After getting a few complaints that the font was too small and the background too dark, I’ve decided to update the theme and make my blog a little easier on the eyes. Hope you enjoy.
Great words from the greatest President of my lifetime.
Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speech-writer and author whose most recent book was a biography of Pope John Paul II, has written an excellent piece for the Wall Street Journal. With the rise of Mike Huckabee running as a “Christian leader” as opposed to a leader who just happens to be a Christian, Noonan wonders if the Gipper would have been able to be nominated in the current climate in the GOP.
Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.
But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.
The great question: Does it make Mr. Huckabee, does it seal his rise, that he has acted in such a manner? Or does it damage him? Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that. And in the deciding they may be deciding more than one man’s future. They may be deciding if Republicans are becoming a different kind of party.
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I’m just not sure he’d be pure enough to make it in this party. I’m not sure he’d be considered good enough.
If “Tax Hike” Mike Huckabee is what it means to be a Conservative in the Republican Party today, then Conservatism is truly dead and buried.
Much like Rush Limbaugh remarked a few weeks ago, as a Goldwater/Reagan Conservative, as somebody who believes in his very heart and soul that Conservatism is ultimately the best philosophy to guide our nation and ensure our freedom, liberty and ultimate survival — I find it very disheartening to be forced to bear witness to this radical redefining of what it means to be a Conservative.
Much like radical leftists have hijacked the term liberal and completely redefined what it has always meant, the religious right’s 30-year-long war to hijack the term Conservative and redefine its meaning is dangerously close to being completed, and will be finalized, if Mike Huckabee were to become the Republican Presidential Candidate.
While Mike Huckabee is indeed a Republican, he is most definitely not a Conservative, by any sense of the word. The extreme religious right seemingly adores him because of his socially conservative views, but those so-called socially conservative views not only do not make Huckabee even remotely a Conservative — they go against everything it means to be a Conservative.
This 30 year war waged by the religious right on Conservatism embraces the leftist viewpoint that we as a society have a duty to help the poor, but takes it one step further by stating that it is not just a “duty” but a “moral obligation.” That is at best George W. Bush’s so-called brand of “compassionate conservatism,” which itself is not really derivative of truly Conservative principles. This ideology is a far cry from the Goldwater/Reagan principles of smaller government, individual responsibility and personal freedom.
I somehow cannot see Mike Huckabee make the same kind of statement as Ronald Reagan did during his first inaugural address when he said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
If Mike Huckabee wins the Republican nomination for President, instead of getting ourselves another Ronald Reagan type as Conservatives have been longing for since the Gipper left office— we will be getting a candidate whom in every single fiber of his being is the opposite of Ronald Reagan and is in fact the Republican version of the man Reagan saved the country from in defeating him for the Presidency, Jimmy Carter.
While there will never be another Ronald Reagan, there is one guy who comes the closest to filling those boots, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he is an actor, but with the fact that whenever he opens his mouth and talks about ideas and potential policies — he is the only candidate who sounds like Reagan and the man who two decades before him sparked the Conservative movement in the GOP, Barry Goldwater — that man is Fred Dalton Thompson, the only Conservative candidate running.
payday loans24 hour payday loans mortgage refinance cash advances refinance home equity loans quick payday loans payday loansmortgage banking bad credit unsecured loans quick cash loans no credit check payday loans home mortgage refinance
The Fred Thompson campaign has issued an apology to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. From the Fred File:
In light of Mike Huckabee’s heartfelt apology to Mitt Romney for making reference to Romney’s religion in the New York Times Magazine, we at the Thompson Campaign would like to offer Huckabee our own heartfelt apologies for some references we’ve made about his record as Governor of Arkansas.
We apologize for pointing out that as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee offered in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. That’s something he’d probably just as soon no one talk about.
A recent Washington Post-ABC News Iowa poll of Iowans likely to vote in the Republican caucus stated illegal immigration as their top issue of concern, tied with the war in Iraq.
We apologize for pointing out that in 2002 Huckabee wrote Pres. Bush a letter asking him to lift the Cuban embargo. It’s easy to see how Huckabee might have missed the finer points of a 40-year embargo. While he obviously knew enough about the embargo to ask that it be lifted, Huckabee clearly didn’t know enough to ask that it not be lifted. So for that, we’re sorry.
In 2002, Governor Huckabee strongly advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba saying it “harm[s] our own agricultural and business interests,” “has not helped the people of Cuba” and has “provided Castro with a convenient excuse for his own failed system of government.” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/29/02)
We apologize for referencing that 47% tax increase Huckabee imposed on Arkansas taxpayers when he was governor. That must be really awkward for him, now that he’s running in a GOP primary election. We notice he never points it out to voters.
Average Arkansan’s tax burden increased by over 47% between 1997 and 2005 (or $933 per person). (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 10/9/07)
We apologize for telling reporters that a BA in Biblical Studies from Ouachita Baptist University doesn’t, in fact, make Huckabee more qualified to fight the war on terror than say…Fred Thompson.
In an interview with CBNNews in November, Huckabee said “…I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. … And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.”
When you consider the facts that he is the only Conservative running, he is right on the issues, does not waver at all and he is able to humorously rip into his competition with ease, I don’t know how anybody can not vote for Fred Thompson.
payday loansquick personal loans overnight cash loans bad credit personal loans low interest personal loans 1000 payday loans no credit check student loans personal loans home loan lenders bad credit report repair mortgage banking bad credit credit cards
Fred is above and beyond the superior candidate, running for President.
No changing of positions.
He is, was and always has been a Conservative. And is the only Conservative running.
Anybody who is a regular reader of my blog knows that I am a Fred Thompson supporter. The reason that I am a Fred Thompson supporter is because as somebody who considers himself a “Conservative” first and a “Republican” second — Fred Thompson matches my political philosophy the closest out of all the candidates running. I truly feel that out of the top tier candidates, Fred Thompson is the only one who is a true Conservative.
Today comes the news that the National Review, which is quite arguably one of if not the foremost authority on Conservatism in the United States as far as publications go, has endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.
I fully agree with the opening paragraph to that editorial, as it has perfectly summed up what the campaign season has been to date. The second paragraph is where I have issues with the National Review’s statements.
I know that I am just a regular blogger, an ordinary guy with an opinion and not a well respected Conservative Commentator, but I have to believe that the National Review has gotten it wrong.
Now, I am not anti-Romney at all and as a matter-of-fact I think that Republicans could do far worse out of the top tier candidates (Giuliani & Huckabee). Mitt Romney has many fine qualities and come general election time, if he were to win the GOP nomination, I would support him fully as I think the problems our nation are facing are too grim to leave them up to a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama. I just fully believe that not only is Fred Thompson the only Conservative running but that he is the best choice to be our next President.
This obsession amongst many Conservatives of having to beat Hillary at any cost has been doing, and will unfortunately probably continue to do, great damage to the Conservative movement. Just like the Democrats lost in 2004, thanks in large part to their “anybody but Bush” mantra. Conservatives are in grave danger because of this “whose best to defeat Hillary” line of thinking.
I just don’t understand how a well-respected publication amongst Conservatives can contribute to the watering down and the redefining of what it means to be a Conservative. You either are Conservative or you are not — and while Mitt Romney has many fine qualities and is conservative leaning on certain issues — he is not a Conservative, he is a populist.
Now the National Review’s official endorsement of Romney, did go on to say a few nice things about Fred Thompson, whom along with John McCain they feel are the next best choices.
Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.
Of the three main arguments against Fred Thompson, the first one is the most laughable. Fred Thompson is not “as conservative” as Romney, Fred Thompson is “a Conservative” while Romney has many Conservative traits. As far as this thinly veiled claim of his “laziness” in that he has not truly expressed that he wants to be President — I find it irresponsible of a publication with the stature of the National Review.
Campaigning for the Presidency, especially with the nature of media in this day and age, is an extremely difficult process and unless you are ridiculously wealthy like a Ross Perot (or Mitt Romney), nobody would put themselves through it if they were not serious about it. People are confusing Fred Thompson’s laid back casual style as a lack of enthusiasm, I think he is too much of a grown-up to rant and rave like a lunatic cheerleader — especially since he is the one candidate that is the most solidly Conservative when it comes to the actual issues.
When Barry Goldwater, whom William F. Buckley founder of the National Review was a staunch supporter of, ran for President in 1964 he only had about two more years of experience in the Senate that what Fred Thompson currently has. Now while I admit, executive experience, such as being a Governor, is much different the Senatorial experience — Fred Thompson has more then enough experience in the arena of politics to warrant running for and holding the office of President, were he to be elected.
If you are truly “a Conservative” and by that I mean the way defined by Barry Goldwater and later Ronald Reagan — then I believe that the fundamental question this primary season that Conservative voters in the Republican party are facing is “whom out of the top tier candidates is the best when it comes to preserving and extending freedom?”
Barry Goldwater, the man whom defined what it means to be a Conservative, made one of my all time favorite statements when he said:
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”
Fred Thompson, who has said,
“Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, ‘Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?’ But they don’t.”
is the best choice as well as the most viable choice for anybody who calls themselves a Conservative, to be the next President of the United States.
payday loanscredit card debt consolidation same day payday loans loans till payday no credit check student loans faxless payday loans fast cash advances personal finance loans federal student loan consolidation fast cash no credit check credit debt help cash advances
We all know that the great pontiff of the church of global warming, Al Gore, has said that our world is in peril; recently one of the Goracles priests in his church has come up with a plan to help save our planet.
Professor Barry Walters, a priest in Al Gore’s church of global warming in Australia as well as clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, has written in the Medical Journal of Australia that every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child’s lifetime.
In a move that is sure to promote Walters up to a Bishop or possible even archbishop of all of Australia in the church of global warming, the professor has stated:
“Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society,” he wrote.
“Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a ‘baby levy’ in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
The plan proposed by Professor Walters would include a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth as well as an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Good work Mr. Walters, the Goracle would be proud.
payday loansbad credit unsecured loans unsecured loans home mortgage refinancing debt consolidation no fax cash advance fast cash advance payday loans no fax payday loans mortgage loans free debt consultation unsecured debt consolidation loans high risk personal loans
Here comes another tale of a Muslim fathers unwavering love for his teenage daughter.
Actually opening up this post with that sentence has made me a little sick for trying to make light of a disgusting event, but not as sick as the actual events of the story make me feel.
I’ve written in the past of Hina Saleem, a 21 year old Pakistani immigrant to Italy who was murdered by her father for not ‘respecting’ Islamic culture. Now that sort of sick, disgusting vile thought that permeates the radicalized form of Islam is creeping into the Western Hemisphere as another young girl has been murdered by her father, for very similar reasons.
Toronto – A dispute over Western culture may be behind an attack that killed a 16-year-old Mississauga girl.
School officials announced Aqsa Parvez’s death to students at Applewood Heights Secondary School this morning.
Parvez was clinging to life at the Hospital for Sick Children after an alleged attack by a man who told police he was her father.
Classmates at the school said the Grade 11 student lived in fear of her father, who was charged with attempted murder yesterday.
Some of the teen’s friends told Global News there were warning signs she had a troubled life at home.
They said she often argued with him about the hijab and her desire to follow Western fashion trends.
Other peers told the Toronto Star the girl used to leave home in traditional dress and then change as soon as she arrived at school.
Classmates told Rogers-owned television station, City News, they understood the trouble at home to be serious.
They claim she often cried about her fear of going home and even looked into staying at shelters.
On Monday, Peel police received a 911 call just before 8 a.m. from a man claiming to have killed his daughter. The 57-year-old father will make a court appearance today.
I guess forcing a young women to wear a scarf over her face is more important then her actual life. I truly feel horrible for that poor young innocent girl and countless number of others like her who a forced into the still living in the dark ages mentality of radical extremist Islam.
I feel equally as bad for Western Culture as a whole because there will be no outcry against this heinous act from the left and from those amongst the so-called “feminist” movement.
For more on this story:
payday loans24 hour payday loans fast cash payday loans bad credit loans credit card offers instant personal loans federal student loan consolidation refinance home loans quick cash loans home mortgage refinancing bad credit unsecured loans payday cash loans
I have been wanting to write about this since I first heard it on Thursday, but haven’t had the chance. Patrick, at Born Again Redneck, beat me to it.
Rush Limbaugh on his radio show yesterday, had some comments to make about the candidates following the Wednesday Night CNN/YouTube debate and said something that I myself have known for quite a few months now.
Fred Thompson is the only true Conservative who is currently in the race to try and become the next President of the United States. All of the other top tier candidates, with the exceptions of Giuliani who is a liberal and Paul who is a nut job as well as not a top tier candidate, are moderates.
It is one thing to say that you are a Conservative, which is a label that has been thrown around much too improperly as of late, and it is a whole other thing to actually be a Conservative.
The only major complaints coming from anybody about Fred Thompson is that he came in too late (I on the other hand think everyone else came in way, way too early. We’ve still got over 6 months before either parties conventions) and that he doesn’t have enough fire in his belly. Everybody seems to want a rah, rah cheerleader.
Being a flashy pumped up cheerleader is a fine thing, not when it is only masking the fact that you do not have any actual sound plans and ideas and especially is not good when you are ranting and raving with fire in your gut trying to steal the mantle of who is the bigger Conservative when its definitely not you. Fred Thompson has a laid back casual style, one that I find refreshing. What I find even more refreshing is that every time he opens his mouth, the actual ideas and plans that he have sound a whole lot more like Goldwater and Reagan then any of the other candidates running.
Here is the transcript of what Rush had to say, I bolded my favorite parts:
RUSH: It was fascinating to me, as I said, to watch this because it hit me upside the head — even though, as I say, I instinctively knew this — that all of the top-tier candidates, because of these questions… See, there’s always a silver lining in everything. There’s always an upside. Some of you might not think of this as an upside or a silver lining, but the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson. Now, this is not an endorsement. You know, I don’t endorse during primaries. I just point out: These are things I noticed, and I’ve told you during the course of this one campaign year that one of the things that’s bothering me, is I’m a Reagan conservative, and I believe in conservatism. It’s in my soul and it’s in my heart, and I know it is the best way for us to manage our affairs to ensure the most prosperity for the most, to continue our freedom, to protect our country.
Conservatism sees people and sees potential. Liberalism looks at people and sees victims. Liberalism looks at people and sees incompetence, and, “We gotta help ’em out and keep ’em forever dependent so we’ll always have power.” Conservatives don’t want to use the government to empower themselves. They want to get government out of the way to empower other people. So, to me it matters, and we have a campaign now where most of the candidates are not genuine conservatives. They may be saying they are, but in their past they have done some things that are not conservative in any way, shape, manner, or form — and I think a lot of those things are being overlooked even by friends of mine in the conservative media because the obsession is Hillary. “Well, we gotta have somebody who can beat Hillary, and we can’t have the perfect candidate,” and so we gotta make the choice here based on who’s best equipped to win and beat Hillary. I understand that, and whoever the nominee is, I’m going to support them. So don’t misunderstand here. But I don’t like seeing “conservatism” being watered down as the way it’s defined. I don’t want people who are not conservative being said to be representatives of the “new conservatism.” There is no “new” conservatism. There is conservatism, and you either are or you aren’t.
You can be 80%, but it depends on what the other 20% are, and I’m just telling you that last night, it was Huckabee and Rudy and Mitt Romney, because of these questions, who were all faced with the reality — and everybody watching saw it — that they’ve got some governance in their pasts that is not conservative, and this is something that just hit me. While everybody is talking about Fred Thompson, “He’s too lazy. He’s too lackadaisical. He doesn’t seem to have whole lot of energy.” Fine and dandy. I’m not going to argue with people about your perceptions of attitudes and so forth. I will say this. I don’t think anybody would get into this mess running for the presidency, the media and all of these things. You can’t imagine what these people go through. You wouldn’t want to go through it, and I can’t imagine somebody put themselves through it if they really don’t want it.
You know, one of the arguments about Fred Thompson is, “Well, I can’t see the fire in his belly.” Well, he’s got a different personality than the others. We’ll just have to see how all this shakes out. But those are the high points that I took
payday loansovernight cash advance instant cash advances instant payday loans personal finance loans credit cards faxless payday loans guaranteed personal loans refinance mortgages home equity loans refinance home equity loans guaranteed online personal loans
Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commanment” was, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” While I of course have a great amount of respect for the Gipper, keeping my mouth shut just because somebody has an “R” at the end of their name is something that I cannot do, especially when it comes to a topic as crucial as the future of this country.
What I feel is best for the United States of America, has to always trump what I feel is best for the Republican Party. This is why I have no choice but to oppose Rudy Giuliani in his attempt to win the GOP nomination for the Presidency.
Rudy Giuliani is a very engaging public speaker and has a very charismatic personality, coming off at first glance as a very likeable person. I can understand why certain segments of the Republican populace champion him as the best chance the party has to defeat the Clinton train and hold on to the Presidency. However, 15 years ago I remember another engaging public speaker who also had a very charismatic personality and also came off at first glance as a very likeable person — he would of course go on to become President.
If charisma and likeability were the only things that Rudy Giuliani & Bill Clinton had in common, I would not be so opposed to a GOP Presidential ticket with Rudy on it. Unfortunately, not only are they both very charismatic individuals, their political beliefs are virtually indistinguishable.
Rudy even admitted it himself as shortly before his last second endorsement of Bob Dole in 1996 he said:
“most of Clinton’s policies are very similar to most of mine.”
Consider this tidbit from John P. Avlon, former Rudy Giuliani speechwriter and author of the book Independent Nation: How the Vital Center is Changing American Politics, as he recalls the now infamous image of Giuliani dressed as a woman at a New York benefit.
“When actress Julie Andrews asked him onstage if he now better understood the challenge she faced every night in ‘Victor Victoria’ — ‘playing a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman’ — Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani replied that she obviously hadn’t seen his act: ‘a Democrat pretending to be a Republican pretending to be a Democrat.'”
If Rudy’s very own words are not enough to show how much of a disaster for the GOP he would be, consider these comments from his very own mother:
“He only became a Republican after he began to get all these jobs from them. He’s definitely not a conservative Republican. He thinks he is, but he isn’t.”
In 1989 the Liberal Party of New York, which was founded in 1944 to support candidates with progressive viewpoints, endorsed Rudy for Mayor of New York City because,
“…we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party’s stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party’s views…”
40 years ago Barry Goldwater became the standard bearer for what it meant to be a Conservative, as he won the Republican nomination for the Presidency and helped to light the spark of what would become the Reagan Revolution in the 1980’s. Here is what he had to say about Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater:
He [Giuliani] described John Kennedy as “great and brilliant.” Barry Goldwater was an “incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic man.”
–New York Daily News, May 13, 1997
Rudy Giuliani as President of the United States would represent the return to power of everything that Barry Goldwater and the Conservative movement tried to stop in the Republican Party. If you are planning on voting for Rudy Giuliani because you feel that he has the best chance out of the Republican nominees to defeat Hillary, while I disagree with you on that point, that’s fine go ahead and support Rudy.
But don’t dare call yourself a Conservative.
I wrote a while back about the law of the sea and how it is a disastrous blow to America’s interests and sovereignty. However, there is a movement afoot by those with one-world government ambitions to push for the United States to sign and ratify this treaty.
Here is a video with more information about why this Treaty would be an absolute disaster.
Here is a WebMemo written by Baker Spring, Steven Groves and Brett D. Schaefer, from the Heritage Foundation about the top five reasons Conservatives should appose this treaty.
Reason #1: The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty.
President Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Convention in 1982 and cited several major deficiencies, none of which have been remedied. Reagan was concerned that the U.S., though a major naval power, would have little influence at the International Seabed Authority that the convention created. Although the Authority is supposed to make decisions by consensus, nothing prevents the rest of the “international community” from consistently voting against the United States, as regularly occurs in similar U.N. bodies, such as the General Assembly. In addition, President Reagan was troubled by the fact that the International Seabed Authority has the power to amend the convention without U.S. consent. That concern has also not been remedied in the intervening years.
Another issue is that the convention requires states to transfer information and perhaps technology to mandatory dispute resolution tribunals. Under the convention, parties to a dispute are required to provide a resolution tribunal with “all relevant documents, facilities and information.” This amounts to a blanket invitation for unscrupulous foreign competitors to bring the U.S. and American companies before a tribunal for the sole purpose of obtaining sensitive data and technologies that would otherwise be unavailable to them. The safeguards against such practices that President Reagan demanded have never come to pass.
Reason #2: The Treaty Will Become a Back Door for Environmental Activists.
The Executive Director of Greenpeace International, Thilo Bode, has explained how the environmentalist movement plans to leverage the treaty to advance its agenda, which often runs counter to U.S. interests: “Global warming is likely to have a big impact at sea…. Solving the environmental problems facing the oceans…is one of the greatest challenges facing humankind…. No single action or region can do this alone: It will require comprehensive international cooperation as required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” President Clinton—a major supporter of the treaty—did not mince his words when he stated that the convention was “the greatest environmental treaty of all time.”
Indeed, the treaty states that convention participants must “take…all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from any source,” (Article 194). This provision goes on to require that such measures address “all sources of pollution of the marine environment…including those from land-based sources, from or through the atmosphere, or by dumping….” Signatories are also required to “adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere…” (Article 212).
The convention’s provisions and mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms will create new opportunities for environmental activists and like-minded governments to bring action against the U.S. for violating the Kyoto Protocol, even though America is not a party to that accord. American opponents of the Kyoto Protocol should be under no illusion: U.S. accession to this convention risks embroiling the U.S. in a plethora of legal actions, even if the Senate does not ratify Kyoto.
Reason #3: America Should Not Participate in Yet Another U.N. Bureaucracy.
International institutions created by multilateral treaties spawn unaccountable international bureaucracies, which in turn inevitably infringe upon U.S. sovereignty. The convention creates a bureaucracy known as the International Seabed Authority Secretariat. Like all international bureaucracies, the Secretariat has a strong incentive to enhance its own authority at the expense of state sovereignty. When international bureaucracies are unaccountable, they—like all unaccountable institutions—seek to insulate themselves from scrutiny and thus become prone to corruption. The International Seabed Authority is vulnerable to the same corrupt practices that have riddled the U.N. for years. The United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal, in which the Iraqi government benefited from a system of bribes and kickbacks involving billions of dollars and 2,000 companies in nearly 70 countries, is a prime example. Despite ample evidence of the U.N.’s systemic weaknesses and vulnerability to corruption, the U.N. General Assembly has resisted efforts to adopt serious transparency and accountability reforms.
Reason #4: American Participation Will Undermine U.S. Military and Intelligence Operations.
Under the convention, the United States assumes a number of obligations at odds with its military practices and national security interests, including a commitment not to collect intelligence. The U.S. would sign away its ability to collect intelligence vital for American security within the “territorial waters” of any other country (Article 19). Furthermore, U.S. submarines would be required to travel on the surface and show their flags while sailing within territorial waters (Article 20). This would apply, for example, to U.S. submarines maneuvering in Iranian or North Korean territorial waters; they would be required to sail on the surface with their flags waving.
Reason #5: The U.S. Does Not Need the Convention to Guarantee Navigation Rights.
The U.S. enjoys navigation rights by customary international practice. The fact that the U.S. is not a convention member does not mean that other states will begin to demand notification by U.S. ships entering their waters or airspace. Indeed, the U.S. is not a signatory to the convention today and yet has freedom of the seas because current participants are required to grant the U.S. navigation rights afforded by customary international practice. In addition, these states have reciprocal interests in navigation rights that will discourage them from making such demands on American ships in the future.
Just like was done with the amnesty bill this past summer, call, write, fax, email your elected officials and do not stop until the message is sent that we Americans want absolutely no part of this treaty.
payday loanslow interest payday loans home loan lenders unsecured personal loans cash advance payday loans loans till payday bad credit mortgage refinance home mortgage refinance federal student loan consolidation no credit check personal loans instant payday loans home mortgage refinancing
Tom Morello and Zack de la Rocha, the guitarist and vocalist respectively for Rage Against The Machine, could learn a lot from these guys. Unfortunately, here in America its trendy to be a communist, when you can sing about the so called glories of communism while living in a free country devoid of the oppression of communism.
The following is the trailer to an upcoming movie about the underground music scene in Cuba called, �Cuba Rebeli�N! In the video Gorki Agula, the singer of the band Porna para Ricardo, who was jailed by the Castro regime for his song lyrics, talks about how he should have the right to play music critical of the communist regime.
The band, Porno para Ricardo, is not left-wing, nor are they right-wing they are not members of any political party or endorse any political movement. They just know that communism is an unjust system and they want the right to be able to express that freely.
I bet if Gorki Agula were a jailed musician from a pro-Bush government somewhere in the world, their would probably be a benefit concert for him headlined by Rage Against The Machine and the like.
Hat Tip to: Hip Hop Republican
payday loansbad credit credit cards bad credit report repair unsecured debt consolidation loans home mortgage refinance loans same day cash advances personal finance loans faxless payday loans credit card debt consolidation same day payday loans home loan lenders need money fast
The more and more I see of Fred Thompson, the more and more I truly believe that out of all the people currently in the race to become the next POTUS, he is clearly the best of the bunch.
Out of all the top tier GOP candidates, he is the truest Conservative and I’m not talking in the George W. Bush mold of Conservatism — embracing big government and using it to try to push certain conservative agendas.
Fred Thompson is a Conservative of the Barry Goldwater kind — and is exactly what the GOP, which has been creeping ever so closely to a full return to power of the Rockefeller wing of Republican politics, which was supposed to have been defeated by the Reagan Revolution — which was sparked by Barry Goldwater himself.
I give you a quote from, what is in my opinion the definitive sourcebook for Modern Conservatism in America, Barry Goldwater’s “Conscious of a Conservative.”
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the people’s welfare depends on individual self reliance rather than on state paternalism, Congress annually deliberates over whether the increase in government welfarism should be small or large.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the federal government spends too much, Congress annually deliberates over whether to raise the federal budget by a few billion dollars or by many billion.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that individual liberty depends on decentralized government, Congress annually deliberates over whether vigorous or halting steps should be taken to bring state government into line with federal policy.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that Communism is an enemy bound to destroy us, Congress annually deliberates over means of “co-existing” with the Soviet Union.
And so the question arises: Why have American people been unable to translate their views into appropriate political action? Why should the nation’s underlying allegiance to Conservative principles have failed to produce corresponding deeds in Washington?
… I do not blame my brethren in government, all of whom work hard and conscientiously at their jobs. I blame Conservatives–ourselves–myself.
Replace the word “Communism” with “Islamofascism” and the above quote is eerily as accurate today as it was decades ago when penned by Goldwater. The answer to the question posed by Sen. Goldwater — why Conservative principles failed to produce corresponding deeds in Washington? — is because we have allowed ourselves to be duped by people claiming to be Conservative, but showing no actual signs of being one when the time comes.
We are inching dangerously closer to letting a McGovernite turned 9/11 Neo-Con, in Rudy Giuliani, become the GOP candidate — thus fully destroying the Conservative movement that swept the party and returning it to the liberal Rockeffeler version of Republicanism. We can’t let that happen, not when we have a true principled pro federalism Conservative Candidate in Fred Thompson.
payday loansfaxless cash advance credit card offers student loans high risk personal loans quick cash loans credit card debt consolidation same day cash advances same day payday loans home loan lenders bad credit mortgage refinance mortgage loans
Imagine this, you are a young college student and are entering your Sophomore year, having had just decided upon a double major in Journalism and Political Science. You are proceeding to take your core requirement classes, the ones that you need to get out of the way before you get into the more advanced classes. You register for History of Mass Communication, and show up on your first day ready to learn.
At your first day in class, the Professor introduces himself and goes over the class syllabus, talking about how you should be on time, how assignments will be graded, what topics will be discussed, and then the discussion goes to extra credit points and how you can receive them. One of the methods discussed for receiving extra credit — burning the American Flag or the U.S. Constitution and getting arrested “defending free speech.”
Outrageous you say? Well in a just world it would be outrageous, but unfortunately that is the state of academia in our country. Only being a few years removed myself from having graduated College, I can recall similar incidents. While I was lucky enough never to have a Professor go to the extreme such as this case, I’ve had plenty of occasion to sit in classes where the professor to get their liberal points of view in — even in classes that had nothing to do with politics, history and the such.
The above scenario was completely true, it happened not too long ago to Rebekah McDade in Paul Grosswiler’s History of Mass Communication class at the University of Maine.
From the Bangor Daily News:
ORONO, Maine – A University of Maine student alleges her former professor offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech.
On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.
“I was offended,” McDade said Friday. “I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background.”
In an e-mail responding to a request for comment from the Bangor Daily News on Friday, Grosswiler said he thought McDade misunderstood the class discussion, which was intended to elicit thought about the First Amendment. He said he has held this same discussion for years without incident.
How much do you bet that burning a foreign countries flag on campus would get you suspended or expelled?
payday loanscash advance payday loans personal loan lenders payday loanscash advances credit debt help no credit check payday loans personal loans for people with bad credit faxless payday loans payday loan with no fax mortgage refinance home mortgage refinancing
For more Click Here.
- That's one sexy and bad ass piece of American muscle. #FLSTF #Fatboy #HarleyDavidson #HDMC #Softail… https://t.co/GxJXDhIGUY3 days ago
- Yeah, the commute to work is always better on your bike. But now I'm sitting here starring at my helmet, wishing I… https://t.co/LAa5O5Adbd3 days ago
- Seriously, I love this kid. https://t.co/gPsl6gbIWu3 days ago
- RT @Browns: 89 yards to the house. That's @obj's first TD as a Cleveland Brown. https://t.co/99aQaxFEMk4 days ago
- RT @DawgsByNature: Holy shit. We have @OBJ Thank you @Giants4 days ago
- RT @Monsoon_Classic: This game for the #Browns is like playing Madden on Easy but since you’re screwing around on your phone while playing,…4 days ago
Alice in Chains
Jar of Flies
1 day ago
All I Am
Alice in Chains
1 day ago
Alice in Chains
1 day ago
So Far Under
Alice in Chains
1 day ago
Alice in Chains
1 day ago
Deaf Ears Blind Eyes
Alice in Chains
1 day ago