Thursday, December 13, 2007

The "Lesser of Two Evils" is a Greater Sin

I watched the Iowa GOP debate last night on DVR and was not impressed by any of the candidates who, according to polls, have the best chance of winning the Republican nomination.

After the debate was over, a reporter spoke to a focus group of folks from Iowa who were also responsible for the graph which appeared on the right of the screen throughout most of the debate. The graph was supposed to show, by political "leaning" (in this case "Conservative" vs. "Moderate"), which candidate garnered the most support throughout the debate. When asked, by show of hands, who liked Mitt Romney, 80% of hands went up. When an individual was asked to give a reason why they were impressed with Romney, his response was basically that he "seemed confident" and "presidential".

This was a bit of a surprise for me as I have always seen Romney as the least confident in his answers and he ALWAYS has to respond to other candidates when addressed, even if it is fun.


When asked a question about taxes, Thompson initially responds that his goal is to be like Romney so he doesn't have to worry about paying taxes. Pretty cute answer, and this is what we know Fred for: being likable and charming above all else. Romney could have left it at that, but felt compelled to respond with something to the effect, "No, I want to be like YOU (Thompson)!" He does this consistently, and I believe unnecessarily. To me, that makes him out to be a little insecure, definitely not confident. He has generally seemed to me to be in a "reactive" mode when it comes to addressing comments made by other candidates. Giving a speech about "Faith" after the media covered Huckabee's comment about the possibility that the Mormon church teaches that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are brothers is a good example. He has to be transparent and have such a degree of integrity that shots like that aren't even taken seriously. That would be "presidential" in my book.

Regarding the implication that Romney, "Seeming presidential" makes him a candidate worth voting for scares me because it is telling me that "John Q Voter" is looking for the man that can look the part more than a person of principle and character (can you say Manchurian Candidate with me?).

There is really no excuse for anyone who intends to cast their vote to not be informed about a candidate aside from what they see during these debates, or what is presented by the media. The availability of information at this point makes it so any person who takes politics seriously and understands the strategic effect on this country and the world can be equipped with the information they need to make an informed and intelligent choice for who they want to represent them as President.

What it really comes down to for me is not how a person comes across on television, although maybe there is something to be said about impressions when dealing diplomatically with the world, but what a person is made of. Are we really going to get to what these men are made of by watching them in this forum? I don't think so. I think if they had more opportunity to go after one another, we would see more of what they are really made of. You know the saying, "You don't know what kind of tea you have until you put it in hot water." Unfortunately, last night's "debate" was less that and more of a question and answer forum. Boring.

I believe the only real way to know what a candidate will do once in office is to look at his life, and if they have been in politics to any degree, their voting record. What they have done throughout their political career by their day to day actions in office will give you a better sense for what kind of leader they will be, regardless of what they are spewing from the podium. It is not highly likely that someone who consistently voted for open borders, or to support the redefinition of marriage throughout their career is suddenly going to turn on a dime now that the presidency is looming.

In all, I would say that the line between Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, have blurred quite a bit; and the GOP candidates reflect that. Predictably, they will appear very conservative while trying to win the Republican nomination, but when someone does succeed and they go against the Democratic nominee, they will suddenly be somewhere in the middle because they know they have to appeal to both the right and the left. This is just disingenuous and it's what makes politics so hard for me to swallow.

So what it comes down to (apparently) is, "Who makes the best politician?" Or the more pathetic, "Who has the best chance of beating Hillary?"

This is an abomination to me as a person who tries to live by principle and keep my conscience clear. Let me give a good example of when I made a decision based on what was politically expedient rather than my conscience, and how it subsequently backfired:

I voted for Arnold as Governor of California both because I thought he was a fiscal conservative, which California desperately needed (and still needs) and I reasoned he had the name recognition to garner enough votes to win. The result is not only has he become just another politician, in spite of his promise that he was just a regular guy and would therefore be more objective and not be influenced by special interests, but socially he is an absolute nightmare! Most recently, signing SB 777, a pro-homosexual agenda propaganda bill that ensures every child in public school will be indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle.

I have had to live with the decision to put that man in office ever since, and have therefore determined I will never vote on anything but conscience from now on.

Rudolph Guiliani is the front-runner in the race for the GOP nomination, not because he is ideal or even a true conservative, but because he has the name recognition and appeal to beat Hillary. Let's have a look at some issues that are generally important to conservatives, and where Rudy stands on them:

  • Abortion: makes no apology for believing abortion should be legal and publicly funded, but manages to stay in the middle by stating repeatedly that he encouraged adoption as an alternative and cut the number of abortions in New York while presiding as Mayor.

