And it begins

Now that I am officially an elected official (albeit at the lowest level possible, precinct committeman) we can say it is all downhill from here. Let the corruption, kickbacks and shady deals begin.

Stop right there

Don't need to see anymore. McCain should absolutely not receive the conservative vote. McCain scolds Obama, Clinton over NAFTA.

Sen. John McCain said Tuesday that proposals by Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to use pressure tactics to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement could undermine U.S. trade relationships with other nations.

Umm, what relationships? Oh, did he mean the hostile take-over bid relationships?

If that threat is made, McCain asked, "What are the other countries in the world going to think about the agreements we've negotiated with them?"

They might be stunned that the U.S. was veering off its suicide course. Of course Clinton and Obama aren't really thinking about reversing NAFTA, but merely catering to Big Labor in the heartland.

Clinton said her plan includes "telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards." Obama agreed: "We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

See, the former president Clinton worked hand in hand with McCain to get NAFTA passed. Both parties support destroying our nation, it is just a difference in the language they use based on whose votes they are buying.

Pot, Kettle, Kettle, Pot

Seems this woman has forgotten her place. (kidding of course, but you get the point.) Ferraro? Who the %&^ is she?

Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Funny how those who play the minority trump card end up whining about it later. Of course Ms. Ferraro supports Hillary, she is a woman. And that makes Hillary absolutely qualified in her eyes.

Funny how the uber-tolerant turn out to be the most racist of them all.

Succinct

Some brilliant work by Paul at Alive and Young. Campaign Summary

McCain: I was a prisoner of war, served in the military for 20 years, I'm a politician, vote for me.

Obama: I'm cool, I'm hip, I can speak well, I'm a politician, Change, I'm black, Vote for me.

Clinton: My husband was president, I'm a hero for staying with my husband even though he repeatedly cheated on me, I'll cry if I don't get my way, I have a calculated response to everything that makes me seem like a robot, I'm a politician, I'm a woman, Vote for me.

I think they should publish these as voter guides and donate the rest of the campaign money to charity. Oh and perhaps add this line at the end of each, "And I will continue the ruin of this country."

Sins of omission

This is not the first time I have disagreed with Fr. Pavone. I respect his work to defend the un-born, but he gets in over his head when he veers into politics. His latest column, And What I Have Failed To Do is a good example. He doesn't come out and say it, but I believe he is advocating a vote for McCain. Anything less would be a sin of omission.

Thankfully his is a priest. In charge of hearing confessions, not telling us what we should confess. A vote for McCain is a vote to destroy the pro-life plank (as well as many other conservative ideals) in the GOP platform. I think his eventual nomination is already the death knell of the Republican party. Who needs another liberal, fiscally irresponsible party. The Democrats have that base cemented in (see Obama's reaffirmation of the party only unchanging plank.)

Me? I won't call any vote a sin. I don't know anyone's heart or conscience. But I know I can't vote for anyone that supports abortion. That narrows the field considerably. I am not confident of McCain's stance on that issue, but he claims to be pro-life. So I look at the other issues. And I won't vote for him based on those issues. Pro-nation building. Pro-big government. Anti-freedom. Pro-amnesty. That is enough for me to still vote Ron Paul. He may not win, but the GOP can look at all the votes they "could" have had.

Reaffirming

but not reassuring. Obama must need to reaffirm his ties to the death eaters. Or as Jill Stanek puts it,
Terri Schiavo should have been a horse His biggest legislative regret?

He said he wished he had spoken out when Republican lawmakers tried to stop the severely brain-damaged woman's husband from removing her feeding tube in 2005.

"It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped, and I think that was a mistake.''

Jill finds Obama's compassion much greater for the furry four legged creatures

It's really too bad Terri wasn't a horse....

As both state and U.S. senator, Obama either supported or co-sponsored measures to stop horse slaughter, particularly since there is a horse factory in IL.

Terri would also have been better off a dog as far as Obama is concerned, because he has supported a legislative crack-down on dog fighting.

Yikes! Scary material for our future president.

As expected

The destruction of the GOP must go on. Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain.

Oh, this was supposed to be a good thing. The unity of the party and all that. So they can be certain to defeat those evil democrats. Of course. Even McCain would be better than Hillary or Obama.

Not so sure on that. McCain is the masculine version of Hillary and that is about where the differences end. So Romney senses that he isn't going to win the nomination after spending mega millions on the campaign. Rather than go to the brokered convention and make sure his "fiscal ideals" are represented, along with Huckabee's stance on life and Paul's stance on freedom; he bags it all and backs the one opponent he can't stand. Making sure that Huckabee and Paul supporters are silenced. How's that for party politics?

But party politics makes the world media go round, right. Take this review of "conservative" talk radio. She makes the claim "Rush and Coulter are causing a rift in the GOP". Why? Because they are SO far right and dare to bash McCain (last great hope against Hillary).

Sorry, but Rush is a party man through and through. Has been for years. Coulter is blonde with a big mouth and a propensity to attack those disliked by the GOP. Splitting the party? What party? The GOP tent was chopped down long ago and now McCain is carrying the GOP backpack. Leaving Ron Paul and other conservatives with no where to go.

This Romney drop out and endorsement reminds me of a lame sitcom script. Perhaps the hollywood writers aren't on strike after all. They just moved into political news reporting.

Down goes Fraizer

Well, it isn't quite as monumental as that fight, but

Down goes Romney. (via Huckleberries) I would say it was a surprise, but not really. Bush-Romney-McCain-Huckabee are all made from the same dough. Just rolled in a different topping, Romney had the financial sparkles, McCain is the crusty old glaze, Huckabee is the sugar topping for the shallow evangelical type.

Romney's step back is just proof that it isn't about conservative values, but about being "Republican". Not that the name means much anymore, but as long as they can fool the voters and the media keeps up the the "Republican vs Democrat/Conservative vs Liberal" reporting, no one will realize how they are part of the same party. The ruling class party. As my wife succinctly put it, sounds like an "Establishment" type of move.

One another note, Ron Paul did well in my native North Dakota. He actually won the district caucus that my parents are in. By 5 votes. My parents, sister and her husband and their son.

And to think my parents were die hard Bush fans not that long ago. They might not admit it, but they are coming around. And rather quickly.

being judicial

In anticipation of Ron Paul's visit tomorrow, I will leave you with some wisdom on Politics and Judicial Activism — Ron Paul 2008

Book it

Looks like Ron Paul headed for Spokane. Get the babysitter Ethel, Dr. No is coming to town.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is expected in Spokane Thursday evening for a speech at the downtown Double Tree Hotel.

Local organizers of the Paul campaign said the candidate -- who arguably has the most visible support in Spokane if that can be judged by yard signs -- will be come here after a stop in Seattle.

The visit it timed to help build support for the Feb. 9 GOP precinct caucuses and the Feb. 19 primary.

The event is free, with doors opening at 5 p.m. for the rally and speech.

Grocery and Gas stimuli

It is a sad state when an article on economics and tax rebates make one chuckle. Perhaps the cynicism has already set in. Tax rebate deal could mean checks by May

With unprecedented speed and cooperation, Congress and the White House forged a deal Thursday to begin rushing tax rebates of $600 to $1,200 to most tax filers by spring, hoping they will spend the money just as quickly and jolt the ailing economy to life.

With the value of the dollar by then, that should fill up the SUV twice. Reminds me of the saying, don't spend it all in one place.

The "unprecedented speed and cooperation" line made me smile, only spending someone else's money gets met with such speed and cooperation in Congress.

agreement to pump about $150 billion into the economy this year and perhaps stave off the first recession since 2001.

Don't know what they call it in DC, but "stave off" may be a tad late and "first recession since 2001" doesn't buy many groceries for me. Maybe life is better when you get to vote for your own pay raise and spend other's money.

missing element

Notice the missing element here as the GOP presidential race turns to Florida? Find the missing candidate, the candidate that has beaten Giuliani in every state so far, the candidate that got second in Nevada, the candidate everyone wants to forget. Except for the voters of course. Of course it is Ron Paul.

They would rather talk about Giuliani who has disappointed everywhere and has camp out in warm weather Florida waiting for a miracle. Much rather talk about Thompson who has yet to even start his campaign. Perhaps they should start asking Giuliani if he will run as an independent. He fits the bill of an fence straddler better than Dr. Paul anyway.

Down goes Huckabee

At least that is my prediction after his latestcomments on the Constitution. I have said it before, and will say it again. Huckabee isn't a conservative, but a big government Republican. And with this line, he is bordering on being the dreaded Theocrat.

He said abortion is one of just two areas "where I believe we ought to amend the Constitution right now. But I do believe we should and settle this issue of having 50 states running around trying to decide what's right and what's wrong in relationship to the sanctity of human life and the dignity and worth of people.".
..

"The Constitution is a document -- it's a living, breathing document written in order that it could be changed," Huckabee explained.

Could be the Washington beltway just wants to feed the Us vs. Them mentality. The democrats scream about Bush being a theocrat and so the other side must want one of them.

What is a deeper problem is his "50 states" line. The Bill of Rights settles that with the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So give me Ron Paul and his respect for my rights.

The Huckabee problem

On first blush, hearing his responses in the early debates, I liked Huckabee.  Not as much as Ron Paul, but he was one of the few candidates I could have imagined myself voting for. 

Count that as early delusion because I am officially off his bandwagon.  As I have detailed previously, he has issues with state rights.  This latest interview just blows up how un-conservative his is compared to Ron Paul.  Mark Shea dismantles Huckabee's major gaffe in stating "all law establishes morality." 

Here's the thing: law does not establish morality. Morality is the basis of law. And morality is derived from that fact that men and women are creatures made in the image and likeness of God. It is not derived from what Caesar happens to approve or disapprove.

Mark does it well, so I won't comment on that further except to disagree with Mark that Huckabee probably didn't mean it that way.  Just take him at his word that he believes that law establishes morality.  In the political world of 2008, those in Washington DC, do legislate morality.  And it is what Huckabee is about.  Limited government?  States rights?  Must have imagined that to be a conservative concept. 

Yeah. Because once you give it in one state, then what keeps that couple from having it in New Hampshire and then moving to Arkansas and saying, "Hey, you have to accept what the other state did." That's why it is better cleared up by a marriage amendment that just says marriage is what it always has been.

Yes, Huckabee is railing against homosexual union.  But he is doing so in such a way that I can sympathize with the radical left when they fret about a theocracy.   Huckabee thinks that the federal government is in charge of handing out freedom.  And in charge of defining morality.   Did he forget we are the United States of America?

The states in the US of A are not just some antiquated boundaries better suited for tasteless jokes or sports rivalries.  The limited role of the federal government was crucial to the states agreeing to form a union.  He would be wise to read up on the War between the States considering how often he references it.

I may agree with Huckabee's morality, but I surely don't agree with his politics.

And it seems a few others disagree with his sincerity and his growing anti-Catholic problem.

Aligning the stars

Take this quiz to see which candidates are closely aligned with your views.

Hillary and John Edwards were at the bottom of my list. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul was at the top. via Leon at the CUF.

Some heady topics

Not your typical soundbite media that most candidates provide.

Your slip is showing

Oops, looks like Mitt's slip is showing. Perhaps this is a new revelation? (sorry bad Mormon joke).

Seriously, I thought this was his profound breakthrough to being pro-life? But now Mitt Romney Backs Some Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Opposes Funding

"So what kind of embryos -- embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?" Couric asked.

"Yes," Romney responded, "those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization."

Romney said he would first like to see human embryos adopted by families before put up for their destruction. However, he explained how he would have no problem with parents who want to allow those human embryos -- unique human beings -- to be destroyed for research.

"But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable," he said. "It should not be made against the law."

Always easy to rationalize a stance when you don't stand for anything. Sorry Mitt, either it is immoral to destroy life or it is not. Not surprising to see "Flip" Romney changing positions again.

Some answers

To the questions about Romney and the Mormon faith. Jimmy Akin is Not Impressed. There are still too many unanswered questions. Romney claims he is a faithful Mormon but won't take marching orders from the Mormon leaders. That is a problem.

Further, the Mormon prophet has a history of weighing in on social and political issues, such as whether polygamy should be allowed or disallowed and whether black people should have the same rights or not as white people, and the prophets have gone different ways at different times.

How can Romney intelligibly claim that values but not leaders will influence his decisions when the values flow from the leaders via new divine revelation?[emphasis added]

Jimmy also points out the biggest missing answer to the question no one seems to ask.

To bend a phrase from Bill Clinton, "It's the Polytheism, Stupid."

Something conspicuously absent from almost all press reporting on the controversy over Romney's religion is the fact that Mormons are polytheists. That is, they believe in multiple gods. They also believe that men can become gods (and women can become goddesses).

This is a radically different vision of God and man than that taught by the Christian faith. It cuts out and replaces the central doctrine of Christianity--its understanding of God and man--and replaces it with an alien one. This means that Mormons are simply not Christians.

Yet they claim to be Christian.

