bigworld

Huckabee At-Large Petition Links

2007-12-16T23:58:00.000-05:00

Click here for the PDF of the At-Large petitioning instructions- http://www.scribd.com/doc/914923/AT-LARGEPetitionCirculatingInstructions?ganalyticst_from_send_to_friend=1&secret_password=2hx5pkgmy55f3pja8ow1

Click here for the PDF of the Ohio At-Large Delegate Petition (8 pages)- http://www.scribd.com/doc/914922/Huckabee-atlarge-delegate-petitions?ganalyticst_from_send_to_friend=1&secret_password=2hhmn04r4danv3iazbtr

Click here for the PDF of the Ohio At-Large Alternate Petition (8 pages)- http://www.scribd.com/doc/914915/Huckabee-AtLarge-alternate-petitions?ganalyticst_from_send_to_friend=1&secret_password=1j8pj37rnanxfae4vcax

Jim Trakas to Announce his candidacy for Ohio 10th District Congressional

2007-12-13T13:29:00.001-05:00

For Immediate Release Contact: Steven M. Backiel

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 (216) 621-5417

REPUBLICAN EVENT ADVISORY

For several months, Chairman Rob Frost has worked to recruit a top tier candidate for The United States Congress in the seat abandoned by Presidential Candidate Dennis J. Kucinich, who recently denounced the United States of America on Syrian state television and voted against a memorial resolution commemorating the lives of those lost in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

We are pleased to announce that The Republican Party will vigorously contest the 10th Congressional District with a high profile, established and seasoned candidate. With the strong cooperation of Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert T. Bennett, Vice Chairman Kevin DeWine, Chairman Rob Frost and the leadership of The Republican Party of Cuyahoga County, Former State Representative Jim Trakas of Independence will announce his candidacy for The United States Congress this Saturday.

We are inviting anyone who wants to be part of this effort to attend Jim's announcement to the public. Below are the details, and coffee and donuts will be served.

WHAT: Announcement of Jim Trakas, Candidate for The U.S. House of Representatives District 10

WHEN: Saturday December 15, 2007 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

WHERE: City of Independence City Hall Council Chambers, 6800 Brecksville Road

Independence, Ohio 44131. City Hall is located on State Route 21, Brecksville Road on the Northwest Quadrant of Selig and Brecksville Roads, North of Rockside and South of

Pleasant Valley Roads in the city of Independence.

If you would like to join Jim in the announcement, please contact Steven Backiel at RPCC HQ at 216-621-5417 or sbackiel@cuyahogacountygop.com so that we may plan accordingly.

Be a part of political history for this special announcement of the campaign that will restore effective, in touch and rational leadership to Greater Cleveland's West Side

# # #

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE

2007-11-28T18:05:00.000-05:00

by Dick Morris,

Published on TheHill.com on November 28, 2007.

As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early '90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.

A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a "47 percent increase in state tax burden." But during Huckabee's years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.

And he can win in Iowa.

When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one.

Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee.

But Huckabee's strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs is novel and exciting. "Eighty percent of all medical spending," he says, "is for chronic diseases." So he urges an all-out attack on teen smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative anxious to save tax money.

So what happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa? With New Hampshire only five days later, his momentum will be formidable. The key may boil down to how Hillary does in Iowa. Hillary? Yes. If she loses in Iowa, most of the independents in New Hampshire will flock to the Democratic primary to vote for her or against her. That will move the Republican electorate to the right in New Hampshire — bad news for Rudy, good news for Huckabee. But if she wins in Iowa, there will be no point in voting in the Democratic primary and a goodly number will enter the GOP contest, giving Rudy a big boost.

And afterward? If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, sweeping the early primaries, Giuliani will have a very tough task to bring him down in Florida or on Super Tuesday. It can be done, but it's tough. But if Romney loses in Iowa (likely to Huckabee) then Rudy can survive the loss of Iowa and even New Hampshire without surrendering irresistible momentum to Romney.

In any event, neither Hillary nor Giuliani will be knocked out by defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their 50-state organizations, their national base and their massive war chests will permit them to fight it out all over the United States. Even if they lose the first two contests, they will remain in the race and could well come back to win.

Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.

Championship Series Schedule

2007-10-10T12:25:00.001-04:00

Although apparently the Yankees may be pinch hitting for the tribe in ALCS game 4...:)

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Ronald Reagan Breakfast

2007-10-02T12:07:00.000-04:00

To help celebrate my upcoming birthday on October 30th. (well maybe that's not why-- but it's still happening) the Lake County Republican Party will be hosting the first annual Ronald Reagan Breakfast on Tuesday October 30^th at LaMalfa, 5783 Heisley Road in Mentor.

Tickets are $25 per person. You can view and or download the invitation flier at http://www.scribd.com/doc/351728/Reagan-Breakfast-flyer

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

The Ride is Over at Geauga Lake

2007-09-21T16:25:00.001-04:00

Exclusive from Crain's Cleveland Business
By JOHN BOOTH

4:05 pm, September 21, 2007

Geauga Lake's amusement rides won't be back for 2008, parent company Cedar Fair announced Friday afternoon.

"The market demand simply isn't there to support the park in its current structure," Cedar Fair spokeswoman Stacy Frole said. She said Wildwater Kingdom, the $25 million water park Cedar Fair built on the south side of the lake, "has really been the most popular attraction at Geauga Lake. We believe that's where the property is going to succeed — as a water park."

Cedar Fair CEO Dick Kinzel said in a statement: "Geauga Lake's Wildwater Kingdom has been recognized as one of the finest water parks in the country. Since its opening in 2005, Wildwater Kingdom has been the park's highest-rated attribute."

The future of the rides on the 119-year-old amusement park's north side, including the classic Big Dipper wooden roller coaster, is uncertain.

"Our planning and design department is going through and analyzing what the best use for all of our assets are," Ms. Frole said. "Will some rides be located to other (Cedar Fair) parks? Yes." She would not specify which rides might be going to which other Cedar Fair properties. Cedar Fair also owns Cedar Point amusement park.

Mr. Kinzel and Cedar Fair chief operating officer Jack Falfas shared the news with employees at Geauga Lake in person. Park general manager Bill Spehn is expected to retain his position, according to Ms. Frole.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Good Riddance, Linc Chaffee

2007-09-18T09:36:00.001-04:00

From www.politics1.com

Former US Senator Lincoln Chafee -- who was defeated last year for re-election -- revealed Sunday to the Providence Journal that he had quietly "disaffiliated" in his voter registration from the Republican Party two months ago. Chafee said he hadn't mentioned it until now simply because nobody had asked before. The NRSC spent a significant amount of money on advertising that helped Chafee narrowly survive a conservative primary challenege. Chafee emphasized he still feels close to many in the Rhode Island Republican Party, but his objections were entirely focused upon the national party. "It's not my party any more," he explained. Chafee's criticism was mainly focused upon three areas: "abandoning fiscal conservatism" by passing tax cuts without spending cuts and thus creating a "permanent deficit"; the Iraq War; and the lack of GOP support for environmental protection. Chafee says he very much enjoys his current job as a distinguished visiting fellow at Brown University.

This brings to memory a meeting I had where several Ohio Republican Party staffers were in attendance, telling us how their campaign operation had helped carry Chaffee over the top in his nomination defense over his conservative challenger, MAYOR Steven Laffey. (That's right an elected Mayor of a major Rhode Island City-- not an unelectible kook). But all that mattered was that Chafee SAID he was a Republican, and was the incumbent. Well, now he's admitted what anyone with any sense knew all along Linc Chafee IS NOT A REPUBLICAN. Say hello to Jim Jeffords, and don't let the door hit you on the way out!

--Ron Lisy

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Armey leads effort against email tax

2007-09-12T10:06:00.001-04:00

From the email box.....

From the Leader's Desk: Armey's Plan to Beat the Email Tax Again

While taxes may be one of life's certainties, the internet has, so far, miraculously managed to escape the clutches of revenue-hungry government tax collectors. That may change if Congress doesn't get its act together – and fast.

Back in 1998, when I was the House Majority Leader in Congress, we passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, imposing a three-year moratorium on state and local taxes on internet access. The moratorium came just as some local governments began to extend their very high telecommunications taxes to internet access. State and local governments want to tax your cable modem or DSL bill, as well as internet services, and the internet backbone, but our bill stopped them cold. Our goal was simple: encourage the spread of the internet by preventing government from strangling it in its crib with high taxes.

Since then Congress has passed multiple extensions of the internet tax moratorium, the latest of which expires this November. This time around, Congress should make the ban on internet taxes permanent. Two bills, S. 156 in the Senate and H.R. 743 in the House, would do just that, but movement thus far has been stagnant and the clock is ticking.

[Take Action]

State and local internet access taxes could add 20 percent to 25 percent to the average internet consumer's bill – a tax hike of about $150 per year. That may not sound like much in Washington, D.C., but it could strand millions of low-income Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide. And higher internet charges could hinder small business from gaining access to the technology they need to compete with larger companies. Schools, libraries, and other educational and research institutions with limited budgets would also take a hit.

Supporters of new internet taxes make the case that Congress' "Hands Off the Internet" strategy has served its purpose. The internet is no longer an infant technology, they say. After all, internet use in the United States has soared from about 36 percent of the population at the end of 1998 to over 70 percent today.

But in the warp-speed world of the internet, that's yesterday's news. America still lags far behind our economic competitors when it comes to wiring homes and businesses with high-speed internet access or broadband. Even though the internet was largely invented here (but not by Al Gore!), America still ranks 16th in the world in terms of broadband deployment, behind countries like South Korea and Japan.

Widespread broadband deployment is the key to unleashing a new round of internet-driven gains in productivity and entrepreneurial activity. Respected economists estimate that 1.2 million new jobs would be generated by the broadband build-out, enough growth to generate more in taxes than states and localities hope to raise by taxing your internet access, e-mail, and other online services.

So why not just extend the moratorium for another two years or so? Because making broadband available on a near-universal basis will require billions in private investment by technology companies willing to build next generation networks like fiber-to-the-home. And companies are hesitant to put that capital at risk as long as the tax man keeps lurking right around the corner, always threatening to milk consumers and potentially destroy a good portion of the mass market for broadband.

Members of Congress have a choice to make. They can give the green light to state and local governments to saddle internet users with myriad new taxes and fees. Or they can lock the tax man away permanently and throw away the key. That should be a pretty easy call.

Contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and let them know how you feel about taxes on your email. Thanks in advance for taking action!

Take Action!

Sincerely,

Dick Armey
Chairman
FreedomWorks.org

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Right Angle is reporting that U.S. Rep. Paul Gillmor has died...

2007-09-05T12:29:00.001-04:00

Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-5) Has Died

Sep 5, 2007 at 11:57 am - Submitted By: Matthew

I don't think it has been reported anywhere yet as of noon today.

Robert Bluey from the Heritage Foundation sent me this forwarded email:

Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Rep. Paul Gillmor - R-OH died last night

When he did not show up at the office today, staff went to his apartment and found that he had died. No cause of death but Boehner said it appears he may have died of a heart attack — though Cap Police is investigating.

My prayers are with his family.

Rep. Gillmor on Wikipedia-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gillmor

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

Cigar Tax Update

2007-08-09T15:35:00.001-04:00

by Gary Manelski,
Your Guide to Cigars.
Stay up to date

Both the U.S. House and Senate have passed their own versions of bills to continue, and provide additional funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, by increasing the federal excise tax on tobacco products - including cigars. Congress is now on vacation for the month of August, but they will attempt to reconcile their differences before the end of September, when the current program is scheduled to expire. A joint bill will then be sent to the President, who must approve the legislation before it becomes the law of the land. However, President Bush has threatened to veto this legislation, so both the House and Senate will need enough votes to override the veto. Therefore, at this point, anything is still possible.

Here are the latest proposed increases in the federal excise tax on cigars:

Current Tax: $.05 per cigar
House Version: 33% tax rate with a maximum tax of $1 per cigar
Senate Version: 53% tax rate with a maximum tax of $3 per cigar

Under the House version, the new tax would be $1 on cigars costing $3 or more, and 33% on cigars costing less than $3. Under the Senate version, the new tax would be $3 on cigars costing $5.65 or more, and 53% on cigars costing less than $5.65. Although the House version is less damaging to cigar smokers, a $1 tax still represents an increase of 2,000%, compared to a nickel. According to the current results of our ongoing opinion poll, 48% of cigar smokers would quit smoking if the tax was raised to $0.25 or more per cigar. If the tax was raised to $.050 or more per cigar, 80% of cigar smokers would stop smoking cigars. This would virtually put an end to the cigar industry as we now know it.

Unless you want to pay $25 to $75 more for your next box of cigars, the time to act is now!

Click Here For No New Cigar Taxes

ALSO HERE IS A YOUTUBE VIDEO ON THE CIGAR TAX FROM ROCKY PATEL OF PATEL PREMIUM CIGARS

Husted on School Choice in Ohio

2007-08-06T07:52:00.000-04:00

From: Husted, Jon
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:11 AM
Subject: School Choice in Ohio
July 16, 2007

RE: School Choice in Ohio

In his State of the State speech on March 14, 2007, Ohio’s new Governor, Ted Strickland vowed to strike a blow against school choice by placing a moratorium on charter schools, cutting funding to them and eliminating the Ed Choice Scholarship Program – a statewide voucher program for children trapped in chronically underperforming schools.

In a March 29 editorial, the Wall Street Journal noted, “New Governor Ted Strickland has decided that one of his first priorities should be an assault on public and private school choice.” Students, parents, educators and legislators, quickly rallied in order to respond to the policies set forth by the governor in his executive budget proposal that would have virtually eliminated the school choice options that were serving nearly 100,000 of our state’s children.

I write today to let you know we defeated the Governor’s proposals to eliminate school choice and actually advanced the school choice agenda in Ohio.

With the strong case that the advocates for school choice made during the months of debate, we were able to pass the budget in the House, restoring the school choice provisions, 97-0. The Senate followed with a 33-0 vote, and eventually the Governor signed the bill. However, it was not before he line-item vetoed the special needs voucher program – a new program we had included in the bill.

I want to reassure all, especially the parents and special needs students that we will not let the special needs issue die and will work to change the Governor’s mind and the law.

Overall, this was a success story, not just because we restored and advanced school choice, but because we have begun to change hearts and minds.

I thank you for the work you are doing to promote school choice. Your support is meaningful in this success story, and it is my hope that Ohio can serve as an example of why school choice is so important and the lives it touches everywhere. Be sure that I will continue to work to preserve and expand the opportunity for children to learn in a school of their choice.

Sincerely,

Jon A. HustedSpeaker
Ohio House of Representatives

Enclosure: Preserving School Choice for Ohio Students and Parents

Protecting Police More Important Than Helping Donors

2007-07-26T17:46:00.001-04:00

For Release: July 26, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Protecting Police Officers More Important Than Helping Political Donors, Group Says

Washington, D.C. - Congress should not put the lives of law enforcement officials at risk to benefit its trial lawyer contributors, says Deneen Borelli of the national black group Project 21.

Congress is now considering overturning the Tiahrt Amendment, a measure that restricts certain gun data from being shared outside of the law enforcement community. Project 21 members are opposing any action that allows trial lawyers, politicians, criminals and others from accessing federal gun trace information.

"The only possible purpose served by overturning the Tiahrt Amendment is to aid the anti-gun lobby and make it easier for trial lawyers to sue gun manufacturers," said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. "Killing the Tiahrt Amendment would also be a great thing for criminals. Not only could they learn they are the subject of an investigation, but also the identity of special agents and informants."

The Tiahrt Amendment - named after its chief sponsor, Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) - was first enacted in 2003. It amends the appropriations legislation that funds the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to restrict the sharing of the contents of the Firearms Trace System that is administered by the BATFE's National Trace Center. Under the terms of the amendment, data regarding guns involved in crimes is restricted to domestic and foreign law enforcement and prosecutors as it relates to the investigation and prosecution of specific crimes and for national security, intelligence and counterterrorism purposes. Trace data is also inadmissible in evidence and cannot be subpoenaed.

Project 21's Borelli added: "I am a gun owner. I was appalled when a local newspaper decided to publish my name and the names of other registered gun owners in my area. It was an outrageous violation of my privacy rights. Overturning the Tiahrt Amendment could allow this violation of privacy and safety to occur on a larger and more dangerous scale."

The origin of the Tiahrt Amendment comes from a 2002 court decision that allowed trial lawyers to access the BATFE's trace data to gather information for potential lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute has also written about how trace data has been used by special interest groups to overstate gun violence figures.

Amendment supporters also want to protect the confidentiality of the federal database because the release of some information contained in it may compromise investigations and reveal the identities of undercover officers. The Fraternal Order of Police supports the Tiahrt Amendment "because of our concern for the safety of law enforcement officers and the integrity of law enforcement investigations." In 2006, then-BATFE director Carl J. Truscott said the Amendment "protects... sensitive data from indiscriminate disclosure."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

- 30 -

National Center for Public Policy

501 Capitol Court, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110
Fax (202) 543-5975
E-Mail: info@nationalcenter.org
Web: www.nationalcenter.org

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

Fat Albert Gore on the environment

2007-07-20T14:25:00.000-04:00

Flynt is tracking 20 congressional sex scandal leads

2007-07-12T11:17:00.001-04:00

By Elana Schor,

The Hill

July 11, 2007

Larry Flynt, the porn-industry magnate who first linked Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to the escort service of the "D.C. Madam," said Wednesday that his investigators are tracking more than 20 leads on alleged congressional sex scandals.

As Vitter remained missing in action for two Senate votes on defense policy, Flynt insisted that he exposed the conservative lawmaker's sexual indiscretions only because they contradicted Vitter's longtime defense of the "sanctity of marriage."

"If someone's living a life contrary to the way they're advocating ... then they become fair game," Flynt told reporters. "I don't want a man like that legislating for me, especially in the area of morality."

In addition to the phone records of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, accused of prostitution and racketeering by federal authorities, Flynt is mining responses to an ad he placed last month in The Washington Post. The ad promised a million-dollar reward for anyone providing evidence of illicit encounters with members of Congress.

The 20-plus new leads, Flynt said, come from the newspaper ad and not Palfrey. The Hustler publisher, arrested and jailed multiple times during his decades-long career, vowed to provide clear proof and only out lawmakers whom he perceives to be hypocrites.

"You guys always know, [from] the past, I deliver," Flynt said. "And if I fail to, the mainstream media will crush me like a bug."

The Vitter scandal has touched off new anxiety among Republicans over whether their party will pay the price for members who fail to live up to their moral principles. Flynt, an unabashed Democrat, acknowledged that the GOP provides him with easier targets.

"Republicans are more fun because they get caught so easily," Flynt said. "They've been living a repressed life all their life. Democrats are liberal — they wear it on their sleeve. Their sex life is what it is. They don't spend their whole life trying to cover it up."

Flynt released the particular wireless phone bill containing Vitter's phone number on Palfrey's calling list, confirming that the Louisianan contacted the escort service while serving in the House. Flynt also claimed to have testimony from five New Orleans prostitutes about their sexual encounters with Vitter, adding that that quintet would likely share the $1 million bounty with Palfrey.

Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com.

Tancredo: Donation from Planned Parenthood physician reflects immigration stance

2007-07-11T12:56:00.001-04:00

Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com

Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo says he won't return a campaign donation from a medical doctor who has ties to Planned Parenthood. The Colorado congressman says the donation had nothing to do with abortion, but rather the physician's support of Tancredo's immigration policy.

Recently the Sam Brownback campaign sent out an e-mail saying Tancredo accepted thousands of dollars in donations from Dr. John Tanton, the founder of the Northern Michigan Planned Parenthood Association. But Tancredo says Tanton's donation is related to the doctor's affiliation with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). In fact, FAIR's website says Tanton is the original founder of the organization.

"John Tanton is on the board of FAIR. His issue is immigration," says Tancredo. "He supports me because of my position on immigration, and he certainly doesn't ever ask me to do anything even remotely connected with the issue of abortion -- because he knows, of course, how I feel." A senior advisor to the Tancredo campaign describes the candidate's pro-life record as "unassailable."

Tancredo says he is disappointed that Senator Brownback (R-Kansas) is trying to imply that accepting the donation means he somehow supports abortion. "[O]f course I have a longer record of pro-life commitment than does Senator Brownback," says the Colorado lawmaker. "My record on abortion is as pure and clean as one could be in opposition to it."

He argues that returning the campaign contribution would suggest that it somehow had sway on his abortion position. "If I were to give this money back, there would be some indication that I believed it had some influence over me," says Tancredo, "but of course, I know why he's supports me, and it's got nothing to do with that."

Tancredo says he wonders how Brownback can possibly know all of the people that support his campaign financially and if they are people with whom he is in total agreement.

See what's free at AOL.com.

Holy See says immigrants rights and duties go together

2007-07-11T12:26:00.001-04:00

Brussels, Jul 11, 2007 / 10:15 am (CNA).- Speaking at the Global Forum on Migration in Brussels, Belgium, Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples said that the human dignity and freedoms of immigrants must be respected.

The Global Forum is an initiative that is being sponsored by the United Nations to build a more cohesive and uniform approach to policies on migration and development among its member nations.

Addressing those gathered in English, the archbishop recalled how "migrants contribute to their host country's well-being, and also because of this their human dignity must be respected and their freedoms guaranteed: the right to a dignified life, to fair treatment at work, to have access to education, health and other social benefits, to grow in competence and develop humanly, to freely manifest their culture and practice their religion.

At the same time, the archbishop was sure not to neglect the responsibilities of migrants either. "Rights and duties go together." "Migrants have the duty to respect the identity and the laws of the country of residence, strive for proper integration (not assimilation) into the host society and learn its language. They are to foster esteem and respect for their host country, even to the point of loving and defending it.

In a remark that is particularly relevant in the United States, the archbishop addressed the issue of illegal immigrants. "Unfortunately, among them there are immigrants in an irregular situation, who, however, independently of their legal status, have inalienable human dignity. Therefore their rights must be safeguarded and not ignored or violated."

"An irregular migration status, in fact, does not mean criminality. The solution is better international cooperation that discourages irregularity, with increased legal channels for migration."

Archbishop Marchetto concluded his talk by renewing the call made by the Pope in his Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees for "governments who have not yet done so, to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and the Members of their Families."

See what's free at AOL.com.

Democrats to name new Summit County Executive

2007-07-11T11:07:00.001-04:00

Public meeting, panel vote Thursday at North High
By Katie Byard
Beacon Journal staff writer

The Summit County Democratic Central Committee will pick a new county executive
Thursday evening at Akron' s North High School.

So far , Summit County Councilman Tim Crawford and county Democratic Party Chair Russ Pry have expressed interest in the position. ''No one else is campaigning for it, though someone could still run that night,'' Pry said Tuesday. The winner will finish the term of the now-retired James McCarthy, and will have the option of running for election to a full four - year term in November 2008. McCarthy , 67, retired on June 30 after being the county's top official for nearly seven years.

Anyone seeking the job now must be nominated by a member of the central committee at Thursday's gathering. The committee will meet at 7 p.m. at North High , 985 Gorge Blvd . The meeting is
open to the public. Each candidate will be given five minutes to address the gathering . Committee members then will vote by secret ballot.

Th e votes should be tallied by 8 p.m., Pry said. Pry, who lives in A kron , said Tuesday that if he is not elected T hursday , he will not run in 2008. R ejection by committee members would mean ''I need to think about doing something else,'' Pr y said.

Crawford , D - N orton , said that if he does not win T hursday , he will run for the post in 2008 or seek re - election to his County Council seat. ''I'm still enjoying the political arena"

See what's free at AOL.com.

The Goal Is Freedom: A Democracy of Dunces?

2007-06-01T13:13:00.001-04:00

News & Commentary

June 1, 2007

by Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman and "In brief." TGIF appears Fridays.

When pro-free-market critics of democracy explain why laissez faire is not a winning election issue, they usually say that voters have a no incentive to research economic policy because one vote won't sway the election and the expected payoff to any individual voter is infinitesimal. So they, quite rationally, vote on other bases. This "rational ignorance" leaves space for special interests to have their way, despite the fact that if the voters paid attention to what was going on, they wouldn't put up with it.

That explanation leads to the conclusion that democracy does not work because outcomes diverge from what people really want but are powerless to obtain. On the other hand, fans of democracy think that the rejection of laissez faire shows the system is working just fine. But both sides agree that voters are rational (employing reason) under the circumstances.

