How hilarious is this? She’s no longer a threat to our Nation – she’s the laughing stock!
Archive for November, 2007
My son has a soccer team mate named, “Muhammad”. Can you even imagine what will or might happen if we don’t wake this country up to the harsh realities of the enemy we face?
Revised October 30th, 2007
Okay, all Baptists must go to the back of the bus. Episcopalians are not allowed to drink at that water fountain.
If you haven’t had a chance to immerse yourself in complete insanity-logic lately, check out this. Crooks and Liars stacks the deck in a way that reveals a glimpse into the crux of the “losing” mentality. It’s the perpetual perspective that no matter how many anti-depressants or government-funded programs into society, people can never win or be successful. Oh and heaven forbid if someone IS a winner or successful – they must be so corrupt they have to sabotage their campaign. In this case, either Romney’s campaign MUST have done this to themselves or they MUST have done this to themselves.
This isn’t a commentary on anti-depressants it’s about what happens to the large groups of people who can never pull it together to appreciate success. This mentality is like the bucket of crabs on the beach waiting to be cooked. The ones that climb and clamber over each other to save themselves for their own preservation. The ones on the Titanic who would throw a mother and child over board to get their places in the rescue boat. I’m reminded of Lord of the Flies or Heart of Darkness. Unchecked, mankind reverts to evil. What is wanted is a successful, professional, presidential candidate but when he arrives on the scene it is decided that really is “too smooth and phony.” So what fits right, hmmm, how about a settling for Mike Huckabee, the compassionate folksy liberal with the “aw shucks” demeanor.
Give me a break. You say you want a smart, polished statesman which is Mitt Romney, but then change your mind and go for a Golmer Pyle (Mike Huckabee) because you can’t stand the shine from Mitt’s brilliance? That’s typical of this culture – rip on the role models to drag society down to the mediocre and pedestrian – or worse – so that personal discomfort can be relieved.
The next strategy is to then use the “Christian” tag line to try to launch into a holier-than-thou stance while shredding a legitimate Christian denomination that has been a profound part of our American heritage, landscape and legacy for centuries. The Latter-day Saints (LDS) Church weaves some of the richest and profound threads of the American tapestry and it’s not going away. It started when people with the thinking of Rett and Pastors For Huckabee justified themselves to take a torch and burn a home, or tar and feather and member of the LDS Church in the 1800’s. I won’t go into Mormon history here – but the blood of Latter-Day Saints has seeped so far into the American soil no hatred or political ostracizing will every be able to dissect it out of the American backdrop. What Rett and friends are trying to accomplish is one and the same.
Here’s the pathological summary by
Mitt Romney has everything a candidate could want. The money, the looks, the credentials, the background of success. He has one problem. Mormonism. 37% said in a recent survey that they could never vote for a mormon. The deep south, which is the breadbasket for Republicans when it comes to electoral votes, is also the bible belt. While I would vote for Mitt because of his social conservative views, there are many who would hear about his Mormonism and immediately vote Hillary or Rudy. He can’t win a general election because he can’t win the deep south, therefore he can’t win my vote.
How would this work if we said “black”, or you know, “African American” or “Jew”. Here’s what the anti-Mormon, generally Huck-backing, crowd are doing now. They have to back peddle to rationalize why voting against a Mormon isn’t bigotry. It is outrageous that any person outside of a religion could be an “expert” on someone else’s faith. The process itself lends itself to trapping itself onto ideological hooks and then micro-focusing on obscure issues so that no matter what, bias will happen. I could no longer profess to be an expert on an Evangelical faith than the man on the moon.
I don’t buy it. Rett is making excuses which are thinly veiled. This is what the Hucksters are going to do now… they will say everything they can to conceal their innate bigotry of a fellow Christian religion. They are zealots from the pulpit and from their anti-cult classes which have been inbred and ingrained for centuries. This reminds me of an Aunt of mine born in the 20’s, she can’t help but define everyone she meets by their skin color. This post makes it clear. Hucksters, including Huck himself, can’t help inciting bigotry. It’s playing the Religion card but then trying to pretend you aren’t.
In case you haven’t seen it – how offensive – he’s really pushing his luck too far.
What will Huck say against Hillary if that day were to ever happen, “I’m a man, therefore I should be president”?
Timotheus says it all: “The use of religion by Huckabee to promote his political aspirations is extraordinarily opportunistic and despicable. What is Huckabee going to do when he is running against Hillary, run an ad with the tag line in the background, “Male Leader?” Or what about if he runs against Barack Obama, is Huckabee going to have a tag line that says “White Leader?” There are some differences that just should not be contrasted. Huckabee’s playing of the religion card is one of those examples. I don’t like it and I don’t think it is becoming of a presidential candidate.”
Let’s be honest here. I’m sure we could go back to the early, post-Nicea Christianity (after 600 AD or so) and dredge up some obscure writings that express the dogma of the Spanish Inquisition or criteria for pardons which would no more be THE encompassing, comprehensive breadth of the Catholic Church any more than the one article by Ezra Taft Benson referenced by the “Pastors for Huck” gang could be. But as a Latter-Day Saint, reviewing Pres. Benson’s talk, and in the context of what I have experienced in the last 18 years as a Latter-day Saint there is an internal understanding of what Pres. Benson was talking about.
There is nothing sinister, deviant or even “off” about it. There is a conversion process that a person undergoes in the Latter-day Saint faith that softens the core of the soul to Heavenly Father and His son Jesus Christ. It is from this “soft spot” that we open ourselves to the “voice of the Lord.” I absolutely love the undeniable warmth and connection I have with His will through the instruction and encouragement I receive from the teachings of the Scriptures AND all of the prophets, living and dead. This is a voluntary, willful submission. Let me repeat that, I offer my soul to be purified and redeemed willingly to the voice of truth.
Their argument would work if someone cornered a Baptist and nailed them to the wall as to why not all their congregations practice complete immersion for baptism – after all, isn’t that their pivotal defining “cause” they splintered off of main-stream Christianity over? Actually, aren’t all Evangelical congregations’ just little splinters of the post-Nicea Christianity? It’s really shocking they even think they can claim any connection with Christianity since there is no uniformity or standard they even follow. The “Bibles” keep changing and are re-written and re-translated at whim – it is a remarkable question to ask, “Which Bible do they follow – EXACTLY”?
The arguments could go on ad nauseum and for us who are trying to go about the business of supporting the best candidate for the GOP presidency, this quibbling gets very tiresome. Anyone who has to put the Latter-day Saints down as a legitimate religion is like being around someone with a Napoleon complex. They run around tyrannizing everyone around them because of their own insecurity and pettiness.
Let’s be clear about this. Mitt Romney is decidedly the most powerful presidential candidate we have. His answers in the Florida were stellar. Yes, there were a couple awkward moments but they were in regards to areas where Mitt has undergone some “growing up”. The Bible question was the worst question of the evening: it was scathing and mocking and completely irrelevant to presidential politics. Frankly, it revealed just how much a Baptist Pastor Mike Huckabee continues to be. It truly shows he IS running for our nation’s pope. This country was founded on religious non-interference and this unabashedly “interfered”. I go to my own church and it is absolutely reprehensible that I was “preached” to by this candidate. It was insulting that he postured himself as the Biblical expert to Rudy Giuliani. This is exactly the reason that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danites about the “separation of church and state” because he was trying to reassure them that there would NOT be a national, state-governed religion – like in England or “president” pastoring from the Oval Office.
In the Florida YouTube debate, Mitt Romney was victorious. He showed excellence in his incredible grasp of not discussing the “torture” issues. He batted out of the park in demonstrating the regard we all need to have when it comes to our national security. Rudy was just plain Rude-y. The cheap shots revealed he’s just another scum ball gangster. When Mitt Romney spoke, you could see Rudy and Mike shrivel. When Governor Romney responded to the question of Black on Black crime, he spoke of the importance of “families”. To my knowledge, he is the ONLY candidate to utter that word. Has our society actually acquiesced to the thrashings of PC-ology? Even Mike Huckabee avoided an opportunity to encourage the restoration of our society’s basic sociological unit. Giuliani only cared about crime stats. How pathetic these other candidates were to have completely missed this fundamental point. Mitt Romney is THE candidate for the presidency of 2008. He is a fine example of ethics and decency. This country is ready for a change to Mitt Romney.
From President George Bush Supports Hillary Clinton? by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann and their piece
Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.
In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton “No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand.”
By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.
Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?
Here’s what I think, and yes, it is what I thought a few years ago was a “conspiracy” theory. This is coming out folks and it’s the fly that won’t be swatted away. If you haven’t had a chance to read The New American’s Merger In the Making, you must read it. You can also access it here. Merger In the Making by The New American
You just have to read this – this is NOT made up. We all need to wake up. They were/are in collusion with the Zeta Mexican drug cartel – one of the most dangerous. I was curious to find out if they had actually found any tunnels. They also shaved their heads and beards. So do we now have to give second-glances to bald, beardless men with accents?
As Glenn Beck says, “It sounds like a plot line from a bad 1990’s Arnold Schwarzeneggar movie, but unfortunately it’s true. With the help of Mexican drug cartels 60 Afghan and Iraqi terrorists were to be smuggled into the U.S. through underground tunnels with high-powered weapons to attack the Arizona Army base.”
From the Washington Times:
Fort Huachuca, the nation’s largest intelligence-training center, changed security measures in May after being warned that Islamist terrorists, with the aid of Mexican drug cartels, were planning an attack on the facility.
Fort officials changed security measures after sources warned that possibly 60 Afghan and Iraqi terrorists were to be smuggled into the U.S. through underground tunnels with high-powered weapons to attack the Arizona Army base, according to multiple confidential law enforcement documents obtained by The Washington Times.
“A portion of the operatives were in the United States, with the remainder not yet in the United States,” according to one of the documents, an FBI advisory that was distributed to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, Customs and Border Protection and the Justice Department, among several other law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. “The Afghanis and Iraqis shaved their beards so as not to appear to be Middle Easterners.”
According to the FBI advisory, each Middle Easterner paid Mexican drug lords $20,000 “or the equivalent in weapons” for the cartel’s assistance in smuggling them and their weapons through tunnels along the border into the U.S. The weapons would be sent through tunnels that supposedly ended in Arizona and New Mexico, but the Islamist terrorists would be smuggled through Laredo, Texas, and reclaim the weapons later.
We are in big trouble. I have a connection to make but I’ll put it in the next post.
Last night, Howard Nemerov at the Media Research Council’s NewsBusters blog reviewed Governor Romney’s record on violent crime and found that “the overall [violent] rate dropped 7.8% from 484.9 in 2002 to 447.0 in 2006.” He concludes, “No matter the comparison––total incidents or rates per 100,000 population––Giuliani was wrong to state that Massachusetts saw a violent crime increase while Romney was governor.”
And this morning, in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mayor Giuliani distorted Governor Romney’s record again. While Mayor Giuliani has apparently recognized his earlier error and dropped any reference to overall violent crime, Mayor Giuliani did claim that “aggravated assault … went up while he was governor.”
RUDY GIULIANI: Boston Herald had a big piece on this about two months ago; crime, murder, aggravated assault, burglary all went up while he was governor. In the case of robbery, it went up 12%. And those are all areas in which while I was mayor of New York, those categories went down by 70%. So there’s a big difference in his record as a governor, which in the area of these violent crimes was very poor as the Boston Herald pointed out, and my record as mayor was one of the best records from the point of view of safety and security in the country.
