Global Warming has been Wiped Out

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. .—Michael Asher

Put away all your plans to raise a Global tax United Nations. Stop all of the Global initiatives to stop Global warming Greens. Stop all of the Global warming legislation and Stop all of the Global warming re-Education. Global warming is no more.

All of your anthropogenic global warming theories and all of your CO2 conjecture all wrong. Over the past year, China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

All of the events that I just mentioned are impossible under the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Under that theory CO2 is supposed to trap heat in the atmosphere by a green house effect creating a no escape condition for heat thereby causing the planet to get hotter and hotter until Earth’s temperature reaches critical mass and burn the earth to a crisp and melt the ice caps raise water levels, creating famines and drought world-wide.

The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.—Michael Asher

Scientists now say that in one year’s time one century of warming has been wiped out. The argument is over. Everyone who has promoted the theory of Global warming was and is terribly wrong.



Graph shows warming trend drop

So please return the Nobel Peace Prize, the Oscar and all other phony awards and acknowledgements that were meant to prop up the unscientific arguments supporting the earth’s warming. Return all of the grant moneys and Government funding.

Please issue the appropriate reports and apologizes to the world’s peoples for the false and misleading culture which has grown up around the false claims of anthropogenic global warming.

Barack BS!

If McCain ever uttered a truer phrase, I haven't heard it yet. He said, as an obvious swipe at Obama, that you need more than "Eloquent speeches full of empty rhetoric"!

Barack would have the young, foolish and inexperienced, believe that he is a "uniter", much as George Bush claimed. But............ Bush actually did make great progress in crossing the aisle, whereas Obama is just so much hot air.

He claims that he has bridged the partisan gap, and cooperated with Repubicans on legislation. Well, it only takes one peek at the record (Records are something that most politicians hate, because they ultimately come back to bite the public servent on the ass!) to see that Obama is lying through his teeth. He has only "cooperated" on several very high-profile bills that he believed would help his career. On all the rest, he was an obstacle of greater proportion than Ted Kennedy.

He really believes that he can dupe the first-time voters, who sincerely believe that he will bring change............... regardless of the fact that he doesn't stand a chance in hell of following through on that promise...... and he knows it. By the time he finishes making enemies of the Clintons and their closest associates and backers, and if he succeeds in becoming the Democratic candidate for president, he would be starting off behind the eight-ball. Add to that, the Right side of the aisle, and we have a totally impotent president.

As an intelligent man once said............... "be careful what you wish for............. you might just get it"!

brooklyn

Tim Russert, McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism

Tim Russert
Two things about being Meet the Press’ Tim Russert. One, you don’t have to report the news if you’re Tim Russert, you can make it up as you go along, sort of like former CBS reporter Dan Rather. And the other thing is, you don’t have to connect the dots in a story you simply make more and more dots and when there are more dots than anyone can count you just pretend that the dots are connected.

That’s the McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism that Mr. Russert performed on Sen. Barack Obama with two questions that were of the, “Do you still beat your wife,” variety.

Russert with his penchant for the gotta sensational interview went overboard at the Democrat’s debate held in Ohio two days ago with his McCarthyite and Yellow Journalistic type tactics.

With two craftily configured questions Mr. Russert attempted to impugn the character of Sen. Obama by intimating that Sen. Obama was a man who would go back on his word and secondly Mr. Russert implied by association that Sen. Obama was a racist Jew hater.

A liar and a Jew hater both sensational and damning charges that could end a campaign or a political career like the blacklist of the McCarthy era that ended many a Hollywood entertainer’s career. A liar and a Jew hater, both allegations were the thrust of Russert’s two pronged assault on decent journalism and Sen. Barack Obama a decent man.

Both veiled charges contrived in the mind of Russert and devoid of the facts and void of true journalist integrity.

Both questions were attempts to leave a negative impression in the minds of voters about the Illinois Senator and presidential hopeful.

And at least one question Russert already knew the answer to; the other question one would think he should have known the answer.

First Russert posed this question;

Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring, keeping your word.

Nothing more important.

Last year you said if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it.

You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we can work on an arrangement here.

Why won't you keep your word in writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?

On a questionnaire, The Midwest Democracy Network Presidential Candidate Questionnaire (see here) Sen. Obama checked “YES” to this question; “Question I-B: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” and Sen. Obama wrote this response;

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.

The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Sen. Obama answered Mr. Russert;

Tim, I am not yet the nominee. Now, what I've said is, is that when I am the nominee, if I am the nominee -- because we've still got a bunch of contests left and Senator Clinton's a pretty tough opponent. If I am the nominee, then I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides

Russert responded by; “So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word.” Russert still ever attempting to create the illusion that there was something wrong.

SEN. OBAMA again responded,

“What I -- what I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.”

Shortly after in a post debate interview Mr. Russert acknowledged that he knew what Sen. Obama had written on the questionnaire (Russert had a copy of it) that if he (Obama) were the nominee he would sit down and negotiate with the Republican nominee and he (Russert) thought that Sen. Obama would simply have referred to the questionnaire.

Therefore Mr. Russert’s whole line of questioning purposely misrepresenting Sen. Obama’s stated position and attempted to leave the impression in the voters’ minds that there was something going on that wasn’t.

Sen. Obama exact written words were, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” And that is what Sen. Obama repeatedly stated to Mr. Russert yet Russert attempted to sensationalize a John McCain accusation that Sen. Obama was going back on this word, but how could Sen. Obama be going back on his word, he’s not the Democrat nominee yet!

Sen. Obama’s point was that he can’t look pass Hillary Clinton. Sen. Obama is still locked in a battle with Sen. Clinton. Unlike John McCain, Sen. Obama’s competition didn’t just drop out of the race like Mitt Romney. So it would be presumptuous of Sen. Obama, at best, to engage Sen. McCain about general election financing as if he were the nominee now.

This whole line of Tim Russert questioning was ill contrived Yellow journalism.

Secondly Russert played the McCarthyite racism by association anti-Semitism card. Russert asked:

Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.

On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

What support? Russert is quoting a headline in a paper that claimed something. Russert did not offer one direct quote that Louis Farrakhan said, “I support Barack Obama.” Yet based on this innuendo Russert was able along with Sen. Clinton’s aid to exact a rejection and denunciation of Louis Farrakhan and Sen. Obama's Pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright from Sen. Obama.

Obama must feel like Peter who rejected and denounced Jesus Christ three times to people who want Jesus dead.

But notice how Russert did it, he raised the specter of Louis Farrakhan alleged anti-Semitism over the head of Sen. Obama by connecting Farrakhan’s alleged “backing” for Obama with Farrakhan’s past statements about Jews that have nothing to do with Obama running for President.

Then Russert introduced Obama’s pastors’ activities with Farrakhan as if either had anything to do with Obama. A whole lot of dots but none of them connected to Senator Obama.

Russert continued:

The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."

What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

This is a stunting example of McCarthyism. An indirect accusation that because Farrakhan is considered an anti-Semite by some people and Rev. Wright’s association with Farrakhan may be construed as anti-Semitic therefore Sen. Obama’s association with Rev. Wright and reported “backing” from Farrakhan by extension makes Sen. Obama guilty by association.

That type of thinking should send chills up the spines of Americans. Does anyone think about what a fascistly repressed country this would be if we demanded that everyone who got a positive remark by someone our opponents dislike, one would have to immediately disavow the person making that remark? For example, should Karl Rove have to reject and denounce Bill Clinton who had some positive words about him on Fox News?

But [Karl] Rove is good. And I honor him. I mean, I will say that. I've always been amused about how good he is, in a way.-- Bill Clinton, Fox News with Chris Wallace 9/24/2006

Tim Russert’s journalism is subtly accusatory and passively aggressively damning in general but what he demonstrated in the Democrat’s debates was more stridently McCarthyite and Yellow and wrong!

Multiple Personality Disorder?

Sens Obama and Clinton share a similar background

Have you been keeping up with the recent Democrat Presidential Nominee debates? I gotta tell you that last night’s MSNBC debate left me a bit puzzled.

After the debate in Texas where Sen. Clinton somewhat delicately acknowledged that she felt it such an honor to be on the same stage as Barack Obama and then in the span of 48 hrs Sen Clinton was spinning on a top raving with Obama flyer in hand challenging Obama to an all holds barred World Wrestling Federation Debate I thought, “There will be blood!” See here:



And here:

“So shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That is what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio . Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

“These attacks on what we tried to do the last time we went after universal health care is the worst kind of politics. Number one, it is wrong and untrue and number two it is exactly the talking points the health insurance industry used on a daily basis. Sen. Obama knows that it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they cant afford it.”

“Time and time again you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats. Well I am here to say that it is not only wrong but it is undermining core Democratic principles.”

Blood? I viewed in and saw nothing of the kind. Oh they had their little lover spats over Health care and NAFTA but judging the way Hillary had called out Obama you would have thought that there was going to be some major Obama butt kicking going on. Instead we got the same tepid pattycake, tag you’re it, “that’s not what I said… Did too!” That we’ve always been getting.

But I must confess that recent events got me to wondering how can someone go from cordially gracious, to meet me Ohio for a fight and then placidly calm and seemingly rational in a 48 hr. span?

Then it occurred to me that what we are witnessing is Multiple Personality Disorder. MPD often occurs in the candidate of inevitability when she is losing her bid for the Presidency and is listening to a multitude of consultant’s advice on how best to present herself to the American people.

Be more tough, be more gentle, cry a little, etc. so you never know which personality that is going to show up when that candidate decides to present the face that this or that block of the constituency wants to see.

We have seen Sen. Clinton morph and transform into characters reminiscent of the movies “Sybil”, “The Three faces of Eve” to “Me, Myself & Irene” and frankly it’s scary.


There were no substantive or new developments in last nights debates other than the Tim Russert’s Louis Farrankan Obama got cha question and Sen. Clinton ever evolving change of character.

Sen. Clinton’s husband the former President, Bill Clinton offered this, “I can't make her younger, taller and male!”

Which is all true but it’s not for a want of trying!

EXPERIENCE

Sen. Hillary Clinton

"We're going to emphasize more and more the experience gap," Clinton told several hundred supporters who had paid at least $500 to attend a Boston fundraiser. "You'll hear a lot about it the next eight days." --BETH FOUHY quoting Sen. Hillary Clinton

Experience! With it one is supposed to be ready “on day one” to govern the free world in the office of the most powerful political executive position in the world, the Presidency of the United States of America.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking her political fortunes on that one word “experience.”

Sen. Clinton knows a lot about words, she just freshly scolded Sen. Barack Obama last week for allegedly using words that were not his own, words which he failed to give credit to the author for their use. Sen. Clinton accused Sen. Obama of Plagiarism.

Clearly Sen. Obama doesn’t have the experience that Sen. Clinton has or he would have never committed such a grave sin.

Speaking of experience Senator Clinton has a lot of it. She has been apart of her husband’s campaign for Governor of Arkansas, she has been apart of two of her husband’s campaigns for President of the United States and she has had two campaigns for the Senate seat which she currently holds as a Senator of New York.

Yep a lot of experiences no doubt, so please someone explain to me how someone whose primary argument for why she should be elected President of the United States is experience has mismanaged her own campaign to the point that she has virtually run it into the ground.

Out of money, time and seriously behind in a campaign which she attempted to project an air of inevitability now Sen. Clinton is attempting to reassure her financial backers that the 11 straight victories that her inexperienced Democrat upstart rival Barack Obama has claimed will be dealt with. Sen. Clinton even rolled out a new outlined road map and says she will follow it to beat Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries March 4. (I can’t wait!)

So why did the more experienced Sen. Clinton have to loan her cash strapped campaign $5 million dollars of her own money when her inexperience opponent has remained able to pay his bills?

Why did the more experienced Sen. Clinton have to change her campaign manager in midstream and why did the more experienced Sen. Clinton’s campaign staffers go unpaid this month?

Clinton campaign advisers -- including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle -- have "voluntarily chosen to work without pay this month" as part of a "Clinton cash crunch" (This is despite the fact that campaign pollster Mark Penn's firm was paid $4.3 million by the campaign.)—The Huffingtonpost.com

Answer: a mismanaged campaign by the candidate of experience.

With bills and salaries going unpaid, Clinton admitted Wednesday she wrote out a $5 million check from her personal funds to cover some expenses and go forward in her neck-and-neck contest with the surging Barack Obama but the loan won't be enough to bail out the financially-strapped campaign.

Many staffers will work without pay this month and Capitol Hill Blue has learned that many vendors are demanding cash up front because of the campaign's overdue bills. –Capital Hill Blue

According to Times KAREN TUMULTY this is a campaign of mismanagement and miscalculation Clinton began this campaign like a coronation but soon discovered that there are only two inevitabilities in life, death and Democrats losing Presidential campaigns.

This is not the race that Clinton thought she would be running. Her campaign was built on inevitability, a haughty operation so confident it would have the nomination wrapped up by now that it didn't even put a field organization in place for the states that were to come after the megaprimary on Feb. 5. —Karen Tumulty

And then there was the extravagant spending, private chartered jets with the finest eats for the Press corps groupies, first class hotels and my those exorbitant consultant fees.

Sen. Clinton once stated that the country couldn’t afford all of her ideas apparently not even her campaign could afford all of her ideas.

"I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." —Sen. Hillary Clinton

Running a deficit in one’s campaign doesn’t bode well for someone who claims to have the experience to run American’s government. Quite a story here yet the main stream media has seemed to have missed it.

Yes, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton “would be” President of the United States of America. Senator Clinton who has denigrated President George Bush at every opportunity in every possible way for the way President Bush has conducted the country’s business, her own campaign is in disarray and out of money due to mistakes that apparently not even her less experienced opponent Sen. Obama would make nor has he!

Ironically, Sen. Clinton could not run the only thing that she has ever had the opportunity to run, her own presidential campaign, without running a deficit and totally mismanaging an election that was hers to lose. And she is losing it!

[Sen. Clinton’s] team of battle-tested veterans failed to plan for much of anything after Super Tuesday. We now know that the Clinton campaign blew so much of its cash on the February 5 multi-state primary that it had little left in the tank for what was to follow, forcing the candidate to loan herself $5m and spend valuable time last night on television trying to raise more.

So strongly did the Clinton campaign assume that Super Tuesday, with its 1,000-plus pledged delegates up for election in more than 20 states, would be the effective end of the nomination campaign that it failed to have a Plan B. –Richard Adams

Experience is supposed to be that needed insight, it is suppose to be that edge one needs to avoid the pratfalls of errand campaigns and misdeeds. Yet for Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is trying to sell America on her experience, experience didn’t help her run a smart campaign nor a winning campaign.

Neither has Sen. Clinton demonstrated to the American people that she would be ready “on day one” to lead a government as complex as the American government because she can’t even run the much smaller campaign to became president of the United States.
Even George W. Bush ran better campaigns for the presidency than the experienced Sen. Clinton.

The hubris, the utter ineptitude, the overspending, and the mismanagement of the Clinton campaign is not inductive of leadership and experience as Sen. Clinton has claimed, no this is a shameless amateurish bunch of rouge hack politicians who are rehashing the tactics of the 90’s in a 2008 campaign for the presidency.

If Hillary Clinton thinks that she will be ready on day one to be president a botched campaign is not a very reassuring to the American people that she is.

If Sen. Clinton’s campaign is what experience has to offer, then the fairy tale is looking more real to me than her claims of experience.

I’m thinking that real experience can be found between either the fairytale or the pseudo-Republican, and Sen. Clinton’s claim of experience?

Why, that has proven to be a farce just as fake and phony as the statement, “I did not have sex with that woman… Ms. Lewensky!”

Democrats have Failed

Michael Kensley


I’m attempting to understand the radical Liberal ideology that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represents. I’ve read and listened to countless arguments coming from the left trying to convince anyone who would listen that the surge is a failure and the war is lost.

Just recently another of these screeds was published written by Michael Kinsley in the LA Times. Kinsley is reduced to some technical nuanced connotative exploitation of the word surge. But in spite of his awkward and uneven parsing even Kinsley has to admit that the surge did in fact work. His point of departure is that by definition it did not work. Huh?

Let’s take a look at how this Liberal convolution all evolved; it began with Rep. John Murtha who swore on his congressional oath that the Iraq war was lost. So influential were his rantings that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid often parroted Rep. Murtha’s now discredited claims.

Then in a remarkable display of contempt for the truth Liberal Democrat ancillary group moveon.org pronounced in a discounted New York Times ad that the surge was a failure and that General Petraeus was a betrayer. All of this before they had heard one word of his schedule report on the progress in Iraq.

What followed In the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearings on Iraq was equally as outlandish. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defamed the General and Ambassador Ryan Crocker intimating that they were nothing more than lackeys for the Bush administration and then she wryly stated that to believe the General’s positive report regarding Iraq required a suspension of disbelief. (See here)

So against all of the evidence to the contrary, I say okay lets assume that all of your Liberal arguments are correct and lets stipulate that the surge is a failure. And equally let’s agree (separate from the facts on the ground) that the war is lost as many Democrat leaders have assured us.

Now based on that logic I have a seemly new proposition for anyone who would be so incline to take me up on it, and that is, Liberalism has failed and the Democrat Party is an abysmal failure. Can you prove otherwise? Come on I dare you to show me where I’m wrong.

If I use just regular Liberal logic I have to conclude that Liberals and Democrats are the worst failures in political history, just look.

After over 40 years of controlling both houses of Congress Democrats lost control to their arch rivals the Republicans in 1994 who were led by Newt Gingrich. Gingrich told America that he intended to bring Conservativism back to government and Americans responded by sweeping Democrats out of power and for the first time in recent history voted both the Senate and the House to Republican control.

Next thing is Democrats attempted to regain the presidency after William Jefferson Clinton’s term in office but they lost to George W. Bush once in 2000 and again in 2004. Democrats are such failures that they couldn’t beat the worst President (according to them) in history. And no matter how you think President Bush gained office, if he was as dumb, stupid or pathetic as Democrats claim, how could he have beaten them twice unless for the fact that Democrats are totally incompetent failures themselves?

Then Democrats promised America that if they were restored to congressional power they would end the war and set the country in a new direction.

Democrats were restored to congressional power in 1996 yet they have failed miserably to end the war like they promised and they have failed to do anything about what they see as the country’s worsening condition. In fact the approval ratings for Congress are at an all time low. In comparison President Bush’s approval ratings are at an all time low too. But even Bush’s ratings are higher than that of a Democrat controlled Congress’ approval ratings which again are lower than an increasingly unpopular president Bush.

Congress has been termed the do nothing congress but even more so since the Democrats came into power. Do nothing because Democrat’s mean spirited partisanship has brought the institution that is responsible for doing the people’s business to a dead halt.

For going on twelve years Democrats have not been able to advance their socialist agenda as they have promised and have you noticed that Democrats are always fighting.

I fought for this bill or I fought for this program but the end result is that Democrats have failed to advance any meaningful liberal change in over 12 years.

So the next time some Liberal proclaims that the surge has failed or the war is lost take notice because no one knows failure like those who practice it on a daily basis.

And ask them do you think Democrats have failed? Only the intellectually honest and less than partisan would even entertain your question, the rest?

The rest would never admit under any circumstances that Liberal Democrats have failed and that they are failures! They reserve such rhetoric for their partisan war against the Republicans.

Now if they lose to John McCain then I guess they would not only confirm but they would prove my point now wouldn’t they!

CHANGE YOU CAN XEROX AND I CAN PLAGIARIZE BETTER THAN YOU

Sens. Obama and Clinton: Last Night’s Debate

Hillary Rodham Clinton accused presidential rival Barack Obama of political plagiarism Thursday night, but drew boos from a Democratic debate audience when she ridiculed him as the candidate of "change you can Xerox."—David Espo

The Clinton campaign went to great lengths to derail Barack Obama’s political juggernaut by leveling charges of plagiarism at him for weeks then ironically with the last word in a otherwise lackluster Democrat nomination debate, last night, Sen. Clinton plagiarized former Senator and former Democrat nominee hopeful John Edwards’ “We’re going to be fine” line to close out the debate. See for yourself:



Thus again proving that, “it’s just words” with the Clintons. They will do and say anything, for instance like trumping up false plagiarism charges in a campaign of personal destruction against a fellow Democrat and then do the very thing same thing that they so publicly and dramatically took offense at.

Somehow Senator Clinton I suspect that we may all be fine, but after Texas and Ohio and your campaign completely folds, as much as you want to be President, when you lose those two states you will not be fine.

Hey did anyone hear Sen. Clinton give Sen. Edwards credit for the line that she stole from him? ...I didn't think so!

Let’s finally turn the page on the Clintons after all nobody wants to fall backward into another Clinton administration!

Huckabee Reminds About First Principles

Republican Presidential Hopeful Gov. Mike Huckabee

“Republicans have decided that elections are a messy thing, and anointings and coronations are much better.”

It’s that kind of attitude that is going to be the death of the Republican Party in this country.”-- Governor Mike Huckabee

The Republican political establishment lost control of both houses of Congress in 2006 because they lost touch with conservative values and the conservative base.

Instead of learning from that rejection, and self correcting it’s path the political Republican establishment is leaning further away from its base by embracing those on its left, Lincoln Chaffe Republicans, who would rather caucus with Democrats than fight for Conservative ideas. These are the “Former Senators Walking” that have backed their colleague John McCain in a bloodless coup of the Republican Party making McCain the apparent successful Republican nominee.

Mitt Romney’s premature exit from the nomination process sent the message that most Republican officials believe that phony displays of unity are better than fighting to make sure we select the right man for the job.

Instead of Republicans avoiding the Bob Dole “it’s my turn” losing politics of 1996 where they lost to Bill Clinton. Republicans are once again engaging, in like manner, in John McCain “it’s my turn” politics of 2008.

Gov. Huckabee reminds us of the work that we must do to rid the Republican Party of those who believe that reaching across the aisles to work with Liberals means that we must leave our core principles behind in order to do so.

Reaching across the aisle should never mean that Republicans help Democrats block Conservative Judges like Republican Senator Arlen Specter has done in the past and it certainly doesn’t mean that Republicans co-author legislation that would give Illegal Aliens automatic Amnesty in conjunction with paying a fee to purchase U.S. citizenship.

Gov. Huckabee’s candidacy has not enjoyed broad Conservative support up until now, yet he has every right to be in and stay in this race. His presence is a reminder to us all that the big tent that Republicans were talking about several years ago has expanded to include more on the left but at the same time it has began to exclude its core, the right.

Gov. Huckabee says, “You alienate that strong base of the Party [Conservatives], and you’re going to find it very difficult to beat Democrats.”

Here’s hoping that Gov. Huckabee’s example is not just another lesson lost on a Republican Party in search of its soul. Which in my estimation is its core constituency, Conservatives!

The “Grey Lady” Drops Her Drawers!

Whether it was for cash, political belief, or
for sheer mendacity, the NYT has stooped
to the lowest level of "journalism", in recorded
history.

Not only do they bring up a 20-year-old scandal,
but they try to indict an already cleared Senator
McCain. They knowingly and intentionally
do their best to use innuendo and vague statements
to induce the reader to assume that McCain is
guilty of inappropriate behavior.

This is the lowest form of yellow journalism and
the NYT should be admonished for bringing it’s
already tarnished image, completely into the
gutter.

brooklyn

Talk about Plagiarism Let’s Talk Hillary’s 35 Years of Experience

Sen. Clinton wouldn’t plant a story would she?

"If your whole candidacy is about words, those words should be your own. That's what I think."—Sen. Hillary Clinton

Oh Boy! I’d like to be Sen. Obama for just one day and I’d have Sen. Clinton regretting the day that she had the audacity to raise plagiarism as an issue.

Because I’m thinking that if your whole candidacy is about experience that experience ought to be your own. What do you think about that Sen. Clinton? I’m also thinking that Sen. Obama ought to get off of the defensive and challenge Sen. Clinton’s experience meme again like he did earlier in the campaign and then we’d see who the plagiarist is.

Plagiarism is the stealing of another’s ideas as if they were your own.

Dictionary.com says plagiarism is:

1.

the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

2.

something used and represented in this manner.

Let’s focus on the second entry “something used and represent in this manner” and examine Sen. Clinton’s claims of 35 years of relative experience that qualifies her to be President of the United States and I think that the she bull that has been attempting to gore Sen. Obama over a speech that he made may just have to retract her horns.

Now as far I a know Sen. Clinton has never been President or Vice President so she couldn’t be claiming any direct personal experience now could she?

And aside from the denials that the Clinton campaign planted the issue of Sen. Obama committing plagiarism (it's got Clinton stamped all over it) we would not be discussing stealing words, ideas or work experience but it’s the politics of personal destruction yet again.

It makes a person wonder why would someone whose whole candidacy, no, whose whole career is based on her husband’s accomplishments or her husbands misdeeds why would such a person attempt to draw attention to anyone using someone else’s words and claiming them as their own when Sen. Clinton has been claiming her husbands political experience as Governor of Arkansas and President as her own and as the reason that voters should chose her for President.

You must remember Chris Matthews’ comments on the matter of Senator Clinton’s experience.

"[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."—Chris Matthews on Senator Hillary Clinton

Sen. Clinton has claimed that her experience as first lady is apart of the experiences that qualify her to be President of the United States a claim which was challenged by Senator Obama initially.

"I think the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it,"-- Sen. Barack Obama

Sens Obama and Edwards used this issue quite effectively early on in the campaign and though they differed on how best to exploit the significance of Sen. Clintons claims, they did bring attention to the fact Sen. Clinton experience was not what she claimed.

Senator Barack Obama's decision to challenge Hillary Clinton's claims of governing "experience" stemming from her days as first lady has split her two most aggressive challengers, with Obama suggesting she deserves meager credit for her husband's presidency and John Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, arguing she should be held accountable for its flaws. Sasha Issenberg

Slate’s Timothy Noah takes Sen. Clinton to task about her claims and issues a warning that Republicans will be able to dismantle Mrs. Clinton’s claim of plagiarized governmental experience.

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee.

If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down.

That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination.

McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." —>Timothy Noah

I don’t think that the Clinton campaign really thought this recent attack on Obama through it opens Sen. Clinton up once again to questions about what experience is really hers and what experience has been borrowed from her husband.

Sadly Senator Clinton has only had about eight years as an elected politician with very little accomplishments to speak of and no executive experience at all Sen. Obama has more than that! Yet by her count she has 35 years of experience which qualifies her to be President.

Here’s one place that I agree with an idea of Sen. Clinton’s, that is if someone is going to claim experience as the basis for their candidacy it should be their own experience not the experience that you’ve plagiarized from your spouse.

Enforce the Law and They Will Go

Marching in American Streets waving Mexican Flags

Who can forget the theme of the 1989 movie, Field of Dreams? "If you build it, he will come." That's the ethereal message that inspires Iowa farmer Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) to construct a baseball diamond in the middle of his cornfield, according to Hal Erickson, MTV All Movie Guide.

But even more surreal than an ethereal message in a movie is what happened for real in the streets of major American cities throughout this country about 3 years ago.

I remember it as if it were only yesterday, when hundreds of thousands of foreign invaders marched the streets of America aided by American co-conspirators, flying the flags of their foreign home countries and demanded that the American government capitulate to their demands. No science fiction movie script could have been any stranger!

And then on the anniversary of that dreamlike and bizarre demonstration, one year to the day, they did it again only partially seeing the error of their tactics they replaced their foreign flags with American flags. As if wrapping themselves in the American flag would hide the reality that they were hundreds of thousands of foreign invaders marching for the second time though the streets of America making demands that they had no constitutional rights to make.

What these Illegal Aliens and their America compatriots did do was focus the attention of millions of American citizens on the fact that their government, the American government, was no longer functioning and doing the fundamental thing that it was designed to do. What that is, is to protect them and the constitution from all enemies whether foreign or domestic.

It became quite apparent that the President and certain Congress men and women were no longer acting in conjunction with their sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution.

It was also clear to most Americans that these individuals were acting under some unknown foreign influences. Yet where the Federal government would not and could not do its job it was left up to the people as it should be. And the people through their state governments began to do the job that the American Federal government, the President and Congress, could not or would not do.

And because of the people’s efforts Illegal aliens are leaving Arizonain spite of an Illegal alien friendly Senator John McCain, why?

Because the citizens of Arizona are doing the job that the American Government won’t do!

The citizens of Arizona have chosen to be a state of laws even though they live in a Nation of lawlessness governed by a President and Congressional men and women who support lawlessness.

Senator John McCain is such a Senator that supports the lawlessness of Mexican and other nationals, who illegally crossed American borders, steal American’s identities and exploit the American economy for the benefit of their foreign Countries and foreign families.

Since the Federal Government refuses to protect and defend the American people the state of Arizona minus their Senator that is running for President of the United States of America is restoring law and order to their individual state.

Arizonians are succeeding over the nay Sayers who say, “You can’t deport 12 million people, how are you going to deport that many people.” Arizona has shown that if a state simply enforces its laws illegal aliens will chose to self deport. Boy what a concept!

One asks for identification, and then penalizes employers who employ illegals and then arrest and deport people who break the law and consequently Illegals chose to leave on their own volition. (Now we see why the Federal government wouldn’t enforce the laws)

What is also interesting is the economic down turn is also playing a major part in Illegals’ decision to leave. Some Illegals find our economic problems and the devaluing of the dollar problems that they don’t wish to deal with so they simply leave and go home.

Just think about that for a moment if America was to face some major economic disaster not everyone here has America’s interest at heart some can pick up their belongings and go back to the country of their origin while the rest of us sink or swim.

That is the ultimate danger in allowing people who are not 100% invested in this country to siphon off its economic largess and then when the well runs dry so to speak or the when the country goes bankrupted (God forbid) they can just say, “Oh well” and go home!

Other returning immigrants cite a slowdown in the U.S. economy as a factor, and the falling value of the U.S. dollar against other currencies, which has eaten into the value of remittances sent to support families at home.

Aluisio Carvalho, 66, left a wife and four children behind in Brazil in 2001 when he set off to find work in Boston. Since then, he has managed to pay for the education of his children by working in a restaurant, but is now planning to leave himself in February
"Salaries are really low, and living costs are high. We also face too much exploitation at work here, too many demands," he said. --Tim Gaynor, Reuters

Yet protecting American jobs and the American economy is not a new concept it was done successfully by an America President who was beholden to no other interests but the Constitution and the American people

President Dwight D. Eisenhower solved the problem of illegal aliens and virtually stopped illegal immigration into the United States and the results of these efforts were felt for over 10 years in this country.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.


How did President Eisenhower virtually stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country?

President Eisenhower hired the right people, he resisted powerful political and corporate interests, and he enforced the law.—Alaphiah

America can once again become a field of dreams but only if America once again becomes a Nation of laws. A Nation that honors its people first and above powerful political and corporate interests, a Nation of the people for the people and by the people is how it goes I do believe.

We ought to get back to that instead of catering to the special interests and corporate lobbies that have risen up like devouring beasts to consume the American dream like great hordes of American desert Locusts.

The first step back is to enforce the law. Thanks Arizona for showing the way!

There Will Be Chaos and Democrats will Bring It!

Sen. Clinton Campaigning
They always do!

All eyes will be on Denver Colorado this coming August 25-28 at the Democrat National Committee Convention to see if the Democrat Party will implode into a Black Hole of Chaos with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Howard Dean at it’s vortex trapping and sucking all of the hope and light from the Democrat Party into Clinton’s and Dean’s dense core of negativity and anti-rules.

Yes rules don’t seem to matter to Democrats not their own rules nor the rules or laws of the Country in which they live. If the DNCC is any indication of how Democrats will govern if they are granted power then no doubt there will be chaos if Democrats are elected, here’s why.

The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling nominating process yesterday[Friday, August 25, 2007], rejecting pleas from [Florida’s] state party leaders and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary.
The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted yesterday morning to strip Florida of all its [157] delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal. – Michael Shear

The DNC had hoped that the penalties imposed on Florida would be enough to detour any other state from scheduling this year’s presidential primaries before established DNC rules and times.

The DNC rules stipulate that states that have not been granted a special waiver must
schedule presidential nominating contests after Feb. 5.

"Rules are rules," said DNC member Garry S. Shays, of California, at the meeting. "California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos."

Donna Brazile, a member of the rules committee who argued for a swift and harsh punishment for Florida, said states' desire to be more relevant in the nominating process does not excuse violations of rules intended to make the system fair for everyone. – CBS News

Yet the door was opened to chaos when in spite of the harsh ruling against Florida, Michigan decided that they would hold their Democrat primary January 15, 2008 before the February 5th date.

The DNC responded by first threatening the state Party but when the Party held it’s primary on the prohibited January date the DNC sanctioned the Michigan Democrat Party and ruled that the state Party’s 156 delegates would not be seated at the Democratic Convention as agreed to by National party officials of the DNC and all of the Democrat candidates running for president.

Attempting to comply with Party rules all Democrat candidates decided not to campaign in Florida and Michigan and some decided to withdraw their names from the Michigan ballots while some did not comply nor did they withdraw their names.

All the major Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in either Michigan or Florida because those states violated party rules. And in Michigan, most of the major candidates will not even be on the ballot.

Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy that Florida and Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar.—CBS News

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel left their names the Democratic ballot in Michigan which Sen. Clinton flew into Florida and Michigan and she won both virtual uncontested races.

Since Sen. Clinton is now running behind Sen. Obama in the delegate count and is losing the Democrat nomination the Clinton campaign is attempting to introduce chaos into the race and change the rules in midstream, rules that they agreed to, and they are threatening to sue to have Florida’s and Michigan’s delegates seated at the convention because Sen. Clinton won those two states even though everyone agreed that a win in those states, according to the rules, meant nothing!

RealClearPolitics.com projects the Democrat delegate count would be 1302 for Sen. Obama and 1235 for Sen. Clinton including the Democrat Superdelegates. Wisconsin and Hawaii will be voting tomorrow and Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont are scheduled to vote on March the 4th Michigan’s 156 and Florida’s 157 unseated delegates could be a factor in the outcome of this nomination.

313 delegates could give Senator Clinton the Democrat nomination which explains why the Clinton campaign is willing to throw the whole nomination process into chaos to seat delegates that by rule and mutual agreement should not be seated.

Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.

In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised - before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions. -- HOPE YEN

Here we go again, Al Gore 2000, Gore called then president elect George W. Bush on election night and concede the elect and was on his way to make his concession speech when someone in his campaign told him that he shouldn’t concede because Florida was to close to call.

That advice and Gore's subsequent actions set in motion the political chaos of loathing and bitterness between the Democrat and Republican Parties that we have today. And because of it we have what has been termed the Red state Blue state divide in this country.

Can we expect these continual acts of divisiveness from a Democrat administration or a partisan Democrat controlled Congress?

If Democrats can’t keep their own party rules then how can we expect them to keep our Nations laws? How are they going to enforce our borders?

What happens in Denver in August will tell America all we need to know about the way a Democrat administration would govern America.

And judging by the now apparent desperation if the Clinton campaign there will be chaos at the Democrat National Convention and the same is in store for America too if Democrats are elected to the Executive Office come November 2008.

I Can't Help But Laugh!!!!!!

This would be funny, except for the fact that it
is a pathetic situation.

Over the past two years or so, we've heard from the
Democratic Senators and Representatives, that
President Bush had an unacceptable approval
level of just 34%.

Well, lo and behold.............. according to the most
recent Rasmussen report, the lofty Congress itself
is enjoying a good year! Barely 15% of US citizens
feel that Congress is doing a passable job.
Forty six percent, think that their performance
stinks! By the way................ that's DOWN from
that horribly low 26% approval rating of just one
year ago.

Now doesn't that tell you a lot, about a Congress
that was going to fix everything that the Bush
administration "screwed up", and can barely tie
its own shoes?

What a shame! And to think, there are still
voters who are "considering" voting for Hillary
or Obama!

brooklyn

There will be No Truce and No Calming Down!

Donna Brazile, Democrat Party Leader

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Donna Brazile told CNN this week.
Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, is herself a super delegate. --ABC News

People who stand for Conservative principles are in short supply these days. When someone takes that strange stance, which used to be recognized as a stand on principles, most people are not sure how to take it.

For instance when Conservatives took a principled stand against John McCain a so-called Conservative who is in the mainstream of negotiating away Conservative values and principles most of the left collectively scratched their heads because it was puzzling to see people so unwilling to change their beliefs or so they say.

The Political Left believes that everything is transitory, negotiable, relative and progressively changing. You want change right? That being the case, it is not at all out of the realm of possibilities that though abortion is the law today that it just might be ban in the future. It really all depends on whether people change their minds about it. Right?

And then there’s homosexuality, homosexual relationships and the homosexual sex act could be ban too if enough people thought the latest fad was now heterosexuality and people began to believe that we were born that way, you know all straight and stuff.

Homosexuality would just become plain passé. Support for homosexuality could change too, now couldn’t it? And people would simply shun the act. Now that would be change. Wouldn’t it?

If you’re thinking no way, Roe vs. Wade must always remain law and homosexuals must always be permitted to do what they were born to do. After all what’s important is that two people love each other.

My question is then, what makes you any different than a Conservative that says marriage must always remain a relationship between a male and a female or that babies in their mother’s womb must always be protected.

The point is this Dr. James Dobson, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Gene Beck, Laura Ingram and Sean Hannity all have been taking flack from the main stream media, Liberals and their allies because of their principled stand against Sen. John McCain. And by the way the Right doesn’t hate Sen. McCain. Hate for political opponents is the exclusive emotional response of Howard Dean Liberal Democrats!

What is so paradoxical in this whole situation is Sen. McCain has been lauded from the Left when he took various principle stands against Conservative ideas and against the Right. Such stances have earned Sen. McCain face time in the National media as the voice of Republicans when the same media would not dare ask any other Conservative the same questions given to McCain on a given subject.

So why does the Left get to stand on their principles plus get to lambaste the Right when the Right does the same thing?

Here’s an example, various Conservative leaders and radio/TV commentators have stated emphatically that if John McCain is the Republican Nominee they will not vote for him.

Ignorantly some from the right are calling for truces in the name of don’t worry about your principles just defeat the Democrats. McCain supporters are asking for calm so that the party can be unified around McCain. Both suggestions are out of the question! Why?

Because this whole bloody deal is about an Oligarchical take over of the Conservative Party without consulting with the people. A very small group of moderates to liberal Conservatives has decided that they know what is best for the Party and they are taking over the Party by bloodless coup.

That is what the McCain nomination is fundamentally about taking this Party in a different direction, the wrong direction.

Isn’t the irony of it all plainly seen? If Conservatives abandon their values or compromise to work with McCain on shared values then Conservatism is no better than its, transitory, negotiable, relative and progressively changing nemesis, Liberalism.

That is exactly what McCain has been working for he and those affiliated with and working with him are attempting to move Conservatives to the Left and according to McCain Conservatives are supposed to calm down while he pulls the pants down around the ankles of Conservatism, places Conservatism, hands tied, over the barrel of his apparent nomination and does the Sen. Larry Craig airport bathroom shuffle on the bent over Republican Party.

Yet, there will be no truce and there will be no calming down. If there were ever a time to fight this is that time.

Conservatives who are aware know what I’m saying is true.

McCain is the Liberal’s, destroy Conservatism, suicide bomber. Seemingly innocuous McCain is being placed where he can be detonated and do as much damage to the Party and its faithful as possible.

Anyone in hers or his right mind would waterboard McCain if given the chance, to make him confess his secret agenda.

This is not McCain derangement syndrome as some are mockingly referring to those who oppose John McCain. Those who oppose McCain have the evidence of long record of McCain counter Conservative insurgency to go on.

No this is a principled stance much like the stance Donna Brazile the long time Democrat and Al Gore supporter has recently taken. Ms. Brazile a dyed in the wool Democrat has promised emphatically that if Sen. Barack Obama is cheated out of his Party’s nomination by Superdelegate vote if the popular vote establishes him as the Democrat nominee, Ms Brazile has promised that she will leave the Democrat Party.

Now you could call that Hillary Clinton derangement syndrome or you could accept it for what it is.

A stand on principle in a time when everyone else considers such a stance archaic!

Like Ms. Brazile seems to believe there are some things worth fighting for and there are some principles worth leaving a Party for!

There Will be no Truce there will be no Calming Down!

McCaine Will Be President!

Since the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
far left.............. the liberals have been having a field day.

Their attack machines have done some damage to the
Bush administration, but much to their chagrin, he is
far from out...... as attested to by the fact that he is still
getting the legislation that he has fought for since 2000.

By pitting Obama against Hillary, they have once again
played the "race card", dividing the party. Nobody can
deny that........... even CNN, CNBC, NYT or any of the other
liberal MSM. Figures show that Obama has garnered
nearly all of the available "black vote". If it weren't for
color, he would probably never have advanced to where
he is today. This race is not supposed to be about color,
as we hear from black politicians, but they are the first
ones to back him because he is black.

After the bloodletting, the accusations, the "investigations"
and the revelations.......... both Obama and Clinton will be
ready for the garbage heap. And that's before the Republicans
even start on whichever one makes it through the fray.

Each day, it appears more and more, that Obama will be
the Democratic candidate for president. In the polls it
looks very impressive, but polls have been wrong before
............more often wrong than right. If I recall, Kerry
was going to 'steam-roll' over Bush in '04. I made
some money on that bet!

Pitting Obama...... a rookie Senator............ against McCaine,
with all his faults and warts,.......... there is no contest. The
hopeful "democratic candidate", who is the most liberal of
all the Senators in Congress, will galvanize moderate and
conservative Democrats disgusted with the party, and most
Republicans, even including the ultra-conservatives.

Why will this happen? The answer is simple. McCaine has
an overall 85% conservative voting record: voting for extending
the Bush tax cuts, a strong defense, victory in Iraq, border
security and fiscal responsibility.......... against Obama's 100%
liberal record.

Those in their right minds will not want to see this
country slip more and more toward Socialism, which is
basically what the Democrats, and particularly Obama,
have been preaching. His programs go in only one direction
............. tax the middle-class, and give to the lower class.
Grant amnesty to all the illegals in the US. Give them
Social Security. Give them drivers licenses..................
give them your job!

No my far-left wackos..........the United States is still about those
Americans who have built this country, sacraficed for it, and
refuse to turn it over to free-loaders. If I have to go door to
door come November, I will do my damndest to see that this
country is not surrendered............ to terrorists, opportunists
or overly-ambitious and underqualified politicians.

How McCain Is Doing It

Senators John Kerry and John McCain

Was Senator McCain encouraged to running in spite of the fact that he has zero Conservative backing? Encouraged by those whose plan is to win the White house for Liberals and if not win then place a Liberal Manchurian Candidate in the White house who will do the bidding of Liberals at the code words “This is Ted Kennedy McCain Listen.” -- Alaphiah

There are no accidents in politics only the careful planning of assassinations or the equally carefully planned making of a king. In politics unlike Vegas the house always wins, however like Vegas you never get to see who the house is!

From worst to first, from politically dead to Republican front runner posed to steal or claim the Republican nomination for President of the United States all this without the support of Conservatives how was it done, purely serendipitously? Not hardly!

It’s a story of political subversion, betrayal and treachery. It is a story of turning on Party members, turning on the Party, turning on Party values and then turning on the grass roots of the Party.

Were there conspirers on the grassy knoll of McCain’s unexplainable come back and if so who were they? And why John McCain, why should he have the good fortune of being the one designated to be leader and front man of this secret movement to gain electoral power?

To explain how it happened we must first explained why it happened.

It is no secret that there is a partisan war being waged in our government. President George W. Bush is perhaps the most maligned United States President in modern times.

His presidency has been sabotaged, undermined, lied on and unfairly criticized by partisans on the left. Partisans that he in no short measure has attempted to reach across the aisle too.

Yet all that the president has been able to produce for his efforts is a fervor of ferocious Bush bashing. In spite of it the President still attempted to legislate what Democrats wanted and supported, CIRA or Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. And policies that were apparently important to him such as the North American Community the Dubai Ports Deal, Homeland Security and fighting Terrorism.

Several of the president’s agenda met with strong Conservative opposition, CIRA, North American Community, and the Dubai Ports Deal. In fact Conservatives were able to turn back the tide on these three main Bush agenda items.

Sen. John McCain is punishment for you Conservatives that did not allow this agenda to go though.

What you say? That’s correct John McCain is retaliation against Conservatives that stopped CIRA and the vast Left wing conspiracy. I’m not kidding!

Until the mid term elections of 2006 Republicans enjoyed the majority in Congress for twelve short years compared to the nearly 50 years that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before the 1994 Newt Gingrich Conservative revolution called the Contract with America which swept corrupt Democrats out of office.

Instead of Republicans using their majority status to further solidify their agenda Republicans began partying like Rockstars so much so that they began to mimic the very corruption that they promised to over throw.

Other Republicans began to buy into the Liberal social agenda of homosexuality, illegal immigration, global warming, misspending the public’s money and larger government just to name a few agenda items.

John McCain was apart of this second group. So much so that Democrats began to court him and other Republicans like him, believing that they would be able to defeat President Bush by back dooring Bush with a weaken Republican Congress weakened by defectors.

The only Republican that they could manage to completely get to embarrass Bush publicly by defecting was James Jeffords of Vermont in 2001 who went independent.

However Sen. McCain was so in play that Sen. John Kerry considered having him run with him instead of John Edwards. McCain chose not to.

Yet McCain let it be known that though he was not willing to bolt the Party he was quite willing to undermine Republican principles similar too but a little less than Sen. Lincoln Chaffe a known Republican malefactor.

Sen. McCain had a third way, he could remain a Republican in name while receiving George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry moneys to support his McCain-Feingold campaign to stomp out free speech as well as his open borders pursuits though a non-profit that he created called, The Reform Institute. This Liberal monetarial support plus his Liberal friends would be all that Senator McCain would need to be the Republican nominee for President.

McCain supports amnesty for illegal aliens, was behind the Gang of 14, is a gun grabber, opposed the Bush tax cuts, ran roughshod over the Constitution with McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, opposes a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, was rumored to be considering switching parties multiple times, talked with John Kerry about being his Vice-President, lines up with the global warming alarmists, wants to close Gitmo, wants to coddle captured terrorists -- you can go on and on with this. – John Hawkins

There are 23 other Republicans Senators besides Sen. McCain who make the Republican Party unstable and weak they are:

Alaska Sens. -Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, Arizona -Sen. Jon Kyl,
Florida -Sen. Melquiades Martinez, Idaho -Sen. Larry Craig, Indiana -Sen. Richard Lugar, Kansas -Sen. Samuel Brownback, Kentucky -Sen. Mitch McConnell, Maine -Sens. Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, Minnesota -Sen. Norm Coleman, Missouri - Sen. Christopher Bond, Mississippi -Sen. Chester Lott .(No longer serving), North Carolina -Sen. Richard Burr, Nebraska -Sen. Charles Hagel, New Hampshire -Sen. Judd Gregg, New Mexican -Sen. Pete Domenici, Neveda -Sen. John Eric Ensign, Ohio -Sen. George Voinovich, Pennsylvania -Sen. Arlen Specter, South Carolina -Sen. Lindsey Graham, Utah -Sen. Robert Bennett, and Virginia -Sen. John Warner.

John McCain, the Senators listed above and a Liberal plot to turn Republicans plus Republican Senators and Congressmen who were caught up in corruption scandals are the reasons that Republicans lost both houses of Congress in 2006!

Then the coup d’état, an already weaken President Bush weaken by the Liberal Democrat’s plan to subvert his presidency, the Republican Party and the war on terrorism and in Iraq, did the unexplainable he started pushing CIRA or Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Bush got many of the above named Senators to go along with his Party splitting plan and it worked.

No, CIRA didn’t pass, Conservatives stopped that, but the President and his cohorts split the Republican Party at a time when the Party could lest afford it, just prior to the 2008 Presidential elections.

A block of Lincoln Chaffe Republicans were born, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Arlen Specter, Sen. Melquiades Martinez, Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. John McCain just to name a few all Republican in name but often championing other than Republican causes and legislation before these events they worked independently but now they began working together.

Because of John McCain’s open (and media supported) defiance of the Republican Party McCain was cheered on by the Left and mistrusted by the Right. McCain lost the 2000 nomination to President Bush and it looked like any hopes for a 2008 nomination would be pointless his campaign had collapsed and he had no money.

But a group of Lincoln Chaffe Republicans spurred on by now former Sen. Trent Lott made John McCain their instrument of revenge against the Conservative wing of the Republican Party for handing them a defeat on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a longtime McCain ally, said that when it looked like the bottom fell out over the summer, he rallied a group of McCain supporters in Washington.
Lott told The Hill that the meeting was far from a “celebration,” but the group resolved to stay with McCain.
“I said, ‘Look, just relax,’ ” Lott said. “ ‘If we can come up with a million, million and a half [dollars] a month to keep him afloat, he’ll come out of this by October.’ ”The Hill

And come up with the money they did Liberal money George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry money funneled to Sen. McCain’s Reform Institute!

The Reform Institute was founded in 2001 in direct response to the millions of Americans who, during the 2000 presidential campaign, expressed profound disillusionment with corrupt fundraising activities and the political “closed shop.” The initial bipartisan Honorary Chairs of the Advisory Committee were Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE). After Senator McCain resigned his position in 2005, former Congressman and former Fortune 500 CEO Amo Houghton of New York served as President.

It was Lott and the Lincoln Chaffe wing of the Republican Party that backed McCain and orchestrated the front running status that McCain now enjoys and it was George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry moneys that funded it as laid out by blogs the Captain’s Quarters, David Horowitz the Frontpage magazine and Michele Malkin.

If you look at McCain’s supporters they are all Lincoln Chaffe Republicans, Rudy Guianni, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lindsey Graham, all Republicans who would rather switch than fight for Conservative ideas.

John McCain has managed to connect with a virulent strain of anti-Conservativism right in the heart of the Republican Party. A perusal of the backers of this campaign will out these self hating Republicans and explain why McCain won the state delegates he thus far has won from their support.

John McCain has managed to unite what is worst in the Republican Party the appeasers and the Democrat Lincoln Chaffe wannabes. He now stands before a Conservative base, one that he has defied for many years and tauntingly suggests that, you’ve got to accept me now, there is nothing else that you can do!

Sen. McCain and you Lincoln Chaffe Republicans, you are wrong. There is plenty left to do. Just like the retired Sen. Trent Lott, we will show you the way out of the Republican Party and that doesn’t mean we promote you for your political incompetence and treachery to the highest elected office in the land as a reward for your years of betrayal of Conservatives and Conservative values.

John McCain may have gotten this far with his group of Moderates, Liberals and Mavericks, all funded by Liberals, whose plan was to destroy the Party from within, but he will soon find out that he needs Conservatives much more than Conservatives need him!

Long live Conservative values that have heretofore made this Country great and may all who oppose these values go down to defeat!

Pimp my Child

Chelsea Clinton being used to campaign for Mom

Ah, Political Arts or the art of confusing and destroying meaning, that is what the Clintons are so damn good at.

They can take a comment and make it totally different than what it was intended to mean and then they can have you fired and make you apologize for ever even thinking the thought!

Case in point the MSNBC’S Dave Schuster observation that perhaps the “do anything”, “say anything” Clintons were using their daughter inappropriately to get votes.

Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked whether she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

But before anyone else could ask the question, are the Clinton’s using Chelsea inappropriately, the Clinton’s turned Schuster’s remake on its head and acted like the remark was some affront to Chelsea Clinton when in fact it was an assessment on the way that Ma and Pa Clinton were using their dear sweet girl to get superdelegate votes and exposing her to the harsh realities of politics

“I found the remarks incredibly offensive,” Clinton told reporters in this snowy town outside Bangor. Earlier, she sent a letter to NBC brass that called for swift action against Shuster, who was suspended Friday by MSNBC.

“Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient,” Clinton wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus, who apparently had already called Clinton to personally apologize.

“I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language,” Clinton wrote. “There’s a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.” --Kenneth P. Vogel and Michael Calderone

Is this the kind of authoritarian America that we have to look forward to under a Hillary Clinton one which she issues edicts demanding the firing or black balling of journalist when she has made a political career of equally demeaning and defamatory remarks against the president of the United States of America, George W. Bush?

Do we really want an America were the presidential wannabe will threaten a reporter or an entire news organization? First it was FOX news network and then it was Tim Russert, it was GQ magazine,it was the CNN debates, it was Chris Matthews and now its David Shuster and MSNBC! I see a distinct pattern here!

And another thing in order to be offended don’t you at least have to know what the remark meant? In an email from Clinton Press Secretary Philippe Reines to David Shuster, Reines admits that the Clinton camp doesn't even know that the comment in question means! Take a look:

From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.

David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being "pimped out" ? It's absurdly offensive.

And what the hell does that even mean?

I just don't get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What's the problem.

Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

What? They don’t know what it meant but they’re offended? Give me a break!

Check your memories go back as far as you like now when is the last time that a presidential candidate had their husband and child stomping for her?

You might think well there’s never been a female presidential candidate. Wrong! That’s the fairly tale that the Clinton’s want you to believe there have been many!

Unless Senator Clinton was born in year 1872 her statement was an ignorant attempt to frame all civil rights gains and women’s suffrage around her lifetime. The fact is Hillary is not the first woman to, as she said, “to be running to be the first woman president" there have been many! (list courtesy of Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership) —Alaphiah

But that aside when do you remember a presidential candidate actually having their child stomping for them?

Same answer as before, never! So that begs the question, why would Ma and Pa Clinton expose Chelsea to the rough and tumble world of presidential politics a world in which the Clintons, themselves employee the politics of personal destruction against opponents but now apparently they faint at the very prospect that anyone would say anything seemingly untoward about the way that they conduct business by using their daughter.

One must remember that under a Hillary Clinton presidency one would never be able to say anything that is considered negative or "absurdly offensive" about the Clintons neither could you say anything about the way that they conduct business if you dared too you risk lost of job or an IRS audit or both!

I can just hear the conversation now, (Bill Clinton voice) Hey Hillary why don’t we use Chelsea in the campaign. You know young people and Blacks are going for that Obama fairly tale like nuts. And I can’t make you younger, taller, hipper, or blacker.

(Hillary) Well you know Bill, that’s a wonderful idea. After all I’ve used my mother and you on the campaign!

So David Shuster’s question is not so absurd when you think about it. As a matter of fact I’m now wondering if the Clinton campaign has been pimping out Bill and Hillary’s mother to win votes.

But that would just be asking the obvious!

Romney: Conservative Values not Worth Fighting For

Governor Mitt Romney ending his Campaign

In the Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington movie “Crimson Tide” Hackman plays a captain of the submarine, the Arizona. He calls a war drill right in the middle of a fire that had broken out in the ships galley. One crewman was killed.

Washington’s character, Lt. Commander Ron Hunter, who was second in command, seemed visibly shaken that a Captain would call a war drill while the ship was in apparent fire danger.

Hackman’s character, Capt. Frank Ramsey, after asking whether or not Commander Hunter thought it was inappropriate to run a drill during a fire response was, “Confuse on a ship is nothing to fear, it’s to be taken advantage of. Lest you forgot Mr. Hunter we are a ship of war designed for battle.

We don’t just fight battles when everything is honky-dory, what'd you think, son? That I was just some crazy old coot, putting everyone in harm's way as I yelled "YEE-HA!"?”

The Captain’s point was that war is not a nice neat thing and one must be prepared to go to battle in spite of the difficulties one faces and one should be willing to do what ever it takes to win.

On October 29, 2007 I posted “Why Mitt Romney won’t win the Republican nomination” (see here) to which one of you dear readers took exception. My over all point was that Conservatives need someone willing to fight anyone and everyone who would attempt to destroy America by destroying her values. At that time I did not feel that Governor Romney was willing to fight for Conservative values. One of the things that I said was,

The last thing that Conservatives or Republicans need at this time is someone to portray themselves as a Conservative but once in office fail to fight for Conservative ideas as fervently as Democrats fight for their Liberal ideas like the girly Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarznegger who recently sold out California to the homosexual lobby. --Alaphiah

No matter how good or noble Governor Romney’s intentions the one thing that separates Democrats from Republicans today is that Democrats will do and say anything to win. Governor Romney is a good and honorable man who didn’t have it in him to fight a political fight that is less than honorable therefore he was destined to lose.

Some of you don’t realize it but this election, this war on terror is America fighting for its very existence and because the White house isn’t physically bombed or some apparent obvious grave threat you don’t realize the danger that you are actually in.

America is under attack from the left, from Europe, China, Russia , and the Middle East. Many times it’s not a blatant attack that you can see but every time you buy gasoline you are being attacked, every time you spend a dollar bill you are being attacked, everything from our economy to our way of life is under attack.

Oh the Left is very cleaver to call their attack “change” but make no mistake, it is an all out full frontal attack on the values that have heretofore made America great.

Mitt Romney says that because of the war and because Democrats might win he will end his campaign for the presidency. I on the other hand believe that Capt Ramsey had it right, “We don’t just fight battles when everything is honky-dory,” We fight in the midst of the chaotic times too because contrary to what many on the left believe and some on the right, CONSERVATIVE VALUES ARE WORTH FIGHTING FOR!

On to the Convention

Gov. Mitt Romney promises to keep fighting
Governor Mitt Romney’s Super Tuesday night's promise was to go on to the Convention.

Romney, a problem solver, is not a Washington insider like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. In addition to that he is the only one qualified to fix what they broke in Washington.

Let's go all the way to the convention and win the Whitehouse!

McCain Steals WV Hands it off to Huckabee Then Steals the Night

McCain:No stopping him now?
Huckabee wins…huh not so fast, Huckabee was used as a pawn by the McCain campaign to block Mitt Romney from becoming the first victor in the Super Tuesday race for delegates and thus becoming the Republican nominee for President proving that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain.

Elections are supposed to be for voters to decide who they wish to represent them so why is it that in West Virginia the voters didn’t decide Sen. John McCain decided for them!

It’s the same old thing Washington insider backstabbing and horse trading. No wonder they call him Maverick! McCain faced with the unfavorable situation of a Mitt Romney lead in West Virginia used his ability to reach across the aisle to join with a political opponent against another.

McCain achieved the results and outcome that he wanted. Mike Huckabee the lesser of his competition won West Virginia while Mitt Romney was cheated out of an early victory that possibly could have set the tone for the rest of the night and all because of a McCain brokered backroom deal.

McCain’s over twenty years of politics taught him that it is better that one manipulates events and outcomes to get what you want than allow the people to get what they want.

What did the people of West Virginia want? Did they want Sen. McCain to affect the outcome of their elections? Well it was beneficial for McCain that Mitt Romney be denied a victory in West Virginia so McCain colluded with Mike Huckabee to give Huckabee the Victory in West Virginia . This type of sad example is exactly what we need to rid Washington of. The idea that a representative of the people can void out the peoples will to exert his or her own will is not what is best for America and it’s not the American way.

It’s like CIRA the Comprehensive Immigration Reform McCain and a tight knit group of rouge Republicans attempted to force on the American people. In this little oligarchy’s mind Comprehensive Immigration reform was a done deal; So much so that the President boasted, “See ya’ll at the bill signing!”

Its apparent that the change that America is calling for will deal with political insiders like John McCain who have forgotten that they are sent to Washington D.C. to work for the people not against them.

Yet on Super Tuesday none if it seem to really matter. Washington insiders Hillary Clinton and John McCain are leading in delegates.

McCain leads with 613 delegates that’s only 578 short of the 1,191 that he needs to claim his Party’s nomination and Clinton leads her race with 845 delegates in a much tighter two man race to claim the ultimate prize of 2,025 delegates to win.

We have seen a delegate handoff in West Virgina once already making this Republican race a two against one, McCain and Huckabee against Romney fight.

Who knows, if no one has the 1,191 delegates at this summer's Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn. maybe Governor Huckabee will return the favor and hand off his delegates to Sen. McCain for the win.

Just think this all made possible by McCain's Super Tuesday win in which he manipulated the outcome just enough to achieve the win. Here are state by state voting returns.

Good for John McCain, but is it good for the Country or his Party? That it seems has always been the problem with Sen. John McCain lately he appears to act on what is good for him first leaving his Country a secondary consideration and his Party a distant tertiary concern.

UPDATE:

According to Politico it now appears that Sen. Obama has the lead of delegate in the Democrat race for the nomination. It is being reported that he lays claim to 840 to Sen. Clinton’s 830 in any event Democrats are still saying that it is to close to call.