Quote

Remember this when you go to vote, especially the last line by Thomas Jefferson. Will we allow something like this to happen to us?  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Pay close attention to the last statement attributed to Thomas Jefferson. 

 

Subject: How to catch a wild pig 

 
There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. 

 

The professor asked  was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government. In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' 

 

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.  They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity. 

 

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, free medical, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms - just a little at a time. 

 

One should always remember 'There is no such thing as a free Lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself. 

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential  to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut! 

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' ........ Thomas Jefferson

Quote

Congress Strikes Out
By Linda Chavez
February 15, 2008

You would have thought Congress was about to hear from a top al-Qaida operative or maybe a mafia kingpin, what with all the accusatory statements and self-righteous indignation being flaunted by members of Congress. But no, an august congressional committee was gathered together to waste the taxpayers' time and money interrogating a baseball player, seven-time Cy Young award-winning pitcher Roger Clemens.

And for what? For allegedly using hormones to enhance his performance on the field. I'm sorry, I just can't get my dander up on this one.

I may not be a sports fanatic, but I do admire the tremendous skill and dedication players like Clemens display year in and year out. Our top athletes have always wanted to achieve at the highest levels and have been willing to do whatever possible to get there.

Then, along came substances that professional athletes knew would improve their performance and are used legally in other contexts. Sure, the drugs -- steroids, human growth hormone and whatever else drug companies can whip up that make muscles grow stronger and more quickly -- have some pretty nasty side-effects that may endanger the health of those who choose to take them. But shouldn't this be the individual's choice?

There are serious risks to using steroids and human growth hormones, but to treat these drugs as if they were equivalent to cocaine or other illegal substances is terribly misguided. Doctors prescribe steroids and HGH every day because the drugs have important uses in speeding recovery from certain injuries and in treating inflammation, asthma, delayed onset of puberty, body wasting in AIDS patients, even low sex drive in post-menopausal women. Cocaine, heroin, psychedelics and other illegal drugs have no such benefits.

As employers, Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and other sports associations have the right to set up rules that forbid the use of performance enhancing drugs by their players. If the owners want to test their players and prohibit those who use certain drugs from playing, fine. Let them penalize those who break the rules, even kick them out of the game.

But, that does not mean Congress or the Executive Branch should try to turn this into a public policy issue, much less a crime. It was ridiculous for President Bush to include steroid use by professional athletes as one of his priority concerns in his 2004 State of the Union address and even more outrageous for Congress to hold hearings on the subject.

The sheer hypocrisy is staggering. We are a drug- and performance enhancing-obsessed culture. Americans spend billions a year on drugs to make us look better and perform stronger. I wonder how many members of Congress have taken Viagra or had Botox injections -- and the latter, which is a form of botulinum, one of the most deadly toxins on earth, has now been linked to several deaths. Yet these politicians want to criminalize the behavior of athletes who do roughly the equivalent. Is America really a better country because Marion Jones is in jail and Barry Bonds may be headed there?

I don't know if Roger Clemens was entirely truthful at this week's hearings. But I strenuously object to my taxpayer dollars being used by Congress to grill him under oath. And I will be outraged if one penny is spent trying to prove he perjured himself. We have better things to do with our limited resources, and Congress certainly has more important issues to deal with. No wonder Congress is held in such low esteem by Americans, with barely over 20 percent approval ratings.

We are a nation at war. We have a Social Security and Medicare crisis looming. We have a tax system that rewards borrowing instead of saving or investing. Our education system is failing, despite exponential growth in federal funding over the last several decades. We have an immigration system that stifles economic growth and encourages lawlessness. These are the issues Americans want addressed, not more investigations into whether athletes are using performance enhancing drugs.

Quote

The 2nd Amendment's Day In Court
By Oliver North
February 15, 2008

WASHINGTON -- When the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the toughest gun control law in the nation in 1976, the city fathers -- according to what they said at the time -- believed they were making our nation's capital a safer place. The measure failed miserably. Since passage, the murder rate in the District has skyrocketed by more than 200 percent. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance both to make our capital safer and to ensure that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is enshrined as an individual right for every law-abiding American.

No matter how well-intentioned, the D.C. firearms statute has been unfathomable from the start. On its face, the law bans handguns and requires rifles and shotguns to be registered. They also must be stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled. While it allows business owners to use firearms to protect their cash registers at their stores, they cannot use those same firearms to protect themselves and their families in their homes. Individuals who protect federal officials and property in the District with firearms are not permitted to provide similar protection for themselves and their families in their own domiciles.

In fact, the case that the Supreme Court will hear, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought by Dick Heller, a security guard. In carrying out his duties, Heller carries a handgun on federal property. However, when he sought to register the same weapon to safeguard his home, he was denied. Heller says the D.C. law has it backward: "I can protect (federal workers), but at the end of the day, they say, 'Turn in your gun; you can't protect your home.'" Heller maintains that disassembled rifles and shotguns are no substitute for handguns "any more than the government could prohibit books because it permits newspapers and considers them an 'adequate substitute.'"

Last March, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, 2-1, that the District's prohibition was not only unreasonable but also clearly unconstitutional. Attorneys for the District of Columbia promptly appealed the decision. That is why on March 18, for the first time since 1939, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether such a gun ban for law-abiding citizens is constitutional. Their verdict, expected later this year, will have profound implications for all Americans.

The case has generated a flurry of unprecedented action in both the executive and legislative branches of government. On Jan. 11, the Department of Justice filed an egregiously weak amicus -- friend of the court -- brief in the case. The argument, submitted by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, essentially urges the Supremes to waffle on the issue and send the case back to the lower courts.

The DOJ softball didn't sit well with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. On Feb. 8, she filed an amicus brief on behalf of Heller and the exercise of his individual rights under the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In her lucid and detailed exposition, Hutchison accurately points out that the Framers never intended that the word "Militia" meant that the right to keep and bear arms was some kind of "collective" right that applied only to a particular group. If that had been their purpose, they would have been satisfied with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

To ensure that firearms possession was recognized by posterity as an "individual right," the Framers included it as part of the Bill of Rights -- an enumeration of every citizen's personal entitlements: free speech, freedom of religion, and a fair trial. The precise location of those famous words -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" -- provides strong evidence for the Founders' vision.

To foreclose any doubt where Congress comes down on the issue, Hutchison has introduced a bill to repeal the District of Columbia's ban on handguns; repeal registration requirements; and restore the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep a loaded, operable firearm in their homes. Doing less denies the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed."

Her argument was so persuasive that 54 additional senators and 250 members of the House of Representatives -- including 68 Democrats -- signed on. Vice President Dick Cheney -- apparently at odds with the administration's Department of Justice -- did so, as well. Let's hope the Supreme Court will agree with these enlightened members of Congress -- and Abraham Lincoln, who said, "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."

Quote

* Subj: How the tax system works *Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all tencomes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, itwould go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar everyday and seemed quite happy with the arrangement.One day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such goodcustomers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by$20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so thefirst four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. Whathappens to the other six men - the paying customers? How could theydivide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtractedthat from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man wouldeach end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggestedthat it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the sameamount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. Andso: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continuedto drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began tocompare their savings.'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointedto the tenth man,' but he got $10!''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!''That's true!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back whenI got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't getanything at all. The system exploits the poor!'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine satdown and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,they discovered something important.They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of thebill!And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how ourtax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the mostbenefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for beingwealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they mightstart drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of GeorgiaFor those who understand, no explanation is needed.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Quote

Gingrich Warns of GOP Catastrophe

Monday, February 11, 2008 5:10 PM        By: Newsmax Staff

In a rousing speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for a conservative “declaration of independence” from the Republican Party. He also warned that Republicans face a “catastrophic” election this year unless the GOP changes course. Gingrich pointed out that on Super Tuesday, 14.6 million voters took part in the Democratic races, compared to 8.3 million Republicans. “There were 14.6 million Democrats who thought the presidential nomination was worth voting for, and there were 8.3 million Republicans on Super Tuesday,” Gingrich said. “That is a warning of a catastrophic election. I was in Idaho this last week, and Barack Obama on last Saturday had 16,000 people in Boise. The idea [of] the most liberal Democratic Senator getting 16,000 people in Boise was inconceivable. “And every person who cares about the conservative movement and every person who cares about the Republican Party had better stop and say to themselves, ‘There is something big happening in this country. We don’t understand it. We’re not responding to it. And we’re currently not competitive. And if we want to get to be competitive, we had better change and we had better change now.” Gingrich stressed that he was not commenting on any of the current candidates for president. Rather, he said, “this is a comment about the conservative movement, and it's a comment about the Republican Party, and all the candidates currently running fit within those two phrases. But it is about all of us. It is about our Congressman, our Senator, our governors, our county commissioners, our school board members. “And let me make this very clear, I believe we have to change or expect defeat. “And I believe that this is a time for the conservative movement to issue a declaration of independence… “First of all, I think we need to get independent from a Washington fixation. There are 513,000 elected officials in the United States and the conservative movement should believe in a decentralized United States, where every elected official has real responsibility, and we should be developing a conservative action plan, at every level of this country, and not simply focused over and over again on arguments about the White House… “I also think that we need to declare our independence from trying to protect and defend failed bureaucracies that magically become ours as soon as we are in charge of them. We appoint solid conservatives to a department and within three weeks they are defending and protecting the very department that they would have been attacking before they got appointed.” Gingrich drew considerable applause when he continued with his “independence” theme: “There is one other declaration of independence we need and this will startle some of you. And remember I say this from a background of having been active in the Georgia Republican Party since 1960. In a fundamental way, the conservative movement has to declare itself independent from the Republican Party. “Let me make very clear what I'm saying here. I am not saying there should be a third party – I think a third party is a dumb idea, will not get anywhere, and in the end will achieve nothing. “I actually believe that any reasonable conservative will, in the end, find that they have an absolute requirement to support the Republican nominee for president this fall… “As a citizen, I would rather have a President McCain that we fight with 20 percent of the time, than a President Clinton or a President Obama that we fight with 90 percent of the time.” But he warned: “If we run a traditional consultant-dominated tactical Republican campaign, like we’ve seen in the last eight years, we will be defeated this fall, and we will be having a CPAC meeting next year talking about how we rebuild for the future with either President Obama or President Clinton in charge.”

Quote

There's a Democrat Behind Door No. 1, 2 and 3

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 02/13/2008 ET
Updated 02/13/2008 ET

A few more primary wins and B. Hussein Obama will be able to light up a cigarette during a televised speech and still get the nomination. It looks like the only thing that can stop him now is an endorsement from Al Gore.

Gore is always lunging into a movement just as it has passed its prime -- the Internet, Howard Dean, global warming, trying to talk black when he campaigns at a black church. He probably bought a big house a few months ago. Gore is such a supremely unlikable human being, he even subverted the mainstream media's affection for liberalism during the 2000 election.

And my brave little Hillary needs a bold move after the Potomac primaries this week. If she can't trick Gore into endorsing Obama, she may have to divorce Bill.
 
Hillary is, shockingly enough, the most conservative candidate among the top three presidential candidates.
 
The Rev. Jerry Falwell once remarked that his people would rather vote for Beelzebub than Hillary Clinton.
 
He didn't mention John McCain.
 
Pat Buchanan says if McCain is the nominee, the Republican Party will lose its soul. I'm more worried about the Republican Party losing its mind.
 
Republicans are doing what the Democrats tried in 2004 with John Kerry. In a state of despair, Democrats dumped the legitimate leader of their party, Howard Dean, for a candidate they deemed "electable." Kerry served in Vietnam! Republicans: Conniving has never been our strong suit. Honor is our strong suit.
 
Sen. John McCain's claim to being a Republican comes down to two factors:
 
(1) He was a POW -- I know that because he mentions it more often than John Kerry told us that he served in Vietnam.
 
And (2) he has a relatively conservative voting record compared to, say, Maxine Waters.
 
I note that there were hundreds of POWS in Vietnam. We can't make them all president. If we're just going to pick one, how about one who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo and give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants? Hey, didn't Duncan Hunter serve in Vietnam? Why, yes, I believe he did!
 
Moreover, it's crazy to imagine that military service makes one qualified to be president. Everyone knows the true test of presidential leadership is an ability to cry on cue. Another point for my Hillary.
 
To be sure, McCain has a relatively conservative voting record -- but only relative to Republicans who have to get elected in places like Vermont. Relative to Republicans from conservative Arizona, McCain's voting record is abominable.
 
We keep hearing about McCain's "lifetime" rating from the American Conservative Union being 82.3 percent. But McCain has been a member of Congress for approximately 400 years, so that includes his votes on the Spanish-American War. His more current ratings are not so hot.
 
In 2006 -- the most recent year for which ratings are available -- McCain's ACU rating was 65. That year, the ACU rating for the other senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, was 97. Even Chuck Hagel's ACU rating was 75, and Lindsey Graham's was 83.
 
Since 1998, only four Republican senators have had worse ACU scores than John McCain -- and none were from Goldwater country: Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. The last time McCain ranked this far down in his class, he was at the Naval Academy.
 
In fact, McCain and Romney are mirror opposites: As Romney had to tailor his conservative views to the liberal voters of Massachusetts, McCain has had to tailor his liberal views to the conservative voters of Arizona. While Romney's record in a liberal bastion is as bad as it will ever be, McCain's record from a conservative bastion is as good as it will ever be. Which isn't very good.
 
In the immortal words of -- well, me, actually: Always choose a strong conservative from a blue state over a lukewarm conservative from a red state.
 
Bob Dole from Kansas had a pretty good voting record, too. But no one fully believed he believed it. Another feather in his cap was that he didn't burden voters with a "Straight Talk Express," a means of conveyance even more useless and idiotic than an electric car.
 
Even McCain's supporters on the Spaghetti-Spined Express know he can't be trusted on social issues like abortion. I notice how everyone seems to agree that of course Rudy Giuliani's voters would go to McCain.
 
Why would that be? On the two seminal issues of our time other than abortion -- taxes and the war on terrorism -- the two could not be more different.
 
Rudy cut taxes in New York City and, as a presidential candidate, proposed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history.
 
McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts twice.
 
Rudy supports torturing terrorists -- or using "enhanced interrogation techniques," as they say, announcing in one of the debates: "I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of."
 
McCain is hysterical about pouring water down terrorists' noses and campaigns to shut down Guantanamo.
 
He demands that no terrorist interrogation be "degrading" -- perhaps recalling how not degrading it was for people in the upper floors of the Twin Towers to have to leap to their deaths rather than be burned alive on Sept. 11.
 
So why is it obvious to everyone that Rudy would endorse McCain?

Quote

Plan Would Sidestep Electoral College
By NGUYEN HUY VU
Associated Press
February 11, 2008

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - If John R. Koza gets his way, American voters will never again have to wonder about the workings of the Electoral College and why it decides who sits in the White House.

Koza is behind a push to have states circumvent the odd political math of the Electoral College and ensure that the presidency always goes to the winner of the popular vote.

Basically, states would promise to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the most support nationwide, regardless of who carries each particular state.

"We're just coming along and saying, 'Why not add up the votes of all 50 states and award the electoral votes to the 50-state winner?'" said Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc. "I think that the candidate who gets the most votes should win the office."

The proposal is aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.

So far, Maryland and New Jersey have signed up for the plan. Legislation that would include Illinois is on the governor's desk. But dozens more states would have to join before the plan could take effect.

The idea is a long shot. But it appears to be easier than the approach tried previously -- amending the Constitution, which takes approval by Congress and then ratification by 38 states.

The Electoral College was set up to make the final decision on who becomes president. Each state has a certain number of votes in the college based on the size of its congressional delegation.

Often, all of a state's electoral votes are given to whomever wins that state's popular vote. For instance, even someone who wins New York by a single percentage point, 51-49, would get all 31 of the state's electoral votes.

This creates some problems.

One is that candidates can ignore voters in states that aren't competitive. If the Democrat is clearly going to win a state, the Republican has no reason to court its minority of GOP voters there and instead will focus on other states.

Another problem is the possibility of a result like that in 2000, where one candidate gets more votes overall but the other candidate gets narrow victories in just the right states to eke out a majority in the Electoral College.

National Popular Vote says its plan would change all that.

"What's important to the country is that it would make presidential campaigns a 50-state exercise," said Koza, a Stanford University computer science professor.

Here's how it would work:

States forge an agreement to change the way they allocate general election votes. The agreement would take effect once it's been approved by states with a majority in the Electoral College, or 270 votes.

At that point, the states would begin awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each state.

If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state -- basically the same system used now.

There are critics. The downside, they argue, is that a close presidential election would require recounts not just in one or two key states, but throughout the entire country.

They also say it would further reduce the influence of small states as politicians focus on such places as voter-rich California, New York and Texas.

"Any way you look at it, I think smaller populations have a greater voice under the current system than they would under a national popular vote system," said North Dakota state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, a Republican who voted against joining his state in National Popular Vote's agreement.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has not decided whether to sign his state's legislation to join the plan, his office said. When he was in Congress, Blagojevich co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College in 2000.

Legislation endorsing the National Popular Vote plan was passed in California and Hawaii but vetoed by their governors. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it would run "counter to the tradition of our great nation, which honors states' rights and the unique pride and identity of each state."

Koza believes the agreement proposal would standardize the way states award their electoral votes, give every voter equal influence and keep candidates from ignoring some states in favor of battleground states like Ohio and Florida.

He noted that neither presidential candidate visited Illinois in 2004, even though it has a population of about 12.8 million.

"The Republicans wrote it off and the Democrats took it for granted," Koza said, "and that's typical of two-thirds of the states."

Quote

Stepping Back From The Conservative Abyss
By Frank Salvato
February 8, 2008

"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an 'R' or a 'D' after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, then Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is..." -- Ann Coulter on Hannity & Colmes

If Conservatives and Republicans don't squelch their anger toward the apparent party nominee we will be falling into the trap the Liberal Left has set for us; the trap that splinters the Conservatives within the Republican Party so that another Clinton (or Democrat) can get into the White House with less than a majority of the national vote. We will be acting emotionally instead of intellectually; exactly as the Liberal Left wants us to.

I support Conservative principles and ideals. I would have enjoyed having a true Conservative on the ballot in November because I believe, given the choice, the nation would have voted "right." But the reality of the situation, as it stands, is that dedicated Conservatives don't have a horse in the November presidential contest. The choice now is this; do we fold altogether and literally hand the White House to a woman who idolizes the Socialistic tenets of Saul Alinsky or an untested freshman senator with no political paper trail, or do we advance intelligently, salvaging what we can?

Anyone familiar with the American political process understands that politics is never, ever a zero-sum game. There is never a moment in time when one political party, one ideological group, gets its way completely. We are seeing a perfect example of this today on Capitol Hill with the debate and negotiations and compromises on the economic stimulus package and the FISA bill.

But the truth remains, those who enter into the realm of politics with absolutes usually leave the field with nothing. Most often, they leave the experience with their cause damaged; their ideological demise coming at their own hand for their failure to accept incremental advancement.

The sad truth of the matter is this; we -- Conservatives and Republicans -- have only ourselves to blame for the fact that no true Conservative is left to consider in November.

We only have ourselves to blame for the fact that when the Republican National Committee was busy stacking the New England deck in favor of Rudy Giuliani with the "winner take all" delegate fiasco they were doing it in plain sight; doing it with nary a protest from the rank and file. This set the stage for a Liberal-Republican victory.

Further, how did we -- the rank and file members of the Republican Party -- allow two major Liberal states, in New Hampshire and Iowa, to dictate who the "Conservative" candidates would be? That the most Conservative of states weren't slated for primaries first is the major problem here, not that McCain is a Progressive-Republican, although that can be argued.

Lastly, our refusal to accept and lack of appreciation for the notion of incremental victory is part of the problem.

There are many among the Conservative and Republican ranks that have made it very clear they see no difference between John McCain and the Democrat candidates. In light of that notion I advance these concerns:

A Hillary Clinton Administration

A Clinton administration would move this country to the far left in four years, complete with a defunding of the military and the intelligence communities while abdicating much of our country's sovereignty to the United Nations when it comes to global policy. As was the case under the first Clinton administration, terrorism would be relegated to a matter of "law enforcement."

A Clinton administration would continue the corruption and liberalization of the whole of the Executive Branch (the State Department, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, etc.). It would continue to encourage the State Department to embrace its one-world, globalist policies, policies that have usurped the Constitution by ignoring the authority of Executive Branch under the Bush administration. This usurpation is perpetrated at the hands of many Bill Clinton appointees. We will also see a continued politicalization of the Justice Department as foes of the Clintons are scrutinized while their allies and benefactors go unprosecuted for their malfeasance -- both financial and criminal.

And no doubt, Hillary Clinton would be tempted to appoint her husband, Bill Clinton, to the United States Supreme Court.

A Hillary Clinton administration would facilitate a continuation of the damage already perpetrated against our Constitution by her husband's administration.

A Barack Obama Administration

We have no actual record on which to judge Barack Obama (he destroyed his records from when he was an Illinois State Senator and he hasn't stewarded anything of substance in the US Senate) so we have to judge him at his word and deed.

Obama would be extremely weak on the global war against radical Islamism. He has stated that he would remove US forces from the field of battle in Iraq within 90 days of being sworn in, even as we stand at the brink of a great victory in the Iraqi theater.

Obama has parroted the very same "change" mantra -- a false promise of hope -- which Bill Clinton advanced in 1992, again without actually advancing a substantive policy or platform. This demonstrates that he is untested in his leadership and willing to use the tools of political opportunism to achieve his personal goals.

Perhaps most disturbingly, he has advanced a racial element in his presidential campaign that exhibits a willingness to divide in order to conquer, a most despicable trait in any politician.

Further, his deeds, statements and silence on select issues present serious questions about his ideology. The radical, afro-centric tenets of his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, have never been adequately examined by the main stream media. Couple this with the fact that the leaders of the radical Islamist movement -- Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri -- have not issued fatwas against Obama for, not only being a Muslim apostate, but for being a Muslim apostate and aspiring to be the leader of "the Great Satan," the United States of America, and you have a plethora of troubling notions that most certainly cast a shadow on his candidacy.

It's About the Constitution

It is crunch time and paraphrasing a line from the film Top Gun, we cannot leave our wingman, even if his perceived liberalism alarms you. It's our responsibility to examine the realities of the situation and to construct a winning scenario, for it is our duty as American citizens to protect the United States Constitution. So, how do we make chicken salad out of chicken scratch?

- First we focus on pressuring the McCain campaign and especially the Republican National Committee -- and I mean applying pressure like we did to Congress and the White House over the immigration and border issue -- into seating a true Conservative as McCain's running mate. This would minimize the damage caused by his candidacy with the prospective protest voters.

- We stand behind the party candidate because he will provide an avenue to defend the Constitution, regardless of his perceived liberalism (having a partially open door to the Executive Branch is better than having a closed door).

- We shift focus to Congress. We need to take back at least one chamber of Congress. If it is to be only one then it must be the Senate. The Senate controls United States Supreme Court nominations, judicial nominations and treaty and accord approvals. If we can attain control of both houses we can effectively govern through opposition (ala Daschle and Reid) and can even advance agendas just as we did in 1995 with Newt Gingrich at the helm.

If we focus our efforts on Congress and John McCain loses the presidential election we will have control of at least one chamber of Congress. If we focus our efforts on Congress and McCain wins Conservatives in Congress will be able to institute a policy of supporting McCain in his Conservative positions and opposing him in his liberal ones, empowering that opposition with the ability to over-ride a veto should Republicans take back the House.

Ironically, this will move to re-establish the Constitutional delineation between the branches of government.

The reason it is so important to have "R" behind the name in the White House, even a perceived Liberal-Republican's name, is that it sets up an incumbent-like stage for Conservatives in the next election cycle. As everyone knows, it is easier to run a political campaign as an incumbent -- or from an incumbent-like platform -- than to challenge.

Ideological Optimism

I do not believe the Conservative movement to be one that is dying. I believe we have an enormous amount of work to do and that we will have to be smart this election cycle to make sure we aren't "zeroed-out" altogether, but I do not believe we are seeing our last days.

The immediate concern facing the Conservative movement is the restructuring of the Republican primary process. We must make sure that the most Conservative states are positioned to affect the most influence over slating our candidates. This can be achieved by promoting a primary schedule that rewards states with early primaries based on their pro-Republican/pro-Conservative voter turnout from the most recent presidential election. This would serve as a catalyst for maximizing voter turnout by the state parties and would discourage crossover voting. It would also assure that Conservative voters have the most influence in the selection of national candidates.

Perhaps I'm being optimistic or perhaps I just trust in the ability of future generations to grasp the logic of the American ideal when it is presented to them in language they can understand. But the key to re-establishing the American ideal -- where Conservatives and Liberals alike are free to pursue the advance of their ideologies -- is our youth. We must be smart enough to be able to take one step back and two steps forward. Investing in the next generation, in the next election, in achieving what we can and positioning ourselves for future victories is being smart.

Dedicated Conservatives are taking a shot in the teeth this election cycle and we only have ourselves to blame. We aren't cohesive and we are in danger of achieving total defeat should we remain so. But now is not the time to bury Conservatism. Now is the time to be smart, to take the best we can get, to achieve the best possible outcome that can be attained. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House, for all the reasons cited, if not for only one of them, is reason enough to make sure that we come together this election so we can operate from a position of strength in 2012.

Now, take some St. John's Wart and get back in the saddle. From the ashes rises the phoenix.

Quote

A Conservative Declaration of Independence and the Democrats' Dilemma

by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)

Posted 02/12/2008 ET
Updated 02/12/2008 ET

This weekend, I had the opportunity to address CPAC -- the Conservative Political Action Conference. This is the same group to which Ronald Reagan delivered his historic "bold colors, not pale pastels" speech in 1975, sparking a new center-right coalition that would become the ground troops of the Reagan Revolution.

In my speech, I called for a conservative "declaration of independence" from the Republican Party.

By a "declaration of independence" I don't mean a third party. I mean a renewed willingness among center-right Americans to criticize Republicans when they are wrong as vigorously as we criticize Democrats when they are wrong.

And I mean a reinvigoration of the grassroots to focus on all 513,000 elected officials in our country, not just those in Washington.

I told the conservatives at CPAC that we need to embrace the movement for change in America and make it our own. As I argue in my new book, Real Change: From the World that Fails to the World that Works, all change is not equal. We need the right changes, not the wrong changes.

You can watch and read my whole speech here. 

 

'If We Want to Get Competitive, We Had Better Change, and We Had Better Change Now'

There's one more point I touched on in my CPAC speech that points to a real challenge for Republicans in November.

Last week, on Super Tuesday, 14.6 million Democrats turned out to vote versus only 8.3 million for the GOP. A similar thing happened over the weekend in the Washington and Louisiana contests. This Democratic advantage in turnout is the continuation of a troubling pattern: More energy, more votes and more money are being poured into the Democratic contest than the Republican race.

As I told my audience at CPAC, "There is something big happening in this country. We don't understand it, we're not responding to it, and we're currently not competitive. And if we want to get to competitive, we had better change, and we had better change now."  

 

The Coming Democratic Train Wreck

But the Republicans aren't alone in facing challenges this election year.

Remember when the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties moved their primaries up in the calendar in violation of the Democratic national party rules? The Democratic Party bosses decided to punish them by refusing to seat -- or count -- their delegates at the party's national convention in August. At the time, it seemed like a good move, since everyone assumed that the Michigan and Florida delegates wouldn't really matter in the nomination battle. The conventional wisdom then was that one Democratic candidate would emerge early in the contest and arrive at the convention with a comfortable margin of delegates for the nomination.

So much for the conventional wisdom.

Because of the troubles being experienced by the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, it appears more and more likely that the Democrats' fight for their presidential nominee will go all the way to their convention in Denver in late August.

So here's the Democrats' dilemma: If the delegate count of both campaigns is close by the time the convention rolls around, Florida and Michigan's combined 366 delegates will suddenly become very relevant.  

 

Compounding the Democrats' Dilemma: The Super (Politician) Delegates

Compounding the Democrats' dilemma is the existence of 796 so-called "super delegates."

I call these delegates (who are technically uncommitted and can decide to vote for either candidate) "politician delegates" because that's in fact who they are: Democratic insiders whose purpose is to put down insurgent campaigns and protect the interests of Democratic politics as usual.

Sen. Clinton is mounting a full court press for the politician delegates. But any effort by either campaign to win with these party insiders what they can't win with the voting public should concern all of us.

Not counting the votes of Democrats in Michigan and Florida and allowing party insiders to choose the party's nominee has the potential to ignite civil war in the Democratic Party.

Much worse, it will produce a tainted Democratic presidential candidate and de-legitimize the election itself.  

 

The Answer: Hold New Primaries in Michigan and Florida

Democrats know they need to resolve the dilemma before their August convention. The question is: How?

Giving the Michigan and Florida delegates to Sen. Clinton -- particularly in light of reports that she bent the Democratic Party rules against campaigning in both states -- is a recipe for chaos.

On the other hand, leaving the Florida and Michigan delegates unseated runs the risk for the Democrats of alienating two big states they want and need to win in November.

The answer for the integrity of the process is to hold the Michigan and Florida primaries again.

The voters -- not the party insiders -- have the moral authority to choose the nominee. The voters should get that chance. 

 

For Those Who Still Doubt: The Director of National Intelligence Speaks

You may have missed it in all the coverage of Super Tuesday, but Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell gave his annual national security threat assessment to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week.

For anyone who still doubts that the United States and our allies are in a fight for our very existence, Director McConnell's testimony should put those doubts to rest.

Here's part of what he said (emphasis mine):

Al Qaeda is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: the identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack in the Homeland. While increased security measures at home and abroad have caused al Qaeda to view the West, especially the U.S., as a harder target, we have seen an influx of new Western recruits into the tribal areas since mid-2006. We assess that al Qaeda's Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population.

We judge use of a conventional explosive to be the most probable al Qaeda attack scenario because the group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices and is innovative in creating capabilities and overcoming security obstacles. That said, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are attempting to acquire chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and materials (CBRN). We assess al Qaeda will continue to try to acquire and employ these weapons and materials -- some chemical and radiological materials and crude weapons designs are easily accessible, in our judgment.

Read his entire testimony here. 

 

A Success Story of Real Change

Last week, I reported to you about the beginnings of a movement for real change. The House Republicans are leading an all-out fight to end the corrupt, undemocratic practice of congressional pork-barrel earmarks.

House Republicans are calling for an immediate moratorium on pork-barrel spending. But earmarks can't stop without the cooperation of Democrats. So last week, the House Republicans forced a vote on a GOP bill to immediately halt earmarks and establish a bipartisan committee to fix Washington spending. All Republicans supported the bill, but 204 Democrats voted against it and the measure failed.

That's the bad news. The good news is that House Republicans are vowing to keep up the fight. Here's what Minority Leader John Boehner (R.-Ohio) had to say following the Democrats' rejection of the reform:

"Washington is broken, and it will never be fixed until the earmarks stop and fundamental reform begins. Today's vote is not the end of the earmark reform fight. Rather, it is just the beginning. House Republicans will continue to force votes on this issue until the earmark process is brought to an immediate halt, and we hope the majority eventually joins us."

House Republicans Seize the Moment of Change

I write in Real Change that one of the reasons Republicans failed to make the Reagan and Contract With America revolutions permanent is that Republicans, especially in the House, haven't been able to get over their minority party mindset. They've been too complacent and too timid.

I write:

"Those who want Republicans to become a natural governing majority have to come to grips with how deep and serious the problem is: Republicans must be capable of seizing the moment of change and making it permanent by implementing real change."

I'm happy to report that House Republicans, led by John Boehner, have seized this moment of real change with their battle to eliminate earmarks.

To learn more about this worthy fight, please visit the House Republicans new website dedicated to earmark reform at earmarkreform.house.gov.

P.S. -- E-mail Your Friends About Real Change. My most sincere thanks to all of you who have helped make Real Change such a success. As I write this, Real Change is set to be announced as the No. 3 non-fiction book on the New York Times bestseller list (for February 17) and No. 10 on Amazon.com's non-fiction list. If you haven't yet purchased the book, you can do so here. And for those of you who have, thank you, and there's one more thing you can do. Use your own e-mail lists to tell your friends about Real Change. You can send them to newt.org/realchange where there are all sorts of videos, tools and sneak peaks to convince them to join the movement to transform American, from Washington to Sacramento

Quote

The Contract with Conservatives

Posted By Bobby Eberle On February 12, 2008 at 7:17 am

The party of Ronald Reagan -- a collection of social and fiscal conservatives -- saw all their work come together with the Republican Revolution of 1994. Republicans came to power through their dedication to core, conservative principles.

Since that time, the conservative base has seen the Republican Party go astray. From runaway spending, to big government programs, to assaults on our First Amendment rights to amnesty for illegal aliens, conservatives have become disheartened. Conservatives are told to be loyal to the Republican Party, yet the Republican Party has shown no loyalty to the conservative base. Conservatives are told to fall in line and work for Republican candidates, yet Republican candidates are not working for conservatives.

As Sean Hannity has so aptly pointed out, conservatives need assurances that core conservative principles will be implemented by our Republican presidential nominee and other Republican officials. After years of failed promises, however, the conservative base needs something more than assurances. We need a contract... and that is what the Contract with Conservatives is all about.

The elections of 2006 showed what can happen when Republican officeholders do not follow through on core Republican principles. Turnout goes down, and Republicans lose. The trend is looking even worse for 2008. As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):

"[On Super Tuesday], there were 14.6 million Democrats who thought the presidential nomination was worth voting for, and there were 8.3 million Republicans on Super Tuesday," Gingrich said. "That is a warning of a catastrophic election."

Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) noted in his CPAC speech that candidates must return to conservative principles if they hope to win. He pointed out several areas where Republican officials must return to their roots... to the principles that led to the Republican Revolution. In particular, Pence points to areas such as life, free speech, smaller government, and spending.

America can thrive under conservative leadership and government. The Republican Party is best equipped to deliver this kind of leadership, but too often, it has not. The time has come when conservative voters can no longer be taken for granted. For our time, effort, money, and votes, we need a pledge. We need a pledge from our presidential nominee to uphold the core Republican values that built this party, and which have taken a backseat to politics in recent years.

The Contract with Conservatives is that pledge. It is a pledge to uphold the major conservative ideals that have been pushed aside over the past decade.

Contract with Conservatives

Immigration Reform

• Secure America's borders
• Enforce employment laws
• No amnesty

The American people have spoken, and the clear message is that immigration reform starts with secure borders. In a post-9/11 world, we should expect nothing less. In addition, the American people do not support amnesty. Candidates must repudiate amnesty and show respect for the American people by showing respect for the law. Illegal aliens should not be given special consideration for citizenship and should not be put ahead of those seeking to come to America legally. Conservatives will work for candidates who pledge to put border security first and who pledge to not put illegal aliens ahead of those seeking citizenship through legal means.

Tax Reform

• Make President Bush's tax cuts permanent
• Reduce taxes, both on business and individuals
• Simplify the tax code by moving to a flat tax or the Fair Tax
• No favorites -- All tax cuts should be across the board

The tax code must be simplified, and all taxes should be reduced. The tax code should focus on its core function -- a means of raising revenue. The tax code should not be a vehicle for social engineering, and the reduction of taxes should not pit one socio-economic group against another. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to cut taxes and simplify the tax code, while not engaging in class warfare.

Size and Scope of Federal Government

• Reduce the size of the federal government
• Reform entitlement programs
• Respect states' rights and limit the reach of the federal government as stated in the Constitution
• Cut spending
• Support a balanced budget amendment
• Eliminate earmarks and support stand-alone spending bills

It is not enough for the federal government to only grow by a few percentage points. In the end, it still leads to bigger government. The federal government must SHRINK. The Republican Revolution was built on this core Republican principle, and conservatives will support candidates committed to shrinking the size and scope of the federal government. The pork must go! Earmarks and pork-barrel spending must be eliminated. These practices lead to corruption and are not conservative. The federal government should do only those core jobs enumerated in the Constitution. Other governmental responsibilities should fall to the states. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to cut spending, shrink government, and eliminate earmarks.

Judges

• Vigorously nominate and support the confirmation of judges who follow the law, not those who legislate from the bench
• Wage a real fight against left-wing attempts to block judicial nominees

Nominating a conservative judge simply to let him or her languish without an up-or-down vote is not acceptable. Judicial nominees, who follow the law rather than make new laws from the bench, deserve full and enthusiastic support. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to nominate strict constructionists and who will not wilt in that support even under left-wing attacks.

Life

• Respect the rights of the unborn and promote laws which will protect innocent human life
• Support the overturning of Roe v. Wade
• Block any efforts to fund or promote embryonic stem cell research

Conservatives believe in a culture of life. This culture must be embraced and advocated by our Republican leaders. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to promote a culture of life and who work for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. No candidate can say they are "100% pro-life" and also support embryonic stem cell research. This research results in the destruction of innocent human life. Research proves that adult stem cells are as good or better for curing diseases, and thus the use of embryonic stem cells is moot. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to support life at every stage.

Free Speech

• Repeal the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
• Embrace First Amendment rights

The Campaign Finance Reform Act is an assault on free speech and must be repealed. The law resulted in a rise in soft money advocacy through the actions of 527 organizations while other groups were not allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights to support a candidate of their choice. This is wrong. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to repeal this law and support the free speech rights of all Americans.

I want Republicans to win. Why? The reason is simple. I want conservative ideals to be promoted and implemented into government. Winning for the sake of winning is not even a hollow victory. It is nothing. Conservatives are told to be loyal to the Republican Party, yet the Republican Party has shown no loyalty to the conservative base. Conservatives are told to fall in line and work for Republican candidates, yet Republican candidates are not working for conservatives.

This year, my support comes with a very large string attached. I want my presidential nominee to pledge to support the Contract with Conservatives. If he does, then I will work for the nominee and encourage others to do so. But we must know that our hard work will be something. Lower taxes, smaller government, a commitment to life, support for free speech.... these are timeless issues, and Republicans should be leading the charge.

GOPUSA has set up a petition to show our support for the Contract with Conservatives and to show the Republican establishment that our votes will not be taken for granted. Please sign the petition and encourage all Republicans and conservatives you know to sign it.

For Republicans to be successful in November, we need a strong, energized base of conservatives to turn out to the polls and support the Republican nominee. With our nominee pledging to uphold the Contract with Conservatives, we can take a big step forward in uniting the Republican Party, renewing our commitment to conservative principles, and generating excitement in the base.

That is the recipe, not only for victory in November, but for a new Republican Revolution.

Quote

Republicans Had Their Chance - And Blew It!
By Henry Lamb
February 11, 2008

The Republicans had their chance -- and blew it. Republicans could hardly contain themselves when the Supreme Court issued its ruling that kept Al Gore out of the White House. Yes, they celebrated Al's defeat much more than George W. Bush's victory. Across the country, conservatives were especially grateful that Al was unemployed, but only cautiously optimistic about the prospects of a genuine return to constitutional government.

Conservatives, but not all Republicans, cheered when President Bush rejected the U.N.'s International Criminal Court, that outgoing President Clinton signed during the last hours of his reign. Conservatives, but not all Republicans, cheered when President Bush rejected the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol. Then, of all things, the President decided to rejoin UNESCO, a U.N. agency that Ronald Reagan had dumped because of its gross corruption and anti-American attitude.

Rumblings began to stir in the State Department about reintroducing the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and even the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. Both of these treaties had been presented to the Senate during the Clinton era. Exceptionally hard work by conservative Republicans forced the treaties to be withdrawn from consideration. Conservatives, but not all Republicans, were mystified by the Bush administration's desire to reconsider the same treaties Republicans had just defeated.

Surely the Republicans could prevail on important domestic policy issues. The previous battle to open ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ended with a Clinton veto. With gas prices rising, and up to 16 billion barrels of oil sitting under American soil, conservatives, but not all Republicans, thought for sure that at last, this resource would be made available. But, no.

Some Republicans, but not all, set out to change the Endangered Species Act. This law absolutely trashes the idea of private property rights and completely ignores the 5th Amendment. A bureaucrat in a federal agency can, with the stroke of a pen, declare private property to be "critical habitat," and deny private owners the use of their land. Finally, with the Republicans in power, this grossly unfair law could be changed. But, no.

During the eight years of Clinton rule, agencies of the federal government went on an unbridled spending spree, buying up private property, development rights, and conservation easements - from one end of the country to the other. Surely, this reckless abuse of tax dollars, and dangerous expansion of the federal land inventory would end under Republican leadership. But, no.

The second term would be better, conservatives told themselves. During the first term, the President, and other Republicans had to worry about the next election. When John Kerry was defeated, conservatives, but not all Republicans, chomped at the bit to finally see conservative, constitutional principles applied to domestic and foreign policy.

What a shock it was when President Bush invited the leaders of Mexico and Canada to form what was called a "Security and Prosperity Partnership," which was later discovered to be precisely what was prescribed by the Council on Foreign Relation's in "Building a North American Community." The fog began to clear, however, when President Bush insisted on what he called a "comprehensive immigration" approach to stopping illegal immigration.

The disappointment of conservatives, but not all Republicans, grew into rage. Conservative legislators blocked what they called "amnesty" proposed by the President -- and many Republicans.

Among the Republicans who championed the "amnesty" approach was Senator John McCain, who is now poised to become the leader of the Republican Party and its nominee for the presidency. Apparently, Republicans, but not conservatives, fail to realize that this shift from conservative, constitutional ideals is the very reason the Democrats regained control of Congress.

As Republicans, but not conservatives, in state after state, line up to celebrate McCain's victories, they obviously do not care that McCain voted against opening ANWR, that he supported, even sponsored, an "amnesty" approach to the illegal alien problem. He even voted against tax cuts. McCain may well claim to be a Republican, but the particular variety of Republican he is, operates on a philosophy that is vastly different from the philosophy that drove Al Gore from the White House.

Consequently, as the presidential selection process continues to weed out the also-rans, the nation is moving ever closer to leadership that seems to have little comprehension or concern about the fundamental principles of freedom that are so clearly set forth in the U.S. Constitution. No Republican can win the presidential election without support from the conservatives. No conservative can win without the support of the Republican Party.

Without Divine intervention, America is racing toward an era of unprecedented government expansion, accompanied by a directly correlated loss of freedom. Without Divine intervention, America is most likely to be infected by another dose of Clinton(s), or Obama -- or both.

Quote

When Justice Is Sentenced To Death
By Doug Patton
February 11, 2008

Death in the electric chair is now unconstitutional in the state of Nebraska. Why? Because the Nebraska Supreme Court has decided that it is "cruel and unusual punishment."

Nebraska is the last state in the country to use electrocution as its sole means of capital punishment. Instituted in 1913, the chair was first used in 1920. Since then, fifteen murderers have been executed in this manner.

One of them was John Joubert, a 20-year-old airman stationed at Offutt Air Force Base. In late 1983, Joubert terrorized the adjacent city of Bellevue for four months. Beginning in September of 1983, he kidnapped, tortured and murdered two local boys, ages 12 and 13, and then committed sexual acts on their mutilated bodies. In January of 1984, Joubert was captured and subsequently confessed to his crimes. In spite of this clear-cut, straight-forward confession, with all the ridiculous appeals now built into the system, it took 12 years before he was finally put to death in 1996.

The Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling was a 6-1 decision. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the six judges who suddenly discovered that the electric chair was unconstitutional after 95 years in practice were appointed by Nebraska's last Democrat governor, Ben Nelson. The one dissenting vote on the court was from Chief Justice Mike Heavican, appointed by Nebraska's current Republican governor, Dave Heineman.

Heavican said the court's majority injected "their own subjective values into the constitutional analysis."

"The danger in such subjectivity is subtle but nonetheless potent," the chief justice wrote. "Judges do not sit as a body of elected representatives, as do legislatures."

Heineman agreed, saying he was "appalled" by the ruling. He sharply criticized the Supreme Court for what he called "unprecedented and deeply disappointing" judicial activism.

"Today, the court has asserted itself improperly as a policymaker," the governor said. "Once again, this activist court has ignored its own precedent and the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court to continue its assault on the Nebraska death penalty."

The Nebraska court upheld the constitutionality of the electric chair as recently as 2000.

Ten men now sit on death row in Nebraska:

Carey Dean Moore, now 49, shot to death two cab drivers, Reuel Van Ness, Jr., and Maynard Helgeland in 1979. Three decades later, the taxpayers of Nebraska still pay for his upkeep.

Michael Ryan, 59, was a sadistic cult leader in Rulo, Nebraska, in the 1980s. Ryan was convicted in 1985 for torturing to death a young follower, James Thimm.

John Lotter, 35, shot Teena Brandon, Lisa Lambert and Phillip Devine in a farmhouse near Humboldt, Nebraska, on New Years Eve 1993. This case was portrayed in the 1999 movie "Boys Don't Cry."

David Dunster, 52, was sentenced to death for strangling of his cellmate, Larry Witt, in 1997. Previously, he had murdered his cellmate in Montana and a mother of eight in Oregon. The cold-blooded Dunster had raped her and shot her in the head.

Arthur Gales, Jr., 41, raped and murdered 13-year-old Latara Chandler and drowned her 7-year-old brother, Tramar, in Omaha in 2000.

Jeffrey Hessler, 28, kidnapped, raped and murdered Heather Guerrero, a 15-year-old Gering newspaper carrier in 2003.

Jose Sandoval, 27, Jorge Galindo, 25, and Eric Vela, 26, shot to death five people -- Lisa Bryant, Jo Mausbach, Sam Sun, Evonne Tuttle and Lola Elwood -- during a bank robbery in Norfolk, Nebraska, in 2002.

And then there is Raymond Mata, 34, who was the subject of the Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling. Mata murdered 3-year-old Adam Gomez of Scottsbluff, dismembered the little boy's body and fed parts of it to a dog.

And now the Nebraska Supreme Court has decided that strapping vermin like this into an electric chair is "cruel and unusual" - because it hurts.

To which the vast majority of Nebraskans would respond, "So what?"

Quote

British Group Wants to Ban Stores' Use of Sonic 'Mosquitoes' to Drive Kids Away

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

LONDON —  England's commissioner for children and a civil liberties group joined in on a campaign Tuesday to ban high-frequency devices intended to drive misbehaving children away from shops and other areas.

The so-called "Mosquito" device emits high-frequency noise which is audible — and annoying — to young ears, but generally not heard by people over 20.

"This device is a quick fix that does not tackle the root cause of the problem and it is indiscriminate," English Children's Commissioner Al Aynsley-Green said.

The campaigners claim that about 3,500 of the devices, made by a Welsh company, are in use.

Aynsley-Green said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio that the devices do not tackle the real problem, which is that children have no place to gather other than on the streets.

"I think it is a powerful symptom of what I call the malaise at the heart of our society," he said.

"I'm very concerned about what I see to be an emerging gap between the young and the old, the fears, the intolerance, even the hatred, of the older generation toward the young."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, supported the campaign.

"Imagine the outcry if a device was introduced that caused blanket discomfort to people of one race or gender, rather than to our kids," Chakrabarti said. "The 'Mosquito' has no place in a country that values its children and seeks to instill them with dignity and respect."

The Mosquito's inventor, Howard Stapleton, has called for agreement about guidelines for using the devices.

"We tell shopkeepers to use it when they have a problem and I would be more than happy to introduce a contract which stipulates to shopkeepers how it can be used," Stapleton was quoted as telling the Western Mail newspaper.

"People talk about infringing human rights but what about the human rights of the shopkeeper who is seeing his business collapse because groups of unruly teenagers are driving away his customers?"

Quote

Berkeley City Council to Revisit Vote Against Marine Recruiting Station

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

BERKELEY, Calif. —  Two weeks after the Berkeley City Council called U.S. Marine Corps recruiters "uninvited and unwelcome intruders," the council is expected to reconsider its anti-Marine stance Tuesday night.

Large crowds from the left and right are mobilizing for the meeting. The anti-war feminist group Code Pink began a 24-hour "peace-in" Monday night, and the pro-war group Move America Forward planned a day-long demonstration outside City Hall.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, the anti-gay activist and founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, will be there as well, demonstrating against both the Marines and Code Pink. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church routinely picket at the funerals of American soldiers killed in action.

Code Pink activist Zanne Joi said her group is "supporting the troops by being against war and against recruiting."

"It’s because we care about these people that we are standing up against the war machine," Joi said.

On Jan. 29, the city council approved a resolution that included letters to the Marines advising them that their recruiting station is unwelcome in Berkeley. It also called for an investigation into whether the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for homosexuals violated city anti-discrimination policy.

Related Stories

• Berkeley, Calif., Mayor Apologizes to Military Members Following Flap Over Council Vote
• U.S. Senator Wants to Revoke Funding From City of Berkeley, Calif., for Vote to Boot Marines
• Berkeley to Marine Corps: You're Not Welcome

Other portions of the resolution applauded residents who "volunteer to impede" the work of the Marines, and gave Code Pink a parking space directly in front of the Marines' office from noon to 4 p.m. every Wednesday for six months, as well as waiving the fee for a sound permit.

That decision sparked a nationwide outrage, calls to withhold government funding for the city, and an apology and clarification from Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates.

On Tuesday, the council will hear from Laurie Capitelli and Betty Olds, two council members who are sponsoring a revised resolution that will ask the city not to send a letter to the Marine Corps saying it's unwelcome in Berkeley.

The resolution would reiterate the city's opposition to the Iraq war, while clarifying Berkeley's support of the nation's military servicemembers.

In a joint press statement, Capitelli and Olds said: “We failed to make it clear that while we continue to oppose what we consider an unethical and illegal war in Iraq, at the same time we respect and honor all the brave men and women who are serving or have served in the military … We have erred by not adequately differentiating between the war and the warriors.”

Capitelli and Olds also said in the press statement: “The recommendation to inform the Marine Corps recruiting office that they are not welcome in our city, was insulting, hurtful and wrong.”

The council's initial Marine Corps motions prompted a backlash from lawmakers in California's capital, Sacramento, and Washington. There have been calls to withhold state and federal funds — including $2 million in federal money earmarked for ferry service and school lunches, among other things — as well as an apology from Berkeley's mayor.

"Let me be absolutely clear that this is not about the men and women who are serving our country in our armed forces," Mayor Bates said on Feb. 1. "I am a retired U.S. Army Captain and I respect the choice of those who are serving our country.

"However, this community strongly opposes the war in Iraq and the foreign policy of the current administration."

He added: "I understand that there are people across the country that may not agree with this action, but it is the Berkeley City Council's responsibility to represent the will of the people of Berkeley."

That argument didn't fly with California Assemblyman Guy Houston, a Republican, who asked last week that $3.3 million in state transportation funds be suspended until the council rescinds its resolution.

"The Marines, and all of our branches of the military, deserve the honor of our elected officials, not their scorn," Houston said.

At Tuesday night's council meeting, Berkeley politicians will also consider measures that would condemn the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border as well as a request to Canadian leaders to grant sanctuary for U.S. war resisters.

Quote

Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.  I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.  I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts. 

 

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77 

 

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html 

 

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html 

 

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html 

 

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html 

 

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html 

 

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html 

 

 8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html 

 

 9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal  aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

Quote

Who Hijacked the Primaries?

by Brett Winterble (more by this author)

Posted 01/31/2008 ET

With John McCain’s all-too-easy road to the nomination paved through Florida and now nearly complete one thing is clear: The Republican Party has been hijacked. Over the past month a new Axis of Evil has emerged -- not one based in Damascus, Tehran or Pyongyang -- but instead in Cedar Rapids, Charleston, South Carolina, Derry, New Hampshire and Boca Raton, Florida. It is the liberal and “independent” voters in these 4 states that have nearly completed a deed that makes Kim Jong Il envious -- the near crippling of the American Electoral System. These four states have combined their native liberal populism with an imported liberal electorate and have forced the GOP to accept a nominee so distasteful that in more than one poll -- the numbers of voters choosing not to vote and those choosing to vote third party actually exceed those who will hold their nose and vote for Maverick, War Hero, Amnesty Supporter, John McCain.

I can hear you saying, “surely you aren’t saying that South Carolina has gone liberal -- are you?” Are you kidding me? Drive through the Carolinas and count the number of license plates from NJ, NY and Pennsylvania. There is not much Dixie in the Carolinas; it’s more like Trenton and Long Island with fireworks. “But”, you protest, “New Hampshire, is Live Free or Die, it’s been a backbone of conservatism since the 1950’s.” No longer my friends -- NH has become an exurb of Boston, with Boston’s sensibilities and, ugh, their voting tastes. NH hasn’t been reliably conservative since Reagan’s first term. These voters would rather be loved by the Boston Globe, than respected by the Union Leader.

But the evidence continues, you say, “Iowa, that’s America, with small town values and homespun sensibilities.” Wrong again -- Iowa is just a state brimming with farmers on the federal dole, college students and ex hippie professors looking to con, libs in training at Grinnell.

And Florida? As my bubbies would say in Bay Ridge -- puhleeeez. It’s the 6th borough and has been since the mid 1960’s. Liberals have been sliding down the I-95 corridor since Kennedy was elected.

Sadly these 4 states have done more than set the tone for the other 46 -- they’ve dictated terms. Frankly I could extend the analogy to include Nevada, which is down to about 13% native -- but why beat a dead horse.

What we have is the sick and twisted dreams of Pinch Sulzberger, Don Imus, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews come true: the GOP has been forced to choose a nominee designed to cause the base to retch, and thereby not vote. Guaranteeing 4 years of Clinton score settling or Obama socializing entire corporate sectors.

Its time to simultaneously bring back democracy to the GOP and defang the left and her Rockefeller accomplices in the new Axis of Evil. It’s time for the nuclear option -- its time for the GOP to front-load the whole freaking process into one date. Make every state vote on exactly the same day. Make every candidate compete in EVERY state at the exact same time and hold every single GOP primary and caucus on Super Tuesday. When NH and IOWA complain, take a page from the Democrats and refuse to seat their delegates, or better yet, declare renegade states as straw polls.

This would balance our nomination process out. There will be no more “Big Mo”, no more singular precincts in obscure Iowa towns setting the tone for the rest of the country. If liberals from Englewood Cliffs NJ want to vote liberal, it’s going to get cancelled out by conservatives in Chattanooga -- who might actually get to vote for Fred. Its time to let Nebraska count as much as New Hampshire. Let Texas matter as much as South Carolina, let Florida be canceled out by California -- as it should be. The only two groups who have benefit from the current process are the media flacks selling the drama and John McCain establishment hacks. Does anyone think Fred Thompson got a fair hearing? Or Duncan Hunter? John McCain does not speak for me…or frankly for any one else, I know.

Folks, we have let the liberals and RINOS set the agenda. Open Borders, Higher Taxes, and surrender to Kyoto-worshipping technocrats. This is the Republican Party? But hey, the McCainiacs counter, “John McCain is a war hero -- right?” Let me be the first to say it’s not about what you did in the 60’s sir -- it’s about what you will do to America in 2009 and beyond.

This is our party, not John McCain’s or Mel Martinez's, or Lindsay Graham’s. The Republican Party is THE conservative party dammit. Let’s admit it and take it back. RINOS and Liberals have taken the GOP plane hostage, and its time for us passengers to revolt…and do what has to be done -- Let’s Roll.

Quote

The mess with messaging
By Kent German  January 31, 2008

Kent German, CNET's cell phones guru, answers your questions about cell phones, services, and accessories and reports on the state of the industry. Send him a question! Editor's note: On Call runs every two weeks and alternates between answering your questions and discussing hot button issues for cell phone users. AT&T subscribers let out a collective groan yesterday when the carrier announced it was raising text messaging fees by 5 cents. For those customers not using a messaging bundle plan, text messages will now cost 20 cents to send and receive while multimedia messages (aka picture messages) will now cost 30 cents to send and receive. Though it's hardly unusual for companies to raise prices and fees over time, you may remember that it was just over a year ago, December of 2006 to be exact, that AT&T (then Cingular) boosted its messaging rates from 10 cents to 15 cents for every received message. What's more, AT&T now joins US Cellular and Sprint in charging the highest messaging rates among the major U.S. carriers. Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Alltel charge 15 cents per sent and received message, but even that isn't exactly cheap. Sure, it's very true that a messaging plan is the best option for frequent texting fans, but I still have a beef with constantly rising messaging rates for a couple of reasons. First off, it's ridiculous that wireless subscribers in the United States need to pay to receive text messages, and secondly, customers should be able to cite increased fees as a legitimate reason for ending their contracts without paying an early termination fee. Received messages My readers and friends from abroad typically have a few complaints about cell phone service in the United States. The lack of high-end phones is a predictable gripe, but they also tell me that they're shocked that they have to pay to receive a text--at which point I usually nod with a sympathetic smile and just say "I know." Why the United States developed such a pricing scheme is still a mystery to me. I've tried to find a good reason, but like so other many other quirks of this country's wireless landscape, an answer remains baffling. To me, it just comes down to a simple premise. You don't pay to receive letters or e-mails, so there's no reason you should pay for receiving text messages--it just doesn't make sense. What's more, you can't opt out of receiving a text message so you still pay whether you read the message or not. I receive a lot of e-mails from wireless users that receive spam text messages. They think it's outrageous that they should have to pay to receive junk messages, and I agree with them. And though they can always get a refund by complaining to their carrier, they still have to initiate that process with no guarantee they'll be successful. "Material" costs Yet it's more troubling that carriers don't have a clear, definitive policy as to when customers can cancel a contract due to increased fees. As I wrote in the November 6, 2007 edition of On Call, T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T will allow you to leave your contract if they raise your rates (among other things), but any changes must have a "material adverse" affect on you. Nowhere in their contracts do the carriers state exactly what constitutes a material adverse effect, or who gets to make that decision. And from what I've heard from readers, it all depends on which customer service rep you complain to. I'd certainly argue that increasing text messaging rates by 100 percent increase in just 13 months certainly constitutes a "material" change and, depending on the customer, it could have an "adverse" effect as well. Even if it's just a few dollars per year, should it really be the carrier's responsibility to make that decision? That doesn't seem fair either. Customers should be the ones to decide when they're adversely affected, and they should be able to jump ship anytime a carrier raises rates. TalkBack Have you escaped your contract? Talk back to me below. Post your comment here Yes, I get the whole argument that "early termination fees are a means of holding customers to the 'bargain' they made with their carrier," but carriers need to give us a little room somewhere. After all, we can ditch our cable or landline services if our provider raises rates, so why shouldn't we be able to do the same with our cell phone carrier?