Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Moral Clarity in Iowa
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


What will be the deciding issue for Iowa GOP voters on January 3rd?

According to KCCI-TV in Des Moines who commissioned a poll to find out, Iowans indicated it will be the future moral direction of the country.

Northeastern Republicans and radio shows which emanate from the E-fax studios in Orange County California may despise it - but that is the number one issue on the minds of GOP voters in Iowa. The Beltway-Manhattan elite can cluck and curse all they want but the reality is the largest chunk of GOP voters in Iowa (and also much reflective of the rest of the red states) want a candidate with clarity on the moral tests that face our nation directly.

It would behoove the editors of the most prominent conservative online and broadcast outlets to take notice of what these voters have to say. At the very least it would be more beneficial than raining down the elitist scorn that the "leaders" of the "new media" have felt free to unload in increasing amounts in recent weeks.

For years voters who viewed their world through the lens of our societal moral bankruptcy have been whipped by fiscal cons, and defense cons, and told to, "shut up, hold their nose, and take it." With all the grace of an overly aggressive date values voters have been raped of their voice in election cycle after the next. It was cute when we got on board with President Bush; it was fine that we handed him the election in Ohio and thus the nation in 2004. But in 2008 we are supposed to let the talking heads, and "new media elites" tell us to ignore certain issues when we cast a ballot.

We politely decline, "No thank you!"

Money may be great - but it can not counter a collective will of those whose loyalty to God is greater than loyalty to political party.

In fact we're rather through with anyone who tells us that we should ignore what God may say to us in our time with Him. Academia has told us He can not be in the classroom. Courts have told us He is not welcomed in public life. Congress has seen to it that He is left out of legislation. And now the analysts who wrongly believe they are smarter than everyone else in the diner says our "judgment is not to be trusted" should we choose to base the most serious act we have as individuals on a set of criteria that might include the source of genuine wisdom.

Yet here are a few things that the GOP voters in Iowa already have clarity on:

Character counts. A man's word IS his bond. If a man will lie to you, then he will steal from you. And if you put men like that in charge of the largest single set of resources in the history of mankind - that character will emerge.

Consistency counts. (Though not for everything) Because the longer a person demonstrates character the more that person is able to count that his future decisions will be based on a solid foundation of clear thinking rooted of course in moral distinction.

Worldview counts. Who is it to determine that economic policy is fundamentally fair? The Marxists claim "common good." The Capitalist claims "personal reward." Yet both viewpoints - absent a moral component lead to tyranny. Is it moral to lower taxes? Yes - because of the moral principle of a man toiling for his survival and welfare. Is it good to care about the poor - even to voluntarily give to ministries and agencies that will provide care that the individual refuses to? Yes - because of the moral principle of loving one's neighbor. Is it good to protect our nation's borders, force evil doers to flee, and to confound the efforts of those who seek mass destruction of American lives and civilization? Yes - because of the moral principle of stewardship, responsibility, and the protection of the innocent. (Which also in large measure argues for the moral obligation to overturn Roe v. Wade, protect marriage so that it remains a moral institution, and to empower the next generation of Americans towards education - so that they are able to control more of their own determination and possibility.)

People count. There is no better measure as to the integrity of the individual than how a man treats those who can do nothing for him.

The reason that fiscal conservatives identify themselves as such is because they want the benefits that morality brings in economic terms but they rebel against holistic morality which would lay claim to the rest of their lives. Defense conservatives want proper worldview towards the advance of evil in the world at large, but are sometimes unwilling to fight the growing threat of evil within our own nation. But it is the social conservative that in simply living his life consistently points out the deficiencies of the other conservative brands and thus why we have been treated with increasing hostility as the time to Iowa grows close.

Of course to stake out the moral high ground will always invite the pragmatists to argue the thousands of possible scenarios in which moral tests might cause the principled to buckle. Invoking the terms like "the art of compromise" or the "science of the possible" they will attempt to trip the consistency of those who seek to live, much less govern from such a perspective.

But what of the alternative?

Arguing that people, character, consistency, and worldview do not count - surely is a recipe for total and complete disaster - yes?

It is as though some would have us believe that for the sake of the greater cause politicians should shift and change their positions. We are made to believe that a person who practices adultery can have the moral judgment to protect marriage? We are to believe that someone who bucked his church's anti-abortion teaching his entire life in politics will suddenly see the need to embrace it? We are told that those who look the other way when enforcing our border will carry out their moral responsibility to keep us secure?

Morality is a big deal, or it is no deal at all.

Because moral judgment saturates nearly every decision one makes in life, as I argued in my first hardback, yielding moral judgment in the role of our elections is not merely negligent it is genuinely dangerous.

Thankfully it appears that the voters of the more moral of the two political parties have their priorities correct, which in the end will help us all – fiscal, defense, and values voter alike!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Dr. Paul and the stealth Christians
sir aslan writes: Wednesday, January, 02, 2008 2:03 AM
. Most evangelical and fundamental Christians who vote, and there are tens of millions of them, are registered Republicans. These are the very people the Ron Paul campaign must reach if the Congressman is to have any chance at all in the primaries.
---------------------------------------

===That is right; So how has Dr Paul chosen
to woo Christian voters?

He goes into Iowa on a limited mission with some attack dogs from Arkansas-not to share his vision for the nation-but simply to attack Mike Huckabee who (so far)is the only Christian candidate who is unashamed to proudly announce that he is a Christian and that he supports Christian moral concerns.

That stunt by Dr Paul really put me off. Not because he was critical of an opponent, but
becasue the way he did it was gratuitious, pointless, and negative-and possibly betrayed a subtle anti Christian bigotry.

If not, why didn't he attack any of his other opponents??

As for the other candidates 9inthe race, so far they all appear to be *stealth* Christians who prefer to keep their "faith" low profile if not to themselves-I assume for fear of offending the secular humanists, the atheists and the Christian haters.

But, If they are ashamed of Jesus they wont get my vote. Period.

That said, it's not too late for Dr Paul (or the others) to ome out publicly and unambiguously for the Lord Jesus Christ, and his righeouness.

If Dr Paul, or Sen. Thompson, or Senator McCain or Mayor Guiliani are willing to do that, then, and only then, will I consider voting for one of them.

But I absolutely will not vote for some Nicodemus type "Christian" who comes to Jesus quietly at night, for fear of being seen by sinful men in the Lord's presence.

A word to the wise is sufficient.


Keyes
I have not gone to the website that savvyconsumer7 mentioned, yet. I will, after I post my comment. Keyes kicked his lesbian daughter out of his house at the age of 19. Being gay is far different than being African-American. If you are gay your own family may turn on you, regardless of your race.

Tabloid Compares Candidates
Alan Keyes' new Tabloid contains a section comparing the candidates. Take a peek:

http://www.alankeyes.com/pdf/iowa_tabloid.pdf


CONT'D RON PAUL


Ironically, Ron Paul is the conservative Christian's ideal candidate. In Fact, he's too good to be true! The good news is that the right is very much in a state of confusion at the moment, since none of the leading candidates quite fit their concept of a conservative Republican. I believe that if we could wake up the sleeping giant that is the church and educate them about who Ron Paul is and what he is about, many believers would "see the light." If we could get the church behind Dr. Paul, well then we might just have ourselves a President! Don't look to the big shot Christian celebrities to endorse Ron Paul, but do everything you can to reach out to the common church going folks in your community. I'll be doing all I can on my end. Here are a couple of articles related to the subject that you can use in your outreach.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance109.html

http://www.rightsourceonline.com/enews/issue3/three.htm

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/20...christians.html

LEADERS OF CHRISTIAN RIGHT TO BLAME
FOR NEOCON TAKEOVER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! AS LATE AS TODAY, FOX NEWS HAS STATED THAT THEY CONTINUE TO PLAN ON BANNING RON PAUL AND DUNCAN HUNTER FROM THE DEBATES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE DESPITE THE PROTEST OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN.

I know how deeply Christians care about this country and the direction in which it is going. I also know how vitally important the evangelical vote is and how it has made or broken candidates in the past. Most evangelical and fundamental Christians who vote, and there are tens of millions of them, are registered Republicans. These are the very people the Ron Paul campaign must reach if the Congressman is to have any chance at all in the primaries.

Unfortunately, it's also true that most evangelicals are easily manipulated sheep who blindly adhere to the neocon agenda. After all, these are the folks who put Bush into the White House - twice. The leaders of the so-called Christian right are very much to blame for the ignorance of those under them. The Rick Warrens and Pat Robertsons of the world are neocon to the core. The vast majority of the evangelical community is completely ignorant of Ron Paul, and men like Joseph Farah, Michael Medved and Kevin McCullough are doing all they can to make sure that what little is known of Dr. Paul is negative.



Oh come on
The so-called "North American Union" is a hoax, the 2008 equivalent of the UN black helicopters from the 1990s, when the same people were claiming there was a Clinton secret plan to end "America as we know it" and turn it over to the UN. Don't fall for it.

And Duncan Hunter is no free market capitalist. We need less government intrusion on trade and commerce, not more. Hunter's trade policy is indistinguishable from that of the AFL-CIO and John Edwards.

Mr. McCullough
Your article is spot on, and what you name as characteristics we're seeking in a leader is exactly why I'll be voting for Mike Huckabee.

America
America is in serious trouble.

I am going to vote for Duncan Hunter. I don't think he has a chance of winning, but I will not vote for a traitor. I seriously hope people of faith will not be stupid enough, or desperate enough to fall for the Huckster. He is a liberal christian along the lines of Jorge (we all worship the same god). He is also a CFR stooge as are all the rest of the top tier candidates.

I believe the next president, either party will preside over the end of our country as we know it. The real power in this country wants the NAU and I believe they will get it. They will need a precipitating event and I suspect it will be economic collapse. It has already begun. I am also very concerned we will be attacked. China esp concerns me. (Russia is going to be busy leading arab coaltion attacking Israel. Ez 38/39, read "Epicenter" by Joel Rosenberg)

Once we have the "new world order"/one world gov, the anti-christ will be arriving on the scene. Daniel predicts a one world gov consisting of coalition of 10 "kings" (EU, NAU, etc.) Anti-christ subdues three of them to take over. Who thinks any one world coalition will be stable? I expect when we go down we will take the world with us. Ez 38/39 can't be far off and that would set the stage for the anti-Christ making peace pact with Israel and issuing the tribulation. Looks to me like Islam may be the religion of the anti-christ.

America has left her first love. Terrible judgement is ahead for America and it isn't far off. Our only hope would be repentance and revival. Hopefully that will happen after the fall of our country.


NEOCON FOX NEWS SLAPPED IN FACE!!
FOX Slapped in the Face by NH Republicans For Exclusion


Posted on December 31, 2007 by fooser


Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter were among the names not invited to a FOX presidential forum in New Hampshire, just two days before the primaries that occur there. After a lot of concern, the NH Republican’s issued a press release regarding this issue, which was a slap in the face to FOX News:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”


NEOCON FOX NEWS SLAPPED IN FACE!!
FOX Slapped in the Face by NH Republicans For Exclusion

Posted on December 31, 2007 by fooser

Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter were among the names not invited to a FOX presidential forum in New Hampshire, just two days before the primaries that occur there. After a lot of concern, the NH Republican’s issued a press release regarding this issue, which was a slap in the face to FOX News:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”


NEOCON FOX NEW SLAPPED IN FACE!!

FOX Slapped in the Face by NH Republicans For Exclusion



Posted on December 31, 2007 by fooser
Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter were among the names not invited to a FOX presidential forum in New Hampshire, just two days before the primaries that occur there. After a lot of concern, the NH Republican’s issued a press release regarding this issue, which was a slap in the face to FOX News:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”


FOX NEWS NEOCONS AND KEVIN LOSE ROUND!!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”


FOX NEWS NEOCONS AND KEVIN LOSE ROUND!!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”


FOX NEWS NEOCONS AND KEVIN LOOSE ROUND!!
SORRY KEVIN, YOU AND YOUR NEOCON BUDDIES ATTEMPT TO KEEP DR RON PAUL AND DUNCAN HUNTER FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE NEW HAMSPHIRE DEBATES HAS BEEN THWARTED !!! FELIZ NAVIDAD!! :o))


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”


Great article
Refreshing to read an article with this kind of moral clarity instead of the never ending Romney worshiping columns that clog up Townhall on a regular basis.

re: PeterE
Apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe the purpose of the government is that which is set forth in the Declaration of Independence: protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe those comprise an end, not means to an end. I believe that you have no claim to the fruits of my labor, nor to my purpose in life (or lack thereof, if I so choose). To say that you do implies some sort of superiority over me in a country founded on the principle of equality under the law.

If you choose to live in a specific community that you know seeks to impinge on your freedoms, that's certainly your choice; at least when you're talking about local government, you have the right to move elsewhere, and of course there are certain regulations that are at least debatably appropriate on a local level but certainly not on a state or federal level.

Ultimately, however, the government that governs least governs best, and the appropriate method for the spreading of personal morality is through persuasion, not the blunt force of the government.

JG
No, as a nation, as a polity, we make decisions on what is our desired end-state, and what are to be the means to get there. The individual purpose is arguably not the business of the polity, but the national purpose is, and the individual is a part of the nation - not an isolated atom.

In my local political environment the local council impinges on my liberty in various ways. They tell me when my grass is too long, whether I may have a business in my basement or attic, how many dogs I may have in my home, that they be registered, whether my relatives can stay forever etc etc.

On what basis do you say that government has no right to make these regulations? The town makes these determinations based on an unexplicated philosophy of family-centered-life-tempered-by- community-expectations.

In my view this micro-managing of life is fine provided that people get involved in the decision-making process, and that we have a Sowellian concern for the economics of trade-offs.

Social values - whether they are of the left or the right - cannot be expunged from politics. But they can be clarified and fought over.

re: PeterE
It is none of my business what your ultimate purpose is, so long as it doesn't interfere with my own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Whether you wish to be free to live in a commune OR as an entrepreneur is of no concern to me, again so long as you don't attempt to use the force of government to coerce me into one or the other.

"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." -- Lord Acton

another thought
In reviewing the "choices" offered for the upcomng election, I am reminded of a routine from an old British comedy programme, "Beyond the Fringe." An character of a miner is explaining that he had wanted to be a judge, but couldn't pass the examination. He goes on to eplain the differences between the two occupations, and concludes with a line that perfectly describes the political scene today, "And if you're a miner, when you get too old and tired and stupid to work, they chuck you out, and it's just the opposite with the judges."
As it is with politicians, is it not?

John Galt
But your preference for liberty actually ignores these points:

* it makes a fetish of liberty (much as some make a fetish of representative democracy) when liberty is only the freedom from something, and the freedom to do something - freedom is the means, but what is the end?

* it takes for granted the insulation from evil domestically or internationally, within which we can live out our free lives

* it is based on an unspoken philosophy of the state. There are left-wing libertarians and right-wing libertarians, some relish the freedom to live in a commune, some to live as an entrepreneur, some to practice polygamy - the social values in fact are vastly different

The goal of this personal freedom must be articulated, and then freedom itself becomes not an absolute but a means to an end.


Candidates we don't need
Any serving Representative or Senator who is past the age of eligility for social Security, should retire and start collectting the magnificent retirement (pension) cheques that that are paid for by us. In fact, to adopt a stance common to the Democrat party members, they should be forced to retire. Check out the ages of the current crop of pestilential candidates and see which ones would be made to go away and stop bothering us.

re: aDNA
"Social conservatives" often try to use the power of government to enforce personal morality at the expense of individual liberty. Witness the attempt at amending the Constitution to expand the federal government and limit the rights of states to allow gay marriage and civil unions; not only does it violate the concept of federalism and increase the size and intrusion of the federal government, but it violates the concept of property rights and the right of consenting individuals to enter into contracts with other consenting individuals.

Witness the attempts by "social conservatives" to uphold laws against sodomy, arguing that the government has both the right and the responsibility to regulate sex between consenting adults, even *married* heterosexual adults.

Witness attempts by "social conservatives" to shut down online gambling websites, limiting the freedom of consenting adults to engage in commerce freely with other consenting adults.

Witness attempts by "social conservatives" to restrict access to birth control. No, I'm not talking about abortion, I'm talking about birth control.

Witness attempts by "social conservatives" to restrict access to pornography. No, I'm not talking about child pornography, I'm talking again about consenting adults. One doesn't have to *like* pornography to understand that he doesn't have the right to use the force of government to restrict someone else's access to engage in commerce as a consenting individual.

And so on. "Liberty" is correct: all too often, so-called "social conservatives" are no different from leftists in their willingness to use Big Government intrusion to limit individual liberty; only the shopping list is different. Likewise with others who use some sort of "conservative" moniker.

re: Cornpone Harry
quote: " ===what does that say about Bush's two recent SCOTUS appomitees, Alito and Roberts??=="

Answer: nothing -- they weren't on the Supreme Court when that decision was rendered.

Also, your insistence that Huckabee's lack of experience and sophistication in foreign policy isn't a problem because upon election to the Presidency he would have advisors is off the mark, as is your insistence that none of the Republican candidates have foreign policy experience. Advisors are great, and choosing the right advisors is important, but the ultimate decision-making responsibility lies with the President. If that President is naive and inexperienced, he (or she) is likely to make bad decision.

Also, several of the candidates do in fact have experience in foreign affairs. Romney has been in business internationally; he is well-traveled and has knowledge of trade, commerce, and world economy. Giuliani was mayor of a city known as a center for international finance, as well as home to the UN; he was worked extensively on international issues. McCain in the Senate has worked extensively on international affairs. Huckabee has nothing, nada, zip, zilch, and his statements imply little understanding beyond platitudes.

Good article Kevin!
I'm sure with some of the latest polls, that the E-Fax studios have turned into a prayer studio to pray for Romney. Frankly I'm very tired of these conservitive talk show host trying to push us away from our moral compass. Romney has flip-flopped on Life, and marraige. "but he is now on our side of these issues". We slammed Kerry on being a flip-flooper and now we come accross as ultra hypocriticle.

jimhughes71@hotmail.com

Ron Paul can thank
his kook base for turning off a lot of people. Most of the people I know gave him an honest look and liked some of the things he had to say. However, when you look around at the conspiracy theorists and the doom and gloomers supporting him it is cause for concern. Paul and Kucinich would make a good pair.... for what, I am not sure.

Bush supreme court oicks
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_62/
In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented if that warms any one's heart.
----------------------------------------

===what does that say about Bush's two recent SCOTUS appomitees, Alito and Roberts??==

maybe I am a moron
that should be out argue in my 3:11 post.

well, I'm not dumb enough to stay up anymore.

Good night and good luck.

santa fe
[note: this case was brought by a Catholic and a Mormon family - damn
secular progressives]

Question

Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events and that the District's policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events. Such speech is not properly characterized as "private," wrote Justice Stevens for the majority.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_62/
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented if that warms any one's heart.

Jay Sekulow argued for the petitioner.

engel v. vitale (1962)
Facts of the Case

The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

Question

Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.

ts
I will take it as name calling since I have as my name implies given you
the facts in the appropriate links.

You were wrong.
That is okay.
So you brought up a bad example to prove your point about the rule
of law, that doesn't mean your wrong it just means your example was
wrong.
BUT, you were wrong. It wasn't just your examples.

Name calling is not the strongest defense.
If I am a moron what does that make you, an idiot?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moron
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/idiot

Is an idiot someone who can't argue a moron?
Not according to Webster but maybe good enough for th.

rule of law is a foundation of country
weren't you the one asking for the "rule of law" 12:44 am
talk about flip flopping!

I am also for the people's right of revolution.
Not having school prayer does not qualify for a revolution although
it might effect some people's happiness.
Having a communist government as practiced throughout the 20th C.
would qualify for the right of revolution imo


I believe the rule of law is one of the foundations of our country.

"A government of laws, and not of men."
John Adams
The "Novanglus" Papers, Boston Gazette (1774- 1775), No. 7; this was incorporated into the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams

Lets face it
noonesfacts
You are a complete moron.
Take is as name calling if you like, but for me its an accurate reading of your mental capacity

bringing up hitler
so I guess you lost the debate.

anyways, you are correct for the most part on Hitler he did when it
helped him rule using the law, especially Article 48:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitutio n)

I also strongly encourage the use of civil disobedience as well as the
rule of law. I doubt this would have stopped Hitler.

And of interest, one of the changes Chavez would have made to the
Ven. Const. was to have similar emergency powers to that of Article 48.


Again I recommend Lincoln's Lyceum Address:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/ly ceum.htm

All communist nations
Are ruled under the "rule of law"
And their rules are what they say they are, and to **** with what the rights of the people are.
And some of you just cannot understand the last thing on this earth we need is the "rule of law".

We need to return to our Foundations


talent scout
as I said you do not like the interpretation of the law.

by the rule of law that means you should probably make a new law.

I am correct:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468/
and you stand corrected.

Obviously this was a law (not passed by Congress) and was in the
judgment of the Justices the equivalent of the establishment of religion.
It was a 6-1 decision.

Hitler ruled by "rule of law"
Just about where America is going too with the dingbats we now have running government

Made in America
So here's an issue that matters for the future direction of America, taxes.

Simply cutting taxes and reforming our tax code is not enough. Gov Huckabee intends fix it:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.Home

The US Constitution BARS Congress
From passing any law for or against SPEECH OR RELIGION.

Its the ONLY part of the US Constitution Congress has obeyed.

There is no Federal Laws against speech or religion.
And Prayer is SPEECH.

The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to try any case if they do NOT even have a law to begin with.
They DID anyway and are the ones in guilt as committing a crime against the freedom of religion and speech.
1962 Vitale case, a corrupt abuse of power, unlawful power.

Jim Crow Laws
Were rules of law.
Unconstitutional, just as the present day rule of law is in outlawing public prayer without any law to begin with.


Law by decree
Is what Hammurabi's Code was.
That is the "rule of law"
Law by decree.
If you do not understand it, live with it.
Not going to waste time arguing with one who cannot grasp the difference's in Blackstones Commentaries and English Common Law and Law by Decree.

oops forgot some words (it is late)
let me add a few missing words. forgive me.

obviously, if the schools in question are still allowing school prayer
because a minority or a majority of the students want prayer then it is
the rule of men (people). Not the rule by the laws.


the rule against prayer is the establishment clause of the 1st am.


FWIW, the best speech advocating for the rule of law is Old Abe Lincoln's
Lyceum Address of 1837. I recommend to everyone to read it.
Quite remarkable for a 1st public address.

talent scout
the examples you provided seem to me like the rule of law.

the rule of law means we are ruled by laws and not men.
If the schools in question are not having public prayer then it is the
rule of law.
If they are because a minority or a majority of the students want prayer
then it is. The reverse is not true. No prayer is not the equivalent to
prayer over the loudspeakers.

I also agreed with the recent ruling of no use by unions of business
e-mail for union business.

The rule against law is the establishment clause of the 1st am.
You might not agree with how it has been applied, but there it is.
If you follow it, you follow the rule of law.
If you and whomever choose not to follow it and officials allow it you
might have the rule of men (and women)

MyOpine
Sounds like you have 2 serioous rifles, for sure. P O Ackley did a lot of pioneering work in wildcats and ballistics. He took nothing for granted and broke new ground. An Ackley bbl certainly increases the value of your custom 6.5. Compared to you, i am a very conservative handloader. I use factory loads for hunting, so have little incentive to try to get the absolute max out of my reloads. I do load .38 special hot, having started when the NRA reloading manual printed loads all the way up to 12.5 grains of 2400 behind an 168 grain Keith. This was the old .38/44 load which exceeds some of the wimp .357 loads now current. I never went over 11.5 grains, but that is plenty hot giving about 1200 fps in the manual. Have fun with that unique rifle.

IMMORAL BLINDNESS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE/IOWA
ESTABLISHMENT IS DESPERATE FOR CANDIDATE
Folks, I never thought I would see the Jacobin/Neocons and their CFR buddies along with their Marxist Liberal Mainstream Media so desperate for a candidate they think will win and the voters will vote for that they would try to Coronate John McCain.

The Neocon Station...Fox News is so desperate for one of their handpicked candidates to win that they will not allow Dr Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter to participate in the New Hampshire Debates. So, what are they afraid of?

I am already recommending that Dr Paul include a political ad commercial spot showing Reagan when Mr Green tried to take the microphone away from Reagan. Reagan quipped? Mr Green, I am paying for this microphone. The very same thing is happening to Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter.....when this commercial is run....the establishment will be toast!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHve9iQymqE


Happy New Year to Fox News!! LOL

cornpone harry , you, me and 48%
of americans would never vote for Mitt under any circumnstances. If republicans nominate him, say hello to president clinton or obama.

I wish all Americans
Understood what they wish for is something quite different than what they think it means.

Liberty writes: 11:48 PM

I want the Constitution and the rule of law reinstated in this country.
------
Think about what the rule of law means verses English Common Law this country was based in at our founding and lasted up and till 1962.

Here is where the "rule of law" gets us to.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.
In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

Just think, all this was done by the legal system without a law against prayer.
Here is your "rule of law" in action.

To jdw
I just talked to my sister-in-law, born on an Iowa farm and still an Iowa girl 80 years later. She said the meetings and information blitzes have been informative and she is looking forward to attending caucus this coming week, that nothing will keep her away. Sorry to disillusion you.

Name it, copperhead.
What big government?

Sam
I had not heard this line until I read it in today's paper: "It's Shanghai, Mumbai, Dubai, or Goodbye."

Social Cons are not for Big Gov't!
Seems to me a lot of folks fear that Social Cons are for Big Gov't.

That is just not true - especially in Gov Huckabee's case.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id= 597




Objection.
No, "liberty", the big misnomer here is you.

You are not for liberty as defined in the Constitution.

What big government have social conservatives ever posed to you, you hack?

Moral Direction: Leadership & Freedom
Isn't it telling that the growing disenfranchisement, frustration and anger among ordinary Americans is almost equally aimed at conservatives as it is at liberals, because conservatives appear to be increasingly willing to let the ends justify the means as liberals have already been doing for some time?

We're slowly becoming mirror opposites of our political opponents - becoming what we despise. That is why Americans, not just those in Iowa, are concerned about the future moral direction of the country.

We need leadership that will listen to and empower the people & not try to stifle, manipulate, or dismiss us. We need visionary & confident leadership that much like Ronald Reagan, trusts enough in the triumphant spirit of the American people to give power back and enable that spirit to succeed. Only an optimistic, confident & strong faith, and a shared moral vision can lead & inspire the masses like that without manipulating them. For freedom to work it takes a real courageous sort of leadership that gains power by relinquishing control.

Consider the controlling, fearful leadership of Musharref in Pakistan and the lack of freedom there. The preference of the Russians for stability over freedom, and the ever-increasing control of Putin and the Russian state over the people.

It's Freedom that makes America great - I'm sure all the GOP candidates and all their conservative supporters and indeed all Americans can agree on that much. So why can't we all just champion the one's we like, without tearing the others down and trust the people to make the right collective choice?

This video compares Reagan's Legacy with Huckabee's Leadership:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id= 1001

No you don't!
No you do not want the rule of law, or you would not rule out the so-called social conservatives.

Social conservatives believe in the last vestiges of freedom as defined by the Constitution and Amendments.

We are the last bulwark between government by the people, and Marxism.

Judges do not get impeached, as they should. So the social conservatives are the ultimate check on the overweening arrogance of the court, and the erosive power of the royalty/aristocracy of the media and the tax funded academia.

aDNA
"It would be nice to ignore Judicial Tyrany, wouldn't it "Liberty"? You are ignoring the most vicious, aggressive assaults on liberty, launched by the courts."

Again, where are you deducing THIS? I am a strong advocate of following the Founders' intent of the Constitution. Which, last time I checked, did not include judicial activism, nor the concept of a living Constitution.

I want the Constitution and the rule of law reinstated in this country. How about you?

aDNA
"You might claim to be a fiscal conservative with no other concerns, however, may I admonish you that we are guaranteed the free excercise of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to life, & the promise that some will be deprived of life after due process of law (DEATH penalty)."

Now what did I say, that makes you think that conservatives do not have a strong belief in the Constitution? Quite the opposite. In fact, it is for that reason, that social-conservatives are such a misnomer. Social-conservatives are quite willing to disregard the Constitution if it fits their need of using big government to cram their agenda down others' throats.

You must not have read my post closely, if you are referring to me as a fiscal-conservative. I am a conservative. There is only one kind.

In case I don't see you till then;
A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL and many more like it.
I know you guys will not do any mischief I would not do.
Be careful, DON'T GET CAUGHT!

liberty has it right
social conservativism = big government.

gawd this was a bad article 2
"the moral obligation to overturn Roe v. Wade" - and return it to the states? outlaw abortion in all cases? I am pro-life, but I can see the
case for the moral ambiguity in outlawing all abortions. Can't you?

"protect marriage so that it remains a moral institution,"
whatever that means, imho it would mean getting it out of the hands of
the state. Gay marriage happened before it was recognized by the state
and will exist if it ever outlaws it again. Not worth fighting for. Just
make laws about who can have sex with whom and what.

"and to empower the next generation of Americans towards education - so that they are able to control more of their own determination and possibility."
IMO that would mean PUBLIC school choice.

gawd this was a bad article
only clicked over after seeing the NEA in one of the posts.

Anyways, the problem with the article and the poll is that morality is
subjective. Not always, but in many of the examples McCullough uses
they are. At the very least he is not concise or clear.

Is it moral to lower taxes? Yes - because of the moral principle of a man toiling for his survival and welfare.
BUT not if it means spending more than you bring in year after year after
year. What is more moral is a balanced budget and then paying off the
deficit.

Is it good to care about the poor - even to voluntarily give to ministries and agencies that will provide care that the individual refuses to? Yes - because of the moral principle of loving one's neighbor.
OF COURSE, the bigger question is what role should government have
if any in providing for the poor out of our taxes (see above)

Is it good to protect our nation's borders, force evil doers to flee, and to confound the efforts of those who seek mass destruction of American lives and civilization? Yes - because of the moral principle of stewardship, responsibility, and the protection of the innocent.

RIGHT, but it would also be moral to have a more open border policy
to people who are not evil doers and do not seek mass destruction.
see my comments on this article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulGreenberg/2007/02/27 /on_fighting_the_problem



Your tiny concepty of freedom
I believe all you desire of the US is that it gurarantee you the freedom of contract--that is fiscal freedom.

However, I for one believe more was meant by the foundation of this nation than Capitalism, although that is kind of a biggee.


Integrity and Vision Matter
Conservatives of all stripes have long lamented the sheer lust & desire for power of those on the left, & have rightfully spoken out about their complete lack of integrity & willingness to say and do anything to recapture & hold on to power. Yet many big name conservatives are resorting to the same lack of integrity as they struggle for power amongst conservatives and our own party. It is a mark of desperation & lack of confidence, a sense of losing control that tempts us to compromise in order to regain some semblance of control over things. Whether it's information spin, the manipulative use of media & ads, threats, or whatever, it's all a fear-based use of force, and for conservatives that believe in the power of freedom it is ultimately self-defeating.

For any one candidate to succeed with a mandate, I believe they have got to focus on their vision, on specifics for accomplishing that vision, and on the positive, optimistic role people will play in the accomplishment of it. This is how you get people enthusiastically on board, rather than reluctantly supporting you because you're less worse than someone else.


Right on Kevin!
I think you've said more or less what myself & many other ordinary conservatives are thinking. What saddens me is how most of the FOX NEWS/Townhall/NRO/talk radio crowd are increasingly facilitating or becoming the divisive elements within the GOP. The Democrats and the MSM must be loving it.


bogus Liberty, if I ever saw it(yes you)
It would be nice to ignore Judicial Tyrany, wouldn't it "Liberty"? You are ignoring the most vicious, aggressive assaults on liberty, launched by the courts.

You might claim to be a fiscal conservative with no other concerns, however, may I admonish you that we are guaranteed the free excercise of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to life, & the promise that some will be deprived of life after due process of law (DEATH penalty). Among very many other things! So stop your little sham of fiscal conservatism, because the Constitution bears witness to the greatness of social conservatism.

@loco-is Huck "too compassionate"?
loco writes: Sunday, December, 30, 2007 9:09 AM

Does a McCain/Liberman ticket sound outrageous?
----------------------------------------
No, it doesnt seem outrageous. I can see that ticket IF McCain gets the nomination.

But I am still for Mike Huckabee, and I believe he will win the nomination and defeat the democrat next November.

