Dec. 17, 2008 - Progressive Policies cause Economic Regression

A good opinion piece by Pete du Pont, well worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122946400586011729.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Our pastor made the point a few weeks back that when people reject the true Savior, they will often look to government to be their savior.  I think we may be seeing this come to pass.

Blessings, Holly

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dec. 9, 2008 - For those who assume the governor will be impeached

Welcome to IL.  It's not at all clear that our dear governor will be impeached.  In fact, it's not clear he won't still appoint the Senator for the seat he tried to sell off to the highest bidder.  Yes, I know, you just heard the Fitzgerald news conference.  You just listened to the FBI Special Agent in charge say that if IL isn't THE most corrupt state in the nation, it sure is a h*** of a competitor (direct quote, sorry for the curse).

BUT, what you NEED to know is:

Impeachments start in the IL House.

Lisa Madigan (D), Sec of State, wants to be governor in 2010.

If Blago. is impeached, our Lt. Gov. (Quinn-D) becomes Governor, gaining huge advantage for the 2010 race.

Lisa Madigan's daddy (D) is Speaker of the IL House and has been for all but two years (when Reps were the majority) since 1983.

Should be interesting to watch, no?  And make no mistake.  The real power in this state is Daley, not the Governor.  I hope Fitzgerald will ultimately get to Daley.  That would be a good thing.

Blessings, Holly

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dec. 9, 2008 - So my governor has been taken into custody...

It's great to be from IL, ain't it?

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=6545958

Our previous governor (Ryan-R), the one Durbin now wants pardoned, you might remember is already in jail on corruption charges.  Seems he sold trucking licenses for cash while Sec. of State and oops! one of those unqualified truckers crashed into a family van of six homeschooled kids and they ended up being burned alive.

Does anyone still question that the corruption here engulfs both parties at every level?

Amazing that somehow someone as straight and narrow as Obama emerged, hunh?  I'm sure we have no reason for alarm at the number of close Daley associates he has advising him in his new administration.

***sigh***  No blessings in any of this mess, folks.

Holly

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dec. 9, 2008 - How is that

we're nationalizing the auto industry and no one much cares? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/economy/09nationalize.html?th&emc=th

Given the beholdness of Dems to unions, do we really think this is a good marriage to be making? 

Blessings, Holly

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Nov. 4, 2008 - I'm callin' it.

I can't bear to watch anymore.

Let me  congratulate President Obama. I disagree with just about every policy stance the man has taken, but I will pray for this new President.

For the sake of our country, I do hope the vote margin in Ohio exceeds 200,000 (the number of new registrations that Dem Sec of State Bruner labelled problematic out of 600,000 new) and I really hope that the vote margin nationwide exceeds 500,000 (the estimated number of fraudulent voter registrations). I think it will and I do think that would be a good thing for our country if that's the case.

I'm also praying that the Dems don't get to 60 in the Senate so that there might be at least the check of a Republican filibuster.

Obama ran a great campaign and I am proud of our country tonight. I just wish Obama's personal story and personality could have been married to McCain's sense in judicial appointments and foreign policy expertise. Then I could be both proud and happy.

Good night all!

Blessings,
Holly

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Nov. 4, 2008 - This is funny on many levels...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/science/04tierney.html?ei=5070

Not the least of which is all these esteemed researchers in the link above completely miss the reason that strikes me as totally obvious as to why conservatives are more cheerful than liberals.  Any guesses from the peanut gallery?  Hint:  It ain't our supposed breezy acceptance of social injustice.  Goodness, if that were the case, how to explain that conservatives give much more to charity than liberals (see Syracuse U's Arthur Brook's book on that one)?  And I don't think it's that conservatives have more satisfying (and a more married) sex life, though research shows that they do that too.   Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that doesn't *hurt* our cheerfulness, but it's not the main reason for it. 

Nope, there's a much bigger reason conservatives are happier/more cheerful/more humorous.   Your ideas?  Here's a hint:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Perspective&PerspectiveID=31

Blessings, Holly

 

• 1 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Oct. 29, 2008 - If Obama is saying this *before* the election...

Here's Obama's new ad dropping his much vaunted tax breaks for families earning from 250K down to 200K: (about 30 sec in, with the graphic right on the screen).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvkRFKGgGw

And here's Biden dropping the bar to families earning 150K:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAEE1_IUycs

This is not a Biden gaffe as the Obama campaign explanation that families 150-250K would not see a break,  nor would they see an increase.  Not only is this an about face, but why should we believe it? If they are saying this prior to the election, what will the bar really be? 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122524355079278651.html  This one is only three paragraphs, a great read.

Blessings, Holly

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Oct. 24, 2008 - Respectin' Da Readahs

After my Cindy McCain column (below), I received not only Arby's (read his blog for his familial noms de plume alone!) comment on family values, but a worried personal email from a real life friend who helpfully attached a James Dobson column for me.   Which I thought a gracious and subtle way of steering me back to the fold; but trust me folks, I haven't left the fold.  (For what it's worth, Dobson himself wasn't part of the McCain fold til Palin came on board.)

One errant reader comment I can overlook, but when a sizeable portion of my readership (2!) comments similarly, probably safe to assume that the error lies with the writer.  That would be moi.  I repent in sackcloth and ashes.

I should have known better than to use the term "family values" which immediately conjures politicized topics such as abortion.  I am well aware and equally disapproving of Obama's stance on the politicized realm of family values.

My reference, poorly executed I surmise, pointed to the more narrow and personal definition of family values...how one actually treats their own family.  Namely, John McCain is an admittted adulterer and he and his current wife decimated and destroyed a family with kids.  As far as we know, Obama is the faithful husband of one woman and his wife has made family friendly decisions, such as working only part time when her children were young.

No one yelled louder during Clinton's time about his personal character and my point is that if I wanted to yell then, fairness dictates I at least comment now when the shame falls on my own candidate.

I told you I wasn't surprised by the NY Times attack on Cindy McCain so close to the election.  I was surprised, however, to hear no less than Dem strategist Bob Beckel condemning it.  I expected the left to be silent on the piece, given the routine left bias in the mainstream media.  So kudos to Beckel.

I watched with interest a TV interview in which Cindy McCain obliquely addressed the hatchet piece.  I almost felt some sympathy for her, but then...then there was the moment.  Interviewer asked her to describe how she met McCain and Cindy launches into a swing down memory lane about how she didn't know anything about the man (I guess that is code for LIKE HE WAS MARRIED!) and he invited her for a drink, they discussed the books they'd read etc etc etc.

Which for a normal relationship would be fine, but the creepy factor went off the scale for me because we know she is describing the beginning of an affair.  An affair that led to the destruction of a family.  Really, what would have been so wrong in saying, "You know, out of respect for the first Mrs. McCain, John and I  don't discuss our early relationship publicly."  THAT I could have respected.  Waxing eloquent on an affair, even one 28 years in the past, is repugnant.  It would be like reading a Psalm where David extols stealing Bathsheba and murdering her husband.

But thanks to the readers for keeping me on my toes.  I appreciate the feedback!

Blessings, Holly

 

 

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Oct. 18, 2008 - Cindy McCain

Today's NY Times profiles Cindy McCain. 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?th&emc=th

Take it for what you will; I think it a brilliantly subtle ploy on behalf of the Times to raise a person and issues that we social conservatives don't take a cotton to.  How kind of the Times to remind us of this less than three weeks before an election.

When Cindy McCain arrived in Washington, the Times tells us not only was she snubbed at a luncheon for Congressional spouses, but that her name badge read Carol McCain.  Mrs. McCain Redux felt this likely an intentional act by those who were partial to Senator McCain's first wife.

Is it unChristian of me to think, well, good?  Probably.  Perhaps it depends on whether or not Mrs. McCain 2 calls herself a Christian.  If she does, then believers are instructed not to even eat with her.   If she doesn't, then why would Christians be surprised when those who don't believe the standard fail to hew to it?   Personally, I think social ostracism has gotten a bad rap.  Social ostracism serves a useful role and I think it probably helped back in the days where one could not easily escape it.  Knowing one would be a pariah, perhaps one would think twice about demolishing a family with children because of the roar of one's own pursuit of "happiness."  But today, even amongst believers, no such mechanism really exists.  If your church tries to rightfully call your sin to account, no problem.  Just drop out.  Reappear at some later date at some other church.  No accountability needed.

The Times tells us Mrs. McCain refers to herself as an only child, despite having two half-siblings.  Revealing, yes?  Even in her 50s, it seems Mrs. McCain would prefer not to acknowledge some of the peel and stick family situations inflicted in her childhood.  Ya know, I get this.  We instinctively know family, don't we?  I think of one little kid I know, struggling bravely along in counseling, dealing in part with the statement that a woman to whom she was introduced 15  months ago is every bit as much of a parent as the kid's dad is and that an unrelated kid is her brother.  We never tire of placing kids in situations where they must "adapt," do we?  But we as adults refuse to adapt by sticking out difficulty and doing everything in our power to confine pain and disappointment to those shoulders--adult shoulders--most able to bear them.

Are we surprised that Mrs. McCain's path led to addiction?  Now, don't get me wrong.  I know plenty of people from great parents fall prey to addictions of all manner.  But I don't believe the Times for a second when they attribute this entirely to Mrs. McCain's role in Keating 5.  Sure, that may have been a catalyst, but you can't tell me that such pain was caused by that alone.

And here is where the Christian in me does kick in.  I hate sin.  I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.  I see how it destroys kids innocently caught in it's wake, but I also hate how adults remain blind to how it destroys them.  Deception and false promise has always been the hallmark of our enemy and always will be thus.

A glimmer of hope appears with Cindy McCain's adoption of a child.  Whatever the motivation might be, it is a redemptive act completely illustrative of how our Lord is with us, whenever we repent and turn.  I hope Mrs. McCain may have found such peace in her life. 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm voting for McCain, despite his adultery and subsequent remarriage.  I fear a liberal supermajority in the Pres. and Congress more than I dislike McCain.  But when it comes to family and fidelity, count me an Obama supporter. 

Blessings, Holly

• 1 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Sep. 27, 2008 - My Take on the Debate

Even DS7 stayed up to watch part of the debate with us last night.

McCain did much better than I had expected. I expected his expertise
in content, just thought he'd present it poorly. He presented it
well and I thought his answers on Russia in particular showed the
deep gap between his real world, detailed knowledge and Obama's
theoretical knowledge. McCain's been everywhere and knows everything
on foreign policy. Obama talks a good game but has no accomplishment
to point to. However, Obama expressed himself well and by not making
a major mistake, probably was the "winner" of this debate since
foreign policy is his recognized weakness. I am deeply troubled that
Obama still won't concede he was wrong on the surge and it was good
of McCain to draw that obvious comparison between Obama's attitude
there being the same as what the critics accuse Bush's attitude of
being.  Mr. Wonderful's comment was that watching the two of them on foreign
policy was like watching an effective guy who had been in the working
world for a long time versus a recently minted MBA candidate. And I
think he's probably right.

I thought they both blew it on the financial bailout, but I wonder if
they had a gentleman's agreement not to talk about that much given
the negotiations are ongoing. I really think McCain should have
pointed out that the current proposal contains seeds to
refund "affordable" housing groups (read Acorn and slush funds) with
profits PRIOR to the repaying the taxpayers. That's outrageous and
the WSJ has a good piece on it today.

I was deeply troubled that Obama would not and could not specifically
state one domestic program that he would actually delay, other than
some unspecified steps his energy plan given the fact that a 700B
bailout will change EVERYTHING on the domestic front. He is not
tethered to reality there and I was downright frightened that he
outright dismissed the notion of a spending freeze. Also, I was
disappointed in Lehrer that he did not explore the obvious
contradiction in Obama's assertion that his 800B in new spending
is "completely paid for" in his plan. If it's completely paid for,
why would he have to delay implementing it? Obviously, it's paid for
by higher taxes and he didn't want to make explicit how much taxes
would be raised in a bad economy to finance his plan. It ain't all
coming from closing loopholes in corporate tax structure, folks.
Lehrer should have pressed this incongruity further.

McCain was even worse on the economy and I hope he finds his voice
there on the second debate or he will lose this election.

Blessings, Holly

• 1 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link