Ron Johnson enters U.S. Senate race against Feingold

Oshkosh businessman Ron Johnson formally entered the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate today, a fact that makes conservatives like me breathe a little easier.

I don't know Mr. Johnson personally, but I have spoken to him on the phone and emailed him a few times. I have found him to be thoughtful, measured, responsive, and conservative.

In some respects, he reminds me of our first President, George Washington. Like Washington, Johnson is not seeking to be a career politician. Instead he is answering a call to serve as a Citizen Legislator. Being a Citizen Legislator was one theme Johnson touched on in his speech at the Madison Tea Party in April.

One of the things I asked Ron when I called to encourage him to run against Russ Feingold was, did he have any skeletons in his closet? I believe Choir Boy was the term he used to describe himself. That made me smile. (I don't think I was the only one to ask that question.) Character is a very important element of a candidate to me.

I believe Ron Johnson has a very good chance of winning in November against Russ Feingold. He certainly has a lot going for him.

From the ISTHMUS, The Scons,

"He [Johnson] apparently has money, which unfortunately often translates into legitimacy in politics. The parties love a guy with money, not only because he can contribute to his own campaign, but because it relieves them from some fundraising duties, especially in a race against Feingold, who may be vulnerable but certainly is not worth the GOP attention that the governor's race or the two House races up North deserve. He's still the favorite by a long-shot."

Being able to self-fund a campaign is very helpful, especially since it is a bit late in the game to be running. (I blame Tommy Thompson for that.) But money alone doesn't guarantee success. Terrance Wall is wealthy and has contributed to his campaign, but he has some baggage in that he has avoided paying income taxes because of depreciation allowances. He is also not as conservative as Johnson. (In the Governor's race, Mark Neumann is self funding, but he is not an ideal conservative candidate either with his pro ethanol/ renewable energy stance. Neumann also seems to be hedging on answering some very simple questions lately.) So self-funding alone does not an ideal candidate make!

The following factors do matter to voters, as pointed out by Craver, "Last but not least, Johnson doesn't have any ideological question marks on his record. He has not served in a Democratic administration or headlined a fundraiser for Democratic candidates, and he has not made any contributions to Democrats in the past, unlike Terrence Wall. Johnson actually spoke at the Tea Party rally, unlike Wall or Westlake, and he can apparently give an OK speech. All you have to do is read a few conservative blogs [hey, that's me!] to discover that many conservatives feel the current primary field is neutered, and desperately in need of some right wing testosterone."

I don't see Johnson as being just right wing, to me he represents American values like hard work and living within your means.

Whatever happens in November, I have to say a big, thank you, Ron Johnson, for entering the U.S. Senate race. Our country and state need someone like you in Washington. I appreciate the huge sacrifice you and your family are making on our behalf.


One bit of trivia, Ron Johnson is brother to Home Time's Dean Johnson.

Links: Practically Speaking, Betterbrookfield, RandyMelchert, Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna, The Right View Wisconsin, CNS News, Mark Levin, Breitbart BigGovernment, The Heritage Foundation

I don't often quote Jon Stewart, but "Poor Al Gore" cancels Copenhagen

You know an issue has traction when the the lib comics start jabbing their own on the left. This week, Comedian Jon Stewart threw this zinger at Global Warming Guru Al Gore. (I don't watch Jon, but Vicki McKenna mentioned it on her radio program. It is funny--raunch removed):

"Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked by the very Internet you invented. OH, OH the irony, the irony."

He also chided the CRU for throwing out raw data.

"But here's what's great about science, in disagreements we go back and look at the raw data (clip showing data destroyed) ... ...Why would you throw out raw data from the 80's?...", after all, he still has his girlie magazines from the 1970s!

This morning, I learned** that the Guru himself, Al Gore, CANCELED his special Copenhagen $1,209/ticket book promo, photo op, and snack with Al event!

Why?

The Danish ticket coordinator stated, "'great annoyance' was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforseen changes in Mr. Gore's program for the climate summit." Gore's cancellation affects 3,000 believers, um, make that ticket holders.

"Great annoyance"? "Unforseen changes in Mr. Gore's program"? Could it be Mr. Gore doesn't know how to incorporate eating crow into his slide presentation?

Al Gore's credibility was already on thin ice. Remember Gore has photo-shopped some of his pictures for greater affect in his movie and on his book cover. He won't debate any naysayers--he says he will, but then he cancels. And he will not answer pointed questions. Most recent example, when Gore was in Madison, WI, he would not respond to a simple question about polar bears being considered threatened when their population is growing*.

Whatever you might believe about man made global warming, this latest cancellation is HUGE. Certainly in a crowd of 3,000 believers, willing to pay $1,200 just for the privilege of being in his presence, Gore was on friendly turf.

The man made global warming believers will still believe because it is a religion, not science, but canceling was a major faux pas, in my opinion. As any religious leader knows, you don't disappoint the faithful.


More reading: ClimateGate Overview
Houston braces for about 2 inches of snow, earliest ever!
Take back Al Gore's Oscar, two Academy members demand in light of Climategate

*I know "threatened" is a matter of semantics and doesn't have so much to do with population as with thriving habitat. Still, increasing by 20,000 in 30 years shows polar bears are faring better.

**Thanks to Jay Weber's link page

Links: Practically Speaking, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, RandyMelchert, Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna, The Right View Wisconsin, CNS News, Mark Levin, Breitbart BigGovernment, The Heritage Foundation

No Global Warming: One less thing to worry about? Don't count on it

Last week, hackers broke into the computers at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. This was important because the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change uses the CRU as their source for data.

The hackers then posted over 1,000 emails and 72 documents on the internet revealing how the CRU was suppressing data that showed there was no warming of the planet:

"Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims."

The British press is up in arms over this. Brits are, after all, ahead of us on the Carbon Tax parade. In the U.S., there has not been much coverage.

In fact, as far as President Obama is concerned, it seems it is global warming business as usual.

Despite this huge nail in the global warming coffin hitting the press last week Thursday, President Obama still met with Indian and Chinese leaders this week, to coax them "one step closer" to climate deal:

"US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved 'one step closer' to a 'strong operational agreement' on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders."

And Obama is still planning on attending the beginning of that U.N. climate meeting in Copenhagen.

Why? Global Warming is big business and can be used to control people's behaviors.

"Obama has made climate change a top priority of his administration..." The President still wants Cap and Trade to pass early next year.

In light of this new information, that the planet isn't warming, one would hope the push for taxing and controlling carbon emissions would be halted.

American scientist John Christy was was criticized in the hacked emails for asking that IPCC reports include dissenting points of view. He wrote, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions [Cap and Trade] this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."

Disconcerting indeed. If only our President would check the Drudge Report once in a while!

More Reading: Climate Emails Stoke Debate, Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud Over Global Warming

Hiding evidence of global cooling, Junk science exposed among climate-change believers

Global Warming with the Lid Off, The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie (The Hockey Stick exposed)

Links: Practically Speaking, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, RandyMelchert, Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna, The Right View Wisconsin, CNS News, Mark Levin, Breitbart BigGovernment, The Heritage Foundation

Dangerous month, dangerous world, dangerous ideas

There were 2 terrorist arrests last week in the United States. One was an illegal alien, a young Jordanian who attempted to blow up a downtown Dallas skyscraper. The other was an Illinois man, a convert to Islam, who tried to blow up a federal building in the state capital, Springfield.

But that is not all, "The Justice Department said the case was unrelated to another suspected terrorism plot in New York, where an Afghan-born man was charged with conspiring to launch a bombing attack in the United States..."

That would be the "Bomb plot suspect said to have eyed 9/11 attack" case. "The Afghan-born man at the center of an anti-terrorism probe was determined to make a bomb and perhaps detonate it in New York City on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, before he was thwarted by authorities, a U.S. prosecutor said on Friday."

And there was the planned assault on the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, by 2 of the 7 suspects arrested for overseas terrorist attacks. One of the men was a US citizen, the other from Kosovo, but here legally.

The point of all this? We live in dangerous times. September 11, 2001 may have been 8 years ago, but the terrorist threats and plots are still there, despite the U.S. electing President Barack Obama. It doesn't seem the terrorists love us any more than they did under President Bush.

As for our dangerous world, today Iran conducted its 3rd round of missile tests. Venezuela is exploring uranium deposits with Russia and China will display their missiles in their 60th anniversary parade, to name a few more examples of weapon expansion.

Just last week we learned that Iran admitted the existence of a 2nd Uranium enrichment plant. "'Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,' Obama said Friday, detailing how the facility near Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. 'International law is not an empty promise.'"

But who is to say Iran must follow those rules? President Obama just addressed the UN, "But make no mistake: this [world's problems] cannot be solely America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought - in word and deed - a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges"

Obama wants a nuke free world. "First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them. ...For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a super-power stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine."

And the action needed? Disarm.

"America will keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. ...We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/obama-un-speech-text_n_296017.htm

So far, foreign relations under President Obama have not been stellar: Washington Times Editorial: Worst foreign policy ever.

The President's ideas of a nuclear free world are naive and dangerous. Seems French President Sarkozy agrees: "President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite," Sarkozy said. "...what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map."

Our president wants us all to sing Nuclear Kumbaya but "...French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the [2nd Iranian bomb-grade fuel facility]announcement." ( French Atomic Pique, WSJ Sept 29, 2009)

We know we are out of touch when "the President of France shows more resolve" than we do!

Past Posts: Obama, JFK, Techology, & The Cuban Missile Crisis...Chilling
Obama's vision of nuke free world shot down by N. Korea missile

Links: Practically Speaking, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, RandyMelchert, Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna, The Right View Wisconsin, CNS News, Mark Levin, Breitbart BigGovernment, The Heritage Foundation

UN Convention on Rights of Child...it's back, AGAIN! Argh

Ever notice how you can never totally kill a bad idea? No matter how many people contact their representatives requesting a NO vote, and the measure is defeated, the bad idea never goes away. It may lie dormant for awhile, but almost always it comes back.

Well, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of those bad ideas set to make a comeback.

Do you remember it? It was a U.N. measure seemingly designed to protect children. In reality, it took children out of the jurisdiction of their parents and constitution of their home country and put them under the authority of the United Nations! Because of the outpouring of negative calls to our Senators, the measure failed to pass back in 1989.

This [UNCRC, also called CRC] poses a serious threat both to parental rights and to U.S. sovereignty, as the UNCRC dictates not only that the federal government must intrude into the family sphere to an unprecedented degree, but also how the federal government is to monitor and govern the actions of our families. Parental rights would be replaced by "the best interests of the child" as defined, ultimately, by an international committee of 18 people in Switzerland.

The Convention was adopted by the UN in 1989. It has since been signed or ratified by 193 countries in the WORLD and every member of the United Nations, EXCEPT the United States and Somalia.

Treaties or Conventions are ratified by the Senate. A 2/3 majority is required for passage. Senator Barbara Boxer is now pushing for the UNCRC to be ratified. (FoxNews, Feb. 25, 2009)

U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families

Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.

Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.

What can you do?

ParentalRights.org is urging the adoption of a Parental Rights Amendment: "The only solution to the attack on the child-parent relationship is the Parental Rights Amendment -- securing the rights of parents to raise their children."

So you can sign the petiton.

ParentalRights.org is also urging that we keep the issue in the public eye. They are asking that concerned Americans email conservative talk show host Glenn Beck and ask he talk about the UNCRC. Email him at me@glennbeck.com and request that he cover the Parental Rights Amendment, talk about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and invite Michel Farris on his show. (Michael Farris is both the President of Parental Rights and Chairman of HSLDA, a homeschool legal defense organization.)

You could also contact our Senators Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653 and Russ Feingold (202) 224-5323.

I know, I get tired of calling and contacting too, but the alternative is too unthinkable for me to just sit back and let things fly under the radar to passage.

Links:
Practically Speaking, Fairly Conservative, CNS News, Jay Weber, Mark Levin, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, The Heritage Foundation