Conservative Donnybrook

Russian “President” Dimitri Medvedev has agreed to assist South American lunatic, Hugo Chavez with the development of a nuclear program.  This act of insanity in the backyard of America is unacceptable.  Any action taken by Russia in furtherance of a Venezuelan nuclear program must be regarded as a provocative act.  Full and immediate sanctions must be imposed against both nations should this direct threat to both the northern and southern continet materialize.  The shipment of personnel and/or materials to the South American nation by Russian or other sources must be intercepted and refused entry.

Our hemisphere must be protected from any further socialist influence.  This will require a serious and dedicated effort by the United States to improve the lot of each and every nation in the western hemisphere through economic and military assistance, the removal of archaic laws and unproductive and unequal business relationships.  An economic Monroe doctrine must be put in to place.  Our half of the world has vast resources and is uncommon in its limited amount of languages spoken.  What we need is a coalition, a partnership of the Americas.  One where capitalism, democracy and free trade are the norm.  One where Russian influence is not welcomed.

To all Paleos, Neos, Liberals, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and other various nut jobs, I wish you a very happy Thanksgiving.  This is the one day we can put aside our differences and and play pilgrim and Indian.

Enjoy your Turkey, Tofurkey, Ham or what have you.

After Obama is inaugurated, if a person disagrees with his policies, is he a racist or a heretic?

President Bush has failed his nation again.  The President issued 14 pardons to day, none of them went to political prisoners Ramos and Compean. The two former Boarder Patrol agents have spent nearly two years in prison for doing their job.  Please, visit this site to urge President Bush to pardon these wrongly convicted men.

Men, women and children are starving to death just off the horizon from Florida shores.  Haiti, already the Western hemisphere’s poorest nation, is suffering through another debilitating and deadly crisis.  The U.N. has sent some food but not nearly enough.  Both domestic and foreign agencies are providing meager assistance.  Logistics seem to be a major problem.  As it happens, The United States Marines are good at logistics, humanitarian assistance and they are not too far from Haiti.

At a time when the Russian navy is playing war with their new allies in South America, it is of vital importance that the United States stand up against starvation and despair in the area.  There is simply no excuse for allowing these poor people to suffer and die.  We have the aide, the power, the logistics and our biggest asset in this area, the Marine Cops.  Let the Russians play with tyrants, we have lives to save.

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is no better way to show the world the might of the U.S. than by offering assistance to our neighbors.  Sure, we can kill a cockroach in Afghanistan with a precision bomb, but can we, will we, save the lives of innocents in our backyard?  Compassion, power, integrity and solidarity;  Mr. President, save the Haitians.

Yesterday, the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina, issued a repudiation of Father Newman’s statements regarding the culpability of voters who cooperate in furthering the ongoing holocaust of innocent babies. The full statement, delivered by Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin reads as follows:

CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) – This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.

Unfortunately, Monsignor Laughlin’s repudiation confuses a moral issue for a political one. Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue, which has been politicized because of the nature of our country and government. Throughout history, God has used worldly governments to rule over his people. Figures such as Pharoah, Moses, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Cyrus, and Caesar have been used by God to either chastise or deliver His people.

The United States is unique in history because of the phrase “We, the People.” Abraham Lincoln referred to the United States as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people.” In this sense, we are the authority which God has set over us. As such, we are culpable for our actions as rulers of God’s people. To that end, every time we resort to the polling place, each of us is engaged in a moral act which has ramifications for our salvation.

During the latest election, we were given the choice between two men whose views were remarkably similar. More than one person argued with me that there was not a hair’s breadth worth of difference between the two candidates. In many ways, they were correct. The difference between the candidates was mostly in degree, but not in intent. Universal health care? One proposed to socialize medicine, while the other provided health care through the tax code. Immigration? I’m not really sure that there was any difference, frankly. The economy? The candidates disagreed only to the extent that the government should nationalize industry. Social Security? Was there a difference? The environment? One wanted massive tax increases through the imposition of cap and trade. The other wanted massive tax increases through cap and trade. Indeed, the only real difference was on the issue of abortion. I argued that this was the determinative factor and the reason conservatives should swallow their pride and vote for McCain – because there was a chance that McCain would nominate justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, whereas his opponent would expand the destruction of innocent life.

