Follow Me On Twitter!

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

The O'Donnell Factor: Republicans Take Note!

Christine O'Donnell's win last night sends a huge message. Not just to Obama. Not just to Democrats. But to the Republican establishment as well.

The more I learned about Mike Castle the more upset I got. Here we have a big government (pro-cap and trade), anti-gun, pro-abortion RINO, and the GOP backed this candidate. Is the GOP really surprised that their base rejected this candidate? I don't understand the RNC and the NRSC constantly pushing these liberal Republicans for Senate.

Did they not learn from Arlen Specter? An isolated example you scoff? Okay, what about Jim Jeffords? Electing these Democrats in sheep's clothing does nothing to promote conservative ideals.

Your 1 or 2 vote majority means nothing if you have a left-leaning Republican senators that are ready to jump to the other side at the first good opportunity. Or that vote with the Democrats the majority of the time. Or that support the things that the Republican-base is against.

And this is what this is really about: the base. While the RNC and NRSC were backing Castle, the Republican-base was rallying around O'Donnell. The base is tired of business-as-usual Washington politics. Castle represented that. The base no longer wants to play the "nominate a liberal Republican because they have the best shot of election" game. We've tried that, it didn't work. Insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The Republican establishment has become insane.

The problem is that the GOP has felt it always needed to move to middle to come to power. They made that mistake again in 2006 trying to remain in power. As I said then, and will reiterate here, you do not win by moving to the left. The Democrats will not vote Republican just because there is a left-leaning Republican, and nominating RINOs alienates your conservative base. The results from 2006, and 2008 were predictable.

The energized conservative base is why the Republicans stand to make gains this November. But nominating people like Castle will cause a backlash against the GOP. That is why the attitude of people like Karl Rove, Michael Medved, and Dana Perino, all people I admire, is so frustrating. They are in "win at any cost" mode. The conservative base is not. The base wants the most conservative candidate, period.

I watched in disgust last night as Rove launched into a litany of thinly-veiled attacks on O'Donnell. Had this woman not just won the party's nomination? How about getting behind the candidate and propelling her to victory? Rove sounded like a child that hadn't got his way last night, not the strategist that drove the 2000-2004 Republican elections. Can't he see that the base is fed up with candidates like Specter, Jeffords, and Castle?

Also, let me remind these "O'Donnell can't win that seat" scoffers that the same things were said earlier this year about Scott Brown. Brown embraced the anti-establishment, anti-big government movement and swept to a win in Edward Kennedy's old senate seat. Amazing. Yet the GOP continue to think that O'Donnell is unelectable. That is hogwash.

In the meantime she beat the GOP-backed candidate. If Castle couldn't beat O'Donnell in the primary, how do they think he could get elected in November? To me the real unelectable candidate here was Mike Castle.

And the announcement by the NRSC last night that they are not going to help O'Donnell in the general election puts the Republican Party at a crossroads. The Republican Party could end up being the dead party so many proclaimed it late in 2008. Not because the country has moved to the left, but because the country has moved to the right! Obama has energized the silent majority in this country, and the Republicans can either embrace that and come back to core conservative principles, or get left behind to sit somewhere between the far-left Democratic party, and the new Tea Party movement.

Bottom line is that the Republicans can either ride the coming tidal wave, or get crushed underneath it along with the Democrats. To conservatives like this writer I really don't care either way anymore. As long as this country is taken back to where it belongs I don't care if that is with or against the Republican party.

I urge conservatives to pull your funding from the RNC and instead support individual candidates. When you come to a Mike Castle like Republican nominee, move on. It is time to let the GOP know that we are serious about returning to conservative ideals.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Michelle Obama Is An Idiot

Okay, it is probably no surprise that I think Michelle Obama is an idiot. I disagree with her on almost every single issue, and she has never apologized for calling America a "mean country". Nor for implying she had never been proud of her country until her husband stole the nomination from Hillary.

Then she was put in charge of this campaign to improve the health of the youth of our nation. A noble cause, no doubt, but one that is misguided because in the end it is parents that decide what their child gets to eat, or not eat.

For instance, my daughter gets little to no soda. Occasionally I will allow her to have some soda on special occasions, but we are talking once or twice a year. At her grandparent's house I believe she gets it a little more often but what is a father to do?

At home we eat a lot of vegetables, and she has to have a serving of vegetables at dinner. She puts up a fight now and again but she realizes she has to do it. I know I fought my parents about eating vegetables but now that I am an adult I love vegetables, and eat as many of them as I can. She also has to drink milk with every meal.

I know a lot of parents that do not make their children eat vegetables. They allow their children to drink as much soda as they'd like. Their kids are not only eating things that are not good for them, but they are missing out on the nutrition of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, etc. Sorry M.O., but you aren't going to change these parents with your little campaign.

And then there is this:

Click here for story: First lady asks restaurants to serve healthy foods

As with almost every one of the Obamas' endeavors, they go about things all wrong. Michelle asks restaurants to serve healthy food? Okay so restaurants start serving healthier food, what if no one orders it? The Obamas think you can just give people the choice and they will make the choice they want them to make.

NEWSFLASH: People order french-fries not because there are not healthier options, but because people want french-fries!!

Doesn't she get it? I mean the left always preaches: "you can't legislate morality". That may or may not be true but one adage that is as true as the day is long is: "you can't legislate healthy eating". You can't do it! People will eat what they want. You could make every restaurant in the world stop serving french-fries, people would make them at home. You could make cooking oil illegal, people will find a way to produce their own cooking oil and make french-fries.

Dear Michelle, concentrate on informing people, don't take their options away. Don't try to force people into how you want them to live. I know that is counter to how you and your husband think, but the idea of freedom is that we get to choose. The more you try to force people into a behavior the more they will resist changing to that behavior. You have two daughters, don't you understand that concept?

Saturday, September 11, 2010

9/11/2001: NEVER FORGET


On the anniversary of 9/11 remember all those Americans that lost their lives in:
  • New York
  • Washington
  • Pennsylvania
  • Afghanistan
  • Iraq
Freedom is not free. Security comes at a price. GOD BLESS AMERICA

Friday, September 10, 2010

Don' Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Activist Judge

I love our country, I really do. What I don't like is when left-wing whack-job judges in California get to make rulings about things that will affect all of us around the country. A few weeks ago a gay federal judge in California said that California's voter-approved constitutional amendment making marriage between one man and one woman (what else would marriage be?!?) was unconstitutional.

Then yesterday we have this:

Click here for story: Calif judge to stop 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

Don't ask don't tell seemed like a compromise liberals could live with. After all, what is this need to be "open" about our sexuality. I don't go around proclaiming my heterosexuality. It seems openness about being gay is something you'd only need to worry about in a gay bar.

Prior to 1993 there had been a ban on homosexuals in the military. If you were gay then don't even apply. Then the military went, in a compromise with the Clinton administration, to this "don't ask don't tell" policy. Basically, gays could join but if they were outed during service then they were discharged.

Many gays saw don't ask don't tell as a victory at the time. They celebrated. Here we are several years later and that is no longer good enough. If you can't dress in drag, and hit on your fellow soldiers, then apparently your rights are being violated. This mirrors the gay-rights fight in the civilian world as well.

First gays wanted to just be left alone. "You don't have to like my being gay but at least don't beat me up for it." That wish came to fruition in the 70s and 80s. Other than a few isolated incidents, gays have been largely left alone to be gay together.

Then suddenly forced acceptance became the goal. Suddenly Christian business owners were forced to take patronage from gays. Preaching and teaching that being gay is a sin is becoming intolerable. Lawsuits abound today over these issues as gays are no longer content with being left alone.

That I have a right to condemn a behavior I see as immoral seems to be going the way of the Dodo. I think it is immoral for a man and woman to cohabitate before marriage. Should I not be allowed to express that? I think it is wrong for men and women to have sex outside of marriage. Should I not be allowed to express that? There are lots of behaviors I find to be immoral, being a practicing gay is one of those behaviors.

And spare me the hate-filled emails and comments about folks being born gay. To me that isn't even an issue. It could be argued that pedophiles are born that way, that doesn't make the practice of pedophilia any more acceptable. It could be argued that serial murderers are born that way but that in no way excuses serial murder.

No the issue has changed from being left alone to "you better accept my lifestyle or else". I reject that. I reject it on moral grounds but I also reject it on legal grounds. I have a legal right to make judgments based on behaviors that I deem worthy or unworthy of my approval. That's just the way it is.

So this ruling is wrong. I think the military has a right to say we won't accept people based on certain criteria. If you have certain medical conditions, if you have certain crimes on in your past, if you engage in anti-American activities, and yes if you are gay. This judge got it wrong. And I think she got it wrong on purpose to support her own personal agenda.

And that is disgusting.

Thursday, September 09, 2010

This Is What I Mean: "Ground Zero Mosque Imam: If You Don’t Build It, They Will Attack "

Yesterday I commented here about the plan to burn Korans by a Florida church. While I agree it should not be done, I do not agree that the reason it should not be done is because of the likelihood of Islamic terrorism will result. We should never, I repeat NEVER, allow the threat of Islamic terrorism to make us decide on how to proceed. Otherwise the terrorists have won.

As exhibit A I present this:

Click here: Ground Zero Mosque Imam: If You Don’t Build It, They Will Attack

This is the problem. The Imam sees that the threat of terrorism is working in getting people like Sarah Palin, General Petraeus, Michael Medved, and even Sean Hannity, to try to appease the terrorists by telling this church not to burn the Quran.

As I said yesterday, that is never a good reason not to do something. The terrorists win. Next they will say "if you don't pull out of Afghanistan, we will step up attacks". Allowing their threats, their riots, their bullying to succeed even in the smallest of endeavors like this Quran burning, will embolden them to use the same tactics at every turn.

Now the Imam is using the same language. "If you burn the Qurans there will be attacks." "If you don't let us build our Ground Zero mosque there will be attacks." The problem isn't denying the mosque, or even the burning of the Quran. The problem is that Islamic terrorists hate us and want to kill us. Period. They will use any excuse to do so.

On the verge of another 9/11 anniversary we should be reminded of this fact by the attacks on 9/11/2001. America had done nothing to provoke the terrorists, yet they killed 3,000 innocent people anyway. They are plotting to kill us again as we speak. Not burning Qurans and allowing a mosque to go up in what would be the shadow of the World Trade Center towers will not stop that planning.

Patraeus, Palin, Medved, and Hannity are all fooling themselves. I respect all four of those people immensely. But they are wrong to bow to terrorism in asking this church to reconsider. The church shouldn't burn the Quran because it isn't Christlike to do so. Not because it might cause terrorists that are already plotting to attack us, to attack us.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Burning Qurans Is Good For Warmth

There has been a lot of chatter recently about a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans in effigy on the anniversary of September 11th. Apparently, you can burn Bibles, and deface Christian religious symbols, but suggest burning a Quran and suddenly you are "putting our troops and Americans overseas at risk!". Please.

I have been vocal in my admiration for Michael Medved, the Jewish, conservative, political radio talk-show host. But I don't always agree with Medved. For instance, a while back he voiced opposition to the Arizona immigration law because it would cause "a Latino voter backlash" against Republicans. Disappointing because Medved rarely argues for doing things out of political expediency, and because he is a big fan of polls. And all of the polls suggest overwhelming support for the Arizona immigration law.

Well on the issue of this proposed Quran burning I also take umbrage with Medved. He agreed with General Patraeus, that if this church carried through with the burning of Qurans on Sept. 11, 2010, that it would put our troops in harms way. I agree with that assessment. Where I part with Medved and the good General is that it is therefore a bad idea to go through with the Quran burnings.

Am I advocating for putting our troops at further peril? Of course not. But what a cowardly outlook to have. I am sorry but it occurs to me that when we start making decisions about what we do or support based on whether or not it will incite Islamic terrorists to blow things, and people, up, then they the terrorists have won. I refuse to let them win. For years U.S. policy has been to not negotiate with terrorists. Suggesting we lay down rights and tread lightly around certain issues or it will incite Islamic terrorists is akin to negotiating with those terrorists.

Just like getting on an airplane in the weeks following 9/11 was a statement that we were not going to bow to Islamic terrorism, so too should our outlook be at the issue of burning Qurans. Burning Qurans, making political cartoons with Muhammad in them, and other anti-Islamic gestures incite Muslims to riot. It incites Islamic terrorists to plan attacks. It causes Islamic backlash against the U.S. and our allies. But you know what? If we allow that to keep us from making those gestures then the terrorists have won.

Islam is not a religion of peace. I've blogged on that topic now for a while. Any of the former Islamic fundamentalists that have reformed and left that erroneous faith will tell you that mainstream Islam is the same Islam that advocates for the killing of innocents, and practicing terroristic acts as a way to secure a life of paradise with dozens of virgins.

So I reject the notion that this church should cancel their Quran burning to avoid inciting the terrorists. After all, the terrorists hate us and want to blow us up anyway! Cowtowing to them has never worked, will never work, and shouldn't even be done if it did work because of what I already stated above.

However, I do urge this church in Florida to reconsider. Not because we are afraid of Islamic retaliation. Not because terrorism will ensue. Not because the Quran is a holy book, because it is not! But because Jesus wouldn't advocate this. He would not want us to burn Qurans as a way to offend people, even anti-Christians like Muslims.

No, Christ would want us to practice Christianity. He would want us to fight their terrorism with kindness. He would want us to live in such a way that the Muslims would say "Hmmmm, there is something about those Christians that makes sense. Maybe they do have the truth."

So let's cancel the Quran burning, not because we are afraid, but because the love of the Savior is in us.

Oh, and I urge everyone reading this to throw a Quran into your own fireplace. Burn it in private to remove a book of false doctrine from the world, not in public just for show. Plus, it will heat your home!

Friday, September 03, 2010

New Name, Same Content

After several months of debating, I have decided to drop the Steven's World title from the blog. I had noticed that other blogs that had linked to me, many of them, had used my moniker LoneWolfArcher, instead of Steven's World. I never really liked the Steven's World title anyway.

If you are linking to this blog, please update your link by changing Steven's World to LoneWolfArcher or, Lone Wolf Archer.


P.S. I can see November from my house! VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Thursday, September 02, 2010

The Discovery Gunman: Why?

Now that James Lee is dead, of course the next thing to do is figure out why he took the actions that he did. The mainstream media, on top of denying that he was motivated by a left-wing ideology, will misdiagnose the skewed-thinking that caused Lee to take such extreme actions.

From a more lucid point-of-view it is easy to see why Lee took the actions he did. After all his world view allowed for taking this action, and even justified it. Here are the main points from that view:
  • Since the earth is the top priority, any action leading to its betterment is appropriate
  • Since the earth is a physical world, and there is no spiritual world, there are no eternal consequences for taking extreme action
  • Since humans were the results of the earth, then humans have a bigger responsibility to the earth than to anything else
  • Earth is more important than human-life
  • Human-life is not only not important, but is the problem
  • Ending of human-life is a net gain for the earth
Based on this world view, Lee's actions are not all that extreme. After all, in his estimation he was taking steps to improve the health of the earth. Since the earth is all there is, there is no afterlife to worry about. Since human-life is so expendable, using human-life as a means to an end is not only acceptable, but desirable.

Lee saw no downside to his actions. In fact, he would have been upset, prior to entering the afterlife and discovering that he was dead wrong, that his life would was ended before taking others' lives with him. If Lee could have died and taken as many "evil" humans as possible with him, that is what he would have wanted to do.

That he will now face judgment for his actions, before the Creator of the earth he loved so much, is a huge surprise for Lee. While it isn't a happy thought for anyone to go into eternity lost, it was probably the only way Lee would ever have seen that he is wrong.

The most dangerous people are those that do not believe in an afterlife in general, and a hell in particular. Not having a fear of facing punishment for their actions at the end of their life allows them to be capable of nearly anything. That is a scary thing for the rest of us that are right-thinking.

James J Lee is now having to answer to a Creator he didn't believe existed!

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Now We Know Why Liberals Love Islam: They Live By The Same Philosophy

Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forced conversion. "Convert them or kill them" is the Islamic evangelism strategy.

You'd think this kind of draconian religion would set liberals off. Consider that they hate Christianity for merely preaching that unborn fetuses are human lives. Or that practicing homosexuals, while free to choose whatever lifestyle they want, are doomed to eternal punishment in hell. With comparatively innocuous preaching you'd think liberals would applaud Christians.

But no, liberals hate Christianity and go to great lengths to defend a religion that condones flying planes full of people into buildings full of people. Or to strap a bomb on yourself and go into a crowded place, blowing yourself into oblivion and taking as many "infidels" as possible with you.

This has baffled me. One religion (Christianity) preaches: "do whatever you want, we will leave you alone, your punishment will come in the afterlife". The other (Islam) preaches: "do what we want or we will kill you!" Yet liberals defend the latter, and bemoan the former.

Then John Cusack melted down over the weekend on Twitter, and everything came into focus:

Click here: John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders

Now I understand why liberals defend Islam: they agree with their tactics. Liberals, like Islamics, have a belief that if you can't get someone to agree with you then you should kill them. Or least hope they are killed.

While rational people think that killing someone just for disagreeing with you is insane, liberals like Cusack can hardly be considered rational. They are so bent on their world view becoming the norm that they will take any steps necessary to insure that it does. Not that we can accuse this guy of being sane:

Granted, Cusack has been a braindead liberal for years now, but his new level of insanity makes sticking Q-Tips into every bodily orifice you have seem sane. Note his tweet:
Someone pass the Thorazine to Johnny-boy.

"Satanic death?" Wow. That is some strong language there. Imagine if a conservative said "I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER OUTSIDE THE WHITEHOUSE AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES OF NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID". The liberal media machine would be running the quote, ad nausem. But a liberal turd like Cusack says what he said, and the liberal media circle the wagons to sweep it under the rug. They protect their own, that's for sure.

Of course, Drudge at just released the Cable TV News ratings. This might be what has Johnny's panties in a wad:
MON. AUG 30, 2010

FOXNEWS BECK 2,600,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,858,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,027,000
CNN KING 620,000
CNN COOPER 581,000
So the left can keep making death threats. We on the right will continue to be informed and ready to vote come November.