John McCain: A Poster Boy for Democrats and Viagra

In the rare case of McCain’s hero image lasting longer than four hours, readers should seek immediate medical attention.

From McCain’s lackluster record at the Naval Academy to his self-important tenure as a United States Senator, John McCain has an eerie history of enlarging himself. Unfortunately, leadership is not about the size of one’s election. It’s about character, competence, and respect.

Like any poster child for the Democrats, former POW John McCain possesses the victim status necessary to insulate himself from factually transmitted criticisms – at least while he’s serving liberal purposes. However, most men are judged on how they conduct themselves throughout their entire lives, not on five ill-fated years in their pasts.

None of us know for sure what McCain experienced during his time as a POW. All we know is that he survived and came home while many other POWs did not. What was it about McCain that was different? Was it family heritage or was it his proclivity for compromising to get what he wants?

At the Academy, McCain rebelled and barely graduated. In The Nightingale’s Song (authored by fellow Naval Academy graduate Roger Timberg) McCain proves to be more of a playboy than a midshipman. Disobedience, demerits, and distraction mark McCain’s Academy days. Today, McCain continues to demonstrate that he lacks the self-discipline, tact, and integrity on which the Academy prides itself. The Academy’s honor code states clearly, “[Midshipmen] tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known.”

Just this week, McCain demonstrated the value he places on honor. He intentionally misrepresented Governor Romney’s position on the war. But such behavior is consistent with McCain’s conduct throughout his life. However, it contrasts sharply with the heroic portrayal of McCain’s time as a POW. How did a man with McCain’s inferior track record suddenly become a super-human leader of fellow POWs?

In fact, an article by investigative journalist Greg Szymanski depicts John McCain as no friend to POW families. While the article clearly has a Ron-Paul-like feel, Szymanski raises many questions about McCain’s classified POW files. McCain is now the Democrats’ darling Republican, but one must expect these questions will come to light should McCain become the GOP Presidential Candidate. Regardless, McCain should open his POW files in the interest of honesty, as well as to eliminate speculative controversy.

Nevertheless, Szymanski’s article seems more consistent with McCain’s track record than McCain’s own version of the story. According to the widow of POW and Navy pilot, Larry Van Renselaar, “I remember my husband saying, [McCain] was not well-liked [by other pilots] and thought of as a hot dog and a punk.” Does this sound consistent with what McCain’s “fellow” Republicans might think today?

Upon his heroic return to America, McCain’s repugnant propensity to look out for himself suddenly resurfaced. While he was a POW, McCain’s first wife, Carol Shepp, was involved in a horrible car accident. She was a former model, but the accident left her four inches shorter and on crutches. Though she suffered serious injuries, she refused to allow news of the accident to reach McCain in Vietnam, as she feared the news would only add to his suffering as a POW. Not long after his homecoming, however, McCain revealed his appreciation for her loyalty and faithfulness by engaging in extramarital affairs.

Six years later, McCain met Cindy Hensley. She was 25 and attractive. She was also the daughter of Jim Hensley, founder of the nation’s third largest Anheuser-Bush distributor. McCain divorced his wife and then married Hensley a month later. He followed her to Arizona where her millionaire father helped McCain begin his political career.

As a senator, McCain continues to conduct himself unfaithfully. He has betrayed his party time and again: McCain-Kennedy for amnesty of illegal immigrants (enough said); McCain-Feingold for campaign finance reform (suppressing free speech); McCain-Lieberman for energy tax (global warming); and McCain-Edwards for a Patient’s Bill of Rights (socialist medicine).

Is it any wonder McCain is a poster child for Democrats and EDS? Apparently, he has always needed a little artificial help to get the job done. He talks tough to compensate for his raspy little voice. But his tough “hawk” image mainly covers up his waning male virility.

Don’t be surprised if McCain joins real hero Bob Dole in Viagra commercials. Then again, McCain would probably jump to Cialis if Kennedy or Clinton would extend an invitation.

With his kind of loyalty, is it really all that ironic how hard McCain is on pharmaceutical companies?

(Lee Culpepper is a former Marine and high school English teacher. Currently is he working to complete his first book, Alone and Unafraid: One Marine’s Counterattack Inside the Walls of Public Education. Visit Lee’s website at http://www.leeculpepper.com/.)

McCain exposed Romney's spine as Achilles heel in Florida

By
Mike DeVine
Legal Editor

Mitt Romney has failed to earn the trust of a majority of Republicans that he would not go wobbly during wartime when things get tough.

That is why McCain won Florida.

McCain was vilified by the most of the conservative press, as well as many in the MSM, for his primary election eve's eve attack against Romney accusing him of favoring a "timetable" for withdrawal early last year when the war was not going well and the leaders of new elected Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress were trying to force President Bush to set a public date certain for withdrawal for Iraq.

Many even called McCain a liar. (more later below on that)

I remember the time well. I remember arguing in January of 2007 that President Bush would not go wobbly since he knew that the only way he could be stopped from fighting our enemies in Iraq would be a two-thirds super majority override of a defense appropriation budget veto. I remember that only a handful of liberal Republican House members and Senator Chuck Hagel(R-NE) explicitly agreed with the Democrats that we publicly set a date for surrender.

I knew the President had a spine.

I remember that Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham and many other Republicans called for sticking with the President and his new surge strategy and rejected timetables and defeat. I remember Fred Thompson praising President Bush and those that refused to settle for anything but total victory as he filled in for Paul Harvey on the radio.

McCain and Thompson had spines.

Regrettably, I also remember my disappointment in too many Republicans, including some of our then declared candidates for president, trying to have it both ways. Senators Brownback, Lugar, and others come to mind.

Another Republican also comes to mind. This republican was one that I had written many columns in support of, as I defended him against attacks by the media that his religious faith would prevent him from winning the White House.

I have been vindicated in my defense of Evangelicals as they gave this former governor a plurality of their votes in the Sunshine State.

What I remember most about this man back in early to mid-2007 though, was my disappointment at his equivocation on the war when things were tough. Violence was up in Iraq. The Democrats had just taken over Congress.

Democrats were calling for public timetables for withdrawal. Mitt Romney did not do that, but neither did he sound an unequivocal clarion call for victory. Instead, he...well, let's see the quote:

McCain, Romney, and Timetables

Here is the exchange in question, from ABC's "Good Morning America" on April 3, 2007:

MS. ROBERTS: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that — the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.

MS. ROBERTS: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.

Reading that, I think it's fair to conclude that Romney was saying he was in favor of Bush and Maliki setting a secret timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. (By the way, I didn't think that was a bad idea, on the grounds that the Iraqis needed to be pushed hard before they would get anything done.) Certainly people who were listening took it that way; at the time of Romney's statement, there was a fair amount of reaction, much of it from the left, to the effect that Romney was coming around to the idea of a timetable.

The left got the message, and so did gamecock. I was so disappointed by this at the time, that I stopped writing blogs for Mitt and looked around at Duncan Hunter, and then Fred Thompson.

Rich Lowry of NRO had a different take, but

I basically concluded what Robert Kagan did:

Robert Kagan on the McCain/Romney Surge Controversy

Hi Rich,

It is true, as you write, that “Romney wasn't as enthusiastic about [the surge] and in his body language, if nothing else seemed ready to distance himself from it if it failed.” But he went further than that. In June 2007, when there were already good signs that the surge was working, Romney told an interviewer, “I think we would hope to turn Iraq security over to their own military and their own security forces, and if presence in the region is important for us than we have other options that are nearby." (This is quoted by Dobbs in the Post) That may seem innocuous enough now. But you remember how things were at the time. That was the way both Democrats and Republican supporters of withdrawal described their plan in those days. The idea was to pull U.S. troops out of the fighting in Iraq, hand over the fight to the Iraqis, and station U.S. forces “nearby” or “over the horizon.” That was how advisers to Hillary Clinton described their preferred option. It was how people who supported the Baker-Hamilton commission report described their ideal option. They didn’t call for immediate and total abandonment of Iraq — and very few do so today. When people who favored withdrawal explained their plan, it was as Romney described it. The fact that he also talked about “timetables” in an earlier interview, albeit secret “timetables,” also puts him in what was then the withdrawal camp.

Everyone who was fighting for the surge in the early months of last year — and that was not a very large number of people back then—was desperately looking around Republican ranks for support. Most Republicans on the Hill were quiet. Most conservative commentators were not working up any enthusiasm, to say the least. And aside from McCain, the leading Republican presidential candidates at the time were being careful. It was clear that both Giuliani and Romney were tempted to let McCain take the issue and self-immolate. But of the two, I remember, Rudy was the one who decided to put himself most clearly on the side of the surge. He began speaking out on the need for more troops in his public appearances. The contrast with Romney is even more striking in this regard. As best I can recall, Giuliani never talked about timetables, withdrawal, or about stationing forces “nearby.” Among the three leading candidates, only Romney took that line.

I was all ready to endorse Mitt after Fred's SC defeat. But when McCain reminded me of the above, it gave me pause.

Can I trust Mitt to stay the course when all of Washington is against him?

I honestly don't know. I do know that when it comes to not losing wars, I can trust McCain. I don't trust McCain on many issues, or should I say I do trust McCain to do wrong on lots of issues, but when it comes to national security, if a President won't defend us, we won't be defended.

Rush, gamecock and Redstate stand an even chance of stopping McCain from doing some liberal things he is inclined to do, but we can't force a President to act in our defense overseas.

I am still open to being convinced that Mitt Romney has a Bush and McCain-like spine on this issue, but he better be about the business of convincing me and many others in Super Tuesday states of same starting in tonight's debate.

Mitt, don't accuse McCain of lying. You can't win a defamation suit given the mealy mouth language you used in April, and the exacting words McCain used last week.

Rather, look into the camera and tell us in no uncertain terms why you had no thoughts of surrender in April and why, why you have none now, and why enemies of the United States should fear you in the future.

We are the target of all the enemies of freedom. Osama bin Laden thought he saw a weak horse after the 90s. Not all enemies can be deterred, but many can, and many are today due to Bush's spine.

Mitt, show us your spine.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

McCain The Nominee ?

John McCain's victory last night in Florida and the eventual end of the campaign of Rudy Giuliani whose camp has indicated will throw his support behind McCain places the Senator from Arizona as the most likely candidate to gain the GOP nomination.

While Mitt Romney still has an outside chance, the polls from large delegate States like California, New York and New Jersey give McCain a huge advantage especially with the pending support of Giuliani. So now many in the GOP especially Conservatives find themselves in a dilemma.

Do Conservatives who have consistently disliked McCain for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he has either presented legislation with a Democrat co-sponsor, (McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy), or backed Democrats with his vote, (the Bush tax cuts), stand behind this left of right Republican if he is the nominee ?

The answer has to be yes. Even though it troubles me as a Conservative to actually admit this fact it none the less is a fact, if we want to keep Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama out of the White House. Most likely Clinton will be the nominee especially after the sweep through the large delegate States on Super Tuesday.

There are two reason if no others why supporting McCain against Hillary is the only option we have as Republicans even with our bitter feeling toward him.They are , Universal Health Care and the Military. Hillary Clinton with a Democrat Congress is what we will face after November unless we back the GOP nominee and actually get out and vote! Let's look at each of these two reasons individually.

Universal Health Care - This has been the backbone of Hillary Clinton since the first moments of her husbands first term. It is her pet project and if elected it will be before Congress within the first 100 days of her Inauguration. With a liberal Congress to back her this huge entitlement program will be passed forcing every American to subscribe to Hillary Care destroying our medical system and increasing our tax burden to pay for it. McCain though siding with Democrats before is against Universal Health Care.

The Military - Hillary Clinton hates the military. While First Lady she treated the White House guard as if they were her personal valets, even cursing them if they did not do her bidding. She has made it obvious through her career that military spending in , her Socialist mind, can be used better for Social programs.She will pull our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots in the world as quickly as possible. I will even venture to say that within one year into a Hillary administration we will see another devastating attack in the 9/11 mode on our soil because she will weaken our security to the point that another attack will happen.

Agree or disagree with McCain he is a staunch supporter of the military has commanded soldiers in combat and will stand strong for the protection of our nation and the fight against Islamic Fanatics.

Many believe that two years of Hillary and a liberal Congress will be so bad that the GOP will regain the majority in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012. While this is most likely true, the damage that she as Commander in Chief and President will do in just two years may not only be next to impossible to reverse but from a security stand point made devastate this nation beyond repair.

Let me ask this, how many government programs once passed and funded have been reversed regardless of how bad they are ? Few if any. In just two years she would increase government to the breaking point and most of that would NEVER be reversed. From a military stand point her destruction of the military as CIC would take years to rebuild and reverse.

Remember how long it took President Reagan to rebuild and strengthen our military after Carter ? We as Republicans and especially Conservatives must remember the lesson of 2006 when many did not vote because of their disappointment in the GOP Majority. That fiasco gave us the Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid Congress who have been the worst in history!

Barry Goldwater , the Conservatives, Conservative, once said in reference to fellow Conservatives who did not like Richard Nixon in the 1960 election, “Let’s grow up, conservatives! If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work.” Though he disagreed with Nixon he backed him for the Presidency. Ronald Reagan did the same when Nixon ran again in 1968 and 1972.

My fellow Conservatives though we may dislike John McCain the alternative with either Democrat possibility is more than this nation can bare. Hillary or Obama would march us down the path to Socialism, which may be irreversible, devastate our Military making us vulnerable to Al Qaeda or any other Islamic Extremists that wish us dead. As well as weaken our position in the world to the point that we would become the puppet of the United Nations with a nation reminiscent to the days of Jimmy Carter with a Socialist in the White House rather than a liberal who was a weak President.

We cannot allow this to happen and turning out to vote, standing with the GOP nominee is the only way that we can prevent the slide to Socialism and the devastation of our Military. The rest we can fight for with our united voice. Remember even John McCain had to bow to the people over the Amnesty Bill BECAUSE we united as one ad demanded it so. We can do the same with what we do not like in a McCain Presidency. Hillary on the other hand does not care what the people think because in her Socialist thinking, government is the answer and the people must accept what government demands.

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

The State Of The Union

Last night as I watched the last State of the Union Address by President Bush there were several distinct instances during the speech that I wish I could bottle up and send to every voter in this nation. Each involved the spending of the people's money and each obviously exposed the Democrats for who they are.

The President Bush that spoke especially at the beginning of the speech is the Bush that I wish we had had during the first term when he chose to cave so often to the Congress and the Democrats which brought about the massive spending that eventually took the GOP out of the majority.

The moments in the speech that exposed the Democrats for who they are and what they truly think of the American people each dealt with the President's call for reduced taxation and spending. When Bush told Congress that any bill with a tax increase that crossed his desk would receive a VETO, Republicans jumped to their feet and applauded and Democrats sat on their hands and their brains and did not budge.

When Bush called for the tax cuts to become permanent, Republicans cheered and Democrats scowled. Charlie Rangel actually laughed. Especially when Bush stated that anyone who does not think that ending his tax cuts would not be seen as a tax increase by the people , just ask those whose taxes go up by $ 1800.00 and see if they agree.

Another instance occurred when the President referred to earmarks and that any bill that came to his desk with less than a fifty percent reduction in earmarks would receive his VETO, Republicans cheered and Democrats sat on their hands once again. Also when he stated that any bill that came to him with earmarks that were added in Committee then sent to the floor without debate for a vote would again receive a VETO, the Democrats scowled and remained seated while Republicans cheered.

Every instance that I refer to dealt specifically with our money and the way the government spends it. In each instance Bush stood for the people and reducing either our taxes or government spending which effects not only the economy but each of our pocket books and the Democrats hated the very idea even refusing to acknowledge the truth that spending is out of control and the tax burden is to high.

Democrats proved last night that they love taxing the people, love spending our money and despise being told that what they do is the people's business and they are subject to us and not we to them. If these very telling facts could ever be related in a real and truthful way to the American voter does anyone actually believe that a Democrat would be elected to the White House again or find themselves in the majority in Congress ?

Their deception in which Democrats portray themselves as the party of the people has been forced on the American public so much by the liberal media and the lies put forth by the DNC and Democrat candidates since the sixties that many voters actually believe that Democrats favor the common man and the Republicans the rich only.

Pictures speak far more than words and last nights showing by Democrats when the President was telling them how he will stop their tax increase attempts and their excessive spending of our money through earmarks with his VETO, and their response of disdain represents the true colors of a Democrat and that they view the people as an inconvenience preventing them from controlling our government and every aspect of our lives!

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

In Remembrance of Cyrus the Great

By: Amil Imani

It happened here, on January 26, 2008 at the UCLA Freud PlayHouse, in Los Angeles, California. It brought the world's most renowned scholars and top performing artists to a remembrance of the life of Cyrus the Great, the founding father of Persia and the mighty Persian Empire— perhaps the most exemplary, magnificent and just king the world has ever known.

This event put together visual arts, the ambience of the theater, the inspirational young and beautiful Anna Djanbazian’s dancers who, in precise rows executed, perfectly harmonious and breathtaking dances.

In Remembrance of Cyrus the Great

Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment And 2008

As a conservative and a Republican I have had to do a bit of soul searching over the past week. I was a staunch Fredhead because I believed Thompson to be the only Conservative that the GOP had to offer for the 2008 Presidential nomination. I have always considered myself a Conservative first and a Republican second though I have been a card carrying member of the GOP since I turned twenty in 1976.

I have always backed the GOP candidates but like many of you who have been disappointed in the GOP for the last couple of years. I have been frustrated over the direction that the party has gone and have not been real, "Gung Ho, " about the candidates that remain in the running for the nomination.

Like many of you I have misgivings about each candidate and have written about them. Well this week as I have considered who I might support or not support I began remembering Ronald Reagan and have been reading the book, "The Reagan Diaries." A book that I highly recommend as it is a complete detail of the personal daily diary of one of our greatest Presidents.

I was a very involved part of the Reagan Revolution but over the years as President Reagan has risen even more in stature some of what happened during those great years has drifted into the realm of forgotten. One of those forgotten memories about President Reagan that I was reminded of while reading the book is that when he first began his crusade which turned the country around. Conservatives within the GOP accused Ronald Reagan of betraying conservative principles because he, out of necessity was forced to give a little to a very powerful Speaker of the House, "Tip, " O'Neal and a liberal Congress in whom he had to contend with in trying to get his conservative agenda passed.

Though he did not cave to the Democrats , Reagan did have to give some in order to eventually get all that he planned and the results , as history have shown turned a hurting, depressed nation with a devastated military into an optimistic people with a renewed Patriotism. A military unmatched in history, a growing economy and the victor over the Soviets.

President Reagan once said the following when asked about why he found compromise with the Congress though a staunch man of Conservative principle:

“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything. I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’ If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.“

Reagan new that in order to win one must give a little and if getting seventy five or eighty percent meant that getting it all was an eventuality then that is what must be done. He understood that giving some without comspomising principles or beleif was necessary to get what was worth fighting for. In this election year we Republicans are faced with a similar situation as President Reagan was at the beginning of his eight year Presidency. We may not have everything we desire in a candidate but in each we do have seventy five to eighty percent of what we may want.

President Reagan also had an eleventh commandment that he lived by as a Republican and it was, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Reagan realized that though we may have our ideological differences within the party that the only way to beat a Democrat was to present a united front and not bicker among ourselves.

In this election year we face a danger that has never appeared in this nation before. The top contenders for the Democrat nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are Socialists. They may claim otherwise but as one researches their policy statements and the massive entitlements and other government expenditures that both propose, even Socialism may be a little right of where they really stand.

Combine this with the distinct possibility that a Democrat/Socialist President would likely have a liberal Congress willing to pass the Socialist agenda and we face a national disaster that even a new Congress and new President in 2012 may not be able to repair or reverse.

It is therefore a necessity that the GOP win the White House to prevent this Socialist catastrophe from happening. Though our candidates may not be 100% of what we want each would fight the Democrats with the VETO pen and fight to prevent the Socialist agenda from destroying this nation as it has other nations in history.

We are a free Republic and we owe it to our heritage and the generations who follow to keep this nation free and provide a less intrusive government of the people and by the people. Democrats view the people as an inconvenience preventing government from controlling every aspect of our lives.

Though we may have certain issue differences with the remaining candidate it is imperative that we adhere to Reagan's eleventh and unite as a party to defeat the Democrats in 2008. In our eventual nominee we may not have all we want but the seventy five or eighty percent we do have will give us a strong basis from which to fight for the rest because Republicans still believe in the power of the people and understand that the people are the nation and not the government.

We can win this year. We MUST win this year to prevent a Socialist catastrophe lead by Hillary or Obama. We Republicans, we Conservatives and we Moderates must unite as one to give our party a chance in defeating the onslaught to come by the Democrats. Do not forget the lesson of 2006 when many Conservatives because of the disappointment with the GOP Majority did not vote and the current do nothing Democrat Congress is the result of our failure to unite in defeating the Democrats.

We cannot allow that to happen this year. We must stand together in that party unity and fight for the principles we believe in, for the country we love and for the future of our nation. Beating back the Socialist onslaught of the Democrats and renewing this nation to the founding principles that made us the greatest nation in history.

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Obama's SC victory should not be spun as Clintons wish

By Mike DeVine
HinzSight Legal Editor

I predicted last summer, after seeing Barack Obama give a long speech, and when he trailed Hillary Clinton by over 20 points in the South Carolina polls, that he would win my native Palmetto State's primary.

He has now done so.

Jesse Jackson won the SC caucuses in 1984 and 1988 after all. [As a side note, yours truly, pre-2000 conservative epiphany, was a delegate for Jackson in those caucuses. Gamecock has traveled a long road to the right!] I was the only white delegate for Jackson from my precinct in Spartanburg County in 1984, and one of less than ten in the whole county in 1984 and 1988. Moreover, Jackson's "rainbow" coalition of delegates at the state convention was extremely lacking in non-white hues in both years.

Not so for Obama, the winner of the near all white Iowa caucuses. It will be Hillary's coalition that is mostly monochrome this year.

So I have to strongly disagree with the spin I am watching on the MSM, that Obama's "mere" 25% of the white vote in today's SC primary makes him a "black" candidate only now, as opposed to being a candidate that happened to be Black yesterday.

An even split of the white vote would give a candidate 33%. By my math, twenty-five percent is only seven percent less, the margin of error in some polls!

I know that the Clinton Machine's plan was to make the spin that Barack only appeals to Blacks, coming out of SC, but with Obama getting 1 of 4, and Hilary and SC native John Edwards getting only 1 and 1/2 of 4 whites, I would suggest that the schizophrenic Clinton strategy did not produce the numbers they thought necessary to justify such a spin.

Obama has at least quadrupled the portion of the white vote Jackson received in the 80s, and garnered at least ten-fold more votes than Al Sharpton did in his efforts in SC.

The Clintons, as predicted by Dick Morris, and documented by my Will voluntary servitude of Black Dems survive public humiliation at Hillary’s hands? and The Audacity of Hope-dashing Democratic Party racism raged a virtual race "war" against the fellow Democrat as opposed to the typical race "cards" regularly dealt via the MSM against Republicans.

At first they were going to cede the state with virtually no effort by the candidate. Then they decided that they could best metamorphasize the non-racial Barack into, as one liberal pundit described, a "pet negro" that couldn't win in the general, by having Bill Clinton campaign 24/7 and have Hillary speak twice, so as to be seen as trying hard to win, only to lose due to racist whites and blacks. Not only painting SC democrats as racist, but inferring that Democrats and Americans generally are racists.

Of course they always call us in the GOP racists, with no proof. But what the Clintons' obsessive ambition brought into the open was evidence of the rabid racism that rules in the Democratic Party, a racism that I have bemoaned for 10 years, and which led me to the GOP.

Great damage has been done to the Democratic Party, and we should all (if religious) get on our knees and thank God for it. The damage is so great, because Blacks have seen the Clinton's play the game many of their own Black leaders regularly have played with the Clinton's against Republican whites.

That's why SC's James Clyburn, the US House Majority Leader, nearly endorsed Obama.

The message was clear.

All the race talk has obscured some other major facts:

1 - SC blacks didn't turn their support to Obama until AFTER they were shown he could win white votes in Iowa.

2 - Obama, unlike Jackson, has a chance to win, and provides many reasons other than melanin and genitalia to back him over Hillary.

3 - Bill Clinton has been on fire in SC with substantive arguments for Hillary 24/7, yet Obama still got 25% of the white vote.

Local TV and talk radio (as well as national talk radio) has been filled with reports of blacks that are alienated from the Clinton Dem Party. Many say they would stay home if Obama is destroyed, but many also say they would consider the GOP in the Fall. [Many, but not all, couple that possibility with a McCain or a Huckabee being on the GOP ticket.]

Obama has not responded well to the attacks, but
the fact is that the Dems are damaged more than Obama. The GOP needs to take heed of the events in Dixie today.

They must overtly go after Black voters. They should highlight Obama's "community organizing" activities (a staple from the democratic party anger/grievance ginning up playbook) as a young lawyer, a subject too taboo to speak of in public that Bob Johnson, in "Uncle Bill" (as dubbed by Rush Limbaugh to highlight the absurd Dem lable of "Uncle Tom" that liberals ascribe to black conservatives) mode, inadvertently mentioned when called on for an oblique reference to Obama's admitted youthful drug use.

But mostly, they need to highlight and demand scrutiny of states' motor-votor rolls and the voter ID issue. If the Democrats are writing off Blacks, their only chance to win in November is with dead or illegal voters.

That the GOP has not made a stink over this since Hillary's NY-Spitzer drivers' licenses gaffe, is an example of why we aren't in control of Congress.

Dems can't win majorities when only legal citizens vote. Why else do they cry racism against laws that require a voter to provide a photo ID?

It's obvious.

And post-SC, the Donkeys are even more dependent on voters that dare not be photographed. The GOP must not let the Dems make jack asses of them by being outlawyered. We should be about purging motor-voter rolls of illegals, not to mention, the dead, NOW.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

URGENT ACTION ALERT: Help defend the Constitution... TODAY!

Cross-posted on Right Michigan at www.RightMichigan.com.

It wouldn't be a new semester if Central Michigan University weren't attempting to censor free speech and political thought on campus.  Wait, that's not entirely true.  They don't have a problem with free speech and political thought from the left.  It's just the conservatives they have a problem with.

By now we all know the story of Dennis Lennox.  There's not much I can add that hasn't been more eloquently stated by Mike Volpe and Chet Zarko in recent days.  The kid has almost single-handedly raised the Gary Peters issue to national prominence.  But just because Dennis thinks that Peters should choose between campus and Congress (in a District hundreds of miles away while violating federal campaign laws that prohibit public employees from pursuing office) doesn't mean the nut-job administrators at Central agree with him.

Quite the contrary.  They're waging a very personal war against an outspoken conservative student because he dares have opinions different from theirs.

The school has targeted Lennox by banning videotaping, ignored a dean who assaulted him, directed faculty and staff to avoid the use of CMU e-mail when discussing Gary Peters because it could be released under FOIA, accused the kid of suffering from mental illness because he holds conservative political views and has an interesting haircut.  They went as far as to call him the next Virginia Tech-style school shooter.

And that was all them playing nice.  Well they've decided to take the gloves off and we're going to have to do the same.

One week from today, on January 30th at 8:00 AM the school will be holding an expulsion hearing to try to rid themselves of Lennox once and for all.  Nevermind that the ACLU, elected officials and alumni have the kids back, he's making things difficult for the lefties in power on campus and they want to wash their hands of him.

Even more sinister, they're only now letting the guy see the "evidence" they have against him and have refused his request to record the session, determined to cloak it permanently in secrecy.

Remember the good old days when having anti-establishment viewpoints and rallying against the man was part of the college experience?  Students on the left have rioted, thrown rocks at police and destroyed property and avoided serious trouble from campus officials.  But dare express a conservative view point and serve a FOIA request or two and they'll quite literally try to beat you from campus.



That's not right.  And it can't stand.  That's where we come in.  

I know you're busy today.  I know there's a part of you that says this isn't your problem.  There's a part of you that says "everyone else is going to help, I don't need to."  Please warm up your backhand and slap that part of you around a little bit.  We need YOU today!

Please take five minutes (out of the 1,440 you have today) and fire off a quick email or phone call to each of the CMU officials listed below.  Ask them to support Dennis Lennox's right to free expression and political thought.  Ask them to toss the bogus anti-speech "charges" that are being bandied about.  Ask them to stand up for a little thing we like to call the Constitution.

Here is the contact information... five minutes...:

CMU President Michael Rao:

Email: president@cmich.edu

Phone: (989) 774-3131

Assistant Dean of Students Anthony Voisin:

Email: anthony.a.voisin@cmich.edu

Phone: (989) 774-3016

Board of Trustees Chairman Jeffrey Caponigro (R):

Email: capon1jr@cmich.edu

Phone: (248) 355-3200

Board of Trustees member Stephanie Comai (R):

Email: comai1s@cmich.edu

Phone: (734) 761-6915

Board of Trustees member John Kulhavi (R):

Email: kulha1jg@cmich.edu

Phone: (248) 737-6222

Board of Trustees member Gail Torreano (R):

Email: torre1gf@cmich.edu

Phone: (313) 223-7171

Conservatives - Where Do We Go From Here ?

With the announcement by Fred Thompson that he has ended his bid for the Republican nomination for President, where does this leave conservatives in making a choice as to who to back for the GOP ?

If most of those who call themselves conservative are like me, we are conservatives first and Republicans second. While we will vote for the eventual nominee, if the platform or the candidate are not following conservatives principles our vote will be more against the Democrat than for the Republican.

Many of us who are conservatives today found our political core from the leadership of one man, President Ronald Reagan. We discovered through his unwavering stand for conservatism and the fantastic optimism that he always shared about the greatness of this country and the absolute confidence he had in the people of this nation we love, that not only did Reagan speak for us he was speaking ABOUT us. We found in him a President who understood our values, our morals and our belief in what Government should be and that the people are what make this nation great and it is we who are the ultimate voice for the nation.

Since then conservatives have been searching for another Reagan, knowing that no one could ever match his greatness or fill his shoes because God in his wisdom gave us only one. But yet we look for one who could follow in his footsteps and take the GOP back to the Reagan conservative policy and agenda that made the GOP the force that it was in the late eighties and the nineties.

We thought we had that person in Fred Thompson. He had most of the conservative credentials. He spoke eloquently and from the heart. But most of all he believed in the people and in the conservative values that we hold so dear, limited government, reduced spending, giving the money back to the people in the form of tax relief and a strong military which equates to strong national security. Fred also held strong to the moral issues that conservatives believe in. Though Fred was not Ronald Reagan, he did follow in the footsteps of Reagan and the conservatism that the GOP has fallen away from in the last few years.

His campaign never really caught on and though the Vice Presidency is still a possibility, we conservatives are now faced with settling for a candidate who may not follow our beliefs or values whether morally or politically.

Rudy Giuliani - While his campaign is struggling and after Florida, Rudy may no longer be a factor, he offers conservative points in the national security issues but in social conservatism, Rudy is far from conservative. Though he has indicated that if elected he would nominate Judges like Alito and Roberts which does calm some of the moral issues, his record is still less than stellar while he was Mayor of New York.

Mike Huckabee - Very conservative morally but extremely liberal when it comes to spending, (65% increase while Arkansas Governor), taxes, (more than $1, 000 dollar increase per taxpayer while Governor), and his record shows he favors social programs for illegals, a stance he has tried to run from while campaigning but a record none the less that he cannot hide nor run from. Plus with the loss in South Carolina he too may not be around much longer.

Mitt Romney - Romney is talking a conservative game now but his record and many of the successes he boasts of as Governor of Massachusetts speaks otherwise. Many who have backed Fred seem to be leaning toward Romney because of what he is saying on the campaign trail but I have found over the years that in most cases politically speaking, a Leopard does not change his spots.

Romney's success as Governor was more compromising with a liberal legislature than standing for conservative principles as he is trying to portray. We had enough of that in the first four years with President Bush as he tried to reach out to the Democrats and that compromise which lead to unfettered spending ended up costing the GOP the Congress in 2006.

John McCain - Of all the remaining candidates McCain has angered conservatives the most. With legislation like McCain/Feingold, the recently defeated Amnesty bill that he partnered with Ted Kennedy and the gang of 14 during the appointments of Judges Roberts and Alito, McCain has ruffled many conservative feathers. He has been one who was known to stab the GOP in the back in other instances also as he was one of only two GOP Senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts.

But McCain has been reaching out to conservatives in the past weeks and he is talking a Reagan conservative platform. One thing I can say for him is that he is one Senator who has not sought pork for his State of Arizona and his honesty is unquestionable. Good, bad or indifferent, whether it hurt him politically or not, McCain has always done exactly what he said. If that honesty holds true he may very well have seen the light and understands that the conservative approach is what this nation needs and wants. But the Leopard and the changing of spots idea may still hold true and that is why I still have much hesitation with McCain.

So where do we conservatives stand ? Honestly I do not know. Fred Thompson in the VP spot on the ticket would certainly fill conservative gaps with any of the candidates who still have a reasonable chance at the nomination which looks to be either McCain or Romney and Rudy with an outside chance though recent polls even have that diminishing.

Were it not for McCain/Feingold a full fledged, real Reagan conservative would have already been in the race and Newt Gingrich would have made this a moot point. But he cannot run without damaging the non-profit conservative think tank that he has invested so much time and effort into AND run for President.

So we are left with the wait and see on Super Tuesday and eventually the Convention. I do not envy any of my fellow conservatives who still have not voted in a Primary for you have an extremely difficult decision in casting your vote. But by all means vote. Remember it was conservatives staying away from the polls that helped the Democrats take power in 2006. So please make your voice heard at the polls in your State and then again in November!

As far as the Democrats are concerned Hillary, who I believe will be the nominee especially now that she is kicking the Clinton machine into high gear, is VERY beatable and polls indicate that McCain has the best chance against her.

We conservatives can only hope that in the next few months the party that has slid away from our values and Reagan beliefs will wake up and realize that returning to those principles will not only bring victory in November but will once again take this nation down the path of strength and prosperity.

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Have the Courage to Say No to Islam

Dear Iranians: Have the Courage to Say No to Islam
By: Amil Imani

Nearly 1400 years ago, a group of nomads from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known to the history of mankind. With that, they injected their Islamic virus into the veins of their victim: the Iranian people.

Isn’t it time for the Iranians, in a show of solidarity, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the civilized free people of the world to defeat this virulent disease of Islam? In most other lands conquered by Islam, the conquered peoples have lost their identity and heritage and embraced the ways of their new rulers, under an “Arab” identity. Conversely, in Iran a band of indigenous victims, “infected” by Islam, has mindlessly turned on their Iranian countrymen and tried to rob them of their remaining ancient heritage. It is exactly this savage minority that has established an oppressive tyrannical rule and wields power against the Iranian people. Yet even under the rule of Islamofascism, the overwhelming majority of Iranians of various ethnicities and religions remain faithful to their ancient creed – a creed that was given to the world by Zoroaster.

The twenty-first century presents great challenges and opportunities that demand new ways of thinking and behaving. The doctrine of Islam may have been appropriate for the desert dwellers of Arabia some 1400 years ago, for the very people stigmatized in Islamic literature as “Jahil” (ignoramus). But it is dysfunctional today, to say the least. As a matter of fact, Islam went astray from the very beginning and inflicted a great deal of suffering on both its followers as well as those who resisted its advance.

All pre-Islamic achievements that may strengthen the attraction on the part of the Iranian populace are de-emphasized and sometimes even falsely attributed to Islam, to prevent the average Iranian and the world at large from finding out the historical truths about the destruction and retardation Islam has brought to the region. Islam continues to take credit for the arts and sciences produced by the peoples it has conquered -- and they were mostly Iranians, Egyptians, Syrians, Mesopotamians, and Babylonians.

Keep in mind that Islamists go by their 1400-year-old charter of Allah --the Qur'an-- the same charter that they held in one hand while slashing the throats of millions of innocent Iranians and yelling joyously "Allah is the greatest" the whole time.

Dear Iranians, I am compelled to write this today and the words just stream through me without any outline or preconceptions. I am talking about this today, partly because it is timely, partly because it is good to know what Islam has done to our precious culture. Some things did not have to turn out as they did. Truth and provocative ideas ought to be welcomed by all of us. “A Slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts” said Euripides. Yet provocative ideas by themselves may not be enough. Actions are needed to correct the past mistakes and that starts with you.

Dear Iranians, as long as you remain a “Muslim” (as you are by default and not by choice), you will remain enslaved by a violent foreign creed and culture. You are unable to think for yourselves and break free. As long as you remain Muslim, you cannot possibly be called an Iranian. Being Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence, your language, your dialect, or even your genetic makeup or race. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians by any definition, except by virtue of an identity card. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive and demeaning ideology, Islam.
The detoxification of Islam must start with you. It is you who should pick up the flag of freedom and march in the streets and defend your ancestors who were brutally murdered by the hands of the Arab invaders and forced you to become like them.

Remember, life is precious. It is to be protected, nurtured and celebrated. Humankind is moving, perhaps at a glacier pace, toward reconciliation, ever-expanding inclusiveness without any group or ideology imposing itself on others. Any attempt against this trend of unity in diversity is doomed to failure, as exemplified by the demise of fascism and communism. The charter of Islam, the Quran, for the most part, preaches discrimination, death and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Islam, just like fascism and communism, is a dysfunctional ideology that needs to be abandoned.

Humanity has matured considerably since the time of Muhammad. In order to continue its forward march, mankind must follow a roadmap appropriate for its age and state of development. It is foolish to insist that a book, which demands terrorism and was written over 1400 years ago, must serve as the one and only guide for humanity.

Let us remember that the Arabs who sallied out of the deserts of Arabia did not fan out to the outside world with the Quran in one hand and flowers in the other, preaching love and peace from street corner to street corner, aiming to capture the hearts and minds of the people. Islam was forced on every culture it encountered at the point of the sword. The kinder, gentler alternative was death or imposition of the backbreaking “jizyah” (poll tax) levied on those who were spared the sword and allowed to retain their religious beliefs as “infidels”. In spite of paying the heavy jizyah, non-Muslims were consistently treated, at best, as second-class citizens in their own homelands all across the Middle East.

Iran is our beloved motherland. She deserves love and respect from all her children. Iran is not a land of the evil, even though presently it is in its yoke. Persians often take great umbrage at being confused with Arabs. Authors like Robert Kaplan and V. S. Naipaul have documented the Persian antipathy toward the Arabs, all the while espousing the Arab religion enthusiastically.
Dear Iranians, you have a dilemma. You require reconciliation with the self. You are either the children of Cyrus the Great, who was the founding father of Iran and symbolized justice and respect for diversity, or you can claim to be the descendent of a man who was not an exemplary prophet. In other words, you are either a “Seyyed” (itself a laughable farce), which is another word for an Arab “lord”, or you are a magnificent Iranian who believes in the lofty tenets of Good Words, Good Thoughts and Good Deeds. You cannot be both. It is time to reconcile. The choice is yours.

My aspiration for my motherland is to see it freed from the evil that has been visited upon it ever since our people bought into a most depraved version of Islam. Whether people become Baha'is or Zoroastrians or Christians, it should be a free choice by each person. Even if a person insists on remaining Muslim, that is his or her prerogative. Yet, imposing the suffocating intolerant Islam on an entire nation is something that neither I, nor any freethinking person can accept. Our beloved Iran deserves to be a country where, once again, we take pride in being its children instead of the present when we often do all we can to conceal our nation of birth when visiting abroad.

Those of you who are still entrapped in the cult of Muhammad of the 7th century are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in you the traditional respect for diversity. Iran is now a nation whose residents are most rapidly abandoning Islam as they learn the truth about it. It is the fundamental ancient Iranian belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia.

Islam, with its barbaric exclusionary and primitive Bedouin Arab dogma, overtook Iran and brutally strove to replace the traditional lofty Iranian belief in human rights and diversity. Regrettably, the forced subjugation of the Iranians succeeded to some degree in transmitting the Islamic psychosocial virus to many Iranians—the virus that transforms the person into a bigot who sees only his way and his belief as the right way and the only right mandate. Any and all people who do not see things “his” way are wrong and must be reformed by whatever means, including eradication, if the bigot sees fit.

The diverse people who give Iran its enduring strength include Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, and more. One and all have their allegiance to Iran as an idea and a nation and they all have shaped Iran into a unified nation. Iranians are the spiritual children of Cyrus the Great and adherents to his Charter—the first Charter of Human Rights—that clearly proclaims the equal rights and worth of the beliefs and practices of all peoples.

Iranians are ashamed by the appearance of Ahmadinejad, “the Monkey”, on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not an Iranian. Just look at the numerous photos showing him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck—a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of the Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the “non-believers” of all stripes. One quick look at his willingness to give away territorial and political rights of Iran is another testament to his “un-Iranian” nature.

This shameless Ahmadinejad and his cronies, the criminal mullahs, are personifications and agents of Ahriman “evil”. Nothing whatsoever is beyond their evil intentions. Keeping themselves in power by devastating our land, heritage and people is a small price that they are more than happy to pay. Shame, eternal shame on them. Iran shall rise again. It shall rise from its ashes. I am certain of that.

We do recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic “software” is deeply engrained in the minds of its victims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the Islamic “blueprint of destruction” and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life—that of liberty and progress. However, you must avoid any and all Islamic propaganda and join the forces of liberty and gain your freedom from this dark and alien cult of death. For 1300 years, the Islamists have forced you to choose and celebrate death over life, to cry instead laugh and to mourn instead of dance. The crown jewel of Islam simply does not fit the Persians. It never has and it never will.

Keep in mind that Islam hates the power of the individual. Islam hates the achievements of women. Islam hates progress. Islam hates the religious freedom of others. Islam hates the pre-Islamic heritage of Iran and other nations. Islam hates the light of truth. Islam is against free-will and hates democracy, liberty and justice for all. Islam simply loves to crush and eat you alive. That is what Islam does and that is what Islam is. Are you going to worship that? Just Say no, because you are not a robot, you are a human being.

Now, “praise be to the core of goodness” that binds all of us together as devoted lovers of our ancient heritage of respect and diversity. Our motherland is bleeding under the dark cloaks of the oppressive mullahs. Yet, our people shall overcome the poison that courses in their veins and will choose to turn away from the doctrine of death and destruction to, hopefully, pursue life and construction. All of you hold the key and promise for our homeland's revival and its complete freedom from the centuries old yoke of the barbaric rule of Islam and its “Sharia”.

The light of freedom must be preserved for humanity. To save the motherland, all Iranians must unite and JUST SAY NO to Islam and SAY YES to liberty.

Charter Schools: The Marine Corps of Public Education

The Marine Corps’ mystique entices motivated recruits. Its battlefield ferocity strikes fear in the hearts of its enemies. The Corps is something nearly everyone admires, but only a few have what it takes to make the commitment.

Marines do not make excuses; they find ways to accomplish their mission – often without assets others require. Marines pride themselves on their ability to “accomplish more with less.”

Charter schools have benefited from a similar philosophy. They, too, “accomplish more with less.” They entice committed families and teachers searching for something better in public education. They also strike fear in the hearts of teacher unions and slippery politicians.

Overall, charter schools have produced at least as good -- but typically better -- results than traditional public schools. They have done so without assets their competition demands. Charters have succeeded despite receiving less taxpayer funding. They are completely on their own to pay for classroom facilities. Whether they build, lease, or restore property, charters own the problem.

Charters also highlight the garbage surrounding “teacher certification.” Depending on the state, charters have flexibility in their hiring practices. Proportionally, they use fewer “certified teachers” to match or surpass their competition’s results.

They endure politically correct “deficiencies,” as well, like lacking racial diversity. Many charters specifically target at-risk populations -- which are often minorities. Incredibly, their opponents accuse charters of supporting segregation.

By design, charters operate with greater autonomy and fewer regulations than district schools. In return, charters promise better accountability for academic results and fiscal bookkeeping. But teacher unions exert tremendous energy to cripple charters with the same regulations and central control that make public schools the disasters they are.

Granted, some charters emphasize the same politically correct fads district schools do -- self-esteem, diversity, or outcome-based instruction (i.e. “low standards”). Some have experienced accounting scandals that occasionally embarrass traditional schools. Such charters are like Marines who humiliate the Corps by failing to live up to its high standards (e.g. Congressman Frank Murtha).

Nevertheless, charters give parents an option that teacher unions oppose. Choice equals competition, and people generally choose the product that works best. Public schools haven’t worked for a long time because monopolies breed complacency. Charter schools open the door to competition. But teacher unions employ lawyers and politicians to slam that door shut. By imposing increased regulations and as much central control on charters as possible, unions undermine the edge charter schools have – decentralized control.

The Corps faces similar problems. The smallest branch of the military, the Corps has battled being absorbed into another service. Its success and mystique are often envied and occasionally despised (as are charter results). For example, during the 1983 assault on Grenada, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John W. Vessey Jr., declared, “We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?” We should ask the same question concerning public education.

Marines advocate decentralized command more than any other service. Its philosophy pushes important-decision making down the chain to the lowest-ranking Marines in the trenches. Such responsibility forces Marines to be incredibly knowledgeable and competent. Marines stress accountability not only for personal actions and decisions, but also for subordinates’.

Charters operate similarly, as they function independently from district schools. Charters simply have a more efficient approach. They streamline administration and eliminate bureaucratic red tape. They place greater responsibility directly on teachers. In fact, if charter-school teachers are ineffective, they cannot hide behind tenure, which protects district teachers. Charter teachers have one-year contracts. Staying employed motivates them to teach and produce results. Conversely, once tenured, district teachers have little internal pressure to perform -- as teacher-union jihad ensues if principals dare attempt firing incompetent teachers.

Furthermore, teacher unions insist “certified teachers” are essential to learning. But charter school results prove differently, as does pragmatic research. For example, three professors -- representing Harvard, Columbia, and Dartmouth -- expose the insignificance of teacher certification in “Photo Finish.” Unfortunately, most competent teachers who want to teach in public schools cannot escape the politically correct indoctrination and state-supported extortion of credentialing programs. Then again, charter schools can save some from the legalized shakedowns that teacher-certification programs are.

Opponents also accuse charters of draining funds from district schools. This is simply untrue. District schools receive money only for enrolled students. In other words, when families opt for charter schools, they actually give traditional schools what teacher unions demand: smaller classes and reduced teacher workload.

Finally, regarding racial diversity, no practical evidence exists that racial diversity improves learning. In fact, research by Harvard’s Ronald G. Fryer suggests the opposite. In “Acting White,” Fryer reveals that black students who do well academically in racially integrated schools face banishment and even violence from other blacks. He writes, “It’s less of a problem in the private sector and in predominantly black public schools.” He also states, “[his] findings with respect to Hispanics are even more discouraging.” Furthermore, most minority parents want the right to choose their children’s schools. But politicians who boast about looking out for minorities are the same representatives denying minorities that right.

While no one will ever mistake charter schools for the Marine Corps, charters’ ability to “accomplish more with less” deserves greater recognition. Traditional schools should try replicating the philosophy instead of plaguing charters with failed practices. The Marine Corps made the ability to improvise, to adapt, and to overcome famous. If teachers will strive for that ability, their students stand to profit.

(Lee Culpepper is a former Marine and high school English teacher. He is currently working to complete his first book, Alone and Unafraid: One Marine’s Counterattack Inside the Walls of Public Education. Visit Lee’s website at www.leeculpepper.com)

Vice President Fred Thompson ?

Placing a great deal of importance to a win in the South Carolina Primary and finishing third may very well have taken the wind out of the sails for the GOP nomination bid for Fred Thompson. Sources in the former Tennessee Senators camp are saying that Fred may be making an announcement soon concerning his campaign. This combined with his pulling out of the Thursday debate before the Florida Primary and his low profile since the South Carolina Primary leads to the conclusion that Fred will gracefully bow out of the GOP Presidential race.

But that will not be the last that we hear from Fred Thompson. Senior Staffers from his campaign are talking seriously about the VP spot on the GOP ticket. In fact as early as last summer the Thompson campaign had mentioned the possibility of Fred seeking the second spot on the ticket.

This may also explain why his campaign seemed to lack the energy that is necessary for a full fledged Presidential run and that Fred has actually been more interested in the second spot rather than the first from the very beginning. Granted the methods that Fred used during his campaign worked extremely well when he ran for the Senate but have not been as successful in a national campaign for President.

Having the conservative Fred Thompson as the number two man on the GOP ticket would definitely strengthen whomever the eventual nominee may be. Fred's conservative credentials will fill many of the gaps that McCain, Romney or Giuliani have with the base of the Republican Party. This combined with the showing that he has had in the early Primaries will place him in a strong position for not only the VP nod but to help shape the party platform to a more conservative one.

The idea of Fred as the VP on the GOP ticket also found some confirmation during the debate which took place in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina on January tenth. I had an opportunity to speak with South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, who has been a staunch McCain supporter and has partnered with the Arizona Senator on all of his controversial legislation from McCain/Feingold to the gang of 14.

Graham has talked and been questioned many times in the past about the VP spot if McCain were to get the nomination and has always been willing to not only talk about the possibility but has always responded as if being the number two on a McCain ticket was a foregone conclusion.

After the debate in the Spin Room, I asked Graham about the number two spot if McCain's momentum continued and he won the nomination. At first he hesitated in even answering the question then he avoided it all together which was highly unusual for Graham who has always readily talked about the possibility in the past and is very much a media hound when it comes to any type of press coverage.

At the time I chalked it up to the fact that he was in a crowd of several reporters and that he had been answering questions for nearly an hour by the time I got to him. Now with the talk of Fred being the number two man the distinct possibility that McCain had already talked to Fred and that Graham was privy to the conversation and was no longer in the running for the number two spot with McCain seems very likely.

Fred Thompson would make a very strong VP nominee on any ticket. His conservative credentials will strengthen any of the remaining candidates and the fact that he is well known from not only his Presidential run but his Television and Movie career will be a definite plus for the ticket.

Thompson's presence will also help to bring conservatives to the voting booth who may be hesitant to vote for McCain, Romney or Giuliani because of their more moderate or liberal records on many conservative issues.

Fred Thompson as Vice President of The United States ? A very distinct possibility and one that I would support. Though I would rather see Fred at the top of the ticket which would take a miracle at this point, the number two spot would be a welcome sight for the Tennessee conservative.

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Winners and Leaders

by Lance Thompson

Ironically, the compressed 2008 primary schedule has resulted in an extended selection process–no candidate is running away with the race yet, though several are trailing into obscurity.
At this point, as voters of both parties realize they must eventually coalesce around one candidate, the choice is often between the candidate who is considered "electable" and the candidate who more closely represents the principles of the party.

In 2004, Howard Dean was much in line with the principles of the Democrats–strongly anti-war, supportive of socialized medicine, and an adherent to the priorities of the moveon.org party base. Nonetheless, the Democrats threw over Dean (even before his post-Iowa scream fest) for John Kerry, who was considered more "electable."

In 2003, when California voters chose to recall the hapless Democrat Governor Gray Davis, the GOP had two strong contenders to take his place. Arnold Schwarzenegger had worldwide popularity and solid gold electability. State Senator Tom McClintock, however, was a true, principled conservative with an agenda for change in California based on fiscal responsibility and small government. Republicans in the state voted overwhelmingly for Schwarzenegger, and now California has a Republican governor who is indistinguishable from a moderate Democrat.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan was clearly the flag bearer for conservatives, having governed California as a conservative, having written and broadcast his conservative ideas throughout the country, and advocating them at every public appearance. But the GOP nominated Gerald Ford, believing that his incumbent status made him more electable. Reagan’s convention speech pledging his support for Ford after the close-fought nomination process was a revelation, and ensured that Republicans would nominate the right man the next time.

For 2008, Republicans face a similar choice. Rudy Giuliani has been the front runner for months because of his reputation for cleaning up New York and his actions as mayor on September 11th 2001. Both of these are legitimate accomplishments, but they do not necessarily reflect Republican principles. They are resume items that make him popular and electable. . In fact, Giuliani is pro-choice, supported gun control in New York City, and conducted a very public affair while married
But Giuliani’s front-runner status is shifting to John McCain, a Vietnam veteran with an unswerving record of support for the war on the jihadists, and a reputation for going his own way. His own way includes voting against the Bush tax cuts, advocating relaxed immigration policy, providing Constitutional protections for terrorist prisoners, and co-authoring the free speech-limiting McCain Feingold legislation. But McCain’s appeal to centrists and the main stream media, coupled with his maverick reputation and his recent surge, make him appear electable.

Mitt Romney is pro-life, governed a blue state as a Republican, has a strong record of success in business and private enterprise, supports the current strategy and tactics in the terror war, supports tough immigration policy, supports gun rights and tax cuts–in other words, is the perfect embodiment of most conservative principles. He has won three primaries (Wyoming, Nevada, Michigan) and come in second in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has more delegates than any other GOP candidate, yet he is seldom referred to as a front runner. His change of heart on abortion, from pro-choice to pro-life, and his Mormon faith are often mentioned as barriers to his electability.
So Republicans will have to decide between electability, which is really just a subjective reflection of current polls and press coverage, and principle, which is a measure of character.
There are four possible outcomes. The first two stem from nominating a candidate believed to be "electable." He could win, and our party places in power a leader who has no loyalty to our principles and values, currently exemplified by Governor Schwarzenegger in California. Or our "electable" candidate could lose, thus disproving the single qualification that won him the nomination. Ask John Kerry supporters about that.

The other two possibilities stem from nominating a candidate who shares our values. It is possible that he could lose, but we could go home after the campaign with heads held high, because we fought for the things we believe and a man we believe in. Those who supported Ronald Reagan in 1976 saw their candidate miss the nomination, but they were proven right four years later when Reagan prevailed.

The fourth and final possibility is that we nominate the man of principle, campaign with all our hearts and souls, and he wins. We thus choose a leader who represents the values we live by and the principles we hold dear. Isn’t that what the whole process is supposed to be about?
=-=-=-=
Lance Thompson208-898-1451lancet@q.com

World Financial Markets In Freefall -- Double, Double Toil And Trouble

IS RECESSION INEVITABLE? ANALYSTS STEER CLEAR OF THE "D" WORD

by David Hinz

American markets are closed today, in honor of the Martin Luther King holiday. But while our markets sleep, other financial markets around the world are harbingers of crisis.

Like the three witches in Macbeth, calling for calamity, we would do well to examine the portents pointed to by those world markets.

HONG KONG (Thomson Financial) - Hong Kong shares closed Monday sharply lower, with the benchmark Hang Seng Index settling below 24,000 points for the first time since September, as investors dumped blue chips on fears about the outlook for the US economy.

Fears of economic slowdown in the United States has caused a freefall of world markets, an indication that the world understands what few Americans do -- the United States drives the world economy.

Around the world, as market after market closes sharply down, the fears of an American Recession casts a pale among world investors.

The Hang Seng Index closed down 1,383.01 points or 5.5 percent at 23,818.86, after hitting a low of 23,770.13 earlier in the session.

The index dropped sharply in afternoon trade following steep declines in other major Asian bourses.

Mainland stocks led the losses on the Hong Kong index, with the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index down 1,029.87 points or 7.1 percent at 13,531.45.

It is becoming increasingly clear that world investors are putting little faith in the US government meeting the challenge through a "stimulus package" as proposed by President Bush.

As the earth turns, the market crisis which began in the far East, moves inexorably toward our own shores. In India, the markets saw their sharpest drop in more than four years.

Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Indian stocks tumbled, with the benchmark index plunging the most in almost