Saturday, March 31, 2007

The Best Time Of The Year

Ah, spring. The flowers are blooming, the weather is getting warmer, unless you are in Southern California as I am and it is already fire season, and it is time for...BASEBALL!
Yes, baseball, the American sport. Some call it a pastime, others, as myself, call it a passion.
I must confess. Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast does not get it. We will go to a couple a games during the long, glorious season, but I think she really goes for the food. But, no hot dogs, or Dodger Dogs for her. So un-American!
But, anyway, how can one not get excited about this time of year. I mean, the hockey playoffs begin soon, and every one of the 30 major league baseball teams think that they have a real shot at making and winning the World Series. In a month though, reality will set in and some teams will realize that it is but a dream. Some, like last years Detroit Tigers can ride it all the way to the big dance. But, then a team like the St. Louis Cardinals will peak at the right time and end the dream of a team like the Detroit Tigers. But, at this point, hope springs eternal for all.
If you do not know, I am a die-hard Los Angeles Dodger fan. Got that from my old man, who grew up in Brooklyn. When he passed on in 1986,we found out that he was born in...THE BRONX! Enemy country! Home of the hated this day and all days, the New York Yankees! EECCKK! Unfortunately, I can not pass that love and passion on to my stepson as he is not even a sports fan.
But, as I do every year, I really believe that this is the year that the Dodgers will get back to where they belong, in the World Series. I don't care who they play, but it would be nice to vanquish the hated Yankees. It would also be nice to have a Freeway Series with the Anaheim Angels that counts and is not played in the exhibition and regular season.
Oh, I know, everyone else says that the Angels are the, so hard to even type this, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. But, I will NEVER refer to them as such. They left Los Angeles in 1966 and became the California Angels and later the Anaheim Angels. As such, they are always refered on this blog as the ANAHEIM Angels!
I also like the Angels as well, but there is just something about being a Dodger fan that is so different. Maybe it is because they are in the National League. After all, the National league is the original major league. Maybe it is because when they were in Brooklyn, they were always playing the Yankees in the World Series and until 1955, always losing. Maybe it is a lot of reasons, but the Dodgers are my number one team and the Angels second.
But you see, that is why it is the best time of the year. Now everyone starts off even and it is the beginning of six months of living and dying by what your favorite team or teams do.
This is the best time of the year!

Amatuer Theology

I want to start off by writing that I am NOT a theologian. I am just a Christian believer like so many of you. So, if you have any criticism of what you about to read, just remember to come back to this disclaimer.
I have wondered a lot lately about the way that many Christians and non-Christians get worked up over the story of our beginning in Genesis.
Some believe that all the miracles of our beginning God did in six, 24-hour days and rested on the seventh day. Some say that it could not have happened in any of the way that the Genesis story happened because of science disproving that and finding out about such things as dinosaurs and the like. Some use the story to say we are only 6,000 years old at most. Some go back to science to say that we are billions and billions of years old.
My question is simple. Is the time frame that important? I do not think so.
Here is my unqualified take on it.
It is not how long it took God to create the world but what is important is the way that he did it. That is what I believe is important about the first 31 verses of the first story of the Holy Bible. It is the story about how God took the emptiness that was the world and had a plan to make something beautiful. It is about the light and the dark. Water and land. Food and plants. Animals and those in his image, human beings.
So, why is it so important to worry about the time frame?
To some, particularly fundamentalist and some evangelical Christians, because the word day is used and every word is literal, then it must have been six, 24-hour days and the seventh day is for rest. To the very liberal, it is just a fable, not to even be taken but with even a grain of salt. So, that leaves where I am, right in the middle of this.
I do not feel it is important to worry about the exact time details. It is the how the world began by God. And that I can believe.
Some would ask what about the cavemen and dinosaurs and all of that. It is not important. It is important to understand this about God. He had a plan and always has a plan. The story of our creation is the explanation that God thinks we should know for now. When he wants to reveal more, he will.
So, all of this is meant to have another position between two very extreme points of view on the creation story. It is not meant to be a final word, just something to think about.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Iraq Is One Theatre In The War Against Terror

I rarely read anywhere that Iraq is not a singular war that the United States is fighting. But, Victor Davis Hanson hits it right on the head in his latest column
The DDBMSM for some reason does not get that, like World War II, there are many places where the enemy is. Iraq is but one nation. We know that al-Queda is operating out of Pakistan, but we need a stable government there, even if it is not doing all it can to root out the foreign fighters in its territory. The alternative is worse. Saudi Arabia is in the same situation. We can let the government go to hell, but what is the alternative?
Read this to get a better idea of what the overall War Against Terror is about. Nobody can get to the nub of it better than Mr. Hanson.

Democrat Congress Not Doing Much Better In Public's Eyes

We were promised by the Democrats that when they took back congress, things would be different.
According to Real Clear Politics cumulative polling data on congress the public's positive/negative is 30.5% positive, 58.5% negative. The best rating that the Democrat congress got was a 43% in the ABC/Washington Post poll taken from January 16-19, 2007. In the latest poll from Fox News taken March 27-28, 2007, the best congress can do is a 30% positive, 58% negative. That is about the Real Clear Politics poll average.
So, what happened? How come congress' ratings are not through the roof now that they are taking on President Bush and the administration? I mean there is not a subpoena that congress will not throw out willy nilly! And the tone, well it is wonderful. I mean, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal) could only advise the president to "calm down" as he has threatened to veto the military appropriation bill that sets a time line for combat troops to leave the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror.
I think the reason is clear why congress has such low ratings.
The public wanted congress to really do some work-not bash Mr Bush-and to work in a cooperative manner. I mean, President Bush has constantly put forth an olive branch only to have it snatched away by Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).
This is what was warned during the mid-term election campaign season. Not that Republicans did such a wonderful job during the last congressional term. Because of that, they got their hats handed to them.
So, will all of this eventually lead to congress impeaching President Bush? I mean, isn't that something that the public wants? Everything we hear from the Democrats is that they are only trying to bring the troops home because that is what the American people voted for when they voted them to take control of congress? Are the Dems not looking for something they can get President Bush on?
I think if they want to go for negative positive/negative ratings, they should keep going. People may wish for the good old days when things got done when the Republicans ran congress!

Tony Dungy, Bigot

Tony Dungy, the coach of the Super Bowl winning Indianapolis Colts is a practicing and devout Christian. A wonderful thing, right? According to a Washington Post blogger, not when you support a Christian organization that opposes same-sex marriage.
Today on the Rush Limbaugh website he has the link to the Post blogger that says, point blank, that Mr. Dungy is a bigot for supporting an organization that opposes same-sex marriage. I do not believe that to be true. I think, like so many Christians, Mr. Dungy believes that the sexual actions of homosexuality is what is wrong, not the person.
For the blogger's information, this is an issue that has not only divided much of Christendom but whole denominations. The Post's blogger, Emil Steinner, may not realize that. Mr. Dungy represents what can be said to be the traditional view of sexual relations. That it should only be between and man and woman, married at that. To people like Mr. Steinner, that may be quaint and old-fashioned, but it is something that many Americans believe in, Christian or not.
It is an issue that threatens to tear apart my Christian denomination, the Episcopal Church.
So, maybe Mr Steinner should not shoot from the typewriter key and ask if what Mr. Dungy believes is not what the majority of Americans believe. If it is, it is up to people like Mr. Steinner to educate Americans as to why that is wrong, not character assassinate good, decent men like Tony Dungy.
I think it took a while for the DDBMSM to go after Mr. Dungy for being a Christian.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Rising GOP Star

Yesterday in the senate, South Dakota Sen. John Thune showed why he is a rising star in the Republican party in support to strike the defeatist language the senate passed.
Sen. Thune said one cogent thing. That if we follow the Democrat logic, when they say that we should really be fighting more in Afghanistan, because there is where Osama bin Laden is, in reality if we really want to take the fight to those who attacked us on 9/11, we should go to war with Saudi Arabia for the majority of the hijackers where from there, not Afghanistan or Iraq. Oh, and bin Laden is from, you guessed it, Saudi Arabia.
There was more, but the thrust is that what the Democrats want is this to be in all ways to their advantage. But, while Americans may be rightfully frustrated with the lack of success in quelling the violence in Iraq, we do not want to leave in sure defeat.
If we follow the Democrat line to its final analysis, there is no real War Against Terror and we should come home and solve the "problems" we have here in the United States.
That is not a real solution. But it appears that the Democrats do not have a real solution except to oppose President Bush at every turn and especially in the War Against Terror.
But, as long as there are strong senators like John Thune, they will not be able to get away with it.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Moral Clarity On Iraq

There is not many issues that I would agree with Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn), but his strong support for the Iraq surge can not be more clear than what he said today on the senate floor. has the synopses.
Sen. Lieberman is a man of conscience. He has been that way since the United States entered into the Iraq theatre on the War Against Terror. He has not changed his basic position. Unlike Sen. Hilary Clinton, who I believe is on the 12th position on the troop surge, what to do with the troops and when they will "come home." For whatever reason other than his belief that the United States would be committing an immoral act leaving before the job is done, Sen. Lieberman nearly lost his seat in last year's mid term election.
The tragedy is that there are not more senators like Mr. Lieberman who can stand on principle. We need more Sen. Liebermans and less Sen. Clintons.

For All Those Who Believe In Euthanasia

This piece in the Los Angeles Daily News is required reading for those who favor euthanasia as is practiced in The Netherlands and here in Oregon.
The radicals in the California legislature would like to extend this "right" here in California.
Obviously, I do not favor so-called "right to die" type legislation.
The problem is not the dignity that one would want in a terminal illness but how one may not want to take that way out. In The Netherlands, you need little if any reason to off oneself. And worse, you can be 13 years old to say you can end it all.
Dying with dignity, in my estimation, is not wanting to be given extraordinary measures to save one's life. In other words, one has six months to live. They have been following the doctor's orders and what to do, it is the six month and the condition is worsening. One falls into a coma, the person says do nothing to bring me out of it. The person dies peacefully and with dignity.
I don't think using extraordinary means to end one's life counts as dignity. It lowers us to an animal being taken to the vet and given the shot of death. We are not animals. We know the difference between making one's wishes known and one taking a shot of death.
I hope that Gov. Arnold does not sign this legislation if it ever reaches his desk.

Democrats+Senate Vote On Iraq=Defeat

Today, the senate by a vote of 50-48 passed a date certain pull out of all United States troops from Iraq. Of course, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) voted with the Republicans as did Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). The GOP lost Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). In a sense no surprises. But, the GOP also lost Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and that is the difference.
It is a disgrace. We are showing that the surge is working in Iraq as overall violence is decreasing. Also, there appear to be serious rifts withing the Sunni forces and they are turning against the Al-Queda in Iraq. That is good for the United States and its allies and the Iraqi government.
But, no matter to the Dems, who want to get out so they will not have to deal with this next year during an election year. Why, none other than Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York) said that she resents President Bush for the possibility of this being on her if she should become the next president. Hmm, as noted in an earlier posting, maybe President Bush should resent former President Clinton's inaction that precipitated 9/11 in the first place.
War is a tough business, especially when it is both a hot and cold war. The bad thing about this is that one party, the Democrats, want it all to go away, no matter what. The other party, the Republicans, realize that there is a war and the need to fight it.
Votes like we had today show that to be true, and if the Dems should win the White House next year and there is another 9/11 scale attack, they will have no one to blame but themselves for the lack of will to fight and win.

Pray For Tony Snow

White House press spokesman Tony Snow found out today that his colon cancer has reoccurred and spread to his liver. Mr. Snow is looking into all the options and that will include chemotherapy. We all wish him Godspeed and that he will recover. He, as does Elizabeth Edwards, the right and positive attitude. This is where our partisan politics ends and where we hope all will be well for both.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

More On The "Death Of Conservatism"

There is an excellent article in the Weekly Standard by Noemie Emery on the latest Time magazine folly into describing the so-called death of conservatism.
Remember that cover with former President Reagan on the cover, tear streaming down his right cheek? The caption reads, "How The Right Went Wrong."
Many of those who may read this may be too young to remember, but Mr. Reagan was pilloried day after day, night after night on the big three network news programs. Oh, that is when people watched them. It was no better on CNN, then the only cable news network. Trashing went on in the pages of Time, Newsweek and to a lesser extent, US News and World Report. There was no big talk radio to speak of. No alternative media like there is today.
The reality is that the DBDMSM is trying to kill conservatism every chance they get. And more people are tuning out. So, what you may get in polling data is answers from people who may still depend on one of the old media sources for their information. Hence, that maybe why Rudy Giuliani is leading in many polls. But, back to the DBDMSM attack.
Emery points out article upon article describing all that is wrong with Mr. Reagan and the administration. Note, not one will be a conservative or even close.
Read Miss Emery's piece and I believe that it is something that should buck every conservative up and get us going to find the best candidate in '08

Friday, March 23, 2007

The Death Of Conservatism-Again!

According to a recent Pew Research poll, more Americans identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans and that some of the issues that Republicans have ran on are now favoring the Democrats and the left. I am not overly surprised that, at this point more Americans lean towards the Democrats. Since there is no strong, take no prisoner offensive touting conservatism, the socialists see an opening. But, we have been led down this road before only to have conservatism and the Republicans ride into some power.
In the late 1970's, we were told that George H. W. Bush, a center right Republican would be the savior of the GOP. Ronald Reagan was not even on the radar of many of the pundit class. They figured he got beat in 1976 and would just continue doing radio commentaries. Hmm, some one very Republican and conservative is also doing radio commentaries... I believe that would be former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn). Then, Mr. Reagan announced he would run and he not only won the Republican nomination but trounced one President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter has just gotten more bitter since then.
When Gov. Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992. we were told by the pundit class that it surely was the end of conservatism. But, two years later under the discipline of a message and a messenger in Newt Gingrich, conservatives and the GOP did something not seen in many of our lifetimes. They took control of both houses of Congress. Of course we were told that it was only temporary. It took 12 years and a growingly unpopular war in Iraq to bring to Dems back by the slimmest of majorities.
So, what does all this have to do with the Pew poll?
It means that Pew is definitely skewing the questions to produce the results that it wants. We have to look at the fact the Democrats have only controlled congress since January and, with today's slim vote to defeat in the House, there has been no real time to gauge how the Dems are really doing. One fact also remains. In poll after poll, when GOPer's Rudy Guiliani and John McCain are matched against Hilary Clinton and or Barack Obama, Messers Guiliani & McCain are ahead consistently. If the United States is taking a decided left turn, then Clinton and Obama and any other Democrat should be far ahead at this point.
I think that what we are seeing is Bush fatigue. A lot of independent voters are tired of the war in the Iraq theatre, maybe even the War Against Terror itself. These voters see anything Bush and just don't feel all that wonderful.
But, that does not mean that there is this rush to the left.
Can one person, the GOP presidential standard bearer change that? Yes.
That is why this poll is pointless. We should be taking these polls six months from now and see if we get the same results. I have a feeling we won't.
What we need is someone not afraid to talk straight to the American people about a conservative vision for America.
There is a certain radio commentator who seems to be leading that way. We shall see.

Two Republicans That Need To Be Defeated In 2008

Walter Jones and Wayne Gilcrest. Remember those two names.
They are the two Republican congressman who joined the 218 majority of otherwise Democrats to vote for defeat in Iraq by setting a date certain withdrawal and setting knowingly ridiculous benchmarks.
No matter as President Bush vowed to veto the bill and judging by the bare majority, there will be no override.
At least 14 Democrats voted against the bill and they are brave in comparison the two above mentioned weasels.
Walter Jones is in North Carolina and Wayne Gilcrest is in Maryland. They need strong primary challengers to defeat them and win for victory in Iraq. See if there is any action in that regard at Victory Caucus Give some ideas of strong, Iraq veteran potential candidates.
It is one thing to have been against the war from the beginning, but going against it when our troops need it the most, that is reprehensible.
Two weasels who need to lose next year-Walter Jones and Wayne Gilcrest-remember those names!


Oops! I got the first name of the Texas United States attorney wrong. It is JOHNNY, not EDDIE Sutton. Sometimes in my zeal to get the information out, I get a little ahead of myself. Thanks to the person who left a comment on "They Forgot to Fire An Attorney" However, when you do leave a comment, please keep it clean. I am as frustrated as that person, but we should not lower ourselves to the level of those on the left. But, thank you for reading and leaving a comment!

Thursday, March 22, 2007

They Forgot To Fire One U.S. Attorney

In the hubbub over the Bush administration firing of the eight United States attorneys, one name was missing. The over zealous Eddie Sutton from Texas.
While he is apparently following the policy of waiting for an illegal alien to have a sixth strike before prosecuting, he has no problem going after United States Border Control agents doing their job.
You don't know who Mr. Sutton is? He is the United States attorney who prosecuted to the absolute fullest extent of the law border agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. They were trying to capture an fleeing illegal alien drug smuggler when they shot him in the buttocks. Some say that the suspect was already in Mexico when when the shots hit him.
Well, Mr Sutton, while really busy looking to prosecute those six-strikers, found that these agents did not follow procedures fully to the letter of the law. What they did was so heinous that he gave the suspect FULL immunity and used him to testify against the two agents, who are Hispanic Americans. The suspect gets off to smuggle drugs over the border while the two agents are found guilty and sent to prison almost as fast as in an episode of Law and Order. While in prison, appealing his case, Mr. Ramos was put in the general population and beaten severely by, no doubt, illegal alien prisoners that you and I, the American taxpayer, are paying to house rather than ship back to Mexico or where ever they are from.
Mr. Sutton also used this prosucatiorial tactic on a Texas border sheriff deputy.
There are a lot of unanswered questions on the case of agents Compean and Ramos that the trial transcript could answer, but there is no question that something is wrong with the United States attorney's office here and I call for Attorney General Gonzales to fire Eddie Sutton.
Oh, but that might get Mr. Gonzales in trouble with congress, the media, et al.

One Smart European

Looking at the Drudge Report, I stumbled on this story from the London Daily Telegraph that is stunning in its honesty about the political correctness that threatens Europe as here in the United States.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president from Portugal said the following:
"We should be aware of people who, sometimes for good reasons, try to establish what I call private moral codes, for this or that, be it climate change, religious behavior or any kind of social behavior."
While I could take issue with the example of religious behavior, the point is this man is not some right winger from under a rock. Mr. Barroso was a Maoist student leader leading the overthrow of the Portuguese dictatorship. Only when he grew up and Portugal became a democracy did he realize the folly of left wing political correctness.
Too bad that the organization he is president of is leading Europe down the path of destruction from within.

Can The Dems Govern?

I am perplexed. I thought that when the Democrats took control of congress, they were going to do things differently. I guess I missed the memo on that by different, they meant weaselly ways to end the war in the Iraq theatre of the War Against Terror, passing legislation that they know President Bush will finally veto, and throwing out subpoenas faster than I take out the trash at home.
Lets take the latter first.
This non-issue about the firing of the eight United States attorneys by the justice department is trying as hard as they can to make a mountain out of a molehill. Here it is in a nutshell. The president has the right to hire and fire the 93 attorneys. They serve at the pleasure of the president. Period. They can be doing whatever and the president can say thank you for your service, and goodbye. If the Democrats want to go down this road, they better hope that they do not win the presidency while the Republicans are in control of congress for it will be a tit for tat if they keep pursuing this. It may seem that the timing was bad, but this is one of those presidential prerogatives that the Democrats will just have to live with. But, alas, they will not and this attempt to embarrass the Bush administration will go on.
Secondly, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went six-for-six in passing legislation in the first "100" hours that the majority will never make it out of the senate. The only one that has a chance, the increase in the minimum wage, will only make it after Republican senators put in tax breaks for small businesses to offset the forcible wage hike. There is really no compromise on the Democrat's part so that they can bring some Republicans along and put some pressure on President Bush. But, they do have time to host a pointless hearing featuring former Vice-President Al Gore ranting about the earth having a fever.
Most grievously, the Dems are trying to have it all ways on the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. They ran on ending the war in Iraq and can by simply cutting off funding. But, because they don't want to be seen as being against the troops, they will simply adopt what has been the slow-bleed strategy of setting up phony benchmarks that will be impossible to keep. At least those who have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning have some moral high ground to stand on. Those who voted for it and then turned against it are weasels, pure and simple.
The Democrats are going to have a short run in control of congress for if there are no accomplishments to take to the voters in 2008, then the results of 2006 will be seen as what they were. Public frustration with the way the Republicans were doing things and the war in Iraq dragging on.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Misleading The Flock

It seems that the Left Angeles Times, for those not familiar, the Los Angeles Times, thinks that the Episcopal Church is united in rejecting the requests of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which it is part of, to stop blessing same sex unions, ordaining openly gay and lesbian clergy who are not celibate and other measures.
In an article in today's fish wrap, it seems to leave out the fact that at least 10 conservative bishops do not favor the prevailing wind among the dominant liberal House of Bishops and in fact it is their pleas to the Archbishop of Canterbury precipitating this crisis. They will lead the schism of the Episcopal Church and it will not stop there.
Also, there are many in parishes that do NOT agree with their rectors and or bishops on the above issues and many others.
Here is the problem in a nutshell.
Today's "leadership" is only interested in a social gospel. That means concern for the poor and marginalized in society. It also in today's lexicon means socialism. The clergy seems to forget about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and building up the spiritual body of each member. Without that, it is nothing more than socialists wearing collars.
So, while the "leadership" lead by the so-called presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, fiddles as Rome burns, it would behoove the Left Angeles Fish wrap to report all sides, not the side it favors in the titanic struggle for the heart and soul of the Episcopal Church.

Thompson & Illegal Immigration

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who is flirting with a serious presidential run in 2008 has some straight talk on illegal immigration (
By addressing this serious issue in a plain talking way, the speculation is that at the very least he is very seriously thinking about running for president. Not only that, but he has a record as a senator and a higher conservative record than his friend and former colleague, Sen John McCain (R-Ariz).
But, as much as I would like that record, he is a creature in many ways of Washington, which is one reason many look to Rudy Giuliani as a reasonable alternative. While Mitt Romney has not done well in polling, he will and that will be a reason.
We should, as conservative Republicans, look seriously at a potential Thompson run. He would push the highly negative Newt Gingrich to the sidelines and definitely be in the top tier.
That is one reason he has decided to comment on the illegal immigration problem.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Aaaarrrnold vs. Rush

WOW! There is a war right here at home and it is right here, in the heart of the left coast between California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and radio icon Rush Limbaugh.
The controversy started when Gov. Arnold was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, or we left coasters call it, the Left Angeles Times or those of you old enough to remember, Pravda, as saying that he is not Rush Limbaugh's servant.
Today, Rush shot back that Gov. Arnold sold out by being elected originally as a conservative and governing like, well any given Democrat.
What is worse is that they are both right.
Gov. Arnold is not anyone's servant but the people as he puts it. Even when he ran in the original recall election against then Gov. Gray Davis, he never said he was a Reagan conservative. We understood that and accepted that. We figured he would govern as a fiscal and law and order conservative, appoint conservative judges and let it ride on the social issues. What we have gotten I am afraid is what the United States would get if Rudy Giuliani were to win the Republican nomination for president and win the White House. There is no guarantee on any given issue that conservatives care about. I think Gov. Arnold also did the state GOP a real disservice when in the last week before the 2006 election, his reelection being assured, he did not campaign with Lt. Gov. GOP nominee Tom McClintock or anyone else on the Republican side running for the state elected offices. Mr. McClintock, a Reagan conservative, had a real chance to win the Lt. Governor's race. Instead, he campaigned for four bond issues that also were far enough ahead. Of course, all four one. That was not good.
Rush is right to remind conservatives that Gov. Arnold is not really one of us in total. I think that I would like to see the old Gov. Arnold going after the state employee unions, teacher tenure and issues that he tried to get resolved. But, Gov. Arnold tried to do everything at once, not really educating the public and let all those opposed to reform define those issues and they went down in flames in a special election. Then, Gov. Arnold decided to change the image and become, what a shock, a politician.
Rush is right that by not fighting the good fight, it is essentially a sell out. Cutting deals with the Democrats rarely benefits the Republicans or conservative ideas. The reason that Ronald Reagan could make it work is because he was one of those liberals at one time. He knew how they thought and was the president of the Screen Actors Guild. He knew how they thought and how to negotiate like them.
That is why it is pointless to look for another Reagan. Hence, when we were given an amazing opportunity in California and Arnold wanted to run, most of us jumped to get him elected. We did not know we were getting a Democrat in many ways in sheep's clothing.
Tomorrow, the showdown is on at 10am Pacific Daylight Time, Arnold vs. Rush. What a match that will be!

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Amazing Grace

Today after church, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I took in the movie "Amazing Grace" and I must say that it did, in fact, exceed my expectations.
The story of William Wilburforce is not unlike great people in history who feel torn. In Mr. Wilburforce's case, it was whether to stay in politics and pursue ending the abominable slave trade or to do it from the spiritual. We all knew what Mr. Wilburforce chose and while it took a long time, he lived to see his goal of abolishing the slave trade, long before the United States fought a civil war over, ostensibly, slavery. We have to remember, other issues were involved in that as well.
The amazing aspect of this movie is the fact that it does not varnish in any way what motivated Mr. Wilburforce. It was his relationship with God. It was God moving him to end the worst thing I could think of doing to another human being.
So much of the garbage that passes for movies that come out of Hollywood does more to distort than edify. Just ask Tom Clancy. Everyone of his books that were brought to the big screen was changed in one way or another. In the latest, "The Sum Of All Fears", the Islamic terrorists that were portrayed in the book suddenly became Nazis in the movie. Don't want to offend the sensibilities of Islamics.
That being said, this movie has the kind of message of the positive force that Christianity is. It is about redemption. In the movie, a member of parliament ended up traveling on a slave ship and that changed his mind about the insanity and inhumanity of the slave trade. What it does not bring up, and it really would not make it relevant, is who sold the slaves and that many were Islamic.
"Amazing Grace" is what the Christian message is about. I hope that there will be more movies like this. One more thing. It was absolutely refreshing to see so many young people, especially teenagers. This is one way to reach a youth that hungers for a positive message, not the trash of the pop culture

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Hope That You Enjoy The New Design

Like all good things, a blog has to change its look to remain fresh and exciting. I hope that this does that. I want to make it easy for all to read and, feel free to comment, but please, no profanity or insults! This is, after all, a family blog! Enjoy!

Friday, March 16, 2007

More On The Coarsness Of The Culture

This past Monday evening I had the pleasure along with Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast to hear a talk from former President George H.W. Bush. I also was able to ask the former president about his relationship with former President Ronald Reagan when he was president and when Mr. Bush took over in 1988.
But what happened just before I got to ask Mr. Bush the question had been building up all evening and is just one more case of our political discourse as one more thing to add to the general coarseness of the culture.
Outside at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in downtown Los Angeles were the usual had left suspects protesting the former president. Well, they were really there to protest the current President Bush, but I am sure they did not know the difference. Yes the "Free Palestine", ANSWER fifth columnist crowd was the majority. Of course there were also those "debunking" the truth about the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Just as we went into the Pavilion, they began protesting in earnest. There was maybe 20 to 25 people in all.
Well, a couple made it into the Pavilion.
As we entered, ushers were giving out sheets in which we could ask a question and if the moderator liked it, we could ask it personally.
As Mr. Bush finished and the Q & A portion began, one goon got up and shouted he had a question and instead went into an anti-W Bush diatribe. But, what got Mr. Bush, rightfully, hot under the collar was when he and a later heckler questioned why he did not pass his values onto W. Mr. Bush got up, looked like if he could beat the daylights out of the second heckler and defended himself and the president. The crowd cheered. Before I began to ask my question, in the orderly manner that the sponsors wanted, I commended Mr. Bush for showing a lot of class. He went on to add, lest we forget, that his predecessor, Mr. Reagan, got into a lot more trouble and that these were just amateurs, it was amateur night.
The point is, we all paid good, hard earned money to hear Mr. Bush. We did not need a couple of leftist goons jumping up, pretending to ask a question and go on a pointless diatribe.
I want to also write that I believe that this works both ways. No one should do that when in April, former President Clinton speaks at the same venue. People pay money and should not have to endure this kind of garbage at either event. If I was there when Mr. Clinton was there, I would listen respectfully as he is the former president and I would have paid good money to see him.
Now, if this was a campaign rally in the outdoors, they would both be fair game.
This just is another in the Great Litany on the decline of the culture in general and how this has occurred as a direct result of the leftist influence on our culture that trys to make everything relative and where there is nothing called, oh decorum and respect. Mr. Bush deserves it as does Mr. Clinton.
This does not bode well for the 2008 presidential race. There is going to be a lot more of this on You Tube. Oh boy!

Thursday, March 15, 2007

A Mormon In The White House?

Radio talker extrordinare Hugh Hewitt ( has written a new book for the marathon political season on the candidacy of former Massachussetts governor Mitt Romney called "A Mormon In The White House" and it takes on one of the last great pleasures of certain bigots-the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
As you know, I am a traditional Christian, and Episcopalian. Many people rightfully critizize our leadership starting with the so-called Presiding Bishop, Katherine Schorri Jefferts. But what really gets a traditional Episcopalian going is talking about the Book Of Common Prayer. I bring it up because the Book Of Common Prayer is unique to the Episcopal Church. Oh yes, we sprinkle water three times on babies and say they are baptised. If they stay long enough, roughly around 13 years old, they will be "confirmed" which means they are official Episcopalians and can partake Holy Communion.
Now, why would I bring this up? Because there are unique aspects of the LDS that make many people, secular and faith practioners sit up and take notice.
There is the fact that all clergy are male and unpaid volunteers. There is no formal clergy to speak of. There is the issue of "worthy" people being allowed to worship in an LDS temple. Oh, and the undergarment issue. I'm sure you know that one. Where most LDS wear symbols on their undergarments. These just scratch the surface.
What is troubling, is some polling data has the number of Americans unwilling to vote for an LDSer as high as 43%! That is staggering, if true.
I think that with the book, which I will order this weekend and the oppertunity for Mr. Romney to educate Americans about the Mormon faith without sounding like he is running for theologian in chief will change many American minds.
When I survey the field of Republicans running for the White House, to me Mr. Romney so far sounds like the kind of leader I want at the top of the ticket. I think only someone like a Mr. Romney could do something out of the box, like nominate some one like a Micheal Steele, the former lt. governor of Maryland to be the GOP vice presidential nominee. Now, that would be ticket balancing. A Mormon and a Roman Catholic. I don't think Rudy or Sen. John McCain would do something that bold.
Also, those who say that Mr. Romney is a flip flopper should take him at his word on the social issues that he has come around to . Someone like a Mr. Romney is more likely to nominate a real judicial conservative to the United States courts and the supreme court, despite what Rudy says. Also, we never know about ol' Sen. McCain. Also, expect someone like Mr. Romney to do what he says for he will be under a microscope should he win the GOP nod and the White House.
I look forward to reading Hugh's book and it may cement my thought that Mr. Romney may win this race after all. Stay tuned.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Is Newt Running?

Friday, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) made a confession that everyone knew concerning the divorce from his second wife and subsquent marriage to wife number three.
That he was having the affair while congress was leading the impeachment against former President Clinton.
What is dumb is that is already well known and if not, the divorce papers, which are public, states that as one of the reasons leading to the divorce.
It is interesting that his mea culpa was with Dr. James Dobson, host of Focus On The Family.
It is a Christian, evangelical radio program.
Is it possible that Mr. Gingrich did this as an end run if he does announce in September that he is in fact running for president? Conventional wisdom says yes, but I think it is just that he thinks it is time to come clean. I do not think that he is running.
The reason I do not think that he is running is that he really needs to make those intentions known now and get a team together before the top tier of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney have them all taken up in their campaigns. Another reason is that he may be showing Mr. Giuliani how to handle this situation as he also was having an affair with wife number three while still married to wife number two. However, that divorce was brutal and very public and may come back to haunt Mr. Giuliani no matter how much he tries to explain it. Ah, a third reason is that Mr. Gingrich has the highest negative ratings after Sen. Hilary Clinton.
With all that against him, I think it was just to come clean, so to speak, on the part of Mr. Gingrich.
Without a doubt he is the most intelligent political figure today in either party. He is not just a thinker but an author and some one who will be very useful in a future Republican administration. No one doubts his prowess as he led the Republicans to take the House of
Representatives in 1994. But it is also that same prowess that led to his downfall in 1998. It is also another reason he won't run, his somewhat self-destructive behavior.
I think that he did a good thing in being public with how that was wrong and that it was not equal to what was going on with then President Clinton. Mr. Clinton was a liar in a sexual harassment suit and never came "clean" until confronted. As I would say then, if he were to lie about something like that, what major lies did he tell the American people? I think 9/11 was one of the answers to that.
Now if Mr. Gingrich does change his mind and runs, this will be more or less behind him.

Daylight Savings Time...AARRGGHH!!!

In a few hours, and three weeks early, most of the United States begins daylight "savings" time. For those in Arizona and Hawaii, I am with you and do not think that we should turn up the clocks for an alleged extra hour of sunlight.
The argument for moving it up three weeks and allowing it to go into the first week of November is that it will cut down on excessive use of energy and thus we will have lower electric bills. Of course the "savings" can pay for our increasing gasoline prices as the oil companies refine the gas to "summer fuel" that has less pollution.
The Australians tried this in 2000 for the Sydney Olympics under the same guise. What happened? People used more energy in the morning because, surprise, it was dark as people were getting ready to being their work and or school day. Oh, no savings and all energy usage went up one percent.
The proponents also did not figure in the cost of having to change computers because most are used to changing the time at the end of March, not the beginning. The average cost for a publicly traded company is $50,000. Some savings!
Most of those who favor it just need to be honest. They like the sunlight in the evening and don't really care if it is inconvenient in the morning.
I don't like the change, but an interesting proposal in the 2007 Farmer's Almanac ( has an interesting proposal that actually maximizes the the daylight hours. Their proposal is to start the time change the first Sunday in April to the second Sunday in September. One of the reasons they point out is that is the time of year to maximize the amount of daylight without causing more morning darkness. Another point is that when the time will change in November, most people come home in light will come home in the dark. It does make a difference in how people drive and more accidents happen within that first month than usual. Having the clocks go back in September gives drivers a period to gradually ease into the darkness period. Spot on!
Today in Pasadena, California, sunrise was at 6:16 am. Tomorrow, it will be at 7:15 am. Monday, I will go to work almost in the dark.
The dishonesty of the last congress to get us here is bad for us in many ways. Again, all the proponents had to say is that they like the extra light in the evening and many people would go along. Everyone I talk to that likes daylight savings time, including Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast, say they like the extra light in the evening. One admission on my part is that I will be able to take our dog to the local dog park because of the light in the evening. I may not like the time change, but I will take advantage of it.
So, do not forget to turn those clocks ahead tonight before you say your prayers and go to bed.

Friday, March 09, 2007

The Fair And Balanced Dems...NOT!

Ah, the Democrat party has decided to drop the Fox New Channel from sponsoring a presidential debate for the Nevada Democrat party slated for August 14. The Nevada Dems wanted to reach out to a wider audience and why not? FNC is the top rated cable news channel and MSNBC and CNN can not top them combined.
So, why do the Dems say no to FNC?
Well, the wacko, Daily Kos crowd said it was not good to allow FNC to sponsor and have the debate because it leans right in its news coverage. SHOCKING!
Ol' John Alleuia Edwards, ambulance chasing oppertunist that he is, led the candidates to drop out of the debate. Then New Mexico, USA governor Bill Richardson dropped out. That put pressure on the Nevada Democrat party to scrap the sponsorship and debate on FNC.
It is truly fascinating to see the pot calling the kettle black! I mean, it is not enough that they control the three major on air broadcast networks, much of print media thanks to the Evil Axis of the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, as well as two of the three cable news networks. They can't even let FNC sponsor and air a debate. I am sure a great deal of the regular FNC audience would watch. But no, the whackjobs are running the asylum.
It is also proof positive that the Dems have not changed their stripes and in fact are becoming much more radicalized than the Republican party ever was.
While the Republican party will smartly reach out to every one in every way, the Dems feel they can not. It is another reason why, come election day 2008 Americans will more than likely elect a Republican back to the White House. No serious Republican candidate looks anything close to the whackos in the hunt for the Democrat nomination.
Let us all agree, the Dems are not fair and balanced!

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

John Alleuia Edwards

In this silly part of the 2008 presidential marathon, former North Carolina senator John Edwards preaches to the masses that he believes that Jesus Christ would not be too happy with America these days.
According to Mr. Edwards, among other things, we are a selfish nation. Not that the former good senator is selfish. I mean, doesn't everyone build a 20,000 square foot mansion and then rip fellow citizens for being selfish? I'm sure he built some extra rooms to take in the homeless and destitute.
We also learn that Mr. Edwards is embarrassed at using the C-word in describing a religious America. That's Christian. OOOHHHH! How terrible it is to say that the United States is a majority Christian nation. One only has to look at the percentages.
Mr. Edwards was preaching to David Kuo during an interview on You remember David? He was of late in the Bush Administration's Faith Based initiative department. He left because he felt like he was "used" and mocked by people within the administration. He later wrote a condemning book on his time there and recommended that Christians take a "fast" from politics.
So here we are, supposedly two committed Christians talking about current events and "What Would Jesus Think?"
Really, that in and of itself is the wrong question. It should be "What Would Jesus Do?" And of course the prescription that Mr. Edwards has is simple. Get the troops out of Iraq and socialize medicine so that all Americans can have substandard health care.
The real problem is twofold. Democrat politicians who claim to be Christians can not answer these questions from a biblical point of view off the cuff because they really do not know. They speak essentially in terms of a certain moral equivalancy. Something that conservatives do not. Thus, you get muddled answers to questions like Mr. Edwards.
I would never speak for or pretend to speak for the almighty. All I can do is what the Holy Bible says, and the beatitudes (Matt. 5 3-14) are a good place to start. Oh, and no where does it say that the government should do any or all of those things.
Democrats do not understand that they can not continue to address the concerns of Christians by trying to make the arguments in terms of economics or just marginalization. Many Christians, myself included, feel there is a moral decline and while I do not think that government can play a role in reversing it per se, it can have leaders who address it and lead a kind of life that makes people think about moral issues. It is not just economics and margianlization any more than moral decline. All are relevant.
But, as long as there are people like John Alleuia Edwards, Christians will look elsewhere for the kind of leadership that can meld all of the above. Thank God it is not that of John Edwards!

Bush Conservatism

Check out the article on National Review Online ( by Michael Novak. It explains what it is to be a Bush conservative and that President Bush has advanced conservative ideas and principles. It is not perfect and not necessarily what we would like in all areas, but there are some real achievements.
We conservatives do on many occasions like to ready, fire, aim at ourselves. We are, at times our own worst enemy. This article shows that we should be more supportive and gives concrete examples of what President Bush has done to advance conservatism. We all realize it was not conservative principles that lost congress in 2006. It was greed, incompetence, and people feeling Republicans had been in too long.
Look at the article. Then, you be the judge.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Romney Winning Over Conservatives

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney seems to be the choice of attendees at the CPAC meeting in Washington, DC.
In a straw poll, Mr. Romney got 21% while the nearest, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani got 17%. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback got 15%. Supposed GOP front runner, Sen. John McCain, who skipped the event, got 12%. The rest were also rans.
This says a lot about conservatives and going against the conventional wisdom and backing someone like Mr. Romney.
The DDBMSM crowd is ga-ga over Rudy Guiliani "rescuing" the Republican party from all us evil right wingers. They are going out of their way to paper over the serious differences between Mr. Giuliani and the dominant conservatives in the GOP. Won't happen. Mr. Giuliani will NOT get the GOP nod.
Forget Sen. John McCain. While he ignores those he needs the most, conservative activists and GOP primary voters, that 12% is only a sign of things to come. Also, don't make your announcement on the David Letterman show. Not exactly appealing to Red State America.
So, that leaves Mr. Romney. A lot has been said that he is not a "real" conservative. Well, as a Republican governor in Massachusetts, he was much more conservative than his GOP predecessors, all vowedly liberal Republicans. Also, when the state supreme court decision "legalizing" same sex marriage, he did all he could to get it to a vote of the people. Also, because of an experience with a scientist in explaining embryotic stem cell research, he camme around on that issue. I will take Mr. Romney at his word. I also would point out that former California Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1967 signed a bill liberalizing California abortion law. As in all cases when liberals want something bad enough, they lie. Mr. Reagan was told it would lessen abortions. Of course that was a lie and Ronald Reagan became the most articulate defender of the unborn, in or out of the White House.
If I had to vote and the only way to get out of the convention room was to pick one candidate, I would have voted for Mr. Romney.
I am not totally sold yet, but a least he calls our enemies in the War Against Terror what they are-Jihadists. President Bush once actually said Islamofacists, never to say it again. We need more straight talk like that. And we do get that from Mr. Romney.
Eventually, I think many Republicans will come around and realize that only someone like Mr. Romney can actually make the kind of bold moves that will embolden disgruntled conservatives and complacent Republican voters. After all, he did win the governorship in Massachusetts.
I think conservatives are getting it. Now, the rest of the Republican voters get it, Willard Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president in 2008.

Hilary Clinton, Political Whore

Now that I have your attention, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York) is nothing but a political whore.
If Sen. Clinton was not married to former president Bill Clinton, do you honestly think that she would even be the junior senator from New York? If she was, oh say Hilary Rodham, she would be nothing but another lawyer at some Legal Aid office in the inner city. But no, she stayed with serial bigamist Bill Clinton in marriage. How would that look if they actually did get a divorce? I think it would look pretty good that she would stand up to him and say no more whoremonging. But no, she used ol' Bill to win a senate seat in New York, not Arkansas, a place that she said in public she loved but in private was saying how awful it was.
Now, she is using him to keep the political opponents in the Democrat party in line. They can not bring up the I word. That is IMPEACHMENT. Also, don't diss the Clinton clan publicly as music mogul David Geffen did recently.
But the supreme act of political whoremanship, if there is such a word, was today in Selma, Alabama.
She couldn't stand on her own while her main opponent, Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill), was speaking at the same event. She had to bring down The Ol' Slickmeister himself as he was inducted in a Black hall of fame. After all, he was the first "Black" president. I always thought that was Warren Harding! But seriously, as if it was not enough to bring Slick Willie, she began speaking to the crowd in "native" talk. She suddendly developed a southern accent and even tried to sound like the Rev. Martin Luther King at some points. Check it out on Matt Drudge ( It is, in a word, nauseating.
This is what is troubling. A lot of Americans would be willing to vote for this political whore. She stands for nothing except furthering her political career. She has so waffled on the troops in the Iraq theatre of the War Against Terror, I am not sure of her current position. Depends on who she is speaking to .
Really, if you listen to her, she sounds like a female Howard Dean. I am waiting for the YAAAAAGGGGHHHHH! To shriek from her lips. It is great in the primary season, but terrible in a general election campaign.
I for one hope that Democrats realize what a drubbing they will get if Sen. Clinton is their nominee. But, they are the Democrats after all.

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Guess Who Will Get A Pass-Bill or Ann

Two very opinionated commentators make two offensive comments, Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. Which one will be raked over the coals and which one will get the pass?
No question, ol' Ann Coulter will get more flack for indirectly referring to Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards as a faggot. Watch the youtube video ( and judge for yourself. I think it was a very bad attempt at humor. Ann is a great author who has written must read conservative classics, but sometimes she just says moronic things. I do not know why because she has more intelligence in her pinky than does Bill Maher.
Speaking of Bill, he said he was sorry that an attempted assassination attempt against Vice-President Richard Cheney was not successful.
Excuse me, but wishing that Vice-President Cheney was assassinated is much worse than calling John Edwards a faggot. One is a stupid insult, the other is something that should get some one thrown off television. But, alas, Ann will get grief for a stupid attempt at a joke and Bill will get a wink-wink and "way to go" from the liberal elites who probably do wish that Mr. Cheney was killed in Afghanistan.
Lets be clear, Miss Coulter should not be a comediane if she can not deliver a punchline that makes sense. But Mr. Maher should not be telling an audience that any government official would be better off dead.
That is the world we live in. The conservative pundit who can't make a joke will get harrased over the liberal pundit who wishes government officials dead.
In my book, neither Ann Coulter or Bill Maher should get a pass on this. I think they should be put in a wrestling ring and duke it out. I would pay to see Ann tear Bill to shreds!