Friday, February 29, 2008

The Unintended Consequences of a Being a Pain-Free People

You may consider much of the secular news to be a pain in the posterior, but it’s the subject of pain itself that has been making recent headlines.

Veteran Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently drew the ire of court observers and editorial-page writers when he spoke in favor of using pain to interrogate terror suspects. The “big pain news of the month award” however, has to go to The New York Times Magazine. The weekly recently published a remarkably obtuse piece of journalism “revealing” that babies, at 20 weeks of gestation, may in fact be able to feel pain inflicted by abortionists’ surgical instruments. We offer, in response, a sincere and pointed “DUH!”

After generations of Americans endured and accepted as “simply part of life” the pain associated with everything from childbirth to corporal punishment, from broken bones to policemen’s blackjack whacks, we have now “evolved” as a people who endeavor to be pain-free. Perhaps the point is best illustrated by four words: thank God for epidurals! Further, many children today enjoy the comforts of pain-free, albeit monotonous, timeouts.

Doctors are often eager to provide potentially addictive narcotics to ease the discomfort of most any ailment. A case currently before the US Supreme Court argues that prisoners experiencing execution should simply be allowed to peacefully die in an induced sleep — pain free. Even animals raised for human consumption are protected by law from having to experience pain. While by no means are we pain advocates (after all, pain hurts!), it does strike us as disgustingly ironic that when The New York Times Magazine finally publishes a story suggesting anything negative about abortion, the article doesn’t focus on the fact that an innocent human life is being extinguished, but rather that the baby may experience some pain in-utero as he or she is torn apart by surgical instruments. The story was apparently co-written by Captain Obvious.

As evidence that pre-born babies can experience pain, the article notes a researcher who “selected 45 fetuses that required a potentially painful blood transfusion, giving one-third of them an injection of the potent painkiller Fentanyl…the results were striking: in fetuses that received the analgesic, the production of stress hormones was halved, and the pattern of blood flow remained normal.” In other words, less pain.

So while the research is quickly headed toward producing a consensus that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain (something pro-life advocates have maintained for years), the only holdouts, insisting the “pain switch” isn’t turned on until later in life, are those individuals who make their living promoting and performing abortions. How convenient!

Why does it matter?

The consequences of such research are potentially a matter of life and death. If as a people, we come to agree that unborn babies can feel pain, such knowledge gives them a consideration too often reserved only for supposedly higher levels of humanity. If they are, in fact, like us and do experience pain, then how can we in good conscience continue to murder them in the womb? After all, even cattle headed for the butcher shop shouldn’t have to endure pain. Right?

Full New York Times Magazine article.

Michael Clancy, the photographer who took the picture and who owns the copyright to it says, however, that out of the corner of his eye he saw the uterus shake and the baby’s hand pop out of the surgical opening on its own. Clancy says that when the doctor put his finger into the baby’s hand, the baby squeezed the finger and held on. You can read Clancy’s description of the experience and more about the picture at his website at

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2008--Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner today issued the following statement on the death of National Review founder and author William F. Buckley Jr.:

"Without Bill Buckley there would be no National Review. And without National Review, there would be no conservative movement, no Heritage Foundation, no President Reagan - or an America that's recognizable today.

"It's impossible to overstate the importance of National Review. It offered powerful conservative opinion against communism, big government and liberal culture at a time when no one else had the courage to do so.

"His long-running television show, 'Firing Line' was just as influential - a model for what political talk shows should be today. Unlike many current talk show hosts, Buckley rarely raised his voice. Instead, he had deep, occasionally heated, but civil discussions on topics ranging from Vietnam to abortion to the economy.

"His pointed grilling scared away more than a few politicians. Asked why Attorney General Robert Kennedy rejected several invitations to be on the show, Buckley quipped: 'Why does baloney reject the grinder?'

"Buckley changed the world by being himself: His twinkling eyes. His devilish grin. His sharp sense of humor. His unmatched intellect. A vocabulary that stumped the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Through his magazine, numerous TV appearances, long-running newspaper column, dozens of books and thousands of lectures, Buckley 'taught' modern conservative thought to me and millions of other Americans who now proudly live this philosophy. I will miss my teacher and my friend."

More on William F. Buckley Jr. from Fox News

...Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.
Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn't (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).

"I was very fond of him," Didion said Wednesday. "Everyone was, even if they didn't agree with him."

Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.

His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist ("Thank You for Smoking").

A precocious controversialist, William was but 8 years old when he wrote to the king of England, demanding payment of the British war debt.

After graduating with honors from Yale in 1950, Buckley married Patricia Alden Austin Taylor, spent a "hedonistic summer" and then excoriated his alma mater for what he regarded as its anti-religious and collectivist leanings in "God and Man at Yale," published in 1951.

Buckley spent a year as a low-level agent for the Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico, work he later dismissed as boring.

With his brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell, Buckley wrote a defense of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954, "McCarthy and His Enemies." While condemning some of the senator's anti-communist excesses, the book praised a "movement around which men of good will and stern morality can close ranks."

In 1960, Buckley helped found Young Americans for Freedom, and in 1961, he was among the founders of the Conservative Party in New York. Buckley was the party's candidate for mayor of New York in 1965, waging a campaign that was in part a lark — he proposed an elevated bikeway on Second Avenue — but that also reflected a deep distaste for the liberal Republicanism of Mayor John V. Lindsay. Asked what he would do if he won, Buckley said, "I'd demand a recount."

He wrote the first of his successful spy thrillers, "Saving the Queen," in 1976, introducing Ivy League hero Blackford Oakes. Oakes was permitted a dash of sex — with the Queen of England, no less — and Buckley permitted himself to take positions at odds with conservative orthodoxy. He advocated the decriminalization of marijuana, supported the treaty ceding control of the Panama Canal and came to oppose the Iraq war.

Buckley also took on the archconservative John Birch Society, a growing force in the 1950s and 1960s. "Buckley's articles cost the Birchers their respectability with conservatives," Richard Nixon once said. "I couldn't have accomplished that. Liberals couldn't have, either."

Although he boasted he would never debate a Communist "because there isn't much to say to someone who believes the moon is made of green cheese," Buckley got on well with political foes. His friends included such liberals as John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who despised Buckley's "wrathful conservatism," but came to admire him for his "wit, his passion for the harpsichord, his human decency, even for his compulsion to epater the liberals."

Buckley was also capable of deep and genuine dislikes. In a 1968 television debate, when left-wing novelist and critic Gore Vidal called him a "pro-war-crypto-Nazi," Buckley snarled an anti-gay slur and threatened to "sock you in your ... face and you'll stay plastered." Their feud continued in print, leading to mutual libel suits that were either dismissed (Vidal's) or settled out of court (Buckley's).

The National Review defended the Vietnam War, opposed civil rights legislation and once declared that "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail." Buckley also had little use for the music of the counterculture, once calling the Beatles "so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic."

The National Review could do little to prevent Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964, but as conservatives gained influence so did Buckley and his magazine. The long rise would culminate in 1980 when Buckley's good friend, Ronald Reagan, was elected president. The outsiders were now in, a development Buckley accepted with a touch of rue.

"It's true. I had much more fun criticizing than praising," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "I criticize Reagan from time to time, but it's nothing like Carter or Johnson."

Buckley's memoir about Goldwater, "Flying High," was coming out this spring, and his son said he was working on a book about Reagan.

Buckley so loved a good argument — especially when he won — that he compiled a book of bickering in "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription," published in 2007 and featuring correspondence with the famous (Nixon, Reagan) and the merely annoyed.

"Mr. Buckley," one non-fan wrote in 1967, "you are the mouthpiece of that evil rabble that depends on fraud, perjury, dirty tricks, anything at all that suits their purposes. I would trust a snake before I would trust you or anybody you support."

Responded Buckley: "What would you do if I supported the snake?"

