As you can imagine, the front page headline in today's edition of the Tulsa World, HB 1804: Henry urges patience, caught my attention immediately this morning when I saw it on the newspaper stand.
I don't have a whole lot to say about the story at this point except that the part about "needing direction from the courts" doesn't quite set well with me, even though it's a little unclear what Governor Henry meant by that statement. I often wonder what ever happened to those leaders who in days past made such bold statements as "they've made their decision, now let them enforce it."? And no, I'm not saying that a habit should be made of acting in defiance of the courts, nor of withholding due subordination to their legitimate constitutional authority, but I do think the tendency of our intrepid leaders today is to give far too much deference and unquestioned obedience to the "final authority" of the judiciary; to lead by the wrong example.
Then of course there's the little issue of Gov. Henry declaring that "it ("it" meaning the lawsuit brought against H.B. 1804 I'm assuming) cries out for a comprehensive federal approach." He then goes on to remark that "For decades the federal government has failed to act, and because of that, states like Oklahoma and Arizona and several others have taken action." This is true enough, but it strikes me as something like saying that due to the neglect of the local police force, I've been forced to put locks on my doors and equip my house with guns and ammunition, as well as to provide my family members with weapons and safety training ... and this is just wrong; this is what the police force is for. What, pray tell, is wrong with state and local governmental entities taking the initiative to protect themselves, thus taking the pressure off the higher spheres of government to "protect" the lower spheres. And by the way, it's not an "invasion" when you've given an open invitation to all comers, whether you're a state or a local community, or the all-powerful federal government. But once you've closed the gate and put a "No Trespassing" sign on it, as Oklahoma and other states have done, and they still keep coming...
But anyway, the link to the full article is provided above if you're interested. And by the way, I wouldn't recommend reading the comments to the article, at least not the first 25 or so. There really are a lot of stupid people in Oklahoma, but that ain't the saddest part.
Monday, February 25, 2008
As you can imagine, the front page headline in today's edition of the Tulsa World, HB 1804: Henry urges patience, caught my attention immediately this morning when I saw it on the newspaper stand.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
I know how important it is for social conservatives to hold fast to their principles. I know this because I am one, or, more properly, I used to consider myself one. But that has all changed...
If you're a social conservative, or consider yourself to be one, yet you experience a level of discomfort and realize the problems involved with advancing social conservative causes via the liberal method, take a good hard look at this AFB Appeal to Social Conservatives.
I've bemoaned the fact before that children in America increasingly are being raised with a growing sense of self-worth and filial empowerment, feeling themselves equal, if not superior to their parents and elders. It's an upside down worldview that finds anything good or right or proper in destroying the natural, God-ordained relationship between parent/elder and child. But as I've said before, anytime you begin to try to improve on God's perfect design, you're messing up.
But really, when you think about it, what other outcome might one expect in a society where liberalism is the dominant ideology? Since we're all God's children, and therefore owe due respect and subordinance to him who is our Father in Heaven, and since liberalism, when you boil it all down, is just an extreme form of rebellion against God and His authority over his creation, doesn't it stand to reason that liberal empowerment would result in the empowerment of children over their elders, among other evils?
Poetic justice? In that sense I would have to say yes. But it doesn't mean I revel in it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Hopefully I'll have a lot more to say on this later, but since it's been weighing heavy on my mind the last few days given the unfortunate events you're all aware of, I thought I'd ask the question of you in hopes of getting some reasonable impersonal, and insofar as possible, neutral responses.
We're all aware of what happened and we all have our opinions as to who's most at fault, and so on and so forth. Personally I think there's probably enough blame to go around, so I'm not particularly interested in your opinion as to who can be assigned the most blame. What I'm most interested in is how you would answer the question in the post title, and how the events mentioned have, if at all, contributed to or shaped your thoughts on the matter.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
I've added a new link to the Links of Interest section in the right sidebar of this blog. The link is to the site Outraged Patriots.com where you can find a wealth of information about State and local legislative and judicial actions all across the nation dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.
Note: When you go to the site, scroll down the page and look at the way one Oklahoma Democrat, House member David Braddock of Altus, is proposing to gut Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 with his own H.B. 2445. This link may be found on the left side of the page.
I looked at the text of the bill quickly, and it appears merely to be a copy of H.B. 1804 with every meaningful provision of the law struck out. Just one more example of the depths to which liberal democrats will descend to endanger the lives, liberties and properties of their constituents, and of the eternal vigilance which is required of patriots to thwart their treasonous designs.
(Update: I've added another link to this section as well -- I.R.O.N.)
Where's Tom Tancredo? Here he is, doing what he does best, defending America's honor, national and cultural identity; strongly protesting the Mexican President's lecture of Americans and his meddling attempts to effect U.S. immigration policies which favor McCain style amnesty for illegal Mexican aliens.
Mr. Tancredo writes:
President Calderon, I respectfully suggest that the next time you visit our country, rather than trying to influence U.S. policymakers or our election process, you take time to listen to Americans rather than lecture them. If you want to make changes in government policies, apply your energies to Mexico’s laundry list of problems rather than meddling in domestic American politics.
By all means, click on the link provided above and read Tancredo's entire letter to President Calderon.
It's good to see the former Republican presidential contender back in action.
Call me Mom writes:
Thank you that was an excellent letter. I'm glad I took the time to read it. I think I'll be writing him in.
Thanks. I was delighted to make the find, and figured you and others would be interested. As you're probably aware, I've been thinking a Tancredo write-in for several months now. It would be ideal for conservatives to unite around a single write-in candidate, but that seems more impossible than ever given recent events.
How many Muslim student visas does the United States government indiscriminately pass out these days, less than seven years post-9/11? Well, according to these figures last year represented the first year since 2001 that 100,000 plus student visas were granted citizens from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.
Rick Darby has a few thoughts on the subject that are very much worth your time. Here's a sampling:
How many are can't be known until they act so as to remove any doubt, but let's be charitable and say that no more than 5 percent might be people we need to worry about. That's a mere 5,494 out of 109,878 admitted. Last year.
Charitable indeed! But the point is well made. 5,500 potential covert jihadits legally granted access to our country under the auspices of furthering their educations at an American University ain't nothin' to sneeze at.
(Note: This entry has been expanded at the bottom of the page.)
Not that I think my opinion matters to anyone, or that I think it should matter to anyone, but I needed to express it anyhow.
My reaction overall can be summed up in one word: Unfortunate.
Beyond that, let me say in defense of Auster's readership (Mr. Auster can defend himself) that I do not appreciate the charge leveled against them of being "sycophants." It's not a fair assessment, nor an accurate one as a rule, in my opinion.
If I, as a VFR reader, have disagreed with Lawrence Auster once during the relatively short period of time that I've been reading both VFR and VA, I've disagreed with him at least fifty times, and probably many more times than that. I've posted my own articles here at this blog citing some of our more notable disagreements, as some of you already know. And it's not that I take the charge personally. I don't because it simply does not apply to me, and if you think it does, well, that's your opinion which you're entitled to, but it's an uninformed and a stupid one, to be frank.
The reason I'm offended by it has very little to do with myself, but more to do with other VFR readers -- the majority who comment there -- most of whom have also had serious disagreements with Auster, and far from seeking his favor, often and to the contrary, seem to be after the exact opposite. But it seems to be the opinion of some that if you overlook Auster's tendency to be direct in defending his position, and continue reading and commenting agreeably at VFR, then you're obviously an Auster sycophant. Seriously, folks, do you not realize how ignorant (not to mention "liberal") this makes you appear?
So you're personally put off by Auster's style and you don't read him anymore because of it. Fine. But why do you feel it necessary to charge his readers with this accusation? And on what legitimate basis do you lay the charge? Be aware that by your standard for what constitutes a sycophant, the same could be said of you yet no-one that I'm aware of is saying it of you. Who, therefore, has the moral highground, and the superior claim to being a genuine conservative, I ask?
I respect both VA and LA for their individual talents and their relentless defense of traditional conservatism. And I'll continue to read them both as well as to express my gratitude, respect, my admiration of their talents, and so on and so forth. And you can rest assured that when you do the same with either of them, I for one will never assign to you the illegitimate and completely unwarranted charge of being a sycophant. Principled conservatism prevents it of me.
There, I've said my piece. Take it how ever you like.
In a private email to me VA asked that I clarify a misunderstanding about her comment to this entry. Where she makes reference to being "harassed by a particular individual," she's referring to the time she closed comments in January, not to this current situation, not to Mr. Auster, nor to any VFR reader.
It's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the "particular individual" harassment charge. Read in context VA started out by addressing Anonymous's account of what happened back then, and my reply to Anonymous on the subject of what happened back then.
And if that is not evidence enough for you, then consider that she addresses the current issue later in the comment with the words beginning "this latest business involves..." So, obviously she's distinguishing between the two separate episodes and addressing them separately.
The "being harassed by a particular individual" comment has nothing to do with VFR or any VFR reader. It is simply an explanation to me for why she closed comments back in January, which I was unclear about.
Also, I simply do not agree with Auster's interpolation re VA's "rough and tumble" remark in her comments to this entry. Sure, you can read that into her statement if you really want to stretch it, but I personally have no interest in such as that.
and what, if anything, can be done about it?
Is our society so eat up with the cancer of cultural degradation that the unacceptable has now become acceptable among the majority, or is it, as Clark Coleman suggests, that the appearance of cultural degradation, seen in television adds promoting everything from "performance enhancement" drugs to "size enhancement" drugs for men, to lesbian activities between college girls, and etc., seems so utterly pervasive and overwhelming that the majority, not realizing it is a majority, feels incapable of, and utterly helpless in doing anything about it?
In a comment to Auster's article which I sent a few minutes ago and has not yet been posted, I wrote the following:
I've told the story before elsewhere, but in 1992 while serving in the U.S. Air Force and stationed in Anchorage AK, residents became alarmed by the radical homosexual agenda that the Anchorage city council was considering passing a local ordinance on -- adding the words "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination laws -- which, as traditionalist conservatives understand very well, has far reaching destructive societal consequences. I personally attended several of the public hearings, braving sub-zero weather conditions with many other like minded concerned citizens who were "left out in the cold" so to speak due to the fact that so many alarmed citizens became instant and active opponents of the measure thus filling the council chambers to capacity, as well as the library building where these chambers were housed.
This did not deter the council from passing the ordinance by a margin of something like five to two, even though the members were warned many times and in many different ways that they'd be removed if they voted in favor of the measure. They passed the measure in open and direct defiance, even aggressive, insulting verbal defiance, of the clear and overwhelming will of the people. And they were all, every last one who voted in favor of the measure, summarily removed from the council at the next election cycle which was only a few months later, just as the citizenry had warned they would be. The new council overturned the measure as their first order of business.
The point is that this is an example of exactly how these things should be handled. We know that there are leftists in positions of power who are going to defy the will of the people, even on threat of their removal from office or on the threat of a boycott, or whatever. Such is the nature of leftists; they are aggressively defiant personalities who recognize no authority but the authority of the ideology of liberalism. The only way to deal with them effectively, therefore, is to give them fair warning of what their fate will be if they defy the will of the people, and then to follow through on that threat once they do. And when I say "follow through" I mean follow through all the way to the end, never allowing them to hold a position of authority where public policy is made again. ...
No news to you, I'm sure, that I like Mr. Coleman's idea, and I disagree with the dissenters and the naysayers. There are always any number of folks out there who say this and that lofty and worthy goal can't be achieved. And comparatively speaking there are generally far fewer people who believe a difficult thing can be achieved, than believe it can. But as Dad always used to say, "anything worth having is worth working for," which, of course, and as I've noted before, implies the opposite: anything not worth having is worthy of the expense of no effort.
Some folks place very little value on preserving moral and cultural virtue. Others place a great deal of value on it. You can count me firmly among that latter group, as well as among that group which believes that difficult and lofty goals are achievable, which makes the pursuit thereof that much more worthwhile.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
I wrote the other day about the e-news message sent to Oklahoma Republicans in which Matt Pinnell, Director of Operations for the OK Republican Party, wrote that all that is required for "conservatives" is that they remember for the next ten months the number six, and pull the lever for John McCain.
Coincidentally Don Feder writes today over at his Coldsteel Caucus of the Top ten reasons not to vote for McCain (hat tip VFR). And what reason of the ten takes up the number six spot on Feder's list? You guessed it. Mr. Feder must have been subjected to the same "six is all you need to remember" argument, which raises the question in the post title.
Mr. Feder writes:
The moment Mitt Romney “suspended” his campaign and McCain became inevitable, the squawking began: “You mean you’d actually prefer Hillary or Obama (judges)? At least McCain is pro-life (judges). He’s a war hero who’ll ably lead us in the War on Terrorism (judges). Did we mention that he’ll appoint conservative judges?”
But I agree, let's all remember the number six, Feder's number six -- create a bumper sticker, iron press it on some t-shirts, get one of those cool Henna tattoos, whatever it takes for you to remember that number -- as Mr. Pinnell might say.
Liberal rule numero uno: Human beings cannot be distinguished one from the other by descriptive labels;
All intelligible communication between minds must be displaced by language unintelligible and self-destructive.
I've been meaning to write about the gang-style knife fight that broke out a few nights ago in McAlester between a number of [non-citizen] human being residents of the area, but other things had my mind preoccupied. However, we were traveling yesterday evening listening to a local radio station and the incident was brought to my attention again when it was mentioned during the top-of-the-hour news broadcast. Some of the details of the incident are still a little sketchy to my mind, others are not.
One detail which is still sketchy is whether the incident involved ten or twelve individuals. I've heard several reports citing both numbers. Another detail which is not sketchy is that every single one of these individuals involved is an illegal Mexican alien, excuse me, [non-citizen] human being, living here in open defiance of H.B. 1804.
But let's get on with it, shall we?...
Apparently there's a lot of hateful, bigoted, emotion driven, anti-human being speech which has been let loose over at the McAlester News Capital forum concerning this incident. I don't know this to be a fact first hand, because I've never been to that forum. I'm just going on what the McAlester News Editor Matt Lane says in his opinion piece -- No human being is illegal -- on the subject, and I certainly do not doubt his liberal, excuse me, human being guided veracity.
Mr. Lane writes:
If you don’t visit the forums at mcalesternews.com, I dare say you’re missing some spirited conversations.
With the arrest of 10 men involved in a fight, and the news that they are not U.S. citizens, the topic of “illegal aliens” has been brought to the fore. Most of the posters on the News-Capital forum are foursquare for kicking “them” out and then building a big wall so they can’t come back.
First of all, let's clarify something, it was more than just "a fight", it was a gang style knife fight with bloodletting and several of the individuals involved taken to the hospital for emergency care, all on the taxpayer's dime. Then these individuals were arrested and put in jail and remain in jail, all on the taxpayer's dime. But of course they're all human beings, and no human being should ever be distinguished from any other human being by any kind of negative descriptive, no matter how accurate, or, dare I say "necessary", forgive me.
Mr. Lane continues:
At the risk of being labeled a liberal (or God forbid, worse), I’ve been logging in to www.mcalesternews.com, clicking on the forums at the bottom of the page, and adding my two cents about this controversial issue.
With all due respect to Mr. Lane and his editorial stature, two cents is about all his opinion on the subject is worth, and that's being at least a penny too generous, which, in spite of the near worthlessness of a penny, is still, in terms of percentages, being too generous by a full half -- I just didn't want you to lose sight of the significance of a penny when you only have two to work with.
And why is it that liberals like Mr. Lane preemptively squeal like a stuck hog at the risk of being "labeled" a liberal whenever they enter a fray and proceed to expose themselves as abject liberals? Methinks Mr. Lane protests too much. Once again Mr. Lane, with all due respect, there's no need for anyone to label you a liberal (or God forbid, worse), your position is a purely leftist position which you yourself have chosen by your own volition and prefer. In other words, try to learn the meaning of the phrase "if the shoe fits, wear it," and while you're at it study on the meaning of other adages that you've probably used yourself such as "if you can't take the heat, get [your liberal caboose] outta the kitchen. Oops! I've done it again. I've committed the ultimate sin of labelling a fellow human being with a term that has clear negative connotations attached to it. I forgot momentarily that this is disallowed in liberal society. My bad.
Mr. Lane continues with more of his liberal tripe:
I don’t believe any human being is “illegal.” Human beings do commit illegal acts. People who enter this country illegally should be prosecuted and/or sent home. Those who employ undocumented workers should be prosecuted and punished.
Must I point out that the incident which brought on all the hateful discussion in which citizens so wrongly refer to the participants (every last one of 'em) as "illegals" of which Mr. Lane is writing involved ten or twelve human beings here illegally who committed illegal acts, and yet it insults his hyper-liberal sensibilities to refer to these people as precisely what they are, illegals. But it's not Mr. Lane's hyper-sensitive liberal hatred of being "labeled," and "labeling" that is the problem here. No!; the problem lies with those [legal] human beings who inappropriately use such unallowable non-liberal rhetoric in liberal dominated society. Something tells me that Mr. Lane would come completely unhinged at the mere suggestion that perhaps the reason human beings who also happen to be Muslims commit violent acts against "infidels" is because they're commanded to wage perpetual war against us in their illegitimate and evil holy book, and by their false prophet Mohammed. Don't tell me, Mr. Lane doesn't believe any human being is a "barbarian" either. Some human beings commit barbarous acts, and if they commit illegal barbarous acts then they should be punished, but it is just plain wrong and unacceptable to refer to them as barbarians, right? Right.
But he ain't finished yet:
It comes down to this: Far too many politicians use the “illegal immigration” problem to bolster their standing because they know it is a hot button — it is great for getting people riled up and they can do it without dealing with a bunch of facts or figures. Meanwhile, this country is sliding deeper into debt everyday; our soldiers are dying in a misguided war that may end up costing us $2 trillion; our country’s infrastructure is falling apart, and on and on.
No small number of political hacks will be elected this year because they’ll say they’re tough on immigration and keeping our border secure. Instead of talking about the real problems (what about Social Security’s financial solvency — is that more important than big talk about kicking those “illegals” out of the country?) these snake-oil salesmen will ride the anger they’ve created to victory in November.
Getting good, decent people fired up about “illegals” isn’t hard. They are, after all, foreign-looking and not like “us.” If politicians constantly paint a picture of schools overrun with little “illegals,” or emergency rooms filled to bursting with sick “illegals,” even rational people will become concerned. Lou Dobbs, with the flag waving behind him, scares me sometimes as he rails on and on about the borders and those pesky “illegals.”
Now, look, I'm all about being fair and giving a good argument, even if it's a liberal one, its due, but this guy (God help him!) is worse than a liberal and completely irrational because apparently he expects rational people to take him and his irrational unserious thoughts seriously. Mr. Lane, the illegal immigration problem is a "hot button" because people care about it, and they care about it because, unlike your thoroughly liberalized self, they care about their country and its future and they understand that the immigration problem presents their country's future, which is to say their childrens' future and the future of liberty and legitimate government, with a huge problem if it is not dealt with properly in very short order. Far too few of them, however, understand it beyond the surface of the illegal alien problem. But liberal dominance has not yet completely destroyed their instinct to self-preservation, their love of country and of kin. You on the other hand ... well ...