  • Gun Control: Once again, does not apologize for pushing stricter gun control laws and even suggests it made New York safer as a result.

  • Embryonic Stem Cell research: All for it.

  • Redefinition of Marriage: Has historically, in word and deed, supported the "right" of gays and lesbians to be legally married, but more recently taken a somewhat firmer stance on the issue, suggesting the existing civil union laws are sufficient for this purpose.

    But, all of that being said, he has been deemed by most Republican voters (notice I didn't say Conservative) as the "lesser of two evils" because if we don't vote someone in who can beat Clinton we put the country in danger of being led by her. So we harden our hearts against the fact that Guiliani is a card carrying liberal in conservative clothing, pull the handle in his favor, and hope for the best? This is a bleak outlook in my opinion and something my conscience cannot bear.

    In the end I will be forced by my conscience to vote for a candidate who probably has zero chance of actually getting nominated, much less win the presidency. But, I can live with that.
  • Thursday, July 26, 2007

    My Perspective On G.W.

    I have been perusing the blogs as is my usual habit, at least a few times a week, and noticed a good number of conservative bloggers making a defense of President Bush. Most assert that, in spite of his failures and what the polls are showing, he will be seen as a successful President by history. I agree that the President has made some key decisions that have absolutely had, and will continue to have, a positive effect for years to come.

    Most notably, the tax cuts. Conservatives like myself who cast their vote for George Bush (both terms) expected this, and were delighted when he stuck to his guns despite the nay-sayers who predicted it would be a disaster economically. Indeed, those who doubted him then must eat their words now as the economy continues to flourish.

    I am not a huge fan of social anything but as far as I can tell, the Prescription Medicare legislation seems to be doing what was intended. Kudos to the President for once again doing the unpopular thing and coming out on top.

    This article describes well exactly what I am talking about and I will admit I needed to read it and be reminded that by and large, the legacy of this current administration will be a positive one once the dust has settled and people regain their objectivity a bit. (I got the link to the article from LMC).

    Some folks who are turning their backs on President Bush do so because they believe Iraq is a failure and that the President is just being "stubborn" because he doesn't want to admit defeat. There are of course those who think Iraq was planned long ago and that all the talk about WMD's, Al Queda, etc. was just posturing to get the American people on board. I don't buy the "Bush Lied" scenario, and I number that with the "fruit cake conspiracy" lot. Maybe it is just a matter of opinion and I don't have enough information to make that call, but take it for what it's worth, just please, please, DO NOT ask me, "Then where ARE the WMD's?!" because I have NO IDEA! If that is all you have to say after 8 years, to say your view of the world is myopic is an understatement.

    I confess that as of late I have been not so happy with the current administration and have lobbed some negative remarks at G.W., and I will not apologize for that because those comments were not made lightly. I didn't expect George Bush to fail me at any point, I only expected good things from him. I still remember my excitement when he was made President back in 2000, the Clinton era was finally over! The overwhelming mandate that ushered in his second term brought with it, for me, a huge sigh of relief because I thought 4 more years of George Bush as Prez would do the country alot of good, not to mention not realizing my greatest fear of having John Kerry as leader of the free world. I assumed that in his second term, with no pressure of securing a re-election looming, G.W. could really unleash and do some really great, if not popular, things. After all, isn't that what most second term Presidents do? Over all, I am of the opinion that his second term has been a bit lackluster compared to the first, though maybe I just expect too much.

    I am not sure what to make of Iraq at this point. I read articles that say we can't even get the government there to hold up their end of the deal (they would rather take a vacation?), and are even opposing us to some extent. I even read that they are reassuring that as soon as we leave, they will be fine without us. Part of me knows that if we just pull out, the void left would be too great to fill and Iraq could be worse off than before, if history serves. The other part of me is thinking, "If the government we are supporting is reluctant to have us there, what on earth are we dying over there for?"

    Needless to say, a confusing picture, but anyone should agree that success in Iraq would do alot to change the face of that part of the world, and may even spur more people to put away their fear and pursue free governments in their own countries.

    In my next post (and it should appear less than 3 months from now...) I will share specifically why I am disillusioned with G.W. these days, and why his mistakes could outweigh his accomplishments in the "big picture".

    Friday, June 15, 2007

    Transparent Rudy

    This takes the cake. Giuliani apparently is a big fan of Ronald Reagan and even models himself after the beloved Republican President. This was said by Rudy at a political rally recently, according to Newsmax:

    "What we’re lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan,”

    Couldn't agree more, but then he says,

    "As far as the things that developed my ideas and thinking, which developed as a much younger man, it was Ronald Reagan.”

    Of course you did! I should have guessed by your ultra-conservative stance on issues like abortion, gun control and embryonic stem-cell research! Sheesh, could this guy be posturing for the Conservative votes he will need to get the nomination?

    Then he nicely "rides the fence" by issuing this statement shortly after:

    "I think President Bush made the single biggest decision of his presidency correctly. He put us on offense against terrorism. I will always admire him for that.”

    So, he loves and admires Reagan, loves what President Bush has done with respect to terrorism, but overall disapproves of Bush's leadership style.

    Some thought Rudy would be a bit clumsy at the political game, but as it turns out he (or his speech writer) is playing very while by staying right in the middle.

    One quick note though Rudy, no one with half a brain is buying you as a conservative, that dog will not hunt.

    Saturday, June 09, 2007

    Conservative Bloggers, Unite!

    According to this Newsmax article, Fred Thompson is neck and neck with McCain in the polls with 17% support.

    Thanks to Conservatives too afraid to do what is right, Rudy has 27%.

    Monday, April 09, 2007

    The North American Union Still Looms...

    I have written about this in the past as I believe this particular issue to be of the utmost importance, even compared to coverage of Pelosi's foray into foreign policy relations or Don Imus being raked over the coals by Al "Why do we keep giving this guy press?" Sharpton.

    The fact is, our sovereignty as a country is being destroyed right under our noses without our knowledge or consent.

    Read this article in Worldnetdaily for details. Here are a few key excerpts:

    Many SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

    Read the linked document which details how the bordes between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico should dissappear to allow goods and services to easily pass from one country to the next. Does this sound like a good idea, or are you as concerned as I am that our country is losing her identity?

    In fact, the CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

    Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

    Phyllis Schlafly, the woman best known for nearly single-handedly leading the opposition that killed the Equal Rights Amendment, is quoted as saying:

    "Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" she asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'"

    "Bush meant what he said, at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the U.S. middle class."

    Here are some significant developments (as of middle of 2006, this is an old article) that reinforce the fact that progress is being made to move this country in this direction:

    Last month, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America made one of its most visible and public moves since it was first announced last year. In Washington, on June 15, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier joined North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council.

    Made up of 10 high-level business leaders from each country, the NACC will meet annually with senior North American government officials "to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy."

    The U.S. executives involved in the NACC include: United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; Frederick Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, chief executive of Mittal Steel USA; Joseph Gilmour, president of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co. Inc.; David O'Reilly, chief executive of Chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of General Electric Co.; Lee Scott, president of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.; Michael Haverty, chairman of Kansas City Southern; Douglas Conant, president of Campbell's Soup Co. and James Kilt, vice-chairman of Gillette Inc.

    In light of this hidden agenda, suddenly our President's inability, or at least unwillingness to tighten security at our borders and stem the tide of illegal immigrants make perfect sense as it fits perfectly with his father's dream of a One World Government.

    (U.S. Commerce Secretary) Gutierrez said the Bush administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about its implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan. 1, 2008.

    This kind of thing must not make "good news" because the MSM refuses to cover it, in spite of the strategic consequences these changes represent to our country.

    More interesting reads related to this subject:

    NASCO (International Mid-Continent Trade Corridor)
    Council on Foreign Relations
    North American Free Trade Agreement
    Debut of the "Amero"

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    Shocking News!

    Women's group plans to endorse Clinton

    Can't say I am suprised at all by this development. What scares me (besides Hillary herself) is that anyone would vote for her simply for the novelty of having a female President. This isn't only limited to women either; I have had conversations with many a man who thought it would be "cool" to have a woman running the country not to mention what a boost it would be to women's rights movements.

    The simplest analogy I use to get them to thinking about the haphazard way they are making this important decision is this:

    Harken back to the Lewinsky scandal (I know, I know, bear with me). Remember when Hillary claimed she knew nothing of it until just before the story broke. This can mean only two things:

    1. She was lying, as what woman would not know her man was stepping out. This goes to her lack of integrity and a character flaw that she is willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, no matter who she has to run over along the way (just like her hubby).

    2. She was telling the truth, in which case she is just not smart and incapable of making decisions that affect the whole globe.

    To me, that alone makes her questionable and it has made more than one person reconsider their decision.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007

    Jesus, come back!

    Today I got an email through from Guiliani asking me to join his team to help him become the next leader of the free world.

    I shudder to think of this guy running our country. This coupled with the even slim possibility of Hillary getting the Democratic nomination makes me yearn for the return of the Lord!

    There isn't one candidate on either side of the aisle that I can get behind, and I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils"; my conscience simply wll not allow it.

    Just a Quick Pause to Say Hello...

    Wow, I last posted way back in January. No doubt some have assumed my blogging days are over and you would never see me again. The truth is, I have been lurking, reading your thoughts, dissecting your debates and trying to keep up with current events that I believe are important to our future.

    Mrs.Bullfrog, the Tadpoles and I have been very busy as we decided around the first of the year that we wanted to move into a bigger place. Our 2 bedroom was getting smaller as the kids get bigger (that's what happens when you keep feedin' 'em!). So we started the search assuming we would stay in the same neighborhood, but the rents in San Diego even in the 2 years we were staying in our old place really ballooned to the point where you don't get nearly the square footage for the money as other areas. So we decided to move North a bit farther, the biggest impact being to my commute as I am now driving 90 miles every day instead of 12 (ouch!). Fortunately, I am carpooling which makes it alot easier and mama and the little ones are happy with the new diggs. We got twice the square footage in a much newer home for just a few hundred dollars. We will rent this place for a year or so and consider buying in this neighborhood if we find it is to our liking (so far, so good).

    So, I am around and look forward to having time to once again commune with you all, but for now home and work are keeping me very busy. In a couple weeks things should slow down at work and I can get time in the evenings to publish some of my thoughts.

    Thanks to Little Miss Chatterbox and Cynthia for stopping by with good wishes, I miss you all too.

    Tuesday, January 02, 2007

    Liberty Without a Creator

    Americans love freedom and liberty. We hold it dear and we protect it literally with our very lives. But what exactly is liberty? I am a big Webster fan (not the little cute actor, the dictionary guy), especially when it comes to defining words for which we have long taken the meaning for granted. Here is how Webster defines liberty:

    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
    Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
    1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
    2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
    3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b : RISK, CHANCE c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
    4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
    synonym see FREEDOM
    - at liberty
    1 : FREE
    2 : at leisure : UNOCCUPIED

    Probably none of these definitions are a big suprise to anyone. I think #1 and #2 are specifically relevant to personal freedoms that we like to enjoy so I will focus on these. Also note that liberty and freedom are basically synonymous.

    Definition 1a states, "the power to do as one pleases". Upon reading this, I instantly think of things that I certainly DO NOT want people doing (whether it "pleases" them or not), like selling dangerous narcotics, preying on children sexually, etc. It is probably safe to assume then that liberty does not mean doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Anyone who believes in absolute freedom of this kind I am guessing has never been assaulted or had their goods stolen. At best they are not being realistic, at worst they are of the type that wishes to commit these acts without restraint.

    Using this argument, I am persuaded that, at least for the purposes of this discussion, definition #1 should be discarded and we should focus on #2:

    2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits

    So now freedom and liberty is "granted" and we are given "permission" to be free. This will offend some who believe we are absolute free agents, freely roaming the earth doing what "pleases us". The problem with that is, when your enjoyment of what pleases you violates the freedom of another, it is not freedom anymore. I would say it is immorality.

    I will offer that without morality, there can be no liberty because without a moral code or "specified limits", freedom ceases to be free. Here are two quotes that nicely sum up this thought:

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?" - George Washington

    The question then becomes, who decides for me what is permissible? Who grants me certain rights? Who says what is moral?

    Some would say it is the role of government to grant rights to people and decide how those rights should be used, but I disagree. I believe it is the role of government to protect my liberties or rights from being encroached upon. I think the founders of this country would agree:

    "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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence

    This quote hits on exactly what I am getting at with this post: that the natural liberties we have are a gift from our Creator and that it is the job of government to preserve them by restraining those who would like to violate them. This is done primarily by enacting a moral code or system of laws. If this is insufficient to deter some, then punishment becomes necessary to further deter and/or restrain the violator.

    So I will summarize by stating that without a Creator, there can be no real freedom; and where one desires to protect liberty, a moral code must be established.

    "Those who will not be governed by God, will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn