I decided to feature one of my personal “live band” favorites, George Thorogood & The Destroyers, this week for RC Friday Night Blues. I first saw George and his Delaware Destroyers in Denver at a midnight show at the Paramount Theater. Wow, what a show that was! My friends and I had front row seats in the balcony and nobody sat for the entire show, everybody was up boogying. It was one of the most enjoyable and fun concerts that I ever attended! When we finally left the theater at 3:30am, we were spent! George Thorogood & The Destroyers played their asses off! I hope you enjoy this video with George and the band playing “It Wasn’t Me” a song that captures the atmosphere of a Thorogood show. Happy Friday!
How many of you remember what you were doing on that day? I actually do; my wife and I were looking at a car and met a nice young man named Davey. On our way home we decided to buy the car and Karen said, “Make sure you let Davey sell it to you.”
The next morning I drove Karen to work. I had yet to find employment after retiring from the Army two months earlier. I stopped by the dealer and they said Davey would be in around 10 am. I took a drive over to Destin to kill some time and decided to stop at a Tom Thumb and get a cup of coffee.
I returned to the car and turned on the radio and heard a news announcement that sounded almost like the old Orson Welles “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast back in 1938. That show caused much panic because of its realism. I was just about to dismiss this radio broadcast as such and then I heard:
“We’ve just received a report that a plane has hit the Pentagon!”
One thought came immediately to my mind: Osama bin Laden.
You see we in the military, especially those of us stationed overseas, understood clearly the threat of Osama bin Laden and radical Islam. In 1998 when bin Laden declared a fatwa against all Americans, we overseas went on high alert. I still remember patrolling housing areas in Germany with live ammo.
Now just two months shy of the 7th Anniversary of the horrible attacks on 9/11, many Americans are living as though it is September 10, 2001. Part of that is due to the steadfastness of the Bush Administration, law enforcement, national security and intelligence agencies, and our magnificent military, but a large part of the population does not understand the threat we face even today, at this very moment.
I ask that you take six and one-half minutes to watch this video reminder:
Two people who have done yeomen’s work on capturing the truth and outlining the threat is Frank and Nancy Salvato at the Basics Project. Please visit their website and see the many fine educational initiatives they have, but I want to turn your attention to what is the quintessential work done of radical Islam.
As part of their “Educational CD Series” Basics Projects has put together an audio CD that “provides a basics overview of the threat posed by those who adhere to radical Islamist ideology”; to quote their website. “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam” is a stirring account of the grave threat radical Islam is to all freedom loving nations. I almost pulled my car over to listen to the CD as I was driving to work because I was so engaged in listening that I was not paying close enough attention to my driving.
Please order at least one copy for yourself to teach your family the true meaning of radical Islam. And if you know of anyone who doubts the real threat then I encourage you to order two. You will be getting a wealth of information and helping out a great non-profit educational organization.
Thanks in advance for purchasing your copy and for spreading the word about Basics Project to all you know.
House Speaker Pelosi is hinting at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and many of her liberal colleagues in Congress are doing the same in both chambers. Alleging the press isn’t balanced, they say government should be making sure all viewpoints, meaning the left’s, are fairly represented. I agree the press isn’t balanced, but Mrs. Pelosi has it backward; liberalism dominates the press, including the three major networks and most major newspapers.
Though originally the Fairness Doctrine did not require opposing time be equal, it came to be the standard. The concern at the time was the prevention of a single viewpoint from dominating the news and biasing the people.
By the 1980s, there were many radio and TV stations available. And many believed the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional in any event. So in 1987, Ronald Reagan’s Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine, opening every press outlet to freely decide what content to carry. The Democrat-controlled Congress at the time passed legislation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but President Reagan vetoed the bill.
This led to the birth of talk radio.
The doctrines reinstatement would kill conservative talk radio. Radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck would have to create liberal shows of equal length. And when those shows fail to make money and the stations take a loss, their only option in cancelling those shows would be to cancel the conservative shows as well.
Free speech would lose. Americans would lose.
Religious freedom is also under assault. Center stage is Californias same-sex marriage policy imposed by an activist judiciary. Already activist groups are talking about going after the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Others discuss how they can sue business vendors who refuse to provide services to same-sex marriage ceremonies or receptions. Still others are talking about making charities run by churches that oppose same-sex marriage ineligible to continue as non-profit organizations.
