About Me

Name: Chris Warren
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

NYT Cheering for Lamont in CT

This should surprise no one.  

Who is truly surprised to see the NYT endorse Lamont over Lieberman? Lamont is anti-Bush and beats the anti-war drum loudly. He requires no other qualifications in their eyes.

Lieberman has been seen as someone willing to work with Bush, “his warped version of bipartisanship” were the words they used.

This article is more of a NYT “from the heart” we hate Bush piece than an endorsement for Lamont. When all logic and constructive arguments are dead, they follow the old tire template. They shameless bring up Abu Ghraib, and accuse the Bush administration for not being accountable for it. They then try to re-create the tire mantra of Bush lied about Iraqi weapons.

Even the Times admits, that Lamont doesn’t have Lieberman’s “grasp of policy…”. So…instead of attempting to make an intelligent argument of Lamonts qualities and leadership characteristics, they turn it into a blast-Bush, hit piece.

The Democrat Party is run by shrill Bush-hater, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, etc. Does American need anymore of these? Does America want anymore of these?

I am Republican and not endorsing Lieberman…but come on! As an American and a CT resident, I don’t want another ultra-liberal Bush-hating anti-war Senator.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Slap Shot On Christian Conservatives

Laurie Goodstein takes something of a slap shot at church going conservative Republican in her NY Times article about the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd the pastor at a large "megachurch" in MN.

Boyd backs away from politics in his sermons. Quoting Goodstein's article, "
Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns."

Again taking a quote from Goodtein, "Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal."

As a Christian conservative (and Republican), I don't think that God wants us to hide behind our beliefs. 
 
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. (NAS, Romans 16:17-18)

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight! (NAS, Isaiah 5:20-21)

For the LORD gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding. He stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk in integrity, Guarding the paths of justice, and He preserves the way of His godly ones. Then you will discern righteousness and justice and equity and every good course. For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; Discretion will guard you, understanding will watch over you, To deliver you from the way of evil, from the man who speaks perverse things; From those who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; (NAS, Proverbs 2:6-13)

I am in no way saying that Boyd (or Goodstein) are advocating evil practices, actually Boyd seems to be a bit hypocritical to his on beliefs.

Blatant politicizing in the pulpit is wrong... As a Republican, it would be very easy and and fun to have all sermons advocate my personal preferences. However, there are people of the liberal nature who are Christians as well. Plus...my first introduction to the United Methodists Church in CT was a church that might as well have been funded by the DNC. I couldn't stand it. I complained bitterly at the time about their politicizing of everything to an ultra-liberal slant.

However, this brings me to another point. Boyd states that the church should "give up moralizing on sexual issues". Why? At what point do we pick a stand and stick with it? Is sexual immorality strictly a liberal Democrat sin? Not hardly. Does the Bible tell us to pick through the scriptures and the 10 commandments and pick out the few we wish to follow-up and shelf the others for more whenever it feels good?

The Bible would have us hold to our convictions. Not judging others. Not tossing them to the wayside just because it generates some criticism from others. If a large number of churching going conservatives vote Republican, so be it. Why does that make us wrong?

Goostein appears to be biased against the evangelical conservative Christians from the start. She brings the view point of a few out but fails to paint them in a fair light. Quote such as this lace this thinly vailed Christian Republican hit piece:

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.

There are areas of the country (highly populated areas Dallas, Houston, etc.) that saying "Jesus" carries no baggage. You can be a Christian conservative without being ridiculed by fringe outsiders or pastors afraid to take on the touch issues of our times.

Christian are meant to be people of principle. Not judges, but not afraid to take a stand. Some people such as Ms. Goodstein appear to be frightened by this, and choose to make it obvious (in print) that they don't truly understand.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mike Huckabee

While I no longer live in AR, I happened upon this blog promoting AR Governor Mike Huckabee for POTUS (while reading Blue State Conservatives). At this point I am not endorsing him...I don't even know if he'll really run. But as a born and bread Arkansan (now enduring CT) I'll at least link to this blog.

So, if your tired or frustrated with the usual suspects for the GOP in 2008...maybe Huckabee will be worth checking into.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great Picture

 

This is a great cartoon. It was posted on Michelle Malkin'ssite.

And thank you to John at http://ultramontane.townhall.com/ for technical guidance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Little Humor

I was not able to upload/down load...whatever load the pics I wanted to on to this blog. I know I am not a technological genius...but today was ridiculous...

For a couple of funny pics...check out the..

The Dukes of Fallujah (at my other blog, I figured imaging out there).

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

People-Powered Movement???

Dean Barnett has an excellent column at The Weekly Standard. He discusses the Daily Kos "People-Powered Movement", and how behind the scenes many people (commenters or diarists) appear to be hoping for Hezbollah/Hamas, etc. to destroy Israel.

As the modern Democrat Party has embraced the "people-powered movement/Kos" people it becomes increasingly difficult to NOT attribute the thoughts and ideas that show up on the Kos website, as the ideas that motivate and fuel the Democrat Party. Many of these ideas will (or should alienate non-liberal voters).


But, hey...what do I know. I'm just one of those "mean bloggers in Connecticut".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Support John Bolton: My Letter to Senator Dodd

Express your opinions to Dodd here:
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php

Dear Senator Dodd:

I am writing to urge you neither to condone nor to participate in any type of filibuster or obstructionist tactics against the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

John Bolton has excelled during his recess appointment in representing the national interests of the U.S. He has not bowed to the pressures of other ambassadors at the U.N. who “feel he hasn’t done a good job there”, but who have agenda’s that support their countries interests, not the U.S.

No “bruising” battle over his confirmation is needed. What we need is unity in our honest and direct approach to the U.N. Any battle over his confirmation would show the world that certain members of the Senate place partisanship and foreign national interests above that of their own country.

A full-blown confirmation battle would also leave many Senators appearing to cave in the “far left”. While they too have a right to political opinions, and in CT, probably represent a larger than, normal audience…please remember that at a national level this will not resonate well with mainstream Americans.

I read a quote attributed to you. "I'm sorry the administration wants to go forward with this. The problems still persist. Many ambassadors at the U.N. feel he hasn't done a good job there. He has polarized the situation."

The situation at the U.N. was polarized well before Bolton’s tenure. The Oil-for-Food scandal, etc. ensured this. Anything other than working to reform this broken system, would be seen as empowering those who corrupted it.

The U.N. is in need of reform. Bolton, on behalf of President Bush, is spearheading this effort. Please do not make all his effort for naught.

Again I urge you to provide your support to John Bolton, on behalf of CT, and on behalf of all Americans.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on CT Politics

As I have said before, as a CT resident...it would be nice to see the Lieberman/Lamont circus turn into a Republican win at the polls. I truly doubt that will happen, but I can always dream.

The Bush-hating, anti-war crowd has little to run on other than blantant disrepect of Bush, and they seem to take every opportunity to show that they have no dignity in the process.

I have linked to a couple of columns here. Both provide, similar perspectives to the situation.

Here is a link to Matthew Continetti's Weekly Standard column reviewing why Lieberman is so unpopular with the the left.

I'll link here, to a William Buckley column that discusses the issue as well. Buckely's words below:

Every day there is a headline or feature on the Lieberman-Lamont primary contest in Connecticut, today's being that Lamont is in a dead heat with the incumbent, and that Bill Clinton has come to town to declare for Lieberman.

Here are thoughts for independent voters to consider, even if they don't speak these thoughts out loud.

(l) Conservative voters don't have very much to applaud in Lieberman. Yes, he has been faithful to his word in supporting the Iraq war. But his conservative impulses live very short lives. For a photogenic moment, he turned on Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky episode, registering dismay over what Clinton had been up to. The most decisive means for a Democratic senator to register that dismay was to vote to affirm the impeachment of Clinton. But Lieberman didn't do that. When the big moment came, he voted against conviction. Bill Clinton has now affirmed his own support for Lieberman by traveling to Connecticut to back him in the primary fight.

Lieberman intuitively questioned the implications of affirmative action. But when the vote came, he voted against the principles he had adumbrated. Lieberman sensed the strong case for school choice. But -- yes: When the time came, he opposed choice (although he has since supported school vouchers in Washington, D.C.). He opposes a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, opposes the ban on partial-birth abortions, voted against Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, voted against drilling in the Arctic preserve -- and so on, earning a zero from the American Conservative Union.

(2) Conservatives can't, under the circumstances, make ideological headway by voting for Joe. But what will happen on Aug. 8 is enormously important nationwide for the future of the Democratic Party. The backing for Ned Lamont is by people, explicitly and implicitly, who wish to send the Democratic Party into a hard left turn. They are the equivalent of the Henry Wallaceites in 1948.

Wallace, having been rejected for renomination as vice president by FDR, turned against Harry Truman, his replacement, and bade for command of the Democratic Party. The Nedheads (as they are being designated) want to try that in 2006. For Wallace, the cardinal question was how to deal with the Soviet Union. For the Nedheads, it is how most deeply to reject the memory of George W. Bush and his works.

(3) The turnout in Connecticut primaries is pretty small, traditionally about 20 percent. This year the Democratic turnout will be larger, that primary being the focus of national interest and the harbinger of the future ideological cast of the Democratic Party.

Now here is a furtive thought. Everybody is concerned with what happens in Connecticut on Aug. 8, but only voters registered as Democrats can have a say in the matter.

Forty-nine percent of Connecticut's voters are unaffiliated-unregistered in the national parties. However, I (a Connecticut unaffiliated voter) could sign up as a Democrat as late as Aug. 7 and vote in the primary the next day. Christians trained in the Catholic discipline would think of such a sinful act as a lapsed moment, rather than as a defection -- on the order of a night out, as distinguished from a divorce. If a Connecticut conservative were spotted in flagrante emerging from the Democratic primary booth, he could plead that he was heeding calls to protect his country's future. He could even say, after catching his breath, "Hey. What is this? Iraq?"

If Mr. Lieberman is defeated in the primary, he will proceed to run as a "petitioning Democrat." Only a single name can be listed under the simple designation "Democrat." What we would then see, in November, is how Connecticut voters at large feel on the question of Lieberman, a three-term Democratic senator, over against Lieberman as Democratic reject, but alive as a "petitioning Democrat."

 It is required, at this point, to note that the Republicans do have a candidate. His name is Alan Schlesinger. And if  the New Democrats and the Revival Democrats have a bloody and internecine contest, the result could be ... a Republican senator from Connecticut! That was the chance Connecticut voters missed 26 years ago when they rejected the Republican candidate, who had for six years in the 1970s been acknowledged as the Sainted Junior Senator from New York, James L. Buckley.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Timelines for Success...Please!!

The United States has given Israeli forces between 10 and 14 days to finish dealing Hezbollah "a strategic blow," a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official told FOX News, as both Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerillas continued to volley rockets across the Lebanon-Israel border.

I hate to see this and wish it were not true. I am not convinced of the value of placing a cap on the number of days it takes to uproot and destroy a terrorist organization. (Or to deal a strategic blow).

A “strategic blow” sounds like something that could be overcome (even if it is a lengthy process). I am more of the “strategic death” to Hezbollah mind set.

I understand that we want to ensure humane and safe conditions for the innocents in Lebanon…but Israel should be allowed to finish the job. They are doing the job that the government and/or citizens of Lebanon should have done.

Maybe 10 to 14 days will be enough. I doubt it.

I see no value in stopping before the job is complete. If Israel is pressured into stopping operations before they completely destroy Hezbollah…it will be much like a really bad movie ending… “To Be Continued”. While all who saw the first one, know the sequel will be worse”.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sharpton Drives Me Nuts

Al Sharpton makes me absolutely nuts. Everything is about race. Everything is what you need to do for him. A case in point is his quote during a conversation with Bill O'Reilly, discussing Bush's address to the NAACP. 

"I think it may have been conciliatory in tone, but I didn't hear him really address policies that really would have shown that he wanted to address civil rights issues of the day. He never mentioned affirmative action. He said racism lingers. Not even a mention of affirmative action or how we're going to catch up."

How are we going to catch up? You got to be kidding me!

Take some personal responsibility for your actions. This is not a racial statement. This is for anyone. I went to a tiny rual high school. We made the best with what we had. If you wait around for the government to provide everything for you...you'll miss the boat everytime.

Are the pitfalls to public schools, sure. Are their school systems that need work, of course. However, you can make the best of the situation that your in. A college-bound report card at a school in a bad school district is still college bound work.

I joined that Navy and (while yes accepting goverment GI Bill benefits)...I served my time then went to college. It a personal decision to make yourself better. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and whining and moan about how bad it is.

Instead of berating what is not being done for our younger members of society, maybe a more constuctive approach would be educating them as to their existing options. It seems to me that in our modern society, and one who seeks an education can get one. For some, Harvard. For some Yale. Some of us it was Arkansas State and the University of North Texas. Some may start out at a community college.

My point is this...Why let life dictate your decisions? Why don't you make decisions that help you dictate what happens in your life.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chefs Gone Wild

Don't screw up the recipes around this chef. For those who know who the "Soup Nazi" was...he doesn't hold a candle to this guy.  

When things didn't go as planned, this guy allegedly yelled at a counterpart about her food preparation, then swore at her and punched her in the face and head. (A man punching a woman, no less).

I would really like to find out that this report was fake...and really didn't happen in CT. I won't hold my breath.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Hunt for a New UN Secretary General

It appears the hunt has started for contender to replace Kofi Annan when he leaves the Secretary General post at the UN. I linked to Eye on the UN, which offers a great analysis of the potential replacements.

All I can say is good ridance to Annan. His impotence and lack of appropriate oversight, I feel are the root of much of the UN's problems today.

Much like Ken Lay or Jeffrey Skilling at Enron, while he may not have had his hand in every impropriety, being in charge leaves the final responsibility of oversight in your hands. If things are going on that your unaware of, either handle them swiftly...i.e., fire somebody...or you should quit because the job is too big for you.

I don't know if a new Sec.Gen. will make much difference. I'd like someone honest with mentality of John Bolton. While countries of the security council generally are not inline to have members be the Sec.Gen...someone of his talents and mindset would be a breath of fresh air. Unfettered truth and blunt analysis with out fear of political correctness would be nice for a change.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

First Appointment-Easing My Nerves

I took the day off yesterday, and accompanied my wife to our first appointment with the OB-GYN. I wouldn’t have missed it for the world. However, I must admit, I was a little nervous. While I know we were expecting. It was the first time I would actually get to see an ultrasound or anything. So many things could go wrong…

The doctor was a very pleasant lady. She put our minds to ease and was very positive. She answered a million questions. Watching the ultrasound was awesome. Seeing that TINY heart beat was great (I can’t put it into words). I could have watched it all day.

We’re only 9 weeks along at this point. It will be many weeks before we can even find out the gender. So we’ll keep praying that things continue as well as they have.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Minimum Wage Increases Good Or Bad

As a conservative I'm naturally a very suspicious of attempts at raising the minimum wage. It reaks of democrat vote buying scheme. I'm not an economists. So I'll link to 2 opinions. One anti. One pro.

This is the "anti" minimum wage increase position. That seems to make sense to me.

This is a pro-minimum wage increase position that seems a bit over-stated. (Geez I hate linking to Ted Kennedy's site).

I am not necessarily unbiased on this issue. I remember working a student job in college, when the minimum wage went up in Arkansas...at the time I thought...woohoo...cool. I could stand a little more cash. But like clock work...the rent at my apartment went up at the same time the minimum wage increased...thus negating any positive effects I would have gained.

I'd be curious to hear other's thoughs.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AR Lt Governor Dies

As an Arkansan who happens to be in "exile" in CT...I have to offer my condolences to the Rockefeller family. Win Rockefeller was the 57 year old Lt.Gov. of AR. He passed away today in Arkansas from a blood disorder.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »