Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Hillary is Looking Out for #1

I am a big fan of Dick Morris' commentary. I think his years in politics, particularly his involvement in the "Clinton Political Machine", makes him very savvy and I find that he is on point alot of the time. In this article, he does a good job explaining why it is that Hillary continues to run in spite of the numbers speaking so loudly against the possibility of her getting the nomination.

You could call it dogged determination, and I think that is accurate to a degree, but in light of how cunning we know her and her husband to be you have to consider an ulterior motive. Here is a key quote from the article:

When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin?

Her performance against Obama is exactly what I had hoped for, but I have also been operating under the assumption that if she lost really badly in her bid for the Democratic nomination she would give up any hope for the presidency and find contentment in being the Senator from New York. Sigh... could I have been more naive?

I absolutely believe that she understands that, aside from pulling a good number of Super Delegates to her side, she is toast. She also knows that this is not only unlikely, but it wouldn't win her alot of favor with her base in November. So I totally agree with Morris that she is purposely undermining Obama's bid in November because she would rather go against McCain in 2012 than Obama.

I couldn't care less if the Democratic party implodes on itself; I think a shake up might do both parties some good and might even scare them out of their apparent complacency, but hopefully the Dems will see that Hillary's tenacity has alot less to do with party loyalty and a sincere desire to represent the people than a motive of seeking power and self promotion. If she really cared about the country and her party, she would bow out gracefully and throw her support behind the likely nominee.

NOT likely though...

Monday, April 21, 2008

Global Warming or Cooling? Either Way, It's OUR Fault!

Good article here which echos my thoughts on the insanity that is "Climate Change".

The author points out how the term has changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" since statistics recently uncovered the fact that some parts of the earth are actually cooling.

I would never make the point that we don't need to be good stewards and not use resources wisely, nor would I disagree with the mountain of evidence proving the earth is changing temperature. Where they lose me is their lack of proof that humans are actually causing that temperature fluctuation.

Evangelical Christians are also losing their minds over this issue based on the Biblical teachiing of stewardship. Me thinks they take it to far, and the conservative leadership refusing to take a stance against it doesn't help matters. I call your attention to the "Green" commercials being aired featuring the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich as well as Pat Roberts and Al Sharpton "teaming up" to send the message that the Climate Change farce is a non-partisan issue.

Pretty pathetic, "We never agree an ANYTHING, but we can agree on THIS."

Sunday, April 20, 2008

The Pope is a Globalist

Not surprisingly, the Pope has come out against undermining the United Nations. He uses words that should scare those who value our national sovereignty, like, "human family", "international community", etc.

He also speaks of minorities who choose to act without a consensus, jeopardizing the "necessary unilateral consensus" he believes is necessary to cure the world's ills. Of course, the "minority" is the U.S., and the "act" is the war in Iraq.

The liberal-minded pontiff is of the opinion that "every diplomatic avenue" be explored and that nations should give attention to "even the faintest sign of dialogue" before choosing to act.

In other words, be spineless and let them play us. Try to imagine a world where we actually respectfully listen to the demands of terrorist nations and give careful thought before acting.

I don't think so.

Friday, April 04, 2008

She's Having a Baby

I have been watching politics alot lately (albeit less than a month ago) and really don't have anything to say on the subject because recent events haven't been that noteworthy...

I did think it would be worth taking a few minutes to make a clarification regarding the Oregon woman who recently became pregnant. I know, this in and of itself doesn't sound very interesting. But everyone is "shocked" and intrigued because it so happens the woman looks like a man for all intents and purposes, due to therapy to change her gender.

Thomas Beattie has undergone therapy to change her gender so that she and her lesbian lover could get married in Hawaii, a state that does not sanction same-sex marriage (now THAT'S what I call a loophole). It is also noted that Thomas (that is her legal name, so I will use it, sigh...) went without her therapy once the couple decided to have a child so that she could ovulate again. She decided to keep her uterus because she believes it is neither a man's or woman's desire to have children, but a "human desire". Speaking for myself, I love kids to pieces but I have seen the birth of both of my children and no part of me has since thought, "I would LOVE to try that just once!"

I believe it is innate in a WOMAN to have the desire to bear children. This can easily be demonstrated by my wife's burning desire to have more kids, despite the fact that both of our children came into the world not without some difficulty on her part. While any negative events around her pregnancy are burned permanently on my memory, she seems to have a decidedly more selective recollection of those events.

So, two things about Thomas present no surprise to me at all:

1. She wants to have children.
2, She is able to become pregnant and take a child to term.


Now, the hyper-politically correct who read this will no doubt have a problem with me not being "diverse" enough in my thinking or violating the rights of this person for, "just wanting to be who they are darn it!" So if a person who happens to be born a certain gender decides they are the opposite gender, rather than referring them to a good counselor, we "respect" their decision and try our best to "support" their transition.

Alot of sarcasm here, but to be serious, I believe it is not a small thing to blur the lines between genders. In fact, I believe it is downright dangerous. Find a society that tried it and survived. It doesn't make us "tolerant" or "progressive" to accept the lie that there is no difference between men and women, it makes us fools.

It is ironic that men and women are delighted by the apparent differences between genders, and agree that it is exactly those differences that help us to complement one another in a relationship, while at the same time are not only unwilling to speak against such a twisted situation as the woman in Oregon has placed herself and her child in, but sanction it; all in the name of letting bygones be bygones, tolerance, diversity, etc. These words, which should be meaningful and good, now cause me to bury my face in my hands to protect against what comes next.

What is hilarious is articles like this that consistently refer to "Thomas" as "he/him". So sadly (but not surprisingly) the media has bought the story hook line and sinker that, while Thomas was born a woman, she is now a "he" and not only is to be treated as such but we should all be amazed at the "man" who is now with child! In case you weren't positive that Oprah was a complete loon, she had Thomas on her show and is quoted as saying the situation was, "a new definition of what diversity means for everybody". Excuse me "The Oprah" but, as adept as I may be at self-delusion from time to time, Thomas Beattie isn't allowed to define my thinking on any subject, including what it means to be "diverse" or "tolerant". Nor are you. I believe diversity that occurs naturally in society, such as cultural and racial, is great and the world would be alot less interesting without it and learning to accept others with cultural differences is a healthy thing.

In the end, Thomas Beattie and the woman who decided to marry her are emotionally broken people who need compassion and mercy. This does not mean everything they do is "okay"; when did everyone become 3 year old children and since when has society decided to become the enabling grand-parent who is afraid to refuse them anything?

It is frightening how morally relativistic we have become as a society, and I dare say it will not be without it's consequences. Nothing is.