A Significant Measure to Reform Social Security

This article highlights a recent proposal by two U.S. Senators which would at least make Social Security surpluses safe from spendthrift politicians.

Give me a break . . .

It is interesting to watch the secular Left circling above the desert campus of the Air Force Academy. Any cadet who pulls the female-Harvard-math-professor routine upon learning that a "superior" is an Evangelical Christian, then perhaps s/he doesn't have what it takes to face down an enemy. Yikes.

I challenge you to look into the facts of these allegations, because--aside from a single incident by an AFA football coach (hanging a "team Jesus" banner in the locker room), I don't see any "there" there. This whole hubbub emphasizes the irony of Political Correctness and the intolerance of Diversitymongers.

Kay Bailey Hutchison . . . RINO?

This article about Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) really rubbed me the wrong way. I believe Hutchison fails to appreciate how tenuous her relationship is with the GOP "base" and was smart not to try and mount a primary challenge against incumbent Rick Perry in the TX gubernatorial race. Further, I only hope that her claim (it sounded like boasting) that she could have beaten Perry was either in jest or modestly stated in response to a direct question from the media; otherwise, it was incredibly lame.

Lame, also, is her breaking of the pledge she made not to serve more than two terms in the Senate. Heck, this single article could fill a complete RINO dossier.

Howard Dean and his "Party of the People"

I just got my hourly email from the Democrat Party (just kidding, it is probably only a couple times a week . . . it just FEELS like it is hourly). Howard Dean is asking me to give $20 or more per month to counter Republicans, who, we're breathlessly informed, "raise more than $10 million a month in huge checks from special interests and lobbyists." Howie continues, "They have created a money-for-influence machine unlike anything our country has ever seen." Has he ever heard of George Soros? The Labor Unions? The multitude of Liberal 527s?

This communication is about as disingenuous as it gets. Yes, the GOP raises more money than Dems, but it raises less of its funds from a) special interests and b) lobbyists than the Dems. Here's an interesting USA Today piece on the subject that I just uncovered and it is well-known (except, perhaps, by Howard Dean) that the GOP has a much higher percentage of small donors--a higher percentage which accounts for the higher "hard" money receipts and the higher overall fundraising advantage of the GOP.

Judicial Philosophies

In light of the impending vacancies on the Supreme Court, I think it is valuable to consider the judicial philosophy which is I believe is appropriate under the U.S. Constitution. Though many of us Conservatives will be heard advocating for "conservative" judges, I want to emphasize that the appropriate "conservative" judge is in actuality a "textualist" or "originalist." It means a judge who seeks to understand what the drafters of a statute intended (by reading only their expressed intent) and who then applies that conclusion to the set of facts before him/her.

Some Conservatives will contend that "conservative" means "strict constructivism/constructionism"; however, "originalism" is different than "Strict Constructionism" in that a judge should not "construe" the text either "strictly" or "leniently," but rather "reasonably," as Justice Scalia has said. I believe that textualism/originalism is essential if we are to truly be a nation under rule of law rather than rule of men.

I hate to make this political, but . . .

I just came across this hilarious article on the Borowitz Report about Michael Jackson and the post-9/11 skepticism of the French. Headline: "MICHAEL JACKSON ADMITS PLASTIC SURGERY; FRANCE UNCONVINCED."

Miss World:"I did not have Plastic Surgery from that man, Dr. Morillas."

This sounds like something you'd read on The Onion. The reigning Miss World is fighting back in a war of words with a Peruvian plastic surgeon. According to the "beautiful" Miss World, though the surgeon has worked on her breasts and nose, he absolutely, positively did NOT give her buttock implants or trim her ears. I think I mean it when I say this just seems to cheapen the whole beauty pageant enterprise. This is like proclaiming that the king of pop deserves to win a Diana Ross lookalike contest, isn't it? or believing that the work of art, rather than the artist, deserves the acclaim in an art show. Whatever.

More Press "Unbias"

This article about new Atty. Gen. Gonzalez' approval of removing the curtains that had hidden the partially-nude DOJ "Lady Justice" statues demonstrates how the press often "has a dog in the fight." It appears, from every example given, that photographers were eager to mockingly frame pix of GOP AGs with the statue. And I resent the statement that Ashcroft installed the curtains out of any type of "fear."

The arrogance of statists/liberals

This NY Times article illustrates the arrogance of Statism and it is very fitting that it happened in Connecticut. People are so sloppy with the terms Liberal and Conservative that they can avoid the sometimes uncomfortable restrictions of being principled. I've griped about how sloppy the Liberal/Conservative labels are used when referring to the judiciary . . . FYI: it was the "Liberal" justices who sided with local gov'ts (in some states) who are linking arms with developers to confiscate private property for the greater public good.

Nihilist, but Moralist, Woody Allen

In this interview with Der Spiegel, Woody Allen reveals a lot about himself and his worldview. Ironically, he comes off as both a Nihilist and a Moralist. One particular statement he made struck me as absurd: he asserted that political events or political/historical events are not "profound enough" to merit his artistic attention, because, he asserts, history is simply "the same thing over and over again." That's somewhat true, but every story or theme is a recycled story or theme and history is interesting because we can see how people respond--heroically or despicably, to the challenges they face.Indeed, I believe that Allen is in reality a moral relativist--by equating 9/11 with "Americans killing Iraqis" and the Final Solution with violence in the Golan Heights, he is demonstrating his utter moral ignorance. Of course, anyone who knows Allen's personal history, knows that he easily qualifies as amoral or at least immoral.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting is NOT Liberal . . . Honest

It kills me that advocates of Public Broadcasting deny that much of its programing is slanted in favor of Liberal policies. They're not being intellectually honest (see a comprehensive report, here).

Beyond that, all the whining about proposed funding cuts (and of course, the programing most likely to suffer, they claim, is all the children's programing--PBS is "for the children") is entertaining because of the money that Clifford, Sesame Street, et al make in merchandising as the result of their unmatched PBS platform and moolah which they get to keep for themselves-- they don't share any of it with PBS or the taxpayers.

We can debate whether the gov't needs to be in the TV business, but spare me the dire claims of what will happen to the programs, much less our culture, if we decrease funding a bit.

Karl Rove's Comments

It has been intriguing to watch the reaction to Karl Rove's comments before a Conservative Party (don't worry--or get excited, Libs; it's an oddity of NY State politics) gathering only blocks away from Ground Zero.

This op/ed at NationalReview.com correctly argues that Rove's comments were indisputably accurate in reference to UnabletoMoveOn.org, er, MoveOn.org. But what's interesting to me is how his zingers at "Liberals" and MoveOn.org are prompting reaction from those typically afraid of being called "Liberals."

Some have opined that this is an unwitting reaction/admission by Kerry and Clinton, for example (perhaps) and others have viewed it as a way to get back at Rove and Co. for their humiliation of Dick Durbin for his Freudian prepared remarks last week, but I believe it is because they MUST defend groups like MoveOn.org (by the way, why are they being referred to as simply "MoveOn" now? If they have requested the change, I'll have to consider whether I'll go along). They rely so heavily on radical activist types from these various 527s, that they cannot afford to cut bait, neither can they afford Sister Souljah tactics.

Nihilist, yet Moralist, Woody Allen

In this interview with Der Spiegel, Woody Allen reveals a lot about himself and his worldview. Ironically, he comes off as both a Nihilist and a Moralist (I think I'm using those terms accurately). One particular statement he made struck me as absurd: he asserted that political events or political/historical events are not "profound enough" to merit his artistic attention, because, he asserts, history is simply "the same thing over and over again." That's somewhat true, but every story or theme is a recycled story or theme, and history is interesting because we can see how people respond--heroically or despicably, to the challenges they face.

Indeed, I believe that Allen is simply a moral relativist--by equating 9/11 with "Americans killing Iraqis" and the Final Solution with violence in the Golan Heights, he is demonstrating his utter moral ignorance or indifference. Of course, anyone who knows Allen's personal history, knows that he easily qualifies as amoral or at least immoral.

Libs (in this case, Nancy Pelosi) Just Don't Get It

There's a great op/ed at nationalreview.com about how either a) disingenuous or b) clueless are the legalistic and opportunistic comments by Nancy Pelosi that the war in Afghanistan is over therefore we should release from Gitmo the combatants captured during that war.

A great quote from the piece is that in wars against rebels or terrorists, "Peace comes on little cat feet. You know you've won when nothing happens."

I like it when Dems talk a lot; they demonstrate that they are not worthy opponents.

Arrogance of Statism/Liberalism

This NY Times article illustrates the arrogance of Statism and it is very fitting that it happened in Connecticut. People are so sloppy with the terms Liberal and Conservative that they can avoid the sometimes uncomfortable restrictions of being principled. I've griped about how sloppy the Liberal/Conservative labels are used when referring to the judiciary . . . FYI: it was the "Liberal" justices who sided with local gov'ts (in some states) who are linking arms with developers to confiscate private property for the greater public good.

ACLU's Religion Problem

A Denver Post columnist writes an excellent exposition of the ACLU's problem with religion, well one particular religion: Christianity. While I don't agree with all of columnist David Harsanyi's conclusions, he effectively nails the ACLU (and groups like the so-called People for the American Way). Commenting on the recent "investigation" into alleged religious intolerance at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and particularly referring to perhaps the only legitimate example of impropriety (a coach's posting of a banner that read, "I am a member of Team Jesus"), Harsanyi--who is no Conservative apologist, asks "Shouldn't freedom of speech extend to those who actually protect those rights?" and correctly states,
Problem is, if that banner had read, "I am a member of Team Bin Laden," the ACLU would have a lawyer shielding his First Amendment rights before you could say, "Who would Jesus bomb?"
And that's hypocrisy.
People who sincerely believe that there will be a time when humans will be held accountable for their sin (i.e., people who believe the Bible) also believe that they should share with their fellow man about God's plan for escaping judgment. Sorry if that offends you, secularists, but it is "speech" that is protected under our Constitution and freedom of speech is not lost when you join the Air Force.

Maiden Post

This is my maiden post on the Truthmonger blog. Though I hate to sound French, bon voyage.