This line of thinking and liberal assault also is found in what Senator Barack Obama promises to do with faith-based initiatives. He says he would institute new regulations under which an organization cannot base hiring decisions on the applicants beliefs and still be eligible for aid. In other words, a Baptist homeless shelter could not refuse to hire an atheist for not believing Baptist or any religious articles of faith.
All these actions cut to the core of the First Amendment. In the 1970s, pop psychologists used the term “micro-debilitating aggressions”. It referred to the compounding of negative threats until the result was much worse than each threat taken on its own. The left is doing the same with its attack on our free speech and religious liberty.
Americans are touchy about their rights. Sometimes it seems many mistakenly think anything that is good from a job to good housing is a right owed us. These are rights many think government is obligated to provide.
In all the talk about rights, we often forget the more fundamental rights: the rights we have by virtue of our humanity, the rights we have against government, the inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. We forget, in other words, both the moral basis of human rights and our responsibility to protect these rights.
The rights of free speech and religious liberty in the First Amendment of the Constitution reflect this notion of God given rights. It reflects them because these rights are not given from government but inherent in our humanity.
The First Amendment protects matters concerning freedom of conscience and belief. Its six clauses contain the very essence of liberty, the fixed North Star toward which our entire American system points.
The First Amendment freedom of conscience naturally divides into two parts. The clauses on free speech, a free press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government to allow us to express ourselves personally or through the press to speak about any issue. The clauses on the establishment of religion and free religious exercise protect our right to believe according to the dictates of our own conscience. These are the twin pillars of a society where hearts and heads are free.
Alarmingly they are under siege by the forces of statism. This year the left has launched a full assault on the First Amendment. The battle has been joined by opponents on the right and the outcome will shape the soul of our Republic.
Hugin from Free Republic has come up with reason # 9 of why Conservatives Should Vote for McCain over Obama!
The following list was originally posted to Free Republic by Hugin as Five Reasons Conservatives Should Vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama. Charlie and I added to the list (I added #2 and Charlie added #6). I’ve been corresponding with Hugin to let him know how we were embellishing his original list and he approved. Hugin added to the list with reasons #7. Maelstorm from Free Republic has come up with reason # 8. RV
Nine Reasons Conservatives Should for Vote for McCain Over Obama
1. The Jhihadist Threat- McCain understands that Islamic fanaticism is a dire threat to the USA, and is determined to defeat it. Obama have never even mentioned the words “Islamic” or “Jihad” in all his debates, but has mentioned “health care” hundreds of times.
2. Defending the Unborn- John McCain is pro-life and will defend the lives of pre-born babies. Obama is the polar opposite and has a long history of defending unrestricted abortion. Obama even went so far as to vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have protected children who survived failed abortion attempts from infanticide.
3. Judges- Personally I doubt that if McCain does appoint any Supreme Court Justices in the Scalia/Thomas/Alito mold, they will ever be confirmed by Harry Reid and the Democrat Senators. But I am sure that the judges that Obama would appoint will be. A vacancy is better than a left-wing, internationalist on the SCOTUS.
4. Our Military Personel- The men and women who sacrifice so much in service to the country deserve better than Obama as their Commander in Chief. I don’t see how I could fail to vote to prevent that and ever honestly claim that I “support the troops”. Whatever McCain’s failings on domestic issues, I have no doubt that he deeply respects and supports the military.
5. Gun rights- Obama openly expresses support for a national gun registry, national licensing for handgun owners, “gun safety” regulations (retroactive banning of out of production models), lawsuits against manufacturers, local gun bans, and renewing the AWB. And that’s just what he says now. I have no doubt his full agenda goes well beyond that. As far as I know John McCain has been a solidly pro-gun rights his whole career.
6. American Principles- I am not happy with McCain because he isn’t true to the conservative principles, but I can tolerate that. I refuse to support Obama because he isn’t true to American principles. That I can not tolerate! I fail to see the point of selling out the country because the slightly better candidate isn’t true to a party. The party can be fixed if the nation survives. If the entire country goes down the tubes, then there’s not much left to fix!
