Et tu Bob?

I was seriously considering voting for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr for president in November. I decided some time ago that I have one litmus test for 2008 presidential candidates: Global Warming. If a candidate supported that hoax, I was not going to vote for them, since obviously they are too stupid to be president. Of Obama, McCain, and Barr, only Barr passed that test.

Until now.

From the LRC Blog:

On the Glenn Beck show, in early June, Barr said, "Global warming is a myth. And yet it`s being used by the environmental folks, by the internationalists. A lot of the pressure is coming from the United Nations and other countries. Some of which, like China, of course, are pushing the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because they`re exempt. It`s going to saddle us. And what is McCain doing? He`s out there buying into this global warming, carbon emission cap and trade."

Now Barr says, "Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased and honored that he invited me to attend the 'We' Campaign event. Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning, liberal oriented or independent."

He gives the caveat that he is "aware that scientists differ on its causes, impact and remedies" and is "firmly committed to free market solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies."

Sorry Bob, you just lost my vote.

Newt endorses...Favre?!

I love it when someone in the political arena starts spouting football advice. It usually ends up badly (see Limbaugh and McNabb). But this one takes the cake: Newt Gingrich thinks the Green Bay Packers ought to take back Brett Favre, now that he's decided to unretire after finally retiring after threatening to retire after every season since Nixon was President.

Unfortunately, Newt has as much credibility on this issue as Al "I own stock in every alternative energy company" Gore has on Global Warming. Per Newt's own letter, posted on Humanevents.com:

Paul Lubbers is my son-in-law, but we share more than family ties. He's also a fellow shareholder in the Green Bay Packers. And as responsible shareholders, we – like many of those invested in the Green & Gold - feel compelled to speak out on the turmoil surrounding the return of Brett Favre to the NFL and whether or not he should wear Packer's uniform.

Can you say "vested interest"?

Newt goes on:

Should Favre have taken some time (like he did the past few years) to rest, recover and reclaim some perspective? Yes. Did he make a bad decision to retire? Also Yes. Should Ted Thompson [the Packer's General Manager] and the Packers welcome him back to Packers family? Absolutely!!

All Newt needs here is a "Dean scream"

But Newt shows his true intentions later. He doesn't want Favre playing for one of the Packer's divisional opponents (which is about as likely as Global Warming, but I digress):

I understand that the Packers have made plans to build the offense around Aaron Rodgers, but plans are made to change. And in this case the Packers should adjust their plans quickly to bring back Favre. Can you imagine Favre as a Viking or even worse a Chicago Bear?

The best response to this was from Josh Alper over at Profootballtalk.com:

If you were unsure that a politician was writing this letter, there’s your proof. Who else would argue against a choice of action by stoking up the fear of the least likely potential outcome? I’m surprised he didn’t follow it up with a story about a strong American family he met while campaigning who told him about how they once had an opportunity to allow Brett Favre back onto their team but passed on it. Then the bank foreclosed on their house, the kids got Ricketts and Grandma ended up on food stamps.

...I just had a terrifying vision of Jimmy Carter on a plane to Green Bay to sit down between Favre and [Ted] Thompson which means I’m pretty sure we’ve reached the point of oversaturation for this story.

I should state for the record that I agree with Newt and I am personally in favor of Brett Favre coming out of retirement, and the fact that I picked up Favre on my keeper league team has absolutely NOTHING to do with it!

"Massa"-bama

When I heard both John McCain's and Barack Obama's plans for "national service", I thought they were both just silly ideas, and I really did not give them much thought until today.

I was over at Robert George's website today, reading his post "Leviathan Is The Slaveholder". The basis of his post was an LA Times editorial by Jonah Goldberg, and the subsequent response by blogger Jeff Fecke over at Blog of the Moderate Left.

Goldberg's point:

For those who don't remember, the 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States."

I guess in Obama's mind it must be a crime to be born or to go to college.

In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don't make the kids report for duty, he's essentially telling schools and college kids, you'll lose money you can't afford to lose. In short, he'll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.

The point that both Robert George and Jeff Fecke seem to miss in Goldberg's argument is NOT that this is the same thing as slavery. As Goldberg states:

No, national service isn't slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition. It assumes that work not done for the government isn't really for the "common good."

Note that Obama is NOT suggesting children and teenagers go out and work in a job in the private sector for 50 or 100 hours. No, he wants them to perform national service. MANDATORY national service.

Mind you, I had to do 40 hours of volunteer work when I was in high school. It was a requirement for graduation at the Catholic high school I attended. I had no problem with it, and I HAVE no problem with it. If I send my kids to a Catholic school, or any other private school, and they have similar rules, I will expect my children to abide by them. If my children want to go out and do volunteer work, I will happily support them in their effort.

But if the government wants my children to do mandatory national service, for no other reason than the glorification of the government, THAT is the final straw. At that point, I would not even care if my children graduated from high school. At that point, it becomes a matter of principle.

Frankly, I am fed up with the American propensity, on both the Left and the Right sides of the political spectrum, to glorify all that is government. The people on the Left do it as a means to socialism, while the people on the Right do it because they have forgotten the conservative principles of our Founding Fathers, who had a healthy disrespect for government power (the checks and balances in the Constitution were put there for a reason). In addition, the people on the Right have been cowed into believing they are somehow guilty if they don't go along with the well-intentioned tripe of the Left.

You know the saying about what the road to Hell is paved with? It should end with "liberal ideas".