April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
Jim Antle has an excellent piece in the November dead tree issue of The American Spectator on (maybe?) up-and-coming presidential aspirant Mitch Daniels. The Indiana Republican governor has garnered much praise for his budget-slashing ways; not so much for his call for a proposed “truce” on social issues like abortion and marriage.
Daniels’ coyness on cultural concerns could doom his presidential ambitions, unless he starts walking back his stances fast. (In the view of this blogger, far more impressive on fiscal and social issues combined is Congressman Mike Pence, also of Indiana). But the political reality is that Daniels might have no choice but to take a strong (or weak) stand on same-sex marriage in the near future.
Hoosier State voters put Republicans back in control of the state House on Tuesday. The GOP already controls the Senate. With Indiana being one of a handful of conservative-leaning states without an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, legislative Republicans are likely to raise the issue again next year.
A big question: will Daniels support it? If he’s serious about a presidential run, he can’t afford to soft-peddle on this one.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?