It has been many months since I last posted on this site. Much has transpired in this election campaign in that time. McCain is the presumptive nominee for the Republicans, while the two remaining Democrats are locked in mortal combat. Barack Obama has had his Rev. Wright scandal and Hillary Clinton is trying to weather a credibility storm in the wake of her sniper fire claims.
As a conservative, I am gleeful at these developments and hope the pattern continues. Mr.Obama has, in my eyes, been unmasked as a man who is patently dishonest. The same is true of Mrs. Clinton, but I already knew that.
Obama expects us to believe that he sat in church every Sunday for 20 years and never heard the hateful and divisive words of Rev. Wright. Only the true believers will swallow that fish story. In any case, his wives' rhetoric belies that notion . Besides the chip on her shoulder, she also carries a double standard for herself and others. Here is an excerpt from a speech she delivered on a college campus one year ago.
"We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?"
This is from a woman who attends an all black church. I suspect that this church is located deep within her comfort zone.
Hillary not only lied about the sniper fire directed at her in Bosnia; she repeated the false claim three times after it had been debunked with photographs and numerous eyewitness accounts. It sounds more like a psychological disorder than a political campaign.
Sadly, these events seem not to affect the thinking of most Liberals. They staunchly defend their candidate of choice as if this behavior were normal for someone seeking the Office of the President of the United States. Perhaps in this age it is, and it is just me being out of touch with reality.
Although I disagree with some of his positions, in particular Immigration and Border Security, I believe Mr. McCain to be an honest man. That alone puts him light years ahead of either Clinton or Obama.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
What Does It Mean?
Well, the Iowans have spoken. They have chosen Huckabee and Obama. Since this is the first of 28 more primaries, what impact will it have and what, if anything, does it tell us about the general election.
Let me first say that I had thought both of these candidates were unelectable in the general election. I still think Huckabee is. Maybe I am naive, but I can't see the country electing a baptist minister to the oval office, much less one named Huckabee. That combined with his poor record on taxes and his open borders/amnesty position on illegal immigration should doom him among true conservative voters.
Obama is a different story, and not because of his race. I don't believe that most Americans are inherently racist. I did believe that they would judge him on the issues and his lack of experience. I was wrong about the record, but right about the racism, or lack thereof. The mainstream media has made an industry out of speculation concerning the racism of American voters. This primary should put that to rest, although somehow I think it probably won't. A relatively unknown black candidate with an Arab name won a primary in the whitest of white states in the midwest. That is a historical event, and one that should be celebrated.
A man who has basically just arrived in the Senate normally wouldn't have a chance at upsetting someone like Hillary Clinton. But Clinton is tremendously unlikable. Even Liberals who want to like her seem to have a hard time with her. Obama, on the other hand, is immensely likable. He can be a very inspiring speaker. I would vote for him myself if I wasn't familiar with his classically Liberal voting record.
What Obama brings to the table is something that Senator Clinton couldn't buy for all the tea in china, a personality. He also brings the hope, perhaps false hope, of an end to vicious partisan politics that people crave right now. Huckabee apparently speaks to the voters in Iowa in a way that a polished Governor from the Northeast cannot. It is their loss, Mitt Romney is a tremendously accomplished man whose record puts Huckabee to shame.
In spite of the results in Iowa, I will still maintain that Huckabee will fizzle out. I can't say the same for Obama. To tell the truth, if I had to pick a democrat, it would be him.
Let me first say that I had thought both of these candidates were unelectable in the general election. I still think Huckabee is. Maybe I am naive, but I can't see the country electing a baptist minister to the oval office, much less one named Huckabee. That combined with his poor record on taxes and his open borders/amnesty position on illegal immigration should doom him among true conservative voters.
Obama is a different story, and not because of his race. I don't believe that most Americans are inherently racist. I did believe that they would judge him on the issues and his lack of experience. I was wrong about the record, but right about the racism, or lack thereof. The mainstream media has made an industry out of speculation concerning the racism of American voters. This primary should put that to rest, although somehow I think it probably won't. A relatively unknown black candidate with an Arab name won a primary in the whitest of white states in the midwest. That is a historical event, and one that should be celebrated.
A man who has basically just arrived in the Senate normally wouldn't have a chance at upsetting someone like Hillary Clinton. But Clinton is tremendously unlikable. Even Liberals who want to like her seem to have a hard time with her. Obama, on the other hand, is immensely likable. He can be a very inspiring speaker. I would vote for him myself if I wasn't familiar with his classically Liberal voting record.
What Obama brings to the table is something that Senator Clinton couldn't buy for all the tea in china, a personality. He also brings the hope, perhaps false hope, of an end to vicious partisan politics that people crave right now. Huckabee apparently speaks to the voters in Iowa in a way that a polished Governor from the Northeast cannot. It is their loss, Mitt Romney is a tremendously accomplished man whose record puts Huckabee to shame.
In spite of the results in Iowa, I will still maintain that Huckabee will fizzle out. I can't say the same for Obama. To tell the truth, if I had to pick a democrat, it would be him.