Mr. Lane continues with his irrational talk of the "irrationality" of those who care about the future of their country:
There are so many other problems facing our nation that getting worked up about the people who clean your hotel rooms, do your yard work, cook your food, pick your fruit, mop your floors and do a hundred other jobs that you demand be done is just ridiculous, irrational and down right illogical. This is a small problem when compared to big problems which bedevil our country.
And what would those vastly greater bedevilling problems be my hyper-sensitive liberal friend? Do tell! Furthermore, we don't demand that these people do these jobs, as if to say we force them to come to this country and take jobs "Americans don't want." Indeed, your whole argument here is based on the fact that what we're actually demanding is that these people leave this country and the jobs that they're currently working at. That's what you're complaining about. So I put it to you, sir, that your whole argument, on top of being idiotic, is ridiculous, irrational, and downright illogical. Once again, as I've noted before, liberals like Mr. Lane are such an ignorant lot that without thinking their statements through they run around all over the place telling of how illogical and irrational their opponents are as they engage themselves in the very thing they're protesting, showing themselves, not their opponents, as the illogical fools that they truly are. Might I suggest to Mr. Lane that he take a course or read a book (or something) on logic; that he resist the urge to broach the subject of logic/illogic until he understands something about the rules of logic. Look, I know you liberals with all your passion for license consider it oppressive to be strapped down by rules or to have to expend any personal effort, so you go off half-cocked all the time with your lawless exhortations. But please, for the love of God, at least try to make sense.
I'll give Mr. Lane the last liberal word, fair minded individual that I am:
End the war, focus on catching the real terrorists still on the run, finish rebuilding New Orleans and the shattered Gulf Coast, do something about our dependence on foreign oil, make our bridges and dams safe, make sure every child gets a solid education, feed the hungry, make sure our precious elderly citizens are well taken care of, give everyone equal access to health care and then, when all of that is done, maybe we should spend some time worrying about “illegals.”
On second thought, let me suggest that the editorial staff at the McAlester News Capital follow the lead of Rod Dreher and the Dallas Morning News and name ... what shall we call them? ... Immigrant Human Being non-illegal illegals, the first annual McAlester News Capital Oklahomans of the Year.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
If you've not yet done so, I strongly urge you to go over to VFR and read this entry. Here's the deal (pay attention Matt Pinnell and Republicans of the stripe!), a McCain presidency would be worse than an Obama presidency, and an Obama presidency would be worse than a Hillary presidency, which means that Hillary is the best presidential candidate still in the hunt; the only viable candidate left in the race who has the backbone to oppose and stop Obama.
Every time a presidential election rolls around, it seems, there's someone out there who predicts the assassination of a candidate should he/she be so (un)fortunate as to win the election and become the next president. This presents the supporters of the candidate in question with quite the moral dilemma, as Rick Darby notes:
So, the United States of America can't even wash itself clean of its sins by electing a blackish president. It is cursed unto the last generation. Obama could sweep every state in the Union, but the sick soul of the land of cotton will rise up and take its vengeance. "Vote for Obama — He'll Make a Change Before He Meets His Maker." "Mark Your Bullets, er, Ballots for Obama."
This would seem to present the good left-liberal with a dilemma. Will electing the man who carries the pigment be sentencing him to capital punishment? If he is indeed a marked man, then the liberal who pulls the lever will be morally equivalent to the one who pulls the trigger.
Well, if the one who pulls the lever knows that his choice, if elected, is a "marked man", then, yes, he would be the moral equivalent of the one who pulls the trigger. But, of course, how could a leftist liberal not know this given his perspicacious understanding of the racial hatred that actuates ... other than leftist America?
But Mr. Darby doesn't leave us hanging on how to account for this problem, he provides us with a solution to the dilemma, in a style all his own.
Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, or, for that matter, someone with no political affiliation, if you care about protecting the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman against the aggressive attempts of liberal extremists and homosexual activists and lobbying groups, and, yes, even that of your own duly elected legislature and courts, to destroy the fundamental institution of civil society, then here's your opportunity to join the building coalition of citizens of 27 other states in this union who have already taken the matter into their own hands, and thus out of the hands of those various entities whose common mission in life, more often than not, is to destroy the foundation on which your liberty itself and its perpetuation depends.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Indeed, when it comes to protecting the sacred institution of marriage, traditional marriage between one man and one woman, this conservative value is alive and well and gaining in strength ... State by blessed State.
I reported at this site some months back, as I recall, that seventeen States in this union had passed their own marriage amendments protecting traditional marriage, and I even provided a link confirming this number. Well, apparently I was way off on my numbers, as documented here by our friends at CitizenLink.
I don't think I've ever been more pleased to realize that I was wrong than when I learned, just moments ago, of these updated numbers. And by the way, I'm well pleased to be able to offer what I consider to be very good news during a time when there seems to be so little to be encouraged about.
And now, to all our friends in Arizona, I'm encouraged by the news that, as the first state to have rejected a proposed marriage amendment to your constitution, you're now reconsidering the question. As I've argued many many times before, the best and most secure and enduring method of returning to anything even remotely resembling our original and legitimate structure of government, is for the state and local authorities to begin to pick up the slack where the national government has either abrogated its authority, or, has shown itself utterly incapable of protecting basic fundamental societal values and institutions. In my opinion the Federal Marriage Amendment was never a good idea, but I'm also convinced that the question, raised as it was at the federal level, is largely responsible for the number of States which have since created and passed their own marriage amendments to their state constitutions.
Here's hoping that the trend contiues.
Sit down, shut up, pay close attention, and take copious notes! You're about to receive an important lecture on what's at stake and what it means to be a good loyal Republican!
When I first opened and read this week's "e-news" message from Mr. Matt Pinnell writing in behalf of the Oklahoma Republican Party, my first instinct was to fire off a fiery rebuttal using this forum as my vehicle. In fact, I actually did so, but I thought better of posting it, opting rather to give my mind and my emotions a few hours to process what it is that Mr. Pinnell is attempting to shame Oklahoma Republicans like myself into doing. In short, Mr. Pinnell, in the name of the Republican Party of Oklahoma, is advising me and other Oklahoma conservatives to violate both the dictates of my conscience and of my principles.
Mr. Pinnell, Director of Operations for the Oklahoma Republican Party, writes:
As I listened to the Sunday political television lineup, a common theme kept arising from both Republican and Democratic pundits: the talk of a wide “enthusiasm gap” between the Republican and Democrat tickets. I would agree that there may be some truth to this, but there certainly shouldn’t be, and let me tell you why.
Six. That’s the only number conservatives need to remember for the next ten months. Create a bumper sticker, iron press it on some t-shirts, get one of those cool Henna tattoos, whatever it takes for you to remember that number.
Why? Six Supreme Court Justices will be over the age of 70 or nearing that age when the next President is sworn into office. Justice Stevens is 87, Justice Ginsburg 74, Justices Kennedy and Scalia 71, Justice Breyer 69 and Justice Souter 68.
Maybe all of them will still be in place eight years from now. Maybe all of them will be retired. These nine Justices protect our fundamental rights as citizens and even govern over human lives. They matter more than the person living in our Governor’s Mansion, more than our local school boards and city councils, and matter even more than who is in control of the U.S. House and Senate. And one person alone has the power to fill empty Supreme Court seats….the President of the United States.
Two of the most loud and proud liberal Democrats in recent memory, Senators Clinton and Obama, are running for President. If one of these two liberals became our next President and had the power to name six Supreme Courts Justices, historians may look back on this presidential race as the most damaging and destructive ever for conservative Republicans. One we as conservatives may never recover from.
You enthused now?
Let me first say that ever since I signed up with the Oklahoma Republican Party to receive their weekly emails a couple of years ago, I've derived little if any benefit from them insofar as the advocacy of genuine conservative principles is concerned. This bunch is so party loyal and utterly unprincipled that if Hillary were to switch to the Republican party and it looked as though she were going to win the nomination, they'd get behind her 100% and argue the exact same points.
Second, in response to Mr. Pinnell's question to Oklahoma Republicans, "you enthused now?", can you imagine a more stupid question to ask conservative Republicans on the heels of regurgitating so much liberal tripe in such a short space; the same sort of liberal tripe, rife as it is with insinuations toward what I presume is his target audience, which has resulted in the so-called "enthusiasm gap" between Republicans and Democrats? There is an enthusiasm gap, it's both profound and real irrespective of his attempts to discount it, but I think Mr. Pinnell fails to understand from whence it emanates, which is the real issue here.
If Mr. Pinnell actually thinks his message resonates with genuine conservative Republicans, he must be living on a whole 'nother planet. I'll resist the urge to say anything more at this point, and leave it to you, if you so desire, to add whatever you like.
By all means, have at it.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
But is this enough?
Our friends at CitizenLink are reporting that three faculty members from Wheaton College have withdrawn their support from A Christian Response to 'A Common Word Between Us and You', a document led and produced by scholars at Yale Divinity School undermining basic Christian doctrine for the sake of establishing "common ground" between Christians and Muslims:
The president and two other administrators of prestigious Wheaton College have asked that their names be removed from a controversial statement staking out so-called common ground between Christians and Muslims.
While I applaud the actions taken by the Wheaton administrators in asking that their names be removed from the document, and while I hope their recent actions will lead to further defections among the ranks of Christian leaders who have also prematurely and ignorantly lent their names and their influence to this unorthodox Christian statement, I cannot help but note that their original support for this document and all it entails carried with it, as is always the case, the potential for causing untold damage to the cause of advancing the truth of genuine Christian orthodoxy, as well as lending credibility to the demonstrably false proposition that Islam can ever come to peaceful terms with Christianity short of Christians acting in a submissive role to Muslims and their religion.
It is simply amazing to me that any so-called Christian "leader" could ever lend his name, his authority, and his influence to a document which "leaves open for discussion" the question of Christ's deity, which is, if I may be so bold as to say it, the essential of all essentials of Christian theology.
To my mind, therefore, it is simply not enough that these individuals have asked that their names be removed from this document, but that they themselves write and publish a strong refutation of the non-Christian principles upon which this illegitimate document is established. After all, these individuals are prominent Christian scholars representing a prestigious school of higher learning, so they should have no trouble whatsoever putting their heads together and crafting such a document. Which to me seems the appropriate and next logical step in atoning for their "well-intentioned" mistake.
There is also the little matter of both the Muslim and Christian documents grossly overstating the need for peace between the two communities, and the agreement of the latter with the ominous prediction of the former concerning the future state of the world in the absence of such a "peace",
“Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world.”We share the sentiment of the Muslim signatories expressed in these opening lines of their open letter. Peaceful relations between Muslims and Christians stand as one of the central challenges of this century, and perhaps of the whole present epoch. Though tensions, conflicts, and even wars in which Christians and Muslims stand against each other are not primarily religious in character, they possess an undeniable religious dimension. If we can achieve religious peace between these two religious communities, peace in the world will clearly be easier to attain. It is therefore no exaggeration to say, as you have in A Common Word Between Us and You, that “the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.”
neither of which acknowledges that the main obstacle which has ever and continues to stand in the way of such peace and justice between these opposing religions is the centrality of jihad to the religion of Islam. But I beg to differ with the "Christian" writers here; Not only is this a gross exaggeration of the actuality of the situation, but as John Quincy Adams rightly noted, so long as there are people in the world who subscribe to the clear teachings of the Koran to make perpetual war on the infidels by whatever means necessity dictates, then there can never be peace and good will toward men. In other words, a genuine peace between Muslims and Christians being impossible, not a "daunting task", but impossible, the establishment of peace between the two communities is not and should not be the goal. The goal should rather be separation of the Western world from the Islamic world wherein we no longer provide avenues by which Muslims become more and more empowered to harm us, which negotiations of peace between us and them can only achieve at length. And this goal of separation, quite literally, must be achieved by Westerners resistant to all impulses to establishing "peaceful" relations between us and them. This is the true daunting task before us, not impossible, but daunting.
The only guarantee of peace between Christians and Muslims is that there is no guarantee of peace between Christians and Muslims. Indeed, quite to the contrary.
Friday, February 8, 2008
First, my condolences to Mr. Auster on the death of his uncle. I'm glad he mentioned the U.S. military Honor Guard detail present at his uncle's funeral service. Indeed, this is a ceremony the words for which to accurately describe I struggle to find as I write this post. It is nonetheless important to me, though, to say a few things about this ceremony, notwithstanding the fact that I know that any words I choose for describing it will fall far short of capturing the rapturous pride and patriotic exuberance which the mere witness of this ceremony raises in one's soul, even as one mourns the death of a friend or loved one.
Having myself been in attendance at several of these services conducted for family members and WWII veterans, most recently a great uncle who was a Navy veteran wounded in action during a WWII naval battle, I can personally attest to the fact of the solemnity that the involvement of the U.S. Military Honor Guard uniquely adds to the occasion. If one is present during the conduct of this ceremony, from the folding of the flag to the presentation of it to the next of kin and the verbal statement of gratitude on behalf of the President and the nation, to the salute and the playing of Taps, as well as the precision and exactness of every single gesture and movement, and is not deeply moved by the solemnity, the sincerity, and the most dignified manner in which this ceremony is conducted, then I think it accurate to say that this person has lost his soul.
But as I said, whatever words I use, I cannot do the actual experience of it justice. If you've never been in physical attendance at one of these ceremonies, you're truly missing out on something special and very unique. It is perhaps the finest, most dignified and respectful non-verbal expression of gratitude that a nation could possibly offer its fallen heros and their families for the sacrifices made in its behalf. It is certainly, and as Mr. Auster says, something the U.S. military knows how to do right. I simply cannot imagine how it possible that it could be done any better.
On the heels of Mitt Romney's announcement of his suspension of his Presidential campaign, various conservative leaders are, quite naturally, beginning to announce their endorsements of their choice of the remaining candidates.
Dr. Dobson of Focus On The Family, as reported by CitizenLink, has now endorsed Governor Huckabee. Here is the text of the February 7 email sent out by CitizenLink announcing Dr. Dobson's endorsement (no link):
Dr. James Dobson issues the following statement tonight, speaking as a private citizen.
I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.
That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others. That is why I will support Gov. Huckabee through the remaining primaries, and will vote for him in the general election if he should get the nomination. Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for President of the United States.
(NOTE: Dr. Dobson made these statements as a private citizen. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a reflection of the opinions of Focus on the Family or Focus on the Family Action.)
Dr. Dobson is a man, and a Christian leader whom I highly respect. His unbending committment to and advocacy of strong family values including protecting the institution of marriage, the rights of the unborn, and other conservative values, has reserved to him a special place in my heart which he and he alone, through an abandonment of these values and the advocacy thereof, could possibly destroy. And generally speaking, when Dr. Dobson speaks my ears perk up. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to get me to say anything bad about Dr. Dobson, or to have any ill feelings toward him.
That said, I respectfully disagree with him on his endorsement of Mike Huckabee who himself, in a Fox News interview Tuesday night, proceeded to tell the viewing audience what a wonderful human being and strong conservative qualified leader John McCain is, and how much he respects and admires him for these qualities. This personal view of John McCain, I've concluded, must proceed from the same impulse that informs him of how great and wonderful and assimilable are the Mexican and other immigrants who are invading our land.
This isn't the first time I've disagreed with Dr. Dobson on an issue, and I'm sure it is far from the last time I'll disagree with him. But one wonders whether Dr. Dobson saw the Huckabee interview of which I speak, or if he simply chooses to ignore it. It's one thing to identify laudable qualities in an opponent, or to refrain from engaging oneself in the nasty business of character assassination. This is understandable, and a person of real character avoids doing so, or of giving the appearance of doing so insofar as it is humanly possible. But this is not what Huckabee was doing in the interview. He was, as I've implied, effectively announcing his own endorsement of Senator McCain, at least of Senator McCains impeccable qualifications to serve as President, even as he assured his supporters that he would remain in the race as McCain's real and actual conservative rival.
Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing a problem here?
For my part, Dr. Dobson's endorsement of Governor Huckabee is unfortunate and disappointing for the reasons I've mentioned and more. Not that I'm in the habit of prophesying, nor that I particularly care to do so in this case, but I have to say that I have a sneaky suspicion, given Huckabee's statements in the aforementioned interview from Tuesday night, that Governor Huckabee will himself get out of the race shortly under the auspices of doing what's best for the country. And he may truly believe that clearing the path for John McCain as the only choice left Republicans is the best thing he can do for the country, I don't know and I don't presume to know. But on this basis do I think it unfortunate that Dr. Dobson, among other influential Christian leaders, has cast his lot with Mike Huckabee.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
I'm a little surprised by this development, I admit, but not at all shocked. I think the timing of it caught me a little off guard.
But former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman didn't waste any time telling us Republicans what we need to do now that Romney's out of the race:
Within hours of Romney's speech, former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman endorsed McCain and urged all members of the GOP to back him.''Our party has had many outstanding candidates this year, but it is now time for Republicans across the country to unite,'' Mehlman said.
"Many?" "Outstanding?" Would Mr. Mehlman care to elaborate, or to list for us the "many outstanding candidates" our party has had this year? "Outstanding" for what, Mr. Mehlman, their unprincipled non-conservative GOP destroying, Democrat empowering brand of conservatism?
Unite behind McCain?! You must be dreaming, man!
I wrote yesterday of my growing impatience with the Republican party, asking why myself and other independently minded conservative Republicans are encouraged and expected to continue to expend our efforts in saving the Republican party as a vehicle for conservatism. As I implied in the post, I can go along with the program for awhile, but my patience is wearing mightily thin at this point.
In the aforementioned blog post, I used the church as a metaphor to the Republican party asking the following question:
At what point does the congregation rise up and demand adherence to the principles of orthodoxy on the threat of leaving the church en masse?
John Savage picks up on this theme commenting on my choice of metaphors:
If Terry’s metaphor to a church is right, then it should be apparent that the Republican congregation is quite subservient to authority — probably more like the Catholic laity than a Protestant congregation. Or to venture a different metaphor, pundits like Frum view themselves rather like the board of directors of a business, where they can determine the direction the business is going, and the ordinary stockholders have no real say. The best we can do to protest is not vote for their candidate, in which case we get apoplectic cries of “Traitor!”
While I really wasn't expecting anyone to address the church metaphor directly, I was pleasantly surprised to read that John had done so over at his blog because it gives me a good opportunity to exand upon the thought, since I was pressed for time yesterday when I wrote that.
Though I've never really applied the metaphor to the Republican party in particular that I can recall, I have, nonetheless, used this same metaphor before in relation to our form of government and how in its original design there was a unique balance struck between the several forms of Western style democratic government, and how this relates to, or is derived from, the various forms of church government, each of which has its own principles for distributing authority between the congregation and the church hierarchy.
When John concludes from my metaphor that the "Republican congregation" is obviously quite subservient to authority, he hits the nail pretty well on the head in my opinion. However, being inclined to think at least a little more highly of the Republican congregation than I am of the Democrat congregation, and considering it (the Republican congregation) as being comprised of somewhat more independently minded folks than is the other, my appeal was directed more to that element of the Republican congregation that we might denominate adherents to a proper balance between the various forms of church government, who, when the time is right and the church hierarchy begins to yield to itself more authority than is proper, shaping church policy in open defiance of the boundaries of orthodoxy, and of the congregation itself, will arise and assert its ultimate and final authority over its "leadership" in a way in which cannot be mistaken or misunderstood.
While I'd really like to say a lot more on this, I am again pressed for time, so I'll conclude for now by saying that I'm reminded once more of the immortal words of Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
Prudence indeed will dictate that governments [political parties] long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themeselves... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government...
I don't say emphatically that the Republican party has reached that critical point as yet, but all indications seem to me that it is rapidly headed in that direction, as I indicated before.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Fellow AFBer Mike Tams indicates here that he is surprised that Republicans in my state went for John McCain in the GOP primaries on Super Tuesday. I guess I understand that he's surprised by this, but I've mentioned numerous times that Oklahoma is only conservative "relative to." Indeed, I'm the most conservative Okie I know, by far.
Anyway, if you want to know how "conservative" Okies are in general, look at how strict our requirements are for registering to vote in Oklahoma:
HOW TO REGISTER
You must fill out a voter registration application form. Voter registration applications are available at your County Election Board, post offices, tag agencies, libraries and many other public locations. You will be offered a voter registration application when you get your driver's license and when you apply for assistance at some government agencies. (emphasis mine)
There you have it. Oklahoma is such a bastion of conservatism that we just cannot wait to get all those conservative residents applying for state assistance signed up to vote in our elections.
Still surprised Mike? ;-)
I need to acknowledge this as a matter of good form for the moment. I'll get back to you later with my list of ten excellent blogs, which slightly differs from the others out there.
I want to say thank you to Mike T. over at the AFB, and to Vanishing American (Wow!) for naming Webster's on their respective lists. Also, thanks to John Savage over at Brave New World Watch who gave Webster's the equivalent of "honorable mention" (I hope I'm not misrepresenting John's mention) in his post on the subject. Personally I think John has it about right for a couple of reasons, (1) I don't post frequently enough, and (2) most of my postings are not as "meaty" as they should be to qualify Webster's as an excellent blog. But I am working on improving on that, rest assured.
And on that last note, I've been thinking a lot lately about the call going out to conservatives to save the Republican party as a vehicle for conservatism. Without getting too deep into it right now, let me say that perhaps I need to be reminded (or convinced) why it is I'm supposed to be trying to help save the Republican party? It seems to me that in doing so I'm being asked to yield yet more ground to the liberal elements within the Republican party which incessantly work like a cancer to eat away at conservative principles, installing liberal principles in their rotted out places; that it is not the liberal factions which are being asked to back off a bit, but the conservatives. Can someone explain to me at what point in this process the cancerous effects of liberalism cease to make further advances within the Republican party?
At what point does the congregation rise up and demand adherence to the principles of orthodoxy on the threat of leaving the church en masse?
I suppose each of us has his breaking point, or his tolerance threshold. In the case of the Repbublican party and its continual slide into liberalism, I think I've just about reached mine.
I'll try to get back to this subject later, but in the meantime, I'd appreciate any input you might have, agreeable or disagreeable to my main premise. Thanks.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
A little Romney Q & A on the issue of immigration, legal vs. illegal; what, to Governor Romney's mind, is central to the debate on immigration in this country? In other words, what is it that should determine our nation's policy on immigration according to Governor Romney?:
Avoid chain migration; disallow families from one citizen
Q: There are still millions of children that were born here that at least have one undocumented parent. Do these children have the right not to be separated from their parents?
A: The Constitution indicates that those that are born here do become US citizens by virtue of being born here. But if they're born here from parents who come across the border illegally and bring them here illegally, in my view, we should not adopt, then, these chain migration policies that say, you've got a child here that's a US citizen, and the whole family can come in. That, in my opinion, is a mistake. We are a nation of laws. We're going to enforce the laws. We're not going to cut off immigration; we're going to keep immigration alive and thriving. But we're going to end the practice of illegal immigration. It's not inhumane. It's humanitarian. It's compassionate. We're going to end illegal immigration to protect legal immigration. (emphasis mine)
First, I just love the way this question was framed! As if to say that taking anything remotely resembling a restrictionist position on immigration, will necessarily result, and by virtue thereof, in families being broken apart and destroyed. Once it is established that this is necessarily the case, and the person questioned takes this bait, well, then the central issue is forgotten or ignored and we begin to talk about how unfair it is, how that it is not compassionate, and certainly not American, to tear apart families, which any kind of immigration restrictionism most definately will result in. Now, I recognize that Governor Romney cannot be held reponsible for the way the question was framed. He can, and should, however, be held responsible for the way he answered it.
So, how does Governor Romney respond to this loaded question? By accepting its central premise and agreeing, it is not fair; it is not compassionate; it is not American. Governor Romney's fair, compassionate, American approach to resolving this dilemma is to "end illegal immigration to protect legal immigration." Not to protect America, or Americans, or American children, or America's elderly, or America's identity, or its cultural and religious heritage; not to ensure the survival of America. No!, the purpose of ending illegal immigration, according to Governor Romney, is to protect immigration.
Elsewhere Governor Romney makes it real clear where he stands on the issue of immigration:
Q: You've been accused of flip-flopping on immigration. You indicated that you'd want the national language of the US to be English. However, why are you airing ads in Spanish? Your campaign also provides a Spanish-speaking version of your website with your son also speaking in Spanish.
A: Let me make it real clear--I'm not anti-immigrant. I love immigrants. I love legal immigrants coming to our country. I'm happy to communicate to them, and I hope they vote for me. And I'm happy to have people all over the country, and I'm going to reach out to them in any language I can to have them vote for me and understand why I'm going to support making this a great land.
I very firmly believe that we have to make sure that we enforce our borders, that we have an employment verification system, and that those people who have come here illegally do not get an advantage to become permanent residents, they do not get a special pathway. That's the problem I have with the bill the Kennedy-McCain bill.
That's pretty clear, I'll give 'im that. This is reminiscent of Governor Romney's statement in his famous faith speech where he indicated that his belief is that all religions draw their adherents closer to God. Quite so. And I suppose that all cultures and the celebration of each culture as a culture, with no superior or inferior characteristics, has the effect of drawing the people thereof closer to becoming good ideological Americans too. You want to know why the statement in the faith speech bothered me so much; why it stood out to me, and why I railed against it so fiercely at the time? This is it. He can't believe that statement apart from the foundation of it affecting everything else he believes, including his belief in how great and wonderful, and vital to America, immigrants are. Meanwhile he alienates conservative Americans who care about their country and the huge negative, destructive impact immigration is having on their country, by appealing to the Hispanic voting block in America, stating in no uncertain terms how much he loves and appreciates them and will do all he can as President to keep them coming in droves, legal droves, of course. Then he and others wonder why conservatives aren't head-over-heels in love with this guy. I don't get it; I don't get it at all.
There is, unfortunately, more...
Proposed Z visa allows illegal aliens to stay in America
Q [to Romney]: Sen. McCain has accused you of flip-flopping on immigration. McCain said: "Pandering for votes on this issue while offering no solution to the problem amounts to doing nothing, and doing nothing is silent amnesty."
ROMNEY: My view is that we should enforce immigration laws. And this bill, unfortunately, has at least one provision that's a real problem. It's the Z visa. It allows people who've come here illegally to stay here for the rest of their lives. Not necessarily as citizens; they have to wait 13 years to become citizens. That's not the point. The point is, every illegal alien, almost every one, under this bill gets to stay here. That's simply not fair to get put ahead in the line of all the people who've been waiting legally to come to this country.
It's not fair to who, Governor? What, to Governor Romney, is central to this issue of immigration? Obviously the Governor is referring to immigrants, again, those of the legal variety of course. But the point is, it's all about the immigrants, what is best for the immigrants, what is fair to immigrants, isn't it. Governor Romney, read this, particularly the following paragraph, which was included for this very purpose -- to state emphatically that an American position on immigration reform makes America and Americans and their interests the central guiding principle on which to form proper immigration policy.:
We disagree with the so-called 'comprehensive' approach because we disagree that it's best for Americans. We concern ourselves with what is best for immigrants after, and only after we've determined and secured what is best for Americans.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Over at Brave New World Watch, John Savage poses a question that has also occurred to me lately, what happened to Tom Tancredo?
By the way, where has Tancredo been ever since he dropped out of the race? You’d think he’d be making his case for Romney, but I haven’t even seen him mentioned anywhere.
That's a very good and a timely question which I thought warranted a blog post of its own here at Webster's, obviously. Interestingly enough, when I did a search for the "press release of Tom Tancredo's withdrawal from Presidential race," or something like that, I found this story from the San Jose Mercury News, which concludes this way:
Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines, said Tancredo forced his GOP rivals to talk about immigration.
"What Tancredo has done is analogous to what a third-party candidate does," Goldford said. "They call attention to and articulate an issue that the other two main parties neglect or don't see" and then after forcing the issue they disappear. (emphasis mine)
They disappear indeed. In the case of Congressman Tancredo, whose actions are analogous to only in the sense that he was not a third party candidate, this statement is quite accurate, not to mention somewhat prophetic given that it was made at the time of Tancredo's withdrawal from the race way before there was any indication that Tancredo had "disappeared" from the scene altogether. Many of us, including myself, expected Tancredo to move to the sidelines after his withdrawal from the Presidential race, where we'd still hear from him on occasion, not entirely out of the arena. But none of us has seen or heard anything from Tancredo, not even a peep, since he left the race and endorsed Romney, which seems kind of odd. I ask again:
Where's Tom Tancredo? And why isn't he, as John says, making his case for Romney at this critical hour?
Friday, February 1, 2008
I said the other day that I was impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance at the GOP debate, which I was and still am. But there's ample reason, beyond his "open-borders-for-Christism" not to consider the Huckster when casting your vote on Super-Tuesday, as John Savage points out. That is, if you're a conservative Republican.
I first learned of this the other night while listening to the post debate CNN panel which included Bill Bennett who mentioned the Coburn endorsement in the same breath with other "major" endorsements Senator McCain had received of late, including Mayor Giuliani and Governor Schwartzenegger (Good company there, Senator.).
Bennett was going over a list of endorsements Senator McCain had received, and was about to receive, which would increase the likelihood, thus reducing the chances of Governor Romney to save the Republican party of the embarrassment and disaster, of a McCain nomination.
Below is entered the text of the official press release which I picked up at John McCain's presidential website:
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn Endorses John McCain For President
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) has endorsed John McCain for President of the United States. Senator Coburn issued the following statement on his endorsement:
"I am honored to be here in South Carolina today, and I am very proud to endorse my friend and colleague Senator John McCain for President of the United States. John McCain and I have stood side-by-side on many issues and I'd like to speak to two of them today -- fiscal responsibility and ensuring the sanctity of human life.
"Much has been made in this presidential campaign about the need for change in Washington. Candidates from both sides of the aisle have talked about bringing real reform to the federal government. But, only one candidate has a record of putting his money where his mouth is, and that's John McCain.
"Since I came to Congress in 1995, I have met one true reformer -- John McCain. He has the unique blend of character, guts, and experience needed to transform Washington from the inside out. He is beholden to no special interest. He is guided by strong conservative principles, and committed to doing what he believes is right without concern for political consequence.
"John McCain has never been afraid to take the road less traveled, and he has fought wasteful spending at every turn along the way. He's saved taxpayers untold billions, and he has rightfully earned the reputation as the Senate's number one fiscal hawk. I trust that as president, John McCain will veto any pork-barrel bill that crosses his desk, and will make the authors famous.
"When it comes to ensuring the sanctity of human life, you will find no one stronger on the issue than Senator McCain. For twenty-four years, John McCain has been an unwavering voice in Congress for the rights of the unborn.
"For those reasons and more, I urge voters here in South Carolina and across the country to join me in supporting John McCain for president."
Well, Senator, urge all you like, but this Okie will definately not be joining you in supporting the nomination of John McCain! And you can take that to the bank.
Sometimes I'm utterly amazed at the amount of disconnect which exists between conservatives in the United States and their elected representatives, though I suppose I shouldn't be.
Don't tell me, the next "major" endorsement Senator McCain is going to receive will be none other than Oklahoma's other United States Senator, Jim Inhofe, who was himself instrumental in helping kill the Senate Amnesty bill. Come to think of it, I better go check to see whether McCain hasn't already received this endorsement. ... Nope, not yet.
In any event, I feel a good thrashing of Senator Coburn coming on. And by the way, can you imagine a more representative photo of the current state of the Republican Party than this one? Like I said, nice company you're mingling with Senator Coburn. I seem to detect a slight hint of your ghost-like conservative apparition looming in the background.