Saturday, February 23, 2008

America; Responsible for "Hell on Earth!"

One of the purposes of this blog besides promoting Conservatism, which does work as opposed to liberalism which doesn't, is to expose what I call "the enemy within"

I think you know who I am talking about, "Americans" who hate their country and blame America for all the world's problems while at the same time benefiting from all that being an American has to offer, freedom, opportunities, highest standard of living etc

Well yesterday I received an e-mail. I didn't know the sender and my policy is to NOT open any e-mail that I don't recognize. Well something made me feel it was ok so I opened it.

Evidently it was from someone who was forwarded an e-mail a friend of mine sent to a number of people, including myself, about illegals being able to recieve Pell Grants.

So here is the e-mail that this person a, send to EVERYONE on the orginal forward list;

Before any of you get up in arms you might want to check out this urban legend at at the above url. This sort of nonsense spreads fear and discrimination. We have enough on our plates without creating fantasy anger. And for the record, all of the illegal immigrants i've met and know work hard, take care of their families and want a better life (however, i'm sure they are just as fallible as the rest of us); i'm guessing much like our ancestors when they came to this country...uninvited until we took it by force and bloodshed but oh i know that was different wasn't it because after all it benefited us (not Them). All humans are citizens of this world and as long as we want to draw boundaries and hoard resources we will be at war and this earth will be a living hell....but feel free to promote prejudice...this is a free country.

Unbelievable. Even though I KNOW the rhetoric of these apologists and America haters I am still as astounded at their hate for their country, my country, the country I love, the United States of America

So of course I replied to EVERYONE


No one doubts that a lot of illegals work hard, take care of their families and want a better life" but then again many do not. However what don't you understand about the word "illegal"? We have laws in this country. If you break them, you should reap the consequences. Coming to this country is a privilege, not a right. And we have the right to determine who we grant that privilege. Why should illegals be allowed to break the law and illegally enter this country when there are others who wait and do it legally? Why should I then, obey any law when someone, not even a citizen breaks them?
Do you have any idea of what would Mexico do? The answer is easy: deport them on the spot. Not only that but the Mexican government encourages illegals to enter this country because so many send money they make here illegally, back to Mexico

And if you want to talk money do you know how much illegal immigration cost us? "Congressional Budget Office projects 700-900K Illegal Immigrants entering annually and 70 million in the next 20 years."

"The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion ins 1996, $51 billion ins 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992."

Not to mention crimes committed by illegals;

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants
2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants CRIME STATISTICS

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

BIRTH STATISTICS 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens.

97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.

66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers

i'm guessing much like our ancestors when they came to this country...uninvited until we took it by force and bloodshed but oh I know that was different wasn't it because after all it benefited us (not Them).

Too bad your ashamed of your ancestors. I am not. True there were injustices and the treatment of Indians was shameful however the government and Americans have tried to address those ever since with legislation and aid. Google aid to Native Americans and see what you get.

Do you have any idea of the history of Mexico? Do you know that the Spanish invaded and conquered the Indians and were very brutal in their treat meant of the natives Indians? Oh and lets not forget that Native Mexican Indian ceremonies included cutting out the hearts of live victims for sacrifice.
Or the fact that native Mexican and Native American Indians would raid each other territories, conquering and enslaving their Native "brothers". Tribal warfare marked Native American life. "The torture of prisoners was the most distinctive feature of warfare in eastern North America."
we want to draw boundaries and hoard resources we will be at war and this earth will be a living hell

This is a patently ludicrous statement. Draw boundaries? What country doesn't have boundaries? Without boundaries there is chaos. Are we not allowed to have an American culture? Or is that just the right of other countries , like France?

And as far as hoard resources, we are the most generous country in the world! Do you have any idea of the amount of money and charitable programs that our government and individual Americans give to others in the world?

