John McCain TV Ad

No point in waiting for the Dems to decide who their nominee is going to be before launching the GOP National Campaign. Here is a John McCain National TV ad. Very tastefully done if you ask me:

Dems Spin McCain's "100 Years" Comment

The Dem campaign strategy seems to be "Always lie first, then obfuscate the truth later." Due to the complicity Old Media voluntarily gives the DNC, it is an easy thing for them to do. But only the most naive and ignorant will actually follow them on it.

Their latest attempt at spinning an untruth has to do with a comment that John McCain made about Iraq. Now, before we get to what the Dems are spinning on this, let's look at McCain's full quote. From Kathryn Jean Lopez writing for TownHall.com:

What the "100 years" talk refers to is something McCain rightly said in response to a question during a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January. The question regarded Bush's statement that we could be in Iraq for 50 more years. McCain sensibly responded: "Make it 100. We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that's fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

If you read that whole thing, you know that Senator McCain was referring to keeping a U.S. presence in a very unstable part of the world. We've done so in Europe and the Far East since the end of World War II. Those regions, which up to that point had been extremely volatile, have been stable ever since.

Nowhere in that quote did Senator McCain advocate keeping the war going for 100 years. But the Dems, true to their strategy of misinformation, would have you believe just that:

"Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, (Sen. John McCain is) offering us a 100-year occupation," Sen. Barack Obama said on the fifth anniversary of the coalition's move on the then-oppressed Iraq. But it could have been any day; Obama uses the sound bite often enough. In late March, Sen. Hillary Clinton refused to be charmed by McCain's call to close Guantanamo Bay and droned on as she does: "While there is much to praise in Sen. McCain's speech, he and I continue to have a fundamental disagreement on Iraq. Like President Bush, Sen. McCain continues to oppose a swift and responsible withdrawal from Iraq. Like President Bush, Sen. McCain discounts the warnings of our senior military leadership of the consequences of the Iraq war on the readiness of our armed forces, and on the need to focus on the forgotten front line in Afghanistan. Like President Bush, Sen. McCain wants to keep us tied to another country's civil war, and said 'it would be fine' with him if U.S. troops were in Iraq for 50 or even 100 years. That, in a nutshell, is the Bush/McCain Iraq policy."

So, the Marshall Plan, along with the strategy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and later, Harry Truman were all simply precursors to the Bush/McCain Iraq policy? Any student of history would be rolling on the floor with laughter at this point.

The Dems need to pick up a history book and read it thoroughly. They are completely clueless when it comes to foreign policy issues and how to effectively deal with them.

Oh yeah, they also might want to consider actually telling the truth for once, as hard as that will be for Hillary and Barack to do.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Dems Attack McCain's '100 Years'
Kathryn Jean Lopez
TownHall.com
March 28, 2008

Uprooting The New Racism

In a previous post in which I excerpted a Pat Buchanan column, I stated that I have no white guilt to give. Well, in his most recent column, Pat illustrates why this is so.

Barack Obama gave a speech in which he explains why there is white resentment, but then back-peddled to the same old worn-out liberal rhetoric that tries to draw on white guilt which just doesn't exist.

From TownHall.com:

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race," said Barack. "As far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything. ... So when they ... hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed ... resentment builds over time." On this issue, Barack seemed to have nailed it. But then he revealed the distorting lens through which he and his fellow liberals see the world. To them, black rage is grounded in real grievances, while white resentments are exaggerated and exploited. White resentments, said Barack, "have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. ... Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism." What Barack is saying here is that the resentment of black America is justified, but the resentment of white America is a myth manufactured and manipulated by the conservative commentariat. Barack is attempting to de-legitimize the other side of the argument. Yet, who is he to claim the moral high ground? Where does this child of privilege who went to two Ivy League schools, then spent 20 years in a church where racist rants were routine, come off preaching to anyone? What are Barack's moral credentials to instruct white folks on what they must do, when he failed to do what any decent father should have done: Take his wife and daughters out of a church where hate had a home in the pulpit?

Yep. Sen. Obama is the last person who should be lecturing us. Instead of a "dialogue" that he himself called for, he is merely lecturing the same race-baiting tripe that has been coming out of the mouths of leftist politicians for years.

More:

Longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote that all great movements eventually become a business, then degenerate into a racket. That is certainly true of the civil rights movement. Begun with just demands for an end to state-mandated discrimination based on race, it ends with unjust demands for state-mandated preferences, based on race. Under affirmative action, white men are passed over for jobs and promotions in business and government, and denied admission to colleges and universities to which their grades and merits entitle them, because of their gender and race.

Supporters of Barack Obama need to get a clue. This guy is a racist, marxist political hack who will lead America into a disaster, socially and financially.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Uprooting The New Racism
Pat Buchanan
TownHall.com
March 28, 2008

The $53 Trillion Asteroid

I like watching Glenn Beck and so does my wife. But Glenn can put together a pretty good column too. Lately, he takes on Social Secuirty and laments how everyone knows it is going to go belly-up but no one seems to want to fix it.

As an analogy, Glenn uses an asteroid strike. We know the asteroid is getting closer and closer, but because the actual impact is so many years in the future, everyone assumes a future government will take care of it. Apparently, our government has the same attitude towards the Social Security crisis.

From Glenn's column:

Let me give you three numbers that will put this economic asteroid into perspective: $200 billion, $14.1 trillion, and $53 trillion. - $200 billion is the approximate total amount of write-downs announced so far as a result of the current credit crisis. - $14.1 trillion is the size of the entire U.S. economy - And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made. While no one will ever mistake me for Alan Greenspan, it seems to me that the third number is quite a bit larger than the other two. It also seems very few people care. According to the latest Social Security and Medicare Trustees report (and I use that term loosely since it has the word "trust" in it) released earlier this week, the economic asteroid will first make impact in the year 2019 when the Medicaid trust fund becomes insolvent.

Let's see, that is a little over ten years away. So what are the plans for dealing with this? Nothing, so far.

More:

Realizing that Americans have become pretty much numb to these kinds of ridiculous sounding proposals, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tried to up the ante this week. "Without change," he said, "Rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues, and threaten America's future prosperity." Now, I know we're all worried about important sounding things that none of us understand, like CDO's, SIV's, and Credit Default Swaps, but did you hear what our Treasury Secretary just said? "Rising costs will ... consume nearly all projected federal revenues ..." Translation: Every single tax dollar that is sent to Washington will be used to pay for just these two programs. That means no money is left for anything else. Nothing. No Department of Defense or Homeland Security, no Department of Energy, no Department of Justice, no Environmental Protection Agency, no Internal Revenue Service. Actually, knowing our government, they'd probably keep the IRS going somehow.

It seems pretty clear that Social Security is going to go under and it is threatening to drag the entire U.S. economy down with it. Either we need to seriously reform it (perhaps personal, private retirement accounts) or do away with it altogether by phasing it out.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The $53 Trillion Asteroid
Glenn Beck
CNN.com
March 14, 2008

If Principles Matter, So Does McCain

Are you one of those "Principled Conservatives" who is till seething over Senator McCain's clinching of the GOP nomination for President? If so, you really need to read the latest column by Mark Hillman, former Majority Leader of the Colorado Senate. He was the type of Republican who supported the "anybody but McCain" mantra but has since come out in support of Senator McCain's candidacy.

