Thursday, November 27, 2008

True Story of Thanksgiving--Told by Rush

From Free Republic here:
On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.

"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.

During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats." Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. "Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. "Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.

Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

"All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.

"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?

It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?

What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!

But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.

What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.

"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'

Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?

"Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?

'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'

Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.

"Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.

And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving!

The NavyFamily and I will be off to LOS CON at the Marriot LAX. We'll be wearing our TOGA's. Hope you and yours will have a wonderful Thanksgiving. God bless the troops who will be away from their Families this holiday. And last, God Bless America the last best hope!

UPDATE: For all you cooking Engineers, Beer Can Turkey!

The Obama Administration

C.H.A.N.G.E. =


The Lame duck and the pardoned Turkey

Happy Thanksgiving!

The pardoned turkeys hideout

Puppy loves Momma

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Please let the kids have Thanksgiving!

I hate it when parents get so PC and deny kids to celebrate the "Traditional" Thanksgiving. They claim it is racist to dress as Indian's. But the Wampanoags Indian's were helpful to the Pilgrims and they did celebrate together. And without the Wampanoags the Pilgrims would had perished. We need to let the kids celebrate in brotherhood and caring for your neighbors. Come on now!

BHO press conferences

Why is it that for the past two days BHO has had press conferences during the start of Rush's show?

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Happy VI Day!

For more go over to Zombietime here.
We have won the war in Iraq. Let's honor the troops on a job well done! Go over to Valour-IT and donate to good cause in helping wounded veteran's to recover.

Friday, November 21, 2008

How Obama Got Elected

On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.

read more | digg story

I just love the Obama cabinet appointments. No Hope and Change. Clinton Re-Treads I say! More at IMAO.

From PJ media here:

Several associates of mine, aware of my red-state predilections, approached me after the black day that was November 4 and demanded my allegiance — I’m serious — proclaiming, “He’s your president so you should stand behind him.” I thanked them but rebuffed their suggestion. As mentioned above, none of these individuals ever saw fit to do the same for our 40th, 41st, and 43rd presidents, so by what precedent should they expect special treatment for their Barackstar? None of which I am aware. Their hypocrisy is hardly surprising. The left’s approach to their opposition lacks consistency, honor, and responsibility as they see those traits as being anachronistic and possibly even Eurocentric (the horror!). To hardened Obamabots, all questions regarding their savior’s goals are illegitimate. Those who battle them either possess false consciousnesses or are evil, and should this dichotomy not be immediately evident, then all heretics will be dismissed as rednecks, evangelists, racists, or whatever ism is on the menu.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

VI Day 11/22/2008

Check out Zombie's blog here on the Blogs joining this declaration of Victory in Iraq.

Obama will make them like us (HEH)

I love America wort's and all! Why do we have to apologize for what America does or says? I could care less what European or Asian country thinks about America. We are the leader of the Free World. God Bless America! Screw them Royally!

"Americans can actually go to dinner parties and cocktail receptions around the world today and not have to apologize for the United States the way they have had to do the last several years," he said. "The election has made life a little bit easier for Americans living and traveling abroad to hold their head up high again."

The United States' tarnished reputation has been fueled by a combination of factors, including opposition to U.S. policies like the war Iraq and alleged torture and abuse of prisoners, the perception of hypocrisy, unilateralism, and the perceived war on Islam, according to a congressional report released in June.

Thank God for President George W. Bush. WE were attacked in 2001 by the Enemy who are Islamic terrorists. We had to do what we had to do to get the Enemy to talk. We are at WAR. Remember, they attacked us many many times (1993 WTC bombing, USS Cole, US Embassy bombings, etc.) It was George W. Bush had the BALLS (side story on Hitler here) to step up and fight the bastards. I'm sorry, we as Americans don't have to apologize to the appeasers.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Somali Pirates capture Saudi tanker

I heard about this on Hugh Hewitt's show today:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – In a dramatic escalation of high seas crime, Somali pirates hijacked a Saudi supertanker loaded with crude hundreds of miles off the coast of East Africa — defeating the security web of warships trying to protect vital shipping lanes.

The takeover demonstrates the bandits' heightened ambitions and capabilities: Never before have they seized such a giant ship so far out to sea. Maritime experts warned the broad daylight attack, reported by the U.S. Navy on Monday, was an alarming sign of the difficulty of patrolling a vast stretch of ocean key to oil and other cargo traffic.

The MV Sirius Star, a brand new tanker with a 25-member crew, was seized at about 10 a.m. Saturday more than 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa, Kenya, the Navy said. The area lies far south of the zone where warships have increased their patrols this year in the Gulf of Aden, one of the busiest channels in the world, leading to and from the Suez Canal, and the scene of most past attacks.

From Zigler, a new documentary

Victory In Iraq Day

I support Victory in Iraq Day! I join in with other bloggers over at Zombie's blog to lend support on November 22, 2008.
We won. The Iraq War is over.

I declare November 22, 2008 to be "Victory in Iraq Day." (Hereafter known as "VI Day.")

By every measure, The United States and coalition forces have conclusively defeated all enemies in Iraq, pacified the country, deposed the previous regime, successfully helped to establish a new functioning democratic government, and suppressed any lingering insurgencies. The war has come to an end. And we won.

From Instapundit here a quote by Michael Yon:
"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. "There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything. I've been asking Iraqis, 'do you think the violence will kick up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they're usually dour." There's a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that's a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. toops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport.

We must remember to thank our President George W. Bush and the troops who followed a brave leader General Petraeus.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Here, Kitty!

Thursday, November 13, 2008

"Gay Marriage" not a civil rights issue

From JWR here:
The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the law's equal protection, nor of the right to marry — only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Tradtional Marriage supports Healthy kids!

The No on 8 people don't understand that traditional Marriage supports healthy relationships for children to grow up in. There are lower rates of; crime, drug abuse, suicide, run away, and pregnancies when kids grow up in a home with a Father and a Mother in traditional gender roles. They clam that half of traditional marriages end in divorce. True some marriages fail, but most stay together to raise the children. Kids do much better when they have a female Mom and a male Dad role module. Why can't the No on 8 people leave us church going traditional families alone? I think they are a bit upset the black and Hispanic Obama voters voted to pass prop. 8. God bless them! They value the traditional family way of life. It brings up healthy kids who will be productive and contribute to society.

A Letter to the Govenator

I found this at Michelle Malkins blog here:
Dear Govenor Schwarzenegger:

I respectfully request your immediate condemnation of the dangerous and thuggery actions of the angry prop 8 activists who are using intimidating and corruptive tactics against the citizens of California, your constituents. By failing to speak out, you are complicit and malfeasant. These activists are threatening businesses with boycotts at a critical time in this States disastrous economy, naming individuals thus making them vulnerable to retaliation and physical harm, targeting places of worship, and disrupting the peace.

It was shameful enough that you encouraged the protesters to defy the majority will of California voters. You proved yourself a lame-duck politician by reversing your principals on the issue of gay marriage (not to mention taxation). For this voter, you have lost all credibility.
However, to stand by silently, while the community is being subjected to the minority unlawful and menacing behavior being inflicted on cities statewide is reprehensible as a governor.

I sincerely hope you make a strong statement condemning these demonstrations very, very soon.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The 40 names that want to kill Prop 8

Senate President Pro tempore Don Perata
Senate President Pro-Tempore Elect Darrell Steinberg
Speaker Karen Bass
Former Speaker Fabian Nunez
Senators Ron Calderon, Gilbert Cedillo, Ellen Corbett, Christine Kehoe, Sheila Kuehl, Alan S. Lowenthal, Carole Migdon, Alex Padilla, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Gloria Romero and Patirca Wiggins.

Contact The CA Senators here.

Assembly members Jim Beall Jr., Patty Berg, Julia Brownley, Anna M. Caballero, Charles Calderon, Joe Coto, Kevin de Leon, Mark De Saulnier, Mike Eng, Noreen Evans, Mike Fever, Felipe Fuentes, Loni Hanacock, Mary Hayashi, Edward P. Hernandez, Jared Huffman, Dave Jones, Betty Karnette, Paul Kerkorian, John Laird, Makr Leno, Lloyd E. Levine, Sally J Lieber, Fiona Ma, Anthony J. Portantino, Lori Saldana, Jose Solurio, Sandre R. Swanson and Lois Wolk.

Contatct the CA Assembly members here.

Happy Veteran's day

Support a disabled Veteran who needs a computer on the Project Valour IT project run by Solder's Angels here. Of course I joined the Navy team!

Monday, November 10, 2008

LDS Statement on Prop 8

From LA Independent here.
The Mormon church in Salt Lake City issued a statement denying that the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage has anything to do with bigotry.

