Redstate

Posted at 11:07am on Nov. 8, 2006 Montana Might Save Us All *GASP*

By lunahq7

^.^

Yes folks, the state that is known for autobahn-like interstates, rifle-waving rednecks, and all other manner of just plain stuff to make fun of...well, they might save the Senate for the Republicans.

See, While John Tester currently leads in the polls, the ONE county that has yet to be counted is Yellowstone County, and that is located in heavily-Republican eastern Montana. We're talking Billings, MT, the state's largest city.

Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:29am on Nov. 8, 2006 Pelosi's Gift

By lunahq7

^.^

So here I am, trying to find some good news to balance out all of the bad election results, as well as the almost celebratory mood on NPR and the Democrats this morning, and then they play Nancy Pelosi's remark:

"The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty to Washington DC, and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

And with those words, what I am calling Pelosi's version of the "no new taxes" promise, she has just condemned the Democrat majority to two years, and possibly endangered the party's hopes for 2008.

Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:36pm on Jun. 9, 2005 Judith Miller Should Take One for the Team

By lunahq7

^.^

Judith Miller is a writer/reporter for the New York Times, she is well-written, and she is one of the lead writers for what is probably the most well-known newspaper in the United States.

She is also at the center of a special prosecution investigation into the "outing" of a CIA operative. Apparently the information was leaked to columnist Robert Novak, who then reported it to the public.

Miller appeared on the Commonwealth Club's broadcast this last Sunday on NPR, and while there, she went on and on about her case. She may very well end up serving 180 or so days in jail for contempt of court, because she is believed to know the identity of the person who leaked the information on the CIA operative to Mr. Novak. Miller said on the Commonwealth Club that not only does she not have the information that the special prosecutor is looking for, she didn't even write a story on the case.

However, Miller continued by commenting on how cruel the system is, how secrecy shrouds everything, how journalists and journalism is threatened by George Bush, the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror...that if the government was able to restrain journalists, we would never have found out the "truth" behind the WMDs, or Abu Graib, or the other abuse scandals.

And Miller defends anonymous sources...it was an anonymous source that led to that brilliant piece of journalistic reporting about the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Never mind that the resulting protests led to about 15 people being killed in riots...never mind the rather sheepish way that Newsweek withdrew the story...anonymous sources MUST be able to keep their secrecy.

Secrecy sounds a lot better when it serves YOUR cause, right Ms. Miller?

Quite frankly, my argument on this subject is not about Ms. Miller's views on anonymous sources, but with how she is acting in the face of 180 days in jail. She spent 30 minutes on public radio whining and crying about what a burden this is going to be on her family if she goes to jail, at the same time she will not cooperate with the special prosecutor, she won't reveal her source, and she won't sign a confidentiality waiver...she says any of these things would damage her ability to be a journalist.

And to an extent, I can see her point. But you can not have your cake and eat it too.

If Judith Miller does not want to cooperate with the special prosecutor, fine...but she should then stop whining and serve the jail time...and through the lawyers she'll have, and through the lawyers of the New York Times, they can play up the injustice of the whole thing and scream about how the government is SO unfair.

Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail for his principles, because he KNEW he was right, and he was willing to endure jail because of that.

What is Judith Miller ready to endure for her beliefs?

John B.

Blog Guy

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

Posted at 7:05pm on Jun. 9, 2005 What you Want...NEW STUFF

By lunahq7

^.^

By the overwhelming demand of the three viewers who have already posted replies to my first couple entries, I will begin my new comments.

If you want a look at the older stuff, it is at:

http://polcity.blogspot.com/

From here on out, I will be commenting on new events and reposting them over to Blogger.

The reason I had been reposting the archive is not simply because of the subject matter, but because what I try to do in each article is combine the current event with some insights on the bigger picture, if you will...because I have found that often times, people don't stop to get a sense of that sort of thing.

SO yeah, while the first couple articles have been on older subjects, I am hoping that they were still entertaining and insightful. However, no more from the archives...if you want to read em, go to the website mentioned above... :)

NEXT: We discuss why Judith Miller should "take one for the team".

John B.

Blog Guy

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

Posted at 6:54pm on Jun. 9, 2005 The Peacenik Satanists Revisited (originally posted on 12-10-04)

By lunahq7

^.^

Greetings to all!

Recently, I weaved you a yarn about my encounter with Laramie's "peacenik Satanist", a man named Jeff Archer. I encountered him at the local food bank, where he was engaging the staff in a lively political discussion.

For those who want the details, please visit my previous blog entry on the subject.

Now for the update...

Mr. Archer had told the people at the food bank of his naturally-built house, which was situated just off the city's greenbelt pathway, near one of our parks. It was sitting in a public park, and therefore in public property.

Shortly after he revealed the location of his "wigwam" to the people at the food bank, I saw a newspaper article on the front page of the Laramie Boomerang, which I deliver to 110 (or so) subscribers. The article stated that police had talked to Mr. Archer, and had informed him that he was in violation of several city ordinances, including putting up an illegal residence structure, and sleeping in a public area. He was given until the 8th

to vacate the area, and the newspaper article said that the wigwam would be torn down.

Mr. Archer made several statements to the Laramie Boomerang that are insightful on his worldview...and just how whacky that it is.

First, he said that he used to live out of his car, until the US invaded Iraq in 2003. At that time, he decided that he could not continue to live in his car because it uses oil...and he believes that the war is an illegal and unjust war over oil...so he doesn't want to contribute to that.

Toward the end of the article, Mr. Archer said that he doesn't consider himself homeless. "I don't own anything, and the earth owns me." Therefore, he doesn't have a problem constructing a wigwam and living without the comforts and conveniences of modern life. He doesn't like renting or owning a home, even if he could afford it, because that is feeding an evil system of ownership of landlords, and reliance of residents on landlords for their shelter.

Some of this is interesting. Hey, if someone wants to construct a wigwam somewhere and live like a hermit, more power to him. The problem I had with the situation is the slap in the face that Archer did toward all the rest of us, who are law-abiding citizens of the city who may wish to use the public parks.

See, almost everything in human civilization is based on the ownership of property. If you don't think so, just think of what would happen tomorrow if people all of a sudden were not able to say "I own this."

First, there would be no property ownership at all. I could walk into a store and take anything because the store does not own the products it sells. I could arrive back at my apartment and find someone else there. I would be out of luck because I don't own the apartment, and neither does my landlord.

Think about money. What money does is transfer ownership of goods and services. You go to a store, and you pay the store what the store says is the value of a loaf of bread, or whatever. In return, you gain ownership of that loaf of bread. Without property rights, the basis for any sort of economy is reduced to nothing. You wouldn't be able to trade anything because even if you could determine the value of something, since there is no respect for ownership, the storekeeper could conceivably mob me at the door to the store and tell me that that loaf of bread is his...again. This reverberates all across human society. Gas and oil are purchased at a value, ownership changes, and it is bought and sold throughout the economy. Ownership changes numerous times. The government would not be able to collect taxes, because taxes are based either on ownership of property (housing taxes), or the ownership of time and effort (income taxes), or the ownership of products (sales taxes). With no respect for ownership, the government can't collect taxes, and therefore can not spend for programs and services...for such things as business development, or even basic things like road repair and construction.

At the very basic level, the case of Mr. Archer and his wigwam was a valuable lesson in the thing that is the basis of human society as we know it...the idea that a man can not walk into a public park and essentially co-opt a part of it for his own personal use. Just like I can not walk into your home and shack up in your living room.

It's unfortunate for Mr. Archer, especially at this time of year. However, the case is an affirmation of the society we live in, and until proven incontrovertably that our society is completely whacked, I am willing to "back the system", as they say...

Ta ta for now...

John B.

Blog Guy

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

Posted at 6:23pm on Jun. 9, 2005 The Peacenik Satanists (originally posted on 12-4-04)

By lunahq7

^.^

Alrighty.

I went to lunch today at the local food bank. While there, I met this guy, who is a naturalist, and also a peacenik.

Now, I can understand not liking war. I don't like war either, and I hope that wars happen as infrequently as possible. I can even understand the anti-war types who believe that war is wrong, and we should not be engaged in it, and I can even understand those who think that the current war in Iraq is bad and that we should not be involved in it...I may disagree with these people...but I understand them, and why they think the way they do.

Then there are the peaceniks.

These are people who think that war...ANY WAR...is at least wrong. The guy I met at the food bank thought that people engaged in war were doing "demonic work" through the killing of other people.

Tell that to the US soliders who landed on the beaches of Normandy.

Of course, God doesn't like wanton killing. It's important enough to be one of the Ten Commandments, and Jesus himself asked people to "turn the other cheek". However, to say that God is totally against war ignores half of the Bible...you know, the half where God used war as a tool through the Hebrew Israelites to conquer the peoples living in the lands of Canaan. You didn't see God having any second thoughts about killing people who didn't worship him.

When I mentioned this to this peacenik, he scoffed at it. When I repeated it, he insisted that that's not how God works now, and when I told him that he was missing the point...that God himself has used war as a means to an end, that was when this peacenik said he was a "New Testament Christian".

That is to say, "I don't believe half of the Holy Book".

I told him he could not do that, theologically. There is a verse in the Bible that condemns a person from subtracting from the Bible, and similarly for anyone adding to it. This did not phase our peacenik, who said that the verse was probably in the book of Revelations, and that Revelations was propagandist, and probably was not written by John the Baptist at all...

I then practically laughed at him. Not only did he not take the Old Testament at value at all, he was quite willing to pick apart the New Testament as well. Now, this is America, and you can say and believe what you wish, but that does not necesarily make it true. In a debate, or argument, you have to be able to convince the other person that YOU are right in order to change their minds.

However, not only did I find that this person only took the parts of the Bible that backed his philosophy up, and discarded the rest, but he told me that on the issue of men killing men, he was not going to change his mind at all. I accused him of being closed-minded, and he admitted that on that issue, he is.

The problem with peaceniks, and Laramie has more than its share of them, because we are a college town...the problem with peaceniks is that they do not recognize that the world is full of evil people...and sometimes, the only way that evil people will listen to reason is if that reason is backed up by a heavily-armed man with a big gun, and the will to use it...and he is accompanied by about 500,000 of his friends.

Saddam Hussein had his chance. He was given 12 years, and 17 UN Security Council resolutions, as I told this peacenik. We tried our best to say: "Come on Saddam, be a nice boy. Give us your weapons of mass destruction, quit threatening your neighbors, and be nice." It didn't work. The last resolution said that there would be dire consequences if Saddam didn't heed it.

When Saddan didn't heed that last resolution, it came down to this: either we put some brute force behind the resolution, or we fold up the UN and never EVER put ourselves out to influence anything in the world ever again...because the world would have seen the UN and the US by extension as what the Vietcong used to refer to as a "paper tiger".

If the peaceniks had their way, any evil guy with a rock bigger than the next guy would be able to rule the roost by the force of the gun. They see the use of force to stop evil as evil itself, and they generally don't listen to arguments that are opposite.

Peaceniks are generally not able to be reasoned with, as my encounter with one of the ones here in town proved...and he was one of the more peaceful ones. Others I have encountered are all too willing to buy into almost any conspiracy theory that suggests that the United States is nearly the source of much of the evil in the world, or the center of oppression, or some other such nonsense. In their world, the US knew about what was going to happen on Sept. 11, and did nothing, that George Bush wanted Sept. 11 to happen so that John Ashcroft could institute the homeland security program and the Patriot Act, that George Bush and the oil men, and Haliburton started the Iraq war over oil, and on and on...

When you try to say that perhaps we are fighting a just war against a regime of evil that is linked to Osama bin Laden, they simply get louder and louder and insist that THEY are right.

Quite a shock coming from a bunch of people who presumably want to continue to excercise their rights of free speech, but apparently I am not entitled to the same thing...nor am I entitled to have a single opinion that differs from theirs.

Oh well.

From the Great Rocky Mountains, on this December day, I wish the men in uniform the best of everything! Keep fighting the good fight, you guys! Please know that most of the people back home here support you, and await the day when you can come back to us...and the sooner that day comes, the better!

John B.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:21pm on Jun. 9, 2005 My First RANT (originally posted on 11-4-04)

By lunahq7

(Note: You come here at your own risk. Political talk is the subject of this, and all posts in this BLOG)

^.^

Alright.

Everyone who knows me knows that I am pretty far right when it comes to political views. I am not a Nazi or anything like that, but my political beliefs fall right along the right side of the road...less government involvement in the lives of us the people, lower taxes across the board, etc. Generally, take the political beliefs of George W. Bush, and the only one I have found to disagree with is the prohibition on federal money for stem cell research. I also listen to Rush Limbaugh as often as I can...so I get a good dose of Conservativism each week day.

Now that I have driven all of the weaker-hearted people away, let's get to the RANT...

I have noticed that once again, some people on the Left want to delegitimize the results of the election, concluded this last Tuesday. I must say that both John Kerry and George Bush acted like gentlemen in this matter...Kerry's people took a look at the results of the Ohio elections and decided that there was no way for him to get the 135-140K votes he would have needed to win Ohio, and thus the election...so he decided to do the right thing and concede...and thus NOT throw the country into another contested election that I think might have done serious damage to the entire process.