Here's why:

Recently, some conservatives behave as if they have nothing to lose if McCain loses. But a McCain loss equals a Barack Obama win, and we have plenty lose from that. Conservatives remain unified on three key policy objectives: pro-growth tax policy and no-nonsense budgeting, judges who respect the constitution, and a resolve to defeat Islamic terrorists. On these key issues the choice between McCain and Obama cannot be dismissed as the lesser of two evils. The choice is clear and the stakes are enormous. McCain is one of just five Senators who flatly reject pork-barrel budget earmarks. He has vowed to veto any spending bill containing earmarks and has already incurred the wrath of several pork-loving Republicans. That's a welcome change from the you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours spending of the last eight years. By contrast, Obama has promised programs calculated to grow the already bloated budget by $900 billion. Despite his vote against the Bush tax cuts, McCain has vowed to fight to preserve them. Obama conveniently forgets that middle class families benefited most from the Bush tax cuts and instead demagogues against "tax cuts for the rich." However, he can't pay for his big government utopia without squeezing the working class hard. As a Vietnam veteran, McCain understands the lasting consequences of an ignominious defeat. America's stature was badly damaged for years after Vietnam. We now see that McCain's prescription for Iraq after Saddam was right, and the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy was wrong.

But it is the question of Supreme Court Justices that should weigh the heaviest on the minds of "Principled Conservatives." What differences will we be looking at there? What are the potential losses on that front?

However, two things are indisputable: the constructionist justices on today's court were all appointed by Republicans, and the Democrat appointments are all undeniably liberal activists. John Paul Stephens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two justices most likely to retire soon, are both activists who re-write the constitution in contravention of the plain text. Replacing either or both with another John Roberts, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — each of whom McCain supported — could at last restore the court's historic role as a defender of broad individual liberty and a restraint against over-reaching government. If Obama makes the next appointment, we can be certain he will fortify the court's activist wing. Should a constructionist justice retire or die, Obama could swiftly reverse the gains of the last 28 years.

And finally, Mr. Hillman addresses the idea that allowing a liberal to win the White House would somehow be a good thing.

Some conservatives argue that a Democrat victory would galvanize Republicans for 2010 and produce a public backlash, a la 1994. That's a tremendous gamble. Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years from 1955 to 1995. In the Senate, Democrats ruled for 34 of those years. Here in Colorado, perhaps more than anywhere else, Republicans should realize how quickly political fortunes can change and how hard it is to reverse that tide. Conservatives generally recognize short-sighted self-indulgence when practiced by others. Now many conservatives are in danger of practicing a suicidal self-indulgence of their own. We must put aside self-pity and frustration and do what we always have done: choose the right and responsible course for our country. If instead we purposefully withhold our votes to gratify our personal pride and prejudice, the surrendered freedoms, suffocating tax burdens, and national insecurity that result will be as much our responsibility as that of those we "helped" to elect.

That last paragraph says it all. It should be emblazoned on banners all over the Republican Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

If Principles Matter, So Does McCain
Mark Hillman
TownHall.com
March 26, 2008

Veterans Support John McCain For President

If you are a Veteran, please add your name to the Vets4McCain Roll Call. You can sign-up here:

Veterans For John McCain

Obama's De Facto Running Mate And A Brief For Whitey

Bill O'Reilly has labeled it the "Pastor Disaster." Yes, I am talking about Jeremiah Wright. I know, Old Media tried to bury the story by inserting a small gaff John McCain made in Iraq, but that turned out to be small potatoes compared to this. Even Hillary Clinton is turning the spotlight back to this story.

But I am revisiting it for a different reason. While growing up, many in the establishment tried to make me feel guilty for being a white man. Well, I'm not. Apparently, Barack Obama is banking on people like me have this "white guilt." He's going to lose on that bet. I have no white guilt to give. And here is why: racism coming from blacks is just as bad as racism coming from whites.

Doug Patton gives a good example of how Obama is simply a black racist. From his most recent column:

Barack Obama would not have stayed in this Afrocentric, separatist church run by a paranoid, bigoted leader if he did not subscribe to the rhetoric that was being preached. His insistence on defending Jeremiah Wright tells us a great deal about what Obama himself believes.

Nothing could be simpler, or more clear, or more to the point.

Patton goes on to tell us more about what an Obama Presidency would mean to us:

He believes the government is a tool for redistributing wealth from those who earn it to those who don't. He thinks government, which rarely does anything efficiently, could and should dispense health care to 300 million people. He believes our borders should remain wide open and would do nothing to close them. He believes that abortionists should have the right to kill a newborn child who somehow miraculously survives an abortion. He wants to wave the white flag in Iraq, the central front in the war against radical jihadism, thereby surrendering to forces which will be further emboldened by our timidity, just as they were after Bill Clinton's misadventures in Somalia. ... He wants to raise taxes to levels this nation has never seen. His reckless collectivist economic policies would destroy small businesses, make everything more expensive and empower government to have more control over our lives than at any time in our history.

Any questions?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Has Chosen His Running Mate
Doug Patton
GOPUSA.com
March 25, 2008

---

So, why don't I have "white guilt?" Well, Pat Buchanan explains that with a no-holds-barred column about that very topic.

Pat wondered how Obama would respond to the revelations that Wright was a lying, bigoted racist. It turns out that Obama responded using the same old rhetoric that has been used by race-baters since the 70's. In other words, nothing we haven't already heard before.

From TownHall.com:

What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure? Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves." Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

The so-called "leaders" of the black community seem to have only one rule: "Blame Whitey first." Well, Pat also looks at what Whitey has done to atone for the sins of slavery and racism.

Read on:

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America. Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these: First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks. We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude? Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks. Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids. Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent? Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

If there is to be some sort of dialogue, the above facts must be included in the discussion.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Brief For Whitey
Pat Buchanan
TownHall.com
March 21, 2008

Pope Baptizes Prominent Italian Muslim

Now this is something I doubt you will ever hear on the Today Show or Good Morning America. We've heard alot about everyday people converting to Islam and then expressing support for extremist elements. But when have we heard of the exact opposite occurring? When have we heard about a Muslim converting to Christianity because he/she opposed extremist elements?

It happened in Italy. From TownHall.com.com:

Italy's most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, converted to Catholicism Saturday in a baptism by the pope at a Vatican Easter service. An Egyptian-born, non-practicing Muslim who is married to a Catholic, Magdi Allam infuriated some Muslims with his books and columns in the newspaper Corriere della Sera newspaper, where he is a deputy editor. He titled one book "Long Live Israel." ... Allam, 55, told the newspaper Il Giornale in a December interview that his criticism of Palestinian suicide bombing provoked threats on his life in 2003, prompting the Italian government to provide him with a sizable security detail. ... Allam also explained his decision to title a recent book "Viva Israele" by saying he wrote it after he received death threats from Hamas. "Having been condemned to death, I have reflected a long time on the value of life. And I discovered that behind the origin of the ideology of hatred, violence and death is the discrimination against Israel. Everyone has the right to exist except for the Jewish state and its inhabitants," he said. "Today, Israel is the paradigm of the right to life."

