Executive Kill Orders

Obama’s first executive orders are about to gives us a hint what the next four years will be like.

Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush’s first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn’t be surprising if Obama did the same.

Because obviously the biggest failure of the United States over the last four years is neglecting our responsibility in eliminating the lives of unborn minorities in impovershed nations. Kill them all.

Is that our new message of “Hope” and “Change” to the World? God help us.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

What Did We Learn?

Obama beat McCain handily, 349 to 163 electoral votes.

What we should have learned, I don’t know that we did. What we should have learned is that we have principles and ideals and we should stick to them.

Ronald Reagan knew it, and we gave him victories. The 1994 Republican House knew that, and we gave them victories.

Ever since then, our leaders have been trying to reach across the isles. And we get trounced, every time.

George Bush Sr, “No New Taxes.” Until he reached across the isle, and we voted him out of office.

Republicans spent money in 2004-2006 like, well, like they were Democrats. And we voted them out of office.

What was McCain except a big reach across the isle? Part of the Gang of 14 that chose to work with Democrats instead of pushing for the judicial appointees which we will never get. Not in my lifetime. The Democrats will fill each and every one of those posts with liberal activist judges that should have been filled by conservative strict constructionists. Reaching across the isle hurt the conservative cause. Wait till Obama appoints 4 new judges in his first term to the Supreme Court, and then see if reaching across the isle helped us in any way.

McCain promised to take hatchet to the government spending and cut our earmarks, but when it came time for the $700 billion bailout of our economy, not only did he vote for it, but he also voted for an additional $150 billion in pork. That’s when he lost the election for sure.

Lesson learned. Stick to your principles.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday Things

I haven’t posted much this week. Perhaps it’s because I’m not thinking much this week. Here’s a little scrimpet of stuff that has passed by my noggin but is too little to write about –

  • I haven’t given much thoughts to the electrion so far this year; it bores me already. I don’t like any of the candidates. I might write in Ronald Reagan. But I’ll probably vote for McCain; he’s the lesser of three evils. Who do I want to run against him? I think both Clinton and Obama are beatable. I sort of enjoy watching the liberals call each other racist when they criticize Obama because that’s what they call conservatives, but int he general election, the news media will let that stick. “You didn’t vote for Obama? It’s because you’re a racist Republican, aren’t you?” I couldn’t care less what they call me, but I think that’ll swing enough votes that Obama has a chance, and I don’t care for his socialist ideas. But then again, I have the same concerns about running against Clinton. What I really want to do is start over and pick new candidates.
  • I upgraded to WordPress 2.5 this week. I don’t know what’s going on with my host, they don’t seem responsive lately.
  • Zemanta was a cool plugin for semantic WordPress, but it hasn’t worked in weeks. I’m running version 0.2.2, the latest. It doesn’t seem to like the various versions of Firefox and WordPress.
  • I’ve been playing with Facebook lately. I think it has the possibility of replacing social email, but they’re going to have to provide some sort of API or functional way for third parties to access email.
  • I installed a utility to crosspost my WordPress blog to Facebook. If you have a Facebook account or follow Chasing the Wind through an RSS feed or through email, you’ll know I posted this. If you don’t do those, you have to check here regularly which can be a pain.
  • I’m teaching Sunday; I hope my brain works by then. We’re still on Genesis, and the lesson will be on reconciliation. When we finish Genesis, we’ll start the book of Acts.
  • I think that completes my brain dump. Not much there this week. What’s going on in your life?

Yes, I made up the word “scrimpet” just now.

One Less Bad Candidate to Vote For

I think I keep hoping for some unknown conservative candidate to suddenly appear and give me somebody to vote for. Like the ghost of Ronald Reagan, perhaps.

What I want is a candidate that is socially and fiscally conservative. Socially conservative because, like it or not, the President sets an example for the morals of this country. Bill Clinton taught millions of middle schoolers that oral sex isn’t really sex, and an outbreak of oral sexual diseases broke out. He taught us that it’s ok to stretch the truth, it’s ok to lie by omission. I think a generation of dishonest youngsters are on the way. George Bush didn’t do that, but I feel misled; I thought “compassionate conservatism” was still conservatism. Under his leadership, Republicans spent money like drunken sailors. Whee!

When the Republican National Committe send their fundraising letters, I trash them. If they were conservative, I’d support them.

Duncan Hunter was my early favorite, but his campaign never got traction, and he’s dropped out. That left me choosing between Huckabee and Romney.

Huckabee is socially conservative. But is he fiscally conservative? His record as Arkansas governor doesn’t appear so. He’s all for mandating health goals. I don’t want the government involved to that level in my life. I also don’t think he has enough international experience. But I like him socially. I just can’t figure out why the second choice of Huckabee supporters is McCain.

And Romney is socially conservative. But fiscally, he too spends more than I’d like. But now he’s dropped out.

That leaves McCain, an unstable “maverick” that has done significant harm to conservatives. He dislikes evangelicals, he’s soft on border control, he co-sponsored that McCain-Feingold usurping of the First Amendment, he voted against tax cuts, and he was part of that group that unblocked the stalemate on judicial nominees. I *wanted* the stalemate; I disliked the fact the judicial committee could derail a nomimation and keep the full Senate from voting. McCain is a pain.

Look, a campaign slogan. McCain is a pain.

As of now, I don’t think Huckabee can make a comeback, and I’m not sure I’m sold out for him anyway. That leaves McCain.

Will I support him? McCain’s strongest suit is he is very strong on defense. To me, he’s weak on everything else. But compared to the socialist, defeatest Democrats, McCain looks comparitively good. Comparitively.

So when Romney dropped out earlier this week, there’s one less bad candidate to vote for. Now I only have to choose between three bad candidates: McCain, Clinton, Obama. With that poor selection, I’ll go with McCain.

I’m going to have to hold my nose and remember the alternatives are worse.

The Left Hates Inequality

On the surface, that doesn’t sound so bad. The Left hates inequality. Nobody need be better or worse than anybody else.

Trouble is, enforced equality is socialism, communism. Instead of bringing people up from the bottom, equality is enforced by shackling the achievers. When you see a special tax on oil profits, opposition to school vouchers, and tax breaks, you’re seeing opposition to programs designed to make people equal.

Dennis Prager at Townhall has an excellent article on this, be sure to read the whole thing. Here’s a snippet:

From the 1930s to the 1950s, liberals and social democrats vigorously opposed communism. But the rest of the world’s Left, especially its intellectuals and artists, not only did not oppose communist governments, they were the greatest defenders of communism.

By the end of the Vietnam War (begun and prosecuted by liberals), however, most liberals abandoned anti-tyranny, anti-evil liberalism and joined the rest of the Left. Thus, when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” the liberal world condemned him. The Cold War, once regarded as an epochal battle between freedom and tyranny, came to be regarded by liberals as an amoral battle between “two superpowers.”

Likewise liberals almost universally mocked President George W. Bush when he labeled Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, North Korea and Iran an “axis of evil.” It takes a mind that either has little comprehension of evil or little desire to confront it to object to characterizing three of the worst regimes in modern history as “evil.”

How else can one explain the Left’s enchantment with Fidel Castro, the totalitarian ruler of Cuba? Clearly his evil is of little consequence. What matters to people on the Left is that there is free health care and almost universal literacy in Cuba. Whereas non-leftists believe that it is far better to be illiterate but free, leftists believe that it is better to be a literate slave.

Today, this inability to either recognize or to hate evil is manifested in the liberal opposition to the war in Iraq. As I pointed out in a previous column, opponents of the war should be asked to at least acknowledge that America is fighting evil people and an evil doctrine in Iraq. But even that is difficult, if not impossible, for most people on the Left.

As noted above, everyone hates someone, and that includes people on the Left. The problem is that because they don’t hate evil, they hate those who oppose evil. That is how liberals went from anti-communist to anti-anti-communist. To paraphrase one of the greatest moral insights of the Talmud, those who show mercy to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful. So, George W. Bush, not the Islamic terror world, is the Left’s villain; life-embracing Israel is the Left’s villain, not their death-loving enemies; and religious Christians who note moral weaknesses within the Islamic world are the real danger, not the moral weaknesses within the Islamic world.

Zell Miller, Patriotic Democrat

Zell Miller gave a rousing patriotic speech last night to explain why he’s switching party lines to vote for George Bush. His heart and mind is his conscience, and he’s proudly stated something that’s important to me.

I am not necessarily a Republican. I don’t hold certain ideals because Republicans tell me to; I am a Republican because they hold my ideals. I’ll abandon my party, too, if they abandon me. And the Democrats have abandoned Zell.

I was going to post only excerpts, but the speech is so well done and captures the essence of patriotism, I’m going to list the entire speech here:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley’s most precious possessions.

And I know that’s how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man’s name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America “all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger.” In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their “private plans” than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time. And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between “here lies a president” or “here lies one who contributed to saving freedom,” he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most? Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I’ve spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today. Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi’s Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation’s Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein’s scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric. Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn’t like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. That’s the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday’s war. George Bush believes we have to fight today’s war and be ready for tomorrow’s challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under. George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a “yes-no-maybe” bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in “Amazing Grace,” “Was blind, but now I see,” and I like the fact that he’s the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man’s soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that’s not any history. It’s our family’s history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we’ve got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you. God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

My Lunchtime Leisure Reading for Today

Right Wing News gives us a sample of Michael Moore quote to help us know him and love him:

“If someone did this [9/11] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!” — Michael Moore On 9/12/2001

“There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.” — Michael Moore, October 2003

Buzz Machine is a relatively liberal site, but one I enjoy reading because Jeff spends more time thinking than the other liberals I’ve read, explains why Michael Moore’s film is trash.

As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn’t fall for all his obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the cheapest tin-horn demagog.

Indepundit brings some American flags to hand out to anti-war protestors. Their reactions are hysterical. “Er, no thanks. I have one. At home I mean. Are you one of us?” type of thing.

Right Thinking Girl explains why she wants nothing to do with Clinton.

ex Prez, who said that he was afraid that if he admitted the truth about Monica, it would have been the end of his presidency.

Well now I’m really mad. If Clinton knew that what he had done was bad enough to end his presidency, then why is he still whining over Kenneth Starr?

Little Miss Attila gives us a link to as much liberalism as we can stand in a single paragraph:

Let us never forget that the Pax Americana of the future brings forth this calamity brought to us by a horrific onslaught, known as Shock and Awe. So far, the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media belies justifications given by the world’s leading apologists for the final subjugation of the Middle East, beginning with the $90bn invasion of Iraq. For one thing, the 15-minute speech delivered Monday night by President Bush leads our attention to the essential Western imperial interests. As Norman Mailer pointed out, the pro-Sharon neoconservative cabal brings about the theocrat Ashcroft’s suspension of our civil rights.

And finally, Wizbang has excellent captures from today’s headlines:

Democrats, including Terry McAuliffe, Tom Harkin and Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, are lining up to see the anti-Bush Michael Moore movie which is long on hatred for Bush, but short on truth.

Democrat John Kerry criticizes Ronald Reagan for saving us from Jimmy Carter’s economic policies.

Democrats want to burn someone in the administration for Abu Ghraib.

Democrat John Kerry tells a group of scientists that George Bush has cut spending on science but this story explains that Bush has increased science spending dramatically.

Democrat Nancy Pelosi says bush has not done enough to stop the killings in Sudan. [Funny she did not give a shit about the killing in Iraq. -ed]

Democrats working in the entertainment industry raise money for Kerry because, “The sentiment against (President) George W. Bush is so strong.”

Democrats don’t want to pass an intelligence appropriations bill. They say Republicans are not funding counter terrorism enough, even though the bill funds counter-terrorism at the highest level in history.

Democrat Bill Clinton say that asking him hard questions is “helping the far Right”

Democrat John Kerry says Bush “puts ideology over science” because Bush does not want to allow scientists to kill babies.

Democrat John Kerry criticized Bush for being appealing to conservative voters. [Damn Him! -ed]

Democrats are hiring convicted felons including people convicted of crimes such as burglary, forgery, drug dealing, assault and sex offenses to register more Democratic voters… When they get caught, they blame it on George Bush.

Democrat Al Gore recently told an audience that “the [Bush] administration did not hesitate to heighten and distort public fear of terrorism after September 11th, to create a political case for attacking Iraq.”

Democrat John Kerry claims the American middle class has been faring miserably under President Bush’s stewardship of the economy. A lie so egregious that even the USA Today calls him on it on the editorial pages.

followed by a Kerry quote that proves he doesn’t read the news:

Kerry blames Bush for partisanship in Washington

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) — Democrat John Kerry criticized Republicans on Wednesday […] blaming a partisan culture created by President Bush and calling his rival “the greatest divider as a president in the modern history of this country.”

Wizbang links to all the headlines quoted for those that like to follow up.