On the contrary, as the same NewsBusters post points out from FBI data, “aggravated assault decreased 14.8%” during Governor Romney’s term. Just another example of Mayor Giuliani’s “fuzzy math.”
Yesterday, Mayor Giuliani falsely claimed that “violent crime” went up in Massachusetts during Governor Romney’s term. According to FBI statistics, the overall violent crime rate in Massachusetts decreased by over 7% under Governor Romney. The violent crime rate was lower than the national average. Prior to Governor Romney, the violent crime rate was increasing.
A RECORD OF REDUCING CRIME IN MASSACHUSETTS
GIULIANI’S INCREASINGLY “FUZZY” STATS
Giuliani Falsely Claims That “Violent Crime” Went Up In Massachusetts:
Yesterday, Giuliani Falsely Claimed That “Violent Crime” Went Up In Massachusetts. “‘Gov. Romney did not have a good record in dealing with violent crime.’ Giuliani pulled a sheet of paper out of his pocket that listed FBI crime statistics for Massachusetts while Romney was governor. Murders were up 7.5 percent, robbery was up 12 percent, he said. ‘He had an increase in murder and violent crime while he was governor,‘ Giuliani said. ‘So it’s not so much the isolated situation which he and the judge will have to explain _ he’s kind of thrown her under the bus, so it’s hard to know how this is all going to come out. But the reality is, he did not have a record of reducing violent crime.'” (Charles Babington, “Romney Calls On Judge He Appointed To Resign After Washington State Murders,” The Associated Press, 11/24/07)
FACT: According To The FBI Statistics, Overall “Violent Crime” Decreased In Massachusetts Under Governor Romney:
Under Governor Romney, the violent crime rate in Massachusetts decreased by over 7%. The violent crime rate was lower than the national average. Prior to Governor Romney, the violent crime rate was increasing.
Violent Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents
|2002 – 484.4||2002 – 494.4|
|2003 – 473.1||2003 – 475.9|
|2004 – 458.8||2004 – 463.2|
|2005 – 457||2005 – 469|
|2006 – 447||2006 – 473.5|
|Source: FBI Crime in the United States Website, “Crime in the United States, 1987-2006,” http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html, Accessed 10/12/07|
FACT: According To FBI Statistics, The Overall Crime Rate Decreased In Massachusetts Under Governor Romney:
Under Governor Romney, The Overall Crime Rate Fell By 8% Over His Four Years In Office. “Car thefts and larcenies also were down, in line with national trends, and helped contribute to an overall 8 percent decline in crime during Romney’s four years, according to the FBI stats.” (Dave Wedge, “Crime Up During Romney Tenure,” The Boston Herald, 9/26/07)
FACT: According To FBI Statistics, Other Crimes Were Down Under Governor Romney (2002-2006):
- Assaults Down 15%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr, Accessed 10/12/07)
- Rape Down 2%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr, Accessed 10/12/07)
- Larceny/Theft Down 6%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr, Accessed 10/12/07)
- Motor Vehicle Theft Down 32%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr, Accessed 10/12/07)
FACT: This Isn’t The First Time Giuliani Has Used “Fuzzy … Math”:
ABC News: Giuliani Uses “Fuzzy Healthcare Math” In Radio Ad. “To hear Rudy Giuliani describe it in his new radio ad, the British medical system is a scary place. ‘My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and thank God I was cured of it – in the United States: 82 percent,’ Giuliani says in a new radio spot airing in New Hampshire. ‘My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.’ But the data Giuliani cites comes from a single study published eight years ago by a not-for-profit group, and is contradicted by official data from the British government. According to the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics, for men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1999 and 2003, the ‘five-year survival rate’ – a common measurement in cancer statistics – was 74.4 percent.” (Rick Klein, “Rudy’s Fuzzy Healthcare Math,” ABC News, 10/29/07)
The Annenberg Public Policy Center: Giuliani Wrongly Claims He Left A Budget Surplus. “Giuliani’s radio ad also asserts that he ‘turned a 2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion-dollar surplus’ in New York. Well, not if you’re comparing what he inherited with what he left, which would be a logical way to look at it. When he took office in 1994, Giuliani was indeed facing a $2.3 billion deficit for the next fiscal year. But Giuliani’s last budget, issued in May 2001 – before 9/11 – for fiscal 2002, projected a deficit of nearly $2.8 billion in fiscal 2003, the first budget year the new mayor would face. The IBO estimated the deficit would be even larger, about $3.3 billion.” (“Giuliani’s Tax Puffery,” FactCheck.org Website, www.factcheck.org/, 7/27/07)
The Washington Times: Giuliani Exaggerates Tax Cutting Number. “Mr. Giuliani repeated his claim that he ‘cut taxes 23 times when I was mayor of New York.’ It turns out that many of those cuts were instigated by Republican Gov. George Pataki and the state legislature. One of several glaring flaws in Mr. Giuliani’s record on taxes was, as the Club for Growth says, his 1994 ‘opposition to Republican [gubernatorial] candidate George Pataki’s proposed cut in the state income tax,’ whose rates were among the highest in the country.” (Editorial, “Romney And Giuliani,” The Washington Times, 10/14/07)
In case you missed it, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line wrote a very interesting analysis of Governor Romney’s positioning in Iowa and New Hampshire entitled “MittSpace.” As they say on the internets, read the whole thing:
“I’ve written that the Republican side of the presidential race can be viewed as consisting of two semi-finals — one between Rudy Giuliani and John McCain and the other between Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and/or Mike Huckabee. However, polling data suggests that, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney may occupy his own space. In other words, it may be that Romney has his own core of solid support, such that gains by other candidates, even Huckabee, don’t come at his expense.
“In New Hampshire, the case for this theory seems clear-cut. For many months, Romney’s support number (using the Real Clear Politics average as presented in the multi-color state graph) has always been within shouting distance of 30 percent, with a low of 26 percent and a high of 34 percent (he’s at 33 percent now). Moreover, since the early summer, when McCain tanked following the immigration reform debacle, gains by McCain have come at Giuliani’s expense, and gains by Huckabee have come at Thompson’s. Thompson’s support has fallen from about 14 percent to about 5, while Huckabee’s has increased from practically nil to 7 percent. Meanwhile, McCain and Giuliani are both about where they were in July. But in August, when McCain slipped by about 4 percentage points, Rudy surged by approximately the same amount. So far, then, there appears to be a Thompson-Huckabee race and a Giuliani-McCain race, with Romney standing outside of these two contests (Ron Paul has also made a move; I assume he occupies his own space).
“In Iowa too, Mitt seems to have his own space, though the rest of the dynamic seems more complex. Since early summer, Romney’s average number has fluctuated between 25 and 31 percent and has generally been in the 27 or 29 percent range, where it is now. McCain has also been pretty steady since his swoon, with an average number of 7 to 9 percent.
“The big move, of course, has come from Huckabee. In August, his support roughly doubled, from 5 to 10 percent. He surged again beginning in mid October. Since then, his popularity has doubled again and now stands at about 20 percent.
“As in New Hampshire, Huckabee’s gain came at Thompson’s expense. However, in Iowa it also came at Giuliani’s. Indeed, the lines for Fred and Rudy in the RCP graph (green and purple, respectively) are almost identical since the summer.
“But the constant in New Hampshire and Iowa has been Romney’s ability to hold his support when other candidates have surged. This could change, of course, as the field concentrates its resources on bringing down Romney.
“Still, it’s not difficult to imagine the existence of a sizeable core of voters who are solidly behind Mitt. This group would consist of Republicans who are looking for a combination of administrative experience/aura of competence plus down-the-line conservative positions, and who are not concerned about past positions, speculation over electability or the candidate’s religion. Presumably, that cohort exists in most states, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. And at the end of the day, it likely exceeds the 30 percent or so that Romney has been polling in those two states.”