New development in Obama citizenship issue

(Note: The title of this blog post is a bit misleading. Yes, this is a new development for me and probably most of my readers, but certainly not for Mr. Polarik as you shall see if you take the time to read his article linked below.)

The folks at WorldNetDaily have been covering this issue relentlessly, and seem to have no intention of backing off until the issue is resolved satisfactorily. And I applaud them for their dedication to the cause of holding Hussein O. & Co.'s feet to the fire.

Here's a Nov. 22 WND article in which something of a new development in the case has been revealed. From the concluding statements in the article:

On Janet Porter's Faith2Action radio program today, computer specialist Ron Polarik left no doubt the image posted as Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not genuine.

"Here's a smoking gun," he said. "Apparently Hawaii changes its borders [on documentation] every year. In 2007 it had a certain border, and it's got a 2007 border. However if you dig a little deeper you find it has a 2008 signature and seal," he said.

"Whomever did the forgery was not very clever," he said.

Well, I don't know about all that. I've said before that I could produce such a document, computer illiterate that I am. The issue with the border on the certificate posted at Obama's "fight the smears" website is interesting though. If Mr. Polarik is right that Hawaii changes this border every year, then indeed it is very strange that the border on the document is from 2007 and the seal is from 2008.

Update: I have it on reliable information that the methods Mr. Polarik claims were used to doctor Obama's COLB are entirely possible and involve fairly simple procedures, including the use of various lighting techniques to achieve the illusion of a raised seal on the surface of the document. Hey, that's what we send 'em to school for, know what I mean?

Read More

Vague update on a previous entry

Here's the link to the entry in question, and the update is this: our dialogue on the issue continues.

I wish to thank the party in question for his attention to detail in addressing the concerns of his constituents, namely me. It is this quality in him, among other things, that has compelled me to vote for him and to hold him in the highest possible esteem, his endorsement of the RINO candidate in the late election notwithstanding.

Hey!, we can't possibly agree on everything.

Read More

Hussein O. & Co. swear upon the altar of Deception: We will not produce an autentic birth certificate!

Heading the list of entries under my Recommended Blog Posts section in the upper-right sidebar is a newly added WND article by Joseph Farah on the question of Hussein Obama's citizenship status and the Obama camp's refusal, in the face of these looming questions and speculations, to produce an authentic Hawaii birth certificate for BHO.

Mr. Farah asks the exact question I asked in my initial post on the subject at this blog -- why? What good is it doing anyone, continuing to add fuel to this speculation on Obama's actual country of birth by refusing to produce something as easily aquired upon request as a person's own birth certificate? What can be the motivation behind Obama's refusal to produce the document, the simple production of which would put to an end virtually all speculation on the subject for once and for all time? Well, let me rephrase that last thought: at this point in the game, because of Obama's refusal to produce the document, I doubt that even doing so now would be sufficient to satisfy some people's minds. But can you blame them? Be honest you leftists, if the same questions surrounded a candidate you opposed -- you know, a "radical right-wing nutjob" -- you and your leftist media outlets would be all over this demanding the production of an authentic birth certificate establishing the natural born citizenship qualifications of the "radical right-wing nutjob" candidate in question.

There have been any number of articles written on this subject over the last several months and weeks, some of which I've already linked up at this blog, others of which I have not. In addition to the WND article linked above, I'm adding a couple more from there and other sites below.

While this recent W-4 post has nothing to do with this subject, a short discussion on the topic was set off in the comments to the post, to which I contributed a couple. Zippy Catholic answers my initial question to him by saying to me that everything else about Obama being so bad, he just cannot personally take an interest in this question on Obama's eligibility for the presidency. And I reply. Blackadder interjects assuring me that Phillip Berg is nothing more or less than a crank. Also Blackadder provides the readership with a link to a FactCheck.org article concerning the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. But as others have pointed out, the document the Obama camp produced is not a birth certificate, it is a certificate of live birth.

I read a couple of days ago that Mr. Berg's lawsuit, while it has garnered the most attention throughout media outlets including the blogosphere, is far from the only lawsuit filed demanding the production of an authentic Hussein Obama birth certificate. Several people from various states have filed similar lawsuits. Add to the list Obama's old nemesis from his Senate campaign in 2004, Alan Keyes (scroll to the bottom of this page for other WND articles on this topic.). Is Mr. Keyes a crank too?

Why is it that I'm seeing a similarity here between President Clinton's defiant refusal to answer questions before a Grand Jury investigation of the Monika Lewinsky scandal and the defiant attitude displayed by the Obama campaign on the questions surrounding his constitutional eligibility to the presidency?

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

DANGER Will Robinson!

Is there something wrong with Americans distrusting Muslims and their motives to the extent that they deprive them of holding political office under the United States? According to subversive infiltrator Colin Powell there is. And it is on this basis that Powell recently defected from his party and endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for president of the United States. Has Powell always been a subversive and an infiltrator, an agent of Muslim empowerment in America? I don't know and I don't really care, I mean CAIR. He is now, for all intents and purposes, and that's all that matters to me at this point.

As I said in the post preceding this one, the proof is in the pudding. Powell didn't have to endorse either candidate. That he endorsed Obama, and on the grounds that he endorsed Obama, says all that needs be said concerning his sympathy towards our mortal enemies. According to Mr. Powell the only real Americans are those who are either sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim empowerment in America, i.e., those inclined to dhimmitude, or, Muslim-Americans themselves. No one else need apply.

**********

In the initial entry I wrote:

According to Mr. Powell the only real Americans are those who are either sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim empowerment in America, i.e., those inclined to dhimmitude, or, Muslim-Americans themselves. No one else need apply.

I ask you, is this not precisely what the Muslim holy book teaches its adherents to strive for? What does this make Mr. Powell?

Update: CAIR has a friend in Powell. As I intimated in the initial entry above, CAIR, "America's largest Muslim civil liberties group," whose mission it "is to ... empower American Muslims," has posted an approving response to Colin Powell's public rebuke of non-American Americans, i.e., any person born or naturalized in the United States who is not a Muslim and/or is unsympathetic towards Muslims and opposed to Muslim empowerment in America.

From the CAIR article:

"We applaud Mr. Powell for stating so eloquently and forcefully what should have been said long ago by public officials and candidates for elected office," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "His statement gives hope to American Muslims who have been disheartened by rising levels of anti-Muslim bigotry in this election cycle."

Eloquently? Forcefully maybe, but eloquently?

Well, that's what happens when Muslims in America become empowered to the extent they are now, these people become emboldened and begin coming out of the woodwork. CAIR, and Muslim residents of America in general, will in turn become more emboldened with such friends and advocates in high places. And we all know what that means.

"Is there something wrong with some seven year old Muslim kid in America believing that he or she could be president," you ask Mr. Powell? Uh, the short answer is yes.

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

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

Who won the GOP debate at the Reagan library?

I watched about the last thirty minutes of the debate on CNN and came away with the impression that Romney did not do much to help himself on this night (I certainly wasn't impressed by him), as well as experiencing that down-in-your-gut sick feeling that Senator John McCain might actually win the GOP nomination.

My personal opinion is that Huckabee stole the show from both Romney and McCain. McCain seemed to be in ultra-attack mode, while Romney was, as the subject of McCain's attacks, equally in defense mode. All in all it was really just an unpleasant scene to watch, and from which I don't think I came away an ounce more informed about either man.

But like I said, I was pretty impressed with Mike Huckabee's performance on several counts. When was the last time you can recall, for instance, that a Presidential candidate, GOP or otherwise, spoke with such passion and clarity and lucidity on the issue of the tenth amendment and why governors of States should have the qualifications requisite to become President much superior to that possessed of national legislators? I know, I know, Huckabee is an open borders man, and that's a huge issue with me. But I have to hand it to him anyway. He impressed me as the most "together" of the candidates on this panel by far.

Anyway, I've selected a few comments on the debate from the Mike Huckabee for President blog and posted them below.

Kevin Tracy writes:

I got to watch the debate in Arlington at a debate party. We were ALL impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance, especially his last answer when he refused play the game of who would Reagan endorse and instead offered his endorsement of Reagan.

Quiverdaddy writes:

With the final debate before Stupor Tuesday behind us, it's time to begin recognizing the candidates for what they are. As I watched, I found McCain and Romney to be petty -- Was it "milestones and deadlines" or something different that means the same thing? Does it really matter?

Huckabee made sense and seemed to be mature enough to realize there are much bigger things at stake than whether Romney had a gaffe. So we have establishment "frontrunners", one of whom is testy and the other defensive. One an authentic hero and the other not authentic at all. A Ken doll vs. a GI Joe doll.

I'm all for climbing out of the Valley of the Dolls and going for a real life person fully capable of serving as our president. I know the Mediocracy has to declare frontrunners early -- to winnow the field down and reduce the damage the eventual nominee will endure during the primaries. To that end, it may be time for the commentators to recognize that principled conservatives -- especially those who take the social issues seriously will not support either of these guys.

Unless the establishment wants McCain, they need to rethink Huckabee. After tonight, I've come to the conclusion that Romney cannot be trusted and should not be considered by anyone who cares what happens to this country in the years after Bush.

Please consider giving him fair coverage and being honest about the "frontrunners".

John Michaels writes:

I know I said this previously, but Governor Huckabee. Since Anderson Cooper extended you an invitation to the Democratic Debate, I think you should take him up on his offer. It would certainly make it a more entertaining debate, and you would most likely end up taking both Obama and Hillary to the cleaners.

Ken Daugherty writes:

Bill Schneider is right that Mike Huckabee talked as the common person, my mother is a dedicated democrate and she's voting for Mike Huckabee.

Donald Fahrenkrug writes:

Gov Huckabee won the debate hands down. And he didn't sit on his hands and let the CNN staff ignore him.
He came across as intelligent, honest, very knowledgeable, and as the only one other than Ron Paul, that made any sense.

McCain was holier than thou, condescending, stupid, just plain horrible. Romney seemed like he just had the latest political computer chip implant. He was plastic and not believable, at all.

I am switching from Ron Paul, a truly great man, a gentleman and a scholar, but he let himself be ignored and just sat there.

Gov Huckabee has my vote. Good Grief America, wake up. We need a man of principle in the White House, and Gov. Huckabee is that man.

Jared Bridgeman writes:

It's amazing that Mike got shutout as far as the amount of screen time, but had a more clear message than the other two candidates due to their consistent blathering. McCain has two mouths, he speaks about homeland security, yet he has a Hernandez as his chief Hispanic vote-getter....I don't think he's even a United States citizen. From the get go, I have been extremely skeptical of Romney too...he seems too much in the pockets of big business and wishy washy on life. All of these things make it so easy to vote for Mike...the only problem is...convincing others in MO before Feb. 5th.

Sondra Ashmore writes:

Until today I had always considered you a solid candidate, but not necessarily one I would vote for. You refusing to be treated as a 3rd class candidate while also respecting the other candidates impressed me. I came to this site for more information as I rethink who I'm going to support on the 5th. I vote for character and I think you showed a lot of that tonight. Well done!

Read More

Fred bows out of race; Endorses no-one

As my fellow AFBers can tell you, there's not a whole lot of love lost between myself and former legislators with no executive experience running for president. Or for that matter, U.S. Supreme Court nominees who have no actual experience as Supreme Court justices on their State's High Court. ie, Harriet Miers. Oh, I make the occasional exception, as with Tancredo, but as I've written before, I would have preferred that Tom Tancredo had served as Governor of his State prior to running for President of the United States. And I hope he does so: runs for Governor and wins, then enters the Presidential race again at some future date.

I just see Fred's dropping out of the race more or less as another Republican legislator out who probably shouldn't have been in the race to begin with.

Read More

I think I must be crazy or something

As most of you know, I have an enormous amount of respect for Mr. Auster and the way he defends Traditionalist Conservatism on a daily basis over at VFR. But look at the terms in which he speaks of Mitt Romney in response to a Romney opponent, presumably from the state of Massachusetts where Romney served as Governor:

LA writes:

On other issues, Romney is the only representative of something reasonably like conservatism in the race who has a chance to win the nomination. (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure what "other issues" LA is referring to here, but it is irrelevant to my point. Are these the kinds of terms we're confined to using when discussing the "relative" conservatism of the GOP's new favorite son, Mitt Romney? In order to identify anything resembling conservatism in the man we have to match him up against the other viable GOP candidates, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, two individuals who would easily pass as liberals were they in the party that they belong in. Doesn't this speak to Romney's non-conservatism more than it does to his conservatism? Doesn't this speak to yet more concessions on the part of true conservatives to those in the Republican party who are not?

Am I just crazy or what? It seems to me that the marriage between conservatism and the GOP is on really shaky ground at this point. I wonder how much longer it can survive?

By the way, my intent here is not to attack Mr. Auster, so please don't go there, I will not join in. All I'm saying is that I find it to be a very sad state of affairs when one of the leading proponents of traditionalist conservatism is relegated to defending a GOP candidate's conservatism in terms like Mr. Auster uses above. What say you?

Read More

Why Social Conservatives got behind Rudy initially;

And why they're dropping him now

Here's a hint: It's not because social conservatives are either unprincipled or willing to suspend their principles for the "greater good." This is not the way social conservatives think. It's not the way they've ever thought, and it's not the way they'll ever think. Quite the contrary.

Social conservatives got behind Rudy initially because they were mislead into believing he was a good moral person. They're dropping him now because they're learning that he's not.

In other words social conservatives have consistently judged Rudy according to their number one standard--moral character--throughout this whole campaign. Many of them got it wrong at first, which is understandable. But that doesn't negate the fact that moral character has always been priority number one with social conservatives. You economic conservatives let this be a good lesson learned.

Read More

Auster asks "the biggie"

This is a continuation of Friday's blog post wherein I ask "Who would be your second choice for President?"

Lawrence Auster has replied in a comment to the entry asking a question of his own, which seems to me to get right to the heart of the matter of whether a traditionalist conservative can ultimately support a 'top tier' GOP candidate in the '08 election...

LA writes:

What if one of the top tier candidates came out with a decent immigration policy—not everything we want, but decent? I define that as opposing amnesty absolutely, stopping illegal immigration, and no increase in legal immigration, or maybe even a reduction in legal immigration. Would you consider supporting such a candidate, even if he was not on board with you on other issues you cared about?

LA continues:

If I saw a candidate who was not on board on the marriage amendment and other social conservative issues , but took a significant position on immigration, I would certainly consider supporting him.

TM replies:

On the question of whether I'd consider supporting a top tier candidate who took a decent position on immigration (by your definition), I'd have to answer that in the affirmative. In fact, such a candidate taking such a position on immigration, as long as he wasn't too far out there on other important issues would become very attractive to me. But I'd have to really weigh his position against his record as well as his character and integrity before I committed to supporting him.

Do you know of anyone who fits this bill, that you believe would stick to this policy once elected?

Vanishing American weighs in:

Terry, I think you've raised the question that occurs to me: would any of the top tier candidates be likely to actually honor a promise to control our borders, reject amnesty, etc.? ... I think all the top tier candidates have shown themselves willing to pander to Hispanics, or at the very least, to work both sides of the street as necessary to win votes.
Put simply, I don't trust them, based on their past records.

TM replies:

VA, your comments concerning the willingness of the top tier candidates to play both ends against the middle in order to win votes brings to mind Katie's Dad's recent blog entry where he shows decidedly that the GOP doesn't need the Hispanic vote, and in fact pandering to it is actually losing the GOP precious and vital support from its base, in spite of what Linda Chavez and the AMF says.

TM continues:

This seems like one of those "could I, would I, should I" questions. Could I support a top tier candidate taking up the Auster prescription for immigration policy? Would I support him? Should I support such a candidate? And it all boils down to the same answer with me; and this is where I agree with the Dobsonian principled approach...

As Dobson said in his answer to Sean Hannity's question concerning Rudy Giuliani's claim that he'll appoint constructionist judges as president, why didn't he do it when he had the opportunity to appoint conservative judges in New York? With regard to the other top tier candidates, Romney and Thompson, it's also a matter of character and integrity; a matter of what their political record indicates they'll do as opposed to what they say they'll do.

Some will certainly argue that if the candidate in question takes the Auster position on immigration, then at least we'll have something to hold him to irregardless of whether he intends to keep the promise or not. I think there's some merit to that argument, particularly as it relates to the candidate's first term in office should he be elected. But if any of you would argue strongly from that position in support of one of the top tier candidates, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

John Savage writes:

I'm pretty much with VA. If one of the candidates made a credible promise, I could imagine changing my position, but I just don't see that happening. In particular, I think I'd have to see a convincing statement from Tancredo about why he turned around and started believing in the nominee, since he currently thinks all the top-tier guys are phonies. For instance, Tancredo has criticized Romney's positions on immigration as a classic example of his "conversion on the road to Des Moines".

I'd also add that a decent position on immigration for me would have to include some sort of recognition that allowing Muslim immigration is tantamount to importing the jihad into America. I think the chances of us getting that from one of the top candidates is really low.

Read More

Who would be your second choice ... for President?

(Note: The discussion initiated by Mr. Auster's question on supporting a top tier candidate has been moved here.)

Just on a quick roundup of the relatively few blogs that I frequent, I note that all of them express a preference, or a pretty solid number one candidate for the presidency. While none of them, including this blog, seem to have a solid number two...

I'll start the roundup over at the AFB. Fellow AFBer Mike Tams seems to be leaning toward Mitt Romney as his second choice. He would probably prefer someone like Duncan Hunter to Romney, but Romney seems to appeal to Mike very much. I don't think Mike has totally committed himself to Romney as yet, but this seems to be the direction in which he is leaning.

Over at VFR, Lawrence Auster has repeatedly endorsed Tom Tancredo. In this recent VFR entry Auster mentions both Fred and Romney as preferable to Giuliani. But he doesn't tell us which of the two (Fred or Romney) he would prefer.

Meanwhile, VA has said many good things about Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. These two seem to be VA's top two candidates, but it's still a bit unclear in what order she would put them. I tend to think, from what I read at VA's, that she would place them in the order that I've placed them in the first sentence of this paragraph.

The Maritime Sentry strongly endorses the candidacy of Mike Huckabee. But I don't recall reading there an endorsement of a second choice or preference.

I'm not at all sure about Wise Man's Heart. I don't know whether Hermes has broached this topic or not. But I'll go check it out. (Hat tip to John Savage for reminding me of this post over at WMH, where Hermes expresses his like of Tancredo and Paul)

John Savage at Brave New World Watch is a strong supporter of Tom Tancredo. Don't miss his lengthy roundup of Tancredo related blog posts in his right sidebar. But like the rest of us, John has yet to name a second preference from the list of candidates.

And to complete the roundup, here at Webster's I've endorsed Tancredo on a number of occasions as my first choice. I've never said, however, who my second choice would be.

I don't think I can nail down a second choice just yet. I need to do a lot more research and reflection on the remaining candidates. I think Ron Paul is interesting, but at this point I don't think I could name him a second choice. Giuliani isn't even on my radar as someone I could ever cast a sacred vote for. And Fred doesn't rate much higher with me at this point than Giuliani. I don't think Fred can make up any ground with me either, but we'll see.

Basically I'm left to decide between Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul as secondary choices to Tom Tancredo. And like I said, I'm just going to have to commit to doing a lot more research on all three of these candidates.

In any event, I can say this. If Giuliani were to get the Republican nomination (which seems to be the general consensus at this point) I could not vote for the man. I would be forced to vote third party, or to write in a candidate. This is a scenario where someone like Ron Paul might actually get my vote. But if I were forced to write in a candidate, Tancredo not being on the ballot, then I would write in the name Tom Tancredo, and let the chips fall where they may.

Read More

Auster expresses shock that Dobson won't support Fred

I was a little surprised to hear him say it too when I watched the interview. I reported on this earlier today here. Auster has posted the link to the FNC Transcript of the interview in this VFR entry.

Read More