POLITICSFORLIFE.COM – Truth & The American Way

Sarah Palin Surpasses Two Million Friends on Facebook!

July 29, 2010 · 1 Comment

Go Sarah!  There is nothing I like more than a conservative woman who does not abuse the political power she has been given from above.  It doesn’t hurt that she is easy on the eyes too… but wait a minute… coming from me in our politically INcorrect world, that would be a sexist statement.  If I were female, I could compliment her all day long.  Go figure?

Click photo for Sarah's Facebook page

Oh well… What I am trying to say is Congratulations Sarah!  We are proud of you.  Thanks for taking a stand for traditional Christian values in all that you do.  And thank you for showing America that you don’t have to dress like a man in order to be in a place of power and influence.

Now for all of the nay-sayers… Sarah did not go looking for power.   He found her and raised her up.  If you have a bone to pick with Sarah, may I suggest falling to your knees and having a talk with the Creator of  Everything.

Yeah, that’s right.  I am one of those right-wing religious nut jobs you like to mock.  Oh well, you got me.

Todd and Sarah,  I was glad to see that Eli Johnston, your future son-in-law, came clean about the lies he told about the family.

Quote from CNN, “On July 7, Johnston publicly apologized to the Palin family in a statement to People Magazine, saying some of his comments about the family were not totally true.“  Who didn’t know that?

All the best to you all.  One of your biggest fans,

Steven Joseph
POLITICSFORLIFE.COM

Quote from CNN website by the CNN Wire Staff titled: Magazine – Bristol Palin & Levi Johnston are engaged again.   July 16, 2010 10:42 a.m. EDT.  Quote is not linked due to racy Levi Johnston video content and subtle mockery from CNN newscaster.  And so the story goes…  Long live traditional Christian values.
Share/Tweet with shortlink

http://wp.me/pJLE7-nd


→ 1 CommentCategories: Bristol Palin · Catholicism · Christianity · Conservatives · Pro-Life · Religion · Sarah Palin · Steven Joseph
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Vote For Bill Haslam – Here’s Why & Clarksville Photos

July 18, 2010 · Leave a Comment

TN Governor hopeful Bill Haslam visited Clarksville, July 17, 2010 joining Republican candidates for a meet & greet.   POLITICSFORLIFE.COM editor Steven Joseph captured photos.  Scroll below for reasons why to trust Bill Haslam to successfully operate the State of Tennessee.

Bill Haslam & Media

Bill Haslam & wife Crissy at Meet & Greet

The Haslam Express

Bill Haslam & Independent Blogger/Promoter Steven Joseph

VOTE FOR BILL HASLAM – Here’s Why

Bill Haslam’s a two-term Mayor of Knoxville with 7 consecutive balanced budgets under his belt, the lowest property taxes in 5 decades, consistent job growth and strong conservative values.  Haslam’s  100% Pro-Life &  Pro-Traditional Marriage and has been married to his wife Crissy for 29 years.  He’s a life-member of NRA and an elder of a Presbyterian Church 21 years.

Bill Haslam is strong against a state tax and a sales tax increase.  Bill Haslam has a plan to improve TN’s education system and is committed to empowering parents with control, choices, charter schools and support for home-schoolers.

Vote Bill Haslam Governor of Tennessee. Early primary voting is now and final primary voting is August 5, 2010.  Spread the word.  Cut and past this shortlink into Twitter, Facebook, etc.:  http://tiny.cc/VoteBillHaslam

Click photo below for Bill Haslam web site.

Click Photo For More


→ Leave a CommentCategories: Christianity · Conservatives · Photos · Politics · Pro-Life · Religion · Tennesse Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republican Party Summer Picnic. Meet Bill Haslam & Others – Clarksville TN

July 16, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Share with this short link http://wp.me/pJLE7-lK

The Montgomery County Republican Party Headquarters invites you to meet and greet Candidates for Tennessee Governor, Congress and other elected officials Saturday, July 17, 5-8 PM at Beachaven Winery.

The event includes free food and music.  All counties invited!  Beachaven Winery, 1100 Dunlap Lane, Clarksville TN.  Come on out and support the elephant party!

For more, contact the Montgomery County Republican Party Headquarters at 931-802-6220 or Polly Nagy at 931-368-1461

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Conservatives · Pro-Life · Republican Party
Tagged: , , , , ,

2010 Voting Schedule: National & Tennessee Local

July 6, 2010 · Leave a Comment

This is an important election year.  POLITICSFORLIFE.COM encourages you to vote and to mark your calendar with early voting dates.  Click for National Primaries Schedule.

  • In my home state of Tennessee, the last day to register to vote in person is July 6, 2010.
  • July 16, 2010 begins TN Early Voting.
  • August 5, 2010 is TN’s  State Primary and our County General Elections.
  • November 2, 2010 – General Elections.

Please be sure to make a note of these dates and to vote.

In Tennessee, I am supporting Bill Haslam for State Governor, Rick Joiner for Stewart County Mayor re-election and Carolyn Bowers for Montgomery County Mayor re-election.

I am only voting for one mayor.   ‘Just supporting both Joiner & Bowers for I have met both and believe in their track-records.  Same for Bill Haslam — he has an impeccable track record in Knoxville and will be an excellent Governor of the State.

Thanks for reading POLITICSFORLIFE.COM and for sharing it with a friend.

Sincerely, Steven Joseph – Editor

Source:  Tennessee Department of State: Division of Elections & FVAP.

Share  .  Tweet  .  Post with http://wp.me/pJLE7-kT

Bill Haslam – Proven Leadership

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Conservatives · Politics · Pro-Life · Steven Joseph · Vote
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Gulf Prayer Request from Nashville House of Prayer

July 1, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Personal friend Bob Perry, Director of the Nashville House of Prayer, joins five State Governors in petitioning Jesus for solutions in the Gulf of Mexico.  Pass it on!  Use this shortlink for reposting, twitter, etc.

http://wp.me/pJLE7-kP

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Politics · President Obama · Religion
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House

June 22, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his job later this year after growing tired of the “idealism” of Barack Obama’s inner circle.

Rahm Emanuel

Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to “bang heads together” to get policy pushed through.

Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.

Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of most high profile jobs in US politics.

“I would bet he will go after the midterms,” said a leading Democratic consultant in Washington. “Nobody thinks it’s working but they can’t get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he’ll go.”

An official from the Bill Clinton era said that “no one will be surprised” if Mr Emanuel left after the midterm elections in November, when the Democratic party will battle to save its majorities in the house of representatives and the senate.

It is well known in Washington that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House.

His abrasive style has rubbed some people the wrong way, while there has been frustration among Mr Obama’s closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president’s legislative programme that his background promised.

“It might not be his fault, but the perception is there,” said the consultant, who asked not to be named. “Every vote has been tough, from health care to energy to financial reform.

“Democrats have not stood behind the president in the way Republicans did for George W Bush, and that was meant to be Rahm’s job.”

There were sharp differences over health care reform, with Mr Emanuel arguing that public hostility about cost should have forced them into producing a scaled down package. Mr Obama and advisers including David Axelrod, the chief strategist, and Valerie Jarrett, a businesswoman and mentor from Chicago, decided to push through with grander legislation anyway.

Mr Emanuel has reportedly told friends that his role as White House chief of staff was “only an eighteen month job” because of its intensity.

Regarded as the most demanding after president, it involves controlling the president’s agenda, enforcing White House message discipline as well as liaising with Congress.

His departure would regarded as another sign of how Mr Obama’s presidency has been far more troubled than expected.

More here.  Story by By Alex Spillius in Washington

Published: 10:00PM BST 20 Jun 2010 via the Telegraph.co.uk - Reposted here 22 June 2010.  Share with link http://wp.me/pJLE7-kF

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Politics · President Obama · World News
Tagged:

Pelosi Says Internet Takeover Priority For Democrats

June 11, 2010 · 1 Comment

Friends -  I’ve been warning of this for about a year…  Please read and take action while we can.  AND DO NOT vote Democrat this November!  Enough is enough.  Give us back our country!  Spread the word.  Join the Facebook page here and sign the petition below.  Use this short link to Tweet, Share and Repost http://wp.me/pJLE7-kc POLITICS FOR LIFE! / Steven Joseph Media

Post from The Freedom Project June 2, 2010

Speaker Pelosi told bloggers that a jobs-killing government takeover of the Internet is one of Democrats’ “priorities” – says the Washington Post – and that she wouldn’t allow a vote on legislation stopping the FCC from imposing so-called “net neutrality” regulations.

AFP’s Phil Kerpen wrote on his blog that an Internet takeover “will undermine investment, innovation, and the competition from which consumers have benefited over the past 12 years.” This is just another example of Democrats’ expanding Washington, DC at the expense of families and small businesses.

But Kerpen also argues that the FCC’s latest proposal will lead to the same kind of regulations Democrats once used to censor content on talk radio.  He writes:

“In a world of Internet-as-regulated-public-utility, competition will quickly give way to regulation as a model of control, and regulators are subject to political pressure.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps recently suggested precisely the type of control we’re likely to see — steering traffic in the name of diversity or other politically desirable objectives.”

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has similarly sounded the alarm on Democrats and liberal groups –whom back the FCC’s “net neutrality” regulations – for advocating that the government monitor what’s being said on the Internet:   Read complete article with links here.

… So join our fight against the Administration’s government takeover of the Internet by signing our petition or joining our Facebook page, and tell Washington: “hands off the web!”

Spread the word.  Use this short link to Tweet, Share and Repost http://wp.me/pJLE7-kc

→ 1 CommentCategories: Conservatives · Hands Off The Web · Nancy Pelosi · Politics · President Obama · Steven Joseph
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Palin Offers President Oil Spill Advice: …What the Heck – Give Me A Call

June 9, 2010 · Leave a Comment

LESS TALKIN’, MORE KICKIN’

June 8, 2010 – Share . Tweet . Post
http://wp.me/pJLE7-k3

50 days in, and we’ve just learned another shocking revelation concerning the Obama administration’s response to the Gulf oil spill. In an interview aired this morning, President Obama admitted that he hasn’t met with or spoken directly to BP’s CEO Tony Hayward. His reasoning: “Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.”

First, to the “informed and enlightened” mainstream media: in all the discussions you’ve had with the White House about the spill, did it not occur to you before today to ask how the CEO-to-CEO level discussions were progressing to remedy this tragedy? You never cease to amaze. (Kind of reminds us of the months on end when you never bothered to ask if the President was meeting with General McChrystal to talk about our strategy in Afghanistan.)

Second, to fellow baffled Americans: this revelation is further proof that it bodes well to have some sort of executive experience before occupying the Oval Office (as if the painfully slow response to the oil spill, confusion of duties, finger-pointing, lack of preparedness, and inability to grant local government simple requests weren’t proof enough).

The current administration may be unaware that it’s the President’s duty, meeting on a CEO-to-CEO level with Hayward, to verify what BP reports. In an interview a few weeks ago with Greta Van Susteren, I noted that based on my experience working with oil execs as an oil regulator and then as a Governor, you must verify what the oil companies claim – because their perception of circumstances and situations dealing with public resources and public trust is not necessarily shared by those who own America’s public resources and trust. I was about run out of town in Alaska for what critics decried at the time as my “playing hardball with Big Oil,” and those same adversaries (both shortsighted Repubs and Dems) continue to this day to try to discredit my administration’s efforts in holding Big Oil accountable to operate ethically and responsibly.

Mr. President: with all due respect, you have to get involved, sir. The priorities and timeline of an oil company are not the same as the public’s. You cannot outsource the cleanup and the responsibility and the trust to BP and expect that the legitimate interests of Americans adversely affected by this spill will somehow be met.

White House: have you read this morning’s Washington Post? Not to pile it on BP, but there’s an extensive report chronicling the company’s troubling history:

“BP has had more high-profile accidents than any other company in recent years. And now, with the disaster in the gulf, independent experts say the pervasiveness of the company’s problems, in multiple locales and different types of facilities, is striking.

‘They are a recurring environmental criminal and they do not follow U.S. health safety and environmental policy,’ said Jeanne Pascal, a former EPA lawyer who led its BP investigations.”

And yet just 10 days prior to the explosion, the Obama administration’s regulators gave the oil rig a pass, and last year the Obama administration granted BP a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemption for its drilling operation.

These decisions and the resulting spill have shaken the public’s confidence in the ability to safely drill. Unless government appropriately regulates oil developments and holds oil executives accountable, the public will not trust them to drill, baby, drill. And we must! Or we will be even more beholden to, and controlled by, dangerous foreign regimes that supply much of our energy.

This has been a constant refrain from me. As Governor of Alaska, I did everything in my power to hold oil companies accountable in order to prove to the federal government and to the nation that Alaska could be trusted to further develop energy rich land like ANWR and NPR-A. I hired conscientious Democrats and Republicans (because this sure shouldn’t be a partisan issue) to provide me with the best advice on how we could deal with what was a corrupt system of some lawmakers and administrators who were hesitant to play hardball with some in the oil field business. (Remember the Alaska lawmakers, public decision-makers, and business executives who ended up going to jail as a result of the FBI’s investigations of oily corruption.)

As the aforementioned article notes, BP’s operation in Alaska would hurt our state and waste public resources if allowed to continue. That’s why my administration created the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office (PSIO) when we saw proof of improper maintenance of oil infrastructure in our state. We had to verify. And that’s why we instituted new oversight and held BP and other oil companies financially accountable for poor maintenance practices. We knew we could partner with them to develop resources without pussyfooting around with them. As a CEO, it was my job to look out for the interests of Alaskans with the same intensity and action as the oil company CEOs looked out for the interests of their shareholders.

I learned firsthand the way these companies operate when I served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). I ended up resigning in protest because my bosses (the Governor and his chief of staff at the time) wouldn’t support efforts to clean up the corruption involving improper conflicts of interest with energy companies that the state was supposed to be watching. (I wrote about this valuable learning experience in my book, “Going Rogue”.) I felt guilty taking home a big paycheck while being reduced to sitting on my thumbs – essentially rendered ineffective as a supervisor of a regulatory agency in charge of nearly 20% of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.

My experience (though, granted, I got the message loud and clear during the campaign that my executive experience managing the fastest growing community in the state, and then running the largest state in the union, was nothing compared to the experiences of a community organizer) showed me how government officials and oil execs could scratch each others’ backs to the detriment of the public, and it made me ill. I ran for Governor to fight such practices. So, as a former chief executive, I humbly offer this advice to the President: you must verify. That means you must meet with Hayward. Demand answers.

In the interview today, the President said: “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

Please, sir, for the sake of the Gulf residents, reach out to experts who have experience holding oil companies accountable. I suggested a few weeks ago that you start with Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, led by Commissioner Tom Irwin. Having worked with Tom and his DNR and AGIA team led by Marty Rutherford, I can vouch for their integrity and expertise in dealing with Big Oil and overseeing its developments. We’ve all lived and worked through the Exxon-Valdez spill. They can help you. Give them a call. Or, what the heck, give me a call.

And, finally, Mr. President, please do not punish the American public with any new energy tax in response to this tragedy. Just because BP and federal regulators screwed up that doesn’t mean the rest of us should get punished with higher taxes at the pump and attached to everything petroleum products touch.

Sarah PalinFacebook Notes

Share . Tweet . Post http://wp.me/pJLE7-k3

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Around The Blog-a-Sphere · Conservatives · President Obama · Sarah Palin · World News
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Why Democrats Can’t Wait To Use Rand Paul Against Republicans

May 21, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Text Re-posted from Slate.  Written By John Dickerson – Posted Thursday, May 20, 2010, at 7:48 PM ET

Kentucky Primary Victor Rand Paul

This is an anti-establishment year, and no one personifies that sentiment better than Rand Paul. He trounced his establishment-backed opponent in the Kentucky Republican Senate primary by railing against Washington and GOP leaders who did not support him. It turns out, however, that the establishment isn’t completely useless. The establishment would have advised, for example, that it was a bad idea for a conservative with wide-ranging views to go back on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC so soon after his victory.

Maddow spent about 20 minutes last night quizzing Paul about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and he and the Republican Party have spent the last 24 hours cleaning up the mess. Paul said he believed that the federal government should not tell private businesses whether they could discriminate. He hated racism as much as anyone, he said, but believes that businesses that discriminate should be forced to change through private action: speaking out, boycotts, and the like.

As a practical matter, that ignores history and the human behavior of the time. But as a political matter, this just isn’t something a candidate says out loud—even if he believes it. At worst, it makes him seem to take racism lightly, and at best, it’s distracting. Before lunch, Paul had put out a statement that he would not support the repeal of the law.
This is what it looks like when the anti-establishment bumps up against the establishment. Now that Paul is the official GOP nominee, he has a higher profile. He’s added to his newsworthiness by claiming his campaign is at the vanguard of the Tea Party movement. That gives him a higher profile still. It also invites the Democratic Party to try to make him the symbol of the entire GOP and means the Republican establishment may have to answer for the things he says.

Democratic Party operatives must have melted their servers with all the e-mail messages they sent to reporters questioning Paul’s views on racism and his libertarian beliefs. Were they so extreme that he would not support one of the signature laws of American equality?

This is what opposition parties do. With Paul, the Democrats have ample material from his past. But rarely does the candidate help his enemies by providing a fresh moment to paint him as an extremist.

Republicans rushed to distance themselves. Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Jim DeMint had backed different candidates in the Kentucky primary, but they were united in their effort to move away from Paul’s remarks. (This was not the kind of Republican unity the party was looking for.) McConnell put out a statement that said “Among Senator McConnell’s most vivid memories and most formative events in his career was watching his boss, Sen. John Sherman Cooper, help pull together the votes to break the filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

As a part of the damage control, Republicans pointed out that there are sitting Democrats who opposed the 1964 bill, including Robert Byrd who filibustered it for 14 hours straight. But Byrd and current Democrats don’t hold those views now. For his part, Paul argues that a 1964 law would not be relevant to issues he’d face as a senator. But that’s not exactly right. The questions about his views on the Civil Rights Act grow out of his present-day views about limits on government intervention. That’s always an issue in Washington, especially right now, as the Senate debates a bill to regulate financial institutions. At its core, it involves the question of just how far government can go to regulate private enterprise.

Democrats are pressing Paul so hard for several reasons. It’s not just that they want to win his seat. They want to make every Republican defend Paul. Democrats need African-American turnout to be high this election. Getting into a debate about civil rights would help that. But they’ll also try to keep Republicans responding to Paul’s other non-establishment views—such as the need to abolish much of the federal government, including the Federal Reserve and Social Security Administration.

Parties always try to do this with extreme figures: They impute their views to the party as a whole. Long after she stopped being a politician and became a political celebrity, Democrats are still trying to make Republicans answer for Sarah Palin. They’ll have an easier time with Paul because before today’s moving away, Republican officials were rushing toward him. Immediately after Paul won, McConnell embraced him. A unity rally has been planned. Why the rush? Paul is a leading light in the Tea Party movement. When he won, he claimed the victory in their name. Tea Party activists don’t like Washington. If you’re a Washington politician and you want to stay alive, you need to look like you’re on their team. Hence: Embrace Rand Paul. But elections are also made up of suburban voters and moderate voters who might think it strange to be against a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Though Republicans rushed to respond, it may not mean Democrats will get much more out of Paul’s collection of exciting quotes. Democrats tried the same thing with DeMint, who once said in South Carolina schools. DeMint is now a senator and considered a rising star in the party as a voice for the populist conservatives. In other words, he’s now a member of the establishment. He might have some advice for the man who hopes to be his colleague.

Text Re-posted from Slate.

Tweet  .   Share  .  Post
http://wp.me/pJLE7-jB

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Conservatives · Politics · Rand Paul
Tagged: , , , ,

Alan Keyes Facebook Post On Radical Elena Kagan – Pres. Obama’s Wrong Supreme Court Choice

May 21, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Tweet  .  Share  .  Post   http://wp.me/pJLE7-jk
By Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes

In a recent posting on my website, Loyal to Liberty, I said that no one should be surprised if Barack Obama seeks to put a radical, pro-abortion, pro- “gay rights” leftist on the Supreme Court. The tragic irony of America’s current crisis lies in the fact that it will be very surprising if the GOP contingent in the U.S. Senate unites to mount a strong stand against her confirmation.

The usual contingent of the Obama faction’s RINO fellow travelers will certainly line up to lend bipartisan credibility to the leftist media claque’s propaganda about what a consensus-building “moderate” she is. But the real problem is that to take a strong stand against Kagan, the GOP must show real commitment to the constitutional principles she rejects and means to overturn.

Kagan espouses the “societal costs” doctrine of rights. She therefore discards the American founders’ vision of a government constrained by respect for the God-ordained requirements of justice. She aims to allow the government to curtail or suppress the rights of the people whenever their exercise of rights interferes with the Obama faction’s consolidation and control of power over all aspects of society’s life.

This poses a threat to liberty that is not just a matter of the stand Kagan takes on this or that issue. It is a threat in principle to the very idea of constitutional government. Indeed, it strikes down the idea that there should be a “government of laws, not of men,” i.e., that legitimate government must operate by way of just powers derived from the constitutional consent of the people, not by the expedient dictates of those who happen to amass superior power at any given time.

Unfortunately, for some years now the GOP leadership has chosen to adopt an approach to government based on its own brand of expediency. To keep the support of the conservative majority of the GOP’s electoral base, they have paid lip service to issues that can only be seriously addressed in terms that respect the doctrine of unalienable rights the American founders set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Yet they have eschewed or driven from their midst anyone who consistently espouses and relies upon that doctrine. They have combined superficially conservative rhetoric with the promotion of people who willfully ignore or reject the premise of God-given rights, and who, like their supposed Democrat opponents, act upon the view that power, not God-ordained right or justice, is the defining aim of political life.

Such people either cannot or will not articulate issues on the basis of the logic and reasoning of the American founders. To win support from conservatives they follow a strategy that combines mouthing punch lines consistent with conservative convictions (“I’m 100 percent pro-life,” “I support the traditional family,” “I believe in limited government,” etc.) with a record of actions or positions on a carefully contrived set of particular issues intended to cover up their real lack of commitment to the principles involved. (“She voted for the partial-birth abortion ban,” “He says Roe was wrongly decided,” “She’s against abortion without parental notification,” “He voted against the assault-weapons ban.”)

The assumption is that because they have voted or publicly taken the right stands on a certain laundry list of issues, they qualify as “conservatives” for political purposes. But they are never challenged to articulate the reasoning that supports their supposed commitment. They are never challenged to espouse and represent the logic intended to persuade people, rather than simply establish politically useful credentials. They are never challenged to be leaders in the effort to strengthen and advance the conservative, constitutional view of government. Meanwhile, thanks to the cover provided by their ‘laundry list’ credentials, constitutional conservatives in the GOP base are invited (or misled by deception?) to ignore words and actions that contradict the principles, logic and reasoning required to substantiate and justify conservative views.

Thanks to this “laundry list” political strategy, the GOP has become too much a party of right-wing electioneering and left-wing personnel. From Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney at the presidential level, to Sarah Palin and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governors, from Carly Fiorina, Scott Brown or Arlen Specter for the U.S. Senate, to Michael Steele or Karl Rove in key positions of leadership in the party or its attendant political operations, this strategy has resulted in GOP praise and backing for people who take action, make statements or take stands on key political issues that are identical to what would be done or said by the leftist Democrats supposed to be their opposition.

But what has this got to do with the GOP’s ability to oppose Elena Kagan? Quite shrewdly, Obama has put forward for the Supreme Court someone with a very thin public record when it comes to specific cases and/or legislative issues. Therefore, no simple laundry list of hot-button no-no’s is readily available. But what if we look at the actions and words that are available in light of the principles and logic and on which America’s founders based the U.S. Constitution? Then a modest dose of reasoning reveals the utter contradiction between her views and the ideas required to make sense of, defend and preserve the Constitution. It is, as one might say, “a forest for the trees” situation. Maybe Elena Kagan can’t with certainty be convicted of uprooting any given tree, but she has repeatedly indicated her intention to burn the forest down.

But the GOP’s “laundry list” strategy for credentialing their own preferred RINOs and phony conservatives has banished the forest (the principled logic and reasoning on which the Constitution is based) from view. Yet if they try to apply the “laundry list” approach to Kagan, they’ll face a simple but troublesome question: Is there any position Elena Kagan appears to espouse on this or that issue that has not been or is not taken by some Republican they have endorsed or considered qualified for a government position at least as important as that of Supreme Court justice? There are just too many RINOs and phony conservatives who can’t stand strong against her without inviting judgment against themselves.

With his usual clairvoyance, Jesus Christ raised the question that will bedevil any GOP effort to unite in opposition to Kagan’s confirmation. “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?” (Luke 6:42) Tragically for America, where the Constitution is concerned, the speck involves forswearing the sworn duty to preserve the constitutional form of government it establishes. And the GOP’s log – well, it’s more like a log cabin.

For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com/. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people’s sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America’s wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America’s Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.

Reposted from Facebook Notes

Tweet  .  Share  .  Post   http://wp.me/pJLE7-jk

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Politics · President Obama
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,