John Edwards, the “Robbin’ Hood” Candidate

John Edwards is like a bank robber who’s not afraid to take off his ski mask, look directly into the security camera, and let everybody know exactly who he is and what he’s about. I like that in a Democrat — because it makes them lose:

John Edwards says if he’s elected president, he’ll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he’ll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called “College for Everyone.”

He’ll solve “growing wealth disparity” alright — we’ll all be poor. In addition, “College for Everyone” will also go by the name “Making a college education even more worthless.”

I also expect Edwards to soon unveil his “National slip-n-fall care” plan.

If John Edwards had any chance of winning the presidency, this kind of talk would be disturbing. Instead though we can just read it and poke fun at him, as the last guy to be this honest about his intention goes by the name of Walter Mondale.

For now, frankly, Edwards’ biggest campaign problem isn’t his leftist political views, it’s that he continues to allow himself to be photographed like this:

null

Monday's Column: A Third Party for the Conservatives?

Today’s column at WorldNetDaily began back when I saw an interview with Dr. James Dobson in a story about how the “religious right” is discussing the creation of a third party if the Republicans continue to drift away from conservative principles, and therefore, their former base.

Though I share in this frustration, taking a chunk of the base to a third party could have counterproductive, and maybe even disastrous, consequences. What needs to happen is for the Republican Party to be taken back.

Read about it in “Fight for the religious right to GOParty.”

You can help “Digg” the column here.

Update — Lots of email this morning, both pro and con. Here’s a sample of each:

Linda from Oklahoma agrees with my column today:

I’m so glad you wrote that column! I’ve been saying the same thing till I’m blue in the face! I’m so pissed at some of my so-called friends who claim to be conservatives. As far as I’m concerned the worst Republican is better than all the dems put together … Personally I have a very sick feeling in the pit of my stomach about what the ’08 elections will bring. I pray I’m wrong.

Me too, especially since Republicans seem to be on the way to helping ensure they lose.

Dan from Mass. has a different opinion:

I am writing to disagree with your stance regarding whether conservatives should leave the Republican Party. For the last 15 years I have had to listen to this talk from what one might call fiscally conservative and socially liberal “independent” friends. These people who consider themselves moderate, are always asking me to abandon my prinicples to support their moderate candidate, however they never seem to be willing to support my candidate and are more than willing to join the voting block for a given democrat should their proclivities dictate.

In other words, conservatives are always the people asked to give up their principles. If I saw that there was equal support from the moderates, I might agree with you. Unfortunately, the moderates are all too quick to say you must be pragmatic, otherwise the other side will win. Why don’t you write to these moderates and tell them that in order to perserve the election, that they should work with their conservative counterparts instead of telling them to be pragmatic.

What is the point of winning the election if the party loses it’s soul?

I’ll answer a question with a question: Why are those conservatives who claim to be concerned about the Republican Party “losing its soul” the very souls that are threatening to get lost? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Update II

Another sample from the email-bag — this one from Bill in Iowa who used the subject line “You’ve made the case for how elections are lost”:

Being a grassroots worker here in Iowa I can tell you with absolute certainty Rudy will lose to Hillary by at least 10 pts. Why? Not only because principled conservatives will flat out not vote for him. Of course that is a problem. But what do not understand is how elections are really won and lost; at the grassroots.

Simply stated: Principled conservatives will not work for Rudy. They won’t put up yard signs and place bumper stickers on their cars. They won’t provide rides to the polls. And they will not talk up Rudy at the local coffee shops, or at work, to their moderate and independent friends. But will instead get a glum look of defeat and bitterness on their faces when talking politics. And that is what will kill a Rudy candidacy.

It is truly insidious to coerce Christians to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Truly insidious! And as I just laid out it will not work. So yes, if you have to vote third party for President, then you do. It does not mean abandoning every truly principled Republican candidate. And yes I am sick and tired, and most conservatives are, of being told that they have to vote for somebody just because of party affiliation–or other convoluted reasons

Go ahead and vote for Rudy should he get the nomination. But for me, and millions like me, our consciousness’s will be unburdened by our third party vote.

I’m amazed at the number of Republicans who have pretty much already conceded the nomination to Giuliani. To paraphrase Bill’s subject line, this is how a true conservative nomination is lost.

This must come as fantastic news to the Giuliani people though.

Monday’s Column: A Third Party for the Conservatives?

Today’s column at WorldNetDaily began back when I saw an interview with Dr. James Dobson in a story about how the “religious right” is discussing the creation of a third party if the Republicans continue to drift away from conservative principles, and therefore, their former base.

Though I share in this frustration, taking a chunk of the base to a third party could have counterproductive, and maybe even disastrous, consequences. What needs to happen is for the Republican Party to be taken back.

Read about it in “Fight for the religious right to GOParty.”

You can help “Digg” the column here.

Update — Lots of email this morning, both pro and con. Here’s a sample of each:

Linda from Oklahoma agrees with my column today:

I’m so glad you wrote that column! I’ve been saying the same thing till I’m blue in the face! I’m so pissed at some of my so-called friends who claim to be conservatives. As far as I’m concerned the worst Republican is better than all the dems put together … Personally I have a very sick feeling in the pit of my stomach about what the ’08 elections will bring. I pray I’m wrong.

Me too, especially since Republicans seem to be on the way to helping ensure they lose.

Dan from Mass. has a different opinion:

I am writing to disagree with your stance regarding whether conservatives should leave the Republican Party. For the last 15 years I have had to listen to this talk from what one might call fiscally conservative and socially liberal “independent” friends. These people who consider themselves moderate, are always asking me to abandon my prinicples to support their moderate candidate, however they never seem to be willing to support my candidate and are more than willing to join the voting block for a given democrat should their proclivities dictate.

In other words, conservatives are always the people asked to give up their principles. If I saw that there was equal support from the moderates, I might agree with you. Unfortunately, the moderates are all too quick to say you must be pragmatic, otherwise the other side will win. Why don’t you write to these moderates and tell them that in order to perserve the election, that they should work with their conservative counterparts instead of telling them to be pragmatic.

What is the point of winning the election if the party loses it’s soul?

I’ll answer a question with a question: Why are those conservatives who claim to be concerned about the Republican Party “losing its soul” the very souls that are threatening to get lost? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Update II

Another sample from the email-bag — this one from Bill in Iowa who used the subject line “You’ve made the case for how elections are lost”:

Being a grassroots worker here in Iowa I can tell you with absolute certainty Rudy will lose to Hillary by at least 10 pts. Why? Not only because principled conservatives will flat out not vote for him. Of course that is a problem. But what do not understand is how elections are really won and lost; at the grassroots.

Simply stated: Principled conservatives will not work for Rudy. They won’t put up yard signs and place bumper stickers on their cars. They won’t provide rides to the polls. And they will not talk up Rudy at the local coffee shops, or at work, to their moderate and independent friends. But will instead get a glum look of defeat and bitterness on their faces when talking politics. And that is what will kill a Rudy candidacy.

It is truly insidious to coerce Christians to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Truly insidious! And as I just laid out it will not work. So yes, if you have to vote third party for President, then you do. It does not mean abandoning every truly principled Republican candidate. And yes I am sick and tired, and most conservatives are, of being told that they have to vote for somebody just because of party affiliation–or other convoluted reasons

Go ahead and vote for Rudy should he get the nomination. But for me, and millions like me, our consciousness’s will be unburdened by our third party vote.

I’m amazed at the number of Republicans who have pretty much already conceded the nomination to Giuliani. To paraphrase Bill’s subject line, this is how a true conservative nomination is lost.

This must come as fantastic news to the Giuliani people though.

Atheists Plagiarize Ampersand, Won't Stand Silent for Free Thought

There’s atheist news coming out our ever-evolving ears this morning.

First, unbeknownst to me, the Atheist movement in America has been looking for its own version of the Christian fish symbol. The obvious answer would be to just have that fish crawling out of the water onto the beach, but instead they found their symbol just above the number “2” on their computer keyboard.

Here it is:

null

“Yes, it’s the new Chevy Atheist! Prove to everybody on the highway that a big pile of bolts, scrap metal and wiring just happened to evolve into a car in style with the Chevy Atheist! (price doesn’t include tax, title and no destination)”

And for the people in story #2 this morning, we need to alter the “A” symbol slightly so it’s followed by “-hole.”

From ABC News:

A 14-year-old girl and her outspoken atheist father filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging a new Illinois law requiring a brief period of prayer or reflective silence at the start of every school day.

If you do a little research on the Atheist movement, something that is constantly trumpeted is “free thought.” We’re free to believe in God, or free not to. It’s just that if you do, they think you’re an idiot. What kind of respect for “free thought” is that?

Whenever you read about an atheist in the news, what’s it for? Almost every time it’ll be because they’re trying to get somebody to stop doing something, and in the above example, to stop people from even thinking something. “Free thought” my Darwinian ass.

Even silence is considered an imposition of religious dogma in schools? It’s not really about religion though as much as it is about control, and it has a cult-like feel to it. Oddly enough, the quest of the radical Atheist has become everything they claim to stand against: a religion practiced in public.

It doesn’t even end with schools. Funerals of veterans are even targets of the terminally pesky.

Activist atheists, like Michael Newdow for example — who I once compared to genital herpes and offended somebody vigorously opposed to making jokes about sexually transmitted infections (no, seriously), left to their own devices, would evolve the country into a police state. In other words, they’re not at all bothered by the fact that you’re worshipping a god in school — provided that god is them.

So let’s see… you can’t pray in school. You can’t be silent in school because you might be praying. You can’t even say the Pledge of Allegiance, salute, or even fold an American flag at a veteran’s funeral — a flag that represents the reason we’re free to have thought (which the last time I checked was a main ingredient in this “free thought” Atheists claim to laud). Free thought indeed.

Radical atheism’s “free thought” has become a sociological version of Henry Ford’s “you can have any color you want as long as it’s black.”

By the way, I heard that a band of activist atheists once petitioned CBS to get them to change the title of the show “Touched by an Angel” to “Groped by a Figment of Your Imagination.” I never could confirm that, but hey, it sounds like something Newdow & Company might try.

Atheists Plagiarize Ampersand, Won’t Stand Silent for Free Thought

There’s atheist news coming out our ever-evolving ears this morning.

First, unbeknownst to me, the Atheist movement in America has been looking for its own version of the Christian fish symbol. The obvious answer would be to just have that fish crawling out of the water onto the beach, but instead they found their symbol just above the number “2” on their computer keyboard.

Here it is:

null

“Yes, it’s the new Chevy Atheist! Prove to everybody on the highway that a big pile of bolts, scrap metal and wiring just happened to evolve into a car in style with the Chevy Atheist! (price doesn’t include tax, title and no destination)”

And for the people in story #2 this morning, we need to alter the “A” symbol slightly so it’s followed by “-hole.”

From ABC News:

A 14-year-old girl and her outspoken atheist father filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging a new Illinois law requiring a brief period of prayer or reflective silence at the start of every school day.

If you do a little research on the Atheist movement, something that is constantly trumpeted is “free thought.” We’re free to believe in God, or free not to. It’s just that if you do, they think you’re an idiot. What kind of respect for “free thought” is that?

Whenever you read about an atheist in the news, what’s it for? Almost every time it’ll be because they’re trying to get somebody to stop doing something, and in the above example, to stop people from even thinking something. “Free thought” my Darwinian ass.

Even silence is considered an imposition of religious dogma in schools? It’s not really about religion though as much as it is about control, and it has a cult-like feel to it. Oddly enough, the quest of the radical Atheist has become everything they claim to stand against: a religion practiced in public.

It doesn’t even end with schools. Funerals of veterans are even targets of the terminally pesky.

Activist atheists, like Michael Newdow for example — who I once compared to genital herpes and offended somebody vigorously opposed to making jokes about sexually transmitted infections (no, seriously), left to their own devices, would evolve the country into a police state. In other words, they’re not at all bothered by the fact that you’re worshipping a god in school — provided that god is them.

So let’s see… you can’t pray in school. You can’t be silent in school because you might be praying. You can’t even say the Pledge of Allegiance, salute, or even fold an American flag at a veteran’s funeral — a flag that represents the reason we’re free to have thought (which the last time I checked was a main ingredient in this “free thought” Atheists claim to laud). Free thought indeed.

Radical atheism’s “free thought” has become a sociological version of Henry Ford’s “you can have any color you want as long as it’s black.”

By the way, I heard that a band of activist atheists once petitioned CBS to get them to change the title of the show “Touched by an Angel” to “Groped by a Figment of Your Imagination.” I never could confirm that, but hey, it sounds like something Newdow & Company might try.

Cave-Dwelling Hotness: Neanderthal Redheads

As a former redhead, the following story piqued my interest while also providing an explanation as to why my knuckles drag on the ground when I walk.

From Fox News:

Like bringing to life a naked mannequin, scientists are using genetic and physical evidence found in fossils to clothe the skeletal remains of our closest hominid relatives, the Neanderthals.

More and more, they seem familiar.

Bones from two Neanderthals yielded valuable genetic information that adds red hair, light skin and perhaps some freckling to our extinct relatives.

The results, detailed online Thursday by the journal Science, suggest that at least 1 percent of Neanderthals were redheads.

Using the aforementioned methods, scientists have created a model of the redhead Neanderthal:

null

Anthropologists were shocked to discover Neanderthals carried prop bags

Halloween House of Horowitz

David Horowitz has a peculiar talent: He can make a good point without having to say a word.

Attempting to speak at Emory University on “Islamofascism Awareness Week,” Horowitz was confronted by followers of Islam and assorted leftists who were so determined to prove to the world that they are sick and tired of being stereotyped as opponents of the right to free speech. They did this by booing until Horowitz couldn’t continue with his speech.

I love the smell of paradox in the morning.

Photos and video from the counter-demonstration of tolerance, peace and respect can be seen here.

Update

Dale said this in the comments section and I thought it was worth putting on the main page: “What I find funny about this is a month ago some guy interupted John Kerry’s speech and got tased, these people make a scene at Horowitz’ speech and are made out to be 1st amendment heros. I guess freedom of speech is only for leftist idiots.”

Hillary Interview Offers Peaceful Queesy Feeling

It’s time again to get another childish and sophomoric giggle from unintentional innuendo in a Hillary Clinton interview. Take some Dramamine though before digging further into this syrupy stack of fablecakes.

If you thought Bill Clinton only got wood for other women, you were wrong:

Hillary Rodham Clinton says husband Bill often brings her romantic gifts: a giant wooden giraffe from an African trip, for example, and a Chanel watch that reminded him of teeth.

“Oh he’s so romantic,” the former first lady said in an interview for the November issue of Essence magazine. “He’s always bringing me back things from his trips.”

Jewelry, perfume, the jack

The watch had a bracelet made of white cubes. “I had dental surgery, and he said it reminded him of teeth,” she said.

“Your dentist and I were both half a world apart filling cavities. I couldn’t help but think of you darling…”

The New York senator, now a presidential candidate, said she is satisfied with the decisions she has made in her marriage.

“Now obviously we’ve had challenges as everybody in the world knows,” she said. “But I never doubted that it was a marriage worth investing in even in the midst of those challenges, and I’m really happy that I made that decision.”

“But if in late 2008 I’m not ‘President-elect Hillary Clinton,’ I’m outta here!”

In 1998, news unfolded about her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

While sticking it out might not be for everyone, Mrs. Clinton said women should support each other in the choices they make in their marriages.

Sticking it out was where the whole problem started, Hillary.

Witnessing Bill and Hillary speaking lovingly of each other is like running through the women’s shower at the Malibu Country Club: You’re not exactly sure what you saw but you’re damn certain it’s fake.

Call Signs That Won't Offend Our Enemies

And by “enemies,” I’m of course referring to some U.S. journalists:

U.S. Army combat units headed for Iraq have been advised to be sensitive to Iraqis, in order to avoid making anymore enemies than they already have over there. So one unit headed there, the 1/35 Armor (1st battalion of the 35th armored regiment) will change its call sign from “Conqueror” to “Iron Knight.” It was felt that the word “Conqueror” might be misinterpreted by Iraqis.

Actually, it’s not the Iraqis that officers worry about in situations like this, it’s U.S. journalists who, on a slow news day, might round up a few English speaking Iraqis and get them to complain about the American tank battalion that refers to themselves as “Conqueror.” Oh, the horror. Especially when this stuff reaches Congress, and the incident is brought up when the army asks for money.

Pursuant to this politically correct trend, the call signs of the pilots in the movie “Top Gun” will have to be altered. The next time you see the film, “Viper” will be known as “Tinky Winky,” “Maverick” is being changed to “Nerfball,” “Iceman” will be “Iceperson,” “Cougar” becomes “Purring Kitty” and “Hollywood” will remain “Hollywood” just so any enemies of America watching the movie will feel as if they’re among friends.