7. Energy- In the face of $5 a gallon gasoline, McCain has shown some a willingness to reevaluate his positions based on public opinion and/or new facts. Most recently he has changed his opposition to offshore drilling (though unfortunately not to drilling in ANWAR). Moreover, McCain has always been a big supporter of nuclear energy. In contrast Obama has no problem with high gas prices, and only says he wishes the increase had been more gradual. Obama’s energy plan is to force Americans to quit driving SUVs, heating and cooling their homes, and eating as much as they want, since we can’t expect other countries to approve of us as it is. Our lifestyles need to “pass the test; the global test” to use the words of John Kerry. Presumably, if it takes $6, $8, or $10 a gallon gas to do it, that’s fine with Barak and the Don’t Drill Democrats.
8. Special Rights and “Hate” Crimes- John McCain has consistently opposed hate crimes legislation adding sexual orientation to protections. He has consistently opposed special rights and protections for homosexuals. This is not something conservatives should be fighting with him about.
9. Presidential Cabinet Appointments-The first thing a president does is to appoint about 3000 various cabinet and sub-cabinet federal policy making officials. They will write the federal policies that affect Americans in every aspect of life, business, education, civil rights, environmental regulations, criminal justice, etc. If McCain is elected President, he will be selecting his Cabinet from the Republican pool, mostly people who have served in the Bush43 and Bush41 administrations. If Obama, is elected he will choose from the pool of Clinton retreads, plus whatever radical supporters he gives jobs to as payback for supporting him.
Barack Obama has proposed increasing every major Federal tax. He supports increasing individual income tax rates, allowing the Bush tax cuts, which cut rates for all income levels, to expire. He has proposed almost doubling the capital gains tax rate, from 15% today to 28%. He supports more than doubling the tax on dividends, from 15% to as high as 39%. He has proposed numerous corporate tax increases. He supports increasing the death tax back to the stratospheric levels that applied before President Bush. He supports increasing the payroll tax on higher income earners.
In other words, if you run a profitable small business, you can expect to be plundered by the Obamanistas from every angle. If you work for a small business, you can expect to be looking for another job.
Indeed, as economics writer Amity Shlaes has written, Obama promises exactly the same economic policy Herbert Hoover used to turn a downturn in 1929 into the Great Depression. In addition to proposing steep tax increases, particularly sharply increasing the marginal rates that most affect the economy, Obama won the nomination attacking free trade all primary season, even promising voters to renegotiate NAFTA. Is this what our wobbly economy needs right now? Will this really open new opportunities for working people, or shut the door in their faces?
But Obama needs those tax increases to finance his promised massive increases in government spending approaching a trillion dollars over four years. All projections show that America cannot afford all the entitlement promises it has already made, with Federal spending projected to almost double relative to the economy over the next 35 years. Obama just ignores this looming crisis, and, instead, promises to add the largest entitlement of all, national health insurance.
All of these nationalized health programs around the world start by promising free health care for everyone, but end up with rigid, stifling bureaucracies designed to deny care to control runaway costs. Our nation's health care problems can be solved without massive new government spending and control, and the deteriorating quality and freedom of choice in health care that inevitably involves. But instead of new and innovative ideas that would increase patient power and choice, Obama serves the Left that wants to use our health care problems as an excuse for more government power and control. Instead of the promise of a new unity and hope, Obama promises to take us back to the already failed ideas of the past.
BUT THIS IS ONLY the beginning. In legislation he has already introduced in Congress, Obama proposes a new global war on poverty financed by American taxpayers. The bill would commit the U.S. to the goal of the 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit to reduce world poverty by 2015. The head of this UN project has already called for a new global tax to finance this goal. For now, Obama's bill would increase U.S. foreign aid by $65 billion a year toward this end.
Obama also supports $60 billion over 10 years for a new National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that would finance more construction and repair of highways, bridges and other infrastructure. No new thinking here either. The last Federal highway bill devoted close to $300 billion to the same thing. The Army Corps of Engineers spends over $10 billion a year for more of the same.
