Redstate

Posted at 10:20pm on Jul. 28, 2006 Remembrance

By James OK

The day for writing this is long past due.  Though similar in intent, past letters of this sort have, to my mind, missed this writer's mark.  While there certainly exists within the author's mind the hope that his writ is well received, ever more prevalent is, or should certainly have been, that his message hits its target regardless of the reception.  Thus I humbly offer the following, written this evening with a content heart and solemn mind.  However my words may come across to you, and regardless of the etymology, my sincere hope is that this indulgence may find you well.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:59pm on May 31, 2006 Pork, by any other name, would not be as tasty

By James OK

Would you like to know where your federal tax dollars are being sent?  A Senate bill authored by Tom Coburn (R-OK), S. 2590, would require the creation of a public database for all federal expenditures.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:48am on Mar. 5, 2006 Civil War: what is it good for?

By James OK

Apparently, for those with an agenda, the prospect of an Iraqi civil war has them smacking their lips like a band of demented naysayers.  Or, like I saw in a cartoon once, a morbidly obese man who was sitting down to enjoy a large dinner and ordered the waiter "don't skimp on the gravy."  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:58pm on Feb. 12, 2006 Muslim and Christian Alike

By James OK

After perusing many news articles this week about the current violence of Islamic terrorists, I was pleased to stumble upon several from Muslim authors condemning those violent acts perpetrated in the name of Allah.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:42pm on Feb. 1, 2006 Bush misfires in drive to end `oil addiction'

By James OK

This headline, from Financial Times, in response to the President's state of the union address last night, in which he stated "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world."

Or, predictably:

VIENNA (Reuters) - OPEC President Edmund Daukoru, reacting to President George W. Bush's aim to break U.S. dependence on Middle East oil, said on Wednesday energy security should not be a unilateral issue.

Daukoru was asked for his response to Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday which set a goal of reducing the United States "addiction" to oil and cutting crude imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025.

"We do believe that energy issues cannot be handled in a unilateral way, we all have to work together towards global energy security," said Daukoru, also Nigerian minister of state for petroleum.

Maybe its just me, but I think Daukoru is dead wrong.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:18pm on Jan. 18, 2006 Iran's Russian Friends

By James OK

BERLIN (Reuters) - EU powers began circulating a draft resolution on Wednesday for a February 2 meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog asking it to report Iran to the Security Council, but Russia was seeking moves that stopped short of a formal referral.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:48pm on Oct. 26, 2005 Benefit of Doubt

By James OK

As with many of my fellow conservatives, the increasingly-legislative role of the judiciary in our country has become an alarming concern.  A concern, I might add, in the forethought of voters, like myself, when casting a ballot for a candidate who seeks to limit a judiciary advance of unaccountable legislation.  Whether by my role as a father, a Christian or private citizen, I have noticed with increasing abrupt, not only a motivation by those who seek to impose their own will upon me for my own good, but would do so in the name of Justice, by means of often over-reaching, unconstitutional rulings made by judges with a clear agenda.

I have always found a certain elegant simplicity in the Constitution.  Noting the manner in which the Constitution was written, and the startling deference it seeks to give the average citizenry, I am simultaneously both frightened and empowered.  The Framers saw fit, for reasons I believe to understand, to include a resounding premise upon this foundational document:  We the people.  By saying such, they sought to instill in all Americans not only freedom, but the responsibility that must always accompany it.  It is this very responsibility, intent to be placed squarely upon the shoulders of average citizens, not politicians or judges or institutions, to create, maintain and protect that Land full of promise, as described in the Preamble.  

During the current nomination process, I have maintained by the side of the President's recent Supreme Court nominee.  I did not do so out of blind naivete, or Kool-aid, or whatever other ridiculous nonsense has been said.  Fact is, with regard to the onslought of unfounded criticism toward the President and Miers, I was, and still am, not as confounded by the slurs as I am by an insistance of the nominee's non-qualification by those who call themselves 'strict constructionists'.  It was, and is, of great concern to me the error of some conservatives to judge the nominee by some sort of supra constitutional measure, criteria which is ambiguous at best, and inevitably varied from individual to individual.

I have maintained a reluctance to criticize this nominee, even going so far to put in writing the benefit of doubt I give the President.  I have never been on the bandwagon, so to speak, and like many others, had my own personal favorites in mind for the nomination.  However, strictly stated, Miers is qualified and I had inadequate information to judge her suitability for the post.  With that in mind, and because I trust the President, I deferred judgement to him.  

Today, I have read and re-read a speech Ms. Miers gave some years ago.  My disappointment aside, I can't help but be alarmed by the realization that the nominee is not only not in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, but apparently, by way of her stated judicial philosophy, outright contradicts any offer made in the name of 'strict constructionist.'

At some point we need to let our elected officials know that their inability to solve problems in such a way that a court could not step in is unacceptable political leadership. And political leaders have to start showing more leadership and willingness to make unpopular decisions.

My basic message here is that when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong... Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today's world. Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs.

The necessary continued requirements by the Courts for progress frequently has the effect of hardening feelings and slowing the process and in my view the ultimate benefit of a society whose wealth is diversity and who pulls together against common enemies.

I am, for the most part, offended by the entirety of her speech.  But it is these paragraphs in particular that declare judicial status quo, in her opinion, is a judiciary that must maintain progress without deferential respect to legislation via the will of the people.  It is this flawed judicial philosophy that errantly presumes to know what is best for the rest of us, based not upon any rule of law, but a moral relativism that uses whatever means is necessary to justify any number of ideological ends.  

The benefit of doubt I previously offered this nominee is hereby retracted.  I cannot support the confirmation of Harrier Miers for Supreme Court Justice.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:41pm on Oct. 8, 2005 Note from a Religious

By James OK

In response to the recent pro/con talk of the Meirs nomination, and, specifically, oppositional and even crass comments directed toward both the President and his nominee, I feel I must comment.  I have been a reader (and sometimes commenter) on RS since the '04 election.  Though I was on hiatus for a few months, and the fact that this happens to be the first diary I have ever written, I feel compelled to do so now in spite of my inexperience.

I will say upfront that, though I don't yet fully support the nomination of Harriet Miers, my support of the President is not found lacking because of it.

I voted for the President twice because of his values, his Faith, and my perception of him as 'regular folk'.  Where I come from, the defintion of a 'good person' includes one who is willing to stand for what he believes.  Its called character.  My hopes of what a President can or could accomplish, stand for, even fight for on my behalf, are summed up in those few things, whether it be opposition to Roe, providing for a strong national defense or cutting taxes.  The President, to date, has yet to fail on one thing he promised me.  Not one.

We have been bombarded with arguments against the Miers' nomination for many days now.  I admit, I have been surprised by some of the comments I have read from those who have been, in the past, quite moderate and thoughtful in both speech and act.  As of late, however, I have weeded my way through a barage of personal insults, some even suggesting my simpleton-ness because I am one of 'those' that choose to trust the President.  Let me just say:  I am a simpleton.  I am a simple carpenter with a simple life, living smack-dab in the middle of "Jesus Land".  Even more, I choose to live this way.  I'm sure some of you are SHOCKED!, but I must say this in no way makes me blind or naive.

I find it hard to imagine, from the usually thoughful ones who have criticized the President for nominating one of 'unknown' parameter (especially religious ones), the almost insatiable need they have to know the innermost thoughts and feelings of the nominee.  Honestly, wasn't Schumer saying just as much only a few weeks ago?  The President has committed himself, professionally and personally, to nominate strict constitutionalists to the federal bench.  Where is the record among his past acts to suggest he hasn't done so now?  I submit there is no such act.

This is not to say that I do not understand the opposition's argument.  I do.  I fully understand the wont for a known (read: predictable) entity.  But I submit to my religious friends who disagree with me to think about what you are truly asking for by demanding predictors on such things as Roe:  is Roe wrong because of your personal moral or religious belief, or because you believe it is unconstitutional?  In my case, I would have to say 'both'.  But then I ask you, as I have asked myself, is it proper to demand law based upon my own, personal sense of morality?  I submit it is not.  

The Framers stated the following in Article VI:  Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I submit that the Judeo-Christian influence in the writing of our Constitution is undeniable, and should be self-evident that those who would strictly adhere to its writing and meaning are exactly the ones who Christians, anti-abortionists and anti-socialists should want on the Court.  It is not true to say, atleast from a Christian perspective, that America is a great land, not because of a certain interpretation of the Constitution, but because when one correctly interprets it he shall find the freedom and opportunity, justice and protection of One more righteous than himself?  For I contend that a correct interpretation of the Constitution will necessarily promote the knowledge of unbridled freedom and unwavering justice inherent, by divine act, in all men.

I understand the lack of a paper-trail regarding Miers is of concern to those, like me, who's foremost political issue is Roe.  But I believe we have the next best thing:  personal knowledge of her by a President who has not only taken a stand on issues important to those who elected him, but has done so in spite of an onslaught of demeaning slurs, attempted knee-capping and evil accusations.  Further, the religous' hope for the end of a grotesque and evil practice does not, nor should not, rest itself upon the often fallible moral perception of an interpreter, but upon an exacting deference to a wise rule of law that was derived from One who is infallible.

I will never know the heart of Harriet Miers, but I have witnessed, by both word and act, the strength of conviction of he who nominated her.  I owe it to the President to stand by him now, both as a religious and compatriot.  And I most certainly will.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »