Your Thoughts and Prayers III

Back in February 2007,  I asked our readers to keep my then-girlfriend (now fiancee) Beth in their thoughts and prayers when she had microvascular decompression surgery for trigeminal neuralgia. a nerve condition that causes really bad facial pains. Tommorow (Wednesday) morning at 8 am ET she will be having a second MVD surgery.  We were hoping this surgery wouldn’t be necessary… the pain had gone away for some time, but unfortunately came back on the other side. So, we are hoping this surgery will take care of it.

I’d like to ask everyone to keep her in your thoughts and prayers again. You are welcome to leave a note here and I will pass it along to her. Please leave political comments out of this thread. Thanks.

King vs Gillibrand

Mark Hemmingway over at NRO has a rundown of the potential race between newly appointed Senator Gillibrand and possible GOP challenger, Rep. Peter King.

As noted in the article, a race between Any GOPer and Caroline Kennedy would be a race GOPers would pay to be allowed to run in – nothing more fun than taking on the clueless scion of a worthless, ultra-liberal political family long shorn of its glamor. But a race against Gillibrand, who has a conservative reputation, has a different dyanmic – if Gillibrand’s conservatism is more than just the result of not being as kook lefty as most New York Democrats.

The American Conservative Union gives King a moderately conservative 76 lifetime rating – which means as a Senator he will routinely annoy the GOP base outside of New York, but that he fits well with the politics of New York State. The ACU, on the other hand, gives Gillibrand a lifetime rating of 8. No, I didn’t forget a number – 8, as in e-i-g-h-t.

Now, there’s not much to go on so far – Gillibrand has only one House term under her belt, so she’s a stealth candidate with allegedly conservative credentials clearly picked with an eye towards the likely mid-term dynamic of 2010 which will have at least an anti-Democrat tinge to it (and a possible anti-Democrat wave) which would make most NY Democrats sure losers in a race against a moderately conservative GOPer.

I figure with Caroline we would have had a 90% chance of taking the seat – but with Gillibrand as the Democrat empty suit, I rate our chances at 60/40 against. But still well worth the effort.

Its Not Just the Clintonistas in the Obama Administration

But Obama’s Clintonism which is dragging Obama down, step by step, into a political morass he won’t be able to get out of – from NRO’s The Corner:

The Obama presidency is only one week old, but it has already limned its main moral outlines:

On January 20, President Obama called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual couples.

On January 22, he issued an order announcing his intention to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year, but admits he has not figured out how to do that. President Bush had expressed a similar wish, but could find no nations willing to take responsibility for the detainees.

On January 23, President Obama issued an order that authorizes tax dollars for abortions abroad.

From these announcements we learn that President Obama recognizes no difference between the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man (a covenant that they will have and nurture children, if they are so blessed), and a civil contract between two persons of any sex, in order to set up a household of affection and sexual favors.

This is a relapse into paganism…

…second, that this president’s guiding light in matters of national security is not a realistic assessment of the national interest but personal concern for what kind of figure he is cutting in the international eye. Good headlines first, practical thinking later.

Thirdly, we learn that the president is willing to do what a substantial bloc of U.S. taxpayers abhor, and will resist in conscience. Moreover, it is a mistake to think that people in most other nations love, honor, and respect the secularist preoccupation with abortion.

The first week did not have to begin this way. These first steps were unworthy of a great nation and unworthy of a serious leader. These decisions humiliated those who voted for President Obama because they had been assured, and assured others, that the new president would take seriously the culture of life. It is now clear that the new president was willing to allow those who risked their moral reputations to support him to feel in retrospect like liars…

In his first week in office, Bill Clinton deeply wounded the moral force of his own presidency by turning abruptly against those who regard abortion as the greatest evil of our time, as slavery was in Lincoln’s time. It is sad to see a Democratic president make that same mistake again.

The Democrats, from Obama on down, have learned nothing and forgotten nothing – bitterly stewing over President Bush, the Democrats have yet to figure out that the reason the GOP won in 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004 was because of a very negative reaction to the moral depravity of liberalism as expressed by such things as radical homosexual rights, radical abortion rights and an unwillingness to be strong against men bent on evil in the world. The Democrats should keep in mind that the GOP did quite well against the Democrats in good economic times in 1994 and 2000 – and if we add bad economic times to these sorts of Obama policies, then 2010 could end up being a very long year for Democrats.

I doubt they’ll figure it out – they have convinced themselves that they didn’t lose over their liberalism but because we GOPers tricked the American people into voting against their own interests. Furthermore, they are now convinced that a majority is wise to these tricks of ours and thus won’t be fooled again. It could be a very rude awakening for our Democrats.

Naturally, I’ll be working very hard to make it as rude as possible.

If You Want Hope

Then you’d better have faith. Tomorrow is the Feast Day of St. Thomas Aquinas, the author of the Summa Theologica – given this happy coincidence of St. Thomas and our new President Hope-N-Change, I think it worthwhile to see what one of the great minds of human history had to say on the subject of hope:

…just as it is not lawful to hope for any good save happiness, as one’s last end, but only as something referred to final happiness, so too, it is unlawful to hope in any man, or any creature, as though it were the first cause of movement towards happiness. It is, however, lawful to hope in a man or a creature as being the secondary and instrumental agent through whom one is helped to obtain any goods that are ordained to happiness. It is in this way that we turn to the saints, and that we ask men also for certain things; and for this reason some are blamed in that they cannot be trusted to give help…

…Absolutely speaking, faith precedes hope. For the object of hope is a future good, arduous but possible to obtain. In order, therefore, that we may hope, it is necessary for the object of hope to be proposed to us as possible. Now the object of hope is, in one way, eternal happiness, and in another way, the Divine assistance… and both of these are proposed to us by faith, whereby we come to know that we are able to obtain eternal life, and that for this purpose the Divine assistance is ready for us, according to Hebrews 11:6: “He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him.” Therefore it is evident that faith precedes hope.

Unless you have faith – and that, dear friends, would be faith in God – then you can’t have hope. I mean, think about: what are you hoping for if not for eternal happiness? A higher standard of living? Better health care? What for? What good does wealth and health do for you if there is no hope beyond this world?

If we really are to hope for a better tomorrow, then we’d better get believing in God, today. It is belief in God – and only belief in God – which can motivate us to work hard and sacrifice ourselves in order that those who come after may have a better life. If we have not faith and what we’re hoping for is that our own lot will be made easier, then we’re just spinning our wheels quite uselessly.

Now that President Obama has semi-freed himself from Wright’s un-Christian hate-mongering, I hope (because I have faith in God and his ability to move hearts) that Obama will take some time to carefully consider the “hope” part of his hope and change mantra. What it really means, and what it really requires of us. As for me, I’m ready for some stern testing – to pay the piper, as it were, for our national irresponsibility of the past 70 years or so. I hope for a better future, but not necessarily for myself but for, in a real sense, the young people just rising and those who are soon to be born. I want them to grow up in a world freed not just from the fears we have, but from the overbearing temptations to self destruction with which we have avidly supplied ourselves.

Time will tell if hope means something to Obama – and his supporters – or whether it was just a nifty, poll-tested word for a political campaign.

Change is Good

And if only Obama knew what change actually entails – excellent video presentation.

Tax Crook Confirmed…

Senate Republicans report via Twitter that Timothy Geitner, the tax cheat nominated by Barack Hussein Obama, was confirmed 60-34.

The Washington Post reports.

Tim Geithner was confirmed as Treasury Secretary moments ago by the Senate by a vote of 60 to 34, making him the successor to Hank Paulson and the man charged with leading the U.S. out of a global recession.

Geithner was confirmed despite the embarrassment caused last week by his botched tax returns from 2001 – 2004.

Quick recap: While working at the International Monetary Fund, Geithner was audited in 2006 and found that he failed to play self-employment tax in 2003 and ’04. He immediately paid those taxes but did not go back to check his 2001 and ’02 returns, in which he had also not paid the self-employment tax. He did not pay those back taxes until confronted by President Obama’s vetting team last year.

The 60-34 margin was the closest since World War II, Bloomberg said.

SHAME: The following Republicans — there are ten of them — voted to confirm the tax crook:

1. Corker (R-TN)
2. Cornyn (R-TX)
3. Crapo (R-ID)
4. Ensign (R-NV)
5. Graham (R-SC)
6. Gregg (R-NH)
7. Hatch (R-UT)
8. Shelby (R-AL)
9. Snowe (R-ME)
10. Voinovich (R-OH)

Great Pioneers in the Field of Eugenics…

1. Adolph Hitler


Thought it would be a good idea to create “the master race.” Thought that the “Jewish Problem” could be handled via their extermination.

