ReallyRight

We're not just Right, We're Really Right

Religion, Politics, & Culture: Defined and Explained


Friday, July 22, 2005

Roberts Opposition Begins Attacks

Ann Coulter is outstanding in her field. Well yeah; but this time she�s all alone screaming her lungs out. Noooooooo!!

Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt is strutting around like the rooster in the barnyard. He has always advocated John Roberts as one of the top three choices for the Court.

Granted, there is not that much of a paper trail at the Appellate level, but Roberts has an extensive record as an attorney and advocate for causes that Conservatives support.

I trust Hewitt. He has demonstrated good judgment on many issues and Roberts is his friend.

While it is true that only God truly knows a man�s heart; on the outside, Roberts seems to be a good choice. I am amazed that the usual suspects on the Left are already resorting to digging dirt on his wife. They are upset that he is married to a woman that is Catholic and Pro-life. The Left is angry that Roberts might be a rarity in politics, a Catholic that believes in the teachings of the church. This is quite a contrast the lapsed Catholics that dare sit in judgment of him such as DUI Kennedy.

Robert�s family should be off limits to this confirmation process. The fact that the Left has to resort to such tactics is an indication that they lack a �hook� for their fundraising letters.

I think this process will have some delays but Roberts will ultimately be confirmed. Replacing the Chief Justice will be a cakewalk when that time comes but if there is a third opening in the court during the second Bush term, it will be all-out war because this will be the vote that will permanently move the Court to the Right and Liberals will have lost all three branches at this point.

Oh, look for the Chief Justice to retire shortly after Roberts has been confirmed.

Posted by william on 07/22 at 01:47 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Rockin’ Roberts Joins Supremes

John Roberts has been selected by President Bush to replace Sandra Day O�Connor. This is a welcome nomination and a significant upgrade from the retiring Associate Justice.

The political fireworks have finally begun. The New Media v Jurassic Media. Let the games begin!

Posted by william on 07/20 at 10:43 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Nuke Mecca?

US. Rep Tom Tancredo has touched off a firestorm of controversy by commenting that in response to a nuclear attack on the United States, a military response to such an attack might include bombing Moslem holy sites such as Mecca.

Hugh Hewitt spent most of his show on July 18th trying to defend pluralism and verbally spank the Congressman for his remarks. Many former military members called Hewitt�s show defending the idea that all options must be on the table including nuking Mecca. I think Hewitt was surprised that so many would agree with the Congressman. Hewitt tried to dismiss the Congressman as a fruitcake that should apologize as soon as possible.

While Mecca would not be at the top of my targeting list, I think that we learned that it is a bad idea to publicly rule out any type of target. As soon as we announced that mosques in Iraq were off limits to American soldiers and should be protected, guess where all the terrorists congregated? Had we then destroyed the buildings, perhaps it would have been a good tactic. However, more Americans died due to these politically correct limitations on the war.

I think the President was right when he said that you are either with us or with the terrorists. I just hope Iran and Syria get visited by some of the more elite members on Uncle Sam�s payroll.

Hewitt discounts the assertion that the Global War on Terror is a religious war. I believe that it has been since the Beirut barracks bombing. It just took us two decades to take it seriously. We may not be at war with all of Islam but we are at war with a denomination within the Islamic world. The people at war with the West are the true believers. Those that believe their scripture is the word of their god and take it literally are the ones we are fighting.

In the West, if I believe that the Bible is true and should be taken literally I am a good Christian. Why is this normative for me but if I follow Islam, and believe the same things about Koran, then I am a terrorist. It seems to me that destroying the West is the true form of Islam, and the type that George Bush hopes that the Islamic World will adopt is a heretical form. This isn�t the view being popularized today but based on its history; I think it is a more realistic view of Islamic history.

It is clear that the God of Christianity is incompatible with Allah. People like Hewitt will take pluralism over orthodoxy. Pluralism is just a temporary cease fire until one side gains an advantage over the other. The political consensus in the West is just a new version of Roman theology. In ancient times, you could believe in any god as long as you declare that Caesar is Lord. Now, in America you can have any god as long as the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court is Lord. This was never the intent of the Founders. Freedom of religion as found in the First Amendment was intended to allow for a variety of Christian sects not equality of all faiths or freedom from religion. Both are distortions of original intent.

Forcing a pluralistic template upon the Mohammedans of the world will not succeed. 9-11 was the modern equivalent of the barbarians sacking Roman in the declining years of the Empire. Will our leaders get a spine or repeat history? I think we have yet to properly identify our enemy and have the will to deal with them.

Posted by william on 07/20 at 07:06 PM
Permalink

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

American Hiroshima

Joe Farah, the man behind WorldNetDaily.com, posted a very disturbing article titled “Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.” The article makes many profound assertions about the next attack on American soil.

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the “American Hiroshima” and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border …

I read the article twice yesterday, once at lunch and the second time last night to my wife. Her reaction and mine was how can this be? Farah’s article is part fact, part Tom Clancy and part Mission Impossible. But we must ask ourselves are his assertions true?

Unfortunately, there are no sources sighted to backup many of his assumed facts.

Farah claims that “Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads.” He goes on to assert that several nuclear weapons have already been smuggled into the United States.

This article then begins to morph into a long form advertisement for a forthcoming book about this very subject. This begs the question of whether this is a factual article or an advertisement dressed-up as a news item. Finally, the article then shifts to advocating better border security and the Minuteman Project.

I have spent enough time on his website to wonder aloud if Mr. Farah will be the publisher of the book that he plugged in this article. He uses his book sales to subsidize the support staff of his website. At the very least, I’m sure that this book will be among those offered to readers of his website.

The fact that the book plugged in this article will probably end-up for sale on this website forces me to question if this is journalism or profiteering.

As for the claims made in the article, I"m sure we can agree that Al-Qaida wishes they had nukes. However, I"m in the camp that believes that if they had them they would use them.

Posted by william on 07/13 at 06:14 PM
Global War on TerrorPermalink

Saturday, July 09, 2005

The Opposite of THINK is PINK

Ok, I confess that I’m a closet Eric Hogue listener. I know Eric occasionally has some unusual guests but today took the cake. The topic was about members for the California National Guard attending a “peace” rally that was held on Mother’s Day weekend.

Eric was setting the background story to give the proper context to bring listeners up to speed before he had an interview with the Democrat Senator that is stirring-up this alleged controversy. Hogue’s promo on his blog was:

Democrat State Senator Joe Dunn will make an appearance on the show in the morning. Senator Dunn is calling for a Federal investigation of the National Guard, claiming that the Guard is “spying” upon citizens and protestors.

As part of the background for this story, he got a representative from the “peace” group to appear on his show. His guest was a woman from a left wing group called CodePink. She was the typical Michael Moore liberal. She wants us to unconditionally surrender to radical Islam by bringing our troops home and making reparations to those we have offended. In her view the terrorists would then stay in their sandbox (the Middle East) and leave us alone. (I suppose that she would want us to abandon Israel because they make terrorists mad also.)

Anyway, Eric asked her some questions about her group and then got on the topic of the bombing in London. He asked her whose fault the bombing was and after a moments hesitation she said “George Bush.” I could almost hear Eric say “gotcha.”  Eric held his cool better than I could and then followed-up with asking her who was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Having proved that she was an idiot, she removed all doubt by answering the other President Bush.

The fact that she could blame any US president for terrorism proved that the Truth is not her ally. Any answer other than terrorists should be blamed for terrorist acts is the wrong answer. Blaming a president that was not even in office is more than just intellectual laziness.

The Right Side Blog has more on this exchange at his website.

As for me, I shut to radio off.

Posted by william on 07/09 at 05:08 PM
(0) CommentsPermalink

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Post details: London Bombing

My heart goes out to the victims and families of these barbaric acts. I pray that those responsible will be caught and punished.

Craig DeLuz nails it when he says “They’ll Like Us When We Win.”

Posted by william on 07/07 at 06:37 PM
Permalink

�Choice� Argument an Absurdity

This is posted so folks will know where I got the idea about my rewrite on God and Government. I’m sure that this is copyrighted , but since the Union is out of business I don’t know where to go to get permission so I will just give credit to the source.

“Choice” Argument an Absurdity
By Roger Canfield
Sacramento Union Nov 2, 1990

If Republicans in the last century had been split on the issue of slavery, they would have used the same arguments as current-day “Republicans for Choice” or so says a conservative activist.

Republicans for Choice’s chairman is Ann Stone of Virginia. Its California board member is professor And Rep. Tom Campbell.

Stone’s fundraising letter falls to the satirical mind of William E. Saracino, former director of Gun Owners, who blasted it into the oblivion earned by all laughable logic.

He wrote a parody of Stone’s letter, duplicating the pro-choice letter very nearly word for word, except to substitute a few words such as “slavery” for “abortion,” “slave-owner” for “women” and “Lincoln” for “Bush,” etc.

Of course, Abraham Lincoln led the Republican Party stand against slavery. Hence, what follows is a parody, a satire, used to demonstrate the moral absurdity of recent arguments saying abortion is merely a matter of choice.

Saracino writes:

Dear Ann:

If you are a Republican and you support a slave-owner’s right to choose, we need your help. You can start by signing the enclosed postcard and mailing it to Presi¬dent Lincoln…

As Republicans, we strongly oppose government interference in our private lives. As pro-choice Republicans, we believe the decision to choose to own a slave must be made by the individual not the State.

This does not mean that we are pro-slavery. There are, and must, be, diverse opinions in our party on this and related issues like plantation-owner consent.

Some of us would not choose slave-ownership for ourselves or our families, but we believe that as a party we must stand for a slave-owner’s fundamental right ‘to make that choice himself.

“…President Lincoln needs to hear…” this rigidly anti-slavery stand will drive young people, Southerners, and slave-ownership enthusiasts In all parts of America out of the GOP.

Since the Dred Scott Decision, this issue has become more and more important to voters. We truly fear our party may face defeat in the 1862 elections. President Lincoln’s re-election could even be endangered.

And we need your financial help with our crusade—a campaign to change the party’s out¬dated, anti-slavery platform. A campaign to add to the party’s ranks by electing solid pro-slavery Republicans to sit side-by-side with pro-slavery and anti-slavery Republicans already in office.

Your efforts with us today will help make our party even stronger— even greater— a bigger tent that can cover us all.

“Sincerely,

Beauregard T. Claptrap
Chairman, Republicans for Slavery

Actually, Saracino’s parody fits arguments made by Illinois’ Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858.

Read Harry Jaffa’s book, “Crisis of the House Divided.”

Posted by william on 07/07 at 06:33 PM
Permalink

God v Government

Today I was reading The Rightside Blog essay on Faith and Family. The author was attempting to contrast this topic from the point of view of Liberal versus Conservative.  The quote below is the core of the rest of the article.

Conservatives tend to allow their Faith in God, and in Family to be included in their day to day lives. Liberals tend to try as hard as they can to not include God into their lives or their families.

I agree with much of the article except the contention that “Liberals tend to try as hard as they can to not include God.” With all due respect to the author, I think that Liberals just have a different god. The god of the Liberal is Government (The State)

Let me switch Liberal and Conservative and substitute Government for God as you will see what I mean.

Liberals tend to allow their Faith in Government, and in Family to be included in their day to day lives. Conservatives tend to try as hard as they can to not include Government into their lives or their families. Government is very instrumental in my life. The State hasn’t always been allowed in my life, but she has always been there. Now conservatives always have this one question, “In a world filled with poverty, war, corruption, diseases, how can you possibly believe that an all powerful Government exists?” Truth be told I use to struggle with this very question. I couldn’t see that Government has trails for each and everyone of us through out our entire lives. One thing about these trails is that there is a cheat sheet. It is in a book, that has the history of Government and Her chosen people.

Now here is where people who do not walk in Faith throw their hands up. “Well if Government has already chosen Her people, and I don’t believe in Government, so I must not be one of her chosen people.” Makes sense right? Well Government has a chosen people in the State, and that is the Liberal people, those of Babylon. Atheists are also part of her chosen people as we are told in the New Deal. It is also explained in the New Deal that Government will call others to Herself. Who are the others, you and me and everyone else on this planet we call Earth. It is through the above mentioned trails that we go through on a day to day basis that Government calls us to do her work. And what is this work?

To help our fellow humans, be stewards of this planet, and to obey her commandments. Now helping our fellow humans is not done simply by throwing money at the poor, through donations or government programs. We are creatures who need connections, physical and mental. By volunteering time and actually spending time with those who are less fortunate then you is doing Government’s work. All you have to do to become a chosen one, is to ask Government for Her help.

Being stewards of this planet is not just asking for loggers to stop clear-cutting forests. It includes asking for true management of our environment, globally, nationally, and locally. This includes hunting. All you have to do to become a chosen one is to ask Government for Her help.

The last is to obey her commandments. It is easy to go out and volunteer your time to spend time with those less fortunate, or in bad health. It is easy to go out and plant trees in your neighborhood or to write a letter to your congressperson to demand responsible management of the national forests. But it is not easy to obey all of the Ten Thousand Commandments that Government has asked us to do. If you are wondering why I have repeatedly said, “All you have to do to become a chosen one is to ask Government for Her help,” I will explain. Government did not make these commandments because they are easy to comply with, but she didn’t make them so that we would fail. She made them so that we would become humble enough to realize that we can’t go through life and be complete without Her. We would have to talk to Her. We would have to ask Her for something, and something is help. This travels over to our families.

I am coming up on my second anniversary with my wife. We will have been together for six years. I am a very lucky man in that Government brought me to my wife. We get along great; we love the same movies even after watching them for tenth or twentieth time. We both love our families, and we love each others families. We both love going camping, and we all love just hanging out together. But it is not always as cheerful as I have just described. We do have to work at our relationship, to make sure that we continue to get along great. A marriage is a contract. It is a contract between three people, my wife, me and Government. Government is always in our lives, and she is there to help us maintain our relationship.

These days though Government is being pushed out of our lives. Conservatives have tried their best to take Government out of all of our lives. Here is the question that I have for all you that don’t like Government being in our society:

“In the past, when Government was not involved in our society, was it better or worse than today? Was the prison population as high? Was the abortion rate as high? Were organized labor unions as prevalent? Was the diversity of families as high as it is now?”

Think about it honestly, and if you want to become a chosen one, all you have to do is ask Government for help.

Granted this is quick rewrite but,I think I made my point. A simple formula is to take the Christian perspective on any issue and substitute Government for God and you will always end-up with the Liberal point of view.


Rightside Blogger [Visitor]
http://www.therightsideblog.blogspot.com

I like the rewrite, and I have to admitt that I agree with your formula and the results found by the formula.  I was looking for the way to explain exactly what you did. Thank you for reading my blog, and please don’t be strangers.

Regards,

Posted by william on 07/07 at 05:15 PM
Permalink

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Observing Independence Day

Sometimes we get to observe some of the most contradictory and incomprehensible activities and events. On July Fourth I saw something that was truly amazing.

I was working at a church booth at our local Independence Day celebration. We were handing out information about our church and giving helium filled balloons to anyone that wanted them. The balloons had the church name, logo and website address.

Several hours into the event, I notice two women wrapped in a white cloth that covered their heads and much of their bodies pushing a baby stroller around the park. Attached to the stroller was one of our church balloons. I was stunned. By their dress, it was clear that these women were members of the Islamic faith and yet they were advertising a protestant church.

As it turned-out, these women were part of a larger group that was having a picnic about a hundred feet from our booth. In the midst of that group were still more balloons that were all from our church. It was surreal. This was something that I would not have expected.

*****
The other thing I saw at this day in the park was the juxtaposition of two things that when placed side-by-side were humorous. Imagine a large inflatable slide. It works on the principle as a bounce house, only this thing is about 35 feet tall. It is the size of a small house.

I tried to imagine myself climbing to the top of the slide and going down this flimsy�by adult standards�structure with disastrous results.

While it is unclear whether Tom Cruise would approve, I could see myself going from the bottom of the slide across the fifteen-foot buffer zone directly into chiropractor�s tent for urgent care.

Posted by william on 07/06 at 06:34 PM
Permalink

Thursday, June 30, 2005

China & Unocal

Posted by william on 06/30 at 06:43 PM
Permalink

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Supremes: Men Don’t Need God’s Law

There is a right way, a wrong way and the weasle way. This is the view of corporate America as described by Dilbert writer Scott Adams. Today is proof that it applies to judicial decisions.

The split decision handed down today is worse than a draw. It is open season and full employment for all constitutional law attorneys. There is no unifying principle that can explain both decisions.

These cases plus the case last week about private property prove that there are no limits on judicial tyranny. Our law has become completely unmoored from the Constitution.

Like Christianity in Liberal churches, the historic meaning of the words and ideas that originated the Constitution has been discarded as limiting and out of fashion. The context in which the document was written has no relevance to modern jurisprudence.

Liberals have substituted an “enlightened” view that you can redefine the words and ideas to mean whatever you wish them to say. If that doesn’t work you can ignore them or substitute your own. This is the essence of a “living document.”

Posted by william on 06/28 at 05:37 PM
Permalink

Friday, June 24, 2005

Courting Next Justice

There is talk that the first vacancy in the Supreme Court will be Sandra Day O’Connor. This was reported by William Kristol and carried on Hugh Hewitt yesterday. This would be President Bush’s first opportunity to appoint anyone to the Court. Kristol also reports that Attorney General Roberto Gonzales will replace Justice O’Conner.

With all due respect to President Bush and his supporters such as the California High School Conservative, selecting Gonzales would be the worst move that Bush can make. Gonzales lacks the values that we need on the Court, especially in light of the ruling today on private property rights.

Gonzales is reportedly “moderate”. We don’t need more squishy pro-abortion judges on the Court. If he is not a principled, strict constructionist then we don’t need him. Cloning David Sutter is wasting an appointment.

If Bush appoints Gonzales as his first justice, then his next one will be further to the Left or he won’t get through the Senate. If Gonzales is nominated to replace Stevens, I might consider that an upgrade, but O’Conner and Kennedy have alternated being the swing votes on almost every decision of the Court.

Getting someone more Conservative than O’Conner is critical.

Trackback
http://cahsconservative.blogspot.com

I am not saying that the President should nominate Gonzales.  That is his choice.

What I am saying is that should he nominate Gonzales I would support him 100%.  O’Connor has been wobbly; I think that Gonzales would be fairly conservative compared to her.

Sure, we can disagree with him on a few social issues.  However, I do not think that the President will nominate someone who he thinks will shread the Judeo-Christian legacy of this country.  I trust the president in that regard.

The biggest issue right now in the world is The War on Terror.  Gonzales has shown consistancy in that area in letting the US Government do what it needs to to get the job done.

Posted by william on 06/24 at 10:09 PM
Permalink

Court Abolishes Private Property

The Supereme Court ruling handed down today in Kelo v New London declares what we have known all along. All land—publicly and privately owned—is the king’s land and we use it only at his pleasure. Now every petty local official and robber baron has the right to anything that you own.

The myth of private property has been a cherished idea for many years. But the fact is that the government has laid claim to all the land for decades. The test of this is very simply. If your house and land are fully paid, the government can still legally take it away from you. If you fail to pay property tax the government can take it away from you. The fact that you can loose it means it never really belonged to you.

The decision today just expands the ease with which the government can separate you from you land. Wealth redistribution has expanded from tax revenue to assets. Now we can rob land from the middle and lower classes and give to the rich with the same ease that the New Deal has robbed money from the rich and given to the middle and lower classes.

Posted by william on 06/24 at 06:42 PM
Permalink

Government Shutdown?

I paid a visit today to the California Secretary of State’s Office and the Capitol. Both buildings were virtually empty except for security.

I needed to pick-up some documents related to a project I am working on with a friend. While I was there I also got some info related to the November Special Election. I visited offices on two different floors. Between both floors, I saw three people. Many lights were off and all the Dilbert Cubicles were empty. Many publications that should have been available were not in the offices. We were told to try their Internet site because the publications might be there.

At the Capitol, I dropped by Senator John Campbell’s office. I wanted my daughter—who was accompanying me—to see one of the good guys. I opened the door and was impressed by two things. First there was only one person in the office. This person turned-out not to belong to the senator’s staff but was simply there to answer calls. Second, the office was a dinky hole-in-the-wall. Not what I expected from a man destined to serve in Congress.

The Senate employee was nice and we had a good visit. He let us see the whole office and answered all our questions. Senator Campbell’s office was about twice as big as the walk-in closet at my parent’s house.

Posted by william on 06/24 at 05:36 PM
(0) CommentsPermalink

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Employer’s Perspective on Immigration

One of the hottest political issues among grassroots people is immigration. A common refrain among people I hear—on conservative talk radio and elsewhere—is that the solution to illegal immigration is to strengthen the borders and stop employers from hiring undocumented workers. This all sounds good but existing law doesn’t allow this to happen; at least not from the employer’s perspective.

The stereotype is that employers will seek-out illegals to work for them and then pay them three bucks an hour in cash and send them on their way. While this probably does happen, my experience doing payroll in the construction industry is quite different. I would like to interject my experience into the public record.

Employers are extremely hampered in dealing with job applicants. This is because both state and federal laws prohibit employers from any discretion in evaluating documents of job applicants. If you agree to hire someone and they can provide you with the necessary documents required for the I-9 form required by the INS and a social security number then the job applicant has met the requirements for being hired. It is illegal to reject an applicant that provides you with these documents. (There is no requirement to see the social security card just that the employee gives you a number.)

At the company where I work, we pay most of our employees that work in the field $20 per hour. They are covered by both worker compensation and liability insurance. They are even eligible for medical, dental and other insurances. All taxes are paid to the appropriate state and federal agencies. This is hardly the slave wages alleged in most horror stories about exploiting illegals.

There are two instances when potentially fraudulent documents are ever brought to the attention of employers. One is when an employer gets a wage garnishment for an employee that they have never heard of before. The problem is that the names don’t match but the social security numbers are identical. Conclusion, our employee is probably not legit. When notified, there are two responses that you will get. Usually the questionable employee suddenly quits. Occasionally, the employee pays the garnishment and continues on at his present job.

The second time that an employer has an idea that an employee has questionable documentation is when once a year, they get a letter from the Social Security Administration that informs them that some of the names submitted on the previous years’ W-2s don’t match the names in their records. At my current employer this is over thirty people. I have tried verifying names and social security numbers in our records (we keep copies of all documents submitted for employment) and submitting them per the instructions provided by SSA but not one name that I submitted was accepted by the SSA.

Supposedly, the SSA has the ability to verify names and social security numbers on a pass/fail basis but this system is worthless. Some of our employees have six or seven names on their I-9 documents. In a computer system that only accepts first name, middle initial and last name how do you enter a name like JOSE DE JESUS CONTRERAS DE LA GUADALUPE?

How will the entry on my employee’s W-2 ever match a social security card with a name like that? Answer: it can’t. Ever. This renders the verification system of the Social Security Administration totally useless. Due to privacy laws and worries of identity theft, they will not help you if a name does not match. It is clear that our government is not setup to deal with Hispanic names and neither is my ten thousand dollar accounting program.

The Social Security Administration could easily give their list of questionable employees to the immigration people for verification but they don’t. In addition, the SSA instructions specifically state that it is illegal to terminate any employee whose name appears in the letter.

I have never known any employer who has been checked by any government agency to verify their I-9 forms or any other employee documents. In fact, employers are not required to keep copies of the documents used for the I-9s; they simply have to see them and sign the appropriate form verifying that they saw the necessary documents. There are two categories of documents that can be used; the usual combination of documents are a social security card and drivers license but others are also acceptable.

The bottom line is that if a prospective hire has the proper documents then they must be treated the same as any other employee. Only the government has the right to challenge their validity. Going after employers as a means of solving illegal immigration is a straw-man argument. If the employer gets the documents at time of hire, then the person is hired. Citizenship or immigration status has no effect on the hiring process. That is the law.  Only Congress can change it and they are very reluctant to do their job.

Posted by william on 06/22 at 06:39 PM
Permalink
Page 56 of 57 pages « First  <  54 55 56 57 >