Tuesday, April 28, 2009

NRO supports RINO Specter...

When a person votes for a Democrat, they generally know that they're getting a person who is:

1. Pro-abortion
2. Pro-big government
3. Anti-gun
4. Anti-big business (at least in name - plenty of dems are fine being fat cats)
5. Pro-union
6. Pro-"victim" group (illegal immigrants, minorities, homosexuals, women, etc.)
7. Pro-eco-religion.
8. Anti-military
9. Pro-internationalism (global government)
10. Pro-raising taxes to punish "the wealthy"

When a person votes for a Republican, at least nowadays, what could they possibly think they're getting?

Pro-life? No, there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, and the ones who are pro-life never really make an issue of it.

Pro-small government? Nope. Plenty of Republicans like to spend your money on their pet projects. There were lots of Republicans who mocked the Porkbusters, and the Tea Parties. Plenty of Republicans were hell-bent on voting for Bush's last stimulus, which radically increased the size of the government.

Pro-gun? Nope, there were plenty of Republicans who would've voted in favor of the assault weapons ban renewal.

Pro business? Nope, the Republicans are just as anti-business as the Dems. They are owned by certain sectors of the economy, the Dems are owned by other sectors of the economy. And their vote for the "stimulus" package at the end of Bush's term was a vote AGAINST market freedom.

Anti-union? The Republicans have never took a fight to the unions, notwithstanding that the unions always support the Dems.

Anti-"victims' groups"? Nope, the Republicans always make sure to be politically correct.

Anti-eco-religion? Nope, the Republicans spew the same religionist platitudes about Mother Earth as the Dems.

Pro-military? Maybe, but notwithstanding their bluster, the Republicans are just as likely to equivocate about standing up to the nation's enemies as the Dems are. They also let the Dems portray them as idiots because of Bush's failure to lead the public here.

Anti-internationalism? Maybe, but many Republicans often say "we must go to the United Nations" just as much as the Democrats. And the Republicans are bought and paid for by the Saudis.

Anti-taxes? Many Republican governors have raised taxes, many Republicans in Congress are fine with raising some taxes and fees that are buried in pieces of legislation.

So what's the point in electing a Republican nowadays? They're just Democrat lite politicians.

People like Arlen Specter did a lot to damage the Republican brand. And what do the weenie geniuses at National Review Online have to say about it?

Pur et Dur [Andrew Stuttaford]

These remarks by Jim DeMint are not what I'd describe as grounds for good cheer:
I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.
He's missing the point.
If it comes to a choice, I'd rather have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however squishy some of the views of some in their ranks, than 60 Democrats who are all certain of theirs. Anyone who truly believes in limited government ought to understand that voting against can be as valid as voting for. If it takes a few Specters to see off a Democratic majority, so be it.
As for the idea that reducing the GOP to a rump of true believers (whatever that might actually mean: there are plenty on the right who interpret the terms "limited government" and "free people" in very different ways) is the essential first step in a Republican restoration, it is, I am afraid, a bad mistake. Wildernesses are, almost always, for losers.
And here's Ramesn Ponnru, always a reliable RINO:

The NRCC: "Good Riddance" to Specter [Ramesh Ponnuru]

That's what the GOP House campaign committee is saying in its press release. I guess it will be truly happy when Snowe and Collins leave too.

Senator Specter does the Republicans no good. He voted for the biggest increase in the size of the federal government in history. Throughout the blogosphere, many are saying "good riddance" to Specter. At NRO, they miss him. And people like Snowe and Collins aren't worth much either. They're pro-abortion, they're pro-big government. They bring nothing to the table. And I'm wondering if NRO does either.

The people at NRO are RINOs.

Senator Specter and the Clinging to Power...

Much have noted that Senator Specter opportunistically switched parties because he was 20 points behind in the Republican primary and seemed assured of a loss. By switching to the Democrats, he assures himself of an easier time retaining power as a Senator, backed by an incumbent President and a majority in Congress who can provide him with generous cash for his re-election.

Senator Specter is 79 years old. He's had cancer. He's been in the Senate since 1980, for about 29 years. He's running for re-election for another 6 years. If he wins in 2010, he'll be 86 years old when his term ends.

A sure sign of civilizational decline is when leaders cling to power. You see it in dictators like Zimbabwe's Mugabae, in North Korea, etc. It was troubling enough for Americans to see FDR cling to power that the 22nd amendment was enacted, limiting the the President to two terms of office.

Has anyone noticed that the halls of Congress are full of people clinging to power? I think New Jersey's Senator Lautenberg is like 247 years old. He's been in office, give or take a corrupt placeholder, since 1982. Ted Kennedy is clinging to his office - he's been there since 1964 - for over 45 years. 45 years? Robert Byrd - been there since 1959, for over 50 years! What the hell!? Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are basically invalids who can't even dress themselves let alone debate in the Senate. They should do the honorable thing and quit.

Dying in office of old age is a bad thing. Leaders who do that show more about the corruption of their office than the generosity of their public spirit. A better person would retire before his wits elude him, trusting that the time they spent in office was well used. Although it's good to have a long-serving faithful public servant, too often corruption becomes systemic such that many refuse to leave. The only time politicians are apt to quit is when their own power is diminished by a change in majorities (many Democrats quit after 1994, many Republicans quit in 2006). This is why term limits are necessary (but will never happen because Congress will never pass it).

Update: Hope the reference isn't too geeky, but it reminds me of this bit of JRR Tolkien's legendarium:
Tar-Atanamir the Great
He was born in the year 1800, and ruled for 192 years, until 2221, which was the year of his death. Much is said of this King in the Annals, such as now survive the Downfall. For he was like his father proud and greedy of wealth, and the Númenóreans in his service exacted heavy tribute from the men of the coasts of Middle-earth. In his time the Shadow fell upon Númenor; and the King, and those that followed his lore, spoke openly against the ban of Valar, and their hearts were turned against the Valar and the Eldar; but wisdom they still kept, and they feared the Lords of the West, and did not defy them. Atanamir is called also the Unwilling, for he was the first of the Kings to refuse to lay down his life, or to renounce the sceptre; and he lived until death took him perforce in dotage.
The Long Defeat of America continues.

Good Riddance to Arlen Specter...

This guy should've been kicked out of the Republican Party. Instead, the Republicans were idiots and decided to support him. Now he's making big headlines leaving the Republicans for the Democrats.
Specter, a five-term Republican and ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is facing a tough primary challenge next year from former Club for Growth president Pat Toomey. He was one of the three Republicans to support President Obama’s stimulus bill, and his liberal approach to many issues -- from his devoted opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork to his support for illegal alien amnesty programs -- earned him a low ACU rating of 43 in 2006. This switch will give the Democrats their 60-seat filibuster-proof majority.

The comments at Human Events are priceless.

Left unspoken is how much RINOs like Specter damaged the Republican brand, not only as evidence that they have no backbone, consistent philosophy, or core beliefs. But also for their stupidity in continuing to support someone who always spits in their eye. Good riddance, Specter. You never really counted for much anyway.

Edit: See here for more on the moral implications of Senator Specter's decision.


The last time I saw F-16s in person was after 9/11, when they were flying over my apartment building.

President HopenChange and his pre-9/11 thinking are what led to this.

I don't need to see F-16s buzzing New York City any more.

Update: here's another video that's much better.

Hot Air Blog Post Attacks Catholics as Shallow and Unbiblical...

At Hot Air's "Greenroom," in a post slamming Bill Maher for being a repulsive, amoral, hedonistic jerk, blogger The Other McCain concluded his post with an amazingly ignorant attack on the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation:

"At the beginning, you see Maher mocking the Catholic notion of transubstantiation and, at the end, you see an excerpt of Religulous in which Maher interrogates his mother, who married into the Catholic Church. The refutation of transubstantiation is simple enough: When Jesus spoke to the apostles about bread as symbolic of his body and wine as symbolic of his blood, Jesus was still sitting there among them, alive. Obviously, then, the expression was symbolic in meaning and the famous phrase, “This do in remembrance of me,” captures Jesus’ intention of this as a memorial ritual, not as a miraculous feat whereby the bread and wine literally became his flesh and blood.

That Maher would think it a serious critique of Christianity to mock a clearly unbiblical belief like transubstantion tells you a lot about his shallowness. And the fact that he felt the need to bring his mother into it tells you a lot about the childish resentments that motivate him."

So The Other McCain thinks that this is a clearly shallow, unbiblical belief. What a gratitutous slam on Catholics. I can't understand why this was done. Note, this isn't a blog comment, it's a post at Hot Air's "Greenroom" which is a collection of other bloggers posting at a separate area on Hot Air.

A commentor sets him straight:

“That Maher would think it a serious critique of Christianity to mock a clearly unbiblical belief like transubstantion tells you a lot about his shallowness.”

No. I think I’ve found out something about *your* shallowness via this gratuitous statement of anti-Catholic belief which does nothing to add to the point of your essay. Transubstantiation has far more biblical warrant than the 16th century Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Please point out for me one lengthy section of Scripture that can back up sola scriptura to the degree that transubstantiation can be backed up by the sixth chapter of John. Which part of “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” don’t you understand?

Do you have some problem with sussing out the meaning of the word “is” in the following passage? “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26)

Or is 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 too unscriptural for you? “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Your statement is without foundation. But the doctrine has always caused trouble. From John 6: “Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me…Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”…As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Look, if God Incarnate could do it (transubstantiation), if God Incarnate said He’d do it, why don’t you believe that He did it? If He could pull off the Incarnation, I’m sure He’d have little trouble with transubstantiation. You believe the former (presumably) but why not the latter? You only thereby cut yourself off from a great source of grace for eternal life. God wnats to be far more one with you than you imagine. He offers you His very flesh, His very substance, and you spurn it as superstition and somehow “unbiblical”. If so, it is your loss.

Matteo on April 26, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Even if The Other McCain doesn't believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, what is the point behind that idiotic attack on Catholics? It does nothing to support his argument that Bill Maher is a shallow person. Instead, he ends up saying that all Catholics are just as shallow as Bill Maher. It is incredibly insulting. Score another one for anti-Catholicism at Hot Air, this time by a sorta-kinda-co-blogger.

What's even more odd is that on his regular blog, The Other McCain has nothing but praise for Catholics:

When you actually examined Sager's book, however, you discovered that his argument was like the Rio Grande, a mile wide and six inches deep. He tended to treat all pro-lifers and social conservatives as if they were evangelicals -- i.e., conservative Protestants.

In fact, Catholics have always been the backbone of the pro-life movement, as anyone familiar with the movement could tell you. And this was especially true with the Terry Schiavo case, which Sager (and many others) cited as evidence of the undue influence exercised by "the Religious Right" within the GOP. But it was Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life who led the Schiavo crusade. Terry Schiavo was Catholic, her family was Catholic, and end-of-life issues are part of an elaborately developed Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life.

As with the Schiavo case, as with opposition to abortion, so also with opposition to the gay-rights agenda -- the Catholic Church has been firmly on the conservative side, and yet Sager (again, like many others) continue to single out evangelicals when they want to slam "the Religious Right." Why?

It is an appeal to prejudice.

Of course, he's noting that Catholics are at the core of the pro-life movement only to protest against an attack by some RINO on sterotypes involving protestant fundamentalists. Still, given this kind of political support that The Other McCain finds valuable to conservativism, you'd think he'd be more circumspect in his comments. He shouldn't be so quick to equate fundamental Catholic doctrine with something "shallow" or "unbiblical," especially when it is not.

It'd be nice if other Christian conservatives didn't merely see Catholics as political allies...

UPDATE: Whattya know, the guy who corrected The Other MccAin has a blog. Hi Matteo! Nice blog you have there. Thanks for the smackdown. I enjoyed it immensely.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Federal Overstep or Hint of More to Come?

By now, I'm sure most people have heard about the Department of Homeland Security report on "right-wing extremists" that it defines as
those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

That broad, sweeping generalization - particularly taking aim at opposition to abortion or immigration, implies that religious beliefs or political opinions could make a person a target for investigation (or worse) by the federal government.

The report is also famous for saying that returning military veterans could become recruits for homegrown terror movements. The American Legion slammed DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for that anti-military bias.

The best take-down of the report can be found here, at Powerline. Additionally, even the #1 liberal Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee found himself dumbfounded that DHS would issue a report, noting:
"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans -- including war veterans," Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.

"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans -- whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.

The report "blurred the line," and Mr. Thompson said he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide.

"I am particularly struck by the report's conclusion which states that I&A 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization,'" Mr. Thompson said, demanding to know what types of activities DHS had planned for "the next several months."

Now Napolitano is doing the rounds trying to apologize for the blow up. I think she should be fired anyway. Here she is on Fox News trying to spin the report. When called on the broad definition of rightwing extremist included in the report, however, all she can do is stumble. I like it how the Fox News guy asks if all Catholics, because of their opposition to abortion, are now considered extremists by the federal government:

Even if this report is just an incredibly stupid, poorly worded, bureacratic SNAFU - I wonder if it is an indication of things to come. The Washington Post did a recent article (safe link to avoid drive-by-media) noting that religious people are increasingly losing in court as conflicts arise between the homosexual activists and their allies in government, and religious groups. Religious freedom, protected by the First Amendment, loses out to homosexual activism. The article notes these examples:

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional

"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."

The article includes this chilling summary:
Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."

Right now, it seems that the Courts are willing to take up the effort of punishing religious groups because of their religious views. But DHS might not be far behind. Hopefully if I have time, I'll post more on what I think are various clues that America is slowly becoming a new unfree police-state like Roman Empire, content to throw Christians once again to the lions, along with other indications showing a general decline. New tag to go with that type of post: the Long Defeat of America.

An ok summary of the term Long Defeat can be found at Wikipedia.

Susan Roesgen is a Liberal Hack...

Stay for the end on this video. I love the righteous indignation of the tea party protestor who asks, "are you trying to play stupid?"

If you're going to talk with the media, that's how to do it.

The drive-by-media are the enemy of all decent people. I have't watched TV news in years, I get all my news from blogs and others on the internet. Haven't read a newspaper or a newsmagazine in years, either. I can't wait for all of them to go bankrupt.

Although not included as a part of this clip, Ms. Liberal Hack was also upset that a protester chose to compare Obama to Hitler (he might've been a liberal plant). However, she wasn't so upset when the left did the same thing to Bush.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Deranged Abortion-Loving Sickos...

Sick, sick sick. This woman should be institutionalized. Her sanity is clearly absent.
We need to create a world where a woman having an abortion is as respected and supported as a woman having a baby. As the movement for abortion pride and the recognition of women's human rights progresses, we will continue to speak out with our voices, our experiences, our bodies - and our lives. YES - ABORTION PRIDE!
What is it that makes people so deranged that they think the disemboweling and murder of babies should be just as celebrated as becoming a mother?

I wonder if this "abortion pride" crap is the start of a new honesty from the murder-lovers of the left. At least they're not cloaking it in some false sense of shame.

I should hope that abortion will never be as respected as having a baby. But never underestimate the depths of cultural suicide that America will succumb to. I give it until the end of Obama's term as president before this woman's rant becomes standard in the Democratic party platform.

Note: Always, always, always use the term "pro-abortion" instead of pro-choice. And then when you're called on the use of that term, you can point to sickos like Marcy Bloom and Katherine Ragsdale who proudly advocate the choice of abortion instead of the choice to have a baby. Abortion should always and everywhere be equated with premeditated murder, because that's exactly what it is.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Passover Coca-Cola...

I recently learned of the existence of Passover Coca-Cola, which doesn't have high fructose corn syrup, but actual, real sugar.

Passover Coke, otherwise known as Kosher Coke, can be spotted in stores by its yellow bottle-top, which also sports some neato Hebrew words on the cap.

Kosher Coke supposedly tastes great because corn syrup leaves an aftertaste, and sugar is what God intended to use in Coca-cola. It seems that everyone in the world in the know who likes soda stocks up on it during Passover, because it's authentic and a classic. Coke started adding corn syrup to their soda in 1985.

I spotted some Kosher Coke in the supermarket today. I'm not a soda drinker normally, but I had to try it.

Let me tell you, it was frickin' GREAT! If they made it all year long, I'd probably drink it every day. Wow. I'm going to stock up so that on special occasions I can bring out the Kosher Coke like it's a fine bottle of wine.

Now you know: Coke with yellow bottle caps with Hebrew on them = Awesome.

Evil Priestess Worships Abortion...

This sermon by Katherine Ragsdale, a so-called "priest" in the Episcopal Church, is illuminating for several things. Written in 2007, it has come to attention because of her recent election as Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge and has caused a firestorm because she says "abortion is a blessing." No, she doesn't just say it. She chants it:
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
The comments in her own blog, if they're not deleted, are illuminating. Of course she has been called out for her evil, wicked prayer. Abortion is her sacrament. But doing a little more digging has shown me several things.

First, take a look at her bio. Here's her wikipedia page. What has she been doing?
Ragsdale has served for 17 years on the national board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is also on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice America, The White House Project, the Progressive Religious Partnership, as well as the bi-national advisory board of The Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence. She presented to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 2004.[3]
Aside from being a "priest", her entire life has been devoted to abortion. She's on the board of the National Abortion Rights Action League (now called NARAL). She worked for nearly 20 years for the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (now called Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice). Her entire purpose and meaning in life revolves around abortion (ever notice how those groups got rid of the word ABORTION from their names?).

This woman puts the lie to the theory that people who are "pro-choice" are not pro-abortion. Of course they are pro-abortion. Because to them, abortion is a blessing. "Pro-choice" fundamentally means pro-abortion. It is ridiculous to be in favor of a choice if one of those choices is inherently evil. You'd might as well say you're pro-choice if the choices were eating applesause or drowning your mother.

But notice anything else?

She's glad that: "The Democrats have removed "safe, legal, and rare" language about abortion from the platform. About time!"

A little digging in her other blogs found me this other sermon, where she said (in 1996):
So, the first question – addressed to us all – is: what are we doing to reduce the need for abortions? None of us, regardless of our position on choice, approves of a world where pregnant women are faced with despair and see no viable options but to abort. But what are we doing, as God’s agents in the world, to change that situation?... No, we cannot eliminate the need for abortion. But we could dramatically reduce it. What are we doing to make our society more supportive of children and families? What are we doing to reduce the need for abortion?
How to square her desire to reduce the need for abortion in 1996, with her sermon in 2007 saying that she's glad the Democrats dropped the "rare" crap from their platform and that abortion is a blessing?

It's because she was lying in 1996. She doesn't want to reduce abortions at all. They do not want abortion to be rare - and not only because NARAL and people like Ragsdale are funded by the abortion mills. The other reason? Ragsdale says: "The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing." Yes, abortion is all about me me ME! She doesn't want people to be "compromised." Just like Obama doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby.

So whenever you hear someone say that they're not pro-abortion and they're really pro-choice, know that they're lying, both to you and possibly to themselves. And whenever you hear someone say that they want abortion to be rare, they're probably lying as well. Abortion-lovers don't want abortion to be rare.

(Hat tip to Hot Air's headlines, which brought them to Amy Wellborn's beliefnet post, which devolved into another religious fight, so much that she closed the comment thread.)

UPDATE: Ragsdale deleted her post. Here's a cached version, scroll down to find the sermon. Unfortunately, the comments were lost.