Newt Gingrich: The Republican Dark Horse?

In the present scenario, the brokered convention mentioned by Michael is not likely. Barring a miracle, Crazy John McCain will take another big stride next Tuesday toward hijacking the Republican Party. Besides, assuming that the Democratic nominee is chosen in the primaries and caucuses, a GOP nominee picked by a brokered convention would be vulnerable to "smoke-filled room" charges. Newt himself has predicted that the nominee will be one of the current candidates.

Several years ago, Michael left the Republican Party and became an independent. I'm a lifelong Republican, but if the GOP indeed nominates Insane McCain, I'll probably be joining Michael. Thank goodness we'll have choices in November other than the Democratic and Republican nominees.

by Michael Reagan | Newsmax.com | January 24, 2008

Fred Thompson's gone. Duncan Hunter's gone. All these people are gone. Huckabee could become Huckabeen — gone by next Tuesday [Jan. 29]. So could Rudy after next Tuesday's Florida primary. [Huckster-bee is staying in the race to drain votes from Romney and audition to be Crazy John's running mate.]

All of a sudden you've got this Republican primary coming down to McCain, Romney, and Ron Paul. With all this uncertainty, just where can a conservative go? All of a sudden radio talk-show hosts, who reflect the opinions of grassroots conservative voters, are all over the lot, hammering on Rudy, hammering on Romney, hammering on McCain, and hammering on Paul.

Listening to them you get an idea who they want or don't want. They don't like McCain. Most probably they support either Huckabee or Romney. Although they think [correctly] Rudy is gone, he could come back however, if he wins in Florida next Tuesday.

If Huckabee is finished, I think they go to Romney, who is somewhat more conservative than the rest. At any rate, conservatives could be faced with backing either McCain, or Romney, or Huckabee... .

Or they could end up backing none of them.

Who then could conservatives end up backing?

Well, who recently has come out with a new book? Who's doing all the shows talking about his new book? Who is advocating common sense solutions to the most pressing problems America faces?

Newt Gingrich, that's who. He was out of the race for a long time; he toyed with the idea of running until Fred Thompson entered the race; and then he more or less pulled back.

Why Newt? Ask yourself why Ronald Reagan won. He won because he was able to excite a group of people in America that the liberal wing of the Republican Party has never excited – the grassroots.

Newt Gingrich is the last Republican to do that — to reach out to the grassroots, to all those conservative Republicans and Reagan Democrats. Remember, it was Newt who engineered the miraculous Republican take-over of Congress in 1994 — something that was deemed impossible two years after Bill Clinton won the White House.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was out there quietly working the phones and hoping for a wide-open convention where the delegates, and not the primaries that selected many of them, decide for themselves who they want to carry the GOP banner in the presidential election in November.

If Newt throws his hat in the ring, he knows that in the blink of an eye he's got the grassroots behind him.

Look at what happened Saturday in South Carolina. McCain won with 33 percent of the vote, which means 67 percent of the voters said we don't want McCain; only 30 percent said yes to Huckabee, which means that about 70 percent said no to him; 15 percent went for Thompson; a mere 14 percent went for Romney; and 2 percent went for Giuliani.

So basically the voters said a resounding "no" to all of the above.

So who can electrify the base and get them to come out from their bunkers and ignite a groundswell? On the record, the only person capable of doing that is Newt Gingrich.

Covering all the issues that concern the grassroots, Romney represents the Reagan economic approach, McCain, the national security issues, Giuliani represents the hard line on crime position, and Huckabee covers the religious position. Everybody has a piece.

Newt Gingrich covers all of those issues, and in the eyes of the grassroots, he covers them brilliantly. Just as his Contract with America dealt with many of the issues that concerned the grassroots and won Congress for the GOP, his agenda goes right to the heart of our current problems. He's offering concrete solutions to all the concrete problems and that's what the grassroots craves.

As a result, if the nomination gets thrown open in a brokered convention, the person who comes out of the struggle the winner will most likely be Newt Gingrich.

If I'm right, I'll back him to the hilt. If I'm wrong, I'll follow my dad's lead and support the nominee no matter who he is.

The State's and the Parties' Roles in Nominations

When Louisiana’s major parties have used presidential primaries, they have always been closed primaries. As I understand it, those primaries are "beauty contests," and the presidential delegates are chosen in separate party caucuses.

Louisiana is restoring party primaries this year for its congressional elections. The Democrats are inviting independents to vote in their primaries, while the Republicans are not. The party primaries for the special election to fill the U. S. House seat vacated by now-Gov. Bobby Jindal will be held on Saturday, March 8.

In 1995, the 8th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that when a state requires parties to nominate by primary, the state must pay the costs of those primaries (Republican Party v. Faulkner County). It’s my understanding that the state of Virginia has always paid the costs of primaries, despite the fact that the parties there have other nominating options. (The 4th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently said that Virginia’s Republicans may close their primaries when they are forced to nominate by primary [Miller v. Cunningham]. It remains to be seen whether this ruling will be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.)

A commenter at Ballot Access News suggested this: “ABOLISH caucuses, primaries and conventions — to STOP having endless campaign machinations.”

The state has the power to require parties to nominate candidates and to limit the general election ballot to one candidate per party. If the state does so, it must then specify the nominating method(s). If the parties were left to their own devices, they would be very unlikely to hold primaries, due to the expense. The voters would then raise hell, since in most states, they are accustomed to primaries. Thus, the states will continue to require and pay for primaries.

That same commenter also suggested “DIRECT general election nominations by nominating petitions…”

That’s what Louisiana does in all of its state and local elections– despite the first round commonly being called a “primary.” The candidates may qualify either by petition OR by paying a fee.

That’s also what the voters of Washington state have approved– abolishing party primaries for offices other than president– and we should be hearing from the U. S. Supreme Court on the Washington “top two” system* any time now (State v. Republican Party of Washington State). If the "top two"* is implemented there, the state's Democrats and Republicans have indicated that they will hold caucuses and conventions to endorse candidates.

In addition, there is an effort underway to put an initiative on Oregon's November 2008 ballot to eliminate party primaries for offices other than president and to have all candidates run in the same election.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* All candidates, including independents, are listed on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff.

The "Gang of Four" Hillary Haters

Did the Clintons attempt to block Comrade Howard Dean from becoming Democratic national chairman? If he indeed hates Hillary, you'd think they would have tried to do so. Barack Obama's slogan is "Go With B. O.!" Hillary's comeback is "No Mo' B. O.!"

Now that Teddy has joined Obama, both Ron Paul and Obama have blimps associated with their campaigns.

From Newsmax.com:

Sen. Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack [Hussein] Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination should come as no surprise to readers of Newsmax’s Insider Report, which has disclosed Kennedy’s membership in the so-called “Gang of Four” Hillary Clinton haters.

The Four — Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Al Gore — have pledged to stop Hillary from getting the nomination, and each has his own reason for detesting Clinton.

Newsmax has learned from Democratic sources that Gore is said to be waiting until after the primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5 to enter the fray with an endorsement.

The word in political circles is that if Obama appears the winner that day, Gore will endorse him — in hopes of driving the final nail into the coffin of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

As the Insider Report has disclosed on several occasions beginning in June 2005, Kennedy and Gore have been disgusted by Bill and Hillary Clinton’s moderate politics.

Both were disturbed by Hillary’s hawkish stance on the Iraq war. Early on in the 2008 race, Kennedy had even endorsed Kerry for the 2008 nomination.

In his endorsement speech Monday, Kennedy praised Hillary Clinton, but then made veiled comparisons with her and Obama, noting that the Illinois senator opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and that he does not “demonize” his opponents.

Who could Uncle Ted be referring to with those comments?

Former White House hopeful Gore blames his 2000 loss on Hillary, whom he says siphoned off key resources to her Senate race.

[Comrade] Howard Dean blames the Clintons for his 2004 campaign woes. A year earlier, Clinton had launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to pressure fellow Democrats not to support Dean for president.

As the Insider Report disclosed in July 2006, Dean supporters were unhappy with Clinton’s stand on Iraq and her cautious shift to the center. And Sen. Kerry feels Hillary stabbed him in the back, promising to go all out to support his 2004 White House campaign but then doing as little as possible to help him.

Newsmax.com cited Kerry’s membership in the Gang of Four on Jan. 10 after Kerry announced his endorsement of Obama for president. Now Kennedy has joined him.

Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has not yet endorsed a candidate, but insiders say he is working behind the scenes to promote Obama’s candidacy, in the belief that Hillary is too polarizing to win a general election.

Rush Buries Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Hussein Obama challenged Congressman Bobby Rush in the March 2000 Illinois Democratic primary.

Rush inflicted a defeat of landslide proportions on Obama-- better than 2 to 1.

Maybe this qualifies Barack Hussein to be president, since B. J. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both lost general elections for the U. S. House.

Crazy John: The Geraldo Rivera Republican

"There is a reason so many liberals in the media and the Democratic Party want John McCain [the Manchurian candidate] to be the GOP presidential nominee. He gives them cover to continue smearing grassroots conservatives."

by Michelle Malkin | VDARE.com | January 22, 2008

After spearheading a disastrous, security-undermining illegal alien amnesty bill last year with Teddy Kennedy, "straight-talking" GOP Sen. John McCain claims he has seen the light. In TV appearances, he vows to put immigration enforcement first. On the campaign trail, he offers a perfunctory promise to strengthen border security and emphasizes the need to restore Americans' trust in their government's ability to defend the homeland.

"I got the message," he told voters in South Carolina. "We will secure the borders first."

But how can McCain cure citizens' distrust when his own credibility on the issue remains fatally damaged? He doesn't believe his own election-year spin. And he knows we know it. This is cynicism on steroids with a speedball chaser.

Not all of us have forgotten how the short-fused Arizona senator cursed good-faith opponents in his own party ("F**k you!" and "Chickensh*t" were the choice words he had for Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn during a spat over enforcement provisions). Not all of us have forgotten that he voted against barring felons from receiving amnesty benefits under his plan. Not all of us have forgotten the underhanded, debate-sabotaging manner in which McCain/Kennedy/Lindsey Graham [Cracker]/Harry Reid conspired to ram their package down voters' throats.

His admission of the shamnesty failure is grudging and bitter. While he now tells conservative voters what they want to hear about the need to build the southern border fence, he takes a contemptuous tone toward physical barriers when talking to businessmen. "By the way, I think the fence is least effective," he told executives in Milwaukee, according to a recent Vanity Fair profile. [Prisoner of Conscience, February 2007]"But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it." Straight talk? Try hate talk.

For all his supposed newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want...Keep reading>>>

The Sands of Forgiveness

A story tells that two friends were walking through the desert. During some point of the journey they had an argument, and one friend slapped the other one in the face.

The one who got slapped was hurt, but without saying anything, wrote in the sand:

TODAY MY BEST FRIEND SLAPPED ME IN THE FACE.

They kept on walking until they found an oasis, where they decided to take a bath. The one who had been slapped got stuck in the mire and started drowning, but the friend saved him.

After he recovered from the near drowning, he wrote on a stone:

TODAY MY BEST FRIEND SAVED MY LIFE.

The friend who had slapped and saved his best friend asked him, "After I hurt you, you wrote in the sand and now, you write on a stone, why?"

The other friend replied "When someone hurts us we should write it down in sand where winds of forgiveness can erase it away. But, when someone does something good for us, we must engrave it in stone where no wind can ever erase it."

LEARN TO WRITE YOUR HURTS IN THE SAND AND TO CARVE YOUR BENEFITS IN STONE.

~~ Author unknown

Poll: Voter ID is a Good Idea

by Stephen Dinan | January 22, 2008

Two-thirds of Americans, including a majority of racial and ethnic minorities, say the government should make voters show photo identification before voting, according to a new Fox 5/The Washington Times/ Rasmussen Reports survey.

The numbers come as the voter-identification battle is heating up, with more states considering requiring photo identification and with the Supreme Court two weeks ago hearing oral arguments in a challenge to Indiana's photo identification requirement.

"Support for the concept is overwhelming," said Scott Rasmussen, who conducted the poll, taken Jan. 16 and 17 of 1,000 adults. "What this number suggests to me is, it sounds like common sense in a society where you have to show ID to do just about anything."

Overall, 67 percent said they support requiring photo identification, and that support ran high across all demographic groups. More than three-fourths of Republicans supported showing identification, as did 63 percent of Democrats and independents. And 58 percent of blacks, 69 percent of whites and 66 percent of other ethnic or racial minorities backed the concept.

The question was: "Should voters be required to prove their identity by showing a government issued photo ID before they're allowed to vote?"

The issue is far more divisive in the political sphere, though, with Republican legislatures pushing it as an answer to voter fraud and Democrats fighting back, arguing it is an attempt to keep poor and minority voters from the polls.

"Undemocratic voter ID laws are just another part of a broad Republican effort to undermine our fundamental right to vote," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said when the Supreme Court heard the Indiana case two weeks ago.

