Bad Week for Liberals and its only Wednesday!

Well the news just keep getting worst for liberals as they are exposed and the war heats up for the Democrat nomination

Tuesday came the news that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, paid tens of thousands of dollars as a repeat customer of a high-priced prostitution service.
The is a man who built his political reputation on rooting out corruption.

In addition. Spitzer paid train fare for his call girl from New York to Washington opening up federal prosecition on vilation of the Mann Act. Spitzer known as "Client 9" become the object of a federal investigation when cash payments from several bank accounts when into an account operated by a call-girl ring.

Spizer, married and the father of teenage girls has had his share of problems while in office. Including an unpopular plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and a plotting to smear Republicans.

Normally one would think that a Governor caught engaging in illegal activities would be reason to step down from office. However, as I write this it seems that Spitzer may be taking a page out of the Clinton/Monica handbook.
Another Clinton "legacy."

Following on the heels of the Spitzer scandal former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, made this statement to a California paper.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,"

Ouch

Former Democrat vice-presidential candidate Ferraro just happens to be
a member of Sen. Hillary Clinton's finance committee.

Seems as if Ferraro had a "moment" and said in public what Hillary believes in private.

Then there is the continuing saga of Michigan Democrats re-doing the Democrat Primary. Of course Hillary wants to change the rules as it would benefit her by adding more delegates to her tally. Obama wants nothing to do with it because it doesn't benefit him. Once more liberals show that the rules mean nothing.

And then there is Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick embroiled in his own sex scandal. Just the latest in a series of scandal and corruption in the Kilpatrick admistration.

Kilpatrick is refusing to step down, willing to let the citizens and the city of Detroit suffer more strife, division and local and national embarrassment.

Yes its been a busy week so far for liberals.

One can only imagine, "What next"?

However the upside to this is that liberals are imploding and exposing themselves for who they really are.

Voters are you paying attention?

UPDATE

According to various news sources, Spitzer is scheduled to announce his resignation at 11:30 a.m. today.

Kwame Kilpatrick are you paying attention?

The Terror Nobody Knows: Thwarted Attacks on the U.S

Friday , March 07, 2008
By Joseph Abrams
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335498,00.html

In July 2005, the Los Angeles Police Department caught a group of men who had been robbing gas stations in the area. While investigating, police uncovered something far worse: The gas station hits were bankrolling a terrorist plot to attack National Guard facilities, synagogues, the Israeli consulate and Los Angeles International Airport.

Deputy Chief of Police Michael Downing says the group was "closer to going operational at the time than anyone since 9/11."

Thomas P. O'Brien, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, says, "An untold number of lives may have been saved when this terrorist cell was dismantled." This story is hardly unique: Since Sept. 11, authorities have disrupted more than 20 publicly known plots against domestic U.S. targets, involving dozens of arrests at home and abroad.

Some of these plots are well-known, such as Richard Reid's failed "shoe bombing" in December 2001 and the liquid explosives plot of 2006, when British investigators uncovered a plan to carry bombs on airliners bound for the U.S. Each of those incidents permanently changed airport security protocols.

Then there was the plot to kill U.S. soldiers using assault rifles and grenades at Fort Dix in New Jersey, and the so-called "Lackawanna Six," who pleaded guilty to providing support to Al Qaeda. But others have passed by with little notice from the general public, as well as critics of government efforts to protect the U.S. from homegrown terror attacks.

Take, for example, Iyman Faris, of Columbus, Ohio, who plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and was convicted of conspiracy and providing material support for Al Qaeda in 2003.

Later that year 11 men with connections to Al Qaeda were discovered training for jihad in Virginia, using paintball games to simulate battlefield situations. In 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj were convicted of planning to bomb New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a household name for his role as mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, also is known to have prepared little-known strikes against America's tallest building, the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as the Empire State Building in New York and the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles.

In contrast, Dhiren Barot may not be a familiar name, although some security experts say he should be. An Indian convert to Islam, the Pakistan-based Barot planned a series of ruinous attacks on the U.S. and U.K, including the New York Stock Exchange and the IMF building in Washington, D.C. Barot was caught by British authorities in 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit murder.

Andrew McCarthy, director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, credits much of the success in preventing terrorist attacks at home to the pursuit of enemies overseas.
"There have been days in Iraq and Afghanistan," he says, "where we have killed or captured more terrorists than we did between 1993, when the World Trade Center was attacked, and 2001, when the World Trade Center was destroyed." "But," McCarthy cautions, "once you get them over here, the rules of the justice system apply."

Successful prosecutions are key to tackling terrorism, but they are not an easy process. Investigators prefer to wait for overwhelming evidence of a terrorist plot, and the timing is difficult. "It's more dangerous to let things play out because law enforcement is rarely, if ever, in control during these investigations," McCarthy says. Plots often are disrupted early and as a result, he says, "you don't often have well-developed cases."

But there have been successes, and the courts have been very active since Sept. 11. According to Sean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, 527 defendants have been charged in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations primarily conducted after Sept. 11.
Those cases have resulted in 319 convictions, with an additional 176 cases pending in court. It's not a perfect record for the Justice Department, but it still is a good one, says McCarthy, who prosecuted and convicted "blind sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman, ringleader of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

"The batting average is not as high as it was prior to Sept. 11," when most investigations focused on crimes already committed, "but that again is something that we are going to have to accept," McCarthy says.

Allison Barrie, a security and terrorism consultant and a FOXNews.com contributor, agrees on the difficulties. "The evidence [in these trials] is always at its best at the 11th hour," she says. Waiting until the last moment is dangerous, but "you've got to weigh that against actually getting that prosecution." So far, that strategy has been decisive in preventing another attack on the scale of Sept. 11. "We've just been plain lucky," Barrie says.
And intelligence work hasn't prevented smaller attacks from being carried out.

On July 4, 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, opened fire at the El Al ticket counter at LAX, killing two people before a security guard killed him.

That same ticket counter later would be targeted by those L.A. gas station robbers, a homegrown terrorist group with roots in a California prison.
Homegrown groups often are difficult to detect, and the California cell was not found through careful intelligence work; the LAPD stumbled on them by accident. They might never have been discovered.
"The cliché is true," Barrie says. "Terrorists only have to be lucky once, but the good guys have to be lucky every time."

List of Thwarted Terror Attacks Since Sept. 11
Thursday , March 06, 2008
By Joseph Abrams

The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.
• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.
• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.
• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).
• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.
• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.
• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.
• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.
• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.
• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.
• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.
• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.
• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.
• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Why doesn't the media report on the success of the Bush Justice Department in keeping America safe? Isn't that something that American citizens would want to know, that their government is ACTIVELY pursuing terrorists who are committed to doing harm to America and Americans?

What could possibly be an explanation to not report success?
Doesn't take much to come to the conclusion that this is a success for the Bush administration and the one thing the liberal media is in conclusion with is reporting anything that could be construed as a "Bush success"

At least as far as liberals allow it to be success. Making the prosecution of terrorist as difficult as possible.

"Big Lizard" describes this much more eloquently than I on his blog
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2007/10/courts_v_terror.html

There is a reason the Bush administration has resisted, to the maximum extent possible, shifting primary responsibility for dealing with terrorists to the civilian court system... and it's not that Bush wants to shred the Constitution and imprison thousands of liberal activists in Gitmo: it's that terrorists are well-trained in using the rights and liberties of our own judicial system as a weapon against us.

They are well-versed in tying our courts into knots, playing the victim, and shifting blame to American foreign policy. And because the refutation of such lies would require revealing classified information that is vital to national security, the government is typically helpless to defend itself and its prosecution.

Alas, there is also a reason why the Democrats, to a man (and I include Hillary in that), will fight until the cows come home to roost to return the war on global hirabah to the courtrooms, as it was under President Bill Clinton: Because it's so much easier simply to charge terrorists in civilian court, then throw up one's hands at the mistrials and not-guilty verdicts and say "what can we do?" than to take on the duty oneself and actually achieve results.

Declaring that the proper way to fight terrorism is not with special forces and intelligence but subpoenas and indictments relieves a future Democratic administration from all responsibility. It takes the whole "terrorism thing" off the president's plate... allowing him or her to focus on more pleasant tasks, such as raising taxes on poor smokers in order to finance government-run health care for all middle-class children and their parents.

Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation

A shocking set of recordings was released this week that could prove disastrous for Planned Parenthood's ties with the African-American community. Lila Rose, a pro-life student and reporter at UCLA, launched an undercover investigation aimed at exposing the racism of the nation's largest abortion merchant. With the help of an actor, she contacted Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states, inquiring if they would be willing to accept a donation earmarked for the abortion of black babies. The results were jaw-dropping.

Rose was appalled to discover that every last clinic agreed. Not one employee objected or questioned the request, even when the actor insisted that the purpose was to "lower the number of black people" in America. When the caller phoned an Ohio branch, he was told that Planned Parenthood "will accept the money for whatever reason." Read the outrageous transcript from the Idaho clinic, which is also available with Rose's other recordings in a montage at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE

Actor: ...I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids.
Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.
Actor: And we don't, you know, we just think the less black kids out there the better.
Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable... This is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out.

Students at UCLA are so infuriated by the investigation that they are petitioning the university to cut all affiliation with Planned Parenthood. What few people realize is that the organization has a history of racism that has been ingrained since Planned Parenthood's earliest days, when founder Margaret Sanger advocated negative eugenics and spoke to a woman's branch of the KKK (Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, 1938, p. 336-367). However, as is customary for Planned Parenthood, the organization has managed for decades to cover its tracks--and the facts. That task has just been made monumentally more difficult. Abortion has taken the innocent lives of over 14 million black children--a national tragedy that has begun uniting and mobilizing African-Americans across party, state, and financial lines.

Today, FRC hosted a press conference to kick off the National Black Pro-Life Gathering in Washington, D.C. which drew pastors, parents, leaders, and activists from across America to commemorate Black History Month by calling on abortion merchants like Planned Parenthood to stop preying on their community. As these abortion clinics continue to demonstrate that blood money is not colorblind, we call on Congress to de-fund and disavow Planned Parenthood. Taxpayers should not be forced to spend over $300 million on an organization whose scruples are for sale, even to those who seek racial genocide http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=HOME

"For whatever reason" The abortion BUSINESS Planned "Parenthood"

Dedicated to my new fan (stalker) Acme Data

">

">

">

Finally a voice of Reason!

As some of you know, I am a GM retiree so automotive news is of interest to me and as well as many in Michigan, the "Auto Capitol of the World"

This post was made by GM Vice President Bob Lutz on the the GM Blog. I salute Mr. Lutz for his bravely in publicly denouncing man-made Global Warming for that the educated know it to be, a Crock!

I urge you to take a moment to post your support for Mr. Lutz on the GM blog here http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/02/talk_about_a_cr.html

Talk About a Crock…
By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman

It amazes me sometimes what kinds of things seem to “catch on” out there.
An offhand comment I made recently about the concept of global warming seems to have a lot of people heated, and it’s spreading through the Internet like ragweed. But I think that the people making a big deal out of it are missing the real point. My beliefs are mine and I have a right to them, just as you have a right to yours. But among my strongest beliefs is that my job is to do what makes the most business sense for GM.

Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it. My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors. My opinions on the subject — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really. The point is not why and how did we get where we are, it’s what are we going to do to get where we’re going.
And I think that many of the people who’ve been spewing their virtual vitriol in my direction in the past week are guilty of taking the easy way out.

Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture. What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is — and will continue to be — hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.

General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely. GM is working on just that – and we’re going to keep working on it — via E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile.

The Chevrolet Volt program is occurring under my personal watch, because I -- and others in senior management -- believe in it. I fully expect that it will revolutionize the automotive industry, and I’m committed to seeing it successfully developed and in showrooms.

We're going forward with these programs because it makes good sense to do so — common sense. If it’s doable, why wouldn’t we do it? It would lead to nothing but good things: energy independence, lower emissions, and better air. Isn’t that what we all want?

As long as I am in this position at this company, GM will continue to take these initiatives and others that lessen, and eventually even eliminate, the environmental impact of the automobile. And that’s what people ought to be focusing on.


My post on the GM Blog;

Right on Mr. Lutz!
I am a GM retiree and its about time that someone has the guts to say out loud what a lot are thinking but are too afraid to voice.
Man-made Global Warming is a crock that the gullible and those who are too lazy to do their own research have swallowed hook, line and sinker. Those who have perpetuated the myth are the ones selling carbon credits and making the $$$ off the ignorant and fearful.
Unfortunately those of us who are rational and don't fall for junk science will be punished also by dacronican laws aimed at reducing something that doesn't exist!
Keep speaking the truth Mr. Lutz and by your example others will be embolden to do the same

DO THE RIGHT THING

Taking a break from painting my ENTIRE finished basement (What was I thinking ?!!)

I wonder;

Will the Detroit City Council, meeting now to vote on calling for the mayor's resignation, do the right thing and rid the city of one of most corrupt and scandal ridden administration in the nation?

We will find out later today. The sad tale of corruption and scandals started almost as soon as Kwame Kilpatrick took office. Related articles can be found on the Detroit Free Press site here http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080304/NEWS01/80304028

The scandal and corruption has even cost the city of Detroit needed revenue as others by pass the city.

"About 2,500 mayors and staff members who were to converge on Detroit in April -- bringing an economic boost and national exposure to a beleaguered city -- are rerouting to New Orleans.

Asked if the decision to move the annual convention was tied to the text message scandal, Vanessa Williams, executive director of the National Conference of Black Mayors, told the Free Press, "I think anyone can look around and see what's going on." http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080301/NEWS05/803010339/0/NEWS01

Shameful that our Governor can't bring herself to even suggest that Kilpatrick step down. Evidently everyone besides our Governor, can "look around and see what going on"

"Granholm declined to say whether she believed the mayor should resign, but noted that the scandal has invited potentially damaging national exposure." http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS06/802290422/1003/NEWS01

Too bad Jennifer Granholm is playing politics instead of doing the right thing and encouraging Kilpatrick to step down for the good of a major Michigan city


UPDATE
Updated at 12:58 p.m.

The Detroit City Council has decided to postpone a vote asking for Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to resign until March 18.

In a tense council chamber, and after substantial comment from the public urging the council to approve the resolution, the council decided to wait on a 6-3 vote.
Voting to delay action were Council President Ken Cockrel Jr., Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers and Councilmembers Sheila Cockrel, Barbara-Rose Collins, Martha Reeves and Alberta Tinsley-Talabi. Councilmembers JoAnn Watson, Brenda Jones and Kwame Kenyatta opposed a delay.

Kilpatrick had derided the vote as meaningless, but Kilpatrick spokesman James Canning said the mayor's office is pleased the council voted to delay a vote.

What can I say?

Mayor's office is pleased = citizens of Detroit being sold down the river

The Unintended Consequences of a Being a Pain-Free People

https://www.centerformoralclarity.net/Articles.aspx?page=2008022802


You may consider much of the secular news to be a pain in the posterior, but it’s the subject of pain itself that has been making recent headlines.

Veteran Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently drew the ire of court observers and editorial-page writers when he spoke in favor of using pain to interrogate terror suspects. The “big pain news of the month award” however, has to go to The New York Times Magazine. The weekly recently published a remarkably obtuse piece of journalism “revealing” that babies, at 20 weeks of gestation, may in fact be able to feel pain inflicted by abortionists’ surgical instruments. We offer, in response, a sincere and pointed “DUH!”





After generations of Americans endured and accepted as “simply part of life” the pain associated with everything from childbirth to corporal punishment, from broken bones to policemen’s blackjack whacks, we have now “evolved” as a people who endeavor to be pain-free. Perhaps the point is best illustrated by four words: thank God for epidurals! Further, many children today enjoy the comforts of pain-free, albeit monotonous, timeouts.

Doctors are often eager to provide potentially addictive narcotics to ease the discomfort of most any ailment. A case currently before the US Supreme Court argues that prisoners experiencing execution should simply be allowed to peacefully die in an induced sleep — pain free. Even animals raised for human consumption are protected by law from having to experience pain. While by no means are we pain advocates (after all, pain hurts!), it does strike us as disgustingly ironic that when The New York Times Magazine finally publishes a story suggesting anything negative about abortion, the article doesn’t focus on the fact that an innocent human life is being extinguished, but rather that the baby may experience some pain in-utero as he or she is torn apart by surgical instruments. The story was apparently co-written by Captain Obvious.

As evidence that pre-born babies can experience pain, the article notes a researcher who “selected 45 fetuses that required a potentially painful blood transfusion, giving one-third of them an injection of the potent painkiller Fentanyl…the results were striking: in fetuses that received the analgesic, the production of stress hormones was halved, and the pattern of blood flow remained normal.” In other words, less pain.

So while the research is quickly headed toward producing a consensus that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain (something pro-life advocates have maintained for years), the only holdouts, insisting the “pain switch” isn’t turned on until later in life, are those individuals who make their living promoting and performing abortions. How convenient!

Why does it matter?

The consequences of such research are potentially a matter of life and death. If as a people, we come to agree that unborn babies can feel pain, such knowledge gives them a consideration too often reserved only for supposedly higher levels of humanity. If they are, in fact, like us and do experience pain, then how can we in good conscience continue to murder them in the womb? After all, even cattle headed for the butcher shop shouldn’t have to endure pain. Right?

Full New York Times Magazine article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Michael Clancy, the photographer who took the picture and who owns the copyright to it says, however, that out of the corner of his eye he saw the uterus shake and the baby’s hand pop out of the surgical opening on its own. Clancy says that when the doctor put his finger into the baby’s hand, the baby squeezed the finger and held on. You can read Clancy’s description of the experience and more about the picture at his website at http://www.michaelclancy.com/.

William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2008--Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner today issued the following statement on the death of National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/ founder and author William F. Buckley Jr.:

"Without Bill Buckley there would be no National Review. And without National Review, there would be no conservative movement, no Heritage Foundation, no President Reagan - or an America that's recognizable today.

"It's impossible to overstate the importance of National Review. It offered powerful conservative opinion against communism, big government and liberal culture at a time when no one else had the courage to do so.

"His long-running television show, 'Firing Line' was just as influential - a model for what political talk shows should be today. Unlike many current talk show hosts, Buckley rarely raised his voice. Instead, he had deep, occasionally heated, but civil discussions on topics ranging from Vietnam to abortion to the economy.

"His pointed grilling scared away more than a few politicians. Asked why Attorney General Robert Kennedy rejected several invitations to be on the show, Buckley quipped: 'Why does baloney reject the grinder?'

"Buckley changed the world by being himself: His twinkling eyes. His devilish grin. His sharp sense of humor. His unmatched intellect. A vocabulary that stumped the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Through his magazine, numerous TV appearances, long-running newspaper column, dozens of books and thousands of lectures, Buckley 'taught' modern conservative thought to me and millions of other Americans who now proudly live this philosophy. I will miss my teacher and my friend."
http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/nr022708a.cfm

More on William F. Buckley Jr. from Fox News

...Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.
Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn't (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).

"I was very fond of him," Didion said Wednesday. "Everyone was, even if they didn't agree with him."

Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.

His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist ("Thank You for Smoking").

A precocious controversialist, William was but 8 years old when he wrote to the king of England, demanding payment of the British war debt.

After graduating with honors from Yale in 1950, Buckley married Patricia Alden Austin Taylor, spent a "hedonistic summer" and then excoriated his alma mater for what he regarded as its anti-religious and collectivist leanings in "God and Man at Yale," published in 1951.

Buckley spent a year as a low-level agent for the Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico, work he later dismissed as boring.

With his brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell, Buckley wrote a defense of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954, "McCarthy and His Enemies." While condemning some of the senator's anti-communist excesses, the book praised a "movement around which men of good will and stern morality can close ranks."

In 1960, Buckley helped found Young Americans for Freedom, and in 1961, he was among the founders of the Conservative Party in New York. Buckley was the party's candidate for mayor of New York in 1965, waging a campaign that was in part a lark — he proposed an elevated bikeway on Second Avenue — but that also reflected a deep distaste for the liberal Republicanism of Mayor John V. Lindsay. Asked what he would do if he won, Buckley said, "I'd demand a recount."

He wrote the first of his successful spy thrillers, "Saving the Queen," in 1976, introducing Ivy League hero Blackford Oakes. Oakes was permitted a dash of sex — with the Queen of England, no less — and Buckley permitted himself to take positions at odds with conservative orthodoxy. He advocated the decriminalization of marijuana, supported the treaty ceding control of the Panama Canal and came to oppose the Iraq war.

Buckley also took on the archconservative John Birch Society, a growing force in the 1950s and 1960s. "Buckley's articles cost the Birchers their respectability with conservatives," Richard Nixon once said. "I couldn't have accomplished that. Liberals couldn't have, either."

Although he boasted he would never debate a Communist "because there isn't much to say to someone who believes the moon is made of green cheese," Buckley got on well with political foes. His friends included such liberals as John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who despised Buckley's "wrathful conservatism," but came to admire him for his "wit, his passion for the harpsichord, his human decency, even for his compulsion to epater the liberals."

Buckley was also capable of deep and genuine dislikes. In a 1968 television debate, when left-wing novelist and critic Gore Vidal called him a "pro-war-crypto-Nazi," Buckley snarled an anti-gay slur and threatened to "sock you in your ... face and you'll stay plastered." Their feud continued in print, leading to mutual libel suits that were either dismissed (Vidal's) or settled out of court (Buckley's).

The National Review defended the Vietnam War, opposed civil rights legislation and once declared that "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail." Buckley also had little use for the music of the counterculture, once calling the Beatles "so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic."

The National Review could do little to prevent Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964, but as conservatives gained influence so did Buckley and his magazine. The long rise would culminate in 1980 when Buckley's good friend, Ronald Reagan, was elected president. The outsiders were now in, a development Buckley accepted with a touch of rue.

"It's true. I had much more fun criticizing than praising," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "I criticize Reagan from time to time, but it's nothing like Carter or Johnson."

Buckley's memoir about Goldwater, "Flying High," was coming out this spring, and his son said he was working on a book about Reagan.

Buckley so loved a good argument — especially when he won — that he compiled a book of bickering in "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription," published in 2007 and featuring correspondence with the famous (Nixon, Reagan) and the merely annoyed.

"Mr. Buckley," one non-fan wrote in 1967, "you are the mouthpiece of that evil rabble that depends on fraud, perjury, dirty tricks, anything at all that suits their purposes. I would trust a snake before I would trust you or anybody you support."

Responded Buckley: "What would you do if I supported the snake?"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333055,00.html

America; Responsible for "Hell on Earth!"

One of the purposes of this blog besides promoting Conservatism, which does work as opposed to liberalism which doesn't, is to expose what I call "the enemy within"

I think you know who I am talking about, "Americans" who hate their country and blame America for all the world's problems while at the same time benefiting from all that being an American has to offer, freedom, opportunities, highest standard of living etc

Well yesterday I received an e-mail. I didn't know the sender and my policy is to NOT open any e-mail that I don't recognize. Well something made me feel it was ok so I opened it.

Evidently it was from someone who was forwarded an e-mail a friend of mine sent to a number of people, including myself, about illegals being able to recieve Pell Grants.

So here is the e-mail that this person a, theplayfulsoul@comcast.net send to EVERYONE on the orginal forward list;

>http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/pellgrant.asp

Before any of you get up in arms you might want to check out this urban legend at Snopes.com at the above url. This sort of nonsense spreads fear and discrimination. We have enough on our plates without creating fantasy anger. And for the record, all of the illegal immigrants i've met and know work hard, take care of their families and want a better life (however, i'm sure they are just as fallible as the rest of us); i'm guessing much like our ancestors when they came to this country...uninvited until we took it by force and bloodshed but oh i know that was different wasn't it because after all it benefited us (not Them). All humans are citizens of this world and as long as we want to draw boundaries and hoard resources we will be at war and this earth will be a living hell....but feel free to promote prejudice...this is a free country.

Unbelievable. Even though I KNOW the rhetoric of these apologists and America haters I am still as astounded at their hate for their country, my country, the country I love, the United States of America

So of course I replied to EVERYONE

To theplayfulsoul@comcast.net

No one doubts that a lot of illegals work hard, take care of their families and want a better life" but then again many do not. However what don't you understand about the word "illegal"? We have laws in this country. If you break them, you should reap the consequences. Coming to this country is a privilege, not a right. And we have the right to determine who we grant that privilege. Why should illegals be allowed to break the law and illegally enter this country when there are others who wait and do it legally? Why should I then, obey any law when someone, not even a citizen breaks them?
Do you have any idea of what would Mexico do? The answer is easy: deport them on the spot. http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-04-10hm.html Not only that but the Mexican government encourages illegals to enter this country because so many send money they make here illegally, back to Mexico http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_mexico.html

And if you want to talk money do you know how much illegal immigration cost us? "Congressional Budget Office projects 700-900K Illegal Immigrants entering annually and 70 million in the next 20 years."
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/The

"The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion ins 1996, $51 billion ins 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992." http://www.carryingcapacity.org/huddlenr.html

Not to mention crimes committed by illegals;

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article25
2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants CRIME STATISTICS

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

BIRTH STATISTICS 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens.

97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.

66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers

i'm guessing much like our ancestors when they came to this country...uninvited until we took it by force and bloodshed but oh I know that was different wasn't it because after all it benefited us (not Them).

Too bad your ashamed of your ancestors. I am not. True there were injustices and the treatment of Indians was shameful however the government and Americans have tried to address those ever since with legislation and aid. Google aid to Native Americans and see what you get.

Do you have any idea of the history of Mexico? Do you know that the Spanish invaded and conquered the Indians and were very brutal in their treat meant of the natives Indians? Oh and lets not forget that Native Mexican Indian ceremonies included cutting out the hearts of live victims for sacrifice. http://www.houstonculture.org/mexico/aztecs.html
Or the fact that native Mexican and Native American Indians would raid each other territories, conquering and enslaving their Native "brothers". Tribal warfare marked Native American life. "The torture of prisoners was the most distinctive feature of warfare in eastern North America."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570777_38/native_americans_of_north_america.html

we want to draw boundaries and hoard resources we will be at war and this earth will be a living hell

This is a patently ludicrous statement. Draw boundaries? What country doesn't have boundaries? Without boundaries there is chaos. Are we not allowed to have an American culture? Or is that just the right of other countries , like France?

And as far as hoard resources, we are the most generous country in the world! Do you have any idea of the amount of money and charitable programs that our government and individual Americans give to others in the world?

13 billion in foreign aid

Not to mention President's Bush "$15 billion AIDS relief plan ,the largest-ever international health initiative devoted to one disease,"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23200795/[enter%20URL]

"America is the most generous country in the world in terms of how much it spends on foreign aid, not to mention the billions of dollars donated by individual Americans through private non-profit aid. Most of the poverty in the third world is created by corrupt governments that are oftentimes aided by corrupt UN bureaucrats. Much of the money we donate goes never gets to people we are supposed to be helping because of this corruption." http://interestalert.com/story/02220000aaa06a21.nb/siteia/FRONTPAG/front_page.html
Btw how much money or time have you given?

Your whole e-mail is one of a typical leftist blaming America for all the world's problems. No facts to back up your claims, just the liberal leftist party line. If this country is so awful and we are responsible for "hell on earth" why don't you go to some country that you can admire?

You obviously don't care for your country of origin. How about Cuba, its close. How about Communist China? Iran? France? (although these countries have "boundaries" too and most on the list are pretty "fuzzy" when it comes to free speech, oh and the standard of living is lower) Take a little time to decide. You need to do this for yourself, and do it for the rest of us who are proud of our country, proud and grateful to live in the freest, (Yup free to even hate it and have the right of free speech to write angry e-mails telling others how much you hate and are ashamed of it) richest country on earth

It may be the most charitable act you have ever done.

P.S. Oh and btw you may want to Google to see if knowing about and not reporting illegals is a crime

Signed
PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN

RV Wanna-be

Maddie the Wonderdog
My Blog http://www.apackof2-theworldaccordingtome.blogspot.com/

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.Lamentations 3:22

Obama's "Change"

Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel that would cost 0.7% of gross national product
Posted: February 15, 200812:04 am Eastern
WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=56405

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.
It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.
"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.
The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."

One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."

Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."

The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."

It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.

Words almost fail me here. But its obvious that Barack Hussein Obama's sees himself as an apologist for America and a "messiah of rescue" for the entire world. It seems to go beyond a so called "visionary" to delusional. As a "Christian" doesn't Barack know that Jesus said,""The poor you will always have with you" Matthew 26:11

Not that I am saying we are not our brothers keepers and that we shouldn't try to leviate the suffering of the poor.

However, when did Jesus press Herod or Pilate or Caesar to take care of the poor? He didn't. He did entrusted his believers with that responsibility. And He tells families to take care of their own. I ask you to name one thing the government does efficiently and cost effectively? The needs of the poor are best met by us, directly, not through a governement program, and certainly not in collusion with the corrupt America-hating U.N.

RVing and "Fascism"

Just wanted to share a "encounter" I had while surfing the 'net for Rving products.
I ran a cross a site called "The Mobile Homestead". This site sells Rving products. I don't care to provide a link because I don't want to give them the hits.
However at the very top of the main page was this quote,

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag carrying a cross."

Number one, what does this have to do with Rving products?
and number second two, we all know the connotation of this quote
"Beware of patriotic Christians"

So I decided to e-mail the site owner. I asked her the same thing, "What does this have to do with Rving? I also told her as a Christian I found this quote offensive. I also asked her to explain what it meant to her before I did business with them.

This was her answer;
This quote describes the way all totalitarian regimes start and only an under-educated knee jerk reactionary person wouldn't know that ,so were happy to tell you to take your business elsewhere.

The Mobile Homestead

Pretty typical angry name calling leftist answer

Just be to clear lets see what the leftist see as "Facism"

This answer was provided by a "Joe T" on Yahoo answers and was choosen as the "best" answer to what, "When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag carrying a cross." means
And according to "Joe T "and obviously the owner of this site, fascism has already come to America

Of course. It's already happening

1. Determined to move to one-party politics
2. Harassment and vilification of political opponents
3. Evoking God as guider of their destiny
4. Punishment of the "work-shy" (welfare), retarded, the aged, and homosexuals
5. Censorship of art forms as "degenerate" and "pornographic"
6. Marked and clandestine leanings toward closet homosexuality within party leaders
7. leanings toward racial purity and abolishing immigration
8. virulently anti-abortion
9. militarily aggressive
10. debt-driven, frantic economy
11. Feelings of having a superior form of government
12. hatred of liberalism in all forms

So evidently these beliefs are'facism"

1. Being pro-life
2. Not viewing homosexuality as "normal"
3. Being patriotic and believing that a Democratic Republic IS a superior form of goverment
4. Defending your country by being offensive
5. Not embracing liberalism
6. Being able to distinguish porn and being able to have your own defintion of "art"
7. Not encouraging the "work shy"
8. Against illegal immigration
9. And the worst of all, being a Christian and speaking as one as a political candidate

So my fellow Americans, those of you who aren't liberals and subscribe to the above list, are "Nazis"

Ya know its good to be hit in the face with the reality of how true liberals think. It helps us conservatives become stronger in our reserve.

So in a weird way, I am thankful to a Millie Shaw, the owner of The Mobile Homestead


Let us never forget http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

Benjamin Franklin: Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 original manuscript of this speech

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

George Washington

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

James Wilson:
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Supreme Court Justice appointed by George Washington
Spoke 168 times during the Constitutional Convention

"Christianity is part of the common law"
[Sources: James Wilson, Course of Lectures [vol 3, p.122]; and quoted in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg, & R. 393, 403 (1824).]

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia James Madison

The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive •
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

Liberty Bell Inscription:
“ Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof” [Leviticus 25:10]

Quo vadis, conservatives?

By Michelle Malkin
February 7, 2008 06:06 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/07/quo-vadis-conservatives/

I filed an extra, post-Super Tuesday syndicated column this week. Felt like we needed a pep talk. Ignore John McCain.

Don’t “calm down.” Get fired up

“Quo vadis,” conservatives? It’s the ancient, apocryphal question the apostle Peter asked Jesus while fleeing persecution in Rome. Where are you going? Where do we go from here?

The contest for the GOP presidential nomination is over. The conservative movement is not. Sen. John McCain’s campaign resurrection and Super Tuesday victory leave a diverse group on the Right—from the libertarian Club for Growth to First Amendment defenders to immigration enforcement proponents—dispirited. But the failure to nominate a true Republican unifier does not spell ideological defeat.

On Wednesday, wielding his olive branch like a schoolmarm’s ruler, Sen. McCain told conservatives to “calm down.” My advice is exactly the opposite: Get fired up.

Some on the Right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds, and secure borders—no matter who takes the White House in November.

Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions?
Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.

Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.

If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base.
Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom (vetsforfreedom.org) group for their endorsements.

Opposed to the amnesty bill?
Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and John Cornyn of Texas all fought the McCain-Kennedy-Graham-Martinez-Bush open-borders disaster. All of those Senators are up for re-election this year. Send them some money. Then send a few more bucks to the enforcement proponents on the House side as well.

Don’t sit and wait for the fence to get built.

It won’t be finished under the Bush administration or a McCain administration or an Obama or Hillary Clinton administration. What you can do is pressure mayors and police chiefs and city councils to rescind dangerous sanctuary policies.
What you can do is alert county sheriffs that you want them to work with the feds to end illegal alien catch-and-release policies in your neighborhood..
What you can do is stop patronizing businesses that you know are knowingly employing illegal immigrants using fake Ids and stolen Social Security numbers.

There are other vital issues on the ballot this fall that need conservative backing. Conservative stalwart Ward Connerly is leading a “Super Tuesday of Equality” drive in November to end racial preferences in five states. He has not only battled the race demagogues on the Left and the affirmative action apologists in the media, but also spineless GOP establishment leaders who would rather pander to the “diversity” lobby than fight for true equality under the law.

Connerly spearheaded resounding victories in California, Washington, and Michigan. The new campaign is targeting Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Support his organization, the American Civil Rights Institute (http://www.acri.org/).

Twenty-six years ago at the Conservative Political Action Conference, President Reagan rallied conservatives:

“We must ask ourselves tonight how we can forge and wield a popular majority from one end of this country to the other, a majority united on basic, positive goals with a platform broad enough and deep enough to endure long into the future, far beyond the lifespan of any single issue or personality.”

Get involved. Don’t calm down. Get fired up.


AMEN Michelle

Time for all the lamenting, hand wringing, and hate fest to stop. It is what it is but it doesn't have to be that way in your neck of the woods.
Don't give up or give in, give your time, your money, your support to local and state conservatives.

How about Tim Walberg http://www.walbergforcongress.com/for one;

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen has named Walberg as one of the top targets in the House for the upcoming 2008 elections.
On August 23, 2007, State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer announced he would be challenging Walberg in the 2008 election. Schauer is the fourth Democrat to enter the race, along with 2004 and 2006 nominee Sharon Renier, attorney David Nacht, and former Adrian mayor and former state Senator Jim Berryman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walberg

The Unvarnished State of the State

The Unvarnished State of the State
By Michael D. LaFaive
http://www.mackinac.org/print.aspx?ID=9229
2-4-08

Since my job as fiscal policy director of a think tank requires me to watch the State of the State address every year, I have often wondered what I might say if I were governor. After a decade of analyzing state budgets and Michigan’s economy, I think my remarks would go something like this:
It is a pleasure to be here to deliver my very first State of the State address to this full chamber. My remarks will be different from my predecessors’ in two ways. First, I did not craft these remarks around pithy quotes that could be easily extracted by the media. Too many speeches by too many politicians are designed to solicit good press coverage rather than convey substantive ideas.

Second (and related), my speech is void of applause lines. It has, in recent years, become customary to place invited guests of heroic stature in our gallery and then dramatically recount the ways they have saved kids from ignorance, created jobs or served honorably in a theater of war. This omission will prevent legislators from leaping to their feet in raucous applause with the predictability of Pavlov’s dogs at the sound of a bell.
In exchange for meaningless but clever turns of a phrase, I will offer the troubling but blunt truth:

Michigan is dying.

The Great Lake State most of us remember from our youth is being replaced by a poorer, less competitive one. Consider just a few economic measures.

First, Michigan’s rank among the 50 states in per capita state Gross Domestic Product has tumbled from a high of 16th in 1999 to 39th in 2006.

State GDP is simply the value of all goods and services produced within the geographical borders of a state. This ranking is important to us because Michigan has typically done better during national booms and worse during recessions. But starting in 2002 something changed.

With a growing national economy we should have been climbing in the GDP rankings, yet we continue to fall. This is not a simple, cyclical event.

Second, Michigan’s per capita personal income is 7.8 percent below the national average, a rate worse than during the Great Depression.

Let me drive this point home. If present trends continue, the people of Alabama will on average have higher incomes than the people of Michigan in just three years.

Lastly, Michigan has the highest unemployment rate of any state in the nation at 7.6 percent. If the Great Lake State has another year of net job losses as is expected, it will represent the largest string of year-over-year job losses since the Great Depression.

Now, I ask you: Does anyone think any of these numbers will improve as a result of last year’s $1.4 billion tax hike?

The economic law of demand is clear. If you raise the price of anything — wheat, jobs or work, for instance — you get less of it. When the state hikes the cost of laboring and living in Michigan they will get less of it. We must reverse these trends and do so with dramatic reforms.

For starters, Michigan must become the 23rd right-to-work state, which is perhaps the greatest economic development tool in the state’s reach.

Between 2001 and 2006, states with voluntary unionism enjoyed state GDP growth of 18.1 percent. Michigan grew by only 3.4 percent during the same period. From July 2005 to July 2006, nine of the top 10 states in terms of population growth were right-to-work states. The numbers suggest that this is no coincidence.

We must repeal the hated Michigan Business Tax — which repealed the hated Single Business Tax — and we must offset revenue losses by reducing the size and scope of state government. The Mackinac Center has compiled a list of spending reductions that would save the state $1.3 billion without cutting any core government functions.

The good news is that Michigan is a great state with abundant natural resources, such as water and human talent. Moreover, opportunity can spring from crisis. Someone once said that politicians will do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted every other option. Michigan may have reached that point. Let us move forward.
#####
Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.


As I read this I had two emotions, one of grief, that Michigan has absolutely the worst choice of a govenor at such a critical time in her history. And the other is anger, at how this governor is destroying her. However its a anger with resolve.
By all means available to me I will fight for my Michigan.
I hope you will join me....

Follow the Money

This just came to my attention.

The liberal news media is crying about "President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks." based of this "independent study"


But of course with the liberal media you ALWAYS must do some investigating of your own. In this case the first thing I wondered, just who are the Center for Public Integrity,and the Fund for Independence in Journalism?

Call me suspicious but somehow I knew there was more there than what their titles implied.

Sure anought after limited research I found this post from Fausta's blog
http://faustasblog.com/2008/01/whos-paying-for-study.html

Associated Press, this morning:
Study: False statements preceded war

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
...
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
The Fund for Independence in Journalism mission, in their own words:
The Fund's primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity

According to AP, that makes them two nonprofit journalism organizations, when in fact it's one organization with a legal branch to shield it from lawsuits.

Ed Morrissey takes a look at who's behind the Center for Public Integrity:
the Center for Public Integrity hardly qualifies as "independent". It gets much of its funding from George Soros, who has thrown millions of dollars behind Democratic political candidates, and explicitly campaigned to defeat George Bush in 2004....Nowhere in these articles do either news organization bother to inform their reader of the partisan nature of the CPI. Besides Soros, it gets financing from the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation. The FIJ shares most of its board members with the CPI, which hardly makes it a separate entity in terms of its political direction.

Big Lizards explains How to Lie About Lying:
One notes that "Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members" -- isn't that a lovely grammatical construct? -- do not deny that Iraq was "trying to... obtain" WMD, even though they appear to include such claims under the category of "false statements."Nor do they deny the administration's claim that Iraq had "links" with al-Qaeda. They merely dispute the meaningfulness of those links... and dub that another "false statement" by the president and his administration. If you look at the Wikipedia entry on the Center for Public Integrity, you'll find more on the sources of funds.

By the way,
Mr Soros was the man reported to have made $1bn profit in September 1992, betting correctly that the British currency would have to be devalued and leave the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Now, "I'm looking for a significant shift of power and influence away from the US in particular and a shift in favour of the developing world, particularly China."

So, before you descend into further APDD (Associated Press Deficit Disorder), it's worthwhile asking, "Who's paying for the study?", and take it from there.

First Tom, then Hunter, now Fred

Not a conservative of any degree left

Its' terrible isn't it when the "best" option is someone like McCain?

Even Electable? McCain has 2 emotions, he's either angry or smug & arrogant and he can't cry like Hitlery can

Maybe the Republican party will get a clue and realize that it is when we present a clear contrast (conservative ) to the Democrats that we win

"President Clinton" will do to this country what her buddy, Governor Granholm has done to Michigan

Maybe it will take a Hiltery to almost destroy this country to usher a new Reagan era? History repeating itself, 1976 then 1980?

But on the other hand is America REALLY ready for a woman president? Especially someone like Hiltery?
I mean we aren't talking Margret Thatcher here
If Hiltery is the nominee will lots of blacks sit it out in protest?
Will lots of men?

But then again if McCain is the nominee will lots of conservatives sit it out?

2008 is going to be a defining moment for the Republican Party and for this country

God help us

Why not Duncan Hunter?

Why isn't Duncan Hunter, who is admittedly a true conservative, doing better?
And why do I support Fred Thompson?

Looking at the results so far for Duncan Hunter
In Iowa 1%
In Michigan 0% with 2,823 votes
In New Hampshire 0% with 1,220
In Wyoming 8% to Romney's 67% and Thompson's 25%

As I write this Nevada and South Carolina are still voting
Nevada with 79% reporting has Hunter with
2% or 608 votes

I have several reasons. First off, it is obvious the Republican Party is fractured.
The congressional losses of 2006 resulted in, in my opinion a large portion of the Republican Party willingly to pick a candidate that is perceived as being able to win as opposed to a candidate who best represents the party's conservative principals.
For example, who would have thought only a few years ago that someone with a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual stance would never be a candidate for the Republican Party?
The pro-choice political action organization NARAL believes a win by Republican Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race would be a boon to pro-choice forces

John McCain represents a moderate wing of the party. Mike Huckabee is a curious mixture of a Christian who supports liberal policies. In addition, Ron Paul is the first Republican/Libertairn candidate to receive more than 3% of votes. Mitt Romney is good looking the (Kennedy factor) and fiscally conservative but with a suspect recent conversion to social conservative principals.

So what do these candidates all have in common? Grassroots and moneyed backers who BELIEVE that their candidate CAN WIN

Sad to say this is evidently that Duncan Hunter, respite conservative credentials lacks.

Quite frankly it is a gloomy state of affairs that the party of conservative principals has seemly turned its back on the two true conservatives in the running, Duncan Hunter and until recently Tom Tancredo. To me it speaks volumes about the current state of the Republican Party.
Fred Thompson was right when he said, "The future of the Republican Party is at stake"

If the 2008 Republican nominee is selected on mostly elect ability as opposed to consistent conservative principals than the party will drift even closer to the middle and our conservative values will be minimized in the party.

On the other hand, could it be that a loss to a scorched earth liberal like Hillary or Obama would be the very thing that would usher in a true conservative candidate in 2012?

Let's look back to 1976. Ronald Reagan was running for the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party; however, he lost in the Primaries to Ford

Yet, his loss proved to be a mixed blessing; when Ford lost the 1976 election to Democrat Jimmy Carter. The disastrous Jimmy Carter presidency helped Ronald Reagan secure the party nomination and go on to win the 1980 presidential election.

But getting back to Fred Thompson. In my opinion out of all the candidates still running who have a chance of the nomination, Fred Thompson is the most conservative.

More conservative than McCain, Huckabee, Romney. (Giuliani goes with saying, a liberal with an "R" by his name)

That is why I am supporting Fred, process of elimination. I want the most conservative candidate who still can win, to win the nomination

Is Duncan Hunter and was Tom Tancredo first choices. Yes, absolutely

Since Tom Tancredo has dropped out, does Duncan Hunter have a chance of winning the nomination?
In my opinion No.

I do believe he will do better out West where he has more name recognition but a candidate has to do
better than 0-4% in the rest of the country

In addition, perhaps this just is not a time for conservatives. Perhaps history must repeat itself
and 2008 is 1976 and 2012 will be a 1980

I only hope that conservatism survives the cycle.

"Our basic rights come from God"

Fred "Comes Alive"

Some of us remember that phrase referring to Peter Frampton.

Well Fred came alive last night and showed the Fred that his supporters already know. Last night he hit it out of the ball park!

GO FRED!

Fred Thompson on O'Reilly and List of Supporters

Current list of Fred Supporters Courtesy of Flopping Aces http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/01/07/list-of-fred-thompson-supporters-update-ii/#comment-10700

Including;
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Former Sen. Al D’Amato (R-NY), Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK), California State Sen. Tom McClintock, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), former CA State Senator Dick Mountjoy, California State Senator George Runner, Tom Tancredo’s former Iowa State Chairman Bill Salier, and Pat Buchanan’s former Iowa campaign director for his 1996 run and current Republican Iowa Third District State Central Committee member, Loras Schulte.

Iowa Caucus and Jenny-Fraud?

Well the results of the Iowas Caucus are in and the pundits are giving their opinions so here's mine;

Its seem that quite a few Iowans paid more attention to the fact that Mike Huckabee is Christian(from what I have read, a moderate one) than the fact he borders on moderate to socialists on the issues.

Quite frankly I think it makes the "religious right" look stupid, i.e all a candidate has to do is proclaim Christianity

Now don't get me wrong I would love a Christian candidate and president but Christianity can't be the only qualification for the president of the United States. Of course as a Christian I need a pro-lifer. Huckabee isn't the only pro-life candidate in fact Fred Thompson recieved the National Life to Life endorsement. However I also need a candidate that has a conservative stance and record on strong national security, protecting our borders, limited government,and cutting taxes.

And that isn't Mike Huckabee, in my opinion. I base it on all the research, on all the debates and reading, reading, reading I have done on the candidates.

But its still early.. and many Christians still haven't made up their minds....I just pray it will be with all the facts that Christians have taken the time to find out
To "find out" about Fred http://www.fred08.com/

However the real big picture I see is that people want someone different
Someone they see as not establishment. Both Huckabee and Obama fit the bill, relativity unknown and a newcomer

In addition Ron Paul got 10% which means there are a lot of newly independent voters out there tired of both parties.

How Ron Paul will not win the election but who will his voters vote for?
Or perhaps will some not vote at all or vote for a Dem
as a statement vote? i.e maybe 4 years of a Dem will clear the way for a real conservative
Will Ron Paul endorse any of the other candidates or the final winner of the GOP? I know, I know to Paul supporters he will be the next president.

This is still a wide open race but no candidate should take the "natives are restless" lightly
But after the Iowa results, how could they?

So NOW is the time to choose your candidate if you have not done so already. Please don't get caught up in the ball and chain of "electability"
Support your candidate with your money and time and help him BECOME electable. Remember ;" George W. Bush; his father, George H.W. Bush; and Ronald Reagan all lost one of the two early states in 2000, 1988 and 1980, respectively." http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/print_how_many_have_become_president_after_losing.html

And on the home front

Taxpayer Fraud??? The state announced a SURPLUS of some $350 Million dollars…after the Democrats jammed through the largest tax increase in Michigan’s history. Republicans argued we could balance our budget without raising taxes…this is before any meaningful reforms.

Now that the Democrats got their tax increase…how about a bi-partisan approach at reforming the way Michigan spend our tax dollars?!?
http://migop.blogs.com/

How convenient for our Governor to some how have "lost" $350 million and then "by accident" discover it

Anyone wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?