To my wife and married daughters (and daughters-in-law).
You have all discovered by now that, contrary to much teaching in schools especially universities, men and women have highly different natures. They do not think alike. They do not act alike. One is not better than the other (except women are obviously by nature better). Heavenly Father, in his wisdom, knows that having a family and raising children is best done by a man and a woman together, each sharing their own nature and talents. Our modern prophets have issued a proclaimation to help us understand the spiritual roots of families.
Dennis Prager, a Jewish rabbi with a talk show, has a penchant for clarity. He does an outstanding job of discussing the differences between men and women and helping to understand what brings happiness to married couples. I refer you to his work. After reading his articles you may think I am posting this for selfish reasons. Maybe I am, but think about what you read. Evaluate your own marriages. It is obviously not a cure-all to everything, but if you love each other, I think you can help make your marriages happier.
I've obviously had too much time on my hands over the holidays. I'll try to return to less frequent and more political blogging.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Sergeant Nibley, PhD
"Memories of an unlikely Screaming Eagle"
My wife presented me with a fascinating book for Christmas. For anyone interested in WWII, especially those familiar with Hugh Nibley, this is a highly interesting read. Who would have known that Professor Nibley road a Jeep onto Utah Beach on D-Day, flew in on a glider in Operation Market-Garden (A Bridge too Far), reported to his commanding officers the probability of the German attack at the Battle of the Bulge, and returned to the same area of Germany where he had served his mission just years earlier during the war's wrap-up.
A thought-provoking memoir of war, Nibley's son Alex admits to confusion and many contraditions about war. He concludes with this quote from his father, "There I was in the middle of a battle, and I was completely happy. It came to me very strongly: I shouldn't be happy in this circumstance! But it's not what happens to you that matters. It's not what becomes of you, it's what you become that's important." Amen.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Merry Christmas
If I had had "the talk" with my daughters, this is close to what I wish I had said. There is nothing in life that is more joyful than a happy and fulfilled married life, such as I have. When glowing couples communicate freely about everything they solve more problems and have better relations in all of their family, business and other interpersonal relationships. They are able to keep their marriage relationship prime and allow their other associations to maintain their proper priorities.
I wish all my children a happy Christmas season. May you each remain perfectly loyal to your spouse in body, mind, and spirit. Be careful with your resources, pay your tithing, bless your family and your neighbors with your good spirit and service. Spend less time with the TV and the computer. Cherish your Mother. Be kind to her and visit with her and tell her stories sometimes without asking her for anything.
I wish all my children a happy Christmas season. May you each remain perfectly loyal to your spouse in body, mind, and spirit. Be careful with your resources, pay your tithing, bless your family and your neighbors with your good spirit and service. Spend less time with the TV and the computer. Cherish your Mother. Be kind to her and visit with her and tell her stories sometimes without asking her for anything.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Lame Duck is now Dead Duck
It is nice to have someone really smart enunciate the vague, unsettled feelings one has and put them into words. Such is the case with the recent article by George Will.
In Arizona we have had a governor very fond of the "executive order". She has loved to issue directives of a controversial nature, watch the sparks fly, and then the dust settle, and measure the results. So many times they have settled in her favor that she has learned that it is far easier to govern by dictate than to go through the normal legislative process. Such has been the case with renaming Squaw Peak and the Iraq war memorial. Finally, she is sending a goodbye kiss to the citizens of Arizona, much like the shoe thrown at President Bush, to show her complete disdain of our rights by proclaiming that not only do government employees have the right to organize, but that the unions must be a part of the budgeting process. I don't remember voting them in.
We have another elected official who refuses to be guided by legislative counsel. Our sheriff is much more interested in his own perceived "toughness" and grandstanding immigrant policies and political investigations than he is in actually protecting the citizens against crimes against persons and property.
President Bush, as he walks out the door, is locking the doors to Congress and handing the keys to Barry Obama. I think that Barack's lack of legislative accomplishment is a sign of his recognition that the power of Congress has been in decline and that he believes, as does President Bush, that it is no longer necessary to have the approval of Congress to accomplish his agenda. The liberal's preference for judicial fiat has long been apparent. The hard work of legislature, involving compromise and consent, is far too difficult. The arrogance of the elite gives its own approval of whatever it is that they decide is most important for us, regardless of what we think is important for ourselves. This declaration by the President that billions would be loaned to the auto companies, immediately after rejection by congress of the same proposal, is a slap in the face of congress and the people. It says, we don't care what you want. We know what is best for you.
The choice of Janet Napalitano as Homeland Security Director is a sign that the President is likely to surround himself with pragmatic (meaning "believes government is the best solution to all our problems"), effective (meaning "willing to press forward with the chosen program irrespective of laws or legislative approval") bureaucrats who will relentlessly pursue the liberal agenda they all share.
It may be, that for as long as it remains intact, the Supreme Court will remain our last bastion of protection from what looks to me like a steamrolling Executive branch with a power-less, if not complicit Legislative branch about to squash the life out of the private sector (that's you and me).
In Arizona we have had a governor very fond of the "executive order". She has loved to issue directives of a controversial nature, watch the sparks fly, and then the dust settle, and measure the results. So many times they have settled in her favor that she has learned that it is far easier to govern by dictate than to go through the normal legislative process. Such has been the case with renaming Squaw Peak and the Iraq war memorial. Finally, she is sending a goodbye kiss to the citizens of Arizona, much like the shoe thrown at President Bush, to show her complete disdain of our rights by proclaiming that not only do government employees have the right to organize, but that the unions must be a part of the budgeting process. I don't remember voting them in.
We have another elected official who refuses to be guided by legislative counsel. Our sheriff is much more interested in his own perceived "toughness" and grandstanding immigrant policies and political investigations than he is in actually protecting the citizens against crimes against persons and property.
President Bush, as he walks out the door, is locking the doors to Congress and handing the keys to Barry Obama. I think that Barack's lack of legislative accomplishment is a sign of his recognition that the power of Congress has been in decline and that he believes, as does President Bush, that it is no longer necessary to have the approval of Congress to accomplish his agenda. The liberal's preference for judicial fiat has long been apparent. The hard work of legislature, involving compromise and consent, is far too difficult. The arrogance of the elite gives its own approval of whatever it is that they decide is most important for us, regardless of what we think is important for ourselves. This declaration by the President that billions would be loaned to the auto companies, immediately after rejection by congress of the same proposal, is a slap in the face of congress and the people. It says, we don't care what you want. We know what is best for you.
The choice of Janet Napalitano as Homeland Security Director is a sign that the President is likely to surround himself with pragmatic (meaning "believes government is the best solution to all our problems"), effective (meaning "willing to press forward with the chosen program irrespective of laws or legislative approval") bureaucrats who will relentlessly pursue the liberal agenda they all share.
It may be, that for as long as it remains intact, the Supreme Court will remain our last bastion of protection from what looks to me like a steamrolling Executive branch with a power-less, if not complicit Legislative branch about to squash the life out of the private sector (that's you and me).
Monday, December 15, 2008
Riddle me This
It is such burning irony that so much fuss is being made of the Egyptian reporter who kissed President Bush goodbye by throwing his shoes at the President in a display of disrespect. The whole act had the clarifying effect of putting the old Iraq and the new Iraq, freed by American blood, into complete juxtaposition. Just imagine what would have happened to that reporter had he shown the same disrespect to the former dictator of Iraq. Saddam would have shot him himself. President Bush, the hatemonger, commented that "They looked like a size 10".
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
Such confusion and blindness reigns among the media. Good is called bad and bad, good. The turncoat wants to lead the party. Colin Powell, who deserted the Republicans in the last weeks of the election, now wants to tell them how to run the party. You really should read this from Rush Limbaugh.
As the good doctor of democracy points out. Republicans are not being conservatives. It is hard to find elected Republicans who really seem to have core values, i.e., who believe in constitutional principals of limited government, and are willing to stand up for life and judeo-Christian values.
I say we have given the Liberal wing of the party their shot. We let them run John McCain. We have allowed them to spend us into bankruptcy. It is time now to say 'no more'. We will have all we can stand of liberalism/government-directed lives in the next few years. Can we escape without blood being shed? Will our country remain intact? We still have great thinkers and statesmen who understand what is going on, but we seem like a rudder-less ship being "driven with the wind, and tossed."
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
Such confusion and blindness reigns among the media. Good is called bad and bad, good. The turncoat wants to lead the party. Colin Powell, who deserted the Republicans in the last weeks of the election, now wants to tell them how to run the party. You really should read this from Rush Limbaugh.
As the good doctor of democracy points out. Republicans are not being conservatives. It is hard to find elected Republicans who really seem to have core values, i.e., who believe in constitutional principals of limited government, and are willing to stand up for life and judeo-Christian values.
