|
hasps
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Michael
Country: United States
State: Pennsylvania
Interests: Politics (of the right-wing variety); Computing (of the high performance nature); Target shooting (a recent interest provoked by one of my friends named Matt)
Expertise: The tradition of spirited oratory; Networking: if you can plug it in, I can network it; The "Industry" that I am in I guess would be closest to Hardware as Internet is nebulous and Software is not an interest of mine.
Occupation: Computer related
Industry: Computers (Hardware)
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
6/3/2004
|
|
| This quote was from a recent e-mail from a Santorum for senate campaign e-mail:
"Compassionate Conservatism relies on healthy families, freedom of faith, a vibrant
civil society, a proper understanding of the individual and a focused government to
achieve noble purposes through definable objectives which offers hope to all."
What a load of crap. A "focused government to achieve noble purposes [...] which offers hope to all???" Is that the role of a republican form of government?
Isn't that what the other party in the election wants, Rick?
| | |
| CAFTA and the Death of Our Economic Interests
From Patrick J. Buchanan's CAFTA: Ideology vs. national interests:
In
1993, Republicans, by four to one, signed on to NAFTA. They believed
the promises that our $5 billion trade surplus with Mexico would grow
and illegal immigration would diminish. They were deceived. The NAFTA
skeptics were proven right. The U.S. trade surplus with Mexico vanished
overnight. Last year, we ran a $500 billion trade deficit. Since 1993,
15 million illegal aliens have been caught breaking into the United
States. Five million made it, and their soaring demands for social
services have driven California to bankruptcy. As for Mexico's major
exports to us, they appear to be two: narcotics and Mexicans.
With
Middle Easterners turning up on the Rio Grande, patriotic Minutemen are
patrolling the border because President Bush will not enforce our
immigration laws. Who can believe this White House is serious, then,
about halting the invasion from the Caribbean and Central America? It
is time for Republicans who represent a Middle America that never
wanted NAFTA to tell the White House the old talking points will no
longer do. The open-borders, free-trade ideology of Clinton and Bush
has run its course and begun to endanger our national existence. | | |
| How to Spot a Fake Pro-lifer(or, how to capture Bill Frist's heart)
Bill Frist has come out in favor of descration of human life and for
the anti-Christian myth of "impartiality" to faith, justice, and the
moral tradition that used to guide the conservative wing of the
Republican party. Despite the obvious shortcomings of the senator, who
made inklings about his support first in 2001, then in 2004, the blame
should be put squarely on none other than the same people who repented
of their sins and worshipped at the GOP shrine when Bill Frist spoke on
"justice Sunday."
Let's take a step back. Where have we come since the so-called
"religious right" declared victory and delivered the vote for Ronald
Reagan in 1980? Three justices who support Roe as it stands, in its
original form (the closest to "original intent" that progressives can
point to), three Republican presidents who have not upped the ante
against the pro-abortionists in their midst, and an increasing voting
population who could not pick the teachings of the Hare Krishna from the
teachings of Jesus Christ. And the more the Republican party persuades
Christians to vote their way, it seems, the less willing people are to
scold Frist and the other sell-outs.
The media of course hails Frist's move as a bold step, a marked
turnaround, and a
force to be reckoned with. It is a step in the right direction to persuading
"moderates" to vote for him in 2008. Frist made a bigger mockery of
pro-lifers and "values voters" who aggresively ran get-out-the-vote
against Senator Arlen Specter, a
comfortably-positioned Rockefeller Republican who has cast his lot
decidedly for federally-funded activities that promote abortion and
sodomy since he was in office.
As I type this, most Americans probably are not even aware of the
process that an unfertilized embryo goes through. This would fit more
closely with the false ideology that faith and science cannot coexist.
It is why most believe they cannot mesh. Faith must guide science,
however, and it takes moral strength to tell Washington bureaucrats
like Frist why they are most of the problem.
The Democrats cannot be trusted to lead the fight. They will fall in
line with Frist because their donors have been the same ones marching
for moral liberation since the 1960s. In fact, the furtherance of the
GOP-dominated senate in advancing Bush's agenda has been helpful to the
liberal movement on most fronts.
As my friend Nicholas says, the most the GOP will stand for a show of
hands on anymore is a corporate welfare break or a war to end all wars.
Would Bush for one second forget that we were engaged in an all-out war
that is leading us nowhere if the news was that Roe were overturned and his stated cause could be trumpeted forth?
Would he take it as news that more and more Republicans, taken in by
the stance of the war hawks are increasingly at odds with the pro-life
cause?
The party of Christian values may be more to blame than their foes. Who is more honest?
| | |
| Life, Liberty, PropertySeems these days Americans have too easily given away the first two of these things.
Life is, simply put, supposed to be left alone by the federal
government except in situations where it is enumerated. This is not a
strict constructionist or federalist belief. It is the supposed stance
of a nation governed by the rule of law. Nuanced liberals of the
Planned Parenthood-sympathizing variety since
the women's liberation movement believe life is best deliberated
upon by the Supreme Court, "democracy," or is implied by the "spirit of
the Constitution." I do not believe, however, that a proper response to
these shrill arguments is to couch the Christian argument against
abortion in some sort of human rights or civil rights rhetoric. I have
mentioned this time and again.
If we are speaking of liberty as our founders were, it has been usurped
in the United States since the 10th Amendment was disregarded and
looked upon as neanderthal by a majority of government officials. Some
look to Marbury v. Madison, others look to the rescinding of the 17th
Amendment. Younger conservatives who have no interest in history, a
larger segment of the population I am afraid, point only to the
landmark decision on abortion in 1973. Some neoconservatives wildly
point to the decision in Brown which forced desegregation of public
schools, a "decision I actually agreed with," according to at least one
of the judges on President Bush's short list. Phooey.
Thomas Jefferson himself did not entrust the federal government to
enforce restrictions against itself. He even distrusted the use of the
Constutition if and when it was used to justify the very same things it
disallowed. What good, for instance, is a legislative system that
deliberates on that which is not outlined in the Constitution itself?
So today when we face the erosion of the last of the tenets of the
American system disregarded by the court, we should pause and think
about what we are celebrating. The birthday of a free nation?
Will the next supreme court justice nominated by this president have any concept of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?
| | |
| In Other News...
GOP Congressman Wants Troops Out of Iraq
Sun Jun 12, 4:39 PM ET
RALEIGH, N.C. - A Republican congressman who voted for the Iraq war
said Sunday that "we've done about as much as we can do" in the country
and that the reason for invading Iraq has proven false.
Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina will be
among the lawmakers introducing legislation this week calling for a
timetable for the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq."When I look at
the number of men and women who have been killed -- it's almost 1,700
now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded -- and I
just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction,
the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been
proven that it was never there," Jones said on ABC's "This Week."
| | |
|
