Resistance is futile!

What the elitists really think

By now, you have probably heard a lot of GOP establishment elitists lamenting the primary victory of Christine O'Donnell.  Now they are attacking her with far greater zeal than they have ever displayed against actual liberal democrats.

What gives?

She is conservative.  She is pro-life.  She is pro-gun.  She is Christian.  She is small government.  She is anti-tax.  She is for free markets.  She is against Obamacare.  She is against stimulus spending.  She is against cap and trade.  On pretty much every policy, she is exactly where the GOP platform says a GOP candidate should be.

So why do they hate her?  Simple: she is not one of them.

Here is how the elitists - and by this, I mean the Washington insider elitists of BOTH parties, not the average voter, and certainly not the average conservative - see her:

She is an idiot.  She is a crazy, insane, fool.  She is a bible-thumping hypocrite who until last week was sacrificing babies to satan.  She is an ingnorant, stupid, uneducated hick who didn't go to a real university, and who barely even graduated at all.  She is white trash.  She is a redneck rube from poor breeding mouth breather bitter clingers and not from a nice old money establishment family.  She is a lightweight who can't win an election because she has made mistakes in her past, been involved in legal battles, and doesn't have a lot of her own money.  And worst of all, she is just a pretty face, a cute smile, pretty hair and fun glasses.  Kind of like that other horrifyingly bad candidate, Sarah Palin.

Oh, and speaking of witch which, Sarah Palin rushed in to endorse her and help her win the primary.  That bitch witch.

That is what the elitists think.  And that is why they hate her.  But it isn't why they attack her so much.  The attack her not out of hate, but out of fear.  And why?  Because her campaign is now a referendum on Sarah Palin.  And they fear Sarah Palin.

The elites dread one thing more than just about anything else, and that is Sarah Palin becoming President of the United States.  They don't fear it because they fear her policies or what she may do as President - well, except for one thing: flushing out all the elitists from power.

The elitists fear that the Tea Party movement will clean house, and all the elitists in power will no longer have power.  Plain and simple.  And to the elitists, Sarah Palin IS the Tea Party.  And Christine O'Donnell is Sarah Palin by proxy.  Defeat O'Donnell, and defeat Palin.

So whenever you hear some pointy headed certified smart person claiming to be a good conservative Republican and ranting about how horrific Christine O'Donnell is and how stupid the Tea Party is for nominating her and how she will lose her election, just remember what they are really saying: we hate Sarah Palin, you stupid ignorant bible thumping bitter clinger white trash idiot.

If you believe in what the Tea Party stands for, support Christine O'Donnell.  If you think Sarah Palin is your friend and not your enemy, support Christine O'Donnell.  If you think it is time to make good on Nancy Pelosi's pledge to drain the swamp, support Christine O'Donnell.  If you believe Washington is broken and the establishment elitists are to blame, support Christine O'Donnell.

If none of that applies to you... well... just come clean and admit you want to elect committed marxist and Reid lap dog Coon instead.  I'd respect you more if you were at least honest about it.

A threat to national security

Pop quiz time.

Which of the following would you say is the greater threat to national security?

A) Radical moslem fascist terrorism

B) Iranian nuclear ambitions

C) Russian opposition to a missile defense shield

D) Childhood obesity

Now, most of you folks might look at this and think "gosh, more than one of those is a real threat... it is hard to pick one out."  Well, most of you are obviously stupid, weak-minded fools incapable of understanding the nuance of the situation.  Fortunately, you need not worry your feeble little minds, because we have the Obama administration in charge and ready to tackle what is obviously the gravest danger for us.  Clearly, childhood obesity is the greatest threat of these choices - not only is Michelle Obama ready to call out this killer for what it really is, but that she is actually going to DO something about it (as opposed to the other three non-issues the administration is ignoring).

The U.S. Naval Academy: a weapons-free zone!

For the first time in, oh, ever, there will be no weapons allowed at the graduation ceremony at the U.S. Naval Academy.

This means no ceremonial swords.  Never mind the fact that the ceremonial sword is part of the uniform of the very same officers who have sworn an oath to - among other things - obey the orders of the President.  As my father, who retired after 30 years service as a naval officer, reminded me: full dress white includes "wear sword."  No, we can't have swords there... to dangerous... too... militaristic.

I suppose while we are at it, we should remove all the cannons from the campus.

And maybe we had better get rid of all the cutlery at the mess hall.

You know... the Navy SEALs are weapons.

 

Better be sure none of them are in attendance.  That includes you, Jesse...

I suppose we'd better not have the Blue Angels fly over this year.

Perhaps we should do away with the drill team.

Actually, better do away with all the marksmanship training, too.

After all, why do we even need weapons?  Instead of combat training, let's give our best and brightest advanced negotiation and mediation training!

Why even have militaries?  Get rid of the service academies!  After all, all these kids could have gone to schools like Columbia or Harvard, where they could have studied the nuances of foreign policy instead of being indoctrinated into jingoistic nationalism camps.

Clearly, we have been doing this wrong all along.  Thank God, er, I mean, thank OBAMA we have finally seen the light!

Brutal murder by a domestic terrorist

The news today is tragic.  A good man is killed by some stupid radical extremist.  A person is cut down, just because some insane home-grown terrorist disagreed with the victim's profession.  OK, the victim was controversial, to be sure.  But that is no excuse - especially when, your personal political beliefs notwithstanding, he was doing a job that mainstream America supports.

We must not succumb to the temptation to consider the murderer a hero just because some people think he was justified by his beliefs.  No, we must not condone this action.  We must outright condemn it.  We must call the act what it is: a terrorist attack on American soil.  We must prosecute the murdering animal just as surely as we would prosecute Osama Bin Laden himself.

Unfortunately, I fear that not everyone will see things as I see them.  I can almost hear some people rejoicing.  Well, the hell with them.  I cannot, WILL NOT allow myself to be associated with those people.

Of course, you probably think I am talking about the murder of the abortion doctor.  But I am not.  Although everything I said applies in that case as well, this post is about another act of terrorism, one you probably won't hear about in the mainstream media today.  I am talking about this:

New U.S. Army soldier William Long was gunned down at a recruiting center in Arkansas.

Police in Little Rock, Ark., say a man who likely had "political and religious motives" shot two new Army soldiers, killing one, at a military recruiting center.

Political and religious motives.  The parallels between this and the Tiller murder are stunning.  Except no one in the mainstream media is saying diddly squat about the recruiter killing.  No one in the mainstream media is calling it a terror act.  No one in the maintream media is blaming left-wing news programs for whipping up anti-military sentiment.  No one in the mainstream media is demanding the left disavow and condemn the killing.

No one in the mainstream media gives a shit.  And do you know why they won't say squat?  Probably because they don't want anyone to blame things like religion or ethnicity in this crime - they save such things for conservative Christians only.

I am sorry for Tiller and his family.  You can apply everything I wrote in the opening of this post to the story of his murder.  But the left had damn well better apply the same standards of decency to the islamofacist terrorist asshole who opened fire on a military recruiting center where patriotic Americans were doing their duty.

Don't hold your breath.

BIG THINGS

Well, here it is, April 15.

Tax day.

Oh, goody!

Meanwhile, across the nation, many thousands of people are participating in tea parties, to protest the growth and expansion of, and oppression by, the federal government.

Just how bad is it?  Well, it is so bad that in Texas, just a few days after celebrating annexation, Governor Rick Perry and the Texas legislature are asserting state sovereignty against the federal government.  The last time a state got this vocal, the word "secede" was included.  I think Rick Perry just became the front runner for 2012.  If the last Governor of Texas had taken federalism this seriously, we'd have a solid Republican majority througout federal government today.

Instead, the all-democrat federal government is sounding more and more oppressive.  In what can surely be called an exercise in bad timing, the news today is littered with reports about a new Department of Homeland Security report warning us all about dangerous right-wing extremists.

Yes, if you are a conservative, or a Christian, or a gun-owner, or a veteran, or unemployed, or believe in the Constitution or the right to life, well, you might be a terrorist.

Meanwhile, this same department is busy making sure no actual honest-to-God terrorists might be offended.

Big things are happening.  Big changes are coming.  But I predict things will have to continue to get worse before there is any chance they may get better - and there is no guarantee better things are even coming.

For the first time in my entire life, I am actually, truly, afraid for my country.

DANGER! BLOGROLLING HACKED!

As far as I can tell, very few are reporting this so far, so it must have happened in the last few hours.  I e-mailed Instapundit, so hopefully he will read it and pass it along.

I went to add some links and found the front page hacked by someone claiming to be a voice for Islam, but probably just a raving anarchist.  Here is a screen capture of some of what is there:

I checked pages other than the front page and they appear normal, so if you use an internal page from a bookmark, you might not see that the site is compromised.  I for one am NOT going to log in or use the links for the time being.  I want to see that the site has been secured before the blogrolls go back up.  I suggest you do likewise for security.  I will be taking down blogrolls as soon as this is posted.

UPDATE: I see several blogs reporting it now.  Many are saying it was "Islamic Jihad" but I don't think so.  I think this was probably a pissed off teenager looking to make trouble.

Happy Birthday To Me!

And this is what Gullybabe bought for me!

If you are heading anywhere near Hell...

...be sure to pack your hockey skates, 'cause it's freezin' over.

The Obamessiah and his Senior Flunky have committed two of the biggest gaffes they could possibly commit.  Same day.  Different gaffes.  They are soooooo screwed now.

First, Obama lets slip the "big one" on gun control.  He just admitted he wouldn't "have the votes" in Congress to take away guns.  That means he has already been vote counting.  You do NOT poll your Congressional delegation on something that can bite you on the ass like this unless you are SERIOUSLY planning to move forward with legislation.  Back in 1994, the NRA mobilzed the pro-gun crowd in response to the assault weapons ban.  The result started with "Speaker" and ended with "Gingrich."  Now the democrat ticket has two F-rated candidates, and the Republicans have a war hero and a life-member caribou hunter ticket.  And the Heller decision, with many huge gun-rights questions left unanswered, has the pro-gun movement ready for action.  Do the math.

But the gun issue isn't why the forecast down below is calling for extra sweaters.  No, the BIG gaffe comes from Joe Biden, who just admitted it is a matter of his faith that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

I'll pause a moment while you pick yourself up from the ground.

Yes, he believes life begins at conception.  He is also still pro-choice.  So, in a nutshell, he is ok with what can then only be logically described as infanticide.  He would be better off, politicly, either becoming pro-life, or sticking with some sort of "three month" rule.  Because now he is on record as a baby killer.  The radical feminazi abortion-as-the-holy-sacrament crowd will now throw Biden under the bus.  They may as well support Sarah Palin, who at least is a woman and at least is able to reconcile her beliefs on abortion and metaphysics.

There will be no place on the democrat ticket for Biden now.  He is dead to the radical left at this point.  He needs to back down and let Barack put Hillary on the ticket.

It's funny... a few days ago, the left were the ones saying McCain and Palin had to pull an Eagleton.  Now, that's the only choice left for Barack Hussein Osama bin-Biden.  The democrats are totally screwed.  Polling coming out tomorrow will show McCain up by 10 points over Obama, and that's BEFORE tonights debacles.  They are going to lose BIG TIME.  The only question is: how bad will it be?  If they can dump Biden and put Hillary on the ticket, they will still lose (no way Obama can recover from a blow like losing his own VP pick), but at least they might retain Congress.  If Biden stays on the ballot, we might be looking at a new Speaker of the House come January.

When did Mary develop human rights?

By now you may have heard that Nancy Pelosi stuck her foot in it with some ridiculous comments about how the Catholic Church views the question "when does life begin?"

She decided that Saint Augustine pronounced life begins at three months.  Even though there is no evidence to suggest he ever said or wrote this.  And she went on to say the Catholic Church really never has decided one way or the other, with current ideas about the matter only having been around for the last 50 years or so.  Naturally, the Catholic Church rebuked her.

Honestly, though, the simple answer to the question, from a purely Catholic point of view, should be "conception."  After all, Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, not the "feast of the immaculate second trimester."

I may not be Catholic, but even I figured this one out.

I am now thoroughly committed to John McCain

I will be honest and blunt.  For months now, I have been encouraging conservatives and Republicans to rally around John McCain, not because I believed he was the right man for the job, but because I believe Barack Obama would be far, far worse.  But after last night's performance at the Saddleback Forum, I now see McCain as the RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB.

There is a lot of information and commentary posted already elsewhere.  You can get some good run-downs here and here.  Both these links contain many other links, so invest some time and read as much as you can.  And note: both these bloggers have been unenthusiastic about McCain and at least willing to see good sides of Obama.  They aren't right wing partisans.  So it is telling how their focus is directed.

Let me share with you some thoughts.

First, this was the best "debate" format ever.  Candidates had plenty of time to not only give canned sound bites, but long responses with detailed information.  Furthermore, there was no time or energy wasted on "gotcha" comebacks.  I wish all candidate forums could proceed more like this, and less like what Fred Thompson called "hand shows."  And I like that we got to see one long period of one candidate, then one long period of the other.  That's a great way to show the real contrast.

Second, I don't give a hoot that this forum came in a church before a largely evangelical crowd.  As McCain said, the candidates should appear in every venue, to reach as many people as possible.  No one should seriously believe the choice of forum violates any "separation of church and state" doctrines just because candidates share information there.  Would it be a violation of the so-called separation for churches to have televisions in them, running CNN coverage of a debate?  Ever heard of that whole "free speech" thing that goes along with that "religious stuff" in the First Amendment?  How about "freedom of association"?  Does that ring a bell?

Anyway, on to the candidates themselves.

Right off the bat, McCain demonstrated presidential qualities in his description of close advisors.  General Petraeus - the military genius leading us to success in Iraq.  John Lewis - he may be a political "enemy," but he still commands respect and is the sort of leader a man like McCain can turn to for bi-partisan support or alternative viewpoint.  Meg Whitman - the maverick business executive who turned eBay from a garage operation to a multi-billion dollar international industry, a person who can bring much-needed economic and business sense to Washington.  Obama?  Well, he went with his America-hating wife, his typical white grandmother, and a non-descriptive jumble of generic Washington insider advisors.  Who is the real candidate of hope and change here?  And who is the status quo political insider?

Obama really stepped into it with abortion.  Asked at what point a child is entitled to human rights, he waffled and wobbled.  He basically blew off any personal responsibility and said that sort of decision is "above his pay grade."  Seriously?

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

Yes, seriously!  One of the hot-button issues people of all viewpoints expect their leaders to actually LEAD on, and Obama says he can't lead.  He then went on to LIE about the increasing number of abortions in America.  OK, to be fair, maybe he was just wrong.  Either way, a candidate for PRESIDENT shouldn't go onto a nationally televised forum for VALUES VOTERS without the real facts on THE VALUES ISSUE.

McCain?  Well, agree with him or not, you have to credit his personal moral clarity when he was able to answer the same question clearly and instantly with life begins at conception.

Another one that blew me away was the question asked of both men about evil, and what to do about it.

Obama rambled, talked about how you can see evil in the streets of America, talked of vague "confrontation," and then again punted by saying it was up to God to fight evil.  McCain leapt right into his answer with a definitive "defeat it!"

I am particularly troubled by Obama's answer in light of his continually claiming he is a devout Christian.  Now, this isn't about whether Christianity is right or wrong.  It is about Obama's response in light of his declared Christian faith.  Obama made a critical mistake about one of the fundamental tenets of Christian dogma: it is not up to God to defeat evil, it is up to man!

God gave man Free Will.  With Free Will, man has the choice between a life of sin or a life of virtue.  God could, as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Being, wipe out all evil in creation with a Thought.  But God does not do this, because it would take away His great gift to man of Free Will.  If there were no evil, then there would be no value to choosing good.

This has been a central theme of Christian faith for almost 2,000 years.  St. Augustine's treatise on Free Will is probably second only to the Holy Bible itself as a fundamental document of Christian teaching.  And Obama, who continues to claim he is a devout man of Christian faith, blew this question!

Again, this is not to say Obama is right or wrong in his answer to the question (although I personally clearly believe he is wrong).  The truly important point here is that Obama's answer shows he is not true to his professed faith.  If you are an evangelical Christian looking for a candidate who can relate to you and your beliefs, Obama is not your man.

Both men were asked about Supreme Court justices, in a reverse of the usual "who do you like" format.  Instead, they were asked what current justices they would NOT have chosen.  Obama went directly to Clarence Thomas, ironically calling him inexperienced.  Then he attacked Scalia.  He railed them both for writing opinions he supposedly doesn't agree with.  Funny thing is, some of the biggest decisions of the year found Scalia and Thomas writing the opinions Obama supported publicly.  After all, Obama now claims he believes in the individual right to bear arms.  He claims he believes Louisiana should be able to use the death penalty for child rapists.  And of course, Obama also stated he would not have supported Chief Justice John Roberts - but we already knew that, since Obama voted against him.

McCain instantly answered the question with eight simple words:

With all due respect: Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens.

That is about as stark a contrast as you can get.  And McCain also went on to champion his personal support of Roberts and Alito, praising Bush for their appointments.

Hey, if judges are a big issue for you, the difference between the two men is crystal clear.

Another telling moment was a question about a difficult decision they had made.  Obama went directly into MoveOn.Org mode by defending his difficult decision to oppose the war in Iraq.  Funny thing is, Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time, so it really wasn't that difficult for him.  McCain, on the other hand, talked about his time in the Hanoi Hilton.

A quick refresher course in history:

When McCain was a P.O.W., his father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy in a position of command in the Pacific.  The N.V.A. knew it could make a great propaganda statement if it let McCain go free.  They would say the evil American military was willing to work with the enemy to free the sons of their leaders, while soldiers from poor families continued to languish and die in prison camps.  So the N.V.A. offered to release McCain.

McCain refused.  He would not allow himself to be released while his brothers in arms remained captive.  He made this decision knowing he would be subject to continued torture.  He made it knowing his own physical condition was already so frail he might not survive.  And, to this day, he believes it was one of the most correct and most important decisions he ever made.

McCain mentioned there was a lot of prayer involved.  Anyone who doubts McCain is a man of faith should think about this.  He spent over five years in a hell hole receiving routine torture while deprived of almost all basic necessities.  He came back ready to continue to serve his country.  Yes, there was prayer involved.  I have never met John McCain.  I haven't read his books.  And I haven't invested a lot of time researching his P.O.W. history beyond what is commonly reported.  But I don't need to do any of that to know in my heart that McCain prayed to God, and God answered his prayers.  God kept McCain alive and sane during those five years.  God helped McCain continue to serve his country and his fellow man after his release.  Anyone who doesn't think McCain is a man of faith should try living McCain's life some day.

But enough about spiritual matters.  We are electing a Commander in Chief, not a pastor in chief.  I only write what I have about faith because I know that, for some, it is the only real issue in this election.  I am not one of them, so let's move on.

Both men were asked about a change of opinion they have had.  Pastor Warren skillfully built up the question to show that changing an opinion isn't the same as a "flip-flop."  Rather, changing times and new information can cause a real leader to recognize that it makes sense to go in a new direction.

Obama rambled about welfare reform, and how he was upset with Bill Clinton over it, but now he sees it was a good thing.  Of course, remember it was Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of 1994 that brought us welfare reform, not Bill Clitnon - so Obama just said he agrees with Newt.

McCain, without hesitation, moved loudly and enthusiastically to announce his change of opinion is DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW.  That probably received the biggest applause of the entire night.

And on a related note, in a different question, Obama talked about how we need to sacrifice in order to solve the energy problem.  That's a start contrast from McCain, who believes we can maintain our economic position and our quality of life while implementing a broad energy plan including not just drilling, but wind, solar, nuclear, and more efficient technologies.  And that is the key contrast between left and right: the left wants to solve problems by bringing us all down a notch.  The right wants to solve issues while keeping us strong and vibrant.

The two also shared radically different ideas on taxation and the rich.  Obama says if a couple makes more than $150,000 a year, well, they must be middle class.  That's interesting, considering the mediam household income is more like $40,000.  You would have thought a Republican was giving that answer, based on how the GOP is portrayed in the media.  But Obama quickly recovered his socialist composure and went on to talk about how the rich have to pay more.  He didn't mention that the richest one percent of taxpayers are already paying more than one-third of all income taxes.  He didn't mention that the top 50% of wage earners are already paying nearly ALL income taxes.  He didn't mention that even under a flat tax, the more you make, the more you pay.  And he certainly didn't mention that under our current plan we are far from flat, with workers paying a higher percentage of income as a reward for earning more.  No, he just blathered on about the rich needing to pay more money.  And why?  So we can spend more money.

McCain took a different route.  He said we should SPEND less money.  He said we should be taxed LESS.  He said he doesn't want to tax the rich, because he wants everyone to BE rich.  Again, Obama wants to solve problems by knocking down the rich.  McCain would rather elevate the poor.

Fiscal conservatives should rejoice in our nominee!

All in all, McCain dominated the night.  He presented ideas that are so common-sense oriented, they should appeal to moderate independents and the conservative Republican base.  But perhaps more importantly, he took away what is supposedly Obama's strength.  McCain appeared to be the candidate with energy.  He appeared hopeful for America.  He presented ideas for positive change.  All Obama did was trot out the same failed policies of John Kerry, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter.

After two hours, my mind became clear.  While I had already been opposed to Obama, I am now much strongly opposed to him as a potential President of the United States.  He is just plain wrong for America.  And while I had been ready to support McCain before, now I am ready to actively campaign for his election as the right man for the job.