Obama Pledges To Disarm America

You have got to see this to believe it! Listen to what Barack Obama is saying! How can anyone be so naive? How can anyone be so stupid as to want to put this disaster into the Oval Office?

Watch this video all the way through. If it doesn't scare you, well, then ... let's not go there.

In this video Barack Obama actually promises the following:

"I will slow our development of future combat systems."

And despite the fact that he wants to spend over 200 billion on wasteful socialist programs that have never worked in the entire history of mankind, he wants to cut tens of billions of dollars out of our defense budget. And this was the candidate who complained about our troops in Afghanistan not being fully equipped?

Video on YouTube:

In 52 Secs Why Barack Obama Cannot Win a General Election
YouTube.com
February 16, 2008

Let's see. Gutting our military would benefit whom in this world? I'm certain that terrorists everywhere are all pulling for Obama after watching this video.

Be sure to pass this link along to eveyone you know and ask them to watch it.

Dealing With Illegals In Virginia

Illegal immigration may not be that big an issue within the GOP anymore. Look at the impending nomination of John McCain. If conventional wisdom held true, Senator McCain would not be the party's presumptive nominee. Apparently, all those Republicans who claim that illegal immigration was tops on their priority lists either didn't bother to campaign or to vote in the primaries, or if they did, a hefty share of them voted for John McCain.

Here in Virginia, we have been trying to hit the illegal alien problem head-on and the nation is beginning to take notice. So much so that Cal Thomas made it the central theme of his latest essay.

Check it out:

Virginia's Republican Attorney General, Robert McDonnell, is beginning the deportation process with a class of people not even the most vehemently pro-immigrant activist should defend. They are sex offenders and McDonnell, working in cooperation with the Virginia State Police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, has identified 171 people who have been convicted of sex crimes. Some are illegal aliens, others have legal status, but their convictions violate the conditional terms of their residency and make them subject to deportation.

That's a good start and it should be repeated in every state in the Union. If we can't deport them all at once (I actually think a mass deportation can be done) let's get rid of the most vile of them first.

Cal goes on:

Asked whether the targeting of illegal alien sex offenders is the first step toward going after other criminal aliens, McDonnell said, "We're planning to do all of them. My position is that criminal illegal aliens or criminal aliens have forfeited their right to be in the country. There is broad agreement, regardless of which side people are on in the illegal immigration debate, that the criminal alien should be detained and deported." ... One northern Virginia jurisdiction with a high illegal alien population is the city of Manassas. In response to intense citizen complaints, the Manassas City Council has authorized local police to begin checking the immigration status of people they arrest for any crime. If they find the suspects are in the country illegally, they are now authorized to begin deportation proceedings. On March 3, neighboring Prince William County will begin implementing a similar program to crackdown on illegals. These two jurisdictions are in sync with what McDonnell is now doing statewide. Immigrant rights leader Ricardo Juarez of Mexicans Without Borders (a name that tells you something about his goal) is quoted in The Washington Examiner newspaper as saying, "This policy will only make the situation worse and will drive people out." Precisely. That is the intent of the program; to drive criminal illegal aliens out, preferably back to where they came from and especially if they have twice violated our laws.

How unbelievable is it that Ricardo Juarez would come to the defence of criminals, including sex offenders and pedophiles? Is the entire pro-amnesty/open-boarders movement also on the pro-criminal bandwagon? If not, they better start writing press releases stating so.

More:

Not all of the Virginia sex offenders fit the demographic stereotype. Yes, most are from Mexico, or Central and South American countries, but quite a few are from other nations, including Ethiopia, India, Iran, Thailand, even Scotland. So this is not about ethnicity. It is about breaking the law. The issue of illegal immigration and most especially that of criminal aliens should be a major issue in the presidential campaign. It is bad enough when immigration activists countenance the breaking of our laws and defend people who do it; it is something else when they attempt to defend sex offenders and others who have broken other laws while here.

Not just in the Presidential campaign, but also in local Congressional elections. If Jim Gilmore hasn't already jumped on this issue in support of the City of Manassas then he should do so immediately and begin contrasting himself with Mark Warner. It would go a long way to making sure Virginia doesn't put another tax-and-spend, pro-amnesty, give-benefits-to-illegals liberal in the Senate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Hit The Road Jack
Cal Thomas
TownHall.com
February 28, 2008

William F. Buckley, 1925-2008

William F. Buckley, editor of National Review magazine, co-founder of the modern Conservative Movement along with Senator Barry Goldwater, died today. He was 82. No cause of death has been determined yet.

Conservative Writer, Commentator William F. Buckley Jr. Dies At 82
Associated Press via FoxNews.com
February 27, 2008

We will miss him sorely.

Even those who did not agree with him politically still heaped praise on him for his writing style and skill. Kurt Vonnegut once said how much he enjoyed reading Buckley's work.

One of my fondest teenaged memories was reading Bloom County by Berke Breathed in the newspaper and seeing this cartoon:



Rest in peace, Mr. Buckley.

Guns Save Lives

John Stossel really lit up the skyline with this column. The New York Times has rolled out the gun-control bandwagon and offered some criticism towards the U.S. Dept. of Interior for rethinking gun bans in National Parks. Check out these excerpts:

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. ... As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. ... That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime.

Great column!

You can access it on-line here:

Guns Save Lives
John Stossel
TownHall.com
February 27, 2008

Obama's Class-War Court

Looks like Sen. Obama is pinning a good deal of his campaign on class-warfare. In addition to his Texas ads that severely over-inflate what an executive makes compared to minimum wage earners, here is what we will have to look forward to if Sen. Obama gets to make appointments to the Supreme Court.

Terence Jeffrey writing for TownHall.com notes that Sen. Obama made the case that 95 percent of Supreme Court cases were not controversial and thus Justices Scalia and Ginsburg would arrive at the same vote most of the time.

But:

In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. "In those difficult cases," Obama said, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren't in the right place. "The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005. "When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled," Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. "There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless."

Do we really want this man (or the woman he is currently running against) to make appointments to the Supreme Court?

BTW, Sen. McCain voted to confirm both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Class-War Court
Terence Jeffrey
TownHall.com
February 27, 2008

Old Media Lets Obama's Shaky CEO Earnings Claim Go Unchallenged

Tom Blumer has a good entry over at NewsBusters.org. I've done my own math here, but the pont is exactly the same. From his article:

It's an extraordinarily clever claim. It gets your attention. It's misleading. And of course, Old Media isn't questioning it. I am referring to the following statement made by Barack Obama in radio ads currently running in Ohio and Texas: "Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."

Really? Let's find out!

If the minimum wage earner makes $5.85/hour and works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that comes to: $12,168/year.

Now, in order to make that much in ten minutes:

$12,168 x 6 ten-minute periods = $73,008/hour.

If you assume a 40 hour work week and 52 weeks a year, then the annual salary is: $151,856,640.

That's a pretty good take if you ask me. But how many CEOs really make that much?

6, According to Forbes. Steven P. Jobs, Ray R. Irani, Barry Diller, William P. Foley, Terry S. Semel and Michael S. Dell.

Oh, and if you look at the Top Celebrity earners, Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey tops out the list at $260,000,000, well above the claim made by Senator Obama. I guess Oprah is just really exploiting the poor. I wonder if the Senator is going to call her out?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Old Media Lets Obama's Shaky CEO Earnings Claim Go Unchallenged
Tom Blumer
NewsBusters.org
February 25, 2008

Bad Times

The fallout is still coming down for the New York Times and their hit piece against Senator John McCain. Apparently, the Old Gray Lady has gotten too old and set in its leftist ways to be taken too seriously anymore.

Dr. Thomas Sowell has something to say about that in his most recent column:

The front page of the New York Times has increasingly become the home of editorials disguised as "news" stories. Too often it has become the home of hoaxes. Going back some years, it was the Tawana Brawley hoax that she had been gang-raped by a bunch of white men. Just a couple of years ago, it was the Duke University "rape" hoax that they fell for. In between there were the various hoaxes of New York Times reporter Jason Blair, who was kept on and promoted until too many people found out what he had been doing and the paper had to let him go. Last month the New York Times created its own hoax with a long front page article about how war veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were killing people back in the United States because of the stress they had gone through in combat. That hoax was shot down two days later by the New York Post, which showed that the murder rate among returning war veterans was only one-fifth the murder rate among civilians in the same age brackets.

And I'm proud to say that I was one of the New Media bloggers who helped to spread the debunkment of that story about the vets:

A Hidden Tax On New Cars, NY Times Lies About Veterans And Great Britain Is "Mostly Free"
84rules
January 17, 2008

You would think that after getting caught so many times that the Times would clean up it's act. They didn't:

Undaunted, the New York Times has come up with its latest front-page sensation, the claim that some anonymous people either suspected an affair between Senator John McCain and a female lobbyist or tried to forestall an affair. But apparently no one actually claimed that they knew there was an affair. This did not even rise to the level of "he said, she said." Instead it was anonymous sources reporting their suspicions. People who share the New York Times' political views are treated as "innocent until proven guilty." People with different views are condemned for "the appearance of impropriety," even if there is no hard evidence that they did anything wrong.

Which is why we don't trust the NYT at all.

And here is what makes me proud:

The rise of alternative media -- notably talk radio -- has limited how much the mainstream media can get away with. Dan Rather's fake memo about President Bush's National Guard service might have gone unchallenged, and affected an election, back in the old days when the media consisted largely of like-minded colleagues who would not embarrass one of their own. Bloggers and talk radio shot that one down. But it is doubtful if we have seen the last of the journalistic hoaxes. Not in an election year.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Bad Times
Dr. Thomas Sowell
GOPUSA.com
February 26, 2008

Some other really good columns about the New York Times' diminishing credibility can be accessed on-line here:

New York Times' Unsubstantiated Assault As A Boost To McCain
Paul Weyrich
TownHall.com
February 26, 2008

McCained
Rich Galen
TownHall.com
February 22, 2008

Why No Vote Is No Option

It's still out there. The McCain Derangement Syndrome. And I don't mean from leftist Dems. The MDS is coming from the right, mostly from Conservatives who failed to rally behind more right-leaning candidates or were conspicuously absent from the polls on Super Tuesday.

But more rational voices are starting to come through. One of those voices is Kevin McCullough whose most recent column looks at the evangelical "leaders" and why their positions on staying home on election day are untenable.

From his column:

Many evangelicals might take their cue from these two disillusioned men [Pat Robertson and James Dobson] and conclude that not voting, sitting this one out, or refusing to lift a finger in the general election is an acceptable response to a primary season that has yielded us the poorest choice for President in my lifetime, with perhaps the exception of the nomination of Bob Dole. Many might conclude that in seeing two candidates such as McCain and Obama, who have both stood for the outright violation of the Constitution, that the nomination process is flawed and therefore wiping one's hands clean of it is a decision of conscience that could demonstrate a turning over of this process to God's judgment.

Wait for it:

But they would be wrong. And if Robertson or Dobson are encouraging such (and I'm not making the case that they are), then they should be rejected outright.

And for very good reason. I've already published several posts showing exactly what we would have to expect from an Obama or a Clinton Presidency. It would not be pretty. In fact, it would be a disaster. High taxes driving the American economy into a new Great Depression is just one secular reason why it would be so. What are the evangelical reasons?

Oh sure there may not be as much to be excited about in this year's contest, but large issues do loom in the near future. If we as evangelicals remain silent as justices are seated on the Supreme Court, as our nation responds to jihadists who wish to injure. maim, and kill innocent people, or while our school curriculums begin to add homosexuality, bestiality, and every kind of sexual combination imaginable and refer to it as a family to the textbooks of our nation's school children we must understand that we play a part in allowing these things to happen.

Can some Conservative somewhere explain why an Obama or Clinton Presidency is more palatable than a John McCain Presidency? Can that same Conservative explain how to undo the damage of two or three leftist Justices sitting on the Supreme Court simply by rallying around a Conservative in 2012?

I'd love to read the answers to those questions.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Why No Vote Is No Option
Kevin McCullough
TownHall.com
February 25, 2008

Star Parker Supports The FairTax!

Yes! As time goes on we see more and more people coming over to support the FairTax as a viable replacement for our convoluted, often contradictory and wasteful current Tax Code. From Star Parker's latest column:

Economists can argue cause and effect. I'll just point out that as soon as we enacted the income tax, growth of the federal government took off and outstripped state and local spending as the major tax burden on citizens. The income tax, with its 45,000 pages of tax code, is now simply a sandbox for politicians and lobbyists to play in. This is what we should focus on in all the discussion about special interests, lobbyist influence and runaway growth in government. With a national retail sales tax to finance government, the tax burden on citizens would be totally transparent. Whenever you make a purchase and look at the sales slip, you'd see the 23 percent tax and know that's what you are paying for the federal government and its programs. When a Sen. Smith or a Congressman Jones shepherds some new program through Congress and the president signs it into law -- ka-ching! -- we'd immediately see it at the cash register. When you ask the cashier why you are now paying 24 percent instead of 23 percent, he or she can explain that you are paying for some wonderful new government program.

Just imagine how people will get motivated to stand up to politicians in D.C. if they could see first hand how playing political games affects the American consumer.

Star goes on:

Most of those 45,000 pages of the tax code reflect special treatments and deductions for businesses, particular types of investment, or behavior. This stuff got in there and regularly gets modified and changed as a result of various special interests working their magic. The number of registered lobbyists in Washington doubled over the last eight years from 17,000 to over 34,000. A good chunk of their business is generated by proposed additions or changes to the tax code. If you listen to Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, with all the talk of reducing lobbyists' influence, most of their pitch is using the tax code for their social engineering programs. I say get rid of the code, the Internal Revenue Service and the lobbyists.

Absolutely! As I have written several time before, the FairTax is the only Tax Reform Plan that that addresses three end-goals:

1) The plan must remove from the IRS any power to intrude on the private lives of American citizens.
2) The plan must remove from the K Street lobbyists any power to influence Congressional votes.
3) The plan must not allow hidden taxes to be passed along to the consumer at any time.

And this:

Ironically, the major reason why the national retail sales tax gets so little attention is because insiders deem it politically impossible to achieve. Those who are part of the problem don't want the solution. The tax code is now one huge special-interest honey pot and the swarming bees want to keep it that way.

Yep. Which is why we need to keep growing our grass-roots movement until it become a juggernaut that no politician, Dem or GOP, can ignore.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A 'Yes, We Can' Plan With Beef
Star Parker
TownHall.com
February 25, 2008







Petition For The FairTax

Dems Begin Throwing Mud At John McCain

Hypocrisy is alive and well on the left, especially in the Democratic Party. Rather than debate the issues, a debate they know they will lose, the Dems have decided early to engage in the politics of personal destruction against Senator John McCain. From TownHall.com:

The national Democratic party wants campaign finance regulators to investigate whether Sen. John McCain would violate money-in-politics laws by withdrawing from the primary election's public finance system. McCain, who had been entitled to $5.8 million in federal funds for the primary, has decided to bypass the system so he can avoid spending limits between now and the GOP's national convention in September. Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason notified McCain last week that he can only withdraw from public financing if he answers questions about a campaign loan and obtains approval from four members of the six-member commission. Such approval is doubtful in the short term because the commission has four vacancies and cannot convene a quorum.

Apparently the Dems missed that last little point. How can Senator McCain get approval from four if only two are seated? Talk about a catch-22!

More:

"John McCain poses as a reformer but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday. ... McCain's lawyer, former FEC Chairman Trevor Potter, has said McCain did not encumber any money that he would have received from the federal treasury. McCain and Potter have said he was entitled to withdraw without FEC approval and have cited as examples Dean and Democrat Dick Gephardt, both of whom withdrew from public financing during the 2004 presidential primary. "Howard Dean's hypocrisy is breathtaking, given that in 2003 he withdrew from the matching funds system in exactly the same way John McCain is doing today," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Sunday.

Just goes to show that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

First the New York Times publishes unverifiable allegations from anonymous sources and now the Dems go and pull a hypocritical stunt like this.

I am appalled at the conduct of the DNC but not surprised. Manufactured scandals take attention away from the real issues and that ultimately helps the Dems.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Seek FEC Probe Of McCain
Jim Kuhnhenn
TownHall.com
February 25, 3008

Taxpayer Funded Medical Care: 17,000 Deaths

There is alot about the socialized health care systems of Canada and Great Britain that doesn't get reported in Old Media. One of the more recent developments out of Great Britain, a development that I learned about from Glenn Beck rather than ABC News, is that the British government has guaranteed a wait of "no more than four hours" in the Emergency Room.

Sounds noble, eh? Well, wait until you hear how the government run hospitals are putting this "guarantee" into effect. It is a procedure called "patient stacking." Essentially, what they do is they hold the patient in the ambulance outside of the emergency room until the ER staff can assure the ambulance drivers that the patient can be seen within four hours. Some patients have been held in the ambulances for up to nine hours (not including the four they spend waiting in the emergency room) and some medical emergency victims have been kept waiting for over ten hours while waiting for an ambulance to become available to come and get them.

That's just the latest example of how socialized medicine, especially socialist programs proposed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are dismal failures and should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

From Deroy Murdoch at the New York Post:

Great Britain's big-government National Health Service. Low-quality, taxpayer-funded health care killed more than 17,000 Britons in 2004, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance in London. The TPA examined the World Health Organization's latest-available data to contrast the NHS with the Dutch, French, German and Spanish health systems, which are less government-dominated. Specifically, the pro-market group measured "mortality amenable to health care" - those deaths that a medical organization realistically should prevent. While those four countries averaged a 106.6 amenable mortality rate, Britain was almost 29 percent deadlier, with its rate of 135.3. The TPA thus calculates that the NHS took the lives of 17,157 Britons who otherwise would have survived were they treated by doctors across the English Channel. This figure is more than two-and-a-half times Britain's yearly alcohol-related deaths, and is quintuple its annual highway fatalities. Comparing 60 million Brits to 300 million Yanks, this is like a federally-operated health agency eliminating 85,785 Americans in 2004.

Despite the fact that the British socialist health care system is probably the best financed in the world, it is one of the worst health-care performers in the world. Here are some of the other things going on that people should know about before embracing HillaryCare or ObamaCare:

Poor sanitation has become the NHS' latest worry. The BBC's Danielle Glavin worked undercover at a government hospital in Kent. "On my first day, as I emptied bins, swept and mopped, I noticed old blood stains ingrained on the floor," Glavin reported. In one surgical theater, "a blood-stained gown was left on a trolley for 24 hours, and used medical instruments were discarded in a sink for a day." This helps explain why the British government estimated that 9 percent of inpatients in 2000 suffered hospital-acquired infections. The bacterium Clostridium difficile often is associated with hospital outbreaks and extended medical stays. English and Welsh death certificates citing C. diff as a cause or contributing factor grew from about 1,000 in 1999 to 3,807 in 2005. Diseases snuff Britons sooner than they do others in the developed world. A September 2007 Lancet Oncology article found 66.3 percent of American men alive five years after cancer diagnosis. Among male Finns, that figure was 55.9 percent, while only 44.8 percent of Englishmen survived after five years. Across the European Union, 20.1 females per 100,000 under 65 died prematurely of circulatory disease. Among British women, that number was 23.6.

Anyone who believes the idiotic propaganda that Michael Moore put in his informationally challenged movie Sicko should go over to Great Britain the next time they think they might have cancer. We'll see how truly they believe in socialized medicine then.

The parting shot:

Collectively, these data strongly rebuff the notion that America's imperfect health-care industry needs a booster shot of mandates and regulations. What it sorely lacks is more choice, competition and freedom - and loads less government. John McCain's ideas - among them, expanded health-savings accounts; individually owned, portable health-insurance policies available across state lines; and medical-lawsuit reform - are the antidote to the "health care with a British accent" that Clinton or Obama would import, unless American voters stop them.

And once again, despite so-called Conservative opposition, John McCain has the better idea.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

17,000 Deaths
Deroy Murdoch
New York Post
February 24, 2008

McCain's Winning Strategy

Kathryn Jean Lopez has some good advice for GOP Presidential Candidate John McCain. Mostly, it has to do with emphasizing experience over empty optimism.

Even MSNBC's Hardball commentator Chris Matthews hammered an Obama supporter by asking: "What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments. Barack Obama. Sir."

The Obama supporter could not answer the question.

So, in her column appearing over at TownHall.com, Lopez has the following to say:

McCain can adopt the "ready from day one" meme the former first lady has unconvincingly and patronizingly used with Democratic primary voters. He can do it with a legitimacy Clinton never has had. He needs to make the fullest possible use of this obvious advantage. He needs to embrace the fact that he doesn't have a naive belief that he can wave a magic wand and remove our troops from Iraq the day he is inaugurated. He's a responsible leader, so he knows that left-wing promises to "end the war in Iraq" are euphemisms for losing the war in Iraq. However, he who campaigned for his early primaries on a "No Surrender Tour" needs to go beyond what has been his saving grace with conservative voters -- the fact that he was the leading advocate of the "surge" policy that Gen. David Petraeus has successfully executed in Iraq, at a time when that position was very unpopular in Washington.

And Senator McCain should especially drive home a part of his victory speech after the Wisconsin Primary:

After winning the Wisconsin primary the following week, McCain took aim at Obama. He declared: "I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change ... that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people. Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud. And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve."

He was clearly taking a shot at Obama. He needs to do this more often; to start drawing the comparisons now.

If he does so, McCain has a good chance for victory in November.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

McCain's Winning Strategy
Kathryn Jean Lopez
TownHall.com
February 23, 2008

Fact Check: Obama's Platoon Story

Wow! A few days ago, the leftist New York Times ran an anonymous source based story about John McCain on the front page in an effort to discredit the presumptive GOP nominee for President.

But, when B. Hussein Obama comes up with his own anonymous source based story, no one seemed to notice or even ask if the story was true. Here is what Obama said:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon _ supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," Obama said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. "And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."

His source? An anonymous Army Captain. Where was the press at the time? Why weren't they clamoring all over B. Hussein Obama for verification and a way to corroborate the story?

They weren't there because as the John McCain story (and the world famous Dan Ra^ther Air National Guard Memo story) reminded us, anonymous sources are not to be trusted.

From TownHall.com:

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to release the name of the captain, citing the soldier's privacy, and pointed to an ABC News account as verification of the story. Obama learned about the captain's allegation from a staffer who had spoken with the captain, according to Vietor. ABC News said it talked to the unidentified captain, whose account of shortages in Afghanistan was for the most part accurately summarized by Obama, although not verified. The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.

I for one, do not believe Obama or ABC ever talked to such a soldier. Time may prove me wrong, but for right now, and until someone legitimately wearing a U.S. Army uniform with Captain's bars on the collar comes forward to claim credit for the above statements, I don't believe it.

Senator John Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has sent a letter to Barack Obama asking for more information about this platoon and the whereabouts of this Captain.

As I said above, I don't believe the Obama campaign or ABC News will be obliging in their responses.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Fact Check: Obama's Platoon Story
TownHall.com
February 22, 2008

Democrats Dug In For Retreat

Remember when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) yelled: "The war is lost!" into a microphone? I do. I remember thinking how disrespectful it was to the troops who were serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan and how it was no surprise that a Dem would so publically show such disrespect.

Well, the Dems seem to have invested themselves into Reid's position because they cannot seem to get a grip on reality nor do they seem the least bit able to communicate that reality to their followers. Over at Real Clear Politics, Charles Krauthammer shows us a quote that came from a man who was an outspoken war critic:

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008

But the Dems just go meekly running back to Harry Reid and his disrespectful and pessimistic attitude.

Charles goes on:

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terror activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding. After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation. "National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks. Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.

And the fledgling Iraqi Parliament has passed more meaningful legislation in the past year than our own Dem controlled Congress has gotten out. In fact, the Iraqis passed a provincial powers law, a partial prisoner amnesty and an Iraqi Federal budget. What would the Dems say about this?

They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenues year-by-year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran? Despite all the progress military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?

And that's what it really comes down to, Bush Derangement Syndrome. The Dems are so blinded by hate for the current sitting President that they are willing to cause damage to the entire United States in order to hand President Bush an embarrassment.

Way to go Pelosi and Reid!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Dug In For Retreat
Charles Krauthammer
RealClearPolitics.com
February 22, 2008

McCain: Bush Should Veto Torture Bill

Despite Sen. McCain's opposition to waterboarding as an interrogation technique, he voted against a bill that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh techniques and is now calling on President Bush to veto the measure.

From the Associated Press via GOPUSA:

McCain voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding -- a simulated drowning technique that McCain also opposes -- yet McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions.

Is this the same Sen. John McCain that Ann Coulter claims is more liberal than Sen. Hillary Clinton? Did not this same Ann Coulter say that Sen. McCain's opposition to waterboarding was a major piece of evidence for said claim? (Anyone care to guess whether or not Sens. Clinton and Obama supported this bill?)

Seems to me that if Sen. McCain were more liberal than Sen. Hillary Clinton, then he would have voted for this measure and would now be calling on President Bush to sign it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain: Bush Should Veto Torture Bill
Libby Quaid
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
February 21, 2008

Analyzing Global Warming Science

Even though we are heading into a Presidential campaign here, we should not forget some of the more relevent issues we have been studying over the past several years. One of those issues is Global Warming and the human (non) influence factor.

William F. Jasper of The New American magazine interviwed Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Some excerpts follow:

THE NEW AMERICAN: Flip on any channel, open any newspaper or magazine, and it’s clear we are being bombarded with the message that the Earth is warming. Is there any merit to this claim? Dr. Arthur Robinson: Yes, but the temperature is only going up 0.5° C per century. Moreover, this increase is not being caused by human activity. TNA: Those who blame mankind for causing global warming would respond to that point by saying that the Earth is the warmest it’s been in 400 years, and that’s significant. Dr. Robinson: They’re right, but they only show you the data from the last 400 years. If the data for a longer time interval is considered, temperatures today are seen to be not especially warm. The current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1). The climate, as we know from historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it was a little better. So, yes, it is the warmest in 400 years.

Now, the usual cop-out to this is that oil companies are paying off scientists to speak out against Global Warming alarmists. Unfortunately, no one seems to be getting that money.

TNA: Scientists who are not intimidated to speak out about this are typically charged by the enviros as being paid by the oil companies. Dr. Robinson: Well, we’ve never been fortunate enough to receive any money from them, and I mean in any way, personally, professionally in our laboratory, or anything. We have never received a dime from anybody who has a specific economic interest in this issue. However, UN power to control and ration world energy — the real goal of their activities — would have a terrible, negative impact on the lives of all Americans. In that sense, all of our supporters have an economic interest. TNA: Al Gore also makes a big deal about glacier recession. Dr. Robinson: But he only shows the data for the limited time intervals that seem to support his claims. Here is the world glacier curve (see Figure 2) based on an average of all the world’s glaciers for which there are good records. Some glaciers are actually increasing, but on average the glaciers are decreasing — toward the more normal lengths that are typical of long-term average world temperatures. This curve is offset by 20 years because there is about a 20-year lag between the temperature increase and the shortening of the glaciers. So the temperature increase reflected in the glacier lengths begins in about 1800. The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years. They started shortening a century before significant amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity. Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon use increased six-fold and the glacier melting rate did not change at all.

Yes, more evidence that Al Gore "cherry picked" his data. I wonder how much he paid his own scientists to do that?

More:

TNA: So what is causing the Earth to warm? Dr. Robinson: A good clue is contained in data showing arctic air temperature vs. solar activity (see Figure 3). There is a good correlation. Surface temperature vs. solar activity data also correlates well (see Figure 4). TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in his movie, with those very large graphs, that CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is, therefore, the cause of that warming? Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. Gore shows the curves with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer. His film is filled with dozens of other deliberate errors and misrepresentations.

Isn't it amazing how most of this data and information never makes into leftist movies or onto the leftist TV News shows? Just showing the following graph and having an impartial scientist explain it would go a long way to cooling the hype about Global Warming and its true causes:



This is one of the best interviews about Global Warming I have ever read.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Analyzing Global Warming Science
William F. Jasper
The New American
February 18, 2008

McCain Camp Vows To 'Go To War' With NYT

Well, it didn't take long for leftist Old Media to come out and run a "hit piece" aganst John McCain. And it was the Old Gray Lady herself that did it. The New York Times ran a story about rumors concerning John McCain and a lobbyist. From Johnathan Martin and Michael Calderone over at the Politico:

John McCain’s campaign promised to “go to war” against The New York Times Wednesday night after the newspaper posted its long-awaited story on McCain's alleged relationship with a telecom lobbyist. Both McCain and the woman in question denied having a romantic relationship. The story, word of which first leaked to the Drudge Report in December, relies on anonymous sources tied to McCain who said the lobbyist was warned to keep her distance to the senator in the run-up to his first presidential bid.

So far, nothing new here. These accusations have been thrown around before.

More:

"It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," communications director Jill Hazelbaker said in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

And still nothing new. The lefists at the NYT know that the Dems cannot win on the issues and are making early efforts to deflect attention away from those issues. Further, the timing (and placement) of this story looks as if it was also meant to divert attention away from the fact that Hillary Clinton's campaign is severely tanking at this point and she is the NYT's hometown favortie.

But here is another reason why the timing and placement of this story is suspect:

Asked about the impact that the allegation of adultery would have among social conservative activists, some of whom still aren’t entirely sold on McCain, Black said they would see it as “The New York Times spreading rumors and gossip.”

And the McCain campaign pledge concerning the matter:

“We’re going to war with the New York Times, so they’ll probably like it.” Another adviser to McCain offered a similar defense. “Conservatives are standing up for us,” this source said. Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review and a sometime critic of McCain, sided with the Arizona senator, suggesting the Times just used other elements as cover to print a sex story. “Let's be honest: This story is all about the alleged affair, and all the Keating Five and campaign finance reform rehash is window dressing,” Lowry wrote on his magazine’s blog. Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity, who also had criticized McCain harshly at times, also was supportive on his show.

How refreshing it is to see a GOP candidate who is going to fight back against the left-wing biased of Old Media.

The leftists at the New York Times and their Dem allies may have seriously miscalculated this one. Conservatives, even those who have voiced opposition to John McCain's candidacy, are not going to tolerate hit pieces like this. In fact, this accusation is going to cause more Conservatives to rally around the GOP candidate.

There is a very important moral here. Three things you should never trust in the world of Politics:

1. Rumors.
   
2. Anonymous sources.
   
3. Disgruntled ex-associates with an ax to grind.
   

It didn't work for Dan Ra^ther and it won't work for the NYT.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Camp Vows To 'Go To War' With NYT
Jonathan Martin and Michael Calderone
Politico.com
February 21, 2008

McCain's Promise On Judges And The Dems Make Us Much Less Safe

Here is something John McCain said during his speach at CPAC:

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Now, if you've been keeping score of the final three candidates, you have the two Dems promising to nominate justices who will legislate from the bench and one who nominate justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito. Yet there is still that rage and anger against John McCain for some reason. And what is worse is that if you try to confront these angry people by asking, "Can you explain how justices appointed by Hillary or Obama would be better?" they usually fly off onto some irrelevent tangent about McCain's all but guaranteed nomination instead of actually answering the question.

Writing for the PajamasMedia, Professor Stephen Bainbridge has the following to say about this:

To be sure, Presidents all too often break campaign promises. Remember George Bush 41’s “read my lips” pledge on taxes? In the new media environment, however, it’s getting easier to hold a President’s feet to the fire. Remember George Bush 43’s aborted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court? Those of us who waged war against Miers succeeded in part because in the 2000 campaign Bush had explicitly promised to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We demanded that Bush keep that promise and, as it became clear that Miers was made from a different mold, we kept up a steady drum beat of criticism. In the end, we won. Miers was forced to withdraw and Samuel Alito became the newest member of the Supreme Court.

Yes, I remember that. I don't doubt that we, the people, especially those of us who are politically active either in the real world or in cyberspace, will have a big say in such appointments, bigger than we would have if Hillary or Obama were sitting in the Oval Office.

Professor Bainbridge goes on:

All of which suggests that threats by conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to take their ball and go home if McCain is the nominee make no sense (and I say this as someone who has made similar rumblings in the past). The next President likely will nominate 3-4 Supreme Court justices and 200 to 400 lower court judges. Given the astonishing longevity of Supreme Court justices, moreover, the next President’s Supreme Court picks easily could serve for two or more decades. To consider the full implications of this prospect, consider just one of the names that appears on most short lists of prospective Democratic Supreme Court nominees: Harold Koh, dean of the Yale Law School. (YLS professor Kenji Yoshino reportedly quipped that he was hedged for 2008, because “either the Democrats will lose and Yale will keep Harold, or the Democrats will win and Yale will loan him to the country.”) What would a Justice Koh’s jurisprudence look like? Jeffrey Rosen notes that Koh “has supported the idea that U.S. courts should expansively apply international legal precedents without the authorization of the president and Congress.” John McGinnis likewise observes that: “Harold Koh in fact would like to cabin American exceptionalism through the use of transnational materials to assure that American principles would cohere more with the rest of the world.” The increasing use of such precedents by the left wing of the Supreme Court, of course, has been a major irritant to conservatives. Andrew McCarthy and Doug Kmiec have both raised concerns that a Justice Koh would handcuff the police and intelligence community by judicial fiat. A Law Blog reader quipped that, “other than that he’d be a sure vote for declaring Gitmo detainees have a constitutional right to Social Security benefits, I do not see the appeal.”

So, there you have your choice. Justices like Harold Koh from the Democrats, or a promise of more like Sam Alito and John Roberts from the GOP nominee.

I choose the hopefulness of John McCain's promise.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Makes A Promise About Judges
Professor Stephen Bainbridge
PajamasMedia.com
February 10, 2008

---

And have you heard that the FISA Law has been allowed to die? That means that we have lost one of our mosr effective tools against the terrorists.

Who allowed it to die? The Dems.

House Minority Leader John Boehner had this to say about it:

On Thursday, House Democratic leaders left Washington for a 12-day break after failing to pass critical legislation designed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor foreign communications of suspected terrorists overseas, such as Osama Bin Laden and other key al-Qaeda leaders, while also adding critical liability protections for third parties who helped us defend our country. This measure had received strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and was on the verge of passing by a wide bipartisan margin in the House until Democratic leaders blocked it from coming to the floor for a vote. Because of the Democrats’ inaction, the Protect America Act expired last night at midnight, forcing our intelligence officials to revert to the same terror surveillance laws that failed to protect America from the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are still plotting against the United States and our allies, but now our intelligence officials don’t have all the tools they need to protect us. These laws didn’t safeguard America in 2001, so why would House Democrat leaders place our nation at risk by putting them back into effect now? Some members of the House Majority believe there is no sense of urgency to address this crisis. But the New York Post recently reported a heartbreaking story about U.S. forces in Iraq having to wait 10 hours last May before they could begin searching for three American soldiers taken hostage by al Qaeda because lawyers here in the United States were hammering out the proper documents to get emergency permission for wiretaps. One of our soldiers was found dead, two others remain missing.

This lapse in judgement the Dems have experienced is deep and its effects will be far reaching. More:

The liability protections included in the bipartisan Senate bill are intended to ensure that patriotic third parties are not subject to frivolous lawsuits when they cooperate with our intelligence officials to help track terrorists. But already some trial lawyers are seeking millions of dollars, and now some third parties who have cooperated to help defend our country have indicated they can no longer do so voluntarily. This is wrong and we must fix it. Much has been said about the U.S. Senate being the world’s most deliberative body, but in this case our colleagues proved that they can work quickly to pass good legislation that will keep America safe. The consequences of inaction in the House and the failure to send a bill to the President are real. U.S. intelligence officials will not be able to begin new terrorist surveillance without needless and dangerous delays. If a previously unknown group were to attack or kidnap American soldiers tomorrow, U.S. forces would have to wait – again – for the lawyers to get permission before a search could begin. The families of the three soldiers abducted in May by al Qaeda can attest to how devastating waiting can be. ... Refusing to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe is unacceptable. Refusing to extend protection from frivolous lawsuits to third parties that cooperate with the government to protect American lives and then leaving town for 12 days is also unacceptable. The question now for House Democratic leaders is, how much longer are they prepared to protect their trial lawyer allies at the expense of our national security?

Which is one of the many reasons why I voted Republican in my local Congressional races.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Democrats’ Inaction On FISA Harms America’s National Security
Rep. John Boehner
TownHall.com
February 17, 2008

Some Cartoons

Election Watch: Hey Big Spender! Media Fail To Report Cost Of Campaign Promises

This article by Nathan Burchfiel of the Business & Media Institute is from January 30 of this year but it is still relevent in terms of comparing the candidates for President. It is also important to note that these comparisons have gone largely unreported by Old Media.

Here is a very relevent comparison:

Obama’s reference to “finite resources” seems ironic, considering he leads all presidential contenders in proposed new spending with a whopping $287 billion, according to a new report from the National Taxpayers’ Union Foundation. Fellow Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) trails him with $218 billion in proposed new spending. Republican candidates come in much further behind. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has proposed new funding totaling $54 billion. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney proposed $19.5 billion and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has proposed nearly $7 billion.

The report from the National Taxpayer's Union can be accessed on-line here:

2008 Presidential Candidate Spending Analyses
National Taxpayer's Union
Copyright 2008

Just the difference between Sen. McCain and either Gov. Romney or Gov. Huckabee is significant but the differences between Sen. McCain and the two Dem candidates is staggering.

Further, the two most liberal candiates haven't been coy about how they intend to pay for their socialist programs such as universal health care:

It would also cost taxpayers $110 billion every year. Clinton made it clear she would help finance her health care plan by “rolling back” the Bush tax cuts, amounting to a massive tax increase. But she had to admit that wouldn’t cover it all. Some journalists took note. ... “Mr. Obama this week said getting rid of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts would fund his proposed $85 billion in tax cuts for the middle class. But his $50 billion health care plan is also funded by the Bush tax cuts and cost-savings measures,” Bellantoni wrote. Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post mentioned Obama’s apparent double-talk in a Sept. 19, 2007, brief, noting his promised tax cuts though “he earlier said he would use those funds for his health-care program.”

For those of you keeping score, in terms of taxes, we have the two Dems promising to raise taxes (exorbitantly it would seem), and the presumptive GOP candidate pledging to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Election Watch: Hey Big Spender! Media Fail To Report Cost Of Campaign Promises
Nathan Burchfiel
BusinessAndMedia.org
January 30, 2008

The United States Tax System Explained With Beer

Tax System Explained

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer OR whatever and
the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed
quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the
owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such
good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten
now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we
pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the
other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and
he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the
first four continued to drink for free, but once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,
'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth
man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,'
exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should
he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get
all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.
'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits
the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without
him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the
bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The people
who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a
tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the
atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Ann Coulter Goes Off The Deep End

I was a big fan of Ann Coulter for a long time. But that changed on February 13, 2008 with her publication of the following column:

There's A Democrat Behind Door No. 1, 2 and 3
Ann Coulter
Human Events Online
February 13, 2008

The change was made permenent last night when I watched her on Glenn Beck. You see, I don't appreciate people who insult my intelligence whether those people are on the left (e.g. those with Bush Derangement Syndrome) or on the right (e.g. the blinded by hate McCain bashers). At issue here is what Ann wrote in her column and reiterated on Glenn Beck:

Hillary is, shockingly enough, the most conservative candidate among the top three presidential candidates.

Ann used scant and flimsy evidence to back up this idiotic claim, both in the column and on Glenn Beck, citing only waterboarding and the proposed closing of Gitmo. But what is interesting is that Ann cites the American Conservative Union Ratings for Congressional Delegations to help further back up her claim:

We keep hearing about McCain's "lifetime" rating from the American Conservative Union being 82.3 percent. But McCain has been a member of Congress for approximately 400 years, so that includes his votes on the Spanish-American War. His more current ratings are not so hot. In 2006 -- the most recent year for which ratings are available -- McCain's ACU rating was 65. That year, the ACU rating for the other senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, was 97. Even Chuck Hagel's ACU rating was 75, and Lindsey Graham's was 83.

Now here is what is really interesting about Ann's column. Nowhere does she even try to mention the ACU rating for Senator Hillary Clinton. Why would that be?

Because had Ann actually told us what Hillary's rating was and allowed us to compare it to the rating John McCain has, it would have made Ann look like a blathering idiot. Here are the ratings comparisons:

Senator McCain had in 2006 a rating of 65 and in 2005 a rating of 80. His lifetime rating is 82.3.

Senator Clinton had in 2006 a rating of 8 and 2005 a rating of 12. Her lifetime rating is 9.

You can access this information on-line here:

American Conservative Union 2006 U.S. Congress Ratings
American Conservative Union Website

I can certainly see why Ann chose to hide that information from us. It makes her statement about Hillary's conservatism completely laughable and it makes Ann look like a fool. Further, it shows that Ann didn't think we were intelligent enough to go do research and check her claims.

Well, I am that intelligent and I do not like being insulted like that.

But let's not stop here. Let's look at the Presidential campaign and compare policy proposals to see exactly how "conservative" Hillary is, as Ann claims.

On the issue of Health care, John McCain has pledged to keep Health Care in the realm of the Free Market while Hillary wants to implement a socailized Health Care system that has been nothing short of disastrous in Great Britain and Canada. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

On the issue of taxes and the economy, John McCain has pledged to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent while Hillary has proposed removing them and raising taxes. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

On the issue of judicial apointments, John McCain has pledged to appoint justices like John Roberts and Samual Alito. Hillary prefers judges who would legislate from the bench. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

On the issue of terrorism, John McCain has pledged to keep America on the offensive against terrorists and their sponsors. Hillary wants to back down. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

You can see where this is heading, right?

Ann Coulter, like David Hackworth a few years ago, has lost her credibility. She has also lost a fan. I used to read her articles and defend her positions from liberals all over the Internet. I can no longer do so, unless Ann comes out and apologizes for thinking people like me to be less than intelligent enough to do research on our own and think for ourselves.

A Brokered Convention? Stupid Idea!

J.B. Williams and Frank Salvato published a column today in which they proposed a plan by which the conservative base of the GOP can derail a John McCain nomination in St. Paul. I have two words: Stupid idea. In fact, it would have been more appropriate if these two had waited and published this column on April 1st.

If Republicans Really Want Their Party Back ...
J.B. Williams and Frank Salvato
GOPUSA.com
February 14, 2008

And what's worse is that Williams and Salvato give the very reasons why it would be a stupid idea right in their own column:

If 62.4% of Republicans really do oppose McCain becoming the Party nominee, then they need to do something more than whine and complain about it. If their best plan is to stay home in protest come November, or buy into some insane third party fantasy, they will be sadly disappointed with the outcome of their plan. Further, the idea of getting involved in the RNC or Republican Party organizational process -- becoming a committeeman or precinct captain -- and effecting meaningful change is a genuine solution-based thought to consider for the future, but incredibly late for 2008 and a patently unrealistic method of dealing with the current McCain crisis.

Ever hear the old saying: "You snooze, you lose?" Well, look in that second paragraph above and you will see another poetic tag-line: "Incredibly late for 2008."

The vaunted "Conservative base" of the GOP was conspicuously missing from the voting booths on Super Tuesday and conspicuously missing from the campaigns of candidates like Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson. The Conservatives jumped into the fray way too late to make a difference.

And now, after surrendering their chance to be heard the first time around, they are demanding a second chance? Here is what Williams and Salvato are proposing:

Mike Huckabee is still in the race with 240 delegates. Romney is sitting on another 285 delegates with his campaign in a "suspended" state. Both can still collect delegates. Even though neither can actually win the nomination before the convention, the two combined have the power to stop a McCain nomination and force him into an open convention where the delegates are all in play. Simply put, what has to happen between now and July 12th is this. Huckabee and Romney have to continue amassing delegates, denying those delegates to McCain and forcing an open convention. ... The goal of affecting an open convention achieved the process of selecting the legitimate Republican nominee will be rightfully back in the hands of the Republican electorate.

Yes, that same electorate that failed to show up on Super Tuesday or in any of the campaigns before that.

The only goal this ridiculous proposal will accomplish is the disenfranchisement of those GOP voters who got up off of their rear-ends and went out to campaign and vote! Not only would it have a seriously negative effect on the GOP Presidential campaign (two months is not long enough to mount an effective national campaign), it would also lead to disastrous results for local campaigns and elections.

Consider my home state of Virginia. Here in the Commonwealth, John McCain won by a 2-digit margin. What would happen if Williams and Salvato's scheme actually worked and the delegates that we pledged to John McCain were suddenly taken away and forced to vote otherwise? It would mean a huge loss of confidence in the GOP as a whole which would mean a lower voter turnout. After all, why vote if your voice has been deliberately silenced?

Well, we have several key Congressional races going here in Virginia, not the least of which is a Senatorial race for the seat being vacated by John Warner. The GOP candidate, Jim Gilmore has a serious uphill bettle ahead of him to defeat the Dem candidate Mark Warner. If the collective voice of the Virginia voters is silenced in St. Paul, the effect will be a smaller GOP voter turnout for the local races. That would mean a larger Dem majority in both houses of Congress.

This same thing would happen in every other state the John McCain won.

No, a brokered convention will only mean a broken and fractured GOP that won't recover from 2008 for at least six to ten years during which the Dem Socialists would run wild over the U.S. We cannot let this happen.

Williams and Salvato should be encouraged to take their brokered convention plan over to the Dems.

Yes, McCain! And The Real Obama

I know it is still early in the race and many in the GOP are still smarting from John McCain's win on Super Tuesday. But if you really want to rehash that argument, go to the following blog entry and re-read it:

Conservatives Only Have Themselves To Blame For The McCain Mutiny
84rules
February 12, 2008

Since it is clear that John McCain will be the GOP nominee, we need to look forward to November and why we will support our candidate.

Writing for TownHall, Larry Elder asks if the same Republicans who voted for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are the same ones refusing to vote for John McCain. After all, both Reagan and George W. expanded the role of the Federal Government all the while claiming that government was too big.

But Larry gives the main reasons for supporting McCain:

McCain consistently supports the war in Iraq, and enthusiastically backed "the surge," a new approach that caused a dramatic decline in violence along with some signs of political reconciliation. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, damn the consequences. As for the economy, don't conservatives believe that the Bush tax cuts helped to jump-start the economy, expand family income, and create jobs? Sen. McCain voted for the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2006, and supports the repeal of the death tax. His Democratic opponents promise to repeal the cuts and increase taxes on the so-called rich. Campaign promises made separately by Clinton and Obama would grow the budget by between $200 billion and $300 billion annually. As to the Supreme Court, think of the many 5-4 decisions, including but not limited to, Bush v. Gore, the decision that put President Bush in the White House. McCain supported nominees like Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. Why, he even voted for the "reactionary" Judge Robert Bork. Justice John Paul Stevens is 87 years old, with four more justices near or over 70. One more conservative appointee, and Roe v. Wade could be history. Are principled conservatives truly willing to allow that decision to remain for at least another generation? To quote another John, this time McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"

And gives reason why sitting back and letting a liberal Dem take the White House would be a disaster:

The I'd-rather-sit-on-my-hands-than-vote-for-McCain crowd argues that sitting out paves the road for the Party's re-emergence in the mold of Ronald Reagan. But name a federal government program that, once begun, gets undone. New Deal social programs are now fixtures. The federal government created the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide Southern states with electricity. The electricity is there -- but so is the TVA. Imagine a filibuster-proof Democratic-controlled Congress -- one that passes HillaryCare on to an eagerly waiting President with a pen in her hand. Once that program's out of the bottle, good luck on trying to stuff it back in. McCain opposes a government takeover of health care. The irritating Arizona senator, for all his flaws and warts, understands the big issues -- the war, taxes, and the Supreme Court. Our nation remains at war. The stakes are high.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Yes, McCain
Larry Elder
TownHall.com
February 14, 2008

---

And since we now have a good idea of who Senator McCain will be running against, it's time to start doing some comparisons. Ken Blackwell has the following to say about B. Hussein Obama:

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Obama has stated some very lofty goals, but what does he propose to reach those goals?

Ken goes on:

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk. Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck. Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

And given that Mr. Blackwell is African-American, let's not overlook his parting shot:

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Real Obama
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
February 14, 2008

Petition For A Contract With Conservatives

Remember the "Contract With America" that brought the Republicans into power in 1994? It was a good idea at the time and served its purpose. But over the years, the GOP members of Congress forgot that contract and became drunk with power. So drunk, that in 2006, the American people decided that enough was enough.

Well, it is time for Conservatives to renew their dedication to those principles that we claim to hold so dear.

From GOPUSA:

The party of Ronald Reagan -- a collection of social and fiscal conservatives -- saw all their work come together with the Republican Revolution of 1994. Republicans came to power through their dedication to core, conservative principles. Since that time, the conservative base has seen the Republican Party go astray. From runaway spending, to big government programs, to assaults on our First Amendment rights to amnesty for illegal aliens, conservatives have become disheartened, and the time has come for dramatic change. America can thrive under conservative leadership and government. The Republican Party is best equipped to deliver this kind of leadership, but too often, it has not. The time has come when conservative voters can no longer be taken for granted. Conservatives need something more than simple assurances. For our time, effort, money, and votes, we need a pledge. We need a pledge from our presidential nominee to uphold the core Republican values that built this party, and which have taken a backseat to politics in recent years. The Contract with Conservatives is that pledge. It is a pledge to uphold the major conservative ideals that have been pushed aside over the past decade. We, the undersigned, will support our presidential nominee and other candidates for high office, only if they uphold the Contract with Conservatives. It is time to get back to basics. The conservative base will work for candidates who pledge to uphold conservative values.

Here is what the Contract entails:

• Secure America's borders
  
• Enforce employment laws
  
• No amnesty
  
• Make President Bush's tax cuts permanent
  
• Reduce taxes, both on business and individuals
  
• Simplify the tax code by moving to a flat tax or the Fair Tax
  
• No favorites -- All tax cuts should be across the board
  
• Reduce the size of the federal government
  
• Reform entitlement programs
  
• Respect states' rights and limit the reach of the federal government as stated in the Constitution
  
• Cut spending
  
• Support a balanced budget amendment
  
• Eliminate earmarks and support stand-alone spending bills
  
• Vigorously nominate and support the confirmation of judges who follow the law, not those who legislate from the bench
  
• Wage a real fight against left-wing attempts to block judicial nominees
  
• Respect the rights of the unborn and promote laws which will protect innocent human life
  
• Support the overturning of Roe v. Wade
  
• Block any efforts to fund or promote embryonic stem cell research
  
• Repeal the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
  
• Embrace First Amendment rights
  

If you believe in these ideas, please visit the following link and sign the petition:

Supporting The Contract With Conservatives
GOPUSA.com

Coalition For A Conservative Majority

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay have come together to form a new grassroots organization: The Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM). The stated goals for this group are as follows:

The Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM) will provide American conservatives a new voice in public policy and politics by inspiring, identifying, organizing and training them to become directly engaged in American citizenship and become effective activists for conservative principles and ideas.

The Vision:

• The Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM) will provide American conservatives a new voice in public policy and politics
  
• We will inspire, identify, organize and train conservatives to become directly engaged in American citizenship and become effective activists for conservative principles in public policy and politics
  
• CCM will seek to strategically expand and strengthen America's conservative majority
  

The Mission:

• Communicate a clear, consistent and inspiring conservative message to the American voting public
  
• Champion conservative causes in need of support and public exposure
  
• Lead the way in providing conservatives with sound public policy and political strategies
  
• Expand the conservative support base through voter identification, education, training, registration and other elements of grassroots activism
  

A message of unity from the CCM website:

The ongoing presidential campaign and lingering frustrations about the Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 have further frayed conservative cohesion. And now, according to the mainstream media, the old conservative coalition is cracking up, as security, economic, and cultural conservatives go their separate ways. CCM offers a different perspective. After all, our internal friction has always been a creative, rather than a destructive, force. Our agenda may be diverse, but our vision has never been more united. The issues have changed, but our ideals have not: we still want a smaller government leading a freer nation, with respect both to the values that made first us global leaders and the responsibilities that come with global leadership. We want few laws passed but all laws enforced. We want a nation great because she is good. Conservatives believe that security without prosperity is fleeting and that prosperity without security is impossible. We believe the family - rather than the group or the consumer - is the basic unit of society and civilization and that government as such has a special responsibility to protect our families, and in particular our children from all enemies: foreign, domestic, or judicial. CCM will drive a broad agenda across these touchstones - Security, Prosperity, and Family - informing, inspiring, and activating conservatives to unite around a common vision and common destiny.

Come visit the CCM website and see for yourself. This is only the beginning. If you want the Conservative message to spread, please join:

The Coalition For A Conservative Majority

We were too late to have an impact on the 2008 GOP Primaries. We should strive to never be so late again.

Some Cartoons