“It is important to understand that this issue for the church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman,’’ according to the statement. “Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the church were and are simply wrong. The church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.

“Even more, the church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.’’

Rick Warren's statement on Prop 8

On Oct. 24, Warren endorsed Prop. 8. In an e-mail to his followers, he said, “For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion — not just Christianity — has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population.’’

from LA Independent here.

Cardinal Mahony's statement on Prop 8

From LA Independent here:
Mahony said support for Prop. 8 had nothing to do with discrimination against gays.

“Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society,’’ he said. “Its sole focus is on preserving God’s plan for people living upon this earth throughout time. The Catholic Church understands that there are people who choose to live together in relationships other than traditional marriage. All of their spiritual, pastoral and civil rights should be respected, together with their membership in the church.’’

I can't see where the "H8TE" comes from?

More Thugery on "H8TE"

From here at Family Research Council.
There is an irony in the taunts thrown at Christians that they are "intolerant" and "bigoted." Throughout history it has been Christians and others of strong religious faith who have spoken out and fought for those who are truly oppressed. Most notably the abolition of slavery was led by Christians like William Wilberforce in England and Thomas Jefferson Randolph, grandson of Thomas Jefferson, in the United States. And of course the civil rights movement of the 1960's found its leader in the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

However it is Christians and African-Americans who are being attacked, alongside Mormons, because of the leadership and support they gave the successful push for a marriage amendment in California's state constitution.

A democratic process

What the "No on Prop 8" people did not do was to go though the process of changing the laws like the "Yes on Prop 8" people did.
From Rhinotimes here:
In order to make such a radical change in human behavior and custom, the proponents of gay marriage should have followed constitutional, democratic process and persuaded people to support it until a majority was achieved.

That's what the US Constitution and every state constitution require. And that has not happened anywhere in the US.

What was the public emergency that made it so the New Puritans could not wait to persuade people to vote for what they wanted? The only emergency was that they knew that they could not do it. They knew democracy would not choose what they wanted.

Therefore small groups of dictators have simply taken it upon themselves to deny universal human practice and remake the law as they saw fit, without waiting for democratic process.

Their pretexts are laughable, their authority nonexistent. No constitution declares that any court has such a right.

So why is anyone obeying them? Because, in support of their illegal action, the courts can issue writs removing the power of any other state official to resist them. There is no institution that even knows how to begin resisting the illegal usurpation of power by the judicial branch.

No branch of government was ever intended to have the power to dictate new law without other branches of government having a chance to stop them or at least slow them down.

In essence, we have suffered a coup and lost our democracy. A minority is dictating new law against the will of the majority, and will spread it by force throughout the country by using the full-faith-and-credit clause.

I don't hate gays

There is an ignorance of us "Yes on 8" supporters, we do not hate gays at all. Most of us are church going people (Christan, Catholic, Mormons and Jewish). We love our neighbors like God wants us too. Why would we use hate to take someones civil rights away?
The issue that is forgotten is this battle of "gay marriage" is what children want. Most kids that I talk to including my own want One Mother and One Father to raise them. The security of knowing that a nurturing Mother and a protective Father is very comforting to children.

I'll list the information from leading scholars from Family Research Council here:
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.

This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:

If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

What better way to raise a kid in a traditional marriage. You have lower suicide rates, lower crime, and lower drug abuse when a child grows up in a monogamous relationship of a Mother and a Father.

During the election, my kids were very worried that if it did not pass we would not have families anymore. I think they are right. And we don't hate gays at all. Christians believe in helping everyone. We might not agree with the gay life style, but we have compassion for them.

Its just we disagree on what Marriage is. The civil rights of an individual is not taken away. Gays are allowed to marry but to one of the opposite sex!

Obama's Security Forces

I don't believe my eyes but does it look like Obama's Security forces logo look similar to the SS logo of Nazi Germany?
From CafePress here.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Pelosi says we got it wrong on Prop 8

Ok Nancy, you are right people did get it wrong. They thought you had to vote "No" to gay marriage to amend the constitution. Some campaign workers told me they had to inform them that you had to vote "Yes" to ban gay marriage and amend the constitution. However, Nancy dear your beloved Catholic Church opposes Gay Marriage and for that matter abortion. From SF Gate here:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed deep disappointment on Friday that California voters approved Prop. 8, the measure banning same-sex marriage, and defended her ally, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, against critics who say his actions contributed to its passage.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Chronicle, Pelosi said she believes some voters might not have fully understood the initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure was approved 52 to 48 percent.

"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."

Yes, we amended the constitution so children will grow up to One Dad and One Mom. We voted so our kids have the right to a traditional family the way God intended! And Nancy dear, are such a hypocrite.

Going on Strike--I'll join it willing!

I am a fan Orson Scott Card's Science Fiction writings and read "Enders War." He is a supporter of Traditional Marriage and upholding our moral values. From Rhino Times here:
In essence, we have suffered a coup and lost our democracy. A minority is dictating new law against the will of the majority, and will spread it by force throughout the country by using the full-faith-and-credit clause.

This should terrify the proponents of gay marriage, because a process that right now seems to work for them could just as easily, and just as unfairly, be used against them. But they think only in the short term. They don't mind leaving democracy in a shambles and making the Constitution a joke, as long as they get their way on this issue.

As much as I think gay marriage is a terrible idea, grounded on neither science nor common sense, we should be even more concerned that our republic is in the process of ceasing to be in any meaningful sense a democracy.

As a parent, we have to take back the schools and resist the indoctrination of our youth to the "gay" liberal values. The whole point of the definition of marriage is not the civil rights issues, but to keep families together! God created Man. And God's plan to keep mankind going is though procreation. And it is a biological fact the only way to create a family is though One Man and One Woman. That is that. It is not a civil rights issue at all. Domestic partnerships are valid. Please keep Marriage between a Man and a Woman. Our kids want it. They want a Mom and a Dad to raise them in a family, intact. Simple as that.
Conveniently, that portion of American society that supports the written Constitution, and that denies the power of government to redefine marriage, also provides the overwhelming majority of volunteers for the American military and for law enforcement and public safety.

What if Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews“ and people of any religion who believe in democracy and the Constitution“ all retired from the military or police, or refused to enlist or reenlist as long as they are going to be used to enforce the "laws" made up by dictators?

What if we ceased to put any marriage announcements, obituaries or want ads in papers that run "gay marriage" announcements, or even stopped buying those papers at all? The "mainstream" media would quickly discover that they aren't so mainstream after all.

What if we all kept our children at home and refused to allow them to go to propagandizing schools?

How long could our government function if we withdrew all our support?

I know a lot of people of faith who will resist. And we will succeed. Even if we need to take back our country by force. The constitution will be upheld and our country will be saved. I have faith in our Founders.

Obama's Cabinet

Friday, November 07, 2008

Obama apologizes to Nancy

I blew a gasket today what I heard at Obama's press conference today. How dare he say bad things about Nancy Regan holding seances! (She was into astrology, not brining back sprits!) It was Mary Todd Linclon who had a seance in the Whitehouse. Obama's joke went bad. I think he should stay away from telling jokes.
From Politico here.

More on "frivolus suits" on Prop 8

My option on the "No on 8" crowd why can't you get an initiative to amend the marriage definition on the California ballot to support "Gay Marriage?" And let the citizens of California vote on the issue. The definition of Marriage was voted on 8 years ago and passed. Four activist Judges made up a law to make Prop. 22 unconstitutional! Judge Rose Bird did the same thing by overturning the death penalty. California citizens voted for the Death Penalty into the constitution and over turned Judge Bird's decision. The government is for the people to decide not the courts. So if you so want to change a law, do it at the ballot box, not the court.

From Catholic News Agency here.
Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the pro-Proposition 8 campaign, criticized the legal actions.

“If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," Schubert said to the Los Angeles Times. “But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

Thursday, November 06, 2008

More trouble from ACLU

Here is a statement from Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of - Yes on 8.

I read it this morning and it brought back memories of Judge Rose Bird and Govenator moonbeam's days.
The right to amend California's Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People's decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People's authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.

It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same "constitutional revision" claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, "...only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU's "revision" claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) - P.3d -, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The Obama post racial promise

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don't think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

From LAT here.

I didn't vote for Obama for his race. I voted against his politics (taxes, redistribution of wealth and health care, etc) and his radical associations to Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. I voted on the issues, not the race of the candidate. The thing I did not like about Obama is he would say things about "typical white people" and how they cling to guns and religion. I say that we like our constitutional rights and freely worship the GOD of our choice. That's all. Many Americans of all races want freedom to choose how they live their life.

What the GOP needs to do

From Next Right here:
The first opportunity to leverage these cyclical advantages will come in the 2010 midterm elections. Despite some recent exceptions, the party of the president usually suffers a net decline of seats in Congress during off-year elections. This provides a realistic opportunity for the Republican Party to regain control of the House and reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate in the very near term.

This national cyclical advantage should be supplemented in four ways:

1. Aggressive candidate recruitment: The pool of quality potential congressional candidates for the GOP should be quite large. In particular, the drawdown of the American military presence in Iraq will make a pool of new veterans—largely inclined to conservative politics—available.
2. Web-based fundraising through bundling PACs: Traditional bundling PACs accept and forward paper checks to listed candidates. A smart web-based bundling PAC could allow donors to initiate a single transaction on the PAC’s website that would be forwarded electronically to list candidates per the donors' instructions.
3. A young ground game: Colleges and universities are enormous pools of high quality, low cost, and eager political talent. Creative efforts to transport, house, and support college students as canvassers and phone-bank workers for targeted congressional races could help overcome the chronic lack of labor that make sophisticated GOTV efforts difficult for many congressional campaigns.
4. A new “Contract with America”: The evidence suggests that issues play a limited role in campaign outcomes. But, the perception of the role of issues in an election outcome can be very important for developing claims of a mandate to enact policy changes after the election. Within some limits, a strong policy platform is unlikely to either help or hurt a national campaign for Congress. But, it can help provide a launching pad to actually enact conservative policies, particularly over the objections of a sitting President Obama. Some potential items might include:
1. A balanced budget amendment that includes requirements for reasonable debt payment timetables
2. Income tax simplification to make one-page filing a reality and increase transparency
3. Income tax reduction on the first $10,000 of income from interest and dividends to encourage savings and investment
4. Healthcare reforms to allow doctors to charge on a sliding scale without risking reduced payments from insurance companies.
5. Strong web use privacy laws limiting the type of information that websites can collect and store about users

Like Obama supporters who are all Internet based and are ordered to attack any opposition. We need to build up an "Army of Davids" i.e. Glenn Reynolds and counter attacks. I think we should support local Young Republican groups at Colleges and Universities. And teach our kids what is conservatism. A good set of books to buy for them is the 2 book series of "America The Last Best Hope" by William J Bennett. He has been going to schools and promoting his books. Americas youth must be taught our own history "warts and all." We need to show our kids that its ok in loving America the way it is. We don't need to transform it, we need to educate our youth on its history, and it's Freedoms. It is important to keep America free.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Vote for Lando or Palpatine?

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

The No on Prop 8 add that is totally wrong!

I got an e-mail waring about LDS and the lies the No on Prop 8 people are saying. The Catholic Church, the Mormons, Southern Baptists, other evangelicals are supporting Yes on 8. It is hurtful to me that the No on 8 people are lying about LDS and the Mormons would never go into anyone home and violate them. Never! Not true all all!


HT to Hedgehog blog here.

Why "Gay" Marriage is wrong

My sister is working hard at the Ventura County campaign office for "Yes on 8." I'm blogging for "Yes on 8" side of things. Hat Tip to Orson Scott Card's site "The Orney American" for a link to this site at Family Research Council here.
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.

This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:

If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

Meaning One Man and One Woman. That's it! The Father figure of a Man and the Mother figure of a Woman. That is what governs a child's basic needs.

I've taken from this article the main points here in outline form:
Why same sex marriage is wrong.
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
2. Children need fathers.
3. Children need mothers.
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Monday, November 03, 2008

I back Mac! (And Mac is Back!)

Republican John McCain boldly declared "Mac is Back" as he predicted victory in his election race with Democrat Barack Obama at a rally in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.

The fired-up 72-year-old Arizona senator, who is trailing Senator Obama in polls, renewed his attacks on his opponent's patriotism and tax plans in a rally before several hundred supporters crammed into a school gymnasium.

"I've been in a lot of campaigns, I know when momentum is there. We're going to win Pennsylvania, we're going to win this election," Senator McCain said.

"I sense it, I feel it, I know it.

"I say again my friends, we're going to win here. We've got two days, knock on doors, with your help we can win. We need you to volunteer, we need a new direction and we have to fight for it.

"My friends - the Mac is Back."

From ABC here.

Yes on 8 rally

Campaign stickers

Obama wants Coal Bankrupt