Interesting.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pope Baptizes Prominent Italian Muslim
Nicole Winfield
TownHall.com
March 22, 2008

An Appropriate Cartoon

A Few Words About Pork-Barrel Spending

We all know what pork-barrel spending is. It is also known by the term "earmarks" and figured very prominently in that pork-laden transportation bill which, among other things, included money to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. It got quite a bit of attention as I recall.

But now, most of that attention is negative. Taxpayers are fed-up about paying for earmarks and Congressional spending sprees. House Minority Leader John Boehner tells us why in his most recent column:

House Republicans have taken a stand against wasteful Washington spending by calling for a complete freeze on all "earmarks" and pork-barrel projects. While our challenge has largely fallen on deaf ears — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, could shut down the earmark process tomorrow if she wanted to — our cause has a strong ally in Sen. John McCain. Mr. McCain has been a leader in the quest to end pork-barrel spending and has led by example — the senator, like myself, doesn't request earmarks. He strongly supported a one-year moratorium on all earmarks in the U.S. Senate. And as president, Mr. McCain has promised that any "earmarked, pork-barrel bill that comes across my desk, I'll veto it."

Ironically, a good number of Republicans in the Senate voted opposite John McCain.

But let's look beyond the Congress:

Mr. McCain's opposition to wasteful spending is a breath of fresh air to taxpayers who foot the bill for congressional spending sprees. Americans aren't interested in paying for teapot museums, peanut storage and "monuments to me," where congressmen name buildings and other projects after themselves. And with families feeling the pinch of high gas prices and skyrocketing health care costs, they're certainly not interested in tax increases.

That is absolutely the most prominent fact in the column. With energy costs going up, the last thing we taxpayers need is any kind of tax increase at all. Look at what subsidies for ethanol has done: given us higher gas and food prices and more dependence on oil. That was and still is madness.

Well, we know where John McCain stands on earmarks. Where do the two uber-liberal Dem candidates stand?

Not surprisingly, Mr. McCain's Democratic opponents have quite a different record on spending. In 2007 alone, Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat, earmarked $340 million in taxpayer dollars. Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, earmarked more than $91 million. As recently as last week, both campaigns refused to disclose their full list of earmark requests. The pressure finally got to Mr. Obama, who released his 2005-06 earmark requests on March 13. His requests include $1 million for a hospital where his wife served as vice president of community and external affairs. While Mrs. Clinton continues to decline demands that she make her requests public, one nonpartisan watchdog group says the senator landed 360 earmarks from 2002 to 2006. In 2007, Mrs. Clinton admitted to seeking funding for a hippie museum in Bethel, N.Y. Her spokesman has stated flatly that Mrs. Clinton is "very proud" of her earmarks, which cost taxpayers more than $2.2 billion.

We definitely need to bring earmarks and pork spending under control. So far, only the Republicans have shown any effort to get rid of earmark spending. Where exactly does Congress get the money to go on spending sprees like this?

Read this:

Last week, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama both voted for the Democrats' $3 trillion budget that included the largest tax increase in American history. According to the Associated Press, the budget would raise income taxes "on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700" to pay for more wasteful spending.

We need to have John McCain in the White House and the Dems out of power in Congress.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

American Taxpayers Beware
Rep. John Boehner
TownHall.com
March 21, 2008

Peace Loving Muslims

I think I can still count on one hand the number of Muslims who have come out and condemned terrorist attacks committed by other Muslims. But, they are so few and far between that I can't remember their names anymore. I think there was one last year and then another one the year before that.

That is the point of Dr. Walter Williams' latest column. It is short, simple and to the point. Here are some excerpts:

We're told it's only that 1 percent, out of 1.2 billion Muslims, who are fanatical jihadists who believe America is the Great Satan, cause of all evil, and should be attacked and destroyed.

By the way, 1 percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million.

Think back to the 1930s when the Japanese murdered an estimated 3 million to 10 million people in China, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and Indochina; and on December 7, 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. I'm betting that most of Japan's at-the-time 60 million population were peace-loving people and would have wanted nothing to do with the brutal slaughter in China and the attack on the U.S. In formulating our response to the attack, should President Roosevelt have taken into account the fact that most Japanese are peace-loving people ruled by fanatics? ... Horrible acts can be committed in countries where most of the people are peace-loving and simply want to be left alone to attend to their affairs. I imagine that described most of the people in the former Soviet Union; however, that did not stop the killing of an estimated 62 million people between 1917 and 1987. The same can be said of the Chinese people, but it didn't stop the killing of 35 million of their countrymen during Mao Zedong's reign. ... At this particular time, fanatical jihadists are calling the terrorism shots in many Muslim countries. Their success in committing terrorist acts is in no small part the result of the actions by the millions of peace-loving fellow Muslims. First, there is not enough condemnation of their terrorist acts by the Muslim community. More important is the direct or indirect assistance terrorists receive through the silence of their fellow Muslims. There is no way terrorists can carry on their operations, obtain explosive materials, run terrorist training camps, raise money without the knowledge of other Muslims, whether they're government officials, bankers, family members, friends or neighbors.

During the liberation of the Concentration Camps in Germany and other parts of Europe, the people living in nearby towns said they had no idea what the Nazis were doing. It was a lie. They knew full well what was going on, just as Muslim communities know full well what is happening within their own strata.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Peace-Loving Muslims
Dr. Walter Williams
TownHall.com
March 19, 2008

Presidential Tax Plan Comparison (Updated)

"It's the economy, stupid!" Isn't that what the libs keep yelling at us when we Conservatives try to point out that we are winning in Iraq? Well, let's look at each candidate's position on taxes, updated because several candidates have dropped out since the last time I posted a comparison like this.

Go to the following website:

Presidential Candidate Tax Plan Comparison
TaxFoundation.org

Put a check in the boxes next to the names you want to compare. Then hit the Compare button.

You'll notice quite the difference between John McCain and his two uber-liberal potential opponents.

Obama's Speech

Damage control. Nothing but damage control. That and a hefty dose of deflection.

Dr. Thomas Sowell said it better than anyone else could have in his most recent column:

Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead. Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing? No one had to be in church the day Wright made his inflammatory and obscene remarks to know about them. The cable news journalists who are playing the tapes of those sermons were not there. The tapes were on sale in the church itself. Obama knew that because he had bought one or more of those tapes.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Obama knew about the racist and anti-American nature of Jeremiah Wright. 20 years worth of attendence? $20,000 in donations? He definitely knew.

Accordingly, Obama's Philadelphia speech -- a theatrical masterpiece -- will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now "move on," even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush's 2000 election victory. Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama's speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.

That really is it. That is the damage control part. Most of middle America will remember this come Election Day. I know I will remember it.

And Dr. Sowell's parting shot:

Shelby Steele depicts Barack Obama as a man without real convictions, "an iconic figure who neglected to become himself." Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people's psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy. But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No.

An excellent column.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Speech
Dr. Thomas Sowell
TownHall.com
March 19, 2008

The Barack Obama Double Standard

So, what would happen if the pastor at President Bush's church, or the Minister in John McCain's church were videotaped making racist and offensive comments during a service? Would Old Media treat them with the same kid gloves that they've treated Barack Obama and the racist pastor of his church, Jeremiah Wright? Would the Republicans have been steadfast in their support?

No, not at all. The Republicans would very rightly denounce their candidate for being even remotely connected to such talk. For some reason, the Dems don't feel the need to become anywhere near that indignant. Neither does Old Media it seems.

Doug Patton's latest column is about this very double standard. He writes:

And yet excuses are made for Barack Obama, who now finds himself in exactly this situation. Obama's pastor of more than two decades - the man who married Barack and Michelle Obama, who christened their daughters, who inspired the title of the candidate's book, "The Audacity of Hope," - is now at the center of a storm that would have destroyed the candidacy of any Republican the day the story broke. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for the last 36 years, has been caught on tape denouncing the United States and the white race in terms that should shock and disgust every thinking American. Wright and the church swear allegiance to the "mother country" - Africa. (Presumably this includes the Obama family.) Rather than trying to infuse his congregation with hope and encouragement, Wright poisons them with vitriol about how the U.S. government has tried to commit genocide against the black community using drugs and the AIDS virus as weapons of choice. "Don't say God bless America," Wright screams in one sermon. "God damn America!"

Can you imagine the outcry if that last line had been uttered by a pastor for a church that a Republican attended?

More:

If Barack Obama has not been paying attention in church, it is apparent that his wife, Michelle, has. Campaigning for her husband recently, she said that for the first time in her adult life, she is finally proud of her country. In a separate speech, she said America is "a mean country." Obama is friends with William Ayers, an admitted domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground, which declared war on the United States and claimed responsibility for bombing several government buildings, including the Pentagon and the State Department building, in the 1970s. In an interview with The New York Times, ironically published on the morning of September 11, 2001, Ayers was quoted as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." Now a tenured professor at the University of Chicago (only in America!), Ayers met Barack Obama in the 1990s. They have remained friends ever since. We are judged not just by our words, but by the company we keep. The litmus test should not be whether or not everyone a candidate knows is ideal. That is an impossible standard. The true measure of a man is in his ability to choose friends with which he can be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder, not those about whom he must equivocate and for whom he must apologize.

I can't help but wonder if this is the "change" that Barack Obama supporters keep touting. Change to a racist, militant President? Change to a President that openly keeps friendships with known militants and terrorists?

Perhaps some Barack Obama supporters can leave some comments as to why a racist, terror supporting President would mean a "good change?"

They would have to be some awesomely good comments too. Those of us born after 1964 have no white guilt to give.

You can access the complete,column on-line here:

The Barack Obama Double Standard
Doug Patton
GOPUSA.com
March 17, 2008

---

And before anyone starts to claim that "Obama didn't know," please check out the following at NewsBusters.org:

On June 5th, 2007, Senator Barack Obama spoke before 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University's Convocation Center. Most of them were pastors and ministers attending a conference there. He was there to speak on mostly post Katrina issues and to criticize the Bush administration's efforts during that natural disaster. Obama tried his catch phrase of the moment, saying that a "quiet riot" might be occurring in America and he affirmed that he felt that America was a racist nation, that the reaction to Katrina had just "pulled back the screen" on America's racism. Obama also used rhetoric heavily doused with religious symbolism. But, that boiler plate aside, there was two very interesting segments in Obama's remarks concerning his racist "spiritual mentor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. that are not getting the press it deserves. ... As the speech kicked off (at 1:07 into the video), Obama introduced the Rev. Wright to the audience with these glowing and highly personal words: "And then I've got to give a special shout out to my Pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He's a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country, so please everybody give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Trinity United Church of Christ. Where's he at? There he is. That's him, that's him right there. You wearing a suit today, right"? This reveals a very intimate portrait of Obama and Wright's relationship. Notice the last bit where Obama jokes about Wright's penchant for wearing an Afrocentric style of dress and that his wearing of a suit at that event was uncommon. These are the remarks of a close friend to another loved intimate, not the words of a man making perfunctory comments. Later in his comments Obama mentioned Wright again. (At 13:43 in the video) "You know, I've been on a journey trying to get at the truth that question for a long time. I mention Rev. Wright... I first met Rev. Wright when I moved to Chicago after college. And that's where I met Rev. Wright and started going to Trinity United Church of Christ and he helped me on another journey and introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. And I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things that I was too weak to accomplish myself, maybe he could accomplish them for me if I placed my trust in him. And I learned that ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things when they believe in him and they come together and are guided by him." So, we see that Obama obviously had a close, long-term relationship with Wright not a casual one where Obama might have missed the Reverend’s long-standing agenda.

Obama clearly knew and now is trying to distance himself. Only the most naive will believe that he "didn't know."

Check out the video of the speech here:

Video Library, CBS Chicago 2
CBS Chicago 2
March 16, 2008

You can check out the NewsBusters article on-line here:

Contrary To Claims, Obama Very Close With Racist Preacher, Wright
Warner Todd Huston
NewsBusters.org
March 16, 2008

Senate Approves Federal Budget That Would End Bush Tax Cuts

So, this is what we get for bringing in a Democrat controlled Congress back in 2006. The Dems are trying to destroy the economic progress that we, as a nation, have made since the 2001 tax cuts went into effect. If they think we are in a recession now, the tax increases the Dems want to enact would send us spiraling into a full blown depression.

But another interesting aspect of the bill was an amendment that would put a moratorium on earmark spending. All three current Presidential candidates voted for it, but a vast majority of Senators (including the two from here in Virginia) voted against it:

John McCain, the GOP nominee-to-be, couldn't attract even a majority of Senate Republicans to vote with him Thursday night behind the earmark moratorium touted by party conservatives as a way to restore the GOP's credibility with voters.

Interesting. Now Senator McCain seems to be too Conservative for his Party. What's up with that?

But this is even more telling about what will be in store for us if the Dems win the White House this year:

The underlying House and Senate Democratic federal budget plans for 2009, though nonbinding, drew blasts from Republicans for allowing some or all of Bush's tax cuts to die in about three years. ... The Senate passed a companion plan by a 51-44 vote. It endorsed extending $340 billion of Bush's tax cuts but balked at continuing all of them. ... "This may be the last bastion in America where they don't get it," he told reporters after Thursday night's vote. "Americans are sick and tired of the way we do business in Washington. As president, I promise the American people ... the first earmarked, pork-barrel bill that comes across my desk, I'll veto it."

Included in those 51 votes was the vote of Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) who during his campaign in 2006 aired a television commercial in which he unambiguously said that he would never vote to raise taxes. Unfortunately, even though we know how big of a liar he is, we have to endure his betrayals for the next four years.

Here is Senator McCain's take on taxes:

However, on taxes, the Arizona Republican voted to extend the full roster of Bush's tax cuts, which he opposed seven years ago as being tilted in favor of the wealthy.

If I understand correctly, one of the big complaints against Senator McCain is that he is against the Bush Tax Cuts. So, if he was still truly against cutting taxes, wouldn't he have voted the opposite way on this bill?

Democratic rivals Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois both voted to extend only some of Bush's tax cuts while allowing cuts in income tax rates and investments expire. They joined other Democrats in a 52-47 vote against extending $376 billion of them.

This is what we got because the "angry Conservatives" stayed home on Election Day 2006. Will they also stay home in 2008? I certainly hope not.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senate Approves Federal Budget That Would End Bush Tax Cuts
Associated Press via FoxNews.com
March 14, 2008

John McCain Makes First Overseas Trip As Presumptive GOP Nominee

The interesting, albeit irrelevant, argument going on between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is all about experience and readiness to take over as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. The truth is that neither one has anywhere near the experience and readiness of Senator John McCain.

As such, John McCain is taking his first overseas trip as the presumptive GOP nominee although officially, he is making the trip as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Elizabeth Holmes of the Wall Street Journal notes the following:

"John knows a lot of the leaders of our allied countries both in Europe and the Middle East very well," says Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent who has been a staunch McCain backer. "They respect him. They trust him. And, believe it or not, they even like him," says the lawmaker, who is joining the trip. Sen. McCain is adamant that he will keep the focus on national security and won't talk politics but "understands the charge" that some people will still see this as a campaign trip. He points to his regular trips overseas, including seven other visits to Iraq, as proof that this is only more of the same. Even so, this will be Sen. McCain's first trip as a general-election contender and will likely be received differently by world leaders and U.S. allies. When word of the trip first leaked out last week after Sen. McCain received the necessary number of delegates, a reporter asked him whether he should take time away from his domestic campaign agenda. "We got eight months," he said. "I think you probably have time to catch up on issues that are important." Among the most important: areas of conflict. Upon returning, Sen. McCain says he will give a national-security speech, something he says he has done in the past but then added with a chuckle, "Obviously this one would hopefully be paid more attention to."

Neither Obama nor Clinton have the experience, readiness or clout to even come close to John McCain on this issue.

We need to draw many, many more comparisons between the candidates just like this one.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Trip May Enhance
Perceived Foreign-Policy Edge
Elizabeth Holmes
Wall Street Journal
March 15, 2008

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax

Remember the Energy Act of 2005? Remember how ethanol was to be our savior from high gas prices and was supposed to help us get off of our dependence on foreign oil? Well, those promises were as empty as the space that fills the light-years between solar systems.

As you have probably noticed, gas prices have gone up and you've probably also noticed that we are still just as dependent, if not moreso, on foreign oil as we were before. You've probably also noticed the unintended side-effect of higher food prices for us consumers to pay.

Anyone schooled in basic economics would have seen this coming. Further, anyone schooled in basic economics can see where it is going and more importantly, why.

Dr. Walter Williams notes the following in his latest column:

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines. Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent. Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone. There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Because this whole thing has been a sham and a hoax. The only results are that we have less efficient fuels, higher prices for food, use of even more oil to produce the ethanol and only the big corn and ethanol companies and interests are showing any profit from it.

Dr. Williams goes on:

But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot. The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits.

So, when are the socialist Dems going to investigate "Big Corn" for price gouging?

Congress needs to end this madness now, before it costs us so much that we won't be able to afford any new research into truly viable alternative energy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
Dr. Walter Williams
TownHall.com
March 12, 2008

The Top Nine "Changes" Barack Obama Would Make As President

I still watch the news and see the Obama supporters swooning as if they were following Jesus Christ into Jerusalem. Of course, Jesus would never espouse the positions that Obama has staked out for himself. But, do Obama's supporters really know those positions?

Check out what John Hawkins has for us from TownHall.com regarding the promises Barack Obama has made:

#1) Weakening America's Military: Barack Obama has pledged, among other things, to make defense cuts during war time, to cut spending on national missile defense, that he won't weaponize space, to slow development of future combat systems, and to seek a "world without nuclear weapons." Is this a man who can be trusted as Commander-In-Chief? #2) Losing the War in Iraq: Obama is promising to throw away the hard earned gains our troops have made in Iraq by immediately removing combat brigades each month, regardless of the situation on the ground, and by having all of our "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly warned Barack and, for that matter, Hillary that they could create a "chaotic situation" with their policy that could take the "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight." ... #4) Pro-Partial Birth Abortion: It's never a surprise to find a Democrat who's a big fan of abortion, but Obama goes above and beyond the call of duty. He had a perfect rating of 100% from NARAL in 2005, 2006, and 2007, opposes "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions," and he even opposed banning partial birth abortions. If you want to see as many women as humanly possible in this country putting their own children to death via abortion, vote Obama. #5) Legalizing Marijuana: Obama, a former (we hope) druggie, who has admitted to using marijuana and cocaine, has said that he favors "decriminalizing marijuana." Perhaps you can't blame him for wanting to make it easier for people to get drugs since, after all, he used them and look how he turned out. If Barack gets into the White House, one day mothers all over America can tell their children that they'll never be anything in life if they use hard drugs and those children can reply, "Well, at least I can be President!" #6) Handing 845 billion dollars of your money to other nations: Obama's Global Poverty Act would commit the United States to spending, over the next 13 years, 845 billion dollars more than what we already do on global poverty. Obama followed that up with a release that said in part, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty..." If Obama actually believes that not only is the United States capable of "eliminating extreme poverty," but that we should actually make that utopian dream a "priority," then he's far too naive to be in the White House.

The final three are Big Spending, Tax-Payer funded Amnesty for Illegals and massive gun grabbing.

Obama is clearly the most leftist candidate out there. And I do mean out there.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Top Nine "Changes" Barack Obama Would Make As President
John Hawkins
TownHall.com
March 7, 2008

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

And here we have another example of a Global Warming alarmist converting from fanatical activist to scientific skeptic. Why would he do so? Because he is a scientist and was able to see all of the data, not the cherry-picked numbers Al Gore would allow him to see.

From DailyTech.com:

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was. That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center. After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

Here is what he saw with the new theory and the data:



That is certainly more accurate and complete than Al Gore's claim that the polar ice cap would be gone soon. (The polar ice seems to have come back on its own.)

This leaves a big question:

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution. Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always. So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down. NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

So, would you rather fund a politcal agenda, or a real scientific effort into research and experiment that leads to greater knowledge and understanding?

I know which one I would choose.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
Michael Asher
DailyTech.com
March 6, 2008

The Base Is Wrong About The Gang Of 14

It seems as though the so-called Conservatives of the Republican Party (I say "so-called" because they were so conspicuously absent during the early primary campaigns) are grasping at anything to snipe at John McCain about and try to paint him as a liberal. They usually fail when confronted with the facts.

So let's look at the facts behind the Gang of 14 deal that occurred in 2005. The claim is that John McCain sold out the GOP for personal gain. But let's check that against the facts of history. From Richard Baehr writing for Real Clear Politics:

For the GOP in its then-ascendant state, such a nuclear option seemed like a good way to stick it to the Democrats, and get a bunch of judicial nominees who had been held up through the confirmation process quickly. ... But the big test came when Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court. Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58-42, with 54 Republicans and 4 Democrats supporting him. Lincoln Chafee, desperately trying to appease Democratic voters in his home state of Rhode Island , was the lone GOP Senator to vote no. ... But the tally of 58 for confirmation is indicative of the fact that had the 7 Democrats who agreed to the compromise all voted no on a cloture vote, Alito's nomination could have been held up by the minority through a filibuster. ... The gang of 14 compromise helped two Supreme Court nominees get approved quickly and a few Appeals Court nominees to be confirmed as well. Use of the nuclear option in 2005 would have enabled a few additional Appeals Court nominations to get through in 2005 and 2006. But it would also have given a blank check for the next Democratic President who took office with a majority for his party in the Senate to get all of his or her judicial nominations approved from the start. That would be a really bad deal for the GOP, much worse than the gang of 14 deal, a compromise in which the GOP gained more than it lost.

This is the most reasoned view of the "Gang of 14 Deal" I have ever read and it is 100% accurate in it's facts and historical timeline.

Remember that the GOP is in great danger of losing at least three more seats in the Senate. Couple that with a Dem winning the White House and the Gang of 14 Deal is going to look incredibly sweet by comparison.

And I will admit that I too was against the Gang of 14 until a few months later (and even moreso when the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2006) when I saw what the ultimate result was, and what it could have been, exactly as Baehr described it above.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Base Is Wrong About The Gang Of 14
Richard Baehr
RealClearPolitics.com
January 30, 2008

It is beginning to look as if Sen. John McCain may have been smarter than we thought on this deal.

The Numbers Don't Lie. We Need To Get Rid Of The IRS!

As tax time approaches, let's look at some of the data that has been compiled about the most intrusive, abusive and outright wasteful agency in the U.S. Government: the Internal Revenue Service.

This opening paragraph from the National Retail Sales Tax Alliance webpage of Tax Facts summarizes it very nicely:

The IRS is not only the most feared of government agencies, it also is one of the biggest and most expensive. The agency has more employees than the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Drug Enforcement Agency combined, and its budget makes it a bigger consumer of tax dollars than the Departments of Commerce, State, or the Interior.

But, let's look at some of the numbers, shall we?

New Evidence 12,000 = The number of additional IRS employees needed to answer phone inquiries from confused taxpayers during tax filing season. Because taxpayers will have nothing to file under a national retail sales tax, additional personnel will not be needed. $1,000 = The hourly collection quota placed on IRS agents auditing individual taxpayers in the San Francisco office. Although collection quotas violate the law, the current system is so complex that the IRS assumes mistakes will be found on every return. There will be no errors with a national retail sales tax because there will be no returns to examine. 62,000,000 = The number of lines of computer code required by the IRS to manage the current tax code. A national retail sales tax will ease the IRS's ongoing computer problems dramatically. 1,420 = The number of appraisals of works of art that an IRS panel performed in order to tax the assets of dead people. Because double taxation under a national retail sales tax does not exist, the absurdity of having the IRS value art would disappear with the death (estate) tax. 3,200 = The number of threats and assaults IRS agents experienced over a five-year period. A fair and simple tax system will reduce taxpayers' frustrations dramatically. What We Already Knew 136,000 = The number of employees at the IRS and elsewhere in the government who are responsible for administering the tax laws. Because the number needed is dictated by the complexity of the tax code, fewer personnel will be needed under a national retail sales tax, and the elimination of the IRS will save taxpayers a significant amount of money. $13,700,000,000 = The amount of tax money spent by the IRS and other government agencies to enforce and oversee the tax code. Both taxpayers and the economy will benefit from the spending reductions made possible by a national retail sales tax. 17,000 = The number of pages of IRS laws and regulations, not including tax court decisions and IRS letter rulings. This page count would be reduced significantly by a national retail sales tax. 5,557,000 = The number of words in the income tax laws and regulations. With a national retail sales tax, there will be no need for a tax code that is nearly seven times longer than the Bible.

The NRSTA website has many more data references like the ones above. But what can we do about it? The answer is simple: Abolish the IRS. If we could replace the Income Tax system with a National Sales Tax System, here are the numbers we can look forward to:

0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will have to calculate depreciation schedules. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will have to keep track of itemized deductions. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will need to reveal their assets to the government. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will lose their farms or businesses because of the death (estate) tax. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will have to pay a double tax on their capital gains. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will have to compute a phase-out of their personal exemption because their incomes are too high. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will be subject to the alternative minimum tax--those forced to calculate their tax bill two different ways and then to pay the government the greater of the two amounts. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will have to pay taxes on overseas income that already was taxed by the government of the country in which the income was earned. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will have to pay taxes on dividend income that already was taxed at the business level. 0 = The number of taxpayers under a national retail sales tax who will be taxed on interest income that already was taxed at the financial institution level.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Interesting Tax Facts
NTRSA
Virginia Chapter










Petition For The FairTax

Ann Coulter's Conservative Sell-Out

We all know that Ann Coulter has written and spoken some pretty controversial things over the years. Most of them we enjoyed, some not so enjoyable. Dr. Mike Adams is one of the first conservative columnists to call Ann Coulter out due to recent events.

There are several reasons for this. Her suggestion that we invade Muslim countries and force their leaders to convert to Christianity as well as her use of the terms "rag head" and "faggot" at CPACs have had the effect of bringing more negative attention to the Conservative Movement. But her support for Sen. Clinton's Presidential bid is the straw that broke the camel's back for Dr. Adams.

From his most recent column:

It should go without saying that Roe v. Wade will never be over-turned if those three things happen. Even a one-term Clinton presidency will give her at least two picks for the USSC. And we can all expect picks with the ideology of a Laurence Tribe (or maybe an Alan Dershowitz) coming from President Rodham Clinton. On the other hand, a President McCain may well pick judges who think like Chief Justice John Roberts. And that would provide at least some hope that Roe could be over-turned. When it appeared that Rudy Giuliani was the front runner for the Republican nomination Ann said she could never support him for president because he is pro-choice. But Giuliani is a pro-choice Republican who opposes partial-birth abortion. Clinton is a pro-choice Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion. Why does the same litmus test not apply?

I've wondered the same thing. Ann's biggest criticism of Sen. John McCain is that he crossed to the other side of the aisle and worked with our opponents. Isn't she doing exactly the same thing here? And if we are to hold Sen. McCain accountable for such, shouldn't we hold Ann Coulter equally accountable?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Ann Coulter's Conservative Sell-Out
Mike S. Adams
TownHall.com
March 7, 2008

Should Telecoms Be Punished For Exposing Terror Plots?

I wonder how Shakespeare would write the answer to that question. Maybe something along the lines of: "'Tis a notable issue then that the usurpers of our secure quickness have found themselves met with agents of protectiveness who resolutely refuse to stead in silence." Or words to that effect. In plain English, the answer is a resounding: "No!"

Writing for TownHall.com, Cliff May has the following:

During the 1990s, thousands of terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. The government did next to nothing about that. Terrorists groups and the regimes backing them were seldom infiltrated. Neither terrorists nor their masters were effectively monitored. ... But after 9/11/01, one of the steps our intelligence officials took was to go to the big telecommunications firms and ask for help. Another attack could be coming – maybe more after that. The officials wanted access to data that might contain clues – dots they might be able to connect. The idea was not to have a federal agent listening in on your calls to Uncle Moe in Toledo. The idea was to gather huge quantities of information, “meta-data,” and mine it – seeking out patterns that might indicate terrorist connections or activities.

And those efforts have been very effective. But only groups like terrorist supporters and the ACLU are against it.