13 billion in foreign aid

Not to mention President's Bush "$15 billion AIDS relief plan ,the largest-ever international health initiative devoted to one disease,"[enter%20URL]

"America is the most generous country in the world in terms of how much it spends on foreign aid, not to mention the billions of dollars donated by individual Americans through private non-profit aid. Most of the poverty in the third world is created by corrupt governments that are oftentimes aided by corrupt UN bureaucrats. Much of the money we donate goes never gets to people we are supposed to be helping because of this corruption."
Btw how much money or time have you given?

Your whole e-mail is one of a typical leftist blaming America for all the world's problems. No facts to back up your claims, just the liberal leftist party line. If this country is so awful and we are responsible for "hell on earth" why don't you go to some country that you can admire?

You obviously don't care for your country of origin. How about Cuba, its close. How about Communist China? Iran? France? (although these countries have "boundaries" too and most on the list are pretty "fuzzy" when it comes to free speech, oh and the standard of living is lower) Take a little time to decide. You need to do this for yourself, and do it for the rest of us who are proud of our country, proud and grateful to live in the freest, (Yup free to even hate it and have the right of free speech to write angry e-mails telling others how much you hate and are ashamed of it) richest country on earth

It may be the most charitable act you have ever done.

P.S. Oh and btw you may want to Google to see if knowing about and not reporting illegals is a crime


RV Wanna-be

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.Lamentations 3:22

Friday, February 15, 2008

Obama's "Change"

Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel that would cost 0.7% of gross national product
Posted: February 15, 200812:04 am Eastern

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.
It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.
"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.
The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."

One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."

Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."

The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."

It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.

Words almost fail me here. But its obvious that Barack Hussein Obama's sees himself as an apologist for America and a "messiah of rescue" for the entire world. It seems to go beyond a so called "visionary" to delusional. As a "Christian" doesn't Barack know that Jesus said,""The poor you will always have with you" Matthew 26:11

Not that I am saying we are not our brothers keepers and that we shouldn't try to leviate the suffering of the poor.

However, when did Jesus press Herod or Pilate or Caesar to take care of the poor? He didn't. He did entrusted his believers with that responsibility. And He tells families to take care of their own. I ask you to name one thing the government does efficiently and cost effectively? The needs of the poor are best met by us, directly, not through a governement program, and certainly not in collusion with the corrupt America-hating U.N.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

RVing and "Fascism"

Just wanted to share a "encounter" I had while surfing the 'net for Rving products.
I ran a cross a site called "The Mobile Homestead". This site sells Rving products. I don't care to provide a link because I don't want to give them the hits.
However at the very top of the main page was this quote,

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag carrying a cross."

Number one, what does this have to do with Rving products?
and number second two, we all know the connotation of this quote
"Beware of patriotic Christians"

So I decided to e-mail the site owner. I asked her the same thing, "What does this have to do with Rving? I also told her as a Christian I found this quote offensive. I also asked her to explain what it meant to her before I did business with them.

This was her answer;
This quote describes the way all totalitarian regimes start and only an under-educated knee jerk reactionary person wouldn't know that ,so were happy to tell you to take your business elsewhere.

The Mobile Homestead

Pretty typical angry name calling leftist answer

Just be to clear lets see what the leftist see as "Facism"

This answer was provided by a "Joe T" on Yahoo answers and was choosen as the "best" answer to what, "When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag carrying a cross." means
And according to "Joe T "and obviously the owner of this site, fascism has already come to America

Of course. It's already happening

1. Determined to move to one-party politics
2. Harassment and vilification of political opponents
3. Evoking God as guider of their destiny
4. Punishment of the "work-shy" (welfare), retarded, the aged, and homosexuals
5. Censorship of art forms as "degenerate" and "pornographic"
6. Marked and clandestine leanings toward closet homosexuality within party leaders
7. leanings toward racial purity and abolishing immigration
8. virulently anti-abortion
9. militarily aggressive
10. debt-driven, frantic economy
11. Feelings of having a superior form of government
12. hatred of liberalism in all forms

So evidently these beliefs are'facism"

1. Being pro-life
2. Not viewing homosexuality as "normal"
3. Being patriotic and believing that a Democratic Republic IS a superior form of goverment
4. Defending your country by being offensive
5. Not embracing liberalism
6. Being able to distinguish porn and being able to have your own defintion of "art"
7. Not encouraging the "work shy"
8. Against illegal immigration
9. And the worst of all, being a Christian and speaking as one as a political candidate

So my fellow Americans, those of you who aren't liberals and subscribe to the above list, are "Nazis"

Ya know its good to be hit in the face with the reality of how true liberals think. It helps us conservatives become stronger in our reserve.

