"What's a conservative to do?"

A sentiment voiced by many conservatives this election cycle, I'm certain. And one voiced by Playwriter Girl in a comment to my Huckabee post below. For, despite what the drive-bys would have us believe, there is no real conservative in this year's presidential race. Here are the Republican candidates as I see them.

Huckabee	A Liberal's Republican. Vote for Mike if you want your taxes raised.
Hunter	Solid conservative, but where is he? Where's his passion?
McCain	Nope. Already rejected by Republicans. Besides, Star Wars is passe—we don't need another Luke Skywalker.
Paul	Kook, kook, kook.
Romney	Accomplished businessman and Governor. But waffles too much for my taste.
Thompson	Possibly the most conservative of the bunch. Seems to have little energy. Great statesman, unproven leader.

And that leaves my choice, Rudy Giuliani.

Here is my criteria for selecting Rudy. Line up all the candidates side by side and ask yourself this question: which one of these candidates will the terrorists be most afraid of? For me, it's Rudy. Yes, he's not the most conservative of the bunch, there's no question about that. However, he has stated that he will appoint constructionists to the Supreme Court. While he is personally pro-abortion, he recognizes that it is the people's decision through the governments of their respective states. He is an accomplished administrator, having cleaned up New York City of crime before September 11 and of tragedy afterward. He is an accomplish prosecutor. He led the charge to rid New York of organized crime with tremendous success.

For what it's worth, Mr. Light Bulb recommends voting for Rudy Giuliani as the Republican candidate for President of the United States.

Operation Streamline is working!

30% reduction in crime. What's not to like about this?

The first 45 days of Operation Streamline — a collaborative effort of local, state and federal agencies in Texas — has resulted in decreased illegal border crossings and crime since its implementation Oct. 31 compared with last year's numbers, said Laredo Border Patrol Sector chief patrol agent Carlos X. Carrillo.

"As more and more illegal aliens are prosecuted and incarcerated under Streamline-Laredo, the word is spreading quickly that illegal entry has its consequences," Mr. Carrillo said. "Those found guilty of violating this statute face penalties that can include fines and up to six months in prison."

During the first 45-day period of Operation Streamline in the Laredo sector only 2,833 illegal entries were reported, compared with last fiscal year, when 4,424 illegal entries were reported during a similar period.

And one of the leaders responsible for Operation Streamline is my Congressman, John Culberson. From his web site:

My proudest accomplishment this week was obtaining $80 million in additional funds to significantly strengthen America’s borders. Of this amount, $15 million will be used to expand and support the zero tolerance program I helped implement on October 30 in the Laredo Sector. Under "Operation Streamline," anyone who crosses our border illegally is arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. In the Del Rio sector, Operation Streamline reduced the crime rate by 76 percent, and this year will see the lowest number of illegal border crossings in Del Rio since the Border Patrol started keeping records in 1972! I expect to see zero tolerance implemented in the Tuscon Sector in January and my next target is the Brownsville Sector.

But why is John having to worry about law enforcement?

Since the bureaucrats in the Washington headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security have failed to secure our borders, I have learned to bypass headquarters in order to get results along the border. The Texas border county sheriffs will receive $5 million to work alongside Border Patrol agents. Last year, I was also able to provide $5 million to Texas border sheriffs, and they are using the money to put more deputies on the streets, buy equipment, and reduce illegal crossings. In addition to the funds they are receiving from the State of Texas, this is money well spent in the battle to defend our borders.

Keep bypassing headquarters, John! It seems to be the only way to get things done.

Wait a minute, I thought we were having a conversation...

If I remember her candidacy announcement correctly, and I think I do, Mrs. Clinton's final thought went something like this:

"I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she said. "Let's talk. Let's chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"

How interesting (not really) and typical (definitely) to read this:

Before the brief Christmas break, the New York senator had been setting aside time after campaign speeches to hear from the audience. Now when she’s done speaking, her theme songs blare from loudspeakers, preventing any kind of public Q&A.

She was no more inviting when a television reporter approached her after a rally on Thursday and asked if she was "moved" by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Clinton turned away without answering.

Her daughter, Chelsea, had the same reaction when a reporter approached her with a question.

Hillary Clinton’s no-question policy didn’t sit well with some of the Iowans who came to see her speak.

"I was a little bit underwhelmed," said Doug Rohde, 46, as he left her a rally in a fire station in Denison. "The message was very generic — and no questions."

Yep, it's a one-sided conversation alright.

Liberal compassion and tolerance on display...through "Global Warming"

You can write books on liberal hypocrisy, and some already have. Here's an example for the next volume. Scanning through the Drudge Report this morning, I saw this link: "PAPER: Global Warming Will Save America from the Right Wing". And I couldn't resist.

It's a commentary written by Dave Lindorff for the Baltimore Chronicle. First of all, he's a believer in the Religion of Global Warming. Therefore, we know he's incredibly gullible and will believe the wildest of ideas based on little or no evidence. Anyway, the premise of Dave's commentary is that as the sea level rises, as the Religion prescribes, the most affected areas will be:

the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.

Hmmm. Notice anything about the future below sea level areas? There's more.

Then there’s the matter of the Midwest, which climate experts say is likely to face a permanent condition of unprecedented drought, making the place largely unlivable, and certainly unfarmable. The agribusinesses and conservative farmers that have been growing corn and wheat may be able to stretch out this doomsday scenario by deep well drilling, but west of the Mississippi, the vast Ogallala Aquifer that has allowed for such irrigation is already being tapped out. It will not be replaced.

Wow. Feel the love.

Finally, in the Southwest, already parched and stiflingly hot, the rise in energy costs and the soaring temperatures will put an end to right-wing retirement communities like Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Springs. Already the Salton Sea is fading away and putting Palm Springs on notice that the good times are coming to an end. Another right-wing haven soon to be gone.

Gee, how did he eve manage to write something while being so overwhelmed with sympathy...never mind.

Here's some advice to you believers in the Religion of Global Warming. Just let us Conservatives (that is, users of brains) do what we want and warm the globe. You continue to drive your hybrids, bring your own bags to the grocery store, and not use toilet paper (please stay out of my nasal sensorium). And in a few years the sea level will rise enough to wipe us Conservatives away. Because, of course, we won't move or anything like that. We'll just stay put here in Houston and allow the water to rise over our heads. We simply wouldn't contemplate moving to higher ground.

Note: I recently read State of Fear. Fantastic blog material on this topic. Stay tuned.

He is born

But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

— Luke 2:10-12

Merry Christmas!

What has Ron Paul accomplished? redux

I knew it. It was so incredibly predictable.

But before I continue, I do need to congratulate the Paulaholics. They are very well organized, and they are phenomenally passionate. Those are two outstanding qualities in politics. (Too bad their guy is a kook.) O.K., back to the post.

After posting my "what has Ron Paul accomplished" question two days ago, I received an anonymous comment a little over six hours later from a Paulaholic. And it followed the typical Paulaholic response. Let's break it down, shall we?

You are asking the wrong question of Paul supporters. If we wanted an activist government to go out and achieve things, we'd support Socialists like Hilary and Rudy.

Oh so clever. Anonymous equates government achievement with Socialism. And then (correctly) lists Mrs. Clinton and (incorrectly) Rudy as examples of Socialism.

Yes, we do want government and our government's employees and representatives to actually achieve things, like . . . oh, I don't know . . . ending the Cold War or keeping our taxes low in order to fuel economic growth. To a certain degree, I agree with the Paulaholics that government is too big and that it does to much and way more than is constitutionally mandated. But it has to DO something. It has to get something done. There is a minimum threshold of achievement that must be met. Remember this phrase?

...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

Those are some basics that our government needs to achieve. If it doesn't get some of those correct, we have no nation, and all of our discourse will be for naught.

Continuing with the Paulaholic comment.

I'd say in general, Ron Paul supporters hope that he will bring the size of government down in line with its present level of effectiveness, and the cost of that government down in line with that size.

O.K. That's nice. I'd like for every elected representative to pursue that goal. But what has he done that shows us he's capable of (here's that nasty word again) accomplishing that goal? Let's read on.

What Ron Paul did in his career was to stand firm for the philosophy of limited government as his own party stampeded away from it the moment they took power. By definition, the voice in the wilderness is not the leader of the pack. But if we ever find ourselves in a country where a politician can say, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government *is* the problem," without being derided as a racist kook, Ron Paul will be remembered as a great keeper of that flame.

"STAND FIRM." That's all they can come up with! No accomplishment. No record of getting something done. Nothing in history that will give us a clue as to what might actually occur, besides a whole bunch of speaking and standing firm.

And then...

And then...my dear anonymous commenter displays his/her ignorance of true accomplishment. For Anonymous misquotes the Great Accomplisher himself. Here's the correct quote:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, spoke of true conservatism when he said this. And, dear Anonymous, Ron Paul is most certainly not a keeper of the Reagan flame.

Predictably, the question remains unanswered; what has Ron Paul accomplished?

Mike Huckabee, a Liberal's Republican

Yes indeed, a liberal's Republican. In fact, we could call him another Tax Hike Mike, Jr. (Sr. being the former governor of Massachusets). Here's an excerpt from a National Review interview with congressman Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth:

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Is Mike Huckabee really as bad as you say he is?

Pat Toomey: He’s every bit as bad, and you don’t have to just take our word for it. Jonah Goldberg, you and your fellow editors at National Review, Bob Novak, and John Fund — to name just a few conservative writers — agree that Mike Huckabee is no conservative. You can read the Club’s white paper on our website, but here is a quick summary of Huckabee’s worst hits. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. Huckabee calls himself an economic conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but the above list doesn’t sound like either.

Run away. Run away.

What has Ron Paul accomplished?

Well, I've been away for quite a while, busy with house stuff and work stuff. But now the holidays are here, and it is my goal to blog each and every day until I return to work, sometime the first week of January.

For my first Holiday 2007 post, I altruistically seek information from the Paulaholics. So, for you Paulaholics out there, please answer this question: what has Ron Paul accomplished?

Some disclosure is appropriate: I cannot lay claim to the originality of this line of questioning. I hear the unbeatable Edd Hendee and Pat Gray on AM 700 KSEV and AM 1160 KVCE ask this question every time a Paulaholic calls in. But they never answer the question. They'll start out with "Ron Paul has defended the Constitution..." or "Ron Paul has stood for American principles..." or some other platitudinous drivel. Never do they list an accomplishment.

Therefore, I ask of you, dear Paulaholics on the internet, with sincerity, what has Ron Paul accomplished?


By the way . . . by "accomplished" I mean something in government, not fund raising. He's an incredible fundraiser, no one can deny that.