More:

An important point: The Supreme Court has held for decades that telephone record information—as opposed to the content of phone calls— triggers no Fourth Amendment privacy interest. You have no expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial because you expect the phone company to keep records of those numbers. What if you wanted to challenge a phone bill? You’d be pretty peeved if the phone company did not have records of the calls you made, when you made them and how long you stayed on the line. I do not believe this kind of intelligence gathering outrages normal Americans. I think most Americans say: “Good for government and good for the telecoms. They did their duty. They helped protect us” But the ACLU and some other groups that call themselves “civil liberties advocates” do claim to be outraged. Also outraged – or perhaps just excited – are the plaintiffs’ attorneys who have nearly 40 lawsuits pending before federal courts. If these lawyers prevail, tens of billions of dollars will be extracted from such firms as AT&T, Cingular Wireless, Bell South, Sprint and Verizon Communications.

Anyone care to guess which political party these trial lawyers mostly support?

Trial lawyers are among the most generous donors to the Democratic Party -- but leave aside whether that may explain House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing to let House members vote on a bill to protect the telecoms from being sued for contributing to the effort to thwart terrorists.

But this little gem is priceless:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the telecom companies last month, telling his colleagues: "What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this [for cooperating with intelligence officials to prevent terrorism]? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it.”

And this warning is the ounce of prevention that is worth much, much more than the pound of cure:

As the Washington Post reported, there is “one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration’s surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time.” Divulged not just to the media – but also to terrorists intent on murdering you and your children. For having written that, I will be accused of “fear-mongering.” So be it. If America’s experience with terrorism teaches anything, it’s that we have more to fear than fear itself. When politicians cave to special interests who want to make national security policy – and billions of dollars – in courtrooms, that should raise fears, too. And if it doesn’t outrage you, maybe nothing will.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Listen Up: Should The Telecoms Be Punished For Helping Protect You From Terrorists?
Cliff May
TownHall.com
March 6, 2008

Obama Advisor Ignores History, Reality And What You Need To Know About Rezko

Every now and then I am amazed at how stupid certain people can be, especially people who as supposedly among the intelligentsia of our culture.

Enter retired General Merrill McPeak. Normally, I wouldn't write anything to disparage a member of our military, but sometimes, you have to look past the uniform and take note of other things.

In this case, General Merrill McPeak said that President Bush was the reason for Iran's anti-Americanism. Such a statement is simply ignorant of history and of reality. To believe General McPeak means you have to believe that the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and hostages taken because the Iranians looked into a crystal ball and saw George W. Bush being elected President in 2000 and 2004. That is how ignorant General McPeak is with this claim.

Ed Lasky at the American Thinker has more:

Does McPeak remain unaware of any of these aspects of history: 1) The American Embassy hostage crisis during the Carter years; some have linked the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to this hostage-taking. 2) Years of state sponsorship of terrorism by Iran-that preceded the election of George Bush; Bill Clinton signed the Iran Libya Sanctions Act in 1996 because of the anti-Americanism and terror sponsored by Iran and Libya 3) Iran's role in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 American servicemen during the Reagan years; the hostage taking and killing of Americans in Lebanon by Hezbollah-a terror group sponsored and supported by Iran. This included the kidnapping, torture and killing of Colonel William Buckley in 1985; 4) Iran's role in the Khobar barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 that killed 19 American servicemen during the Clinton years; 5) All the broadcasts over the years that have shown state-sponsored crowds of Iranians burning American flags as they chanted anti-American propaganda and slogans? 6) The sermons, radio broadcasts, and textbooks that teach anti-Americanism to Iranians?

And this is why we should be very concerned about statements like this coming out of the Barack Obama Campaign:

Senator Obama's senior military advisor seems to display a shocking ignorance of history -- a history that includes the deaths of many American servicemen. One would think a retired General would at least honor those of our servicemen killed by Iran. This is one more senior adviser that calls into question Senator Obama's judgment and his ability to assume the duties and responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Senior Advisor Blames Bush For Iran's Anti-Americanism
Ed Lasky
The American Thinker
March 5, 2008

---

Tim Novak, in a blog over at the Chicago Sun-Times, notes that the connection between Barack Obama and indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko had become a very hot issue in late January. It is likely to grow hotter over the next few weeks.

Here is what we need to know about this case:

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down. 2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds. 3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm. 4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects. 5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district. 6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion. 7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor. 8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

Stay tuned. I'm sure more details will come out later. But as for Obama's claim to be "fresh" and "different" than other Washington pols, that stinks more than Rezko.

You can access the complete blog-entry on-line here:

8 Things You Need To Know About Obama And Rezko
Tim Novak
Chicago Sun-Times
January 24, 2008

A Few Good Words About A Few Good Men

I'm not one to sit still very well for a long speech, but every now and then, I have to pay attention to what is being said.

This was so on February 19, 2008 in Charlotte, North Carolina when Brigadier General Robert E. Milstead, Jr., USMC, made the speech published below. It is a tribute to a few good men and explains what kind of people our Marines are and why we should be a nation forever indebted to them and their service. Having served in the Marine Corps myself, I always make it a point to walk up and shake the hands of every service member I meet, no matter what branch of service they are in.

The speech:

Thank you and good evening. In my current assignment, I am often asked by the media and others about the health of our Corps. How do I reply? Tonight I will tell you what I tell them. We are indeed in good health. Our Corps is in the best shape I have seen during my 33 years of service. The young men and women serving today are our nation's next greatest generation. I have been in combat with them twice, and can say they are a national treasure, they are our future leaders and we are in good hands. Speaking specifically about our Corps. We are the youngest of all the services. The average age is 24. Approximately 65% of the Corps is under the age of 25. Almost a quarter populates that beloved rank of Lance Corporal. We have almost 26,000 teenagers. Last year we recruited over 38,000 young men and women, 95% of them high school graduates, and every one of them joined knowing full well they will likely move toward the sound of cannons. This year we are well on our way to recruiting another 40,000. This is a generation that understands the meaning of service. As long as we continue recruiting men and women like this, our Corps will remain healthy. Several months ago I had the privilege of being the reviewing officer for a graduation parade at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego. Standing out on that parade deck were six platoons, 571 young men lean and mean after the rigors of boot camp. I asked the battalion commander who was the honor graduate. He told me it was a Lance Corporal Sanchez, from Baytown, Texas. I asked if his parents were there. "Yes sir," he answered. "They are in the reviewing stand behind you." "I want to meet them," I said. Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez were indeed proud parents. Taking her hand in mine, I thanked Mrs. Sanchez for giving us her son and told her that although I couldn't guarantee his safety, I would guarantee he'd be taken care of. With tears in her eyes, she explained this was not her first. You see, both LCpl Sanchez's older brother and sister were already Marines, and another sister was a Navy corpsman. I will tell you that as long as we have American families like the Sanchez family, our Corps will remain healthy. I'll then tell of the wounded Marines I met while visiting Brooke Army Medical Center and the Army Burn Center in San Antonio. I'll tell of the young Lance Corporal who was burned when his vehicle was hit by an IED. His face is not bad at all, he looks if he merely has some road rash. But his hands are pretty badly burned and his therapy is painful. Mustering some courage, I asked him if he felt it was worth it. His reply was as you'd expect from a Marine, and I'll clean it up some, "F-ing A sir, no regrets. I'd do it again in a second." So I'll tell you that as long as we have young men like him, our Corps will remain healthy. I'll also talk about the Corporal I met down there at the burn center. Now he was burned much worse. He still wears a protective cap and gloves and has had 37 surgeries. He tells of the time, when he could finally go out in town, of coming out of a restaurant, and a small child, as honest and straight-forth as only a child can be, said in a voice that he could hear, "look mommy, it's a monster." That child's mother, instead of whisking her son away in embarrassment, got down on a knee, and looking her son in the eyes said, "no honey, that's not a monster, that's a very brave man who was badly hurt protecting you and me. You need to go over and thank him." And with trepidation as you can imagine, the young child walked over, and reached out his hand taking the corporal's gloved hand in his, and said "thank-you." The corporal will tell you that as long as there are people like that, he can endure another 37 operations. I will tell you that as long as there are mothers like that child's, our Corps will remain healthy. As I close, I will offer you a couple of figures. There are about 1.5 million of us in the active forces that wear a uniform. If you add all the reserves and the National Guard, the total is somewhere close to 3 million. That is only 1% of our nation's population. We are a military at war, not a nation at war. Unfortunately, many Americans just don't get it. But you get it. Oh yea, you get it. If you didn't, you wouldn't be here tonight. So I'll end by saying that as long as we have folks like you, our Corps will remain healthy. Thank you for being here tonight, thank you for your support of our brave servicemen and women, and especially thank you for your support of our wounded warriors. God bless you. I pledge your Marine Corps will remain healthy, and Semper Fidelis.

I don't know about you, but I routinely thank God for the men and women who voluntarily put themsleves into harm's way on our behalf. When I read the stories about the sacrifices they are making for us, it brings a tear to my eye.

Why The American Economy Needs John McCain

In a comparison of the final three candidates for President, one can see a huge difference. Barack Obama has proposed $281 billion in new spending, Hillary Clinton $250 billion and John McCain just $7 billion. You see, John McCain knows what would have to be done to raise $250 to $281 billion and what effect it would have on our economy. Obama and Clinton seem to think that money can simply be produced out of thin air. Those two couldn't be more wrong with their ideas that amount ot nothing more than wasteful socialist spending.

Yomin Postelnik is a Floridian who is writing for the Canada Free Press. Here is what he has to say about John McCain's fiscal policies:

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is equally open about the fact that no member of Congress will do anything about this matter until people realize the necessity to act. Few politicians want to embrace unpopular positions like huge rollbacks and caps on spending. That’s the difference between them and leaders. Leaders work for five, ten, twenty years to alert the public to important realities and awaken their hearts and minds to problems and propose solutions that have little support before the public realizes their need. When it comes to the all important issue of wasteful spending, an issue that can mean the difference between continued growth and expansion or economic collapse, John McCain is such a leader. Remarkably, his battles against pork and pork’s favorite barbeque chefs on both sides of the congressional aisle, haven’t tarnished his ability to work with members of congress. Though a lesser man would have alienated himself from members of both sides with his steadfast campaign against their habits, John McCain’s sincere devotion to this cause, his steadfastness and his reasoned approach to all other issues have earned him a level of respect and cooperation from members of both parties than most senators can ever hope to achieve. The fight against spending is simply another battle the scars of which John McCain wears well.

I can't remember how many Conservative pundits have called for spending to be brought under control over the past few years. Well, now we have a candidate who is pledging to do just that.

The national debt is out of hand and we cannot continue to borrow money forever. We are closer than almost anyone realizes to losing our current credit rating and to having our debt turn to junk bond status. The United States has maintained a triple A bond score since 1917, but this year Moody’s attached an asterisk to the rating, a note of caution. The Congressional Budget Office worries about a real decline in rating. This is all thanks to the reckless spending of both parties. There’s one candidate who’s willing to do something about it. His name is John McCain and he’s been fighting ruinous pork barrel spending for over 25 years. This is one of the reasons I suggest that entrepreneurs and all who care for the nation’s economy support John McCain for President. He understands the need to invest in education, defense and technology and brings concrete solutions to the table as opposed to empty platitudes. But most of all, his career-long battle against reckless spending shows him for the man of integrity, sound judgment and leadership that he is.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Why America Would Be Headed For Disaster Without John McCain
Yomin Postelnik
Canada Free Press
March 2, 2008

La Raza And The Anti-Defamation League Push For Censorship

It always amazes me how leftist groups claim to be fanatically committed to freedom (e.g. the ACLU) and yet they actively engage in activities specifically designed to curtail the freedom of others. We already know how the ACLU has been on an anti-Christian Crusade for the past several years and we know how that same ACLU works to silence the Boy Scouts while trying to give terrorists a louder voice.

But they are not alone.

The radical Hispanic group La Raza along with the Anti-Defamation League have been on a massive campaign to silence anyone who speaks out against illegal immigration. According to Roy Beck at NumbersUSA:

Led by the National Council of La Raza and the Anti-Defamation League, the open-borders groups have started a concerted campaign to persuade Cable TV executives to either bar me and our Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks from their shows, or to always introduce us as representing an "extremist" organization with ties to hate and racist groups. Their characterization of NumbersUSA and our members is without any connection to reality, facts or even common decency. But if all of us remain silent in the face of this campaign of character assassination, we might indeed be silenced on TV and beyond.

And more specific targets include Lou Dobbs of CNN, Pat Buchanan of MSNBC, Glenn Beck of Headline News and Sean Hannity of Fox.

You can access an Associated Press article about it here:

Group: Immigration Talks Rouse Hate
Associated Press via USA Today
February 1, 2008

Knowing how left-leaning most news networks are, it is not a question of if they will cave in but a question of when.

So, what can we do? We can notify the heads of the various networks that we will not be pleased if they give in to the propaganda of groups such as La Raza and ADL. You can contact them thus:

CNN Jim Walton President CNN Worldwide Atlanta, GA Email: jim.walton@turner.com Jonathan Klein President CNN U.S. New York, NY Email: jonathan.klein@cnn.com Richard Davis Executive Vice President of News Standards and Practices Atlanta, GA Email rick.davis@turner.com Viewer Response Line/Comments Call 212-275-7800 ask for Viewer Response Line FOX NEWS Roger Ailes Chairman and CEO New York, NY Email roger.ailes@foxnews.com Bill Shine Senior Vice President Programming New York, NY Email bill.shine@foxnews.com Brian Lewis Executive Vice President Corporate Communications New York, NY Email brian.lewis@foxnews.com Public Feedback Yourcomments@foxnews.com MSNBC Phil Griffin Senior Vice President of News New York, NY Email phil.griffin@nbc.com

And Roy Beck reminds us:

Please remember that these executives are not our enemies. Although we may not always agree with their balance in covering immigration, these three cables have been far more open than broadcast TV and the nation's newspapers to allowing the majority of Americans' concerns about immigration to be expressed. The La Raza Censorship Campaign is telling these executives that if they allow leaders from FAIR, the Minutemen, ALIPAC, or if they allow Rosemary and me, to continue to express our views on TV, the executives will be inculcating "good people" to hate all immigrants. The La Raza website says it goes beyond the bounds of free speech to say that our nation's immigration policies threaten our communities and our values. I say that statement itself threatens the values of our nation. Let these executives know that you know about the effort at censorship and that you back them 100% in keeping the immigration forum open to all sides -- including the open-borders people who want to censor us.

You can access the NumbersUSA website here:

NumbersUSA