
Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
For the passing of his grandmother, he has my sincere condolences. But he's still bad for our country. I know this will offend some people -- nothing has the power to alienate like a discussion about politics. Please know that I am not attempting to be deliberately offensive. I'm simply sharing my mind and heart, in the hope of persuading some wayward, last-minute undecideds who stumble across my blog.
Check back here tomorrow night for my traditional Election Day coverage. Come what may, we'll have some fun with it.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin
Go to my brand spankin' new Twitter page: www.twitter.com/themontster.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, John McCain
Some thoughts on recent events in rapid-fire succession:
- McCain's campaign suspension. Unorthodox, bold, smart. McCain's certainly a risk taker -- even though I've found his politics odious at times, I also find it refreshing that he's willing to think and act outside the overly scripted, focus-grouped, poll-driven box that is modern American politics. Doubtless McCain's camp brooded over the political calculus of temporarily dropping his campaign, but I think it says something meaningful and positive about McCain that he was willing to do it in the first place. Plus, he's once again put Obama on defense; all he could do was react. And I don't think his reaction has been terribly smart so far. If Obama appears at tomorrow's debate alone, he will look like an ostentatious stage hound fiddling while Rome burns. I think it really does have the potential to be the death knell of his campaign.
- The mortgage bailout. I have to admit that I don't fully understand the crisis. But my reaction has been along these lines:
- Where do these governmental incursions into the market end? What happens if the U.S. automobile industry starts to tank? Or the airlines? Do we have to bail them out too? Where does it end? We're on a slippery slope of socialism here, and one need only look to the historical example of the former USSR to see how well that works.
- Besides, as a taxpayer, I don't want to be on the hook for business failures I have no control over. Nor do I want to be on the hook for the unrepentant malfeasance of politicians, bureaucrats, and Wall Street fat cats.
- Speaking of bureaucracy, the idea of giving Henry Paulson -- an unelected official -- a blank check for $700 billion to use at his discretion seems like lunacy. Our national debt is already $6 TRILLION. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already put taxpayer dollars on the line because they are GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises) that borrow heavily from foreign investors to do business. I resent the fact that Paulson et al (President Bush included) are out there fear-mongering, telling us that we have no choice but to further compound the taxpayers' outlay or face economic meltdown. Isn't bureaucratic incompetence and corruption partly to blame for this mess in the first place?!? Sorry guys -- the economy may be having problems, but I'm skeptical about the Chicken Little approach. If we need a solution, I'd prefer a thoughtful, non-Marxist one to the put-the-taxpayer-in-a-hammer-lock variety.
- Planning to start my interaction with Gary Grieg's defense of Lakeland soon -- stay tuned!
- On a lighter note, I really enjoyed LSU's comeback at Auburn on Saturday. Looking forward to seeing them develop over the rest of the season. It's going to be a great ride again this year. Geaux Tigers!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, John McCain, LSU
The MonT-SteR's favorite childhood friend, David, had an amusing response to the "About Me" section of my Facebook profile, which reads as follows:
I'm a Christian man who loves God, family, and friends. If you ask those who know me, they might tell you I'm a study in contrasts -- simultaneously one of the silliest and most serious people they know.
In other news, I have a new favorite salsa. Baja Cafe salsa has been on sale at the local Food Lion for half price, so I picked up some recently just to try it. The verdict?YUM!
Definitely restaurant quality stuff. It just has that special tang that the salsa at good Mexican restaurants has. My favorite thing about the restaurant salsa is the taste of fresh cilantro that comes with every bite. Baja Cafe approaches that flavor, which is why I love it so.
Check it out! I've found it in the refrigerated section at our store, in the general area of things like cream cheese and all those canned Pillsbury doughs (doesn't the idea of canned dough kinda wig you out?).
Finally, I can't let the night pass without mentioning Barack Obama's horrific gaffe today in Lebanon, VA. In an attempt to cast doubt on the authenticity of the McCain-Palin ticket's change mantra, he said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." This would probably be a non-issue if it weren't for the humorous line in Palin's acceptance speech about lipstick being the sole differentiator between a hockey mom and a pit bull. Whether Obama intended to capitalize on that line for his own zinger or not, the audience almost certainly took it that way -- which had the net effect of making it look like Obama publicly called Palin a pig.
Did he really mean to do that? I want to give him the benefit of the doubt (honestly, though, I have my suspicions). In any case, I do feel a little bad for the guy; if it really was a slip, I have to imagine that he'll be kicking himself for such a poor choice of words. In the meantime, friends, sit back, relax, and enjoy tomorrow's media frenzy.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, humor, John McCain, Sarah Palin
Some things percolating in The MonT-SteR's head:
- Thank God that Gustav is weaker than expected and not drowning New Orleans.
- Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for President. Politics aside, when you consider that Jim Crow laws were in effect less than a decade before Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ was born (and I'm a thirty-something Gen-Xer), you have to admit that we've come a long way. Obama may not be the best choice for President (in my estimation, he's most certainly not), but it's a good day in America when an African-American has the opportunity to be the best choice in the first place. Congrats to him, and to our entire nation. It really is an important landmark.
- Since McCain's "Meet Sarah Palin" rally on Friday, Gov. Palin has come under intense fire from liberal bloggers who alleged that her 4-month-old son, Trig, is not her baby. They went so far as to say that Palin faked her own pregnancy in order to cover up her oldest daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Photos showing a trim looking Gov. Palin (despite being 7 mos. pregnant) and her daughter, Bristol Palin, with a "baby bump" during the same time frame have been cited as "proof" of this conspiratorial thinking.
My first instinct was to dismiss this stuff as the typical bilge that is gleefully spewed by venomous left-wing blogs. It turns out, however, that at least one element of the story is true: Bristol Palin is pregnant out of wedlock. According to a statement released by the Palins today to quell the rumors, Bristol has opted to keep the baby and marry the father.
Some leftists online are breathlessly touting this as the archetypal failure of conservative parenting and abstinence-only education -- an unwarranted logical leap that is borne of ideological allegiance rather than evidence. This can happen to the best of parents, and it's ridiculous to suggest that only conservative parents would be distressed by such a development.
Others are drooling over the prospect that this essentially kills McCain's chances in November. Admittedly, it is an interesting question. How is this going to play with values voters who were energized by Palin's addition to the McCain ticket? Michelle Maulkin over at Hot Air has echoed a thought I had. The Palin family's handling of this situation is a stark contrast to Obama's rhetoric, which views babies born to teenage mothers as unnecessary "punishment" that abortion conveniently remedies. That should be encouraging to pro-lifers -- it demonstrates that the Palin family shares and holds to pro-life values, even under gut-wrenching circumstances.
How does The MonT-SteR feel about all this? Not entirely sure. I can sympathize with the Palins, and recognize that children have the freedom to make choices that fly in the face of loving, consistent parenting. Part of me wishes they had been up front about it, but what family out there wouldn't want to keep something like this as quiet and private as possible? Even so, it appears that the pregnancy was no secret back in Alaska. According to a Time article, residents of Sarah Palin's hometown, Wasilla, were aware of the whole thing and yet unruffled by it:If you haven't guessed yet, the people here [in Wasilla] are genuinely friendly. Even those in Palin's inner sanctum who have been told since Friday not to talk to reporters by McCain's media team, are almost apologetic that they can't be neighborly and chat, since you came all this way to little Wasilla. And those who can talk, do. All weekend they had the decency not to pretend that they didn't know the governor's eldest daughter was pregnant. But they also expected decency in return, that I wouldn't be the kind of person to make sport out of a young girl's slip.This indicates that there was no attempt at some dastardly cover-up by the Palins. It also means that the so-called Kossacks over at Daily Kos who started this flap should be ashamed of themselves for 1) jumping to unfounded conclusions based on their own judgmental hearts and wishful thinking, and 2) rudely delving into intensely sensitive and private family matters in order to score ill-gotten political points.
As for me, I'm inclined to like Sarah Palin. I don't think this episode disqualifies her from being the veep candidate at all. But, I continue to hold a "wait and see" posture before I jump entirely on the bandwagon. I like what I've seen so far, but I want to get a better idea of what she'll bring to the ticket. Hopefully, it isn't additional baggage. In any case, my prayers are with her and her family as they weather a difficult time under heavy scrutiny by an unfriendly and biased mainstream media.
We'll just have to wait and see how this unfolds, and what the average American voter thinks of all this. It'll be interesting to see the fallout in the daily tracking polls.
- The Lakeland Revival appears to have suffered something of an implosion, leaving in its wake troubling questions about Todd Bentley and the leaders who gave oversight to the movement. I mention this as someone who watched some of the Lakeland meetings via God TV, and was undeniably touched by the presence of God. In addition, a number of respected friends and acquaintances traveled to Lakeland to attend the meetings in person and brought back wonderful testimonies of genuine encounters with the Living God. While I acknowledge the hand of God in Lakeland, there were some things I observed about the meetings and the church's reaction to them that made me uneasy. For the sake of brevity, I shan't enumerate them here -- it'll have to wait for another post.
I had reserved comment on this for awhile, because I wanted to explore my questions and misgivings more thoroughly with God before making any statements; I don't level criticisms at what appears to be a move of God lightly. In contrast, Christians of certain stripes didn't have any hesitation about denouncing both Todd Bentley and the apparent outpouring at Lakeland, asserting that it was all unbiblical at best, downright demonic at worst. Others, such as Dr. Gary Greig (whom I also respect), found almost unqualified scriptural warrant and sanction of the entire affair. I actually planned to interact with Greig's statement on my blog, and will probably do so in the near future. Those who waved off his defense of Lakeland as "pseudo-scholarship" were too dismissive. Dr. Greig is most certainly not a pseudo-scholar. Nevertheless, I felt that some of his thinking was problematic, and I think it needs to be highlighted from the perspective of a reasoned, fellow charismatic (as opposed to smug hyper-cessationists looking for a theological axe to grind with Pharisaical gusto).
For my own part, I'm in a bit of a deconstructionist phase with respect to some peripheral aspects of the Charismatic movement, which is part of the reason why I reserved comment. I encounter "novelties" in doctrine and practice so frequently these days that I can scarcely keep up with it, and the pressure to just "swallow and follow" (as J. Lee Grady puts it) is palpable. All the while, a voice in the back of my head nags, "Are we sure there's biblical precedent for this? Besides, it seems to me that we don't sufficiently know or practice the basics of the faith. Can we step away from the latest, fantastical stuff that comes down the pike to focus on core (and oft-neglected) aspects of Christian faith and practice?"
I feel this way in part because George Barna has chronicled dangerous trends within American Christendom in recent years, demonstrating that the church at large is failing at basic Christian discipleship. My own anecdotal experience in ministry has confirmed many of his findings. Given that the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement accounts for a growing number of Christians in America, it's foolish to assume that it is immune to the problems enumerated by studies such as Barna's.
Perhaps the apparent denouement of the Lakeland revival (or, at least, Todd Bentley's involvement in it) is indicative of this. In any case, I confess that I failed to do the investigative work necessary (both factually and scripturally) to make discerning pronouncements vis-a-vis Lakeland with any kind of certitude. Next time something like this comes up, I need to be more prepared to have a reasoned, biblically informed, spiritually sensitive voice.
In the meantime, grace, mercy, and prayerfulness are prescribed as the Body of Christ walks through Lakeland's fallout. All I know is that I'd feel terrible if I were in Todd Bentley's shoes; the last thing I'd ever want to do is drag the name of Christ through the mud. It's in moments like that, when our fallenness and disobedience to God catch up to us, that the enemy moves in to condemn us and crush our spirits. There are those in the church who are dancing on Bentley's ministerial grave, and that's a shame. I suspect that the enemy did the very same thing in the wake of Peter's threefold denial of the Lord. Let's not side with the enemy, brothers and sisters; if Peter could be restored by Jesus' loving hand, so can Todd Bentley.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Christianity, John McCain, Lakeland Revival, Sarah Palin
Well, here's my ultimate take on the whole thing.
I think Obama is a well-spoken man who is at ease with himself. On the stump, I've found him to be rather haughty and arrogant -- the accusation of messiah-complex that is often leveled at him is not without warrant. But tonight, he was self-effacing, conversational, friendly, likable. I can understand why people are taken with him.
If you listen to him carefully enough, however, you hear inconsistencies that cast doubt on the steadiness of his core principles. Recall that when he had to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his speech more or less threw his grandmother under the bus as a knee-jerk racist after the fashion of "typical white people" (Obama attempted to do damage control on that comment after the fact, but not successfully IMHO). Contrast that with tonight, when he told Rick Warren that his grandmother is one of the great sages in his life. I'm confused...
Plus, I just find the lion's share of his thinking and politics noxious. The guy's a socialist -- no two ways about it. His discussion of the Supreme Court's role was just plain weird (I wanted to say inane, but let's be charitable), and his position on abortion is essentially a punt on the central human rights issue so he can maintain a politically expedient pro-choice posture (too bad those in the womb can't vote).
Turning to McCain, readers of my blog know that I'm not his biggest fan. Campaign finance reform was nothing short of a brazen assault on the First Amendment. He was the chief champion of that legislation, and it flies in the face of the oath a president takes to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, he's been a sell-out on immigration reform (or, more precisely, amnesty for illegal aliens). So I'm predisposed to being extraordinarily skeptical of McCain as a presidential candidate.