George Bush also acted like a gentleman...he didn't announce his victory on the night of the election, preferring instead to let Kerry "reflect" on the results. He accepted Kerry's concession in gentlemanly form, and did not gloat or anything like that. It was a refreshing scene, after the hard campaign this year, and the problems that arose after the 2000 election.

NOW, here's what we have:

• We have a President who won the popular vote by a 3% margin.
  
• We have a President who won the Electoral College vote with barely any of the problems that plagued the 2000 election.
  
• With these first two, we have a President who has a clear and legitimate mandate to lead the country.

However, we still get Liberals complaining. The following letter is an example, and it is in response to another Liberal who is almost in tears over the election results...

"Winning by 2% is no mandate.

I am not a Democrat (I'm an independent); however, thisturn of events is exceedingly frustrating to me becausepartisanship has now destroyed all of the Constitutional checks and balances designed into our government -- saveone, which I'll get to in a minute. We have already seen the effects of this in the first George W. Bush regime; Congress and the courts denied Bush almost nothing, and he in turn issued not one veto. There is only one single check remaining upon the Republican party machine's complete takeover of our government: the supermajority requirement to end a filibuster in the Senate.Note that this is not a Constitutional measure but merelya long-standing rule which could possibly be repealed. If i tgoes, we will have one party rule akin to that of Soviet Russia."

--Brett Glass, Laramie, WY

Now, before I get into why this guy is so wrong, let me remind you all that this country has been through a CIVIL WAR, and we have not managed to end the country. With that in mind, we survived eight years of Bill Clinton, we survived the Watergate scandal years, we survived the turmoil of Vietnam and the 1960's Civil Rights movement...we survived the Great Depression and WWII, and all of these were pretty heavy times, some of which presented real dangers that could conceivably end the country. However, the country survived all of these things.

To help my friends on the Left, I say this: eight years of George W. Bush will not end the country.

But the Left doesn't end there. One of the people who lives in my apartments is a MAJOR Liberal...he watches Bill Maher's HBO show and just drinks it in...which is fine. I sometimes watch the show to see what the Liberals...and the rare Conservative on the show...have to say. However, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore, and other Liberal shills get free reign in the house, but let one Conservative so much as say one thing he disagrees with, and this guy goes through the roof. To him, Rush Limbaugh is not someone to disagree with. Rush Limbaugh apparently doesn't have the same rights HE enjoys...Rush Limbaugh deserves to die a slow and painful death.

All of this was demonstrated when Ann Coulter was on the Maher show. Now, Ann can get offensive, let's not kid ourselves. She is WAY out on the Right, and her views oftentimes get a bad reaction from people. However, she was in an arena that was filled with political enemies. As the conversation went onward, it was clear that Ann was uncomfrotable facing both Bill Maher, and the panelists, all of whom were Liberal, AND the audience, who heckled her every chance they could get.

When the situation got out of control was when Ann responded to a bunch of audience booing by saying that half of them were the kind of people who wanted to see President Bush shot.

Now, while Ann was out of line in lodging that particular accusation, she was RIGHT in saying that there are people out there that want President Bush killed. It was in a book published earlier this year (that was scorned heavily on Limbaugh and Hannity). In a journalism class, a teacher gave the assignment: President Bush has been assassinated...you are the reporter on the scene...you write the story. When a student objected and asked if a different topic could be used, she was refused. Locally, I know of a guy that I get into arguments with over politics, and he has said that President Bush should be killed.

In the house, this caused an explosion from my apartment-mate, who called Ann Coulter a Nazi. When I tried to calm him down so I could continue to listen to what was going on, this man ripped into ME.

This same attitude has prevailed since the election. This same guy (I'll name him Fred), complained when Rush Limbaugh retired the Kerry theme song on election day (The Mighty Mouse theme), saying that it was rude of Limbaugh...saying that it was as though Rush was saying NYAH NYAH to Kerry.

This afternoon, I am sitting here at the cafe and another computer user is complaining about the election. He is saying that Kerry conceded too early...that there was a large number of voting irregularities that Kerry could have used to contest the vote. This despite the fact that Joel Lockhart, the Kerry campaign aide was asked on election day whether he saw any irregularities that would warrant a recount, and he said that while there were small things around the country, the election seemed to be running smoothly.

I'm sorry, but the Left needs to get with the idea that they have lost the 2004 election, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. There's no one that they can blame but themselves. There was no disenfranchisement. No hanging chads, no uncounted ballots, no Supreme Court decision. Bush won the 2004 election fair and square, and now the Left is faced with the hard realities. They are now faced with one question...

Not: how do we win the election, either now or in 2008, but

How do we stay relevant at all.

---

John B.

Blog Guy

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »