There has been mounting criticism from all but the few supporters of the Obama administration about the slow to non-existent reaction of Obama to events in the middle east.  While quick to condemn our democratic Israeli allies, Obama barely pays lip service to the struggles of many thousands of protestors in several dictator run countries.  How can such a president be so slow to react?

Well, any president relying on the Associated Press for their intelligence (pun intended) has a problem.  Consider this headline from the AP -

Westboro Church, which claims to be Christian and and Baptist while carrying signs wishing death on US Servicemen and homosexuals, has won an 8-1 decision in the US Supreme Court.  This case began when a grieving father tried to hold a Christian funeral for his son, a military man killed in combat.  Members of the Westboro Church showed up with signs with slurs about “Fags” and servicemen burning in Hell.  That the deceased wasn’t gay doesn’t enter in to the situation.

What the Supreme Court has done is to give the go-ahead to protestors to disrupt private ceremonies, such as funerals.  It will also serve to give cover to groups who wish to inflict emotional harm on the familes of US servicemen, as well as the familes who want to bury a loved one who is gay.

The right to assemble and the right to free speech are protected in the First Amendment.  Common sense dictates that those rights are not absolute.  For example, we don’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, and we don’t give voice to death threats.  Lawyers and “intellectuals” will justify this ruling with all kinds of terminology and phrases that are NOT found in the constitution, which is a shame.

The US Constitution was a brief document (easily read in one sitting) and written plainly enough that any man can know his rights and the limits of those right.  Since the time of our founding, a class of citizens (we’ll call them attorneys) has risen up.  That class, limited to one vocation, entirely inhabits and owns one branch of the US government.  It would take a near miracle for any citizen not trained to be “lawyer” to become a federal judge or a justice, much less a state or local level justice.  Further, a look at a second branch (the legislature) presents us with a great number of lawyers out of proportion to other vocations found in a cross section of our country.

In creating a construct in which to write and to interpret the law, the lawyers seem to have gotten away from the basics of law.  We have laws that our founders would never have approved of, rights (such as the right to kill a child in a mother’s womb) that our founders would have fought vigerously against, and laws that take the hard earned money from citizens and waste it to a degree that would get a private corporation’s board thrown into prison.

Our founders would have approved of a cultish group of family members protesting against the government.  Clearly, our founding fathers would have thrown protestors into stocks if those protestors had intruded on the private ceremony of a fallen US Serviceman.  We have a class of citizens, attorneys, who have so insulated themselves with the study of “law” that they’ve forgotten what the law and its rules really are.

There will be intellectual debates introducing legal concepts and other heady, ivory tower rhetoric to justify the decision.  At the end of the day though, one thing is clear.  So-called “free speech” now authorizes people to invade the private lives of ordinary citizens.  Whether this is grieving military families or the children of business executives hidning in their homes while union protestors trample the yard and make threats (we’ve seen this recently), this attitude will not serve our nation well.

It is sad that we can restrict the free speech of political campaigns (McCain-Feingold) and the Internet (Fairness Doctrine), but we can’t protect a father trying to privately protect the sanctity of the celebration of his son’s life.

The slippery slope to Gemorrah just got steeper.

I’m getting pretty dizzy watching Daniels flip on this issue.  A few hours ago Fox News reported that the Indiana Right to Work legislation had been pulled, giving private sector unions and democrats a major victory.  This is because democrats allowed a deadline to pass by refusing to show up to vote.  Republicans decided they couldn’t extend the deadline (which doesn’t require the democrats to be present) without the help of the governor’s office.  This rendered the bill dead right? 

Then the phone lines lit up, Daniels’ supporters in the conservative media began dropping away in droves, and Daniels realized he was in trouble. 

Some background first.  Daniels, on Tuesday:

“The activities of today are perfectly legitimate part of the process.  Even the smallest minority, and that’s what we’ve heard from the last couple of days, has every right to express the strength of its views and I salute those who do.”

Oops.  Realizing that his presidential chances just went down the tubes, Daniels started backtracking.  Here’s Daniels some moments ago:

“The House Democrats have shown a complete contempt for the democratic process. The way that works, as we all learned in grade school, is that if you seek public office you come, do your duty, you argue, you debate, you amend if you can, you vote ‘no’ if you feel you should.”

“You don’t walk off the job, take your public paycheck with you, and attempt to bring the whole process to a screeching halt. You know, if they persist, the Democratic Party of Indiana will need a rebranding effort because this is as anti-democratic as behavior can be.”

So is Daniels on board or not?  Well, give him credit for being honest.  Daniels doesn’t know where he stands, but he vows to talk tough while not taking a stand!  Again, from a presser just a little bit ago:

“I don’t know how we’ll proceed, but I can tell you what won’t happen. We will not be bullied or blackmailed out of pursuing the agenda we laid in front of the people of Indiana. That agenda is going to get voted on.”

Mitch Daniels – He doesn’t know what he’s going to do or what side he’s going to take, but by God he won’t be bullied!  Unless of course he tacks left to appease democrats that run away from their duties, then tacks right when he realizes that he’s squandered his reputation.

We’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see what Mitch thinks tomorrow about private sector unions, his majorities in the Indiana General Assembly, and his presidential chances.  For those of you not from Indiana, this is typical Mitch Daniels.

Well, Governor Daniels was too timid to follow in the footsteps of real conservative leaders like Walker of WI and Christie of NJ.  According to Fox News, Indiana Right to Work is dead in Indiana.

Despite the hard work of a majority of representatives and senators in Indiana’s general assembly, and despite the promises made on the campaign trail, the conservatives in the capitol have had to cave in because of a lack of support from the Governor’s office.

Daniels cowardly response says it all.

“I thought there was a better time and place to have this very important and legitimate issue raised,” Daniels said.

What time?  What place?  The issue was not only raised democraticaly, it was the end result of months of work.  Better yet, the issue came to the fore during the current anti-union climate sweeping the country because of the principled stand of Governor Walker in MN.

And now the democrats, union thugs, and lefty press are raising their glasses to Governor Mitch Daniels – hero of private sector unions everywhere.

I wonder if those who still blindly support a Mitch Daniels campaign for president are raising their glasses in a toast too?

This just came across FoxNews, and I suspect that the RS front page will pick it up soon after this post.

From a FOX NEWS breaking report:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage. 

In a statement Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder says President Obama has concluded that the administration can no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. 

The Justice Department had defended the Defense of Marriage Act in court until now.

To all of our Mitch Daniels friends out there, how’s that “mute button” on social issues going to work for ya now?  While we “hit the mute button”, the other side is firing on all fronts.

Nice to know that the leftists in this country can fight on multiple fronts.  Can we?

I’m not the president, and I never will be.  I understand that it takes an awful lot of education, experience, wealth, friends, social status, and luck to become a president.  I’m sure I wouldn’t do a great job, and I’d have to quickly surround myself with people who knew much more than me.

But I do have a sense of what’s right.  Our president doesn’t support our friends (Great Britain and Israel), and he doesn’t denounce tyrants.  This lack of compassion is regretable, to say the least.  We’ve seen our president stumble pretty badly for the last two years.  Some common decency and common sense, even in the last couple of days, could have helped.

Now I know Obama is incapable of doing any of the following.  But it wouldn’t be much too ask.  Let’s look at an example of compassion for friends, and firmness with tyrants.

Consider New Zealand.  Has the president said much?  I’d sure respect a president who took to the airwaves loudly, boldly, and with determination to say a few words. 

“New Zealanders, America is grieving with you.  We remember your kindness on 9/11 and during Katrina, and we offer this solemn pledge:  New Zealand will have any and all assistance our government and people can offer in this time.  I am personaly asking each American to make a donation right now to help.  If the Prime Minister of New Zealand so desires, the United States will send an armada of resources and manpower to the region upon receiving permission of the New Zealand government.  Our friends in New Zealand will want for nothing, so help me God.” 

And then, just as the French gave us the Statue of Liberty, we ought to offer to have the US Army Corps of Engineers rebuild Christ Church Cathedral.

Consider the recent killings of our hostages by Somali pirates.  Has the president said or done anything memorable or practical? 

The president should say,

“Today tradegy struck when four Americans were killed after being pirated in international waters.  Many nations have joined together to patrol the waters in the area, but the area is too big and the enemy too elusive.  I understand that Somalia’s resources are limited, but I am calling on the Somali authorities to bring to an end the land base of operations for pirates in Somalia immediately.  If this isn’t done, and another American is harmed in the area, the US military will use lethal and disproportionate force to strike back from the air and/or on land.  We will kill scores of pirates, and regretably many people with the misfortune to be nearby, but this is the cost for piracy and terrorism against sovereign Americans. 

Pirates who take ships in international waters are to immediately and safely provide for the immediate transfer of Americans on board to the nearest foreign military vessel, or the US will take immediate action with the hopes of securing the hostages if possible, but with the primary goal of terminating those responsible.  I have directed our naval commanders to prioritze the immediate termination of pirates with American hostages, with a simultanous rescue if possible, but not required if it delays the execution of the agressors.”

The former (New Zealand assistance) is an expenditure of money to be sure, and it doesn’t sound fiscaly conservative.  But supporting our friends around the world when they are in trouble is a lot different from tossing around state dept aid.  Supporting our allies when they are in distress is a justifiable and constitutional use of funds.  It would also build good will with a country that has at times looked at us with suspicion (they’re a little left of center, but we love ‘em).  Most of all, it is the right thing to do.

The second thing sends a clear message.  Kill Americans, and the full force of the US will retaliate.  It might cause a real and immediate change in pirating activities.  If not, we would make pirating unprofitable really quick.  Either way, such a president would likely secure his re-election chances.  The American people know in their hearts (as they did with Reagan) that a leader that protects his citizens abroad is respected.

Why did the Iranians release our embassy staff just after Reagan’s innaugeration ceremony?  The left likes to tell us that it was because the Iranians wanted to deny Carter a victory.  Nonsense.  I was in the army after the crisis, but friends of mine in the service at the time who were intimately familiar with Iran and the events going on told me a story I’ll never forget.  “According to our intelligence, the running joke on the streets in Tehran is ‘What is flat and glows?’  The answer?  ‘Tehran, the moment Reagan takes office’ “.

Right now, our president could start with some strong support vocaly (and covertly) for the resistance movements going on the middle east.  We are in a second cold war against radical Islam right now, and we need to support those who would rise up against oppresive regimes.  If the revolutionaries are willing to share the Earth with the west and with Israel, we should support their attempts at democracy.  If they trade a secular dictatorship for an Islamic dictatorship (you’ll never see an “Islamic Democracy”, and no, Turkey is secular thank you) then we’ll support the next wave of revolutionaries that wants a democracy.

Do you remember 9/11?  Of course you do.  A lot of folks remember a lot from that day.  Here’s one thing that stood out to me.  It was Yassar Arafat, shaking like a junkie, proclaiming that the Palestinian people had nothing to do with this act, and stood with America.  The guy was terrified!  He was thinking, “Oh crap!  SOmeone struck the US, and just maybe the US is going to go all out.”  Maybe “nukes” was in his mind.  But he was scared.  Bush was quick to reassure the firefighters that “..,pretty soon, the people that knocked down these buildings are going to hear from all of us”.  Arafat and several other tyrants heard that and wet themselves.  Qhaddafi dropped his nuclear problem on the spot.  Since that time, we’ve gone back to being wishy washy.

I’m no president.  But then again, neither is our current one.  The difference is that the current one has the background to become a president, so he’s out of excuses.  When we start supporting our friends and frightening our enemies, the rest of the world will clearly know where we stand.  That’s called “respect”.  What we have now is indecision. 

I’m looking for a candidate in 2012 that gets the same reaction from our enemies that Reagan got from the Soviets.  “Do you Americans want someone like that with his finger near the launch button?”  Yes I do.  He’s the reason why we won our first cold war, and a similar “friend to our friends, warrior to our enemies” is what we need in 2012 to win our cold war against the radical Islam movement and to win back our friends.  (Funny how the left thought Bush squandered our alliances, but Britain, France, and Germany’s leaders have all been critical of Obama and seem to miss Bush.  Their elected governments have also moved right).

Well Obama, we’re listening.

Let’s get one thing out of the way.  I love Mitch Daniels.

When my democrat father-in-law drives around with his “Ditch Mitch” bumper sticker, and my former peers in education (and current ones in law enforcement) moan about the governor’s draconian governing style, I know Mitch is doing something right.

I’ve voted for Mitch Daniels, and would vote for him as president if he were the candidate.  He’s a good man.  But he’s far, far from my first choice.  There are several reasons for this.  I don’t want a fiscon, socon, or hawk for president, because such terms imply that the person doesn’t buy into the rest of the conservative agenda.  I want a “conservative”.  And by looking at Daniels history, we can see that he’s excellent in some areas, but weak to harmful in others.  This is why he’s calling for a truce.

Let’s look at a critical area; the courts.

Would Mitch fight tooth and nail for a conservative justice at SCOTUS?  Not likely.  Let’s look at his record.

The worst way to select judges in a state is by using the Missouri Compromise plan, which was created to allow panels of “experts” (lawyers) to make the picks so that governors could rubber stamp them.  In Indiana, our assembly voted 88-3 in the House and 35 to 15 in the Senate to kill this monstrosity.  Daniels VETOED it.  And then what did Daniels do?

Daniels appointed one of the worst state judges in the country, Steven H. David.

From Carrie Severino:

David is a former chief defense counsel for detainees at Guantanamo Bay who praised the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush with this trite quote: “The most important thing that Boumediene held is something that I always thought was obvious … that in America, there are no law-free zones.” Or maybe he could explain why the official Steven David bio released by his office announced the fact that David is a member of the American Judicature Society, the leading institutional proponent of the Missouri Plan, and beneficiary of more than $1 million in contributions from George Soros’s Open Society Institute since 2000. Daniels may well have chosen the least bad option presented to him by the commission, but that cannot excuse him supporting a system that ties the governor’s hands to such an extent that he can only choose the least offensive of three liberal nominees.

It doesn’t end there.  Mitch’s (we call him Mitch in Indiana) record on the courts is awful.  For more, read the link at the end of this diary.

Those two actions on the courts are enough to convince most reasonable folks that Mitch doesn’t walk the walk on court picks.  But how about unions?  Public sector unions are the great debate right now, so does Mitch stand with us against waste and abuse by unions?  Well, he has a mixed record.

He’s done very well (VERY well) in pushing a bill to limit the collective bargaining powers of the teachers’ union her in Indiana.  Union teachers HATE Daniels here.  I salute Daniels for that.   But we have a major problem on the other hand.  A number of republicans are trying to bring a “Right to Work State” bill to the floor, which would cripple unions in Indiana as it as in other states.  Not wanting to upset the many facotry workers we have in the state, Daniels and the house speaker are fighting to keep the bill from the floor so it can’t be voted on.

In other words, Daniels is willing to take on one of the public sector unions (teachers) but isn’t willing to take the fight to the private sector unions.

Daniels isn’t the same OMB leader that allowed the drunken spending craze under President Bush.  In our state, Daniels has kept our budget balanced and allowed for surpluses.  Fiscaly I’m entirely on board.  But private businesses could use the union relief if Daniels would act more like Ryan or Christie on these matters.

I’m also a little troubled about the remarks that Daniels has made about rolling back our commitments in the world.  Does this mean Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, S. Korea, Taiwan, or somewhere else?

The biggest leaders in conservatism didn’t call for a truce.  Reagan fought on all fronts, winning some and losing some.  Chris Christi (who is likely not going to run) is known for his fiscal bravery, but wasn’t afraid to slash the funding of Planned Parenthood in his state when the recent child traffic case came to light.

Let me anticipate and deflect one type of criticism before it even gets started.  If there is a major fault at Red State, it is that people go ape-poop when someone is critical of a beloved candidate.  I’ve highlighted that I love Mitch, and that the things he’s been good on he’s been VERY good on.  I’ve voted for him, and will continue to vote for him.  If he wins a presidential primary, I’ll support him there too. 

What I am writing here is that Mitch is not a perfect candidate (nobody is), and that he needs to embrace conservatism without rejecting the other one or two thirds of the movement.  If he did, he would be a shoo-in. 

It is always those in the leftist press and democrat strategists who “helpfully” advise republicans to drop their social and defense views.  In some local and state races that might play.  But at the national level liberals don’t survive.  Obama (leftist) plummeting; Bush (tax cuts, war on terror and Supreme Court) two terms; Clinton (moderate, slashed welfare and joined republican in creating surpluses) two terms; Bush H.W. (Strong on defense, lied on taxes, gave us Souter on the court) one term; Reagan (king conservative) two terms; Carter (record failures in foreign policy and econmic policy) one term.

I’m hoping that Mitch will do better than his record suggests on social issues, private unions, and the courts.  He’s already proven his worth with the state’s budget.  But instead of fixing his past, he has so far decided that we should call for a truce so that his record doesn’t get discussed.

Here’s hoping Mitch ditches the “trucer” label, or that another candidate comes along who can do better. 

For an in depth look at several unforced errors by Daniels when it comes to the courts and appointments, see here.  (National Review)

For a history on Daniels and remarks about social and defense conservatism, see here.  (Weekly Standard)

Bingaman (D NM) was a safe seat for democrats.  He is now out of the 2012 race.  Source.

The seat goes from safe Dem to toss-up at worst.  It is more likely “likely” republican at this point.  Many republicans have talked about Heather Wilson (former congresswoman) as a strong potential, with a couple of businessmen in the mix as well.

The 2012 senate race is already heating up, with the republicans taking the senate (with seats to spare) if the elction were held today.  Unless the dems change the political climate today, they are defending 33 seats to 10 for the GOP, and mostly in states the GOP is strong in (such as those who voted against Obama).

As a geek hobby I follow US Senate election races.  I’ve thought of setting up a blog about the subject, and spend many hours each week looking at polls and reading whatever I can find about each race.  That’s why I followed a link at RealClearPolitics.com to an article at NationalJournal.com about two upcoming races.  (It’s here if you want to read it).

What I read was so funny I thought it was a prank.  I noticed a few comments that said similar things (such as “You can’t be serious”) and decided to add my own two cents.  By the time my comment went up, the other comments had been deleted by National Journal!  They must have gotten a lot of comments about how the article wasn’t serious, or had to be a prank.

And what did the article have to say?  It posits that the president needs to get Kaine to run in Virginia and Napolitano in Arizona.  The premise is that the president could raid senators for cabinet level positions when the senate was heavily democrat in 2008, but now must send some cabinet secretaries back with senate control so narrow.

Wow!  Just wow!  As I continued to watch comments getting deleted, I wondered if the National Journal would drop the article, edit it, or just continue to let the joke go on.  My own comment was butchered into a run-on paragraph without spaces to make it un-readable, and at the rate the site is erasing comments I expect mine to disapear soon as well.

For those of you (like the author of the article) who don’t follow senate races much, here’s a primer.

There are many reasons republicans would love to see Kaine run.  Several of those reasons are listed in the links at the end of Moe Lane’s article http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/02/09/jimmy-webb-d-va-cuts-and-runs/  There is no chance for Kaine in VA, and I won’t add to Moe’s already excellent points.

Napolitano left her state in a fiscal mess, and would not have won a third term.  She has made several Saturday Night Live level gaffes on a near weekly basis, though the most famous may still be “The system worked”.  She said this after the DHS allowed a terrorist on a plane, and it took a Danish passenger to dis-arm that terrorist. 

Her gaffes even rub off on others!  She was sitting next to our “incredible” director of intelligence Clapper during an infamous interview where it became clear that he wasn’t aware of a major round-up of terrorists in London (yes, the same bufoon that predicted the Egyptian president was going to step down hours before that president said he was doing no such thing).

Perhaps National Journal will push for DCI Clapper to run for senate too!

At any rate, there are polls of several hypothetical match-ups out there that include Kaine in VA and Napalitano in AZ.  For obvious reasons, the author didn’t go there.

Opinions are just opinions and National Journal is entitled to their own.  But sometimes an opinion can be so far from reality that it is either poorly researched or folks are going to think the article is an actual joke.  If the comment deletions (and the comments I read were respectful, albeit asking if the article was real or a joke) are because the site doesn’t want to let the secret out that a prank is afoot, then the deletions take away from the humor.  I’m starting to think that the National Journal ran a poor article, and is thin-skinned about the laughs at their expense.

The column series is called “Against the grain”.  Well, I think they’ve got that part right.

Lost during the news of the IL and FL primaries was a major news leak in the state of Indiana.  Conservatives, recently sent reeling when conservative leader and congressman Mike Pence announced he would not run against Sen. Bayh, have received news that has energized the base.  Former Senator Dan Coates has decided to come out of retirement and run for the Bayh seat.

Not only is Bayh a respected conservative, but he is a respected name in Indiana politics.  There can be only two paths now – 1) Coates wins, defeating a candidate who talks moderate at home but supports the DC liberal agenda, or 2) Coates causes the democrat party to shift critical funds and resources to Indiana that could be used to protect vulnerable seats elsewhere.  More and more, the dems are being spread thin nationwide. 

Dan is a winner whenever he runs.  Bayh took the seat that Dan held only when Dan retired.  Dan went on to become ambassador to Germany under President Bush.  Dan is both a fiscal and social conservative,

News of the Coates move is here.

Want to contribute?  I tried to get contribution information, and here’s what I’ve found out.  The NRSC has nothing on Dan until he formaly announces (according to a staffer I reached).  The Indiana GOP had nothing yet, but they referred me to the Indiana Family Institute, where Dan has several friends that have just received word of the campaign (about 10:30 last night) themselves.  Word is that Dan is currently in the mode of collecting signatures needed to get him on the ballot.  Once that is accomplished, I’ll get an update as to a web page and where to send contributions.

For now, if you live in Indiana, contact your local party HQ to sign the petition to get Dan on the ballot.  As soon as that hurdle is completed (there should be no problems there), a web page and contribution link will be forthcoming.

2010 is looking better and better!

Karl Rove said it best.  “It won’t be enough to surf voter dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and Democrats,” he wrote. “Voters will want to know what Republican candidates would do.”

Sure, the democrats in congress and the president are dropping the ball on everything they touch, from unwanted health reform to declaring a working system in light of an AQ terrorist attack on US soil.  But it would be foolish for the republican party to sit back and assume that anyone wants to vote for republicans either.  Excessive spending, the failure to speak up in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even corruption soured many conservatives and independents in 2006 and 2008.  Worse, many in the current republican leadership have either snubbed conservative candidates in favor of flawed liberals, or have failed to show much fight at all in trying to derail harmful legislation.

If the republican party wants to win in 2010, and to win big, they should let people know what they stand for.  They should hit these points often, nationalize the election, and have a list to hold themselves accountable for.  If they do this, the conservative base will show up, independents will appreciate the clear seperation of democrat and republican policies, and the liberal base will likely remain uninspired.

The following isn’t a perfect list, but it is a start for conversation.  It is to be hoped that the GOP will consider putting together a similar list, so that we may know where they stand.

1 – Tax Policy

Americans pay too much in taxes, and what they sacrifice is wasted by bureaucrats in Washington.  The current tax system punishes earners for working more (overtime) and for striving to better themselves (one pays a higher percentage of earnings simply for attaining a bette income).

Let us abolish the income tax entirely, and impose a flat, national sales tax.  Food items could be exempted, and Americans would enjoy larger paychecks.  The government would need to spend within its means, as consumers would revolt in the polls if the government dared touch the tax levels.  Why?  Because the income tax is purposefuly paid on the opposite end of the year from national elections.  The sales tax would be seen by Americans through the year.

2 – Spending Policy

If a businessman spent money above his means like the government does, he’d be in jail.  Let’s make the government accountable to the public in a transparent way.  Let’s see decisive legislation that outlaws riders and earmarks that spend money that isn’t related to the legislation that they are attached to.  Further, let’s allow the president (regardless of party) to have a line-item veto for spending in bills.  Third, let’s see actual cuts in spending.  Let’s see a pledge to cut the budgets of every federal program and agency by 5% in the first year of a republican congress (minus our military).  Then, let’s see a definitive audit of every program administered by the US govt.  Included in the audit should be a legal review of whether the program or agency is unconstitutional for overlapping a power reserved to the states.  By the end of the first year in office, republicans whould be able to have a sizable list of programs and agencies they have fully shut down.

3 – War on Terror

American citizens have a right to be safe.  Foreign entities that wish American citizens harm should be in fear of absolute and devestating reprisals when they take part in the harm of Americans, or attempt to harm Americans.  In this light, The following policy should be followed at once by any rational leadership in the US government.

Whereas the Geneva Convention provides that combatant that are “illegal combatants” are NOT afforded any rights under the Convention, and

Whereas Illegal combatants include individuals and groups that are not a part of a recognized military, are not wearing a recognized military uniform during their operation or capture, and are themselves in violation of the Convention,

We require a pledge from our candidates that any such illegal combatants be treated in a manner provided for by the same Convention, to wit – military tribunals without access to the civilian criminal justice system.  Further, as the US Constitution applies to US citizens on US soil, and not illegal combatants captured on US (and particularly foriegn) soil, we also require our candidates to deny any constitional rights to such combatants in word and in legislative deed.

4 – Foreign Policy

Candidates should pledge that countries with systems based in democracy and allied with the US should expect the full protection of the US when those countries find themselves threatend.  For example, if the Polish, Georgian, or Ukrainian nations find themselves bullied by a country that is at once hostile to them and the US, the US will not renege on a missle defense program that was previously promised.  If Israel finds itself under the threat of a nation that has openly threatened to “Wipe Israel off the map”, the US will purposefuly and fully cooperate with Israel to ensure that the offending country never has the capacity to develop a nuclear program.

5 – Many Americans consider many politicians to be corrupt, and for good reason.  We often see candidates of both parties engaging in illegal, or at best, unethical behavior.  Politicians are willing to accept bribes in legislation to pass legislation that they wouldn’t ordinarily vote for, they get caught cheating on taxes, they get caught engaging with mistresses, lying to their constituents, avoiding town halls, and even breaking their own parlimentart rules.  Congress should be an institution that is admired by the people, not one that is despised.

Therefore, candidates should take an oath to serve a limited time in power.  Starting in 2010, all candidates will pledge to serve no more than 20 years in either or both houses of congress.  For candidates already in office, their time will start in 2010 with everyone else (allowing them to start clean).  However, should a candidate attempt to run for an office that takes him over 20 years, the GOP will pledge not to endorse or support that candidate in any way.

6 –  Crime Policy

The GOP will push, in a state by state basis, for the following laws to be enacted:

a) First, a truth in sentencing law that requires criminals to serve the time that is actually stated.  For example, a criminal sentenced to 10 years serves “10 years”, not “10 do 5″. 

b) Second, the GOP will push for 3 strikes laws, requiring that a person on his third felony serve a life term. 

c) Third, the GOP will push that every fifth misdemeanor conviction (which must stem from seperate cases), be considered a felony for purposes of the 3 strikes law (a habitual offender law).

The above laws would not take into account juvenile records, and would not be grandfathered to include current offenders.

Thus there would be three laws for each of the fifty states.  The GOP should then update and advertise progress on this campaign each year, to keep the GOP accountable.

7 – Education Policy

Parents should be free to choose a school for their children that provides an outstanding education.  With that in mind:

Federal funds should be withheld from schools that have low graduation rates, and poor results on standardized testing.  Federal funds for education should be withheld from states that do not have school choice programs.

Currently, federal assistance for college students has allowed universities to increase the cost of education to well beyond the means of most families.  Universities increase tuition rates, knowing that the government and not consumers will pick up the tab.  If colleges were starved of financial assistence, they would either have to price themselves competitively to gain students (and cut wasteful spending for professors who don’t actually teach their own courses), or they would go out of business.

Therefore, federal tuition assistence will be limited to those who have served and been honorably discharged (or are currently serving) from the US military, or the children of Medal Honor recipients.

Higher education is not a right, however it should be affordable.  Universities must now choose whether to ake themselves affordable, or to lose their institutions.

8 – Immigration Policy

Businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants shall have their businesses closed, and their assets auctioned away.  If the guilty business is a local store that is part of a chain, that local store shall be closed and auctioned away.

Individuals found to be illegal immigrants shall be deported within 1 week of being determined to be illegaly in the country.  The determination of whether a person is illegaly in the country shall be resolved within 1 week of arrest.  The receiving country will be billed for all costs associated with incarceration and transportaion.

States, counties, and municipalties that act to prevent local law enforcement from detaining, questioning, and / or arresting persons for suspected federal illegal immigration violations will not receive any federal funds.

9 – Candidates will pledge to overturn the health care reform package passed in 2009/10.  Instead, reform efforts will be made to address tort reform, address how doctors are licensed and can lose their licenses for malpractice, and protecting good doctors from legal harassment.  Hospitals should be protected from patients that don’t pay their bills, and medicare and medicaid fraud should be addressed more forcefuly.

10 – Candidate and Party Accountability

Every two years for the next 20 years, the GOP will advertise the following:

a) Was a federal sales tax imposed, AND the income tax abolished in the past year?

b) In the past year, did we see a permanent presidential line-item veto made law?  Did we see earmarks and riders made illegal?  Did we see a 5% cut in every federal program (minus military spending) in any one year since 2010?  Provide a list of government programs and agencies entirely shut down in the previous year.

c) What laws have been enacted to adjudicate illegal combatants in military tribunals, and to ensure that illegal combatants are not protected by the US Constitution, and to classify terrorists as illegal combatants and simply as criminals?

d) What steps have been taken (aside from meetings and ”strongly worded statements”) to protect our allies in Eastern Europe from Russian intimidation in the past year?  What has the US done to protect Israel from terrorist attacks in the past year?  What has the US done to stop rogue nations like Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

e) Has the GOP, in the past year, endorsed or funded a candidate that has broken a term limits pledge?  Who?

f) What is the progress on passing the three criminal laws in each state, namely “truth in sentencing”, “3 strikes”, and “the habitual offender, 5 mis = 1 fel law”?  Has the GOP made progress state by state or not?

g) What has been done to enact school choice in every state?  Are federal education funds going to states that deny students a choice of where to go to school with their body and their tax dollars? 

Are universities receiveing federal financial aid that would be otherwise unaffordable for the average resident of the state?  If so, are those universities being punished by witholding financial aid, or is the federal goverment still rewarding universities for being priced beyond the ability of the average citizen in a state?

h) Are states, counties, or cities still receiving federal money EVEN when those enitities don’t allow local law enforcement officials to take action on illegal immigration?  Has legislation been passed to close businesses and auction away their assets when those businesses knowingly hire illegal immigrants?

i) Has the health care reform of 2009/10 been overturned?  Have conservative reforms (or just as well, none at all) been put in place?

~~~~~

That’s my (imperfect) list.  Will the GOP have the guts to enact a similar list?  Will they hold themselves accountable?  Because if they do, I beleivethat the GOP can retake the house, and perhaps the senate.  While people are sickened by the democrats at this point, the republicans don’t inspire many people beyond the base of the party (and many of them are disillusioned).  A list of reasons to vote republican and conservative, along with accountability, would inspire many people to swallow their hatred of politics to vote FOR something, instead of voting “against” something.

Voting “against” doesn’t drive up voter turnout.  Voting “for” can skyrocket turnout.

So how about it GOP?  Are you listening?

The leaders of the the NRCC blew it.  Instead of supporting a conservative republican in a district that was winnable for a conservative, they supported a “republican” that was…

1. more liberal than the conservative republican (who led in a 3 way race), and

2. more liberal than even the democrat she faced.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, after she dropped out she threw her support behind the democrat and NOT the republican that was beating her.  This, AFTER she received $900,000 in support from the GOP.

Not mad yet?  Read what the chair of the NY GOP said after Ms. Scozzafava dropped out.

“As Election Day approaches, it is critical that we come together to elect a candidate who will fight the damaging policies of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Doug Hoffman is a Republican who has pledged to protect the taxpayer and support policies that will turn our economy around. With unemployment in the North Country in double digits and hard-working people being burdened by the excesses of government, the people of the 23rd District need that Republican representation now more than ever. That must be our focus in the final days of this campaign.

Dede Scozzafava has placed her Party and her principles over politics and position for years. For those who know her, her actions today come as no surprise because they show real leadership. It is testament to her character and strength under difficult circumstances. Throughout her career, she has built a record of standing up for the people of the North County. This move demonstrates her commitment to ensuring that those people have a Republican, fiscally conservative voice in Congress. As an elected official that has been her driving force and she will continue to serve her constituents and all New Yorkers with great distinction for many years to come.”

So yes, we need to fire the national leadership for failing us and Mr. Hoffman so badly in the race.  But we need to look at the state leadership too.  Their cluelessness was evident as recently as only a few hours ago.

Will the NRSC be as dense with the Florida race?  Should some firings happen there too?  Stay tuned.

While you’re at it, send a message.  Send as much as you can to candidates who need our help – but not a penny to the groups that waste our money on losing, liberal candidates (such as the NRCC and the NY-GOP).  Obama and the current congress are digging themselves into a hole, but the GOP leadership is doing everything they can to snatch defeat from victory.  We need conservative leadership for this party to win in 2010 and 2012.  Let’s leave losing and liberalism to the democrats, ok?

I love Obama’s pick for SCOTUS, Judge Sotomayor.  As a conservative, how can I love what is certainly an unqualified, combative, leftist, anti-business, reverse discrimination loving judicial appointment?

There are many, many reasons.

1) Judge Sotomayor is not an intellectual giant (that’s the nice way of putting it).  Sure, she’s going to be a dependable liberal vote (as was Souter, the justice she is going to replace).  But the decisions she has written have been so poor that they leave liberal opinions open to being overturned by subsequent SCOTUS justices.  Even liberal court watchers have commented that Sotomayor is a political pick, designed to gain support from potential Hispanic voters, and NOT a true pick for “progressive” movement of the Supreme Court.  A real intellectual pick would have been Kagen, or Wood, or any other very accomplished jurist who is respected for their written legal opinions, even if conservatives might disagree with those.  Sotomayor just doesn’t have that kind of heft.  In other words, she is a liberal replacing a liberal, but she won’t write opinions or make arguments in session that will help her cause like a Kagen or Wood might have.  (Some have even gone so far as to call Sotomayor a liberal Harriet Miers).

Her rate of being overturned by higher courts (even a 5-4 liberal SCOTUS) are legend, including a 9-0 decision that overturned an opinion that she authored.

2) Sotomayor is a dependable vote on every liberal issue, except for one.  Surprisingly, liberals in the pro-abortion camp are worried about her views on abortion.  She has avoided any major rulings on the issue, but her minor rulings have all leaned pro-life!  She wrote an opinion that the Mexico City policy (the elder President Bush’s executive order to prevent funds from funding abortions overseas) was correct under the law.  In another ruling, she upheld the right of a school district to require parental notification for students that might be refered to an abortion counselor or clinic (she even added that the pro-abortion schools’ teachers had no standing in the case). 

3) The democrats have lost any moral authority to attack republicans as being anti-Hispanic.  While their memory is short, mine isn’t (and neither is that of Karl Rove’s).  Recall that Miguel Estrada (a conservative judge) was attacked and fillibustered by democrats, and a memo was uncovered that democrats were doing it because they feared that a Hispanic would rise from the federal bench to the SCOTUS under the republicans!  Let the dems try to raise the racism argument during confirmation hearings.

4) Sotomayor runs at the mouth like our current vice president.  She has made comments that Latino women are more judicial than white males, and has a track record of other strange comments.  She is very combative with her co-workers and the lawyers who argue in front of her, and is known as bully.

From The New Republic (a lefty read) comes this less than flattering assesment:

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

 

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”)

And that’s her friends on the left!  You should read the whole thing.

In short, I hope that some GOP senators grow a spine and use this appointment to ridicule the democrats and their advocacy for judicial activism.  But I also hope that they stop there and let Sotomayor on the bench.  She’s not going to move the court to the left like a strong appointment could have.  In fact, she’ll cause her fellow liberal justices to have more headaches.

That’s what you get when a president makes a pick for political reasons and not sound ones.   

I’ve always had a soft spot for Juan Williams.  Sure, I disagree with his lefty rants on NPR and Fox, but he’s an honest debator even if he’s misguided.  That’s what makes this story so good.

You see, Juan wants what every parent wants.  Juan wants a good education for his children.  As an African-American who is big on civil rights, he wants educational chances for minority children in particular.  Fine.  So when President Obama (do we get to call him “Mr. Obama” as the left did with President Bush?) goes back on his word and rips a better education away from poor, minority children who were succeeding in private schools, Juan just…

Well, read for yourself.  Any more anger, and I think we might have a conversion in the making.  Juan has some choice word for everyone involved, including the teachers’ union, the education secretary, and yes, The One himself.  As a former public school teacher (scraping together every penny to send my own child to a private school), I salute Juan for waking up.  I think he’s starting to understand.

We all know about the race between Senator Coleman (R) and his challenger, former SNL comedy writer Al Franken (D).  Probably all of us know how Senator Coleman has been ahead in the count by some 700 votes, and we know how these votes keep getting chipped away at.  We probably all know that the MN Sec of State is “one of those” (read – ACORN).  But you likely haven’t heard it all yet. 

Please read the following story from FoxNews.com.  Really, PLEASE read it.  It shows just how badly the recount is being handled.  Included in the story are pictures of ballots that show a clear vote for Coleman, and the board has given the votes to Franken.  You have to see it to believe it.  Also included is photographic evidence of rules being changed to suit Franken, but rules being completely ignored if they would help Coleman.

The presidential race is over, and the next set of races are still far off.  But this is a race that is happening right now, and it is important.  Franken is a potty mouthed, extreme leftist and would harm not only the interests of MN and the country, but bring great discredit on the US Senate (I know; it’s hard to discredit the Senate any worse than it already has been).  Coleman is a key vote to protect our ability to filibuster, because we can’t count on every republican to vote against cloture.  But more importantly, as the photographic evidence clearly shows, this is another attempt by the democrats to steal an election that a republican has led in every recount.  The democrats believe they can win any election if the keep getting recounts until they find one to agree with (WA Sen, Bush/Gore, etc).

Are we going to let this happen?

I suggest the following plan.

1. E-mail the Fox News story to anyone you know.
2. E-Mail the story to your elected officials.  Ask them what they are doing to stop this injustice.
3. Write your local newspaper about this issue.
4. Write to Sen Coleman.  Ask his office what can be done to help.
5. E-Mail the MN Governor’s office.  Ask the governor if the state of MN should be more in line with MN values or if they plan on devolving into the IL way of doing things (read – corruption).

Perhaps the RS leadership can put together a better action plan.  This is a fight we must win, and not one we can afford to ignore.

Some time ago I was a pretty active member at RedState. Perhaps my journey down the path of apathy began when I saw some of the spending that my own party was engaged in, or some of the corruption, or the failure to stand up and fight for the reasons that we are engaged in a war against terror in Iraq. Any of those planted the seeds, but the real killer was at RedState.

I wrote a diary (during the bitter primary battles) where I commented that I just could not support a candidate from any party who was pro-choice. By this, I meant Rudy. Seeing the inter-party fighting that was common at the time, I asked if anyone was seriously going to ask those of us pro-lifers to leave the party because some of us could not vote pro-abortion. I was shocked at the answer. Someone wrote a diary doing just that. Worse, several members (and even a few editors) seemed to support that view. That was the day I figured my party (and my favorite website) had left me. That was the day that I (and perhaps many others in the party nationwide) became less than enthused about politics. For a time, many republicans stopped caring as they saw their party getting torn to shreds. (Those who remained did the right thing. Rudy didn’t make it to the head of the party where the pro-life voters would have been lost for good).

Enter Sarah Palin. (Read on…)

Read More →