I say we have given the Liberal wing of the party their shot. We let them run John McCain. We have allowed them to spend us into bankruptcy. It is time now to say 'no more'. We will have all we can stand of liberalism/government-directed lives in the next few years. Can we escape without blood being shed? Will our country remain intact? We still have great thinkers and statesmen who understand what is going on, but we seem like a rudder-less ship being "driven with the wind, and tossed."
Monday, November 24, 2008
Buddha comes out of the closet
Mormons are a strange breed. When it comes for fighting for other peoples' rights like the right of an innocent child to be born or the right to freedom of conscience, they will put up their time, talents, and money to support the cause. But when it comes to standing against anti-Mormon prejudice and discrimination they are milquetoast. The gay movements' vandalism, intimidation, and character assassination have been met with this mild response from the church, "People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation....some of what we have seen since Californians voted to pass Proposition 8 has been deeply disappointing. We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other." Those bad, bad Mormons! Aren't they just filled with hate?
Thank goodness there are those freedom-loving individuals who are willing to stand up and expose the hatred and bigotry. Thanks to Dennis Prager, Jewish rabbi and talk show host, who stood up and said "Today I am a Mormon". Thanks to the editors of the National Review who said here
Thank goodness there are those freedom-loving individuals who are willing to stand up and expose the hatred and bigotry. Thanks to Dennis Prager, Jewish rabbi and talk show host, who stood up and said "Today I am a Mormon". Thanks to the editors of the National Review who said here
"In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact....They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next."
Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in La Mesa, California responded in a multi-pronged defense of the Mormons including this, "I put out an email to 7,200 pastors on Friday - to speak boldly affirming the Mormons for their role, and to get their congregations to speak out in defense of the Mormons." Thank you Pastor Garlow.
The battle against hatred and bigotry against the Mormons is a battle that must be fought by the evangelicals, and the Catholics, and the Jews for it is their battle. It is a battle against, as the National Review put it, "Legislating immorality". It is a battle for the right to be free to believe in one's own religious faith of whatever persuasion. It is a battle that should be fought by every voice in talk radio and on the Internet because that's where the gun will be aimed next. The "fairness doctrine" will be invoked to be sure that only "approved" doctrine will be allowed. Political correctness will be our way of life. 1984 is late in coming, but Big Brother still is ready to watch all of us.
The battle against hatred and bigotry against the Mormons is a battle that must be fought by the evangelicals, and the Catholics, and the Jews for it is their battle. It is a battle against, as the National Review put it, "Legislating immorality". It is a battle for the right to be free to believe in one's own religious faith of whatever persuasion. It is a battle that should be fought by every voice in talk radio and on the Internet because that's where the gun will be aimed next. The "fairness doctrine" will be invoked to be sure that only "approved" doctrine will be allowed. Political correctness will be our way of life. 1984 is late in coming, but Big Brother still is ready to watch all of us.
P.S. thanks to Kathryn Jean Lopez.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Why I like Sarah Palin
re: Emily's comment "I don't know a ton about Palin but I'd love you to post a blog about why you think a woman with limited gov't experience, young children at home, and a less than stellar academic background would make a good president or V.P. There are some things I really like about her but I'd love to hear your thoughts."
All the talking points you have quoted can be turned into positives as far as I am concerned: 1) Limited government experience; the experience she does have is good -- mayor & governor, executive positions requiring ability to make decisions. The non-experience in Washington is a good thing. Many who have gone to Washington have been corrupted by the power and blindfolded by the inside-the-beltway mentality, losing touch with us citizens. Besides, versus Obama (2 years Senator, state legislator and community organizer) or Biden (many years of making the wrong decisions in Washington), her experience is outstanding. 2) Having young children at home; when did having a family become a negative in American politics? Abraham Lincoln had young children at home. Or is the question raised because she is a woman with young children at home? Are Barack's two young girls a problem? I would be embarrassed to be a women and raise this issue. 3) Academics; Does George Bush's Ivy League MBA impress you? In many cases an impressive academic record is simply a sign of radical indoctrination, as in the case of the Democratic nominee.
Frankly, the things that impress me most about Sarah Palin are not her so-called "Maverick" qualities, but her solid, conservative life and positions. I am pleased with her choices for life and liberty. I feel good that she has skepticism about man-caused global warming. I know that she supports a child's right to be born, even if not perfect. I think she is more likely to support letting keep what we have earned rather than taking from some groups to give to others.
I heard a prophet today. He talked about protecting our way of life by supporting Arizona's marriage amendment. Then he told a story about his family which I took as a parable. He was talking about listening to the Spirit.
A family member came to him for advise. A man had offered to buy the family farm. He was to pay with a cashiers' check. Everything on its face appeared to be on the up and up. But the family member didn't "feel" right about it. What should he do. The prophet told him to ask the man for references. He told his kinsman that if there was something wrong the man would get angry if he was asked for references. Sure enough, the meeting was held, the cashiers' check was offered in exchange for the land, and the man was asked for references. The man responded with anger over being asked. The kinsman canceled the transaction.
I think we have a candidate before us making us an offer of prosperity for everyone. All we have to give up is our way of life; our right to keep what we have earned, courts that will enforce the laws rather than be empathetic to groups, security in the face of evil forces (we have to believe that terrorists and radicals will respond to smooth talk while we reduce our defense capability), and even the protection of a constitution that was written to preserve our freedoms. Our other choice is not for a white knight who will lead us in pure, conservative principals, but instead a man who, at least, has courageously fought for his country, has supported the right to life whenever he has had a chance to vote for it, and talks about cutting the cost of government. And one other thing -- he does not get angry when we ask about his references. He does not try to hide who he really is.
All the talking points you have quoted can be turned into positives as far as I am concerned: 1) Limited government experience; the experience she does have is good -- mayor & governor, executive positions requiring ability to make decisions. The non-experience in Washington is a good thing. Many who have gone to Washington have been corrupted by the power and blindfolded by the inside-the-beltway mentality, losing touch with us citizens. Besides, versus Obama (2 years Senator, state legislator and community organizer) or Biden (many years of making the wrong decisions in Washington), her experience is outstanding. 2) Having young children at home; when did having a family become a negative in American politics? Abraham Lincoln had young children at home. Or is the question raised because she is a woman with young children at home? Are Barack's two young girls a problem? I would be embarrassed to be a women and raise this issue. 3) Academics; Does George Bush's Ivy League MBA impress you? In many cases an impressive academic record is simply a sign of radical indoctrination, as in the case of the Democratic nominee.
Frankly, the things that impress me most about Sarah Palin are not her so-called "Maverick" qualities, but her solid, conservative life and positions. I am pleased with her choices for life and liberty. I feel good that she has skepticism about man-caused global warming. I know that she supports a child's right to be born, even if not perfect. I think she is more likely to support letting keep what we have earned rather than taking from some groups to give to others.
I heard a prophet today. He talked about protecting our way of life by supporting Arizona's marriage amendment. Then he told a story about his family which I took as a parable. He was talking about listening to the Spirit.
A family member came to him for advise. A man had offered to buy the family farm. He was to pay with a cashiers' check. Everything on its face appeared to be on the up and up. But the family member didn't "feel" right about it. What should he do. The prophet told him to ask the man for references. He told his kinsman that if there was something wrong the man would get angry if he was asked for references. Sure enough, the meeting was held, the cashiers' check was offered in exchange for the land, and the man was asked for references. The man responded with anger over being asked. The kinsman canceled the transaction.
I think we have a candidate before us making us an offer of prosperity for everyone. All we have to give up is our way of life; our right to keep what we have earned, courts that will enforce the laws rather than be empathetic to groups, security in the face of evil forces (we have to believe that terrorists and radicals will respond to smooth talk while we reduce our defense capability), and even the protection of a constitution that was written to preserve our freedoms. Our other choice is not for a white knight who will lead us in pure, conservative principals, but instead a man who, at least, has courageously fought for his country, has supported the right to life whenever he has had a chance to vote for it, and talks about cutting the cost of government. And one other thing -- he does not get angry when we ask about his references. He does not try to hide who he really is.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Powerful Endorsement
I guess it's too obvious, but I'm supporting John McCain, or maybe I should say, like Glenn Beck, that I am endorsing Sarah Palin. Then we could actually hope that McCain gets elected and then impeached by the Democrats.
To Emily
I have to say a few things of a political nature. I am definitely on the side of those who believe that if it is immoral for an individual, it is wrong for a government (which is after all, individuals acting together). Ergo, taking money from some people and giving it to other people is wrong, no matter how "virtuous" the cause. Because the government produces nothing, anything it gives to fulfill a so-called "right" like food, or healthcare must be taxed (taken by force) from some and given to others. There are some things that only government can do such as national defense and those things are outlined very well by the founders in the original meaning of the constitution.
