Election Update

On the Democrat side, another spat is shaping up.  Barack Obama is challenging Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns publicly to show where she got the $5 million she just 'donated' to her campaign.  Being far ahead in the fundraising category, Obama can afford to take this jab.  He's not saying it directly, but the implication is clear:

"I'll just say that I've released my tax returns. That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from. But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down," he told reporters.

As I understand it, it is a requirement of anyone running for President to release their income tax returns, I assume to prove they're not receiving large amounts of unreported cash from lobbyists.  Clinton has not offered an official comment on Obama's challenge, but her campaign reportedly said that she would do so when she obtains the official party nomination.

Interesting dodge.  I think it's fascinating to watch Obama dance around the Clintons - it is clear that he is handing the one-two punch all they can handle, and looking good while doing it.  They're still neck and neck on the delegate count, but the Clinton machine is showing signs of rust.

The next few days are pretty busy for the Democrats, with contests in Washington state, Louisiana, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, and Maine.  Obama hit all four states, while Hillary tapped Bill and Chelsea to help her cover them.  Click the link to see more details about what's at stake in all of these races.

Now, to the Republican side.  The CPAC convention didn't disappoint on its first day, with huge speeches from both Romney and McCain.

Romney
This is one of the best speeches I've heard (not that I've heard that many), and seems to have won almost universal praise from moderates and conservatives alike.  Full transcript here.  Some key excerpts:

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century—still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable. Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. "First," he said, "I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world." The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America!

I've said it before: America doesn't conquer, it liberates.

What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity—opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don't have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves—a "Purpose Driven Life." And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation's strength and they always will be!

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960's welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven't given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

This is the root problem in our country: liberalism.  Romney does an excellent job of explaining how liberalism is in direct contention with everything that made America great.

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America's vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

In many trends, America follows Europe (specifically, England).  We should see what's happening to them and put a stop to it before we follow too far.

And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America—and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy—to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

YES!!!  When was the last time you heard an elected politician actually say the words 'jihad' or 'Islam'?  Seriously, stop and think about it.  When was it?  It's been years since any of them have had the courage to do so.  Political correctness holds way too much weight with politicians, and it's to the detriment of the American people - if we can't even say the words, how can we possibly do the actions?

Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the constitution. Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.

This is no secret, and will become even more prevalent as the general election draws nearer.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Again, no secret.  This is McCain's one saving grace with his base.  This is one of the highest priority issues at stake in 2008.

It is the common task of each generation—and the burden of liberty—to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

To this task… accepting this burden… we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the earth.

This was an excellent speech from start to finish.  I just wonder why he waited until dropping out of the race to speak this way!  If he'd been saying these things for the past three months, I have no doubt that he would be the clear front-runner.  These are the things that conservatives and Republicans have been waiting to hear from a leader for years.  It's incredibly frustrating that only now, at the exit sign, does Romney finally give it to us.

McCain
McCain spoke just hours later.  Full transcript here.  His was a very mixed reception, with about as many boos as there were cheers.  To his credit, he stood before the storm and took the shots, admitting there were differences between him and his base (the first time I've heard him do that).  He offered a number of promises that, if his record actually backed them up, should have made conservatives happy.  Unfortunately, most appear to be unconvinced.  After all, it's easy to say the words on the campaign trail, but completely another thing to stick to your guns when the pressure is on.  The sentiment seems to be: how can we trust you?  You've burned us before, so what's stopping you from burning us again?  Actions speak louder than words, and McCain's actions over the past few years have essentially negated the words we're hearing now.  Maybe he will carry through with these promises.  Maybe he will govern conservatively.  Maybe he will be true to his base.  But maybe he won't...

GOPUSA sums it up this way:

On Thursday, both former Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain addressed the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). For Romney, CPAC set the stage for his emergence as a presidential candidate. At last year's CPAC, Romney came away as the winner of the presidential straw poll. This year, it was the stage for his farewell address. For McCain, who skipped last year's CPAC, Thursday's speech was his first attempt to make nice with a conservative base he will certainly need if he hopes to win in November.

How did the two men do? It was a tale of two speeches -- one set a tone for what conservatism is all about, the other focused on a set of statements emphasizing that Hillary or Obama would be worse than voting Republican.

How true.  If that's McCain's best campaign pitch, it has a slim chance of working against Hillary. After all, Hillary's got so much baggage and negative association that this might persuade a lot of fence-sitters to support McCain.  But, people would much rather vote for something than against something, so it's a risky card to play.  If Obama wins, McCain is completely sunk.

Some other points of interest:

President Bush attempts to rally the Republican party around whoever the nominee will be against the Democrat opponent.

I've also heard various spins about how McCain's only real hope of bringing the conservative base into line is by picking a big-name conservative VP.  Romney, Bill Buckley, Rick Santorum, and others have been suggested.  It'll be interesting to see what he does.

James Dobson, one of the biggest Christian leaders in the country, endorses Huckabee.  Formerly a Romney supporter, this is a big endorsement for Huckabee (and a continued sign of the distrust of McCain among the core base), even if it comes too late to help.

The nation thinks all politicians suck.  Both President Bush and Congress have set new lows in their approval ratings:

It's almost as if people can barely stand the thought of President Bush and Congress anymore. Bush reached his lowest approval rating in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on Friday as only 30 percent said they like the job he is doing, including an all-time low in his support by Republicans. Congress' approval fell to just 22 percent, equaling its poorest grade in the survey. Both marks dropped by 4 percentage points since early January…Bush's acceptance by his own party is at bottom in the AP-Ipsos poll. Just 61 percent of Republicans gave Bush positive reviews; his previous low was 65 percent last month. Only 28 percent of them expressed strong approval. About one in 10 Democrats and three in 10 independents gave Bush positive marks.

I think this is caused by three things: first, the constant drumbeat of horror, doom, and gloom by the MSM in the run-up to the election.  They did precisely the same thing in 1992 to help Clinton beat the elder Bush, so it's no surprise.  Second, there really are some causes for concern, but they are primarily the result of idiot government 'help'.  The mortgage crisis, for example, was inspired by Congress, who pressured lenders into making risky loans to give more people a shot at the American Dream.  When those risks became reality, Congress now wants to step in and trash the economy some more, despite the fact that many of those who are 'in trouble' are simply being irresponsible!  Third, our nation's leaders are, quite simply, hopelessly out of touch with the American people.

There's my two cents.

Biofuels More Dangerous For The Environment

Rick Moran reports on the dawning realization that biofuels actually present a bigger hazard to the environment than fossil fuels.  Excerpt:

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production.  These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy. These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

Moran's conclusion:

While the green argument was always the weakest, bio-fuels, advocates will still point to the fact that increasing our use of them will reduce our dependence on foriegn oil.

This may be true but at what cost? Contributing to the depletion of the rain forest is something that most can agree is a bad thing. And the rush to produce biofuel without examining its true cost to the environment much less the economies of the world has been a damaging element in what should be a cost/benefit argument instead of a crusade for greens and a windfall for farmers.

We've known for quite some time that it takes more than $1 worth of energy to create $1 worth of ethanol.  If it weren't for huge government subsidies, the ethanol industry would have collapsed years ago.  It appears that the evidence is mounting for a trade-off with other biofuels, too.

This is a very interesting contradiction - biofuels are supposed to be the savior of the world, not its destroyer.  I suspect the fact that they are more harmful than fossil fuels will ultimately go unreported, but that doesn't change the reality of the facts.  As I've blogged about before, there is a catch-22 with environmentalism, and this is another great example.

There's my two cents.

An Appalling Lack Of Responsibility

If you've seen the headlines over the past 24 hours or so, you know about the horrible shooting rampage in City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri:

"A gunman with a history of acrimony against civic leaders stormed City Hall during a council meeting Thursday night, killing two police officers and three city officials before law enforcers fatally shot him, authorities said. The mayor was critically injured..."

What are the details of the 'history of acrimony' between the Kirkwood City Council and Charles "Cookie" Thornton?  Take a look:

Thornton was well-known at City Hall, often making outrageous comments at public meetings, according to a 2006 article in the weekly Webster- Kirkwood Times.

The newspaper quoted Swoboda as saying in June 2006 that Thornton's contentious remarks over the years created "one of the most embarrassing situations that I have experienced in my many years of public service."

Swoboda's comments came during a council meeting attended by Thornton two weeks after the man was forcibly removed from the chambers. The mayor said at the time that the council considered banning Thornton from future meetings but decided against it.

"The city council has decided that they will not lower themselves to Mr. Thornton's level," Swoboda said at the meeting. "We will act with integrity and continue to deal with him at these council proceedings. However, we will not allow Mr. Thornton, or any other person, to disrupt these proceedings."

Thornton said during the meeting that he had been issued more than 150 tickets.

He was arrested twice and later convicted for disorderly conduct for outbursts at two council meetings in 2006, convinced the city was persecuting him. When allowed to speak during one meeting, he approached the podium with a posterboard with a picture of a donkey and began making harassing remarks about Swoboda.

So, this guy has been cited for over 150 tickets for illegal activities (I heard on the radio that many were for relatively small things like parking illegally), has a history of disrupting City Council meetings, and has been arrested twice for his efforts.  What does his brother have to say about the killing spree?  It's unbelievable:

"The only way that I can put into context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life.  He has spoke on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue," Gerald Thornton said.

The gunman's family is putting the blame on the City Council!!!

Where is the sense of responsibility here?  Where is the condemnation for the gunman?  I understand the family is grieving and in shock, but how can we as a law-abiding, moral and just society allow the gunman to escape his part in this tragedy?  Who is advocating for the families of the five victims (and the two more who were critically injured)?

This reverse victimization thing that has become so common that it seems to pop up almost every time something like this happens.  The idea that the perpetrator gets a pass because they are the victim -- of a hard childhood, or whatever -- is completely backward, because the real victims (those who were actually harmed, and their families) are completely left out of the picture.  This is a clear signal of some major problems in our society, and it's got to stop.

There's my two cents.

McCain Vs. Bush

One of my readers, Paul, asked me if I thought McCain would be better or worse than Bush, and if I thought Bush was a conservative. I think those are some excellent questions, so I wanted to address them on an actual post rather than just in the comments. Paul, thanks for asking!

First, let me say I'm still working through my feelings on McCain. I'll blog in more depth about this in the coming days, but this is not the place for that.

I think McCain would be similar to Bush, but weaker in a couple key areas. First, I think McCain will be pretty good on the War on Terror and the fight against radical Islamic jihad. That could be the most important thing in the next few years, and that's the one thing on which I'm confident in McCain. But, both McCain and Bush are very soft on illegal immigration, which is a big deal to me. I can't get my mind around people who say they're tough on national security but are weak on immigration - the two go hand in hand. It just doesn't make sense. Aside from the security aspect of it, I think that everything about McCain -- and I mean LITERALLY everything -- screams fake on immigration. I would be shocked if he actually worked to secure the borders, refuse amnesty, refuse benefits to illegals, and all those things. He has absolutely no credibility in his statements that he has 'learned' from his past mistakes, and this is a grave concern to me.

Nevertheless, I think that McCain might be slightly better than Bush on spending and expanding government. Bush has gotten much better at curbing Congressional spending over the past couple years, but he was AWFUL during his first term! Hopefully McCain would be more steady from day one. Another concern I have with McCain is that he would work to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, and to continue working to reduce/eliminate other taxes. I know, I know, he has recently pledged to do just that, but I find it hard to believe he's suddenly seen the light when he voted against those very same tax cuts TWICE. No warm fuzzies on that front.

I think Bush and McCain would be pretty similar on things like abortion and stem cells.

I think McCain would be weaker than Bush on judicial nominations, too. Again, I don't believe him when he said he'd appoint originalist judges given that he's recently complained about at least one of Bush's appointees whom I consider to be excellent.

A couple other things disturb me about McCain - McCain-Feingold, for example. That is a clear infringement on the 1st Amendment, and is a horrible piece of legislation! He wants to close Gitmo, but has no good solution for what to do with the terrorists there. My fear is that he will bring them INTO the U.S. and give them the same rights as you and I have.

I think the biggest problem I have with McCain, and possible the biggest difference between a McCain presidency and the Bush presidency, is the tone. Bush comes across as confident, almost to the point of cockiness at times, but he is also genuine, humble, and treats his friends and enemies alike with grace and respect. McCain, however, has a history of flaming outbursts against his colleagues and those on his own team. He has shown (in my opinion) a disturbing amount of low-blow mud-slinging over the past few weeks in the GOP campaign, and that reveals a lot to me about his character.

In my opinion, McCain's biggest character flaw is that he has been dishonest with his base. His record clearly shows that he is NOT a complete conservative. If he held himself up as a moderate Republican, I think many of these things would be a non-issue. But, for him to call himself a conservative when everyone with a brain can see that he clearly isn't is a blatant slap in the face, and an insult to all of us who are actually conservatives. That's the kicker in his character, and something that Bush has never done.

Now, the second question: is Bush a conservative? I think that it's a bit of a trick question. Something I've realized through this primary season is that there are, in fact, different flavors of conservatism. The three big ones are social, economic, and national security. I believe that Reagan actually established those three things as the '3-legged stool' of conservatism. Bush is definitely a national security conservative (though weak on immigration), and a pretty strong social conservative (his stance on stem cells proved to be dead-on, and should prove to be almost prophetic as time moves on). Economically speaking, however, he has been very liberal. Under his term, the government has expanded dramatically, and I don't believe he vetoed a single spending bill through his first four years. Not good.

I think that Bush embodies the term 'big-government conservative', meaning that while he has true conservative leanings, he also believes that government is the answer to way too many problems. Is he a real conservative? My answer would be: kind of.

So, Paul, hopefully that clarifies my thoughts on these great questions. I'd welcome any and all comments.

There's my two cents.

Quotes: McCain And Clinton

Here are two very appropriate quotes that help explain a couple important points about the election prospects as they stand today.

"It's true that McCain is unpopular with Reagan conservatives because he decidedly is not, on far too many issues, a Reagan conservative. But it's more than that. He is the anti-conservative. He instinctively sides against conservatives and relishes poking them in the eye."
-- David Limbaugh --

"[The Clintons] will use whatever they want, in order to get whatever they want—and the effect on the country does not bother them. That was the hallmark of the first Clinton administration. There is no reason to doubt that this will be the hallmark of the next Clinton administration, if there is one."
-- Thomas Sowell --


Hat tip: Patriot Post.

Crazy Thoughts On Huckabee

Here's a crazy thought that occurred to me this week.  Observing the massive amount of genuine and deep-seated anger and resentment against McCain, I wonder how Romney's withdrawal will affect Huckabee and Paul.  I don't think that anyone outside Paul's campaign actually believes he can compete since he has only managed to get to double digits in a handful of states (passing 20% only twice), so the fat lady is singing about him.

Huckabee is another story, however.

He'd been written off by most (myself included) as not having any broad appeal with GOP voters, but with Romney backing out, it leaves a monster-sized vacuum for someone to rally the huge base of angry conservatives.  Could Huckabee do it, and suddenly catapult himself into contention with McCain?

As I've said before, he's a brilliant and inspirational speaker, and he would look good in any televised debate against anyone.  Remember all the storylines about how Huckabee was the biggest surprise of Super Tuesday?  He proved that he actually carries quite a bit of clout in the Southern states (winning six of them), which is a bastion of conservative strength, and came close (within 3%) to winning three more.  Out of 22 states, and in a 3-way race, that's a legitimate contender, though McCain's delegate count is far greater at this point.  But, the same questions about triangulation that applied to Romney just days ago now apply to Huckabee - with the third candidate out of the way, would Huckabee suddenly attract a whole lot more voters?

Given the potent rage directed at McCain, who knows?

Disillusioned Republicans (especially conservatives) now find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, with McCain on one side and a guaranteed Democrat President on the other.  At this point, Huckabee is very much a dark horse, but he's still a horse in the race.

Also consider that the press about McCain's speech to the CPAC today -- even from conservatives -- has largely been about what he needs to say to appeal to the base that he's snubbed for years.  The fact that he needs to fake it proves that he's not truly a conservative, underscoring what his base already knows.  Huckabee, on the other hand, most definitely embodies many of the core conservative values, especially on social issues.  He's saying all the right things right now on all the issues, but his weakness is that those things don't match his record.  As evidenced by McCain's success in the past few days, though, many Republican voters don't seem too inclined to look hard at a candidate's record.  Could Huckabee make use of this lack of accountability, too?

Finally, a local radio broadcaster recently talked about how the scale of the primaries is quite small compared to the number of people who will likely vote in the general election.  That's a good point.  So far, less than 25 million people have voted in all the primaries combined.  Even if we double that number to consider the remaining primaries, the total is easily less than 50 million.  However, in the 2004 general election, the total vote count was almost 125 million.  That means that only about 40% of the people who will probably vote in November will also weigh in during the primaries.  What will the remaining 60% of general election voters base their decision on in November?  This radio broadcaster suggested that many of them would make a snap last-minute decision based on who looks good.

Huckabee can look good and sound good.

Could he actually have a chance in the general election?  He would have to secure the nomination first, of course, but given the severity of the anti-McCain backlash, he could find himself as the new least bad choice, and he's maneuvered himself into second place with almost no campaign cash to this point.  What if conservatives channeled their anti-McCain rage into support for Huckabee?

If Huckabee can harness these factoids in his favor, could he catapult himself back into the thick of the race?

It's just a thought.  A crazy thought, to be sure, but isn't it interesting to think about?  Can you imagine a scenario with the 'inevitable' candidates -- Clinton and McCain -- getting edged out by two relative newcomers -- Obama and Huckabee -- who both have questions about their policies but are both as smooth as silk?

There's my two cents.

Link Roundup

Given the focus on the primaries over the past few days, I've got a bunch of links rounded up for you.  I thought I'd try to categorize them a bit, so let me know how that works for you.  Here you go!

War on Terror

• Al Qaeda is aggressively going after WMDs.
• Truck containing radioactive material stolen in Canada.
• Al Qaeda video of training young boys to kill, kidnap.
• Musharraf deals with Taliban...whose side is he on, anyway?
• Pentagon aide urged illegal meetings with Islamic groups.
  

Election

• Mark Steyn predicts McCain difficulty, suggests Reps focus on the House.
• The MSM will turn on McCain out of sadness, not anger.
• The Democrat party has plenty of problems, too.
• Here are the Dem talking points you're going to start seeing and hearing.
• If McCain wins, Bush's tax cuts are dead.

Miscellaneous

• Scientists in U.K. create embryo from 3 parents, destroy it.
• Reps actually act like Reps and block Dem port in stimulus package.
• America loves an underdog.
• Transparent fish created to study spread of cancer.
• Lurching toward a one-world government.

Mitt's Out

At his speech before the CPAC today, Mitt Romney announced that he is formally withdrawing from the GOP race.  This essentially signs, seals, and delivers the nomination to McCain on a silver platter.  His reasoning, as it's being reported, is that he's getting out for the good of the party.

I'm not sure how throwing the reigns of the party to a big-government, anti-conservative wolf in sheep's clothing is 'for the good of the party', but that's something that I'm sure will be explored in depth over the next few months.

Regardless, the irony here is that Romney apparently gave an impassioned speech brilliantly illustrating the problems faced by the country, and how conservative principles can fix every one of them.

Too bad he's not going to be the one to do it.  McCain certainly isn't, either, which means the country will either remain broken or get broken even worse.

There's my two cents.

Questions For McCain At CPAC

Mark Krikorian suggests some very pointed questions for John McCain at the CPAC:

• Your Hispanic Outreach Director, Juan Hernandez, held a cabinet post in the government of former Mexican President Fox. Apart from Hernandez's outrageous anti-sovereignty views — for instance, his insistence that Mexican Americans should forever think "Mexico First" — how can you justify using a former foreign government official as the representative of your campaign to a group of American citizens?
• You have refused to answer whether you would sign your own immigration bill if it were to reach your desk as president, saying that it's not going to happen. But what about a bill that could reach your desk, HR 4088, Heath Shuler's SAVE Act? It is focused exclusively on enforcement — in other words, no "path to citizenship" — and has more than 140 bipartisan co-sponsors. The Senate counterpart of the Shuler bill also has bipartisan support. If it comes up for a vote this year, will you vote for it? And if it reaches your desk next year, will you sign it?
• Your colleague, Sen. Jeff Sessions, has put together a 15-point action plan on immigration, which Gov. Huckabee has endorsed. At the Heritage Foundation recently, Sen. Sessions said he hoped his plan would offer you an opportunity to clarify your immigration positions. Will you commit to Sen. Sessions action plan to enforce our immigration laws? And if not, why not?
• There's been some skepticism about the sincerity of your assertion that you've "learned your lesson" on immigration with the collapse of your amnesty bill last summer. Will you reassure us by pledging that, at least during your first term, you will focus exclusively on enforcement and oppose or veto any legalization bill from Congress, leaving you free to make the case for legalization to voters in your 2012 reelection campaign?

If McCain wants to reassure the Republican party that he truly has the best interests of conservatives at heart, he would do well to start with answers to those questions.  I bet you he'll avoid every single one of these.

There's my two cents.

CPAC Will Be Critical

The biggest gathering of conservatives in the nation -- the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) -- will take place on Thursday, and all the major players will be there, from President bush and VP Cheney to all four GOP Presidential candidates to a who's who of grassroots conservative leaders. Both Romney and McCain will be speaking, and it figures to be a critical appearance for each of them.

McCain is planning to use a Reagan video in his introduction to try to continue appealing to this most critical audience. Given the tensions between conservatives and McCain, this does not promise to go over well:

If McCain uses this video, it is very likely to backfire badly. This is the group before which Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that, “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.”

Very few of the 2008 CPAC crowd will see McCain as the successor to Reagan and Reagan’s principles. McCain has sacrificed conservatives’ fundamental beliefs throughout his Senate career. If McCain uses this introduction, the boos will be very loud.

McCain faces a real quandary. If he fails at CPAC -- and doesn’t win the CPAC straw poll (he finished dead last in 2007) -- the word will be out that the conservatives are off his team this year.

That could prove disastrous for McCain's continued push for the GOP nomination, since he cannot win the White House without their support. McCain has a very steep uphill battle, though. First, his record is awfully undeniable, and these are not your average American citizens who pay little attention to politics - the people at CPAC know where McCain stands on their most important issues. If that weren't enough, recall a key part of the quote above - McCain finished dead last in the same straw poll just months ago, and he hasn't gained any friends since then. If he can't do better this year, the entire country will know the conservative voting bloc has backed out, and McCain is unlikely to get it back no matter how many promises he makes.

Conversely, the CPAC could be Romney's last best chance for garnering that same support. Now that he is the most conservative candidate left in the race, he needs to persuade CPAC that he is their only option. If they throw their support fully behind Romney, it could provide the boost that he needs to claw his way back into the race. It's a long shot, but probably his best -- maybe only -- option.

Just to give you an idea of how thoroughly divided the party is and how serious some conservatives are about withdrawing their support from McCain, there is talk of 'suicide voters' who would rather see a Democrat in the White House than McCain, even if it means voting for Clinton.

One of the big questions that will be discussed at this convention is 'Is the GOP Lost?'. As Michelle Malkin says, "Having to ask the question answers it, don’t you think?"

Finally, let's take a look at just how critical the conservative voting bloc is. A Time/CNN blogger does some research on the numbers from Super Tuesday, and they are very illuminating, if you know how to interpret them:

TOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

McCain: 43.1% (3,611,459)
Romney: 35.4% (2,961,834)
Huckabee: 21.5% (1,796,729)

For grand totals, vastly more Democrats than Republicans voted yesterday:

Democratic votes for Clinton and Obama: 14,622,822 (63.6%)
Republican votes for McCain, Romney and Huckabee: 8,370,022 (36.4%)

Put another way, the Clinton/Obama race drew 76% more voters than the McCain/Romney/Huckabee race.

Some would say this is proof that conservative voters have lost their clout. In fact, it illustrates precisely the opposite. Democrats are excited about both of their candidates, and came out in huge numbers. Republicans -- especially conservatives -- are excited about none of their candidates, and stayed home. This huge voter discrepancy should be a big, bright, flashing warning sign that McCain has a severe problem without conservative voters.

He needs us; he won't win without our support. To have any hope of getting our support, he needs to win the CPAC straw poll, which should be announced Saturday afternoon.

This event should be a telling predictor of McCain's chances of winning the general election.

There's my two cents.

Israel, Gaza, And War

Major happenings going on in Israel. First, a map of the region in question:


Similar to the stuff with Pakistan, a lot has happened in the past couple weeks, so this will be something of a whirlwind catch-up session. You can read more about all these events by searching Breitbart.com.

Here's the short version.

In the last Palestinian election, it came down to two terrorist groups, Hamas and Fatah. Most people realized that giving any terrorist group the sort of legitimacy of a political party, but nevertheless, that's what happened. Fatah won the election, but Hamas soon took over the Gaza strip through a bloody revolution. Since then, they've been constantly sending rockets into Israel. Suicide bombers also made their way across the border frequently.

In response, Israel built a security wall to seal off Gaza, and the violence dropped. [Side note - see how well a security wall/fence can work?] In recent months, Hamas began sending more rockets over the wall and into Israel, which prompted Israel to cut off supplies to the area through the border crossings. The public outcry was ludicrous, if not predictable - the world condemned Israel for not supplying the terrorist group that was constantly firing rockets into its own cities. The Palestinians whined and cried about not getting supplies despite the fact that they continued firing rockets at their providers.

This kind of backward thinking is typical of Palestinians, but somehow it's always Israel's fault (despite the fact that Gaza is adjacent to Egypt, too).

Then, in January, Hamas engineered the collapse of a significant portion of the wall between Gaza and Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians flooded over the border to get supplies. For several days, the traffic flowed back and forth without restraint, but eventually Egypt closed the border down again to preserve their borders and sovereignty. [Hm, sound familiar? Why do they get to do that but we can't...?]

Naturally, Hamas doesn't want that, so there is currently a dispute over who gets to control the border crossings, with Israel weighing in, too.

Now, why should you care about this? Because it looks like Israel is about to go to war again, and this chain of events is largely the cause of it. Oh, and it's also President Bush's fault for trying to introduce the peace process and elections into these terrorist organizations.

Now, I agree that it's the height of foolishness to ever think that giving a terrorist group the power and legitimacy of a real political party. But, can anyone blame Israel for trying to protect their own borders, property, and citizens? For the U.N. and the world to condemn Israel for cutting off supplies to the very people who were attacking them is absolutely ridiculous, and evidence that there is a rabid anti-Israel bent to much of the world.

We'll see in the coming days if another war does start, and if the U.S. gets pulled into it. Just keep your eyes and ears open.

There's my two cents.

One Election, Two Sets Of Rules

Today brought a very revealing revelation. When Mitt Romney used some of his personal fortune to fund his campaign activities, he was accused of 'buying the election'. And yet, when Hillary Clinton does precisely the same thing...

Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation.

Huh?? You mean the rules aren't the same for Republicans and Democrats...?

Shocker.

There's my two cents.

Here's Why It Counts

Tony Blankley once again hits the nail squarely on the head with his analysis of the split in the Republican party over John McCain.  Excerpts [emphasis mine]:

Assuming John McCain gets the GOP nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be. It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party but was actively despised by about half its rank-and-file voters across the country -- and by many, if not most, of its congressional officeholders. After all, the McCain electoral surge was barely able to deliver a plurality of one-third of the Republican vote in a three-, four- or five-way split field. He has won fair and square, but he has driven the nomination process askew.

This result reminds me of a nursery rhyme: "For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail."

In the current instance, the lost nail was a viable conservative candidate.

Blankley argues that there were two viable, unifying, genuinely conservative candidates that separate quirks of history (see the article for details) marginalized long before the campaigning really began: Jeb Bush and Sen. George Allen.  With those two being ruled out, that left us with the current crop of no-one-likes-them candidates, with John McCain being center stage.  Here's the key quote:

So, the mischievous gremlins and elves inside the wheel of history have served up John McCain to lead Ronald Reagan's party into November battle. McCain is both the finest war hero since Eisenhower to run for president and the one senior Republican who has gleefully put his thumb in the eyes of his fellow Republicans and conservatives for a decade and a half. He is the apostate leader of a party tending toward ossified orthodoxy.

Conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, worry (with good cause) that this fluke of Republican history might permanently deflect the course of the party away from conservatism.

Bingo!  That's the real problem right there.  It's not so much an argument with McCain the man as with McCain the man who has re-branded conservatives to something we are not.  I personally believe this would not be an issue if he ran as a moderate Republican, being honest about his positions.  The vitriol he is reaping is because he is lying through his teeth, and everyone knows it.

Anyway, Blankley then relates the story of how conservatives came to power (beating out the moderates in the party, one of whom, ironically, was George Romney, Mitt's father) during the 1964 nomination, largely due to another quirk of history, and ends with the critical question:

If we conservatives sit on our hands this November, as moderates did 44 years ago, will we marginalize ourselves within the party (as the old Romney moderates did)? Or will we be saving the party for the grand old cause?

That is truly the question that we (assuming McCain does indeed win the nomination) have to answer in November.  Will we sit out, refusing to support McCain, who is most certainly NOT a conservative, risking that our seat at the power table within the Republican party will be excised?  Or will we hold our noses and fight for a Presidential nominee who, while being awfully bad for our philosophy, would still be the least bad choice?

Speaking for myself, I have no idea what I will do.  I'm glad I have a few months to ponder.

There's my two cents.

Post-Super Tuesday Thoughts

I'm sure the analysis will drone on for weeks, but here are some initial thoughts that I've heard/read (I may not have links for a while, but I'll try to post them as I find them).  I'm ignoring the Dem race for now because it hasn't really changed much since before Super Tuesday, though Obama did better than expected.

Huckabee won the Alabama primary, but Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute and a pro-family conservative leader in the state, suggests there is general dissatisfaction with all of the candidates:

"The bigger story of primary day in Alabama, and probably around the rest of the country -- particularly among conservatives -- is that they really don't think they've got a candidate," says Palmer. "Practically everyone that I've talked to [said] if they could have voted for none of the above, [they] would have."

He goes on:

Palmer says there is still major conservative dissatisfaction with the GOP field. "There's kind of an angst over McCain. There's a distrust of Huckabee; many view him as a Republican version of Jimmy Carter -- except he's conservative on the social issues. And there's just not a real base for Romney," adds Palmer. "I don't know if it's that they perceive him to be a liberal who has become conservative for convenience sake, or if it's the fact that he's a Mormon."

There is also a general consensus that McCain is at his most conservative while on the campaign trail, making promises on a daily basis.  Charles Hurt, the New York Post's DC Bureau Chief, says it this way:

[I]f history is any guide, the McCain we've seen of late on the campaign trail is the most conservative McCain we'll ever see.  He has taken a commanding lead in the GOP primary by packaging himself as the "true conservative" committed to limited government, to slashed federal spending and to an avowedly conservative Supreme Court.  He claims the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He even claims the mantle of Barry Goldwater, conservatism's crack version of Reagan.

But as McCain clinches the GOP nomination, he will begin his usual leftward lurch.  He will return to his lifelong positions as soft on illegal immigration, skeptical of tax cuts and favoring strong federal control over things like campaign financing.  McCain's appeal to independents and even the left is what makes him such a powerhouse in the general election.  It is also precisely what has so many in the Republican base so wildly fearful of handing him the keys to the kingdom.

While some are saying that the race isn't over -- which is, technically speaking, true -- McCain has over 600 primary delegates (of the 1,191 needed to secure the nomination), Romney has 266, and Huckabee has 190.  Romney would essentially have to run the table to win, and given the fact that most Rep money will now flow toward McCain, he'll be footing almost every penny of his continued campaign.  Still, McCain didn't deliver a knock-out punch, so there is a small question mark remaining.

Some general thoughts that should be kept in mind when considering future elections:
- polls and exit polls were very wrong again:

• Hillary was 'inevitable', Obama would lose his momentum; BUT... Obama did much better than expected, and Hillary didn't pull away at all
• The Rep race would drag on for a long time --> it's McCain's race to lose now
  

- many of the big states that McCain won are states that will go Democrat in the general election (CA, NJ, NY, etc.), so he really doesn't have much of a chance to win them in November
- the Clintons and Kennedys both showed a surprisingly lackluster amount of clout
- "Reps for Choice" endorses McCain, even though he's 'pro-life'

There are a lot of explanations being tossed around for what's going on in the Republican party, but here are a couple of the more logical theories.

Why did Huckabee do so well in the South?
First is proximity: he's from the South (Arkansas).  Also, the evangelical vote for Huckabee was huge.  Rush Limbaugh suggests that there is a growing similarity between blacks and evangelicals.  The Democrat party has traditionally done nothing of substance to actually help the black population (rather, their policies have almost completely destroyed the black family), but blacks continue to vote for Democrats because the Dems continue to make promises that sound good.  The Republican party, on the other hand, has for years obtained the support of evangelicals based on promises of opposing abortion, gay marriage, and the general moral depravity in the country, despite not actually doing much to change things.  Hm...a very interesting theory.  It dovetails into the next question...

Why the general disillusionment?
The Republican turnout was quite a bit less than the Democrat turnout.  The obvious answer to why is that the Dems have two candidates that they like, and are excited about the upcoming election.  The Reps, however, don't like any of their choices.  Specifically, the conservative core base of the party doesn't like any of the choices.  This division has been clear for months, and is bearing out in the actual voting.  Conservatives, in particular, are also completely ticked off at Republicans who run on conservative principles and then make a hard turn left once they get into office (like McCain, Governor Schwarzenegger, etc.).  Huckabee, for all his weaknesses, has a strong history on the things that social conservatives value: abortion, gay marriage, family values, anti-IRS, etc.  It could be that these social conservatives voted in higher than expected numbers for Huckabee because they wanted a guy who actually had a history of standing for their issues, even if he doesn't realistically has a chance to win in the general election.

The ironic part of this is that if Huckabee really had the interests of the evangelical conservative base at heart, he would be attacking the candidate who has pledged to oppose abortion and gay marriage amendments: McCain.  Not Romney.

Conservatives also get ticked off when people like McCain have no problem 'reaching out' across the aisle to work with Democrats far more than they work with members of their own party and their own constituency.  As I've blogged about before, 'bipartisanship' has come to mean 'Republicans/conservatives give in', so what's the point of supporting them anymore?  Thus, they stayed home.  It happened in 2006, and looks increasingly likely to happen again in November.

One last article to leave you with for now.  John Judis writes at The New Republic about who actually won yesterday.  McCain isn't carrying his own base.  Excerpts [emphasis mine]:

McCain blunted Mitt Romney's challenge, but he failed consistently to win over conservative voters.  But McCain continues to depend on moderate, non-evangelical Republicans for his victories. In California, conservatives made up 62 percent of the primary electorate; McCain only won 30 percent of them. In Tennessee, 73 percent of the voters were conservatives; McCain won 22 percent. In Missouri, 65 percent were conservatives; McCain won 25 percent. In these states, McCain failed to win a majority of Republicans. And he might face a revolt of these conservatives in the fall. They won't vote for a Democrat, but they might not vote at all.

One group that is clearly dissatisfied with McCain are Republican evangelicals. In Tennessee, which Huckabee won, 73 percent of the primary voters described themselves as born-again Christians. McCain won 29 percent of these voters. In Missouri, 54 percent of voters described themselves this way; McCain won 24 percent. The other group that doesn't like McCain is Republicans who think illegal immigration is the most important issue. In California, 30 percent of the Republicans thought it was; 23 percent voted for Republicans; in Tennessee 25 percent thought it was the most important. Only 21 percent went for McCain. It's not clear how McCain can win these voters over.

This may be a bit foolish, but I'll make this prediction now (with big a caveat for huge world events like catching bin Laden, a downturn in Iraq, major economic events, etc.): if McCain wins the nomination, either Democrat will beat him in November.  He isn't likely to win back the support of the very base he snubs on a daily basis, and he doesn't appear to have any real comprehension of just how much opposition there is to him within his own party (only 75% of the Republican voters yesterday were actually Republicans).  Either of the Dems will carry the majority of right-leaning Democrats and Independent voters.  I think he'd do better against Hillary than Obama because of her baggage, but not enough to change the outcome.  The Republican turnout will be smaller than usual, and that means McCain will get crushed.

Take it for what it's worth.

There's my two cents.

Watch Out For Rising Gas Prices

Hang onto your wallets - gas prices are likely to rise at least $.50/gallon by this summer, but not because of the price of oil.  There is an additive that is required by law to put into gas mixtures to help them burn away completely.  The cost of that additive has gone up from $.77/gallon to over $3.00/gallon recently, which is what will cause the spike in the price of gas.

I just want to pass along the real reason for the cost increase before it happens - who knows what crazy explanation will be put out there!  The point I want to communicate to you is this: the root cause for this is environmentalists who buy the myth of man-made global warming.

If it weren't for environmentalist wackos, we wouldn't have to have dozens of different formulas, severe regulations for transitioning between gasoline blends as the year goes through weather cycles, and...you got it...additives to do things that will 'save' the environment.

This is yet another example of how the hoax that is man-made global warming WILL hit YOUR pocketbook.

There's my two cents.

Link Roundup

Given the craziness of last night, I didn't get my latest link roundup out.  Here it is now...

• What America's declining casualties reveal - local help.
• British forget their history...will we follow?
  
• Reporter calls Bush a 'bastard', Hillary nods and smiles.
  
• How Bush saved NASA.
  
• Iran will have nukes in 3 years.
• U.S. sees Russia, China, OPEC financial threat.
  
• Berkeley: even Clinton and Obama knows free speech should go both ways.
  
• Rampant Islamic Jew-hatred in Europe.
  
• Where do the candidates stand on technology issues?
  
• Scotland Yard braces for wave of attacks after suicide bomber arrests.

Way-Too-Early Impressions

I'm done watching the primary results coming in for the night. At this point, it looks like McCain is having his way, although Romney has looked good in some unexpected states.

Unless there are some major surprises once all the votes are tallied (which could happen), it looks like McCain will have the substantial lead that he hoped for, though it doesn't appear that anyone will be completely knocked out of the race.

Romney has pledged to stay in, and will take a look at exactly how many delegates he won today (remember, the key is not how many states a candidate wins, but how many delegates he wins) to decide how far he is willing to go.

The surprise of the night appears to be Huckabee, who did much better than expected.

If these indicators hold up, it would appear that McCain was able to carry most of the winner-take-all states, while Romney carried more of the states that awarded delegates on a percentage basis. Obviously, that helped McCain a great deal. We'll see how it all shakes out in the light of day tomorrow!

For all of you who got out in the nasty weather to vote - I applaud you! It's great to see that the overall voter turnout has been high yet again!

There's my two cents.

The Results Are Rolling In...

According to the Fox News:

Republican

John McCain: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Missouri, California

Mitt Romney: Massachusetts, North Dakota, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Minnesota

Mike Huckabee: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia

Democrat

Hillary Clinton: Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arizona

Barack Obama: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Colorado

Click here for a running tally of the delegates awarded.

Warning: Don't Get Suckered Into Staying Home!

As we head into the final couple of hours of primary voting on the East Coast states, I wanted to throw out a warning that the MSM is likely going to begin running stories and news 'updates' that McCain is sweeping the country and is the imminent winner of the day.  Since the Democrat race is expected to be pretty much evenly split today, this is mostly intended to influence Republicans, making people who would vote for Romney (or anyone other than McCain) stay home, thinking it's all over.

Don't buy it!

This is precisely what happened in Florida in 2000 - the MSM began calling the state for Gore 11 minutes before the polls even closed in the Florida panhandle, where the Republican concentration is the highest in the state.  How many thousands of Republicans stayed home because of those reports?  We'll never know for sure, but we can prevent that phenomenon from ever happening again by refusing to be influenced.

The point here is that McCain is likely to win most of the East Coast states, so he's likely to jump out to an early lead this evening.  The MSM is going to take that lead and extrapolate it into a sweeping victory throughout the rest of the country despite any actual data supporting that assertion, and despite the polls remaining open for three more hours in the Midwest and West Coast, where Romney is much stronger.

If you plan to vote (no matter who you support), don't ever let ANY media report keep you from doing so.  And, let's all wait to have the votes counted before we crown a victor, shall we?

There's my two cents.

Radical Islam Update

Taking a small break from election news, there's so much stuff to report on the War on Terror, I almost don't know where to begin.  Let's just remember during this time in the election process that the next President will lead the fight against the battle of our time - radical Islamic terrorism.

So, let's get started. 

First, how about some good ol' descriptions of what life is like under Islamic (i.e. Sharia) rule?  For starters, you better hope you're not born with Down's Syndrome, because the terrorists will trick you into strapping bombs on yourself and blowing up innocent people in pet markets.  Anything perceived as immoral meets with severe penalties, too.  Adultery is frowned upon by both Christianity and Islam, but the key difference is that in Christianity, the penalty isn't death by stoning.  And don't you dare start reading up on women's rights in an Islamic country, because that will also earn you a death sentence from religious leaders.

You may be thinking these are extreme examples that could never happen in the West.  You're wrong.  They already have.  And it's only getting worse.  Did you know that Muslims have already claimed the U.K. and the U.S. for themselves?  According to them, it's only a matter of time until they rule the world, and given the rampant capitulation around America and the West, they might be right.  For example, in Canada, it's apparently okay for radical Islamists (Muslims) to call for jihad and mass murder, but it's not okay to question Islam in any way.

But it's coming home, too.  Muslim taxi drivers all over America are going crazy, refusing to transport people for all kinds of 'offensive' reasons, like having a seeing eye dog, carrying alcohol, and women being 'naked' (meaning their face is showing).  And they seem to be largely immune to legal action because of political correctness.  Such capitulation is a very, very bad sign for Americans.  Not only are the subtle attacks working, but they're still constantly planning violent attacks, too.  By the way, it is a known fact that terrorists use the U.S.-Mexico border to infiltrate our country and set up cells inside the U.S.  Perhaps even more disturbing, there are traitors at the highest levels of government that are actively subverting experts willing to speak the truth about Islamic terrorism.  Not only that, but the MSM absolutely refuses to report all of the good things that are happening in Iraq, the central front on the war against Islamic terrorism.

Oh, and by the way, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea have all recently tested missiles that could be used to deliver nuclear weapons.  Pakistan is in complete turmoil, of course, and Iran and North Korea are both distinctly hostile to the U.S., so all three present major security risks to the U.S. and our allies.  If nothing else, we know they're more than willing to sell weapons to terrorist front groups to attack us, and that's a danger enough.

So what's the key thread of connection here?  It's Islam.  Radical Islam is undoubtedly the similarity with all of these things.  Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders offers some extremely candid and revealing answers in a recent interview.  What's sad to me is that this guy likely has a death mark on him, now, too.

Speaking of Islam, I recently received the following e-mail from a friend.  It's supposedly from someone who worked in Saudi Arabia for years, though I don't have any confirmation of that fact.  I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I also can't disprove it, either.  Take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's got the ring of truth to it - references are references, you know?  See what you think:

Maybe this is why American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.  Can a good Muslim be a good American?  This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.  The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we
should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.

I don't know that I'd go quite as far as to say that 'all Muslims' should be held under suspicion, but I certainly question the truth to the supposed 'moderate' Muslims who don't support terrorism.  Quite frankly, I don't think they exist.  Furthermore, I wonder when people (non-Muslims) are going to wake up and realize the danger that radical Islam presents to civilization and America's survival.  The evidence speaks for itself, at least to anyone with the eyes to see.

There's my two cents.

Follow Up On West Virginia

In response to the fishiness in the West Virginia caucus, Romney's campaign released this statement:

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.

"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

Exactly.

There's my two cents.

Mac-Huck Tag-Team...?

Mike Huckabee wins the 18 primary delegates for West Virginia today.  But get a load of how it happened:

On the first ballot Tuesday morning, Romney was the leading vote getter, with 40.9 percent of the vote. Huckabee was second, with 33.1 percent. McCain had 15.5 percent, and longtime Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 10.4 percent.

Under the convention rules, the candidate with the fewest votes was knocked off the ballot, so that eliminated Paul.

A candidate needed 50 percent of the ballots cast to get the 18 delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Huckabee won on the second ballot, after supporters of U.S. Sen. John McCain switched their votes to him. That gave Huckabee 557 votes to 522 for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the second ballot. McCain had 10 votes.

"The best scenario for the McCain campaign was to not have a Romney victory here today," said Gary Abernathy, a McCain supporter and former state Republican Party director.

The delegate switch didn't sit well with Romney supporters. "These are the juvenile actions of a morally bankrupt campaign," said John McCutcheon of the Phillips Group, which supported Romney's campaign in the state.

McCain's actions here are somewhat understandable, but what's up with Huckabee?  He knows he won't win the nomination, so what does he have to gain if he actively works with McCain?  A VP spot...?  A cabinet position...?

Something seems fishy here...

There's my two cents.