Apparently, AOR is not the only place where conservatives are less than enthusiastic about the current crop of GOP candidates.  I have had a theory that for a successful GOP run in 2008, oddly, we need a George W. Bush-type candidate (to say Reagan-esque is just not being fair!) that can do all of the following.  Think about it:

• He had great name recognition in 2000, obviously.
• As an evangelical Methodist, he got the Christian conservatives on board with his pro-life platform.
• He had governing experience in a large state AND was reelected there.
• He had a history of appointing conservative judges and cutting taxes.
• Whatever you think about this, Bush is strong on national defense and was so in 2000 (minus the borders, but to be fair, he doesn’t even see that as a national security issue).
• And on all of these things he was reelected to America’s first majority President since 1988.

No one running today has that kind of name recognition (maybe McCain), evangelical status (no one) who is a pro-life strict constructionist who actually has experience cutting taxes and can prove that they are strong on national defense in their rhetoric/actions (especially in today’s poisonous environment).  It’s too bad, but it is still early.

Picture from Blue NC.

Apparently, AOR is not the only place where conservatives are less than enthusiastic about the current crop of GOP candidates.  I have had a theory that for a successful GOP run in 2008, oddly, we need a George W. Bush-type candidate (to say Reagan-esque is just not being fair!) that can do all of the following.  Think about it:

• He had great name recognition in 2000, obviously.
• As an evangelical Methodist, he got the Christian conservatives on board with his pro-life platform.
• He had governing experience in a large state AND was reelected there.
• He had a history of appointing conservative judges and cutting taxes.
• Whatever you think about this, Bush is strong on national defense and was so in 2000 (minus the borders, but to be fair, he doesn’t even see that as a national security issue).
• And on all of these things he was reelected to America’s first majority President since 1988.

No one running today has that kind of name recognition (maybe McCain), evangelical status (no one) who is a pro-life strict constructionist who actually has experience cutting taxes and can prove that they are strong on national defense in their rhetoric/actions (especially in today’s poisonous environment).  It’s too bad, but it is still early.

Picture from Blue NC.

Apparently, AOR is not the only place where conservatives are less than enthusiastic about the current crop of GOP candidates.  I have had a theory that for a successful GOP run in 2008, oddly, we need a George W. Bush-type candidate (to say Reagan-esque is just not being fair!) that can do all of the following.  Think about it:

• He had great name recognition in 2000, obviously.
• As an evangelical Methodist, he got the Christian conservatives on board with his pro-life platform.
• He had governing experience in a large state AND was reelected there.
• He had a history of appointing conservative judges and cutting taxes.
• Whatever you think about this, Bush is strong on national defense and was so in 2000 (minus the borders, but to be fair, he doesn’t even see that as a national security issue).
• And on all of these things he was reelected to America’s first majority President since 1988.

No one running today has that kind of name recognition (maybe McCain), evangelical status (no one) who is a pro-life strict constructionist who actually has experience cutting taxes and can prove that they are strong on national defense in their rhetoric/actions (especially in today’s poisonous environment).  It’s too bad, but it is still early.

Picture from Blue NC.

This won’t help the Senator from Arizona. It’s one thing to have the Bobbsey twins in your corner during a Republican primary. It’s quite another thing to brag about it.

By now I’m sure you’ve heard of the girl trapped in a boy’s body who needed to be liberated, convinced his/her parents so, and finally got the operation done. So a twelve year old boy is, after all the fuss, a 14 year old girl. Wow. I’m not sure where I even want to begin with this one, or even if I should have addressed this issue in the first place.

However, the shock value has struck me. The kid has issues, for which he/she cannot be totally blamed for. The parents have one issue resolved and another with which to contend. Though the he/she is German, I still think our Western culture has issues, like a general oversexualization of kids. Remember when kids were kids… like back in the 80s when we worried about manhunt, poison ivy, and talking to that girl who you didn’t want ANYONE to know that you had a crush on! I sound like one of those old guys who gets mad at the news, occasionally throwing things, but I’m not even thirty! Am I getting old or are things getting weirder out there.

Surprise. Surprise. David Cameron has opted for a free vote on the issue of an exception for the bill forcing adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples. Under parliamentary systems, party policy normally dictates the way the rank and file votes. By departing from this norm, Cameron is essentially taking no position at all, children be damned. I guess the focus groups were inconclusive.

Figuring out what the Conservative party stands for is a little difficult right now. It’ll be interesting to see if right-leaning Brits are willing to vote for a grab bag.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair has announced that he will support the bill without the religious exemption.
 

Jane Fonda, who should still be serving time for treason, was at it again in a rather small DC anti-Iraq War protest yesterday. A few dozen Freepers showed up to call them traitors, etc., but the real fun was set on stage. They said that word again. The only word the neo-Marxist United For Peace, ANSWR, and the Moonbats really know how to say at these melees which gets the brainwashed masses to swoon: “peace”.

Yet, the thoughtful person may ask: “Peace” is a noble goal, but how is America withdrawing from Iraq going to bring peace to anyone?

• A Sunni-Shia civil war funded by al-Qaeda and Iran will turn the area into a bloodbath the likes of which would make Rwanda look like scraping one’s knees while roller blading.
• Turkey would immediately invade the newly formed Kurdistan to prevent that new nation from even forming.
• American interests would not be served as two or three new Taliban-era-style Afghanistans pop up in the center of the Mideast, all emboldened by a fresh showing of a lack of American “stick-to-it-ivness.”
• The new crisis would force a future President to send troops in again since no one else would to any effect (except Iran, of course).
• The instability would force Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to pursue nuclear weapons as Iran’s new hegemony as their inroads into Shia Iraq would grow.
• Forget about oil prices and the fate of Israel as a newly bold Hezbollah takes advantage of America’s newly distant proximity from their backyard!

In my opinion, these hippies at the protest yesterday need to put down the pot, drink some vinegar, read more than the New York Slimes and the Nation, and get grounded in reality: leaving Iraq before the situation is at least stable is a bad idea on a practical, military, and on a humanitarian level. They’re floating a thin line now, where the troops may start being part of their problem shortly. Even now, funding them is an open debate amongst the Dems and the Moobats. That’s pretty scary to me.

She Who Must Not Be Named went on to elaborate on some of her positions and how they have “evolved” over the last few years. There is a lot in this piece that is telling: she’s still fighting with her conscience (sorry, I meant to write “political instincts”) for authorizing the Iraq War and having to abandon the troops to get her party’s support; she thinks she’ll win with ease over Obama, but can’t say so without looking like a jerk; she even believes that Amerca is ready for a woman President, which leads one to wonder if she’ll actually support one if a female eventually decides to run; and she seems to be ready to do what Bill did to Dubya– kick Iraq off to the next President.

I happen to agree with one of those points. I think America is ready for a woman President too. But we aren’t stupid! NO ONE is neutral on She Who Must Not Be Named. No voters over the age of 22 are undecided. However, if the right woman ran, I think America would vote for her if she convinced enough that her positions are better than her opponents. She Who Must Not Be Named cannot do that. We know who she is, where she would take us, and what her personal integrity is all about– political expediency. I wouldn’t vote for anyone with her positions regardless of the candidate’s gender. I don’t think America will either.

Photo from American Partisan.

Tony Blair’s Labour government is about to propose a law prohibiting adoption agencies from refusing to place children with same-sex couples. At issue in the debate is a proposed exemption for religious organizations. The Telegraph is reporting that Blair has already caved under pressure from the anti-Christian forces within the Labour party.  However, the BBC is reporting that the issue is still being considered.

I’m amazed that there is even a possibility that the Commons would pass a law without an exemption, especially considering previous statements by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor that such a proposal would force the Church to close its adoption agencies. Unfortunately, many parentless children will suffer if the government interferes with private charities. Although there appears to be a consensus that the Church’s charity work has done much good, that good may be forced to yield to Old Labour’s decision to impose their secular values on everybody else.

Equally interesting is the reaction among non-Catholic religious organizations. Leading Muslims and the Church of England have sided with the Catholic Church. The BBC quotes two Archbishops who wrote to Blair to state the obvious:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair to argue that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”

We have faced the same debate here in America. Regardless of location, it’s a shame to see children as collateral damage in a war against freedom of religion. Although we should remember to commend Blair for his past efforts to distinguish himself from the Star Wars bar scene that is his party, it is still a shame that he is losing his touch to tame Old Labour. Of course, it would be interesting to hear David Cameron’s thoughts on this. Or have the focus group results not come in yet?

Tony Blair’s Labour government is about to propose a law prohibiting adoption agencies from refusing to place children with same-sex couples. At issue in the debate is a proposed exemption for religious organizations. The Telegraph is reporting that Blair has already caved under pressure from the anti-Christian forces within the Labour party.  However, the BBC is reporting that the issue is still being considered.

I’m amazed that there is even a possibility that the Commons would pass a law without an exemption, especially considering previous statements by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor that such a proposal would force the Church to close its adoption agencies. Unfortunately, many parentless children will suffer if the government interferes with private charities. Although there appears to be a consensus that the Church’s charity work has done much good, that good may be forced to yield to Old Labour’s decision to impose their secular values on everybody else.

Equally interesting is the reaction among non-Catholic religious organizations. Leading Muslims and the Church of England have sided with the Catholic Church. The BBC quotes two Archbishops who wrote to Blair to state the obvious:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair to argue that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”

We have faced the same debate here in America. Regardless of location, it’s a shame to see children as collateral damage in a war against freedom of religion. Although we should remember to commend Blair for his past efforts to distinguish himself from the Star Wars bar scene that is his party, it is still a shame that he is losing his touch to tame Old Labour. Of course, it would be interesting to hear David Cameron’s thoughts on this. Or have the focus group results not come in yet?

Tony Blair’s Labour government is about to propose a law prohibiting adoption agencies from refusing to place children with same-sex couples. At issue in the debate is a proposed exemption for religious organizations. The Telegraph is reporting that Blair has already caved under pressure from the anti-Christian forces within the Labour party.  However, the BBC is reporting that the issue is still being considered.

I’m amazed that there is even a possibility that the Commons would pass a law without an exemption, especially considering previous statements by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor that such a proposal would force the Church to close its adoption agencies. Unfortunately, many parentless children will suffer if the government interferes with private charities. Although there appears to be a consensus that the Church’s charity work has done much good, that good may be forced to yield to Old Labour’s decision to impose their secular values on everybody else.

Equally interesting is the reaction among non-Catholic religious organizations. Leading Muslims and the Church of England have sided with the Catholic Church. The BBC quotes two Archbishops who wrote to Blair to state the obvious:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair to argue that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”

We have faced the same debate here in America. Regardless of location, it’s a shame to see children as collateral damage in a war against freedom of religion. Although we should remember to commend Blair for his past efforts to distinguish himself from the Star Wars bar scene that is his party, it is still a shame that he is losing his touch to tame Old Labour. Of course, it would be interesting to hear David Cameron’s thoughts on this. Or have the focus group results not come in yet?

Annie C is on fire in her recent article! Unfortunately, her website links only last a week on each article so you have to read this fast. She discusses Hillary and the 2008 Elections, the polls in previous elections and the State of the Union Address.

On the issue of Bush’s address to Congress, I thought it was good. Concilliatory at first, bold in his agenda (much of which I wasn’t totally cool with), and straight through the nonsense on what it will take to win the War on Terror. Two Iraq speeches in one month! Absolutely amazing!

This post at Mark Levin Fan containing an audio clip from the Great One’s radio program is excellent for at least two reasons. First, it is now clear that no family pwns Wolf Blitzer quite like the Cheneys. Second, Levin’s rant (and I mean that as a compliment) against MSNBC hits the nail on the head and is best heard without a beverage in your mouth.

Several talk show hosts like Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Graham and others are national treasures because of their vigilance in exposing the train wreck that is today’s MSM.  Unfortunately, the Vice President is one of only a select few elected conservatives who even try to confront them.  We could use a few more Cheneys and lot less Hagel.

John Kerry is about to announce that he will not run for President in 2008.  Although both of his supporters are said to be distraught, I think they should cheer up.  This is John Kerry.  He might change his mind.

This piece from Life News dissects the Washington Compost’s biased coverage of Monday’s March For Life.

Biased coverage of the March for Life is old news to those who have ever attended. Those who have been there know the ratio of pro-life to pro-choice marchers is overwhelming. The Life News piece is not exaggerating. If the pro-choice side of the debate could attract such numbers for a March of their own, there would have been front page coverage.

Spot on.
[youtube= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH49pKxKWes]

Video of Saturday Night Live skit via Hot Air, the site formerly known as Expose the Left

You gotta love anyone who pwns a French socialist.

You gotta love anyone who pwns a French socialist.

You gotta love anyone who pwns a French socialist.

The annual March for Life drew tens of thousands to Washington yesterday in protest of the Supreme Court’s horrendous decision in Roe v. Wade. Because the March was not in support of a liberal cause, Washington was spared from being trashed.

Judicial activism is one of our favorite targets on this site. Usually our objections are based on our respect for the Constitution and our recognition of the separation of powers within our Constitutional system. Since the Constitution is clear that each branch of government has its own role and since the Constitution has its own amendment mechanism, it is not for courts to rewrite the Constitution according to their own warped vision of what constitutes a civil right.

Although it is a travesty whenever courts overstep their bounds, the decision in Roe damaged more than our Constitutional framework. The result of their judicial fiat was the creation of a “civil right” which led to the extermination of 36 to 39 million innocent lives. The March for Life is an annual event designed to draw attention to this travesty and help create a society in which the unborn are protected by law.

The pro life movement has made great strides during the presidency of Bush the Younger. It appears that we have two new Supreme Court Justices who will require the left to implement their radical agenda through the ballot box rather than a dishonest rewriting of the Constitution. Since these Judges actually apply our Constitution which does not require states to permit the murder of unborn children, I’m calling them pro-life. However, we need one or two more Justices before Roe can join Dred Scott and Plessey in the Supreme Court Hall of Shame. This is where the next election becomes important.

The pro-life issue is one of if not the most important issue in a Republican primary. At this point, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter are the most credible pro-life candidates. Brownback was elected to the Senate in 1996, defeating a pro-choice incumbent Senator in the Republican primary. Once in the Senate, he built a solidly pro-life voting record while also stepping up as a vocal supporter of the unborn. Duncan Hunter can also claim a solid pro-life voting record. By attending yesterday’s March for Life, both candidates have reinforced their pro-life records.

Brownback and Hunter were the only presidential candidates to attend yesterday’s march. Given the GOP front-runners’ past indifference to the pro-life issue, one has to wonder if they are inviting a dark horse into the race.

The score was 38-34 going into the last drive of the game in the loud and proud RCA Dome in Indianapolis. One mistake, the game ends. All it would take is some consistency, determination and power. It came. The game ended. The Patriots won in the final seconds. Unfortunately, that was three seasons ago and the last time these two teams met in Indy.

Last night the Colts were down 34-31 going into what may have been the last drive of the game. Manning was smarting in pain from a thumb injury suffered earlier that half, this was the AFC Championship game against his perennial arch-rival the New England Patriots, there was under 3 minutes on the clock. If Manning can do it, he earns, after such a long time and after so many things said in the media and about him and his team, the right to go to the Super Bowl for the first time in his sure to be Hall-of-Fame career. And you know what… he did it. He pulled it off taking the lead, giving Brady the ball with 54 seconds left. After the biggest comeback in AFC championship history, It was up to Brady to win the game. He couldn’t.

But, what a game! Wow! That’s why I love football! As a Pats fan it hurts, but oh well– we did better than last season. I’m an AFC guy, so I truly hope Manning gets his ring over the Bears in two weeks. Congratulations to the Colts being down 21-6 at halftime, with an absolutely stunned-looking Manning, and coming back to win in dramatic fashion! Good luck in Miami!

Reuters photo.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the science of global warming, but I have to wonder why scientists on one side of the issue seek to silence scientists on the other side of the issue. The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen is the latest example. According to Cullen, meteorologists who disagree with the conclusion that human activity causes global warming should be stripped of their AMS certification. Rush Limbaugh has an interesting take on Cullen’s “logic.”

Any valid scientific theory should be able to withstand opposing hypotheses and free and open inquiry. I think it’s only reasonable to question the validity of one theory when its proponents hysterically attempt to silence proponents of the other. Disagree with them, lose your career. The man-made global warming scientists do themselves no favors with such hysterics.

Prepare to vomit. Terry McAuliffe has come out swinging on behalf of She Who Must Not Be Named, somehow managing to tell the media with a straight face that his candidate is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher. What Terry needs to realize is that notion of Thatcher having a pair was only a metaphor. There are no similarities between the two.

As Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher privatized a number of state-controlled entities, transforming Britain’s economy in the process. She also believed in confronting her nation’s enemies, standing beside Ronald Reagan in his crusade to topple the Soviet Union. Thatcher’s leadership and accomplishments as Prime Minister solidified her place on the “Trinity of Freedom.” The junior Senator from New York can only dream of such greatness.

As First Lady, the New York Senator attempted to nationalize one seventh of the U.S. economy. On the most important foreign policy issue of the day, her position has been to be as vague as possible until finally being forced to advocate the opposite of what President Bush advocates simply because it is what President Bush advocates. Even Thatcher’s opponents would not call her positions unclear or disingenuous.

She Who Must Not Be Named probably doesn’t really believe that she is anything like Margaret Thatcher, but she wants the voters to. In the end, this is latest example of the only viable strategy for electing a Democrat to national office. Confuse the voters into thinking you share some of the views from the right even when you don’t. McAuliffe will not be the last person to make this absurd comparison. It will be repeated ad nauseum until the soccer moms actually believe it. Hopefully, McAuliffe’s recent history will repeat itself.

Hot Air has a great roundup of these early stages of the “historic” campaign, including a video of the announcement straight from the horse’s mouth.

AP photo

Prepare to vomit. Terry McAuliffe has come out swinging on behalf of She Who Must Not Be Named, somehow managing to tell the media with a straight face that his candidate is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher. What Terry needs to realize is that notion of Thatcher having a pair was only a metaphor. There are no similarities between the two.

As Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher privatized a number of state-controlled entities, transforming Britain’s economy in the process. She also believed in confronting her nation’s enemies, standing beside Ronald Reagan in his crusade to topple the Soviet Union. Thatcher’s leadership and accomplishments as Prime Minister solidified her place on the “Trinity of Freedom.” The junior Senator from New York can only dream of such greatness.

As First Lady, the New York Senator attempted to nationalize one seventh of the U.S. economy. On the most important foreign policy issue of the day, her position has been to be as vague as possible until finally being forced to advocate the opposite of what President Bush advocates simply because it is what President Bush advocates. Even Thatcher’s opponents would not call her positions unclear or disingenuous.

She Who Must Not Be Named probably doesn’t really believe that she is anything like Margaret Thatcher, but she wants the voters to. In the end, this is latest example of the only viable strategy for electing a Democrat to national office. Confuse the voters into thinking you share some of the views from the right even when you don’t. McAuliffe will not be the last person to make this absurd comparison. It will be repeated ad nauseum until the soccer moms actually believe it. Hopefully, McAuliffe’s recent history will repeat itself.

Hot Air has a great roundup of these early stages of the “historic” campaign, including a video of the announcement straight from the horse’s mouth.

AP photo

Prepare to vomit. Terry McAuliffe has come out swinging on behalf of She Who Must Not Be Named, somehow managing to tell the media with a straight face that his candidate is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher. What Terry needs to realize is that notion of Thatcher having a pair was only a metaphor. There are no similarities between the two.

As Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher privatized a number of state-controlled entities, transforming Britain’s economy in the process. She also believed in confronting her nation’s enemies, standing beside Ronald Reagan in his crusade to topple the Soviet Union. Thatcher’s leadership and accomplishments as Prime Minister solidified her place on the “Trinity of Freedom.” The junior Senator from New York can only dream of such greatness.

As First Lady, the New York Senator attempted to nationalize one seventh of the U.S. economy. On the most important foreign policy issue of the day, her position has been to be as vague as possible until finally being forced to advocate the opposite of what President Bush advocates simply because it is what President Bush advocates. Even Thatcher’s opponents would not call her positions unclear or disingenuous.

She Who Must Not Be Named probably doesn’t really believe that she is anything like Margaret Thatcher, but she wants the voters to. In the end, this is latest example of the only viable strategy for electing a Democrat to national office. Confuse the voters into thinking you share some of the views from the right even when you don’t. McAuliffe will not be the last person to make this absurd comparison. It will be repeated ad nauseum until the soccer moms actually believe it. Hopefully, McAuliffe’s recent history will repeat itself.

Hot Air has a great roundup of these early stages of the “historic” campaign, including a video of the announcement straight from the horse’s mouth.

AP photo

American Idol is many things: one of which is a talent contest!  If you have no talent and can’t take criticism from experts in control of millions of dollars in record deals and endorsements, don’t audition!  This story from the AP is absolutely obnoxious!

Have you ever watched American Idol past the first few weeks of the bad people?  This is a serious contest and Paula, Randy and Simon have to listen to every single person and make judgments about who America will buy and listen to.  99.9% of all auditioners are going home that day.  You can’t take it personally if after a long day of listening to bad singers they make a few comments about how bad you are!  Relish the fact that you made it on TV!  So the editors made this season seem meaner.  I do think they’re edgier, but also more entertaining– it’s the sixth season, they have to do something to get people to keep watching!

If you’re looking for a good laugh, check out this spoof of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

She Who Must Not Be Named has formed her exploratory committee for President. This comes as no surprise as she’s been running for years.  However, she has now kicked her campaign into high gear.  Several pages from her family’s political playbook have already been used against those who would dare challenge her. Earlier in the week, She Who Must Not Be Named played the “negative attack” card against John Edwards. More recently, her Death Eaters tossed political sewage at Barrack Obama, accusing him of concealing his Muslim heritage. If you think that’s over the line, just wait until she focuses on the Republican nominee.

This family’s political machine is one of the nastiest operations imaginable. They have shown that they will stop at nothing to attain power. Once in office, they will stop at nothing to retain power. This site will never be accused of having any sort of respect for Barrack Obama, but it is amazing how She Who Must Not Be Named has the power to make even Obama appear slightly sympathetic.

Photo from Jewish World Review

She Who Must Not Be Named has formed her exploratory committee for President. This comes as no surprise as she’s been running for years.  However, she has now kicked her campaign into high gear.  Several pages from her family’s political playbook have already been used against those who would dare challenge her. Earlier in the week, She Who Must Not Be Named played the “negative attack” card against John Edwards. More recently, her Death Eaters tossed political sewage at Barrack Obama, accusing him of concealing his Muslim heritage. If you think that’s over the line, just wait until she focuses on the Republican nominee.

This family’s political machine is one of the nastiest operations imaginable. They have shown that they will stop at nothing to attain power. Once in office, they will stop at nothing to retain power. This site will never be accused of having any sort of respect for Barrack Obama, but it is amazing how She Who Must Not Be Named has the power to make even Obama appear slightly sympathetic.

Photo from Jewish World Review

She Who Must Not Be Named has formed her exploratory committee for President. This comes as no surprise as she’s been running for years.  However, she has now kicked her campaign into high gear.  Several pages from her family’s political playbook have already been used against those who would dare challenge her. Earlier in the week, She Who Must Not Be Named played the “negative attack” card against John Edwards. More recently, her Death Eaters tossed political sewage at Barrack Obama, accusing him of concealing his Muslim heritage. If you think that’s over the line, just wait until she focuses on the Republican nominee.

This family’s political machine is one of the nastiest operations imaginable. They have shown that they will stop at nothing to attain power. Once in office, they will stop at nothing to retain power. This site will never be accused of having any sort of respect for Barrack Obama, but it is amazing how She Who Must Not Be Named has the power to make even Obama appear slightly sympathetic.

Photo from Jewish World Review