There are certain moral issues that require the attention of the electorate, particularly and more especially because of actions by activist courts. Abortion was handled individually (and variously) by the states until Roe v. Wade. Not addressed by the constitution it was forced into a national issue by the Supreme Court. Localities and states are no longer allowed to set their own moral standards on this sensitive issue. The same thing is happening with same-sex marriage. Standards held for millenia in multiple jurisdictions are being overturned under pressure from special interests by the state courts. Constitutional provisions which make contracts (such as marriage) legal in one state legal in all the states make the changes affected in Massachussetts or California valid throughout the Union. This is outside of the moral and practical reasons for supporting the maintenance of man/woman marriage.
Because Arizona has this issue on the ballot this year I am going to point out a few reasons to support keeping the status quo, i.e. marriage is between a man and a woman. If same sex marriage is legalized it may be impossible for citizens to maintain their religious beliefs in public. Schools would be enjoined from teaching that male-female marriages are superior to same-sex because both would be legal. Parents would not be able to object to their children being taught that way because it would be the law of the land. There could be no preference given to mixed gender marriages in adoption.
Churches may be prohibited from restricting marriages held in the buildings to only heterosexual marriages. This has already happened in Massachussetts where the tax exempt status of a church was threatened by its' refusal to allow a same-sex wedding on its' grounds. "If same-sex marriages are recognized as the law of the land, it will be difficult for any church to defend its right of recognizing another standard." (Janice Shaw Crouse)
Proponents of the same-sex marriage issue are using deceptive techniques to fight the ballot issue. Their ad claims that Arizonans have already voted on this issue, but they know that the intrusion of the courts in other states has made a constitutional amendment the only effective way to maintain heterosexual marriage as the standard. In fact, either an amendment to the US constitution or amendments to each state constitution is the only way for the religious rights of all citizens to be protected from zealous same-sex marriage proponents.
There are certain moral issues that require the attention of the electorate, particularly and more especially because of actions by activist courts. Abortion was handled individually (and variously) by the states until Roe v. Wade. Not addressed by the constitution it was forced into a national issue by the Supreme Court. Localities and states are no longer allowed to set their own moral standards on this sensitive issue. The same thing is happening with same-sex marriage. Standards held for millenia in multiple jurisdictions are being overturned under pressure from special interests by the state courts. Constitutional provisions which make contracts (such as marriage) legal in one state legal in all the states make the changes affected in Massachussetts or California valid throughout the Union. This is outside of the moral and practical reasons for supporting the maintenance of man/woman marriage.
Because Arizona has this issue on the ballot this year I am going to point out a few reasons to support keeping the status quo, i.e. marriage is between a man and a woman. If same sex marriage is legalized it may be impossible for citizens to maintain their religious beliefs in public. Schools would be enjoined from teaching that male-female marriages are superior to same-sex because both would be legal. Parents would not be able to object to their children being taught that way because it would be the law of the land. There could be no preference given to mixed gender marriages in adoption.
Churches may be prohibited from restricting marriages held in the buildings to only heterosexual marriages. This has already happened in Massachussetts where the tax exempt status of a church was threatened by its' refusal to allow a same-sex wedding on its' grounds. "If same-sex marriages are recognized as the law of the land, it will be difficult for any church to defend its right of recognizing another standard." (Janice Shaw Crouse)
Proponents of the same-sex marriage issue are using deceptive techniques to fight the ballot issue. Their ad claims that Arizonans have already voted on this issue, but they know that the intrusion of the courts in other states has made a constitutional amendment the only effective way to maintain heterosexual marriage as the standard. In fact, either an amendment to the US constitution or amendments to each state constitution is the only way for the religious rights of all citizens to be protected from zealous same-sex marriage proponents.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Mexico
I'm not sure how guilty I should feel. I had a business trip this past week to New Mexico. It took me to the El Paso Airport and Elder Mark Brimley is just across the border in Juarez. Oh well, I drove across and found his home. Elder Matamoros opened the door. They were home that morning because it is their planning day and they spend about 3 hours making plans for next week. I took him a coat for the winter and got a few pictures and left. His companion was great. Mark rattled off Spanish like a native. Their place looked like a typical missionary apartment. Mark is very involved in the work and concerned about the progress in their ward. He told me they have seen things he hasn't told us about and I made him promise not to tell his mom.
All in all, I really loved driving around Juarez. I found the temple, but I missed the only session that day until 7 PM. I ate at a litte burrito/torta cafe and made my way around speaking a little spanish. The people I talked with were very nice.
View Larger Map'>Here is a map. Mark's place is close to the intersection of Juan Gabriel & Zaragosa
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Trig
Of all the exciting things about the choice of Sarah Palin as Vice-Presidential nominee, perhaps the most remarkable is the light thrown on little Trig. There he is, a bright, beautiful, innocent child born with an extra chromosome. That "defect" is his protection from this evil world. One that will keep him innocent throughout whatever time he may live on this earth. God bless his mother and father who knew he was coming and welcomed him into their home. And pity those poor women (and men) who chose, after learning through amnioscentisis of the possibility of Down's syndrome, to stop the life of an innocent spirit, and prevent needed experience for him (or her) and his parents. And pity all those who chose for even sillier reasons to stop a life before it has a chance.
Added September 13 from Hugh Hewitt. In a letter from a pediatriacian:
If you have a minute I would like tell you a little story. For whatever reason, I had a fair number of parents with Downs children who would ask me to anesthetize their children, one in particular is still deep in my memory: a little darling and sweet little Downs boy (I can't remember the age) was anesthetized by me for a minor surgical procedure everything went very well and after taking to the PACU (post-anesthesia care unit) I went to speak the parents. After all the question were answered, the mother asked if there was any way his older brother could see him. He had purposely come from college to see his brother and had to go back. (At the time parents or family members were not allowed to go into PACU. I went back to the all powerful and wonderful nurses, and to make a long story shorter, the brother was allowed to come in. As the nurses and I looked back there was big brother on the stretcher with little brother in his arms. No more pain medication was needed for a child that was now comforted by the love of his brother. It made our day, For those of us who may not think Downs are special think again.All children are special. Children with disabilities are remarkably so, and their parents are greatly admired by all decent Americans.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Article 6 Still Under Attack
This comment was posted in the Article 6 blog. Go there sometime.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Title of Liberty
12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Tony Snow, American Optomist
I haven't written in a while because I have been busy working my four jobs, etc., and I just haven't wanted to write much about politics. I heard about Tony Snow today and it seems like his passing has affected me very strongly.
I remember Tony Snow first from guest hosting on Rush Limbaugh. He seemed to be a man with great, conservative ideas and a funny voice for radio. But his ideas were challenging and thought-provoking. It was interesting to me to see him take the position of presidential press secretary because it was obvious that he did not agree with President Bush on everything and had even been somewhat outspoken in criticizing the President. I think it says a lot about both men, President Bush was courageous in bringing in a public spokesman whose record showed his independence of mind, and Tony Snow, whose love of his country motivated him to want to help the president elucidate the conservative ideas that he believed the president held.
I only heard Tony Snow lie one time. Sean Hannity played an interview with Tony Snow and asked him about his health. He replied something to the effect that after his doctors told him that they had it under control he quit worrying about it. You'd have thought he was talking about an ingrown toenail. This was after they had removed his cancerous colon and then found a new tumor attached to his small intestine and growing into his liver. He said "it's not like it is liver cancer." He was a brave man with a wonderful sense of history.
Rush Limbaugh said this about him, "...the great thing about Tony Snow was his faith. Tony Snow believed in himself; he believed in his family; he believed in God, and he believed in America, and he looked at death as a promotion. He said that when he was told the first time that he had colon cancer, he said, "You know, it squares you up pretty fast. You face the future with an entirely different perspective." And he never whined about it, he never complained, and no matter where you saw him -- smiling, infectiously smiling."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071408/content/01125106.guest.html
Juan Williams, his friend and fellow Fox News journalist, told this story, "...he loved to take time with kids. He had met my youngest son a few times at FOX’s Washington bureau and at a ball game.
One day while riding in the car the news came on and from the White House came the voice of the Press Secretary. My son, Raffi, and I were talking when he held up a hand and said: “That sounds like Tony Snow.” I told (him) it was Tony. He said “Our Tony Snow is the Press Secretary.” I said that was right but in my mind I was wondering how many people felt that they were not listening to the press secretary but to “our” Tony Snow. http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/12/a-man-who-loved-people-the-gritty-nature-of-life-and-all-of-the-human-comedy/
I remember Tony Snow first from guest hosting on Rush Limbaugh. He seemed to be a man with great, conservative ideas and a funny voice for radio. But his ideas were challenging and thought-provoking. It was interesting to me to see him take the position of presidential press secretary because it was obvious that he did not agree with President Bush on everything and had even been somewhat outspoken in criticizing the President. I think it says a lot about both men, President Bush was courageous in bringing in a public spokesman whose record showed his independence of mind, and Tony Snow, whose love of his country motivated him to want to help the president elucidate the conservative ideas that he believed the president held.
I only heard Tony Snow lie one time. Sean Hannity played an interview with Tony Snow and asked him about his health. He replied something to the effect that after his doctors told him that they had it under control he quit worrying about it. You'd have thought he was talking about an ingrown toenail. This was after they had removed his cancerous colon and then found a new tumor attached to his small intestine and growing into his liver. He said "it's not like it is liver cancer." He was a brave man with a wonderful sense of history.
Rush Limbaugh said this about him, "...the great thing about Tony Snow was his faith. Tony Snow believed in himself; he believed in his family; he believed in God, and he believed in America, and he looked at death as a promotion. He said that when he was told the first time that he had colon cancer, he said, "You know, it squares you up pretty fast. You face the future with an entirely different perspective." And he never whined about it, he never complained, and no matter where you saw him -- smiling, infectiously smiling."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071408/content/01125106.guest.html
Juan Williams, his friend and fellow Fox News journalist, told this story, "...he loved to take time with kids. He had met my youngest son a few times at FOX’s Washington bureau and at a ball game.
One day while riding in the car the news came on and from the White House came the voice of the Press Secretary. My son, Raffi, and I were talking when he held up a hand and said: “That sounds like Tony Snow.” I told (him) it was Tony. He said “Our Tony Snow is the Press Secretary.” I said that was right but in my mind I was wondering how many people felt that they were not listening to the press secretary but to “our” Tony Snow. http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/12/a-man-who-loved-people-the-gritty-nature-of-life-and-all-of-the-human-comedy/
Friday, May 16, 2008
Celebration of Freedom and Providence
Israel is celebrating its 60th aniversary as a modern nation. Of course it existed from the time of Saul and David in ancient times, but no other nation has risen from the dust with the same people, religion, and even language like Israel. Charles Krauthammer in a short summary outlines the rise of modern Israel in the miraculous manner in which it happened. To me, the Hand of God is evident.
Today it is popular to encourage negotiation with the Palestinians to win "peace" in the middle east. As Krauthammer has pointed out peace is only possible if the Palestinians accept the existence of Israel. "Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians. ...
Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living."
The Palestinian attitude to Israel reminds one of a familiar phrase, "the (Israelis) must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description." Lilburn Boggs.
Negotiation with such a group committed to ones destruction is foolishness. President Bush rightly equated those who try to an American senator who, as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.'
May the Israelis (and the Americans) live worthy of the blessings they have received and the blessings they have been promised.
Today it is popular to encourage negotiation with the Palestinians to win "peace" in the middle east. As Krauthammer has pointed out peace is only possible if the Palestinians accept the existence of Israel. "Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians. ...
Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living."
The Palestinian attitude to Israel reminds one of a familiar phrase, "the (Israelis) must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description." Lilburn Boggs.
Negotiation with such a group committed to ones destruction is foolishness. President Bush rightly equated those who try to an American senator who, as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.'
May the Israelis (and the Americans) live worthy of the blessings they have received and the blessings they have been promised.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The Brimley Family is Really the "Green" Family
As it turns out, having 9 children and staying married was really the most environmentally responsible thing we could have done.
Dr. Jianguo Liu, director of sustainability at Michigan State University, notes that “global households are increasing more than the number of people” and thus using more resources. Because of divorce and the rise in single-person households, in 2005 alone in the United States, people used an extra 600 billion gallons of water and 73 billion kilowatts of electricity.
It turns out that the nuclear family is the most environmentally friendly way to house people.
Happy Mothers Day!
Dr. Jianguo Liu, director of sustainability at Michigan State University, notes that “global households are increasing more than the number of people” and thus using more resources. Because of divorce and the rise in single-person households, in 2005 alone in the United States, people used an extra 600 billion gallons of water and 73 billion kilowatts of electricity.
It turns out that the nuclear family is the most environmentally friendly way to house people.
Happy Mothers Day!
Friday, May 9, 2008
God Bless America
And God Bless Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney recently concluded his comments upon receipt of the Cantebury Medal for defense of freedom with these words:
As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: “we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.” And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.
God bless America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.
Read the whole speech here. It's terrific. As John McCain said just recently, "After seeing Mitt on TV lately, I wonder how I beat him."
So do I.
Mitt Romney recently concluded his comments upon receipt of the Cantebury Medal for defense of freedom with these words:
As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: “we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.” And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.
God bless America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.
Read the whole speech here. It's terrific. As John McCain said just recently, "After seeing Mitt on TV lately, I wonder how I beat him."
So do I.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Comment on earth day
Walter Williams recently wrote about environmental doomsayers. He quoted a number of them as follows:
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." ... In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
It's not just that these predictors have been so bad, it's that they continue to be taken seriously. Now that "global warming" is considered to be the latest crisis, idiotic schemes are presented for us to help "save the planet". Closely examined, it will be seen that most, if not all of the proposed solutions will greatly enrich a handful of people while imposing crushing economic burdens on the rest of us.
Those on the left continue to demagogue about how much they care about the people, but the people they really care about are themselves and their friends. After all, as Thomas Sowell points out in his brilliant article, "People on the far left like to flatter themselves that they are for the poor and the downtrodden. But what is most likely to lift people out of poverty-- telling them that the world has done them wrong or promoting ... work ethic ...,dogged determination ..., or self-reliance ...?
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." ... In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
It's not just that these predictors have been so bad, it's that they continue to be taken seriously. Now that "global warming" is considered to be the latest crisis, idiotic schemes are presented for us to help "save the planet". Closely examined, it will be seen that most, if not all of the proposed solutions will greatly enrich a handful of people while imposing crushing economic burdens on the rest of us.
Those on the left continue to demagogue about how much they care about the people, but the people they really care about are themselves and their friends. After all, as Thomas Sowell points out in his brilliant article, "People on the far left like to flatter themselves that they are for the poor and the downtrodden. But what is most likely to lift people out of poverty-- telling them that the world has done them wrong or promoting ... work ethic ...,dogged determination ..., or self-reliance ...?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Eulogy for the Suns
Or: Is this about the Suns and Spurs?
A few thousand years ago while playing in a football game I witnessed an ongoing exchange between an opposing lineman and a referee. After the whistle had blown at the end of a series of plays, the offensive lineman complained to the official:
Ref! Ref! He’s holding me! Ref! Ref! He head-slapped me! Ref! Ref! He grabbed my [insert body part here]!!
Finally, after the second series and yet another number of whiny complaints, the official took the lineman aside and calmly informed him:
Son, he’s not holding you…grabbing you…or slapping you. He’s kickin’ your #%#$#@.
http://sonsoftherepublic.blogspot.com/
Shut up and play ball.
UPDATE: WHEN YOU WIN BIG, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WHINE ABOUT THE OFFICIALS
Hope springs eternal. Even though no NBA team has won a series after being down 0-3, the Red Sox did it against the Yankees.
GO SUNS!!!!!
A few thousand years ago while playing in a football game I witnessed an ongoing exchange between an opposing lineman and a referee. After the whistle had blown at the end of a series of plays, the offensive lineman complained to the official:
Ref! Ref! He’s holding me! Ref! Ref! He head-slapped me! Ref! Ref! He grabbed my [insert body part here]!!
Finally, after the second series and yet another number of whiny complaints, the official took the lineman aside and calmly informed him:
Son, he’s not holding you…grabbing you…or slapping you. He’s kickin’ your #%#$#@.
http://sonsoftherepublic.blogspot.com/
Shut up and play ball.
UPDATE: WHEN YOU WIN BIG, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WHINE ABOUT THE OFFICIALS
Hope springs eternal. Even though no NBA team has won a series after being down 0-3, the Red Sox did it against the Yankees.
GO SUNS!!!!!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Abraham and Martin and John
Didn't they love the things that you stood for?
Didn't they try to find the good in you and me?
I always hated that song because I knew that liberals, in fact, did not try to find the good in you and me. They always looked down on you and me and felt that they knew better. It is the condescension of liberals that gets my goat. If we only understood their higher form of thinking we would not be so obsessed with our silly religions, and patriotism, and our so-called "rights". We would accept that whatever they planned for us was for our own good and we should just accept it.
George Will nailed it for me today in his article on Barack Obama. A liberal's position does not have to be demonstrated by facts or debate, it is simply assumed to be correct and the opponent is dismissed. All the great liberals are masters at this form of debate. It's all a put-down and if you can't see their point you are a simpleton not worthy of argument. To Barack Obama those who don't agree with his vision of government are "bitter" and so they fear gun control or they turn to religion for comfort. Those fools! If they only knew how benevolent we will be when we have control of the government.
Didn't they try to find the good in you and me?
I always hated that song because I knew that liberals, in fact, did not try to find the good in you and me. They always looked down on you and me and felt that they knew better. It is the condescension of liberals that gets my goat. If we only understood their higher form of thinking we would not be so obsessed with our silly religions, and patriotism, and our so-called "rights". We would accept that whatever they planned for us was for our own good and we should just accept it.
