Archive for the ‘Conservative’ Category

Response to Dave Agema’s Facebook Post on Homosexuality

March 28, 2013

Yesterday, Michigan’s RNC National Committeeman Dave Agema posted a copy of Dr. Frank Joseph’s online article “Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals”.  The article uses studies done decades ago, most of which have been debunked by more recent studies; some of the other claims are just simply false.  This article does a good job of going through and detailing the false claims from the article.  At least 2 of the claims are easily debunked (and at that point, it doesn’t matter how many are false – if there’s at least one, then Agema should’ve put a disclaimer): (1) the APA still lists pedophilia in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; (2) the claim that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals was debunked by a survey done by a dating web site.

After posting the article, media outlets began picking up the fact that Agema had posted it and began blasting him for posting a “Homophobic Facebook Post”; some Michigan GOP activists and precinct delegates have begun calling for Agema to resign.

Agema has said he will not resign and defended his post, saying, “Some publications, and even a few liberal Republicans, have chosen to take the words of someone else and cast them as my own…. I think the piece was worth sharing given the debate over gay marriage that is happening in the Supreme Court.”

He later sent out an email saying, “First, I didn’t write these words, I simply posted them. More importantly, I will not back down. I will dig in and fight even harder to defend our conservative values from these attacks by liberals in the media, and even in our own party.”

MI GOP Party Chairman Bobby Schostak has responded by saying, “Our party remains in support of traditional marriage, but that should never be allowed nor confused with any form of hate or discrimination toward anyone. Any statement or message in contrast undermines our party’s platform and our common sense conservative message.”

And I wholeheartedly agree with Chairman Schostak who has responded perfectly to this; ultimately Agema has a right to say what he wants to say, but he needs to keep in mind that when he speaks, many people will see it as speaking for the MI GOP as a whole, rather than just himself.

I have sent the following email to Committeeman Agema, and I would encourage fellow precinct delegates and party members to contact him with your thoughts:

Committeeman Agema,

I have seen news reports regarding your Facebook post about homosexuality, and they concern me.  I am not going to immediately join the groups calling for your resignation.  I think that such calls are premature.  Everyone makes mistakes, and I believe that you should be given time to correct yours.

That being said, what you did was grossly irresponsible as a RNC National Committeeman.  You have to realize that when you post things on social media sites, you do more than express your own views; you speak for the MI GOP.  You have defended your actions saying that you did not write the post; you merely posted something that someone else had written as part of a dialogue on the issue of homosexuality.  That excuse just does not cut it for me.  I disagree with those who have said those words were your own; they clearly were not; however, when you posted the article, you should have put such a disclaimer along with it.

The problem with what you posted is that that article is full of factually inaccurate statements (such as that pedophilia has been removed from the APA’s list of mental illnesses) and outdated studies.  Conservatives and the GOP will lose the public debate on such issues when the left can easily debunk the premises that our conclusions are founded upon.  How can our conclusions be taken seriously when the “facts” used to defend them are shown to be lies or outdated by decades?  They cannot.

Please do the right thing and come out and fully apologize for posting this article.  You are a party leader; it is unacceptable to pass along something as true when you could have so easily fact checked it to determine that these claims are not true.  To not do so not only does a disservice to your good name, but to the party’s image.

As I said, everybody makes mistakes, and while this was a big mistake, the party can move past it if you apologize.  But to react by simply making excuses is unacceptable.

I truly hope that you will take my words to heart and consider issuing an apology instead of excuses.  That is the best action for both you, and more importantly, for the party that you represent.

I’ll close by saying again, that I think calls for his resignation are premature.  If Agema says that he merely posted this as part of the debate on gay marriage, then I will take him at his word and believe that he does not agree with everything in the article; however, he needs to directly come out and say this.  This post was more than insensitive; it was objectively inaccurate, and inaccuracies such as this will only hurt the GOP image and message.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

Mike Huckabee Endorses Mike Cox (R-MI) for Governor

March 3, 2010

Well, in an interesting move that I’m still trying to figure out, former Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R-AR) has endorsed Attorney General Mike Cox for Governor.  Here’s a copy of the press release that I received today.  I’ll give my analysis after the press release:

Mike Huckabee Endorses Mike Cox in 2010 Race for Governor

Huckabee: “Mike Cox best described as Michigan’s Pro-Life, Pro-gun conservative candidate for Governor”

     LIVONIA, MI— One of America’s most respected conservative leaders, former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee today formally endorsed Mike Cox in the 2010 race for Governor.

