When asked a question about homosexual “marriage” by a homosexual gossip blogger “Perez Hilton,” who, inexplicably, was a judge in the Miss USA pageant, Carrie Prejean provided a “controversial” answer:

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. [Nope, and that's the way it should remain. She meant relationships, which is true.] And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

She was a little wobbly, but I’m sure it’s because the question caught her off guard. Despite her nervousness, she said what she believes. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Watch her Today show segment: “[B]iblically correct, not politically correct…I was true to myself.” And she talks about speaking to young people and being able to tell them to stand up for what they believe. On NATIONAL TV, no less. Love you, girl!

“Perez Hilton” has been on almost every network morning show and cable news show. That they gave the hypocrite a platform for his rude, crude, and moronic ramblings is most frustrating. But ratings rule.

This is sort of old news, but I’m blogging it now to reiterate a point. Apologize if you accuse someone of something and find out later you were wrong about the facts. Do not apologize for stating your beliefs and opinions or if someone is “offended” by them. I so admire people who stand by their convictions in the face of ridicule, criticism, and jackassery. This may be vulgar of me to write (let alone say out loud), but over the years I’ve been tempted to offer my backside to people who’ve sent me hate e-mail informing me of how “offended” they are by my views.

God has graciously exercised a restraining hand, tempering the snark and channeling it into more productive and edifying pursuits.

Again, don’t apologize for holding or stating your opinions. You think the other side even thinks about doing the same? Stand firm. Be strong. The truth will out, indeed.

Related posts:

• Says Geraldine Ferraro to Detractors: Kiss My…
• NO APOLOGY
• In Defense of Virgil Goode

“Rosanna Pulido reminds me of me…She’s a woman, a racial ‘minority,’ a member of a so-called ‘disenfranchised,’ preferred, and protected group, [some of whom engage in] a myriad of disingenuous yet highly effective justifications to rely on skin color to get by in life and excuse the acts of badly behaving members of her racial group.”

I started writing for publication in 2002 and blogging in 2003, and I’ve had more than my share of nasty e-mails, 99 percent of which were ad hominem. Fortunately, I was not deterred by the “self-hater,” “race traitor,” “Aunt Jemima,” and “coon” epithets. Being called names made me more determined and more rebellious. Rarely did someone write to me attacking my arguments. When I did receive those e-mails, I read them carefully and learned how to strengthen my own positions.

I don’t blog as much about politics these days not because I’m intimidated. I’m just bored by it. There’s more going on in the world, and I want to write about it. The archives are here for the world to see, and I stand by every post.

Back to Rosanna Pulido. No doubt she’s received similar e-mail. It’s tough being a “voice in the wilderness” and having the guts to call a thing by its name. I can’t stand euphemistic talk or mealy-mouth attitudes or people who’re afraid to tell the truth.

I wanted to let readers know that the pro-enforcement, pro-Second Amendment, pro-life Pulido is running for Congress in Illinois.

Ms. Pulido, thanks for having the courage to speak up for what’s right. And don’t waste time thinking about the haters. They’re gutless.

Update: Michelle Malkin posts e-mail from haters. I’d say it’s typical. The well-reasoned stuff is atypical.

By now you’ve probably heard about Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Hollywood” project, which he hopes “will help challenge the status quo in what he believes has been a one-party, left-tilting town.” (Source)

Conservative, moderate, and libertarian folks in Hollywood will offer their commentary on the industry. Big Hollywood probably will look like a right-leaning Huffington Post. Speaking of HuffPo, Breitbart, an editor for The Drudge Report, also helped create Arianna Huffington’s left-leaning site. Hey, business is business!

Right-leaning actors do exist, though they’re not as vocal as their liberal counterparts. Perhaps Big Hollywood will bring more of them out of the closet.

What I’d really like to see, however, is more Christian entertainment in Hollywood. Why, you may ask, would Christians want to be part of an industry that is anti-Christian? I submit that instead of retreating, Christians should be salt and light, even in Hollywood, and smuggle in the Gospel.

Come to think of it, the message doesn’t have to be subtle. Look at Kirk Cameron’s “Fireproof.” The message of Jesus Christ was overt, and that film, with a budget of $500,000, raked in $33.1 million at the box office. (Also see Cinematic Christian soldiers in S.A.)

Is La-La Land any less a mission field than Africa? A heathen is a heathen, whether or not he’s got indoor plumbing and plenty of food and clean water.

I’m working on a related piece for Pajamas Media. In the meantime, check out my recent contributions to Pajamas Media and Townhall. More to come.

Update: A reader sent a link to the Hollywood Prayer Network.

I linked to an article about a Christian film festival. Christian homeschooling blogger Laurie Bluedorn writes: “My kids just got back from the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival. Our sons’ web site was one of the sponsors.”

See Christian Filmakers and festival photos here and here.

But I’m pleased Barack Obama chose the socially conservative Rick Warren to do his inaugural invocation, regardless of his motives.

Whatever you think of Warren, make no mistake: he’s a social conservative, my favorite kind. Among other things, he is pro-life and opposes homosexual “marriage.” (I’ve learned in recent years that being socially conservative doesn’t necessarily mean one holds these values.) And that’s good enough for me.

Homosexuals are a tad upset that their brother-in-arms chose someone who calls homosexual behavior by its proper name and shares my opinion about the slippery slope of allowing two men to call themselves married in the traditional sense of the word. People may be offended that I think such a mockery eventually would lead to atrocities like allowing adults to marry children. But look at it this way: I can’t believe in my lifetime, Americans are discussing allowing people of the same sex to marry. Whoever thought that would happen? You honestly don’t think it will lead to other perverted things? You’re either naive, imbecilic, or straight-up lying.

Be offended, curse, laugh, say evil things about me behind my back — whatever you need to do, but I will always oppose homosexual “marriage” and will continue to speak out boldly and publicly against it.

Why did Obama (who said he opposes homosexual “marriage,” by the way) choose a Prop 8-supporting man like Warren, knowing it would anger and confound his leftist base? To “reach out” to social conservatives who voted for John McCain, to skim off a few Republican-voting Christians who dig Warren – I don’t know, and I don’t think it matters that much.

I’m enjoying the fact that Barack Obama is not doing what his supporters expected. For example, blacks, hispanics, and radical leftists aren’t satisfied with his cabinet picks, and some say he’s being too careful, too timid. Careful or timid, he’s still an infanticide-supporting liberal. And that’s bad enough for me.

Happy invocating, Rick!

(Let’s pray that he smuggles in the Gospel.)

There are only a few topics I blog about that interest the largest number of readers. Posts about race and Sarah Palin tend to stir things up. Immigration, not so much, surprisingly. Regular readers didn’t like the music blogging, although female readers seemed to like the Hanson posts. And the 64-comment post on synesthesia was a fluke.

That’s the way it is. When a blogger builds a reputation covering certain topics, those are what people expect to read when they come to his/her blog. Today, I have the pleasure of combining music and politics. A couple of months ago, it seems like I was reading a story every day about some rocker “offended” that John McCain played one of his songs during the campaign. Big babies. Clearly, they were not McCain supporters, and clearly, they were raging liberals.

So, when I hear about an artist type – musician, actor, or whatever – supporting McCain, I simply must blog about it.

Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry, Dave Wedge of the Boston Herald tells us, is a McCain supporter. Lead singer Steve Tyler (he of the generous lips) gets all the attention, even as he approaches senior citizenship. But for a while, I had a crush on Joe Perry.

A “lifelong Republican,” Perry says he decided to go public for McCain after “seeing so many people come out for Obama.” He has his parents to thank for instilling a “work hard” ethic and encouraging him to be positive. Not that it matters in the scheme of things, but I’m glad Perry went on record that he’s a Republican. He’s a rarity among rockers.

Related post:

• Right-Leaning Celebrities

Update: Maybe Perry’s endorsement will result in more Guitar Hero sales. I’ll bet it won’t hurt.

I’d really like to know details about Perry’s right leanings. Is he anti-race preferences? Pro-life?

Update II: Reader Ricky W. e-mails to say Aerosmith lead singer Steve Tyler is right-leaning, too. A Christian, also? Listen to him sing “Amazing Grace.”

As much as I try to suppress the enthusiasm, I like hearing about “conservative” celebrities. Hollywood is a liberal bastion. They own it. As far as I’m concerned, they can have it.

Every now and then we hear about an actor or musician who isn’t a left-leaning friend of Streisand. I knew Kelsey Grammer, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Jon Voight, Pat Sajak, Patricia Heaton, Angie Harmon (formerly of “Law and Order”), her husband Jason Sehorn, former cornerback for the New York Giants, and Gary Oldman (Sirius Black!) voted for Republicans. And Stephen Baldwin (brother of Alec) and Kirk Cameron are conservative Christians.

But soap opera veteran Susan “Erica Kane” Lucci of “All My Children” is a Republican? And Dennis “Easy Rider” Hopper? That’s good, because I really like him. (No, not in that way.) And little Ricky Schroder and “The Rock”? (See Celebs Who Lean To The Right)

Before I interviewed the band Hanson last year for a couple of articles, I had a feeling the Oklahoma-bred, homeschooled brothers were conservative.

Confirmed.

Well, we’ll all commiserate with one another on November 5, 2008. I have a feeling Barack Hussein Obama will be America’s 44th president. The status of that prediction will be a big, fat:

Confirmed.

Personal note: In California, adjusting. I like it. What I like even more is yet another publishing house editor interested in receiving a book proposal from me. Very nice. Working on it!

I invite you to “live-comment” tonight’s presidential debate. Discuss the candidate’s answers, appearance, and anything else of relevance. Topics of interest to me: immigration (McCain voted for amnesty, so I don’t know what else I’m expecting from him – very disappointing selection), the war in Iraq and how to deal with global terrorism, and the developing Cold War, Part II.

TV-less? Watch it live at CNN.com beginning at 9 p.m. ET. Live-blogging at MM, and trackbackers probably will do the same. Live-blogging and chatting at Hot Air.

As always, thanks for reading and participating on my blog.

Rest easy, everybody.

Thread closed. Discuss the presidential debate (and Sarah Palin, if you must) in this thread.

When this election is over, I think I’ll return to digital music tech blogging. Smaller readership, less interest, and fewer commenters (understatement), but less tense and much more fun. Politics makes people…

——————————————————————–

Update @ 12:34 p.m.: I am not alone! Another conservative woman speaks out against Sarah Palin publicly, risking the ire of the masses. Kathleen Parker, author of Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care, writes:

“Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

“No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted…Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there.
…
“If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.” (Source)

By the way, it appears that some commenters don’t understand the point of this post. Typically happens when readers consider parts but not the whole. I don’t expect VP candidates to have vast foreign policy experience. This post is about Palin’s responses in TV interviews. She put herself out there when she cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia to bolster her foreign policy credentials. She said that. Nobody put words in her month.

Later…Another conservative woman, Peggy Noonan, speaks:

“As for Sarah Palin, the McCain campaign continues to make mistakes. They don’t seem to understand her strengths and weaknesses. The U.N. photo-ops were a staged embarrassment. Keeping the press away made her look infantilized. When she finally began to sit for television interviews, the atmosphere was heightened, every misstep magnified. With Katie Couric she seemed rattled. In the Charlie Gibson interview it was not good when she sounded chirpy discussing possible war with Russia. One should not chirp about such things. Or one wouldn’t if one knew the implications. And knowing the implications is part of what we hire leaders for.”
—————————————————————————————

At GodBlogCon, my co-presenter Scott Ott said that since John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his vice-presidential running mate, the role of Vice President has grown. Once perceived as a not-much-to-do job, it’s swelled in importance as detractors cite Palin’s lack of significant executive experience.

I’m one of those detractors, I do admit. I have serious problems with a mother of small children sacrificing them to spend so much time elsewhere. One woman at the convention who disagreed with me said obtaining the vice presidency may be Palin’s “mission field,” or something like that. Perhaps.

You may recall that Palin cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia to bolster her foreign policy credentials. I thought that was odd. Even more odd was her defense of the statement. I’m no fan of Katie Couric, but she was remarkably restrained and polite as Palin tried to explain her comment. Watch and listen to her painful (for me) response (after a 30-second commercial):

The transcript:

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state.

I have muddled responses and parts of presentations before, but I’m not running for high office. I’m just a blogger!

The point is Palin has no foreign policy experience, which doesn’t necessarily disqualify her for the vice presidency. When ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked about her foreign policy experience, she could have said “I have none, but…” or “What I do have, Charlie, is plenty of…”

But she didn’t. She resorted to embarrassing, nonsensical fillers.

Question for Palin fans: What’s your opinion of Palin’s foreign policy experience response?

Question for all: Do you think Palin’s being scrutinize to this degree because she’s a woman? Double standard in effect?

On the morning of November 5, 2008, some of us will be disappointed and others pleased. I voted for the first time at age 25. I pulled the lever for Bill Clinton in 1992 and again in 1996. I escaped leftism and voted for George Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.

When it comes to presidential elections, I’ve always been on the winning side. I’ve never had the dreaded feeling of waking up the day after an election and being bitterly disappointed. I hope the streak continues.

(Click on the thumbnail to see larger map.)

I know I’ve said and written that it doesn’t matter to me who’s in the White House. Hey, frustration makes say such things. Of course it matters. America won’t fall apart if Barack Obama is elected president.

But it will become less like the place I know and love.

Pigs, Lipstick, and Illiterates

Despite the fact that election news is everywhere, you’ll notice I haven’t done a daily play-by-play of who said what to and about whom. I keep up with all of it, but I don’t blog about it. I don’t want to read one more retread news story that takes things out of context and quotes every little gaffe or dumb comment, so I certainly don’t want to blog about it.

I think the “lipstick on a pig” headlines and Barack Obama’s inane ad about John McCain being computer illiterate are ridiculous beyond reason. Serious discourse isn’t highly valued, at least not among mainstream media. Then again, the stakes are high, and both camps have hit below the belt. Sensationalism is what people want, but I’m not getting caught up.

If you check this blog every day or every week to find out what I have to say about this latest gaffe or that new ad, you’re probably disappointed. Don’t waste time dissecting every ad and news story and quote. Focus on the bigger picture: which presidential candidate is the best man to lead our country? I believe that for anyone calling himself a Christian and claims to uphold a biblical worldview, the choice is obvious.

A person’s morals and values should trump skin color and sex. I’m not impressed that a black man was nominated for president. I have never supported anyone for anything just because the person’s black or a woman. If this country never elects a black or female president in my lifetime, I won’t lose sleep over it. All I care about is what that person stands for.

As a Christian, I cannot ignore or discount a person’s views on issues I deeply care about. My faith in Christ lives within every thought and informs every decision. A candidate doesn’t have to be a Christian to get my vote, but he must strive to uphold traditional values.

Child Killing and Homosexual “Marriage”

I’m pretty much a two-trick pony. To get my vote, you must be pro-life and you must advocate protecting traditional marriage. Protecting unborn life and the institution upon which civilization depends is crucial.

People complain that politicians try to divide voters with “wedge” issues. It’s what they should do. Conservatives should magnify and reinforce so-called conservative values and expose liberalism for what it is. Opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage are huge components of conservatism. Use these issues to divide and conquer.

These days, McCain is calling himself pro-life. In fact, he’s spoken out quite strongly against infanticide, known euphemistically as partial birth abortion. McCain chastised Republicans in 2004 for voting for a federal amendment to ban homosexual “marriage” because he believes the issue should be left up to the states. In that regard, he supports California Proposition 8 (will appear on the November 4 ballot), which would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Everything else for me is either a secondary issue or issues I know most Republican candidates support: smaller/limited government, strong national defense, stopping illegal “immigration,” dismantling government preferences based on race, etc.

Barack Obama is not pro-life and has no desire to protect traditional marriage. Sadly, too many Christians will end up voting for him because they hate Republicans, or want to see a black man in the White House, or believe women have a right to kill their babies, or don’t really care that homosexual activity is an abomination to God and “marriages” therein a mockery.

Supreme Court Justices

I wish there were someone other than McCain running on the Republican ticket, but he’s what we have. There’s a possibility in the next four years at least one Supreme Court justice will retire. Because justices have so much power, which they’ve improperly wielded at times (Roe v. Wade), it’s crucial that we elect a president who will appoint someone committed to exercising judicial restraint and applying original intent.

You know the kind of person/people Obama would appoint.

I’ve criticized McCain in the past. He’s not a strong conservative. But I believe getting him into the White House is extremely important if conservatives want to maintain even a slight majority on the court. Let me be up front: I hope I live to see the day when Roe v. Wade is overturned and states begin to severely restrict child killing or ban it outright.

Christians for Obama

Don’t allow a man’s skin color or your hatred for the other side to trump what you know to be right and true. John McCain is no saint (men who cheat on their wives enrage me), and I even question his faith. But his political stances are a better match for Bible-believing Christians. Barack Obama is to be admired for presumably being faithful to his wife, but what he stands for politically is the antithesis of a biblical worldview.

If you are a Christian and plan on voting for Barack Obama, perhaps you ought to take some time to re-evaluate what you believe and whether those beliefs are biblical. If you’re saved, you’re saved. Voting for Obama won’t condemn you to hell. But I urge you to pray about your choice and spend time re-reading the Bible as Election Day approaches.

The photo below of me and Justice Thomas was taken last October at the Heritage Foundation. Thomas spoke about his experiences and signed copies of his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son.
——————————————————————-

At the recent Annual Conference of the White House Initiative on National Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was “not acceptable” that there aren’t more black people in her meetings at the State Department. (Source)

Based on the context of the entire speech, which I read, she wasn’t insinuating “racism” had anything to do with it. It sounded like she was encouraging blacks to become involved in Foreign Service.

There’s nothing wrong with encouraging blacks to consider certain careers, but it sounds too much like pandering to me. If I were giving a speech in front of a black audience (which I hope to do on my book tour), I wouldn’t complain about the paucity of blacks at blog conferences. Who cares?

No matter what the topic, I’d take time to address substantive issues that blacks, not the government, need to fix, like the outrageous levels of illegitimacy and crime among blacks. That is not acceptable. There are more pressing concerns than not seeing other blacks at a conference or in meetings. I wouldn’t waste time, not one second, “lamenting” that there aren’t more people “who look like me.”

Rice believes it’s OK for colleges to consider race when admitting an applicant (I’m wondering if she thinks it’s OK for colleges to also admit white students based on race), so I hope she isn’t advocating using race preferences to recruit more blacks to the State Department. With her level of education and experience, she should be more circumspect.

Contrast Rice’s remarks with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s to the same group. He “benefited” from race preferences, as I have, and we both bear the stigma of and aversion to this odious practice. An excerpt:

A longtime opponent of race-based preferences in hiring and school admissions, Thomas said, “Just from a constitutional standpoint, I think we’re going to run into problems if we say the Constitution says we can consider race sometimes.”

Thomas, 60, has voted on the court to outlaw the use of race in college admissions and in determining which public schools students will attend. He wrote with evident resentment in his autobiography “My Grandfather’s Son” that he felt he was allowed to attend Yale Law School in the 1970s because of his race and took a tough course load to prove he was as able as his white classmates.

“My suggestion would be to stop the buzz words and to focus more on the practical effect of what we’re doing,” he said Tuesday.

“What we’re doing” when we allow the government to prefer one person over another based on race, practically speaking, is giving government the power to discriminate based on race, the battle cry of the entire civil rights movement! You see, people don’t want to know the truth. They get it twisted in their minds, deluding themselves into believing lowering the bar for blacks is a good thing or that race preferences have nothing to do with lesser qualifications. (See The True Meaning of “Black Pride”)

Not being good enough to get accepted to a school or hired for a job is one thing. I can study more and get better grades or acquire the necessary skills and experience, or move on to a school or job for which I’m qualified. But when someone implies that I should receive some unearned benefit because I can’t do any better on account of my race, well, those are fighting words.

I would guess that most people don’t care about race preferences. This demeaning policy likely does not affect their daily lives, so it’s low on the priority list. We all should care about it. Think about that grainy black and white film footage you’ve seen from the 1960s: cops turning hoses and dogs on black protesters, Democrats standing in school doors to prevent black kids from entering, whites shouting at black students as they walked to school, etc. To get the government out of the skin color business, this country engaged in a tense struggle for equal treatment. Race preferences make a mockery of that struggle.

It’s 2008, and the government is still in the skin color business. Blacks are “benefiting” from it these days, and that’s why they support it. But one day, the government might revert to its former practice. When that happens, what legal and moral leg will blacks have to stand on?

None.

How have you been helped or harmed by preferences?

John McCain’s up; Barack Obama’s down. I rarely blog about polls, because I have no confidence in them. McCain-Palin is up now (which could be a mere post-convention bounce), but might drop next week. You never know.

Regardless, I’ll bet Obama is kicking himself right now for not being nicer to Hillary Clinton and/or not selecting her to be his running mate. Some say Obama should send her out to “attack” Sarah Palin, you know, woman-to-woman, catfight style. Would she, even if asked? Hillary’s got some leverage right now, that’s for sure. How she uses it remains to be seen.

McCain’s Palin stunt is paying off, at least in the short run, and Obama’s got to work fast and smart to regain his hot and heavy mainstream media love. The media aren’t showing Palin much love, but their energy is being funneled away from the Obamessiah into trying to find or create Palin scandals.

I’ll leave you with this: McCain-Palin just might pull it off. I have problems with both of them, and I’ll blog/write about those issues in the next couple of weeks. But I’ll breathe the proverbial sigh of relief if a Republican is still in the White House by year’s end. President Barack Hussein Obama? Good grief. May it never be…

Here’s some good news for readers who didn’t like my first Palin post: I am one voter with an opinion, and I doubt I will influence anyone. Besides, I planned to vote for John McCain, reluctantly, before he selected Palin, and I still plan to vote for him. In a million years I’d never knowingly vote for an infanticide supporter, and McCain is the only viable option.

Based on right-leaning blog posts and mainstream media stories I’ve read, most Republicans and conservatives are satisfied with McCain’s choice. I’m not, but this election season leaves much to be desired anyway. The Republican party, in its current state, has changed the meaning of conservatism.

Anyway, McCain’s numbers are up, and Palin seems to have energized Republican voters. There are a few people here and there who feel otherwise, though I’m probably the most vocal. But hey, this is only a blog, right?

Now that both hyped-up conventions are over, it’s time to focus on the issues. My opinion of how she raises her children aside, here is what I like about Sarah Palin:

• She is pro-life in the extreme. She believes abortion is wrong even if a woman is raped, just as I do.
• She opposes the use of government funds to kill the unborn.
• She opposes embryonic stem cell research.
• She believes marriage is defined as between only a man and a woman.
• She supports teaching Intelligent Design in government schools.
• She supports the constitutional right to bear arms.
• She believes in a market-based approach to health care.
• She is pro-military and believes in strong national defense.

That’s a good place to start. What do you like about Sarah Palin? Don’t like?

More at Memeorandum.

Update: John Kerry and Joe Biden are both fools. Each believes life begins at conception, but supports a woman’s right to snuff out that life.

Also see Kerry Says He Believes Life Starts at Conception from 2004.

Michelle Malkin gets to the point: “Slick Joe Biden admits: Yes, I’m a cold-blooded murderer.”

I’ll go against the conservative blogosphere grain and state my confusion over and disappointment in John McCain’s choice of running mate. I think Sarah Palin, a relatively unknown female governor from Alaska, is a bad choice.

I came to this conclusion before I found out Palin has a five-month-old infant (I believe mothers [and fathers, OK?] should raise their children) and a knocked up teenage age daughter (who ought to give up the baby for adoption to an older, married, two-parent family) or that she’s under investigation for ethics violations.

[Commenters are complaining about my using the term "knocked up." I don't remember anyone complaining about how ungracious or unloving the term was when I used it to describe non-conservative unmarried pregnant women, namely, Crystal Mangum, false "Duke lacrosse" rape accuser. Anyway, I'm glad the kids are getting married, but I won't apologize for using the term. Some of you are disagreeing with me for the first time. You have plenty of company! I manage to offend liberals and conservatives, believers and unbelievers. I blog about my views, popular or unpopular. I describe things in politically incorrect ways. I've been deleted from plenty of blogrolls, RSS feed readers, and bookmarks, and I imagine this post will tick off even more readers and bloggers. "Knocked up" is vulgar, I agree, but I use it to make a point.]

Granted, Palin has loads more executive experience than Barack Obama, even as mayor of a town of 7,000 people. I’ll even go so far as to say she’s exceedingly more qualified to be president than he is. And she’s pro-life, a huge plus in my book. But come on.

McCain can’t play the little-experience or pandering cards against Obama anymore, and he needed every advantage he could get his hands on. Why weaken the older-wiser-prison-of-war advantage? By choosing a hardly-qualified person for such a high-profile position, he brings that wisdom into question. (Am I contradicting myself when I note that Palin is more experienced than Obama while claiming McCain can’t play the little-experience card against Obama? As a commenter pointed out, an underqualified presidential candidate is more problematic than an underqualified vice presidential candidate, so McCain can still play the card, I suppose.) And if he’s trying to appeal to Hillary Clinton’s supporters, he’s wasting valuable time and money. Why would liberal, pro-child killing women warm to Palin, conservative and pro-life, just because she’s a woman?

I think it was a stunt, badly played. Despite what the McCain camp claims, I don’t think Sarah Palin was properly vetted or her selection well thought out.

If McCain wanted to “reach out” to women and evangelical Christians, he should have picked a more qualified and well-known and less quirky and troublesome person than Sarah Palin.

I’m sure Palin’s a nice lady and all, but…

George Bush deeply disappointed me when it came to illegal immigration, but I voted for him in 2004 anyway, because nothing in the earth or on it or under it would have compelled me to vote for John Kerry. I don’t like John McCain, but nothing in the earth or on it or under it will compel me to vote for Barack Obama. I’d rather see McCain and Palin in the White House than Obama and Biden.

It stinks, the whole thing. But that’s politics.

More at Memeorandum.

“I stumbled on your site from InstaPundit. I must say you hit the nail on the head. I’m a black conservative male and I’m sure you know the looks you get when you talk to other blacks about Democrats…It is pointless for Republicans to try to pander to blacks to get their votes, there is no need for it because they will simply ignore your efforts. Republicans are better off standing strong on their ideals and the conservative principles and letting people come to the party than trying to go to different ethnic groups and cater a specific message to all of them.”

I concur. And about the so-called Southern Strategy, please read Martin Knight’s comment.
—————————————————————————————–

I’m only one black American among millions, and I’m no authority on black people, nor do I speak for black people.

But I can provide insight.

Back in 2004, Republicans were trying to appeal to black voters. Newt Gingrich and the rest wanted to secure at least 25 percent of the “black vote.” Dream on! I poured a bucket of water over their piddling flame. Won’t work, I said. I explained my reasoning in “Why Courting the Black Vote Won’t Work,” which was published in the Washington Times.

Unlike some black conservatives and Republicans I know, I don’t think the party should appeal to voters based on skin color. I criticize white Republicans when they do it, and I’m disappointed when right-leaning blacks encourage them to do it.

Earlier this year, I reviewed a book called Wrong on Race, by Bruce Bartlett. He correctly pointed out that most of the raging racists you’ve read about in history books were Democrats and that Republicans were the anti-slavery party. In fact, the GOP was founded on the principle. Republicans supported major civil rights legislation right up through the 1960s, while Democrats filibustered the bills and spoke out against equal rights for all. Republicans still support equal rights for all.

And therein lies the problem.

Knowing history is important, obviously, and all this makes for good reading. But I need to break it you: blacks who vote for Democrats do not care about this history. The only bit of history they care about is the one that provides excuses and finger-pointing opportunities: ancestors in bondage, great-grandparents and grandparents struggling to gain first class citizenship in this country, etc. They don’t care who did what to or for whom in the past. All they care about is who’s offering them the most goodies today.

Bartlett is on a mission to set the record straight, and from my perspective, he’s accomplished his goal. He has a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, “The GOP Is the Party of Civil Rights.” Bless his heart. An excerpt:

“While Harry Truman deserves great credit for ending racial segregation in the military and the civil service, his efforts to pass civil-rights legislation also died from Southern Democratic opposition despite strong support from Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1947 and 1948. This makes Dwight Eisenhower’s success in passing civil rights bills in 1957 and 1960 all the more remarkable, since Democrats then controlled both Houses of Congress.

“Lyndon Johnson consistently opposed civil-rights legislation while he was in Congress, but as president worked hard to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed without the strong support of congressional Republicans, who provided the margin of victory.

“Richard Nixon is said to have developed a ‘Southern strategy’ of using racial code words like ‘law and order’ to gain votes in the South. Yet he did more to desegregate southern schools than any president in history. Nixon also created affirmative action to help break the power of racist labor unions, and minority set-asides for government contracts to aid black entrepreneurs.

“Historically speaking, the Republican Party has a far better record on race than the Democrats.”

Bravo, Bruce. But if you or any other white Republican think all these facts will suddenly change black people’s minds, you’re destined to be disappointed. Democrats know they’ve got an eternal lock on 90 percent of the “black vote.” All they have to do is continue to promise black Americans bigger and better government programs and government handouts (so-called affirmative action, set-aside contracts, and other entitlements qualify as handouts to me), and encourage them to blame third parties for their troubles. (And I’m talking about blacks as a group here.) No grand theories. Along with reasons I mentioned in that 2004 article (federal government as savior, for example), it is that simple. Only my opinion…

Living up to American ideals like fierce independence, radical liberty, brazen individuality, and an unfettered pursuit of happiness is just too scary and challenging for some people. They’d rather sup from the enabling teat of a system that has contributed to their condition.

Also see Repeating History.

Update: Bruce Bartlett e-mails:

“I think you misunderstand the point of my book to some extent. Of course, no Democrat, black or white, is going to decide to vote Republican because of their party’s racist past. The point of the book was to give Republicans a story to tell to make it easier for them to go into the black community to seek votes. They haven’t tried to do that for a long time. If they do I think they will find many parts of that community receptive to their message. But Republicans have to ask first, they have to learn how to interact with black people and learn about their problems first hand. Once a dialogue has been established, Republicans will learn better how to tailor their message and their policies to better attract black votes. One area I mention in my book where I think the Republican message will be well received is on immigration because blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals.”

I agree that Republicans ought to remind blacks of the Democratic party’s past. Good luck with that. Driving a wedge between blacks and hispanics won’t work, though.

Update II (7/17): A commenter says my “driving a wedge between blacks and hispanics won’t work” statement undermines my “entire thesis that such things’ (sic) dont matter.” To the contrary. It is my opinion that blacks hate Republicans more than they dislike illegal aliens, and will not vote for Republicans even if they promise to protect their interests over illegal aliens. Crazy, eh?