During oral argument, though, the justices appeared to be leaning toward... Read more>>>

Life is Precious

A poem for Sanctity of Life Sunday

by Greg Asimakoupoulos | The Partial Observer | January 18, 2008

Life is precious, sacred, blest
from the womb to final rest.
God is in a child's first breath
or a grandpa facing death.

Special needs autistic son.
Crippled daughter who can't run.
Those impaired in speech or sight.
Those whose hearing isn't right.

Those who can't recall their name.
Those with damage to their brain.
Those in prison, addicts too.
Those who think their options few.

Each life matters. Each has worth.
Everyone on "God's green earth." *
Life is precious, sacred, blest
from the womb to final rest.

* with gratitude to my friend Michael Medved for use of his trademark phrase that calls to mind the beautiful planet our loving Creator has allowed us to inhabit

"The Last Metaphysical Right"

Richard M. Weaver (1910-1963)
The Acton Institute

"It is my contention that a conservative is a realist\.... He believes that there is a creation which was here before him, which exists now not just by his sufferance, and which will be here after he's gone."

Richard M. Weaver lived a life of hard work, self-sacrifice, and quiet virtue. Although he taught English at the University of Chicago for the bulk of his career, he remained deeply attached to the traditions of his upbringing in North Carolina. The part of his Southern heritage that Weaver treasured above all was the “social bond individualism” that he pitted against what he called the “anarchic individualism” of the North. This social bond individualism coupled individual liberty with duty and social responsibility to advance a concept of “disciplined freedom.” Throughout his entire career Weaver defended the values of this social bond individualism, tracing its antecedents through the arc of Western intellectual history. Interestingly, he considered the Middle Ages to be the period that, more than any other, shaped the understanding of liberty that developed in the modern West. Thus, Weaver appreciated the British heritage of liberty under the common law, because such heritage was derived from the medieval model.

Weaver vigorously defended the inviolable right to private property, naming it “the last metaphysical right.” He used this nomenclature to emphasize that the right to private property exists independently from, if not regardless of, its social utility. This metaphysical nature of private property rights derives from the natural connection between honor, responsibility, and the relationship of a person to property. Weaver also contended that work, honorable in itself, tends to result in the accumulation of property. Hence property becomes an extension of one’s labor—and of oneself. Weaver believed that property constitutes a great source for personal growth because of the inalienable bond between a person’s labor and property. Weaver also noted that the ownership of private property can serve as a check on the pressures of majority opinion, allowing anyone to think and to act as he or she chooses without having to appease the majority opinion to secure a place to live or food to eat. Another reason that Weaver labeled private property as a metaphysical right was to show that it is based not in the changing, temporal material order, but rather in the unchanging, eternal order of the spiritual. For Weaver, rights and obligations correlate with each other. To properly preserve the right to property, an obligation to engage in proper stewardship must also be recognized in order to prevent property from being spoiled from use by successive generations. Property rights then essentially promote a communal continuity between the dead, the living, and the unborn. Weaver never tired of advancing these convictions, always confident that these convictions truly reflected reality.


Sources: George M. Curtis, III and James J. Thompson, Jr. eds., Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1987). Ted J. Smith, III et al. eds., Steps Toward Restoration:The Consequences of Richard Weaver’s Ideas (Wilmington: ISI Books, 1998).

*** Click here for an excerpt from Weaver's seminal 1948 book, Ideas Have Consequences.

Rush Agrees With Me

I turned on Rush's show today for the first time since last week, and I note that he essentially has the same outlook on the presidential race as I do. I don't think that Huckster-bee has a shot at the nomination now, though he'll hang on at least through February 5, when Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia will be among the 22 states voting. But Crazy John McCain does have a shot, and his nomination would remove the last vestiges of Reaganism from the Republican Party. Many people call Crazy John the "most electable," because of his appeal to independents and Democrats. I disagree, since his nomination would alienate many rank-and-file conservatives. The GOP nominating McCain would be a lot like the Democrats nominating former Georgia Sen. Zell Miller. And when you think of the good solid conservative Republicans who might have run...

From Newsmax.com:

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh stunned his listeners by announcing that he might not support the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election.

Limbaugh said on Monday’s show: "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life."

The reason: “You don’t have a genuine down-the-list conservative” among the GOP candidates.

“Wherever you go here in this roster of candidates, you're going to be able to point out ‘not conservative, what he did there is not conservative’” Rush said.

The Republican front-runners want the nomination “because it's their turn,” he also stated. “We tried that in '96 with Bob Dole and now they're running the same scenario…

"I'm telling ya, it's gonna come down to which guy do we dislike the least. And that's not necessarily good."

After Rush’s pronouncements, Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm wrote: “Across the country, people were dropping their coffee cups, choking on sandwiches, fainting and driving off the road. The king of conservative talk radio not supporting the Republican nominee?”

But Limbaugh’s remarks are not quite so surprising in light of statements he made about GOP candidates Mike Huckabee and John McCain last week:

“I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.”

Nominating McCain: Suicide for the GOP

James H commented on my post just below this one. This is my response to James's comment.

If McCain is the Republican nominee, few, if any, conservatives will actually vote for the Democratic nominee. Some conservatives won't vote in the presidential race; some will vote third party/independent; and some will hold their noses and vote for Crazy John. You certainly won't see conservatives out "beating the bushes" for him (no pun intended).

Personally, I've never voted for a Democrat for any federal office, and I won't be starting this year. But, to me, voting for McCain would be almost like voting for a Democrat. (Who would Crazy John pick for his running mate? Russ Feingold? Ted Kennedy? Chris Matthews? Remember how, in 2004, McCain actually considered accepting Sen. John Kerry's offer to be No. 2 on the Democratic ticket?)

The last time I voted for the "lesser of the evils" in a presidential election was in 1976, when I voted for President Gerald Ford-- or rather I voted AGAINST the Democrat Jimmy Carter. Never again will I hold my nose and vote that way!

Certain of the pundits, etc., assume that, if Crazy John is nominated, conservatives will fall in line and vote for him in order to keep Hillary (the likely Dem nominee) out of the White House.

The left-wing pundits who love McCain won't in fact vote for him. But they'll have tears in their eyes when he gives his graceful concession speech next November (if, God forbid, he's the GOP nominee).

Crazy John is all for letting Democrats and independents invade the Republican nominating process-- since he knows that he can't win the votes of most Republicans. He's going to have big problems in the closed primary states.

Another reason the liberals love the idea of a McCain nomination is that they know it would destroy the party that Ronald Reagan built. I'll guarantee you this: if Crazy John is nominated, you won't hear him this fall saying that he's a "conservative" or a former "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution."

I believe that the GOP race will come down to McCain vs. Romney, and I'll back Romney as the far better choice of those two.

I wouldn't vote for Crazy John McCain for dog-catcher, and there will be ice skating in hell before I vote for him for president.

Dick Morris: A McCain-Huckabee Ticket? (BARF!)

Below is the e-mail that I fired off to Dick Morris after reading his January 20 column. As I say to him, I'd about as soon vote for a Democrat as for McCain-- or for Huckabee either, for that matter. Now that Fred Thompson is all but finished, I personally prefer Mitt Romney over McCain, Huckabee, or Giuliani. For some reason, Morris doesn't think that Romney can win in November. Perhaps, as a Jew, Morris thinks that Romney's Mormonism is an insurmountable handicap-- I don't know.

Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, said today that he could support any of the aforementioned candidates except McCain. DeLay said that if McCain were the nominee, he would leave that part of the ballot blank. He went on to recite a litany of issues on which McCain had fought mainstream Republicans, some of which I had forgotten about. We live in strange times, my friends!

McCain-Huckabee? I think I just stepped into the Twilight Zone! Aren't you the same Dick Morris who told us in 2006 that the '08 race would be Hillary vs. Condi Rice?

Aren't you aware of the antipathy among the GOP rank-and-file toward McCain? If he IS nominated, the GOP will cease to be the home of conservatives, myself included. Conservatives will either stay home or vote third party/independent.

Surely you know that McCain has NEVER won the GOP vote in ANY presidential primary, which means that he'll have a problem in Florida's closed primary. And Romney even beat Huckabee among evangelicals in Michigan. Hell, the GOP might as well nominate a Democrat as to nominate McCain!

It's "bloc"-- not "block"-- vote. And there's no such word as "coronate."

Fred Thompson Barnstorms South Carolina

Meanwhile, "Tax Hike Mike" Huckster-bee is using "push polls" against Senator Thompson. The No. 2 "Man from Hope" is looking more and more like a cross between Jimmy Carter and Elmer Gantry.

by Erick Erickson | Human Events

Traveling through snowy South Carolina with Fred Thompson, I’m struck by the sense that finally, the man has arrived. The candidate so many conservatives were excited by early in 2007 is finally walking the land.

The Fred Thompson in South Carolina this week is the one America saw knock into Mike Huckabee as a pro-life liberal with “blame America first” beliefs whose economic policies would destroy the economy. And the crowds love it.

Though barely mentioned in the national media, Senator Fred Thompson has been on a barnstorming tour crisscrossing South Carolina for more than a week. In a unique approach, he is not just going to major media markets, but to rural areas of South Carolina. On my first day on the trail with Senator Thompson, he drew a crowd of 180 people to a small Mennonite restaurant in Abbeville, South Carolina — population 26,000 with a median income of $15,370. He capped off the day at the Orangeburg-Calhoun County Technical College in Orangeburg, South Carolina with over 200 people braving a rare snow shower to hear him. The day before I joined him on the campaign trail, Senator Thompson’s campaign saw large capacity auditoriums overflowing with people standing outside the buildings waiting to get in.

The crowds are enthusiastic and relieved. Finally, the Fred Thompson they hoped for is on the campaign trail. “Saying the Reagan Coalition is dead is like saying the Constitution is dead,” Thompson began one speech, taking on Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. “The Reagan Coalition was never about the man. It was and is about the principles and values we apply to issues.” He continued, “The issues may change, but the principles do not.” The crowd roared its enthusiasm.

Later in the day, an elderly gentleman asked Senator Thompson about immigration. Senator Thompson responded, “Securing the border is popular for a lot of candidates to talk about these days. They’ve changed their positions. I embrace change, but some of these guys are wearing out the road to Damascus.” The crowd ate it up. Thompson pointed out that he, unlike the other candidates, has been consistently supportive of increased border security and consistently opposed to lax enforcement.

It’s refreshing to hear Senator Thompson. He is not the candidate the media likes. He gives good sound bites, but he is plodding, methodical, and issue oriented. Senator Thompson’s is not a personality driven campaign. It is about issues, issues, issues. And it is conservative to the core. On the campaign trail, it seems Thompson has never met an issue he was not ready to solve based on what he perceives as real conservative principles. Chief among them is that if government gets involved, it will probably make the situation worse. There is no pandering. John McCain may give straight talk, but Thompson gives no bull.

Since Mitt Romney’s call for a government plan to save the automotive industry, Senator Thompson has been on a tear blasting him as the candidate who tailors his message to whichever group he is talking to. Taking on Mike Huckabee, Senator Thompson points out that he likes Mike Huckabee, but his policies and agenda are full of empty rhetoric and policies anathema to the entrepreneurial spirit in the United States. He points out that he and John McCain are friends, but he has “strong disagreements” with McCain on issues such as immigration and taxes.

Polling in South Carolina shows Fred Thompson gaining momentum in the state. The campaign staff has noticed the crowds growing since Fred Thompson took on Mike Huckabee in the Fox News Debate. The message is clear -- Thompson is the real conservative in the race.

There is an opening for Thompson. Mitt Romney has written off South Carolina, ceding the field to John McCain. Mike Huckabee is losing ground as voters learn more about his liberal record. Conservative rallying has begun to impact John McCain. There is a palpable sense in the crowds and among South Carolina reporters that the momentum is with Fred Thompson. And so the campaign soldiers on. [emphasis added]

In Orangeburg, South Carolina, Fred Thompson fired up the crowds with humor and substance. After a long day of talking, he coughed and took a sip of water. “Yeah, I’m choked up,” Thompson said, “but I’m not getting emotional.” The crowd roared. Then Thompson went into his hallmark campaign routine -- questions from the crowd. Every event ends that way.

An attendee asked Thompson what he would do about Israel and the Palestinians. While complimentary of the President, Thompson said, “Every President has thought he could solve the problem on the force of his personality, but he can’t.” He continued, “There are a lot of things that are possible in that situation, but one non-negotiable — the right of Israel to exist.” More applause. Another attendee asked about immigration. “A nation that cannot control its borders ceases to be a sovereign nation,” Thompson responded. The crowd drowned him out with applause. Then Thompson does what so many of the other candidates fail to do. He talks specifics and policies, mixed with humor and the recognition that what he is doing is rather unique.

It is a unique campaign. Like John McCain, who was written off for dead last June, Fred Thompson has begun a comeback. He has come back as the candidate everyone wanted to get in the race. In the process, he is owning the crowd.

Click, then scroll down to read the comments>>>

Huckster-bee: the Second "Man from Hope"

Another "Man from Hope"? The first "Man from Hope" actually left Hope, Arkansas when he was about six years old. But "Man from Hope" obviously is more politically attractive than "Man from Hot Springs."

by John Fund

Republicans have won five of the last seven presidential elections by running candidates who broadly fit the Ronald Reagan model--fiscally conservative, and firmly but not harshly conservative on social issues. The wide-open race for the 2008 GOP nomination has generated two new approaches.

Rudy Giuliani, for example, isn't running away from his socially liberal views, although he has modified them. But he is campaigning as a staunch, even acerbic economic conservative. Should he win the nomination, conventional wisdom has it he may balance the ticket by picking former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as a running mate.

Mr. Huckabee, on the other hand, is running hard right on social issues but liberal-populist on some economic issues. This may help explain why the affable, golden-tongued Baptist minister...Keep reading>>>

Obama's Muslim Connection

by Jon Christian Ryter | January 16, 2008

In 1991 a young Muslim Harvard Law College graduate named Barack Hussein Obama (who has denied his Islamic past and Muslim roots for as long as he has been a public figure) became a civil rights community activist working out of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama worked as a community organizer for Trinity in poor black neighborhoods. Trinity's senior pastor Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, a black racist, who preached radical Afrocentric theology and didn't mind delivering profanity-spiked sermons, found a congregation-builder in Obama. Because of what Wright called Obama's multiple-faith background and his Harvard education, he was a natural community-builder.

When Obama broke onto the national political scene in 2004, not only did he attempt to erase all traces his Islamic childhood, but he also tried to erase the nature of his relationship with Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ. (When your country is at war with Islamic extremists, being a Muslim is not the shortest route to the White House.) Obama has told the media his reason for shielding his pastor was because "...he respected Mr. Wright's work for the poor and his fight against injustice." In reality Dr. Wright's work was to denounce the United States as a white racist nation. That's not good press for an African American candidate who needs to win a majority of the white vote to win the office of President.

It would have been not only natural, but expected, for Barack Obama-- when he decided to run for the presidency—- to make the announcement from the pulpit of the 8,500 member Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama would later state he did not in order to shield his pastor from the spotlight of the media. Dr. Wright has never shunned positive publicity. It was obvious to the media—- in particular the New York Times-- which noted in an April 20, 2007 article that Obama was very deliberately distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. Instead, Obama announced his candidacy...Read more...

This May Help Open Primary Challenge

The U. S. Supreme Court today handed down a ruling that bodes well for the Mississippi Democrats in their efforts to block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries.* This ruling involves the method that New York’s political parties use to nominate candidates for trial judge.

From Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion: “A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.”

I got a kick out of this quote from the late Justice Thurgood Marshall: “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”

The high court's ruling reversed both of the lower courts. Justice Scalia's complete opinion is here.

*Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour is now in the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

So What's New, John?

They both died less than three months later, on July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

"Public affairs go on pretty much as usual: perpetual chicanery and
rather more personal abuse than there used to be... Our American
Chivalry is the worst in the world. It has no Laws, no bounds,
no definitions; it seems to be all a Caprice."

--John Adams (letter to Thomas Jefferson, 17 April 1826)

Reference: The Adams-Jefferson Correspondence, Lester Cappon, editor

Voter ID Reaches the Supreme Court

Why is it a big deal for voters to have to prove that they are who they say they are-- especially with 12-20 million illegal aliens now living in the U. S.? Since the federal government is so far unwilling to protect our borders, voter ID seems to me like a basic, sensible way for the states to protect the integrity of their elections.

by Peter Gemma

Question: What issue would bring together such powerful special interest groups such as the ACLU, the NAACP, Common Cause, the American Jewish Committee, the National Black, Asian, and Latino Law Student Associations and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund?

Answer: The defense of the status quo in America's inefficient and inaccurate election system— which delivers raw political power to America's underclass of illegal aliens.

Today, Wednesday January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in the Indiana Democratic Party v. Todd Rokita and William Crawford v. Marion County Election Board cases. [Tougher voter ID laws fuel debate, USATODAY.com, December 19, 2007] The debate centers on the state of Indiana's attempts to protect its elections by requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Laws protecting voters against fraud are fast being put in place— 26 states have some sort of Election Day proof of identity conditions and at least eight states have established tough voter ID laws in the last five years. However, this common sense proof of identity (you and I do so every time we cash a check or board an airplane) is being challenged by an army of special interest groups.

In the last two years, photo ID laws in Indiana, Georgia, and Arizona have been upheld in lower courts, while a Missouri law was blocked from taking effect. [Supreme Court to hear voter ID case, By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, September 26, 2007]. By agreeing to hear an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that it wanted this dispute resolved before voters go to the polls this November.

The photo ID issue has united and incited into action many of those who have yet to get over the 2000 Bush-versus-Gore election controversy. "Many accused the Supreme Court of partisanship in deciding Bush v. Gore, and some voting rights advocates fear that the court could make things worse," warned Loyola Law School professor Richard L. Hasen, [A Voting Test for the High Court , Washington Post, September 19, 2007]. Hasen also noted, "there's more than a little bit of irony in going to the Supreme Court and asking them to rise above partisan politics in election cases." [Supreme Court to weigh in on voter ID laws , by Mark Sherman, USA Today, December 30, 2007}

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim to serve in Congress and part of the gang of usual suspects filing Amici Briefs opposing Indiana, alleges "the photo identification requirement would present barriers to voting.". Signing onto Mr. Ellison's brief was the entire Congressional Black Caucus as well as Senator Barack Obama, who demands...Keep reading>>>

Fred Thompson: Too Little, Too Late?

by Election Watch 2008 | Conservative Truth.Org

In last Thursday night’s Republican debate, we finally saw an engaged and even fired-up Fred Thompson. The question is whether Fred’s sudden enthusiasm is another sad case of too little, too late.

Thompson saved most of his broadsides for Mike Huckabee, whose conservative bona-fides have been open to question due to positions he has taken on illegal immigration and foreign policy in particular. Thompson tapped this vein for all it was worth, and seemed to gain some traction from it. In some quarters, he was declared the winner, including Fox News pollster Frank Luntz’s focus group. Unfortunately for Thompson, the winner according to Luntz in New Hampshire was Mitt Romney, and that didn’t prevent John McCain’s victory in that state.

On illegal immigration, Thompson has perhaps the toughest—and therefore most appealing to conservatives—position of any “viable” candidate (assuming Duncan Hunter is all but finished). His lines about high walls and wide open gates, with the gates opened only when we want them to be, were hits with the South Carolina voters who are rightly concerned about the illegal immigration problem in their state.

The Thompson candidacy has been described by media pundits as on life support for some time now. The candidate himself declares he is “all-in” for South Carolina, meaning that anything less than a strong finish may spell the end for him. He certainly cannot expect to do well in Michigan, where voters tend toward more moderate Republicans like McCain and where favorite son Romney is spending a lot of time and treasure. Also, by moving the primary date forward without national party permission, the Democrats have through their bickering left only Hillary Clinton on the ballot in Michigan. This means there may be significant crossover voting for McCain as there was in 2000 in the Great Lakes State.

Thompson should have learned from his fellow Tennessean Lamar Alexander that low-key, laid back campaigns for the presidency simply don’t work. It would be a shame for conservatives if his recent surge of enthusiasm is not enough to keep his flickering candidacy alive.

Limbaugh Smells McCain-Huckabee Deal

"Climate change" has struck Baghdad, Iraq, where it snowed for the first time in many years.

From Newsmax:

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh suspects that John McCain may have cut a deal with GOP presidential rival ["Tax Hike Mike" Huckster-bee] to have [Huckster-bee] siphon off votes from Mitt Romney.

Rush said that on the day after McCain’s victory in the New Hampshire primary, McCain told reporters that Christian conservatives should back him, saying: “A very large portion of the evangelical community is becoming more and more concerned about climate change because of our biblical obligation to be good stewards of our planet. That clearly is an issue that I’m in complete sync with the evangelical community on.”

Noting that [Huckster-bee] was thought to control the evangelical vote, Rush told listeners: “Governor Huckabee, at this stage, in my opinion, is in the race to take Romney out of the way for McCain…

“The thing Huckabee’s got to understand is if you have made a deal with McCain behind the scenes, under the table, understand it’s one way, because McCain is going to throw you overboard as soon as he has to, Governor, when the time comes — and he’ll not remember the deal or it will get reshaped in his mind or somehow changed.”

McCain also reminded reporters that he has voted the anti-abortion line during his entire career.

Said Limbaugh: “In that way he’s going to take out Rudy [Giuliani, who has expressed support for abortion rights],” Rush said.

“So he’s going to try to get the Huckabee vote with the global warming route and try to get the evangelicals. He’s going to try to take Rudy out with his consistent abortion stand, which he is not fabricating.”

McCain could do us all a favor by dropping out and endorsing Fred Thompson.

Reactions to Fred Thompson Endorsement

Human Events was, to be sure, Ronald Reagan's favorite publication. "When in the course of human events..."

by Jed Babbin, editor | Human Events | January 12, 2008

Since we endorsed Fred Thompson on Friday, Human Events has had a huge reaction –overwhelmingly positive – to the editorial from our readers all across the country. Here are some excerpts from the nearly 500 (and counting) comments:

“Human Events made the right choice. Now conservatives everywhere are counting on the good people of South Carolina to do the same,” Kelly S., Florida.

“Great editorial endorsement. Many conservatives are always trying to distinguish themselves among other conservatives with labels; a Reaganite conservative, a Kirkean traditionalist, etc. This endorsement showed me why I am definitely more of a Human Events conservative than an NR conservative. Of the six real contenders in the race (including Paul but excluding Hunter who doesn’t have a prayer), Thompson is clearly the best choice.” Andrew C., New Jersey

“Human Events has made a loyal reader out of an interloper (me) with the endorsement of Thompson. He is the most reliable conservative in the race.” GPM, Florida.

“I applaud Human Events for endorsing the ONLY consistent conservative in this race. Every other candidate has gaping holes.” Michael G., Arizona

“Good call Human Events. It is good to see conservatives beginning to wake up to the ‘Principled Conservative’, Fred Thompson.” Mark, Oregon

“I have said all along, even before the campaign started, that Fred Thompson is the man we need in the White House. He is plain spoken, he does not mince words, and best of all he IS a true conservative. Your endorsement of him warms my heart. Thanks!” Jack C., Texas

We acted on principle, and our readers apparently agree.

Clinton Brown-Noser Busted For Drunk Driving

Sid Vicious was clocked doing 70 in a 30.

by Noel Sheppard | NewsBusters | January 12, 2008

Imagine if a longtime adviser for Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson had been arrested for drunk driving two nights before the New Hampshire primary. Do you think this would have gotten reported?

Probably as much as Hillary's crying game, or even more... correct?

Well, Newsweek's Stumper blog reported Friday evening that longtime Clinton adviser and confidante Sidney Blumenthal was so arrested in Nashua, New Hampshire, on Monday, astoundingly with no press coverage of the event:

Sgt. Mike Masella, one of the arresting officers, said the movements of a Buick caught his eye. "I observed all his erratic driving," Masella said. "When I first noticed him it was at an intersection. He abruptly stopped. That caught my eye ... He was drifting in his lane." Masella followed the car, a rental, for a mile and a half, and clocked its speed at 70mph in a 30mph zone--more than twice the legal limit. Masella pulled the car over at 12:30 a.m. Monday morning. Blumenthal told the officer he was returning to his hotel from a restaurant in Manchester. After declining to take a Breathalyzer, Masella says, Blumenthal failed a field sobriety test. Blumenthal was handcuffed, booked, had his fingerprints taken and was held for four hours--standard operating procedure in such arrests in New Hampshire--before posting bail and being released. (He will be arraigned later this month.) Because the car was moving at excessive speeds, Blumenthal was given the more serious charge of "aggravated" DWI--which carries a mandatory sentence of at least three days behind bars. "He's charged with a serious crime," says Nashua Police Capt. Peter Segal, who will oversee the case as it moves toward a court date.

As this occurred at 12:30 AM Monday, this means Blumenthal was arrested just hours before Hillary shed a tear in a New Hampshire diner dramatically changing the results of the following day's primary.

Did the Clinton campaign know that Blumenthal had been arrested hours earlier? Did this somehow get embargoed from the press, or did local media intentionally boycott it?

More importantly, how did this possibly elude so-called journalists for almost five full days? Would the same have happened if an adviser to a Republican presidential candidate had been arrested hours before a primary?

Finally, now that Newsweek has broken the story, and Drudge linked to it, will this get any coverage, or just stay buried?

Fred Thompson for President

Fred Thompson came alive in last night's Fox News debate. At long last, he attacked former Gov. Huckster-bee's record and positions, and I must admit that he had me cheering. Pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of South Carolina Republicans who intend to vote in the January 19 primary. Before the debate, only three of the 28 group members supported Thompson; afterward, the big majority said that the former Tennessee senator won the faceoff.

This morning David Shuster said on MSNBC that Thompson was running interference for Sen. John McCain. What a crock! Thompson got into the race because there was no authentic conservative running who had a chance of winning. It won't be easy, but if Thompson does well in South Carolina, he may then be on his way to winning the nomination. You can never tell: Mississippi's March 11 presidential primaries could actually have some meaning.

Human Events was a major influence in the formation of my own political philosophy. As a teenager, I used my paper route earnings to pay for my first subscription to this great publication. From the get-go, I devoured each issue as soon as it arrived.

by Human Events | January 11, 2008

The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.

Fundamental Beliefs

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.

To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a war hero whose personal courage sustained many of the men imprisoned with him in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” We honor him, but he does not honor many conservative principles. His co-authorship of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation last summer ran directly against our principles of American sovereignty and national security. His position has not been ameliorated by his more recent explanations of border-security measures he might support. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his support for economy-strangling measures to control “global warming” and his anti-torture legislation (which didn’t make torture illegal, it already was: McCain’s law only made a clear law vague to the point of unenforceability) all cut against the conservative grain. And so did his McCain-Feingold campaign finance law with its stifling of political free speech.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a charming and agreeable gentleman. But his support for the economically disastrous “cap-and-trade” fix for global warming is as bad as Sen. McCain’s position on the...Keep reading>>>

War Versus Trade

"War is not the best engine for us to resort to; nature has given
us one in our commerce, which if properly managed, will be a
better instrument for obliging the interested nations of Europe
to treat us with justice."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Thomas Pinckney, 29 May 1797)

Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Ford, editor, vol. 8
(293)

5th Circuit Expedites Open Primary Lawsuit

The 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has not set a specific date for oral argument in the Mississippi Democrats' lawsuit, but it will be during the week of March 3. The Democrats are challenging our state open primary law, as they want to be able to block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries.

Last June, U. S. District Judge Allen Pepper declared the law unconstitutional. I believe that this part of his ruling will be upheld on appeal. The judge went further and also ordered the state to enact voter ID and party registration. I believe that that part will be reversed, as those two items are the legislature's prerogatives.

On December 21, the 5th Circuit stayed Pepper's ruling and set aside his August 31, 2008 deadline for its implementation. This means that we will presumably be able to conduct our spring 2009 municipal primaries just as we always have. Significantly, the 5th Circuit also ordered that the case be expedited.

Natural Rights Come From Above

Written when he was 20 years old...

"To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the
world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his
creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature,
may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law
and government, appears to a common understanding altogether
irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced
a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity,
from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has
constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably
obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution
whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this
law depend the natural rights of mankind."

-- Alexander Hamilton (The Farmer Refuted, 1775)

Is Fred Thompson's Campaign Dead?

I've been following presidential races since 1964, and this one is the toughest to handicap. I don't know who the 2008 Republican nominee will be, but I'll make this prediction: it won't be McCain or Giuliani. I've said recently that, by the process of elimination, the nominee will be either Romney or Huckabee, but I'm now wondering if I haven't been overly-influenced by the news media's assessment that Fred Thompson's campaign is going nowhere.

Following last night's five-candidate Republican debate on Fox News-- to which Ron Paul was not invited-- Frank Luntz presented his focus group of undecided New Hampshire Republicans. The big majority thought that Romney won the debate, and many said that Thompson seemed detached. Fox News's Fred "Beetle" Barnes joked that Thompson finishing third in Iowa meant that he had to stay in the campaign.

In 1976, before the front-loading of the primaries, Ronald Reagan lost all of the early contests and was written off by the news media and others. Then, on March 23, with Sen. Jesse Helms's strong assistance, Reagan won an upset victory in the North Carolina primary. He then swept the Southern primaries and went on to nearly capture the nomination over President Gerald Ford.

The polls say that McCain will win tomorrow's New Hampshire primary. If he does, the South Carolina primary will become crucial. If Thompson does well in SC, he may then be on his way to winning the nomination. We should know before much longer.

by Lisa Fabrizio | January 7, 2008

Back in the early days of the 2000 presidential campaign, right after John McCain beat George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, there were many dire media predictions along the lines of, "If Bush doesn't turn things around quickly it could turn into a McCain rout." I thought: what in heaven's name is going on here? Bush has all the endorsements, a terrific organization and wads of money. Could his candidacy be blasted out of contention by the machinations of the mainstream media?

Unfortunately for the media, the answer was no. Despite their best efforts, Bush regained his momentum in South Carolina--which, of course, prompted charges of dirty dealings--and went on to easily capture the nomination. Because once the process moved out of the realm of the polls and the punditry, conservative voters made their voices heard at the voting booth.

This time around, the nagging questions have returned. Before a vote has been cast or a caucus convened, pundits of all stripes are touting a two-candidate race between former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, virtually ignoring worthies like Duncan Hunter (who was not campaigning in Iowa) and especially the eminently electable Fred Thompson. It's enough to make one wonder, that if a conservative makes a point and it's not acknowledged by the media, does he make a sound?

While this type of treatment from the liberal media is expected, it is profoundly disturbing to see ‘conservative' pundits ignore or dismiss Thompson's candidacy so lightly. Typical of this non-coverage for the true conservatives in the race is a piece in the Wall Street Journal which stated: "None of the Republican presidential candidates have captured all three wings of the party's base: defense hawks, economic conservatives and social conservatives." I'm not sure anymore what the Journal considers ‘conservative', but they might want to check out Thompson's video message to Iowa voters for a clue.

Likewise, even Fox News--which is so feared by liberals as a right-wing organ that Democratic candidates are too cowed to even appear at their debates--seems to be with the program. Although they do get air time, Hunter and Thompson have long been written off by Fox's Republican pundits. And while it's certainly understandable that the leading candidates get the most attention, consider that Fox's own national poll has Thompson within 10% of the leader, Rudy Giuliani. Don't forget, Bush lost New Hampshire to McCain by nearly 20 points [49% to 31%] and still rebounded.

But in order to convince conservatives that they really know what's good for them, the media has dusted off its favorite Reaganism...Keep reading>>>

Long Before The IRS

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so
sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it
predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be
likely to approve of any political institution which is founded
on it."

-- John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

Reference: The Works of John Adams, Charles Adams, editor, 194.

Ditch The Preacher Man

"Then there was the downright tacky gift-grab he attempted when he registered for house wares at local department stores when he and his wife were moving out of the governor’s mansion."

by Mary Starrett, Communications Director, Constitution Party
January 4, 2008

The fact that the media are toadying up to president wanna-be Mike Huckabee should tell you all you need to know.

He is not, never has been, nor will he suddenly turn into, a statesman who will get the United States back on a constitutional track.

The media have for one reason only blessed Mike Huckabee; and it has nothing to do with his profession of faith in the Nazarene.

Media have anointed him a ‘frontrunner’ despite his profession of Christian beliefs.

The reason is, Mike Huckabee embraces enough big-government, left-leaning socialist policies and ideology that his Christianity can be forgiven him by a press corps decidedly hostile to all that honors Providence.

The former Arkansas governor never met an illegal alien he did not want to wrap in social services. Huckabee thinks those who break and enter here instead of going through the legally defined channels should receive prenatal care, reduced college tuition and all the perks taxpayers can bundle up and hand over. He also liked giving the Mexican government a taxpayer subsidized place to lobby for more perks from Arkansans. In fact, Mike Huckabee thinks if you are against amnesty and guest worker programs, you are likely under bondage to the sin of racism. A recent poll taken by the group Americans for Legal Immigration showed 65% oppose Huckabee’s amnesty plan allowing illegals to return to their country for a day and then come back into the U.S. legally. Only 10% of those polled approved of his so-called ‘touch-back’ plan, better known as amnesty dressed up as ‘immigration reform’.

Mike thinks God’s earth ought to be more ‘green.’ He’s bought into the cars-cause-the- earth’s -temperatures –to-fluctuate- hoax and wants our government to join in the rush to crush free enterprise, private property and liberty in order to cool things down.

Huckabee thinks government is your momma. While governor, he supported laws to ban pregnant women... Continue reading>>>

The Twisting of History

This letter appeared in The Clarion-Ledger on January 6, 2008.

That famous expert on the Republican Party, Richard Dortch, has delivered another comic book analysis of the GOP ("North, South Republicans may be set for breakup," Dec. 9 Clarion-Ledger).

He alludes to the fact that a higher percentage of congressional Republicans than Democrats supported the civil rights proposals of the 1950s and 1960s. It was, to be sure, Southern Democrats who filibustered those measures. And a Republican president, Ronald Reagan, authorized the Martin Luther King Holiday and the 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act.

The GOP cracked the "Solid South" in the 1928 presidential election, when Herbert Hoover carried four Southern states: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower won in Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. Four years later, Ike again carried those four states and added Louisiana as well (this was the first time a Deep South state voted Republican for president).

In 1972, the South was solidly Republican, as part of President Richard Nixon's 49-state landslide victory.

Dortch says the GOP is "best united by a leader who is neither Northern nor Southern, like Reagan..." Some in Illinois, where Reagan was born, grew up, and attended college, will likely disagree with that description. And it was the Gipper's ideas that attracted Southerners to him. Running in 1980 against a Southern Democratic president, Reagan won every Southern state but Georgia. In 1984, he carried every state in the nation except Minnesota.

A previous Dortch column ("Will Bush heed words of other GOP leaders?," Oct. 22, 2004) featured a series of quotes from Republican presidents. One of these quotes was from James Madison, who in fact belonged to the party founded by his fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson, which is today's Democratic Party. Madison died in 1836, 18 years before the modern Republican Party was born.

India Emerges as an Education Giant

Not to mention the American motel and convenience store industries...

by Michael H. Thomson | The Partial Observer | January 2, 2008

This morning while scanning the headlines of several newspapers I read online, I came across a front-page story in the New York Times entitled, "Losing an Edge, Japanese Envy India's Schools." The article said that Japan is having a "crisis in confidence" about its ability to compete with Asian rivals China and India. Japanese parents are worried that their children will get second-rate jobs because of what they view as inferior education received by their children in math and science with particular emphasis on computer technology. So they are turning to Indian private schools (which is now a growth industry in Japan) to make up the difference.

Bookstores are filled with titles like "Extreme Indian Arithmetic Drills" and "The Unknown Secrets of the Indians." Newspapers carry reports of Indian children memorizing multiplication tables far beyond nine times nine, the standard for young elementary students in Japan.

What is amazing to me about all of this is that Japan was once known as one of the world's most racist countries. They looked down and scorned their Asian neighbors whom they considered inferior. Now as Japan finds itself losing its technological advantage, it turns to India for help in educating its young. Again, from this morning's NYT article:

While China has stirred more concern here as a political and economic challenger, India has emerged as the country to beat in a more benign rivalry over education. In part, this reflects China's image in Japan as a cheap manufacturer and technological imitator. But India's success in software development, Internet businesses and knowledge-intensive industries in which Japan has failed to make inroads has set off more than a tinge of envy.

In 1963, I should have seen this coming. At that time, I was a student at the University of Tennessee and lived in a rooming house that was populated mostly by Indian engineering students. Their focus on the value of a good education was a good deal sharper than mine was. Over the years, India, not content to continue shipping their students abroad, has developed their education system to one of the finest in the world. This from a July,2007 edition of Time magazine:

Google, Microsoft and General Electric came to Santa Clara, Calif., last weekend, and all but begged graduates of one of the world's top engineering schools to work for them. Google spent $200,000 to be the lead sponsor of the four-day-long reunion of 3,500 alumni. Microsoft's research center in Hyderabad came calling. The CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, already employs 1,500 graduates and says he needs more. Stanford? MIT? Harvard? Nope. This was a gathering of graduates of the Indian Institutes of Technology.

I wake up each morning at five o'clock to National Public Radio which I lovingly call National People's Radio in a reference to their slightly left of center approach to the news. Having said that, NPR has some great, well-researched pieces, which you won't hear anywhere else. Recently they did a segment on Indian animators in the movie industry. Animation is a highly precise technology that once was owned exclusively by Hollywood and Disney. Now it seems that India is playing an increasing role in the production of animated entertainment including computer games. This from Rediff.com:

India's animation sector is witnessing a major boom. Overseas entertainment giants like Walt Disney, Imax and Sony are increasingly outsourcing cartoon characters and special effects to India. Other companies are outsourcing animation from India for commercials and computer games.

I am not going to editorialize on the state of American education compared to India except to say that for some reason we are suddenly being ignored…

Until next time…

About the Author:
Mike Thomson got through required college math with the assistance of an Indian tutor who was also a housemate in his college rooming house.