George Will nailed it for me today in his article on Barack Obama. A liberal's position does not have to be demonstrated by facts or debate, it is simply assumed to be correct and the opponent is dismissed. All the great liberals are masters at this form of debate. It's all a put-down and if you can't see their point you are a simpleton not worthy of argument. To Barack Obama those who don't agree with his vision of government are "bitter" and so they fear gun control or they turn to religion for comfort. Those fools! If they only knew how benevolent we will be when we have control of the government.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Call me a cynic
As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, "Follow the money."
It is certainly true that the Lord gave us this planet and expects us to be good stewards. His first commandment was, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." We should take care of the water and the air. We should not strip the earth of its' resources without providing for replenishment of the animals and crops of all types.
Global warming is a relatively new concept. Back in the 1970's we were worried about the planet cooling off. It seems that the factors affecting climate change are complex and include many variables out of the control of man. Many learned scientists have a variety of opinions and theories about climate change and debate on the subject may be profitable. Why then, is there a movement, lead by Al Gore and his associates, to cut off debate on the issue and to insist that any who have different opinions are in a tiny, tiny minority, and also wrong.
I think there is a simple answer. As outlined in the link highlighted, former VP Gore has formed a company to profit from the trading of carbon credits and other things "green". He is currently becoming very rich by his promotion of the global warming mantra, but he stands to make hundreds of millions when the government creates shortages by imposing limits on carbon emissions and makes a market for carbon trading.
Frankly, we are all in for it; namely another huge, useless government bureaucracy meaning more restrictions of our freedom and enormous transfer of wealth away from producers to a favored class because all three of our remaining candidates have declared their support of "fighting global warming."
Another cheerful note from the Buddha.
It is certainly true that the Lord gave us this planet and expects us to be good stewards. His first commandment was, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." We should take care of the water and the air. We should not strip the earth of its' resources without providing for replenishment of the animals and crops of all types.
Global warming is a relatively new concept. Back in the 1970's we were worried about the planet cooling off. It seems that the factors affecting climate change are complex and include many variables out of the control of man. Many learned scientists have a variety of opinions and theories about climate change and debate on the subject may be profitable. Why then, is there a movement, lead by Al Gore and his associates, to cut off debate on the issue and to insist that any who have different opinions are in a tiny, tiny minority, and also wrong.
I think there is a simple answer. As outlined in the link highlighted, former VP Gore has formed a company to profit from the trading of carbon credits and other things "green". He is currently becoming very rich by his promotion of the global warming mantra, but he stands to make hundreds of millions when the government creates shortages by imposing limits on carbon emissions and makes a market for carbon trading.
Frankly, we are all in for it; namely another huge, useless government bureaucracy meaning more restrictions of our freedom and enormous transfer of wealth away from producers to a favored class because all three of our remaining candidates have declared their support of "fighting global warming."
Another cheerful note from the Buddha.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
It's just too funny to put down
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-03-30-1.html
It's not that I want to dog-pile on Hillary, Barry Obama is such an elitist-thinking, big government supporter (see here) that he might be even worse, it's just that Hillary is so blatant and unashamed.
McCain has a few things I can support: He has opposed abortion and may support Supreme Court justices that would allow state legislatures to enact anti-abortion legislation. He is not likely to allow Iraq to be taken over by murderous thugs. He at least claims to oppose government "solutions" to all of our problems. He currently opposes raising taxes.
Now how can we get him to agree that government shouldn't try to "solve" the "global-warming" problem?
It's not that I want to dog-pile on Hillary, Barry Obama is such an elitist-thinking, big government supporter (see here) that he might be even worse, it's just that Hillary is so blatant and unashamed.
McCain has a few things I can support: He has opposed abortion and may support Supreme Court justices that would allow state legislatures to enact anti-abortion legislation. He is not likely to allow Iraq to be taken over by murderous thugs. He at least claims to oppose government "solutions" to all of our problems. He currently opposes raising taxes.
Now how can we get him to agree that government shouldn't try to "solve" the "global-warming" problem?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The true story about Bosnia
This comes from an article by Peggy Noonan.
What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: “Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy.” Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. “She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself.” Then she turned to his wounds. “She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood.”
It's funny how your memory can play tricks on you. She probably remembers that little girl with flowers as the suicide bomber.
What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: “Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy.” Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. “She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself.” Then she turned to his wounds. “She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood.”
It's funny how your memory can play tricks on you. She probably remembers that little girl with flowers as the suicide bomber.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thanks for noticin'
I'm glad when someone gets my jokes even when they think they are bad. They usually are, but some of you may get this one. It made me laugh. http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/huckabee_announces_candidacy_f.php
Monday, March 17, 2008
Rocky Point
I'm sitting just off the beach in Puerto Penasco enjoying the blue sky and water. Hope all is well in the rest of the world.
Teddy and Lauren were here for a couple of days. Sarah, Spencer, Claire & Colleen are still here. Lots of friends and acquaintances all over. Church in Spanish is fun. Mexican food in Mexico just tastes better.
Do you know what they call chinese food in China?
Food.
Teddy and Lauren were here for a couple of days. Sarah, Spencer, Claire & Colleen are still here. Lots of friends and acquaintances all over. Church in Spanish is fun. Mexican food in Mexico just tastes better.
Do you know what they call chinese food in China?
Food.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Even Liberals can have a sense of humor
(they just don't show it often)
I ran across this quote about Buckley from one of his liberal friends, "For Murray Kempton, one of his many friends on the left, the Buckley press conference style called up "an Edwardian resident commissioner reading aloud the 39 articles of the Anglican establishment to a conscript of assembled Zulus."
I've admired Mr. Buckley for a long time. Grandpa Jay read "National Review" for many years and it lay around our house. One of his other favorites was S.I. Hayakawa, renowned for his study of linguistics. I guess that is one reason I am interested in the etymology of words. (Look it up)
"Semanticists and linguistic scholars continue to remind us that words change in meaning according to time and place and circumstance. Their warnings are certainly not to be ignored. Yet, with all the changes that go on both in language and in the world described by language, there are remarkable elements of stability in a vocabulary with as rich a literary and cultural history as English."
—S. I. Hayakawa, Choose the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms
I ran across this quote about Buckley from one of his liberal friends, "For Murray Kempton, one of his many friends on the left, the Buckley press conference style called up "an Edwardian resident commissioner reading aloud the 39 articles of the Anglican establishment to a conscript of assembled Zulus."
I've admired Mr. Buckley for a long time. Grandpa Jay read "National Review" for many years and it lay around our house. One of his other favorites was S.I. Hayakawa, renowned for his study of linguistics. I guess that is one reason I am interested in the etymology of words. (Look it up)
"Semanticists and linguistic scholars continue to remind us that words change in meaning according to time and place and circumstance. Their warnings are certainly not to be ignored. Yet, with all the changes that go on both in language and in the world described by language, there are remarkable elements of stability in a vocabulary with as rich a literary and cultural history as English."
—S. I. Hayakawa, Choose the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms
Coulter on Buckley on Reagan
One of my current favorite writers quotes an old-time favorite about a classic communicator, comparing him to the "Greatest Communicator".
"When later challenged on Reagan's intellectual stature, Buckley said: 'Of course, he will always tend to reach first for an anecdote. But then, so does the New Testament.'"
William F. Buckley was a great writer and speaker if you could understand all of his words. His writings and sayings can often be quoted to good effect.
I think that would be a great coup for me to be able to come up with a description or saying so apt and succinct as to be quoted by others.
See http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/02/27/william_f_buckley_rip,_enfant_terrible for the whole thing.
"When later challenged on Reagan's intellectual stature, Buckley said: 'Of course, he will always tend to reach first for an anecdote. But then, so does the New Testament.'"
William F. Buckley was a great writer and speaker if you could understand all of his words. His writings and sayings can often be quoted to good effect.
I think that would be a great coup for me to be able to come up with a description or saying so apt and succinct as to be quoted by others.
See http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/02/27/william_f_buckley_rip,_enfant_terrible for the whole thing.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Do it for the Chuldrun
As Clinton's surgeon general used to say, "We're doing it for the children." Some of my kids want me to continue blogging. Do we change the name? I don't think so. I'm still the buddha, and I still support the ideals that Mitt has come to stand for. (for which Mitt has come to stand) Or as Winston Churchill once said, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." I hereby call for any commenters on this blog to forthwith present their favorite grammatical rule. Comments may be in one's own favorite language, but must be accompanied by English translation.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Why Mitt Will and Must Stay In
How discouraging it has been to see the rejection of such an outstanding, qualified man by so many Republicans. I'm sure Gov. Romney will survive, but I am worried for our conservative ideals. I believe that Gov. Romney feels the same way about our ideals and about our country and that is why I do not think he will drop out of the race.
With Senator McCain the front-runner and likely nominee, it is now as important as ever that he feel continued pressure to defend his conservative credentials. After having had his non-conservative record exposed on so many issues, if he is allowed now to coast to a victory he will assume that the people do not care, or even support his liberal positions. It is now vital that someone (and Gov. Romney is the only one who can do it) continues to challenge him. McCain must be forced to take explicitly conservative positions in opposition to the bills he has sponsored in the past, and he has shown a willingness to do so when challenged. For example, he says now that he opposed the tax cuts only because they were not accompanied by spending cuts (a fully defensible conservative position). He also says that now he is convinced that the border must be secured first. He must be put in the position to reverse every one of the liberal legislative positions he has taken in public. He must admit to want to appoint judges who would defend the constititution (even those who would overturn McCain-Feingold and who would not find in the constitution a "right" to abortion). He must be willing to reverse his stand for forcing the United States to fight "global warming" while competing unfairly in world markets.
It is highly unlikely that Gov. Romney can win the nomination, but it is vital that someone as skilled as he continue to force McCain to stake out conservative positions. It is the only way conservatives will have any influence on this election. I believe that Gov Romney will take a high road through the balance of the primaries. I believe that he will show himself to be the spokesman for conservative principles for the future, and I also believe that he will see clearly his duty to encourage Senator McCain to take conservative positions which we can support against the democrats and which he will then be honor-bound to defend in the future. I believe that Senator McCain will respond positively to the challenge of Honor, Duty, Country and that if he can be placed in the position of committing to defend conservative positions he will do it as a matter of duty and pride.
With Senator McCain the front-runner and likely nominee, it is now as important as ever that he feel continued pressure to defend his conservative credentials. After having had his non-conservative record exposed on so many issues, if he is allowed now to coast to a victory he will assume that the people do not care, or even support his liberal positions. It is now vital that someone (and Gov. Romney is the only one who can do it) continues to challenge him. McCain must be forced to take explicitly conservative positions in opposition to the bills he has sponsored in the past, and he has shown a willingness to do so when challenged. For example, he says now that he opposed the tax cuts only because they were not accompanied by spending cuts (a fully defensible conservative position). He also says that now he is convinced that the border must be secured first. He must be put in the position to reverse every one of the liberal legislative positions he has taken in public. He must admit to want to appoint judges who would defend the constititution (even those who would overturn McCain-Feingold and who would not find in the constitution a "right" to abortion). He must be willing to reverse his stand for forcing the United States to fight "global warming" while competing unfairly in world markets.
It is highly unlikely that Gov. Romney can win the nomination, but it is vital that someone as skilled as he continue to force McCain to stake out conservative positions. It is the only way conservatives will have any influence on this election. I believe that Gov Romney will take a high road through the balance of the primaries. I believe that he will show himself to be the spokesman for conservative principles for the future, and I also believe that he will see clearly his duty to encourage Senator McCain to take conservative positions which we can support against the democrats and which he will then be honor-bound to defend in the future. I believe that Senator McCain will respond positively to the challenge of Honor, Duty, Country and that if he can be placed in the position of committing to defend conservative positions he will do it as a matter of duty and pride.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
What is a conservative?
And who gets to write the definition?
I'm going to propose that conservative ideals go back further than Ronald Reagan. I would like to include the ideas of Adam Smith, whose 1776 tome The Wealth of Nations included the term "invisible hand" to illustrate the power of individual economic freedom. I would include Thomas Jefferson's "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Included should be the wisdom of the Founders to give us a written Constitution, in which was embodied the concept of limited government, federalism, and the mutual constraint of the separation of powers within the government.
I hold that a conservative is a constitutionalist, i.e., he is one who wants to "conserve" the constitution as understood by its' writers. Conservatism is a belief that the Federal Government should be restricted to the "enumerated powers" and that any other governmental power should be retained by the states or the people. It is a recognition that the national defense is an important and legitimate concern of the Federal government, but that many things being done by the government are not legitimate and should be restricted. It is a recognition that lowering taxes has the effect of giving more freedom back to the people. Conservatism tries "to see the good in you and me" and would allow us to succeed or fail on our own rather than enforcing government solutions for every problem. Conservatism realizes that Freedom of Speech is a concept of political freedom and says that unrestricted political debate is more important than unrestricted commercial speech; namely that laws limiting campaign financing and debate are unconstitutional, while anti-obscentity laws may not be. Conservatism would welcome foreign trade but would insist on fair treatment of our traders and producers as well as our consumers. Conservatism honors the Judeo-Christian foundations of our laws and the moral assumptions that are made, e.g. that life is precious and to be protected, that marriage is an institution defined by the uniting of a man and a woman, and that the ideal that children are best served and protected by having two parents is worthy of encouragement. A true conservative would welcome the current opportunity to incorporate conservative principals into solving the problems of today, rather than continually referencing an act of bravery exhibited in his younger days as an example of his "leadership".
Ronald Reagan may not have been the original author of the conservative cause, but he was certainly one of its' great spokesmen. For many years he most clearly enunciated the issues of Freedom and Conservatism. He once said, "...Government is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem." Washington has taken away our freedoms by creating campaign finance "reform". (McCain-Feingold) It would like to raise our taxes. (McCain-McCain) It refuses to enforce our borders. Instead of creating a reasonable program to supplement our workforce while enrolling workers into our tax system to cover legitimate services, it has driven migrant workers underground and then attempted to bribe them into a political fiefdom by welcoming them into our welfare system without assimilating them into our society, forcing them to remain in their downtrodden condition. (McCain-Kennedy) It wants to allow Americans to unilaterally fund the "global-warming problem" by raising our costs of living and doing business while allowing our trading partners to enjoy the competitive advantage of ignoring the whole issue. (McCain-Lieberman).
In this current crisis a spokesman for conservative principals is once again needed. We need someone who recognizes and can elucidate the great conservative values that enliven our nation. In a rough and tumble election battle, I think Mitt Romney has shown that he can be that spokesman and leader.
I'm going to propose that conservative ideals go back further than Ronald Reagan. I would like to include the ideas of Adam Smith, whose 1776 tome The Wealth of Nations included the term "invisible hand" to illustrate the power of individual economic freedom. I would include Thomas Jefferson's "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Included should be the wisdom of the Founders to give us a written Constitution, in which was embodied the concept of limited government, federalism, and the mutual constraint of the separation of powers within the government.
I hold that a conservative is a constitutionalist, i.e., he is one who wants to "conserve" the constitution as understood by its' writers. Conservatism is a belief that the Federal Government should be restricted to the "enumerated powers" and that any other governmental power should be retained by the states or the people. It is a recognition that the national defense is an important and legitimate concern of the Federal government, but that many things being done by the government are not legitimate and should be restricted. It is a recognition that lowering taxes has the effect of giving more freedom back to the people. Conservatism tries "to see the good in you and me" and would allow us to succeed or fail on our own rather than enforcing government solutions for every problem. Conservatism realizes that Freedom of Speech is a concept of political freedom and says that unrestricted political debate is more important than unrestricted commercial speech; namely that laws limiting campaign financing and debate are unconstitutional, while anti-obscentity laws may not be. Conservatism would welcome foreign trade but would insist on fair treatment of our traders and producers as well as our consumers. Conservatism honors the Judeo-Christian foundations of our laws and the moral assumptions that are made, e.g. that life is precious and to be protected, that marriage is an institution defined by the uniting of a man and a woman, and that the ideal that children are best served and protected by having two parents is worthy of encouragement. A true conservative would welcome the current opportunity to incorporate conservative principals into solving the problems of today, rather than continually referencing an act of bravery exhibited in his younger days as an example of his "leadership".
Ronald Reagan may not have been the original author of the conservative cause, but he was certainly one of its' great spokesmen. For many years he most clearly enunciated the issues of Freedom and Conservatism. He once said, "...Government is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem." Washington has taken away our freedoms by creating campaign finance "reform". (McCain-Feingold) It would like to raise our taxes. (McCain-McCain) It refuses to enforce our borders. Instead of creating a reasonable program to supplement our workforce while enrolling workers into our tax system to cover legitimate services, it has driven migrant workers underground and then attempted to bribe them into a political fiefdom by welcoming them into our welfare system without assimilating them into our society, forcing them to remain in their downtrodden condition. (McCain-Kennedy) It wants to allow Americans to unilaterally fund the "global-warming problem" by raising our costs of living and doing business while allowing our trading partners to enjoy the competitive advantage of ignoring the whole issue. (McCain-Lieberman).
In this current crisis a spokesman for conservative principals is once again needed. We need someone who recognizes and can elucidate the great conservative values that enliven our nation. In a rough and tumble election battle, I think Mitt Romney has shown that he can be that spokesman and leader.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Open Letter to Mitt Romney and the Five Brothers
As I prayed over my oatmeal this morning I broke into tears as I thought about my gratitude for having two boys worthy and ready to serve on missions. I love and honor all four of my boys and all five of my girls.
As I contemplated my family, I thought again of the five sons of Gov. Romney. Governor Huckabee was just trying to be funny in the debate, but he really had it right. These boys really are sacrificing millions of dollars each from their inheritance to support their dad's campaign. I salute them for their love of country.
As I contemplated my family, I thought again of the five sons of Gov. Romney. Governor Huckabee was just trying to be funny in the debate, but he really had it right. These boys really are sacrificing millions of dollars each from their inheritance to support their dad's campaign. I salute them for their love of country.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Home from Madagascar
Ted is home from Madagascar. His naturally sweet temperament has been made even more pure by his service to the Lord for the past two years. He has been entertaining us by speaking in Malagasy and telling stories about bugs and people. Lauren was so cute waiting for him at the airport. When he came in he hugged his mom and all the boys and shook hands with all the girls, including Lauren. Her side comment, "What an anti-climax." After two years waiting she gets a handshake. Oh well, that's the life of a missionary.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Florida Debate
Mitt lobs Rudy a softball question on China. He has asked him a question to make Rudy look good and he has asked a good enough question so that he also looks good. McCain follows by throwing an alley-opp to Huckabee on his favorite subject, i.e. The Fair Tax. It looks like Mitt is wanting to pull Rudy up to 2nd place by taking away votes from McCain. McCain's response is to try to send votes away from Romney to Huck. Ron Paul muddies McCain by asking him an economic question. Huck goes after Mitt on the 2nd Amendment. Mitt comes across as a reasonable conservative on gun control. Rudy asks Mitt about catastrophic insurance, mentions that McCain opposes catastrophic insurance. Mitt supports a "reasonable" catastrophic national insurance program. Wants states in "high-risk" areas to be able to bundle risk. Mitt uses question to bring up his health care program. Russert questions Rudy on Global warming. Rudy has good, conservative response of incentives for new industries, also recommends a national project equal to Space program. McCain reveals support for "cap and trade" carbon credits. "Climate change is real", he says.
It looks like Gov. Romney has seen that his "compare and contrast" approach has been twisted by opponents and commentators into "negative" campaigning and has taken a very positive approach to this debate. I think it is a great move.
My mom thinks McCain is a name-dropper. He does seem to drop well-known names with each question. McCain's mom said the Republicans will have to "plug their noses" and support her son.
Mitt does a great job asking questions about the amount of money he has donated to his own campaign and about his religion.
Ron Paul is the only one who can really tell it like it is about Social Security. Of course is political suicide, but it is true.
Huckabee uses his invocation of the Fair tax to deflect any serious economic questions.
Romney refuses to be suckered into a blind following of the Reagan icon to accept raising taxes. He instead lays out a reasonable program to save Social Security.
Rudy gets a slam dunk question about the NYT editorial.
Mitt gets a chance to defend the "flip-flop" charge by citing his record.
McCain even makes the angry charge appear unwarranted.
Huckabee defends the "religion" charge.
Paul promises to not leave the Republican party.
Conclusion: Rudy looked good. Romney looked better. McCain and Huckabee looked like secondary candidates. The Huck is funny. McCain ends with more name-dropping and then a tribute to Rudy.
It looks like Gov. Romney has seen that his "compare and contrast" approach has been twisted by opponents and commentators into "negative" campaigning and has taken a very positive approach to this debate. I think it is a great move.
My mom thinks McCain is a name-dropper. He does seem to drop well-known names with each question. McCain's mom said the Republicans will have to "plug their noses" and support her son.
Mitt does a great job asking questions about the amount of money he has donated to his own campaign and about his religion.
Ron Paul is the only one who can really tell it like it is about Social Security. Of course is political suicide, but it is true.
Huckabee uses his invocation of the Fair tax to deflect any serious economic questions.
Romney refuses to be suckered into a blind following of the Reagan icon to accept raising taxes. He instead lays out a reasonable program to save Social Security.
Rudy gets a slam dunk question about the NYT editorial.
Mitt gets a chance to defend the "flip-flop" charge by citing his record.
McCain even makes the angry charge appear unwarranted.
Huckabee defends the "religion" charge.
Paul promises to not leave the Republican party.
Conclusion: Rudy looked good. Romney looked better. McCain and Huckabee looked like secondary candidates. The Huck is funny. McCain ends with more name-dropping and then a tribute to Rudy.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Michael Medved (again)
I just watched Michael Medved on the Glenn Beck show and remembered why I have been so disappointed with his (I think) less than rational criticism of my man Mitt. Michael is a brilliant commentator and an especially great movie critic. I depend on his movie reviews when I want to watch a movie. His characterizations are spot-on and I am rarely disappointed with his recommendations. His movie minute reviews are a must visit site for movie lovers. This is especially true if you want to be forewarned about rampant political correctness or left-leaning propaganda included in the plot or script. Michael deftly separates his political criticism of movies from the technical and entertainment qualities of the film. He always clearly depicts the level of violence and sexuality so that one knows what one is getting into. He is also clear about his love of beautiful women and I generally concur with his taste. I am sure he would think my wife is gorgeous.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Madagascar
My son Ted is returning home from spending nearly 2 years in Madagascar. What a fascinating place! It is the home to 13-17 million people of mixed racial and religious background. A French colony for years, official government business is still conducted in French, but the people speak Malagasy. According to Ted, it is a language that lacks many of the terms we use and so expressions must be created from a combination of words.
Ted loves the Malagasy people. He often spoke of their simple, fun-loving ways. He loves their jokes and games. On his birthday some friends got together to play games and eat. They celebrated his birthday by cracking an egg on his head and then pouring flour over it.
He and his missionary companions walked up and down the hills and roads looking for people to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many do not have addresses, and are found only by following complicated directions.
A fair-skinned American being a novelty, some of the parents would tell their children that the missionaries had horns or some other nonsense. Since an American who was fluent in Malagasy was so unusual and unexpected, Ted would join in the gag and call out to the children that he felt very hungry and would enjoy eating a malagasy child.
We're excited to get him home this Thursday night after 28 hours of travel. Then he and his brother Mark will both speak in church this Sunday. Ted to report his mission and Mark to say goodbye as he leaves for 2 years in Chihuahua, Mexico.
Bittersweet.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Michael Medved
I think Mike Gallagher will say most anything for its' shock value. I know the title of this blog is Michael Medved, but the reason I brought up Gallagher is because in the past I have had more respect for Michael Medved. I know that he loves to debate, but thought that he generally took more principled positions than he has taken lately in the case of his comments regarding Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. For example, Medved insists that Huckabee is a genuine conservative in all areas. I will acknowledge Huckabee's genuine and admirable pro-life and pro-marriage positions. I do not however believe that advocacy of a nationwide ban on smoking is a libertarian or conservative position. And, failure to admit raising taxes by saying that he "raised hope" does not answer the raising taxes question satisfactorily for a conservative who, in the words of one pundit, "hopes that my taxes will not be raised". Liberals always say that taxes are being raised for a good cause. All of their causes are good. I was reminded of the liberal mindset the other day when a commentator decried the amount of tax revenue it cost the government to allow the homeowner interest deduction. Any income that does not go to or through the government is "lost" revenue.
I'm sorry that Medved has been willing to allow the "identity politics" of Huckabee to slide by. His "innocent" question to the NYT reporter of "Don't they believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" was just too much. For a person with the training of Mike Huckabee, that would be analogous to him asking, "Weren't they the ones who begged for Jesus to be crucified?" We may be interested in how a person's religion strengthens their character, but we should not be concerned about how they worship their deity. I would like to see Mr. Medved more concerned about the invocation of religious code to question a candidates character than whether comparing political positions is "negative" or dishonest. All of the candidates have spoken or acted on the issues and all of those positions are subject to examination and debate, but to call every disagreement a lie is to question ones character without addressing the issues.
I was really sorry to see Mr. Medved be willing to overlook or even compliment Gov. Huckabee's "withdrawal" of his negative ad. I believe that he even praised his "staying positive". To me that single act was a brilliant political move. It was the most blatant, cynical act I have seen a politician perform. The reporters laughed out loud at its obvious political nature and yet most fell right in with the planned outcome. Huckabee's negative ad became the most talked about and seen ad of the campaign at no cost to the campaign while the candidate continued to claim that it was withdrawn out of his own distaste for negative campaigning. All the while he was decrying Gov. Romney's "dishonesty'. It was brilliant, even Machiavellian. It was very effective in the short run for Iowa, but I do believe that it may have exposed a hypocritical side of Gov. Huckabee's campaign that may have backfired for him in Michigan, where the evangelicals where more willing to listen to the issues than to necessarily vote for "one of their own".
Mr. Medved has continued to be very negative on Gov. Romney, witness his latest analysis of the governor's victory speech after the Michigan results were known. He noted that the points that Gov. Romney struck were the same as the Democrats. He made it sound as if Republicans do not want good health care or better jobs or better schooling and that lower taxes for middle-income Americans is a bad thing. Give me a break. We all want the same things, the question is how are we going to get them and what will be the governments role. Gov. Romney has outstanding, free-market and lower government solutions for all of those things, but Michael Medved felt that he had to criticize him for not making clear all of the differences in a well-deserved victory speech. Most people criticize the Governor for his technocratic, power-point presentations. Why not allow him to have a little jubilation, a little emotion?
Michael, you are such a great debater that you can probably win both sides of many issues. I hope many of the positions you have taken are for the sake of the argument and do not represent your "willing suspension of disbelief".
I'm sorry that Medved has been willing to allow the "identity politics" of Huckabee to slide by. His "innocent" question to the NYT reporter of "Don't they believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" was just too much. For a person with the training of Mike Huckabee, that would be analogous to him asking, "Weren't they the ones who begged for Jesus to be crucified?" We may be interested in how a person's religion strengthens their character, but we should not be concerned about how they worship their deity. I would like to see Mr. Medved more concerned about the invocation of religious code to question a candidates character than whether comparing political positions is "negative" or dishonest. All of the candidates have spoken or acted on the issues and all of those positions are subject to examination and debate, but to call every disagreement a lie is to question ones character without addressing the issues.
I was really sorry to see Mr. Medved be willing to overlook or even compliment Gov. Huckabee's "withdrawal" of his negative ad. I believe that he even praised his "staying positive". To me that single act was a brilliant political move. It was the most blatant, cynical act I have seen a politician perform. The reporters laughed out loud at its obvious political nature and yet most fell right in with the planned outcome. Huckabee's negative ad became the most talked about and seen ad of the campaign at no cost to the campaign while the candidate continued to claim that it was withdrawn out of his own distaste for negative campaigning. All the while he was decrying Gov. Romney's "dishonesty'. It was brilliant, even Machiavellian. It was very effective in the short run for Iowa, but I do believe that it may have exposed a hypocritical side of Gov. Huckabee's campaign that may have backfired for him in Michigan, where the evangelicals where more willing to listen to the issues than to necessarily vote for "one of their own".
Mr. Medved has continued to be very negative on Gov. Romney, witness his latest analysis of the governor's victory speech after the Michigan results were known. He noted that the points that Gov. Romney struck were the same as the Democrats. He made it sound as if Republicans do not want good health care or better jobs or better schooling and that lower taxes for middle-income Americans is a bad thing. Give me a break. We all want the same things, the question is how are we going to get them and what will be the governments role. Gov. Romney has outstanding, free-market and lower government solutions for all of those things, but Michael Medved felt that he had to criticize him for not making clear all of the differences in a well-deserved victory speech. Most people criticize the Governor for his technocratic, power-point presentations. Why not allow him to have a little jubilation, a little emotion?
Michael, you are such a great debater that you can probably win both sides of many issues. I hope many of the positions you have taken are for the sake of the argument and do not represent your "willing suspension of disbelief".
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Why Buddha for Mitt?
Buddha is a nickname given to me in high school by one of my best friends and refers to my position as spiritual leader of our CASH ltd. group. Being the 'spiritual leader' makes reference to my being slightly less impulsive than him and not as big a natural brown-noser as our other group member.
I have been a conservative since before campaigning for Goldwater as a 9th grader in 1964. My political leanings have tended to be libertarian/constitutionalist with a desire for a strong national defense. I'm fiscally in the Milton Friedman camp of "politicians tend to spend just over the amount of tax revenue", ergo, the key to holding down spending is to hold down tax revenue. I'm also quite sure that there is no such thing as a "free lunch".
I have admired the strength of character that President Bush has shown in a number of issues including fighting radical jihad and taking a stand on protecting human life. I have been far less impressed by his ability to enunciate his values in uplifting and inspirational ways. Thus, my support for Governor Romney.
I think that Mitt Romney now holds the key conservative principals which are vitally important for our country today; A strong military, a drive to protect life and the traditional family, and a commitment to hold down taxes. In addition, I think that he has shown the ability to articulate these values in a way that people can understand and, more importantly, the ability to talk about them in a way that inspires others to want to support those same positions, not by just expressing platitudes, but also by using strong logic as well as appealing to the positions of the founders. Governor Romney has also demonstrated the real world experience of analysis, hard work, and team-building that will serve him well as chief executive and commander-in-chief.
I have studied many of his positions and observed closely the campaign to date and continue to strongly support his campaign. As I have reviewed some critiques of his position changes, I have determined the following: I'm glad that he changed his position on abortion and has fought against destructive stem-cell research. I believe he has always supported traditional marriage. I don't believe that being opposed to discrimination against gays and being for traditional marriage between a man and a woman are mutually exclusive. I think the same applies to support for legal immigration while opposing open borders and amnesty to illegal aliens. His positions, even while running for Senate in Massachusetts have remained much closer to conservative principals than his Democratic opponents and much more conservative than many pundits like to think they were.
We need a president who not only supports conservative principals, but who is also able to powerfully declare them. I think that Governor Romney is better when pontificating principals than he is when power-pointing programs, and he is very good at that. His talk on "Faith in America" had to be the most outstanding political talk this year, and perhaps for many years. I hope that his advisers are wise enough to encourage him to speak out on principals. Many of his ads are very upbeat and encouraging. I hope the people will see that. I think in general the media is too cynical to report upbeat, but that talk was so good that even many of them were unable to put it down for many days until they began to nit-pick some of the minor points. I'd like to see him develop some strong sound-bites. Ronald Reagan got to us with "In this immediate crisis, Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem." Mitt said, "When I am serving as your president, I will need the prayers of all the people." Whoever becomes president will need the prayers of all the people, let's hope that he deserves them.
I have been a conservative since before campaigning for Goldwater as a 9th grader in 1964. My political leanings have tended to be libertarian/constitutionalist with a desire for a strong national defense. I'm fiscally in the Milton Friedman camp of "politicians tend to spend just over the amount of tax revenue", ergo, the key to holding down spending is to hold down tax revenue. I'm also quite sure that there is no such thing as a "free lunch".
I have admired the strength of character that President Bush has shown in a number of issues including fighting radical jihad and taking a stand on protecting human life. I have been far less impressed by his ability to enunciate his values in uplifting and inspirational ways. Thus, my support for Governor Romney.
I think that Mitt Romney now holds the key conservative principals which are vitally important for our country today; A strong military, a drive to protect life and the traditional family, and a commitment to hold down taxes. In addition, I think that he has shown the ability to articulate these values in a way that people can understand and, more importantly, the ability to talk about them in a way that inspires others to want to support those same positions, not by just expressing platitudes, but also by using strong logic as well as appealing to the positions of the founders. Governor Romney has also demonstrated the real world experience of analysis, hard work, and team-building that will serve him well as chief executive and commander-in-chief.
I have studied many of his positions and observed closely the campaign to date and continue to strongly support his campaign. As I have reviewed some critiques of his position changes, I have determined the following: I'm glad that he changed his position on abortion and has fought against destructive stem-cell research. I believe he has always supported traditional marriage. I don't believe that being opposed to discrimination against gays and being for traditional marriage between a man and a woman are mutually exclusive. I think the same applies to support for legal immigration while opposing open borders and amnesty to illegal aliens. His positions, even while running for Senate in Massachusetts have remained much closer to conservative principals than his Democratic opponents and much more conservative than many pundits like to think they were.
We need a president who not only supports conservative principals, but who is also able to powerfully declare them. I think that Governor Romney is better when pontificating principals than he is when power-pointing programs, and he is very good at that. His talk on "Faith in America" had to be the most outstanding political talk this year, and perhaps for many years. I hope that his advisers are wise enough to encourage him to speak out on principals. Many of his ads are very upbeat and encouraging. I hope the people will see that. I think in general the media is too cynical to report upbeat, but that talk was so good that even many of them were unable to put it down for many days until they began to nit-pick some of the minor points. I'd like to see him develop some strong sound-bites. Ronald Reagan got to us with "In this immediate crisis, Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem." Mitt said, "When I am serving as your president, I will need the prayers of all the people." Whoever becomes president will need the prayers of all the people, let's hope that he deserves them.
Politics in Mesa
I met Brenda Tolman today, wife of Mike Tolman, running for Mesa City Council. I was immediately impressed by her enthusiasm for his campaign. Her explanation of his position on local government spending and taxes had me asking for a yard sign (she had me at "no property tax").
I've been a conservative since long before I could vote. My dad used to take us along to campaign for Goldwater in '64. AuH2O.
I've been a conservative since long before I could vote. My dad used to take us along to campaign for Goldwater in '64. AuH2O.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