Viewed in this light, each voter’s prudential decision to which Monsignor Laughlin refers was between a candidate who supports the destruction of innocent life whenever convenient and one who does not. The other issues – the ones which the Monsignor implies a person might have been justified in basing his decision – were more or less the same except in their degree. Given that choice, it is clear that Father Newman’s original statement was more in keeping with the Church’s teachings.

Even if there were social justice issues that a Catholic could look to and find Obama preferable, I am at a loss to find even one that trumps the wholesale murder of millions of innocent babies. Welfare? Jobs? Education? Health care? None of them do a person any good if he is killed in the womb. Life is more important than any other social justice issue, because without the basic right to be born, there is no justice.

In that sense, the elimination of abortion is the predicate to all social justice. There is not a larger moral issue than our complicity in the killing of millions of babies. So long as we continue to engage in this barbarity, we can scarcely call ourselves a moral nation. No matter the level of congeniality we achieve racially, socio-economically, ethnically, or between the sexes, we will still merit damnation as a nation while we are killing our babies. Furthermore, Monsignor Laughlin’s comments about the well formed conscience beg the question. Can a person with a well-formed conscience vote for a candidate who will expand abortion? Because abortion is, above all else, a moral issue, the Church is singularly competent to address it. They should be forceful in their condemnation of the act. Attaching repercussions to one’s status within the community of the Church for material support of this evil is appropriate. The Diocese of Charleston should reconsider its position.

UPDATE: While Fr. Newman has taken the original letter off the parish website, as we know nothing ever truly is deleted on the Internet. Here is the cached Google page containing the original letter.

I may have to reposition myself on the subject of the bailout(s). It seems that in times of economic trouble certain food items experience increased demand. Of course, the increase in demand can only mean higher prices at the checkout lane. Among those items are Spam, Macaroni and Cheese, and Velveeta. A spike in the price of Spam would be intolerable. For the sake of keeping my grocery budget low, therefore, I advocate in favor of any measure to get this economy moving again – including out-and-out socialism.

Say no to high-priced Spam, support the bailout(s).

It appears that the Mayor of Indianapolis is proposing a reduction in the County Option Income Tax. A couple months ago, the State relieved the city of the burden of financing the police pensions and child welfare. As a result, the county no longer has any need to collect the tax which funds those items. Unbelievably, it appears this tax may actually go away. If so, I have to think this might be the first tax that was ever imposed in the history of government that was subsequently eliminated when its raison d’etre ceased to exist.

Maybe I missed the story, but I believe we are still paying the “temporary” tax to build the Hoosier Dome aka RCA Dome aka soon-to-be parking lot for Lucas Oil Stadium (if someone knows, I’d love to hear). If so, maybe Mayor Ballard could dig through the bag of other “temporary” taxes to see if there are others that have lost their justifications.

On the heels of the people of Marion County somehow voting to increase our property taxes (see my rants here, here, here and here) by allowing Indianapolis Public Schools to levy on our property with a bond issue which is not subject to the proposed constitutional caps, this is indeed refreshing news. You can only imagine how frosted I was that the bond issue was passed. I was slightly depressed about Obama’s win; but, downright livid about the bond issue.

Kudos to Mayor Ballard. More like this.

According to one parish priest in South Carolina, parishioners who voted for Barack Hussein Obama should not present themselves for communion until they have repented, confessed and received absolution for their votes.

According to the Rev. Jay Scott Newman:

Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president. Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.

Judging by the yard signs in my neighborhood, such a stance at my parish would trim 20 minutes off the mass time. It is good to see one priest stand up against the grave moral evil of our time. If more priests were to take the issue seriously, we may be able to make inroads against this modern holocaust.

Or at least his Secretary of the Treasury did. It appears that the $700 billion that was appropriated to purchase assets of failed financial institutions will now be used to prop up credit card companies and student loan providers.

And now they expect us to trust them when it comes to bailing out other industries? Seems they’re a little free with our money, folks. If the government is going to pay our credit card bills, does that mean we should stop paying?

The United States Marine Corps celebrates its 233rd birthday today. It is meet that we who have enjoyed the blessings of security and freedom that their blood has purchased take a moment to honor their service.

From the first battles out of which our country emerged to take its separate and equal station among the nations of the world, the Marines have been first to fight. While the country may enjoy the status of separate and equal, as a fighting force, the world knows no equal to the valor, determination, and capabilities of the United States Marines.

That valor and determination was epitomized by the most recent Marine Medal of Honor recipient: Jason L. Dunham. Corporal Dunham’s Medal of Honor citation reads:

Rank and organization: Corporal, 4^th Platoon, Co. K, 3^rd Battalion, 7^th Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, 1^st Marine Division (Reinforced),  U.S. Marine Corps.  Place and date: Karabilah, Iraq, 14 April 2004.  Entered service at: Scio, NY.  Born: 10 November 1981, Scio, New York.  Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Rifle Squad Leader, 4^th Platoon, Company K, 3^rd Battalion, 7^th Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, 1^st Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004, Corporal Dunham’s squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west.  Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander’s convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah.  As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire.  Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy.  Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons.  As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham.  Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade.  Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat.  Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast.  In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines.  By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

Men like Corporal Dunham and his brothers-in-arms in the Marine Corps make possible the unparalleled freedoms we enjoy as Americans. To the United States Marines, happy birthday and thank you for your faithful service.

UPDATE: Worth a read.

Apparently it’s en vogue to hang pictures of genocidal maniacs on your wall in London. I’ve written about this sick admiration that many have for communism and its vile leaders before. The BBC article does a good job of shining a light on the stupidity one must have when they choose to hang a poster of Joseph Stalin on their wall. As the article eludes to, it seems that the core problem here is the seemingly free pass that the “Progessive” Western world is willing to give communism. The horrors imposed on the world in the name of communism cannot be forgotten, just ask any survivor of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe or a Soviet citizen who survived Uncle Joe’s purges.

With the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the presidency and the increase in the Democratic cohort in Congress, this may be the time to buy that gun you’ve always wanted – before it’s too late. It would appear that the rush is already on as gun shops have seen a run on “assault” rifles driving up their prices.

Obama stated during his campaign that, while he respects the Second Amendment, he supports the right of local government to impose “common-sense regulations” on the ownership of firearms. Even if Obama’s favors a restrained approach (which is doubtful), his colleagues in Congress are likely to take their electoral advantage to the bank on this front and Obama would likely offer little resistance as the definition of “local government” and “common-sense” are certain to be malleable concepts in the coming days.

ON A SIDE NOTE: It occurs to me that the infamous Assault Weapons Ban shares its initials with one of our regular contributors. You might consider changing your name awb.

As early as this summer, when the government was beginning to bail out the financial sector, vice chairman of General Motors, Robert A. Lutz, commented that the government should help his company with monetary support. Now, after reporting a loss exceeding $4 billion last week, GM stands on Uncle Sam’s doorstep, hand thrust out, asking, “Buddy, can you spare some Change?”

In its latest statement, GM said that it could run out cash before the end of the year, raising questions about the nation’s largest automaker as a going concern. Nonetheless, General Motors has maintained that it is not considering bankruptcy. Why not?

Their position seems to be that transitory external factors have caused the problems at GM. In particular, CEO Rick Wagoner has equated the spike in oil prices, which he claims is the cause of the company’s woes, was akin to an act of God. It appears that economic experts are agreed that some form of government action to forestall the failure of General Motors (and presumably Ford, who also reported losses exceeding $2 billion) is warranted under these circumstances.

It was my understanding, though, that Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code is precisely for situations like this. Where a company finds itself caught out because of external factors that are not related to the management of the company, reorganization makes sense. The idea is to give the company a temporary respite from its creditors, to grant it some “breathing room” to get its financial house back in order. If General Motors is a viable business (and there’s every reason to believe that the making of automobiles can be profitable), then relief through a temporary stay might just make all the difference.

