The Loss of Conservatism

WASHINGTON - APRIL 18:   Republican presidenti...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

If the major news media has succeeded today in discouraging conservatives from voting, the trifecta will be complete – Legislative, Executive, and Media.

The blame for such a loss can be spread to many people. Let’s start at the top.

I like President Bush, and I threw my entire support behind him for the Iraq War. I think he is a good, honest President. But as a communicator, he failed. The left managed to brand him with a paint of hate, and Bush stoically didn’t respond. Terrible mistake. He also mistakenly believed he could appease the left with vastly expanded programs; Medicare, prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind, etc. Soon the spending of the Republicans put the spending of the Liberals to shame.

McCain reflects that belief that if we’re more liberal, liberals will like us. They don’t. And they can out-liberal us any day of the week. The real reason Republicans are losing is that once in power, they forgot they were the party of limited government. Just like the elder George Bush losing office because of his broken “No new taxes” pledge, the Republicans are being voted out of office because they are too liberal.

Americans won’t stand for the ultra-liberal policies about to be imposed on us, but by the time the Democrats are tossed out, the next incremental step toward a socialist nanny-state will be firmly in place. We’re about to lurch to the left

But much of their agenda — the “card check” proposal to end secret ballots in union elections, the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio, liberal judicial nominees, trade restrictions, retreat from Iraq, talks with Iran — doesn’t require spending. And after 14 years of Republican control of Congress, the presidency, or both, Democrats are impatient. They want to move quickly.

They’ll be able to do this because they hold nearly fillibuster-proof majorities, a far left puppet president who will vote “present” rather than tackle hard issues, and an ecstatic liberal news media. Toss in the liberal court system they will immediately appoint, and conservatism will be a little-remembered philosophy confined to the flyover states.

Conservatives, we did this to ourselves by trying to out-liberal the liberals. I sure hope we learn the lesson this time. We only win when we hold to our conservative principles. We didn’t do that thel ast 4 years, and we’re about to pay heavily for it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Christian Carnival CCXLIV

Christian Bible, rosary, and crucifix.
Image via Wikipedia

It’s National Bailout Day, seeing as how our illustrious US Congress has allocated $700 billion for Wall Street bankers. As Christians, I think we probably could put $700 billion to better use, don’t you?

But I got to thinking that our lives are not ours, we have been purchased at a cost. How much did it cost for Jesus to bail us out? In that view, $700 is mere paper. The Son of God sacrificed Himself.

Chasing the Wind is please tonight to host the 244th Christian Carnival, this week’s collection of the best Christian writing found on the planet. (Hey, if you find better, at least you’re looking. Halleluiah. :) )

In order they were received, here they are –

And that” wrap up this week’s edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of christian carnival ii using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bailouts and Earmarks

As we all know by now, Congress failed to pass the Bailout Bill on Monday for $700 billion (a number, apparently, the US Treasury just made up). If they pass it, they saddle taxpayers with the debt and socialize the banking system. If they don’t pass it, they tell us civilization will end as we know it and we enter the Next Great Depression.

Are those the only two options? Great Depression versus Socialism?

So what was wrong with version of the bailout that didn’t pass? Tonight, Congress will attempt to pass a revised version, so let’s see what they added (via)-

New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
– Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
– Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
– 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
American Samoa (Sec. 309)
– Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
– Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
– Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
– Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
– Railroads (Sec. 316)
– Auto Racing Tracks (317)
District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
– Wool Research (Sec. 325)

Ah. Obviously, Socialized Banking will be much more palatable if we buy more Puerto Rican rum. American Samoans and Indian Tribes who will be receiving earmarks will be happy to know that Puerto Rican rum will be cheaper. And Nascar, while they didn’t get beer subsidies, got some help with auto racing tracks.

I think, though, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that there are now earmarks for wooden arrows designed for use by children. I assume that the children from Indian tribes will be provided with wooden arrows and Puerto Rican rum, then told to drive around a race track and shoot each other while drunk. There’s money in there, too, for Film and Television to make it into a movie.

That alone justifies eliminating capitalism and socializing the western banking world. The bill should pass now.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

US Government Restricts Free Speech and Expression of Religion

The “separation of church and state,” such as it is, should keep the government from imposing a religion upon the people of this country.

But regulations that squelch the speech of pastors? Can the US Government tell pastors what they can and cannot talk about?

There is no law that I’m aware of that restricts the speech of pastors, but IRS regulations in place for over 50 years threaten to withdraw the tax-exempt status of churches that speak on politics. I am convinced this is a contributing factor to the decline of morality in the USA. The churches are the center of what we consider moral in the country, and if the pulpits are silent, immorality blossoms.

Some pastors have begun specifically defying this regulation by specifically mentioning candidates by name. Their goal is to overturn the IRS regulation through the court system. Listen: all rules and regulations in this country should follow the US Constitution, right? Here’s the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution –

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That tells me that the government can’t pass any laws on what churches can and cannot say, anymore than they can tell newspapers what they can and cannot print. Read that amendment and explain to me how it could be interpreted otherwise.

If you’d like to read more, the Alliance Defense Fund is spearheading this project.

“Pastors have a right to speak about Biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.

It’s a government restriction on the freedom of speech and the expression of religion. I cant see how anyone could interpret the Constitution any other way.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Free Country! Come and Get It! (ding ding ding)

My country doesn’t understand me.

Whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, this bill should make you suspicious. It was negotiated behind closed doors for 3 months by George Bush and Ted Kennedy. Regardless of your political viewpoint, I know you don’t agree with both of those guys. Nobody can.

The Senate is poised to grant ammnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. If your house was on fire, would you be rebuilding while it was still burning? No, of course not. You’d put the fire out first. If your house was flooding, would you be trying to lay down new carpet? Of course not, there’s still water pouring into your house.

If illegal aliens were streaming into your country because of free schooling, free health care, and free government services, would you grant them amnesty and eventual citizenship in an effort to stop the problem? Or is it possible that free U.S. citizenship might be an incentive to come here illegally?

The bill promises that maybe someday we’ll have a secure border. Sort of like last year’s bill that promised us a fence. Before we do anything about the existing illegal aliens, don’t you think it makes sense to stop the problem from reoccurring first?


What’s funny about this so far is who’s for and against the bill the first day –

Democrats for it:

Democrats against it:
Sweeney (AL-CIO President)

Republicans for it:
Cornyn (maybe)
Hutchinson (maybe)

Republicans against it:
Lamar Smith

Straddling the Fence:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards

Oddly enough, Mexicans oppose the plan, too.

Bits and Pieces

The news isn’t interesting yet again today. Republicans admire the Democrat’s desire to surrender. I don’t disagree that the Iraq war must end eventually, I just don’t think Congress should be dictating it. But I’m alone on that point, I think. Tammy Faye Bakker is preparing to die, but aren’t we all. I don’t spend a lot of time reading about her, but what little I know, she didn’t do much to improve the image of Christians. The Pope gives a warning to Catholic politicians. Good; pro-abortion catholic politicians are hypocrites.

Personal stories? Fresh out of them at the moment. I work all day, go to the gym, get home late for dinner, then go to bed. Rinse, repeat. I’m teaching bible class this Sunday, so I’m not likely to have any personal stories this week.

Christian Carnival should be posted soon, if not already. Let me go look for it… Nope, not yet. It’ll be posted at Light Along the Journey this week, but it’s not up yet.

I’m enjoying the built-in RSS reader in IE7, so I haven’t used Shapreader or Bloglines in a while. Hard to make a story out of that, but I suppose geeky tech writers, poor souls, have to write 1000 word essays on stuff like that so other geeky tech people can read about it. I don’t know many people like that, and trying to explains what RSS is to most of my friends would be like speaking French to a cat. But it has a great advantage; you can see if a website like this has been updated without ever visiting the site. Saves a bunch of time on clicking and loading web pages.

Um…. what else…. oh, Starbucks has a new sugar-free syrup to go with the vanilla and the cinnamon dolce; now they have sugar free caramel. I still like the vanilla best. And it has to be sugar-free, those full-fat, full-sugarlatte’s have like 6000 calories in them, enough for a small African village. I’m still losing weight, but I’m not sure when I’ll stop. Some friends the other night told me I looked “gaunt” so I suppose I’m almost through. It’s taken over two years, but I’ve lost 60 lbs. Another 10 lbs to go, maybe. The last 10 lbs, the hardest, were suddenly made easier when I signed up for Nutrisystem, so I’m going to recommend that program. Easy, almost never hungry. Email me if you want a coupon and we’ll both save $30.

What’s going on in your life?

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how – not whether – to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.