That said, he is a consistently pro-life candidate, which is important to me. The annual slaughter of 40 million unborn babies is nothing short of a modern holocaust of shocking proportions, and IT MUST END. I could never, in good conscience, vote for someone who is pro-choice. And he does hold to a number of conservative issues (keeping taxes low, tough stance on national security, constitutionalist judges, etc.). From my perspective, he's definitely preferable to Sen. Obama.
I thought McCain did pretty well tonight, although I found him stiff at times (especially when he discussed his personal faith). And he seemed to revert here and there to stump speech mode, something I think Obama avoided more successfully. Even so, I think McCain came across in a surprisingly warm, engaging fashion (as opposed to some stoic, old fart of a curmudgeonly war hero). In any case, in a contest of substance versus fluff, McCain won hands down. His black eyes: a rambling, non-answer on privacy vs. security; no clear enunciation of policy with respect to when and how much America should act as world policeman.
I'd like to express my appreciation to Rick Warren and Saddleback for a number of things:
- Thanks for hosting this forum. It was very informative, and I think it gave us a good glimpse into the minds and hearts of the candidates. I appreciate you taking the lead on forging a dialogue between the candidates and the faith community
- Thanks, Rick, for asking tough questions that the media will typically shy away from (especially with respect to Obama). I think it was apropos and fair for each candidate to be asked the same set of questions.
- I really appreciated the judicious avoidance of direct questions about climate change. I still maintain that Rick Warren is grievously in error for embracing pop global warming theory, and I was really glad not to have to listen to such poppycock tonight. Looking forward to Rick's own "wise flip-flop" on this issue.
8:04 p.m.
Question segment #1 is going to deal with leadership issues.
First question to Barack has to deal with the three wisest people who have influenced him.
His answer:
- His wife. She's both wise and honest.
- His grandmother. (Would this be the typically white racist grandmother he's alluded to in previous public gaffes?)
- Cites Ted Kennedy as an influence in domestic policy (YUCK!). Wants a forum of advisors that have a breadth of views. (I guess this means they would span from left-center to moonbat. :)
Barack Obama (BO): Difficult youth. Experimented with drugs. Associates struggles as a young man with selfishness -- so preoccupied with his own dissatisfaction that he couldn't see the needs of others. (A candid answer, I think.) America's greatest moral failure in his lifetime is its failure to abide by the precept of doing good to "the least of one's brethren." Applies to poverty, racism, sexism, and not providing ladders of opportunity.
RW: Common ground and common good. Did you ever go against party loyalty and self-interest in the interest of America?
BO: Cites campaign finance reform. (Blech. This is a terrible example, as it stomps brazenly all over the First Amendment. Sorry, Barack -- not in the best interest of the country.)
RW: What's the most significant position you've held that you ended up changing your mind on?
BO: Welfare reform. Felt that welfare had to be changed, but was concerned that the bill Bill Clinton signed would prove disastrous. But it worked better than anticipated. Convinced that work is the centerpiece of social policy. Provides a sense of both purpose and community. (Obama is to applauded here -- too bad this philosophy doesn't filter into the rest of his policy ideas.)
RW: What's the most gut-wrenching decision you had to make, and how did you process that?
BO: Cites his anti-war stance. (I find this to be a disingenuous answer. Hindsight is 20/20, Barack. He's touting his vaunted prescience with respect to the Iraq war being ill-conceived and unjust. He said he had doubts with respect to WMD from the outset. So even though Russia, France, Britain, Israel, and the US all had intelligence on Saddam's WMD program, you were singularly discerning -- above and beyond the intelligence capabilities of multiple nations. Stop insulting my IQ. Barack's anti-war stance is grounded in ideology before evidence, and as such it was not a gut-wrenching decision at all.)
Commercial break
8:20 p.m.
Rick warren asked Obama about his faith. He's professing that Jesus died for his sins, but says that "hopefully" his sins will be washed away. ("Hopefully" isn't exactly the orthodox Christian position on the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice, but we won't quibble too much right now.)
Rick says that he's getting to the "tough" questions.
Abortion! Rick says he has to deal with this issue all the time. Cites the statistic of 40 million abortions per year. At what point does a gestating baby get human rights? (Yay! I'm so glad he asked this question!)
BO: States that deciding when a gestating baby is fully human is "above my pay grade." He's pro-choice, believes in Roe v. Wade -- not because he believes in abortion, but because he doesn't think women make the decision to have an abortion casually. Says the goal should be to reduce the # of abortions.
RW: Has Obama ever voted to limit or reduce the # of abortions?
BO: He's against late-term abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception, he can't argue. But he can say, "Can we work together to reduce the # of unwanted pregnancies?" How do we provide resources that allow a woman to keep a child? (I think these are specious, or at least tertiary questions -- is abortion wrong or not? If wrong, it should be outlawed, plain and simple).
RW: Define marriage.
BO: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian, it's a sacred union. God's in the mix.
RW: Would you support constitutional protection for that definition of marriage?
BO: No. Historically, we haven't defined marriage federally. It's a state issue.
Interrupted by first-born son asking to watch a movie. Actually, he climbed on my head. Hang on...
8:40 p.m.
RW: Define rich.
BO: $150k/yr. down is middle class to poor. $250k/yr. and above is rich. (What about $151k/yr. to $249k/yr?). $150k/yr. and below will see a tax cut under his plan. Asserts again that $250k+/yr. is "rich." (He still hasn't addressed that apparent no-man's land between $150k and $250k/yr. Does he realize that?)
Obama's answers on the purpose of the Supreme Court and which justice he wouldn't nominate were -- well -- strange. It's designed only to limit the power of the chief executive? Huh? What about 9th grade civics -- highest body in the judicial branch, created to interpret and clarify law, and all that? And Barack's assessment of Clarence Thomas was essentially that he is a dunce and therefore unworthy of being on the court. He wouldn't nominate Scalia just because they disagree (what are the nature of those disagreements, Barack?), and he doesn't like the way John Roberts presides over the court because he's too compliant vis-a-vis the Oval Office. Sorry folks, but this is pablum. And he accuses Justice Thomas of thoughtlessness...
RW: There are 148 million orphans in the world. They don't need to be in orphanages. They need to be in families. Would there be a willingness to create an emergency plan for orphans?
BO: Thinks it's a great idea. Wants to work with international organizations. Part of the plan needs to be preventing unwanted children with good health care (my hunch is that this means Planned Parenthood style solutions in Barack speak).
RW: What should we do about religious persecution?
BO: Cites our complex relationship with China -- they're a trading partner, but they are actively engaged in persecuting people of faith. We need to "bear witness" and "speak out." We also need to lead by example. (Ugh. He's turning this into an anti-Gitmo rant. Can we stay on the subject?) We can't talk about religious persecution when Gitmo exists. (Dangblasted moral equivalence at work. As though Gitmo and sending Christians to labor camps are the same thing. Gimme a break.)
RW: Why do you want to be president?
BO: (This is The MonT-SteR's interpretation of what he said.) Basically, we're only great to the degree that we're socialist (disguised cleverly in language of empathy). That's why he wants the office, so he can turn us more in that direction. No thanks, Barack. Just say no to Marx and Lenin.
Next up, McCain's turn. Rather than type out RW's questions, I'm just going to organize it topically.
9:04 p.m.
McCain on Leadership
Wise leaders he'd depend on:
- General Patraeus -- great military leader. Took us from defeat to victory.
- John Lewis -- (I don't know who this is...)
- Meg Whitman -- CEO of eBay.
McCain led against party's interest and his own best interest on climate change, spending, tort reform, etc. The most trying was when he was first in Congress, Reagan wanted to send Marines to Beirut in a peace-keeping mission. He opposed Reagan, and the marines ended up getting bombed.
McCain's most significant reasoned flip-flop: Off-shore drilling. He knows that people disagree, but states that it's a national security issue. We're sending $700 billion to parties in the world who don't have our best interests at heart. We can't allow that. We need to have a multi-faceted, broad-based approach to energy policy and reform.
Most gut-wrenching decision: When McCain was in prison camp. Was going to be released, but refused. Was the toughest decision he made. Took lots of prayer.
Next up, worldview issues.
McCain on Worldview
Talks about his faith. Mentions salvation and forgiveness through Christ in about four words, seems very uncomfortable. Mentions that Christian faith embraces the world. (Hope that is a confession of mankind's universal need for Christ rather than theological universalism....) Falls into a story about Christmas in his POW camp, how when he was allowed to stand outside his cell on Christmas day, a guard came and drew a cross in the dirt. It was a special moment when enemy combatants were merely two Christians joining in worship in a dark place.
Abortion -- McCain states that a baby has human rights at the moment of conception. Has a 25-year pro-life record. Will be a pro-life president with pro-life policies.
Marriage -- Union between one man and one woman. People can enter into legal agreements and so forth (parallel to Obama's support for civil unions). If the courts attempted to force unilateral recognition of same-sex marriage, at that point McCain supports a Constitutional amendment.
Stem cells -- very great struggle and dilemma for the pro-life community. McCain wants stem cell research, but very optimistic about adult stem cell research. As it progresses, the debate will be moot.
Does evil exist? Yes -- it needs to be defeated. He's going to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Transcendent battle of the 21st century is the struggle between the West and extremist, radical Islam. It is palpably evil and must be defeated.
McCain says he would not have nominated Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. President's responsibility is great. Nomination should be based on proven record and constitutional perspective (not legislating from the bench). Proud of Bush for nominating Roberts and Alito.
On faith-based organizations: Can faith-based organizations hire those who adhere to their belief system? (Barack felt that they could not if receiving federal funds.) McCain says yes -- to require otherwise is to cripple the organization itself.
Education -- should there be merit pay for the best teachers? Yes. Choice and competition is the solution. Vouchers work. Home schooling works (yes!). Charter schools work. Choice and competition is a simple solution, but it has the potential to reform our education system. This is the civil rights issue of the 21st century -- sending children to failing schools is unjust.
Taxation -- McCain's wants everybody to get wealthy. Doesn't believe in taking the money of the rich. Small business owners work hard, and are classified as rich. But raising taxes on them would be onerous and damage the economy. Jokes that $5 million/yr. is the cut-off for "rich," and acknowledges that he's probably going to be taken out of context for that comment. Joked sardonically about spending $3 million of federal money on a DNA study of bears in Montana -- was that a paternity issue or a criminal issue? It's funny, but it isn't. During hard economic times, that kind of spending should be eradicated.
When our right to privacy and national security collide, what takes precedence? Mentions right to privacy with respect to union ballots (to eliminate intimidation). (Mm. McCain's answer is rambling here. Nothing substantive -- he's ranting about political infighting. Acknowledges the tension, but doesn't present any solutions or coherent method of handling the question RW put to him. Sorry Sen. McCain, you blew it on this one....)
Commercial break -- I have to say thus far that I've found McCain far more substantive. He got stiff when he talked about his own faith life and what Christianity means to him (I think that makes him uncomfortable). Obama was far more comfortable discussing his faith. But Obama really is all about feel-good fluff. So far, McCain is (for the most part) giving more cogent answers. Honestly, I wasn't expecting that.
9:40 p.m.
McCain on America's Responsibility to the World
Freedom is worth dying for. There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, so we can't possibly remedy everything. America's most precious commodity is her blood. We've shed our blood for others in a way no other nation has. Just as we defeated communism, we can defeat radical Islam. RW asks when we should intervene in situations like Darfour, Georgia, etc. McCain says that we need to stop genocide whenever we can (but particularly when it's in the interest of our national security). We need to marshal world forces. RW mentions that Russia is reasserting itself in Georgia and Poland, asks McCain to comment. He mentions the bloodshed and suffering, saddened by Russia's behavior. Mentions that Georgia was one of the earliest Christian nations. Georgian President was educated in the U.S., returned to forge a successful democracy. We need to not only negotiate a cease-fire, but insist that Georgia's territorial integrity be respected. It wasn't an accident that the presidents of other former Eastern Bloc countries flew to Georgia to show solidarity. This conflict is also about Russian control over energy. We need to send a message to the Russians that such behavior is not acceptable. (Unfortunately, McCain doesn't outline quite what that message should be beyond angry denunciations. A little fluff here....)
On religious persecution -- use the bully pulpit. Cites Reagan's example (he called the Soviets the evil empire, called upon them to tear down the Berlin wall). Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we help the oppressed in the world. Knows first-hand the price and preciousness of freedom.
Why he wants to be President: Wants to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves. Time to unify the country. America wants hope and optimism. Wants people who won't vote for him to know that he'll be their president as well.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain, politics
Okay, okay, you're the presumptive nominee at this point. But you didn't carry any southern states on Super Tuesday, and that should be of grave concern to you. Unless you plan to make a concerted, good-faith effort to reverse that trend, your presidential candidacy is practically stillborn.
Well, Sen. McCain, your One and Only, Favorite, Friendly Neighborhood MonT-SteR™ is here to help with sage advice that, if followed, will go a long way toward securing not only the conservative South, but dyed-in-the-wool conservatives nationwide that are prone to casting a jaundiced eye your way. You do realize you can't win the general election without them, right? Yes?
Okay, well, here we go anyway:
- Start by calling a spade a spade and admit that McCain-Feingold was nothing short of a direct assault on the First Amendment. Call it whatever you want -- unintended consequences, good intentions gone awry, stuff like that. But make sure you acknowledge that it had the effect of bastardizing the Constitution. Tell us that, as an aspirant to the Oval Office, you understand that one cannot defend and protect the Constitution while approving ill-conceived legislation that abrogates one of its most sacred tenets. You can shed a tear as you say these things, so as to at least appear repentant. But say it was a mistake, vow to never again engage in such folly, and we might consider throwing in behind you.
- Renounce forever the insanity of McCain-Kennedy in all its forms and permutations. Repeat the following mantra as your own: "No amnesty. No amnesty. No amnesty." Apologize for trying to co-author and push an amnesty bill through Congress, all the while insulting our intelligence by insisting that it wasn't really an amnesty bill (please, Sen. McCain, we aren't as stupid as you presume). In addition, state unequivocally that the very foundation of an illegal immigrant's presence in our country is law-breaking, and that we will not tolerate such blatant flouting of our laws. At the very least, we will not reward it with citizenship, entitlement programs, and in-state college tuition rates. Tell us that you will secure the borders as promised, and further promise to craft an enforcement-based solution to our illegal immigration problem. Then, we might consider throwing in behind you.
- Read our lips. No higher taxes. For anybody. We're tired of listening to politicians tell us the government can't do with less, so we have to. Don't dare say anything like that. The government is a bloated, cumbersome, EXPENSIVE bureaucratic monster. Surely, SOMEWHERE in those trillions of dollars, SOMEBODY can cut SOMETHING. Pledge to make Bush's tax cuts permanent AND cut government spending, and tell anyone who whines that it can't be done to stifle it or go cry in their pillows. Do that, and we might consider throwing in behind you.
- Admit that you have deliberately acted as a thorn in the side of the GOP by playing footsie with Democrats. This you must cease at once and promise never to do again. We appreciate bipartisanship when practicable, but not when it flies in the face of core conservative principles or the constitutional practice of government -- and certainly not just because it satisfies any surly, duplicitous fit that comes upon you in the moment. We were deeply alienated when you joined the Gang of Fourteen to prevent Republicans from ending the Democrats' unconstitutional abuse of the filibuster against President Bush's judicial nominees. Renounce such betrayals in perpetuity, and we might throw in behind you.
Remember, Sen. McCain, that The MonT-SteR is always here to help -- and maybe to vote for you come November.
We'll see...
Sincerely,
Robert Monti
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, John McCain
Update (Sat., May 26, 2007, 3:37 p.m.):
I sent letters to Senators Warner and Web outlining (in principle) my opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611). Here's the letter I sent to Sen. Warner:
The Honorable John Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warner:
I am gravely concerned about the impact that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611) will have upon our nation if it passes.
As the grandson of an Italian immigrant who entered America through Ellis Island in the 1920s, I believe that controlled, legal immigration has enriched the United States and served, in part, to make it the great nation it is today. Unfortunately, CIRA does not meet the definition of controlled, legal immigration because of its amnesty provision.
The estimated 12 million illegal aliens are here for one simple reason: they have flouted our laws. American citizenship implies respect for and obedience to our laws and creeds. If the very foundation of an illegal alien's presence here is criminality, it is palpably unreasonable to expect that they will make good American citizens once granted amnesty. Thus, the act of decriminalizing their presence here is misguided at best, dangerous at worst.
Moreover, CIRA's amnesty provision is manifestly unjust and unfair to every immigrant who has respected the laws of our country and submitted to the legal process required to gain citizenship. Decriminalizing illegal aliens already in our country says to others waiting to become American citizens that circumventing our immigration laws is without consequence. This has the undesirable effect of encouraging further illegal immigration.
Some have cited the necessity of CIRA given the logistical and financial challenges associated with enforcing existing immigration law. I utterly reject this premise. The negative impact that illegal aliens have had on medical systems in border cities is well documented, as are the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that go each year to illegals who have illicit access to the welfare system. For reasons stated above, CIRA will exacerbate such problems rather than mitigate them. On that basis, it seems apparent that our long-term economic and security interests are better served by bearing the expense and effort associated with enforcing current immigration law now.
As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am registering my fervent opposition to CIRA with your office. In addition, I respectfully request that you vote against this ill-conceived, pernicious bill that has the potential to harm our country deeply if not irreparably. If you support it, please know that you will forfeit both my vote and my support for your office in perpetuity.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Monti
I am sitting at my computer at this ungodly hour for two reasons:
- Our bedroom bathroom toilet decided to break in the middle of the night. To keep our floor from being flooded, I had to enlist the assistance of my sleepy wife and dig the toolbox out of the closet. The only fix at 3:45 a.m. was to just close the valve that feeds the toilet until we can get maintenance in here. Unfortunately, the valve was stuck, so I had to crawl around on the floor with a wrench to get it to turn. Nothing like having your face in a toilet in the wee hours of the night.
- As a result of these activities, I can't get back to sleep at the moment. So I'm blogging.
Now, understand friends, that I am not anti-immigration. Far from it. I am the grandson of an Italian immigrant. I cannot tell you how grateful I am that America welcomed my grandfather and his family here in the late 1920s. Controlled, legal immigration is a good thing, and it's part of what has made the United States a great nation.
Illegal immigration is another matter, for a number of reasons:
- Illegal immigrants (NOT "undocumented" immigrants, which is one of the Left's favorite designer propagandist phrases), by definition, must flout our nation's laws to be here. The very foundation of their presence in our country is criminality. Some political elements are keen to dismiss this fact by casting illegal immigrants as innocents who have merely come to the U.S. for economic opportunity. That is not an excuse. Bank robbers are motivated by economic opportunity as well, but we don't hesitate to arrest and prosecute them. Law breaking is law breaking, plain and simple.
- Excusing and coddling illegal immigration represents an enormous security risk to our nation. It is a matter of public record now that potential Islamic terrorist elements could be slipping into our country the very same way many illegal aliens do -- via our porous southern border with Mexico.
- Our political unwillingness to follow immigration law has translated into law enforcement's inability to interdict violent or damaging crimes committed by illegal aliens. There was a firestorm here in Hampton Roads not too long ago because an illegal alien caused a drunk driving accident that killed two teenage girls. This particular illegal alien had been arrested for driving while intoxicated well before the fatal crash; he should have been deported with prejudice at that time. Instead, the court gave him a mild slap on the hand in the form of time served and a pittance of a fine. He was released and warned not to drive. We all see how well that worked. This is a clear, practical example of how our failure to enforce immigration law is actually a dangerous practice that threatens the safety of the citizenry in palpable ways.
- Others have dealt with the deleterious economic impact of illegal immigration, but I view this as a lesser (though not unimportant) issue, so I shan't belabor that here. Here are couple good articles I found on how illegal immigration strains our medical system to the breaking point and saps billions of taxpayer dollars. Here's a third article from Business Week outlining how capitalism stripped of morality has led big business to fatten its bottom line while selling out American citizens by catering to the illegal alien population.
Given the gravity of the issue, I was utterly dismayed to hear Sen. John McCain (R, Arizona) defend his stance on immigration with one of the biggest, most INANE non sequiturs I have ever heard. There are 12 million illegal aliens in our country, he said, and that makes enforcing current illegal immigration law (i.e., DEPORTING them) untenable. The only alternative, according to McCain's logic, is this awful amnesty bill that he co-sponsored with the likes of Ted Kennedy.
My problems with Sen. McCain's rotgut reasoning are as follows:
- The notion that the number of illegals makes law enforcement impossible is ridiculous. There are between 250 and 300 million people in the U.S. If we can't enforce the laws on the books with 12 million, we might as well shrug our shoulders and give up on enforcing laws vis-a-vis the rest of the populace. After all, if we can't enforce laws that effect 12 million people, what makes us think we can do so with over 20 times that number? Of course, no reasonable person would think along these lines -- which makes it inexcusable for a U.S. Senator to do so.
- The logistical challenge and expense of deporting 12 million illegal aliens are often cited to assert that, in essence, amnesty is the only alternative. Given that 1) our lax attitude toward illegal immigration has the real possibility of resulting in a mushroom cloud over one or more of our major cities, 2) illegal immigration already costs the federal government billions of dollars each year, and 3) that amount is likely to double the moment we give amnesty to illegal aliens and will increase each year thereafter, I don't see how the Senator can reasonably maintain this position.
Folks, I don't mean to be hard-nosed here, and I don't wish to overlook the human element in all this either. Those who know me well know me as a man of compassion. The Business Week article I cited above makes reference to a family of illegal immigrants that has started its own business and worked its way into the middle class. I applaud their hard work and ingenuity, and I don't relish the thought of uprooting them and sending them packing. But the incontrovertible facts remain. They broke the law in order to get where they are. They made the choice to do that. They knowingly risked the consequences. We are culpable only insofar as we failed to enforce our laws. And so we face the painful prospect of forcing many such families out of the country.
The guilt we may feel at that notion should not stem from the enforcement of the law. It should stem rather from the libertine foolishness and cowardice that brought us this mess. And now the likes of Sen. McCain and President Bush would have us codify it and call it progress.
Not on your life, gentlemen.
Labels: illegal immigration, John McCain, John Warner, politics, President Bush















