I referenced the original Michael J. Fox advertisement in support of Missuris Amendment 2 earlier today.

Here is another excellent reply to the Michael J. Fox addvertisement.

H/T to Scrappleface via HotAir.

Ben Shapiro wrote an excellent article for The Conservative Voice when he attempts to nail down why the democrats are consistently loosing elections.

Democrats claim they have consistently lost elections over the past six years based on their inability to define a platform. Democrats were for the war before they were against it; they were for social security reform before they were against it; they were for sexual impropriety by politicians (Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank) before they were against it (Mark Foley); they are unsure about the morality of gay marriage, but will slander those who oppose it. Democrats are consistent on two issues, and two issues only: abortion and tax cuts. They’re for the former and against the latter. Which is, of course, why Democrats have not fully defined their platform: Their platform is unpalatable to most Americans. Ambiguity is a better option than clarity.

I have nothing to add other than a suggesting you stop in and have a read.

Here is another one good for a laugh.

H/T to Stuck on Stupid

Great Video - poking at You Tube’s obvious liberal bias in selective banning of content.

I wonder how long before this one gets pulled too.

H/T to Hot Air.

I didn’t mention it here previously, but Michael J. Fox appeared in an advertisement supporting Missouri Amendment Two, which provides constitutional protection to cloning and stem-cell research under the Missouri constitution. You can find my previous comments on the topic here.

Here is orriginal add by Fox..

Here is the celebrity response to the add.

H/T to Stop the ACLU and Ol’Broad’s Ramblings.

I am not among the group which bashes Wal-Mart because they have been insanely successful in a difficult industry. Wal-Mart has made the most of a humble start, and has got where they are by sheer hard work. I also do not put much faith in the media blasting of Wal-Mart for wages and benifits, after-all if there where better jobs out there, people would take them. I have not see to many Wal-Mart employees complaining about the company they work for, and that speaks volumes.

I am, however, a bit concerned about the recent steps Wal-Mart has taken in support of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and they have committed to giving preferential treatment to suppliers who focus on a similar agenda. (reference, reference)

Though I do have a personal stand against Homosexuality, my concern here is much more basic. Similar to my comments on the recent drops at Ford, why would a company like Wal-Mart take such a public stand on such an emotive subject? It seem illogical to polarize your client base in such a way, especially when the larger group, those against, have shown themselves very ready and effective at staging large boycotts. A stance that promotes fair access and open arms to all customers seems much more reasonable. As FRC points out, Wal-Mart had its start in very conservative rural communities – a base that would be among the most offended.

And let me be clear, for the nay-sayers out there. This is not corporate responsibility; it is, at best, corporate activism.

I do not agree with the AFA and FRC that Wal-Mart simply caved into pressure from pro-homosexual lobby groups. I cannot imagine an effective pressure such lobbiest could bring against an organization who has never, to my knowledge, discriminated against homosexual employees or customers. That leaves me even more puzzled by Wal-Mart’s stance.

I hope Wal-Mart is not on the verge of a slide similar to Ford. I link items like this to poor judgment, and judgment issues in large organization are usually systemic.

I am becoming a great fan of the Family Research Council. Many times they are a bit sensational for my taste, but at the core they are keeping an eye on just the sort of things I am most interested in.

I found the following on there website yesterday, and though I would share it. Have you ever considered the impact, on your average conservative, should the house change hands, as many are predicting, next month? The FRC put together a scorecard based on voting records for those who are current in, and slated to become committee chairs should the Democrats take the house.

The following scores are based upon 7 elements. They are as follows:

1.Voting on House Amendment 805 (H.AMDT.805) which would have removed a previous restriction on abortions being performed on Military facilities. The amendment was offfered by NJ Democrat Robert Andrews. This bill was not passed.

2.Voting on the Marriage Amendment Act (H.J.RES 88) which would provide federal protection to marriage as being between one man and one woman. The amendment was introduced by Colorado Republican Marilyn Musgrave. This bill was not passed.

3.Pledge Protection Act (H.R.2389) which would block the federal courts from ruling on cases involving the US Pledge of Allegiance, specifically its faith based content. This act was sponsored by Missouri Republican Todd Akin, and was passed by the house.

4.Embryonic Stem Cell Research Act (H.R. 810), which would have provided federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This act was sponsored by Delaware Republican Michael Castle. The issue was struck down by a presidential veto, and subsequent decision in the house not to attempt to overturn that veto.

5.Child Interstate Abortion Act (S.403) which would prohibit transporting minors across state lines as a means of circumventing parental notification laws. This act was sponsored by Nevada Republican John Ensign, and passed a house vote last month.

6.Public Expression of Religion Act (HR 2679) which would block organizations like the ACLU from recovering legal fees in cases where they attack local, state, and federal governments over establishment cases. This act was sponsored by Indiana Republican John Hostettler, and passed a house vote last month.

7.Similar to number 2, scoring representatives who co-sponsored H.J.RES 88.

Overall I am happy with the scoring criteria. I think they hit the major issues of concern for conservatives, especially Christian conservatives. With that scoring model in mind, here is the score of current and Democratic Proposed House Committee Chairs:

Agriculture
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) 100%
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) 100%

Appropriations
Lewis, Jerry (R-CA) 71%
Obey, David (D-WI) 14%

Armed Services
Hunter, Duncan (R-CA) 100%
Skelton, Ike (D-MO) 71%

Budget
Ryun, Jim (R-KS) 100%
Spratt, John (D-SC) 42%

Education & the Workforce
McKeon, Howard (R-CA) 85%
Miller, George (D-CA) 0%

Energy & Commerce
Barton, Joe (R-TX) 85%
Dingell, John (D-MI) 0%

Financial Services
Baker, Richard (R-LA) 100%
Frank, Barney (D-MA) 0%

Government Reform
Davis, Thomas (R-VA) 71%
Waxman, Henry (D-CA) 0%

Homeland Security
King, Peter (R-NY) 85%
Thompson, B. (D-MS) 28%

International Relations
Leach, James (R-IA) 42%
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 0%

Judiciary
Coble, Howard (R-NC) 71%
Conyers, John (D-MI) 0%

Resources
Pombo, Richard (R-CA) 57%
Rahall, Nick (D-WV) 85%

Science
Hall, Ralph (R-TX) 100%
Gordon, Bart (D-TN) 57%

Small Business
Bartlett, Roscoe (R-MD) 100%
Velazquez, N. (D-NY) 0%

Transportation & Infrastructure
Petri, Thomas (R-WI) 85%
Oberstar, James (D-MN) 42%

Veterans Affairs
Buyer, Stephen (R-IN) 100%
Filner, Bob (D-CA) 0%

Ways & Means
McCrery, Jim (R-LA) 85%
Rangel, Charles (D-NY) 0%

The scores are a mixed bag, and interesting. You will notice that one Democrat did score 100%, and in two cases the Democratic chair score the same or better than the current Republican chair. You should also note that the overall trend is down sharply with 9 proposed chairs voting strait against every one of the above 7 items.

I will leave the interpretation of the data to you at this point.

If you would like more information, the complete FRC scorecard can be found here.