Obama also proposes $72 billion for increased Federal spending on education, even though Bush increased such spending more rapidly than any other area (and even though education is actually a state and local responsibility). He proposes to spend $150 billion to put people to work building new “green technologies” as if no one can find a job unless the government provides one. Then there is $60 billion for an “energy plan” that is another bureaucratic boondoggle that will not create any new energy. There is $14 billion in new spending for a national service plan. Obama proposes as well to increase “assistance to state and local governments so that they don't slash critical services like health care or education.” He also says, “I'll double spending on quality after school programs.”
Just last week he came up with a proposal for a second stimulus package to send everyone a check to help cover their energy costs, another giveaway of tens of billions at least. The first “stimulus” package proved only that these old-fashioned Keynesian handouts don't work. But Obama is not above pursuing the crassest vote buying payoffs pandering to those whose votes are for sale.
This is exemplified by his supposed tax cuts for workers, a series of tax credits that would mostly go to those who do not pay income taxes. He has proposed “a tax credit to low and middle income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.” He also proposes an income tax credit for such voters of $4,000 per year for college expenses. Then there is another tax credit of $1,000 per year for working families that is apparently just a giveaway, like George McGovern's proposal in 1972 to send a $1,000 Federal check to everyone. On the Earned Income Tax Credit, which currently goes to lower income workers, Obama says, “I'll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers.”
But Republican tax policy over the past 30 years has already eliminated all income taxes on low income and working class voters, or the bottom 40% of income earners. The middle class, the middle 20% of income earners, now pays less than 5% of all income taxes. Under Obama's proposals, if there is no income tax liability for the tax credit to offset, the government sends the worker a check covering the full amount of the credit anyway. So these proposed tax credits are really a new form of tax welfare, in reality just new government spending programs disguised as tax cuts.
Real tax cuts reduce tax rates for those who are forced to pay them. Those rate reductions create real incentives that stimulate the economy. But a supposed tax credit that does not involve any reduction in any tax rate, and gives money to voters that they did not pay in income taxes, is just another welfare handout that does nothing to stimulate the economy. Obama proposes to spend over $300 billion on this new tax welfare.
OBAMA'S LEFT-WING EXTREMISM is not limited to economic policy, but extends to all areas across the board. He has said that as President he would appoint Supreme Court Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the former General Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, and David Souter, two of the ultraliberals on the current court. The Supreme Court is now in a delicate balance between four conservatives and four liberals, with one, Justice Kennedy, swinging back and forth. John McCain has said he would appoint Justices like solid conservatives John Roberts and Sam Alito. A majority of the current Justices are also over 70 years old. So the balance of the Supreme Court turns on this Presidential election.
Since the Great Depression, Americans have been free to choose unions through secret ballot elections under Federal law. But for 20 years now workers have been mostly rejecting predatory unions in those elections. So Obama supports a plan that would allow unions to bypass those elections, and claim worker representation on the basis of signed check cards. Given the long history of union violence, and the real danger of forged documents American workers will tragically lose their freedom of choice regarding unions if Obama becomes President.
Obama is the most pro-abortion major party Presidential nominee in history. When he served in the Illinois state legislature, he voted against legislation that would prevent abortionists from taking the life of a baby that remained alive out of the mother's womb after an attempted abortion. He has also opposed legislation prohibiting partial birth abortion, and favors government funding of abortion for lower income women. He said that if his own daughters became pregnant as teenagers, he would favor an abortion rather than “punishing them with a baby.”
He has promised homosexual organizations that as President he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that pro-family organizations worked so hard to pass successfully when the Republicans controlled Congress. This law would shield states from being forced to recognize gay marriages mandated by courts in ultraliberal states. He opposes the initiative in California on the ballot this fall that would define marriage in that state as a union between a man and a woman. After he is elected, he will openly be the first pro-gay marriage President.
When asked what he thought about a proposal to make English the official language of America, he said he opposes it. He said instead that American children need to learn to speak Spanish. If he is elected President, that will be true.
OBAMA'S ULTRALIBERALISM GROWS out of deep roots in his life. He has said he worked as a community organizer in Chicago. In fact, he worked for the ultra-Left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). ACORN grew out of the National Welfare Rights Organization of the 1960s, which argued that low income residents in the U.S. had a right to welfare, and demanding anything of them to qualify for public assistance violated that right.
Author Sol Stern wrote in the City Journal in 2003 regarding ACORN,
If you thought the New Left was dead in America, think again. Walk through just about any of the nation's inner cities, and you're likely to find an office of ACORN, bustling with young people working 12 hour days to “organize the poor” and bring about social change. The largest radical group in the country….It promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor. As a result, not only does it harm the poor it claims to serve; it is also a serious threat to the urban future.
ACORN has fought for legislation restricting landlords from evicting non-paying tenants, watering down welfare reform, and seeking authority for cities to tax surrounding suburbs. It has sought to “unionize” workfare workers, welfare recipients required to work for their assistance under welfare reform, as if welfare recipients should be bargaining over the laws that apply to their assistance.
ACORN itself brags on its own website about its practice of “squatting.” This involves breaking into unoccupied homes and apartments and settling low income families in them. ACORN states,
Noting that economic upheaval had forced many people to default on mortgages, ACORN sought to place needy people in the resulting vacant homes. This required the forceful and illegal (though logical and moral) seizing of the properties — squatting.
Such is the respect for property rights of this quasi-communist organization that Obama chose to work for to advance his values. ACORN continues,
The personal needs of people without homes attracted many to advertisements ACORN placed in papers asking “Do you need a home?” The squatting campaign required a personal commitment to move into a vacant, usually poorly kept house and refit it for comfortable living. It also involved the risk of arrest if local authorities refused them the legal occupation of the home.
As for the local authorities, ACORN explains, “local officials were asked to subsidize the costs of squatting in an effort to improve the quality of life of the squatters and their neighbors.”
But this is not the only illegal activity of the ACORN brown shirts. ACORN voter fraud has been documented in at least 14 states. Michelle Malkin recently reported in one of her columns,
Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN's criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal recently reported on ACORN voter fraud in Ohio where crack cocaine was traded “for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, and Jive Turkey.”
Obama also sports now well-known ties with confessed Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who admit to bombing the Pentagon, New York City police headquarters, and similar targets in the 1960s and 1970s. By coincidence, on the morning of September 11, 2001, the New York Times published an interview with Ayers in which he laments not succeeding with even more bombings for the far left Weather Underground, whose once notorious exploits are now obscured by the passage of time. Obama started his political career seeking out the support of Ayres and Dohrn as mentors, trying to establish his bona fides as a true left-winger. They have held fundraisers for Obama's campaigns over the years, and spoken for him in local campaigns in the past.
Of course, Obama's close association with Trinity United Church of Christ Reverend Jeremiah Wright is also well known. But what has been obscured is that the church, where Obama has been a member for 20 years providing thousands in contributions, advocates far left black liberation theology.
So the true picture of who Obama is should now be clear. His consistently extreme left policy positions are well grounded deep into his past, dating back even to the prep school Marxism of his youth. How could America allow this man to become President of the United States? Do we not take that position seriously anymore?
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation. He served in the Reagan White House Office of Policy Development, after graduating from Harvard Law School and Harvard College.
I’m posting this article from WorldNetDaily because as a concerned Catholic, I’m wondering if this is just the start of the attacks by homosexual activists to legislate the teachings of the Catholics and Christians as “hate speech”. It doesn’t surprise me that the City of San Francisco would do something like this. Look at how the nearby City of Berkeley has been treating our US Marines!RV
A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church’s moral teachings on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “defamatory,” “insensitive” and “ignorant” will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a “foreign country” meddling with and attempting to “negatively influence (San Francisco’s) existing and established customs.”
It said of the church’s teaching on homosexuality, “Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.”
As WND reported earlier, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church’s ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.
The board’s resolution urged the city’s local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican’s instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as “The Holy Office of the Inquisition.”
The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, “Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear.”
The anti-Catholic diatribe had previously been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.
She wrote in her decision, “The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement” for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. “This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation.”
She ruled that the city’s proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.
Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want. “It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders,” she wrote.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel’s decision.
“Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church,” he said in a news release. “The judge in her written decision held that the Church ‘provoked the debate’ by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded ‘responsibly’ to all of the ‘terrible’ things the Church was saying.”
Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith,” he said in a news release.
“In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases,” Muise said.