     “Mike Cox is best described as Michigan’s Pro-Life, Pro-gun conservative candidate for Governor,” said Huckabee. “Mike is an innovative, strong leader who is not afraid to take a stand on an important issue. He is opposed to the runaway tax and spend policies we are seeing at the federal and state levels.”

     Cox’s message of less spending, lower taxes and reformed government has set him apart in Michigan’s race for Governor. Cox recently drew a crowd of 1,200 families, activists and community leaders to a Rally for Michigan’s Future in Oakland County and hundreds more last weekend to the Grand Opening of his campaign headquarters in Livonia.

     “Mike Huckabee is one of our nation’s most respected leaders,” said Cox. “Mike Huckabee continues to fight for more liberty and less government. I am proud to have his support and am honored he is standing beside me as we fight to bring jobs back to Michigan.”

     Cox announced Huckabee’s endorsement first today via social networking websites like Facebook, Twitter, U-Stream and conservative bloggers across Michigan.

     Huckabee has been called an early frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination scoring well in many polls including last November’s Gallup-USA Today poll. Mike Huckabee polled ahead of President Obama as recently as January 2010.

     “Mike Cox has also fought hard to protect Second Amendment rights in Michigan,” Huckabee continued. “I am proud to endorse Mike Cox for Governor of Michigan.”

     Cox is the only candidate for Governor to release a comprehensive 92 point plan to put Michigan back to work, including proposals to cut billions of dollars out of the state budget, cut taxes on job providers and families by $2 billion, make government more transparent, reform education, and revitalize our cities. The plan is available at www.mikecox2010.com. The Mike Cox 2010 Campaign also recently announced that it raised $1.8 million in 2009 – with roughly $1.5 million cash on hand. The funds came from over 2,500 individual donors – with roughly 1,000 of the contributors donating less than $100.

     For more information on Mike Cox’s campaign for Governor, please visit www.mikecox2010.com or call the campaign office today at 734-525-5035.

     About Gov. Mike Huckabee: Prior to his 2008 presidential campaign, Huckabee served as the 44th Governor of Arkansas from 1996-2007 and as the state’s lieutenant governor from 1993-1996. As a young adult, he served as a pastor and denominational leader. He became the youngest president ever of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, the largest denomination in Arkansas. Huckabee’s efforts to improve his own health have received national attention. He is the author of 6 books, the most recent being “Do the Right Thing,” which spent its first 7 weeks of release in the top ten of the New York Times Bestseller list. He is currently the host of the top rated weekend hit “HUCKABEE” on the Fox News Channel, and is heard three times daily across the nation on the “Huckabee Report.” Huckabee and his wife, Janet, live in North Little Rock, Arkansas. They have three grown children: John Mark, David and Sarah.

#30#

Alright, so my analysis… this honestly confused me when I saw it.  I’ve been wondering for the past few hours why a Presidential candidate would jump into the gubernatorial race here in Michigan.

One thing is for sure, this is by far the biggest endorsement that I can think of for any of the current gubernatorial candidates.  The announcement definitely gives Cox more momentum than he already had (which is quite a bit – he’s been battling Congressman Pete Hoekstra, with both of them leading the polls at one time or another).  But will it help him in the long run?

In the 2008 Presidential Primaries, Huckabee got 16.08% of the vote in Michigan, with Romney winning with 38.92%, and McCain coming in second with 29.68%.  Huckabee did worst in Cox’s area of the state, but better in central and western Michigan, so that might help Cox a little bit, by diversifying his support.  So, I’d say that the best endorsement to get would’ve been Romney’s but Huckabee is still a major player in the conservative movement, and as of now, polling well for 2012.

Now, another thing that I thought about was Huckabee’s stances on law and order issues.  One of the major problems I’ve always had with Huckabee (don’t get me wrong – I like the guy) has been his stances on law and order issues as governor.  He issued a lot of pardons and commutations as governor of Arkansas (most notably, the recent scandal with Maurice Clemons who shot and killed 4 police officers in 2009).  Being an Attorney General, I’m not sure if Huckabee’s endorsement is the best thing for Mike Cox’s law and order record, but I may be reading into this more than I should.

Huckabee’s endorsement will help Cox with social conservatives, a group that may be hesitant to vote for him because of his affair back in 2005, but I think most people have (rightfully) moved on from that issue.  But the pro-life movement in Michigan is very strong, and Huckabee’s endorsement will go a long way for Cox when it comes to social issues.  Then again, with the current emphasis on the economy, social issues probably won’t be the deciding factor in who voters do vote for (although in the Republican primary, it’ll be more of an issue than in the general election).

But the most interesting thing about this, and I’ve been wondering this all day, is why would a Presidential candidate endorse a gubernatorial candidate in a primary race?  There’s 3 answers that I think it could possibly be:

  1. Huckabee has given up running for President (at least for 2012), and is going to focus on his PAC and getting Republicans elected around the country.
  2. He’s gambling that Cox will end up winning, and will help him here in Michigan in 2012.
  3. Huckabee is already counting Michigan as lost to him in 2012, and isn’t afraid of losing a few potential delegates by angering non-Cox supporters.

Option 2 and 3 make the most sense to me.  I don’t think he’s given up on running, but I don’t think Huckabee can win Michigan in 2012 if Romney runs.  Romney’s biggest competition here in Michigan was McCain, and without McCain, I think Romney would’ve gotten close to, if not more than, 50% of the vote in 2008.

He may not be publicly saying it, but I don’t think he plans on winning Michigan.  My guess would be that he’s hoping Cox will bring in some supporters (and money) in 2012, so that can offset the voters that Huckabee may lose because he’s supporting Cox.

But no matter what the outcome is for Huckabee, this definitely gives Cox a decent boost for now.  Whether or not is does anything for him come August 3rd, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican

New York 23rd District Election Prediction: Hoffman Wins

November 2, 2009

I already put out my predictions for the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races.  The other major race going on tomorrow is the special election for the New York 23rd Congressional District.  Originally, there were 3 main candidates running: Republican Dede Scozzafava, Democrat Bill Owens, and Conservative Doug Hoffman.  Hoffman entered the race because people had criticized Scozzafava as being too moderate, some saying she was even more liberal than the Democrat.  Top Republicans were split in who they supported, with some Republicans like Newt Gingrich supporting Scozafava, and Sarah Palin supporting Doug Hoffman.

Last week, Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed Owens.  At that point, Scozzafava was trailing in the polls by over 10%, and the race between Owens and Hoffman was close.  Since Scozzafava dropped out, Hoffman has skyrocketed in the polls, and I now expect him to win.

Even though Scozzafava dropped out, it’s too late to change the ballots, so she will remain on the ballot.  Here’s my prediction:

  1. Doug Hoffman (C) – 53%
  2. Bill Owens – 42%
  3. Dede Scozzafava – 5%

I really don’t see Hoffman having any problems now that Scozzafava has dropped out – the district leans Republican and hasn’t gone for a Democrat running for the District since 1992.  I see Hoffman winning pretty easily tomorrow, but we’ll see – it’s been an interesting race so far – there could always be another surprise.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican

President Obama’s Speech to Students Was No Big Deal

September 8, 2009

Recently, I’ve heard a lot of concerns from conservatives saying that President Obama’s speech to students today was going to be a means for him to indoctrinate students with socialistic and liberal ideals.  Personally, I doubted that this would happen – I figured that the President’s speech would be nothing more than the basic “Stay in school.  Don’t do drugs.  Strive to be the best you can be” speech that presidents have been giving for years.

And I was right.  I didn’t find anything indoctrinating or partisan about the President’s speech to the students of Wakefield High School (Arlington, VA).

If you’d like to see a video/transcript of the speech, those are available here, courtesy of ABC.

It was honestly a good speech to students – he emphasized the importance of staying in school, saying, “If you quit on school, you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.  What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country.  The future of America depends on you.”

He talked about the responsibilities of parents: “I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.”

And he made some good points encouraging students not to just give up and make excuses: “But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude.  That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.”

So, I think the lesson that some people need to learn from this is, not everything has to be political.  A speech to high school students about staying in school really can be just that.  Just because we disagree with President Obama on health care or other issues doesn’t mean that we need to cry “Foul!” and run around screaming “Socialism!” and “Indoctrination!” all over the place, because that degrades the level of debate that we should be engaging in politically and brings the entire political system down to a level of grade school childishness.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

Do Ron Paul’s Supporters Refuse to Admit His Faults When It Comes to Earmarks?

March 5, 2009

I was reading an article on ConservativeHQ.com, “Ron Paul’s Pork Problem,” which basically criticized Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) for being a hypocrite on fiscal conservative principles by arguing for smaller government and less government spending but getting 22 earmarks (totaling $96.1 million) in the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill.

Now, I love Dr. Paul.  He’s one of my favorite Congressmen, but I disagree with his stance on earmarks.  According to his Congressional website, “As long as the Federal government takes tax money from his constituents, he will make every effort to return that money to his district.”

So, while I disagree with him, I still have a HUGE amount of respect for Dr. Paul, but I am willing to admit that this (in my opinion) is a fault of his.

Now, take a look at some of the comments left on ConservativeHQ.com:

  • “Congrats, you just lost a member.”
  • “Ron Paul has never voted for a bill with unconstitutional provisions in it. He is the most principled statesmen in Congress. You lost all your credibility with this “Pork Problem” article. You also lost me as a member!”
  • “This article is very one sided. You obviously cannot stand the fact that Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the Republican Party. Please remove me from any of your biased e-mails! There is nothing conservative about this web site.”
  • “Ron Paul votes against the spending. Then if the money that they voted on doesn’t get spent on ear marks, it ends up being spent by the Executive Branch. Does that sound constitutional to you?! I can’t believe this was posted here. How completely irresponsible. I am out of here. I hope others with any logical sense of reason will follow unless this website retracts this article immediately and sends out an e-mail apologizing for being stupid.”

So, my message to those supporters of Dr. Paul who refuse to admit his faults, he’s a great man, but he’s not perfect, and I think his stance on earmarks is out of line with conservatism.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: Add to diigo :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

President Bush Approves $17.4 Billion Auto Bailout

December 19, 2008

Alright, well this morning, President Bush held a press conference where he announced his plans to give  a $17.4 billion loan to GM and Chrysler.  Here’s a video of  that press conference (courtesy of FOX), and I have a transcript (again, courtesy of FOX) which I’ve done a “play-by-play” analysis of below:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION’S PLAN TO ASSIST THE AUTOMAKERS

Roosevelt Room

9:01 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For years, America’s automakers have faced serious challenges — burdensome costs, a shrinking share of the market, and declining profits. In recent months, the global financial crisis has made these challenges even more severe. Now some U.S. auto executives say that their companies are nearing collapse — and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the federal government.

This is a difficult situation that involves fundamental questions about the proper role of government. On the one hand, government has a responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy.

Well, personally, I think that the best way to safeguard the health and stability of our economy is to NOT give out loans to companies who were irresponsible!

Addressing the challenges in the auto industry requires us to balance these two responsibilities. If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers. Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay — and I would not favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business.

How exactly would the bankruptcy be disorderly?  The whole point of  bankruptcy is to keep the process orderly.  And if President Bush means liquidation as in the entire company, then this press conference was just a scare tactic to get the American people behind the auto bailout.  The companies wouldn’t go under.

But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed. Some argue the wisest path is to allow the auto companies to reorganize through Chapter 11 provisions of our bankruptcy laws — and provide federal loans to keep them operating while they try to restructure under the supervision of a bankruptcy court. But given the current state of the auto industry and the economy, Chapter 11 is unlikely to work for American automakers at this time.

American consumers understand why: If you hear that a car company is suddenly going into bankruptcy, you worry that parts and servicing will not be available, and you question the value of your warranty. And with consumers hesitant to buy new cars from struggling automakers, it would be more difficult for auto companies to recover.

Then by this argument, Chapter 11 would NEVER work for an auto company, because people would be hesitant to buy.  And how do you remedy these fears?  You emphasize the fact that 3rd party institutions offer warranties, and you don’t HAVE to go to the dealer to get your car serviced.  There are lots of other shops that do just as good of a job, if not a BETTER job than the dealership.

Additionally, the financial crisis brought the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy much faster than they could have anticipated — and they have not made the legal and financial preparations necessary to carry out an orderly bankruptcy proceeding that could lead to a successful restructuring.

Um … when they were losing money years ago and asked the UAW members to take a pay cut, but the union said no, so in order to avoid a strike, the companies gave in, the companies should have known that continuing to pay wages that you can’t afford would make you go into bankruptcy eventually.  Like I’ve said before, it’s the companies’ heads’ fault for not cutting wages of the workers as well as taking pay cuts themselves, and it’s the UAW members’ fault for being greedy and refusing to budge at all.

The convergence of these factors means there’s too great a risk that bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies. My economic advisors believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession. And it would leave the next President to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.

Are these the same economic advisors who encouraged the Economic Stimulus Package and the first bailout bill?  Because if so, they suck, and I would have fired them a LONG time ago.

A more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy — and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability. This legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress.

If bipartisan you mean Democrats along with traitorous Republicans, then yes, I guess it was bipartisan.  HOWEVER, I commend the brave and honorable REAL Republicans who stood up against this bailout, and the other bailouts.  I especially commend Bob Corker (R-TN) for standing up against the UAW.  Of course, Ron Paul (R-TX) must be mentioned, since he’s hugely against this as well.  I commend all 28 Republicans who had the common sense to vote against this bill.

Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year.

This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I’m announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.

These loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies — which we believe they are capable of doing. Second, if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success — and gives consumers confidence that they can continue to buy American cars.

Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I’m announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall. The terms of the loans will require auto companies to demonstrate how they would become viable. They must pay back all their loans to the government, and show that their firms can earn a profit and achieve a positive net worth. This restructuring will require meaningful concessions from all involved in the auto industry — management, labor unions, creditors, bondholders, dealers, and suppliers.

Well obviously they have to pay back the loans.  It’s not a loan if you keep the money!

In particular, automakers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long-term viability — including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing, persuading bondholders to convert their debt into capital the companies need to address immediate financial shortfalls, and making their compensation competitive with foreign automakers who have major operations in the United States. If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it will be required to repay its federal loans.

OK, this is where this whole thing just confuses the crap out of me.  We give them the money, and they spend it.  If they don’t have a plan by March 31st, they have to give all the money back.  But does Bush really think that they’ll have all the money that we gave them?  If they do, then it’s OBVIOUS that they don’t NEED the loan, because they still have enough money!  If they can’t repay us back, how is it any different than a normal loan.  How are we going to force  them to pay us back?  The entire PREMISE around this bailout is just idiotic!

The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake, and make hard decisions necessary to reform, These conditions send a clear message to everyone involved in the future of American automakers: The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now — or the only option will be bankruptcy.

The actions I’m announcing today represent a step that we wish were not necessary. But given the situation, it is the most effective and responsible way to address this challenge facing our nation. By giving the auto companies a chance to restructure, we will shield the American people from a harsh economic blow at a vulnerable time. And we will give American workers an opportunity to show the world once again they can meet challenges with ingenuity and determination, and bounce back from tough times, and emerge stronger than before.

Thank you.

END 9:08 A.M. EST

Well, I have now lost most all of the approval that I still had for the Bush administration.

There’s still a glimmer of hope: Once Treasury Secretary Paulson actually makes a formal request, the money will be released unless Congress rejects the request within 15 days.  I can only hope that Republicans oppose it and that enough Democrats, angry at the way Bush has handled the release of money, will oppose this awful plan.  Sadly, I don’t see that happening; however, I will hope and pray and continue advocating that we put a stop to all of this economic nonsense!

This bailout plan is NOT the solution.  Like I said, the entire premise of it is flawed: We’ll loan you money to spend, but if you don’t have a good plan, you have to give that money back.  Well, either the money is STILL in their bank accounts (meaning they didn’t NEED the money), or the money has already been SPENT (partially)!

We need some strong fiscal conservatives to show what the Republican party truly stands for.  We need more people like Neil Cavuto, Bob Corker, and Ron Paul.  I’m tired of the Republicans here in Michigan supporting the bailout because it will help our state.  It’s selfish and wrong.  I’m especially disappointed in Representative Pete Hoekstra, who has always been very outspoken about fiscal conservativism.  We need people who will fight for economic justice!  We need people who will fight for the American TAXPAYER!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Alan Colmes to Leave Hannity & Colmes Show on FOX

November 24, 2008

News has just come in that Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity & Colmes, the number 2 show in cable news (behind The O’Reilly Factor), will be leaving the show at the end of the year.  Colmes told reporters, “I approached Bill Shine [Fox News Channel’s Senior Vice President of Programming] earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network.  Although it’s bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I’m proud that both Sean and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years.”

Shine also gave a statement, saying, “We’re very sorry to see Alan reach this decision but we understand his desire to seek other creative challenges in his career.  We value his incredible hard work in making Hannity & Colmes the most successful debate program on cable news and we’re going to miss him on the show.  Thankfully, he will begin developing a weekend pilot for us.”

Hannity also released a statement, saying, “Not only has Alan been a remarkable co-host, he’s been a great friend which is rare in this industry — I’ll genuinely miss sparring with such a skillful debate partner.”

Roger Ailes, the Chairman & CEO of FOX News also said, “Alan is one of the key reasons why FOX News has been such a remarkable success.  We’re sad to see him leave the program but we look forward to his ongoing contributions to the network.”

Colmes continue working at FOX, as a liberal commentator on a variety of news programs, including The Strategy Room.  He will also continue to host his radio program, The Alan Colmes Show, on FOX Talk.  Additionally, he will begin to develop a weekend program of some sort.

Personally, I’m going to miss Alan.  I’ve always enjoyed the back and forth on Hannity and Colmes.  They actually had good debates.  I always found the format both fun and educational.

The future of the show is unknown at this point in time, but I’m sure that Sean is going to stay at FOX.

The good news is, this leaves room for me and my roommate to get a show on FOX, although I’m not sure that we’d be as civilized as Hannity and Colmes were.  Both him and I like watching COPS, so we joke about combining the two shows, kinda like a Hannity & Colmes with TAZERs.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

The Problem with the Republican Party

November 18, 2008

So, I was taking a shower a couple days ago, when I had an epiphany (it’s where I always do all my great thinking).  I came up with this phrase: “A tax-and-spend liberal is better than a tax-cut-and-spend conservative.  At least the liberal can balance the budget.”

And this is a principle that the Republican Party (or at least a large part of its members) have forgotten.  The Bush Tax Cuts do NOTHING for us, unless you CUT SPENDING as well!  In fact, if we are going to keep up our spending habits, we need to RAISE taxes.

So should we raise taxes?  Absolutely NOT!  What we should focus on doing is cutting our spending.  Start with earmarks.  Eliminate them altogether.  Then move on to the welfare system.  Reform the welfare system.  And reform the school system.  There’s plenty of money in Michigan, worked around the right way, so that we can pay teachers decent wages and not have to continue closing down schools in Detroit.

Until the Republican Party begins to understand basic business principles (can’t have your expenditures higher than your income), they will continue to suffer election after election.  We need to return to our fiscally responsible principles.  Cut taxes.  Cut spending.  That right there will raise the quality of life for all Americans.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Illinois City Bans Trick-or-Treating for Teenagers

October 27, 2008

Well, this is about the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while.  Belleville, Illinois passed an ordinance last Monday that restricted trick-or-treating.  That sounds normal, right, most cities limit the time that kids can trick-or-treat.  But the city isn’t just limiting when; they’re also limiting who can trick-or-treat.  And it also limits the wearing of masks, to only Halloween (unless you’re under 12).

Here’s an overview of the ordinance (unfortunately, Belleville is a little slow in uploading their meeting minutes, and all they have right now is a copy of the agenda, so this isn’t the exact wording of the ordinance):

  • Limits trick-or-treating on Halloween from 5:00 P.M. until 8:30 P.M.
  • Bans anyone in above the 8th grade (anybody older than 13 or 14) from trick-or-treating on Halloween, unless they are a “special-needs” child, and then they must be accompanied by a parent or guardian.
  • Allows children age 12 and under to wear a mask and/or disguise any day of the year, but restricts anyone above 12 to being able to wear a mask and/or disguise only on Halloween.
  • Prohibits any and all child sex offenders from going to any event and/or holding any event for Halloween where any child (other than his/her own) will be present. Child sex offenders must also turn out their outside lights on Halloween night, and they are banned from handing out candy.

OK, so bullet points 1 and 4 I have no problem with.  It’s 2 and 3 that I have an issue with.

But before I go on, let me give you some quotes that Mayor Mark Eckert told reporters:

We believe that Halloween is for little children.  We just feel that we need to go that extra mile to protect the children.

We were hearing more and more about bigger kids knocking on doors after 9:00 at night and the people who lived in the homes were scared.  The seniors were especially scared.  They didn’t want to be the recipient of some kind of trick, but they didn’t want to open their doors late at night, either.

Sexual predators can’t have parties.  It’s not right, it’s wrong.  They lost that privilege.

OK, so I get the principle behind this, but here’s where you have a problem: Those teenagers out after 9:00 P.M. would be out past the overall curfew anyway, so they’d already be breaking the law.  What is the need for another law here?  If they’re out past 8:30, they can be arrested (I’m assuming that’s the punishment).  So that right there would solve your teenagers out late problem.  Banning trick-or-treating for anybody above the 8thgrade is simply ageism.  You cannot discriminate against somebody like this.  I’ll accept a curfew (although I have problems with those at times too), but to ban outright the practice of trick-or-treating for ANYBODY (other than felons who lose some rights when they’re convicted) is discrimination, and in my view, illegal!

Now, the mask/disguise ordinance.  You’re telling me that a 16-year-old kid can’t wear a mask outside at a Halloween party the night before Halloween (Devil’s Night if you live here in Detroit)?  Or what if a Star Trek convention comes to Belleville?  Are you telling me that masks aren’t allowed?  It’s ridiculous!  Unfortunately, without the ordinance I don’t have the city’s legal definition of “disguise” but would this apply to people dressed up as Santa Clause?  Are you going to haul away the Salvation Army Santa for being in a “disguise” on a day other than Halloween?  It’s dumb.  It restricts the Freedom of Speech (this isn’t a dress code in school we’re talking about here – this is just being out in PUBLIC generally!)!  It’s asinine, ridiculous, and it’s unconstitutional.

I hope somebody old goes out and trick-or treats, or wears a mask the day after Halloween so that this can be taken to court and overturned.  I’m a Law and Order Conservative – I abide by the laws.  I don’t speed.  I don’t drink underage.  I’ve never stolen a candy bar.  But when the law goes against Constitutional principles, it MUST be disobeyed so that it can be challenged in court, and this is one time where I say, “Break that law!”

Done Ranting

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Clarification About Ethics and Family Members in Politics

September 13, 2008

Recently some controversy arose concerning whether or not I represent a conservative voice on a panel for an event at Central Michigan (the event is Speak Up, Speak Out [SUSO]).  The CM-Life wrote an article about a complaint by a student, Dennis Lennox, saying that he and conservatives were being discriminated against by the SUSO Committee not allowing him to be on the panel.

I left a comment saying:

I am the conservative representing the College Republicans, so no, it’s not a completely liberal panel.

As for the statement that the university shouldn’t decide who goes to these. I say, it’s their forum, they can do what they want. If you don’t like it, go start your own forum and run it how you want.

As for Dennis’s [Dennis Lennox] complaint, I would welcome another conservative on the panel, but I think that this would open the door for any politically-related RSO to complain and want a spot on the SUSO panel, which would lead to a dozen or more panelists, and this makes the forums too hard to run. You have so many people wanting to talk that it’d become too hard to manage.

2 days went by, another article came out, including statements by myself and the College Democrats’ President, defending the Speak Up, Speak Out Committee’s decision to only include the CRs and CDs.

Later in the day, a comment appeared on the original story, by someone impersonating my sister:

I know Nathan Inks; he’s not a conservative. He’s a moderate, a Republican ideologue. There is a difference between being a Republican and being a conservative. They are definitely not synonymous. 

That crossed a line.  That crossed a big, fat, thick line!  And the reason that I’m posting this on here is to point out a principle–a principle that should not be broken under ANY circumstances.  In politics, there is no reason to drag a family member into discussion, unless that family member has some effect on what’s going on.

Even further than that, to pretend to be somebody’s family or friend in order to deceive everybody else who is reading the comment is both disturbing and disgusting.

I ask for a public apology from whoever committed the heinous act.  It was uncalled for, and both offensive, to me AND my sister.

And I ask that this be a reminder to everybody out there–impersonating somebody on the Internet is not something funny, it’s serious, and it can have consequences that you never intended it to have or even imagined it could have.

If you have something to say, just come out and say it.  Don’t be a coward and try to hide behind someone else’s name.  It’s disgusting and wrong.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 288 other followers

%d bloggers like this: