Big Girl Rantz

have a heart? or is a brain more important?

someone once told me that if you're not a liberal when you're young then you have no heart and that if you're still a liberal when you're an adult than you have no brain.  sage words, these.  but do they really apply in the here and now?

now-a-days all the kids are talking about this guy being a "moderate republican" that guy being a "compassionate conservative".  excuse me?  conservatism, by its very nature is compassionate and what does it mean to be a "moderate" republican.  seems to me that's just liberal-lite.

i believe that there are four major components to being a conservative:  fiscal, security, social and constitutional constructionism (is that a word?).  it is not a pick one from column a and one from column b chinese dinner.  it is an all or nothing proposition.  without all of these qualities represented, what is the real difference between the republicans and the democrats?

i am a red state conservative.  i make no apologies for it and i certainly don't make any excuses for it.  i believe that the constitution means what it says.  if i have a question as to the intent, i believe that i can find the answers in the federalist papers and sometimes even in the anti-federalist papers.

that said, as far as the 2008 republican race goes, this is the way i see things taking shape:

mitt romney may win iowa and/or new hampshire.  he's been spending all of his capital (and then some) to make that happen.  however, he currently has nearly double the amount of campaign debt as cash and so for all intents and purposes his campaign is about bankrupt.  if it weren't for his use of his personal funds thus far, his race would already be in the "also ran" category.

john mccain is done and has been nearly since the time of his declaration of intent to run.  he's nearly bankrupt and completely out of sync with the americans he claims to represent.  his status as hugely unpopular can be traced to his insane views on immigration, the gang of 14 on judges confirmation, and even campaign finance reform.  his refusal to aggressively interrogate terrorists isn't helping him any, either.

mike huckabee has small pockets of supporters who would like to see a baptist minister elected, period.  as near as i can tell, he is conservative only in his pro-life stance and his support of one man + one woman = marriage.  even if he somehow wins iowa, he won't go any further.

ron paul may be just a tad touched in the head.  at the very least he's an isolationist who doesn't understand that we live in a global economy.  and while ronald reagan did say "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.", that hardly makes me feel better where mr. paul is concerned.  additionally, his ties to white supremacists and anti-semitics are starting to surface - all of which means there is no way he will ever be a serious contender for the republican nomination.

duncan hunter and tom tancredo are both awesome men.  either of them could represent the country and the party quite well.  however, for whatever reason, neither of them has been able to capture the attention of conservative voters nationwide and so make it unlikely that either one of them could get voters to unite behind him.  i do hope that they each find a position in any republican administration that is formed as a result of the 2008 election.  it will be very interesting to see which candidate each endorses - i really wish they'd concede already and allow people to start uniting under one of the others.

that leaves two players really left standing after super tuesday 2008 - fred thompson and rudy giuliani.  fred is the only one i see who is able to reconcile all four points of conservatism that i listed above.  he is the only one who seems to truly understand how our government is supposed to work as laid out by our founding fathers and ratified by our ancestors in each of the states.

rudy is trying to move to the right on the issues that are of concern, but i don't think it will work.  there are just too many holes.  i know people who say he's great except for the abortion thing but that he says he'll appoint conservative judges so that's good enough.  but is it?

rudy has also said he's going to leave the second amendment question up to the states and it's where that question belongs.  nothing could be farther from the truth.  the second amendment is specifically mentioned and protected by the constitution and so is not a states' rights issue.  he doesn't want to  answer questions on this because he doesn't believe the second amendment should be left to stand.  one need only look at his history of dealing with guns (and the ownership and manufacturing thereof) to see that.

according to university of pennsylvania's factcheck.org only 14 of the 23 tax cuts that rudy giuliani has been claiming can actually be credited to him.  they further say:

In fact, he strongly opposed one of the largest cuts for which he claims credit, reversing himself only after a five-month standoff with the city council. In addition, the ad's claim that Giuliani turned the budget deficit he inherited into a surplus, while true enough, ignores the fact that he also left a multibillion-dollar deficit for his successor, not including costs associated with 9/11.

from the campaign spot at national review i got some further insight on this issue:

FACT: Mayor Giuliani Not Only Wanted To Keep The Tax, He Wanted To Raise It:

Mayor Giuliani Said That The Commuter Tax Should Be Increased Rather Than Eliminated. "Earlier today, Mr. Giuliani assailed the Legislature for seeking to end the commuter tax, saying that if anything, it should be higher." (Clifford J. Levy, "Leaders In Albany Plan To Eliminate Tax On Commuters," The New York Times, 5/13/99)

Mayor Giuliani Threatened Politicians Who Considered Voting For The Tax Cut. "At the City Hall event, Giuliani also warned Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and any other city-elected backers of the tax cut: 'Voting against the interests of the city, somehow, some way, you will pay for it.'" (Dan Janison, "Former Foes United," [New York] Newsday, 5/17/99)

in august of 1996, on the charlie rose show, rudy stated that he didn't fully agree with tax cuts proposed by bob dole, but thought that it was a good political ploy to get people focused on bob dole.  so is rudy using it as a political ploy now?  makes me wonder.

also, when questioned about how he was justifying his claim of being responsible for all 23 tax cuts the exchange went like this:

The former mayor summed up his position in this exchange:.

Saltonstall: All you have to do is say, ‘I support it,’ and you get credit for it?
Giuliani: Of course. That’s exactly right. Of course.

i disagree with this statement, as do tax experts quoted by the Daily News.

rudy ran new york as a sanctuary city but says he didn't.  his stated stance was that it is up to the federal government to deal with illegal aliens.  rudy says that he supports a tamper-proof id and such, but how would he enforce it?  the cities and states MUST work with the federal government, not against it, to enforce anything having to do with immigration - illegal or otherwise - else the problem will simply continue to grow.  sounds like he agrees with kansas's stance which is just plain ridiculous.  it's like saying "yes, it's illegal to rob the bank, but once you have the money it's yours."  whatever.

his spending was nothing to write home about either.  while he claims to have had a surplus when he left office, that's not quite the truth.  when rudy took the reigns for nyc from dinkins, the city had a $1.4 billion budget shortfall.  when he left, the after math of 9/11 not withstanding, the city had a $3.5 billion budget shortfall - more than twice the amount as when he took over.  if you factor in the damages from 9/11 (which i don't think it fair to do) the budget shortfall is greater than $5 billion.

we have had nearly eight years of "compassionate conservatism" and what has it gotten us?  don't get me wrong.  i am NOT bashing bush for the sake of bashing him, but while he has been steadfast in his effort to appoint conservative judges and executing the war on terror, he has been an excessive spender as well.  we can't afford another "compassionate conservative" or "moderate republican". 

there are other issues as well, too numerous to list in this post, but he is not the conservative he is claiming to be.  the long and the short of it is that middle america or texas or anywhere else outside of new york, really, is not new york.  by and large, red state conservatives will not vote or unite behind a new york republican.  this means that if rudy gets the nod from the rnc, we are very likely looking at the democrats winning the white house.  can you say "madame president"?

so do the words from the start of the post apply to the here and now?  in my mind yes.  if the republican party is not the party of conservatives then what is the point of having the republican party?  if the alternative to the secular, anti-american liberals is the pro-american, secular "moderate" republicans then, again, what's the point?

fridays at the pentagon

something good from media matters - and it's nothing, if not humbling.  a friend of mine, who has been a party to this "parade" says that "it is a truly unique and humbling experience."  i'll take his word for it.  this seems, to me, like a good sentiment to post on this day before thanksgiving.

i am thankful that these people are willing to stand in harm's way for our country and for the promotion and support of freedom worldwide.  i am thankful that i am free to have this blog and that i have so many friends out in the blogosphere to swap ideas and debate with.  thank you all for continuing to support me and allow me to support you.

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war.
Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman , who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls.
There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.

The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.

"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.

"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which t hey are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks.
An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

Did you know that?  The media hasn't told the story.

nothing exposes something so much as the light of day...

got this from a friend of mine who has probably had the single largest impact on my life, even if i didn't realize it at the time.  alas wisdom comes only with age...

any how, he sent me this press release and it's loaded with great information that will help all of us who are concerned with congress's fiscal responsibility.  or lack thereof.

Navigate House Defense Earmarks on Google Earth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 6, 2007

Contact: Gabriela Schneider

202-742-1520 ext 236

WASHINGTON, DC - Members of Congress know where the money is going: now citizens can, too. The Sunlight Foundation today released a Google Earth application that plots the locations for almost 1,500 earmarks in the House Defense Appropriations bill. This graphic illustration of defense earmarks gives anyone with an Internet connection a bird's eye view of exactly where Congress is directing federal spending - and the ability to investigate whether the earmarks address pressing needs, favor political contributors or are simply pure pork.

To start navigating earmarks, download Google Earth and then download Sunlight's House Defense file.

This presents a 3-D view of where the recipients of earmarks in the House Defense appropriations bill are located and corresponding links to EarmarkWatch.org -where citizens can further research each earmark and its recipient. Users can search for earmarks by city, state or zip code.

"Navigating earmarks on Google Earth is much more compelling and user-friendly than reviewing a list of earmarks or a spreadsheet," said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation. "Americans who are concerned about government spending and the upsurge in member use of earmarks now have a simple way to visualize and investigate how Congress is awarding defense-related federal funds."

Drawing on data from its EarmarkWatch.org site (created in collaboration with Taxpayers for Common Sense), this application lets citizens easily find and scrutinize House Defense earmarks on a state or district level.

Sunlight created this Google Earth application to demonstrate the power of posting information online in graphically appealing ways that makes data more easily understood.

The Sunlight Foundation supports, develops and deploys new Internet technologies to make information about Congress and the federal government more accessible to the American people. Through its projects and grant-making, Sunlight serves as a catalyst to create greater political transparency and to foster more openness and accountability in government.

End Report

you might also want to check out their "insanely useful links" tab - they really are.

enjoy!  but don't get your blog-pressure up - educate yourself and then share this with others so they may educate themselves and then make your feelings known.  in the blogosphere, to your friends, to your antagonists, but most especially to congress.

national right to life committee endorses fred...

today, the national right to life committee endorsed fred thompson's presidential bid for 2008.  this is big, big news.

this is not an endorsement by pat robertson or al franken or barney the purple dinosaur.  this is a pac that has more than 3000 chapters in all 50 states.  this is the largest pro-life group of voters in our country.  and they are backing fred.

from the nrlc press release earlier today:

WASHINGTON – Marking the first major endorsement by a national grassroots organization in the Republican presidential contest, National Right to Life, the nation’s largest pro-life organization representing pro-lifers in fifty state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, today announced its endorsement of former Senator Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

"As the first major grassroots organization to enter the Republican presidential race, National Right to Life is proud to endorse Fred Thompson,"

In making its endorsement, National Right to Life considered the position of candidates on the life issues, their records on the life issues and their ability to win.

Fred Thompson has had a strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career. Thompson opposes abortion and believes the 1973 abortion on demand Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and must be reversed. During his eight years in the United States Senate, he always opposed using tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported the many pro-life measures such as parental notice and consent.

stated Wanda Franz, Ph.D., president of National Right to Life. "Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win."

the emphasis is theirs. fred's response?

"I'm deeply appreciative for the past support by the National Right to Life Committee-PAC in my Senate campaigns, and today I am blessed and grateful to have received their endorsement for President of the United States.

"In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow."

i say again, that this is big, big news.

the msm and other candidates have been very busy trying to throw fred under the bus and say that he has also had flip flop issues on abortion.  he hasn't.  he has been consistent.

he doesn't support a constitutional amendment.  neither do i.  he doesn't support a federal law to deal with abortion.  neither do i.  this is a states' rights issue, folks. 

i'm quite certain that the majority of states will ban it because that is what the majority of constituents want. the only people who benefit with a national law are those in favor of abortion.  with roe v. wade they have been able to override the opinion of the majority by claiming a constitutional diktat.  over turning roe v. wade means it's back to the states.  this would be a good thing.

that's it.  fred has been in second place to rudy since he made his announcement.  i believe that this is about to change.  and boy does that ever make me happy.

let's get behind him.  not just say "i will if he gets the nomination".  with that type of response he won't get it.  if we back him and say, "he's my man", he will be.  let's support rudy only IF he gets the nomination.  make him the fall back candidate.

fred's the man for me.  he's the man who can win.  he's got my vote.

speak now or forever live in fear...

debbie over at right truth brought this whole thing to my attention.  truth be told, tantor let me know about the mosque in his post from 10 sept 2007 titled "the london markaz" but i had no idea that people were speaking out against in london.  sorry for not grasping the whole situation, tantor - great work for bringing this to light, deb.

worried about the security impact of the mega-mosque, councillor alan craig spoke out against it's being built.  the good folks over at god tube posted this:

the death threat video mentioned in deb's post is no longer available at you tube - i think this is the same one, but i'm not certain.  i wonder why.  perhaps they are worried that it will present the followers of islam, the religion of peace, in a bad light....

back in february the u.k. telegraph reported that the mosque would be blocked by the government.  from the article written by ben leapman and jonathan wynne-jones:

"A senior security source said that he was concerned about the proposed mosque, and expected ministers to use their powers to call in, and turn down, the planning application.

The move was confirmed by a senior Government source, who said there were fears that the giant mosque could damage community relations in the area, and added: "We are going to stop it."

There are clear planning grounds on which the development could be turned down. It is so close to the main Olympic venues that it may interfere with preparations for the Games."

and further:

"Tablighi Jamaat has hired a lobbying firm with a track record of supporting controversial planning applications, in an attempt to build political support for the project.

Indigo Public Affairs says that a formal planning application for the mosque will be submitted in the autumn, possibly with the size scaled back to meet some of the objections. A spokesman said: "Our client utterly refutes any links to terrorism. It is a predominantly apolitical organisation seeking to go about its faith in a peaceful way."

Tablighi Jamaat is a conservative and ultra-orthodox group with close links with the Wahhabi form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of British Muslims are sent by Tablighi Jamaat to madrassas in Pakistan every year, raising fears that some may be brainwashed. A leaked FBI memo alleged that al-Qaeda was using the organisation "as cover... to network with other extremists".

Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the July 7 suicide bombers, are believed to have visited the organisation's European headquarters, a mosque in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Supporters of Tablighi Jamaat point out that even if this were the case, the mosque would not necessarily be the place where the pair were brainwashed.

Muslims living near the site, in West Ham, have raised more than 3,000 signatures on a petition calling for the project to be halted. They want any new mosque to draw in all strands of Islam."

wow.  so at that point even muslims were trying to stop the building of the mosque - if for, albeit, different reasons than mr. craig.

fast forward about six months.  alan craig becomes more vocal in his opposition to the building of this mega-mosque.  two months ago the telegraph ran a new article about the situation just after the death threat video aired.  at that time, mr. craig did respond.  from the article:

"Mr Craig, a councillor for Canning Town South ward in Newham borough, has upset some Muslim residents in the area with his resistance to plans for a 12,000 capacity "mega-mosque" at Abbey Mills, near West Ham tube station.

It is being proposed by the ultra-orthodox group Tablighi Jamaat, whose previous adherents include Glasgow airport bomber Kafeel Ahmed, shoe bomber Richard Reid and the July 7 bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.

Until yesterday there was a web link from the Abbey Mills mosque website to abdullah1425's YouTube mini website, where he identifies himself as Muhammad, 23, from Stevenage, Herts. Yesterday Mr Craig said he refused to be intimidated by the clip, which he described as "an open invitation to take me out".

He said: "It's either a sick joke or it's worse. Even if I don't worry about myself, to put my wife and two young children on there is particularly sick."

Mr Craig said he had no problem with Muslims, but did object to Tablighi Jamaat's plan on the grounds of its alleged terror links."

although never officially sanctioned or censured, this group is 'on the list', so to speak.  also from the article:

"In 2003 Michael Heimbach, the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We found that al-Qa'eda used them for recruiting, now and in the past."

A French counter-terrorism official has also called it the "antechamber of fundamentalism", claiming it acted as a stepping stone to more extremist action."

of course the group denies any link to terrorism claiming they are a "peaceful, apolitical movement..."  whatever.

this great video, if you can understand his cockney accent, is a great support for councillor craig.  unfortunately, some others in the newham council can't scramble to appease the muslims fast enough.  clearly they have no idea that they are going straight to dhimmi-hood on the fast train.  to hell in a handbasket as it were.

i wonder, what sort of muslim participates in the olympics.  surely no women - they can't possibly be able to participate in sports in a burka.  sort of like other jobs they can't reasonably handle - ht to angel over at 'woman honor thyself' and be observant.  i can see it now: iran represented in gymnastics by wht's no-ah in a stylish, black, burka.  sheesh.

it saddens me that the uk is becoming completely and totally dhimmified.  i will someday, possibly sooner rather than later, miss my trips across the pond to london town.  i know it will come to that because i will NEVER wear a headscarf and i will never submit.

we need more people like councillor craig who are willing to speak out against the dark energy that is engulfing our planet.  as i said over at right truth's post: "my prayers and heart go out to these people. we need to do whatever we can to promote their courage."

this is my contribution to spreading the word.  won't you join me?

the art of the [political] sell

everyone keeps saying that rudy giuliani is the inevitable winner of the 2008 rnc nomination.  why?  because "he can beat hillary?"  i disagree.  he's not inspiring in real life, but he sure does great in the soundbites!  let's examine the real mr. giuliani a bit, shall we?

some are pointing to the fact that he's been married more than twice as an issue.  that's just fluff - actually, i think the msm is saying that the marriage thing is an issue for conservatives because they assume it is and they found a couple of people to agree so we all must think so too.

no, i'm more concerned about the things he did as mayor giuliani than as mr. giuliani.  i'm also concerned with what he is saying now to try to change who he has been - and i believe that we all need to be so.

in a recent column, pat buchanan posits that rudy is "...represents a return to liberal Republicanism that would strip the GOP of its hard-won progress on moral, social and cultural issues..."  he further says:

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

i believe this to be dead on accurate.  this video says so much about him while rudy's have a grand ol' time:

so after a public lifetime of being pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, etc. and being in march after march in the gay rights parade in new york, we are now to believe that he's a conservative?  sorry, i'm not buying it.

in april of 2006 joseph farah wrote in his column 'between the lines' for world net daily this about mr. giuliani:

"...the smart money has long suggested that Giuliani is incapable of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency because of his hideous positions on homosexuality and abortion. But it appears Giuliani is aware of this weakness and is attempting to hoodwink American evangelicals the way Bill Clinton did.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run."

And, boy, is he ever talking the talk.

Rudy Giuliani in drag

Now, before I tell you what he said, and to whom he said it, let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani.

Is America really ready for a drag-queen president?

Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another?

Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?

Should we expect the Grand Old Party to become the Gay Old Party in 2008 and put its stamp of approval on a guy 100 percent committed to the homosexual activist agenda?

and look where we are with rudy. 

for instance, with rudy giuliani we get the same view on abortion that president clinton had (and will have): personally against it, but believes a woman has a right to choose.  and then he says he supports constitutional constructionists for judges.  forgive my blondness, but aren't these two viewpoints just a tad contradictory?

it would be different if he said "i personally am opposed to abortion, and i believe that with a court comprised of constitutional constructionists roe v. wade would be overturned and the rule on abortion would be handed back to the states (where it belongs) and then i would fight at the state level to protect a woman's right to choose."  but that's not what he has said.  at least i have been unable to find any thing to indicate that this is what he believes.

the people over at the jewish task force break it down even further, calling rudy the 2008 election disaster.  much of the article is no longer timely (john mc cain and condoleeza are both mentioned as possible winners) but the information on rudy is still valid, if a trifle harsh...  in the article (that was originally published in 2005) they say:

Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.

But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.

Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.

Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.

Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)

Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

An uncaring mother and a cheating husband made for tabloid fodder during the messy Giuliani-Hanover divorce - Television personality Donna Hanover starred in The Vagina Monologues, a play about lesbian pedophilia, and played Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, in The People vs. Larry Flynt, a loving cinematic tribute to the infamous porn king, depicted in the film as a “free speech” crusader 

Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.

Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.

When the Giuliani's separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.

How can Republicans who so bitterly condemned the terrible moral example set by Bill Clinton now support for President the equally slimy Rudy Giuliani?

back in june william burnett references a piece in the village voice denouncing rudy's catholicness.  in so far as i could care less what religion potus is (provided it's not islam or the like) this does have some implications.  if he's not really catholic, based on his actions and his life, then how can we expect him to behave in a conservative manner at any level?  any way, in the burnett piece he says:

On abortion, the article goes point-by-point in Giuliani's public career to demonstrate a man embracing the so-called right to abortion much more than politically necessary to get elected into office. In fact, as a matter of policy, Giuliani continued Mayor Ed Koch's practice of having the city fund abortions at city hospitals for women who could not afford it -- no questions asked. According to the article...

One of [Giuliani's] prime claims to the presidency, emphasized on the stump, is his slashing of the city's welfare rolls. But even as he found brutal new ways to cut the poor off the dole, he was using millions in city funds to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet [Federal subsidy] eligibility standards.

this does not sound like a man who is "personally against abortion" to me.  does it to you?

possibly more informative is this information from john hawkins over at human events.  he lays it out so well, i can't think any more should be necessary as a reason to vote against this guy in the primaries.  mr. hawkins posits that rudy is not really against gay marriages, is anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, and he is pro-illegal immigration.  in fact mr. hawkins says:

If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.

there is more, but it goes on and on and on.  none of it good.  call him charismatic.  call him personable.  call him a great salesman.  just don't call him a conservative, because he isn't.

personally, i think that rudy was very positive and public in the aftermath of 9/11.  however, i also recognize that 9/11 saved rudy politically.  does this make him a good fit to be potus?  i don't think so.  but make no mistake: IF rudy gets the nomination (because a lot of people are too idiotic to vote for an actual conservative) i will support his bid for the presidency.  i just don't want it to come down to that....

and yet another brilliant idea from pelosi's house.

this was brought to my attention by a client of mine who happens to be a mortgage broker.  you may not have heard, but a bill has been introduced in the house (hr 3915) that will effectively eliminate mortgage brokers.

baton online processing has a really in-depth article, and explains how it is ostensibly needed to control predatory lending and why that's not true for the industry.  i'm going to try to give you just a little more human interest information.  proprietor nation tells his own story - maybe between the two of us we can show you what it means to you and me in the real world...

the two main components of this bill are the elimination of stated income loans and the elimination of yield spread premiums (ysp).  the elimination of ysp's would be only for brokers, banks would be exempt from this legislation just as they already are from disclosing ysp information.  mortgage brokers must disclose to the consumer that they are being charged a ysp, banks do not.

what is a ysp, you say?  according to my client a ysp comes into play in the following scenario:

"If there is not enough room to collect lender and any other 3rd party fees from the borrower in the form of closing costs on a refinance or purchase on the front end of the transaction we have the ability to charge the customer a higher than market rate so we get paid for our services by the end investor.  Just another way for us to earn our fee and the customer is given the choice of a higher rate with minimal fees or a lower rate with normal fees.  Something that doesn’t need to be legislated as the market will always allow the consumer to shop and determine what is best for their particular situation."

oh, i see the problem now.  we can't have people determining what is best for themselves now, can we? 

if only banks are allowed to offer a "no cost loan" which requires a ysp option, how competitive do you think the loans will be?  not very.  will consumers be better served by having fewer choices?  i think not.  will the economy be better served if a large segment of the industry simply vanishes because they have been put out of business by this legislation?  of course not.

this is just pure politics and it does nothing but hurt the consumer.

the second major provision in the bill eliminates stated income loans.  but wait, you say, aren't the stated income loans the reason we're in this situation with the home loan crisis???  no, of course not, but that's what the msm wants you to believe.  stated income loans have been around for a very long time and they are only used for a very narrow set of qualifications.  from my client:

We do loans for people with high credit scores, lots of verified assets, low loan to value, etc.. without verifying income through traditional means (i.e. tax returns, W2’s and pay stubs) since it a perceived as a low risk transaction.  It has been done this way forever for high net worth people that don’t want to hassle with all the paperwork, self employed people that don’t necessarily report all their income on their tax return, real estate investors, service industry people that have a lot of unreported cash income, etc…

as someone who is self-employed, i can tell you that if it weren't for stated income loans i wouldn't own a house.  we've used this type of loan a number of times over the years and it's never easy or fast, but it beats the alternative of renting.  this type of loan is not given to someone without verifiable assets.  you don't just walk in and say "i make $100k a year and i want to buy this house but i don't have proof of what i make" and then they give you a mortgage.  it just doesn't work that way.  but unless i go get a "j-o-b" and this things passes, i will never be able to buy another house.  oh joy.

i think this letter, from a resident of rohnert park, ca, sent to reps lynn woolsey, dianne feinstein and barbara boxer says it best:

To:
President George Bush
Rep. Lynn Woolsey
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Barbara Boxer

November 4, 2007

The Vote on H.R. 3915 is on November 6, 2007 that proposes to eliminate YSP(rebate). Please vote NO on this bill. My industry faces extinction if this bill passes. This bill is also about our rights as individuals to determine our own financial destiny and independence. Who is to say that the government can pass legislation to force us, as homeowners, to take a par rate and possibly pay up-front origination costs? Each individual has their own unique financial plan and tax goal. One year it may be better to take a par rate and pay origination, and another year it may be better to take a higher rate and not pay up-front costs or even somewhere in between. Isn't that why we have financial planners, CPAs, and mortgage brokers? We need loan options tailored made for an individual. That's why we need all sorts of loan options and mortgage brokers to work individually with each unique homeowner in the United States. Let's get real, we were not all created equally in credit status, tax brackets, or finances. If the federal government believes they can cookie cut the perfect loan for everyone, then we have truly lost what America is about Financial Freedom.

Rohnert Park , CA

please join me in signing the petition to halt this legislation.  but don't stop there.  also call the authors of the bill:

barney frank
(202) 225-5931

brad miller
(202) 225-3032

mel watt
(202) 225-1510

and then call your congressional representatives - all of them.

both houses of our congress sure are up to stupid stuff lately.  once again we need to remind them who they work for.  the vote is tomorrow so we don't have much time.

thanks, in advance, for your cooperation.

scuttle their efforts before our sovereignty is LOST!

so i turned on my blackjack this morning and began checking my email.  this letter was emailed to me from the 'center for individual freedom' - www.cfif.org and it ties in with a previous post of mine.  when i published that original post on 17 october 2007, the senate foreign relations committee had not yet voted to present the law of [the] sea treaty - LOST - to the greater senate.  now they have. 

last week the senate foreign relations committee voted 17-4 to send the all-encompassing international treaty that controls every aspect of maritime law on the high seas - from ocean shipping to deep-sea mining to military maneuvers - to the full senate.  it requires a 2/3s affirmation by the senate to ratify the treaty.  this means that we need 34 votes to block the ratification.

it is imperative that we block this ratification.  call your senators.  use this link to join a blastfax campaign to voice your concerns. if this treaty is ratified, it becomes law for us here in the u.s. and at that point our sovereignty is gone forever.

in the wall street journal online, today, they ran this article titled 'arctic thaw defrosts a sea treaty' and it has some interesting information.  it appears that the author of the article is for us ratifying this treaty, but for the life of me i cannot understand why.  but since i can't understand why anyone, in our country, would want us to hand over such a large chunk of our sovereignty, that's really no surprise, is it?

i love how the msm is spinning this thing to make it sound like it's a no brainer that we should ratify it.  for instance, the article says:

Oil and mining companies support the treaty because it could grant the U.S. access to an additional 291,000 square miles of seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, North Atlantic, Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. Recent estimates suggest more than 400 billion barrels of oil and gas could be located in the Arctic, along with deep-sea deposits of precious metals.

Taxes are another point of contention. Companies must pay 1% of revenue to an international body on any resources extracted beyond the 200-mile limit after five years of production, with rates rising by 1% annually to a maximum of 7%. Critics object to such payments.

what he isn't telling you is that the u.n. has formed the "international seabed authority (ISA)" which appears to be an organization designed to shake-down united states' mining and maritime companies.  the isa requires that companies pay a $500,000 (yes 500k) application fee to gain permission to operate on the ocean.  additionally there is an annual fee of $1,000,000 per company - call it a license fee, i guess.  and mr. timiraos forgot to mention the companies will be required to share their mining and navigational technology with the ISA and other treaty signatores.

there is so much more in the article and so many more things that he leaves out of his article.  we simply MUST stop this treaty from being ratified.

president bush says "Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States. …And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."  big deal.  we will have one vote against myriad votes against us.  yeah, that will be helpful.

please take the time to act on this today.  please cross post this to help spread the word.

if you are of a different opinion on this, i'd love to hear it.  if you're in agreement, i'd love to know that too.  thanks!

also, take a visit at angel's place and read her latest, http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/?p=4418,  there is always something great going on there and this open-trackback of hers always has some wonderful links for a good read!