New CIS report claims Latino move to left part of a "Broader Electoral Movement"

I thought readers might find this CIS report interesting and informative. Here is a summary of the report which makes for much quicker reading if you're short on time. Also, see this angry rebuttal published at a site called America's Voice -- I'm so glad America has a voice, aren't you? It reminds me of the time the GOP sent out to "select" Republicans a questionaire concerning President Bush's "initiatives," in which those select few of us who received the questionaire were informed that we spoke for Republicans in our areas, so it was vitally important that we fill out and return the questionaire so that the voices of the masses might be heard through us. I was so excited to learn that I spoke for hundreds, maybe even thousands of Republicans in my area, and I was so certain that they'd be equally excited to know that I was speaking for them, and that the GOP selected me to be their voice without even consulting them about it, that I sent a nice letter to the GOP telling them how I really felt about it. But I digress...

I question some of the findings in the report, particularly the overarching claim, or conclusion, that the Latino movement to the left in the late election is part of a broader electoral movement to the left; a movement which includes white males among other conservative demographic groups.

With all due respect to Mr. Gimpel, I think he leaves out of his study a couple of important factors. First there is the reality that many Americans like myself abstained in the presidential election, albeit I'm not sure there's a way to measure that number of voters accurately. Second, there is the reality that John McCain was such a poor candidate in virtually every conceivable way; that in terms of appeal he is simply out of Obama's league. When the choice is between two liberals, and everybody knows it, so-called "moderates" are going to go with the leftier and the more attractive of the two candidates every single time.

But my biggest beef with the report is the conclusion drawn from the numbers that Latino voters simply do not care about immigration policy ... as part of a broader electoral attitude. I think that is just naive at best; as if to say that Latinos do not identify with their cultural and ethnic heritage, that when push comes to shove, so to speak, Latinos are culturally and ethnically neutral.

Anyway, here are the concluding paragraphs of the report:

In summary, the 2008 election has no clear implications for immigration policy making and for a very straightforward reason: Neither candidate campaigned on the issue, nor was it clear that their positions were appreciably different.

Over the long term, Republicans can expect to enlarge upon their voting margins among Latinos as Latinos become more prosperous and move into areas of existing Republican Party strength where they can develop ties to other GOP adherents. As it stands, what separates Republican-identifying Latinos from Democrats is primarily religion and income. Involvement in Evangelical church circles is clearly associated with Republican Party gains among Latinos, but promoting religious conversion seems like an unusual and possibly controversial way to go about building a base of party support.

As long as Latinos remain in lower income brackets, an outcome virtually assured by sustained high levels of unskilled immigration, the Democrats will continue to maintain their lopsided edge. American ethnic history has shown that the path to Republican Party identification is a slow and multi-generational one. The greater the education and skills deficit new immigrants arrive with, the longer this political migration process will take.

I'm interested in your take.

**********

I decided to read a bit more at the site presumptuously named "America's Voice," and I ran across this item which is apparently a speech given on August 21, 2008, to the Police Foundation of the city of Phoenix, by the city's Mayor, Phil Gordon who states in his opening remarks:

When this nation was founded, no one ever conceived or imagined that immigration enforcement was an issue that would ever fall to mayors and local police departments. But because of federal neglect -- here we are.

Now there's a politician totally disconnected from his nation's history. And I'm quite certain he isn't alone in this uninformed thinking. In fact, I'll bet he's in the majority among his peers.

Now, it's one thing to argue that the federal government ought to have exclusive authority in the realm of immigration standards and enforcement, but it is quite another to assert, dogmatically even, that no one ever conceived or imagined that local governments and law enforcement agencies would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws in their own backyards. This guy obviously doesn't know squat about the original U.S. Constitution. He obviously thinks that (if he's ever bothered to even read the phrase) the granting of hte power to create a "uniform rule of naturalization" to the national government is the same thing as sole and exclusive federal authority in the realm of immigration law and law enforcement. It is not.

What is worse is that the folks who presumptuously claim to represent "America's Voice" have this tripe posted at their website, as if there is anything factual about it. They don't know or understand the difference either. They have an agenda -- Comprehensive Immigration Reform -- and anything they perceive to be helpful in forwarding that agenda, any "authority" they can cite to push their agenda through, they will.

This is a good example of one of the biggest problems we face in this country. What our Mayor is complaining about is the fact that his state legislature created immigration legislation which, naturally, put it on local authorities to enforce. Just as is so common these days, our Mayor hasn't even given the law time to work; he hasn't even given anyone time to make the proper adjustments, which they will in time. Our Mayor expects instant results, and when they don't come, instantaneously, he screams and yells at the top of his lungs saying stupid things like "no one ever imagined local governments would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws." Then comes along a group presuming to speak for the American People and they publish that crap. It is the same thing that happened shortly after Oklahoma's immigration law went into effect. The first time someone suffered the God-awful inconvenience of having to provide a birth certificate as proof of citizenship for driver license revewal, due to their own neglect no less, people started screaming and hollering about how "unjust" this new law was. These same folks, incidentally, were staunch opponents of Oklahoma's law before it ever went into effect.