That is my biggest issue with having a Mormon in a position of leadership. I don't trust them. They claim to be something they are not, and that destroys any trust I would have in them (not that Slick Mitt has engendered any trust so far). They want to be known as Christians so they can fit in, so they don't stick out like some radical cult. So far the makeover campaign has worked. Most people take them on their word that they are Christians. They will say they believe in the Trinity, but they won't reveal the different meaning they have for "trinity". They will say Jesus is God, but won't tell you they all can become gods.

I would trust a Muslim leader more than I would trust a Mormon. At least I know the Muslim will speak what he believes. No double talk or manipulating words to make it sound like we believe in the same God. In fact I would say Muslims are worshiping the one true God, albeit in a limited and often twisted sense, where the Mormons are not worshiping God.

What do you say

Once someone gets a glimpse of Ron Paul and starts to look into his positions on the issues, some will inevitably come up with a few facts, padded by many misconceptions and conclude,
In short, Paul is extreme.

He also receives support from such organizations as the (an offshoot of another white supremacist group), the John Birch Society, and conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job and that the evil CFR and New World Order is out to get us, whom he also panders to on a regular basis.

Find a nice big kook bin and throw everyone in there. If anyone would actually look at the John Birch Society rather than run away scared, they would see they don't fit in that group. I haven't heard of the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the 9/11 Truthers are over the top with the conspiracy stuff.

But just because some kooks support a guy doesn't mean he panders to that type of thinking. Up here in Idaho we have some racist white supremacists. One makes lots of noise about Ron Paul. But that only serves to detract from his message of freedom. Just because a few facts intersect with some far out ideologies doesn't make those facts wrong. Same with a man campaigning on a certain agenda. Did anyone rail against Gore because the eco-terrorist group Earth First supported him?

One of my favorite answers of the recent YouTube debate was when Dr. Paul was asked directly whether he supported the "conspiracy theories". He responded with the facts. (and I am paraphrasing him here) There is a European Union where there used to be sovereign nations. There is a push to form the American Union, NAFTA and the mega-highway legislation bear that out. It isn't a "conspiracy theory", there are different ideologies. One believes in the formation of the American Union and would strip us of our sovereignty. That isn't a theory, it is fact. The Texas and Oklahoma legislature has passed laws fighting the mega-highway. Dr. Paul said he is of a different ideology that those trying to remove our sovereignty.

Ron Paul effectively removed the scare quotes from around the "theory" and presented facts. And that exposed a breed of politics that he opposes.

He isn't an isolationist, he has made that clear many times. He wants to approach countries as a free nation interested in doing business and being friends, not pushing the U.N.'s nation building policies. In the article, Mr. Dart refers to Ron Paul wanting

to withdraw from the U.N. and let Sudan work out the Darfur genocide itself.

And we are supposed to find that scary because the U.N. has done so much to stop the Darfur genocide? And the U.N. was so instrumental in saving the millions of lives in Rwanda and other African genocides?

Mr. Dart could stand to do a little homework here and not just regurgitate all the propaganda he could dig up against Dr. Paul. Listen to the man and decide, or listen to the media sound bites and scare quotes. One has an agenda, one doesn't. Figure it out or don't, I am sure one of the other clowns will offer some warm fuzzies to sooth that fear.

On politic, Ron Paul and Huckabee

On my recent post on Huckabee, commenter Lee Strong levels the extreme liberalism comment at my post. He makes some good points that in many cases, Huckabee sounds very conservative.

I am wary of Huckabee because he talks a good game, catering to the religious voters. But how does he stand on other "small government" items. According to Thomas Woods Jr. in his
Open Letter to the Catholic Community in Behalf of Ron Paul, not so well. via CfRP

On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities.

In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being.

And if you look at it from a Catholic perspective, Ron Paul scores a 99 on the Evaluation of 2008 Presidential Candidates Against US Bishops' Criteria. Huckabee scores a 69 while Mitt Romney had to clarify his positions to get up to a 10. Giuliani? At the bottom with negative 28.

But back to Huckabee and Ron Paul, the only two candidates I would consider. Huckabee follows rank with the current Republican agenda of "No Child Left Behind (or untaxed)". So he seems to be a panderer. Thrown out there to keep the religious voters happily involved. He has done surprisingly well, so he sticks around. But he isn't going to turn this country around. Bush had that same quiet "humility" and faith about him before he was elected.

I have said it before and will again. When you bind yourself too closely with a party, be it Republican or Democrat, you will be disappointed. And then what options are left? Sinking with the ship or leaping of into the big wide ocean, not knowing which way to swim.