Hillary's Far From The Worst Thing

Do you recall a campaign about a year ago, started by conservative radio host Shaun Hannity, called the "Stop Hillary Express"? It was all about making sure that we all knew (and feared) the real Hillary Clinton and her liberal and questionable legacy she shared with her husband. It's difficult to say how much effect that had, if any, in her loss to Obama.

Looking back, it was the dumbest move any of us could have made, or supported, considering what we got instead!

Then last fall, the big concern was that the Democratic nominee for president was now considering Hillary for an appointment to the Supreme Court, and oh man, we were worried and upset about that! It was followed by more conservative whining and wrangling.

Looking back (again), it was a total waste of breath considering who Obama's nominated instead.

And so now, Hillary is our Secretary of State, and you know what? I'm the last person you're going to hear complain about it. I'm actually thankful that Obama thought that he owed her something. Because can you imagine what we might have gotten in her stead? Bill Ayers? Rod Blagojevich? Bernadine Dohrn? Alec Baldwin? Hey, anything's possible with this guy.

Politics are strange aren't they. Who would've thought that Hillary, just another run-of-the-mill liberal, would look so benign? It's all relative isn't it?

AP - No Stone Unturned

It was a very tenacious job of research that the AP did in uncovering the story of Obama's grandfather, who was a 26 year old supply sergeant in the U.S. Air Force on D-Day:

"The AP pieced together Dunham's war years from other records at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and the St. Louis center, and with help from historian David Spires at the University of Colorado. The richest details, however, come from Ralph Dunham and the private papers of Maloof, who died in 2005. Maloof's granddaughter, Tamara Maloof Ryman in Houston, searched through page after page to pry out details about Dunham for the AP".

Don't know if you saw it, but all in all, it's an interesting personal picture on another brave soldier who served his country honorably. It's especially neat how they were able to complete this just before June 6th of this year, assembling all kinds of interesting tidbits on Stanley Dunham, or "Gramps" as he was called by the young socialist-activist. Obama is expected to make the trip to Normandy for the 65th anniversary, and this little golden chunk of PR was just another very important image that Obama's personal publicity firm, the AP, was more than happy to provide.

Do you think that they could put even one-tenth of the effort into finding Obama's real birth record? That would be interesting too.

Let's Pretend

Man, the President is sure in some hot water today on the two items swirling around the White House that have many people talking about their racist overtones.

First, the comments now coming to light from President McCain's Supreme Court nominee, Howard Plain, where he said publicly that "as a middle aged white man", he "made a better judge than a Latina woman ever could". Then there was that decision back in 2002, where Judge Plain ruled in favor of the New Jersey city where the five black firemen had filed a discrimination suit for being blatantly bypassed for promotion.

Then the other thing today was that decision by the Justice Department to drop all charges against the two white, Hell's Angels thugs, who stood outside the polling place in November and overtly intimidated voters with their billy-clubs and blackjacks, that "McCain had better be their choice" that day.

The mainstream media and the dems are going nuts over this stuff as we could have predicted. They want to fry that nominee and McCain. And they're simply beside themselves over that Justice Department decision on the Hell's Angels.

The whole thing makes me mad though, because I really believe that had Obama been elected president instead, and his court nominee had been a Latina woman who had made similar comments about a white male....or if those thugs at the polling place had been a couple of Black Panthers, surely it all would have been very different. It would have been no news at all. I wish I had a crystal ball so we could have seen it!

A Busy Holiday

Writing in the midst of a very busy, but delightful weekend.

Since moving so far away from our summer camp in Northern Michigan, we now wait until the extended Memorial Day holiday weekend to come up and open it for the summer. We used to do it a lot earlier as weather permitted, but we are here now, and having accomplished 90% of the "set-up" work, we can begin to enjoy just being here in the north with the blessings of good friends that share our park and some of God's finest work in the natural state of the Leelanau peninsula. It doesn't hurt that we've had some beautiful late-spring weather either!

A fluke in the calendar for this year and last, has my birthday falling on the holiday weekend. Normally today, May 24th, is a bit too early to fall during the three-day weekend. So, on top of everything else, I'm celebrating number 51 today. So yes, it's busy, but it's all good! That's right, I said good. Nothing wrong with 51. I don't feel it, and I don't think I act it most of the time. Just another number, and this one spent with our good friends and just enough pizza, cake and adult beverage to make it my kind of party.

But all of this fun does run down the batteries eventually, and so I'm about ready to "turn into a pumpkin" this evening, but before I do, I'm thinking about Decoration Day: the old name for the holiday that I still like to evoke in the remembrance of those in our armed forces that died in the service of their country. The numbers are incredibly large, as was their sacrifice. My prayers for those souls and the families that still mourn them. Thanks for all the joys and freedoms, many of which will be played out this weekend all across this great land, and in one very small example, right up here at a little camp in the northwest corner of lower Michigan. God bless.

Give or Take?

"Remember that you are blessed. Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back. You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future." --Michelle Obama at the University of California, Merced commencement

Dear California Grads,
Do not mistake the statement above as being a request from The First Hottie. That is not the correct context. Note that the word "must" is used three times. Her husband knows that if left to your own devices, you would never display the charitable heart that is called for here. So this should be viewed more as an advisory, since it is the U.S. government that will simplify things and just take what it is that they think you should "give back".
Since the vast majority of you young, impressionable kids were swept up in the rapture of Obama last fall, this shouldn't be a surprise or an issue. Just for clarification.
Now get out there and make something of yourselves so that you can start feeding that "Hope and Change" thing.
Thank you.

Safer, Not Sound

Poor Morley Safer. I think that the 130 year-old co-anchor of CBS's too-tired news program "Sixty Minutes" is showing that he's just as tired as the show. Yesterday, in an acceptance speech at Quinnipiac University (no, I never heard of it either) he made an impassioned plea to save the newspapers across the country from financial ruin, and said that they were the only source of responsible journalism.

He took aim at today's bloggers and other internet sources as being "nuts with keyboards" and "full of ravings and manipulations".

Morley suffers from two things: Being part of the liberal mainstream media itself and living in a distant pass where newspapers faithfully and fairly reported the news, not colored it. Well Morley, wake up, the New York Times isn't $.15 anymore, and it's ever bit as full of ravings and manipulations as any popular website you can name.

Heck, I can even remember when his own show was unbiased and accurate. When even his fellow anchor Dan Rather would report real news instead of fabricating it. Yes, those were the days Morley, but it isn't that way anymore.

I guess he actually suffers from three things. I forgot dementia.

Scaling Back Another American Dream

Obama's personal remaking of America took another step forward today with the signing of the new laws on mileage and emission requirements for cars and trucks by 2016.

The analysis is already showing that the large SUV's, larger cars and performance cars of today MUST go. They will never achieve the required CAFE targets. It's got provisions for pickup truck manufacturing, but only with penalties built into the prices for the poorer mileage that they get. This will really only make them practical to professionals that must have them for their work.

Horsepower and performance will suffer under the tighter emissions requirements.

Recall the pictures of the streets of any city in Europe and the little sedans zipping around and you start to have a picture of our streets in 2016. Of course, those streets will fit perfectly into the socialist model that we will have become by then.

The bigger picture is this: In Obama's first 120 days he has done more damage to undo the American way of life and the advantages that the innovation and sweat of the last 50 years has given us, than I could have possibly imagined, even in my worst thoughts. It is simply incredible. And again, he goes on totally unchecked. He's been given a license to dismantle at will. The auto industry is just another example.

I am increasingly disappointed at my fellow Americans who voted so blindly for this guy, simply on the basis that we needed a "change", and so "let's give the other guys a chance." What a horrendous mistake. Of course, I can't necessarily be sure of how anyone voted, but at some point, I know I'm going to hear someone admit that they may have made a mistake. At that point, I am going to have to muster the greatest restraint on my opinions that I've ever done! Or maybe not.

A "Sell Out" at Notre Dame

My observations on the Obama Notre Dame visit:

Obama deserves no criticism by accepting the invitation and his "honorary" degree. He spoke in his usual lofty tones which contained nothing new, just his standard liberal rhetoric. His media boosters were quick to extol his fearlessness at flying into the teeth of a storm. B.S.! Obama accepted because he saw it for exactly what it was, a gift; a chance to walk his agenda right through the front gate of his opponent's fortress, and be given "the floor" to say whatever he wanted to say. I can picture how he must have smiled to himself the day he got the call. What an opportunity! But in the end, this is what Obama does, and those are his views, so you can't knock Obama from being Obama.

Fr. Jenkins though, is a different story.

Fr. Jenkins was way out of line in issuing the invitation. This was not a matter of inviting (and honoring) a speaker who has pushed some trivial and benign agenda that may not be in line with the university's. What he did was to invite the most divisive president ever elected, with one of the most divisive topics at the very center. It's incredibly divisive because of what this university is supposed to be versus what Obama is. Obama does not just lean towards the "pro-choice" side of the argument. In fact, his voting record demonstrates his support for the most radical of abortion legislation.

So what is the reasoning behind Fr. Jenkin's invitation? At the very least, it's the result of a self-serving agenda to either put the school or himself in the spotlight, and at worst case, it's the action of a Catholic priest who does not believe in one of the core truths of his Church.

This idea of "inviting dialog" as some would say in defense of Jenkin's actions, ought to raise questions as to the motivation behind it. If you know something to be a truth and self-evident, then what is the reason at inviting dialog? It serves no useful purpose, unless it is not a truth as you see it, and you are open to negotiation on it. Of course, the other possibility is that you actually sympathize with the opposing point of view, but don't dare acknowledge it openly because of your position or situation.

So even when it is acknowledged that there are plenty of Catholics who are pro-choice, why do some feel that these things have to go from beyond a "don't ask, don't tell" status? If those people are OK with their stance against their Church's core beliefs, then let them live with that if they can. But that doesn't mean that it should be legitimized. Why invite divisive discourse into the Church? If you insist on taking every viewpoint and giving it a stage and legitimacy, then the Church's beliefs are diluted, nullified and worthless. I know that there are those whose real religion boils down to one word: inclusion. In other words, there is practically nothing in anyone's habit, lifestyle or beliefs that shouldn't be accepted.

I think of the lyrics to the old country and western song that went something like, "You'd better stand for something or you'll fall for anything." Why does it feel so often now like our Churches are headed right for that end?

Radical Thoughts, 200 Years Old

I'm thoroughly enjoying my latest read, The History of the Episcopal Church in America, by Dr. William Manross. It feeds both my interests in early American history, as well as in the early formation of my Church in America.

The Church of England of course, was the predominant denomination here in colonial times, after the smaller populations of Quakers and Puritans made those first, brave forays onto our soil. As the population grew out from early settlements like Plymouth and Jamestown, it consisted more and more of the Anglican colonists ( including the Methodist branch) then venturing forth from England. Of course, there were Catholics, Presbyterians, and smaller populations of Lutherans and Baptists too, but it was the Anglicans, and the men of power who worshiped there (more or less) who formed the first local governments and began the first efforts at the notions of independence from England on the secular side.

Because the head of the Anglican Church is also the ruling monarch in England, the history of the Church here becomes so intertwined with the political affairs, that it's sometimes hard to separate the two back in those days of the American revolution. In fact, there were many, many occasions where the circumstances of the Church affected the politics of the day, and vice versa. Interesting stuff.

This history, which cannot be denied, had on occasion, great influence in what our founding fathers did politically. Today's ACLU and it's minions, should sit down with the facts for once, and understand that the separation of Church and state meant much more about the administration of government and the historic relationship of King and Church that they'd left behind in England, than in the true and determined intentions and aspirations for a country of faithful Christians and their desire to be "One Nation, under God".

But what is really grabbing me now is the time just after the revolution, at the beginning of the 19th century. At that time, Episcopalians wanted more organization in their Church. They wanted to grow of course, and felt that structuring a hierarchy or episcopate here, was needed to manage that. The answer would be to create American Bishops, and just as on the secular side, this meant severing the dependence on England for those services. Up to that point, an American had to make the dangerous voyage back to a Bishop in England in order to be ordained. Official direction on Church affairs here had to be transmitted in letters from England. Not a very efficient process. Besides, there was that undesirable connection again, where an English Bishop, and presumably all those under his orders, had to swear allegiance to the King! Not good for a revolutionary American who felt the call to serve God, but most certainly not an English monarch!

Anyway, reading all of this started me thinking about the politics of our Church today. The Bishops of our national Church and the ties that still bind us to Bishops in England. Suppose we had not pushed so hard for this episcopate form of Church? Today, in my opinion, our Church suffers more than it benefits from the empowerment we give our Bishops. The politics, the power struggles, the expense and the doctrine generated by this entire layer of "management" is something that could be, and should be, greatly diluted.

In 1800, the only thing a Bishop was asked to do, or had authority to do, was baptise and confirm. That was their whole purpose, period. Maintain the apostolic succession. Most were actually rectors at their own Churches. Why do we need them to do anymore than that today? A radical thought, I know.

Some would probably argue based on the need for a "world vision"; the affairs of the Church beyond a neighborhood. I don't agree. Individual parishes can do a lot on their own, whether in their own community or across an ocean. And if they want to join another parish to do something bigger, then so be it. Let them decide what that will be.

I'm anti-big government. Doesn't matter whether it's Church or secular. As soon as we give power and authority, we lose freedom in equal measure. A little can go a long way, so you must be careful with it. In the Church, we have God. He has set "policy" for us in the Gospels. We don't need to empower someone to do that for us, especially in the way our Church hierarchy interprets that today. We don't need to be managed by those who want to steer us in their own vision of the way things should be.

Mostly, you'll read about politics at The Mole Hole, but it occured to me in reading this current chapter of Church history that despite the separation of church and state that is certainly been accomplished in our own fashion (and to our detriment), the Episcopal Church of today and the U.S. government of today have a lot in common. Both have been granted way too much authority and both seem bent on remaking their own institutions following some new world order. In that respect, both the government and the Church of 1800 would be greatly preferred.

Nancy Knew

The wind (or should I say, worm) just turned, and so our president goes with it. Such are the habits of a man with no convictions.

Now Barack Hussein has stated that he will not release photos of prisoner treatment at Gitmo. He claims that after listening to his military advisors, he now sees the danger that this might pose to our current military personnel around the world.

So this idea has just now entered his mind? He never thought of that until "advised"?

No, not hardly. He's a socialist, not stupid.

Here's the real answer: His key accomplice, Speaker Pelosi, has now been reminded that she had full knowledge of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques and has no defense to that. And so Barack will do the right thing for them both, and let this whole thing die a quiet death. In his mind, it's the "right thing to do". Today.

R.I.P. Chuck Daly

One heckuva coach and a nice guy too, Chuck Daly.

He soared with the Pistons for nine seasons and back-to back world championships, and amazed the '92 Olympics with his "dream team". And who can forget the impeccable suits he wore?!!

He could handle the mega-egos in the NBA like few others. "It's a players' league. They allow you to coach them or they don't," Daly once said. "Once they stop allowing you to coach, you're on your way out."

R.I.P., Hall of Famer Chuck Daly.

So Now They Believe

More "change"....

Back during the Bush administration, whenever there was a civilian casualty in Iraq or Afghanistan, the outcry against American imperialism was heard far and wide. The brutality of Bush and his war machine was all the press could talk about. In fact, many times it went beyond the accusation of simply being an accident of war. I saw many articles where the press had somehow decided that we could go beyond just being reckless to actually targeting civilians.

But....

Now that Barack Hussein is Commander in Chief and we've had the recent incident of over 100 civilian deaths (numbers are debated) by NATO (U.S.) airstrike, we hear from that the Taliban may purposely using civilians to protect their positions, and as war propaganda should there be an "accident". Gosh, can you imagine that? This must not be some of those "moderate" Taliban that Barack and Hilary want to meet with.

This tragic situation has happened many times over the last few years, and the defense department has made these exact same claims many times. But there's a strange quiet out there now. Do you not hear it?

Hypocrisy and Mustard

Remember the Barack Hussein campaign promises about the need for total "transparency" in government? Hmmm....

So now we hear that the photos taken from the airplanes in that idiotic flyover of NYC last week won't be shared with the public. What gives? Could it be because there's absolutely nothing new in the $381,000 photos of the Statue of Liberty or the New York skyline that couldn't already have been obtained from dozens of other sources? Or maybe it's because the photos show hundreds of terrorized New Yorkers looking over their shoulders and running for their lives like something out of an old Godzilla movie? Real funny.

So these will not be seen. Something too confidential about them. Yet he has no problem sharing photos from Gitmo with the whole world. The hypocrisy of this guy is what's totally "transparent". Funny how the mainstream media still has so many issues seeing through it.

Come to think of it, that was something Andrea Mitchell could have asked him about at his "common man's" lunch the other day with Biden, instead of worrying what condiment he was going to put on his regular-guy burger. We found out that it was mainly Dijon mustard. Thank God for transparency.

R.I.P. Jack Kemp

Jack Kemp. Not a huge name in politics, but a solid conservative. Firm and tough on what he believed in the service to his country. Spoke softly, but meant what he said.

We need more like him. Where will they come from? Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever see them again: honest, conservative Republicans that come equipped with a spine.

R.I.P. Jack Kemp.