Radio talk shows are alive with speculation about Mitt Romney's scheduled speech this coming Thursday on "religion". I think we can expect that Mitt will not offer up a full set of Mormon apologetics, but will instead head off this faux Mormon-phobia with a full-bore display of his amazing family and a clear statement of how little this all has to do with his ability to be President of the United States.
Cynics point to the surge of Mike Huckabee as the reason for the speech, but I'm not so sure this is the case. Mitt needs to place this Mormon issue in its proper perspective. That being said, I think it would have been far better for the other candidates to make the point, and for that I am disappointed.
My expectations are high that we can put this issue to rest and concentrate on who is best qualified to run an economy and business as incredibly large as the United States of America. Who is it that has met a payroll? Who has the experience of managing large beaurocracies? Who will protect American families from the ravages of big government and keep us safe from those who have no other purpose in life but to kill us?
As an evangelical Christian, I am far more comfortable with Mitt Romney as president than I am with Hillary Rodham or B. Hussein Obama, both of who profess to be Christian. These two will get me killed!
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Saturday, December 01, 2007
CNN Debacle
Once again CNN has exposed itself for the biased media outlet it is. If is not clear to any objective viewer that CNN has truly earned its nickname of the Clinton News Network after last week's YouTube-format "debate", then the best I can say is that you must have had some strange Kool Aid to drink for supper.
Let's leave aside, for the moment, the obviously pathetic sloppiness of background checking of those who were "chosen" to ask questions--we all know now that at least three of the questioners were confirmed supporters of Democratic candidates.
Of greater concern is that it was apparent to me that every question was designed not to ferret out any differences that the Republican candidates for POTUS may have had on issues deemed important by most Americans, but to once again confirm to the CNN viewership how prejudiced and narrow minded Republicans are on so-called "wedge issues". Right off the bat we were left with the impression that supposedly undecided Republican voters were actually interested in questions that would inevitably expose Republicans as gun-crazed, immigrant-hating, big-spending anti-abortionists--evil Cheney lackeys only interested in nation-building as a means of adding enormous amounts to their already overflowing oil profits. To that end, maybe a better nickname for CNN might be Cliched News Network or perhaps Conspiracy News Network.
That being said, there were a few clarifying moments that played well for some of the candidates. One of these was Mitt Romney's refusal to take the McCain bait on torture or water boarding. John McCain is a great American and truly a brave hero who suffered greatly as a POW in Vietnam, but on this issue, I think he doesn't get it. He consistently brings up the Geneva Convention argument from the perspective that we wouldn't want "them" torturing our boys, therefore we can never use torture, and he fails to recognize that the enemy we fight does not wear the uniform of another nation, and they could not care less about the Geneva Convention (John, they kill innocent women and children and cut off the heads of journalists and volunteer workers!!). Romney understands appropriateness on this subject. Commanders-in Chief should never divulge what we would do or not do while interrogating throat-slashing evil thugs. I was also struck with the clarity of Mike Huckabee on the ridiculous Holy Bible question and his professorial explanation on the difference between ajudicated guilt of murder conviction vs the killing of innocent unborn children. Fred Thompson also hit a home-run on the wasteful spending of our children's social security funds. In these few isolated cases, the candidates were able to make lemonade out of the stupid questions.
On the central issue that clearly separates all Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) from the left, the Clinton News Network could not find one question from the 5,000 submitted that had to do with the War on Islamofascism. Does anyone believe that there were no questions of this nature? I can only ascertain from this obvious omission that they do not feel that it is important. Oh, wait a minute, I just figured it out. If they let a question in like that, it might draw the viewers attention to the fact that the Bush Administration has been successful in protecting America from another attack for the last six years, and, more importantly, the Surge is actually working!! Wouldn't want to go there, would we? Wouldn't be prudent. Also, and probably more importantly, this is front-runner Rudy's strong point. CNN clearly would not want to give Rudy a bully pulpit on this subject, because he would tell it like it is.
CNN was rightfully embarrassed by this pitiful showing--especially the gay old retired Brig. Gen. (actually Colonel, I am now learning) being on the Clinton campaign advisory team. They flew him out to Florida and didn't vet his background better than that??? Hilary should have loaned CNN her private bimbo eruption team to advise and consent on these questioners--that is, if they are still alive!
Let's leave aside, for the moment, the obviously pathetic sloppiness of background checking of those who were "chosen" to ask questions--we all know now that at least three of the questioners were confirmed supporters of Democratic candidates.
Of greater concern is that it was apparent to me that every question was designed not to ferret out any differences that the Republican candidates for POTUS may have had on issues deemed important by most Americans, but to once again confirm to the CNN viewership how prejudiced and narrow minded Republicans are on so-called "wedge issues". Right off the bat we were left with the impression that supposedly undecided Republican voters were actually interested in questions that would inevitably expose Republicans as gun-crazed, immigrant-hating, big-spending anti-abortionists--evil Cheney lackeys only interested in nation-building as a means of adding enormous amounts to their already overflowing oil profits. To that end, maybe a better nickname for CNN might be Cliched News Network or perhaps Conspiracy News Network.
That being said, there were a few clarifying moments that played well for some of the candidates. One of these was Mitt Romney's refusal to take the McCain bait on torture or water boarding. John McCain is a great American and truly a brave hero who suffered greatly as a POW in Vietnam, but on this issue, I think he doesn't get it. He consistently brings up the Geneva Convention argument from the perspective that we wouldn't want "them" torturing our boys, therefore we can never use torture, and he fails to recognize that the enemy we fight does not wear the uniform of another nation, and they could not care less about the Geneva Convention (John, they kill innocent women and children and cut off the heads of journalists and volunteer workers!!). Romney understands appropriateness on this subject. Commanders-in Chief should never divulge what we would do or not do while interrogating throat-slashing evil thugs. I was also struck with the clarity of Mike Huckabee on the ridiculous Holy Bible question and his professorial explanation on the difference between ajudicated guilt of murder conviction vs the killing of innocent unborn children. Fred Thompson also hit a home-run on the wasteful spending of our children's social security funds. In these few isolated cases, the candidates were able to make lemonade out of the stupid questions.
On the central issue that clearly separates all Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) from the left, the Clinton News Network could not find one question from the 5,000 submitted that had to do with the War on Islamofascism. Does anyone believe that there were no questions of this nature? I can only ascertain from this obvious omission that they do not feel that it is important. Oh, wait a minute, I just figured it out. If they let a question in like that, it might draw the viewers attention to the fact that the Bush Administration has been successful in protecting America from another attack for the last six years, and, more importantly, the Surge is actually working!! Wouldn't want to go there, would we? Wouldn't be prudent. Also, and probably more importantly, this is front-runner Rudy's strong point. CNN clearly would not want to give Rudy a bully pulpit on this subject, because he would tell it like it is.
CNN was rightfully embarrassed by this pitiful showing--especially the gay old retired Brig. Gen. (actually Colonel, I am now learning) being on the Clinton campaign advisory team. They flew him out to Florida and didn't vet his background better than that??? Hilary should have loaned CNN her private bimbo eruption team to advise and consent on these questioners--that is, if they are still alive!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Moral equivalency is running rampant. Hat tip to Dennis Prager for continually clarifying this issue. In the last week, we have two glaring examples: 1) the mother/baby elephant comments at the Va Tech memorial and 2) the Obama comments equating the violence of radio shock jock statements and mass murder by Cho to the violence of corporations moving jobs off shore--outsourcing. Week after week, it becomes increasingly clear that the left has a brain freeze when it comes to recognizing evil for what it is. Somehow they cannot bear to even use the word. A caller to the Prager show preferred to use the word "bad" as the opposite of good. As Dennis pointed out, "bad" is for your doggie when he jumps up on someone. Cho was not a "bad" boy, he was the embodiment of dispicable evil. Question: Is Bashir Assad just a confused "bad" guy who can be reasoned with? Or is he an evil person, a terrible thug who would resort to anything to get his way? Is Ahmadinehad a "nut case" who can be marginalized? Or is he an evil person, every bit as evil as Adolf Hitler, who will not hesitate to kill Americans anywhere and destroy Israel. The answers to these questions will determine our future, not only in the short run, but over the next decade. American leaders who think they can engage these evil men in a dialogue that will lead to peace are as foolish as the appeasers who gathered around Neville Chamberlain after Munich. These leaders will get us killed. It is as simple as that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)