We all know that there are a lot of people filling seats in congress that really frighten us.  And frankly, I feel that way about the executive branch too-maybe you do.  So . . . I named the top 5 empty suits/empty heads of the Democrat party in recent years.  Why not check the blog out and add your two cents: http://govtmedialunacy.blogspot.com/2009/02/empty-suits-empty-heads.html

There's nothing "fair" about the "Fairness Doctrine" and we all know this.  Are you boing to lay down while Democrats take YOUR right to speak out against them?  See my latest thoughts at http://govtmedialunacy.blogspot.com/  

Today we learned that Democrats have created a petition attacking Rush Limbaugh.  Attacking private citizens in such a manner-even if they disagree thoroughly-is behavior unbecoming of our politicians . . . .  See my full article at blogspot.  -Cal Samuel August

Today at blogspot, my analysis lists political woes since the Democrats took charge of congress in 2006.  

I'm returning to blogging after some time off and some changes.  For a while, the last post here in Oct of 2007 noted that all my posts would be found at Myvoicenews . . . .  Well friends, things change.  Since that time, myvoicenews disappeared.  The owner actually found his site, Mythoughtworld.com had built enough momentum, and he closed down Myvoicenews. 

Some of my posts can be found at Mythoughtworld.com. 
However, if you want more of my posts, please go to this site: http://govtmedialunacy.blogspot.com/
-Cal Samuel August

I am not one who supports the idea of Evolution in science, believing that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, but "evolution" is a useful word when used to denote "change over time." 

In a way, people go through political evolution.  Sometimes in various posts I have been accused of being a partisan.  I make no claim on being objective, because everyone has a perspective and viewpoint.  For example, if the "fairness" doctrine is ever reimposed, it will be one of the most hypocritical things politicians in recent years have done.  No one can deny that he or she is free of bias.  A bias is a preference, and EVERYONE has his or her preferences: politically, socially, religiously, etc. 

I have often considered myself an Independent, though oftentimes being more partial to the Republican side than the Democrat side, mostly because Republican ideas make more sense to me: when I reason things out, Republican ideas usually appear to make more sense. 

In previous years, I had more political skepticism.  I was more predisposed to distrusting politicians.  In more recent years I have tended to place more trust with the Republicans.  Having reasoned the situation out, I am returning to I think a healthy skepticism with a tinge more distrust for all politicians.  Politicians are a slippery, slidey brand.  When it comes to political maneuverings, we should always have out our baloney detectors. 

In the last few days, it seems more Republicans are falling from supporting the war in Iraq, basing their attitudes more on what seem to be prevailing attitudes in the media, the "Beltway," what have you, rather than doing what they think will be best for a people (the Iraqis) who are depending on us and our own people (the contituents) who are depending on them to make political decisions that will be best for our interests as well as theirs. 

We cannot take a complete laissez-faire approach to the Iraq situation.  We must support our troops and their mission.  We must allow them to utterly humiliate and annihilate Al Qaeda and other organizations like it wherever they rear their ugly, evil heads.  Some believe that taking action (as opposed to being laissez-faire) means that we should pull out and cut our losses.  If we are to do so, the consequences for a people who are caught in a bad situation (the people of Iraq) and our nation's international interests could be quite dire.  I think it quite reasonable to suggest that Al Qaeda is hemorrhaging heavily.  Rather than stanching the flow, I think it our duty to bleed this organization and others like it to death. 

Questioning my line of thought here?  I know I don't go into a lot of evidence here, but if you are wavering yourself, please go and check out the podcast or listen on your computer to Hugh Hewitt's broadcast from July 10.  Listen to the President's speech, and the speeches of those supporting the war.  Winning this war is imperative!

If your politicians are getting weak-kneed, and wishy-washy tell them you will be voting for the opponent with the strongest stance in the next primary.  Keep the pressure on them,  keep out your baloney detector, and reserve the right to a healthy political skepticism.  And truly support our troops and their mission.  Had the original Revolution been cut off because war was hard, we would not be the United States of America--we might even be French, Spanish, or English held today--instead of this present great nation.  -Cal Samuel August

Conservatism won when the immigration bill went down last week.  There are certainly things that need to be done, but certain things like border enforcement and the building of a fence must be completed.  On top of that, a simple, easy-to-read bill must be created to deal with our immigration problems.  It should not be a 500 page bill, but a five page bill at the most.  If the Founders could get this great nation created with a few short documents, why can't we solve our immigration problems in less pages?  

