NEWSFLASH! Unknown blogger endorses John McCain!

I haven't posted anything for a while, mostly due to computer issues and a continuous aversion to writing. But if you can't tell from my earlier posts, I'm a news/politics junkie. My recently acquired Centro phone allows me to feed that addiction--I can get the latest poll results and campaign gaffes in seconds whenever I want. However, blogging on a mobile phone is virtually impossible unless you want to be at it all day and have huge blisters on your thumbs. Truthfully, I can't wait until this election is over because it is stressing me out--BIG TIME. I know this is supposed to be the Democrats's year to win back the presidency because President Bush has been such a MISERABLE FAILURE or so the MSM tells me, but I really can't believe that a majority of my fellow citizens would vote for Barack Obama. Although McCain is not my ideal candidate (Mitt was my man), he is light years beyond Barack Obama and thus I am officially endorsing John McCain and Sarah Palin for POTUS/VPOTUS. I know, I know...I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear they've been endorsed by a blogger of little consequence.



My philosophy of government is pretty simple--leave me the heck alone so I can take care of my family! I like low taxes, accountability, efficiency, and most of all, COMPETENCE in my government. Republicans have been pretty good at the first thing, but have been pretty lax on the latter three. But the Democrats have been consistently bad on all four things for a very long time. When was the last time you heard of a fiscally conservative Democrat? Usually, they want to tax more, spend more, and add numerous more governmental programs.

To me, the entire Democrat platform is based on envy--which results in at best socialism or at worst communism. Obama revealed his socialist philosophy in his comments to Joe the plumber. Spread the wealth? Are you kidding me? Believe me, it is possible for the poor to be as greedy and envious as the wealthy. It's a human failing, but it is not a good idea on which to base one's government.

I'm not a libertarian a la Ron Paul in that I believe that every single department or governmental program not specifically mentioned in the Constitution should be eliminated, but I do think that the bureaucracy should be considerably trimmed and made more efficient. I don't think tax dollars should go to fund the National Endowment for the Arts or PBS and numerous other pet projects i.e. get rid of pork barrel spending. I'm a federalist in that I believe that the federal government has usurped too many powers that should be relegated to the states. For example, I think states should be able to regulate abortion and marriage laws without the interference of the feds. If a state (with consensus of its citizens) wants to allow gay marriage, I'm okay with that (but don't approve of it) as long as it is not forced on the rests of the states by the courts.

I also think states and local governments should be allowed to legislate moral and social issues based on what their citizens prefer e.g. if one silly state wants to legalize drugs and/or prostitution that is their prerogative. And they shouldn't ask for federal money to bail them out of the resulting fallout from their poorly thought out social programs.

Some moral issues such as abortion (and previously slavery) involve human rights, and I think the federal government is obligated to step in, e.g. the 13th and 14th amendments. The 14th amendment didn't just protect former slaves, it prevented states from abusing minority citizens. For example, under the 14th amendment it would have been illegal for the state of Missouri to expel Mormons simply because they didn't get along with their neighbors. I would not be opposed to an abortion amendment that prohibits abortion after the first trimester except in the case where the mother's health is at significant risk. An amendment would also be voted on by the citizens and not forced on the country by the judiciary. Obama et al. don't seem to have a problem with judicial activists judges, while McCain opposes them and favors strict constructionists.

In conclusion, I'm supporting McCain/Palin because I think they are less likely to take money out of our pockets and waste it on stupid things that the federal government has no business doing.

Texas Primary results

Things couldn't have turned out better in the not-so-super primaries on Tuesday. The Wicked Witch is still in the Democratic race against the Obamessiah, and the Huckster got crushed by John McCain. The main thing the Republicans should be worried about in November is turnout. In our precinct, my husband reported hundreds of Democrats showing up for the caucuses while only 5 Republicans (out of 33 needed) showed up to be delegates for the county Republican convention. My husband was appointed the precinct chairman so he can name more delegates if necessary. He said I could be one if I wanted and it might be interesting to attend the convention to see how the process works in Texas. But then again, it could be completely boring and tedious. Anyway, we'll see. At the very least, we'll make some new friends. But if John McCain doesn't start to generate some excitement among his base, he has no chance of beating the Democrat nominee.

Why I Won't Vote For Huckabee

I don't think that people understand the antipathy that most Mormons feel toward a man like Huckabee. Too many of us, he represents all the persecution that we have suffered at the hands of fellow Christians since the founding of our church. That's not entirely fair, since he's only been around for 50 some-odd years and as far as I know he hasn't published anything condemning Mormons. But he's set himself up to be the face of anti-Mormon Christians. It didn't bother me that he was a former Southern Baptist preacher until his interview in the New York Times magazine where he said regarding Mormonism, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?" He later apologized for the comments and claimed that he asked the question out of ignorance. But that only proved that he is a liar because he knew exactly what he was doing and he revealed exactly what kind of Christian he is. A follow-up article in the New York Times addressed this issue:

The question posed by Mr. Huckabee in an article to be published Sunday in The New York Times Magazine and available at nytimes.com/politics is one of the standard sensationalistic A-bombs often hurled at Mormons by their detractors, said Scott A. Gordon, president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, a group based in Redding, Calif., that defends Mormon theology.
“It’s an attack question,” Mr. Gordon said, “because it starts with a kernel of truth and shapes it into something that most Mormons wouldn’t recognize about their faith.”

"Mormons believe that the Devil and Jesus are brothers" is the classic attack used by preachers and publishers of anti-Mormon literature to incite shock and disgust in their readers. It's designed to prove that anyone that believes something so outlandish and blasphemous cannot possibly be a fellow Christian. But it is a distortion of actual LDS doctrine, which is summed up well in the same follow-up NY Times article:

In Mormon theology, God is literally the father of all beings, and all beings once existed in a “premortal” state as “spirit beings,” said Robert L. Millet a professor of religion at Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution in Provo, Utah. Jesus was God’s first-born son, and everyone who came after that, including Satan could be considered the siblings of Jesus, he said. “Latter-day Saints believe that all of us, Christ included, existed in a premortal existence, as spirits,” Mr. Millet said. “Yes, Jesus and Lucifer were in that premortal existence, together. But what we need to make very clear is that Jesus was God and there was never a time when Jesus and Lucifer were on the same plane.”To say Jesus and Satan were brothers, Mr. Gordon said, is like saying, “Do you know you’re related to Adolf Hitler because we’re all part of the same family of man?”

But whatever the truth is, there will still be some evangelicals that will still call us non-Christians according to their exclusive definition of a Christian. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ after the manner found in the Lord's Prayer, we partake of the sacrament every Sunday as outlined in the New Testament, our church's official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yet all of that is not sufficient for many evangelicals because we have committed the ultimate heresy in not accepting the doctrine of the Trinity and we have another book of scripture, the Book of Mormon. So they deny us the title of Christian and slander us with the title of "cult."

Mike Huckabee has become the face of this anti-Mormon movement because he has assumed the mantle of Christian Leader and has not denounced the anti-Mormon bigotry that infuses his campaign and his followers. Plus,he has refused to release any recording of his sermons. Whether these recording would reveal any anti-Mormon rhetoric or just the usual pro-marriage, pro-family, anti-gay stuff, I don't know. I guess we'll never know. But I've heard plenty from his followers every day on talk radio and read their blog comments. Even after Mitt Romney had dropped out, Huck and his followers continued to attack him and attack Mormonism. Huck was a little more cautious about making anti-Mormon remarks, but his supports made no such distinction.

Over the years, I've heard many of these individuals claim that they are doing this out of love, out of concern for out souls, and that may be true for a few people. But I've heard the venom dripping in their voices, seen the hate in their faces as they picketed Temple Square, and read the titles of their anti-Mormons screeds that they sell for a profit, and I don't believe it. I have always believed that all people should be allowed to worship God according to their conscience (as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others) and it bothers me that some people would not vote for someone based purely on their religiously beliefs. I believe that was one of the difficulties Mitt Romney had in his campaign. He did much better than I expected, which shows that the majority of Americans are fair-minded people. But in places like California, where the races were close, was the anti-Mormon feeling enough to tilt the outcome? I don't know.