Thomas More attorneys made the argument in the District Court case that the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message” that Catholics are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.”
The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.
Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco’s AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce’s Teen Mania “Battle Cry for a Generation” rally against the sexualization of America’s youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the “act of provocation” by what it termed an “anti-gay,” “anti-choice” organization that aimed to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”
Openly gay California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”
The Chronicle also reported on a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carrying a sign that may sum up the sentiment: “I moved here to get away from people like you.”
The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion’s views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.
Currently, as WND has reported, the states of Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as “hate speech” for it’s condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.
As someone who monitors the Iraq-war-policy debate closely, I was puzzled to open the New York Times and see an oped authored by Sen. Barack Obama entitled “My Plan for Iraq.” Besides the seemingly moderate tone — and calling for an Afghanistan “surge” (an idea I agree, and one proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman in March) — not much in the piece is new or newsworthy. In the final analysis, the oped is another dogmatic addendum to Obama’s “withdrawal at any cost” position.
In fact, just one question entered my head when I finished reading: Why now? Why would Sen. Obama — or any legislator, for that matter — write such a piece before visiting the country for himself, seeing the situation with his own eyes, and speaking with commanders and troops who actually know what’s going on?
It strikes me that only someone who is signaling no interest in consulting with commanders on the ground would spell out his “plan” for Iraq just one week before he visits the country for the first time in 918 days. Only someone who is arrogant enough to believe he always knows best would outline his Iraq policy before once meeting one-on-one with General David Petraeus.
The only conceivable answer to the question is that Sen. Obama believes he can capitalize on Prime Minister Maliki’s recent comments about a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Maliki’s comments, important primarily because they demonstrate increased Iraqi strength and confidence, have been diluted by the fact that he didn’t actually call for a timeline after all. All withdrawal talks will be tied to conditions on the ground.
Maliki’s strong statements do provide the opportunity for withdrawal — a withdrawal based on the improved security brought on by the surge, improvements Senator Obama admits in his Times oped. What Sen. Obama fails to say there is that he adamantly opposed the surge, predicting last September on the basis of scant evidence that “It is a course that will not succeed.” Sen. Obama should admit his error in judgment in opposing the surge, and not compound that error now by once again announcing plans for Iraq without full knowledge of the facts on the ground — collecting the evidence that would enable him to develop a commonsense, conditions-based approach for troop withdrawal. Admitting mistakes, however, is something Obama does not do well.
Sen. Obama’s piece once again perpetuates the fallacious notion that the Iraqi government “has not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” This assertion — backed up by wishful thinking — runs directly counter to reports from the ground; reports which Sen. Obama will himself receive in just one week.
Obama has said repeatedly (here & here) that if congressional benchmarks are met, the hasty withdrawal he desired could be slowed. Not so now, however. Even though the Iraqi government has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks set before it by Congress — and is stamping out Sunni terrorism and Shia militia activity within its borders — this still does not constitute political accommodation, according to Sen. Obama. It seems that nothing short of a Whole Foods in every village will stop the perpetuation of this falsehood.
Underlying the Left’s persistent pessimism on Iraq is the idea, as Sen. Obama says, that our mission in Iraq should be to “end the war.” As president, this would be his first directive. This was also the prerogative of Sen. Obama — and many of his Senate colleagues — in January 2007 when the surge was proposed. Surge proponents wanted to succeed in Iraq, while Sen. Obama & Co. wanted to “end the war.” Where would we be today if “ending the war” had been the mission then? And where will we be tomorrow if it becomes the mission now?
Without the surge, which induced countless positive developments across the military and political spectrums in Iraq, Maliki would not be making the bold and promising statements he is making today, and the U.S. wouldn’t be contemplating an even faster draw down than previously planned.
Yet despite the undeniable — and transformational — progress that has been made, it looks like Sen. Obama has no plans to actually modify his Iraq stance. This would indeed be a shame.
Six weeks ago, Vets for Freedom ran two ads (here & here) calling on Sen. Obama to visit Iraq for the first time in two-and-a-half years and finally meet, face-to-face, with General David Petraeus.
The intent of the ads was to pressure Sen. Obama to visit the country; a trip which we believed would go a long way in moderating his position.
Soon after, Sen. Obama announced that he would visit Iraq before the election, and we sincerely applaud his willingness to do so. As veterans, we have no desire to see Obama moderate his Iraq stance so we can say “we told you so” or call him a “flip-flopper.”We want to see him change his stance because reality demands it, and our sacrifice compels it.
Unfortunately, Monday morning’s oped calls into question Sen. Obama’s willingness to objectively review the situation on the ground and make decisions based on what’s best for our nation’s security, rather than what’s best for his candidacy. We will continue to monitor his position, as well as those of his colleagues, to ensure they reflect the facts on the ground.
Captain Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006, is executive director of Vets for Freedom
By now, most of our RochesterConservative.com readers have probably heard of the New Yorker Magazine controversy concerning their cartoon depicting Obama and Michelle Obama, fist pumping in the Oval office, with Obama wearing tradition Muslim clothing and Michelle Obama as militant radical, and American Flag burning in the fireplace. Here’s the cartoon.
The New Yorker offered the explanation that the cartoon, by artist Barry Blitt “satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”
Of course, the liberal New Yorker Magazine is “satirizing” those of us who are on the right, which includes political conservatives. I’m not surprised at all that the New Yorker Magazine would paint conservatives in such a manner. In their eyes, we’re all a bunch of ignorant, gun-toting rednecks and this cartoon is yet another example of liberal elitism and how they can’t help themselves by looking down their noses at those of us in the unwashed masses. That’s how the liberals at the New Yorker Magazine really feel about us and it’s good that they get that right out in the open.
We at RochesterConservative have already proved Barry Blitt and the rest of the snobs at the New Yorker Magazine wrong about their depiction of conservatives. We could care less if Obama’s name is Muslim sounding, that’s not an issue. We could care less if Obama’s heritage is of mixed race, his father being African and his mother being Caucasian, that’s not an issue.
What we at RochesterConservative do consider the major issues with Obama is his political ideology and the people he sought out and surrounded himself with, who mentored him and helped him in his rise to political power. Perhaps the liberals at the New Yorker Magazine should concern themselves with the issues as well, rather than painting their fellow citizens on the right in such a “tasteless and offensive” manner.
From this morning’s Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw jumped on Obama supporter, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and it illustrated how Obama’s position on Iraq is shifting with the sands. Obama said one thing in the morning and another thing at the end of the day. Watch and be amazed:
Don’t forget what Obama had on his webpage:
It’s #4 that has me most concerned. He’s parroting what his far left moonbat support base has been spreading lies and rumors about. Iraq and Afghanistan are not humanitarian disasters. 57 million people have been freed from the oppressive rule of the despots, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Life in those counties is better than it was under those oppressive rulers and we’re kicking some terrorist ass! And who do you think Obama will be holding accountable for war crimes? I bet it isn’t Al Qaeda, but a good possibility that it will be our own troops and the Bush Administration. That’s what Marxists despots do to those they succeed in office.
America has lost one of its great Christian patriots; however America’s loss is Heaven’s gain. Tony Snow went to be with Jesus at 2 a.m. this morning; he died at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.
I emailed Tony last year after I read an article of his in World magazine on his faith and perseverance facing cancer. He was not only kind and grateful for my sending him a note; he was gracious and personal in his response back to me. I remember first hearing Tony’s mellow voice in Germany when he would substitute for Rush Limbaugh. America has truly lost a great Christian American patriot.
My son Eddie admired him greatly now and it brings me joy knowing he’s worshipping Jesus in Heaven with a fellow brother in Christ he only knew from afar on earth.
RC Pirate Forums
RV 
By Ken Blackwell
Barack Obama has proposed increasing every major Federal tax. He supports increasing individual income tax rates, allowing the Bush tax cuts, which cut rates for all income levels, to expire. He has proposed almost doubling the capital gains tax rate, from 15% today to 28%. He supports more than doubling the tax on dividends, from 15% to as high as 39%. He has proposed numerous corporate tax increases. He supports increasing the death tax back to the stratospheric levels that applied before President Bush. He supports increasing the payroll tax on higher income earners.
A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church’s moral teachings on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “defamatory,” “insensitive” and “ignorant” will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
By Pete Hegseth
All POW-MIA