So in a weird way, I am thankful to a Millie Shaw, the owner of The Mobile Homestead

Let us never forget

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

Benjamin Franklin: Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 original manuscript of this speech

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

George Washington
“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

James Wilson:
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Supreme Court Justice appointed by George Washington
Spoke 168 times during the Constitutional Convention

"Christianity is part of the common law"
[Sources: James Wilson, Course of Lectures [vol 3, p.122]; and quoted in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg, & R. 393, 403 (1824).]

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia James Madison

The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive •
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

Liberty Bell Inscription:
“ Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof” [Leviticus 25:10]

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Quo vadis, conservatives?

By Michelle Malkin
February 7, 2008 06:06 AM

I filed an extra, post-Super Tuesday syndicated column this week. Felt like we needed a pep talk. Ignore John McCain.

Don’t “calm down.” Get fired up

“Quo vadis,” conservatives? It’s the ancient, apocryphal question the apostle Peter asked Jesus while fleeing persecution in Rome. Where are you going? Where do we go from here?

The contest for the GOP presidential nomination is over. The conservative movement is not. Sen. John McCain’s campaign resurrection and Super Tuesday victory leave a diverse group on the Right—from the libertarian Club for Growth to First Amendment defenders to immigration enforcement proponents—dispirited. But the failure to nominate a true Republican unifier does not spell ideological defeat.

On Wednesday, wielding his olive branch like a schoolmarm’s ruler, Sen. McCain told conservatives to “calm down.” My advice is exactly the opposite: Get fired up.

Some on the Right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds, and secure borders—no matter who takes the White House in November.

Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions?
Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.

Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.

If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base.
Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom ( group for their endorsements.

Opposed to the amnesty bill?
Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and John Cornyn of Texas all fought the McCain-Kennedy-Graham-Martinez-Bush open-borders disaster. All of those Senators are up for re-election this year. Send them some money. Then send a few more bucks to the enforcement proponents on the House side as well.

Don’t sit and wait for the fence to get built.

It won’t be finished under the Bush administration or a McCain administration or an Obama or Hillary Clinton administration. What you can do is pressure mayors and police chiefs and city councils to rescind dangerous sanctuary policies.
What you can do is alert county sheriffs that you want them to work with the feds to end illegal alien catch-and-release policies in your neighborhood..
What you can do is stop patronizing businesses that you know are knowingly employing illegal immigrants using fake Ids and stolen Social Security numbers.

There are other vital issues on the ballot this fall that need conservative backing. Conservative stalwart Ward Connerly is leading a “Super Tuesday of Equality” drive in November to end racial preferences in five states. He has not only battled the race demagogues on the Left and the affirmative action apologists in the media, but also spineless GOP establishment leaders who would rather pander to the “diversity” lobby than fight for true equality under the law.

Connerly spearheaded resounding victories in California, Washington, and Michigan. The new campaign is targeting Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Support his organization, the American Civil Rights Institute (

Twenty-six years ago at the Conservative Political Action Conference, President Reagan rallied conservatives:

“We must ask ourselves tonight how we can forge and wield a popular majority from one end of this country to the other, a majority united on basic, positive goals with a platform broad enough and deep enough to endure long into the future, far beyond the lifespan of any single issue or personality.”

Get involved. Don’t calm down. Get fired up.

AMEN Michelle

Time for all the lamenting, hand wringing, and hate fest to stop. It is what it is but it doesn't have to be that way in your neck of the woods.
Don't give up or give in, give your time, your money, your support to local and state conservatives.

How about Tim Walberg one;

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen has named Walberg as one of the top targets in the House for the upcoming 2008 elections.
On August 23, 2007, State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer announced he would be challenging Walberg in the 2008 election. Schauer is the fourth Democrat to enter the race, along with 2004 and 2006 nominee Sharon Renier, attorney David Nacht, and former Adrian mayor and former state Senator Jim Berryman.

Friday, February 1, 2008

The Unvarnished State of the State

The Unvarnished State of the State
By Michael D. LaFaive

Since my job as fiscal policy director of a think tank requires me to watch the State of the State address every year, I have often wondered what I might say if I were governor. After a decade of analyzing state budgets and Michigan’s economy, I think my remarks would go something like this:
It is a pleasure to be here to deliver my very first State of the State address to this full chamber. My remarks will be different from my predecessors’ in two ways. First, I did not craft these remarks around pithy quotes that could be easily extracted by the media. Too many speeches by too many politicians are designed to solicit good press coverage rather than convey substantive ideas.

Second (and related), my speech is void of applause lines. It has, in recent years, become customary to place invited guests of heroic stature in our gallery and then dramatically recount the ways they have saved kids from ignorance, created jobs or served honorably in a theater of war. This omission will prevent legislators from leaping to their feet in raucous applause with the predictability of Pavlov’s dogs at the sound of a bell.
In exchange for meaningless but clever turns of a phrase, I will offer the troubling but blunt truth:

Michigan is dying.

The Great Lake State most of us remember from our youth is being replaced by a poorer, less competitive one. Consider just a few economic measures.

First, Michigan’s rank among the 50 states in per capita state Gross Domestic Product has tumbled from a high of 16th in 1999 to 39th in 2006.

State GDP is simply the value of all goods and services produced within the geographical borders of a state. This ranking is important to us because Michigan has typically done better during national booms and worse during recessions. But starting in 2002 something changed.

With a growing national economy we should have been climbing in the GDP rankings, yet we continue to fall. This is not a simple, cyclical event.

Second, Michigan’s per capita personal income is 7.8 percent below the national average, a rate worse than during the Great Depression.

Let me drive this point home. If present trends continue, the people of Alabama will on average have higher incomes than the people of Michigan in just three years.

Lastly, Michigan has the highest unemployment rate of any state in the nation at 7.6 percent. If the Great Lake State has another year of net job losses as is expected, it will represent the largest string of year-over-year job losses since the Great Depression.

Now, I ask you: Does anyone think any of these numbers will improve as a result of last year’s $1.4 billion tax hike?

The economic law of demand is clear. If you raise the price of anything — wheat, jobs or work, for instance — you get less of it. When the state hikes the cost of laboring and living in Michigan they will get less of it. We must reverse these trends and do so with dramatic reforms.

For starters, Michigan must become the 23rd right-to-work state, which is perhaps the greatest economic development tool in the state’s reach.

Between 2001 and 2006, states with voluntary unionism enjoyed state GDP growth of 18.1 percent. Michigan grew by only 3.4 percent during the same period. From July 2005 to July 2006, nine of the top 10 states in terms of population growth were right-to-work states. The numbers suggest that this is no coincidence.

We must repeal the hated Michigan Business Tax — which repealed the hated Single Business Tax — and we must offset revenue losses by reducing the size and scope of state government. The Mackinac Center has compiled a list of spending reductions that would save the state $1.3 billion without cutting any core government functions.

The good news is that Michigan is a great state with abundant natural resources, such as water and human talent. Moreover, opportunity can spring from crisis. Someone once said that politicians will do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted every other option. Michigan may have reached that point. Let us move forward.
Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.

As I read this I had two emotions, one of grief, that Michigan has absolutely the worst choice of a govenor at such a critical time in her history. And the other is anger, at how this governor is destroying her. However its a anger with resolve.
By all means available to me I will fight for my Michigan.
I hope you will join me....