Blogs For Victory

Roland Burris, who was picked to fill Barack Obama’s barely used Senate seat, let the cat out of the bag this past week that Rod Blagojevich wanted him to raise $10,000 for his campaign in exchange for the Senate appointment. 

Should he stay or should he go? Obviously this news, which he did not reveal during testimony during the impeachment trial of Blagojovich, really puts a bigger stain on his record, but I for one don’t see him resigning, but I do see him having a number of primary challengers in 2010 and probably getting knocked out.

Thoughts?

Victory Davis Hanson issues the prediction:

Will Obama and company, through inspired diplomacy, solve any lingering tension from the Bush administration over missile defense in Europe, the soon-to-be Iranian bomb and missiles, or the European so-so role in Afghanistan? Will they find a novel, kinder, and gentler way to thwart possible al-Qaeda Mumbai-copycat killers here at home, to defang North Korea, to talk sense to the Russians to stay in their confining borders, and to persuade Hamas to act more like Fatah?

I seriously doubt it. Instead, this serial apologizing, promising a new age of listening and togetherness, and trashing the Bush administration will have two consequences: Enemies will begin to think there is a tad less likelihood now that the U.S. will respond forcefully to a terrorist attack (since “Bush did it” in the past) without first consulting allies, trying to find a diplomatic solution, or going to the U.N.; and, second, friends will slacken a bit, knowing that our prime interest is in the means of multilateralism rather than any objective ends: one now “dialogues” over troops in Afghanistan, and “discusses” whether to follow through on missile defense, and “listens” to “all the parties” like Syria and Iran for “constructive” suggestions about Middle East peace. In short, a bad idea to trash the past when much of it was good, and point happily to the future when it may well be far worse.

We are setting ourselves up for a repeat of Jimmy Carter’s “Our kindness and intellect will save the world,” but this second time as farce.

It is just back to September 10th…back to the days of trying to do the impossible: convince wicked people that they should stop being wicked and trying to convince well-meaning cowards that bravery is preferable. The wicked, though, will view our willingness to “dialogue” as a sign of infirmity of purpose, while the cowards will be off the hook because we give them what appears to be an honorable exit from bravery. Such moral changes as Obama proposes as our foreign policy is not the province of hack politicians, but of religious saints…Obama’s foreign policy is actually the proper business of the Vatican, and the Vatican is already working on it and slowly having some success, but as it takes a change of heart – person by person – it is a long process, and won’t stop another major terrorist attack on the United States, nor Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, nor Russia from trying to rebuild its empire.

Rather than trash an American President and issue apologies for imaginary wrongs done by the United States, President Obama needs to realize that in a world of cowards and wicked men, the duty of the United States is to be the steely bulwark of liberty and human decency…and this means confronting the coward to cajole him into being brave, and sternly warning the wicked that evildoing will result in destruction, swift and sure. Right now, Obama is storing up a legacy of woe for the United States, and death for innocents who are counting on Obama to protect them.

Details over at Michelle Malkin. Just the beginning – wait until the economy is in the tank; we’ll have a Two Million Conservative march on DC…

Wife, mother, grand-mother, great-grand-mother, Dolores Wilinski went home to be with the Lord on this Sunday, February 15th.

In a life of gentleness and good sense, Dolores was one of those rays of light which make life on this Earth bearable.

This man will always be thankful that Dolores took him in to her heart as a son and became for him a second mother.

Its the only way to interpret this Rasmussen poll result:

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters trust their own judgment more than President Obama’s when it comes to the economic issues affecting the nation.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) trust the president more in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure whose judgment is better.

Obama has never held a real job – for anyone who has ever held a real job to figure that Obama has better economic judgment is to have the mentality of a slave, looking for a Master do to all the thinking for you. Now, some of that 39% is made up of people who have never had a job, like Obama, but most of it is probably made up of people like that McDonald’s employee at the Town Hall…looking for Master Obama to make things all better for him…

We do need to bring back a test for voting – “Do you wish to be a slave?”, answer “yes” or “maybe”, and you don’t get to vote…

Yes, you read that correctly: in a Treasury report (PDF), the “total present value of future expenditures in excess of future revenue” is $42.97 trillion dollars. This is over the next 75 years – which means that over the next 75 years, we’ll have to come up with that money, unless you think there is more than $40 trillion we can borrow out there. Remember, this is expenditures in excess of revenues…in other words, the real annual deficit over the next 75 years is about $570,000,000,000.00. And this is before TARP II and Obama’s “spendulus” package. We’re in a position where we need to figure out how to spend half a trillion dollars less per year, and Obama wants to spend trillions more than we’re already over spending.

This is from the smart guy who replaced President Bush.

A very large part of this annual deficit is, of course, in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And this, dear liberals, is why we conservatives started yammering on about how we need to fix entitlement spending because its already horrible, and the longer we wait to start fixing it, the harder it will be to fix. Thank you, very much, for already screwing the pooch on this one. And you did it simply for a partisan, campaign issue…a few votes, to you, was more important than the future economic health of the United States of America.

Anyways…

As I’ve said before, we’re bankrupt. We tried the liberal model for the past 75 years – with some modifications by Reagan and Bush which, because of liberal intransigence, ended up merely putting off the day of reckoning – and it has failed. There is, as they say, no free lunch – and the tab has now come due. We have to pull back – spend less, make more, save more.

If we really want to get out of this, we have to immediately cease all non-essential government spending, start the long process of privatizing entitlements and set up our economic regulations in such a manner as to encourage wealth creation. We do this, and we can get ’round this problem in a decade or two…don’t do it, and it will just get worse and worse each year, perhaps masked at times by a prosperous year or two, but ultimately there will come a when we’ve taxed, borrowed and printed every red cent we can, and there are still people with their hands out.

And, liberals, there is some good news I can impart to you here – you don’t have to give up your dreams of bonanzas of government spending. But you do have to give up your dreams of borrowing and printing your way into the funds for doing it. Set up a budgetary system which is balanced with a “rainy day” set aside each fiscal year, and in a few years you’ll find that even with a balanced budget and swiftly reducing federal debt that you’ve got just oodles of taxpayer cash to play with…but you have to live within your means.

And, hey, I’m not the first person to say this to you of late – Obama did, too. Of course, he was lying about it. But did you think he was lying about it when he said it? If you didn’t, then don’t you think you should busy yourself holding him to his promise? Its either that, or the course you’re heading down will result in a very large Republican majority in the by and by…and then even if there are oodles of cash, we won’t let you play with it…

Your choice.

Chuck Muth picks up an interesting story from Tennessee, and suggests what we might to do Sens. Specter, Snowe and Collins.

From Senator Lamar Alexander, via Post Politics:

This bill will give American workers $8 a week in their paychecks in exchange for passing along a $1 trillion debt to our grandchildren. The entire New Deal in today’s dollars cost only half of what this bill costs.

The wife and I are eagerly anticipating what we’ll do with that extra $8 a week, each…me, personally, I figure we go heavy into canned goods, and spend the tax return on the shotguns. Meanwhile, we drain out the 401k and buy gold.

Its going to be a very long four years, and we’re going to emerge out of it a great deal poorer than we are today – but, hopefully, we’ll be wiser in a lot of ways and especially in that way which makes people positively retch at the mere thought of another liberal, Democratic Administration.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with the theory of evolution as a means of explaining how life developed on this Earth – but there is a problem when people take that theory and attempt to apply it in a universal sense and turn it into a political ideology masking as a scientific theory:

Father Marc Leclerc, professor of Natural Philosophy at the Gregorian Pontifical University of Rome, explained in a recent article for L’Osservatore Romano that there is no problem with the theory of evolution. The problem, he said, lies in the ideology that is created as part of the theory.

In his article, the Jesuit priest said that in the past, and much more so in the present, “many, whether they are fans and foes of Darwin, have confused his scientific theory of evolution—which should be discussed at a scientific level by competent persons—with the reduction of it to an ideological system, a vision of the world that forcibly falls upon on all men.”

Father Leclerc underscored that “as then Cardinal Ratzinger rightly wrote, the controversy has not come from the theory of evolution as such, but from the turning some of its elements into a universal philosophy, in order to explain all of reality’.”

Darwin, he noted, “applied his theory of natural selection to how our species emerged, but not to the functioning of current human societies, underscoring instead as a beneficial aspect for the species the acquisition of moral and religious faculties that lead man to protect the weakest, contrary to the absurd pretentions of social Darwinism.”

“Evolution and creation pose no opposition to each other, but rather they show themselves to be complementary,” the priest added.

He went on to say, “Reflection on the place of man in evolution and in creation” is of particular importance. Man, as a living being, can find his own place in the evolution of species which, when read post factum, had prepared for his coming for a long time. But man cannot reduce himself to a pure product of the evolution of species without contradictions: in other words, man is not reducible to mere animality.”

But the Darwinists insist we are mere animals – accidental results of accidental evolution which has no meaning and no point. Such assertions fly in the face of easily observable facts – such as the fact that there is no way to predict what I’ll think next, and if you can’t predict what I think next, then a purely evolutionary view of the development of life is utter nonsense. But Darwinism – as differentiated from Darwin’s theory – isn’t about science or truth; it is about an anti-religious worldview which some people insist we adhere to.

What is the reason for opposing Intelligent Design as a theory of how life developed? Not anything in Darwin’s theories. In fact, ID does an excellent job of filling in the rather large holes which have developed in Darwin’s theory since he first proposed it more than a century and a half ago. The reason for being opposed to ID is because if you have a Designer, then you’re open to the whole gamut of thought regarding God, and the Darwinists don’t want the kiddies to hear about God, because – in their absurd view – belief in God is at the root of all or most of our societal problems.

It is fine and dandy for someone to believe that the net effect of religious belief is negative – but it is quite another when such a person desires to impose that view on everyone else. By hijacking Darwin’s theory and pretending that it explains all and also disposes of any need for a Creator, the anti-religious Darwinists are seeking to impose their worldview on us.

We must fight this – in the name of liberty and, very importantly, in the name of science. It is anti-science to hold that a theory cannot be questioned – Darwin has a theory and it is actually our duty to question it, and accept no dogmas which have built up around it unless such things are verifiable in a laboratory setting. For all the carping that ID can’t be proved, the fact remains that Darwin’s theory can’t be proved, either and thus mere rational discourse requires that we allow the free play of ideas in the matter of the origin and development of life.