Read More

A couple of firsts for me in the late election

The first "first" was that I, for the first time since I've been voting, did not vote in the presidential election. That and another first I shared with Rick Darby over at Reflecting Light in a comment to this election day posting.

Read More

The Bible and the election

I realize that the contemporary view is that religion and politics do not, and should not, mix. The whole of modern American society is infused with this false belief, but people don't actually believe it anyway when you get down to where the rubber meets the road. One's religion does, and forever will, inform one's politics. True, we can't legislate morality ... as long as it's Christian morality. All other versions of morality (non-Christian morality) is not only acceptable but encouraged in modern American politics. As I've said so many times before (and I invite anyone to refute the principle with a good argument), all laws are founded on morality, someone's morality.

Matthew Fontaine Maury once observed that "the Bible is authority for everything it touches." I agree. So, since I agree, I offer the following opinion. If the Bible says anything on politics, then it is authority for that particular aspect of political philosophy. If it says anything about what our standards should be for choosing our rulers, then it is authority for the making and observing of those standards.

So does the Bible have anything to say about choosing our rulers; about what standards and principles we should apply to their selection? Indeed it does, and we're wise to pay particularly close attention to the details, especially in this farce of a presidential election:

Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.

The elective franchise carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility and of duty. The two candidates we're offered in this election in no way, so far as I can tell, meet these simple, reasonable qualifications (If you think either of them does, I should like to hear why.), therefore, since no other candidate for the presidency is included on the Oklahoma ballot, and since the Oklahoma ballot does not make accomodation for a write-in candidate, I shall abstain in the presidential election.

For those of you who know the scriptures, you're encouraged to offer others, Old and New Testament, which speak to this issue. The scripture I've posted above serves very well the purpose of this post, and that is why I chose it.

Read More

What good can possibly come from an Obama presidency?

Well, some seem to think that conservatism will be revived by an Obama administration. It's an interesting theory, and one can only hope, but I have my doubts. Nonetheless, that's their story and they're sticking to it.

If you've been following the flap over Obama's inability, or worse unwillingness, to prove his citizenship status by simply producing a valid birth certificate, thus ending all the controversy, all speculation and doubt, and the deepening of distrust among a large segment of this society that his neglect is creating, then you need to read the latest here and follow the links provided.

As to Dr. Yeagley's entry, frequent BadEagle.com commenter and zealous Obama supporter Jayrock offers this bit of opinion on the matter:

Wow.

You go from this ludicrous statement,

" No one can sincerely question or reasonably object to anyone else's citizenship"

To Obama allowing and christening everyone into the country and declaring them American if they wish to be.

First of all it's pretty surreal that you are lamenting your right, such that it is, to question another's citizenship. I don't feel that fear but maybe it's because I have better things to do then go on witch hunt's for American citizens, that's just me though.

And more to the point, don't you think at this point in the game the question of whether Obama is a citizen or not has been answered? Do you honestly think that the American government would not have vetted Obama at this point? Do you honestly believe our government has somehow overlooked this very important detail?

Is this all the Republicans have anymore? Is this what you people have been reduced to?

I mean really!? It's quite pathetic!

Yes; Jayrock has better things to do, I'm sure, than to worry himself with the prospect that he might actually be supporting a non-citizen for the presidency; a person who, if he is an actual citizen, and/or a natural born citizen, cannot, or worse, will not produce documentation to prove it and set everyone's mind at ease; a person who was a member of and attended a known America-hating black African church for twenty years yet claims that he knew nothing of Jeremiah Wright's vitriolic hatred for America until recently when it was exposed (you'd think someone would have exposed that fact sooner, no?), his ties with known, unrepent terrorists and all the rest. Yes, I see what Jayrock means, it's all just a waste of time for any self-respecting Obama zealot. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything that could possibly be more pathetic than that.

This attitude among Obama supporters really bothers me. I myself recently had a somewhat heated discussion with a young twenty-something woman in a public market over an Obama presidency and what it portends for America. This young white woman was quite uninformed about virtually everything in this man's questionable past, admittedly so, and in that light it wasn't a fair fight by any means. I even almost felt sympathy for her and her ignorance on a couple of occasions, but it did not deter me from pointing out the fallacy of her thinking or her ignorance of the subject matter, albeit I did tone it down a bit. She was quite well programmed, however, to respond with the usual liberal Americaner-than-thou accusations and invectives. You see, America has always, according to this woman, been run by white Christian men and it is high time that we had a change; we must have a change!, and what better person than a non-white, non-Christian, America-despising leftist to initiate and see through to its end that ... change? The gods have finally smiled upon America and sent us a savior, and we must respond favorably to this Messiah or we will forfeit all that the benevolent gods are offering us. Beyond that, it is simply the height of unfairness to call Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a., Barry Soetoro, etc., by his given Muslim name. And being unfair, particularly in this vein and towards someone as obviously benevolent as our new Messiah, I learned during this exchange, is quite unAmerican. And so it went.

This, my friends, is what public education has wrought on your children.

But the ruling of the Judge is quite interesting and thought provoking, as well as the articles and some of the comments to the articles which may be had via Yeagley's links. Happy reading.

There is at least one positive that comes from Obama's run for the presidency, posers and agent infiltrators for Muslim empowerment in America like Colin Powell are officially coming out of the closet. That can't be bad.

Read More

Don Wildmon on the upcoming

Donald Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA) has sent the following AFA Action Alert to the organization's subscribers, one of which I happen to be:

Please vote! Our children's future depends on it!

October 15, 2008

Dear Terry,

In my 70 years, I have never seen an election where coverage was so one-sided and biased or where censorship by the liberal media was so widely practiced and where media coverage was so slanted as I have seen in this election process. Their plan is working. The only chance conservatives have is to make sure they care enough to vote.

If the liberals win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on Judeo-Christian values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a secular state hostile to Christianity. This “city set on a hill” which our forefathers founded, will go dark. The damage will be deep and long lasting. It cannot be turned around in the next election, or the one after that, or by any election in the future. The damage will be permanent. That is why it is so important for you to vote and to encourage friends and family to vote. This is one election where your vote really counts.

Sincerely,

Translation? Vote the thoroughly non-conservative Republican ticket or all will be forever lost and you will have contributed to the final destruction of America. As a Christian and a conservative, a father of six children and a patriotic American, this cuts deep, which is the intent, no? But as I've pointed out so many times before, it's a false conception that my vote, as a citizen of the state of Oklahoma, is going to, in any way, shape or form be a difference maker in the presidential election. The same applies to you if you do not live in a swing state. Therefore, what would my vote cast for the Republican ticket accomplish other than to add yet another number to the McCain-Palin "mandate" should McCain manage to squeeze out the victory? I can't allow my vote to be misused that way. However, it is vitally important, as it always has been, for us to vote in the state and Congressional races, preferably according to the biblical admonitions on choosing our rulers.

No; my vote in this presidential election will be a protest vote, which is to say that I will not vote McCain-Palin, irrespective of the esteem in which I hold Mr. Wildmon. As I advised someone who was wailing and knashing his teeth over my not taking the Kerry candidacy seriously prior to the 2004 presidential election, "if you Democrats want us to take your candidate seriously then you need to nominate a serious candidate on the Democrat ticket." The exact same principle applies to the GOP, which in no way, by my estimation, can any longer be considered as representing Conservatism, or Republicanism for that matter, except, as I've also pointed out before, in a quickly eroding relative sense. I personally don't care to contribute further to that erosion.

I'm not seeking absolute conservative and Republican purity, but the two are already watered down enough, don't ya agree? A little coffee with your water anyone? No? So be it. But don't ask me to choke down your lukewarm watered-down concoction.

Read More

Who got Barack Hussein, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro into this mess to start with?

(Note: Readers interested in this issue will want to read this WND piece as well.)

Answer: His mother. Of course 18 yr. old Stanley Ann Dunham could not have known at the time that her son what's-his-name? would, later in life, have the highest of political aspirations and the personal political prowess, nor the then future political climate in America (re: liberal dominance), necessary to make a go of it. But, you see, life is a series of personal choices, and those choices have consequences irregardless.

The saddest part, perhaps, of this whole sorry story is that many Americans could really care less whether Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS or not, which means, essentially, that they're enemies of the United States and its governing Constitution. Obama is their lord and savior, and you know what that means -- it means that any provision in Article II, U.S. Constitution that might prohibit Obama's becoming president, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, is trumped by Obama's Messiah status. Something tells me, though, that the same people would act the purest of Constitutional purists were the same questions surrounding a candidate for the presidency which they opposed. Such is the duplicitous nature of unregenerate man.

Here's a little background (Hat Tip: Call Me Mom):

It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama's citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world. More important than the questions and allegations is the refusal of the Obama campaign to provide what should be the simplest response to an action brought in federal court: a certified birth certificate from Hawaii.

[...]

A lifelong Democrat who has held political office and been a Pennsylvania state committeeman, Philip Berg, has brought suit over the real questions raised by the absence of a valid Obama birth certificate. His narrative of the various questions Obama has refused to answer is devastating. Graphics and sound are well-deployed to avoid tedium as data is conveyed in a way that allows viewers to absorb it. When he contrasts Obama's behavior when challenged (use perfectly valid legal technicalities to delay) with John McCain's full disclosure of all documentary evidence under a similar challenge (remember the flap over his birth in the Panama Canal Zone? -- who raised those questions, anyway?), there is no doubt in a viewer's mind that there is something seriously wrong here.

Here is a story I read on the issue a week or so back:

... In Obama's case, Berg argued, a minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of his or her custodial father. Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetora signed a statement acknowledging Obama as his son, giving Obama natural Indonesian citizenship, which explains the name "Barry Soetoro" and his Indonesian school documents. Loss of US citizenship, under US law in effect in 1967 required that foreign citizenship be achieved through "application." Which, according to Berg, is precisely what happened to Obama when his mother married Soetoro and the family moved to Indonesia.

When Obama and his mother moved to Indonesia, Obama had already been enrolled in school—something that could not have happened under Indonesian law if Soetoro had not signed an acknowledgment (the application) affirming that Obama was his son and that he was Indonesian. Thus, it was deemed that Obama was an Indonesian State citizen. ... Furthermore, under Indonesian law, if a resident Indonesian citizen married a foreigner—in this case, Lolo Soetoro marrying Stanley Ann Obama—she was required to renounce her US citizenship.

In his lawsuit, Berg demanded a copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship, a document Obama needed for to regain his citizenship—which was lost in Indonesia. He will have that document only if the proper paperwork was filed with the US State Department when Obama returned to Hawaii in 1971 since that is the only way Obama could regain his US "natural born" status. Berg is convinced that Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama returned to his maternal grandparents in Hawaii without his mother. Since she is the only one who could have filed for the reinstatement of his citizenship, it is unlikely it ever happened. If it did, his Certificate of Citizenship would affirm his right to seek the office of President. Without it, Barack Obama is just another resident alien who can't even legally hold his seat in the US Senate. if I was in the Republican National Committee, I would be joining Philip Berg with the full force, and pocketbook, of the GOP.

If we lived in a more ideal society, i.e., a society that was three parts sane one part insane, instead of the inverse, and only minimally brain dead, then there would be no need for all this speculation on Obama's natural born citizenship status. It wouldn't matter at all as concerns his qualifications or the lack thereof for the presidency because the fact that he was sired by a Kenyan would raise enough questions as to the character and loyalties of his family (on both sides) to nip in the bud any political aspirations a young Obama might have had. But as I've noted before, the same applies to that piece of garbage Bill Clinton, and I don't think there's any question as to his natural born citizenship status.

But what does Snopes have to say on the matter?

Yes, "birthright citizenship" and "easy-citizenism" are matters that we're ultimately going to have to deal with in this country. By Snopes's estimation an illegal Mexican woman, as an example, can cross into the country to have her baby whereupon said infant is an automatic natural born citizen of the United States entitled to all the priveleges and immunities thereof for once and for all time barring a renunciation of them by the individual himself. God forbid that U.S. law penalizes someone, anyone, for their parents' mistakes. What injustice! They must be forever eligible to the highest office in the land. But why limit the presidency to those whose lucky fate it was to be conceived by parents willing to flout America's laws to have them born here?

Now if we could just rid ourselves and our system of that awful, antiquated system that those xenophobic nutjobs who sat in the Constitutional Congress in 1787 hamstrung us with -- the electoral college mode of appointing the president -- we could do the world's posterity the justice that it so rightly deserves. You don't believe me when I say the framers were xenophobic nutjobs? Consider:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.

There you have it. I rest my case.

Read More

What do these people possibly have in common?:

Mohammed Ali, John McCain, George Foreman, Sarah Palin.

Without "rope-a-dope" and "rumble in the jungle," these people probably have no commonalities. But with these taken into consideration, will history record that John McCain, in Mohammed Ali rope-a-dope fashion, saved himself and his campaign for the final rounds of the fight when he would unleash his "knockout punch," otherwise known as Sarah Palin, onto a worn out and expended Barack Hussein Obama?

History, I suppose, will tell.

Read More

Horowitz predicts outcome of presidential race

David Horowitz, editor of FrontPage magazine, is predicting at his blog, based on the trends he's seeing right now, a McCain-Palin landslide victory in November:

Not being a pollster I have little to lose by predicting the race, and of course there's a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge -- events, debates, revised strategies etc. But right now I don't see this as a close race. If the present trend holds, McCain-Palin will win 331 electoral votes to 203 for Obama-Biden.

Well, I don't know about all that, but I like Horowitz's style. I've already predicted a McCain-Palin win at this blog, though I'm not nearly as confident as Horowitz appears to be that McCain will win by a landslide. Of course he is careful to qualify his prediction with the remark "if current trends hold," which they rarely do.

My thinking is that Palin's popularity among social conservatives will carry McCain to victory, probably a narrow victory, but a victory nonetheless. Sure, a lot can happen between now and then which might affect the outcome the other way, but I'm betting that Palin's popularity, particularly among social conservatives, can withstand virtually anything Obama and leftists have to throw at her. But ya never know.

It remains to be seen whether I'm closer to right or Horowitz is closer to right, or, of course, whether both of us is dead wrong.

Read More

Hijacking a Great Movement?

When President Bush said of the 9/11 hijackers that they had "hijacked a great religion," he probably didn't realize how his false statement might lead to other similar false statements concerning other inherently radical movements.

And then came Sarah Palin, representative of the greatness of the feminist movement...

Read More

Leftists shooting themselves in the foot

You'll have to pardon my getting pleasure from this, but I simply cannot help it. I mentioned in the previous post that I'd visited several leftist sites, one in particular, concerning the Palin interview. Well, I've gone back to the site -- which consists of a bunch of radical leftist female Barack Obama supporters -- and here is part of what I found there in a separate entry:

Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

For 19+ months you've tried to run a positive campaign. You've focused on change. You've inspired millions with your message of hope. You've focused on the issues. Now, all of a sudden, with the introduction of Sarah Palin as Republican Vice Presidential candidate, the game has changed.

The Republicans cannot go head-to-head with you on the issues because they know if they try they'll lose. THey have been. They're trying to co-opt your message of change and it's back-firing. They're offering more of the same and they know it. So suddenly it's not about issues anymore, it's about personalities: The grizzled POW and the pert PTA mom.

Here's what I want you to do:

I want you to fight. back. I am giving you permission to get. angry. I want to hear you say, "Enough is enough!" every time you speak. I want you to take on their cynical, half-truth-ridden, insulting-to-all-American-citizens campaign and wrestle it to the ground.

And the author goes on and on and on, building anger and momentum as she goes, about how she's giving Obama permission to go on the attack against the evil, hate-filled, perverted, lying, manipulating, everyone-offending, etc., fundamentalist Christian team of McCain-Palin. Apparently the author is too angry to have noticed that Obama has been on the offensive sticking his foot in his mouth every time he turns around lately, saying stupid things like McCain doesn't know how to send an email and whatnot.

I understand that the introduction of Sarah Palin into the mix put the fear of God into the left which had been just cruising along virtually unopposed, without a care in the world except arrogantly pronouncing how badly they were going to defeat McCain (apparently they don't understand the meaning of the phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), but doesn't the author realize how desperate she's become, in a matter of a couple of weeks no less, and how desperate and potentially harmful are her recommendations to the mild-mannered Barack Obama? And by the way, if the Republicans' tactic, according to this author, of "co-opting" Barack's message of change, is truly backfiring on them, as she further asserts, then what's to worry about, why get so passionate and angry about it; if it's backfiring, that means it's working against the Republicans, right? Call me crazy. LOL

Read More

Gibson-Palin interview

There's a good discussion today at VFR over Charles Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night, specifically Gibson's tactics, i.e., wrenching her statements out of context. I've looked around the leftist blogosphere a bit to see what the lefties are saying about it, and of course they're lining up behind Gibson, albeit some of them are complaining that Gibson let 'er off the hook when he conceded her point that her words had been inspired by president Lincoln.

I'm not interested in drawing leftists to my blog, so I won't link to any of these sites. You can find them and read them easily enough by using the search words "Palin: America on a mission from God," if that is your desire. But at one such site the author questions Gibson's conceding Sarah's point on the basis that her answer invoking Lincoln is illegitimate, then quotes Lincoln's exact statement in support of her claim. But here's the pickle, why would Sarah even have thought to invoke Lincoln unless Lincoln's words had actually inspired her? But it's easy enough to see the connection between Sarah Palin's quote and the Lincoln quote, unless one operates in the darkness that is leftism.

But as I said in a comment to the VFR article linked above, "a text taken out of context is a pretext." Charles Gibson takes Sarah Palin's words out of context twice in succession in the interview, thus establishing malice on his part.

Read More

Sarah Palin and Complementarianism

If you follow a biblical-Christian worldview then you're very likely a complementarian. To what extent you're a complementarian may be in question, but you're a complementarian to some extent, no doubt. To what extent you're a complementarian, though, is ultimately the determining factor in how you view the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's vice-presidential running mate. But if you're not a pure complementarian are you in danger of slipping into Christian egalitarianism?

Earlier today frequent VFR commenter and complementarian Laura W. sent to VFR a link to a site called "Doug's blog" where is posted this excellent essay by Bill Einwechter in which Einwechter discusses Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise. I'm posting the introductory paragraph below. You may read the entirety of the essay here.

Sarah Palin’s selection by John McCain to be his running mate in his bid for the presidency of the United States is not only a surprise political move, it also carries with it implications of historic proportions. If Senator McCain is successful in his candidacy, Mrs. Palin will become the first woman to fill the office of vice president of this country and be in place to assume the presidency, if necessary. She will also be in line to take up the Republican nomination for president in the future. If John McCain becomes president and chooses to serve only one term, it is quite possible that the next presidential election (2012) will be between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But Palin’s nomination to the vice presidency is not only an historic occasion for our country, it is also a watershed moment for evangelical Christians, particularly those who claim to be complementarian in their views of men and women (i.e., those who believe that men and women have different but complementary roles according to the revealed will of God).

I think you'll enjoy the rest of the essay irrespective of how pure a complementarian you are. So be sure to read it. I know I certainly needed a bit of a refresher.

Read More

Palin-McCain

Not an endorsement, just an image I thought you all might appreciate. It pretty much says it all, doesn't it? (Hat tip: Gates of Vienna)

Read More

If Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is

I've had a lot of critical things to say about Sarah Palin, mainly in comments over at VFR but at a couple of other places as well, including this blog. But today I had something of an epiphany.

No; I'm not taking any of it back. I think I've been fair to Sarah Palin while expressing certain legitimate concerns and criticisms. But I did have something of a revelation today that I'd like to share.

My revelation is that none of my criticisms or Auster's criticisms, or anyone's criticisms for that matter, are likely to make any difference at this point. Not that we shouldn't continue to criticize her when criticism is called for, but that it's not going to make any difference one way or the other.

When Sarah Palin's absolutely adorable six year old daughter Piper was caught on camera during her mom's speech at the RNC swiping her palm across her tongue for the purpose of laying her brother Trig's hair down, at that point the Palin family won the hearts of average Americans for once and for all. For those that didn't see it live, they heard about it and they've seen it now.

I watched it live and I even got a lump in my throat as I witnessed the scene. But don't tell my wife whose instinctive reaction was to let out a gasp and utter "Oh my God!" Then we both began to laugh joyfully together. This little perfectly innocent gesture of love toward her baby brother, this little non-scripted event involving this little girl acting the role of good little mother, which no amount of noise in the auditorium would turn her undivided attention from, captured our hearts. This was powerful, powerful stuff. The kind of stuff words cannot explain. It just is what it is. That's all.

A few minutes ago I found the You-tube video and watched it again. And this event still elicits very positive emotions in me. I can't help it. And I'm betting a lot of other Americans can't help it either. There's something almost magical about it. The shot starts out on Piper's mom giving her speech. This woman is easy to look at. And it's not just her physical beauty, though she's obviously very pretty, but you can see in her eyes almost a sincerity and goodness, maybe even a degree of naivete or uncorruptedness. But in addition you see her youth, the brightness in her face and her eyes, a very positive and outgoing attitude, and you just sense that Sarah Palin is a good and decent person, albeit one to be reckoned with. Then suddenly, without warning yet very naturally, the shot is on Sarah's youngest daughter Piper caring for her little brother. She's sweet and gentle, but not so cautious with him as to make you feel as though she thinks she's going to break him. You get the feeling this little six year old girl has already been trained very well; that she's a capable motherly caregiver with abilities well beyond her years, and that the Palins are well justified in placing a great deal of confidence in her ability to maintain perfect undivided focus, under virtually all conditions and circumstances, on her task of taking care of Trig. No amount of noise or commotion in the auditorium can divert Piper's attention from the duties at hand. She has a job to do; she can't be distracted by the insignificant goings on around her inside the auditorium. Relative to her job of taking care of Trig, this is all meaninglessness; a bunch of noise and racket that she simply can't be bothered with.

What a powerful testament; what a powerful scene! How could Obama ever touch it? How could he ever come close to touching it? Barack Obama doesn't have the stuff it takes to match this scene, let alone top it, even if he tried.

So as I said in the title to this entry, if Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is. But of course, you don't get Sarah without Piper or vice versa, they come as a matching set. With almost sixty days left until the general election and several debates to come, I'd bet my last dollar on it. Not that I'm particularly happy about it, or that I'll vote McCain, but I'll wager a McCain victory with anyone that cares to. And Piper Palin is a big reason why.

Read More

Religious Right Loses Bearings on Palin Selection

Below is a list of emails I've received to my inbox from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink organization on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate (Note: Links are provided here where they are provided in the emails.):

-Aug. 29: Dr. James Dobson: McCain's Choice of Palin 'Outstanding'‏

-Sept. 2: Dr. Dobson Prays for Palin Family‏

-Sept. 3: Palin Draws Dr. Dobson Toward McCain‏

-Sept. 4: Special Alert: Palin Adds to Euphoria over Strength of GOP Platform‏

These are the CitizenLink emails I've received to my inbox since Palin's selection as McCain's running mate was announced. Very interestingly to yours truly is the fact that Don Wildmon's AFA (American Family Association) has been strangely silent on the Palin selection. I haven't personally received a single email from AFA concerning the Palin selection, and this seems strange to me. Don Wildmon and Dr. Dobson are generally in complete agreement on these political questions, and yet not a word from Wildmon's AFA? It just seems strange.

I wrote at VFR the following concerning Dr. Dobson's immediate and continued support for Sarah Palin:

When one makes the leap--as Dr. Dobson did with both feet almost immediately after her selection was announced--onto the bandwagon of some relatively unknown political figure such as Sarah Palin, no amount of religion nor conservatism will suffice, it seems, to convince one that one has made an error.

Conservatism is about being level headed about these things, is it not? Why didn't Dobson recognize his initial joy at hearing of the Palin selection as based in passion, not in clear-headed reason?

It's hard to criticize a figure like Dr. Dobson -- someone who has for years done outstanding work in my opinion on family issues -- without looking (and feeling) like you're being overly-critical of him. But in this case Dr. Dobson needs to be criticized for hurling himself and his entire organization onto the Sarah Palin bandwagon before he knew anything of substance about Sarah Palin and her "family values". As a respected leader of the "religious right", I think the least required of Dr. Dobson is to take a second look at his support for Sarah Palin and to reconsider his position. And I hereby call on him to do so.

You disagree? Why?

Also, some of you may be interested in the contents of the following email (not posted at VFR) that I sent to Auster on the Palin situation and Dobson's blind support of her:

TM writes to LA:

I just want to point out, too, that as Dobson defends Sarah Palin's "family values" and effectively says that we can't question the fact of her "absentee momism" as having anything to do with the Bristol situation, he's effectively leaving her younger children (and all American children by extension) hanging out to dry.

Dobson says that being Christian does not mean you or your children are perfect. Fine. The Palin's are not perfect, they make mistakes like everyone else, and their children make mistakes like everyone else, who is saying otherwise? But then he says that there's forgiveness and restoration for those who confess their sins to the Lord. Well, first of all, does Mrs. Palin feel any sense of personal failure or sinfulness related to Bristol's condition? And if she does then why the hell is she going to continue to be an absentee mom when she still has young children at home who need the influence that only she, as their mother, can provide?

This is nothing less than the sacrificing of our children on the alter of liberalism; it is in one sense worse than abortion for rather than killing their bodies, it is killing their souls. As you've pointed out, this is not just about Sarah Palin. It is about our larger society and the influence that the Sarah Palins of our society have upon it.

I've never been more discouraged about our future.

Read More

Palin selection cont.

The discussion over Sarah Palin's selection continues in a number of interesting entries over at VFR, the latest of which Auster titled Viagra veep, a title derived from Carol Iannone's comment to another entry on the same subject.

When I first read Carol I.'s post in the earlier entry it gave me a chuckle considering the dire warnings that always attend these commercials, i.e., "if the effect lasts for more than four hours seek medical attention immediately!"; "don't take this drug if you have a heart condition," and so forth.

But Carol's remarks were not meant as a joke, and I understand that. And there is a serious discussion that ensues under the thread. Doug E. writes the following disagreeable comment to the consensus view:

With an election in 60 days, I disagree. You either get on board a train leaving the station taking you to perhaps smaller government town or you don't. Voting Marxist is the other option.

I don't think I could disagree with Doug more. First of all, what makes Doug think that voting Marxist is the only other option? He's of course referring to voting Obama-Biden. What makes Doug think that we have to vote either way in the presidential election? Second, is Doug serious when he says 'you get on board a train perhaps taking you to smaller government town?' Hasn't it already been well established that as V.P. Sarah Palin will have virtually no influence on John McCain? Is Doug anticipating McCain's dying while in office or what?

Read More

Where were you when Sarah Palin was (officially) selected?

I just happened to be doing some business at a local bank as Mrs. Palin was introduced at the McCain rally. There was a tv in the lobby tuned to Fox News as they were covering Palin's selection and I watched a few seconds of her speech. My initial reaction -- just being honest -- was along the lines of "just what we need, an unknown inexperienced female running mate to tag along with the thoroughly non-conservative John McCain. In terms of her experience (or the lack thereof), Palin's selection was probably well thought out and well calculated given that she doesn't have a record to speak of that can be used against her. But it's interesting, don't ya think, that of all the candidates in the race Palin has more executive experience apparently than the rest combined? But as I've said many many times before, "if you ain't messin' up, you ain't tryin' very hard." When did lack of executive experience become a positive quality in a presidential or Vice Presidential candidate?

As a conservative I have to strongly protest this farce of a presidential election. We're supposed to be electing someone qualified to sit in the highest executive seat in America, and his second in command. Yet the best we can come up with are three legislators and a female governor of a state that, as someone said over at VFR, is barely a state. And by the way, Alaska is most definately not a conservative state. Any state in which a parent lives in perpetual fear of losing his children for mildly spanking them in public is by definition a liberal state, period. To Alaskans, ever vigilant and watchful to find and report any such behavior, or apparent evidence of such behavior, this is unqualified abuse. I'd personally like to know how the conservative Mrs. Palin feels about that.

The excitement among "conservatives" over McCain's selection, though, is ... amazing.

Update: I was too lazy this morning to do the research necessary to get the exact numbers and figures, but happily Mr. Auster has done it for me. Here's what I wrote to Auster followed by his replies to me in the initial VFR article on Governor Palin's selection:

TM writes to LA:

In terms of executive experience Sarah Palin apparently has more than all the other candidates combined.

LA replies:

Good point. We've got a 35 year senator; a four-year congressman and 21 year senator; and a ten year state senator and three year U.S. senator.

TM replies to LA:

Precisely. When exactly was it that lack of executive experience became a positive quality in presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, particularly with "conservatives"?

LA replies:

In fact, over our history, and especially since 1976, most presidents have been governors or have had other significant executive experience rather than being senators, while the number of incumbent U.S. senators who have unsuccessfully run for president in recent decades must number in the scores. It's a striking and surprising fact that only two incumbent U.S. senators have been elected president: Harding in 1920 and Kennedy in 1960. This year is the first time in our history that the presidential nominees of both major parties are sitting U.S. senators--plus one of the vice presidential nominees as well. In this sense, Gov. Palin is more in line with historic presidential qualifications than the other three candidates.

Which of course doesn't change the fact that her high-level experience--a year and half as governor of a low-population, oddball state that is geographically and culturally removed from the rest of the country (her accent even sounds a bit Canadian)--is very limited for a vice presidential nominee. Will her supporters be able plausibly to argue that she is prepared to step into the president's shoes on a moment's notice? Now, it's true that a year and a half as a governor is more significant experience than five and half years as a member of Congress from Queens, as was the case of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. But the Ferraro nomination was an embarrassment driven by feminists, and Republicans should not be making that their standard.

I highly recommend the very active VFR article linked above, which continues in a new entry on the same subject. There are a lot of interesting takes there on the Palin choice.

Update #2: My last comment to the entry has been edited. Here's what I said ... in full:

You wrote:

It's not true that she does not have a political record to speak of, and that nobody really knows anything of substance about her. The issue is whether she has the background to be president, not whether she has a political record to speak of.

Okay, she has a political record that consists of her time as governor of Alaska, and as Mayor of the city of Wasilla (population: less than ten thousand).

You're right about what the issue is. And in my opinion she definately does not have the background to be president, but who does in this race? Nonetheless, her political record (what little of it there is) establishes her qualifications for serving as president ... in the event that she has to. And how many Americans, before yesterday, ever heard the name Sarah Palin?

In other words, I stand behind what I said. Palin doesn't have a political record to speak of, and nobody really knows anything of substance about her, though we're now beginning to learn more about her.

Read More

Will I be "throwing my vote away" in the November elections?

Recently I was graced by a visit, unannounced, by my dad and my wonderful step-mother, both of whom I love and respect beyond measure (Dad, next time you decide to drop in on us, please follow the good advice of your wife and give us fair warning.).

Dad and I, during our visit, and as is the usual for us, engaged one another in a political conversation, particularly whether or not to vote for John McCain in the upcoming election. My position is, as I said to Dad, that I can't, in good conscience, vote for the likes of the RINO John McCain. Dad responded that he would vote for McCain as opposed to voting for the alternative Obama. He also pointed out that our state, Oklahoma, would invariably go for McCain over Obama in the general election; that a wrong election on my part, with that fact in mind, simply amounted to a "waste" of my vote. I didn't, and don't, quite see it that way.

Yes; my state will go for McCain when all is said and done, to the tune of 60-40 I should imagine, but does this mean I'm wasting my vote in refusing to vote for the decidedly non-conservative John McCain? You be the judge. I'm truly interested in your take.

Read More

VA on the ominous implications of an Obama Presidency

Vanishing American, citing the conclusions of a Jared Taylor article on the inevitability of an Obama Presidency, questions Mr. Taylor's use of the term "edifying" in describing his predicted effect of said presidency. I've not yet read Mr. Taylor's article, so I'm going on VA's assessment which I trust is accurate.

VA writes:

I can't fault much of what Jared Taylor says in this piece on Why Obama Will Win. I suppose my problem with the piece has to do with his conclusions. Overall, I get the impression that Mr. Taylor believes that an Obama presidency will, at worst, be ineffectual and bumbling, that it will be a failure in the sense of not being able to deliver on promises made.

If only I thought that. If the worst we had to deal with was just another ineffective presidency, it would not be so bad.
The concluding sentence of the piece is the following:

It will be an edifying presidency; and whites may be a little less deluded in 2012.

Now, maybe there's some meaning of the adjective 'edifying' which eludes me; my Webster's Dictionary gives this secondary meaning of the verb to edify:

2. To instruct and improve, esp. by good example; to profit morally or spiritually.

For the life of me, I cannot see how we might even be instructed, much less 'improved' by an Obama presidency, and I am really at a loss as to imagine how we might profit morally or spiritually by it.

It does seem as though Mr. Taylor is joining the 'worse is better' group, although he stops short of recommending that his readers vote for Obama as a number of people on the right have done.

I gather that he sees the election of Obama as a certainty, and most of the time, I see it the same way.

However the election is still a few months away. Things could change in that period of time. It ain't over till it's over. Unless, of course, the whole process is rigged, which is entirely possible. At no time in my life have I ever had less confidence or trust in the system.

VA goes on to say the following in the final paragraph of the entry,

If an Obama presidency would be a mostly failed endeavor, we'd have little to be concerned about, but I am not convinced of that. I don't think, as I once naively thought, that the President is really 'the most powerful man in the world.' But he does have the most powerful men in the world behind him, or he would not become President.

to which I respond, pointing out that the President of the United States is, most powerful men in the world behind him notwithstanding, rendered virtually powerless by a U.S. Congress determined to oppose him and his agenda; that given the current makeup of the U.S. Congress and the probable makeup thereof following the November elections, an Obama presidency will, in my opinion, be disastrous for this country. It will be a disaster that we'll probably not know the full effects of for two to three decades to come.

I'm in full agreement with VA on this one. I simply can't get with the "worse is better" crowd. A lot of irreversible damage can be done in four years by an Executive with a Legislative branch to support him. But if you can show me evidence that the next Legislature will oppose an Obama administration, then you might have a chance to convince me that worse is indeed better in the case of an Obama Presidency.

Read More

What would a McCain Presidency portend were it not already doomed by its own Spinelessness?

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.

Read More