Friday, November 30, 2007

If J. Edgar Hoover was a Transvestite then is Rudy Giuliani a Gay?

Is the Iraq War more Important than Christian Voters?

Unsubstantiated rumors that J. Edgar Hoover dressed as a drag queen have lead to numerous liberal books that claimed he could have been homosexual. Why is the fact that Giuliani dressed as a drag queen many times not evidence that he could be gay?

If he is not homosexual, he has a anti-Christian gay agenda that belongs in the Democrat Party?

A bigger question is why are so-calling conservative pro-family types such as Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity as well as Fox TV covering up Giuliani's real agenda and homosexual behavior.

Why are numerous conservative talk shows hosts around the country covering up Giuliani's real agenda and homosexual behavior?

Is the Iraq war more important than Christian voters?


Is Rudy Giuliani Homosexual?

Read the evidence.

Rudy Giuliani dressed as a drag queen doing a skit with Donald Trump for his annual press roast in 2000.

Rudy Giuliani dressed as a drag queen in 1997.

A video slide show.

Rudy Giuliani dressed as a drag queen on Saturday Night Live in 1997.

Just The Facts

· Rudy has openly cross dressed as a drag queen on multiple occasions.

· Rudy lived with a gay lovers Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsiao in 2001.

· Rudy told Howard and Mark he would personally marry them.

· Rudy gave Howard and Mark good-bye kisses every morning.

· Rudy is a member of the Stonewall Veterans Association, a club for homosexuals that participated in the violent Stonewall Inn riots of 1969.

· Rudy was a keynote speaker for the gay Log Cabin Republicans group.

· Rudy hosted eight gay pride parties at his NYC mayor's mansion.

· Rudy attended eight gay pride parades in NYC while mayor, including one that included pedophile group North American Man/Boy Love Association.

· Rudy offered to be on the graphic homosexual show Queer as Folk.

· Rudy told his gay roommates he would consider taking up their lifestyle.

See photos(

Once was weird enough. But if a single transvestite appearance would have satisfied most public officials, it apparently was just the start for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. This weekend, Mr. Giuliani took his act national, appearing as a hirsute grandmother on SNL.
-Elizabeth Kolbert, Mayor in Drag? There He Goes Again, New York Times, 11/24/97

Giuliani -- who once appeared in fishnet stockings with the Rockettes and dressed up for a press dinner as Marilyn Monroe -- may have a tough time selling himself to conservatives.
-Howard Kurtz, Looking Back to 9/10 Rudy, and Ahead to 11/08, Washington Post, 3/5/07

I ask Mr. Koeppel: Is it unexpected that Rudolph Giuliani would be staying with an openly gay couple? ''I don't know if it's any more unusual than him wearing a dress,'' he says.
-Frank Rich, 1 Mayor, 2 Guys, 1 Shih Tzu, New York Times, 8/4/01

Marital problems force the Republican mayor of New York out of Gracie Mansion and into the apartment of a gay friend and his life partner.
-Jed Heyman, Three's Company, Picking Up After Rudy, New York Magazine, 8/31/04

'He did tell us that if they ever legalized gay marriages, we would be the first one he would do.
-Frank Rich, 1 Mayor, 2 Guys, 1 Shih Tzu, New York Times, 8/4/01

“We always get a little kiss, it’s cute,” says Howard Koeppel, with whom Giuliani has been sharing an apartment since June. When Giuliani was recently knighted, Koeppel tells The Times that he told “Sir Rudy” to call him “Queen Howard.”
-Ken Ervin, The Knight and 'The Queen', Concerned Women for America, 11/28/01

The mayor left for City Hall every morning after giving his two hosts a goodbye peck on the cheek — “a little kiss, it’s cute,” Howard Koeppel, told the newspaper — and how Mr. Giuliani affectionately called Mr. Koeppel “mother.”
-Adam Nagourney, New York Label May Not Fit All in Giuliani Run, New York Times, 3/8/07

Rudy W. Giuliani is a honorary member of STONEWALL Veterans' Association comprised of veterans of the 1969 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Stonewall Rebellion.
-Stonewall Veterans' Association Website, Published 10/31/07, Retrieved 11/20/07

The Log Cabin Web site lists Mr. Giuliani as a model for its brand of Republicanism, and the former mayor spoke to the organization's national convention in 1999.
-Russell Berman, Log Cabin Group Lists Giuliani as Ideal Republican, New York Sun, 3/23/07

Mayor Rudy Giuliani hosted his "8th Annual Gay Pride Celebration" at Gracie [mayor's] Mansion. It was held not as an early morning breakfast but as an evening cocktail party.”
-Stonewall Veterans' Association Website, Published 6/21/07, Retrieved 11/20/07

Giuliani has attended every “gay pride” parade in New York during his eight years as mayor. Giuliani took part in a homosexual “pride” parade that included a contingent of pedophile activists marching behind a banner for NAMBLA.

-Ken Ervin, The Knight and 'The Queen', Concerned Women for America, 11/28/01

Koeppel ribbed Giuliani by saying... Giuliani should agree to appear on Showtime’s controversial Queer as Folk dressed in drag. Surprisingly, Giuliani agreed.

-Ken Ervin, The Knight and 'The Queen', Concerned Women for America, 11/28/01


Are Liberalism and Radical Islam really the same Thing?

Christians and all persons who believe in reason and transcendent truths are at war with liberal theorists and radical Islam.

English professor Louis Markos in his book Lewis Agonistes thinks that liberal theorists and radical Islam are at war with analogy in the arts and literature as well as with “transcendent truths in material images.”

Markos says liberals of the Enlightenment mind set believed only in materially observable “facts” and denied the existence of “transcendent truths in material images” be it art, literature or God.

Postmodernist took it a step forward by proclaiming that not only is God dead, but language is dead. They believe that words have no meaning even materially observable “facts.”

Radical liberal theorists of the postmodernist and Enlightenment mind set showed that this thought lead to violence against human life. Lenin and Stalin were Enlightenment men and Hitler was a follower of the postmodernist Nietzsche. Pro-choicer of the kind that kill unborn babies and homosexual identity gender changers are also followers of Nietzsche’s will to power.

As G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing - they believe in anything.
Radical Islam showed it association with liberal theorists when they firebombed and shoot bullet holes through Christian churches in West Bank, killed an Italian nun and threatened to bomb the Vatican with a suicide attack when Pope Benedict XVI gave the September 12 called FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY. MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS. In that talk he said:

“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”

“Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”

The pope in the lecture countered this anti-analogy theories which ultimately deny transcendent truth by saying:

“As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV).

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as “logos” and, as “logos,” has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is “logos.”

Consequently, Christian worship is “spiritual” worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).”

Hopefully, Benedict began a dialogue with Islam. He hoped, according to George Weigel in God’s Choice, that Muslim reformers can find from their “authoritative text . . . that it is God’s will that we be tolerant of those who have different understandings of God’s will.”

We need to pray that Islam accept reason and liberals accept the existence of “transcendent truths in material images” be it art, literature or God.

Radical Islam will continue violent conversion and killing in the name of an unknowable God. And liberal theorists will continue killing in the name of the unknowable gods of Feminism, Marxism as well as Nazism.

Malcolm Muggeridge said it best:

"When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence"

Although I would add when mortal men try to live without reason or a knowable God, they infallibly succumb to Homosexualism and/or the will to power of Feminism, Marxism,Nazism as well as radical Islam.

"When Mortal Men try to Live without God"

"When Mortal Men try to Live without God"

Malcolm Muggeridge expained the the time we live in best:

"When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence"

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Schlafly is for Duncan Hunter

Schlafly not keen on GOP frontrunners

October 22, 2007

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly is expressing strong dissatisfaction with the top-tier Republican presidential candidates. She also questions the validity of the results of the Values Voters straw poll on Saturday.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly says most of the GOP candidates who have been designated frontrunners are globalists. According to Schlafly, candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee all “need to wake up” and realize they need the votes of Reagan Democrats to win.

“I think that’s a great mistake for the Republicans. I feel that it’s very important that they reach out to people on the jobs issue,” Schlafly shares. “I was quite disappointed with the debate that was broadcast from Michigan, which is an economically depressed state, and they didn’t appear to have any sympathy or compassion for all the millions of people who’ve lost their jobs that have moved to China.”

In the straw poll taken over the weekend in conjunction with the Values Voters Summit, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney topped former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by a mere 30 votes. Schlafly contends that Huckabee was the winner among conference attendees who heard the weekend’s speeches.

“The straw poll was interesting,” she offers. “People were able to vote on it even though they weren’t here. They could vote for the prior two weeks before the conference took place and before they heard any of the speakers.” And in her opinion, that means one cannot say a whole lot about the validity of the poll.

Schlafly believes all that can be deduced from the poll is that so-called “values voters” are still shopping for their candidate. And she says while social conservatives are divided in many ways, they all agree they cannot support a candidate who is not pro-life. The Eagle Forum founder tells OneNewsNow the only GOP hopefuls she is comfortable with are Congressmen Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

(Note: Duncan Hunter was the only candidate to stand up to the front runners on trade issues during the recent debates, and he regularly points out the jobs we have lost to China, the trade deficit we have as a result, and the national security issues that ensue as China builds weapons with our trade dollars that are designed to combat our military, particularly our Pacific Navy, and that are also being sold to Iraqi and Afghan insurgents via Iran. Duncan Hunter has a PERFECT rating from Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum)

Should we Beware of Huckabee?

I prefer Huckabee to Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson, but Baldwin makes some valid points.


Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
by Chuck Baldwin
November 2, 2007

With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so.

Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s national Eagle Forum, said, “We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor.” Phyllis Schlafly herself was even more direct.

President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.” She went on to say, “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”

Even one of Huckabee’s strongest supporters within the Religious Right, Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, admitted, “Mike has always sought the validation of elites.” Of course, my question for Rick Scarborough is, With an indictment such as that, how can you continue to support Mike Huckabee?

According to an opinion piece written by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, “Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, ‘I know of no conservative he [Huckabee] appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.’”

Fund went on to say that “Mr. Huckabee’s reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton.”

Fund also said this about Huckabee: “‘He’s just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,’ a former top Huckabee aide told me. ‘As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I’ll guarantee is that won’t lead to competent conservative governance.’”

Mike Huckabee is also terrible on immigration. According to Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First, “Rudy Giuliani spent years defending the right of New York City to remain a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Yet Giuliani was a veritable Lou Dobbs Jr. on illegal immigration in comparison to Mike Huckabee.”

Regarding Huckabee’s stance on immigration, Mr. Minton said, “Until of late, he has been an open-borders guy on immigration–amnesty, the whole works. As governor, he wanted to give free college scholarships to all illegals.”

Minton’s assertion is backed up by Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. He said, “Like his fellow presidential candidate [who recently dropped out of the race], Sen. Sam Brownback, Huckabee regards it as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together, they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens.”

Ann Coulter agrees: “On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, ‘I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.’

“Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up ‘those who are racist and bigots.’

“He also made the insane point that companies such as Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn’t allow non-citizens to vote, because it would ’send the message that, essentially, “If you don’t look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don’t want you.”‘

“Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking–unless you’re an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant.”

A former state lawmaker, Minton also said, that Huckabee was not a “fiscally conservative Republican.” Rather, Huckabee was regarded as just another liberal “tax and spender” in fiscal matters. This is in direct opposition to Huckabee’s boast of “90 tax cuts during his tenure.” And the facts seem to validate Minton, not Huckabee.

An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration report showed a “net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth” on Huckabee’s watch.

That Huckabee is a liberal “tax and spender” is also affirmed by Tom Roeser. According to Roeser, “[Huckabee] hiked state spending 65.3%, from 1996 to 2004. He supported five tax increases, leading the ‘Club for Growth’ to call him a liberal in disguise . . .”

Roeser also points out that “The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with heavy ties to the national GOP, gives him an F grade for spending and taxes in 2006 and an overall grade of D in his governorship. During his tenure, the number of state employees increased over 20% and Arkansas’ general obligation debt rose by almost $1 billion.”

Furthermore, according to the Washington Times, “Until recently, he [Huckabee] had refused to sign the famous no-tax pledge offered to candidates by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.”

In spite of Huckabee’s proven big-government, big-spending, and pro-amnesty record, however, some Christian conservatives are falling for his conservative rhetoric. It seems that all a Republican candidate has to do is start talking “pro-life” and “pro-marriage” and he or she will gain the support of certain Christian conservatives.

First it was Bob Jones, III endorsing the liberal former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and now it is Janet Folger endorsing the liberal former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Why any Christian leader would want to support a man with such a dubious record truly escapes me.

Christians need to beware of Mike Huckabee. He is not a conservative. Even worse, he is not a constitutionalist. He is an opportunist, however. This is demonstrated by the fact that many of his supporters are openly posturing (with Huckabee’s consent, obviously) for an opportunity to run Huckabee as a potential Vice Presidential candidate with either Giuliani or Romney at the top of the ticket.

Let me ask the reader something. How could a principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution conservative be willing to run on a ticket with a liberal presidential candidate such as Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney? That’s right, he couldn’t.

I say again, beware of Mike Huckabee!

Who is Phyllis Schlafly? Who are Ron Paul’s supporters?

Here is one of the best summaries on Phyllis Schlafly, Ron Paul and Paul’s supporters.

on November 4, 2007 at 1:35 am5 Jim Palmisano
Who is Phyllis Schlafly? What does this self-proclaimed political guru know about anything?

I prefer to read for myself and I tend to understand things fairly well on my own.

So who is she and why would anyone put any credence to her thoughts?

This should be interesting.

Jim Palmisano

on November 22, 2007 at 11:14 pm7 Doug Parris
I really like Ron Paul, myself, but the posts, here, actually illustrate some of the problems he has winning the nomination.

Palmisano (at 5) asks “who is Phyllis Schlafly?” and calls her a “self-proclaimed” political guru. This illustrates the “johnny-come-lately” nature of much of Paul’s support. Mr. Palmisano is obviously very ignorant of the history of the conservative movement and disrespectful of its leaders, the people who have been fighting for many decades for Constitutional Government. Calling her a “self-prclaimed” guru is just dishonest. She has never spent time attempting to elevate herself, but became prominent, probably before Palmisano was born, fighting for what is right, and has never wavered.

Palmisano, touting his own abilities, says, “I prefer to read for myself and I tend to understand things fairly well…” but does not know who the greatest enemy of feminazism in history is.

Painter (at 6) claims that Ron Paul has the “most intense and zealous supporters.” They certainly are zealous. But that has both an upside and a downside. I think most people attribute Paul’s lead in the non-scientific polls to that zeal ~ a small number of Paul supporters mobilizing to jam phone lines or vote often when that is possible. It’s a good strategy, and grassroots action, like Paul has generated, is about all a “second-tier” candidate can do to progress, but when the results don’t equate to similar numbers in scientific polls (that only count one vote from one person), and Paul’s zealous supporters try to cry “conspiracy” it undercuts credibility ~ and makes it easier to ignore both real results and real bias when it does occur -and it occurs often.

As pointed out, Ron Paul scores high among liberals for a Republican, and this is, undoubtedly, a direct result of his opposition to the war. I’ve talked to some of them and it’s the only thing they know about him. These are the people who have been tearing down Constitutional governent for about a hundred years. It undercuts his support among seasoned Constitutionalists. He is also the only Republican Candidate, in all the debates so far, to have been, literally, booed by a Republican Audience. He is right, generally, on the Constitution, but wrong, on some crucial Foreign Policy regarding primeval Islam and wrong in the mind of most Republicans on that issue.

Paul’s positives far outweigh his negatives on the grand scale of substance, but his negatives are very high-profile and seem to me to be unfairly counterbalancing his positives on the grand scale of viability.

But I have to give the title of “the “most intense and zealous supporters” to the members of the People’s Temple who proved the intensity of their zeal for Jim Jones at “Jonestown,” Guyana on Nov. 18, 1978. It’s not always a good thing.

This thread (above) is being posted, by the way, on our mirror-site, REAGANWING.COM. It was put up only as a backup to the actual site in case of emergency. In the future, post at WWW.THEREAGANWING.COM and you will stand less chance of being ignored. This story, at that site is:

I prefer Ron Paul over Huckabee, Romney, and McCain, who give no indication of being authentic conservatives and over Giulaini, who gives no indication of trying to even LOOK conservative. I will be excitedly voting for Paul, if and when he wins the GOP nomination.

Phyllis Schlafly is not for Huckabee

Phyllis Schlafly is not for Huckabee

Phyllis Schlafly comments on Huckabee's lack of conservatism

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He [Huckabee] destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

That's great Phyllis, go ahead and attack an articulate, clear thinking, gutsy, innovative and solidly EVANGELICAL Candidate! And who do you suggest we vote for???
Giuliani? Yeah right, Thompson? Are you kidding me? Romney? Never!
McCain? I don't think so... So come on Phyllis who? What positive alternative can you offer, or do you just like to throw rocks?
Mike Huckabee lowered taxes many times during his tenure. Check the record, a lot of the "tax hikes" were voter (yes the citizens
of Arkansas Phyllis) mandates that passed by a wide margin. Mike Huckabee was Governor for TEN years and, OMIGOSH Phyllis, that took an awful lot of backing from, Gulp!, Arkansas REPUBLICANS.
I say Go Mike. It's nice to have a candidate that we can be excited about!

By Michael Patterson, At 10:54 PM

Sky Rocketing Huckabee Appears Ready to Win Iowa and Beat Hillary

Sky Rocketing Huckabee Appears Ready to Win Iowa and Beat Hillary

Hillary Clinton Says She Can Beat GOP, But New Poll Shows Republican Sweep

Washington, DC ( -- Hillary Clinton campaigned in Iowa over the weekend and claimed she was the best of the pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidates to take on a Republican nominee next year.

However, a new poll finds Clinton losing nationally to all of the top five Republican presidential hopefuls. "I believe that I have a very good argument that I know more about beating Republicans than anybody else running," Clinton said.

"They've been after me for 15 years, and much to their dismay, I'm still standing." "I'm leading in all the polls, I'm beating them in state after state after state," she contended. "I think they have looked at the field and figured out who can best beat the Republicans."

However, a new survey released Monday by the Zogby polling firm finds Clinton trailing all of the top five Republican candidates, four of whom are campaigning on a pro-life position.

The Zogby International poll found former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee doing the best against Clinton. Thompson leads her 44-40 and Huckabee leads 44-39. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leads Clinton by a 43 percent to 40 percent margin while Senator John McCain is ahead 42 to 38 percent and even pro-abortion ex-mayor Rudy Giuliani leads 43-40 percent.

More about polls and whether Clinton is or isn't ahead of Republicans

A poll we wrote about yesterday -- Zogby Interactive's online survey of 9,150 "likely voters," has gotten some attention today from Drudge and other sites with similar political leanings. The angle -- that the survey reportedly shows Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton trailing the Republican contenders in head-to-head matchups -- has caught the sites' eyes.

We noted that the methodology raises some concerns among polling experts, because the pool of respondents came from folks who signed up online to be included in Zogby's interactive surveys. That raises questions about how random and truly representative the survey group is.

Gallup has some new head-to-head matchup results from its latest national survey -- which in theory avoids the problem of a "self-selected" pool because respondents are called at random. Gallup's numbers show Clinton's lead either unchanged or slightly wider against four of the GOP's top contenders (Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson). Democratic Sen. Barack Obama is tied with Giuliani in Gallup's latest survey. Obama has a slight advantage over McCain. He has wide leads over Romney and Thompson.[]

New poll in Iowa has Huckabee campaign crowing

That's the booming headline from a release sent out in the wee hours of this morning by the presidential campaign of Republican Mike Huckabee.

The news is that the first poll done in Iowa by Rasmussen Reports, which collects its information via automated phone calls, shows the Republican race there lining up this way:

• Mitt Romney, 25%.
• Fred Thompson, 19%.
• Huckabee, 18%.
• Rudy Giuliani, 13%.
• Sen. John McCain, 6%.
• Everybody else: 3% or less.

Is Fred Thompson Pro-life?

Is Fred Thompson Pro-life?


The Stephen Douglas of the 2008 race

By Jill Stanek

November 28, 2007

A week before the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson, I blogged he had disqualified himself from my list of presidential primary picks following his Nov. 4 interview on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert.

During those moments, Thompson revealed he's in the same death camp as Rudy Giuliani, just with more exceptions.

Between that interview and one on Nov. 18 on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, NRLC endorsed Thompson and clearly tried to tutor him.

But it failed. Thompson unsuccessfully tried to pull one of three coffin nails he'd hammered two weeks prior, while he pounded another harder. I was left more curious than before about NRLC's decision.

Nail 1

Thompson is counterproductively fixated on nonexistent state laws that would send girls and women to jail who abort. There never have been such laws, and there never will be. His insistence on suggesting this abortion industry scare tactic, while maintaining he doesn't want to discuss hypotheticals, only puts thoughts in people's minds that ought not to be. Thompson needs to just shut up about that.

This was Thompson's disconcerting response on "Meet the Press" after Russert said, "I have 10 different statements from you saying that you would not ban abortion, it's a woman's right and you would not ban it in the first trimester":

… People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law.

Would Thompson ban first trimester abortions? Not sure. Here was Thompson's slightly-less-but-still-cluttered response on "This Week":

I think, number one, that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. We need to remember what the status was before Roe vs. Wade ... it goes back to the states. ... Most of the laws now outlaw the doctors who perform these things. They don't criminalize young girls. So we really need to examine what the state law is and what it would be, and it's hard to do hypotheticals in great detail.

Nail 2

Thompson is clear that the question of abortion legalization should be a state issue, putting him in opposition to the Republican platform that supports a constitutional human life amendment.

While Thompson says he would not thwart the platform, the more important issue is his unconscionable position that despite believing human life begins at conception, he thinks states should be free to kill those humans.

Hadley Arkes recently wrote in First Things of the similarities between Stephen Douglas' pro-slavery position and Giuliani's pro-abortion position, which is identical to Thompson's except to disagree which governmental entity should control its legality:

Douglas ... concluded … people should be free in the separate territories to vote slavery up or down. But, as Lincoln pointed out, he had indeed reached a moral judgment. If he had regarded slavery as a wrong – as Douglas had regarded polygamy – he would have understood that a wrong is that which no one ought to do, that anyone may be properly restrained from doing. To say slavery is something legitimate to choose is to say that slavery stood in the class of things "not wrong. …"

Lincoln said that Douglas was … teaching a policy of "indifference" – that slavery just did not matter enough to stir such divisions in the country.

Nail 3

Likewise, Thompson thinks states should be free to legalize killing the disabled.

Stephanopoulos brought NRLC into the discussion:

David O'Steen of the National Right to Life Committee said one of the reasons they chose you is that you clarified your position on end-of-life issues, families facing the situation like the Terri Schiavo case. He said you clarified that issue for him and you may be doing so publicly. What did you say to them privately that you haven't said publicly? In public you've said this should be an issue for families and the courts but not state and federal governments.

Thompson responded:

… What we talked about in a little more detail is the different kinds of end-of-life issues. ... I don't have a legal position other than it oughta be resolved in a state court system. People have a right to make the laws in their own state to resolve these issues. If families can't get together ... then it should go to the state court mechanism.

I can't fathom how O'Steen was drawn to Thompson by that answer, particularly since the NRLC helped draft the federal law that attempted to intervene in the Schiavo case. Thompson would not have signed NRLC's bill into law.

Clearly, Thompson would stand by if a state were to re-establish slavery. He would stand by if a state legalized the killing of 2-year-olds. His logic on abortion and killing the disabled demand these positions.
The NRLC has just endorsed the Stephen Douglas of our generation.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Is Ron Paul Pro-life?

There are false posts on the Internet saying Ron Paul isn't pro-life. Here are Pauls views on the major issues.


Ron Paul speaks about the sanctity of life.
“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.” – Ron Paul

While many candidates talk about being pro-life, Ron Paul has taken direct action to restore protection of the unborn.
As a Congressman Ron Paul

• authored legislation HR 1094 that seeks to define life as beginning at conception.

• sponsored HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny, which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, Ron Paul never once considered performing an abortion, nor did he ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

“Pro-Lifers should support Ron Paul for president.”
-Rep. Barbara Hagan, former Chair, New Hampshire Right to Life Committee


Ron Paul speaks about the Constitution.

Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535” on Capitol Hill.

Constituents have named Ron Paul “The Champion of the Constitution” in his congressional district.

“Regardless of whether the President is named Bush or Clinton, and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us.” – Ron Paul


Ron Paul speaks about border security.

"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked." – Ron Paul

Ron’s Six Point Plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.


Ron Paul speaks about Homeschooling. is reassuring to know that we still have this freedom and this responsibility to our children but we cannot even take that for granted...


Ron Paul speaks about taxes.

“By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS and replace them with nothing.” – Congressman Paul 2002

As the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Ron Paul knows a little about Federal monetary policy. Historically, Republicans believe in low taxes and a conservative, balanced budget. Dr. Paul is no exception. But most Republicans today have forgotten that low taxes without a balanced budget are a recipe for inflation, ever-increasing debt, and eventual monetary disaster. Liberals want to raise taxes to support bloated spending programs. Ron Paul would like to decrease taxes and spending, and tackle the root of the problem as well: the Federal Reserve system itself. The Fed is a private bank run by un elected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Ron Paul has:

• never voted to raise taxes.

• repeatedly been named the “Taxpayers Best Friend” in Congress.