Democrats and Republicans alike understood that their political futures depended on that bill going down.  Some of them on both sides of the aisle sincerely agreed with their constituents, while others, taking the elitist track decided to condemn anyone critical of the bill.  Republicans who voted to go with the immigration bill should be punished by not being elected again.  We can't trust them; they don't want to listen to their constituents, and are out of touch with mainstream America.  If they are determined to be RINOS, Americans who want conservative Republicans must find alternatives.  

I would like to think that Republicans who disagreed with the bill were able to garner the support of like-minded conservative Democrats (some recently voted in) who generally disagree with their party.  That is the kind of bipartisanship conservatives can live with.  Out of touch elitists OF BOTH PARTIES who think they know what's best for our country better than WE THE PEOPLE we can do without.  

I wanted to cover one other item today.  TO HECK with biofuels like ethanol.  In my e-mail I recently came across a news item about a new invention that will literally change the world.  Imagine that instead of going to the gas pumps, all you had to do was put some water in your car, and off you went.  It's happening.  An inventor has created a car that runs on gasoline and water.  OK, water AND gasoline, I know.  Hopefully, a car that runs on water alone-especially salt water-will soon be coming.  

This will change the world.  The hope is that it will bring middle-eastern tyranny to its knees.  When gasoline goes the way of the dodo, so will OPEC and its hold over our economic interests.  No longer will we be subsidizing tyranny.  Support every effort to free us from the tyranny of gasoline.  The company that capitalizes on this revolution will be bigger PERHAPS even than Microsoft (unless of course, Microsoft capitalizes on it). 
-Cal Samuel August






 

Conservatism has lost its way in the last few years.  While Democrats seem to have been unified leading up to last year's elections, Republicans have proven to be far from unified.  It seems that many of them took their constituents for granted. 

Conservatism is the fuel of Republican winning.  Wishy-washy non-conservatives sometimes win, but as Rush Limbaugh regularly argues, true conservatism fires up the base. 

While Newt Gingrich has not entered the percolating presidential race, and probably will not judging from what seems to be his near disappearance from the public stage in recent weeks-though I heard he recently distanced himself from the sinking Bush ship as most Republicans seem to be doing at this stage-he has set forth a manual of conservative principles that you may want to read.

Republicans must recall what they stand for.  True conservatism is a rallying cry that has the power to fire up the Republican base.  Unfortunately, there has recently been a difficulty seeing the forest for the trees.  

The handbook and manual for true conservatism that I'm talking about is one you've probably heard about, and hopefully even read.  In "Winning the Future" Newt lays out smart principles for a 21st century America.  Newt, like or dislike him, is a great idea person, and many of the ideas are principles Republicans can unite behind.  

Republicans can find their way again by taking a close look at this book, and reading the concise "21st century Contract for America" at Newt.org    Don't miss it.  -Cal Samuel August
 

Last fall there was a great amount of disgust with Republicans.  Too much spending.  Tired of Iraq.  Disgusted with the immigration debate.  I used to be apolitical, thinking that politics doesn't matter.  Unfortunately, it does.  You see, now that Democrats have been elected to congress . . . and should you stay home and not vote for the Republicans because they have been spotty on some views in the past, you can be assured that Democrats will without a doubt encroach on YOUR FREEDOMS.  Yes, for all they railed about your civil liberties being taken away by Bush policies, THEY will now begin taking away your freedom. 

Let's talk about a few of these freedoms.  First of all, everyone who has to pay taxes ought to have the right to keep more of his or her hard earned money.  We can be assured that as Democrats spend more to make corrupt, bloated, and wasteful government bigger, you can kiss more of your hard-earned dollars goodbye in the form of taxes.  For those of us who don't have huge salaries to begin with, this should really tick you off.  Tax cuts weren't just "for the rich," I received a tax cut at a time in my life when I really NEEDED IT, and by no means could I have been considered rich! 

Here's the other one.  I had been listening to Public Radio for years.  I like some of the programming on Public Radio; Science Friday on NPR, and the Car Talk guys on Saturday morning were a few of those things that I really enjoyed.  But after 9/11, as I listened to news anchors that seemed to come with very anti-American views, it angered me.  There were also a lot of anti-Republican views too.  [In spite of being somewhat apolitical, hearing a constant barrage of untrue "I hate Bush" rhetoric had the effect of making me go out and happily vote for him even after I didn't vote the first time he was on the Presidential ticket.]  

When my wife introduced me to Talk-Radio, I was able to listen to programming that was more pro-American, more in line with what seemed to me mainstream America, and for the first time in years, I really took an interest in my country, civic life, and various other sundry topics.  I have learned so much in the last few years from Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett, and others that I don't want to go back.  

The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech.  Now Democrats are pushing to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine."  I want the freedom to listen to radio that interests me.  Otherwise, I will be happy to turn the radio off for good (or until Talk-Radio should return), and find these great people wherever I can find them, even if I have to listen to recordings of them that I subscribe to via internet or some service or whatever.  Radio advertisers, are you paying attention?  Those who didn't vote for Republicans last time around, are you paying attention?  If you like Talk-Radio don't stay home next election day.  Vote for anyone who will stand up to these short-sighted and out of touch Democrats, even if they hold to a few things you don't agree with.  These are just a few of the things that happen when Democrats get in power.  So why do you stay home and say my vote doesn't matter? 

AND BE SURE TO CALL PELOSI ON IT!  See the short Hugh Hewitt article linked: 

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/60df1e98-f14f-4a1c-a1cc-8432da89b759
 
-Cal Samuel August

For any talk of two Americas or more (John Edwards style) when times were less grave, in times like these when push comes to shove the people of the United States come together. It becomes a time of reflection, a time to put down the less serious everyday tasks. On 9/11 I'm sure for many days there was that terrible sickening feeling in the stomach among many people. I know I felt that way. Though the Virginia Tech event was not of the magnitude of the events of September 11 we certainly do feel a measure of the sadness that we did on that terrible September day a few years back. In times like these, for a certain time, we drop what we are doing and stand at attention.

When I heard of the terrible massacre on Monday, I truly did a double take. It was not two people, but thirty- two people who were murdered on Monday. These things will surely happen, whether by the course of a natural catastrophe or brought about by people carrying out acts of evil in the world. We could board up every room, lock every door, put up line after line of security, but when someone is determined to carry out a random terrible deed, they may not always be thwarted. Such was the case on Monday.

It is the randomness, the unexpected quickness, the not being able to say goodbye that makes things like these so difficult. It brought to mind when I was at seminary, and my mother called to tell me that my uncle had passed away as a result of a terrible traffic accident. When the funeral was all said and done, it was time to go and tell my almost-ninety year old grandmother, who had been in a nursing home for several years as the result of a debilitating cerebral hemorrhage. I wasn't sure how she would take it, but as the matriarch of our family, a woman not unaccustomed to her own measure of suffering, my mother told her and asked her if she understood. She did not shed tears, but simply nodded her head in knowing. She carried on.

In times like these, we must all face the noble task of carrying on. Many will be tempted to talk gun control and security, to pass the blame to various administrations at various levels, but a better way is simply to keep our eyes open, stand tall and strong in the face of evil, to carry on and live our lives to the fullest, in freedom and full defiance of anyone who would intend us harm. This is a noble thing. In Matthew 10:16 Jesus Christ tells His hearers that He sends them out as sheep in the midst of wolves, He exhorts them to be as crafty as serpents and as innocent as doves. This exhortation is to all who must look evil in the face.

Now for those who mourn and remain for a time in sadness, there is comfort in the Scriptures.
Many passages come to mind, but I will share only a few.

I think of King David who mourned his dying infant son. His servants mentioned the fact that he fasted and wept while the child was alive, but once the child had died, David got up to eat bread. This puzzled them. David responded simply that he did so while the child was living, hoping that God might be gracious and spare the child, but in the time of death there was nothing more for him to do. He said simply, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."
(see 2 Samuel Chapter 12).

Truly this is the case for all of us. Those who have passed cannot come to us, but we have the promise that we will go to them. Consider what Job said in his own day (Chapter 19) knowing that His redeemer lived, and that even after worms destroyed his skin, he believed truly that at the last he would stand on the earth, in the flesh, face to face with that redeemer.

And that redeemer is Christ, about whom the Apostle Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 (King James version):

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.For those who believe in Christ, there is hope. We shall one day be again with those who have died in Christ. This is most certainly true.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Virginia Tech. -Cal Samuel August

What's the main issue now, and who seems to be the strongest candidate thus far? 
"It's the economy stupid" may have been a catchphrase coined by James Carville and used by the Clinton machine to win the 1992 election, but is it the full equation today?  No.  A good economy depends on stability and security; in the post 9/11 world we can see how concerns about those issues can really weigh heavily and drag down the most robust of economies.  However, the American economy is amazingly resilient as time as shown, and the will of the American people will always be make a comeback even in the worst of times. 

As for all the candidates, Rudy seems to be the strongest thus far (I know Hugh Hewitt seems to like Mitt Romney, but I think Rudy is still stronger).  Rudy has "it" on the economy front and so far on the security front, though I'd like to know what his policies with the overwhelming illegal-alien situation will be.  If he's any bit as tough as he was governing New York, I think he would find the right balance.  For his economic views see his Townhall posted article.  I think you'll like them: 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RudyGiuliani/2007/04/11/my_four_pillars_of_american_prosperity

Even in '92 "It's the economy stupid" was a bit simplistic, and of course, a bit insulting too.  In the 2008 election "security" and "economy" will be the major issues.  Moral issues will be important too.  In the post-Clinton era, let alone post 9/11 I think many Americans are tired of Oval Office bad personal behavior and want a president who will focus on the job at hand, above all.  That's why some Americans are questioning Rudy's past social behavior as he presently runs for office.  They don't want more Clintonesque shenanigans.  But Rudy isn't the only one who has personal morality issues to deal with (especially when we consider how long it took O'Bama to take the law seriously and pay off his parking tickets and the-what many perceive as-the shady past of Mrs. Clinton.)  If Rudy was able to handle the overregulation and prune down the strangulating New York City bureaucracy, I think he will be willing to prune Washington bureaucracy as much as possible back to health.  In the meantime, economics and security are still his strongest issues.  If he wants to keep conservative support he MUST hold to putting forward strict constructionists justices should he get Supreme Court appointments, and of course, keep his head on straight morally.  -Cal Samuel August

No, this is not an article about words banned by the FCC from use on public airwaves.  Here's the deal.  One of these days we're going to have to have two dictionaries: the one with sanctioned words and the underground supplemental with all the words that are no longer allowed to be used because of political- correctness. 

Every time someone brings up a concern about something serious that liberals don't like, there seems to be a scramble for new words to reinterpret the situation, to euphemize, sanitize, and redefine the language surrounding the otherwise hairy expression.  Here are a few words and phrases that seem to be banned these days: 

banned word: terrorist (see American, patriot)     sanctioned word: insurgent, freedom-fighter. 

When terrorism seriously reared its head on 9/11 the mainstream media quickly found words to sanitize what terrorist thugs really are.  People who prey on innocent people by using bombs among crowds, anthrax sent to congress-to Democrats or Republicans-are simply terrorists. 

banned words: American, patriot    sanctioned word: terrorist, oppressor

Just when you thought "terrorist" was a banned word, it has just been reapplied.  To liberals it seems that Americans are the terrorists and oppressors forcing our will on the world.  That is why we have to sign on to treaties and conventions that weaken our country and prevent us from acting when we are seriously threatened (or go to the UN). 

banned phrase: war on terror    sanctioned phrase: law enforcement issue

Increasingly, many liberals are trying to rephrase and redirect language to make the problem not sound as serious.  Many confused people are saying, "We can't really have a war on terror."  "Terrorism in Iraq is not really the issue."  "We should be fighting in Afghanistan (if at all)."  The joke about calling terrorism a "law enforcement issue" is that many liberals don't really want to enforce any laws concerning terrorism; they wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's "civil liberties."  

banned words: crime, obscenity        sanctioned words: expression, civil liberties, rights

When it comes to crime that should be punished with jail time, we can't actually punish criminals because it would be a violation of their civil liberties.  When it comes to disapproving of obscenity or inappropriate television material that kids could see and try to emulate, it has to be allowed because the makers of that material are just "expressing themselves."   

banned words: illegal alien        sanctioned words: undocumented worker

Since breaking the law doesn't mean anything, "illegal aliens" must be redefined as "undocumented workers."  They're just these random people floating around in society doing jobs Americans don't want to do and costing our society billions of dollars in taxpayer money.  They don't mean any harm. 

banned word: evil        sanctioned word: ?

Call evil whatever you want.  In the liberal world, there's no such thing as evil.  Well, unless of course you use it as a substitute for "conservative," "Republican," or maybe "American."

banned word: liberal    sanctioned word: progressive

"Liberal" has negative connotations.  Those connotations include being a bit naiive about the reality of evil, uncontrolled permissiveness, or the desire to live in a world where all their own bad behaviors will never be frowned upon.  Instead, "progressive" must be used.  If you try to step on a liberal's toes, you're disallowing progress, and that's bad. 

Are you confused yet?  That's the idea when it comes to political-correctness.  Anything absurd goes. 
I'm sure you can add lots of your own words to the list.  Many of you will be tempted to use sanctioned language instead of the banned terms.  Just go ahead and use whatever language you need to express the reality of the situation.  We can't keep burying our heads in the sand, or can we?  -Cal Samuel August

This past week on Hugh Hewitt's show, Newt Gingrich suggested a pretty amazing move for the war on terror.  He basically said, take out the one oil refinery that Iran has and put a naval blockade on them to cut off oil supplies, and it would shut down the Iranian economy in weeks, if not sooner.  

According to the Hugh Hewitt show, the Brit soldiers who were recently taken as hostages were not allowed to fire back at those who were about to capture them.  In actuality, the British navy could easily accomplish "The Gingrich Maneuver" and perform this action on their own--maybe even get their hostages back as a result--and put the tyrannical Iranian government in a real bind with their own people. 

The Iranians, who have taken this desperate measure of capturing these hostages may well be on the ropes as a result of the surge in Iraq.  It seems to be working, but America is TOO impatient. 

Those in government who back the soldiers and would allow them to do something about the Iranians (as efficiently as Gingrich suggested) and clean up things in Iraq have their hands tied now.  Those of you who voted for Democrats last Fall because of "corrupt" or "inept" Republican policies have begotten a monster.  And the monster is the Democrat majority.  My only hope is that two years will be enough for the American people.  We can only hope.  -Cal Samuel August 

 The firing of 8 US attorneys.  What a shock.  I'm so angered and disturbed by this travesty of justice.  Why didn't President Bush fire them all and hire new ones?  No, he should have cleaned out as many Clinton cronies as he could have when he first got into office.  He's been paying the price since then.  How about this?  He could fire them all now.  And of course, pardon Scooter Libby while he's at it.  

Obviously being defensive all these years when the media has attacked hasn't helped.  So, the Democrats were allowed to make many false charges about a "Culture of Corruption" which of course anyone who was paying attention knew was "the pot calling the kettle black."   

In the meantime, Tom DeLay will be defending charges that were brought against him about corruption.  He of course bowed down and stepped out of congress.  Why?  Especially when he didn't do anything wrong?  He complains about the "criminalization of politics."  Why didn't he fire back?  Why didn't he take it to every Democrat who actually had done wrong, and expose their tactics.  Check out his article if you didn't read it already.   

http://townhall.com/columnists/TomDeLay/2007/03/19/the_criminalization_of_politics

Now the Bush administration seems to be letting the Attorney General twist in the wind during all these recent accusations.  The president all these years has tried to take "the higher road" morally, I guess.  Instead of being defensive, he should have turned the tables on media and congressional thugs who kept firing at him. 

And the "Right-Wing conspiracy" is alive and well?  Wait, did Hillary Clinton really mean that as she complained about it in a recent speech?  Didn't she mean "Left-wing" conspiracy?  Let's consider charges against Republicans for everyday, not at all out of the ordinary political happenings.  Isn't postmodernism interesting?  A person can redefine anything benign, mundane, and commonplace and paint it as criminal, conspiratorial, malignant whatever you want.  (Do we really want 4 or 8 more years of a Clinton?  Especially the less likeable one?  Come on, Hillary's quip here is pretty absurd and laughable.) 

DeLay was on the Laura Ingraham show today, and was concerned about the direction of conservatism for the next several years.  He said that unless conservatives get organized soon, we may well be seeing another Clinton presidency.  Then why did YOU quit Mr. DeLay?  Conservatives shouldn't quit in such a crucial times.  Conservatives should be fighting back and fighting hard.  

Negativity and defeatism do not define our nation.  Conservatives are tucking in their tails, and sulking in their own self-pity.  (Chad who commented on the last blog here, don't be discouraged-Repubs are still our best bet-we can't be isolationists).  In the meantime, liberals own another kind of negativity and defeatism.  Every day they are attacking the president.  When will they actually have something to offer America other than I can scream and complain vote for me!  America will vote for a positive agenda.  America is still the "City on the Hill" don't give up on her!  -Cal Samuel August


 

Someone I am acquainted with, conservative by nature, suggested that it would be difficult for her to choose from the most popular Republican candidates for president right now. We’ve learned a lot of dirt about the political candidates available, sometimes things we may remember hearing about a few years back, but perhaps would like to forget. Conservative Republican voters seem to place a great deal of import on traditional moral integrity and values, whereas it seems that on the side of left-leaning Democrats there is a wholly different set of values—let’s just call them nontraditional.

Without completely excusing it, let’s face it: due to the nature of the job, the moral lives of many politicians Republican and Democrat are reprehensible. Plain and simple. How is this the case? In trying to get to the top of one’s field, it sometimes means stepping on the backs of others. Ever watched the CBS show “Survivor”? Have you ever seen someone win that game and fully maintain his or her integrity? Arguably, it’s a very difficult proposition. Now think of a profession where that kind of game is on 24-7, year after year. Public figures will undoubtedly make mistakes, and in many cases commit enormous hypocrisies in order to further themselves or their desired proposals. In other instances, sometimes politicians lose their humility or forget humbler origins in their rise to the top, taking on an elitist mentality.

When a person gets to the level of the presidency, especially in today’s 24 hour media environment, and with the near-microscopic scrutiny of the details of people’s lives, who won’t have skeletons in the closet, foolish gaffes, tainted political relationships, egos and the like? In other respects, who won’t be painted a certain way by the media in order that someone else they prefer might look better?

So you see, amid a field of “bad”, “unpleasant”, “dull”, “foolish”, “tainted”, “narcissistic” choices, you’re going to have to pick someone. In some cases the labels stick; in other cases you will be choosing the lesser of evils. What you are picking though, is not necessarily someone without skeletons in his or her closet, but someone who can lead. Some of the best leaders have had to learn from the worst of mistakes.

I want to vote for someone who will:

1. Be tough on terror and our nation’s enemies.
2. Pick good judges, especially for the Supreme Court (I prefer strict constructionists who hold to the original intent of the Constitution, not see it as a “plastic” document, stretching it beyond recognition).
3. Make our nation economically strong.
4. Improve communities nationwide.
5. Represent our country well across the world.
6. Be a strong check versus the other powers of our government.
7. Be able to make tough decisions in the face of adversity.
8. [Fill in other virtuous presidential leadership qualities here . . . .]

If we stick to it, our system works. Are there some candidates with personal moral problems? Yes. I’m not sure there is one without issues or personal problems. That doesn’t mean that candidate can’t be a good leader, in spite of the fact that he or she may have some blemishes, even serious ones that will have to be explained. Some “good” people in moral terms make lousy leaders politically. As elections roll around again, I want a strong leader. That’s what our nation needs and who I’ll have to vote for. In spite of personal flaws (and all people have them), may God use that person for good. –Cal Samuel August