bills on time. Recently, Obama decided to cap executive pay for banks that took bailout money, and has expressed an interest in monitoring the pay of even banks that didn’t take TARP money.
Congress is currently considering unconstitutional legislation—stalled only because it is trying to pass even bigger, more expensive unconstitutional legislation—to impose cap-and-trade regulations to restrict and tax the nation’s energy use.
This summer, Obama carried out an amusing little $3 billion scheme to pay car owners to destroy their used automobiles and buy new ones, a jaunt that resulted in no significant net energy conservation in the U.S., boosted the auto industries of Japan and South Korea, and hurt the American used car business.
Since July, Democrats’ pet project has been to take over the U.S. health care system. Not crazy enough to try to force through a single payer system, Senate Leader Harry Reid nonetheless went “rogue” on Monday, in defiance of Senate committee members and moderate Democrats, and announced that the Senate version of the health care reform bill would offer a public health insurance option, though such an option has zero chance of passing in the Senate. read more »
A North Carolina church plans to have a Halloween Bible and book burning.
This might get me branded as a flaming liberal by some, but unless a publication contains blatant smut, there is no excuse to burn books.
Even if translations such as the NIV or New Living Translations are deficient, that is still no excuse to burn them as many of these still possess the power of God unto salvation.
And even if Billy Graham and Rick Warren are deficient theologically, shouldn't we study their works to learn for ourselves where these thinkers have gone astray rather than blindly accept the word of someone that destroys the evidence before we have the chance to judge for ourselves?
If one feels so moved by the Spirit to dispose of a work that one feels has compromised ones conscience, there are ways to part with the offending text that don't draw attention. What one is actually saying at a public book burning is that no one else should be allowed to read the book either.
Unless one's faith is anchored in the Savior rather than the church, this outrage is almost enough to make one to want to leave Christianity.
by Frederick Meekins
The Democrats’ health care legislation, as is or in very similar form, cannot be passed. Every choice point they encounter from this stage on leads to an internal contradiction or a dead end. To use a mathematical metaphor, their situation is overdetermined: there are too many conflicting restrictions; there is no solution to their dilemma. (To use a liberal metaphor: It’s a slam dunk!)
Democratic proponents of health care reform have the following major goals:
(1) Create a federal public health insurance option to “compete with” private insurers, or
(2) Set up state cooperatives to “compete with” private insurers on a state-by-state basis;
(3) Prevent discrimination by insurance companies based on preexisting condition—i.e., forbid insurance companies from “providing insurance”;
(4) Limit the ratio of high-to-low insurance premiums by age group.
Whether pursuing any of these goals is the government’s business—and it isn’t—Democrats need to enact some combination of these proposals in order to fulfill their aim of turning us into Canada; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this will cost about $1 trillion.
Democrats have proposed numerous bad ideas for paying for their legislation, all of which lead to intractable circumstances that they cannot tolerate politically with the general electorate, even if they were able to figure out a way to cobble together, rush through, or force the votes in Congress to pass them, including: read more »
Congress is considering authorization of a tax deduction for pet expenses of up to $3500. Frankly, if you can’t afford to pay for your pet, you have no business owning a pet. Why should the rest of us have to pick up the tab for this? And unlike children, other than not deliberately running over it, I have no grand moral obligation to your pets. This is going to end up causing crazy cat people, who hardly pay any taxes anyway because of their near unemployability, to end up paying no taxes at all.
Van Jones is not only a professed Communist but also a high-ranking occultist as well. In an episode of PID radio, broadcasters Derek Gilbert and Doctor Future pointed out that Obama’s former special advisor for green jobs is also a fellow at the Institute For Noetic Sciences, a New Age think tank that researches “extended human capacities”, “integral health”, and “emerging worldviews”. These categories include psychic abilities, the survival of consciousness after death, and earth-worshipping pantheism.
Obama’s circle of advisors continues to grow more creepy and Nazi-like. Obama’s regulatory czar, who will play a pivotal role in overseeing how laws and policies are implemented, believes organs should be harvested from the terminally ill without their permission. WorldNetDaily reports Sustein as writing. “the state owns the rights to the body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions.” Before this is all over with and these tyrants driven from office, one of those “certain hopeless conditions” will no doubt be disagreeing with the Obama regime. read more »
A number of Hispanosupremacists contend that a Halloween costume titled “Illegal Alien” consisting of an extraterrestrial mask, an orange jumpsuit, and a piece of cardboard labeled “green card” will hurt their friends that are illegals.
Would they prefer the costume consist of a sombrero, a beer bottle, and a book of Foodstamps?
Frankly, since illegals don't belong here, rather than worry how this costume hurts illegals, maybe we should worry how illegals are hurting the United States.
I remember one time it being said "undocumenteds" should not be referred to as "aliens" because these human migrants are from the planet earth and should not be referred to "illegal" either because "no human being is illegal".
Yet I bet all this posturing never stopped them from calling the White folks naive enough to fall for all this nonsense stupid gringos.
Now it seems we can't even refer to aliens as aliens.
Mark my words eventually you won't even be able to refer to "extraterrestrials" as "extraterrestrials" since that will be a "thought crime against galactic unity".
If retailers such as Target cave to this pressure and remove the costume from sale, conservatives of all stripes and hues should rally to have Kwanza items banned as well.
That might be the celebration of an ethnic group not even a party to this dispute, but those participating in that celebration are part of the same mindset out to destroy America.
by Frederick Meekins
Shortly before the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama proclaimed before a cheering crowd of supporters, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.” That statement raises several immediate questions. First, does America need to be “fundamentally transformed”? Next, why does America need to be “fundamentally transformed”? And thirdly, what does Obama want to transform America into? To answer those three questions one must first know the answer to the more basic question, “what is America?” America has a relatively short history when compared to the longevity of other nations. Many nations have indeed been “fundamentally transformed” over the years. Coups and revolutions occur with frequency across the globe. In fact, the nation of the United States of America was created following a revolution. In the late 18th century America was transformed from a colony of the British Empire into an independent democratic republic – an improbable, noble, and unique experiment in a government “under God”, a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people…” (see Gettysburg address). More than anything, America is an idea. America is an idea founded on the belief that man’s fundamental rights come from God – not from government. The rights bestowed upon man from God are many but the most fundamental of these rights, as clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, are “…Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” read more »
On his 10/8/09 broadcast, Albert Mohler was in a tizzy wondering why fewer young men are going into missions work than women.
Since we are going to turn this into yet another opportunity to bash men, a pastime increasingly popular in certain Evangelical circles, could it be that as the Bible seems to indicate men might be less prone to the kinds of emotional manipulation many missionaries utilize to whip people up into a frenzy.
Just because someone in the pulpit is in a froth as to why we should do something does not mean by default that we have to go out and do it if it is not an explicit Biblical command but rather an individual interpretation.
One must also ask, if in these circles women are suppose to be keepers at home, who is suppose to go out and work in order to put something in the hands of these mendicants every time they come knocking?
Furthermore, is it really the call of God not being heeded or merely overzealous school administrators being ignored in terms of individual lives?
In his remarks, Mohler lamented the geographical blinders of Christian youth focusing on ministry closer to home.
Interesting also how someone headquartered in what is likely one of the most lily White sections of the country insists the rest of us aren’t pleasing God unless we trounce off to the Third World’s disease ridden cesspools.
I wonder what Albert Mohler’s done lately where a microphone wasn’t involved.
When one couples this Southern Baptist theologian’s obsession with those not married by the age of 22 and now this seeming ability to augur what young men should be doing in terms of career even better than they themselves can deduce, one could easily conclude that what Dr. Mohler has a problem with is the freedom we have in Christ to settle many of life’s most important decisions for ourselves. read more »
Thanks to fierce lobbying by Congressional Democrats, the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the health care bill just passed on Tuesday with bipartisan support from (1) liberal senators, represented by Olympia Snowe from Maine, and (2) ultraliberal senators, represented by all 13 Democrats on the committee.
On Wednesday morning, GOP senator Susan Collins also announced that she was open to health care reform along the lines of the committee’s proposal.
Impressive as this Republican sweep is, you may recall how Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package received even broader bipartisan support last spring, inasmuch as it attracted the votes of no fewer than three Republican senators, including Snowe, Collins, and Arlen Specter, which means that the failure of the stimulus bill to do what it was supposed to lies equally with Democrats and Republicans. Of course, Specter became a Democrat five minutes later, but right up until that moment he was firmly on the other side of the aisle.
Snowe, like Collins, Specter, John McCain, and other liberal Senators, has a reputation for magnanimously cooperating with the opposition party (the ultraliberals) in passing legislation that might otherwise be seen as abridging our liberty and taking over our lives. Legislators such as Snowe (L-ME) serve the important function of watering down such legislation to make its impact marginally less onerous on average Americans.
For example, Snowe opposes a “public option” in the health care reform bill—that is, unless private insurance companies don’t live up to arbitrary standards issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that will ensure such companies don’t get away with swindles like “earning a profit,” at which point the public option will kick in faster than you can say “single payer.” read more »
The oldest of ideas, repacked
After a long discussion with a close 'progressive' friend, discussing among other things philosophy, microfinance, and altruism, the thought came me that liberalism(aka progressive) is really the oldest of ideas. Consider the majority of forms of government you have studied in history. More than like the vast majority were some form of Monarchy or in Greece a Tyrant. Going further back to tribes and clans there were elders and chiefs. These almost universally were men who had earned honor in battle. Thus the rulers were based on a 'merit' or sorts, the most efficiently violent. As power began to consolidate in regions these chiefs defeated other tribes and became more like Kings, Khans, Tyrants, Tsars(Czars for the government school educated), etc. The claim to power changed from most being the most efficiently violent, to most capable of managing a geographic area and those inside the 'kingdom'. But, the most efficiently violent also wanted to take care of their progeny so they began to appeal to the "right of kings". In essence claiming that they were ordained by God as the best suited to rule, and that their children carried this blessing forward after their demise. In other words, they were better equipped to make the decisions concerning the kingdom, such as trade, taxes, wages, and law, than their subjects. Today we would call this 'elitism'; 'a practice of or rule belief in rule by an elite' or the few. Now look think about a progressive's philosophy. The first things that will pop into mind are things like 'equality', 'fairness', and 'stability'. These are all very noble goals, but how does a progressive propose to accomplish these goals? Simple, through government regulations, taxation, and law. This requires leaders willing to create laws that restrict the freedoms of some and give rights to others. IMPORTANT: To believe you have the right to take freedoms from someone you must assume that you either know what is best for that individual, or that it is YOUR right to decide what rights others have. This is by definition elitism. If the rule by a few, who are willing to give and take other rights/freedoms, is elitism, how is it different from a king or a tyrant? THE TAKE AWAY: Simply stated, liberalism/progressive is just the rehashing of the oldest of ideas. The idea that the peasants, the untouchable masses, the working class, the poor, are not capable of determining what is in their best interest. Much less of improving their own lives, they must be guided by the elite. By comparison this makes American Constitutional Conservative thought to be one of the most new and radical ideas in history. The idea of self-governance, that men and women can decide what is best for them, that they can rule themselves is remarkable compared to history. Keep that in mind next time you have to argue with a progressive. Don't let them hang on to that false moniker, they are far from progressive, they are the most philosophically backward of all ideologies.
Travelers often grumble about security measures at airports requiring them to remove belts and shoes as precautions to detect explosives. Such inconveniences may seem like something from the quaint past in light of a new strategy developed by Al Qaeda. An attack was carried out against the Saudi head of counterterrorism operations by concealing nearly a pound of explosives inside a bomber's rectum. The device was detonated by cell phone. It is believed instructions on how to carry out such an attack will soon be posted online.
Representative Joe Wilson was right after all. Obama is a liar. The healthcare legislation being considered in Congress will not require immigrants to produce legitimate photo identification to qualify for benefits. But I bet you, American citizens will have to lay bare all their documents (including birth certificates like those Il Duce refuses to show anyone) to qualify for even the most basic of medical care.
The stage at U2’s Washington concert cost nearly $40 million. By what right has Bono then to lecture the rest of us about poverty and Westerners having too much? During the concert, the Irish crooner declared that his quartet had transcended band status and are more akin to a global force like a nation states. Apparently he’s every bit the arrogant piece of human dreck South Park made him out to be.
Hollywood and secular elites around the world have endorsed child molestation. The likes of Whoopi Goldberg, Woody Allen, and the French government have gone on the record that Roman Polanski should be set free since his drugging of a thirteen year old girl and the carnal knowledge he gained of her while in such a state was so long ago and really wasn’t rape anyway. One wonders if they’ll go as easy on Catholic priests accused of such things often on the grounds of nothing more than the word of the alleged victim. read more »
Will Congress? When?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting Saturday night that President Obama has pledged to end the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces. Speaking at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a advocacy group for gay rights, Mr. Obama was quoted as saying: "I will end "don't ask-don't tell.'" No time frame was associated with his promise.While Mr. Obama made the first person pledge, don't ask-don't tell is not a policy malleable by the president, it is a law which requires action by the Congress to change. Even if done at the request of the president, it would never be accurate to say the president changed the law, only that Congress changed the law. The Whitehouse lists a livestream link to the speech audio but the link does not appear to be working. (Accompanying Getty Image photo of Pres. Obama and TOTUS addressing HRC link from online.WSJ.com)