Ron Paul speaks about economic policy.

When the government finishes spending all the tax money, it borrows. When it has borrowed as much as it can, it simply prints what it "needs." As the money supply increases, the value of each dollar decreases—and prices soar. Ron Paul understands that inflation is not just a problem for the government to solve; it's a problem for the government to avoid creating. We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a method to prioritize our spending, namely the Constitution of the United States.


Ron Paul speaks about foreign policy and the war in Iraq.

"...I am pro-life, I put myself in that category.. I think there is a lot of merit to the Christian just war theory.."


Monday, November 26, 2007

Is Huckabee the Strongest Pro-life Candidate?

Mike Huckabee is the strongest pro-life candidate. Ron Paul is just behind him.


Mike Huckabee Says He's The Strongest Republican on Abortion Issues

Washington, DC ( -- When it comes to the Republican presidential candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee insists in a new interview that he is the strongest.

He says that's because none of the other top-tier GOP hopefuls support a human life amendment to the Constitution as he does. While Rudy Giuliani is clearly pro-abortion, the human life amendment has been a stick subject among the leading pro-life Republican candidates.

Huckabee has sought to use it to separate himself from the pack. He points out that both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson support overturning Roe v. Wade but don't go along with the Constitutional amendment. Romney has said it is a long-term goal and Thompson has said he opposes an amendment and has overturning Roe as his top pro-life goal.

Those positions put Huckabee at the top of the list of pro-life candidates, he told the Washington Examiner in a Friday interview. "If abortion is a political issue, and that's all it is, then fine, have 50 versions," Huckabee said. "But if we have determined, as many of us have, that it's a moral issue, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."

You Can’t Dismiss Ron Paul Because of the Internet

Ed Rollins, a longtime conservative operative who worked in the Reagan White House and later became Ross Perot’s campaign manager in 1992, said

“ You can’t dismiss his antiwar vote. You can’t dismiss the power of one man stand­ing up with a powerful message. I’ll tell you, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I’ve learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there’s this un­controllable thing like the Internet. Wash­ington insiders don’t know what to make of it.”

D.C. Establishment Can’t Get A Grip On Ron Paul
WASHINGTON, D. C. — Tongues were wagging on both sides of the aisle in Wash­ington last week, as Dr. Ron Paul, the pro­life, pro- Constitution obstetrician who has represented his Texas congressional district for 20 years, pulled off what even the lib­eral Washington Post called a “ stunning achievement.”

Dr. Paul, who has long been treated by the major media either as an inconsequen­tial minor candidate, a “ flake,” or an out­right pariah, broke an Internet record for contributions in a single day when he raised more than $4.2 million in online donations from 40,000 contributors on November 5. The historic news made it impossible for the major media to ignore Dr. Paul’s ac­complishment, even though they have stu­diously ignored him for months. The Wash­ington Post’s story appeared only online. Its politics blogger went for comment to Ed Rollins, a longtime conservative operative who worked in the Reagan White House and later became Ross Perot’s campaign manager in 1992.

“ What he’s done — what his supporters have done — is astonishing,” said Rollins. “ You can’t dismiss his antiwar vote. You can’t dismiss the power of one man stand­ing up with a powerful message. I’ll tell you, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I’ve learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there’s this un­controllable thing like the Internet. Wash­ington insiders don’t know what to make of it.”

In fact, the Internet has been the domi­nant ingredient in Paul’s campaign precisely because it is “uncontrollable.” Ever since Dr. Paul came on the scene, he has been large­ly ignored by the prestige press; he is a “ nonperson” on the left, and intensely re­sented by his fellow GOP presidential can­didates.

The reason is fairly simple: In the past few years, the two major parties have be­come increasingly undistinguishable. They are virtually mirror images of one anoth­er in corruption. Their defiance of fiscal and constitutional discipline has brought about a widespread collapse of public trust in our national government. They are all what Rollins calls “ Washington in­siders.” One cannot expect that crowd to acknowledge, much less to applaud, the only pro- Constitution, anti- establishment candidate who stands up and yells “ stop.” Normally, the tree would fall in the for­est and nobody would hear because the prestige press would not report it. But In­ternet content is not controlled by the es­tablishment. There, untold thousands of web sites and blogs hum with news and opinion that is totally unfiltered and un­censored.

With the Internet, there is no such thing as the “ cutting- room floor.” Quite the contrary: Many influential web sites were set up to challenge the prestige press and to provide a more attractive, less “ establishment” alternative. Rollins is right: The Internet is indeed “ uncontrol­lable.” People write whatever they want to and read whatever web sites they want to. When they find something they like, they send it to their entire e- mail list. If it catches on, it can spread like wildfire, vir­tually without cost. And that accounts for the stunning success of Dr. Paul’s “ power­ful message” there.

Rollins’ admission is telling: “I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days every­thing I’ve learned about politics is totally ir­relevant.” He is not kidding, and he is not alone. For the past 40 years, the entire Washington establishment — the politi­cians, the bureaucracy, the media, the lob­byists, the contractors, the agencies — have all been wallowing in one big spe­cial- interest hot tub, simply printing more money when they can’t bill the taxpay­er. This is a closely controlled dance that “ Washington insiders” have perfected and perpetuated, taking every precaution that no outsider will rock the boat. Even George Bush, a self- styled reformer in 2000, became a big spender before long. In fact, in the 27 years since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the nation­al debt has risen from below one trillion dollars to ten trillion dollars. For 19 of those 27 years, there was a Republican in the White House — and surprisingly, most of the rise has taken place during President Bush’s two terms in office. One recent study indicates that Bush is “ the biggest spender since LBJ” — the “ guns and butter” author of the “ Great Society” who was president back when Rollins be­gan his political career 40 years ago.

Why haven’t more of the “ conservative” candidates competing for the GOP nom­ination raised this issue? The fact is, they don’t mention Bush at all. A recent anal­ysis indicates that, while Democratic de­baters have mentioned the president 72 times, the Republicans have mentioned him only twice ( and one was Dr. Paul). And therein lies the dirty little secret of the pri­mary campaign: They can’t attack him, not yet.

David Broder, the “pundit dean” who has long been the weathervane for liberal edi­torial writers across the country, pointed to the elephant in the living room a few weeks back when he recalled Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 campaign. Humphrey waited too long, Broder says, before he would attack LBJ’s record and distance himself from the unpopular president. Had he turned a few months earlier, Broder surmises, he would have done much better in November. Now, Broder teases, when will the Republicans turn on the unpopular Bush? We know they will, he taunts. But when will they?

The answer is simple, of course: Every GOP candidate except Dr. Paul is trying to woo the “ GOP base.” And what is the “ base”? It is the 30% or so of the elector­ate that still supports Bush. Yes, it is a mi­nority of the country, but it is a majority of the GOP, especially among likely primary voters. Broder’s unspoken message is, once the GOP has a clear winner in the pri­maries, that candidate will have much more freedom to criticize the president’s record. His target audience will now be the general electorate, not primary voters.
Of course, Broder ( and the rest of the gang at the Post) wouldn’t give Ron Paul the time of day, so he assumes that the GOP will nominate an establishment can­didate — who will have to woo Bush vot­ers now, but turn on Bush eventually. The prospect of such a candidate advocating “change” and still keeping the Bush “base” on board will require a world- class balanc­ing act, and this GOP field is definitely not world class.

And then there’s Ron Paul. He has been very consistent and clear ( two rare ingredi­ents in this campaign season). Should he win the nomination, he would not have to change his message at all — in fact, he would only strengthen it as he got more opportunities to explain it to a wider audi­ence.

So far, Paul’s audience has been Inter­net- based, and his campaign success re­flects the coming of age of that medium in the political world. In the early 1960s, liberals referred to the grassroots conser­vatives that won Goldwater the 1964 GOP nomination as “ little old ladies in tennis shoes.” Well, move over ladies, and meet the new grassroots powers that the establishment both fears and belittles — the Internet. And meet the sleeping giant — the millions of Americans who are fed up with the lock that the major party establishments have placed on our national political life.

It is interesting to observe that the most strenuous opposition to Dr. Paul’s candi­dacy is not from liberal Democrats, but from the neocons who are currently run­ning the Bush administration’s foreign pol­icy. David Frum, a contributing editor to both The Weekly Standard and Nation­al Review Online, is one of those “ con­servatives of convenience” whose ap­proach to pro- lifers seldom rises above thinly disguised contempt. Like the GOP establishment candidates, the Frum fac­tion needs the votes of the pro- life “ reli­gious right,” of course, but it does noth­ing to further the pro- life cause.