2. Josef Mengele (a/k/a “The Angel of Death“)

Mengele selects incoming Jews for labour or extermination in the gas chambers and conducts pseudoscientific medical experiments on inmates, principally infants, young twins, dwarfs and those with genetic abnormalities. He is given his own laboratory block, independent financing and a medical staff.

He is also supported by the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics at Dahlem in Berlin and sends specimens to the institute director, Dr Otmar von Verschuer, his former supervisor at the University of Frankfurt and an expert on the genetics of twins.

Mengele investigates ways to increase human fertility. He tries to find a genetic cause for the disease ‘noma’ (a rare gangrenous condition of the face and mouth), studies physical abnormalities and contagious diseases, conducts experiments with wounds, and attempts to change the colour of inmate’s eyes to blue with injections of chemicals directly into the eyeball. His chief interest is twins.

3. Margaret Sanger:

Founder of Planned Parenthood. Along with being an anti-semite and supporting the genocide of the Negro race, of her most famous sayings,

“It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.“

And:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

And last, but certainly not least,

4. San Fran Nancy Pelosi, who yesterday famously suggested that “contraception is good for the economy.”

Her interview with Stephanopolous:

No apologies, eh, Nancy? Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

That’s the way to help the economy. Make sure folks are never born. That’s worked so well in Europe.

But hold your head up proud, Ms. Pelosi. You’re in (in)famous company.

Liberals Mad at Conservatives for Not Following The One

Via Newsbusters - this is hilarious:

Several days before taking office, President Obama traveled to George Will’s home to dine with a handful of conservative media elites. The beltway conventional wisdom suggested that Obama’s aim was to “neutralize potential adversaries” by way of a “charm offensive.” After the dinner, Bill Kristol explained on Fox and Friends that while “no one’s mind was changed,” he would “end up supporting [Obama] on some things.” Charles Krauthammer joked about Obama’s apparent goals, “I am brainwashed entirely. I’m in the tank.”

Just one week later, Obama’s right-wing acquaintances have already shown the futility of engaging in a good-faith dialogue with them. While Obama pushes his vision for the economic recovery package — his first real battle against the conservative establishment — the dinner’s attendees are on a no-holds-barred offensive against it:

Charles Krauthammer: “Look, this is one of the worst bills in galactic history. … FDR left behind the Hoover dam and Eisenhower left behind the interstate highway system. We will leave behind, after spending $1 trillion, a dog run in East Potomac Park.” [Fox News, 1/24/09]

David Brooks: “It is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach — rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact.” [New York Times, 1/23/09]

Bill Kristol: “The stimulus has so much bad stuff in it. … They let the House Democrats get out of control in sort of writing a pork-laden bill. Politically, I think the Republicans have more room too argue for changes and ultimately vote against it.” [Fox News Sunday, 1/25/09]

So, because these conservatives failed to ditch a lifetime of conservative economic philosophy, talking with them was a waste of time, according to liberals. We’re supposed to be so awed by Obama that once he talks to us, we’re supposed to switch over to being Obamaniacs, I guess?

Well, no. Look, if I were to meet President Obama I would call him “President Obama” or “Sir”. He would be treated with the respect due to any person holding the office of the President of the United States of America. I would listen carefully to what he had to say, I would not interrupt while he was talking and I would, if asked, give careful consideration to whatever views he urged upon me. But I wouldn’t cease to be conservative because Obama had dinner with me. As he reached out to me, I would give that extra benefit of the doubt, but when Obama did something in clear contravention of my core beliefs – such as apparently being ok with a “stimulus” bill larded up with pork like never before – then I would declare my opposition.

Only a “tolerant” liberal could get upset over this – upset not just over Obama meeting with people from the other side (for which act I do give him great credit for – he didn’t have to do it, and by so doing it he showed a proper respect towards those who disagree with him), but also upset that the other side is still, after all, the other side.

The TARP Trap

Mark Steyn over at NRO’s The Corner had bad things to say about TARP and then got this response from a fellow conservative on the matter:

I’m totally with you except in your comments about TARP. This is a real misconception pervading the conservative punditocracy. To suggest that the first $350 billion was “completely wasted” ignores the realities of the situation. At the time TARP was enacted in October, the financial system was on the verge of outright collapse. We’re now in a severe recession, but to have done nothing at that time would have meant reenactment of the worst of the Great Depression. By injecting capital into the system, the TARP money relieved the worst of the risks confronting the system, unfreezing the credit markets. Yes, we can argue about whether this has resulted in propping up some ultimately unsustainable institutions. But the fact is, given the conditions at the time, there really was no choice.

I’m a conservative libertarian, inclined to be extremely skeptical of such large-scale government intervention. In this case, it’s important to recognize that a series of government errors were intimately involved in creating the conditions that led to the crisis – loose money, politically correct and misguided regulatory directives, and irresponsible lending behavior by government-affiliated institutions. So while such intervention is highly distasteful, the extent to which it is being compelled to deal with earlier government mistakes makes it somewhat more acceptable.

I’m a conservative conservative, and it seems to me that in TARP we ended up throwing good money after bad. In the first rush of collapse, I gave my tacit approval to the bail out – now that we’ve seen it fail, I’m opposed to any further such actions. If a company is failing, let it fail – when the dust settles, we’ll be better off for it. And do keep in mind that I work at a large financial institution whose repeated assertions to us employees of continuing financial stability are looked at with increasing doubt…in other words, I’m not at all sure that I’ll have a job next week because there’s a chance my employer might fail. And if it is to fail, let it fail…I don’t want my fellow Americans on the hook for clearing up the mess made by a senior management I view as increasingly incompetent.

The problem here has been the perfect storm of corrupt politics, corrupt economics and funny money. We can’t do anything, at the moment, about the funny money – fiat money is here for at least a while. We can do lots about the corrupt politics and the corrupt economics – corrupt, even if no laws were broken, in the sense that the former betrayed the public trust, the latter betrayed their fiduciary trust. To keep the same corrupt politicians in charge of monitoring the situation while we send taxpayer dollars to the same corrupt businessmen who run the failed firms is the definition of idiocy.

Now, naturally, Obama and his Democrats will bail out the corrupt businessmen and cover up for the corrupt politicians – this as certain as the sun rising in the east. The reason for this is that the corrupt businessmen provide large donations to Democrat campaigns (or, if they haven’t in the past, they will now – if they know whats good for them, know what I mean?) while the corrupt politicians, prosecuted, would risk the worst possible – for Democrats – outcome: a loss of Democrat power. So, we’re just going to go from exceptionally bad to miserably worse in the realm of bail outs – but we GOPers should have nothing more to do with it. Let Obama and his Democrats continue along this path without us so that when it crashes (and its not a matter of if but of when), we’ll bear no further responsibility for it.

McCain Stands Firm Against "Stimulus" Pork

Good man:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told “Fox News Sunday” this morning that he would not support the stimulus package as the House Democrats have written it because it includes too much wasteful spending.

The stimulus currently includes $275 billion in tax cuts and doesn’t include Republican input or a spending timeline, McCain said.

“There should be an end point to all of this spending.say two years…The plan was written by the Democratic majority in the House primarily. So yeah, I think there has to be major rewrites, if we want to stimulate the economy,” McCain said. “I am opposed to most of provisions in the bill. As it stands now. I would not support it.”

McCain wouldn’t say whether he would filibuster it.

“We need serious negotiations,” he said. “We’re losing sight of what the stimulus is all about and that is job creation.”

Of course, I don’t think we “lost sight” of what the stimulus is all about – in the sense that it always was about Democrats rewarding their contributors and buying votes. If any jobs were created along they way, Democrats would be ok with that…as long as they weren’t created in Republican districts, of course.

The GOP must make it clear – as McCain has done – that this Obamanomics boondoggle is all Democrat, all the time. This plan, as presented, will fail miserably and cause our already weak economy to collapse completely – when everything goes smash, we don’t want any GOP fingers on it because Democrats will brazenly blame us for failure if they can put even one GOPers name on it in a leadership position. We want our hands clean and our party able to credibly state that we warned when it was proposed, offered solid alternatives and opposed it when it came up for a vote.