About Me

Name: Always To The...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Pick Your Own Candidate

The MSMedia think that their chosen candidate, John McCain, beat conservative radio.  Wrong. McCain got less of the vote than he did in 2000. It is telling, however, that liberal newspapers and the liberal media are ready to coronate McCain as they did Huckabee, but Romney, Thompson, and Rudy are always finished. Don't let the media pick your candidate.
 
Washington Post Gets It Wrong: This Time, McCain Defused Conservative Attacks

Liberal Florida Papers Endorse McCain (They Won't Do This if He Faces Hillary)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Not Dead

McCain and Huckabee are running on the idea that Reagan conservatism is outdated, and needs to be redefined to fit their liberal positions. Mitt, Rudy, and Fred want to advance that legacy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Hillary Papers Get Ignored By The Media

More questions from the Captain's Quarters on the Hillary papers.  This is a woman that they want to put in the White House as POTUS.  Where is the press on this?

After last week's release by Judicial Watch of internal documents of Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force, many of us waited to see the national news media cover their disturbing contents. No surprisingly, none of them did so. Despite the proposals to use smears against critics of the government and to turn the DNC into a domestic espionage unit for the White House against its opponents, the mainstream news media has shown little interest in even noting the fact that this evidence appeared in a microscopic sample of the three million documents that have been blocked from public scrutiny.

Let's recall what the media has ignored. The following comes from my earlier posts on the subject.

Senator Jay Rockefeller proposed that the federal government conduct smear campaigns against the opponents of the plan.

And remember, this isn't a political action commitee or an electoral office campaign. This was the elected government of the United States discussing how it would steamroller opposition to nationalizing an entire industry by smearing them and by avoiding discussion of the policy itself.

The HCTF anticipated a tough debate over its proposal to nationalize American health care, and it proposed some specific remedies -- including using the DNC to conduct intelligence operations.

All of that falls into the category of "politicizing" the White House, and much more than having Karl Rove as deputy chief of staff. But this goes beyond mere politicization. The HCTF foresaw using the DNC to "gather intelligence" on political opposition -- a way to gain information to intimidate or extort their critics. It's bad enough when electoral campaigns do this, but having the White House use the DNC for these purposes doesn't border on abuse of power but invades it with a vengeance.

And this memo came to Hillary Clinton a mere two weeks after her husband's inauguration. The impetus for this kind of political warfare existed within the Clinton administration within the first hours of its birth.

Where are the media organizations that style themselves as the bulwark against governmental abuses of power? Why haven't they reported on these memos, which clearly delineate a type of attack on government opposition that hasn't been this baldly proposed since the Nixon administration? Given Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency -- one on which she relies on her experience in her husband's administration for her qualifications -- isn't all of this terribly relevant to the question of how she will run the White House, and what kind of treatment her critics can expect to receive?

The silence from the Fourth Estate is deafening. It screams either cowardice or collaboration.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

None Of The Above

A comment left by a fellow TH blogger [BrianR] on my post "Where Now From Here?" inspired me to post this.

This year we have a choice of bad or worse.  "None of the above" would be a good vote and would be a runaway with the nomination. He would do very little damage in the White House.

This is part of my response to his post [above]. 

Brian was the one who got me to take a good look at Rudy and decide that he does not deserve my support, and he should not be President.  He is no conservative,  he is another RINO.   After McCain/Feingold, the "gang of 14" all McCain's attacks on the leader of his party made sure [to me] he should not be POTUS.  I know his war record [POW] he may have been right about the war, but that in no way balances all the rest he has done.

He [McCain] attacks Bush and the party and gets "fawning" press coverage, this entire "maverick" coverage, shows me where his loyalty is.

Please don't get into this so-and-so is the only one to beat Hillary, if she gets the nomination.  I have posted before if we get [elect] the "lesser of two evils" we still have something evil.

Here is the last paragraph on the McCain vs. Madison post again;

"
The election of a Progressive like Clinton or Obama would deprive conservatives of power. The election of a Progressive like McCain would deprive conservatives of both the government and the means to resist Progressivism. Which is the lesser evil?"

We don't need any "lesser" evils.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain vs. Madison

. . .  After all, McCain has been hawkish to say the least on the Iraq war when all the Democratic candidates have been looking for ways out. McCain also seems to be a soldier, concerned first and last for his honor. Democrats remain uneasy with the military in part because the virtues of the warrior ill fit the mores of the social worker. But McCain in the end is more a Progressive than a conservative.

I should say what I mean by "conservative." George Will correctly said that conservatives are trying to save America for James Madison. Readers of Madison's famous Federalist No. 10 should be struck by his concern for limited government and his fear of unconstrained majority rule. He hoped the United States could limit government by fragmenting power.

Madison, and the other founders for that matter, would have rejected the notion that citizens lived for the state, the nation, or some higher collective power. For them, individual liberty and rights were moral goods, not a selfish claim against the state.

. . . McCain once said "each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause great than our own self-interest." That cause will be the good of the collective, often defined as the nation or the national community.

That sounds fine and rather patriotic until your realize McCain's statement puts the nation before the individual, duties before rights (which are not mentioned), and denigrates the concerns of individuals to mere self-interest. None of these ideas have much to do with James Madison or conservatism.

McCain's progressivism may be seen mostly clearly in his primary legislative project: the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. . . .

For McCain, such self-interest should be sacrificed to the higher cause of "clean government." Hence, McCain's infamous statement on Don Imus's radio show: "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

John McCain does not want to save America for James Madison. He does not want to save America at all, because the Madisonian vision remains, for conservatives at least, what America means, the criterion of our hopes.

The election of a Progressive like Clinton or Obama would deprive conservatives of power. The election of a Progressive like McCain would deprive conservatives of both the government and the means to resist Progressivism. Which is the lesser evil?




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Now From Here?

What to think about the Captain's take on South Carolina.  I don't like Rudy or McCain, so according to the Captain that only leaves me one choice [I say that's according to the Captain].


The South Carolina primary turned out to be a clarifying event after all. Instead of the potential for five front-runners in the Super Tuesday contest in two weeks, it appears we will have at best three viable candidates for the nomination, and only if Rudy Giuliani proves his strategy correct by winning Florida. What will be left will be the three candidates that the conservative blogosphere has relentlessly criticized for their lack of lifelong fealty to the Ronald Reagan legacy, but whom voters have nevertheless trusted enough to support in the primaries.

First, the failure of Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson to win in South Carolina signals the end of their campaigns, whether they recognize it or not, especially for Fred. He made South Carolina his explicit firewall, the place where he had to have a great showing in order to retain credibility as a candidate. A third-place finish among one of the most conservative groups of voters in the primaries does not bode well, nor does the fact that he actually placed fourthamong self-professed conservatives in the CNN exit polls. He became the first "front-runner" to fail to win a must-win contest, and he will likely withdraw sooner rather than later.

Huckabee's dream took a beating last night. The Arkansas governor should have won the first Southern primary, especially given the high numbers of evangelicals turning out for the election. He took 43% of them, but McCain got 27% to mostly negate Huckabee's big advantage. His populist rhetoric ran out of steam in the Palmetto State, and although he made it close, he failed to convert. And if Huckabee can't win in South Carolina, where else can he win? What is his path to the nomination? Without the kind of name recognition that McCain has or the money that Romney and Giuliani can command, he's probably reached the end of the line as well. He'll stay in the race and collect delegates from proportional contests, but he won't win a significant state.

That leaves Romney and McCain, and possibly Giuliani. Rudy needs Florida to keep the delegate gap from getting too large and to maintain credibility in the large coastal states that could carry him to the nomination. All three of these candidates have significant issues with the party's base, McCain most of all -- and yet these are the three left standing as the smoke begins to clear.

My e-mail sounds the frustration of this situation. Messages and comments on the blog have become filled with declarations of sitting on hands, the destruction of the party, and so on. However, the plain fact is that the actual party -- the people voting for the candidates -- have made it clear that they have a high level of comfort with Romney and McCain, and potentially Rudy as well.

I'm actually a lot more optimistic than most about the result. If these three contend for the nomination, we have two candidates who employed conservative principles in very liberal settings as executives and showed remarkable success, and a Senator who at least understands the nature of the conflict of this age and knows how to fight it. All of them have more applicable experience than any of the Democratic candidates, and perhaps more than all three of them combined.

Rather than focus on the negatives, the Republicans still left to vote should focus on the positives. Which of these three can lead this nation in war, can implement conservative policies on economics and foreign policy, and work to reduce spending and taxes in meaningful ways that expands liberty rather than constraining it? Which of them have actually done this successfully, and which can use that experience in a general election to beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

From where I sit, I'd say we have good candidates, any of which are easily supportable by Republicans in a general election. Instead of declaring that the sky is falling, let's keep our eyes on the prize. These are the candidates that have resonated with the voters, and so these are the choices. The party only disintegrates if we keep wishing for a resurrection of Ronald Reagan rather than working pragmatically to find the best in what we have.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Top Ten Science Based Predictions That Didn’t Come True

Top Ten Science based predictions that didn’t come true:

10. “The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. See Plate Tectonics

9. “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

8. “That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

7. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

6. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

4. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

3. “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

2. “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?

So the next time you hear about worldwide crop failure, rising sea levels, species extinction, or “climate grief” you might want to remember that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Adapt?

Adapting To Climate - The mantra is repeated daily. There is consensus on climate change. Global warming is real. It will be a disaster. Humans are to blame. We have to do something – immediately.

Meanwhile, respected climate scientists were barred from panel discussions, censored, silenced and threatened with physical removal by polizei, if they tried to hold a press conference to present peer-reviewed evidence on climate, such as:

Climate change is natural and recurrent. The human factor is small compared to that of the sun and other natural forces. There has been no overall global warming since 1998, and most local and regional warming trends have been offset by nearby cooling. One degree of net warming since 1900 (amid many temperature ups and downs) does not foreshadow a catastrophe. Recent glacial retreats, sea-level rise and migrations of temperature sensitive species are all within the bounds of known natural variability.

The best approach is to adapt, as our ancestors did.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Climate Changes Because Climate Changes

Cycles in Landfalling U.S. Hurricanes? - To many global warming alarmists, every disastrous weather event becomes yet another piece of evidence of the coming man-made apocalypse. One only needs to look at their exploitation of Hurricane Katrina victims in the furtherance of the global warming crusade. Most average citizens are shocked to find out that at landfall, Katrina was not a record-setting Category 5 monster hurricane, but really a Category 3 storm—hardly unprecedented in intensity but devastating with respect to the landfall location and timing.

Most reasonable people believe that there exist natural cycles in climatic events, perhaps even hurricanes. But to the aforementioned alarmists, cycles are anathema—with increasing greenhouse gases, temperatures (and the related disastrous repercussions) must only trend inexorably upward. The declining (cooling) limb of any cycle is simply unacceptable.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Fear, The Media Will Never Let You Know That Fact


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is There Really Any Melting?

Manmade Antarctic Melting, Indeed - A new study, much hyped by the media, blames humans for escalating ice loss in Antarctica. The media, however, seems to have no idea as to how truly manmade the supposed ice loss may be.

The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic.

While Rignot did use satellite observations of Antarctica’s coastline to estimate melting, he compared this real-life data to computer model estimates of Antarctic interior snow accumulation. So the western Antarctic appears to losing mass only when compared to computer models that, when it comes to global climate, are of questionable relevance to the real world.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill Maher: ‘At Least Half Of The [Ten] Commandments Are Stupid!’

Got this at NewsBusters.org.

People that watch HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" are infinitely aware that the host is not only an atheist, but is also an antitheist, meaning that he hates religion.

No finer example of Maher's disdain for theism and Judeo-Christian principles occurred on Friday's installment of "Real Time" when he actually declared, "At least half of the [Ten] Commandments are stupid!"

This came moments after Maher proudly stated, "If I had a child, the last book I would ever give to teach morality would be the Bible, especially the Old Testament." This led one of his guests to say that Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain should be stoned for committing adultery.

I kid you not.

Here's the first astounding exchange on the subject of religion (video available here, relevant segment at minute 8:50)


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Guns Used In Self-Defense? Apparently, Not News

While the networks were charmed by the story of 14-year-old Michael Six fending off a burglar with a baseball bat in Arizona, there was this eyebrow-raising story from the Orlando Sentinel.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive