Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign slogan, “the audacity of hope,” should have instead been “the audacity of deceit.” After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby—four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

“Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.” Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban’s expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation’s murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with “assault weapons.” Obama says that “assault weapons” are machine guns that “belong on foreign battlefields,” but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.

“Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.” The amendment (endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police) prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

“Closing the gun show loophole.” There is no “loophole.” Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

“Making guns in this country childproof.” “Childproof” is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

Less than 24 hours after my last post, about what would happen to someone who hung Obama in effigy after some kooks in West Hollywood did this to Gov. Palin….yes, just what I suspected would happen: Those college kids who did this to Obama were ARRESTED!!! Wow, blantant political correctness. I hope your college kids don’t go to school where Big Brother allows the Thought Police and Speech Police to reside. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

LINK to article.

2 arrested for hanging Obama effigy on Ky. campus

A University of Kentucky student and another man were arrested Thursday, accused of hanging a life-sized likeness of Barack Obama from a tree on the campus.

The incident was one of several in recent weeks involving effigies of the presidential candidates or their running mates. No charges have been filed in four other cases that have made national headlines.

UK Interim Police Chief Joe Monroe said the men “expressed remorse for a stunt that had gotten out of hand.”

Arrested were Joe Fischer, 22, a UK student, and Hunter Bush, 21, both of Lexington. Both were being held at Fayette County Detention Center on charges of disorderly conduct related to the hanging of the effigy. They were also charged with burglary and theft at a fraternity house where police said the materials came from.

Lt. Tina Strange, a deputy jailer at the detention center, did not know who the men’s attorneys were. She said they were each being held on $7,600 bond.

Monroe said the two men told detectives they decided to hang the effigy after seeing media reports about a Sarah Palin effigy in California.

Witnesses who saw the effigy Wednesday said it was life-sized with an Obama Halloween mask, a suit jacket and sweat pants. It was found hanging from a tree with a noose around its neck.

UK President Lee Todd said the effigy violates the university’s code of ethics, and Fischer faces punishment that could include expulsion.

“As outrageous and offensive an act as the effigy was, I truly believe it has mobilized our campus, the community and the state in an effort to battle racism,” Todd said Thursday.

It was the second time in about a month such an effigy was found on a college campus. George Fox University, a small Christian college in Oregon, recently punished four students who confessed to hanging a likeness of Obama from a tree.

Meanwhile, a Redondo Beach, Calif., woman removed a Halloween effigy of Barack Obama that was hanging from her balcony with a butcher knife in its neck. She took it down Thursday after neighbors complained.

In West Hollywood, Calif., a man removed an effigy of GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin from his yard Wednesday after several weeks of complaints.

And in Clarksville, Ind., a man had hanged an inflatable doll made to look like Obama from a tree. He took it down Wednesday, and authorities said it didn’t appear to violate any state laws.

By ROGER ALFORD
Associated Press Writer

Are you kidding me???

From CNNC.com

“Every year those big Wall Street bonuses become the talk of the town, but this year it could be for a whole new reason.”

There’s rumblings on Capitol Hill that lawmakers might look to limit or even do away with bonuses this year.

The first salvos were fired late Tuesday when Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said he sent letters to the first nine major banks set to receive a capital injection from the government, seeking information on their compensation and bonus plans for 2008 and other years.

He wrote, “I question the appropriateness of depleting the capital that taxpayers just injected into the banks through the payment of billions of dollars in bonuses, especially after one of the financial industry’s worst years on record.”

And it seems many on Wall Street are expecting some big money. Rich Layne of eFinancialCareers tells Fast Money, “I thought you’d be interested in the results of post-bailout survey of Wall Street professionals on their bonuses expectations. 2/3 are expecting a 2008 bonus; 36% are expecting that bonus to be higher than their 2007 bonuses. There’s even a minority – 10% – that expect this year’s bonus to the 33% higher.”

LINK to article and video.

Congress: Don’t use bailout for bonuses
Leaders from both parties expressed concern Wednesday that a taxpayer-funded bailout of the financial industry will be used to pad the pockets of executives rather than get the economy rolling again.

“News reports have suggested that six major financial institutions participating in the program have plans to pay their executives billions of dollars,” they wrote.

Link to AP article.

By Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Times are tough, but don’t worry about most members of Congress making ends meet.

Their collective wealth grew by 13 percent last year, leaving them in better shape than most Americans to make it through an economic downturn, according to a new analysis of personal financial reports.

Overall, nearly two of every three senators are millionaires. That includes presidential candidates Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. In the House, 39 percent of all members belong to the exclusive club.

Only 1 percent of all Americans are considered millionaires.

“With a median net worth of $746,000, most members of Congress have a comfortable financial cushion to ride out any recession,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which conducted the study.

The 535 members of Congress, who earn average annual salaries of $169,000 and receive cost-of-living pay increases, had a total net worth of $3.7 billion last year. Although some are likely to take a hit from Wall Street’s woes, their average net worth soared by 61 percent from 2004 to 2007.

Link to article.

Sweet poetic justice! But wait, this might explain why they want the government to bail them out. It’s pretty sickening.

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg)—The market storm that brought down Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., American International Group Inc. and other pillars of U.S. finance may have also blown holes in the portfolios of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry and more than 50 other members of Congress.

Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.

Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers’ aides didn’t respond to calls seeking comment.

LINK to full article.

Blogger’s Note: If the 4thCD is any indication – turn out the lights.

Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive Democrats’ double-digit lead on the “generic ballot” slips to 3 points
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ—A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters’ “generic ballot” preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.

As is true for the current structure of voting preferences for president, Democratic voters are nearly uniform in their support for the Democratic candidate in their congressional districts (92%), Republican voters are nearly uniform in their support for the Republican candidate (94%), and independents are closely split, with 44% backing the Democrat and 40% the Republican.

The new results come from a Sept. 5-7 survey conducted immediately after the Republican National Convention and mirror the resulting enhanced position of the Republican Party seen in several other indicators. These range from John McCain’s improved standing against Barack Obama in the presidential race to improved favorability ratings of the Republicans, to Republican gains in party identification. The sustainability of all of these findings is an open question that polling will answer over the next few weeks.

The positive impact of the GOP convention on polling indicators of Republican strength is further seen in the operation of Gallup’s “likely voter” model in this survey. Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.

If these numbers are sustained through Election Day—a big if Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As Gallup’s long-term “generic ballot” trend shows, the Democrats held a sizable lead on this measure from the time they won back control of Congress in the fall of 2006 through last month. If the current closer positioning of the parties holds, the structure of congressional preferences will be similar to most of the period from 1994 through 2005, when Republicans won and maintained control of Congress.

Congressional Approval Also Troubling for Democrats

With only 18% of Americans in August saying they approve of the job Congress is doing, similar to the average 20% approval rating for Congress all year, the Democrats in Congress have additional cause for concern. This scant level of approval could signal that voters are in the mood for change, disproportionately hurting Democratic incumbents.

The last time the yearly average for approval of Congress approached this low a level was in 2006, when the Republicans lost majority control of Congress after 12 years in power. The previous occasion was in 1994, when the Republicans wrested control from the Democrats. In both of these midterm election years, the average congressional approval score was 25%. However, with an 18% approval rating for Congress in 1992, the Democrats succeeded in holding their majority in Congress. That was a presidential year in which the Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, won.

The issues raised by today’s low approval ratings of Congress are reinforced by recent Gallup Poll findings that relatively few voters generally believe “most members” of Congress deserve re-election. That figure was only 36% in July, much lower than the 51% or better reading found in recent election years when the party of the sitting majority in Congress maintained power.
Bottom Line

The new USA Today/Gallup measurement of generic ballot preferences for Congress casts some doubt on the previously assumed inevitability of the Democrats’ maintaining control of Congress.

Until now, the dark shadow cast by George W. Bush’s widespread unpopularity has suppressed Republican Party identification nationwide, as well as voters’ willingness to support the Republican candidate running for Congress in their district.

Now that the symbolic leadership of the party is shifting away from Bush and toward the suddenly popular Republican presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, things may be changing. This shrinks Bush’s shadow over the Republicans, revealing more of the Democrats’ own shadow stemming from high disapproval of Congress. The key question is how much of this is temporary because of the tremendous bounce in support for the Republicans on many dimensions coming right off of their convention. The degree to which the Republican bounce is sustained, rather than dissipates, in the weeks ahead will determine whether the 2008 race for Congress could in fact be highly competitive, rather than a Democratic sweep.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,022 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Sept. 5-7, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 959 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Results for likely voters are based on the subsample of 823 survey respondents deemed most likely to vote in the November 2008 general election, according to a series of questions measuring current voting intentions and past voting behavior. For results based on the total sample of likely voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. The “likely voter” model assumes a turnout of 60% of national adults. The likely voter sample is weighted to match this assumption, so the weighted sample size is 613.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.

From Robyn Nordell
To: CRA Friends

Conservative Leaders React Positively to Gov Sarah Palin, McCain’s V.P. Choice!

Dr. James Dobson:
McCain’s Choice of Palin ‘Outstanding’

Dr. Dobson will further discuss McCain’s pick tonight at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes.

Press Release

FRC Action’s Tony Perkins:
Gov. Palin – a Pro-Family, Pro-Life Champion

Read More

Gary Bauer: Choice of Sarah Palin
for GOP Vice-President ‘Historic and Energizing’

“I believe we now have the most pro-life ticket in history running on the most pro-life platform in history.”

Read More

“More Pro-Life Reaction to John McCain
Picking Abortion Opponent Sarah Palin”

See Full Article

by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor
August 29, 2008

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission: “Governor Palin is a vice-presidential selection which shows that John McCain at the age of 72 today is still able to think outside the box. Governor Palin will delight the Republican base. She is pro-life. It appears that Senator Obama played it safe in picking Senator Biden and Senator McCain made the bold and unconventional choice in picking Governor Palin.”

Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest: “With this bold and inspired selection, Sen. McCain has verified his stated commitment to assembling a truly pro-life administration. The Republican ticket stands in stark contrast to the stridently pro-abortion ticket put forth by the Democratic party. You can be sure the vice presidential selections will have far-reaching ramifications in this race.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: “Governor Palin will change the dynamics of the entire presidential race. Her admirable record of confronting corruption and living her pro-life convictions shows she is a doer, not just a talker. Sarah Palin will make history as a vice presidential candidate – and not simply because she’s a woman, but because she’s a woman of substance and character.”

Mat Staver, pro-life attorney and founder of Liberty Council – “Absolutely brilliant choice. John McCain could not have chosen a better vice-presidential nominee that Gov. Palin. She is attractive, articulate, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, and pro-marriage. John McCain hit this one out of the ballpark. She is very pro-life. She has a Down Syndrome child. She’s committed to pro-life. She understands the commitment to the sanctity of human life.”

Jill Stanek, the nurse who exposed live birth abortions: “Governor Sarah Palin is a welcome addition to the McCain Republican ticket. I could not be more pleased that he has chosen a pro-life woman as his running mate. McCain/Palin offers a complete contrast to the Obama/Biden ticket and provides a solid background on all family issues. With Governor Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket, it looks like Obama’s abortion problem just got a whole lot bigger.”

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, a pro-lifer from South Carolina: “Sarah Palin is an exciting choice by Senator McCain. She completes a strong ticket that will bring a real record of change and reform to Washington. She is a strong defender of traditional family values, with an unquestioned commitment to protect life.”

Christian Coalition of America president Roberta Combs: “Governor Sarah Palin is a bold choice for Vice President who is a courageous advocate for unborn children. I congratulate Senator McCain for his outstanding selection for his vice presidential running mate.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council: “Senator McCain made an outstanding pick from the choices that were on the table. Sarah Palin clearly addresses the issues so many conservatives are concerned about. It balances out the ticket. She’s also really a checkmate for the Democratic Party because folks who were looking to make history for Barack Obama can make history by voting for John McCain in seeing the first woman elected to the vice-presidency. It was a very strategic move by John McCain.”

Obama campaigns on a platform of Change and he gave us Joe Biden (a Washington insider)

So leave it to McCain to give us someone we have to google.

Obama just got worked – it is the GOP ticket with diversity, experience and change.

The polls prove it, too

Sarah Palin:

Gov. Sarah Palin: A Biography
Anchorage Daily News

By Tom Kizzia

Sarah Palin was a hockey mom, small-town mayor and rising young Republican star in Alaska in 2003 when she ran afoul of her party’s establishment over ethics reform and was cast into the political wilderness.

But she came charging back as an ethics crusader to win the governor’s office in 2006 (including a landslide primary victory over the incumbent Republican governor) and has remained one of the most popular local politicians in America even as she continued to take on such powerful figures as the oil companies and the leaders of her own state party.

Palin, 44, has been the Joan of Arc of Alaska politics, charging into battle against long odds on such big local issues as oil taxes and construction of a natural gas pipeline only to see her opposition crumble. Days after her 2006 primary victory, an FBI investigation into political corruption involving the oil industry and Republican legislators burst into view with surprise raids of legislative offices. As criminal indictments and convictions followed, Palin’s outsider status helped her maintain consistently sky-high approval ratings.

She was born in Idaho and came to Alaska when she was 3 months old. She grew up in the town of Wasilla, a now-sprawling small town an hour north of Anchorage, where her father, Chuck Heath, was a teacher and coach. One of her most formative experiences, she has said, was helping to lead her high school basketball team to the 1982 state championship. Palin played point guard and got the nickname from her teammates of Sarah Barracuda.

Palin went on to study journalism and political science in college, graduating form the University of Idaho in 1987. Along the way she competed in the Miss Alaska contest after being chosen Miss Wasilla 1984. In the Wasilla contest, she played the flute and won the title of Miss Congeniality.

She grew up hunting with her father, whose living room wall is densely populated with trophies and antlers. Her favorite meal, she said during her gubernatorial race, is moose meat stew after a day of snowmachining.

She eloped in 1988 with her high school sweetheart, Todd Palin, who expands the family biography considerably. He is a commercial fisherman, an oil field worker, a member of the United Steelworkers and an Alaska Native. Todd’s grandmother grew up in a traditional Yup’ik Eskimo house in Bristol Bay and accompanied Sarah in her race for governor as she sought support from Alaska Native voters. Sarah Palin has joined her family fishing a commercial setnet site on the Nushagak River in Bristol Bay every summer.

Todd Palin has worked 20 years on Alaska’s North Slope for BP, where he has continued to work as a production operator. He is also a four-time winner of the Iron Dog snowmachine race from Anchorage to Nome and back along the Iditarod Trail. After Sarah was elected governor, Todd has remained in the background as “first dude,” an expression his wife sometimes uses.

Sarah Palin made her way into local politics on the City Council in 1992 and then ran for mayor as an agent of change.

Palin finished a strong second in the 2002 primary for lieutenant governor and was being groomed by the party for higher office when she ran afoul of state Republican Party chairman Randy Ruederich. They both had seats on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, appointed by Gov. Frank Murkowski, the Republican she would later depose. She accused Ruederich of political chicanery and eventually resigned in frustration…..

She later took on Murkowski’s attorney general in a conflict-of-interest scandal that forced his resignation. And when state Sen. Ben Stevens, the son of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, was caught making a dismissive remark about the Wasilla area, Palin appeared in a rebuttal ad wearing a “Valley Trash” T-shirt.

In 2006, she knocked off Murkowski and then Democratic former Gov. Tony Knowles in a campaign that drew on grassroots support, relying on neighbors and friends for staff rather than veterans of big-time campaigns.

She had strong support from social conservatives and often speaks of her religious faith. The Palins have five children, including their first-born, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007. Track Palin is 18 and stationed at Fort Wainwright with the Stryker Brigade. His mother said he is preparing for a deployment to Iraq. They also have three daughters: Bristol, Willow and Piper.

The newest member of the family, a son, Trig, was born four months ago after a pregnancy that Palin managed to keep secret for seven months. Trig was born with Down syndrome, which the Palins had discovered through testing.

The ongoing corruption scandal in the Legislature over influence of the former oil field services company Veco helped Palin force change in the Juneau state capitol. That scandal has spread to include Alaska’s two longtime powers in Congress, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young. Palin has kept distance between herself and those Republican icons and backed ethics reform measures that passed the Legislature.

BAGHDAD – The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq’s future.

“Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it,” Crocker said. “It’s actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what’s left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on.”

Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that “security is fragile” and that the improvements, while encouraging, are “not irreversible.”

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military’s hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.

Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.

Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.

Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.

(Blogger’s Note – withdrawal timetables are absurd)

U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year — as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.

(Blogger’s note – the “SURGE” worked!!!)

As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls “nonkinetic” issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.

Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad — an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital’s most violent zones.

“We’re getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq,” says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it’s over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.

Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency — a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.

Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:

“We’ve put out the forest fire. Now we’re dealing with pop-up fires.”

It’s not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.

Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.

EDITOR’S NOTE — Robert Burns is AP’s chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP’s chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.

LINK TO ACTUAL ARTICLE

From Charlie Brown’s Website – before he can pull it down…

Having coordinated surveillance flights over Iraq in the 1990’s, Charlie did not support the U.S. invasion because he knew there were no WMD’s present, that an invasion could unleash centuries old sectarian conflicts inside Iraq, and leave fewer American military resources available to defeat the enemy who attacked America on 9/11—Al Qaeda.

Despite under-manning, under-equipping, bad intelligence and naive post-war planning by politicians in Washington, America’s military has toppled a terrible dictator in Iraq. But as General Petraeus himself has said, our troops can only create the space for Iraq’s newly elected politicians to reconcile the political differences that have fomented sectarian violence and civil war. Ultimately, Iraq needs a political solution, not a military one. And America can’t defeat global terrorism by transforming the world’s finest military force into the Baghdad police force.

(Sorry Charlie – Looks like it is working now, isn’t it!!!)

Charlie believes accountability is the key to getting our troops home quickly and responsibly—-tying future U.S. aid to the achievement of key political benchmarks by Iraq’s elected leaders. Together with limited counterterrorism operations, training of Iraqi Security forces and accelerated reconstruction efforts, only real results from Iraq’s politicians can expedite the process of political reconciliation Iraq needs to create a permanent stable government that can sustain itself and defend its own borders. Ultimately, open ended promises of money and troops by our government provide little incentive for Iraqi politicians to take action and ownership of their nation’s future.

(Sorry Charlie – It looks like it is working, care to re-state your position anew???)

Ultimately, re-deploying US Troops out of Iraq will enable the United States to refocus on the real front lines against terrorism-fighting the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, strengthening our strategic alliances, improving intelligence gathering, expanding special operations capabilities, and giving our troops more time here at home- so they can be rested, trained, properly equipped and ready for quick deployment against terrorist concentrations or any other threats to America.

Nearly 7 years after 9/11, the Bush Administration has failed on it promise to capture and/or kill the top leaders of Al Qaeda. LINK

Our government is too busy infighting, or at least it seems this way. What is really going on at the White House? Who’s in charge anyway? Isn’t Bush the Commander in Chief? Why did he not take his change to take out the Taliban leadership at a funeral in 2006?

“Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.”

”...Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate.”

“Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terror camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired CIA officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 Arab and Pakistani militants, up from several hundred three years ago.”

“American intelligence officials say that the Qaeda hunt in Pakistan, code-named Operation Cannonball by the CIA in 2006, was often undermined by bitter disagreements within the Bush administration and within the intelligence agency, including about whether American commandos should launch ground raids inside the tribal areas.”

Who is running this dog and pony show? I thought Bush was serious about stopping terrorism? Why do we have open borders? Why is there no military presence on the US/Mexican border? Why are Taliban funerals attended by terrorist leaders and haters of America allowed to take place with US Intelligence knowledge and nothing is being done about it? I’m sick of all the talk and posturing, I want action!

In case you haven’t heard….

“Individual Americans have a right to own guns, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday for the first time in the country’s history, striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years the high court has addressed the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It rejected the argument the right to keep and bear arms was tied to service in a state militia.”

LINK to article.

It seems as though our conservative African American friends are more racist than they are loyal to their own political ideaology.

“Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams has never voted for a Democrat for president. That could change this year with Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“Among black conservatives,” Williams said, “they tell me privately, it would be very hard to vote against him in November.”

“J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he’s thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he’s still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.”

“Likewise, retired Gen. Colin Powell, who became the country’s first black secretary of state under President George W. Bush, said both candidates are qualified and that he will not necessarily vote for the Republican.”

I guess it’s more about race than doing the right thing. Very sad. Just another thing that’s wrong with politics and our GOP leadership.

LINK

A lot of news this week on the political front. We had two huge wins on Tuesday, and today The Wall Street Journal published an article I wrote about the need to defeat Alaska Congressman Don Young in the upcoming Republican primary.

As I wrote in the Journal, “The reason for the endorsement is simple. [Lt. Gov. Sean] Parnell is a solid conservative who led the fight for lower taxes and spending in the state legislature, and joined Gov. Sarah Palin in pushing for reform in the state. The man he is hoping to replace isn’t economically conservative in the least. Mr. Young is actually a poster child for what has gone wrong with the Republican Party in Washington.

“Over his 35 years in Congress, Mr. Young made himself into the most powerful Republican on the House Transportation Committee. But instead of using his power to steer Republicans down a principled, conservative track, he helped derail the GOP train in 2006.

“Mr. Young spends taxpayer money so wastefully he could make a liberal Democrat blush. As chairman of the Transportation Committee (from 2001 to 2007), Mr. Young was directly responsible for one of the biggest boondoggles of the Republican majority – the 2005 highway bill. With a price tag of $296 billion, the highway bill contained a record 6,371 pork projects.

“One of those projects was the $223 million Bridge to Nowhere, inserted by Mr. Young. The notorious bridge was meant to connect the city of Ketchikan, Alaska – population 8,000 – to an airport on Gravina Island – population 50. Instead, it came to symbolize Republican excess, and helped cost the GOP its majority.”

You can read the rest of the article below. For those of you who can’t wait to donate to Sean’s campaign to defeat Young, you can do that by clicking here.

This is one of our toughest yet most important political campaigns ever, and if we win, it would mark the second time this year that Club members beat an incumbent in a GOP primary, which I believe would be an unprecedented feat for any PAC.

A Super Tuesday

We got some great news earlier this week from Tuesday night’s primaries. The Politico newspaper reported (and Rush Limbaugh read on air yesterday) that the “Club for Growth had a big night Tuesday, as the two candidates it endorsed and funded prevailed in hotly contested Republican primaries in New Mexico and California.”

Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-Sen) edged out Rep. Heather Wilson 51% to 49% and Tom McClintock (CA-04) won by a surprisingly large margin, 54% to 39%, despite former Rep. Doug Ose spending over $3.25 million of his own money in attack ads.

Thank you to all the Club members who made these wins possible. The Club for Growth PAC bundled $275,000 from Club members for Steve Pearce in his primary race and over $200,000 for Tom McClintock in his primary race, and spent nearly $100,000 on TV and radio ads.

The Club PAC’s last four races, all wins, cost over $800,000 in TV and radio ads and other independent expenditures that were crucial to the victories. If you’d like to help refill the PAC’s war chest, please click here to donate.

Rush on the Club

Before I continue on Pearce and McClintock, here’s an excerpt of what Rush Limbaugh said yesterday about the two victories. (You can listen to the whole segment here.)

“One of the things I have suggested is focusing a lot on the future. These are cycles. We can rebuild. The conservative movement can triumph once again. It’s going to have to start locally, supporting state and local conservatives in their quest, getting to know who they are, supporting them, voting for them, giving them confidence to keep going. The Club for Growth, a conservative group, had a big night Tuesday. Two candidates it endorsed and funded prevailed in hotly contested Republican primaries in New Mexico and California. This is how it’s done. . .

“So this is the future. These are new roots being planted, and these are the kind of things that are going to have to happen all across the country along with other things in order to bring about this rebirth of conservative—and it isn’t going to be that hard, and it isn’t going to take that long.”

We appreciate the plug Rush, which brought a flood of new members to our website yesterday.

Rep. Steve Pearce is a strong economic conservative who has faithfully honored his pledge to oppose tax increases throughout his time in Congress. Wilson had one of the worst economic records of any Republican and sided with Democrats on key budget issues such as spending bills vetoed by President Bush.

McClintock is revered among California activists for being a limited government superstar in the State Legislature. He has long fought for lower taxes and opposed wasteful government spending even when it meant taking on members of his own party. During his years in Congress, Ose often sided with the big spending Republicans.

Now, Rep. Pearce will face New Mexico Rep. Tom Udall in the general election. Udall is an inveterate liberal who has voted for tax increases and increased government spending, receiving a 0% on the Club for Growth’s RePORK Card. No doubt, Udall would continue this tax-and-spend tradition if elected to the Senate.

McClintock faces off against Democrat Charlie Brown, who is no friend of economic conservatives and nearly beat retiring Rep. John Doolittle in 2006.

One final note. Club members who often visit our website may have noticed that our PAC endorsed Harri Anne Smith earlier this year in Alabama’s second congressional district, an open Republican seat. But we never sent any emails or letters asking you to donate to her campaign and our PAC also did not run any ads there. We held back because after the endorsement we were not impressed with how she was running her campaign. She managed to make the runoff and we are taking another look at her chances. Clearly she is the best candidate on our issues, but we also have an obligation to our members to see that they get a good bang for their candidate donation bucks.

Have a great weekend!

Best Regards,
Pat

Patrick J. Toomey
President, Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Ste 600
Washington, DC 20036
PH: 202-955-5500

If you ever want to remove email address information from your membership to the Club for Growth, just click here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121270989481150353.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

OPINION

Don Young Embodies What’s Wrong With the GOP
By PAT TOOMEY
June 6, 2008; Page A13

Today, the Club for Growth Political Action Committee endorses Alaska Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell in his bid to unseat Republican Rep. Don Young in the state’s August primary.

The reason for the endorsement is simple. Mr. Parnell is a solid conservative who led the fight for lower taxes and spending in the state legislature, and joined Gov. Sarah Palin in pushing for reform in the state. The man he is hoping to replace isn’t economically conservative in the least. Mr. Young is actually a poster child for what has gone wrong with the Republican Party in Washington.

Over his 35 years in Congress, Mr. Young made himself into the most powerful Republican on the House Transportation Committee. But instead of using his power to steer Republicans down a principled, conservative track, he helped derail the GOP train in 2006.

Mr. Young spends taxpayer money so wastefully he could make a liberal Democrat blush. As chairman of the Transportation Committee (from 2001 to 2007), Mr. Young was directly responsible for one of the biggest boondoggles of the Republican majority – the 2005 highway bill. With a price tag of $296 billion, the highway bill contained a record 6,371 pork projects.

One of those projects was the $223 million Bridge to Nowhere, inserted by Mr. Young. The notorious bridge was meant to connect the city of Ketchikan, Alaska – population 8,000 – to an airport on Gravina Island – population 50. Instead, it came to symbolize Republican excess, and helped cost the GOP its majority.

But the bridge isn’t Mr. Young’s only earmark to draw negative attention. It seems the veteran lawmaker inserted a $10 million earmark into the 2006 transportation bill for a road project in Florida.

Of course, Florida is not exactly next door to Alaska, so more than a few people have wondered why Mr. Young pushed to fund the pork-barrel project. Among those inquiring into the matter is the Justice Department, which is looking at the fact that a Florida real estate developer, Daniel J. Aronoff, who stands to benefit from the federal earmark, has raised some $40,000 for Mr. Young’s campaign coffers.

It’s not just on spending that Mr. Young abandons Republican principles. Recently, he has joined with Democrats in voting to increase the minimum wage, increase income taxes on top earners, and to pass a bloated farm bill. Mr. Young also voted for “card check,” which would allow unions to organize without holding secret ballot elections.

He has a history of voting against important free-trade agreements and, just a couple of weeks ago, proposed a $1 per-gallon tax increase on gasoline. He must not have had to fill up at the pump lately.

During his time in Congress, Mr. Young has come to represent the worst of a Republican Party that became too comfortable in power. In 1995, a Republican majority passed a budget that actually cut spending. Today, only 40 Republicans out of 248 GOP senators and representatives have sworn off earmarks, despite overwhelming support for earmark reform among the party’s base and the general public.

Just 12 years ago, the Republican Caucus, including Mr. Young, voted for a bill to phase out farm subsidies. Three weeks ago, Mr. Young and many of those same members voted for a farm bill that exemplifies everything the GOP once stood against. Somewhere between then and now, many congressional Republicans abandoned their former commitment to limited government, fiscal discipline and economic freedom.

There is no question that the Republican Party is in trouble. Faced with staggering losses in 2006 and what might be an even worse election cycle this year, GOP congressmen are finally acknowledging the dismal state of the Republican brand. What are they doing about it?

Not much. The reason is that Mr. Young and many other members are not willing to change. They don’t want to give up their pork projects, their subsidies and their favorite big-government programs. And those members with the temerity to challenge the broken system are berated as disloyal and threatened.

“Those who bite me will be bitten back,” Mr. Young warned New Jersey’s Republican Rep. Scott Garrett last July. Mr. Garrett had tried to remove a $34 million earmark inserted into an appropriations bill by Mr. Young.

The Alaska primary represents a crossroads for Republicans. Will party leaders line up behind Mr. Young, even as the Justice Department is looking into his earmarks? Or will they tell him they cannot support a member who has flagrantly disrespected taxpayers and abandoned Republican principles?

If Republicans want to start winning again they need to return to the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government that won them control of Congress in 1994. This is no easy task. But the GOP can start by showing Mr. Young the door.

Government mandated disclaimers:
Donations are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. Corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals or federal contractors may not contribute. All contributions are voluntary and you may refuse to contribute without reprisal. Contributions made to the Club for Growth PAC directly will be spent for Club PAC activities and programs as the PAC determines within its sole discretion. Contributions made directly to the PAC will not be earmarked for any candidate.

PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.

Federal Election Law requires us to request this information: If you provide this information now, you will save the Club substantial administrative costs. Federal election law requires us to use our best efforts to obtain and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions to candidates or the Club for Growth PAC exceeds $200 in a calendar year.

This is great news to those of us on the right who can’t stand voting for McCain in any election!

“Former US congressman Bob Barr on Monday announced plans to run for president on the Libertarian Party’s ticket, in a move some analysts say could hurt Republican presumptive nominee John McCain.
“My name is Bob Barr and I’m a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America,” said the former Republican lawmaker, who played a key role in the congressional impeachment of former president Bill Clinton.

Barr said he was running because there was not “currently or anywhere on the horizon” any candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on which he said America was founded.”

ARTICLE LINK

This is a good article on some of the protest going on about McCain being the GOP nominee.

Virtually all the nation’s political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who’ve each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.

On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.

Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP’s presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

As Politico.com’s Jonathan Martin noted recently, at least some of these results are temporary protest votes in meaningless primaries built on lingering affection for Huckabee and suspicion of McCain.

Link to full article.

“Need more confirmation that a majority of Americans support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Look no further than the results of a Gallup poll, which were reported in a March 27, Gallup.com article. The poll found that an overwhelming majority of the United States public—73%—believes that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

Other recent polls have shown that Americans support gun rights. A Zogby International poll for Associated Television News, conducted December 13-17, 2007 found 27% of voters would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by NRA (through its PAC, NRA Political Victory Fund). That survey showed that NRA ranks above Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, the AFL-CIO, Oprah Winfrey, and Barbara Streisand in influencing voters! And another Zogby International poll conducted earlier in 2007 found that 66% of the American voting public rejects the idea that new gun control laws are needed.”

LINK

If you care about your Second Amendmednt rights, keep the pressure on your electeds to make certain this bill doesn’t get anywhere. When we lose the White House and Congress in November, this will be an even larger concern.

In 1974, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said that the “manufacture and sale of handguns should be terminated. Existing handguns should be acquired by the states.” Since then, Kennedy has been the most anti-handgun member of the Senate, having introduced legislation to ban handguns, register handguns, license handgun owners, ban ammunition, authorize the Consumer Products Safety Commission to prohibit the manufacture of firearms and ammunition, and impose waiting periods on handgun purchases.

As we recently reported, on February 7 this year, ten days after endorsing another handgun ban supporter Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president, Kennedy renewed his efforts to ban handguns by introducing S. 2605, a bill that seeks to ban the manufacture, importation, and transfer (sale, etc.) of any semi-automatic pistol that does not possess “a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol . . . etched into the breech face and firing pin of the pistol,” and stamp both sets of characters into the cartridge case of a round of ammunition, when the round is fired. On the same day, Representative Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) introduced an identical bill, H.R. 5266, called the “National Crime Gun Identification Act.”

The Kennedy-Becerra bill is much more severe than the micro-stamping handgun ban passed in California last year. Where the California ban applies only to models of semi-automatic pistols that are produced after January 1, 2010, the Kennedy-Becerra bill would apply to all models of semi-automatic pistols.

Micro-stamping has repeatedly failed in scientific tests. Micro-stampings are easily removed. And most gun crimes cannot be solved by micro-stamping, or do not require micro-stamping to be solved. Additionally, most criminals who use guns get them through unregulated channels, thus micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, and expand the black market in guns. Moreover, most guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped, and most violent crimes are committed without guns. Finally, micro-stamping would waste money—money that is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts.

With conservatives leaning toward voting Democrat or not voting at all in November, McCain desperately needed a story.

McCain’s friends at the times accomplished two feats with one story last night. Since McCain is not going to win over a single independent vote not already in his camp, he needed to somehow attract gullible conservatives and Bill Clinton lovers. By attacking McCain as a philanderer the times gave McCain both.

Slick Willy fans will now see a bit of the former president in McCain; and talk radio will attempt to rile up conservatives against the left wing media, hoping McCain will be the benefactor.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but my reaction to the story was “so what”. Had it been John Doolittle or another conservative I would have been disappointed or felt betrayed as I did when the Gingrich story broke. But McCain? I don’t think he could possibly disappoint me anymore than he already has. I have absolutely no faith in him.

The New York Times lands a bombshell on McCain today. Interesting to note they’ve sat on this story for quite some time and decided to release this after McCain has pretty much wrapped up the GOP Presidential Nomination. This is what conservatives have been saying all along, McCain is not the guy we want representing our party or in the White House. Anyone now doubt the liberal media bias?

New York Time article

From that rag: “A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.”

“Every time I hear the word ‘conservative’ it makes me sick to my stomach.” – Charles Barkley

If you liked this guy before, here’s a great reason to re-think that position if you are a Conservative or a Christian or both. And he uttered these words on non other than CNN.

View video link here

A good article about how McCain will act if he gets into office. It’s scary how many Republicans are behind this guy, even conservatives. It’s all a fraud. McCain says he’ll end the Republican Party as it’s known today, and I don’t doubt him one bit.

“RUNNING as a conservative, John McCain rolled up huge victories last night in New York, New Jersey and beyond. But if history is any guide, the McCain we’ve seen of late on the campaign trail is the most conservative McCain we’ll ever see.

He will return to his lifelong positions as soft on illegal immigration, skeptical of tax cuts and favoring strong federal control over things like campaign financing.

McCain has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him.

But if those conservatives sit out the general election, they will help Democrats make history by electing either the first black president or the first female president next November.”

Full Article

More anger from the Right. You cannot with good conservative conscience vote for McCain, not now, not Tuesday and not this November.

As the Democrats debated Thursday night, Ann Coulter was on Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” declaring that if John McCain faced Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election, she would vote for Clinton.

“She’s more conservative than he is,” Coulter said.

McCain also faces a conservative insurrection over his opposition to interrogation techniques that border on torture and opposition to drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Wall Street Journal headed its editorial Thursday, “McCain’s Apostasies.”

That same day, Human Events headlined its lead story online, “Who hijacked the primaries?”

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. In recent days, the supremely influential radio icon has been vociferous (even for him) in declaring that a McCain nomination will cause the destruction of the conservative movement.

“My so-called base is not rushing to vote for McCain,” Limbaugh said on his radio show.

“He relishes kind of tweaking conservatives,” said Don Devine, vice-chairman of the American Conservative Union.

“He doesn’t have, or has very few, friends in the leadership of the conservative movement. There is no question about it.”

Devine said he would likely not vote for McCain should he win the Republican nomination.

Article from the Politico

Yes, it’s true. More insane policies by the Bush Administration. You’d think we already had Hillary as President with these laws passed of late. When is this country going to finally wake up and see what’s its doing to destroy itself. We need change in this country. I’m tired of the politics as usual crowd.

“In their bipartisan zeal to quickly cut a deal on an economic stimulus bill, GOP lawmakers overlooked something that will certainly inflame the conservative base _ illegal immigrants could receive a tax rebate check from the government.”

Link from the Politico

Excerpt from the WSJ written by Peggy Noonan 1/25/08

“On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it!”

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

And this needs saying, because if you don’t know what broke the elephant you can’t put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can’t trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.

I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It’s not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn’t work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That’s the way to help.”

WSJ article

Rudy Giuliani has hit the skids in a Florida freefall that could shatter his presidential campaign and leave a two-man Republican contest in the state between John McCain and Mitt Romney, a Miami Herald poll shows.

Despite hovering over Florida voters for weeks, Giuliani is tied for third place with the scarcely visible Mike Huckabee in a statewide poll of 800 likely voters.

Miami Herald link

World Net Daily – Posted: January 17, 2008

With a divided GOP field going into South Carolina, voters have a chance to make the Second Amendment an issue in this election. And they should.
South Carolina holds a distinctive place in our presidential nominating process. As the first in the South primary, its focus on faith, family values, military service and American traditions makes it one of the most conservative states in the country.

Anyone who’s ever campaigned in South Carolina will tell you that it’s worlds apart from many other parts of the country. And while Second Amendment rights are a sizeable factor in many states’ elections, in South Carolina you cannot win a general election if you’re seen as hostile to firearm freedoms.

That’s in general elections. In the GOP primary, you don’t even want to show your face in a crowd of Republicans if you aren’t ready to protect their gun rights.

Both Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson have a perfect record for supporting Second Amendment rights. They’ve both talked about that in South Carolina and should make an issue of this latest development.

Is anyone listening? To all the Romney bandwagon jumpers…Where’s Mitt’s name here???

Mitt Romney really must take this opportunity to explain exactly where he stands on the Second Amendment. He angered gun owners in December by endorsing and promising to sign into law the Clinton gun ban and the Brady Bill on “Meet the Press.”Those were two of the worst anti-gun laws in American history. He should forcefully take a stand on this Justice Department brief, and while he’s at it he (Romney) should retract his support for these anti-gun laws.

-The writer of this article is the immediate past president of the NRA and a longtime member of the NRA Board of Directors.

This piece does a good job of explaining the inaccurate thoughts and views on Fred’s run for President. Fred is misunderstood and he has the true Conservative views and credentials and is the only true conservative voice running in the GOP today.

Fred On Fire in South Carolina
by Martha Zoller
Posted: 01/15/2008

More than once, pundits or pollsters have said, “Fred just doesn’t have the fire in his belly,” or “have you noticed in debates Fred runs out of things to say before his time has run out?” Perish the thought; a candidate should actually answer a question without qualifiers and get to the point. I am tired of hearing candidates go on for three minutes when they’ve been asked a simple question requiring a “yes or no” answer.

The mainstream media and some cable outlets don’t like Fred. Dick Morris said before Thompson announced that he wouldn’t pass muster because when people realize that he’s not that guy on “Law and Order,” they won’t like him. In Iowa on Caucus Day, George Stephanopoulos and his colleagues across the airwaves counted Fred out. They said that he’d be out that night. Instead of being out, he “got a ticket to the next dance.”

That is Fred Thompson’s message to every Republican primary voter. The Reagan Coalition is not dead, but it is in need of a new leader. The voters are jaded by a Republican Congress who squandered the majority and by an Evangelical President they thought was a Reagan conservative. They are discouraged but they might find what they are looking for in Fred Thompson.

This was a good article. Read the entire article here.

HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson
by Human Events – 1/13/2008

The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.

Fundamental Beliefs

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us and for the conservative community boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.

To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.

Read the rest of this interesting article here.

The number one issue for Republicans in this race should be judges, based on John McCain’s past and current positions Republicans CANNOT trust him:

Global Warming, Affirmative Action, the International Criminal Court, Guantanomo, Tax-cuts, McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, Amnesty(or Z-Visa if you don’t like that word), Christian leaders are “agents of intolerance”. McCain has not admitted to being wrong on any of these issues, with the exception of an apology to Christians for attacking Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance.” I’m sure the apology was as sincere as any of his other straight talk.

As a person who believes in repentance and forgiveness I should comment on why these issues prevent me from EVER supporting John McCain. I believe that a man can repent and be forgiven, but that doesn’t exempt him from facing consequences.

I will not vote for someone who has cheated on their wife, period. McCain cheated on his wife with a beautiful 25 year old with enough family money to launch his political career.

Believe what you want about his supposed straight talk. I am grateful to him for his service to our country, but I would never vote for him.