Category Archives: politics

“Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall”

Posted on by
2

In my FranklinCovey planner, at the top of the page for today, is this quote from Horace: “It is courage, courage, courage, that raises the blood of life to crimson splendor.  Live bravely and present a brave front to adversity.”

President Ronald Reagan - click to watch video of the speech

Did you realize that Reagan stood at Brandenburg Gate and verbally confronted the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbachev with the title words of this post 25 years ago today?  Read the text of his speech here. I stumbled upon an article on Free Republic this morning, or it might have passed me by.  This was a significant moment in European, US and world history….and yet, its 25th anniversary passes remarkably unremarked.

Reagan has been in the news lately.  He passed away 8 years ago, June 5th.  The date was commemorated by brief notices about Nancy Reagan placing flowers on his grave…and not much else; EXCEPT the misuse of his

Brandenburg Gate - click for more information

memory and his legacy by conservative pretenders and their willing Big Government accomplices in the media.  Most recently, and most prominently, Jeb Bush foolishly commented yesterday that Ronald Reagan would struggle to be nominated in today’s GOP.  He also threw his father’s name into that kettle, presumably to add weight to his statement.  Much as I respect George H. W. Bush as a decent and honorable man, his name does not bolster his son’s argument.  Bush and Reagan were not philosophically compatible in this respect.  George Bush would be a nominee similar to George Romney today; nominated, or presumably so, but without the excitement and enthusiasm with which a Ronald Reagan would be selected.  Jeb, speak about your father and his place in history all you like, but keep quiet about things you know little about.  Gov. Jeb obviously does not understand who Reagan was, nor what is shaping in the Republican Party today with the Tea Party movement.  

Many people, even Obama, have tried to cloak themselves with the robe of Reagan, and most, and most assuredly Obama, only see the richness of the robe, and fail to see that it was the strong, upright, optimistic and steadfast character of the man who wore the mantel  that gave it the substance and the dignity that inspired, and still inspires, the love and respect for the man and his memory.  When these lesser figures try to achieve stature by draping the Reagan cloak over their own, unsubstantial shoulders, they only cause us to notice the frailty of their character…as we gaze wistfully upon the symbol much as I used to look at my father’s jacket, hanging on the coat rack months after his passing; wishing, with an aching heart, that his form and substance were supporting the meaningless article of clothing – not a mere wooden peg.

Biography of Reagan - click to buy from Amazon

The story goes, that Reagan’s speechwriters and advisors tried to take those resounding words out of his speech, and he put them back in.  Repeatedly, they edited the passage for being too confrontational, repeatedly, Reagan put them back in for being necessary to his message.  Finally, the man spoke them with passion and conviction, in his speech at the Brandenburg Gate, an enduring symbol of the former greatness of the German people, then standing isolated and unapproachable – next to the wall dividing the city of Berlin, the nation, the people and their spirit. 

 

 

 

President John F. Kennedy

That wall was erected in defiance of another US president, John F. Kennedy; as a result of the fecklessness he displayed in the Bay of Pigs disaster, and the beating he took in talks with Soviet Premier, Khrushchev.  Khrushchev, emboldened by his successes, began shipping Soviet missiles to Cuba, triggering the Cuban Missile Crisis, 13 days of fear for citizens of the United States as the world held its breath, wondering if nuclear war was upon us.  Kennedy, to his credit, finally found sufficient steel in his spine to stand up to the bellicose Khrushchev, back him down, and turn the missile ships back to Russia.

The Berlin Wall was a symbol of American defeat and shame.  Reagan stood boldly before it, decried its symbolism, and conquered the indignities it represented, with 6 brave, concise and powerful words: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”  Six words that changed world history…25 years ago today.

Thank you, and God bless you for your courage Mr. President.

What is it about Tebow?

Posted on by
Reply

Ttim Tebow has become a lightning rod of controversy.  Why is that?  Let’s take a brief look at the young man.

He is an OK quarterback by statistical standards – leaving out his W-L record.  Although I haven’t verified the numbers, I have read that his stats are better than former Denver Bronco quarterback, and current Executive VP, John Elway’s were at the same point in his career.  Before he took over as the starter, Denver was 1-4.  Since Tebow became the starter, he has led them to a 7-2 record.  He has passed for 11 touchdowns, rushed for 5 more and thrown 2 interceptions.  Not a bad record, so why the vitriol?  Some say he’s not a “real” quarterback – whatever that means and for whatever it’s worth.  Personally, I’d rather have a guy like Tebow, with his record, than a prototypical QB with a .500 winning record.  Others say his delivery is too long – 2 interceptions and 3 fumbles in 10 games say the complaint is without merit, especially when you consider that he runs the ball more than most NFL quarterbacks.  So what generates the heat?

Yes, he kneels and bows his head on the field to acknowledge and thank the source of any accomplishment.  But we have seen many players point skyward, kneel in thanksgiving after a score and otherwise publicly acknowledge their faith without generating controversy.  He verbally gives credit to Jesus Christ for his success during interviews – but so too do countless other athletes without getting the blowback.

He is accused of being self-promoting and drawing attention to himself – but I have noted quite the opposite.  He is reluctant to accept credit for himself, deflecting praise to his teammates and honor to God after a win.  He is quick to accept the blame for mistakes – even those not directly attributable to himself.  His teammates love and respect him.  Those are not the hallmarks of a self-promoter.  In fact, they are the traits of someone we would likely seek out as a friend and colleague.

He does not, as many are prone to claim, believe that God makes the Bronco’s win on his behalf.  He has expressed the spiritual maturity of acknowledging that he plays a game, and it is just a game – and as such, God is unlikely to take much interest, much less involve Himself, in the outcome.  Through his foundation he is building a hospital in the Philippines.

He makes some Christians uncomfortable; and I admit to being one of them previously.  But in light of all the negative attention he has received lately, I decided to look into it a little bit more – though I can’t claim to have deeply researched the topic.  Here is my opinion of the fellow:  He is a believing Christian who takes seriously the instruction to not hide our light under a basket, but to let it shine forth for others to see.  He seems untroubled by the bile spewed his direction, or the mocking of other players.  He continues to try to put Christ in the forefront of his life and to visibly and openly profess his faith…and maybe that makes the rest of us uncomfortable.  We are much more comfortable with those who “quietly” practice their faith.  Shame on us, and good on Tim Tebow.  One thing Tim Tebow is not – he is not ashamed of Jesus.

So, what is at the root of the dislike for Tim Tebow?  As I review it in my mind, the nastiness really started when he and his mother, Pam, starred in an anti-abortion commercial financed by Focus on the Family.  And events of the past week reinforce my recollection, a pro-abortion group is trying to generate donations based on Tebow’s touchdowns (given the loud disparagement of his abilities, and the group’s dislike of Tebow, shouldn’t they tie their donations to some poor indicator of poor performance?). 

There is a great deal of controversy around abortion, and the arguments are understandably often white-hot.  But this case seems on its face to be uncontroversial:  “My mother was advised to abort me,  she chose not to, for which I am grateful.”  Understandable, no?  And it is understandable that Mr. Tebow would take a great and personal interest in the issue, trying to give other unborn children the same chance at life he was given. 

It is also understandable that Michael J. Fox is an advocate for stem cell research, given his affliction with Parkinson’s.  I disagree with his base assumption that embryonic stem cell research provides the best opportunity for a cure.  Other stem cell research has proven much more fruitful, and, I believe, much more likely to produce positive results.  However, given his assumption, his advocacy is understandable.  I might have a faulty memory, but I don’t recall similar vitriol directed Fox’s direction.  I remember arguments against embryonic in favor of adult stem cell research, but I don’t remember such a tide of hatred directed at the person of Mr. Fox.  I recall Rush Limbaugh commenting on the ad,  saying, in effect, that Fox was exaggeratiing the effects of the disease, but nothing like what Tim Tebow has experienced.  In fact, the Limbaugh comments created more stir than the original ad.

It seems apparent that the current anti-Tebow clamor is based directly on his public, pro-life advocacy.  He idenfies very clearly with the personhood of the unborn, and speaks out on their behalf.  He is hated for that.  He is hated, because those who advocate for abortion do not want the general public to think too much about what is being aborted – and Tebow’s commercial is a powerful demonstration of that which the abortion advocates want to keep unspoken.

The perfect solution to a politically created problem.

Posted on by
1

First we must agree that illegal immigration is illegal.  We must also agree that a fundamental responsibility of the federal government is control of its own borders.  Without such agreement you are arguing something other than what is good and right for the United States of America, and if what is good and right for the United States is not your intention, then we have nothing to talk about regarding this topic, and you are excused.

So, the first order of business is to secure the borders – and no, that imperative does not require “comprehensive immigration reform” to implement.  All that is required is the will to secure the borders.  Fence, virtual fence, increased Border Patrol, National Guard, military forces, moats and alligators – I don’t really care.  Use them all, and use them with purpose and intent. 

If you were a husband and a father, and there were people creeping your house every night, raiding your fridge, taking your cash and sometimes sneaking drugs to your kids, how long would it take you to figure out a way to stop these guys? Would you try to figure out a comprehensive plan for them to have permanent, legal access to your home and a voice in your household decisions before you tried to stop them?  I doubt it!   Your first duty to your family would be to stop the intrusion.  Failing that, your family is morally entitled to leave you to wallow in your own abject incompetence in failing to perform your most basic duty to them. 

If you invited someone to visit your home for a specific period of time, and that person ignored the agreed term of the visit and continued to stay and behave as one of the family to the detriment of your true family – you would be failing your basic responsibility once again if you did not expel them from your home.

 In either of these situations, could you reasonably expect your wife and children to have any patience with your continued whining about the “bigger picture”, the difficulties of locking the doors and securing the windows, how tough it is to locate the unwanted guest, how useful the guest has been in cleaning the home and washing the dishes or how concerned you are about the future and family of these intruders?  Of course not!

We often hear that the physical border is not the whole problem and of course it isn’t, but acknowledging that does not excuse inaction.  Back to the family analogy – if you had nightly intruders AND a guest who has overstayed her welcome, would your wife accept your lack of action regarding the intruders because, as you continue to point out, the intruders are not the only problem, and stopping the intruders will do nothing to get rid of the unwanted guest? Certainly not!    

Suppose many, or even all, of the home invaders are truly good people with sad stories, would you then be excused should you endanger the health and wellbeing of your family because of your sympathy for their plight?  Not in the least!

At this point, let us clean up our terminology: What do you call someone who comes, uninvited, into your home and helps themselves to what you have provided for your family?  I know some who would call them a brother-in-law (I wouldn’t, I have great brothers-in-law), but none of us would call them uninvited guests, unofficial family members or accidental residents.  You would call them deadbeats, crooks, trespassers, thieves, robbers and worse.  In the national conversation we should call them foreign invaders – which they are.

I hope these analogies have helped clear your view of the politicians and pundits who make excuses for the government shirking its most basic duty – securing the national borders against invasion; and a duty that is closely akin to the first – keeping track of our foreign visitors and insisting that they leave when they said they would.

I’m not going to dwell overmuch on exactly how to secure our borders and monitor our guests, but I will make this point:  The technology exists today to allow any business to secure their buildings and property against almost all intruders, and to know if a visitor left at the appointed time or if they are still on the premises.  It can be done.  NOTE:  The impossibility of securing against all intruders does not excuse a refusal to secure against most of them.

Once the borders are secure, we can talk about what to do with the foreign invaders currently within our borders.  Oh yes!  It is impossible to deport them all!  Who’s going to do it?  How will it be done?  All of the red herrings are dragged across the logical path.   Let me lay out a simple, effective and just plan, keeping in mind that simply granting “a path to citizenship” spits in the collective eye of everyone who took, or is taking, the time and effort to play by the rules.  Who would you rather have in your home, the person who comes at the appointed time for the agreed purpose, following the established protocol, or the one you find, unexpectedly, sitting in your Barcolounger watching your Sony big-screen, eating your Cheetos and drinking your Henry’s?

On the other hand, many worthwhile businesses would be unable to continue if every illegal were suddenly deported.  So here is my plan…

First, we secure the borders – I cannot emphasize this enough, because without that we are simply hauling hay for the “howdys”.

Second, we insist that everyone within our borders have proof of legal standing – birth certificate, green card, naturalization papers, visa, etc.  Those without such proof will be given a short grace period, say three months, to register their illegal status and establish a schedule for authorized re-entry (these schedules could be arranged so that a business did not lose its entire workforce at one time).  After the grace period, anyone discovered, by whatever means, without proof of legal standing or proof of registration of illegal status (with a scheduled re-entry date sometime in the future) will be deported immediately – and upon such deportation will not be allowed back into the United States for ANY reason.  If their baby daughter will die without their kidney donation…they’d better find a way to donate that kidney from outside the US borders.  If their sainted mother is on her deathbed and begs to see her son one last time, he’d better appear to her in a vision, because he’s not entering the country to see her.  We MUST have the will to see this through – keeping in mind, THEY made their choices and they are reaping the fruit of those choices.

Third, once registered and scheduled for authorized re-entry, the invader has a choice – do they wish to become a US citizen or not?  If they wish to become a US citizen, they get in line with everybody else PERIOD and their former invader status can be used against their petition for citizenship.  If they don’t wish to become a citizen, that decision is permanent and final.  Under no circumstances will they ever be allowed to vote or receive public aid, of any kind, including Social Security – although they will be required to pay all taxes and withholdings along with everybody else.  (A long term visitor in your home can expect to participate in household duties and share in household expenses, but they shouldn’t expect to inherit anything upon your death).  Should a person choose noncitizen status, they will return to their country of citizenship for expedited processing for temporary resident status, allowing the United States to check their backgrounds and deny re-entry to drug dealers, gang bangers, rapists, murderers, thieves and other unsavory characters.  Their temporary status allows them to stay only as long as they are legally and gainfully employed.  Children born to temporary residents do not receive automatic citizenship – they are treated just like any other foreign national when they reach the age of majority.  Any legal, alien resident who commits a felony or certain, specified, misdemeanors will be deported immediately upon conviction, with no obligation on the citizens to provide transportation of person or property or any other assistance to the families of the deported alien.  Said families must either meet all requirements of legal residency or leave.

Finally, any entity (i.e. city, state, church, business, individual or institution), found to be knowingly harboring or shielding foreign invaders or assisting same in fraudulent voting activity will lose all rights of citizenship.  In cases of nonpersonal entities, the principals of the involved entity as well as any individuals directly involved in such activity will forfeit their rights of citizenship.  

This last may cause a large uproar among certain groups of people.  When it does, we need to ask ourselves what would motivate someone to encourage, foster and assist a foreign invader.  Once we acknowledge the answer to this question we will clearly see that disenfranchisement is both a just and a benevolent response.

All accepted avenues for petition for legal residence, family, political/religious asylum, etc. will remain open – except for those who are deported for felony activity or failure to register their illegal status. 

For those of us who are Christians, our first concern must always be the salvation of souls.  Obviously, soul salvation is not dependant upon one’s country of residence.  We must then also concern ourselves with the wellbeing of the less fortunate.  While it is true that, in a natural sense, being born or otherwise legally residing in the United States of America is rare, good fortune, we are not required by God to encourage circumvention of the law or to do so ourselves in our solicitude towards others.  We may still work diligently to assist legal immigration, to help improve conditions in their homeland (which I consider to be the preferred option, since it plants a new seed of native Christians in a needy place) or to otherwise contribute to their health and happiness.  Our Christian faith in no way requires us to put aside good sense regarding this problem, any more than it requires us to allow the needy to invade our homes and threaten the safety and security of our families.

Arsonist sets fire to SUV spray-painted with “Occupy Eugene”, an anarchist symbol, 99%, and other perjorative scribblings

Posted on by
2

The link to the KEZI article and video are on the image.  The article from the Register Guard is here.  I have always wondered about the size of the role played by the Eugene Anarchist community in the Seattle riots.  It seems pretty evident they played a role, but it is hard to tell how big.  This whole “Occupy” movement thing seems to be hand-crafted for participation by the Eugene crowd.  This article was particularly poignant after my daughter sent me a link to this photo of an anti-Occupier that she found on Dom Giordano’s Facebook page.

Why do people think Romney will be good on the economy?

Posted on by
Reply

I work with a guy who lives on a golf course, belongs to a country club, and believes social issues should not be part of the discussion when it comes to the 2012 presidential election.  Also, he is completely in the tank for Mitt Romney.  That is something a really cannot figure out.  The first part of this video talks about abortion and gun control on which Romney has been on the wrong side earlier in his career.  Giles, rightly castigated me for holding that against him in this post.  He is still on the wrong side of the “man caused global warming” issue.  Putting all that aside, why anyone concerned about the state of the economy would vote for Mitt Romney is beyond me.

The second half of the video below shows Mitts recent support for the TARP government bailouts, government mandates for all to buy health insurance, and President Obama’s stimulus package.  Any one of those items by themselves should shove him over to the looney bin with Ron Paul.  The closer I look at the guy the less I like, again with the caveat that I would vote for him before I would vote for Obama, but I would surely have to hold my noise.  One of my biggest fears is that the current enthusiasm gap enjoyed by Republicans will disappear if Romney is nominated.

I expressed some additional thoughts on Romney’s flip-floppiness here.

Romney still makes me queasy

Posted on by
Reply

Day 51 of 1000

I watched the Republican Presidential Debate that occurred in New Hampshire last night.  It was broadcast by CNN and sponsored by CNN Bloomberg Television and the Washington Post, but I watched it on the internet as I tried to help Christian with a big report he has due for the Marxist professor Kelly drew in caricature here.  The insomnia inducing Charlie Rose and one minion each from CNN Bloomberg Television and the Washington Post did an absolutely abysmal jobs at asking whiny, hard-left worldview questions to the debaters.  No one out in the real world understands why Republicans would subject themselves to such drivel which is another thing that does not inspire a lot of confidence in the current set of candidates.  Every time one of the questioners started a sentence with “Washington Post research says…” or “a CNN poll shows…” I felt like screaming, “Since when has anyone in this room or the audience watching the debate believed or cared about anything written in the post or reported on CNN!?!!”  Then, rather than let the debaters debate, they put up an endless stream of videos, many of which showed out of context statements made by conservative figures so these losers could set another “gotcha” question.

It was pretty obvious the moderators were heavily invested in a Romney primary win.  I, like Giles, will vote for Romney is he wins.  All of the debaters including the looney-tunes Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman would be far better than what we have now.  Nevertheless, Romney STILL makes me queasy.  He has been on the wrong side of too many issues too long and has flip-flopped too many times to give me any warm fuzzies about his desire to do anything but hold power.  This article on his position on climate change rings true.  One positive for Romney in this debate is that he finally came out for the repeal of Obamacare.  Too bad it is just another flip-flop.

I think I like Rick Santorum the best.  He made the statement that the decline of the family was at the core of even or economic problems.  He said that only 5% of two-parent, traditional families live in poverty while 30% of people who live in single-parent households live in poverty.  It is still too early to decide, but I think Cain and Perry come after Santorum on my list, not necessarily in that order.  Those are just the guys I like.  I will try to cast my vote in the best way possible to remove Obama considering electability and whatever issue
comes up between now and the North Carolina primary.

Re: Why I will not vote for Romney

Posted on by
4

I am still not quite sure of the Why that is answered here, But I will give it my best.

I get the objection that he misrepresents his past.  It is hard to argue that he forgot about the time when he was pro choice.  But if we could set that part aside for now, I will get back to it later.

I have never understood the objection that someone once believed X and now they believe Y. After all, that is the story of personal redemption is it not? We celebrate the C. S. Lewises, and Lee Strobbels who turned from atheism to Christianity. Isn’t our goal to turn hearts and minds from accepting, or worse, practicing prenatal infanticide to embracing the sanctity of life? If it is, then we need to welcome Romney’s conversion.

We all are put off by the person, politician or no, who believes X until such time as X negatively impacts their well being, then suddenly they oppose X (X being legislation, either pending or enacted). Even more do we despise him if, once the personal threat from X is past, he resumes his support of X again.  These are the same folks who would (and do) exempt themselves from the laws they pass for everyone else – it is an abhorrent practice.

One could make the case that Romney is shifting his position for political expediency, and that may be what is happening here; but let’s admit, he’s making the right shift. Let’s welcome his voice to our choir.

Now to the “forgetting”.  Would that he had the courage to admit a previously held errant belief.  I will confess a similar moral confusion – well, actually, it was the exact same bit of confusion – but my confessions, public though they may be, are far more private than Romney’s. Maybe he is ashamed of his former reasoning, if so, it’s hard for me to be overly harsh at his shame, because once a person grasps the truth regarding the sanctity of human life, they realize their previous position was shameful. Maybe it is plain old political opportunism, and that is certainly not admirable. But, as long as that horse is headed my direction, I make no apologies for riding him.

There are reasons to oppose Romney’s candidacy, and I do – in the primary.  But if he is nominated, I will vote for him with enthusiasm to replace the current abominable administration.  This example of Romney failure, even taken in its worst possible light, pales, nay, disappears in light of the cronyism, double-dealing, hypocritical, underhanded immorality of this president, who sees babies as punishment.

The Other McCain’s RINO problem

Posted on by
Reply

Day 49 of 1000

Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain blog is indignant that a bunch of establishment Republican blogs get credit and accolades for their very recent coverage of Herman Cain’s rise in the presidential polls.  See here, here, and here.  He is right to be indignant.  The Other McCain has been saying Cain will be at the top of the heap when the smoke clears after the primary fight for a long time.  McCain gives this example of how Republican sites who have no credibility on Cain are the ones that get cited and invited by the MSM and, even worse, the Republican establishment.  It is so bad that Day by Day cartoonist Chris Muir featured McCain in today’s strip.  I like RedState and it is not their fault, but McCain is certainly out front on this and seems to be getting short shrift.

I have mentioned before that I am a big fan of The Other McCain.  Actually, Truth Has a Chance has a lot in common with The Other McCain.  McCain’s blogging sidekick Smitty is from Oregon.  We are a blog with two sidekicks and no real leader, but BOTH sidekicks hail from Oregon*.  McCain has been in the tank for Herman Cain for a long time now.  That is A-OK with me because I like Herman Cain a lot.  More specifically, Cain is not an establishment Republican.  I am still not sure for whom I will cast, my vote, but Herman Cain is currently in my top two.

At its core, establishment Republicans are getting to be a big problem.  Their undermining of Sarah Palin by the likes of RINO losers George Will and Peggy Noonan pushes them into Huffington Post territory in the minds of many Tea Partiers.  I quit reading Hugh Hewitt for his support of Mitt Romney about a year ago and if it were not for Steven Hayward, I would do the same with PowerLine.

*OK, one was born in California, but now makes his home in Oregon while I am stuck out here on the wrong coast.

Kelly gets published, then linked by Wintery Knight!

Posted on by
Reply

Kelly recently joined the Student Free Press Association who publishes a news and commentary website name The College Fix. She was almost immediately asked to write an article on the Catholic University of America’s return to single-sex dorms as a measure to curb binge drinking and casual sex (hooking up). She worked hard on it, but interest in the story had started to wane before she got the article. She made tons of phone calls, wrote a massive number of emails, and tried to find new angles on the story. She felt she did OK–you can read the article here, but struggled to get the level of response she really wanted and is chomping at the bit to do another story.

Wintery Knight saw the post, made a post of his own, then in his usual manner adds context and a pile of already posted material that addresses the subject.  Thanks Wintery!