In fact, like many neocons, Frum sup­ports pro- abortion, pro- homosexual Rudy Giuliani. He dismisses Dr. Paul as a fringe candidate along the lines of Howard Dean and Ralph Nader — but he realizes that Ralph Nader made it possible for Gov. George Bush to carry Florida in the 2000 election.

Frum assumes, naturally, that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination: “ Rudy is in no danger of losing Republican prima­ry voters to Ron Paul,” he insists. “ And if ( as I have speculated) Paul mounts an in­dependent candidacy in the general elec­tion, he will draw votes from disaffected Democrats, disappointed in Hillary Clinton’s failure to articulate a more radical antiwar message. As third-party candidates go, Ron Paul is Nader, not Perot.”

Weekly Standard editor William Kristol recently commented that all of the “major” GOP candidates (minus Dr. Paul, of course) suited him fine, because they are all falling over each other to capture the votes of the Americans who still support President Bush and the Iraq War.

In other words, the neocons think that Ron Paul is more a danger to the Demo­crats than the Republicans in the 2008 elec­tions. It brings back memories of 1952, when Eisenhower’s supporters trumpeted that “ Taft can’t win” — and then they had to steal the votes of the pro- Taft Texas del­egation to deliver the nomination to Eisen­hower.
“ Ron Paul can’t win.” “ Ron Paul is on a roll.” Take your pick, and stay tuned.
[The Wanderer (November 15, 2007)]

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Is Ron Paul more Pink than Mike Huckabee?

Is Ron Paul more Pink than Mike Huckabee?

It appears that Ron Paul is as pro-life as Mike Huckabee. But is Paul more pink than Huckabee.


Ron Paul is not a stooge for the Republican Party; Chuck Baldwin, homosexuality and politics
Posted by Gary Shumway under Constitution - U.S. , Ron Paul , Elections , Homosexuality / GLBT , Politics , Chuck Baldwin
No Comments
In Chuck Baldwin’s September 7th column he reiterates the obvious. And the obvious is that the GOP (Republican Party for those in Utah County) is trying to paint itself as the “family values” and even “God’s” Party. Baldwin goes on to show that nothing could be further from the truth. People, you must forget Party when voting, and vote for the person…as long as that person, when elected, will not then simply become a Party stooge.

Take for example Ron Paul. He is a trying to be the presidential candidate for the Republican Party, yet over and over he has shown that he will not kowtow to the Party’s wishes if they go against the Constitution (which is one reason The Party tries to silence him.) If he did, he would not be known as Dr. No, and he would be just another Republican mouthing one thing and voting another.

I have been writing a series herein entitled, “The Ron Paul Record”. The latest of which is post #3 and from which you are linked to the previous posts. I am endeavoring to show that Ron Paul is not a stooge of for the Republican Party, that he certainly has a titanium backbone (metaphorically), and that he is a man of his word - that is, he walks his talk. Try to say that of the other GOP Presidential candidates. Try to say that about the Republican Party!

If you wish to skip Chuck’s column, I have included, near the end of this post, some of Ron Paul’s statements regarding homosexuality and gay marriage. I have included them because Chuck spends a lot of time talking about homosexuality, politics, and the political parties.

Here then is Chuck’s column for September 7th. Compare what he says about the GOP being corrupt vs. Ron Paul’s record. Ron is from Earth, the GOP is from Venis, er, Venus.

The recent bathroom sex scandal involving Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig has become a political hornet’s nest. However, to those who are privy to the real-life goings-on among the political elite in Washington, D.C., this comes as no surprise.

Extracurricular sexual activity in Washington, D.C., is about as uncommon as thunderstorms in the summertime. The element igniting the fires of the media and the public in general, however, is that the Craig scandal involves another Republican legislator and homosexuality.

You see, Karl Rove and Company (along with their willingly gullible Christian pastor accomplices) have convinced rank-and-file conservatives, many of whom are Christians, that the GOP is the “family values” party. Some even go so far as to call it “God’s Party.” Obviously, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, et. al have done much to tarnish this image.

As a pastor for more than three decades, I have witnessed a plethora of sexual failures. Men and women, even Christian men and women, are all weakened with a sinful nature. Some are more vulnerable to certain sins than others, and with a current culture that is awash in sexual promiscuity, temptations of the flesh have never been greater.

The pastor side of me understands the need for redemption and forgiveness. If I was personally acquainted with Senator Craig, I would be more than willing to minister healing to him and his family. Of course, in Senator Craig’s case, he has admitted no wrongdoing and asked for no help. Even God does not help a person who will not ask for it.

That being said, it behooves me to address the underlying problem behind the Larry Craig scandal. The real problem that this scandal unearths is the widespread influence that homosexuality has within the GOP. Ladies and Gentlemen, the GOP elephant is not red; it is pink. That is a fact that rank and file conservatives within the GOP either don’t know or don’t want to know. But it is getting harder and harder to keep that fact a secret.

If anyone really wants to learn the facts about how homosexualists have taken over the Republican Party, I encourage them to read Alan Stang’s blockbuster new book entitled “Not Holier Than Thou,” which is published by Patton House. Here is Alan’s web site:

Alan was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers. He was a business editor at Prentice-Hall. He is a radio talk show host, and has done stints on the American Freedom Network and the Republic Broadcasting Network. He is the author of several books, as well as hundreds of feature articles in national magazines. His book, “Not Holier Than Thou,” is an in-depth look at how homosexualists have taken over the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. It is an eye-opener, to say the least.

Stang notes that as far back as 1989 the Washington Times published a monumental front-page story that began, “A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and US and foreign businessmen with close social ties to Washington’s political elite, documents obtained by The Washington Times reveal.”

Remember, that was just the first paragraph, and it appeared not in a liberal newspaper, but in the conservative Washington Times.

Stang also points out numerous homosexual prostitutes that have had free access to the White House under Republican administrations, including the current one. Stang also notes that Karl Rove’s father was a homosexual, a fact that may have contributed to his mother’s suicide.

Obviously, everyone on the planet knows that Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter, Mary Cheney, is a lesbian. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Dick Cheney, Lynne, wrote a lesbian novel entitled “Sisters”?

Stang also reminds readers that President G.W. Bush was “a member of Skull & Bones at Yale, which apparently involves bizarre, secret sex rituals including coffins. He has visited the Bohemian Grove in northern California, the site of other secret sex rituals.”

Should we be surprised, therefore, that despite campaigning as a born again Christian, President Bush has not repealed a single pro-homosexual Executive Order given by President Bill Clinton or that he has appointed as many (if not more) openly gay men to high government positions as did Bill Clinton? The list includes high profile homosexuals such as Paul Cellucci, Michael Guest, Stephen Herbits, Scott Evertz, Mark Dybul, Israel Hernandez, Joseph O’Neill, Arthur James Collingsworth, and on and on. According to Stang, “He [Bush] has given organized sodomy considerable control over the federal government.”

Obviously, homosexuals have not been limited to the Republican White House. As the Times stated, the GOP congressional caucus is also shaded in pink. Remember David Dreier and Mark Foley? And please don’t forget the cross-dressing Republican presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.

Remember, too, that it was the Republican Newt Gingrich who came to the defense of homosexual Democratic Congressman Barney Frank when he was discovered running a homosexual prostitution ring out of his apartment. Of course, Newt has a lesbian sister and has often publicly praised homosexuals in Congress for the “courage” they show by running for office.

The list of this kind of nonsense never seems to end. Get Alan Stang’s book, and read it for yourself. You’ll see how Mitt Romney routinely facilitated the homosexual agenda while he was Governor of Massachusetts and how California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger currently does the same thing.

It is no hyperbole to say that the Larry Craig affair is merely the tip of the iceberg–and it is a very big iceberg.

All of this is not to say that homosexualists do not hold sway over the Democrat Party also. They do. The difference is, conservative Christian voters have been thoroughly duped into believing that the Republican Party in general, and President G.W. Bush in particular, are above it all. They are not. They are in it up to their eyeballs.

Sooner or later, conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, and other traditionalists must wake up to the reality that both major parties in Washington, D.C., are immersed in all kinds of corruption. We must clean house! And I mean the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the White House. We cannot depend on the two major parties to police themselves or to be faithful to their duties to the American people. We must begin electing independent men and women to public office. Men and women who have not been bought by big money interests. Men and women who truly understand their constitutional obligations. Men and women who adhere to basic honesty and integrity.

Obviously, we have good men and women running in almost every race. The problem is the media (which has its own problems with integrity) will not give such people a fair hearing. Furthermore, most people (conservative Christians included) have bought into the antiquated “they can’t win” mantra, which precludes them from supporting the really good people who accept the challenge to enter a political race. Accordingly, people victimize themselves through self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the meantime, homosexualists will continue to dominate both major parties and we will continue to be subjected to Larry Craig-type scandals. One would think that, sooner or later, the American people would have enough.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Note that Baldwin’s opinions regarding homosexuality are his and do not necessarily correspond to mine. In my opinion, what you do in your private life is your business, when you make it public and force it on my life then it becomes my business. The conundrum is that what someone is in private life, rightly or wrongly, often spills over to their public life.

Continuing on with Baldwin’s discussion of homosexuality and politics I offer for your perusal, the following Ron Paul’s statements regarding gay marriage and homosexuality:

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.


Congressman Paul’s position on gay marriage is that defining and recognizing marriages is not a Federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the States’ right.[30] In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of Federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill, but the amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia, and in any event was not present in the final bill.[31]


I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] … In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]

I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.

[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.


I have not…I’m not as judgmental about that {homosexuality being a sin} probably because of my medical background, so I don’t see it in those simplistic terms; I think it’s a complex issue to decide whether it’s sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s to me too complex to give an answer as simple as that. I believe a lot of people understand it {God saying homosexuality is a sin} that way, but I think everybody’s God’s child too, so I have, you know, trouble with that.


Looking it in protecting the military {homosexuals in the military} if they are going to perform the services, and they are imperfect — because we’re all imperfect and we all sin. If a heterosexual or homosexual sins, that to me is the category of dealing with their own soul. Since we cannot have only perfect people going in the military I want to separate the two because I don’t want to know the heterosexual flaws, nor the homosexual flaws and that’s why I got in some trouble with some of the civil libertarians because I don’t have any problem with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Because I don’t think that, for the practicality of running a military, I’d just as soon not know every serious thing that any heterosexual or homosexual did, and those flaws have to do with all our flaws because each and everyone one of us has those imperfections.


Saturday, November 24, 2007

Greatest Writer since Tolkien

Michael O'Brien is the greatest writer since Tolkien.

His stories take you on a journey like a dream where you forget that you're in a dream. Only you feel the joy or sadness that is like real life reunion or heart break. The wisdom is experienced in his tales.

This is subcreation that equals Homer or Tolkien.


New novel by Michael D. O'Brien

The Island of the World

The Island of the World is the story of a child born in 1933 into the turbulent world of the Balkans and tracing his life into the third millennium. The central character is Josip Lasta, the son of an impoverished school teacher in a remote village high in the mountains of the Bosnian interior. As the novel begins, World War II is underway and the entire region of Yugoslavia is torn by conflicting factions: German and Italian occupying armies, and the rebel forces that resist them — the fascist Ustashe, Serb nationalist Chetniks, and Communist Partisans. As events gather momentum, hell breaks loose, and the young and the innocent are caught in the path of great evils. Their only remaining strength is their religious faith and their families.

For more than a century, the confused and highly inflammatory history of former Yugoslavia has been the subject of numerous books, many of them rife with revisionist history and propaganda. The peoples of the Balkans live on the border of three worlds: the Islamic, the Orthodox Slavic East, and Catholic Europe, and as such they stand in the path of major world conflicts that are not only geo-political but fundamentally spiritual. This novel cuts to the core question: how does a person retain his identity, indeed his humanity, in absolutely dehumanizing situations?

In the life of the central character, the author demonstrates that this will demand suffering and sacrifice, heroism and even holiness. When he is twelve years old, his entire world is destroyed, and so begins a lifelong Odyssey to find again the faith which the blows of evil have shattered. The plot takes the reader through Josip's youth, his young manhood, life under the Communist regime, hope and loss and unexpected blessings, the growth of his creative powers as a poet, and the ultimate test of his life. Ultimately this novel is about the crucifixion of a soul — and resurrection.


"You will not want to put this book down until you finish it, and you will continue to live in it even after you close its covers. This story will change you. It will make you a wiser, better person. Is there any greater, rarer success we can hope for in a mere book than that?"
— Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., Boston College. Author, The Philosophy of Tolkien

“It is difficult to know where to turn for noble enough analogies in speaking of this book. Michael O'Brien has achieved both a seriousness and a delicacy, that is not to be taken lightly. I wonder whether we are going to find Mr. O'Brien's name taking its place along with those of Mauriac and Bernanos before too long?”
— Thomas Howard, author, Dove Descending: A Journey into T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets

"There is a kind of historical novel that may appear less a work of conventional fiction than an acute recollection of intimate personal stories, gathered secretly and then, in contemplative solitude, softly woven together with prophetic insight. When such a weave is spun on the right writerly loom, underthreaded with prayer of a mystical intensity, something far more deeply discerning than typical historical fiction can result. Island of the World offers a rich but unsettling fabric, the lovely and the terrible together, evoking not only the social tragedy and horribly tested piety of 20thC Croatia, but the fragile beauty of holiness in a time of adversity anywhere."
— David Lyle Jeffrey, author, People of the Book

“Michael O'Brien has done it again. Penetrating, incisive, lyrical and startlingly clear and crisp, this is a novel that obliges readers to think, think and think again. Unlike so many of his literary contemporaries, the author has something to say that is not only new but is intensely important. Every writer, teacher, thinker and politician should be obliged to read Michael O’Brien. If they did so, the world would be a far better place.”
— Michael Coren, author, C. S Lewis: The Man Who Created Narnia

“In Michael O’Brien’s new novel we feel the mystery and theology palpitating on every page without ever feeling that the deeper meaning is obstructing the momentum of the plot. The genius of O’Brien is that he does not wear his theological heart on his sleeve but lets its pulse provide the unobtrusive rhythm to which the story dances. This is storytelling at its most sublime”
— Joseph Pearce, author, Literary Converts

“Michael O'Brien's novels always have haunting plots. St. Augustine wrote, ‘You touched me, and I burned for your peace.’ Something burning is found here. Young Josip is told that the Odyssey was written about a man who longed to return home. What is our home, in this island in the world? O’Brien’s words touch us deeply in this work, by lives that seek in their very living that peace for which those who were created to live first in this island of the world are finally destined. ‘In eternity we will know fully.’ Such are O'Brien's words, such are Augustine's words."
— James V. Schall, S.J., Georgetown University. Author, The Order of Things

“ ‘Who are you? Where have you come from? Where are you going?’ Such questions come to our souls with new intensity through this poetic, deep story of crucifixion and resurrection, the most beautiful novel of the last 20 years since Eugenio Corti's The Red Horse. In our journey with his main character, Josip Lasta, we move toward the heart's real home. As with Homer's Ulysses, as with Tolkien's Frodo, we carry our wounds, our losses, our beloved ones and encounter the only thing we truly seek and hope for: the eyes of the One who can heal our wounds, embrace our hearts, save our deepest loves.”
— Dr. Edoardo Rialti, Professor of Literature, Florence, Italy

Friday, November 23, 2007

Very Important Advice on the Pope and Fatima from Author Michael O'Brien

I thought I’d reprint this important advice from one of the great writers of our time.

Dear Fred,

Thank you for your most recent message, with the copies of the correspondence with Fr X.There is a lot of material in it, some of it factual, some of it conjecture, both intertwined with private revelation, ponderings and deep feelings. I share some of those feelings very much.

I read Ezekiel 9 frequently. Like you I grieve over the state of the household of God. I should explain my take on the current state of things. For years I've read a lot of private revelation, and found some of it to be true gold, some of it false, some a mixture of gold and personal opinion.
I am a firm believer in the Fatima message (pure gold).I am also convinced we are in the midst of the worst apostasy in the history of the Church, probably the Great Apostasy. The Spirit of Antichrist which has been present from the beginning is growing power. We may well be (though I don't know for certain) on the brink of the worst persecution in history, perhaps the final one prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

I have no inside track at the Vatican, and I'm certainly no mystic, so the untangling of the large number of conspiracy theories circulating presently (theories about about what is going on in the world and in the Vatican) is for me impossible. I believe that it's impossible for anyone to see it all for what it is, because the ultimate conspirator against mankind and against Christ's Church is Satan.The horrible damage done to the Body of Christ by liberals, by Modernists, and even by so called "moderates" is all around us.

There is no denying this. But we also have to be cautious about a kind of damage to the Bride of Christ that can be done by orthodox men of good will, who love the Church, hate what's being done to it, and are profoundly angry and frightened by what most people don't even see happening.Anger-fear can breed many distortions of our thoughts and our spiritual life. This is the great danger for those who seek to be true disciples.

Conspiracy theory has an inbuilt auto-confirmation dynamic. Because a conspiracy by its very nature is a web of deceptions, one can accuse it of anything, find ample circumstantial evidence to prove it's true, and no amount of evidence to the contrary can convince one otherwise. One "knows"--one has the key to the evil plans of the enemy. This is intoxicating stuff both psychologically and spiritually. It is also a kind of Gnosticism in Christian form (a contradiction in terms).

The way through the mess is precisely what it has always been: the path to sainthood. We are all called to be saints. This means absolute discipleship of Christ, total conformity to Him on every level. Availing ourselves of all the graces, especially the Sacraments, Consecration to our Lady, docility to the Holy Spirit, and radical self-honesty.

The primary call of Catholics at this point in the growing darkness of our times is to be faithful to our duties according to our vocation in life (This is what our Lady of Fatima told Sr. Lucia in later years). Also to prayer, fasting, sacrifice. And obedience and trust in the Vicar of Christ. He may not solve the vast number of interior and exterior crises confronting the Church in the way you or I might. But he is Christ's anointed, Our Lady's chosen, and he sees far more than we do.Added to our faithfulness to the duties of our state in life (which means that we keep carrying these "ordinary" crosses as Catholics always have), is to offer increased prayer and fasting for the Holy Father, and for the purification and strengthening of the Church.

We have to pray for her now in a way that we have not since the earliest centuries of the Church. To suffer with and for the Church is to suffer with and for the Lord Himself.I have become extremely cautious about "orthodox" speakers who propose that the Holy Father is playing into the hands of globalists, syncretists, and the Antichrist himself. There is an unacknowledged pride in their approach (we know better than the Pope), and an unrecognized spiritual vortex beneath their feet.

Having made a fundamental choice to believe a certain interpretation of an event (for example the consecration of Russia) they feed heavily upon spurious critiques of the Pope, spin many theories upon circumstantial evidence that become "facts" as they are passed along, etc, etc.

I don't think it's wrong to know about what people in these circles are saying, but we must read it with much caution and some holy water. It is precisely through a distortion of the good that Satan seduces the good people. He won't get them through grave sin or error, but he will subtly entrap them in a false concept of the structure of the world-problem and the current state of the Church. He will especially sow discouragement and lack of trust in the coming Triumph of Our lady. When one has lost confidence, there is a consequent turning inward, cyclical thinking, relying more and more on one's own strengths. A siege mentality results. This way of looking at reality becomes increasingly prone to every rumor or false accusation.

In an era dominated by an atmosphere of falsehood that seems to grow everywhere, nothing and no one will seem trustworthy, according to this state of mind. And in the end, one becomes ripe fruit for the devil.We will drive ourselves mad trying to sort it all out, get to the bottom of it, find a "solution."

Far better to cling to our Lord Jesus on the Cross, and let Him live within us and through us as we live in Him and through Him. That's the true solution.

I didn't mean to write such a long response here. I hope I haven't said too much or too little. The problem with email is that it's too easy to read masses of material without really knowing a speaker's context, his heart, his soul, his mind.But I think you know.

May you be blessed and consoled, strengthened and guided by Christ our Savior always.

In the two Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Michael O'Brien

On 17-Sep-04, at 11:11 PM, fred martinez wrote:

Dear Michael,

I have been and will continue to pray for Pope John Paul II, the next pope and the Cardinals who will elect him. You and your important work are also in my prayers. If you get a chance please read the info below on Fatima. I've only asked one other person to look at it because I only want persons who are strong in the faith to look at it and there are a lot of big names involved. Please do not share this with anyone else. Please give me your take on it.

Thank you,


Wednesday, November 21, 2007

The Spiritual Life is a Love Affair

Father Edward Warren recently past on to his reward. His kindness and joy will be greatly missed by me and everyone who knew him. He was one of the true saints I've meet in my life. I did the interview below a few years back for the San Francisco Faith.

In the interview I asked: "What was your happiest time in the priesthood?"

He answered: "It isn't over yet. So, there might still be happier times. It might be when you are allowed to die and be with God."

Father Warren please pray that I can be as happy as you are now.

Fr. Warren was an assistant dean for 25 years at Santa Clara University. Since retiring in 1988, he does volunteer work at parishes throughout the Bay Area. I met Father Warren in the mid 1970s. He picked me up while I was hitchhiking in San Jose. This encounter with Father is one of the factors in God's mysterious providence that helped bring me back to the faith.

Q. How and why did you decide to become a priest?

A. You have not chosen me. I have chosen you, Our Lord said. I thank Our Lord for choosing me for his love. He uses parents and friends for his mysterious choices. I had good religious parents. Also, I went to U. C. Berkeley and belonged to the Newman club. There I got in contact with those who went to Mass everyday for Lent. They wanted me to go every day with them for Lent. This was a new idea for me. I survived. I didn't die. So, I kept going every day after Lent.

This encounter got me going to daily Mass. That's when I meet Monsignor Terrance Nugent who was from Ireland. He said the Jesuits were a good place to go for a retreat. At the time, I had a janitor job following in my father's footsteps -- God bless him for his daily work. So for my vacation, I went to the Jesuit retreat house in Los Altos. There I met Father William Boland. He was a perfect gentleman and scholar. He asked me if I ever thought of being a priest. He said he thought I would be a good priest. I thought I'd like to be like Fr. Boland. I thought exactly like that. My mother worked so I could go to school. God is faithful.

God made it clear that this was my life. It's been a love affair -- a successful marriage with Jesus. The more we know about Jesus, the more we love him. The heart of the matter is that the spiritual life is a love affair.

Q. What is your most difficult experience as a priest?

A. Being fired from a job and being put in another job I liked better. God has a good sense of humor. I was fired from a director position. I was replaced by a person my superior thought would do a better job. I was moved to assistant dean of counseling, psychology and education. I liked it because of its influence. You were dealing with people who influenced people. It was like training generals and colonels instead of privates and sergeants. St. Ignatius thought it good to work with those who influence more people.

Q. What was your happiest time in the priesthood?

A. It isn't over yet. So, there might still be happier times. It might be when you are allowed to die and be with God. But, it was the time when I realized this is my vocation. I'm happy in my work. We are dealing with Divine grace and eternal life. These are important things. We are not dealing in little things.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Ronald Reagan Endorsed Ron Paul

Ronald Reagan Endorsed Ron Paul

Ron Paul was one of only 4 Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for President. He led the Texas delegation to nominate Ronald Reagan.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
- Ronald Reagan

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Anti-Ron Brown vs. Pro-Ron Brown

Below are an anti-Ron Brown piece and a pro-Ron Brown article from the Townhall site. The anti-article sounds like a sound bite and the pro-article seems to use reason.

It's hard to get a take on Brown because nobody against him seems willing to debate the guy issue to issue.

Am I the only one to notice this, but doesn't Brown seems like the only presidential candidate who is a real person? The rest of the would be presidents, be they demos or repubs, seem like cartoon characters at best.

I say at best because I like cartoons. Phoney is a better word to describe the impression I get from the rest of presidential candidates.


Is Ron Paul really so crazy? (townhall) ^ | 10/23/07 | Jason Wharton

Posted on 10/24/2007 12:03:08 PM PDT by traviskicks

Is Ron Paul crazy for his position on the war and for criticizing our nation's foreign policy? Many believe this to be the case. But, might we be mischaracterizing Ron Paul by over simplifying or clouding the issues? A much closer examination based on facts and sound principles is in order. In the end I will conclude that Ron Paul is indeed crazy. Sorry to spoil it for you.

There are many things in his favor. To answer pressing questions of our time, Ron Paul relies on historical facts many American's are ignorant of. He isn't afraid to reveal clandestine operations and interventions motivated out of our national self-interest or special-interests that have had detrimental results to other peoples in the world.

He is even bold enough to admit there is a tendency on the part of government to cover-up things to maintain a fa├žade that we are always on moral high-ground in the world. Some see in him a rare privilege to have a candidate step forward with a willingness to reveal these inconvenient truths while others choose to characterize him as a “Blame America First” fringe candidate and dismiss the possibility that he could be on to something.

Ron Paul's tendency towards transparency on these matters is at the root of why he is being attacked and marginalized because there is so much denial due to various forms of conditioning of people's opinions. Some people simply can't accept the reality that we are not always angelic and beneficial to others in the world as we were taught in grade school but this is an area where a reality check is definitely in order.

For example, who is it that "radicalized" Islam to fight against the Russians? We did! We created Osama Bin Laden. We created and installed Sadaam Hussein. We have been purposely destabilizing numerous regions and have and are causing all kinds of malice and strife among nations. Could Al Qaeda actually be like Frankenstein’s Monster? Do we really want to tamper so frivolously with the Law of the Harvest as we have been for decades? We deserve to know the facts as a self-governing nation so that We the People can make the best decisions. It’s our responsibility to search them out.

Ron Paul’s popularity is because there are many who are hungry for answers that make sense of all they see going on in the world who don't buy the idea that we are hated because we are rich and free. These people want the truth and are willing to accept the truth of our nation’s imperfections, even if they are unintended consequences of well-meaning actions. Inevitably, this is the crowd who is willing to face up to the reality this implies and to seek to make the world a better place in as peaceful manner as possible. Does this sound insane to you?

Ron Paul’s impeccable record of public and private conduct gives him a very rare position to speak on all matters of his platform without hypocrisy; especially where Constitutional matters are concerned. Coupled with his obvious absence of guile when he speaks he is greatly enlarging the soul of this nation. He is the heart of a much needed revolution to put aside shaping this world through force and control and replacing it with going back to setting a good example and using persuasion and friendship instead, reserving force of arms strictly for self-defense as a last resort only. Is this crazy?

Ron Paul sees Iran as acting in a very logical manner based on what he knows of the history and current events. He recognizes all we are doing to engender strife and conflict and sees how it is coming back to haunt us as countries seek to defend themselves against our policies of aggression. He sees how the continuation and escalation of these failing policies of our past will simply make our national security more threatened. There is an excellent video hosted by where Ron Paul talks about this: Video Link

I am eager to hear other's perspectives and see if I can discern any blind spots or failings in Ron Paul's platform but so far nobody has prevailed against him. Bill O'Reilley’s attempt was miserable because he refused historical facts and valid parallels to be examined to establish a reasoned perspective. Please watch this video: Video Link

There was a post here on by Phil Harris on 10/23/07 where he says that Ron Paul is giving a prescription for disaster but Phil also failed to convince me. In fact, Phil convinced me all the more that Ron Paul's detractors are the ones prescribing the path to disaster. The path Phil promoted is nothing short of an all-out full scale escalation of war with the defined goal to utterly and totally subdue the Islamic people based on the notion that the Islamic people simply want Israel and the USA exterminated from the planet. He promotes the idea that we either annihilate them pre-emptively or they will annihilate us. He leaves no room for any other scenario in his perspective. In either case he promotes there is certain disaster so by his own admission he is the one issuing the prescription of disaster, not Ron Paul.

This kind of over simplification is a brainwashing tactic that tries to get people to think they are helpless and without alternatives while they accuse their opponent of exactly what they themselves are guilty of. Reasoning from a fear-based viewpoint tends to exhibit this kind of contracted and self-accusing thinking and those doing it are knowingly or unknowingly acting as an agent for those who stand to benefit from the war and destruction this mentality will assure. Phil acts as if we are totally powerless to effect real solutions that will avert the death and destruction an all out world conflict would cause. Thanks to having Ron Paul on the stage we get to hear valid alternatives even if they sound crazy to some.

There is a better way but it involves us humbling ourselves as a nation and repenting of our evils we have perpetrated and forgiving the evils that have been perpetrated against us. The world overall will be a much better place by abiding by these principles and trusting in our Creator who gave us these principles with the promise that “eternal life” comes to all who abide by them. This is Ron Paul's platform and it will save this nation, not sacrifice it.

With all the advances in technology we had better evolve as a people before we self-destruct and render our precious planet uninhabitable in our foolish pride and fears born of false assumptions. Could the “eternal life” spoken of in the Bible actually be referring to the set of principles we must collectively live by in order to avoid a conflict to such a point that this planet is rendered unable to accommodate our presence? This question deserves our most serious and sincere consideration. The last person we want in front of "the button" is a myopic fear-based person who is prone to shoot first and ask questions later.

Our current mentality insists that we have to force and sculpt global conditions to stamp out any potential threat pre-emptively as if there is no Creator watching over and protecting this nation. Unfortunately, this is the very mentality that will cause us to become unworthy of divine protection and we will be left to our own strength and devices and we will become considered as “salt that has lost its savor” and we will end up “trodden under the foot of men”. This is universal law in my book.

I implore everyone to set aside some time to do some sincere and humble research into this issue and even make it a matter of prayer/meditation and fasting. I challenge everyone to assure you are not taking this responsibility to chose our Commander in Chief lightly. I challenge all to step up and articulate their position that strikes against the establishment's headlong plunge of our nation into an abyss of death and destruction as Phil, not Ron Paul, is prescribing.

And, as I promised, I do sincerely conclude that yes, Ron Paul is crazy. He is taking on a very powerful group that have patiently endeavored for generations to acquire the positions of power they control and Ron Paul is courageously standing up and giving our nation an opportunity to wake up and keep this nation a free country governed by We the People. The adversary of our freedom is only authorized to sieze the power we willingly lay down. If we don't wisely govern ourselves the default governance imposes a loss of our liberties and we only have ourselves to blame. There is nothing to fear when we seek with all our hearts, might, mind and strength to be responsible and passionate about maintaining our liberties. Darkness cannot abide the light.

This is a very defining moment in our nation's history. All Americans should do a reality check on Ron Paul before dismissing him. We as a nation of self-governance must be willing to stand up and accept the responsibility to be vigilant in preserving our individual liberties and champion those who take the lead, crazy though they are for doing it.

Ron Paul's Prescription for Disaster?
By Phil Harris
Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Send an email to Phil Harris Email It
Print It
Take Action Read Article & Comments (450) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

There is a growing attitude about war and the defense of our nation, stoked by men such as Ron Paul, which proclaims that we have no business doing what we are doing. The claim is that our Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers should prohibit us from engaging in such activities as the war in Iraq. If you argue for the merits of the war, then the charge is made that you cannot possibly respect the Constitution.

The principles of the founders, which they so eloquently enshrined in the Constitution, were never (and I will argue until I am blue in the face) intended to be a prescription for suicide. Despite the rhetoric of "fighting for freedom and democracy for those other people" (the Iraqis), which gets painted over the issue for the world's consumption, the fact remains that we were indeed attacked by a people, on our shores. They don't give a damn about what we did or did not do before (except that we supported the creation of modern day Israel).

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) speaks at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation's "Defending the American Dream" Summit in Washington, October 5, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Paul: Iraq and US foreign policy
VIDEO: Rep. Ron Paul
VIDEO: Paul: Educating Rudy
They despise us because we are here. They despise us, because we are not ever going to submit to Islamic law. They despise us because we do not wish to push the Jews into the Mediterranean. If they were not so heavily engaged on middle-east soil with our troops, the considerable resources of those maniacal thugs would be focused here, and on Israel. They would have been inflicting as much pain and misery as possible, given a free hand to scheme and execute, and I might again remind everyone of the pain and agony that was inflicted on our nation by so few evil men on September 11th, 2001.

I am distressed that in this day and age, when the vastness of oceans has shrunk to a miniscule 6-hour plane ride, and when weapons of mass destruction are no longer measured by how many men a cannon ball can knock over with one shot, that Ron Paul and others believe we should simply duck and cover. These are not grizzly bears, which if left alone will leave us alone. These are evil, lunatic, human beings who have every intention of not leaving us alone, no matter what.

Those men and women, who have paid the price with their lives and bodies, for us, in Iraq and elsewhere, have not done so in vain. I believe from the bottom of my heart that without their incredible skill, hard work, and bravery, we would already have suffered more (and perhaps worse) attacks.

Yes, to put it ever so crudely.... War Sucks! It smells to high-heaven that we have to spend our nation's treasure in currency and blood. However, the alternative is to simply lie down in the middle of the freeway, cross our fingers and pray that we don't get run over by a Mack truck. That, in my humble opinion, is a clearly written prescription for disaster.

Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil.

Ron Paul Reminds me of Ronald Reagan

Ron Paul Reminds me of Ronald Reagan

I'm starting to to like Ron Paul. He reminds me of Ronald Reagan.


Ron Paul: Republicans need Reagan's courage Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday May 15, 2007

Long-shot Republican candidate Ron Paul said the current slate of candidates need the "courage" of former President Ronald Reagan to be able to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Texas Congressman, who has become an internet favorite but does not register much support in polls, said the Middle East is too unstable a region in which to maintain an indefinite US military presence. Paul compared the current "quagmire" in Iraq to military involvement in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

"We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan," Paul said, explaining the former president initially vowed not to withdraw US Marines who were attacked in October 1983 in Beirut while serving as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. Reagan withdrew the troops in February of the following year.

Paul outlined his initial oppositions to the war in Iraq and his warnings that the war would become a quagmire like Vietnam. He said the war has shrunk the Republican base and touted his plan to end the war.