Thursday, May 05, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
RECLAIMING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
THE AMERICAN DREAM
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Published: October 14, 2010 3:00 a.m.
Huckabee gives Daniels, Pence a lift
FORT WAYNE – and possibly future – Republican presidential candidate believes two prominent Hoosiers would make viable candidates to be the country’s chief executive.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Gov. Mitch Daniels and Rep. Mike Pence would be qualified to lead the country as the next president. The Fox News host was in Fort Wayne on Wednesday as the keynote speaker at the Allen County Republican Party Bean Dinner fundraiser.
“Mitch Daniels has done I think an exemplary job as a leader, manager and governor of the state,” Huckabee said in an interview before the dinner. “I tend to think governors make good presidents because they’ve actually managed a microcosm of the federal government.
“On the other hand, Mike Pence is one of my favorite members of Congress, one of my heroes, and I love the guy. I think he is the most articulate, conviction-based and principled member of Congress. If we had 434 like him in the House, there wouldn’t be an uprising among the voters right now.”
Huckabee, Daniels and Pence have all been rumored as possible GOP candidates for president in 2012. Huckabee has not committed to seeking the post but said he would be happy to see Daniels and Pence run.
Huckabee sent a fundraising letter this summer criticizing Daniels for calling for a truce on social issues so government could focus on the economy. Pence topped Huckabee in the Family Research Council’s Values Voter straw poll last month – Daniels finished ninth.
“I would be delighted if either or both of them get in it because I think it just raises the level of the debate to solid conservative, responsible fiscal management,” Huckabee said of Daniels and Pence.
Huckabee said the race will be hotly contested, guessing 20 people would start out seeking the party nomination, which likely will be reduced to about eight by January 2012.
But he added that election is still far off, and the focus for voters should be on the upcoming congressional races and not speculation for president.
“The only thing that matters right now is making sweeping changes in the Congress this year in the midterms. That is going to do more to save our great republic than anything that happens two years from now,” he said.
Huckabee believes it will be a banner year for Republicans. While Democrats are trying to hit at potential divisions between tea party activists and conventional Republicans, Huckabee said voters don’t care about that. Instead they are fed up with a federal government that has overreached. He believes voters will correct that on Election Day and Republicans will retake the House and have a “real shot” at taking the Senate and a majority of the governors.
“It’s because the intensity of the Republican voter is just on fire,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Huckabee spoke to the crowd of about 600 for about 35 minutes at Ceruti’s Summit Park.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Mike Pence For President: Greta Reported, You Decide!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
RECLAIMING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
THE AMERICAN DREAM
Fresh off coming in first place in the presidential preference poll at the Values Voters Summit this past weekend, Mike Pence tonight is making a speech on the nature and conduct of the presidency at Hillsdale College. We at the Spectator secured an advance copy of it, and it is powerful stuff. It is thoughtful, wise, eloquent, inspirational, and timely. It also takes some barely veiled, beautifully targeted shots at the current occupant of the Oval Office. The theme is that the presidency is not an office for a ruler, but for a servant; not for somebody to "transform" us, but for somebody who will listen to us and work for us, to make our visions a reality rather than to impose his vision on us. Obviously, this is not what one B.H. Obama is doing, or at least trying to do.
What the nation says -- the theme of this address -- What it says, informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature's God -- What it says quite naturally and rightly, if not always gracefully, is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution and impassioned by the Declaration of Independence.
The presidency has run off the rails. It begs a new clarity, a new discipline, and a new president. The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us, we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.
Take that, Barack!
While most of Pence's best passages are paragraph, a few pithy sentences stand on their own. They stand well because they are rooted in the best of American values. For instance: "The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly." And: "A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him."And: "The sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president's conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation."
And, stirringly, on America's prudential place in the world, as oft by example as by direct engagement, but always steadfast: "We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength."
But what am I doing by doling this out in dribs and drabs? Here, yes here, is the whole speech. Read the whole thing and marvel. Maybe Mike Pence will run for the presidency in 2012, or maybe not. But he definitely belongs in the conversation for it, and as a potential leading light among the candidates. And even if he does not run, the other candidates should call upon his eloquence and his wisdom.
To Rep. Pence, we should all say: Good job, good sir. Good job.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
President Bush and U.S. troops persevered while others sniped
By Rep. Mike Pence
August 30, 2010
As the combat mission in Iraq draws to a close for the United States and the president prepares to address the nation tonight, the Obama administration is attempting to rewrite history by taking singular credit for our accomplishments in Iraq. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. recently claimed it was President Obama who laid out the plan for a responsible end of the war in Iraq. But that's not the whole story.
As we mark this milestone, let us remember the real history of Operation Iraqi Freedom and give credit where credit is due - to the American service members, their families and a commander in chief who would not accept defeat in the face of withering criticism at home and abroad.
Seeing U.S. combat forces leaving with success is chiefly the result of the professionalism and sacrifices of our military in executing the surge and the Status of Forces Agreement implemented before Mr. Obama set foot in the Oval Office.
First, our brave men and women in uniform deserve our nation's deepest gratitude. With great valor, they manned the front lines of the war on terror and achieved a stable and successful conclusion to our combat operations in Iraq. We commemorate the more than 4,000 American troops who made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. Their names will forever be enshrined on the hearts of the people of two grateful nations. For their families, the war in Iraq will never end, and we pray that God comforts them with the knowledge that the sacrifice they endured was not in vain.
We also commend the many more who suffered life-altering injuries in the course of their courageous service. All of the men and women who served under the American flag in Operation Iraqi Freedom have made us safer, and they have made us proud.
Our troops went to Iraq as part of a strong multinational force that executed one of the swiftest military advances in history. In a remarkably short time, they liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship, and the world watched the celebrations in Baghdad.
Those early accomplishments did not bring a swift end to the conflict in Iraq. Vicious terror and military attacks continued against our troops and innocent civilians. But President George W. Bush recognized the long-term danger of abandoning an unstable Iraq, although many of his political opponents here at home did not. While Republican leaders like Rep. John A. Boehner were saying "victory is the only option," leading voices in the Democratic Party took a starkly different approach.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that "this war is lost," and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserted, "This is not the way to go. It has failed." Both advocated a premature withdrawal and timetables that would have ensured defeat and consigned the Iraqi nation to a future in the hands of radical insurgents.
Early in 2007, amid growing violence in Iraq, Mr. Bush acted on the advice of commanders on the ground and embraced a new strategy that came to be known as the "surge." When I met with Mr. Bush days before he announced the strategy, he told me and a handful of other congressional leaders that he had "decided not to lose." He told us he was implementing a new strategy on the ground with new commanders and was determined to give victory one more chance.
Despite public opposition and criticism in the press, Republicans in Congress stood with our soldiers, again and again, supporting the surge and providing the resources they needed to complete the mission.
House Democrats voted 11 times to implement artificial timetables and tried repeatedly to impose unrealistic conditions on military funding that would have amounted to cutting the funds to our troops in Iraq. They were ready to forsake the fledgling security efforts of Iraq's own forces and abandon an infant democracy to the embrace of brutal terrorists.
As senators, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were among the voices calling for a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. To make their point, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden even voted to deny necessary funding for our troops. They also voted 10 times to impose a dangerous timetable for withdrawal that only would have increased the resolve of our enemies.
It also is important that history record that then-Sen. Obama opposed the surge strategy as soon as it was announced. He claimed that instead of reducing violence, the surge would make things worse and no amount of additional troops on the ground would "make a substantial difference." After Mr. Bush's 2007 State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama told an interviewer, "I don't think the president's strategy is going to work."
Despite the fact that it was obvious by late 2007 that violence in Iraq was declining, Mr. Obama and other leaders of his party refused to recognize the progress. In November 2007, Mr. Obama argued that the United States had "not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."
The simple fact is that Mr. Reid, Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Obama were wrong about the surge and wrong to oppose it.
This administration didn't even set in motion the agreement leading to today's withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq. Before Mr. Bush left office, his administration negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement that was approved by the government of Iraq in December 2008. This agreement set in motion the drawdown of American troops from combat operations in Iraq. On Jan. 1, 2009, before Mr. Obama took office, the United States gave control of the Green Zone and Saddam Hussein's presidential palace to the Iraqi government.
Today, Iraq is experiencing a higher level of stability and security, but our mission there is far from over as our military shifts to an advise-and-assist role. Thousands of American soldiers will remain in Iraq and will need the continued support of this administration and Congress as they assist the Iraqi people in achieving lasting security.
I am grateful for the support the Obama administration has shown our troops in Iraq, but its long-standing opposition to our military's successful surge strategy must not be forgotten in the midst of this widening American success. The truth is, this successful transition is due to the brave service of our troops and a commander in chief who supported the military's strategy in the face of intense domestic opposition.
As the president addresses the nation tonight, let's hope he gives credit where credit is due: to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who wrought stability from tyranny and terrorism in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and, for once, let's hope the president gives credit to a predecessor who refused to accept defeat.
Rep. Mike Pence is chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Is Notre Dame University Still Confused
Over the Politics of Abortion?
by Micah Clark
American Family Association of Indiana
Even though the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops was very clear in their opposition
to the health care legislation bill due to
its abortion funding provisions, it's clear
that this message didn't seem to have much
of an impact with the former president of
Notre Dame University.
A report in the Los Angeles Times praising
the influence of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
tells of her calling Father Theodore Hesburgh,
former president of Notre Dame. The Speaker
was not calling for spiritual guidance, but
political help for the pro-abortion
legislation. She asked Hesburgh to call
Indiana Congressman Joe Donnelly, a Democrat
from South Bend who allegedly had concerns
over the abortion issue. The reporter
observing the call and the Speaker's clout
does not report on the ND president's response,
but notes that Donnelly supported the bill over
the objections of pro-life and Catholic groups.
A year after Notre Dame was criticized for
hosting President Obama, the Speaker of the
House hundreds of miles away, knew so well
where the past President of ND stood politically,
that she had no hesitation in calling him and
asking him to ignore the teachings of his church
in order to do a political power play with a
local legislator. This news story does not
reflect well upon the moral teachings of the
Indiana college if its past president doesn't
even place them above politics.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A special thanks goes to "Stop the ACLU" for this Posting!
Posted on August 27, 2009
Today’s theme is brought to you by the word “consequences.” When dealing with Democrats/liberals/progressives, there are always consequences, the majority of which were never considered when calling for and/or implementing legislation/plans. Another (h/t Blogs For Victory)
The Cash For Clunkers program is adding to the activity at treasurers’ offices all around South Dakota. First, people were asking for proof of ownership, so they could show they owned their vehicle. And when they do, new owners need to bring every bit of paperwork provided to them by their dealer. for a full year, allowing them to cash it in. Now, they’ll be returning to register their new
“That means they need their title, their damage disclosure, their and the dealers have 30 days to get that to them,” Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam Nelson said.
But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer’s office windows. That’s because the government’s rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.
“They didn’t realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don’t realize that. So they’re not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out,” Nelson said.
On the front end, CFC sounded great. Stimulate people buying auto’s in the private market by offering rebates, because money circulating in the economy is a good thing. Though, of course, Dems linked this with AGW and made people purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle. You know, a Hummer to a Dodge Ram. But, alas, the consequences rear their ugly heads
- people have to pay tax on the rebate
- fewer used vehicles, meaning fewer cars on lots, meaning fewer sales, meaning less commission for the sales people and dealerships
- fewer used vehicles, which harms the middle and lower classes who would typically purchase them
- Dealers not getting their money back because of burdensome and onerous government paperwork
- less money passing through the economy because there are fewer to sell
Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Obama Closes Doors on Openness
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."
The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other "lawyerly hedges" means the Holder memo is now "astonishingly weaker" than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)
Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig's office. The separate standard for "pending" lawsuits was inserted because of the "burden" it would impose on officials to go "backward" and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama "has backed up his promise" with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now "under review."
Saturday, April 11, 2009
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:13 AM on 11th April 2009
Good Friday address: Pope Benedict warned that religious sentiments are increasingly being held up to ridicule in the West
Pope Benedict XVI last night attacked the rise of aggressive secularism in Western societies, warning them that they risked drifting into a 'desert of godlessness'.
He used his Good Friday meditations to compare deliberate attempts to remove religion from public life to the mockery of Jesus Christ by the mob as he was led out to be crucified.
'Religious sentiments' were increasingly ranked among the 'unwelcome leftovers of antiquity' and 'held up to scorn and ridicule', he added.
'We are shocked to see to what levels of brutality human beings can sink,' said the Pope at an evening ceremony at the Coliseum in Rome.
'Jesus is humiliated in new ways even today when things that are most holy and profound in the faith are being trivialised, the sense of the sacred is allowed to erode.
'Values and norms that held societies together and drew people to higher ideals are laughed at and thrown overboard. Jesus continues to be ridiculed.'
The German-born Pope, who turns 82 later this month, prayed Christians would respond by growing in faith.
'May we never question or mock serious things in life like a cynic,' he added. He also condemned the oppression of women, saying there were 'many societies in the world where women fail to receive a fair deal.'
Friday, April 10, 2009
Oh please, Father, don't argue what the meaning of "is" is. That is so unbecoming of a Christian leader. As President of a once prestigious college, you should do the right thing. By dis-inviting Obama, perhaps that could be the "wake-up call" that could lead to his (Obama's) Christian conversion. The lives of countless unborn are in your hands right now, Father, and like Pontius Pilate, you will not be able to simply "wash your hands" and claim no responsibility of the murder of innocents!
Pax Et Bonum!
Please e-mail your thoughts to the President of Notre Dame University today!
Father John Jenkins
Notre Dame University
Monday, November 03, 2008
Blessed Francis warned his brothers never to judge or criticize those who live in luxury, eat fastidiously, and indulge in superflous and splendid clothes. God, he said, is their Lord and ours; he has the power to call them to himself and to justify them.
Saint Francis of Assisi
Legend of Perugia - 58
Saturday, November 01, 2008
October 27, 2008
Dear brothers and sisters,
In these days you are seeking the votes of your fellow Americans for public office. At the same time, you take the position that abortion, however regrettable it may be, should remain legal.
I write to express the convictions of tens of millions of citizens. Your position is a blatant contradiction to the very meaning of public service, the first requirement of which is to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public!
We ask, first of all, Have you ever seen an abortion? So many who defend abortion’s legality cannot even bring themselves to look at the horrifying pictures of children torn apart by the procedure (www.unborn.info). But if we cannot look at it, why should we tolerate it?
We likewise ask, Are you willing to publicly describe what you think should be legal? Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, in sworn testimony, described the “D and E” abortion procedure, still legal throughout our nation, by saying, “Typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece…" (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S). In the same case, abortionist Dr. Hylan Raymond Giles, when asked, “Can the heart of a fetus or embryo still be beating during a suction curettage abortion as the fetus or embryo comes down the cannula?” answered, “For a few seconds to a minute, yes.”
When you say the word “abortion,” is this what you mean? When you say it should be legal, are you willing to quote those who explain what it is?
Your position is undermining the fabric of our nation. We repeat to you again the question posed by Mother Teresa in her speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on February 3, 1994. “And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
We have not yet heard a “pro-choice” candidate answer any of these questions.
That’s why people cannot vote for you, and you shouldn’t be asking for their vote. If you can’t respect and protect the life of a little baby, how are you supposed to respect and protect our lives, or any other right we possess?
When you ask someone for your vote, you are actually asking them to share in your failure to protect these children. You’re asking them to share in the deception by which you justify that failure. You’re asking them, too, to contradict the meaning of public service. They are not morally permitted to say yes to what you are asking.
We in the pro-life movement do not need any reminders about the plight of young mothers. We serve them every day, providing real alternatives to abortion.
Nor do we accept the accusation that we are narrowly focused on a “single issue.” We are not ashamed of the fact that we recognize a holocaust when we see one, and that we understand the foundation, heart, and core of our concern for all the other issues – life itself.
We’re not a vote for you to court or an interest group for you to appease. Rather, our movement represents the heart and core of every movement for justice. That is why, whether you end up elected to public office or not, we will be there – in the halls of government, in the media, and on the streets of every city, town, and countryside across America – pressing the cause of justice for a group of human beings whose rights you have forgotten.
We will neither cease to remind you, nor will we wait for you to remember. Our cause is as great as America itself, and it will prevail. May you have the wisdom to join us.
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life