Man, is this the strangest election cycle you’ve ever seen, or what? First, on the Democrat side, we start off with what I felt was sure to be a shoe-in with Sen. Clinton. I just knew that with all the money, name-recognition (which is something money just can’t buy), and with all the influential people the Clinton’s knew, that the road to the White House would be a cake walk for Hillary.

In all sincerity, who would have thought that at this point in the game, there would even be a contender still standing? Much less one that could “KO” Sen. Clinton at any moment.

And what about Barack Hussein Obama? This guy spends a little time at the U.S. Senate, and before the paint on his “This space reserved for Sen. Obama” sign in the parking lot is even dry, he’s running for president. The nerve of this man!

I would have never guessed in a million years that this guy would be running for president, and I certainly would have NEVER seen him winning it. And no, for all you liberal talking heads out there, I don’t say that because I’m a conservative redneck. I say that because it’s true. Here is a man who is brand new to the national political scene, has no national record on which to stand, and he’s flipping winning. It’s just incredible!

And on the other side of the aisle, things are equally as strange. We had a strong field in the Republican party this year. The only problem is, you can’t elect them all, and there hasn’t been a single candidate that could unite the party enough to really rally the troops behind him.

For this Christian Conservative, I would have liked to have seen Fred Thompson in the Oval Office. Sadly, though, it seemed like everybody except for Fred Thompson wanted Fred Thompson to be the president.

So, looking down the list, yes, Rudy Giuliani appeared he would be tough on national security…but that was it. He reminded me of John Kerry running against Bush where whenever things got tough, he would always come back to “but I fought in Vietnam.” Except Giuliani always came back to, “I was the mayor on 9/11/01.

So I went on down the list, and I finally found one that I was reasonably happy with: Mitt Romney. Here was my hope. I knew he had some changes of positions in the past, but I felt he was sincere, and I knew he was confident in what he was doing.

He had both the government background and the business savvy to make things happen. I felt that, regardless of the rumors of his church, he had the moral fiber to lead our nation. What’s more, I knew he had the strength of his convictions. Yes, he was THE man.

Gov. Huckabee was one that I never really gave a lot of serious consideration. I was, at best, skeptical of his social conservatism. And I was convinced that he was not a fiscal conservative.

So, I immediately set to work on getting Gov. Romney a new address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I started writing all kinds of articles praising his good works and dedication to the preservation of the United States Constitution. My writings on Romney, and on most of the 2008 presidential field, can be read in my new book, “Mr. Right Opinion- Unplugged and Unashamed” which should be available within the next week at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/. I hope you’ll check it out.

Anyway, I, and a whole slew of other folks, are hard at work trying to get Romney nominated when…BAMN! In his most Reagan-esque way to date, The Governor from Mass. Drops out of the race for “the good of the party.” I was disappointed by his decision, but I could respect it.

This news kind of knocked me back on my heels, as I’m sure it did many Republicans. It took me a while to figure out what to do next. I was not very impressed when the “Governator” Arnold gave John McCain his endorsement. Quite frankly, I don’t see Arnold as a Conservative. However, I knew if the Republicans didn’t do something, and do it pretty fast, we were going to be in trouble (ala today’s Democrat party). So I decided it was time to “rally round the flag” and support the man who would undoubtedly be our nominee: John McCain.

Since then, I have tried to point out positives about the Arizona Senator. You can go back to previous posts I have written about McCain, and you’ll see that I’ve said that even if you have to hold your nose to do it, if you are a republican, pull that lever for McCain.

But, John, you are NOT helping me here. Going to speak before a conference of La Raza, the pro-Aztlan and pro-illegal immigration group is not exactly a way to shore up your base.

And what about this little speech on global warming. Have you picked up a Science magazine lately? We are in the middle of a five-year cool down. Senator, I have honestly been telling people to hold their nose and vote for you because it would be better than a vote for Hillary or Obama, and it would.

But, sir, it is now reaching the point where we are not merely looking over a few disagreements. We are fast-reaching a point where, for me to tell my fellow conservatives to vote for you, even if they are holding their nose, crossing their fingers, standing on their heads and doing a jig, is for me to tell my fellow conservatives to vote against their own consciences. And I simply cannot do that.

PLEASE Sen. McCain, give us the kind of leadership we need so we can get behind you. If that’s not possible, then it looks like the Republicans are just going to have to miss out on a golden opportunity to keep the White House, even at a time when anti-Republican sentiment is so high that the cake walk that almost never happened may happen after all.

(An aside: when I refer to and quote the United States Constitution in this artcle, unless otherwise noted, the information and quotes come from www.usconstitution.net)

In his trip to America, Pope Benedict XVI has said many profound things. However, this single sentence jumped out at me, and now I cannot get it out of my head. The latest Pontiff was quoting his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. And the entire quote from CNSNews.com’s story, “Pope Hails America’s Founding Principles“, by Terence P. Jeffrey, went: “Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II," he (Pope Benedict XVI) said. "In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in Eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows time and again that 'in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation,'

and a democracy without values can lose its very soul.

What an insightful statement. What a prophetic use of language which should be a warning to us all. Not just the Chinese, who systematically suppress individual freedoms, not just the Taliban who suppress, or at least did, and are still trying to, an entire population under the guise of religion, an not just to the Castro brothers, who continue a brutal dictatorship under the guise of an equality for all system known as Communism.

No, this message must not be lost on the ears of Americans as being some very profound words that a lot of OTHER nations could really use. Folks, we could use them here at home, too. Maybe here more than anywhere as, we see the morality and teachings of our forefathers slowly, but steadily, slip away.

The United States of America was founded on certain basic Judeo-Christian ideologies which, in recent decades, have been totally turned on their head. One by one, we systematically pluck out truth from our society and replace it with lies, all in the name of progressive (i.e. liberal) ideals. One by one, we are undermining the very footers upon which this nation was built.

Was every forefather at those conventions perfect? Of course not. Did they sin, just as we do today? Naturally. They drank to excess, they murdered, both the enemy and each other, I’m quite sure many of them stole to feed their families, and some of them even committed what Barack Hussein Obama termed “America’s original sin”-- slavery.

However, that does not mean that the writings which laid down the very principles upon which this country was built were anything less than Divinely-inspired. But we, as a nation, have lost sight of that divine inspiration.

For instance, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it addresses the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. The Founding Fathers wrote: “Becoming a citizen

 

A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character. (http://www.usconstitution.net).

Nowhere in that original document did I see anything about being able to sneak across the border long enough to be given amnesty! We have lost track of the truth!

Another lack of truth when studying the Constitution is that the President does not have the power to “react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.” While this is a broad statement, it does, in fact, give the president the authorization to most-definitely strike Afghanistan, who, outside of your Michael Moore types, is known to be behind the tragic events of 9/11/01. Thus, the constitution absolutely gave President Bush the right to attack Afghanistan in his capacity to “react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.”

This, obviously, brings us to the question of Iraq. Did the president have the right to, along with a “coalition of the willing,” attack Iraq and bring down it’s regime?” Please allow me to enter Exhibit ’A’ if you will: S.J. Res. 23:Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill) found at: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html.

The act says, verbatim:

“Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: (emphasis added) Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate. “

Once again, we have to look at the truth. Now obviously, you and I will never have access to the intelligence reports, at least the non-redacted ones, to know exactly what they said about Iraq’s involvement in plans to attack America, although there is plenty of taped evidence suggesting that they had plans to do just that.

Regardless, the TRUTH, as the Pope pointed out, “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” And the TRUTH, as hard as it is for some liberal…oops…progressives…to believe, is that Congress unanimously said that, “Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: (emphasis added) Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

Having read Congress’s words, there is little doubt thay they gave President Bush the “`Authorization for Use of Military Force,” in SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, and in SECTION 2. “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.”

Yet we have lost sight of this truth, and as a result, and as the Holy Father said, 'in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.' And indeed, in losing what the truth on Iraq was, we are indeed losing our very foundation.

Just look how divided we are as a nation. We have the religious right-wing coming out that McCain isn’t’ conservative enough, we have moderate Republicans saying that he’s too conservative for their liking. And then there are the ‘Progressives’ or, as I still like to call them, Liberals.

They are just salivating to see which Democrat will screw up next so they can try to move in for the kill. It is a sad situation.

And the majority of this bickering could stop if we just take a lesson from the Pope and see that without truth, freedom loses its foundation. Think about it.

Don’t forget Mr. Right Opinion’s upcoming book “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed.” It will soon be available through authorHOUSE at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/.

 

 

 

 

Well, all I can really say about the latest economic news coming out of Washington is that I hope all the folks that voted in a Democrat House and Senate are happy with their new tax hikes. For they are about to see “the single largest tax increase in the nation's history” according to an article from CNSNews.com entitled “Congress Says Yes to Tax Hikes,” quoting House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

Last week the House passed a budget blueprint that will raise taxes for all taxpaying households earning over roughly $32,000.00. The House and Senate both voted against making the Bush tax cuts permanent. In my judgment, they are missing the big picture in doing this.

I realize that the economy is currently tanking. Believe me, when it costs me $50.00 fill the gas tank (and no, I don’t have an S.U.V.), I feel the pain of a near-recession. However, I also remember that it wasn’t long ago that the Dow was at a record high. Remember that? Apparently, Congress does not. At least, not the Democrats.

Look, we are in the middle of two battle-fronts in the War on Terror. Iraq and Afghanistan are costing huge amounts of money. I know this. I also know that this will not last forever, and that you can’t solve national economic problems by raising taxes. Presidents Reagan and Bush forty-three have both shown us that the economy can actually improve with lower taxes.

The “trickle-down economics” of the Reagan administration proved that lowering taxes on those who actually create jobs helps to bolster their confidence, and encourages the creation of more jobs. The more jobs we have, the more income the federal government can generate. And the more jobs we have, the fewer the people that are on welfare, unemployment, etc.

This point seems to just go right over the heads of Democrats. And if they were honest about it, Democrats would tell you that they really don’t want to create jobs. The Democrat ideology is the fewer jobs we have, the more people must depend on the federal government to meet their basic needs. And the more people must depend on government, the more secure congressional jobs are.

It is a vicious cycle that keeps people in poverty, and offers Democrats job security. Conservatives believe in allowing, and really forcing, those who are capable of being self-sufficient to do so. The liberal mantra is just the opposite. The true way to get ahead in a liberal world is to have another baby so you can collect more money off the federal dime.

I know that sounds illogical, but it’s true. As I point out in my book, “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed,” which will be coming out in late April/early May, and will be available at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/, the proof is in the pudding. Just look at an excerpt from the book, in an article entitled “Conservatives, Liberals And Welfare Reform:”

“Firstly, though, in order to see the truth on this issue, it is imperative to realize, and accept, that welfare reform is mostly the responsibility of Congress. While the president can sign or veto all legislation, it is ultimately Congress that crafts the laws which either move us forward, keep us stagnant or send us spiraling downward.”

From 1970-1995, poverty rates in this country remained high, and the welfare rolls continued to swell. And although they controlled Congress during all but three years of that period, Democrats did nothing to improve this situation by reforming the welfare system.”

In 1994, in what has been dubbed ‘The Republican Revolution,’ Republicans wrested control of both houses of Congress from the clutches of the Democrat party. This marked a new era in the annals of American legislative history.”

From 1994-1996, Democrats in Congress opposed this legislation. Eventually, however, half of congressional Democrats capitulated and the act passed. (Then) President Clinton, having already vetoed two previous versions of welfare reform and facing a reelection bid, signed the act into law.”

The results of the Republican-led reform proved that the conservative ideology was the true way to improve economic conditions for the impoverished. The reforms resulted in lower welfare rolls, higher employment for single mothers, and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers and black children in U.S. history. Yet Nancy Pelosi and her ilk want to return us to the “good old days.”

This reasoning defies all logic. Will we never learn from history? As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. And it looks as if we are in repeat mode.

The budget proposed by House Democrats last week will ‘foist a $683-billion tax hike on American families to fuel the Democrats' ‘reckless spending agenda,’ Blunt complained,” according to the CNSNews article.

While Pelosi maintains that the Democrat-proposed budget “values families and their economic future,” it is hard to believe. If they really valued families and their economic future, they wouldn’t be raising taxes on families that earn just $32,000.00 per year. Her rhetoric is absurd.

Another interesting little tidbit about this Democrat-controlled House of supposed Representatives is that the liberal House Democrats rejected a Republican-sponsored plan to place a one year moratorium on earmarks, a.k.a. “pork-barrel spending.” Now isn’t that interesting? Democrats say that Republicans are wasting money, and they are, yet the Dems won’t agree to forego pork barrel projects for one single year.

Further complicating matters is the fact that House Democrats want this 683 BILLION-dollar tax hike, and still they offer nothing in it to address the problem of Social (in)Security and Medicare insolvency that is looming large in the not-so-distant future. Hey, Nancy, what exactly are you all solving up there?

On Friday, the Senate also voted to raise taxes on the majority of Americans, while also shooting down a moratorium on earmarks. While Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted for the moratorium, Senators Clinton (D-NY) and Obama (D-IL), both of whom are running for president, voted against the moratorium, and thus for more wasteful federal spending.

Live it up, those of you who voted this Congress into power. And “ask not for whom the bell tows, for it tows for you!”

Well, it’s not late December, and it’s not back in ‘63, but I think it’s fair to say, “Oh What a Night.” Super Tuesday-Part Deux proved to be just that…super. The Republicans finally can say they have a nominee, and Democrats can say they have mass confusion.

Congratulations go out to Sen. John McCain for clinching the Republican nomination with a clean sweep of Tuesday’s primaries. And I guess it’s only fair to congratulate Gov. Huckabee for his hard-fought campaign. I know I called on him to drop out long ago, and I still think that would have been the thing to do. But he had every right to stay in until the end, and, driven by principle, he did just that.

On the other side, I don’t think it could get much more interesting. As I write this, Hillary has definitely won two states, and it looks like Texas will probably go her way. The spinners for Barack Hussein Obama are trying their best to downplay Hillary’s major wins by saying that the delegate count won’t shift much, and they are right about that.

However, Sen. Clinton has accomplished a much larger feat than winning a few delegates tonight. She has put the brakes on the momentum of the Obama express. Democrats are finally coming to their senses about Barack Hussein Obama and are starting to actually think about the substance, not just the flash, of their choices.

I believe it was me that said that Obama was copying a page straight out of the Democrat playbook: pie-in-the-sky promises with no way to actually achieve them. I told you, my fellow Opinionators, that his campaign was an aberration, and that it could not sustain itself. And while it is far from over, I truly think that, with seven weeks to go before the next major contest in Pennsylvania, Hillary has turned the “mojo” on Barack.

Please do not take my little push for Sen. Clinton as support; it is not. However, Barack Hussein Obama scares the devil out of me. The mere thought of someone as liberal as he, almost to the point of Communism, sitting in the Oval Offiice, literally makes me start mourning the death of America. I’m serious, he is that dangerous.

I don’t like very much at all about Hillary Rodham Clinton, but I don’t think she would destroy the country in under four years. I do think that Sen. Obama could, and most likely would.

And while I’m on the subject of support for Hillary, indulge me, please, as I do a little commentary on one of “our own.” What in the world is wrong with Ann Coulter? I think this election cycle has literally put her over the edge. Short of Hitler becoming the Republican nominee, I would NEVER behave as she is now behaving.

I saw her today on Cavuto (I think) and heard more of the same unbelievable bile that she has been spewing lately. She was again saying that she would support the Democrat candidate in the general election if Sen. McCain is the Republican candidate. As I have stated previously, and will state again, that kind of rhetoric is childish and asinine. I find myself totally dumbfounded when I hear her speak these days.

She did say that if Mitt Romney were McCain’s running mate that she would probably vote the Republican ticket, because that would give Romney a better shot in 2012. I just can’t figure her out. If she is truly fighting for the conservative cause, what purpose does this silly talk possibly serve? Does she really think that Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama would be a more conservative president than John McCain? If so, she is delusional and needs psychiatric care immediately.

Once again I would like to point out Mr. Right Opinion’s mathematical equations. One Republican who decides not to vote at all in the general election = one vote for the Democrat (i.e. one less vote for the Republican). One Republican who chooses to actually vote for the Democrat = two votes for the Democrat (i.e. one less vote for the Republican, and one more vote for the Democrat).

Think about it, Republicans. Like him or not, Sen. McCain IS the Republican nominee for president in 2008. If you sit it out this time, or even worse, actually switch sides, you are helping either Obama or Clinton get the keys to the White House. Do you honestly think that America would be better served by one of them than by McCain? The answer is obvious.

All I can say to Ann Coulter, and to anyone of like mind, is that it’s time to grow up and stop acting like children. The stakes for our great nation have probably never been higher. I know Republicans could have done better in our choice. But, it is what it is, and we, as alleged adults, must accept the reality and stand behind our candidate.

Judges have limited scope under the Constitution

Why has the appointment of judges become such a flashpoint of controversy in the past twenty years or so? They should be people who respect the limited scope afforded Federal judges under the Constitution. They should be people who understand that the Founders' concern about the expansive tendency of power extended to judicial power as well as to executive or legislative power. They should be people who are humbled by their role in our system, not emboldened by it. Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of an arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power. For that reason, a judge's decisions must rest on more than his subjective conviction that he is right, or his eagerness to address a perceived social ill.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist had a profound understanding of the balance inherent in Federalism, between the states and the Federal governments, as well as between the three Federal branches--and he left us a strong legacy.
Source: Speech to The Federalist Society Nov 16, 2006

M.R.O. says: Sen. McCain is dead-on here. As a political observer and pundit here at Mr. Right Opinion, I can judge people all day long (and I do!) without having to adhere to the principles of the law and the Constitution. Federal judges are not afforded that luxury. And it is obvious that John McCain understands this.

He will appoint judges who can put their personal feelings aside, and make decisions based solely on the intent of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. He’s not going to appoint judges that will legislate from the bench, like some former Democrat presidents we’ve had. We have a branch of the federal government for legislating. I believe it’s called the Legislative Branch!

More death penalty; stricter sentencing

McCain supports the following principles regarding crime:
-Broaden use of the death penalty
-Impose stricter penalties for violent felons
-Increase spending to build more federal prisons
-Impose “truth in sentencing” for violent criminals so they serve full sentences
-Support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released.
-Support programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment.
Source: Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT Jan 13, 2000

M.R.O. says: I think, with the advent of DNA, broadening of the death penalty is a good idea, as long as the DNA is there to prove the case. If not, I think it should automatically be Life without parole.

Other than that, I agree with all his proposals. However, I think that if you fund more vocational rehabilitation and drug and alcohol rehab programs, we will see less of a need for more prison room, as recidivism rates, I am sure, will drop dramatically.

More community policing; enough hate crime laws

McCain agrees that funding should be increased for community policing programs. He says “increases should be implemented with state and local government commitments.” With regards to “hate crimes,” he says, “All but 13 states have hate crimes statutes. Federalizing all such crimes will simply obstruct justice by forcing them into clogged federal courts.”
Source: Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT Jan 13, 2000

M.R.O. says: Community policing is a wonderful idea, and it should be given the funding it needs. We saw what happened when the Minutemen patrolled the border and called BP when they spotted illegals. It worked. The same would be the case with community policing. As for hate crimes…you know where I stand on that.

Prosecute youths as adults, but separately; explore sources

McCain supports the following principles regarding juvenile crime:
-Increase penalties for crimes committed on school grounds.
-Prosecute as adults, youths accused of a felony.
-Increase funding for local Boys & Girls Clubs and other independent organizations in communities with at-risk youth.
-Provide block grants to states for implementation of programs to combat juvenile crime. -Impose harsher penalties for youths convicted of violent offenses.
-McCain points out that he “helped create the youth violence commission to develop remedies to youth violence.”
-Support the use of “boot camps” as alternative sentencing for juvenile offenders.
-Support programs that provide job training and placement services for at-risk youth. -- ---McCain says, “Juvenile offenders should be kept separate from adult offenders and receive the appropriate remedial and rehabilitation services.”

M.R.O. agrees with all these proposals.

The following are other votes the Senator has cast, without my commentary:

-Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals

-Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards

-Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits

-Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits

-Voted YES on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms

-Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals

M.R.O.’s only opinion on these votes is to say that, at least as far as these votes are concerned, Sen. McCain has come down on the conservative side, for sure.

Yesterday we examined Senator John McCain’s stances on abortion, and the fact that he has usually supported the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. This is obviously a very hot issue for social conservatives. It is an issue that McCain needs to put to rest by the general election as part of a strategy to secure the conservative bloc.

Next we discussed budgets and fiscal conservatism. I argued that I thought Romney would be better in this area, and I still do. I think the senator would be wise to consider Romney as a running mate.

McCain pointed out that he was part of the original Reagan Revolution, and that is true. He also pointed out that he had an old veto pen that Pres. Reagan gave him, and that he couldn’t wait to use it as part of his promise to veto pork barrel bills that come across his desk. He also assured us that he was all for tax cuts and spending restraints; all good things.

And, as I mentioned yesterday, there can be no doubt that he would be more economically conservative than Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, or even Huckabee.

So that brings us up to today. The first topic on the agenda today is civil rights. Again I will be referencing statements and quotes from ontheissues.org. First up under civil rights: “don’t ask, don’t tell.” As an old military man, McCain might have an opinion on this issue. Here’s what he said at the 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007 .

“We have the best-trained, most professional, best- equipped, most efficient, most wonderful military in the history of this country, and I'm proud of every one of them. There just aren't enough of them. So I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen the issue. The policy is working. And I am convinced that that's the way we can maintain this greatest military. Let's not tamper with them.”

M.R.O. says: Now, far be it from me to be opinionated on a matter, but it would kind of kill the spirit of this blog if I wasn‘t. I say that Sen. McCain is right on the money here. First and foremost, we need to retain every single military man and woman that we possibly can right now. Wartime is not a time to even open a dialog about an issue like this.

Secondly, our military is professional. I’m sure that, just like in every other walk of life, there are homosexuals in the military. Nonetheless, they have marched across the Iraqi desert twice now and kicked Saddam’s butt: in 1992 in “Desert Storm,” and again, and this time for good, in “Iraqi Freedom.” And lest we forget, they did a helluva job in taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think the policy that’s in place is the right one.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok

Q: Should South Carolina be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings. In 2000, you said yes. You have since called that one of your worst examples of political cowardice. That flag is still flying in front of the Statehouse. Should it come down?

A: It is not flying on top of the capitol. Yes, I was wrong when I said that I believed that it was up to the state of South Carolina. Now, after long negotiation amongst most parties, there is an agreement that that flag no longer flies on top of the capitol of the state of South Carolina.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Q: It is flying in FRONT of the capitol now.

A: Almost all parties involved in those negotiations believe that that's a reasonable solution to this issue. I support it. I still believe that it should not have flown over the capitol, and I was wrong when I said that it was a state issue. But now I think it has been settled, and I think it's time that we all moved on, on this issue -- especially the people of South Carolina.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

M.R.O. says: I know that this is a touchy subject for a lot of people; a lot more so than it should be. Now, I will grant that the Confederate flag has been bastardized into meaning a lot of things. It has been used by the KKK and various other stupid, radical, “right-wing” groups. However, the fact is that the flag was a symbol of unity for states that dearly believed in states’ rights. I think the senator is wrong here. I feel it is a state issue if and where they want to fly a Confederate flag. However, this is by far not a make-or-break issue for me in this presidential race.

Leave gay marriage to the states

Gay Marriage - Believes it's an issue best left up to the states. While in the Senate McCain voted "No" on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Hate Crimes - While in the Senate, McCain voted no on extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Job Protection - Voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

M.R.O. says: I think the senator got two out of three here…not too bad. Ordinarily, I feel that issues like gay marriage, abortion, and a host of others should be left up to the sates. However, in the case of gay marriage, we have a Constitutional issue which cannot be overlooked.

Article IV, Section I of the United States Constitution talks about, “full faith and credit.” Now, the meaning of “full faith and credit” is: n. the provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which states: ‘Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.’ Thus, a judgment in a lawsuit or a criminal conviction rendered in one state shall be recognized and enforced in any other state, so long as the original judgment was reached by due process of law. Each state has a process for obtaining an enforceable judgment based on a ‘foreign’ (out-of-state) judgment.” (From dictionary.law.com)

These next two paragraphs are from an article I wrote titled “Support the Federal Marriage Amendment." Normally, in issues such as this, I am a staunch supporter of states’ rights to make such decisions. And to be completely honest, I would prefer that this decision be left exclusively to the individual states. However, the United States Constitution makes this option impossible. Due to the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” in the Constitution, even if homosexual marriage is illegal in my beloved Kentucky, if a gay couple were to get married in a liberal state such as Massachusetts and then move here, because of Full Faith and Credit, Kentucky would have to recognize the “marriage.”

For a state which, by a vote of the people, does not allow marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, to be forced to recognize such a union as legal is just wrong. It is a great irony that a federal amendment to the Constitution would actually be the very thing that would protect the rights of the 50 states, but that’s the way this would work.

However, I am with the senator on voting against special hate crimes protection for homosexuals. I believe there are plenty of laws on the books to deal with crime. And, as I have pointed out many times, a crime is a crime is a crime.

As for voting no on prohibiting job discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I am with him here, too. There are certain situations where it would just be inappropriate to hire a gay man…for day care centers, for instance. Or elementary school gym teachers. They may be fine humans, but I am personally not ready to accept a gay gym teacher hanging out in the locker room with my son. Call me a homophobe if you wish, but that’s where I am.

Q: Does posting the Ten Commandments in schools invalidate the religious expression of children who are not in the Judeo-Christian heritage?

A: We begin our proceedings every day in the US Senate with a prayer. Now, it doesn’t have the beneficial effect that some desire, but it seems to be acceptable for the Senate to do that. Virtues [like telling the truth are] exemplified in the Ten Commandments. They could be and should be taught in every school in America.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa Jan 16, 2000

M.R.O. says: Do you hear that, Christian conservatives? Sen. McCain supports posting the Ten Commandments in schools. And rightfully so. This country and its Constitution were built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Those beliefs saw us through a lot of tough times in our 200 years of existence before we started banning God from the public arena. The Ten Commandments are sound, moral principles, and our children would be better off if they were taught to practice them.

Hollywood should voluntarily self-censor sex and violence

McCain called on Hollywood to adopt voluntary standards to limit excessive violence and sexual content in entertainment media. His “Appeal to Hollywood” calls for the entertainment industry to devise a code of conduct modeled after the code the National Association of Broadcasters followed for 30 years. “Media industry leaders should voluntarily commit to reining in the toxic mix of sex and violence that has come to dominate so many media products which negatively affect our children today,” he said.
Source: Press Release: “Media Violence” Jul 21, 1999

M.R.O. says: Since it does not call for government censorship of the garbage that Hollywood creates, this is not so much a civil rights issue as a moral one. However, I agree so whole-heartedly with the senator’s stance that I wanted to include it. Ontheissues.org has it listed under civil rights, so that is why I threw it in here.

Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas

-The federal government should continue affirmative action programs only if such programs do not include quotas.
-The Federal Government should consider affirmative action programs if ordered by a court to rectify specific programs.
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998

M.R.O. says: I would have to know more specifics on his stance before I could make an intellectual commentary. However, I will say that I think affirmative action was a positive thing in its day. I think now, though, that it has accomplished its purpose, and actually has become a form of reverse-discrimination.

I in no way feel that a person should get a job based on the color of their skin, be it white, black, or polka-dot. What matters is the education and experience of the candidate. Are we not, as a nation, saying that very thing during this presidential election?

I would really have liked to cover more than just civil rights in this article. However, civil rights is a tedious subject which covers a broad range of issues. I dare not try to tackle any other political positions in this article, lest I lose your attention and your readership. Maybe I can add another article before the day is up.

Until next time, Opinionators-