I just know that unless Mike Huckabee comes out and openly condemns this kind of bigotry and apologizes on behalf of himself and his campaign, I could never vote for him. So, you go McCain! Whatever he may feel personally about Mormons, at least he knows better than to run on anti-Mormon bigotry since a large percentage of his constituents in AZ are LDS.

Texas Primaries 2008

Things are heating up in the Lonestar state as not-so super Tuesday rolls around next week. My husband and I voted early last week and we made it a family affair. I think my husband decided to help me out with the boys because he figured I'd never get around to it otherwise. So we went and voted before he went to work. There was no one there except for us at the polls. I love early voting!



I'm not saying who I voted for, but I don't mind giving my opinion on the candidates.



First the Dems:



Hillary Clinton - I affectionately call her Shrillary because every time she opens her mouth she sounds like a banshee. Now, if she was conservative like Ann Coulter, I could overlook that. However, since she's slightly to the left of Castro (especially on healthcare) listening to her is like nails on a chalkboard. All I hear is, "Rawk! Healthcare! Rawk! Evil corporations! Rawk! Middle class! Rawk!"



Barack Obama - Otherwise known as "His Holiness," Barack is definitely easier on the ears (and eyes) than Hillary. But most of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is pandering, pie-in-the-sky hippy speak. So when he talks, all I hear is "Hope! Change! Save the world! Make love not war! etc. etc." All style and no substance or as Hillary likes to say when she's in Texas talking to us rednecks, "All hat and no cattle."



And the Republicans:



John McCain - After enduring all those years as a POW and two decades in government, McCain is as tough as nails and takes crap from no one. I feel confident that he'd make a great wartime commander-in-chief. But it is really galling to be stuck with him as the Republican candidate after eight years of the ol' Maverick constantly thumbing his nose at conservatives, and stabbing the GOP in the back. And if he says, "My friends," one more time in that insincere voice, I'm going to puke!



Mike Huckabee - Well, what can I say about the Huckster? He's slick and somehow he's convinced a lot of people that he's still a contender. I don't think he's that funny and I don't think he's that conservative or that Christian for that matter (more about that later). I think he'll be out after he loses Texas and Ohio to McCain. Huck has admitted that he's not too good at math, and that's pretty obvious by his refusal to drop out. I'm glad that I won't have to decide between him and the Democrat nominee.

Mitt Romney Announces His Bid for POTUS

This morning Mitt Romney formally announced his candidacy for the office of President of the United States from the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. So far, he is my choice for the Republican nomination for POTUS because his positions on most issues most closely match my own, AND I think that he is the most conservative candidate that can beat Hillary (who I think will be the Democrat nominee).

As I mentioned before, I'm a guest blogger for Texans for Mitt Romney. Being a pro-life biologist, I've been interested in how Romney's position on abortion and human embryonic stem cell research evolved during his experience as Massachusetts governor. I recently posted an entry on an National Review Online article by Kathryn Lopez that I think fairly describes his conversion to a "Latter-Day Lifer."

Most of the talking heads in the media say Romney's religion (Mormonism) will be a liability. I think that's possible, but that fair-minded people will base their vote on the issues and not on prejudice. Many people find Mormon beliefs to be strange. Fair enough, but I find some beliefs of other churches to be strange as well. I think it just depends on what you're used to, and often people are more likely to be biased against belief systems that are not like their own and ones that they don't understand. There's a lot of misinformation on Mormonism out there--here's the official website of the LDS church for a brief overview of our beliefs.

A minority make it their vocation to actively slander and distort the doctrines of my faith, and I think fair-minded Americans will see these people as the bigots they are. If you really want to know what a Mormon believes, ask one.

The biggest point to make is that Romney is his own man, and will not be taking orders from the head of my church. The LDS church has a strict policy of political neutrality. Members are NOT instructed to vote for any one party, but are asked to vote their conscience. There are no political rallies held at LDS churches as we often see happen in during political campaigns.

Is America ready for a Mormon POTUS? Only time will tell.

Ben Stein: The Lynching of the President

Ben Stein's reaction to the SOTU address was very similar to mine.

So there I was, lying in my bed in Malibu with my dogs, watching Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech. I thought it was darned good. Realistic, gracious, modest, sensible. I happen to think we should get out of Iraq yesterday, but I thought Mr Bush put forward his case well. And Congress responded graciously and generously on both sides of the aisle.

Then, whaam, as soon as the speech was over, ABC was bashing him (I was watching FOX and it wasn't much different-ed.), telling us how pathetic he was, how irrelevant he was, how weak he was, how unrealistic he was.

Right after that, Jim Webb gave a very short speech biting Bush's head off -- but not making any concrete proposals about anything. No network person mentioned how simple minded and unrealistic he was.

Yeah, Webb struck me as kind of a jerk. I figured he got to deliver the rebuttal because he had all the requisite military credentials--son in Iraq, served in Vietnam, father served in WWII. The part about keeping his father's picture under his pillow was a little much. I think rebuttals to the SOTU are a bad idea because the opposing party no matter who the President is or what the truth actually is will always say the opposite. It's like a free campaign ad for that party--Vote for us because the President sucks, rah, rah, rah. Should that be legal under McCain-Feingold?

And suddenly it hit me. The media is staging a coup against Mr. Bush. They cannot impeach him because he hasn't done anything illegal. But they can endlessly tell us what a loser he is and how out of touch he is (and I mean ENDLESSLY) and how he's just a vestigial organ on the body politic right now.

The media is doing what it can to basically oust Mr. Bush while still leaving him alive and well in the White House. It's a sort of neutron bomb of media that seeks to kill him while leaving the White House standing (for their favorite unknown, Barack Obama, to occupy).

Yes, I'm quite tired of the MSM telling me how to vote and how to feel about every issue they want to ram down my throat.

My point: let's be aware that Bush has presided over a lot of success in addition to substantial failure. My second point: no one elected the media to anything. If we let them lynch the man we elected as President we are throwing out the Constitution with the war in Iraq. In the studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work. Let's see it for what it is. We have a good man who has made mistakes in the Oval Office. He's the only President we have, and I trust him a lot more than I trust unelected princes of the newsroom.

Here, here! Who knew I'd agree so much with the teacher from Ferris Bueller's Day Off?

The State of the Union Address 2007

My reaction of the SOTU address delivered by President Bush Tuesday night was generally favorable. He was very gracious to Madame Pelosi and the Democrats, which was classy. I thought the first two thirds of the speech was pretty slow--the usual laundry list of feel-good domestic proposals that will only serve to drain our wallets. But the main difference I saw was that most of his proposals were things that were more likely to pass a Democrat-controlled congress e.g. balancing the budget, tax deductions for healthcare, and immigration reform. President Bush did throw in a few eye pokes now and then--things that made Madame Pelosi pucker up her lips--such as vouchers for education and increasing domestic oil production. The Dems had just passed a bill in Congress that would eliminate tax breaks for oil companies doing domestic drilling so naturally I bet Pelosi chewed her lip furiously at that moment.

It seems that many in the right wing blogosphere focused on what he said about immigration and ignored everything else:

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America - with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol - and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border - and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in - and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists. We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers - so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country - without animosity and without amnesty.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate - so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

Some conservative bloggers want the border locked down and all illegals tossed out the door ASAP. But this is not realistic. The northern and southern borders are both lengthy and porous. Deporting 10 million people would surely cause economic problems in areas with a lot of immigrants-like in Texas for instance. I'm all for beefing up the borders as much as is resaonably possible and deporting as many criminals as possible--no catch and release. I'm in favor of a fence in high traffic areas. But some extremists want to bring our military home and post them on the border. Come on, folks, that's not possible with the Posse Commitatus Act. Anyway, for all the conservatives freaking out every time Pres. Bush says "without amnesty," the reality is that the Dems control Congress and any immigration reform will probably have some sort of pathway to citizenship. Heres' a big thank-you to all you conservatives that stayed home or voted a third party because of this one issue. Now we'll get immigration reform that will be even worse than the Republicans dreamed up.

Anyway, on to the rest of the speech.

The most compelling part of the address came when Pres. Bush talked about the War on Terror. He listed several foiled terrorist plots which have been in the news, but I think it was good to highlight how effective anti-terrorism measures have been and to emphasize that the fight is far from over.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented - but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in Nine-Eleven is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a Nation at war.

I think he made a persuasive case for continuing the fight in Iraq and maintaining a presence in the Middle East.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq - a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province - where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them - we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The President is right. Things have changed since we first went in. In 2003, we were worried about WMDs and former Baathists. Then Zarqawi and his goons started blowing up civilians right and left. Next the Sunni and Shiite militias started going after each other. Things were looking pretty good in 2005 after several sucessful elections, and then the country exploded into chaos. The problem areas are still Al Anbar and Baghdad. Most of the rest country is still pretty well under control. We hardly even hear a peep from the Kurdish areas.

I don't think we can afford to walk out on Iraq when the going gets tough as some have suggested. We have a duty to our soldiers and to our allies in Iraq to finish the job we started. All the members of congress who voted for the war have a responsibility to finish what they started. I will be bitterly disappointed in our government if we leave our allies to twist in the wind like we did in Vietnam and after Operation Desert Storm when tens of thousands of Shiites and Kurds were slaughtered by Saddam's forces because we left him in power. We will have even fewer friends in the world than we have now if we show that we don't follow through on our commitments to our allies and adopt an isolationist policy. In this fight against terror we need as much cooperation with our allies as possible.

I'm glad the President has adapted his Iraq War strategy. I think we owe it to him to at least give him a chance to improve things with this new strategy, a new Sec. of Defense, and new military commanders on the ground. I don't know why our members of Congress think they can be more successful at fighting a war than our military men and women on the ground in Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad - and they must do so. They have pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. They need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation - to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens ... to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq ... to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life ... to hold local elections ... and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

I think this is a vital part of the plan. Prime Minister Maliki has been shielding the Shiite militias for too long and now it's time for him to get serious about restoring order in Iraq. Some have suggested that we should pull all our troops out of the cities and into bases along the borders. I think it's too early for that because the Iraqi military can't handle all the work by itself yet. We can't allow the seat of the democratically elected government, Baghdad, to fall under control of the militias or Al Qaeda. Iraq won't stand a chance then. President Bush emphasizes that well, I believe.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country - and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

I thought it was interesting to see that Pelosi and most of the Dems did not applaud or stand at that last line. I really don't think they understand the nature of the terrorist threat. Do they really think Al Qaeda and others of their ilk will leave us alone if we leave Iraq? If we force a two-state solution on the Israelis and the Palestinians? If we give in to every single one of their crazy demands? No, they will keep pushing for more and more concessions. They sense the lack of willingness to fight of the liberal part of our country and are exploiting it. Why does every single one of Zawahiri's speeches sound like the Democrats' talking points? They listen to every word our leaders and our media say, and then use it for their own propaganda. I think Goebbels would be envious.

The number one thing the speech emphasized to me is that we are at war and that sacrifices must be made. Much like during WWII where there was rationing, we need to get serious about doing our part for the war effort. We do need to cut down on our gasoline consumption--not to make Al Gore happy, but to reduce the amount of oil that we can be blackmailed with by terrorist supporting nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia. We need to stop our whining about how long the war in Iraq and Afganistan are taking and be part of the solution.

The majority of the Dems whine and moan but offer no better solutions than withdrawal and that is not an option. People who think that the war won't come home to us in the U.S. are dreaming and have forgotten the lessons of 9-11 or didn't learn them the first time. Al Qaeda will not stop until the U.S. is destroyed or we take them out first. Some of us don't have the stomach to "take the fight to the enemy" as the President said (I'm looking at you, Dick Durbin). Ok, so just shut up and stay out of the way of the people that do.

For my part, I will conserve gasoline by driving less, conserve electricity in my home (freezing at the moment), support the members of the military in my community and family, and support the President in his efforts to win in Iraq and Afganistan.