What are the Republican Party’s Principles?

Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mi) exchanged witty banter on RedEye with Greg Gutfeld last night. While the  banter is fun, pay attention to what the congressman says about halfway through the interview.

He is actually quoting from his own  Nov. 2008 article at  The American Spectator- “Now, Seize Freedom”. 

In short, it really sums up the basic foundations of the Republican Party well.

What are the Republican Party’s principles that will be employed to meet and surmount these challenges? We have five enduring principles:

1.    Our liberty is from God not the government.
2.    Our sovereignty rests in our souls not the soil.
3.    Our security is through strength not surrender.
4.    Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector.
5.    Our truths are self-evident not relative.

Well said Congresman!

Does US Weekly Regret It’s Sarah Palin Bashing?

US Weekly is apparently attempting to stem the flow of subscription cancellations it is receiving in response to it’s slandering of Sarah Palin and her family last week.

The trash tabloid magazine is now offering 5 free issues to disgruntled readers in an effort to keep them. (I discuss US Weekly’s bias in this post from last week). Despite their efforts, I really don’t think we’ll see the last of their political left slant.

I can’t help to laugh at the emails they are sending in reply to these cancellation requests. These two were posted on Michelle Malkin’s blog. As you can see the first one is definitely a stepped up attempt, they must be losing readers by the truckload.

Have you cancelled your subscription yet?

From: US Weekly USWcustserv@cdsfulfillment.com
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: cancel subscription (KMM23347217I103L0KM)
To: xxx

Thank you for contacting US Weekly.

We are sorry you are upset over the Governor Palin cover. We do not want to lose you as a subscriber over one article in one issue. In an effort to keep you as a subscriber, we will add five FREE issues to your subscription. Please let us know if you would like us to extend your current subscription rather than canceling our publication.

Thank you,
US Weekly
Cari

 

From: USWcustserv@cdsfulfillment.com
Subject: Re: CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION…PLEASE (KMM23206123I103L0KM)
Date: September 5, 2008 6:43:21 AM PDT
To: xxx

Thank you for contacting US Weekly.

We apologize you are upset over our cover featuring Sarah Palin. Every week our editors select what they feel are the most compelling stories, regardless of the controversy it may create. In all fairness, we ask you please take the time to read the story before deciding to cancel. After reading should you still wish to cancel, please let us know and we will honor your request.

Thank you,
US Weekly
Janie

Sliming Palin – from FactCheck.Org


False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain’s running mate.

This is a reprint from FactCheck.org

Sliming Palin

Summary

 

We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

  • Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
  • She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.
  • She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

  • Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a “courtesy” when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

  • Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

We’ll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian’s firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error. 

Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin’s past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.


No Cut for “Special Needs” Kids

It’s not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN’s Soledad O’Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:

O’Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I’m sure you’re aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?

Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as “historic.”

According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls “intensive needs” students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin’s original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.

Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. …

Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a “historic event,” and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.

According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.

Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn’t the special needs budget. “I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding,” Jeans told FactCheck.org. “The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects,” such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.

And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved 
the Alaska Military Youth Academy’s ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for “special schools” and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.


Not a Book Burner


One false rumor accuses then-Mayor Palin of threatening to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. The story is false on several fronts: Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren’t even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.

It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition both times. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin “was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons’ position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons’ story, telling the Chicago Tribune that “Sarah said to Mary Ellen, ‘What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?’ “

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration’s agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions “were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city.” Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can’t read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.

Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a “loyalty” purge, she rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for two-and-a-half more years. Actually, Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation in October 1996, four days before the public discussion of censorship. That was at the same time she requested that all four of Wasilla’s department heads resign. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all four department heads to retain their positions. But on Jan. 30, 1997, three months after the censorship discussion, Palin informed Emmons and Wasilla’s police chief, Irv Stambaugh, that they would be fired. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing. Palin rehired Emmons the following day. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn’t published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”

Closet Secessionist?


Palin was never a member of the
Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state
despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.

The party’s chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.

The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin “never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time.”

There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.

Didn’t Endorse Pat Buchanan


Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican Steve Forbes.

The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was “among those sporting Buchanan buttons” at a lunch for Buchanan attended by about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn’t help matters when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: “I’m pretty sure she’s a Buchananite.” But in fact, she wasn’t.

Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesy to her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:

Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.

Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.

Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the “courtesy” button for Buchanan, she was named to the state leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:

The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.

Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.

No Creationism in Schools


On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That’s true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
 
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: “Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. …  It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.” The article was headlined, “Palin has not pushed creation science as governor.” It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

That E-mail Author


Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkenny are true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she’s a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin “has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship.”

We’re still analyzing Kilkenny’s claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.

—by Brooks Jackson, Jessica Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson
Sources
Sutton, Anne. “Governor signs revamped education package into law.” Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.

Holland, Megan. “Intensive needs funding examined.” Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.

Cavanagh, Sean. “Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding.” Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.

Joling, Dan. “Palin has not pushed creation science as governor.” The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.

Hayes, Christopher. “Sarah Palin, Buchananite.” The Nation “Capitolism” Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.

Palin, Sarah. “Letters from the People.” Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.

The Associated Press: “Forbes sets Alaska leadership team,” 7 Aug 1999.

Kizzia, Tom. “‘Creation science’ enters the race.” Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.

Paulson, Michael. “Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation.” The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. “Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention.” ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. “Members of ‘Fringe’ Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s.” ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.

Komarnitsky, S.J. “Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out.” 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.

Stuart, Paul. “FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries ‘Rhetorical’.” 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept. 2008.

White, Rindi. “Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She’d Ban Books.” 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.

 

Euro-Trash Endorses Obama then Smears Palin Family At The VMA’s

Russel Brand may be famous in the UK. He will never be famous in the United States!

Claiming to be a representative of the world, this piece of euro-trash asks Americans watching the MTV Music Video Awards to, “Please, elect Barack Obama… On Behalf of the world.” He is literally begging as if it could possibly affect him in some way.

He continues by calling Americans racists if they don’t support Obama, and think America is not ready for a black president (that alone does not make one a racist). Of course, we never hear how racist those people are that will vote for Obama just because he is black. That would be racist, would it?

He even makes a jab at President Bush, calling him a “Retarded cowboy.”

He then goes on to show his political balance by smearing the Palin family in a vile and disgusting manor. Calling the GOP VP nominee a VPILF, he continues by slamming Bristol Palin and her fiancee by suggesting that the GOP is the best form of birth control and exclaims, “Use a condom or become Republican!”

I really don’t expect much from MTV, or artist that use their celebrity (see my post about Oprah) to sway political decision, but this was way over the top.

This guy is not even American! What right does he have to say anything about our government? Especially to millions of teens who were probably watching this show. And who at MTV paid him to say it?

Russell Brand needs to be shipped back over the pond and I hope his goofy hair style catches fire at one of his shows.

Oh and don’t watch MTV…..EVER! And don’t let your kids watch either!

 

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

more about “Euro-star Endorses Obama & Smears Pal…“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Kissed a Girl and I liked It – Then I Went to Hell

The song topping the charts by international pop star Katy Perry is creating some controversy in the small town of Blacklick, Ohio.

Originally reported by the The Columbus Dispatch, The Havens Corner Church had on their sign a message that was meant to be a warning to young people about the dangers of homsexuality and promiscuity. “I kissed a girl and I liked it…” it quotes from the popular song, but adds, “…then I went to Hell.” (See inset).

The Dispatch quotes the pastor of the 100-member church, “It’s not something that is really a shock if you’re a scriptural person,” said the Rev. Dave Allison.

“We meant that as a loving warning to teens. … The Scriptures tell us that you should not do what the song tells you to do. The Scriptures are not ambiguous on this issue.”

Allison adds, “If anyone’s seen the video and understands how lewd and suggestive the video is for this song, that is not something young people should go toward.”

On the other side of the fence, Lynne Bowman of Equality Ohio was quoted as saying, “Equality Ohio has identified at least 300 churches in Ohio that welcome gay people looking for a church home. “That sign just tells them where they cannot go to find the love and faith in Christ.”

The sign was displayed for about 24 hours until it was changed to read, “Through faith in Christ God loves us and Forgives our Sins”. The Pastor said it was not due to outrage. He said he received volumes of support from throughout the state.

Instead, he said, “It was confusing to many people who called in or e-mailed because they didn’t know to what he was referring. They were unaware of the song.”

These kind of post always bring out the nut jobs. I look forward to comments from any reasonable preson who would debate this issue.

Republican Women, Stop Watching Oprah Winfrey


Oprah Winfrey has just released a statement stating that Gov. Sarah Palin, the republican Vice Presidential nominee, will not appear on the Oprah Winfrey show.

If you’re a republican woman, don’t help Oprah use her celebrity to help Obama. Stop watching her show today, and show her that you do not appreciate her bias. Write to her at Harpo Studios, and tell her if she is going to cover politics that she should cover both sides or you’ll take your advertising dollars elsewhere.

HER STATEMENT: “The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.”

Oprah’s statement was in response to a story on the Drudge Report earlier in the day, stating that certain staff at Harpo Studios were in disagreement on whether to book Gov. Palin on the show. Barak Obama was a guest on the Oprah Winfrey show prior to announcing his intention on running for the presidency. Ms. Winfrey has publicly endorsed Obama and actively campaigns with him.

In my opinion, the reason that she claims to not want to use her show as a platform for politics, is that she has already made her choice, he has already made his appearance, and she understands that she would have to give (at least the illusion) of equal time and coverage on her show or she could face backlash from her primarily female audience.

Palin would be a great guest and is an inspiration to all American women regardless of party affiliation. To host a guest as historically significant as the first woman republican nominee for Vice President, Oprah should put aside her party bias and invite Sarah Palin as a guest. To do otherwise, appears racist or at a minimum politically biased, either of which is certain to draw away large numbers of her viewers. If she truly cares about her female audience, she owes it to herself and her audience to book Sarah Palin on her show.

Just for good measure, she should also be allowed to host her close friend Barak again, so as to not appear unfair. Actually, I just don’t want to hear the whining from the left.

Why Pick Palin?

McCain/Palin 2008

McCain/Palin 2008

I waited for the media leak (of which there was none to speak of) all night. Well, actually I only waited until about 2:00am. Alas, around 9:00am I catch wind of the first reports of the McCain VP pick and my first reaction is…Who? Palin, Palin the name is vaguely familiar but I can’t place it. Alaska, oh yeah, now I remember. This is that governor that is pushing to drill in ANWR. Now I’m thinking, “so far, so good”.

I had to let it sink in for a while. Why would McCain pick Palin. Virtually unknown outside of her home state until recently, and not a very experienced politician either, I struggled to put it together. Obama likes to say John McCain doesn’t “get it”. Well, on the contrary, I think he not only gets it, but gets it right.Governor Palin is the perfect choice!

Just as Obama chose an experienced Washington insider partly to augment his own lack of experience, McCain is off-setting his significant experience by choosing a running mate unfamiliar with the inner dealings of Washington. Obama missed the boat by not picking Hillary Clinton as his Vice President. She garnered a lot of votes and it would have most certainly built a massive machine to be confronted in November. In addition, the first Black/Female ticket would have diffused any attempt by McCain to do just what he did, choosing a woman as a running mate to siphon off disgruntled Hillary supporters. Perhaps, just perhaps, they will find Sarah Palin a more suitable choice for leadership not only because of her gender, but due to her common sense policies for the American family.A conservative with the bravery to confront unethical and wasteful spending who is able to reach across the aisle to get things done, is also just the type of leader America needs in the White House.

A McCain/Palin ticket seems to have just the right amount of moderate conservatism to win in November. Her age and family life also has a lot of appeal. She is at a stage in life where many Americans find themselves today and will be able to relate. As a father and husband close to 40, I can tell you that her story closely resembles mine and that of many voters, Democrats, Independents, and Republican alike. She understands what it means to raise a family with high moral standards and a good education in today’s society. She knows what it means, with our shrinking paychecks and inflated grocery bills, to have to put $50 in the tank each week, pay for health care, and what the rising cost of goods do to the middle class family. McCain and Palin will put America first. They will work to reduce spending and taxes, reduce our dependence of foreign oil, and ensure government reform, so that American families can reduce the burden they are experiencing from a struggling economy and housing market. As a lifelong NRA member Palin will fight to protect our second amendment rights so we can protect our persons, property, and family. She will work to reform government and upset the status quo in Washinton, placing country first, and cronism out the door.
The McCain/Pladin ticket has the ability to transform american trust in government and the Republican party. I would like to learn more about this “Wow” pick from Alaska. But, so far I like what I’ve learned. Yep, I think John McCain “get’s it”. And I think a McCain/Palin ticket is exactly how he shows it.

Sarah Palin Addresses America

Best possible pick McCain could make. The more I find out about her the more there is to like. More on this later.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Sarah Palin Addresses America“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

McCain/Palin – Vice President – Web Ad

Nice post found on youtube. McCain / Palin

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

 

 

 

Why Is Captain Leadbottom A Republican?

This being my “official” political blog, I thought it should start with something about myself and a little bit about why I am Republican Party supporter.

I believe that the government is here to serve the people and is of the people. No party holds their ideals as close to what our Founding Father’s intended as the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party.

The republican party stands for small government, more personal control over ones life and family, and fiscal responsibility with our tax dollars. In addition, no party has made the commitment to protect our national interests like the GOP. Our national security is constantly tested and when vulnerable we can and will be attacked. Republicans understand this and will always ensure the US has the strength, the might, and the will to protect their great nation.

This is the party the believes that the best way for the government to help, is for it to help those who help themselves. As Regan said, “The most frightening things to hear is, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I would rather be poor and have opportunity, than to wait for the government to come help.

Republicans also understand that the best way to educate our children is to allow parents to control theireducation and what is being taught. The constitution provides for each American’s education, not the curriculum. Schools should be held accountable for their performance, and when they underperform competition should force them to change. Republican believe this is a parents choice, not the bureaucracy’s

The Grand Old Party, the Republican Party, is truly the party of the people.

Now, for a little personal history and some things that helped shape my views.

I wasn’t always a republican or conservative, but for as long as I cared to exercise my right to vote, I have been. I suppose Sir Winston Churchill was right when he said, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” At least it’s true in my case. I wonder if it has something to do with being a (very,very,very) distant cousin? Not to say that I didn’t have a brain when I was young, nor am I heartless currently, but it certainly rings true for me.

Amusingly, I can remember a time when I could not even tell you which party was which. Of course, at the time, I really didn’t care. I recall not really liking Carter when I was very young, mostly because I would hear my father complaining and calling him and idiot. I also remember liking Regan for perhaps a similar reason, although my father wasn’t into politics himself. I was in the sixth grade during his assassination attempt, but the impact was vague during my childhood.

As a teen I was as flaky as they come. Squandering my education and intelligence, I fell in with “That Crowd”, the one good mom’s all over warn against. It’s funny how at the same stage of my youth, when I could care less about politics, I was living the life of a pseudo-hippy/ 70’s rocker. I was an “artsy type” that many of my like-minded conservatives today would label a “liberal”. Good thing I wasn’t old enough to vote then or my record of conservative voting might have been blemished. I still play the guitar for my kids and I can’t listen to the Grateful Dead without feeling the urge to “boogie”. So, I think that I have not completely lost touch with my “liberal” side. I just don’t feel the urge to make impulsive, stupid, “feel-good” decisions as I did then. I naively thought that no nukes and welfare programs were good things. I had a utopian view of the world that came from being sheltered by my parents, as I think most children are. Once out in the “real” world, that view starts to change (at least for those who are open-minded enough). Liberals like to claim that open-mindedness for themselves, but in fact, they are the most stubborn, uneducated, irrational, irresponsible group in government.

At age 18, my first republican vote, and first vote ever, was in the general election of 1988, helping to elect President George Bush Sr. I was not paying much attention to the actual campaigns, I just knew that I wanted to exercise my right as an American who had just come of age. Truthfully, I didn’t even know why I was voting for Bush, I just knew that Dukakis didn’t seem trustworthy and we won’t even mention that funny guy with the big ears (oops, I think I just did). Being a child of the Regan era also probably had some influence. Watching the Great Communicator defeat communism and dropping the Iron Curtain certainly effected my opinions on diplomacy and national security.

Actual political policy entered the equation during my service in the US Navy. During the late 80’s and early 90’s Republicans were at the top of their game. Following my first vote that November, I enlisted in the United States Navy and was in boot camp when elder Bush was sworn in. I served during Desert Shield/Storm and it was probably this experience that first started to mold my own political standards and beliefs. Naturally, veteran benefits, national defense, and military pay became important issues for me then. As I started looking closer into what the two parties stand for, I found that the Republican Party would serve my own interests best. Not being a family man at the time, my selfish personal interests were paramount in my decision making. I would register and now delcarethat I was a Republican.

Then came Clinton. My friends (most of which were Navy) were all enamored with this cool, sax-playing politician who had a penchant for young women and scandal. Many were so engulfed by the “no new taxes” issue, that was the elder Bush’s undoing, that they actually voted this “Slick Willy” into office. I however, remained hopeful that Bush would win a second term and voted accordingly.

Now out of the Navy and starting a career in sales and marketing, I still was not particularly involved in politics and certainly not on a local level, being that I did not live in my home state. I was single and happy and making a good living. Clinton wasn’t so bad, right?

Wrong! During the Clinton presidency I married and started to raise a young family. As I matured from a self-centered young man, into a devoted husband and father, my political interests changed. They changed in the sense that I was now paying attention to new laws, Supreme Court decisions, international politics, and the economy. It wasn’t too difficult to realize that if I wanted my children to grow up in a safe and prosperous nation, that conservatism was the answer. Clinton and the democrats were raising taxes, and growing our government to unacceptable levels, while at the same time diminishing our military capabilities and destroying the moral ideals taught to our children.

Clinton’s policies were making our nation vulnerable. I quickly realized the understanding I had been missing until now. The understanding that liberalism was not only shrinking our military, wasting valuable dollars on special interests, overtaxing us, and over governing. Liberalism was corrupting our youth, making our nation literally unsafe from foreign enemies, and pushing us closer to the communism that Ronald Regan had so tirelessly fought against. The Lewinskiscandal and the failing economy heading into recession sealed the deal. The Democratic President of the United States lied on television to the public and lied under oath about a relatively insignificant personal issue. What else can or has he and his ilk lied about. It was apparent that this behavior was not only condoned by leadership in his party but perhaps even admired for it’s gall. I became convinced that I could never vote a liberal into office, ever. I would do more to teach my children about politics and party values than my parents did with the hope that they are not overly influenced by the liberal education establishment. I became a galvanized Republican.

Bush Jr. winning the White House in 2000 brought me some hope for our future. Hope that our education system could be improved, hope that our military secrets would remain so, and hope that we would see some tax relief.

Things changed again on 9-11. I watched the events of the day unfold from shortly after the first plane struck the tower. As soon as the second plane hit, I knew in an instant that we would soon be at war. I didn’t know when, how, or with whom, but somebody would be paying the price for an attack on US soil.

I was afraid. I feared for my children, and what they would soon be experiencing with what comes with war, this kind of war. I was too young to remember Viet-Nam and only heard stories of it from my father, and WW2 stories from my grandfather. Based on those anecdotes and my history lessons I feared The War on Terrorism would cost many American lives and even more lives of our enemy. I can honestly say I am glad that we had a Republican in the White House on that day, and still today as I write this. I belive that our nation is safer today than before 9-11. A more dangerous world perhaps, but our nation is safer from it.

Bush has made plenty of mistakes, bad decisions, and has stupefied me on occasion. I take issue with many things this administration had done (or not done). I won’t get into those topics in this post, but I am by no means a Bush “fanboi”. I will however continue to cast my conservative vote for Republicans in local and national elections, and support this Republican administration, because to do otherwise would be to give up my personal security and choice.

Despite my preference for another presidential hopeful and my initial reluctance to vote for McCain, this November I will again vote Republican. Once again hopeful that my vote will help to keep America a safe and prosperous country to raise my family.