With the Republican presidential candidates each claiming to be the true conservative, it's good to revisit the core conservative principles. Redstate has a great post that demonstrates how conservative principles have held steady through the decades:
First and foremost, he needs to understand that, by the tens of millions,
true conservatives do exist in our country. That their unbending beliefs make
them -- not only the backbone of this nation -- but the hope for a better
future. That they unashamedly love their country and have reached the point of
no return with regard to political correctness and pandering politicians who
place themselves above the welfare of our Republic.
He needs to understand that they have a deep and abiding belief in God. A
belief that is under a daily, escalating and obscene assault from those on the
left who only use the word “Christian” as an insult, a punch line, or as an
identifier to be added to a blacklist to deny employment at most schools,
colleges, newspapers, and television networks. He needs to understand that this
is a belief that must be acknowledged, respected, and defended. He needs to
understand that all life is sacred and that it begins at conception.
He needs to understand that true conservatives believe we live in a
sovereign nation with clearly defined borders that must be protected. Period. He
must understand that the invasion of illegal aliens is not only a threat to that
sovereignty, but widens the pathway for terrorists to infiltrate our nation. A
scenario that the House Committee on Homeland Security has already documented as
becoming a reality. He needs to accept that there are those in our country who
would turn the United States of America into part of a “North American Union.” A
suicidal strategy that was recently pushed and admitted to by former Mexican
President Vicente Fox.
He needs to understand that we are engaged in a world-wide war against
Jihadists and extremists who mean to wipe our nation off the face of the Earth.
For that reason and more, it is imperative that we retain a national defense
that is second to none. He needs to understand that true conservatives believe
that the young men and women who serve in our military represent the very best
of our nation and must be given every consideration. That without their heroic
service, we will be vanquished.
He needs to understand that true conservatives do believe that large
segments of the entertainment industry are purposefully and systematically
exposing our children to the vilest forms of smut. That they do so first, to
make money, and second, to indoctrinate as they continue their quest to subvert
the morals, ethics, and character of our nation.
He needs to understand that true conservatives actually do believe in
lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. That if you proclaim yourself to be a
“Conservative” and turn your back on these tenets, then you are worse than those
on the left who believe in neither. He needs to understand that true
conservatives understand the value of limited government and expect their
leaders to be just as enlightened.
He needs to understand that true conservatives believe in strict
enforcement of the rule of law. That aside from the terrorists from without, our
nation is at war with hundreds of thousands of violent gang members from within.
That in many cases, these gangs are aligning themselves with drug cartels,
terrorist groups and foreign nations. That if we don’t acknowledge this war and
win it, then many of our cities and much of our border, will spiral into
lawlessness and unchecked murder as these gangs prevail.
He needs to understand that the appointment of judges is an overriding
issue for true conservatives. That they believe in having a
strict-constructionist Supreme Court. That there can be no compromise in this
area.
He needs to understand that if he panders to them now to win the
nomination and then stabs them in the back to try and win the general election,
he has lost them forever.
And finally, he has to understand that true conservatives will never vote
for the “lesser of two evils” come November of 2008. That to do so, would be to
betray all that they hold sacred. Faith, family values, and conviction can never
be compromised.
The Wall Street Journal today, Rep. Charlie Rangel's new tax increase plan is explained. (And if Rangel's behind this, we know that it's really Hillary Clinton's tax increase plan.) Tax cuts increase revenue to the US treasury and reduce the deficit. Plus tax cuts result are good for the economy because tax cuts fuel economic growth. That's what President Bush's tax cuts have done.
But as surely as the sun rises and sets, after the Democrats won majorities in both the US House and Senate, the Democrats are looking to raise our taxes:
Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and
Means Committee, last week introduced an estimated $3.5 trillion tax increase
that would raise the capital gains tax rate from to 19.6% from 15% and places a
surtax of as much as 4.6% on people making more than $150,000 a year. Mr. Rangel
applies it not to current taxable income but to adjusted gross income, thus
phasing down itemized deductions such as charitable contributions, home mortgage
deductions, and state and local tax deductions. Together with the end of the
Bush tax cuts, Mr. Rangel's plan would increase the top income tax rate to 44%
from 35% for individuals, small-business owners and farmers, who make up about
three-fourths of taxpayers in the highest bracket.
Now there, is an economic nightmare. All you Republicans who sat out the 2006 elections-how stupid are you now??
Senator Inhofe gave a historic speech last week on the floor of the Senate, that spoke truth to global warming believing environmentalist wackos:
In conclusion, I would simply point out that climate alarmism has become a
cottage industry in this country and many others, but a growing number of
scientists and the general public are coming around to the idea that climate
change is natural and that there is no reason for alarm. It is time to stop
pretending that the world around us is headed for certain doom and that
Kyoto-style policies will save us - when in fact, the biggest danger lies in
these policies themselves. As I have noted, new studies continue to pile up
debunking alarm and debunking the very foundation for so called "solutions" to
warming.
I know this was a long, long speech, but I just want the real people, not the
money driven liberals and the Hollywood elitists, but the real people who are
out there raising their families and working hard to know that help is on its
way and that all the UN and media driven hype to sell American down the river
will fail.
And that truth, as Winston Churchill said, "is incontrovertible, ignorance
can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is."
But, the narrative has been decided by the MSM, who are (as Ace says), The Deciders.
Bobby Jindal is a second generation Indian-American, and he won the election in Louisiana to become governor of that state. The MSM/media has constructed a narrative that the Republican party has pursued a "Southern strategy" to change the once Democrat south to the now Republican south. Plus, Governor-Elect Jindal is not only a Republican, he is a movement conservative:
Bobby Jindal, a second generation
Indian-American, is going to be the new Republican Governor of Louisiana.
Although governors who are black have been elected in Virginia and
Massachusetts, this election marks the first time the support of white Southern
voters has propelled a non-white governor into office. Jindal's election is
evidence that the much-reviled Republican "Southern Strategy" has actually produced one of the greatest
advances for civil rights in the history of the United States.
As I noted last week, it had been reported that Jamal al-Badawi, had been released from prison in Aden, Yemen. Badawi is a suspect in the USS Cole Bombing, an al-Qaeda terrorist attack on our country.
How much humiliation can one woman take? A whole lot, if Hillary is the standard of comparison. She suffered humiliation on a world-wide scale through Bill's Monica Lewinsky affair/impeachment. Why didn't Hillary leave Bill Clinton? Because furthering her own political ambitions is more important to her than her dignity.
A Guatemalan native was arrested by police in Los Angeles because people saw him lighting a fire on a hillside. Catalino Pineda is said by authorities to currently be on probation for making excessive false emergency reports to law enforcement. Michelle Malkin adds a lot of important immigration background in this video clip:
I don't have access until Thursday to what my husband calls my "station" - that is my home PC where I do my blogging. Everything is fine with us, I'm just not home for a few days. But on Thursday all will return to normal here at QT Monster's.
As to waging war against al-Qaeda in Iraq, Michael Ledeen writes that we could actually be winning the war In Iraq-in real terms. This is notable, because Mr. Ledeen expressed reservations about invading Iraq in the run up to the invasion there. It's notable also because Ledeen is an expert on the Middle East, especially Iran:
Should we declare victory over al Qaeda in the battle of Iraq?
The very question would have seemed proof of dementia only a few months ago,
yet now some highly respected military officers, including the commander of
Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified
by the facts on the ground.
This could prove to be the turning point in the war against the Taliban in
Afghanistan while setting al-Qaeda’s operations back to where they were in 2003
after the Taliban was defeated. A “qualified” intelligence estimate is that
pacification of the Waziristans would reduce the capability of the Afghan
resistance by 85% as well as “deliver a serious setback to the Iraqi resistance”
who depend on the bases in Waziristan for money, weapons, and logistical
support.
The Democrats want to socialize medicine in the US, to turn the health care in our country into a European-like system. As an American who is now WAYYYYYYYYYY beyond middle age (I am middle aged if you expect to live a very, very long time), the idea of socialized medicine in the next decade is a frightening thing. As Mark Steyn writes at National Review:
I’m in favor of tax credits for child health care, and Health Savings Accounts
for adults, and any other reform that emphasizes the citizen’s responsibility to
himself and his dependents. But middle-class entitlement creep would be wrong
even if was affordable, even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover it every
month: it turns free-born citizens into enervated wards of the nanny state. As
Gerald Ford likes to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative
audiences, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big
enough to take away everything you have.” But there’s an intermediate stage: A
government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get
you to give any of it back. As I point out in my
book, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable
communitarianism: once a fellow’s enjoying the fruits of Euro-style
entitlements, he couldn’t give a hoot about the general societal interest; he’s
got his, and who cares if it’s going to bankrupt the state a generation
hence?
That’s the real “war on children”: In Europe, it’s killing their
future. Don’t make the same mistake here.
The Republicans in the Congress want to see the S-CHIP program continue, at the previous rate of funding. So that families earning up to $80,000 are not covered-which what the Democrats are looking for in the current proposed S-CHIP expansion. Joe Knollenberg, A Michigan Republican congressman writes that Nancy Pelosi's health care bill will affect illegal immigration rates:
But this story gets worse. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill lowers the
standards for proving one’s citizenship. This will open the flood gates to
identity theft, fraud, and make it possible for illegal immigrants to qualify
for the expansion of taxpayer-provided health care. That’s just wrong and I
can’t accept it.
Democrat Congressman, Pete Stark (see the deranged video at the link) manages to draw a parallel between the S-CHIP entitlement expansion, President Bush and the war in Iraq:
Rep. Pete Stark starts blabbering about Republicans who don’t want to spend
money on children, but instead want to spend it on “an illegal war” to be fought
by children whom Republicans want to send to Iraq to “blow people up” and “get
their heads blown up” for “his amusement.” Stark: “Bush just
likes to blow things up!!!”
There's a fine public servant for you, heh? (Insert sarcasm tag here.) I'm sure it's just a bit of Democrat nuance.
House Democrats have been forced to pull their proposed legislation to change
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they couldn't round up
enough support among Dems who need the votes of non-liberals to be re-elected.
You probably recall that the Democratic leadership was embarrassed two months
ago when these same non-leftist Dems joined with Republicans to pass a temporary
FISA fix so that our intelligence agencies could monitor the overseas
communications of terrorists without obtaining a warrant. Still unwilling to
provide the administration with the FISA fix it needs to ensure the gathering of
information vital to the national security, the Democratic leadership has been
slapped down again by members of its own caucus.
The Democrats misunderstood the message of 2006. Voters wanted an end to
spending and corruption, not an amplification of either or both. Republicans
lost in Congress because they acted like Democrats, spending like drunken
sailors. Now they want to attack Bush by spending even more wildly than the
Republicans and expect him to retreat, but Bush has finally found a hill on
which he can fight successfully. The S-CHIP debate showed that, and the
budget-busting proposals from the Democrats will return the GOP to the side of
fiscal responsibility in 2008.
Al-Qaeda terrorist Jamal al-Badawi, who particpated in the attack on the USS
Cole and has a bounty on his head from the United States, surrendered to
authorities in Yemen—and was promptly released after making a promise not to do
any more nasty terror stuff.
The Associated Press is reporting that U.S. forces in Iraq will begin leaving
in December and that the first out will be the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry
Division in Diyala province. That move would cut Army ground brigades to 19.
Soldiers from a brigade in adjacent Salahuddin province will expand their
coverage into Diyala when III Corps returns to its home base at Fort Hood,
Texas.
12 former captains in the Army wrote a piece this week critical of the Iraq War. But none of these retired captains have served in Iraq since The Surge began.
It's always great fun to watch Rush Limbaugh run rings around the liberal Democrats. Talk about rich with irony. Why do they ever try going after Rush? He's way too smart for dullard Democrat Senators like Harry Reid-LOL! Basically what's happening is that Harry Reid got 40 stupid Democrat senators (including Hillary Clinton) to sign a letter written to the CEO of Clear Channel demanding that the CEO force Rush to apologize over the Phony Soldier smear. The CEO of Clear Channel gave Rush the letter, and Rush is auctioning this letter (again, signed by 40 Democrat Senators) on Ebay. The auction runs until this Friday. And to make it even better, Rush is challenging Harry Reid, or any of the other 40 senators who were dumb enough to sign this letter, to match the donation to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation. The auction price right now is up to $45,000.
September 17, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — Members of a secret Pentagon intelligence
unit known as Able Danger warned top military generals that it had uncovered
information of increased al Qaeda "activity" in Aden harbor less than three
weeks before the attack on the USS Cole, The Post has learned.
In the
latest explosive revelation in the Able Danger saga, two former members of the
data-mining team are expected to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee next
week that they uncovered alarming terrorist activity and associations in Aden
weeks before the Oct. 12, 2000, suicide bombing of the U.S. warship that killed
17 sailors.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the Defense Intelligence Agency's
former liaison to Able Danger, told The Post that Capt. Scott Phillpott, Able
Danger's leader, briefed Gen. Peter Schoomaker, former head of Special
Operations Command and now Army chief of staff, about the findings on Yemen "two
or three weeks" before the Cole attack.
"Yemen was elevated by Able
Danger to be one of the top three hot spots for al Qaeda in the entire world,"
Shaffer recalled.
Shaffer and two other officials familiar with Able
Danger said contractors uncovered al Qaeda activities in Yemen through a search
of Osama bin Laden's business ties.
Nancy Pelosi's House is putting on a show, claiming that they will pass FISA legislation that will curtain wiretapping of our country's terrorist enemies-the enemies that are located overseas and not in our country. Really, don't liberals know by now when they are being played? These Democrat Kabuki plays must be for fundraising purposes right?
On October 12, 200, two Yemeni suicide bombers rammed an American destroyer, the USS Cole with a dingy that was full of explosives. The explosion killed 17 US sailors and injured 49. The Jawa Report has a fine summary post up today:
Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower notes, “The FBI was convinced that the
bombers had been tipped off about the arrival of the Cole, and they wanted to
expand the investigation to include a member of the president’s own family and a
colonel in the PSO.”
The Cole Bombing was often mentioned in connection to the Able Danger story:
The New York Post reported that Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the Defense
Intelligence Agency’s former liaison to Able Danger said Capt. Scott Phillpott,
Able Danger’s leader, briefed Gen. Peter Schoomaker, former head of Special
Operations Command about the findings on Yemen “two or three weeks” before the
Cole attack. “Yemen was elevated by Able Danger to be one of the top three hot
spots for al Qaeda in the entire world,” Shaffer said. (Me: Here's an Able Danger news article list on this blog.)
Here is a moving tribute to those sailors we lost in this terrorist attack:
The heroes who died in this monstrous al-Qaeda terrorist attack are:
Monique Francis, 19 Seaman Tim Gauna, 21 Signalman Seaman Recruit: Louis Gunn, 22 Ensign Andrew Triplett, 30 Petty Officer 3rd Class Ronchester Santiago, 22 Seaman Craig Wibberley, 19 Electronics Warfare Technician First Class, Kevin Shawn Rux, 30 Seaman Recruit Lakiba Nicole Palmer, 22 Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class, Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter, 21 Engineman 2nd Class Marc Nieto, 24 Electronics Warfare Technician 3rd Class, Ronald Scott Owens, 24 Electronics Technician 1st Class, Richard Costelow, 35 Fireman Apprentice Patrick Roy, 19 Engineman Fireman Joshua Parlett, 19 Fireman Gary Graham Swenchonis, 26 Seaman James Rodrick McDaniels, 19 Operations Specialist 2nd Class Timothy Lamont Saunders, 32
The Republican party needs to re-brand itself as the fiscal-disciplinarian
party. GOP candidates must get specific about which departments and program
clusters they’re going to curtail. The sooner the better. The burden is on their
backs to reestablish credibility.
al-Qaeda is running out of land to operate from, the noose is tightening. Their
brutality creates a backlash among the people they ‘control’ so fierce that if
US and Iraqi forces can provide a modicum of security the locals line up to
swear on the Koran to destroy al-Qaeda. Salahadin may be al-Qaeda’s last stand
in Iraq and the final chapter of the war. Reconstruction may be just around the
corner.
I have to ask conservatives and libertarians: is this really the hill you
think we should die on? I do understand your objections to the program, but an
informal survey of swing voters, in their current incarnation as my mother,
indicates that this is killing you with the moderates. Save it for
national health care next year, is what I'm saying. This debate is framing the
issue in a way that is going to make things harder, not easier, when Hilarycare
is on the table again.
After last night's debate, an interesting thread at the National Review blog about Fred Thompson as a Conservative, in Which Sense:
Mark Levin: As I said, however, taking conservative positions on certain issues, such as law
enforcement, doesn't make you a conservative, in my view. Is Joe Lieberman a
conservative because he's strong on national security? I don't know anyone who
defines conservatism by cherry-picking issues. I understand why some candidates
try it — in fact, to some extent, they're all doing it. But we need not. And my
point, underscored by your concluding paragraph, is that Rudy's supporters
insist that we do so — as they must. And that's okay, but I dissent. Let me put
it this way: what is Rudy's political philosophy? He repeatedly refers to Ronald
Reagan, he has appointed Ted Olson to head his judicial advisory committee, but
apart from trying to glean his political philosophy through association, what is
it?
Back to Fred Thompson. The "senior moment" jibe was the cheap shot, J-Pod. He
stumbled briefly, as other candidates have and do, despite their ages. Indeed,
as the president does - often. As I said, I heard it used against Ronald Reagan.
It's a demeaning put down suggests infirmity that does not reflect the man. Mark Levin in another post: This "senior moment" and "Fred Thompson-is-lazy" stuff is really starting to
irk. I remember hearing the same comments about Ronald Reagan in every campaign
in which I participated — 1976 and 1980. And this tactic was especially used
against him in 1984. I have spent some time with Thompson. He is intellectually
curious and sharp. He is engaging and vigorous. Yes, he chooses his words
carefully. He speaks in a southern accent. But the attacks on him appear to have
a Northeastern-liberal-style feel to them, emanating largely from the
New York-Washington, D.C axis. This is a man, after all, who worked sixteen hours
a day in both television and radio. John Podhoretz started the whole thing: And if Fred Thompson goes completely blank in the middle of his first answer in
a candidate's debate, it's perfectly justifiable to point out that it made him
look bad and that his primary liability in looking bad as a new candidate is the
impression he gives of lacking the requisite energy for the task ahead. You want
to call using the term "senior moment" a cheap shot, fine. I call it fine
writin'.
Giuliani and Romney win, going away….On the economy and trade, taxes and
optimism, Romney has the edge, but he miffed the Iran question….The talk of
lawyers - probably a fumbled reference to when and if the War Powers Act
applies, but you couldn’t really tell - was not his finest hour, but also not
the huge deal that some want to make it out to be….
Fred Thompson is just flat. Period. And the perpetual frown isn’t going to
win anything.
What a surprise. Hugh Hewitt is one of the best center-right bloggers out there, but Mr. Hewitt is totally biased when it comes to Romney. Rudy's campaign is suggesting that Romney committed a "Lawyer's Test" gaffe in that debate yesterday. Paul Mirengoff thinks, not so much.
The latest chapter in al Qaeda's war manual in their war against the Iraqi
people and the Coalition is this: raiding remote peaceful villages, burning down
homes and slaughtering both man and beast. It's a campaign of self destruction...
our interest today is more about the field situation and strategy than about
timing since the latter seems to be not so friendly to al Qaeda. Well, actually
timing is very important here too but at a rather different level. In my opinion
al Qaeda found itself forced to start this villages war. It wasn't a choice as
much as a last resort because villages are among the few fighting spaces that al
Qaeda can still utilize as large cities become increasingly difficult for them
to operate in. They know that without engaging the enemy--that's us by the
way--their existence and influence would end and I'm almost positive that they
feel bitter about having to fight this way...
I’ve banned you because (5+ / 0-) on your blog, you willfully promote
pedophilia.
Well, actually, I don’t know if you do or don’t (since I never read your
blog) but I figure until you’ve proven yourself not to be a pedophile — to my
satisfaction, not yours — it’s fine for me to keep calling you that.
If you see any irony here, you might want to ponder on it for a while. But
not too hard — Rush fans gotta pick their intellectual battles.
What should have been the tip off to the study’s uselessness was the contention
that “most of the excess deaths” were the result of violence and that “80% of
those de