However, other companies were not similarly affected by the spike in oil prices. It would seem that the fact that GM and Ford were focused so heavily on the heavy vehicle market, and incidentally reaping huge profits in that segment (what happened to all that money?), made them blind to the economic realities building around them. Note to management: Next time we (or anyone) goes to war in the Middle East against a major oil producer, shift production to more fuel-efficient vehicles. It is highly questionable to assert that the problems at these companies is not management-related. In such a case, where the defect is in the front office, bankruptcy cannot be effective. It will only stave off ruin temporarily while subjecting creditors to their own potential liquidity problems. Once the stay is lifted and the company emerges from bankruptcy, it is unlikely that the same management team would suddenly prove themselves successful.

But, this is true of a government bailout as well. Why should the American taxpayer bear the brunt of General Motors’ poor management decisions? Especially given the fact that the company is likely to blow through the money and find themselves back at the trough at some point in the near future. Meanwhile, the taxpayer will have been saddled with higher taxes and made less able to purchase the products that GM and Ford manufacture.

In 1953, then CEO of General Motors, “Engine” Charlie Wilson famously quipped, “[F]or years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.” Someone needs to make the case that saddling the taxpayer with the responsibility of bailing out the automaker’s management is good for America. At this point, the case has not been made. Bankruptcy, whether Chapter 11 or Chapter 7, right now looks to be inevitably in the future of GM – better now before we add an additional tax burden on top of the failure than later with the added expense of having to absorb GM’s default on the bailout.

Who do you like?

We’ve spent a fair amount of time and effort arguing amongst ourselves and with our legions of readers about the relative virtues of one candidate’s position over another’s. In doing so, I believe, we have been completely missing the point of elections in the United States. I will explain by relating a story.

The morning after the election, as I was driving to work, I tuned into a local political analyst’s radio show. A caller asked the host, “How could all of these people have voted for Obama? Didn’t they realize what he stood for?” The host responded, “They voted for him because they liked him better.” As much as the smugness of the answer irritated me at the time, I think he was absolutely correct in his analysis.

Voters voted for Obama because they liked him better than McCain. Any other arguments for or against a candidate are irrelevant in the face of that simple truth. Indeed, Howard Stern’s man-in-the-Harlem-street interviews proves this point beyond a reasonable doubt. The issues didn’t matter to the voters; they were quite willing to attribute virtually any position to their candidate of choice. It was the person they were voting for – not the policy positions.

Think about the last several elections. Bush defeats Kerry and Gore. In both cases, Bush is easily the more likable, charismatic of the pairings. Clinton defeats…well, really anyone. There probably isn’t anyone who was as charismatic as Bill Clinton. I like to think of it as the “Who’d You Like to Drink Beers With Test.” Clinton beats everyone with the possible exception of Reagan.  And look at who the Republicans threw up against him H.W. and Dole. Those men did not stand a chance. The Democrats should have won in 1988 given the fact that they were running against George I. But, who’d they put up against him? Dukakis? No contest. Look at the elections prior to that and ask which candidate was the more charismatic? Reagan/Mondale – Reagan/Carter – Carter/Ford (this one was particularly bad).

It would appear that the electorate, in general terms, stops developing in high school. Whoever would have won the Student Council election popularity contest is likely to be a good candidate for political office now. In one sentence, my local radio host has summed up Basic Truth About Politics #1 Continue Reading »

There’s a symposium of Republicans on “what now?” at Slate, and in this entry, Ross Douthat takes Douglas Kmiec to task on his pro-life Obama boosting.

What I don’t understand at all is Kmiec’s position, which seems to be that the contemporary Democratic Party, and particularly the candidacy of Barack Obama, offered nearly as much to pro-lifers as the Republican Party does. I am sure that Kmiec is weary of being called a fool by opponents of abortion for his tireless pro-Obama advocacy during this election cycle, but if so, then the thing for him to do is to cease acting like the sort of person for whom the term “useful idiot” was coined, rather than persisting in his folly.

Those seeking a primer on the case against Kmiec’s putatively pro-life position on Obama and abortion can begin here or here or here. Suffice to say that what he calls “outright lies and falsehoods” about Obama’s views were, in fact, more or less the truth: The Democratic nominee ran on a record that can only be described as “very, very pro-choice,” and his stated positions on abortion would involve rolling back nearly all the modest—but also modestly effective—restrictions that pro-lifers have placed upon the practice and/or appointing judges who would do the same. There may have been reasons for anti-abortion Americans to vote for Barack Obama in spite of his position that abortion should be essentially unregulated and funded by taxpayer dollars. But Kmiec’s suggestion that Obama took the Democrats in anything like a pro-life direction on the issue doesn’t pass the laugh test. …

Oh snap!

UPDATE 7/8: Kmiec responds, with some nastiness couched in patronizing, hurt-feelinged, I-forgive-you simpering. 

I am stunned by the coarseness of your writing, Ross. While we have not met, so little of what you have written is in any way respectful or acknowledges that you are addressing not some abstraction but a fellow human that I can only pray that if any of your family or closest friends come into contact with this commentary that they reach out to you in the most gentle and understanding way, without precondition, to calm an anger that is harmful to the soul.

Genuine love and affection do not reside on the Internet, so I cannot extend it to you, but in my heart, I forgive your great unkindness. I do hope you can free yourself from its enslavement. 

He goes on to use it all as a teaching moment, explaining that Ross Douthat’s “hate” is of a piece with the bloodthirsty hordes who attended Sarah Palin rallies and thus demonstrates everything that’s wrong with the Republican party. 

And then Tucker Carlson responds with this: “Hey, Doug. Toughen up. Seriously. I’ve read suicide notes that were less passive-aggressive than this.”

I love it.

Pretty good article over at WSJ with insider accounts of some key moments from the McCain and Obama campaigns. Here’s a good part: 

The next day, while conservative House Republicans maneuvered behind the scenes to block the bailout bill, Sen. McCain sat largely silent at a crisis summit at the White House. Afterward, Sen. Obama called his staff from his car: “I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said, according to several aides. “Some of the Republicans are clueless. Bush and I were trying to convince them.”

Ah, so the Transformational, Transcendent Candidate for Change and all that conspired with George W. Bush to rob the American people of $700 billion for the enrichment of wealthy Wall Street bankers. I’ll be darned!

Then there’s this:

Meanwhile, Sen. McCain was meeting with Wall Street supporters such as investor Henry Kravis, J.P. Morgan Chase Vice Chairman James B. Lee Jr. and Merrill Lynch Chief Executive John Thain, who told him the global credit markets could “seize up” without definitive action. Some chided the candidate for attacking all of Wall Street and suggesting financial CEOs shouldn’t make more than the president’s salary of $400,000.

You’ve been a very bad boy, McCain!

But McCain’s blustering about greed and executive salaries in the midst of a McCain-supported, epic, world-historical ripoff benefiting those same greedy Wall Street titans pretty much epitomizes the vacuity and hypocrisy of the McCain campaign.

It must be nice to have the Democratic nominee in one pocket, and the Republican nominee in the other. Good show, Wall Street!

Oh, and let me remind you once again that this was the most important election of our lifetimes.

I have included a summary of each proposition from the Secretary of State in California and then given my commentary and advice on voting.  Here we go!

1A
To provide Californians a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices; to provide good-paying jobs and improve California’s economy while reducing air pollution, global warming greenhouse gases, and our dependence on foreign oil, shall $9.95 billion in bonds be issued to establish a clean, efficient high-speed train service linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with at least 90 percent of bond funds spent for specific projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds, and all bond funds subject to independent audits? Fiscal Impact: State costs of $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay both principal and interest costs of the bonds. Payments would average about $647 million per year. When constructed, unknown operation and maintenance costs, probably over $1 billion annually; at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fares.

MY TAKE: $19.4 billion to start, and then at least $1 billion annually!  And who knows when the damn thing would be operational.  Do you have any idea how many tunnels and bridges would be required to build this?  There is a reason why private industry has not done this: It is not expensive or difficult to make this flight on an airplane.  This is a huge waste of taxpayer money.  The state is already in dire financial straits.  This proposition makes things worse.
NO
Continue Reading »