Election '08

Michelle Bachmann and the Politics of Division

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.

What’s fair…..is fair….

Well, seeing the left is going crazy over rumors about Sarah Palin.

I figured I would start a counter rumor, or just simply ask a simple question.

How do we know that Obama’s “so-called” daughters are even his? Would Barry even agree to an DNA test? It is to wonder.

I mean, the African-American culture is not exactly known for it’s martial faithfulness. If Larry Sinclair is to be believed, Barry got around, maybe Michelle did too.

It is a fair question, but if one asks it, ol’ Bambi Aka the Obamassiah will say, “My family is off limits”. and his bots will attack your site. But yet, the Liberals can make up lies about Sarah Palin.

Such an oddball World we live in.

Crossposted @ Political Byline

Editorial: The Edwards “Affair” Story and the Main Stream Media

(Cross Posted from my Personal Blog)

There is nothing that quite annoys me more than anything else, and that is to have to repeat myself on this Blog and in my writings in general. However, this one of those times when a repeat and a formal editorial on one of the most idiotic stories to ever hit the blogging world is stubbornly refusing to die.

As some of you might have read here earlier, there is a story floating around in the scandal sheets that John Edwards is having an extra martial affair with another woman. I commented on it very briefly once already.  However, it seems that this annoying story is now taking a very different turn.  The Bloggers on the Conservative side of the aisle, lacking anything substantive to Blog about are continuing the discussion about it.

Some of these Conservative Bloggers are wailing rather loudly about the Main Stream Media’s lack of coverage of this particular story and are asking why is it not being covered by them.

Ladies and Gentleman of the Blogging community let me give you the professional answer to the provocative question that has been looming in the Blogsophere.  The reason why the Main Stream media, so far, has refused to cover this rather idiotic story can be summed up into two great words, which are not commonly found in the world of Blogging and those words are; Journalistic Integrity.

Journalistic Integrity is a common mode of practice in most newsrooms across the country.  It is the law that dictates as to how the news is reported.  It is the law the tells the political news reporters not to harp on a story that was first found in a scandal rag that is more noted for it’s bald faced lies, than it is for it’s honesty in reporting. It is the law that tells reporters that they are not to attempt to ruin the life of a man, who has spent his entire life helping people, all over a story that is simply nothing more than some fabulist’s creative writing project.

Politics aside, this story, that is being heralded on some political Blogs as some conspiracy theory to cover up a man’s wrong doing.  This is something that could ruin a man’s life, and personally, I think that any Blogger that would knowingly pass this story on knowing that it is false, Frankly, I think that man is nothing more than a simple-minded bastard.

To my fellow Bloggers, to those of you who still have any sort of human conscience still left within you.  I ask of you, as a fellow Blogger.  I ask you, as a fellow Conservative.  I ask you as an American, as a fellow human being.  Please, for the sake of the Edwards family.  For the sake of Elisabeth Edwards, who, by the way, is dying of cancer, let this bastard story die the proper death.

Ladies and Gentleman, we are Americans and we can do better than this.  I, like many other Conservative Bloggers, share a high disdain of the socialist agenda of the Liberal Democratic Party.  However, I find the repeating of a story that frankly sounds like it was the work of a high school fabulist writer, to be unconscionable.

It has been said and it has been sung, and it has have been written in the Bible, that there is a time and place for everything.  This not the time, nor is it the proper place, nor is it the proper story.  Let us show the Liberal Blogging community that we are the political ideology of integrity and respect and not the party of petty back alley childish foolishness.

The Republican Party is already in a crisis state, this would only add to that crisis.  Let us not be foolish in our doings.

---

Chuck Adkins is a Paleo Conservative Libertarian from Michigan. He writes at Political Byline, which is his Political Opinion Blog.

Nutroots Divided?

It seems the Liberal sissy Moonbats have no love for one another. Devil

This comes via Ann Althouse.

TNR's Dana Goldstein writes:

As anybody with high-speed Internet knows, MyDD and Daily Kos sit at the top of the liberal Netroots movement, which over the last five years has made astonishing strides in its campaign to transform the Democratic Party into a hard-fighting, proudly liberal, and, most importantly, victorious entity. Though their websites offer distinct communities and commentaries, and though they have very different personalities, MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong (a former astrologer) and Kos's Markos Moulitsas (a former Army man) have always gotten along--the two co-authored a 2006 book, Crashing the Gate, about the rise of their movement. Their bond has been rooted mostly in common foes: Republicans, namby-pamby Democrats, the Iraq War, divisive "identity politics," and the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. But the harmony that existed between MyDD and Kos since the birth of the Netroots no longer exists today, and a bitter internecine struggle within the progressive blogosphere is to blame. Just as bilious in tone as previous fights with Republicans or Joe Lieberman, it has revealed fault lines in the movement that will be tough to cover back up. There have been charges of misogyny and of bullying, and some longtime members have walked away from their cause altogether. And what's at the heart of it all is that most loaded of questions: Barack or Hillary?

[....]

After announcing her departure from the site, Alegre was the subject of insults by dozens of commenters. Moulitsas fumed on the site's front page, "People expect me to give a damn that a bunch of whiny posters 'go on strike' and leave in a huff. When I don't give a damn, people get angry that their expectations aren't being met." Of course, characterizing Clinton supporters, especially female Clinton supporters, as "whiny," didn't sit well with many. A Maryland mother of two in her mid-40s, Alegre said she won't publicize her real name because she fears harassment from anti-Clinton bloggers and commenters.

There's no doubt that the tone of the Netroots' Clinton-bashing has veered rather far from policy substance. After the Huffington Post scoop, Daily Kos front page writer Dana Houle wrote a bizarre diary (one he didn't post to the homepage) recounting how his impressions of Hillary Clinton had changed since 1992, when he saw Bill Clinton give a speech at the University of Michigan. "It was the night I learned the term MILF, and it was applied to Hillary Clinton," wrote Houle. In the same post, he described seeing a couple in the crowd at the Clinton speech engaged in a sex act. Later Houle, who is 43 and was once  chief-of-staff for New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, brushed off the suggestion that sexualizing Clinton had been inappropriate. "Some people will look for a reason to be outraged no matter what," he explained, telling me that most of Clinton's support in the liberal blogosphere comes from marginal writers.

However, Ann Althouse disagrees:

Really? Upper middle class? I can believe there are more men than women, but enough to make it "relatively homogenous"?

She has a point, I did not care of Barry's style either, Being a former Conservative-Minded Democrat, He lacked substance, this was before all the Jeremiah Wright nonsense came out. He never could directly answer a question. He would always, and still does, dance around direct questions, he has zero substance, it is all flash and glam and personality. He might be a great person, but if he has no substance, what good is he? Nobody seems to want to address that question.

The answer is simply this, the Democrat Party is all about entitlements, Hillary is a Woman, she seems to believe that she is entitled to be President, because she was Bill Clinton's wife and because she is a woman, because she has a vagina, that makes her entitled to be President. The same way with Barry, He is a black man, He believes that he is entitled to be President, because of the injustices that were perpetuated against his people over 300 years ago, that makes B. Hussein Obama entitled to be President. Never mind that the fact that he is an empty suit with zero political experience. Never mind the fact that he did little or nothing of great impact in the Chicago senate, that is unless you count the cocaine snorting and gay sex.  However, because he is black, and he is the Obamassiah, he will ride into the White House on the shoulders of one the biggest liberals and communist sympathizers out there, the late Martin Luther King Jr.  By the way, the true story on Larry Sinclair's Lie detector is:

The raw computer readings showed that Larry Sinclair passed the test with flying colours. But two testers hired by Whitehouse.com re-interpreted the readings to claim that they showed deception. One of the testers was Edward I. Gelb who has been exposed by specialists in the field for claiming a phony Ph.D.

Can you say, Cover up? I knew you could!

Like I said, it is all about the entitlements. It is what the Democrats are all about. That and identity Politics, and we all know, Barry is a master at that.

 
 
 
Cross-Posted @ Political Byline

 

Barry, A Christian? Not According to the Bible....

You know, I don't go out of my way to quote stories out of WorldNetDaily, Because I have a personal problem with the owner of that site.  But I think that this is important to Christians and Conservatives alike. Barry's supposed Christianity is, for intents and purposes, a joke that is being played upon the American people. Now, I do not believe that Obama is going to be the Anti-Christ, But he is quite the deceiver, as you can see below:

Quote:

I commend all Americans to read the Chicago Sun-Times piece – especially all those professing a Christian faith. What he says is alarming. What he says shows he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian.

Asked what he believes, Obama chimed in: "I am a Christian. I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived."

Many paths to the same place?

This is the antithesis of what Jesus reveals in Scripture, for example, in John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Obama also says in the interview he doesn't know if he is going to heaven., nor does he believe the alternative is hell.

That's pretty remarkable for someone professing to be a Christian. While I know, because Scripture tells us so, there will be many turned away from the narrow gate that leads to eternal life on judgment day, it's unusual for someone claiming to be a believer to be uncertain about his eternal fate. It suggests a high degree of spiritual confusion. - Barack Obama: One mixed-up spirit (via WorldNetDaily)

Now there is quite a bit, that I could say about the condition of Joe Farah's heart and his Spiritual condition, especially after the little e-mail exchange that took place between him and myself a little while back, but for the purpose of this article, I will simply point out that Farah has a good point here. If this is what Barry calls true Christianity, then he is quite deceived.

There is a name for what Barry is describing, it is called the doctrine of Universalism. You can learn more about that, by clicking here and by going here to read the definition of it. It would be quite safe to say that Universalism is, quite the Liberal Christian doctrine. If the shoe fits, wear it, I suppose.

Of course, seeing the direction that the Democrats are headed in at the moment, we might not have to worry, because all the Democrats might kill one another off at their convention in Denver. One can only hope. SurpriseWinkingTongueBig Grin 

 
 
Cross-Posted @ Political Byline

 

Chuck Baldwin on "Washington's Culture Of Deception"

(Taken from Here)

A bomb exploded inside Washington, D.C., this week, and, no, it was not the work of a Middle Eastern terrorist. It was the work of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. He, perhaps more than anyone else, was the face of President Bush's White House. He faithfully served President George W. Bush for close to a decade and served as Bush's Press Secretary for some three years, resigning on April 19, 2006. He was also regarded as one of the most loyal and tight-lipped of the Bush insiders. However, his new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" has exploded in the face of what history will probably regard as one of the most deceptive and manipulative Presidential administrations in American government. The Washington Post (and a host of other media) released a report regarding McClellan's book this past Wednesday.

According to McClellan's book, the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President George W. Bush himself. McClellan charges that Bush aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war." He also says he was deceived by some within the President's inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative's name.

He has especially harsh criticism for former White House advisor Karl Rove for misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He also accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of being "deft . . . at protecting her reputation," and called Vice President Dick Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes.

In a chapter titled "Selling the War," McClellan says the administration repeatedly "shaded the truth." He also stated, "In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage." In what might be the most disturbing statement in the book (at least among those that were released by press reports), McClellan said, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

McClellan said his motive for writing the book was this: "Like many Americans, I am concerned about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it. Hopefully in some small way it will contribute to changing Washington for the better and move us beyond the hyper-partisan environment that has permeated Washington over the past 15 years."

I am confident the reaction that will spew forth from both sides of the political aisle will simply reinforce McClellan's basic assertion. Republicans will attempt to impugn McClellan's credibility, while Democrats will shout, "We told you so!"

In previous columns, I have written much regarding the poison of deception that emanates from Washington, D.C., which is mostly due to the preoccupation with political partisanship. It seems the only time the Republican and Democratic parties care about "ethics" and "honesty" is when it condemns the other party. Otherwise, life in Washington, D.C., is exactly as McClellan describes it: a culture of deception.

McClellan's book will be a bitter pill to swallow. To think that the war in Iraq was "unnecessary" creates angst and even anger in the meekest of men. Yet, how many times have governments spent the lives and fortunes of their people for causes and reasons that historians would later judge to be "unnecessary"? It might even be safe to say that most of history's wars have been "unnecessary."

The propensity of rulers to engage in war for personal, transient, or even adolescent purposes is exactly why America's Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic in this country. In America, the Constitution--not the President, Congress, or even the Supreme Court--is the Supreme Law of the land. Each branch of government is to remain separate from the other, and no branch is supposed to be able to run roughshod over the other. It is fidelity to constitutional government that forms the vanguard of our liberty, not to mention our safety.

This is why our President and members of Congress take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are not sworn to uphold the will of party bosses or special interest groups, or even the whim of the people. They are required to uphold the Constitution.

Sadly, America's civil magistrates (especially at the federal level) have been ignoring the Constitution for much of the 20th Century, and--for the most part--still ignore the Constitution today. And it has not mattered to a tinker's dam which party has been in power. Both major parties are equal opportunity violators of the Constitution.

None of us (including this writer) wants to believe that McClellan's bold assertion is true. None of us wants to believe that we are spending trillions of hard-earned tax dollars and sending thousands of brave soldiers and Marines (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis) to their deaths "unnecessarily." I sincerely pray that McClellan is wrong about that.

One thing I do believe to be true, however, is this: Unless the American people begin demanding that their civil magistrates uphold their oaths to the Constitution, and until the American people rid themselves of this blind loyalty to the two major political parties, we are going to be continually subjected to "Washington's Culture of Deception."

Chuck Baldwin's Personal Website

Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party Candidate for President 2008 - Official Website

Syndicate content