Archive for January, 2007

My advice to the GOP.

January 23, 2007

This evening, I recieved an e-mail from Mel Martinez and Mike Duncan of the Republican National Committee asking for feedback on what they need to do to earn the trust of the American people again.  I gave it to them with both barrells.  Here is what I wrote to them:

 If you want my vote, here is what you will have to do:

1.  Don’t just be in the War in Iraq.  Be in it to win it.  We have tied our soldiers hands behind their back by playing politically correct patty cakes with the war in order to appease the Europeans, the Muslims, whoever.  Enough with that.  Fight this war to win it or bring the troops home.

2.  Take a strong pro-life stance and distinguish yourselves from Hillary’s ridicilous “safe, legal and rare” stance.  Keep appointing pro-life judges who will end this travesty of a holocaust in our nation.

3.  Overturn the idioitic No Child Left Behind laws and start listening to the voices of reason within your party like Senator Jim Holt by returning local control of the schools:  http://www.jimholt.us/AboutJim_position.html#Schools

4.  Along with the pro-life issue, also make private property rights a litmus test for the Supreme Court.  The Kelo decision also needs to be overturned.

5.  Stop playing politics with the nations security in order to win the Hispanic vote and do away with all forms of amnesty for illegal immigrants and secure the borders to the North and South.

6.  Tell the environmentalists to climb a tree and drill as much as you can in ANWAR.  It is time for us to declare independence from the Middle East and Hugo Chavez for oil.  Give more tax incentives for hybrid technology.  Encourage our independence for the sake of our nation.

7.  Forget about the moderates in our party.  The following candidates will be politically DOA with my vote if they are nominated:  Rudy Gulliani, John McCain, and any other candidate that is moderate (liberal).  The following candidate is not only politically DOA with my vote, but will be actively campaigned against if he is nominated on my blog and wherever else I can spread the word about his arrogant liberal attitudes:  Gov. Mike Huckabee.  If you want to support someone who will get my vote and bring Reagan Conservatism back to this country, you could go for someone like Tom Tancredo. 

8.  Finally, let me say that I am sick of the compromise this party continues to make with their conservative heritage.  It has gone more and more liberal since Reagan left office to where it is hardly even recognizable as the party that Reagan built.  If you want to know why you guys had a bad year last year, point the fingers right back at yourselves and your weak liberalism.  It wasn’t that we are in Iraq.  It was because America is starting to get the impression that we are not there to win in Iraq.  Instead we are playing political patty cakes with our enemies.  If you are going to send our troops to war, honor their service by going in it to win it.  Your supporters stayed home not because they want “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty).  They stayed home because you are playing politics with our border and our national security.  It is time to stop playing political games and start being proud once more to be true conservatives.  Distinguish yourselves from the democrats.  Don’t try to be like them.  The election in 2008 will determine the direction for the next 20 years or so, I believe.  If you play political games as usual, you will be finished.  The conservatives of this nation are not going to stand for the lesser of two evils argument anymore.  we are not going to be scared by Hillary.  If you want to win in 08, inspire us, don’t frighten us.  Inspire us by getting back to Reagan Conservatism.  Inspire us to support something different than Hillary Clinton.  The choice is up to you.

 Will they listen to me?  Who knows?  Time will tell.

Hillary Clinton on Free Speech

January 22, 2007

I will be submitting the following question tonight to Senator Clinton’s national conversation on the internet.  I invite Senator Clinton or any of her spokespersons / supporters to respond directly either tonight on her program or at any time in the comments section of my blog:

Senator Clinton,

 

Do you support the Fairness Doctrine which would stifle freedom of speech in our nation?  Please don’t give me doubletalk.  A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

Thank you,

 

Joseph Botwinick

Jacksonville, Arkansas

Hillary Clinton on Abortion

January 21, 2007

I was reading Hillary Clinton’s Senate website the other day to remind myself of what her views on different issues were.  This is what I found on the issue of abortion:

“I strongly believe that every child should be wanted, cherished, and loved. For more than a decade I have worked to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies, and to promote policies with the goal of making abortion safe, legal, and rare. “

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/women/

I agree with her that every child should be wanted, cherished, and loved.  I have a three year old son myself and love him with all my soul.  I also agree that it is a noble goal to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies among teens.  What caught my interest was the incongruency between cherishing children and promoting policies which murder children.  I am quite sure that Senator Clinton probably believes that if the child is not wanted and cherished by their parents, then it is more humane to simply kill them.  I disagree.  So do some friends of mine who just waited for more than a year to adopt one of those children.  This baby is loved and cherished by its real parents.  The other thing that caught my interest was the incongruency between making abortion safe and killing the baby.  I am left to surmise that Senator Clinton means it should be safe for the mother to kill her baby, hence leaving another incongruency between cherishing every child and killing them.  I am left to surmise that she only thinks we should cherish all those children who were intended and wanted by their parents.

She also goes on to say that abortion should be made legal.  This is interesting since it already is legal to commit infanticide in our nation.  How much more legal would she like this form of murder to be?  I am left to surmise that maybe she is looking to promote the pro-death agenda at all levels, for any or no reason at all.  Or perhaps, she has the Communist system of forced abortions in China in mind.  I wonder if Senator Clinton might clarify this ambiguity for us so that we all know exactly where she stands on the murder of the unborn.

Senator Clinton finally goes on to state that abortion should be made rare.  If this is true, then why spend all of your time making it safe and legal.  I am left to surmise that Senator Clinton is a walking contradiction which is typical of the type of doublespeak we often hear from Washington D.C., especially from the Clinton family.  What is the definition of “is” anyway?