Which story is true? Maybe neither.

Bryan Caplan's new book, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, which is beginning to make a splash (see this New York Times Magazine article), offers another reason why consistent pro-market policies don't do well: Voters feel that interventionist policies are good policies and have no incentive of any kind to acquire information that would upset long-held preferences.. He turns to this explanation because he finds too many problems with the rational-ignorance alternative. As Caplan writes,

In the naive public-interest view, democracy works because it does what voters want. In the view of most democracy skeptics, it fails because it does not do what voters want. In my view, democracy fails because it does what voters want.

For Caplan, as for other economists and political theorists, the basic problem is that in a democracy, individuals don't pay the price for their preferences:

In economic jargon, democracy has a built-in externality. An irrational voter does not hurt only himself. He also hurts everyone who is, as a result of his irrationality, more likely to live under misguided policies. Since most of the cost of voter irrationality is external -- paid for by other people, why not indulge? If enough voters think this way, socially injurious policies win by popular demand.

If bad economic policies are winning political platforms, the majority of voters are getting what they want. This is not good news.

Caplan says lots of people systematically (not randomly) make foolish choices at the ballot box about economic policies because they dogmatically believe those policies are good for the country. They don't understand the benefits of the free market, and would resist the evidence. He quotes Ludwig von Mises in agreement: "There is no use deceiving ourselves. American public opinion rejects the market economy." But this doesn't imply that they also make foolish choices in their private lives, because the political and personal arenas are substantially different. At the level of personal economic choice, the chooser bears most of the costs. If you want to buy Cheerios, your choice is decisive, you enjoy or suffer the consequences, and act accordingly in the future. If you vote for a protectionist, your choice is not decisive (the winner would have won anyway) and you don't bear all the consequences but only a minute fraction of them. I nearly applauded when I read Caplan's words asking us to "drop specious analogies between markets and politics, between shopping and voting."

When shopping, you won't refuse to examine a bad idea for long because it's costly to you. But, Caplan writes, "the price of ideological loyalty is close to zero. So we should expect people to 'satiate' their demand for political delusion, to believe whatever makes them feel best."

Antimarket Bias

Why do people have faith that bad economic polices are good? Because they incorporated biases into their worldview as they grew up and have no desire to examine them. Most people don't study economics, and most who do don't let their studies "corrupt" their biases. Market ideas are not intuitive. Caplan points out that while political scientists have been empirically documenting voters' systematic bias against free markets, economists have failed to assimilate the findings. "Economists' blind spot is particularly hard to excuse because they stand at the end of a long tradition with a lot to say about bias," Caplan writes. "Many of the most famous economists of the past, like Adam Smith and Frederic Bastiat, obsessed over the public's wrongheaded beliefs about economics, its stubborn resistance to basic principles like opportunity cost and comparative advantage." (It's why Bastiat wrote about "what is not seen" and why, in our time, Manual Ayau called his article on comparative cost "The Most Elusive Proposition" [pdf].)

Caplan breaks the bias down into four varieties: antimarket bias, antiforeign bias, make-work bias, and pessimistic bias. Antimarket bias refers a "tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of the market mechanism." This comes from the counterintuitiveness of spontaneous order ("invisible hand"), win-win exchange, general good arising from self-interested action, the social role of profit, market pricing, and so on. I think this bias stems partly from the derogation of self-interest so common in religion and moral philosophy. Caplan writes, "...[Adam] Smith's thesis [that general good grows out our private gain] was counterintuitive to his contemporaries, and remains counterintuitive today."

Antiforeign bias means underappreciation of the benefits of trading with people in other countries. This apparently results, primarily, from some natural but unreasonable fear of foreigners, as well as a lack of understanding about the division of labor and law of comparative advantage, or costs. The result is a disposition against unconditional free trade. Even when trade is liberalized, it has to be done in a perverse way -- by promising it will lead to more exports, which is irrational since it's imports (consumption opportunities) that people ought to be concerned about. That misplaced concern goes back to the reason Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nation, the public's mistaking money for wealth.

The make-work bias, Caplan writes, is the "tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of conserving labor." It shows up whenever something -- technology, foreign competition, whatever -- makes particular domestic jobs unnecessary. Here's a way to think about that bias. Imagine that a person from America circa 1800 traveled to our era in a time machine. You show him your iPod and explain what it does. He says, "That's wonderful, but really, you people are foolish. How can you have workers making those things when they are needed to grow food?" The answer, of course, is that they aren't needed to grow food because machines and knowledge enable us to grow far more food than was grown in 1800 with a far smaller fraction of the population. Yet popular prejudice would have it that when people were no longer needed on the farm, they faced a life of unemployment. What's missing? That fact that wants always exceed resources and labor. So when we can accomplish a task with fewer resources and less labor, the savings are available for new things we couldn't afford yesterday. There's no need to make work, which wouldn't be hard to do anyway. We can create jobs whenever we want -- by, for instance, outlawing any machinery invented after 1920 -- but we wouldn't be creating prosperity. Quite the opposite.

The final category of bias is the pessimistic bias -- "a tendency to overestimate the severity of economic problems and underestimate the (recent) past, present, and future performance of the economy." This is the prevalent belief that the present does not live up to some golden age. Of course, back in that supposed golden age, people were saying the same thing about some previous golden age, and so on, ad infinitum. Caplan notes that this belief has been attributed to the gradualness of progress (Smith) and to human nature (David Hume). Regardless of the cause, the tendency toward pessimism seems resistant to facts. People think ours is an era of decline, while economists argue over whether the rate of growth is slowing or not.

Caplan's thesis is more complex than I've indicated here, so interested readers should buy the book. (Here's an extract [pdf].) I've not dealt with many questions, such as the role of special interests and whether government's systematic historical intervention on behalf of business has tainted people's sense of what "free markets" and capitalism mean. But the core of the thesis strikes me as sound. It's not what voters don't know that brings them trouble, but what they know that isn't so. (That's Artemus Ward applied to politics.)

Caplan's solution is to "rely more on private choice and the free market." Good idea, though you'd have to get people to vote for that, so I'm not sure how effective that will be. Economic education for the public also would also seem in order. But just straightforward teaching won't be enough, for as Caplan elaborates, people hold fast to their errors through "emotional commitment." "A good teacher could change some minds, but the best teacher in the world would be lucky to convince half," he writes. Dogma dies hard.

At the very least, this implies that the case for liberty must be pressed across the entire cultural front, especially in movies and novels where emotions as well as reason can be appealed to. We must find emotional commitments in the population that are consistent with freedom. Libertarian strategic wisdom may well begin with Jonathan Swift's insight: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

See what's free at AOL.com.

Speaking Up for Freedom

2007-06-01T13:05:00.000-04:00

By Fred Thompson
Friday, June 1, 2007

Well, he's done it. Hugo Chavez was already systematically silencing criticism of his autocratic rule through threats and intimidation. Journalists have been threatened, beaten and even killed. Now he's shut down the last opposition television networks in Venezuela and arrested nearly 200 protesters – mostly students. It's a monumental tragedy and the Venezuelan people will pay the price for decades to come. Americans are also at risk as he funds anti-American candidates and radicals all over Latin America.

It's equally tragic that the U.S. is in no position to provide the victims of this emerging dictator with the truth. There was a time, though, when Americans were on the front lines of pro-freedom movements all over the world. I'm talking about the "surrogate" broadcast network that included Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, often called "the Radios."

In this photo released by Miraflores Press Office, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez speaks during a meeting with retired people in La Guaira, Venezuela, Tuesday, May 29, 2007. Chavez defended his decision not to renew the license of a popular opposition-aligned television network and warned he might crack down on another critical TV station, accusing it of trying to incite attempts on his life. (AP Photo/Miraflores Press Office)

When Ronald Reagan was elected, he greatly empowered the private, congressionally funded effort and handpicked the Radios' top staff to bring freedom to the Soviet Union. Steve Forbes led the group.

Cynics still say that the USSR fell of its own weight, and that President Reagan's efforts to bring it down were irrelevant, but Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev say differently. Both have said that, without the Radios, the USSR wouldn't have fallen. The Radios were not some bland public relations effort, attracting audiences only with American pop music. They engaged the intellectual and influential populations behind the Iron Curtain with accurate news and smart programming about freedom and democracy. They had sources and networks within those countries that sometimes outperformed the CIA. When Soviet hardliners and reformers were facing off, and crowds and tanks were on the streets of Moscow and Bucharest, the radios were sending real-time information to the people, including the military, and reminding them of what was at stake.

Then we won the Cold War. The USSR collapsed in 1991, and America relaxed. Military downsizing began and the Radios began to reduce broadcast air time to target countries.

Now, of course, we know that the Islamofascists, many trained by the old Soviets, were making plans and plots of their own. Unfortunately, the plans to broadcast a pro-freedom message into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Kurdistan and Ukraine were shelved or diluted. Reagan's ideological audacity was replaced with a more "diplomatic" tone.

And see where it's got us? Not only has Islamic totalitarianism spread without a true ideological challenge, many of the freed Soviet bloc countries are slipping back into repression. Russia is making the same old threats and even protecting Iran's efforts to build nukes.

We'll never know if Afghanistan might have rejected al Qaeda if America had actively engaged that country as we did those Eastern Europeans. We can't know if Venezuelans would have chosen liberty over the false security of authoritarianism if they had been challenged to face the issues. I do know, though, that it's time for a new generation of Americans to stand up for freedom -- like others before us. And this time, we'll have a whole new set of media technologies.

Fred Thompson is an actor and former Senator. His radio commentary airs on the ABC Radio Network and be blogs on The Fred Thompson Report.

See what's free at AOL.com.

Democratic Presidential Candidates respond to Supreme Court abortion decision

2007-04-18T21:08:00.001-04:00

Thanks to Diane Stover and Gary Lankford for passing these on to me................

John Edwards for President
Apr 18, 2007

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

4/18/2007

Hillary Clinton Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision

Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

Barack Hussein Obama Statement

I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

See what's free at AOL.com.

A Message Regarding the Vacancy on the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

2007-03-31T10:12:00.001-04:00

A message from Ron Lisy

Dear Friends,

As you are probably aware, our friend Republican Cuyahoga County Board of Elections member Sally Florkiewicz has announced her intention to resign from the Board effective April 2nd.

This follows a politically charged demand from Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to all four Cuyahoga county Board of Elections members to resign their positions.

Of the four members, only Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett, who also serves as Chairman of the Board of Elections remains seated on the Board past April 2nd.

Many of you are also aware that I have been employed at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections for the past nine months, joining the Board staff soon after the May 2006 primary debacle.

I've learned the nuts and bolts of the elections process, and seen many areas where the Board needs to improve. I believe it is crucial that our faith in the elections process be restored, and the value of the county taxpayers' dollars be respected.

Several of you have stated that this experience and insight along with my previous activities with the Republican Party, and as an elected member of Bedford City Council would make me an ideal candidate for the Board of Elections vacancy.

Although I am flattered at the suggestion, and did give it active consideration, I will not be a candidate for this vacancy.

In my opinion, an extremely qualified candidate, and an extremely committed Republican has stepped forward and declared himself a candidate -- that person is Judge Jeff Hastings.

Jeff is an ideal person for this seat, with experience in the Ohio Attorney General's office under both Betty Montgomery and Jim Petro, experience serving as Executive Director of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party, and a stint as a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge, which earned him wide praise for his judicial temperment and legal skills--and nearly re-election despite running against a "legendary name" and the Democratic tidal wave in Ohio.

Jeff Hastings will do us proud on the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

I hope that you will attend the meeting of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party Central & Executive Committees, scheduled for Wednesday April 4th at 6 to 8 pm, Independence Civic Center, 6363 Selig Drive in Independence and join me in supporting Judge Jeff Hastings for the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

With Regards,

Ron Lisy

See what's free at AOL.com.

Stockman charged with securities fraud, will "vigorously fight" charges

2007-03-26T22:23:00.001-04:00

By Martha Graybow

Reuters

NEW YORK (March 26) - U.S. prosecutors on Monday charged David Stockman, a former chief executive of Collins & Aikman Corp., and seven other former company officials with fraud related to alleged financial misdeeds at the bankrupt auto parts maker.

Stockman, a former Reagan administration budget director, and others are accused of misleading the company's investors to hide its declining financial condition, according to the indictment brought by federal prosecutors in Manhattan.

Stockman "hid the full truth from the company's investors and lenders," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said at a news conference.

He said that Stockman and other executives "resorted to lies, tricks and fraud" to boost Collins & Aikman's financial performance when they could not improve it legitimately.

Stockman and three others -- former Collins & Aikman executives J. Michael Stepp, David Cosgrove and Paul Barnaba -- were charged in a criminal indictment unsealed on Monday with conspiracy, securities fraud and other charges related to the alleged scheme. Prosecutors said the fraud lasted from December 2001 until the company filed for bankruptcy in May 2005.

Four other former company officials have pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to the alleged scheme, bringing the total number of people charged in the case to eight, prosecutors said.

Collins & Aikman was not named in the indictment. Garcia said his office had reached a non-prosecution agreement with the company, which has agreed to continue to cooperate with the government in its investigation.

Stockman, in a statement posted on his lawyer's Web site, said that the government's charges were implausible.

"My actions were motivated by the goal of saving the company, its investors and thousands of employees from a brutal financial squeeze by the Big Three automakers," he said. "There is not a hint of wrongful gain."

Stockman left the company five days before it filed for bankruptcy.

Separately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil charges against Stockman and other individuals, as well as against the company. The SEC said the auto parts supplier has settled the charges, without admitting or denying the allegations. The agreement requires court approval.

Collins & Aikman remains under bankruptcy protection and is in the process of selling its remaining assets.

A former Michigan congressman, Stockman headed the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration. He became famous as a promoter of supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics."

Stockman became a private equity investor after leaving government. He joined Collins & Aikman in 2002, soon after Heartland Industrial Partners, a buyout fund that he co-founded in 1999, bought a controlling stake in the company. Stockman and Heartland lost hundreds of millions of dollars when Collins & Aikman sought bankruptcy protection.

Last week, in anticipation of government charges, Stockman told The Wall Street Journal he would "vigorously fight" any federal criminal charges filed against him.

A Collins & Aikman representative was not immediately available to comment on the indictments.

Additional reporting by Edith Honan in New York and David Bailey in Chicago

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Hagel: Some see impeachment as option

2007-03-25T18:48:00.001-04:00

With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed – if a president really believes that, then there are – what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 – or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.

"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.

"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.

"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

Hagel spoke on ABC's "This Week," Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Nelson was on CNN's "Late Edition."

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Elyria's Midway Mall Removes "No Guns" Signs

2007-03-24T11:01:00.001-04:00

Written by Rich Hardway
from Ohioans for Concealed Carry...www.ohioccw.org
I have been asked to write an account about my experience in changing management's opinion and policy on posting "No Guns" signs on the doors at Elyria's Midway Mall in Elyria, OH so others might learn from the way I handled the situation. I was asked by Daniel White, OFCC Director-At-Large, to verify that the Midway Mall had indeed posted signs on the doors as reported by a member in the forums on the OFCC web site. He asked me if I would be willing to talk to someone about their policy if the doors were in fact posted. I accepted his request on behalf of the members of OFCC and went to the mall that evening after work. I walked the perimeter of the mall to look at each door and indeed all but one was posted. I then went to the office of the mall but found it to be closed because it was after 5:00 PM. I then decided this was a good thing because it gave me a chance to prepare what I wanted to say to the mall managers. I then went to the information booth where they rent the strollers and wheel chairs to ask who I might be able to talk to about the signs or someone in public relations. The lady handed me a business card for the assistant manager of the mall. That night at home I developed my plan of action with the power points that I wished to cover in a meeting with him the next morning The next morning bright and early I went to the mall wearing an OFCC shirt and a large smile on my face. I asked to speak with the gentleman on the card I received the night before. When he came to the counter, I introduced myself and asked him if we could sit down and discuss the mall's new policy prohibiting legal concealed handguns. We began our conversation on what OFCC is and represents. Then we began talking about the mall's reasons for changing their policy and posting of the property. Within a few minutes, he stopped me and said that he wanted to bring in a couple other management members. After a brief introduction to the general manager, Mark, I began all over again. I asked them why they suddenly changed their policy. Mark said that they wanted to create a safer environment for their customers' shopping experience. I asked them if they truly feel that they had achieved this goal by refusing to allow law-abiding citizens in the mall that had properly and legally obtained a permit from the state of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun. I went on to say that I don't feel they did. They made a reference to the recent shooting in a Utah mall and that they did not want a similar action in their mall. I fully agreed with them that I also never want to hear or see such a thing in any mall. I then countered with the facts. The facts are that a deranged teenager went to that mall with a premeditated plan to illegally assault and kill as many victims as he possibly could. If it was not for the fact that an off-duty police officer was dining in that mall at the time, many more innocent people would have become victims at the killer's hands. The truth is that due to the off duty police officer's ability to carry a concealed handgun, he was able to cut the rampage short until police arrived and put an end to the carnage. This man saved innocent lives. I then asked them if they really think that any sign posted at the door of the Utah mall would have stopped the teen from entering that mall on that day with the small arsenal that he had to support his plan of terror. In fact, that mall did have a "No Weapons" policy. John Lott reported on his website and linked to a picture of the actual sign on the doors. You can view the sign by clicking here.

I asked both managers if they had ever read the concealed carry law, as I handed them a copy of it. Then I made the following statement: "People that have a license to carry a concealed firearm issued by the state of Ohio have obtained that license after successfully attending the mandatory class, been fingerprinted by their local Sheriff, and passed a complete background check that the Sheriff has performed."

When someone has a license you know that that person is someone that has a clean background and has never been convicted of a serious crime. You can not say that about anyone who comes into your mall that has not received a license just off the fact they don't have a license

Then I told them that people that have a license would do one of two things when they see the sign on the door. They will either return to their car and remove their sidearm, locking it in the trunk before returning to shop or they will do their shopping at a retailer that respects and supports their Second Amendment rights under the law.

Let's look at Wal-Mart for a moment. I think we can all agree that Wal-Mart is one of the largest retails in the world and they understand the thinking here. They removed their signs and changed their policy to a pro-choice stance and with that they let the American people decide if they want to carry a concealed handgun or not with their license.

Although law-abiding people will honor your request to not bring a weapon into your mall, criminals will ignore your signs and do as they please. Which customers would you prefer do their shopping here?

The Manager was agreeing with what I was saying and he said that the mall would remove the signs and make changes to their policy as well.

Three hours later I received the following e-mail from him.

Mr. Hardway:

Thank you for coming in to see me today and addressing your concerns. After talking with you and considering the facts that you have voiced we have reconsidered our position and have elected to remove the signs prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. They have all been removed today.

Our intention for posting the signage was an attempt to create a safer environment for our shoppers. However, your points are well taken and thus we have removed the signage.

We hope you and the other members of the O.F.C.C. will continue to consider the Midway Mall a safe place to shop in the future that does value and respect your rights under Federal and State laws. We recognize the fact as pointed out by you that people whom have been issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon are law bidding citizens and that's the type of shoppers we want in our stores.

Thanks again.

Mark J. Bressler
General Manager
Midway Mall

As OFCC members, we can all make a difference with a polite and understanding voice. The use of diplomacy with education and the truth must be our weapons of choice. The facts are a powerful thing when delivered with respect.

Mr. Hardway is a proud OFCC member that shows what one dedicated individual can achieve. This is his first article for our website.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Is Giuliani Too New York?

2007-03-11T11:12:00.001-04:00

"When Republicans say they are skeptical that" former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) "can survive their party's presidential nominating process, they usually point to his record of support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control," notes the New York Times. "But there may be a less obvious hurdle that Mr. Giuliani has to overcome: Whether he is too much of a New Yorker for the rest of the country."

"Americans like New York City, as officials in both parties are quick to say. Most find it vibrant, entertaining and an object of sympathy and pride since the terrorist attacks five and a half years ago that made Mr. Giuliani the national contender he is today. But the city, with all its tumult and rough edges, is not for everyone. And few people embody all the complicated facets of New York City as much as Mr. Giuliani."

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire- http://politicalwire.com/

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

February 2007 Marks 42nd Consecutive Month Of Job Growth

2007-03-11T11:04:00.000-04:00

Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues - More Than 7.5 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003

Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures – 97,000 Jobs Created In February. Since August 2003, more than 7.5 million jobs have been created, with 2 million jobs created over the last 12 months. Our economy has now added jobs for 42 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.

More American Workers Are Finding Jobs And Taking Home More Pay

Real Wages Rose 2.2 Percent Over The Past 12 Months Ending In January. This is substantially faster than the average rate of the late 1990s economy, and it means an extra $1,279 in the past year for the typical family with two wage earners.

Real After-Tax Income Per Person Has Risen By 10 Percent – More Than $2,900 – Since President Bush Took Office.

The Economy Has Now Experienced Over Five Years Of Uninterrupted Growth, Averaging 3.0 Percent A Year Since 2001.

The Dow Is Up Over 40 Percent Since The President's Tax Relief Took Effect. The NASDAQ is up more than 55 percent over the same period.

The President's Agenda Will Help Keep America's Economy Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic

In His FY 2008 Budget, President Bush Laid Out A Detailed Plan To Balance The Budget By 2012 Without Raising Taxes. He has called on Congress to work together with him to spend taxpayers' money wisely and to tackle unfunded obligations in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

President Bush Has Called On Congress To Act In Four Key Areas To Keep America's Economy Flexible And Dynamic:

1. Breaking Down Barriers To Trade So American Workers Can Sell More Goods And Services To The 95 Percent Of The World's Customers Who Live Outside Our Borders. Global trade talks like the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization have the potential to level the playing field so America can compete on fair terms in foreign markets, while helping lift millions of people out of poverty around the world. The President calls on Congress to extend Trade Promotion Authority so we can complete the Doha Round and make headway on other trade agreements.

2. Making Private Health Insurance More Affordable And Giving Patients More Choices And Control Over Their Health Care. The President has proposed reforming the tax code with a standard deduction for every American who buys health insurance, whether they get it through their jobs or on their own. His proposal also taps the innovation of States in making basic, affordable insurance available to all by creating Affordable Choices grants to redirect institutional subsidies to help ensure the poor and hard-to-insure have access to private health insurance.

3. Continuing To Diversify Our Energy Supply To Benefit Our Economy, National Security, And Environment. In his State of the Union Address, the President set an ambitious goal of reducing gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent over the next 10 years – Twenty in Ten. To reach this goal, he has proposed setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and other alternative fuels in 2017 and reforming and improving fuel efficiency standards for cars like we did with light trucks, which could reduce projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons in 2017.

4. Reauthorizing And Strengthening The No Child Left Behind Act While Preserving Its Core Principles. A strong and vibrant education system is vital to maintaining our Nation's competitive edge in the world and extending economic opportunity to every citizen here at home.

# # #

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

President's Radio Address from Brazil

2007-03-11T11:03:00.001-04:00

In Focus: President's Trip to Latin America

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today, Laura and I are in Latin America, where we are visiting five countries: Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico. These countries are part of a region that has made great strides toward freedom and prosperity in the past three decades. They have raised up new democracies. And they have undertaken fiscal policies that have brought stability to their economies.

Yet despite the progress we have seen, many citizens in our hemisphere remain trapped in poverty and shut off from the promise of this new century. Nearly one out of every four people in Latin America lives on less than $2 a day. Many children never finish grade school. Many mothers never see a doctor. The fact is that tens of millions of our brothers and sisters to the South have yet to see improvements in their daily lives. And this has led some to question the value of democracy.

Our Nation has a vital interest in helping the young democracies in our neighborhood succeed. When our neighbors prosper, they create more vibrant markets for our goods and services. When our neighbors have a hopeful future in their own countries, they can find work at home and are less likely to migrate to our country illegally. And when our neighbors feel the blessings of liberty in their daily lives, the appeal of radicalism declines, and our hemisphere becomes more secure.

The United States is doing its part to help our neighbors in Latin America build a better life for themselves and their families. We are helping these young democracies make their governments more fair, effective, and transparent. We are supporting their efforts to meet the basic needs of their citizens -- like education, health care, and housing. And we are increasing opportunity for all by relieving debt, opening up trade, and encouraging reforms that will build market economies, where people can start from nothing and rise as far as their talents and hard work can take them.

On Monday, I will meet a Guatemalan citizen who has experienced the power of open trade and free economies. His name is Mariano Can . Twenty years ago, he was an indigenous farmer whose land provided barely enough corn and beans to feed his family. No one in his family had ever been to college, and most of the people in his village never got past the sixth grade. And his own children's prospects for prosperity looked just as bleak.

Mariano was determined to do better for his family. So he organized an association of small farmers called Labradores Mayas. He persuaded his fellow farmers to switch their crops to vegetables they could sell overseas -- high-value crops like lettuce, carrots, and celery. Soon they were selling to big companies like Wal-Mart Central America. Today, the business he helped establish is thriving, and it supports more than a thousand jobs. It also has supported something else: a college education for Mariano's son.

Mariano is showing what the people of Latin America can accomplish when they are given a chance. We must help others like him gain the opportunity to build a better life for their families. The generosity of the American people is helping our neighbors in Latin America build free and vibrant economies. By doing so, we will increase living standards for all our citizens, strengthen democracy in our hemisphere, and advance the cause of peace.

Thank you for listening.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Long Shot GOP Candidate Brownback Just Five Points Behind Clinton

2007-03-11T10:49:00.001-04:00

With the high negatives of Clinton & Obama's lack of experience, I've been convinced that the DEM that will be toughest to beat is Edwards. A true conservative like Brownback may be the best matchup against him-- Even though Edwards is now positioning himself to the left of Clinton & Obama, he may be acceptable to moderate voters once he centers his views for the general election. A Republican candidate who appeals to traditional Republican points, a la Ronald Reagan is crucial. Clearly acticulated GOP values win.

The danger with Brownback is that he cannot go overboard with being "the religious candidate"- a tag that alienated secular voters against Ken Blackwell in the 2006 Ohio Governors race. Brownback's religious views can only be a part of his marketing "package". The role-model here is George W. Bush. Be religious, but don't be a "bible-thumper"-- no Pat Robertson campaign, or the moderates will flee for the DEM.

But then why not a true GOP moderate like Giuliani or McCain? look to the 2000 election and the result with the left fleeing to GREEN Ralph Nader. A well-known Constitution Party candidate, like Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes or Tom Tancredo and the DEMs can walk back into the White House with 48% of the popular vote.

--Ron Lisy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From rasmussenreports.com

The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey gauging general-election support for Republican Senator Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) shows him trailing Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton among likely voters by the narrow margin of just five percentage points. It's Clinton 46% Brownback 41%.

However, Democratic Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) leads Senator Brownback by the much wider margin of 49% to 34%.

Clinton and Obama lead the polls for Democrats seeking their party's 2008 Presidential nomination. While Clinton has been ahead in every Rasmussen Reports poll for the Democratic nomination, Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards generally do better in general election match-ups (see summary of all match-ups).

Brownback, who announced his presidential candidacy on January 20 as a staunch religious conservative, is in the second tier of GOP Presidential hopefuls.

Both Clinton and Obama have high name recognition, but Clinton is saddled with higher unfavorables. Forty-eight percent (48%) view her unfavorably, 34% "very unfavorably." Throughout 2005 and 2006, our Hillary Meter indicated that a plurality of likely voters would not vote for the former First Lady no matter who she might run against.

Obama is viewed unfavorably by 37%. Only 14% dislike him strongly.

Brownback is an unknown to 43%, and viewed favorably by only 19%. Just a couple weeks after his announcement, the percentage who view him favorably isn't any larger even among Republicans.

That may change as Senator Brownback becomes better known. But the enthusiasm especially for Giuliani among Republicans persists despite the mayor's willingness to openly acknowledge disagreements with social conservatives on abortion and other hot-button issues.

This national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 5-6, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Gun Owners of America Praises Overturn of DC Gun Ban

2007-03-10T11:19:00.001-05:00

"For 31 years, the DC gun ban has been the criminal class's best friend. DC victims have been legally disarmed and helpless in the face of savagery from home invaders and street assailants," said Larry Pratt about today‚s ruling by the DC Court of Appeals overturning the DC law.

"DC has been home to the nation's highest murder rate for most of the 31 years of the gun ban. DC's politicians and the Congress as well never wanted to admit that their law was killing people. The criminals were the only ones to benefit from the law because they never cared what that law, or any other law, said.

"Congress has never overturned this murderous law, even though it is their constitutional responsibility to oversee the laws of the District of Columbia. The Court has provided a lengthy and well-reasoned rebuke to those who have willfully misinterpreted what the Second Amendment protects ˆ an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will choose to take up this case. In the meantime, the sovereigns of the country, the individual American citizen, have had a measure of their rightful power restored to them," Pratt concluded.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

National NAACP refuses to do the work required for progress for black people

2007-03-08T20:53:00.001-05:00

by Cornell McCleary, http://www.formerwtvnbadboy.typepad.com/

NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and a majority of the 64-member national board wants to continue giving lip service for progress instead of taking responsibility for making progress happen.

Outgoing President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Bruce S. Gordon officially, and finally, told the world what most African-Americans already knows. The national NAACP does not want to do anything but look good and get in peoples face. The real challenges facing blacks, black on black crime, babies having babies, lack of job skills and the likes, the national leadership wants no part of that. Even though their list of what whites are doing to hinder the progress of blacks is short, the battle cry of the national leadership is still "We shall overcome."

Personally, I can feel Gordon's pain. I was the former Chairman of the Ohio NAACP's Legislation and Lobbying Committee and the former 1st Vice President of the Columbus Branch of the NAACP in the 80's. I left the NAACP for the exact same reason that Gordon did. The old guard is lazy and comfortable and, for the most part, compromised. The progressive leadership of the local chapters is often frustrated because of the lack of support from the national office.

Many national so-called leaders justifies their continued do nothing approach by declaring what Julian Bond has recently declared, that few American blacks would quibble that equality remains an unfulfilled dream. Equality will always remain an unfulfilled dream for everyone. The American experience has never been or will never be about equality. The American spirit is about parity and opportunity - the potential to gain.

The American Constitution is about individual rights not group's right. It is flat out impossible to apply group rights and not go against the grain of the Constitution with few exceptions. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave blacks parity rights in America. Now, as individuals, blacks must personally do the heavy lifting to achieve individual prosperity and success.

This is not to say that there is no disparity due to race. Disparity does in fact exist but, there are very few institutional solutions to the problems that exceed the viability of personal achievement, development and spirituality. A great house is built one brick at a time. A great nation also requires each and every one of us during our personal pursuits and endeavors to contribute as a matter of will, our best efforts for the collective that we call America.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Is the Christian Right a Fascist Movement?

2007-03-08T20:49:00.001-05:00

By John W. Whitehead
March 8, 2007

"I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."
—Ann Coulter

"To a large extent, Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies."
—Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey

In his new book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2007), Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former war correspondent Chris Hedges contends that today's Christian Right resembles the early fascist movements in Italy and Germany that emerged at the beginning of the 20th century.

Known primarily as Dominionists, these Christians promote the belief that they are destined to take over and rule the world by taking "dominion" over the political process and reinstituting biblical law. Many perceive this as a campaign to use America to create a global, Christian empire. And statements by evangelical leaders like D. James Kennedy, who has declared that "Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," only serve to foster this perception.

For those on the outside looking in, it might seem as if there is reason to be alarmed. As professor Charles Marsh notes in a New York Times editorial, American evangelicals "have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history." This power, which can be traced to a handful of evangelical leaders with decided political agendas, reaches into the Oval Office and deep into the bowels of Congress.

Indeed, Dominionist-influenced leaders often have a direct line into the White House. For example, James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, reportedly held weekly telephone conversations with Bush advisor Karl Rove during the 2004 campaign. And as Jerry Falwell remarked to Vanity Fair, "Everyone takes our calls."

However, in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction (2006), former White House insider David Kuo suggests that Christians are the ones being manipulated and used for their voting power. Hedges disagrees. In a recent interview with me, Hedges stated: "The neo-cons view these people as the useful idiots. I think it is reversed. I believe, in the end, that the neo-cons will be the useful idiots. I think that however buffoonish figures such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch and many of the others may appear to be, there are tens of millions of people in this country who take these people with deadly seriousness. And whatever buffoonish qualities the Falwells, et cetera, may have on the outside, on the inside these people have a very different stature."

Calling this particular confluence of religion and politics "Christo-fascism," Hedges argues that today's Christian evangelical movement has many of the same characteristics as fascism: a claim for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians; blind obedience to a male hierarchy that often claims to speak for God; intolerance toward non-believers; and disdain for rational intellectual inquiry.

Ann Coulter, a spokesperson for the Christian Right, is adept at magnifying her personality through her own useful idiots, the media. A darling of right-wing talk shows, Coulter embodies some of the above qualities, especially the tendency to demonize one's opponents. As Susan Estrich points out in Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate (2006), Coulter "has called the 9/11 widows 'witches' and 'harpies,' referred to Muslims as 'ragheads,' called Al Gore a 'total fag,' and said that both New York Times editor Bill Keller and antiwar congressman Jack Murtha deserved to die."

Whether the leaders of the Christian Right are really fascists or whether their hateful bombasts are just ploys to stir up their supporters and shore up their funding base is open to question. But I do know that they are not Christo-fascists. In fact, the word Christo-fascist is a contradiction in terms because Christ was certainly not a fascist. Indeed, what Jesus taught undermined both the religious and political empires of his day. And it got him killed.

Where the Christian Right gets it wrong is that the present spiritual problems we face today will not be changed through the political system. Although it is a valued and necessary part of the process in a democracy, the ballot box is not the answer to mankind's ills. And, in fact, Christians who place their hope in a political answer to the world's ills often become nothing more than another tool in the politician's toolbox.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, remarking about those who want to impose their version of "righteousness" on others through the hammer of law, wrote in October 2006, "Our movement must avoid the temptations of power and those who would twist the good intentions of Christian voters to support policies that undermine freedom and grow government."

The influential Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer went one step further when he stated that Christians must avoid joining forces with the government. "We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country," Schaeffer writes. "To say it another way, 'We should not wrap Christianity in our national flag.'"

WC: 833

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at http://www.rutherford.org

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Firefighters initially moved to snub Giuliani

2007-03-08T20:38:00.001-05:00

By Sam Youngman,

The Hill

March 08, 2007

Citing a "disgraceful lack of respect" for firefighters killed in the 9/11 attacks, an influential union initially decided that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be the only presidential candidate not invited to the union's upcoming presidential forum.

In a draft letter that was never finalized, International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger and other affiliate officers wrote "the disrespect that [Giuliani] exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families and our New York City IAFF leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten."

However, the firefighters changed their minds and Giuliani was subsequently invited to speak at the forum scheduled for next week. He accepted the invitation but pulled out of the event late Wednesday.

The forum will include 2008 candidates from both parties.

In the draft letter obtained by The Hill, Schaitberger and other union officials say Giuliani, in November 2001, "sharply" reduced the number of firefighters allowed to search the remains at Ground Zero. The letter estimates the number allowed to search was cut from 300 to 25.

When firefighters and family members protested the move, 15 firefighters, including some union leaders, were arrested.

Giuliani eventually changed course and allowed the firefighters back to Ground Zero.

Giuliani's campaign did not comment by press time.

"Our disdain for him is not about issues or a disputed contract, it is about a visceral personal affront to the fallen, to our union and, indeed, to every one of us who has ever risked our lives by going into a burning building to save lives and property," the draft letter states.

It concludes with the union leaders urging members, if contacted by Giuliani or a campaign representative, to "say not just, 'No,' but 'Hell no.'"

Giuliani, whose stature rose nationally in the days following 9/11, earning him the nickname, "America's Mayor," is soaring in national and most state polls.

Giuliani's campaign did not comment by press time.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

USC PROFESSOR PLEADS GUILTY IN $1.5 MILLION SCAM THAT BILKED STUDENTS

2007-03-07T23:01:00.001-05:00

Los Angeles, CA - An Orange County man has pleaded guilty to a federal wire fraud count, admitting that he ran a real estate investment scam that lured victims with bogus claims of large returns on investments in commercial real estate developments.

Barry Landreth, 37, formerly of Coto de Caza, pleaded guilty Monday afternoon to the felony charge that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in federal prison.

By pleading guilty, Landreth, a former adjunct professor of real estate finance at the University of Southern California, admitted that he ran two schemes involving purported real estate development projects in Chicago and Las Vegas. Through his company, Webster Realty Investors, Landreth offered short-term, high-yield real estate investments in two projects that he called Discovery Chicago LLC and Discovery Las Vegas LLC. Landreth induced victims, including wealthy investors and several USC students, to invest with promises that their money would be used in one of the two projects. In fact, Landreth did not use the victims' money for either project, but instead spent the money on business expenses for Webster Realty Investors and on personal expenses.

As part of the scheme, Landreth falsely represented to victims that the projects would provide 190 percent returns on investments within 30 days to 45 days.

In court documents, the government presented evidence that Landreth used victims' money to buy a Cadillac Escalade and several show jumping horses.

Landreth pleaded guilty in Santa Ana federal court before United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney, who is scheduled to sentence the defendant on June 4.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which received assistance from the California Department of Corporations.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Not in race, Gingrich still has right stuff

2007-03-04T18:23:00.001-05:00

By Ralph Z. Hallow and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 4, 2007

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich speaks yesterday at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. (AP)

Newt Gingrich received a hero's welcome at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, but it was Tom DeLay who gave the thousands of activists their marching orders: Unite conservative interest groups into a machine that can overpower the unity of their liberal counterparts.
    Mr. Gingrich, who won't decide whether he will run for president until after September, tied former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for second place in the conference's combined first- and second-choice straw poll with 30 percent each, trailing only former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who won with a combined 34 percent.
    "We will not defeat the Clinton machine by being negative," Mr. Gingrich said, referring to Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "We will defeat the Clinton machine by offering better solutions based on better values with a deeper reach into the American people's lives and psyche."
    The former House speaker challenged all of the candidates to commit to a new way of conducting the last nine weeks of the presidential campaign: Forgo attack ads and meet once a week for 90-minute in-depth discussions, "no Mickey Mouse," with just a timekeeper, no moderator and no panel of questioners.
    In the straw poll of 1,705 CPAC attendees who voted, Mr. Romney was the top choice of 21 percent, followed by Mr. Giuliani at 17 percent, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas at 15 percent, then Mr. Gingrich at 14 percent and Sen. John McCain of Arizona at 12 percent.
    But combined with second-choice ballots, Mr. Giuliani vaulted to the top -- followed by Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Brownback was fourth, Mr. McCain fifth, and Rep. Tom Tancredo sixth with 9 percent.
    The combined choice is the most important yardstick because it measures depth of support, said J. William Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union, the conference's chief sponsor.
    "The Romney [second choice] number was markedly shallow at 9 percent," he said.
    Mr. McCain was the only major candidate not to attend CPAC. He told Mort Kondracke of the Fox News Channel he didn't need to attend because CPAC was mostly Washington insiders.
    Conference organizers said yesterday that the 5,200 people who registered for CPAC, held at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Northwest, came from 49 states, and just 15 percent were from Maryland, Virginia and the District.
    "Newt Gingrich is probably the only rock star in the conservative world right now," Georgia Republican activist Phil Kent said. "You saw the energy when he entered the ballroom. I didn't see that for any of the others."
    Mr. DeLay, the former House majority leader, who left Congress under the cloud of an indictment in Texas, criticized CPAC and other conservative gatherings for never offering plans of action to defeat the left. He said he is forming a Coalition for a Conservative Majority that would unite the various conservative interest groups into a single message for the conservative cause.

"When I left Congress, I had two things to do: support the conservative cause and defend Israel," he said.
    Mr. DeLay said conservatives must overcome their independent streak and match liberal groups' willingness to take up each other's goals.
    "You'll get abortionists working on labor policy. You'll get unions working for abortionists," he said of the liberal machine. "We need to understand that all of these conservative groups out there need to come together and work together to maximize our resources."
    But some conservatives are not yet ready to forgive Mr. DeLay for saying, during the spending spree after Hurricane Katrina, that the money should be added to the deficit because Republicans had pared the budget down so well already.
    "As a conservative activist, I'm still hoping he is going to retract his comments that there is not any more fat in the federal budget," said George Primbs, 44, a database marketing manager from Woodbridge, who was attending his 20th CPAC.
    Speaking earlier in the day, former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III called himself "the real conservative" in the race. He cited Mr. Romney's admission he voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in 1992 and Mr. Giuliani's acknowledged vote for Democrat Mario Cuomo for New York governor in 1994 as evidence the others fall short.
    "What are we expected to do?" Mr. Gilmore asked. "There is not a person in this room who was so confused in those days they would have voted for Paul Tsongas and Mario Cuomo."
    He also attacked Mr. McCain, saying he fits the label "maverick" more than "conservative" for having opposed President Bush's tax cuts and supporting "amnesty" for illegal aliens.
    "Gilmore had the best message, and he delivered it beautifully," said Donald J. Devine, who headed President Reagan's Office of Personnel Management.
    The straw poll also made it clear that Mr. Bush is mostly irrelevant to the conservative movement. In the poll, 79 percent described themselves as a "Ronald Reagan Republican," but just 3 percent said they were a "George W. Bush Republican."

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Ridge to Serve on McCain's '08 Bid Board

2007-03-04T10:07:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON (Feb. 28) - Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge will serve as national co-chair of Republican John McCain 's presidential exploratory committee, the campaign said Wednesday.

Ridge, a former two-term Pennsylvania governor, served as first head of the nation's newly created Department of Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005. He praised McCain's leadership in a statement announcing his support for the Arizona senator's bid for the White House:

"What sets John apart is his ability to form coalitions around a common, principled cause. Our country is at a crossroads and John McCain is the leader who fundamentally knows what it takes to move us forward and keep us safe," Ridge said.

McCain, who is expected to formally enter the race for the 2008 GOP nomination in March, said that Ridge's "expertise as an innovative governor and national leader ... is invaluable and I'm grateful for his support."

McCain, once seen as the Republican front-runner, has been leading the GOP presidential field in endorsements, but increasingly lags behind former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in polls of Republican voters.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Drafting Fred Thompson

2007-03-04T10:05:00.001-05:00

From The Stump, AOL News Elections Blog

http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/03/02/drafting-fred-thompson/

Posted Mar 2nd 2007 6:24AM by NixGuy
Filed under: President 2008, Republicans, John McCain

Thanks to this post at ElephantBiz, it's now obvious that all current GOP candidates will blow away and Fred Thompson will step in to save the day.

OK it's not that obvious, but there are many admirers of the former senator from Tennessee, including this Web site.

Hotline on Call quotes the WH Bulletin:

Thompson, the former Tennessee Republican senator who's now a Law & Order prosecutor and regular replacement for radio host Paul Harvey, is being urged by supporters to consider entering the presidential race, according to associates. "The draft Fred movement is growing," says one ally. They say that Thompson is flattered by the suggestions, but it is unclear if he is turning away their appeals. The effort is growing among conservative blogs, where several boards are pushing the folksy straight-talker to get in.

But then throws cold water all over the idea:

Most importantly, Sen. John McCain is one of Thompson's best friends. They talk regularly. A source close to Thompson said that Thompson will not run for president, period.

But what if McCain faded?This is more a symptom of certain conservatives in the party looking at the current field and realizing that there is no conservative hero among them. The only solution then is to draft one. Huckabee and Brownback don't have the stature and gravitas that Fred Thompson exudes without even trying. Unfortunately Senator Thompson has never indicated much of a desire to be president.

If McCain fades sure, Thompson could step in but don't bet on it. what I'm wondering is that given Rudy's liberal record on things, will there be a conservative Stop Rudy campaign coalescing to draft a champion? Just because conservatives can handle Rudy's liberal values doesn't mean they like it. All things equal, they'd rather have Rudy's qualities plus a social conservative as well.

Fred Thompson may not be the only one to face a draft.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

McCAIN'S CAMPAIGN COLLAPSES

2007-02-27T21:14:00.001-05:00

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on NewsMax.com on February 27, 2007.

The John McCain candidacy, launched amid much hope, fanfare, and high expectations, may be dying before our eyes.

Even worse, it may go out with a whimper instead of a bang.

It may not end in an Armageddon style primary defeat, but just dry up from lack of support, money, or interest.

Throughout all of 2006, McCain sat atop the polls right next to Rudy Giuliani. In the Fox News survey of December, 2006, he was getting 27 percent of the Republican primary vote to Rudy's 31 percent. But, after Giuliani announced that he was running, the Arizona senator fell to 24 percent while Rudy soared into the stratosphere at 41 percent of the primary voters. But even when McCain was polling well, he wasn't raising the money he needs for this campaign.

In the last quarter of 2006, during a time when he was tied for front-runner status in the GOP and doing well in general election matchups against likely Democratic rivals like Hillary Clinton, he raised only $1.7 million according to his filing with the Federal Elections Commission.

Even worse, he had less than $500,000 on hand, pocket change in a presidential race and barely adequate for a run for Congress.

Part of McCain's problem was that he wasn't raising money. But the other part has been that he is spending money too rapidly — and not on reaching voters but on paying political consultants. One top Republican operative from the old Reagan campaign commented, "McCain has hired every consultant he can find. He has all the top names, but no money."

What is McCain's problem?

Why did he go from the most exciting candidate in the race a year ago to the verge of oblivion today?

Fundamentally, he failed to heed the Shakespeare's admonition "to thine own self be true." The John McCain of the 2000 campaign is nowhere in evidence in 2007.

Instead of challenging the party establishment, he pathetically waits at its door, hoping to be invited. Where he used to challenge the religious right, he now panders to them. Once he led the battle against big tobacco, for corporate governance reform, in favor of campaign financing changes, and in support of action against global warming.

Now he has been identified with two issues, neither popular in the Republican Party: The Iraqi troop surge and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Rather than stake out an independent voice apart from the Bush administration, he has become the last survivor at Custer's Last Stand in its support of its policies.

Republican strategist and Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins makes an interesting point about McCain: He has switched roles. He has gone from being the McCain of the 2000 race, challenging the party orthodoxy, offering new ideas, and demanding reforms and changes to the Bush of the 2000, toeing the party line and only timidly venturing different ideas if he advances them at all. And this is no way to win the presidency or even the Republican nomination. But where it has counted, on the two core issues that move Republican voters these days — tax cuts and immigration — McCain is badly out of step with the GOP base.

He voted against the Bush tax cuts, the only real success of the administration and the main accomplishment of the president's first term. On immigration, his bill, cosponsored by Ted Kennedy, permits illegal aliens to become citizens without returning to their native lands and seeking legal entry.

Both positions run afoul of the deepest views of the Republican primary electorate. But beyond the substantive problems with the McCain candidacy, he has simply failed to impress the American public with his performance on the television talk shows that are the core of this year's pre-primary nominating process.

He looks small, shrunken, weak, cowed, and timid. He shows all of his 70 years of age including the roughly lived period at the hands of the tender mercies of the North Vietnamese. It is hard to imagine him as a strong leader as he meekly answers questions from the likes of Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos.

other problem can be summed up in one word: Rudy.

Giuliani, with extensive management experience and a track record of heroism on 9/11, projects a strong image of leadership and a kind of charisma that McCain has trouble matching.

The excitement Rudy's candidacy has generated has swelled his poll numbers at a time when McCain, who announced too early and campaigned for too long, was fading. As Rudy surged in January 2007, it was clear that McCain had peaked too soon.

Has Giuliani, too, peaked too soon?

Perhaps he has. But the nominating process for the 2008 election seems destined to be a very early one.

With many major states advancing their primaries to early February, 2008, and the 24/7 cable talk shows and Internet Web sites focusing full time on the race, the evaluation of the candidates may be complete before the first votes are cast.

Since only the front-runner in the autumn of 2007 is likely to be able to generate the campaign cash to afford to advertise and campaign simultaneously in all the big states that are advancing their primary dates, it is probable that whoever is ahead at the end of 2007 in each party will be the nominee.

In view of this early calendar, Rudy seems to have peaked at the right time while McCain is fading badly.

Rudy also surges at a time when the other candidates are disappearing from the Republican nominating process. In addition to McCain's swoon, the other possible top contender, Mitt Romney has stalled and is falling backwards. His flip-flop-flip from pro-life to pro-choice and back to pro-life again is not winning him any converts.

Before he ran for senator against Kennedy in Massachusetts, he was pro-life. Then, as he ventured into America's most liberal state as a Republican candidate, he said that his experience with a relative who died after an illegal abortion led him to reconsider his stand on the issue. "I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose" he said as he campaigned for the governorship after losing his Senate bid against Kennedy. But after he had been re-elected as governor and began to focus on a possible presidential race, Romney rediscovered his roots and began to "evolve" on the issue back to a pro-life position, a change which isn't fooling anybody or satisfying either side.

On the issue of homosexuality, Romney promised during their debates to be a better friend of gay rights than Kennedy had been. But now he is campaigning on an anti-gay marriage platform.

Beyond these two legitimate issues, Romney is, unfortunately, paying a steep price for his Mormon faith, something that should not be an issue in this campaign . . . but is.

If Newt Gingrich doesn't enter the race, who is there who can challenge Rudy Giuliani?

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, it will be Hillary vs. Rudy in the battle of the giants. And poor John McCain will go back to the Senate.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Schwarzenegger calls for Iraq timetable

2007-02-26T21:34:00.000-05:00

By UPI Staff
United Press International
February 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he is in a "post-partisan phase," and intends to serve the people instead of the interests of his party.

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," the Republican Schwarzenegger said he hopes his new attitude will inspire the 2008 presidential hopefuls on both sides.

"It just means that you ultimately want to serve the people rather than your party," he told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer Sunday. "Because I think the elected officials are public servants and not party servants."

Schwarzenegger, who was invited for dinner at the White House, joined congressional Democrats in the Iraq debate saying the United States needs a clear timetable for redeploying troops from Iraq.

"We should let the Iraqis know that we are here," for a specified time," he said, "and then we're going to draw back. We're going to draw our troops out of Iraq."

Schwarzenegger is scheduled to give a speech at the National Governors Conference Monday focusing on the importance of a centrist attitude, working with opposite parties without losing sight of principles.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Senator says 'global warming liberals' threaten economy

2007-02-26T21:32:00.000-05:00

Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
February 26, 2007

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill recently told a panel of world leaders they are ready and eager to join the fight against human-caused climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, one U.S. senator says proponents of the global warming theory have "an obsession" with shutting down the American economy.

Hear This Report
advertisement

Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have introduced legislation that would place mandatory caps on carbon-dioxide emissions. However, some Senate Republicans, including Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, are vowing to do everything they can to make sure such a measure never becomes law.

"It's just amazing to me that all these global-warming liberals -- and keep in mind their agenda is just to stop any kind of construction, any kind of electricity generation -- come along and say that global warming is taking place," Inhofe says. "I'm from Oklahoma [and] we've had three of the coldest days in the recorded history of [the state]."

Of course, when that apparent climatologic contradiction is pointed out to the environmentalists, the conservative senator notes, "they'll say, 'Oh, well that's part of global warming because it causes extreme conditions.'"

Inhofe, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, and other global-warming skeptics in Congress argue that mandatory emissions caps would raise the cost of electricity for poor and middle-class families. Still, he says global-warming proponents are apparently unmoved by this argument and "there's no way in the world we're ever going to be able to stop them from this obsession to take away our ability to run and operate this great machine we call America."

The Oklahoma Republican says he hopes people will understand that the global-warming issue has nothing to do with polar bears, nor with drilling, but rather has to do with economics and the politics of those pushing liberal global-warming "solutions." The real issue at hand, he asserts, "is whether or not they're going to able to stop us from generating electricity to keep America moving."

The agenda of "global-warming liberals," Inhofe contends, is "to stop any kind of construction or electricity generation in the U.S." He believes mandatory emissions caps threaten the U.S. economy and would hurt many of the Americans who can least afford the increased fuel costs that would result.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Sunni and Shiite division has come to America

2007-02-26T21:30:00.000-05:00

Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com
February 26, 2007

An author and expert on Islam says the burgeoning Muslim population in places like Dearborn, Michigan, has led to the same kind of Sunni-Shiite divisions that have characterized the Middle East. But despite the division, he says both groups consider the U.S. as "The Great Satan" and want to see it dominated by Islam.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He says in the past Sunnis and Shiites in America had to be together, usually in a mosque controlled by the larger Sunni population. But now Spencer says the two groups are separating and having the same kind of tensions that we see in the Middle East. The division has come about, he says, because so many Muslims have moved into the area.

"Sometimes [Shiites] went and were welcomed [at the Sunni mosque]," Spencer explains, "[and] sometimes they went as long as they kept quiet about the differences. [Now] we're seeing for the first time in America Sunnis and Shiites separating, when before they had to be together."

Members of Dearborn's Shiite community have blamed Sunnis for the vandalism of three mosques and a dozen businesses in Shiite enclaves. "Now, with the advent of separate mosques and both sides growing in numbers and in power, we'll see more and more of this kind of friction that we are seeing in Dearborn," cautions the Jihad Watch director.

Though there has been vandalism and tension among the two groups in places like Dearborn, Spencer does not think the kind of violence that has occurred in Europe and the Middle East will occur in the U.S. The Jihadist leaders in America, he believes, are "smart enough" to realize they can "operate far more easily and get far more done" without that kind of violence.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Olbermann's Record of Hateful Diatribes Against Conservatives

2007-02-18T19:15:00.001-05:00

News Source: Media Research Center

Story Link: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/3007/cyb20070216.asp#2

From calling President Bush a "compulsive liar" who has committed "impeachable" offenses and forgotten "the lessons of 9/11" so "may this country forgive you," to denouncing Donald Rumsfeld as a "quack" pushing "fascism," to bringing up the possibility that conservatives might intentionally "provoke potential terrorists" in an effort to "maintain influence and control of the presidency," to accusing Rush Limbaugh of "following the logic and ethics of Osama bin Laden," to sliming Fox's Chris Wallace as "a monkey posing as a newscaster," Keith Olbermann has used his MSNBC Countdown show over the past year to launch vitriolic personal attacks on those with whom he disagrees. He even once tagged the Media Research Center as a "rabid right-wing spin group" which has been "inventing liberal bias since 1987."

Back in 1998, he asserted that "the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler" and asked if Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton prompts "some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?"

Below are highlights of some of Olbermann's more obnoxious left-wing comments, with links to full transcripts and videos:

# June 27, 2006 Media Reality Check by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth: "The 'Worst' of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann; 3rd Place Cable Host Uses 'Worst in the World!' Segment to Savage Conservatives & His Competitors." The study found:

The segment is a strong measure of the MSNBC host's overwhelming bias against conservatives as the segment has served as a launchpad for attacks against conservative figures and positions at a dramatically greater rate than against the left. By a staggeringly lopsided 8 to 1 margin, Olbermann has targeted conservatives, sometimes with substantial venom, while hitting a comparatively minuscule number of liberals.

Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment normally features three nominees, although sometimes fewer, for the title of the same name, with the third place award labeled "Worse," second place labeled "Worser," and the first place award labeled "Worst." His targets have ranged from dumb criminals to politicians and public figures, many of whom have simply made controversial statements upsetting to Olbermann. MRC analysts examined every "Worst Person" segment, beginning with the first installment on June 30, 2005, and ending with June 23, 2006. The total number of nominees counted during the period was 592. Of these, 197, or about one-third, were politically salient figures. Out of these 197 nominees, there were 174, or 88 percent, that featured an attack on a conservative target or ideas, compared with 23 nominees, or 12 percent, that featured an attack on liberal targets or ideas.

For the full report, and link to a list of Olbermann's targets: www.mrc.org

# January 17 CyberAlert: Olbermann Blasts '24' as Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering,' 'Brainwashing'

The night after the four-hour, two-night season premiere of Fox's 24 ended with a "suitcase nuke" being set off by Middle Eastern terrorists in a Southern California warehouse, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann saw a nefarious plot to aid President Bush: "Is 24 just entertainment or is it propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared?" He demanded Tuesday night: "Gripping drama or thinly veiled propaganda?" Olbermann recounted how 24 "featured a mall attack, a would-be suicide bomber on a subway, and a successful suicide bombing on a passenger bus. Not in places where these things have already happened, but in a country called the United States of America. In case you missed the point, the show finished up with a nuclear weapon detonating in a major American city, literally conjuring up the administration's imagery for the war in Iraq, the good old mushroom cloud." Olbermann soon proposed that "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality," then "shouldn't those same groups be saying 24 should be taken off of TV because it's naked brainwashing?"

For more: www.mrc.org

# January 3 CyberAlert: Olbermann: Bush Extending 'Senseless' War to Aid 'War Profiteers'

On Tuesday's Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann used his latest "Special Comment" attack on President Bush to accuse the President of extending the "senseless, endless" war in Iraq as part of an ulterior motive to transfer money to "war profiteers" because "you can't sell [the Army] any more [Humvees] until the first thousand have been destroyed." Olbermann: "The service men and women are ancillary to the equation. This is about the planned
| |
More See & Hear the Bias

obsolescence of ordnance, isn't it, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, comp...

Obama Ranks as Most Traveled Senator

2007-02-18T14:39:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama's two years in the Senate have taken him around the world, from Russia to Iraq to Kenya -- an itinerary more costly to taxpayers than any other senator who took office with him.

The Illinois Democrat's travels in 2005 and 2006 cost taxpayers nearly $28,000 as he studied nuclear proliferation, AIDS, Middle Eastern violence and more.

Eight other freshmen senators took office in 2005, and about $19,200 was the most anyone spent for government-paid travel, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Obama's journeys are unusual for such a junior senator, but not for someone thinking of a presidential run someday.

"Valuable or not, it's the thing they all do to show that they're knowledgeable about the world," said Stephen Hess, a George Washington University professor and former presidential aide.

Obama was one of two freshmen members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 109th Congress. He spent $18,822 in per diem and transportation costs in 2006 as he visited Middle East hotspots and toured Africa. The previous year he spent $8,313 visiting the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

The freshman with the next greatest spending on taxpayer-funded trips was Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., whose visits included China, Russia and the Middle East at a cost of about $19,200. Ranking third was freshman Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who spent $17,867 to visit China and Kuwait, among other places.

From NewsMax.com

A move to arm pilots on International flights

2007-02-18T13:52:00.001-05:00

From the Buckeye Firearms Assn. website- http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3542

By Dan Roman:

Last week the USA Today ran a story, "U.S. asks to arm pilots abroad" From the story

Well, it's about time! It's been more than five years since our country was attacked using our own airliners, and more than four years since congress passed a law that mandated pilots be permitted to carry guns to defend their cockpit. First they must pass required background checks, psychological screening and a week long firearms training curriculum. They are volunteers and not compensated. Travel, food, lodging, and other expenses are not even reimbursed.

Click on "read more" to continue reading.

The law states that the U.S. Secretary of State can negotiate agreements with foreign governments to enable U.S. pilots to fly armed on flights between our countries. Secretary of State Colin Powell never raised a finger to effect these needed changes. Now Condoleezza Rice is finally getting to this important task.

Of course some countries do not want armed pilots. Again from the article:

"Sweden would rather not see any weapons aboard airplanes," said Michael Mohr, homeland security liaison at the Swedish Embassy in Washington.Well now, we'd rather not have armed hijackers on my plane! Heck while we are making our wish list, we'd rather not have engine problems or hydraulic leaks, or pressurization problems. We'd rather not have medical emergencies, abusive passengers, weather problems or mechanical delays either. We'd rather have a good meal, and a winning super Lotto ticket too please. Unfortunately, the 9/11 hijackers didn't ask any of the murdered pilots or crew if they would "rather" have their throats cut.

Mohr went on to say,

"There's a concern about arms and very sensitive equipment inside airplanes."

No - there isn't. We care about people, not equipment. There is a concern that people associated with radical islam will hijack our airplanes and use them as guided missiles to kill thousands of our innocent men, women and children again.

Federal Air Marshals, armed pilots, Secret Service, FBI, Customs, and many other law enforcement officers fly armed on airplanes every day. Any peace officer can carry on a plane, with a need such as escorting a prisoner, after watching a short video tape. And the last time you heard of any of these guns harming any "very sensitive equipment inside airplanes" was – NEVER. It is of no concern.

This has already been debated to death. Handguns do not pose a dire threat to airliners. Evil people do. Unfortunately, so do bureaucrats who can't tell the difference between the two, but sit in their comfy cubicle and tell those who would be murdered about their dim-witted concerns for the airplane's equipment. Their actions enable terrorists to carry out their ruthless plans.

The article was actually fairly well written, with no gross errors or lies. It is worth reading. But then they ended with ludicrous statement.

Aviation security consultant Rich Roth said some pilots "feel better" carrying guns, but he doubts they could thwart a hijacker. "If you're sitting in the flight deck and they get through, you have no time to do anything with a weapon," Roth said.

It's good to present both sides of a discussion, but Roth is an idiot. He obviously knows nothing about guns, airplanes, or self defense. He is probably certain that a citizen could never stop or prevent a crime with a firearm either, even though it happens about every 13 seconds in our country. Maybe he still thinks the earth is flat and revolves around the sun.

The armed pilots program is a good one, but it needs many improvements. It's been four years, and no pilots have shot anyone in a fit of rage as those hoplaphobes predicted. Just like with concealed carry, they were wrong then, are wrong now, and no longer have enough credibility to be bothered with. The lack of progress of the armed pilot program over the last four years proves that congress must again mandate that the job be done right.

Two groups working to fix the programs problems are:
Federal Flight Deck Officer Association
Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

Click here for a reminder of what happens when pilots don't have the necessary tools at hand.

Editor's note: Author's name has been changed for security reasons. He holds an Airline Transport Pilot license with type ratings for B-757 and B-767 airplanes and flies for a major U.S. Airline. His co-workers were among the first murdered on 9/11/2001.

Mayor to President?

2007-02-18T13:49:00.001-05:00

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire- http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/16/mayor_to_president.html

"No United States senator has been elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, but former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) is challenging an even more formidable historical hurdle: No former mayor has been elected president since Grover Cleveland of Buffalo in 1884 and Calvin Coolidge of Northampton, Mass., in 1924," reports the New York Times. "And no mayor has ever become president without serving first in some other elective office beyond City Hall."

"While New York's City Hall has, historically, been more diving board than springboard, Mr. Giuliani's candidacy presents several opportunities for optimism in this political campaign. He enjoys unusual national stature for a former city official at a time when being identified with New York might become a political advantage. In a field crowded with senators and governors -- including a woman, a black and a Mormon -- a former mayor could present himself as the ultimate beyond-the-Beltway outsider."

*********************************************************

Quotes of Note:

"You should be able to have a national campaign make a serious decision for president in nine weeks."

-- Newt Gingrich, quoted by Cox Newspapers.

**********************************************************

"How many good-looking presidents have we had?"

-- A strategist for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), quoted by Washington Wire, when asked about the significance of rival Mitt Romney's "matinee-idol visage."

HERE COMES NEWT

2007-02-15T19:03:00.001-05:00

By DICK MORRIS

February 14, 2007 -- To echo the famous Negro League pitcher Satchel Paige: "Don't look back, Newt Gingrich might be gaining on you." Newt, consigned by many observers to Elizabeth Dole or Dan Quayle status in this GOP nominating process, appears to be moving up into contention, overtaking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and battling to be the conservative alternative to either former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Arizona Sen. John McCain

To grasp what's happening, don't think of states like New Hampshire or Iowa or worry whether it's too early or too late. The key to following the Republican presidential nominating process this year is to recognize its essential similarity to the tennis's U.S. Open at Forest Hills. There are quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals.

In the quarter-finals, the center and the right each sort out the nominees to choose their candidate. On center court, Giuliani seems to be gaining a decisive lead over McCain's impoverished presidential campaign. But on the right-hand court, unnoticed by most pundits, Gingrich seems to be building a lead over Romney and a host of conservative wannabes. The ultimate winner of the Giuliani/McCain quarter-final will face the winner of the Gingrich/Romney match-up in the semi-finals.

As McCain drops in the polls — he's down to 22 percent while Rudy is up at 34 percent in the latest Fox News poll — some conservatives seem eager for a "real Republican" to challenge for the nomination. Their first choice, former Virginia Sen. George Allen, lies a-moldering in the grave and his runner-up, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, has gone home to Tennessee.

Most observers assumed that Romney would fill the void. But he doesn't seem to have been able to do so. It may be a racist refusal to vote for a Mormon or, more charitably, Romney's flip-flop-flip from pro-life to pro-choice to pro-life, or it may have been his inconsistency on gay issues, but Mitt seems to be going the way of his father — out of contention. The Fox News poll, which recorded a surge to up to 8 percent of the GOP vote in its Dec. 5-6 tally, now has Romney dropping back to only 3 percent of the vote.

Enter Newt. Hungry for new ideas and desperate after losing Congress, Republican voters seem to be rallying to the only real genius in the race — the former Speaker. The statute of limitations seems to have expired on his personal scandals and Gingrich is striking a responsive chord among conservatives.

Fox News's Jan. 30-31 survey had Newt leaving Romney way behind and challenging McCain for second place. The former Speaker's vote share was 15 percent, giving him third place in the current standings.

Episodically, I just addressed a 450-person Lincoln Day dinner of the Lane County Republican Party in Eugene, Ore. A show of hands brought these results: Giuliani, 50 percent; Gingrich, 30 percent; McCain, 6 percent; Romney, 4 percent. A few days before, a speech to an Orlando investors group produced similar results.

But, as the slogan of the New York State Lottery goes: "You can't win if you don't play." Newt's current posture of waiting until the fall of 2007 to see how the process sorts itself out won't work. The process abhors a vacuum. If Gingrich doesn't move out to respond to the affection of the GOP base, one of the minor-leaguers — Huckabee, Brownback, Gilmore, Thompson, Hunter or Tancredo — will.

The irony of the GOP field at the moment is that while most Republicans are conservatives, the two frontrunners — Rudy and McCain — are moderates. And this isn't Nelson Rockefeller's Republican Party anymore! Gingrich is filling a real political need and if he moves out smartly and files his paperwork, takes his announcement bows, and journeys to Iowa and New Hampshire as a candidate, he might well be a contender.

Jonathan Livingston Obama

2007-02-14T18:49:00.001-05:00

by Ann Coulter

I've caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama. (I just pray to God this is clean, renewable electricity I'm feeling.)

Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic descriptions of Obama's "eloquence." His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.

In announcing his candidacy last week, Obama confirmed that he believes in "the basic decency of the American people." And let the chips fall where they may!

Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")

He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary!

Most weirdly, he said: "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement."

What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.

Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters. There were about 400 more reporters at Obama's announcement than Mitt Romney's, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.

Obama has locked up the Hollywood money. Even Miss America has endorsed Obama. (John "Two Americas" Edwards is still hoping for the other Miss America to endorse him.)

But Obama tells us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade!

I don't want to say that Obama didn't say anything in his announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, "What did he say?" There was one refreshing aspect to Obama's announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference this week to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

B. Hussein Obama's announcement also included this gem: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." As long as Obama insists on using Hallmark card greetings in his speeches, he could at least get Jesse Jackson to help him with the rhyming.

If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.

There was also this inspirational nugget: "Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call." Is this guy running for president or trying to get people to switch to a new long-distance provider?

He said that "we learned to disagree without being disagreeable." (There goes Howard Dean's endorsement.) This was an improvement on the first draft, which read, "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice."

This guy's like the ANWR of trite political aphorisms. There's no telling exactly how many he's sitting on, but it could be in the billions.

Obama's famed eloquence reminds me of a book of platitudes I read about once called "Life Lessons." The book contained such inspiring thoughts as:

"When was the last time you really looked at the sea? Or smelled the morning? Touched a baby's hair? Really tasted and enjoyed food? Walked barefoot in the grass? Looked in the blue sky?" (When was the last time you fantasized about dismembering the authors of a book of platitudes?)

I can't wait for Obama's inaugural address when he reveals that he loves long walks in the rain, sunsets, and fresh-baked cookies shaped like puppies.

The guy I feel sorry for is Harold Ford. The former representative from Tennessee is also black, a Democrat, about the same age as Obama, and is every bit as attractive. The difference is, when he talks, you don't fantasize about plunging knitting needles into your ears to stop the gusher of meaningless platitudes.

Ford ran as a Democrat in Republican Tennessee and almost won -- and the press didn't knock out his opponent for him by unsealing sealed divorce records, as it did for B. Hussein Obama. Yet no one ever talks about Ford as the second coming of Cary Grant and Albert Einstein.

Maybe liberals aren't secret racists expunging vast stores of white guilt by hyperventilating over B. Hussein Obama. Maybe they're just running out of greeting card inscriptions.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," and most recently, "Godless."

For Better or Worse...Travelers Launches Wedding Insurance

2007-02-14T17:33:00.001-05:00

February 14, 2007

More than 3,000 weddings take place every day in the U.S., with the average cost now reaching $27,000 each. Recognizing that the "big day" comes with a mighty financial commitment, Travelers announced today the launch of the Wedding Protector Plan, an insurance policy covering weddings.

"A wedding is a large investment both emotionally and financially," said Alan Tuvin, vice president of product management for Travelers. "There are a lot of moving parts to a wedding and things can go wrong. It is important to protect such a significant financial investment."

The Wedding Protector Plan provides coverage, with no deductible, for a variety of unfortunate occurrences associated with a wedding event. For example, coverage is provided if a hurricane causes the necessary and unavoidable cancellation or postponement of the event. Other coverages include postponement for withdrawal of military leave, forfeited and lost deposits, extra expenses associated with special attire, transportation, photographs, and entertainment expenses.

"A lot goes into planning your wedding within your budget," said Tuvin. "Travelers wants to ensure that your budget will not spiral out of control when the unexpected happens."

The top wedding claims and problems typically include damage to wedding attire, mishaps with event photography, cancellation due to illness or bereavement, and no-shows by contracted vendors.

Travelers created www.ProtectMyWedding.com, which offers a Risk Quiz to help consumers determine how much risk surrounds their wedding, plus examples of coverages provided. Consumers can then use the online agent locator to find a nearby Travelers independent agent to discuss purchasing protection. As long as the wedding is more than 14 days away, it's not too late. The Web site also offers an e-newsletter for newlyweds, which covers topics from lifestyle to money management tips, designed to help couples become in-synch with their lives as one.

The Wedding Protector Plan can cover events in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Bermuda, Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, the Caribbean Islands (excluding Cuba and Haiti) and cruise ships leaving from a port within those territories (some restrictions apply).

For more information on how to protect a wedding, contact a Travelers independent insurance agent or visit www.ProtectMyWedding.com.

Travelers is a business of The St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc., a property casualty insurer selling primarily through independent agents and brokers.

Source: The St. Paul Travelers Cos.

Rutherford Institute Offers help for Church Super Bowl Parties

2007-02-14T14:10:00.001-05:00

Rutherford Institute Offers to Assist NFL in Creating Exemption for Churches Wanting to Hold Big-Screen Super Bowl Viewing Parties in 2008

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — In a recent letter to the National Football League, John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, has offered to assist the NFL in proposing legislation that would allow churches and other non-profit entities to display the Super Bowl at gatherings, regardless of the size of the viewing screen, so long as no fees or charges are made in connection with the gathering. Institute attorneys had contacted the NFL prior to the Feb. 4, 2007 Super Bowl on behalf of an Indiana church that had been warned against hosting a "Super Bowl Bash" to which church members and guests were invited to watch the championship game on a wall projector at the church. However, because the NFL refused to publicly recant its position prior to the Bowl game, many churches were forced to either cancel their events, have their members and guests gather around a single, small television to watch the game, which precluded any kind of large gathering, or disregard the NFL's dictates altogether. A copy of the Institute's letter is available here.

"If the NFL is concerned about maintaining public good will and increasing viewership of the Super Bowl game, it needs to take the high road in this matter. Otherwise, they will only succeed in alienating a large portion of the American people who happen to be churchgoers," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Churches have a constitutional right to assemble their congregants, and it shouldn't matter whether these people are gathering to protest the war, pray for the nation or watch a football game."

The dispute arose after NFL attorneys warned officials at Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis against hosting a "Super Bowl Bash" to which church members and guests were invited to watch the championship game between the Indianapolis Colts and the Chicago Bears on a wall projector at the church. Some of the things to which NFL attorneys reportedly objected were the church's plan to charge partygoers a fee to attend; the church's use of the words "Super Bowl" in its promotions; the church's plan to use a projector to show the game on a 12-foot-wide screen; and the church's plan to show a video in conjunction with the game highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.

Despite the church's willingness to drop the use of the words "Super Bowl" and not charge attendees a small fee to cover the cost of snacks, the NFL remained adamant in its insistence that the event be cancelled. After being contacted by The Rutherford Institute, NFL officials conceded that churches could show the Super Bowl at the event so long as 'there [is] no charge for the event' and the church does not use NFL trademarks to promote the event. Thus, as Whitehead points out in his letter, "The only matter up for debate is the size of the viewing screen—which can be considered a superficial concern, at best." The NFL makes an exception to its mass-viewing policy with large-screen TVs for sports bars that show televised sports on a regular basis.

"Freedom Under Fire" is a registered trademark of The Rutherford Institute.

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights. Information about the Institute and its ongoing efforts to defend religious freedom is available at http://m1e.net/c?49385008-HEiDS7v/OdACU%402251696-.Cr2RPiauQA6k.

Time to Put English First

2007-02-12T18:58:00.000-05:00

February 12, 2007

by Newt Gingrich

One of the most frequent complaints I hear when I'm out traveling and speaking to groups is the lack of importance given to English as the language of success in the United States today. Whether it's the government's printing election ballots in other languages or bilingual education, Americans are concerned about the future of English as a unifying bond in our country.

Of course, don't expect to hear a lot of discussion of this topic in Washington. When was the last time you heard a politician talking about the fact that the Rasmussen poll reported that support for English as the official language was 85 percent? Or that the Zogby poll had it at 84 percent? With overwhelming public support like this, you would expect that promotion of English to be on the agenda of every elected official. But it's not. Instead, talking about English as a unifying bond -- and about learning English as the essential precondition for success in America -- is taboo. Why? Because the left labels anyone who talks about the importance of learning English as bigoted against immigrants.

Not 'English Only.' English First.

When the left and the elite media are done with it, any expression of support for emphasizing the importance of English is turned into a lack of support for welcoming new Americans. Those who support "English first" -- that is, those who believe that English should be the language of government, but other languages are perfectly fine in communities and commerce -- are portrayed routinely as supporters of "English only" -- that is, advocates of outlawing all languages other than English.

But historically, nothing could be further from the truth. English is not and never has been the only language in America. My wife's grandmother came to the United States as a young woman speaking only Polish. She learned English quickly, but her children grew up speaking both Polish and English.

For much of our history, the U.S. has absorbed waves of immigrants by helping newcomers assimilate into our culture. After all, there's no such thing as a genetic U.S. citizen. To become an American means becoming an American in values, culture and historic understanding.

Our one nation under God grows and prospers by embracing and welcoming the newly arrived and helping them to adjust properly.

Most Americans support continuing this welcoming tradition. But to do so successfully, we have to ensure that English remains our language of government and public discourse. In fact, to be pro-English and pro-assimilation into American culture is to be pro-legal immigration. If we fail to properly assimilate newcomers into the United States, the American people won't long support continuing immigration.

Australia Switches From Multiculturalism to Citizenship

You don't have to look far to see other countries who have experimented with failing to assimilate their immigrants and lived to regret it.

The Canadian government is currently taking another look at its policy of allowing dual citizenship for immigrants.

In Australia, they recently renamed their Ministry for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to the Ministry for Immigration and Citizenship. What's in a name change? Plenty. The change marks a shift by the Australians from a policy of government enforced multiculturalism -- encouraging immigrants to cluster in the same communities and schools and retain the culture of their old countries -- to a policy of assimilation. The reason for the change wasn't politics, it was profoundly practical. Their policy of multiculturalism had led to the creation of a closed and violent ghetto of Lebanese Muslims.

Instead of making Australia a more culturally rich and vibrant place, failing to assimilate new immigrants had the opposite effect and made the country a more violent place. Congratulations to the Howard government for having the courage to believe in their Australian cultural values and national identity.

English is the Language of American Success and Cultural Identity

We need a similar kind of courage here in America.

English is the language of American success and provides the basis for American cultural unity.

As a part of any comprehensive immigration reform, we should renew our commitment to our cultural values by teaching legal immigrants to speak and read the English language, educating them about U.S. citizenship based upon U.S. history and giving them an understanding of the Founding Fathers and the core values of American civilization. We should continue to encourage those who want to become U.S. citizens, but it is important that we grant citizenship to only those individuals who also want to embrace and assimilate into the culture of the United States.

Action Agenda to Promote the English Language

What can we do to make English the language of government and civic discourse? Three action items top the list:

President Bush should end multilingualism in federal documents. The requirement that federal documents be printed in different languages was created by executive order. President Bush should repeal this executive order.
Make English the language of U.S. citizenship. Return to English language ballots, to a focus on English language literacy as a prerequisite of citizenship, and to an insistence that U.S. dual citizens vote only in the United States and give up voting in their birth nations. These were principles widely understood and accepted for most of American history, and they enabled us to absorb millions of immigrants and assimilate them and their children into an American civilization.
Replace bilingual education with intensive English instruction. We should have a National Program for Intensive English Instruction that would provide highly intensive English and U.S. history and civics training for new immigrants so that they can have the practical skills to become successful U.S. citizens.

It's the Right Thing to Do.

We can be dramatically more successful in helping those who want to embrace American values and culture, and become citizens, to assimilate far more effectively. As we work to reform our immigration policies, especially citizenship reform measures, we must never lose sight of the self-evident truths affirmed at our founding. That we are all created equal -- citizen and non-citizen alike -- because we recognize that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If we are to live out these truths, then we must recognize that every person has an inherent human dignity that must be respected. And that these truths morally bind us to create a workable immigration solution -- founded upon English as the official language of government and patriotic integration as the fundamental model of citizenship for new Americans.

		Your friend,

		Newt Gingrich

P.S. - I have two events coming up in New York City I want to make sure you have the opportunity to attend. This Thursday, February 15, I will be speaking at the 92nd Street Y and signing copies of my book, Rediscovering God in America. Then, on February 28, I will be back in New York City at historic Cooper Union for what promises to be a lively exchange of ideas with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. I hope you can make plans to join me.

Hillary's Nightmare: Ralph Nader

2007-02-12T18:47:00.001-05:00

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

February 9, 2007 -- After his role in destroying Al Gore's chance to win the 2000 election, consumer activist and all-around maverick Ralph Nader would seem to have lost his credibility as a presidential candidate. In 2004, as if to punish him for his spoiler role, he got only 1 percent of the national vote, not enough to have any impact on the election.

But Ralph may have new life if he runs again in 2008. As Congress sifts its way through the various resolutions on the war in Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton will find herself on the spot, torn between preserving her mainstream viability by supporting the troops in the field and maintaining her front runner status in the Democratic Party by courting the anti-war left. She will be asked to vote on Senator Barack Obama's bill to set a timetable of troop withdrawal culminating in a total pullout by March 2008, and on bills to cut off funding for Bush's "surge" of twenty thousand extra troops.

To date, Hillary has rejected setting a timetable, saying that it undermines our mission and encourages the enemy to hang in there, and says she will vote against cutting off funds for our troops while they are in harm's way. If she continues with these positions, she will become the right of the Democratic 2008 field. Obama may also oppose a funding cutoff, but his focus on a timetable for withdrawal would put him to Hillary's left. And former VP candidate John Edwards, who doesn't sit in the Senate anymore, will loudly proclaim his support for both a timetable and a funding cutoff, making him the left flank of the three-way race.

If Hillary doesn't change her positions — always a possibility when dealing with her — but still appeases the left enough to win the nomination, she may run smack into Ralph Nader as a professed, overt, and absolutely committed anti-war candidate. In a race of Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton vs. Ralph Nader, a dedicated opponent of the war has only one possible vote: Nader.

The ranks of antiwar voters could swell Nader's performance far above the dismal 1 percent he got in 2004 and even above the 3 percent he won in 2000. It is not inconceivable that Nader could pass 5-7 percent of the vote or go even higher if he is the only antiwar candidate in the field.

The real question is: How will Hillary finesse the left and still keep opposing a timetable for a pullout and supporting funding for troops? She will try to ratchet up her anti-war rhetoric, even as she votes to let it continue. Her recent declaration at the Democratic National Committee that she would "end" the war as president, reminiscent of Eisenhower's 1952 vow to "go to Korea", is an example of this strategy. Her criticism of Bush and the Pentagon will become ever more strident as she tries to make the left focus on what she says not on what she does.

This approach may appease the broad center of the Democratic Party enough to win their votes for Hillary, but it will not satisfy the purist, activist, antiwar left. They will nurse grudges over Hillary's defeat of their anti-war hero: John Edwards. If the animosity spills over into the general election, it could catalyze a Nader candidacy in the fall of '08.

Nader doesn't like Hillary. He recently called her a "panderer and a flatterer." He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that while he has not decided to run, "I'm committed to trying to give more voices and choices to the American people on the ballot. That means more third parties, independent candidates and to break up this two-party elected dictatorship that is becoming more and more like a dial for the same corporate dollars."

Sounds like a candidate to me.

25K for food critic's poison pen

2007-02-10T01:08:00.001-05:00

The Irish News says it intends to launch an appeal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6343535.stm

The Irish News must pay £25,000 plus court costs to a west Belfast Italian restaurant owner after a jury found a food critic's review to be defamatory.

Journalist Caroline Workman's August 2000 review criticised the quality of food and drink, the staff and the smoky atmosphere in the Kennedy Way premises.

Owner Ciarnan Convery claimed the article was a "hatchet job".

The newspaper pleaded justification and fair comment. It will appeal the jury's unanimous defamation verdict.

Mr Convery's legal team claimed at Belfast High Court that the review was defamatory, damaging and hurtful and said the Irish News has failed to apologise or print a retraction.

The outcome of this case raises profound questions involving the freedom of the press

Irish News spokesman

Mr Convery, a former taxi driver who opened the restaurant in 1991, said he was delighted at the ruling.

"I think justice has been done. Goodfellas is a successful business and today's verdict has proved to me, my staff and my customers that we did the right thing by launching the libel action."

An Irish News spokesman said the verdict raised "profound questions involving the freedom of the press.

"We firmly believe that newspapers must have the right to publish fair and honestly written reviews, contributed by experts in their particular field and engaging in either praise or criticism when it is justified," he said.

"We are convinced that a public interest issue of the utmost importance is at stake here, and we have therefore instructed our lawyers to enter an immediate appeal."

Sadly, Al Gore's Nobel Nomination Is No Joke

2007-02-08T19:58:00.000-05:00

By Doug Patton
February 5, 2007

According to the rules of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the organization's "peace prize" is given each year to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the nominees rarely fulfill those lofty qualifications, the Nobel Committee nevertheless has awarded the coveted prize over the years to some of the most outstanding recipients of the day, people who have stood head and shoulders above the rest of us in stature, vision, courage and actions in promoting peace in our world. These exceptional individuals have included theologian and medical missionary Albert Schweitzer (1952); the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964); Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1979) and Polish political leader Lech Walesa (1983).

There have been others, however, who, when mentioned in the same breath with the Nobel Peace Prize, simply make us laugh and/or shake our heads. These recipients include failed Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (1990); Palestinian terrorist Yasir Arafat (1994); U.N. Secretary-General in charge of corruption Kofi Annan (2001) and the most incompetent American president of the 20th century, Jimmy Carter (2002).

In fact, a few years ago, I wrote a column about the absurdity of awarding the prize to Carter, who had by then established his own annoying little unofficial state department for the sole purpose of embarrassing the Bush Administration all around the world. Apparently, this was the primary impetus driving the Nobel Committee to award the inept one-termer a cool million bucks and a boatload of undeserved credibility. (Not to worry: the Peter Principle has reasserted itself with the publication of Carter's new anti-Semitic book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.")

This year, we have an even more ludicrous nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore has been nominated for the prize on the strength of "An Inconvenient Truth," his film about global warming. Of course, the adoring leftist legions of Hollywood also have nominated Gore's fantasy film for an Oscar as the best documentary of the year.

The former vice-president, who still believes he won the 2000 presidential election, may be trying to leverage his continued celebrity into another race for the White House (campaign slogan: "Re-elect Al Gore!").

Gore was nominated for the Nobel by Boerge Brende, Member of the Norwegian Parliament and a former Minister of Environment, and a Socialist Left Party leader named Heidi Soerensen.

"Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda," said Brende. "A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference."

Yes he has, and that's what makes him so dangerous. The real danger of Gore's popularity is that his speculations are helping to drive a juggernaut of pseudo-science that cannot be proven by any measurable scale. In fact, his hypotheses frequently contradict reality. For example, Gore warns that sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is shrinking, but neglects to mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere actually is increasing.

A recent "Wall Street Journal" article quotes a United Nations study that estimates Gore's solutions for supposed manmade climate change would cost a staggering $553 trillion over the next century. That means that every man, woman and child on planet earth would be 30 percent poorer in the year 2100.

Most meteorologists know they can't give us an accurate forecast beyond next week. Yet Al Gore and his cadre of "scientists" can tell us what's going to happen fifty years from now? Please.

Sadly, Al Gore probably will win the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, he is at least as deserving as Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan or Yasir Arafat.

-----------

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

U.S. Senator Capri Cafaro?

2007-02-04T23:06:00.000-05:00

I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, but I have heard rumors that newly appointed Ohio Senator and frequent candidate Capri Cafaro (D-Who this hell knows this week), is already looking past her 2008 re-election for the Ohio Senate seat she was appointed to, and planning to run statewide in 2010 for U.S. Senate; either challenging George Voinovich, or pursuing the open seat Voinovich would retire from.

Does her family fortune and four years of legislative experience make her a contender?

For more info on Capri check these links--
http://bigworld1.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-going-on-in-ohios-13th.html

http://ohio2006elections.blogspot.com/2006/11/ohio-sen-30th-32nd-breaking-cafaro-d.html

The DFAS shuffle

2007-02-04T22:39:00.000-05:00

More from The Plain Dealer on the DFAS debacle......

House Democrats' changes in base realignment money, NE Ohio delegation's conflicting priorities threaten new jobs

Congress set up the Base Realignment and Closure Commission at the end of the Cold War to keep politics at arm's length whenever the United States needs to reduce the size of its military infrastructure. With input from the Pentagon, the commission periodically develops a list of proposed changes that go to Congress for an up or down vote, with no amendments allowed.

The BRAC process has worked so well that it is often held up as a model for handling other thorny issues. Even communities that have lost bases generally say they've gotten a fair shake.

In 2005, the Pentagon suggested shuttering the Defense Finance and Accounting Service's Cleveland center during the fifth round of BRAC closings. But a coalition of local business and political leaders made such a strong counter-argument that the commission recommended expanding the Cleveland center rather than closing it. The Pentagon had planned to add 275 jobs by the end of this summer, with another 733 to follow in 2008.

Those plans suddenly are in limbo. The House of Representatives passed a $464 billion bill on Wednesday to keep much of the federal government running until Oct. 1. Under the omnibus package, most departments get to spend at the same levels they did last year. But the House's new Democratic leaders made about $10 billion in adjustments to free up cash for their priorities, including college financial aid and veterans' health. Roughly $3 billion came from the base-realignment budget.

That so upset Rep. Steve LaTourette that the Madison Republican, a tireless advocate for Cleveland DFAS, voted against the entire appropriations bill, which went to the House floor with no chance to amend. Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland also voted no, though mainly, he wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, because the bill contains money for nuclear weapons that he opposes. Democrat Stephanie Tubbs Jones voted for the bill because, her office said, she feared that otherwise the federal government would shut down later this month. Note to the congresswoman: The bill passed 286-140. Outrage expressed on behalf of your constituents wouldn't have derailed the train.

The appropriations bill now goes to the Senate, where the BRAC money could be restored. But the Senate is unlikely to take up the spending bill until after its Iraq war debate. That might be perilously close to the Feb. 15 deadline for passage, meaning the Senate might be loath to make changes. If it doesn't, Democratic leaders in both chambers have promised to restore the BRAC money, possibly in a supplemental defense appropriation that might arrive on Capitol Hill as early as Monday.

Republicans might have avoided this situation if they had passed fiscal 2007 spending bills when they still ran Congress. Because they didn't, the new kings of the Hill are playing a bit of shell game with BRAC. Cleveland DFAS may well get the money it needs, but the uncertainty is unfair to those who might be transferred or hired here and to the agency as it tries to plan for future space and security needs.

This community won the DFAS fight with facts and diligence. It needs to stay vigilant - and its representatives in Washington need to flex some muscle - so that that victory isn't spoiled by the very politicking BRAC was supposed to prevent.

Paradoxes pervade DFAS vote

2007-02-04T22:35:00.000-05:00

From The Plain Dealer...

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Washington -

If you wanted a case study on bi zarre, unpredictable and arguably schizophrenic behavior, you'd have done well to watch the Ohio delegation in Congress last week.

Start with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Ohioans doubt the former Cleveland mayor can become president; he got 2 percent support from the state's Democratic voters in a new Quinnipiac University poll. Yet Kucinich nonetheless fought for constituents - sort of - in the lead-up to the big House vote of the week, a $464 billion spending measure to keep the government going through this fiscal year.

Kucinich argued, as did Ohio's senators and others, that it would be a shame to subject the NASA Glenn Research Center in Brook Park to threatened job-killing reductions in aeronautics research. In the end, big cuts were avoided.

Kucinich then sent out a news release declaring victory. But something was missing from even the fine print.

Kucinich had actually voted against the spending measure.

Next, turn to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Kucinich's cross-town Democratic colleague.

Unlike Kucinich, she voted for the bill.

It was necessary, she said through her spokeswoman, to keep the government operating, since the Republican Congress of 2006 failed to pass bills to pay civil servants' salaries and keep the lights on.

This budgetary mess could have been avoided, she and others said, had the GOP leadership done its job last year. Instead, the House was forced to make decisions about 2007 spending only five days before President Bush was to unveil his 2008 budget.

But there's a twist. The 2007 spending measure, if approved by the Senate as expected, will deny Bush much of the money he wants to use for consolidating military bases.

That would please cities that hated to see their bases go.

Problem is, their pain was to be Cleveland's gain, with 1,000 new payroll-processing jobs for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) offices in downtown Cleveland. Which is in Tubbs Jones' district.

Cleveland's receipt of the new jobs now will be delayed and could be jeopardized, warned Steve LaTourette, the Republican congressman from Lake County who has been chiefly responsible for Cleveland's anticipated gain. Naturally, he voted Wednesday against the spending bill that puts those jobs at risk.

Kucinich shared that concern, which is one reason he, too, voted no, despite his cheers for NASA. The other reason: The measure included more than $6 billion for nuclear weapons.

"I cannot bring myself to vote for any legislation that further endangers the world," Kucinich said on the floor.

So to recap the score: LaTourette, who voted against the bill, put out a news release expressing his worries over DFAS jobs. Kucinich, who also voted against it, sent out a news release praising jobs being saved at NASA, but didn't mention his "no" vote. Tubbs Jones, who voted for the bill, was silent - sort of.

She issued a news release late Wednesday - mentioning neither DFAS nor NASA. Rather, hers was in praise of a decision by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that could delay and possibly halt big companies such as Wal-Mart from opening banks.

"I commend the FDIC on their decision . . ." her release said.

What about the possible loss of expected jobs in her district?

Not to worry, her office said when asked. DFAS can be saved through a supplemental spending bill that Bush will send to Congress soon. Democrat Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, a member of the subcommittee that approves defense spending, made similar assurances.

About that supplemental bill: Its main purpose will be to provide more money for the Iraq war. Democrats expect to approve it, even though they deplore the war, because they want to support American troops.

So if Tubbs Jones is correct, DFAS might not lose after all. The war in Iraq, hated by Tubbs Jones, the majority in Congress and much of the country, will save it.

Who said Congress has no sense of irony?

Koff is The Plain Dealer's Washington bureau chief.

To reach Stephen Koff

skoff@plaind.com, 216-999-4212

Church Defies NFL, Will Host Super Bowl Party

2007-02-04T16:54:00.000-05:00

Posted Feb 3rd 2007 3:16PM by Michael David Smith
Filed under: Colts, Super Bowl

As we've previously reported, Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis was told by the NFL that it couldn't hold a Super Bowl party. But another church, Indianapolis Second Baptist, has decided to go ahead and have a party without the NFL's consent.

Second Baptist's senior pastor, the Rev. David Greene, said in a press release and a separate letter to his congregation that the church's Super Bowl event was a way to minister to people, and that the NFL shouldn't be able to stop it.

"The NFL implied that it has a problem with the venue and medium that local churches conduct ministry," Greene said in the news release. "We want to save souls by any means necessary. Football, traditional service, street ministry -- it doesn't matter."

Although I believe the NFL has the legal right to control whether its broadcasts are used to attract people to big gatherings, I also believe there is absolutely no chance that the league will go after the church. Suing a church for a Super Bowl party would be horrible PR, and the NFL values PR above all else.

'Manhood' Check Costs Hoops Coach Job

2007-02-03T16:21:00.000-05:00

Maine Athletes Told to Put Hands Down Their Pants

AP Sports

LEEDS, Maine (Feb. 2) - A high school basketball coach was fired after telling his players at halftime to reach into their pants to "check their manhood," administrators said.

Leavitt Area High School Principal Patrick Hartnett said coach Mike Remillard told the varsity boys Jan. 23 that "tonight's game was about who had the biggest (male genitalia) in town."

"He then required his players to all stand up and put their hands down their pants and check their manhood," Hartnett said in the statement, which was read to school board members Thursday by Superintendent Thomas J. Hanson a day after the coach was dismissed.

All but one player followed the coach's instructions, Hartnett said. The team won the game.

Remillard, who was in his fourth season as varsity coach, called the pep talk "normal locker room banter from Fort Kent, Maine, to San Diego, California," but said he still should not have done it.

"Was that tactic appropriate? No. And I'm paying the price for it," Remillard said.

House cuts jeopardize new Cleveland jobs

2007-02-01T20:59:00.000-05:00

Now we get to see concrete proof of what losing Mike Dewine in the Senate, and having Steve LaTourette leave the House majority, with Dennis Kucinich & Stephanie Tubbs-Jones moving into the majority. Greater Cleveland & Ohio have lost a ton of clout---

Thursday, February 01, 2007 Sabrina Eaton
Plain Dealer Bureau

Washington - The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a spending bill that cuts $3 billion from a Pentagon base realignment program that was to bring hundreds of new jobs to Cleveland.

Republicans said they feared the cut will jeopardize or delay the transfer of jobs to Cleveland from Defense Department payroll centers that were shuttered by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Democrats who control Congress pledged the money will be restored.

"We are confident that in the end, Cleveland will enjoy the good jobs it won," said Steve Fought, a spokesman for Toledo Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Defense Department.

The cuts in base closure money were part of a $463.5 billion spending bill to fund government departments whose budgets weren't approved before Congress adjourned last year. It was approved by a 286-140 vote. The U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider the measure during the week of Feb. 12.

The bill boosts federal spending for health research, education, and veterans. While spending on most other federal programs will remain unchanged from 2006, the bill provided less than President Bush wanted for foreign aid and the BRAC program. It also trimmed from the aeronautics budget of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which helps finance activities at the agency's Glenn Research Center in Brook Park.

Congress last year provided $929 million for aeronautics, but the bill the House passed had a 4 percent cut, according to figures from Sen. George Voinovich's office. Some members of Congress feared it would be worse, since Bush wants to emphasize space exploration and last year proposed cutting aeronautics by 22 percent.

The agency could move money around within programs to meet Bush's priorities. But Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich said he and other Ohio lawmakers got language in the bill preventing NASA from moving large sums out of Glenn's budget. The measure also continues a ban on involuntary layoffs through Sept. 30, when the fiscal year ends, Kucinich said.

Republicans criticized many aspects of the plan approved Wednesday, but were particularly upset about the BRAC cuts and the potential impact on the Defense Finance and Accounting Service office in Cleveland.

"The Ohio delegation worked diligently to convince the Department of Defense and the BRAC Commission to make the best decisions for U.S. defense interests and protect Ohio's excellent military facilities," Voinovich said.

A White House statement said that cutting Bush's $5.6 billion BRAC request will delay base closures, reduce savings, and "negatively impact many communities throughout the country that have begun making specific plans in response to BRAC."

Top 10 WORST State Attorneys General in the Nation

2007-01-28T16:39:00.000-05:00

Ranked by Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

State attorneys general are among the most powerful office holders in the country. Unlike governors and legislators, each state's top elected lawyer has fewer institutional checks on his or her powers. Yet, with the possible exception of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the power wielded by attorneys general receives very little scrutiny from the media, voters, and even tort reform advocates -- even though it can often be abused.

Some attorneys general abuse this power for various reasons. Based on a set of explicit criteria -- such as encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to provide representation to state agencies or to provide legal advice -- the following state attorneys general have earned the dishonor of being the nation's Top Ten Worst:

10. Tom Reilly, Massachusetts

9. Peg Lautenschlager, Wisconsin

8. Lisa Madigan, Illinois

7. William Sorrell, Vermont

6. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia

5. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island

4. Zulima Farber, New Jersey

3. Eliot Spitzer, New York

2. Bill Lockyer, California

1. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

Dick Cheney – I Could Not Agree More

2007-01-28T11:23:00.000-05:00

by Michael John McCrae

Copied from the Rush Limbaugh web site:

“RUSH: And then they have this exchange about Hillary.

[Wolf] BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?

[Dick] CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.

BLITZER: Do you think she will be president, though?

CHENEY: I don't.”

And that is certainly my own opinion.

Hillary Clinton is a “Democrat” with a socialist philosophy. The Government is the be-all-and-end-all-of-all and she wants to be the boss of all that. She is patently unqualified.

She voted for the war before she voted against it. She is the master of hindsight and she is very good at cattle futures and hiding law firm records. She is an avid reader of Republican FBI files and she enjoys destroying the lives of many of the women raped by her husband. Jealousy is apparently her strong suit.

I have to say that if anyone knows Hillary’s philosophical bent it would be Dick Cheney. Hillary has not been slacking in her deranged diatribes against the Bush Administration. I have personally had to sit through 6 years of watching media watch Hillary in the Senate audience during the past State of the Union Addresses. If I had a dollar for every scowl and frown emitted from her insufferably envious countenance I would have at least enough to purchase a “Starbuck’s” latte. If I had a dollar for every time Hillary should have supported the United States but did not, then I could personally purchase Monticello.

Hillary never intended to help the State of New York. Her sole and pointed odyssey was aimed at the White House. I am glad she declared early and I am glad she is considered the front-runner. I remember Howard Dean.

It is true that Hillary will never be button-holed as was the Vice President by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer tried to give Vice President a back-door black eye by mentioning his pregnant, lesbian daughter; then followed up his attempt to make Cheney out the schmuck by asking the Hillary question. Cheney was blunt. Blitzer was “out of line” with the comments concerning the Cheney family. Clinton would not make a good President. Enough said….tactfully and quietly.

The left is making a play to paint the Blitzer-Cheney exchange as some type of dog-fight. The Vice President handled the exchange with a great deal of patience and tact; unlike the in-your-face, finger-waving exchange another Clinton had with Chris Wallace of Fox News a few months ago. (Contrast: Class versus ass.)

For anyone following Madam Clinton it has become apparent that taxes will sky-rocket and social programs will reach a state of maximum redundancy under Clinton tutelage. Hillary believes the government teat is the surest way to retain power. Promise the electorate the world and give it to them a few pennies at a time over a long period of time to make it look as if there is progress where there is none. And raise taxes…often and high!

Clinton has nothing that speaks of leadership ability. She heads no committees and she headed no governments. She is the “junior” Senator of New York and even Chuck Schumer knows that the only thing Hillary is good at is raising money. She’s raised millions to pay the fines of her husband and keep a quality group of lawyers working on her personal defense fund requirements. She’s raised a boodle of cash for Billy’s library too.

When Hillary finally plants her foot on the war, taxes, health care, socialism and her husband she will as unreliable a candidate as was John Kerry. Kerry was known as a flip-flopper and Hillary has shown recent signs of that Kerry-istic trait. The point is Clinton has no qualified plan nor has she suggested any valuable piece of legislation since her first senatorial election. She is simply a token senatorial mouthpiece that is being used as some sort of bludgeon against Republican Party efforts to correct eight years of Clinton Presidential ineptitude! There has been no reasonable debate. There has been a lot of screeching (ala Howard Dean), but there’s been no real substance in Hillary’s sound bites.

Do I think Hillary will be President?

No; “because she’s a Democrat!”

Should Free Speech Be Criminalized?

2007-01-28T11:20:00.000-05:00

by John Lillpop

Because life in the city of Brazoria, Texas, is as close to Heaven as God will allow, Mayor Ken Corley has been forced to create controversy just to assure that Brazoria does not fall into oblivion.

Specifically, the mayor has proposed a city ordinance that would make certain uses of the N word a crime, equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500.

The actual language in the ordinance seeks to punish those who use the word in an "offensive manner." Go here:

What, one wonders, would constitute a non-offensive use?

Apparently the ordinance addresses that question somewhat by providing a loophole in instances where the word is used as a "term of endearment."

Talk about creating business opportunities for lawyers! Does Mayor Corley run an employment agency for out-of-work lawyers when he is not proposing outrageous new laws for Brazoria?

As if this N word insanity is not bad enough, Corley has promised to expand his "outlawed words list" in the future.

In the name of diversity, the mayor should add phrases like "white trash," "cracker," and "red-neck hillbilly" to his next ordinance. By doing so, Corley will shield many of my closest friends, at least ones living in Texas.

Or to really tackle the issue head on, Mayor Corley, why not just work to have the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed?

Hunter makes presidential bid official

2007-01-26T19:51:00.000-05:00

Congressman Duncan Hunter of California has officially declared for President. Stating he wants to pick up on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, he has garned my attention.

***********************************************************************************************************************

By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer

AP Photo/DENIS POROY

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) -- Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, best known for his advocacy on behalf of the military, launched a longshot bid for the presidency Thursday in this early voting state.

Frequently citing Ronald Reagan, Hunter told supporters he wants to pick up on the former president's legacy.

"I want to lead that policy of peace through strength," said Hunter, a strong supporter of the Iraq war.

The 14-term conservative from California, who has made no secret of his White House aspirations, set up a presidential exploratory committee earlier this month.

He initially announced his intentions in October, becoming the first GOP candidate to declare, and then began making stops in early primary and caucus states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

He joins an increasingly crowded GOP field of declared and likely candidates, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Hunter has been a familiar face on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon. Until Democrats took control of Congress this month, he was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the powerful panel that oversees military policy.

However, Hunter is little known outside of Congress and his San Diego district. He is a strong opponent of illegal immigration who wants fences extended along the U.S.-Mexico border and supports the prosecution of smugglers bringing illegal immigrants across the border.

Last week, Hunter filed a bill calling for a congressional pardon of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who are both serving more than a decade in prison for shooting a Mexican drug dealer as he fled, then covering up the crime.

In remarks before his speech, Hunter emphasized the importance of South Carolina in winning the GOP nomination.

"Nobody wins the presidency without winning South Carolina," Hunter said.

Hunter already has some deep-pocket allies in the state, including textile magnate Roger Milliken, who supports Hunter's promise to protect U.S. manufacturers threatened by cheap, overseas labor.

"I'm thrilled that he's running," said Milliken, who hasn't yet endorsed a presidential candidate. "This point of view he represents must be heard."

Hunter, 58, was born in Riverside, Calif., and was an Army Ranger in Vietnam. He worked his way through law school with farming and construction jobs.

Hunter won his U.S. House seat in 1980 and has been an ardent military supporter. His son has spent a pair of seven-month tours in Iraq.

***********************************************************************************

Some more info on Congressman Duncan Hunter-

Hunter's Campaign website-

http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx

Congressman Hunter's Wikipedia entry-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter

Congressman Hunter's Official U.S. House website-

http://www.house.gov/hunter/

An op-ed on Congressman Hunter's candidacy from an anti-communist China blog China e-lobby-

http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2006/10/duncan-hunter-for-president-updated.html

I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore

2007-01-26T06:28:00.000-05:00

by Ann Coulter

It's nice to have a president who is not so sleazy that not a single Supreme Court justice shows up for his State of the Union address (Bill Clinton, January 1999, when eight justices stayed away to protest Clinton's disregard for the law and David Souter skipped the speech to watch "Sex and the City").

Speaking of which, the horny hick's wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she's running.

As long as we have revived the practice of celebrating multicultural milestones (briefly suspended when Condoleezza Rice became the first black female to be secretary of state), let us pause to note that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, would be the first woman to become president after her husband had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.

According to the famed "polls" -- or, as I call them, "surveys of uninformed people who think it's possible to get the answer wrong" -- Hillary is the current front-runner for the Democrats. Other than the massive case of narcolepsy her name inspires, this would cause me not the slightest distress -- except for the fact that the Republicans' current front-runners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Fortunately, polls at this stage are nothing but name recognition contests, so please stop asking me to comment on them. "Arsenic" and "proctologist" have sky-high name recognition going for them, too.

In January, two years before the 2000 presidential election, the leading Republican candidate in New Hampshire was ... Liddy Dole (WMUR-TV/CNN poll, Jan. 12, 1999). In the end, Liddy Dole's most successful run turned out to be a mad dash from her husband Bob after he accidentally popped two Viagras.

At this stage before the 1992 presidential election, the three leading Democratic candidates were, in order: Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen (Public Opinion Online, Feb. 21, 1991).

Only three months before the 1988 election, William Schneider cheerfully reported in The National Journal that Michael Dukakis beat George Herbert Walker Bush in 22 of 25 polls taken since April of that year. Bush did considerably better in the poll taken on Election Day.

The average poll respondent reads the above information and immediately responds that the administrations of presidents Cuomo, Dole and Dukakis were going in "the wrong direction."

Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named "Barack Hussein Obama." Or, as he's known at CNN, "Osama." Or, as he's known on the Clinton campaign, "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations."

Mrs. Clinton's acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, "Can a woman be elected president?" This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and ... hmmm, you know, I think that's it.

Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power -- Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry -- love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.

It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either.

It is as easy to imagine Americans voting for someone like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice for president as it is difficult to imagine them voting for someone like Hillary. (Or Kevin Federline.) Hillary isn't piggybacking on Thatcher because she's a woman, she's piggybacking on Thatcher because Thatcher made it on her own, which Hillary did not.

But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary's candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts.

Sen. Jim Webb, who managed to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night without challenging the president to a fistfight (well done, Jim!), won his election last November by portraying himself as one of the new gun-totin' Democrats.

He once opposed women in the military by calling the idea "a horny woman's dream." But -- as some of us warned you -- it appears that Webb has already been fitted for his tutu by Rahm Emanuel.

Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage. I guess we should all be relieved that at least Webb's response did not involve putting a young boy's penis into a man's mouth, as characters in his novels are wont to do.

He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?

Why Republicans Lost Conservative Trust

2007-01-25T23:19:00.000-05:00

The Cost of Abandoning 'Great Things'

By Leslie Carbone
1/25/2007

On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan delivered one of the major speeches of his life. It is remembered as “A Time for Choosing” or simply “The Speech.” In it, Reagan laid out the differences between the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Lyndon Johnson, and the Republican Party and its candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater. He remarked:

[T]his idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Senator Goldwater, Reagan’s candidate, lost that election, and lost badly. But Reagan’s ideas resonated with people, and they continued to resound over the next decade and a half.

For Republicans reeling from November’s “thumpin’” at the polls, Reagan’s consistent message and ultimate achievements can provide hope for better success next year and guidance for how to reach it.

In 1976, he ran against President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination and lost by only seventy delegate votes at the Republican convention in Kansas City. After winning victory, President Ford invited Governor Reagan to speak to the delegates from the convention podium. Speaking off-the-cuff, Governor Reagan reminded the delegates and the television viewers of why the election mattered. He lamented “the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy.”

And he pointed out “that we live in a world in which the great powers have posed and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction that can, in a matter of minutes, arrive in each other’s country and destroy virtually the civilized world we live in.”

Governor Jimmy Carter narrowly defeated President Ford in the general election. But Ronald Reagan had become the voice of commonsense conservatism. Four years later, he was overwhelmingly elected president. In another four years, he was re-elected in an even bigger landslide.

He was known as the Great Communicator, but he rejected the title. In his farewell address nation before leaving the White House, the President said:

I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation—from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Throughout his two terms, President Reagan clearly communicated great things. And he pushed policies rooted in great ideas and common sense through a Democrat-controlled Congress. Because those policies were based on a coherent philosophy grounded in truth, they worked. Reagan confronted the Soviet Union, and it collapsed. He cut taxes, and the American economy soared.

Tax cuts spurred economic growth because they reduced the disincentive to prosperity-building behavior inherent in high marginal tax rates. The Evil Empire crumbled because President Reagan’s defense buildup forced them to keep up; because communism stifles prosperity, they couldn’t maintain the same pace that America could.

Reagan correctly gauged how these mechanics would play out because he grasped a great and simple truth of the human spirit: People want to soar, and they can and will do so to the degree that they are unshackled by oppression—the pervasive oppression of totalitarian communism or the here-and-there oppression of a constitutional republic that has overstepped its just limits.

Twenty years removed from the Reagan administration, too many Republicans have squandered the legacy of clearly communicated great things bequeathed to them. They have failed to communicate great things, and they have failed to do the right things. And that’s why they suffered such an enormous defeat in November’s elections.

Squandering the opportunity to promote and pass market-based Social Security reform, they increased the size and scope of the welfare state by expanding Medicare. Failing to make real progress toward stopping abortion, they split the baby by allowing limited federally funded stem cell research. And their profligate spending is enough to make choosing between the two major parties like choosing between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell. This federal expansionism was a betrayal of the conservative principle that civil government should remain small, leaving much of the responsibility for social welfare with individuals, families, churches, and community associations.

Instead of serving the American people by passing good policies based on great ideas, some Republicans even sold their support for gold, gifts, and golf trips. When one Republican engaged in an inappropriate pursuit of Capitol Hill pages, many treated the affair as a public relations problem, rather than a moral problem, and the House committee responsible for punishing such ethical atrocities took no punitive action. These scandals were a betrayal of the conservative principle articulated by Ronald Reagan “that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people.” An honorable public servant who knows what he believes can’t be bought; a politician who’s attained political office for the power and the perks can.

The party backed liberal Republicans at the expense of solid conservatives. This misplaced pragmatism was a betrayal of the conservative principle that sound policy is sound politics. It’s also politically dangerous game, because these liberal Republicans join with Democrats in approving harmful laws, and then they share the blame for the resulting damage.

These mistakes all added up to the massive Republican losses of November.

But conservative ideas triumphed on their own in nationwide trends. Ballot measures are the purest reflection of voter sentiment, because they are unadulterated by the taint of messengers. As homosexual activists agitated for “gay marriage,” seven states passed marriage amendments. After the Supreme Court trampled the right to property in the infamous Kelo decision, nine ballot measures limited the application of “eminent domain.”

And conservatism made its mark in some of the Republican defeats. Two years ago, the Democrats were narrowly defeated at the polls, and they discovered “values voters.” As Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean allowed, “One thing the Republicans have taught us is that values and character matter.” So they ran candidates who would appeal to the morally conservative majority of voters. With an unwitting assist by scandal-plagued, policy-confused Republicans, their strategy worked. Many of the victorious Democrat candidates were fairly conservative for their party. Jim Webb, a former Republican and Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration who closely defeated Virginia Senator George Allen, trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s decades-old praise for him (over Mrs. Reagan’s objections). Bob Casey, Jr., who defeated Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, is pro-life.

While Democrats were wooing conservatives, Republicans were giving them the cold shoulder. Given the opportunity to communicate conservative ideas and pass conservative policies, Republicans instead expanded the federal government and its spending spree. Entrusted with the honor of serving the American people, several Republicans sold the privilege for the porridge self-aggrandizement—allowing themselves to be lured into scandal. Faced with the opportunity to remove liberals from their ranks, Republicans circled the wagons—and sacrificed conservatives on the altar of “party unity.”

Now the party is unified in defeat, hanging together in its betrayal of correct principles, of conferred privileges, of conservative people, the way that Haman hanged on the gallows he built for Mordecai.

The lesson is clear. Republicans rejected conservative ideas, Ronald Reagan’s “great things,” and they lost for it.

The question is also clear: Will they learn from their mistake in time to salvage their chances in the next election?

The answer is anything but clear.

Leslie Carbone is a writer living in Virginia.

Blackwell bonuses a savings?

2007-01-24T23:58:00.000-05:00

“Depending on the severance package received, 10 members of the staff agreed not to accept unemployment benefits, which is a net savings for the office in terms of total pay outs,’’ stated Carlo Loparo, Mr. Blackwell’s former press secretary and one of the year-end beneficiaries, "Those were severance packages offered to members of senior staff."

See full article in Toledo Blade-

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070116/DEVELOPINGNEWS/301160013

Senate Shows Its Age; Health Problems Pose Challenge For Governing

2007-01-24T22:50:00.000-05:00

From The Politico- http://www.politico.com/

The average age of members of the U.S. Senate is older than it has ever been, according to Senate Historian Richard Baker. For many senators, advanced age is starting to show, raising questions about their ability to govern.

Until his retirement last month, former majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a noted heart surgeon, was being consulted for informal medical advice by two dozen of his colleagues -- more than 20 percent of the Senate, according to a former leadership aide. They went to Frist complaining about a host of illnesses and chronic maladies, most related to aging.

Blacks Say Bush Blows Opportunity to Fight for Judges

2007-01-24T22:29:00.000-05:00

Project 21 Chairman Says President Should Have Used Congressional Address to Combat Obstruction of Nominees

Washington, D.C. - President George W. Bush mentioned the importance of filling vacancies in our judicial system with qualified nominees, but he failed to use his State of the Union Address to discuss the problem of liberal obstructionism of these nominees in the Senate. Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie says President Bush should have used the high-profile speech to make his case to both the Senate and the public about the severity of the problem.

"So many of the things President Bush spent ample time covering in his State of the Union Address - the War on Terror, health care reform, quality education for our children and even our energy policy - will ultimately be shaped by our courts. The President failed to use last night's address to chastise liberal senators who are obstructing the judicial confirmation process and endangering his ability to name judges," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "These senators understand the powers a federal judge possesses and they want that appointment power for themselves. They are essentially trying to usurp the Constitution and force the President's hand. President Bush should have directly addressed this problem to them, with the American people watching."

Throughout the Bush Administration, Senate liberals have engaged in obstructionist tactics that deny fair and timely confirmation hearings and votes to judicial nominees who adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Four of these nominees withdrew their nominations earlier this month, in part due to the fact that the new Senate leadership is the source of much of this obstructionism.

In his speech, President Bush said: "A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well - to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor."

Currently, there are 59 judicial vacancies, with 28 of these vacancies considered "judicial emergencies" due to the length of the vacancy and the court's backlog of cases.

"I personally find it inexcusable that, in a speech of over 5,500 words, the President spent only 102 words - less than two percent of his speech - on one of the singularly most important issues in domestic security for Americans today," said Project 21's Massie. "I remain greatly disappointed in his reluctance to forcefully use his authority to fight tirelessly for these nominees."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.

- 30 -

Project 21 is an initiative of The National Center for Public Policy Research to promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility has not traditionally been echoed by the nation's civil rights establishment.

Project 21 participants have been interviewed by hundreds of media outlets, including the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, the CNN Morning News, Black Entertainment Television's Lead Story, America's Black Forum, the McLaughlin Group, C-SPAN's Morning Journal and the Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Larry King shows, as well as in newspapers such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and many others.

Project 21 participants live all over the U.S. and have a variety of careers. What they have in common is a desire to make America a better place for African-Americans, and all Americans, to live and work. Project 21 members do this in a variety of ways in their own communities, and, through Project 21, by writing opinion editorials for newspapers, participating in public policy discussions on radio and television, by participating in policy panels, by giving speeches before student, business and community groups, and by advising policymakers at the national, state and local levels.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html

Dick Morris: Hillary in Trouble

2007-01-24T19:55:00.000-05:00

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN -- Pressured by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' bold foray into her own backyard -- when he challenged her silence over the war during a speech at Riverside Church, the shrine of liberalism -- and by Sen. Barack Obama's formation of an exploratory committee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has rushed to signal her intention to run for president.

She has told friends that she hadn't seen why she should wait until the fall of the year before the election, as her husband had done, to announce.

But she was so panicked by the Edwards and Obama initiatives that she announced her candidacy on a Saturday! That's the worst news day of the week, and the Clintons usually reserve it for announcements concerning their scandals.

And the latest Rasmussen Poll shows her plummeting down to 22 percent, with Obama at 21 percent and Edwards, a former and vice presidential nominee, up to 15 percent. Her campaign staff has been flatfooted, and her reaction to the Edwards offensive over the war has been slow.

When she should have been in the United States protesting President Bush's speech, she was in Iraq posing for photo ops.

Edwards is winning the race to the left -- the key place to be in the Democratic primaries.

Hillary's assertion that she would vote for a troop cap only begs the question of what she would do if Bush, as commander-in-chief, sends in the troops anyway.

Would she then vote to cut off funds -- to make him respect the congressional intrusion into the powers of the president? Hillary says she would not.

So Hillary will be reduced to what are essentially symbolic actions against the war. Meanwhile, Edwards, who is comfortably out of the Senate, can go as far to the left as he needs to go to win the primaries. (The latest Fox News Poll shows Democrats support a total cutoff of war funding by 59 percent to 33 percent).

Will the role of Ned Lamont in the upcoming primaries be played by Edwards while the role of Sen. Joeseph Lieberman is shared by Hillary and -- depending on how he votes -- Obama? We all know how the Connecticut primary turned out last August!

Bear in mind, however, that Hillary was similarly awkward in the opening months of her New York state race for the Senate in 2000, committing blunder after blunder until she got her act down pat.

But the fact is that Hillary has not run in a real election in her life. She was almost unopposed for the Senate last year, and she drew wet-behind-the-ears former Congressman Rick Lazio as her 2000 opponent, rather than heavyweight Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor.

And Hillary has never run in a Democratic primary in her life (unless you count her nominal race in 2006).

Her inexperience and the age of her staff is showing. She and they appear at a loss to adjust to the fast-moving pace of modern politics.

Dick is always saying, as he approaches 60 years of age, that 60 is the new 50. By the same token, 2007 is the new 2008. And Hillary seems not to have grasped this fact. By the time the Iowa caucuses are held, the race for the nomination will be over, just as it was in 2004.

Remember how Howard Dean surged out to a lead in September 2003, months before the first votes were cast, and then lost his lead to Sen. John Kerry in December 2003 amid a barrage of negative publicity?

By the time Iowa voted, it merely mirrored the results of the American-media primary, which had already been held the autumn before.

Will she win? Probably yes.

Still -- Hillary has the capacity to draw out a large number of voters who have not previously cast ballots. In 1996, 49 percent of Americans of voting age participated in the presidential contest. In 2000, 51 percent did. In 2004, the percentage was up to 55 percent.

Increasing turnout is the central fact of presidential elections these days. Karl Rove's ability to maximize the turnout of white married couples and single white men was the key to Bush's 2004 victory. The president got 12 million more votes in 2004 than he got in 2000.

But Kerry was also able to attract almost 6 million new single women to the polls who did not participate in 2000. They formed a large part of the 9 million extra votes Kerry got that former Vice President Al Gore did not.

Hillary, to a great extent, and Obama to a lesser degree, can impel large numbers of new voters to flock to the polls in the primaries and the election itself, which gives them a huge advantage.

But, to win, Hillary better get used to the pace of politics in 2007!

Supreme Court plans to review McCain-Feingold again

2007-01-24T19:53:00.000-05:00

From the Evans-Novak Political Report for 1/24

"Not enough attention is being paid to the fact that key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill could be overturned within months. The newly composed Supreme Court will hear some of the issues in the form of the Wisconsin Right to Life case. At issue are the restrictions on mentioning a candidate's name in television and radio advertising 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

The provision, one of the more absurd consequences of the campaign finance reform craze of 2002, bars any mention of a candidate's name or the broadcast of his image except by an FEC-regulated political committee. Groups such as Wisconsin Right to Life are barred from buying ads mentioning them.

In this case, the group wanted to air ads in 2004 urging Wisconsinites to contact their senators -- Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl -- to tell them to support judicial confirmations. But Feingold was up for re-election, therefore campaign law shielded him from being mentioned on television by any group that does not follow FEC regulations for gathering contributions and filing disclosure forms. The last time the Supreme Court considered the McCain-Feingold law, they ruled 5-4 upholding the advertising provisions. Now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been replaced by the conservative Samuel Alito, the landmark legislation may be in danger of reversal. The consequences could be enormous in the 2008 election cycle."

2007 State of the Union Policy Initiatives

2007-01-23T22:09:00.000-05:00

from whitehouse.gov

Overview Fact Sheet

Tonight, President Bush Will Address The Major Issues Facing Our Nation And Discuss Opportunities For Both Parties To Work Together To Accomplish Big Objectives For The American People. The President will unveil a positive, comprehensive agenda that will improve the daily lives of the American people and explain how our actions in the world will make our Nation safer and more secure. The President believes we can find practical ways to advance the American Dream and keep our Nation safe without either party compromising its principles.

President Bush's Agenda For Spreading Hope And Opportunity In America

In The State Of The Union Address, President Bush Will Discuss A Domestic Agenda Including:

Energy: President Bush will ask Congress and America's scientists, farmers, industry leaders, and entrepreneurs to join him in pursuing the goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years – Twenty in Ten. We will reach the President's Twenty in Ten goal by increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels and by reforming and modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and extending the current light truck rule. The President's energy plan also includes stepping up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways and doubling the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

Health Care: President Bush will announce his proposals to make basic, private health insurance available and affordable for more Americans. The President's plan includes reforming the tax code with a standard deduction for health insurance so all Americans get the same tax breaks for health insurance, and helping states make affordable private health insurance available to their citizens.

Spending Reform: President Bush will discuss three major reforms to spend taxpayer dollars wisely: balancing the budget through pro-growth policies and spending restraint, enacting common-sense reforms to help prevent billions of taxpayer dollars from being spent on unnecessary earmarks, and reforming entitlement programs.

Education: President Bush will discuss his priorities for strengthening and reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) this year.

Immigration: President Bush will call on Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will secure our borders, enhance interior and worksite enforcement, create a temporary worker program, resolve – without animosity and without amnesty – the status of illegal immigrants already here, and promote assimilation into our society.

Judges: The President has a duty to nominate qualified men and women to fill vacancies on the Federal bench, and he calls on the Senate to give those nominees a fair hearing and a prompt up-or-down vote.

America's Actions In The World Will Make Our Nation Safer And More Secure

In The State Of The Union Address, President Bush Will Discuss An International Agenda Including:

War On Terror/Iraq: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict – it is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq, and the President believes his new Iraq plan is the best way to succeed. Tonight, the President will propose to establish a special advisory council on the War on Terror made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties.

Strengthening Our Military: Tonight, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to increase the overall strength of our active Army and the Marine Corps by 92,000 Soldiers and Marines in the next five years.

The President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) And The President's Malaria Initiative: The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative are working abroad to save lives.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S DOMESTIC AGENDA

Energy

President Bush Will Ask Congress And America's Scientists, Farmers, Industry Leaders, And Entrepreneurs To Join Him In Pursuing The Goal Of Reducing U.S. Gasoline Usage By 20 Percent In The Next Ten Years – Twenty In Ten.

America Will Reach The President's Twenty In Ten Goal By:

Increasing The Supply Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels By Setting A Mandatory Fuels Standard To Require 35 Billion Gallons Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels In 2017 – Nearly Five Times The 2012 Target Now In Law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use.

Reforming And Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards For Cars And Extending The Current Light Truck Rule. In 2017, this will reduce projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons, a further 5 percent reduction that, in combination with increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels, will bring the total reduction in projected annual gasoline use to 20 percent.

Congress Must Reform CAFE For Passenger Cars. The Administration has twice increased CAFE standards for light trucks using an attribute-based method. An attribute-based system (for example, a size-based system) reduces the risk that vehicle safety is compromised, helps preserve consumer choice, and helps spread the burden of compliance across all product lines and manufacturers. Congress should authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.

The President's Plan Will Help Confront Climate Change By Stopping The Projected Growth Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Cars, Light Trucks, And SUVs Within 10 Years.

The President's Plan To Strengthen America's Energy Security Also Includes:

Stepping Up Domestic Oil Production In Environmentally Sensitive Ways

Doubling The Current Capacity Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To 1.5 Billion Barrels By 2027. Doubling the SPR alone will provide approximately 97 days of net oil import protection, enhancing America's ability to respond to potential oil disruptions.

Health Care

President Bush Will Announce His Proposals To Make Basic, Private Health Insurance Available And Affordable For More Americans. Americans are fortunate to have the most advanced and innovative health care system in the world. The President's plan will make private health insurance more affordable and increase the number of Americans with health insurance. The plan will also help our Nation move away from reliance on government-run health care and toward a system in which Americans have better access to basic, affordable private insurance, and increased ownership of their medical decisions.

The President's Plan Includes Two Parts: Reforming The Tax Code With A Standard Deduction For Health Insurance So All Americans Get The Same Tax Breaks For Health Insurance And Helping States Make Affordable Private Health Insurance Available To Their Citizens.

The President's Plan Will Help More Americans Afford Health Insurance By Reforming The Tax Code With A Standard Deduction For Health Insurance – Like The Standard Deduction For Dependents. The President's primary goal is to make health insurance more affordable, allowing more Americans to purchase coverage. The President's proposal levels the playing field for Americans who purchase health insurance on their own rather than through their employers, providing a substantial tax benefit for all those who now have health insurance purchased on the individual market. It also lowers taxes for all currently uninsured Americans who decide to purchase health insurance – making insurance more affordable and providing a significant incentive to all working Americans to purchase coverage, thereby reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

Under The President's Proposal, Families With Health Insurance Will Not Pay Income Or Payroll Taxes On The First $15,000 In Compensation And Singles Will Not Pay Income Or Payroll Taxes On The First $7,500.
- At the same time, health insurance would be considered taxable income. This is a change for those who now have health insurance through their jobs.
- The President's proposal will result in lower taxes for about 80 percent of employer-provided policies.
- Those with more generous policies (20 percent) will have the option to adjust their compensation to have lower premiums and higher wages to offset the tax change.

The President's Affordable Choices Initiative Will Help States Make Basic Private Health Insurance Available And Will Provide Additional Help To Americans Who Cannot Afford Insurance Or Who Have Persistently High Medical Expenses. For States that provide their citizens with access to basic, affordable private health insurance, the President's Affordable Choices Initiative will direct Federal funding to assist States in helping their poor and hard-to-insure citizensafford private insurance. By allocating current Federal health care funding more effectively, the President's plan accomplishes this goal without creating a new Federal entitlement or new Federal spending.

These Two Policies Will Work Together To Help More Americans Afford Basic Private Coverage. The President's proposed standard deduction for health insurance will help make basic private health insurance more affordable for families and individuals – whether they have insurance through their jobs or purchase insurance on their own. For those who remain unable to afford coverage, the President's Affordable Choices Initiative will help eligible States assist their poor and hard-to-insure citizens in purchasing private health insurance.

There Are Many Other Ways That Congress Can Help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts, help small businesses through Association Health Plans, reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology, encourage price transparency, and protect good doctors from predatory lawsuits by passing medical liability reform.

Spending Reform

President Bush Will Discuss Three Major Reforms To Spend Tax Dollars Wisely And Keep America's Economy Strong. Next week, the President will deliver a full report on the state of our economy, which has added more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. Americans are finding jobs and taking home more pay.

To Spend Tax Dollars Wisely, We Must:

Balance The Budget Through Pro-Growth Policies And Spending Restraint.

Enact Common-Sense Reforms To Help Prevent Billions Of Taxpayer Dollars From Being Spent On Unnecessary Earmarks.

Reform Entitlement Programs To Address The Longer-Term Fiscal Challenge Facing Our Country.

Education

President Bush Will Discuss His Priorities For The Reauthorization Of The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In 2001, President Bush worked with Republicans and Democrats to pass NCLB with overwhelming support, and he was proud to sign it into law in 2002. President Bush is committed to reauthorizing NCLB this year and building on the good progress that has been made. Strengthening and reauthorizing NCLB is critical – if we were to lower standards and roll back accountability now, we would be leaving children to the former status quo that failed them for decades.

NCLB Is Raising Student Achievement For Millions Of Children In Schools Nationwide. Because of NCLB, every State and the District of Columbia now hold schools accountable for results by testing every child and evaluating students by student group. Minority students are closing the achievement gap, and student achievement is rising – more reading progress was made by 9-year-olds in five years than in the previous 28 years combined, and reading and math scores for 9-year-olds and fourth-graders have reached all-time highs.

Reauthorization Offers An Opportunity To Make Some Common Sense Changes To Strengthen NCLB And Increase Flexibility, But We Must Preserve NCLB's Core Principles:
- All students must be able to read and do math at grade level or above by 2014.
- We must have higher expectations and demand greater accountability in order to improve the academic achievement of every student and to close the achievement gap using annual assessments and disaggregated data.
- We must have effective teachers in core academic subjects in every classroom.
- We must provide timely information and real options – including intensive tutoring and choice for children in consistently underperforming schools – for all parents with children in failing schools so they can make the best decisions for their children.

The President's Proposals To Strengthen NCLB Further The Goals Of His American Competitiveness Initiative. Math and science skills are critical for success in college and the workplace. Our students must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to compete in the global economy.

Immigration

President Bush Will Call On Congress To Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The President believes that America can simultaneously be a lawful, economically dynamic, and welcoming society. We must address the problem of illegal immigration and deliver a system that is secure, productive, orderly, and fair. The President calls on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will secure our borders, enhance interior and worksite enforcement, create a temporary worker program, resolve – without animosity and without amnesty – the status of illegal immigrants already here, and promote assimilation into our society. All elements of this problem must be addressed together – or none of them will be solved.

Judges

President Bush Will Call On The Senate To Give His Judicial Nominees A Fair Hearing And A Prompt Up-Or-Down Vote. President Bush and Congress have a shared obligation to ensure that vacancies in the Federal courts are filled.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S INTERNATIONAL AGENDA

War On Terror/Iraq

President Bush Will Discuss His Determination To Defeat The Terrorists Who Are Part Of A Broader Extremist Movement That Is Now Doing Everything It Can To Defeat Us In Iraq. If the extremists prevail in Iraq, the American people will be less safe and our enemies will be emboldened and more lethal.

The Challenge Playing Out Across The Broader Middle East Is More Than A Military Conflict – It Is The Decisive Ideological Struggle Of Our Time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. It is in our Nation's interests to stand with moderates working for the cause of freedom across the Middle East.

For The Safety Of Our People, America Must Succeed In Iraq. The consequences of failure are clear: radical Islamists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.

Now Is The Time For The Iraqi Government To Act. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation – to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province.

To Achieve Progress In Iraq, We Must First Secure Baghdad. The President's plan to deploy more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

The President Believes His New Iraq Plan Is The Best Way To Succeed. Tonight, the President will propose to establish a special advisory council on the War on Terror made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. It is important for our country to come together in this hour of war and to give the President's new plan an opportunity to succeed. More information on the President's Iraq strategy is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html.

Strengthening Our Military

President Bush Will Act On Defense Secretary Bob Gates' Recommendation And Ask Congress For Authority To Increase The Overall Strength Of Our Active Army And The Marine Corps By 92,000 Soldiers And Marines Through 2012. A larger, all-volunteer Army and Marine Corps will expand the capabilities of our armed forces while reducing the stress on the force and the war fighter caused by deployments in the Global War on Terror. It may take some time for these new troops to become available for deployment, but it is important that our men and women in uniform know that additional manpower and resources are on the way.

President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

President Bush Will Discuss How The President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Is Meeting His Commitment Of $15 Billion Over Five Years To Support Treatment For 2 Million People, Prevention Of 7 Million New Infections, And Care For 10 Million People. PEPFAR is the largest international health initiative in history dedicated to a single disease. PEPFAR works worldwide, but targets 15 focus countries that are home to approximately half of the world's 39 million HIV-positive people: Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia.

Malaria

President Bush Will Discuss How The President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) Is Saving Lives. Announced by President Bush in June 2005, PMI is a five-year, $1.2 billion program that challenges the private sector to join the U.S. government in combating malaria in 15 of the hardest-hit African countries. In December 2006, the President and Mrs. Bush hosted the White House Summit on Malaria, bringing together experts; corporations and foundations; African civic leaders; multi-lateral groups; and voluntary, faith-based, and non-profit organizations to join PMI in the goal of cutting malaria's mortality rate by 50 percent in these target countries, freeing the citizens of these African nations from the grip this of debilitating disease.

Civilian Response Capacity

President Bush Will Call For The Development Of A Strong Civilian Response Capacity To Provide Critical Assistance To The Development Of Civil Society And Reconstruction Efforts.

School Demands Proof of Parent ‘Competence’

2007-01-23T21:52:00.000-05:00

From the Homeschool Legal Defense Association

When the Guidance and Testing department of Camden public schools sent a letter to homeschool mom Olga Bonett demanding that she prove her “competence” to teach her own children, she immediately asked Home School Legal Defense Association for help.

The letter also demanded that she provide a list of courses and content to be taught, the books and materials to be used, and their hourly and daily schedule. The letter said this information must be submitted annually “in order for the Home School process to be continued for your child.” The letter was issued after Mrs. Bonett decided to send a notice (not required under law) that she was homeschooling.

Under New Jersey law, the family was not obligated to supply any of the information that was demanded. Prior to 2000, there was considerable confusion—even among government officials—as to what was required because former Commissioner of Education Klagholtz had issued “guidelines” that attempted to impose many duties on families with no lawful basis whatsoever.

The subsequent commissioner of education, after consultation with officials and homeschool leaders, published a set of “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) about homeschooling that was remarkably consistent with state statutory and case law. As a result, the former endemic confusion and conflict melted away. Since that time, when officials overstep their boundaries, the FAQs have been very helpful in reigning them back in.

HSLDA attorney Scott Woodruff had a long conversation with the Camden school official who sent out the letter. It became clear that she was just following a routine that had been established long ago, no doubt prior to the 2000 publication of the FAQs. She was very receptive when Woodruff explained that her letter was dramatically out of step with the FAQs. Woodruff sent her a link to the website where the FAQs are posted so she could review them herself.

Three days later she sent a letter to the HSLDA member family and Woodruff acknowledging that they had the right to completely disregard her letter.

View article online- http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/nj/200701220.asp

It doesn't take a village

2007-01-23T21:12:00.000-05:00

By Julie Mosher
1/22/07

view article online- http://www.gopusa.com/michigan/commentary/Itdoesn

As I sit and drink my coffee, going over the local news stories on Yahoo, I come across one of the most outragous stories I have read yet. Assemblywoman Sally Lieber is proposing a ban on spanking your own children . This would make it a misdemeanor for spanking children 3 and under. It could land a parent in jail and a 1,000 dollar fine.

Now here we go with the left trying to force the hand of government into our lives. Big government,tax and spend,and let's make decisions based on "feelings". Does she really think we are so stupid as to spank a 6 month old? Or maybe a newborn? I think that falls under child abuse.

Here is where it will become a slippery slope. Where would we stop? Could our 10 year old have us jailed for grounding them from playing video games? Does she want the government to say what our children can and can't eat? My mother spanked us kids when we were little. It was the seventies! Don't tell me you never got the wooden spoon on your own butt! You know you did!

Children in schools today get away with murder. They tell their teachers off with no respect or any consequences. Many times with the parents coming to their rescue. No moral authority is to great for these kinds of children. Spankings were exceptable in schools as was prayer,two things that have now been taken away.

My point is, nobody should tell anyone how to raise their child. Spare the rod,spoil the child. Beating and spanking are two totally different things,and I think alot of uneccesary lawsuits would take up alot of judges time. Time out in my most humble opinion does not work.As a former pre-school teacher and mother, I know it doesn't work.

Maybe little Sally could direct her unwanted liberal jiberish in a more useful direction like putting pedophiles behind bars forever. Or better yet,make it so they get the death penalty and not just a six month probation. Stop wasting energy on media blitz scams to get your mug in the spotlight. I don't need the government to tell me how to raise my children. Luckily I don't live in Hollyweird or you and I might go toe to toe.

10 Questions for Ken Blackwell

2007-01-19T22:00:00.000-05:00

Another great item from FYI news- http://fyinews.blogspot.com/2007/01/10-questions-for-ken-blackwell.html

An FYI News Exclusive

Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s former Secretary of State, ran a campaign for governor that not only gained national attention – but also international attention.

He’s been called “The Anti-Obama” by the Chicago Tribune, “The Republican Hillary” by The Other Paper, and a dog by the Rolling Stone. Needless to say, Mr. Blackwell is well known by the media and the political arena.

He recently took some time to talk to FYI News’ Vince Tornero…

FYI News: What have you been doing since the election?

Blackwell: I’ve been helping my Secretary of State staff work through what, in many of their cases, is a major disruption in their lives and in their careers. The administration of the Secretary of State’s office has not just changed from one person to another, but an inter-party change. There are about 45 people on my staff who will be looking for new employment. So, this is a pretty tough holiday season to make that transition for many of them.

I have also reflected on what I would like to do in the first quarter of next year in the bigger effort to advance important ideas that will transform our nation and our state.

FYI News: What kind and how many job offers have you received since the election? Do you plan to take any?

Blackwell: I have had a lot of folks who have expressed an interest in me working with their respective organization. Anywhere from starting a new business enterprise, to joining corporations, to serving on boards of directors of publicly traded and privately held companies, to a variety of think-tanks both regionally and nationally.

I want to take my time and reflect on the offers and the opportunities and make a determination as to where I could have the most significant impact. I have always, in my 32 years in public service, been driven by something I heard Mother Teresa say: “Sometimes we find ourselves by losing ourselves in service to others.”

FYI News: If you could change anything about this past election, what would it be and why?

Blackwell: Even though I came out victorious and won by a substantial margin (in the primary election), the contest fractured the party. I’m not sure we ever pulled the base back together. If we could have avoided it, it probably would have had some impact on the November outcome.

I actually have much to be thankful for. In the whirlwind of uncertainty associated with politics, I was blessed with a core of volunteers. I think we came away from this political setback with a clear understanding that there are 1.4 million Ohioans that share a worldview, values, and aspirations.

You play the hand that’s dealt you; we played it to the best of our abilities.

FYI News: Do you plan to run for public office (specifically governor) again?

Blackwell: I haven’t made that decision; that option is not off of the table.

I’ve been engaged in public service and electoral politics for 32 years. I love service and I love politics. So, I would imagine that if the opportunity revealed itself again, that I would seize the moment and the opportunity.

I know that we will be re-engaged in that arena (of public policy) within the first quarter of next year.

FYI News: Do you think that the media played a large part for Republican losses? Why/why not?

Blackwell: I think the media had an impact, but I am not sure whether the media was the decisive factor in the outcome. I think the decisive factor was the frustration with the missed opportunity that Republicans had to change the government. In 1994, we were given that opportunity. The reigns of power were placed squarely in our hands. We controlled every constitutional office, the Supreme Court, and both chambers of the legislature. And, instead of changing government, government changed the Republican party in the state of Ohio. I think that sort of duplicity and failure to seize the opportunity of change frustrated a substantial number of voters – independent and Republican alike.

There is no doubt that the media in Ohio has a liberal bent. It just fed a momentum that was moving away from the Republican party.

FYI News: Do you think that race played any key in your loss?

Blackwell: Do I think that there were a handful of voters who voted purely on race? Yes. But you can’t quantify it, and I don’t think it was a significant factor.

What I know is that Republicans in the spring of this year had a conservative, African-American candidate versus a white, moderate-Republican candidate. They chose the African-American conservative to be their standard bearer.

FYI News: Do you have any predictions for the first years of the Strickland Administration?

Blackwell: What I’ve said consistently is that I am not going to engage in criticism or predictions about the Strickland Administration until after the first 100 days. He won the right to advance his agenda; there is an urgency in the state of Ohio that the agenda must be articulated and must start to have impact in the first 100 days. Once he lays that on the table – or fails to lay it on the table – we will engage in the process.

FYI News: What should your supporters do in the meantime; do you have any message for them?

Blackwell: I think we all must reflect on the lessons learned in this past election. We must make sure we strengthen our ties with our families and our networks. We must understand that voters did not reject the principles upon which we advanced my candidacy. We must stay in contact with one another. We know that time passes quickly. The key over the next over the next 100 days is to make sure that we stay in contact by telephone, by e-mail. We need to know that the strength is in our numbers.

FYI News: What is your best memory from the campaign?

Blackwell: There were so many magic moments in the campaign. In a word, it was the capacity of a campaign to beat the odds and to empower people with the spirit that we can get things done.

That’s why I have no doubt that everybody associated with my campaign knows that we were knocked down. We weren’t knocked out. We’re back up, we have our bearings, and we’re ready to fight the next round.

Ron Paul jumps in

2007-01-14T20:03:00.000-05:00

This time it's from the highly respected Politics1 website...

http://www.politics1.com

RON PAUL JUMPS IN.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) last ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee, winning 400,000 votes and earning ballot status in all 50 states. On Thursday Paul filed federal exploratory committee paperwork to make a second run for President, this time as a Republican. Still an outspoken libertarian iconoclast, Paul stridently fights to slash taxes and reduce the role of the federal government. He also has opposed the Iraq War from the inception and opposes the President's domestic surveillance program and the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. On many House votes -- even routine ones of seemingly uncontroversial matters -- Paul frequently casts the lone dissenting vote. That is why Paul, a physician, earned the moniker of "Doctor No." Paul's campaign chair concedes Paul is "an underdog ... but we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide" ...

Ron Paul announces exploratory committee

2007-01-13T20:07:00.000-05:00

As reported by Viking Spirit Blog-

"Today, Congressman Ron Paul, one of yours truly's favorite Politicians, announced an exploratory committee for the Republican Presidential nomination. I can't seem to find a link to a story about this, but Paul did announce his exploratory committee.

Although I believe Paul has little to no chance at winning the nomination, I believe he can have an impact on the debate during the elections. Paul has consistently stood true to his ideals of limited government, and has voted time and time again against bills that expanded federal power. Paul is also a great fiscal conservative."

More info on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul.org/

See post on Viking Spirit Blog-http://vikingspirit.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_vikingspirit_archive.html

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives

2007-01-13T00:10:00.000-05:00

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives

Single, Childless Women Should Not Be Disqualified from Leadership, Project 21 Members Say

Washington, D.C. - Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is being criticized by members of the black leadership network Project 21 for implying that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lacks a proper perspective on the War on Terror in Iraq because she does not have children.

"Barbara Boxer is a feminist who is attacking the feminist dream," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "But Condoleezza Rice's achievements are disqualified because she is a black conservative, and her rise was not blessed by the liberal establishment. Former attorney general Janet Reno was also unmarried and childless, but I don't remember insulting questioning like this regarding her handling of Elian Gonzalez or the deadly raid on the Branch Davidian cult."

During a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Boxer asked Secretary Rice: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Secretary Rice replied: "I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom..." Senator Boxer cut her off, saying in response: "Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

In an editorial about the incident, The New York Post noted: "The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman."

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli added: "I am deeply appalled by Senator Barbara Boxer's cruel and callous attack on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Senator Boxer's absurd comments are inexcusable and immoral, further proving what a characterless individual she is. The debate should have been about the war in Iraq and not a platform to demean Secretary Rice, who is one of the finest examples of a leader and is well qualified for the nation's chief cabinet office. No matter what her views are, Secretary Rice is a noteworthy public servant who should be treated with respect."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.

- 30 -

Ohio Christian Alliance Year-End Report to Supporters and Volunteers

2006-12-31T09:43:00.000-05:00

TO: Friends of Ohio Christian Alliance FROM: Chris Long, President DATE: December 30, 2006
Year-End Report to Supporters and Volunteers
Let me take a few minutes to share with you some of the successful projects that OCA conducted during 2006. Ohio Christian Alliance:
· Conducted three successful candidate forums that were aired over the radio, Internet, and television broadcast.
· Printed and distributed nearly a million voter guides to churches, individuals, and civic organizations throughout Ohio. The Ohio Christian Alliance voter guide was commended by Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, and by the American Family Association, as an excellent educational resource to inform voters on where candidates stand on key moral issues. OCA expresses our gratitude to these two fine organizations for their support of our educational material.
· Compiled and distributed Congressional Scorecard.
· Received 300,000 hits to our website, http://www.ohioca.org/, from October 24 through November 7th, leading up to the election. November’s total hits were nearly 500,000.
· Reached thousands of Ohioans through our daily radio program “Crossroads of Faith and Reason” with important information about Issue 3. Ohio Christian Alliance urged Ohioans to vote NO on Issue 3, which would have allowed slot machines at 7 racetracks and 2 gambling parlors in Cuyahoga County and would have opened the door to gambling casinos. Ohioans voted down the initiative 57 to 44 percent.
Stopped expansion of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning funding.
Sponsored a press conference featuring notable experts in the field of life sciences and bioethics, detailing the benefits of adult stem cell over embryonic stem cell research.
Derailed an attempt in the legislature to expand gambling in Ohio through slot machines at racetracks (H.B. 158).
Worked for the introduction and sponsorship of Covenant Marriage, introduced in both chambers: H.B. 268 (sponsor Rep. Keith Faber) and S.B. 140 (sponsor Sen. Jay Hottinger).
Ohio Christian Alliance will be busy in 2007, conducting a meet and greet with newly elected officials in Columbus, organizing Family Lobby Day at the Ohio Statehouse with other pro-life, pro-family organizations, also working on the federal level to support pro-family legislation, and keeping you alerted to bad legislation being introduced.
The 2008 Presidential Election primary process has already started in earnest, and Ohio is being forecasted once again as a key battleground state. We are in need of your continued financial support to help us with grassroots county development.
A lot has been said about values voting, but I would like to think that we are Virtue Voters. We vote our virtues, and those virtues are biblically based: Protecting the unborn and all human life, whether that is stopping infanticide or euthanasia, or prohibiting human embryo destruction under the guise of medical experimentation, supporting the traditional family, and the protection of our religious freedoms. It is our virtues as Christians that matter to us most, and we at the Ohio Christian Alliance will continue our mission with your faithful support. Please consider your best year-end gift.

NRA-ILA 2006 in Review

2006-12-31T09:37:00.000-05:00

Join the NRA online at http://www.secondamendment.info

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 13, No. 51 12/29/06

States with updates this issue: Michigan.

2006--THE YEAR IN REVIEW

Here are some of the top stories we brought you in the NRA ILA Grassroots Alert in 2006. With the new challenges we will inevitably face next year in Congress and the states, we must re-double our efforts to ensure we are prepared to effectively defend the Second Amendment. To that end, we will continue to provide you with information in future Alerts to ensure our success.

Please help us share this information with others by seeing that your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners receive the NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert. To sign them up to receive NRA-ILA free e-mail alerts (including the Grassroots Alert), have them visit www.NRAILA.org, and choose "Sign-up for Email," or they may call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-8683.

Have a safe and Happy New Year!

JANUARY: The Wisconsin State Assembly, by a vote of 64-34, fails to override Governor Jim Doyle's (D) veto of Senate Bill 403, the "Personal Protection Act" (PPA). The vote was two short of the 66 required for an override.

Canada's anti-gun Prime Minister Paul Martin and the ruling Liberal Party are ousted in the country's federal elections, bringing an end to the Liberal Party's 12-year reign. Outgoing Prime Minister Martin's scandal-plagued administration gained notoriety for its ill-advised gun registration program that has cost the country more than two billion dollars and, of course, did nothing to reduce Canada's escalating crime rate.

FEBRUARY: The U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security hears testimony from individuals affected by heavy-handed enforcement tactics of the BATFE at gun shows in Richmond, Virginia. Testimony outlines instances where dozens of BATFE and local law enforcement officers intrusively question dealers and customers, trying to discourage people from buying guns, and stopping show attendees on the roads after they left. In some cases, customers' lawfully purchased guns were confiscated, and returned only when the owners visited BATFE's office for more questioning. In other cases, local police officers visited gun buyers' homes to conduct "residency checks"--intrusive questioning of family members and even neighbors.

MARCH: NRA files a motion for contempt against the City of New Orleans, its mayor, Ray Nagin (D), and the acting chief of police for failure to comply with a temporary restraining order mandating an end to all illegal gun confiscations that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Shortly thereafter, an agreement is reached in which the city of New Orleans admits it holds a number of firearms, and sets up a mechanism for owners of these firearms to begin retrieving their property.

In Kansas, Governor Sebelius' (D) veto of NRA-backed Right-to-Carry legislation, Senate Bill 418, "The Personal and Family Protection Act," is overridden.

The Nebraska legislature gives final approval to a measure granting law-abiding Nebraska citizens the right to carry a firearm for personal protection.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R) signs two NRA-backed, high-priority bills into law-SB 2426, a "Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, and HB 1141, a bill containing two pro-gun, and one pro-hunting provision, for law-abiding gun owners and hunters in the state.

APRIL: Anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) convenes a meeting with a cadre of like-minded mayors to discuss "reducing gun violence." Among the attendees is Anthony Williams (D), Mayor of Washington, D.C., where handguns have been banned for decades, but where the violent crime rate remains stratospheric. Predictably, the outcome of the meeting is a call for more restrictive gun laws.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R) signs Legislative Bill 454 into law, making Right-to-Carry the law of the land in Nebraska.

Alabama Governor Bob Riley (R) signs NRA-backed "Castle Doctrine" bill SB 283 into law.

MAY: NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox announce a two-part initiative to ensure that the forcible confiscation of lawfully owned firearms--such as occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina--never happens again. The first part of this important initiative consists of the nation's mayors and police chiefs signing a pledge promising the citizens for whom they work they will never forcibly disarm them. The second part outlines NRA-ILA's commitment to pass state and federal legislation to make it a crime to forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens.

Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry (D) signs HB 2615, the NRA-backed "Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, into law.

JUNE: U.S. Senator George Allen (R-Va.) introduces S. 3275--the Senate version of H.R. 4547--a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. This legislation would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if he or she meets certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren strikes down San Francisco's Prop. H handgun ban, asserting that under California law local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from law-abiding citizens. NRA-ILA opposed the ban from its inception, both at the ballot box and in court.

JULY: The "U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" ends in deadlock with no recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession, or future U.N. meetings. The failure of this five-year program to impact the legitimate firearm industry, and the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, is a great victory. However, anti-gun Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and liberal governments serve notice they would not give up and would present all of their issues to the U.N. General Assembly in the future.

The U. S. Senate overwhelmingly passes (84-16) an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441), offered by Senator David Vitter (R-La.), that prohibits the use of funds appropriated under H.R. 5441 for the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms during an emergency or major disaster.

The U.S. House of Representatives passes H.R. 5013, the NRA-backed "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act." This legislation, sponsored by Representative Bobby Jindal (R-La.), will amend federal emergency laws to prohibit federal, state, and local authorities from confiscating lawfully-owned firearms during emergencies or disasters. HR 5013 passed by a broad bi-partisan margin of 322-99.

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) signs into law a package of six self-defense bills backed by NRA, bringing "Castle Doctrine" protections to law-abiding Michigan citizens. The six-bill "Castle Doctrine" Package passes with bi-partisan, supermajority support in both houses of the Michigan legislature.

AUGUST: In a landmark victory for NRA and law-abiding gun owners, Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies the City of New Orleans' motion to dismiss NRA's lawsuit against the city. Judge Barbier holds that the Second Amendment does apply to law-abiding residents in the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans. The City of New Orleans argued just the opposite--claiming that the Second Amendment does not apply to residents in the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans.

SEPTEMBER: The U.S. House of Representatives passes NRA-backed H.R. 5092, the "BATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006," by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote of 277-131.

This legislation was drafted in large part to address BATFE abuses at the Richmond, Virginia area gun shows last year. H.R. 5092 will help curb BATFE's efforts to revoke dealers' licenses for minor paperwork errors, establish new guidelines for BATFE investigations, and improve the appeals process for dealers.

OCTOBER: President George W. Bush signs legislation that includes language to prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency! Passage of this legislation becomes a top priority of NRA following confiscations of lawfully-owned firearms by local officials in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Prior to the President's recent action, NRA led the charge in passing "emergency powers" laws in 10 states. This new law is part of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

More than 140 attorneys, law students, and members of the public attend this year's "Firearms Law & The Second Amendment" symposium. Guests hear presentations from leading scholars on key issues affecting firearms ownership.

NOVEMBER: The American electorate takes out its frustration and anger on the Republican Party and turns over control of Congress, not to mention governors' mansions and majorities in several state legislatures, to the Democrats. On a day that sees voters expressing dissatisfaction over conduct of the war, over political corruption, and over competency to govern, Americans cast their votes for record numbers of pro-gun candidates, both Democrat and Republican. Many of the newly elected office holders pledged their support of the Second Amendment while on the campaign trail. They got elected when voters took them at their word. Unfortunately extreme opponents of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms have been elevated to seats of power, especially in the House of Representatives, where Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker and John Conyers is set to take over the powerful Judiciary Committee. Anti-gunners will also assume the chairs of important sub-committees. There will be battles ahead, and, with the 2008 elections on the ever-nearing horizon, NRA members and their fellow gun owners remain ever vigilant. We must let our representatives, both Democrat and Republican, know one thing: we expect our Second Amendment rights to be respected.

DECEMBER: Governor Bob Taft's (R) veto of crucial statewide preemption legislation is overridden by the state legislature, marking the first time in 29 years that the Ohio legislature overturns a Governor's veto. Championed by Representative Jim Aslanides (R-94), HB 347 creates statewide preemption ensuring that firearm laws are uniform throughout the state. Passing statewide preemption eliminates problems for gun owners who have been unduly burdened by local ordinances, such as the Columbus "assault weapons" ban. In addition, this legislation corrects a number of problems that have surfaced during the past year for Right-to-Carry permit holders. The most common complaint for license holders has been the "plain sight" requirement in a motor vehicle. HB 347 will eliminate this requirement.

Michigan's State Legislature passes a two-bill, NRA-backed package, to create the state's "Emergency Powers Protection Act" (HB 6363 and HB 6364). The new laws prevent local governments from confiscating lawfully-owned firearms during a declared state of emergency. Michigan's bills pass overwhelmingly in the State Senate, 37-1, and unanimously in the State House, 105-0.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli declares Jersey City's one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law null and void, holding that it violates state preemption, equal protection, and was "arbitrary and capricious."

FOREST SERVICE PLAN NEEDS CRUCIAL INPUT FROM SPORTSMEN

The Pike and San Isabel National Forests in Colorado are developing a management plan to shape the kinds of uses allowed on these Forests for the next 15 years. Seven public meetings are scheduled in January and February to give the public an opportunity to state how they want the Forests to be managed. The last time the management plan was updated was in 1984, so it is likely that the new plan will incorporate some significant changes. It is vital that sportsmen and women participate in the process to ensure that access and opportunities for hunting and recreational shooting are provided.

In its announcement, the Forest Service said that the principle issues will be recreation, ranching, oil and gas development, logging, forest thinning and off-road vehicle use. The meetings will be from 5:30 to 9:00 p.m., in the following locations:

January 17 - Leadville, National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, 120 West 9th Street

January 18 - Salida, Chaffee County Fairgrounds, 10165 County Road 120

January 30 - Denver, Clements Community Center, 1580 Yarrow Street

January 31 - Colorado Springs, La Foret Conference Center, 6145 Shoup Road

February 14 -Westcliffe, Ranchera's Roost Cafe & Bowling Alley, 25 Main Street

February 15 - Pueblo, El Pueblo Museum, 302 N. Santa Fe Avenue

February 21 - Fairplay, Fairplay Fairbarn, 880 Bogue Street

A LOOK AT THE STATES

(***For all of the action items below, you can find contact information for your legislators by visiting http://www.nraila.org/, clicking the "Take Action" icon, and then clicking the "Write Your Representatives" icon. As always, thank you for your support.***)

States with updates this issue: Michigan.

MICHIGAN: The Emergency Powers Protection Act (HB6363 & HB6364), sponsored by State Representative Scott Hummel (R-93), would establish new laws preventing local governments from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during a declared state of emergency, as witnessed in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. The bills passed overwhelmingly in the State Senate, 37-1, and unanimously in the State House, 105-0. This vital Second Amendment legislation is currently on the desk of Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) awaiting her signature. Please contact Governor Granholm today by phone at (517) 373-3400, or (517) 335-7858; by fax at (517) 335-6863; or by e-mail at http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21992_21995-65331--,00.html and respectfully urge her to defend your Second Amendment rights by signing HB6363 and HB6364.

NRA will close today at Noon, and will be closed on Monday, January 2,
for the New Year's Holiday. Please have a safe and Happy New Year!

Join the NRA online at http://www.secondamendment.info

Kwanzaa: Holiday From the FBI

2006-12-28T22:25:00.000-05:00

by Ann Coulter

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18676

President Bush's Kwanzaa message this year skipped the patently absurd claim of years past that: "African-Americans and people around the world reflect on African heritage during Kwanzaa." Instead, he simply said: "I send greetings to those observing Kwanzaa."

More African-Americans spent this season reflecting on the birth of Christ than some phony non-Christian holiday invented a few decades ago by an FBI stooge. Kwanzaa is a holiday for white liberals, not blacks.

It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI pawn, Ron Karenga, aka Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga was a founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers and a dupe of the FBI.

In what was probably a foolish gamble, during the madness of the '60s the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the organization, the better. Karenga's United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American '60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the '60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution. Those were the precepts of Karenga's United Slaves. United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented "African" names. (That was a big help to the black community: How many boys named "Jamal" currently sit on death row?)

Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear. Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the "framed" murder of two whites included "the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department" and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. "was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt" -- an interesting standard of proof.)

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the '70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, "Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents."

Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga's United Slaves shot to death Black Panthers Al "Bunchy" Carter and Deputy Minister John Huggins on the UCLA campus. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.

Kwanzaa itself is a lunatic blend of schmaltzy '60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. Indeed, the seven "principles" of Kwanzaa praise collectivism in every possible arena of life -- economics, work, personality, even litter removal. ("Kuumba: Everyone should strive to improve the community and make it more beautiful.") It takes a village to raise a police snitch.

When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from "classical Marxism," he essentially explained that under Kawaida, we also hate whites. While taking the "best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism" -- which one assumes would exclude the forced abortions, imprisonment for homosexuals and forced labor -- Kawaida practitioners believe one's racial identity "determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding." There's an inclusive philosophy for you.

(Sing to "Jingle Bells")

Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell
Whitey has to pay;
Burning, shooting, oh what fun
On this made-up holiday!

Coincidentally, the seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming invention of the Least-Great Generation. In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA's revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani -- the same seven "principles" of Kwanzaa.

With his Kwanzaa greetings, President Bush is saluting the intellectual sibling of the Symbionese Liberation Army, killer of housewives and police. He is saluting the founder of United Slaves, who were such lunatics that they shot Panthers for not being sufficiently insane -- all with the FBI as their covert ally.

It's as if David Duke invented a holiday called "Anglika," and the president of the United States issued a presidential proclamation honoring the synthetic holiday. People might well take notice if that happened.

Kwanzaa was the result of a '60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga's United Slaves -- the violence, the Marxism, the insanity. Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, is that they have forgotten the FBI's tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.

Now the "holiday" concocted by an FBI dupe is honored in a presidential proclamation and public schools across the nation. The only principle Kwanzaa promotes is liberals' unbounded capacity to respect any faith but Christianity.

A movement that started approximately 2,000 years before Kwanzaa leaps well beyond collectivism and litter removal to proclaim that we are all equal before God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). It was practitioners of that faith who were at the forefront of the abolitionist and civil rights movements. But that's all been washed down the memory hole, along with the true origins of Kwanzaa.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," and most recently, "Godless."

Justice Dewine?

2006-12-13T23:08:00.000-05:00

From the Evans-Novak Political Report

Bush AdministrationSupreme Court: President Bush, now officially a lame duck and stuck with a Democratic Congress, is expected to be forced into several compromises over the next two years. Already there are rumblings that he will reluctantly accept Democratic proposals for tax increases to save Social Security, for example. But there is one area in which he will not be forced, at any rate, to compromise too far -- and that is in his decision to replace a Supreme Court justice with a conservative, should a vacancy arise in the next two years.The rumor around Washington -- originating from undetermined sources some time around the beginning of 2006 -- is that Justice John Paul Stevens wants to be replaced by a Republican President, just as he was appointed by one, Gerald Ford. Stevens, a consistent liberal voice and vote on the high court, was also rumored to have wanted to step down after the 2006 election, so as to avoid making his replacement into a political issue. Although there is no way to determine whether Stevens actually intends to retire, it is not unlikely that one of the nine justices will in the next two years.President Bush may appear hamstrung by the 51-member majority that Democrats will enjoy in the new Senate, but if he wishes, he can take his cue from incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Reid, himself a former trial lawyer, gave Bush an opening in June of 2005 when he discussed with reporters the possibility of replacing a justice with a sitting or retired senator. Reid mentioned three senators who come from the trial-lawyer industry. "We have had approximately 10 members of the Supreme Court that come from the United States Senate over the years," Reid said in June 2005. "There are people who serve in the Senate now, who are Republicans, who I think would be outstanding Supreme Court members." Reid named three Republican senators: Mike DeWine (Ohio), Mel Martinez (Fla.) and Mike Crapo (Idaho). A South Carolina newspaper reported that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also received his imprimatur.Another senator then on Bush's short-list -- and still on it -- is Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). A member of the Judiciary Committee, Cornyn once served as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court and was also elected attorney general of that state. When asked about Cornyn in 2005, Reid pointedly refused to endorse him along with the trial lawyers. Martinez's stock as a judicial nominee goes down with the fact that he has been picked by Bush to head the RNC. But DeWine, who was defeated for re-election last month, is certainly available, as is Crapo. Both could expect opposition from the liberal left, but neither would be assailed by the powerful, well-moneyed trial lawyer lobby. DeWine's moderate record in the Senate could upset some conservatives, but his adherence to the pro-life line would still probably prevent another Harriet Miers situation. Miers' nomination was withdrawn in 2005 after conservatives went into rebellion against Bush over her lack of a record and qualifications, and over fears about her position on abortion.Liberals would likely put up an enormous fight to stop Atty. Gen. Al Gonzales, once a Bush favorite and another former Texas justice. As White House counsel and then attorney general, Gonzales has outraged the left with advice he gave Bush on issues of "torture" and the application of the Geneva Conventions to captured al Qaeda terrorists.

Republicans Couldn't Change The Subject -- But Korea Did It For Them

2006-10-11T22:07:00.000-04:00

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

October 11, 2006 -- In one deadly moment, North Korea has succeeded in doing what no amount of backtracking by Speaker Dennis Hastert or his beleaguered Republicans could do: It has changed the subject of the national debate. With nuclear weapons in the hands of the most deranged regime in the world, e-mails to pages will have to fade from the forefront of the public's attention.

Will Bush be able to deal with the North Korean crisis? This is truly the moment for a test of his leadership. If he is able to lead a strong global effort to face down the renegade nation and can set in motion a demonstrable process that could lead to a reversal of Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, he will have pulled off a coup akin to JFK's in the Cuban missile crisis and rescued his party from midterm election defeat in 2006 as surely as Kennedy saved it in 1962.

The key, of course, is China. Can Beijing be made to take the crisis seriously enough to turn off the spigot of fuel and food that permits the North Korean regime to survive from day to day?

China has one major fear: a regional nuclear competition with Japan. With Japanese technological prowess and the mangled history between the two nations, Beijing cannot react impassively to the nuclear arming of Tokyo.

Do we dare encourage our World War II rival to acquire nuclear weapons? We must. It is really only the "Japan card" that can bring China to heel and force her to ratchet up the pressure on North Korea.

Let's not allow nuclear nonproliferation to become an international equivalent of gun control, a system that seems to keep weapons out of the hands of the innocent while allowing the guilty, who break the law anyway, to have all the weapons they need. If North Korea has defied the world and acquired nuclear weapons, why should we not permit peace-loving countries like Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves?

Ultimately, the case of arming Japan with atomic weapons is as good as that for France developing its own bomb. French leader Charles de Gaulle always asked whether an American president was willing to trade New York for Paris. Would a Soviet attack that leveled the French capital lead to American retaliation that would doubtless provoke a Soviet response against major U.S. cities? And so Abe, the new Japanese Prime Minister, is entitled to ask if an American president is willing to trade Tokyo for New York.

In the grim logic of nuclear deterrent, only weapons in the hands of the nation actually under potential threat can constitute a real deterrence to aggression, particularly on a peninsula that has already seen one major war.

There is nothing like a national security crisis to force Americans to realize the consequences of paralyzing a presidency by sending to Washington a Congress with which he cannot work. We fell into just that trap in the final years of the Clinton presidency and we would do so now at our peril.

But Bush has to produce and has to do it in the next five weeks. Just like JFK did in 1962.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

bigworld

Huckabee At-Large Petition Links

Jim Trakas to Announce his candidacy for Ohio 10th District Congressional

For Immediate Release Contact: Steven M. Backiel

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 (216) 621-5417

MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE

Championship Series Schedule

Ronald Reagan Breakfast

The Ride is Over at Geauga Lake

Good Riddance, Linc Chaffee

Armey leads effort against email tax

Right Angle is reporting that U.S. Rep. Paul Gillmor has died...

Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-5) Has Died

Cigar Tax Update

by Gary Manelski,Your Guide to Cigars.Stay up to date

Husted on School Choice in Ohio

Protecting Police More Important Than Helping Donors

Fat Albert Gore on the environment

Flynt is tracking 20 congressional sex scandal leads

Tancredo: Donation from Planned Parenthood physician reflects immigration stance

Holy See says immigrants rights and duties go together

Democrats to name new Summit County Executive

The Goal Is Freedom: A Democracy of Dunces?

News & Commentary

June 1, 2007

Speaking Up for Freedom

Democratic Presidential Candidates respond to Supreme Court abortion decision

A Message Regarding the Vacancy on the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

Stockman charged with securities fraud, will "vigorously fight" charges

Hagel: Some see impeachment as option

Elyria's Midway Mall Removes "No Guns" Signs

Is Giuliani Too New York?

February 2007 Marks 42nd Consecutive Month Of Job Growth

President's Radio Address from Brazil

Long Shot GOP Candidate Brownback Just Five Points Behind Clinton

Gun Owners of America Praises Overturn of DC Gun Ban

National NAACP refuses to do the work required for progress for black people

Is the Christian Right a Fascist Movement?

Firefighters initially moved to snub Giuliani

USC PROFESSOR PLEADS GUILTY IN $1.5 MILLION SCAM THAT BILKED STUDENTS

Not in race, Gingrich still has right stuff

By Ralph Z. Hallow and Stephen DinanTHE WASHINGTON TIMESMarch 4, 2007

Ridge to Serve on McCain's '08 Bid Board

Drafting Fred Thompson

From The Stump, AOL News Elections Blog

McCAIN'S CAMPAIGN COLLAPSES

Schwarzenegger calls for Iraq timetable

Senator says 'global warming liberals' threaten economy

Sunni and Shiite division has come to America

Olbermann's Record of Hateful Diatribes Against Conservatives

Obama Ranks as Most Traveled Senator

A move to arm pilots on International flights

Mayor to President?

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire- http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/16/mayor_to_president.html

HERE COMES NEWT

Jonathan Livingston Obama

For Better or Worse...Travelers Launches Wedding Insurance

Rutherford Institute Offers help for Church Super Bowl Parties

Time to Put English First

Hillary's Nightmare: Ralph Nader

25K for food critic's poison pen

Sadly, Al Gore's Nobel Nomination Is No Joke

U.S. Senator Capri Cafaro?

The DFAS shuffle

Paradoxes pervade DFAS vote

Church Defies NFL, Will Host Super Bowl Party

'Manhood' Check Costs Hoops Coach Job

House cuts jeopardize new Cleveland jobs

Now we get to see concrete proof of what losing Mike Dewine in the Senate, and having Steve LaTourette leave the House majority, with Dennis Kucinich & Stephanie Tubbs-Jones moving into the majority. Greater Cleveland & Ohio have lost a ton of clout---

Top 10 WORST State Attorneys General in the Nation

Dick Cheney – I Could Not Agree More

Should Free Speech Be Criminalized?

Hunter makes presidential bid official

I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore

Why Republicans Lost Conservative Trust

The Cost of Abandoning 'Great Things'

By Leslie Carbone1/25/2007

Blackwell bonuses a savings?

Senate Shows Its Age; Health Problems Pose Challenge For Governing

Blacks Say Bush Blows Opportunity to Fight for Judges

by Gary Manelski,
Your Guide to Cigars.
Stay up to date

By Ralph Z. Hallow and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 4, 2007

By Leslie Carbone
1/25/2007