Monday, December 31, 2007
The Shape of Things to Come
It is time to bid farewell to 2007 and welcome in the new year. I still have high hopes for the country in '08, and I still think Rudy Guliani is the right man for the job of President of the United States at this time.
Many people recognize the brilliant job Mr. Guliani did immediately following the events of 9/11. Far fewer ever discuss what he accomplished before that infamous day.
I have resided in New York City since 1980 and I have lived through several mayoral administrations here. This city was once widely believed, by even the most liberal of observers, to be ungovernable.
When Rudy was elected mayor, crime was rampant. Every subway car and many buildings were covered in graffiti and the "homeless" were everywhere. Times Square was a hellhole and organized crime held all the cards. They had complete control of the garbage carting industry, cement, the Fulton Fish Market and the Jacob Javits Convention Center among many others.
Every time you walked out of a cash machine foyer at night you were harassed for money by an unwholesome character. I have several friends who were assaulted by squeegee men, one of them who lost an eye. There were many parts of the city that were unsafe at anytime of day. People who live elsewhere think this is an exaggeration, but it was the reality of life in New York City at the time.
All that changed under Rudy. His policies on crime, taxes, tourism, business and government in general were groundbreaking and immensely effective.
Guliani invented new ways to prosecute organized crime. He empowered the Police Department to raise the quality of life for all citizens, regardless of color. The city became one of the safest in the country.
He brought investment back to the city by creating a tax environment that encouraged it. Times Square and the Fulton Fish Market are now major tourism destinations for people from around the world. The city I live in today is vastly different from the one I knew then. It is cleaner, safer, and more profitable. Guliani managed to get all these things done in the most hostile political environment in the country.
He always spoke his mind and sometimes rubbed people the wrong way, but the city thrived under his leadership and continues to do so today because of his efforts. Then, when 19 Islamic terrorists came to this city and changed life for everyone everywhere, Rudy demonstrated what a real leader does in a crisis...he led.
A Need To Believe
I was in the middle of reading another hysterical Global Warming article by Sharon Begley in Newsweek when I began to wonder...why does she feel so certain, so sure, that we are all doomed. She assures us with each new effort that the seas will rise and engulf our coastal cities and crops will wither and turn to dust in the coming droughts in the midwest.
I understand that she is a Yale educated science writer and that she surely knows more than I regarding Climatology. But I thought the whole point of science was to question common wisdom. Even I am aware, that according to a recent U.S. Senate report, 400 prominent scientists "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."
I have taken a look at some of the credentials of those who signed the letter. They are an impressive and distinguished group to say the least. Why would Sharon Begley completely ignore these and many other "deniers". It doesn't make any sense until you look at the question from a faith perspective. Let me say that I am an atheist, and I have no problem with anyones belief system, no matter what it may be.
It occurs to me that some on the left side of this issue need to believe in something. They desire passion in their lives. Global Warming fills that void quite neatly. It allows them to fight the good fight, expose the bad guys and also be a little condescending for a good cause. It is the ultimate Liberal Issue. With Global Warming you can enlarge the government because of course we'll need several dozen committees, myriad agencies and legions of inspectors to combat the ultimate evil. It will allow you to tax things you don't like so much, like SUVs and the timber industry. Even better, you can point the finger of blame at corporations. No wonder they ignore any evidence that contradicts The Great Belief.
The next big question that pops in my head is, what happens in 15 years when none of the apocalyptic predictions come to be? I mentioned this to my wife and she answered it quite eloquently. She said, " They'll say it didn't happen because of all of their interventions and efforts". She's right, they'll never admit they were wrong.
That's when I realized that this really was the perfect political issue for the left. They can't lose and they can't be proven wrong. They also get to write hysterical articles about it.
A few links for support:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
I understand that she is a Yale educated science writer and that she surely knows more than I regarding Climatology. But I thought the whole point of science was to question common wisdom. Even I am aware, that according to a recent U.S. Senate report, 400 prominent scientists "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."
I have taken a look at some of the credentials of those who signed the letter. They are an impressive and distinguished group to say the least. Why would Sharon Begley completely ignore these and many other "deniers". It doesn't make any sense until you look at the question from a faith perspective. Let me say that I am an atheist, and I have no problem with anyones belief system, no matter what it may be.
It occurs to me that some on the left side of this issue need to believe in something. They desire passion in their lives. Global Warming fills that void quite neatly. It allows them to fight the good fight, expose the bad guys and also be a little condescending for a good cause. It is the ultimate Liberal Issue. With Global Warming you can enlarge the government because of course we'll need several dozen committees, myriad agencies and legions of inspectors to combat the ultimate evil. It will allow you to tax things you don't like so much, like SUVs and the timber industry. Even better, you can point the finger of blame at corporations. No wonder they ignore any evidence that contradicts The Great Belief.
The next big question that pops in my head is, what happens in 15 years when none of the apocalyptic predictions come to be? I mentioned this to my wife and she answered it quite eloquently. She said, " They'll say it didn't happen because of all of their interventions and efforts". She's right, they'll never admit they were wrong.
That's when I realized that this really was the perfect political issue for the left. They can't lose and they can't be proven wrong. They also get to write hysterical articles about it.
A few links for support:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Friday, December 28, 2007
The Greatest Cliche
It pains me to say it, but we have arrived at a point in our history where we are truly living the Orwellian ideal. How many pundits have uttered that term while describing a statement made by a politician? It doesn't matter, I am about to join their ranks.
I was reading an article about a speech Hillary Clinton made the other day. The one in which she stated that the OPEC nations would instantly lower the price of oil the moment she was elected. (I believe it was on crooksandliars.com ). That statement received a lot of attention in the media.
But as outrageous and implausible as it sounds, it was not the sound byte that stuck in my craw. What really shocked me is when, later in that same speech, she stated that President Carter had our country heading in the right direction in the 70's regarding energy independence, but that Reagan "dismantled" his work.
I remember the 70's quite clearly, with odd and even gas purchasing days, and long lines waiting to fill up. Not to mention double digit inflation, hostages in Iran, and huge unemployment.
To credit Carter with anything positive during his Presidency, much less energy independence, is nothing short of rewriting history. The saddest part for me is that no one challenged her on it, and there are probably many who believe it.
If I remember Orwells' 1984 correctly, there were whole departments within the gov't. dedicated to to revising history to fit their narrative. If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, that will become a reality.
I was reading an article about a speech Hillary Clinton made the other day. The one in which she stated that the OPEC nations would instantly lower the price of oil the moment she was elected. (I believe it was on crooksandliars.com ). That statement received a lot of attention in the media.
But as outrageous and implausible as it sounds, it was not the sound byte that stuck in my craw. What really shocked me is when, later in that same speech, she stated that President Carter had our country heading in the right direction in the 70's regarding energy independence, but that Reagan "dismantled" his work.
I remember the 70's quite clearly, with odd and even gas purchasing days, and long lines waiting to fill up. Not to mention double digit inflation, hostages in Iran, and huge unemployment.
To credit Carter with anything positive during his Presidency, much less energy independence, is nothing short of rewriting history. The saddest part for me is that no one challenged her on it, and there are probably many who believe it.
If I remember Orwells' 1984 correctly, there were whole departments within the gov't. dedicated to to revising history to fit their narrative. If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, that will become a reality.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The truth hurts...me
I live in New York City and it goes with the territory that conservatives here are a tiny minority. With that said, I am constantly amazed by my liberal friends in terms of their unwillingness to discuss issues.
Perhaps I should clarify that. They are perfectly willing to discuss the issues with you...as long as you agree with them. The moment you present a fact supporting an opposing argument, their eyes glaze over as if they are receiving an incoming message from the mothership.
You may not realize it, but the discussion is officially over. Even if you foolishly continue to speak or present fact or opinion, it is absorbed by the force field of liberal pathology that has descended.
If you find this disturbing, brace yourself. You have triggered a mechanism that has a cascading effect. An intruder alert if you will. A silent alarm that is never the less heard by many.
You will now be perceived as an outsider, and a dim witted one at that. A troublemaker with dangerous ideas. A throwback to the days when Neanderthals competed for valuable resources.
It would have been simpler to just have your forehead tattooed.
I experienced this phenomenon recently while having a holiday drink with an old friend who I always assumed to be apolitical. He and the bartender were talking when it dawned on me that they were both saying that the American economy was practically in ruin.
I quietly asked them to provide evidence of this and the silence fell about me. I perceived what could only be described as a look of pity on their faces. The poor ignorant slob, how does he feed himself? , they must have thought to themselves.
To add injury to insult, I stupidly recited some common economical statistics on GDP, employment and the stock market. I had now crossed the line from innocent ignoramus to pernicious interloper. I had to be stopped.
Needless to say, I had no more drinks bought for me that night and I have another friend who is not really a friend anymore.
Maybe I'll start a blog.
Perhaps I should clarify that. They are perfectly willing to discuss the issues with you...as long as you agree with them. The moment you present a fact supporting an opposing argument, their eyes glaze over as if they are receiving an incoming message from the mothership.
You may not realize it, but the discussion is officially over. Even if you foolishly continue to speak or present fact or opinion, it is absorbed by the force field of liberal pathology that has descended.
If you find this disturbing, brace yourself. You have triggered a mechanism that has a cascading effect. An intruder alert if you will. A silent alarm that is never the less heard by many.
You will now be perceived as an outsider, and a dim witted one at that. A troublemaker with dangerous ideas. A throwback to the days when Neanderthals competed for valuable resources.
It would have been simpler to just have your forehead tattooed.
I experienced this phenomenon recently while having a holiday drink with an old friend who I always assumed to be apolitical. He and the bartender were talking when it dawned on me that they were both saying that the American economy was practically in ruin.
I quietly asked them to provide evidence of this and the silence fell about me. I perceived what could only be described as a look of pity on their faces. The poor ignorant slob, how does he feed himself? , they must have thought to themselves.
To add injury to insult, I stupidly recited some common economical statistics on GDP, employment and the stock market. I had now crossed the line from innocent ignoramus to pernicious interloper. I had to be stopped.
Needless to say, I had no more drinks bought for me that night and I have another friend who is not really a friend anymore.
Maybe I'll start a blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