In my opinion, he is not too compassionate. As you know,He *now* has adopted a very hard stance on immigration-harder than I like actually. Honesty compels me to admit I liked President Bush's plan which was NOT "amnesty" contrary to what all these handwringing alarmists were falsely saying.

And yes Huck's new tougher stance is a definite flip flop, but a minor one compared to rich slick mitts many flip flops on moral issues.


must reading: what Tony Blankley, Gingrich's former chief of staff said about Huck's foreign policy in his article "We are headed to a brokered convention"


Blankley says he finds very little to fault Huck on his foreign Policy.



Social conservatism is a misnomer
Back in the days of Barry Goldwater, Sr. there was but one definition of a conservative. These were the fundamental principles:

- Limited constitutional government
- Personal privacy
- Personal responsibility
- Strong national defense
- Fiscal responsibility in government
- Individual liberty

Ronald Reagan ran on this platform (Goldwater's platform). Since Reagan was so loved, it became very popular to be called a "conservative". So some, who were not conservatives at all, attempted to fashion the term into something that fit their ideology. Hence, the birth of "social-conservatism". The term is a misnomer, because social-conservatives' ideology share very little in common with conservative ideology. Where conservatives have a strong believe in the Constitution and limited government, social-conservatives are quite willing to use the strong arm of big government to force their views on everyone else. Individual liberty, nor adhering to the Constitution, matters little to them. The approach of social-conservatives is identical to their big government brethren on the other side of the aisle. Both believing in big government to force their views upon others. Only differing in what they want their big government to force. A very small difference indeed.

True conservative ideology has not changed since Goldwater. However some are allowing themselves to be fooled otherwise.

Savage99
My 6.5 mm gets much of it's velocity from a custom 28" barrel.
I designed the gun myself.
(With some help from notes captured from German scientists)
Parker Ackley used his last SS blank to make the barrel.
It's on an FN magnum action with a Bishop stock hand bedded & glassed.
Double set triggers & 6x18 Redfield.

The Anschutz is the one I load hot.
Most guns reach a point where the groups open up when you load too hot. The Anschutz groups get tighter as you get hotter.
I am engraving primers!

"BiggestObstacle to Education Reform:NEA
Actually, wrong link on the education issue.


You have to go here,
http://www.fred08.com/FredCast/FredCastSummary.aspx#

and scroll to,

"Biggest Obstacle to Education Reform: NEA"


The title has it!! :)

Thompson and abortion, cornepone
He believes that the Supreme Court overturned the rightful laws of the states when it ruled on Roe v Wade. He hates this, being a true federalist:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nXcksXN_W7s

He desires to overturn Roe, and send it back to the states. He worked very hard to confirm Justice Roberts.Good deal!

Better trust the judgment of your countrymen in every case, than in the rulings of the Supreme Court.

My great love and fondness and loyalty for Thompson involves his hard stance on global warming,


and his championing of the fact that education must be injected with freedom, choice, and local responsibility. I am a homeschooling mom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp4-Zp8cFS0&feature=user

MyOpine
You have a great gun in that Anschutz. They are beautifully made and have an unbeatable reputation for off the shelf accuracy -- for which one pays through the nose.
140 grain bullet at 3660 fps from an 06 case would require some hefty pressures. That more than duplicates .264 win mag performance from a bigger capacity case. Its your rifle, but i'd back off a little on the powder charge. I handload, but though i have a bent for orphan cartridges i don't load for any wildcats.
I have a Remington 1100 in 20 gauge and i like it a lot. I hunt dove with a Winchester 59, ducks with my Model 12 but i blush to admit i haven't been out for ducks in many years. You really need a boat and dog for ducks, to say nothing of the masochistic personality which enjoys being wet, cold, muddy and uncomfortable for extended periods of time. On the other hand, do you know any good spots? :-D

Clarity
Romney is now tied with Huck nationally for 2nd at 16. McCain is at 17 and Rudy at 15. All are in a statistical tie. Rudy and Huck are dropping and Romney and McCain are rising.

The Vegas odds are Rudy 30, Romney 24, McCain 21 and Huck 11.

Huck has dropped like a rock.

This may become a Romney vs McCain/Rudy campaign. Rudy is sitting back letting McCain fight Romney in the early states. His strategy is to let Huck fight Romney in IA and McCain in NH and MI. However, Rudy may get replaced by McCain if he is not careful.

McCain could also get just enough strength to split the moderate vote with Rudy and that is Romney's best shot.

Look at the trend lines in TradeSports for the candidates. Rudy has broken his lower trend line, this is a very negative development. Huckabee seems to be creating a steep down trend. He should have resistance at about 10. If he breaks down thru that he is toast. He is currently at 11.


Romney now leads the odds in both IA and NH.

Mason Dixon is the most accurate state pollster. They have Romney leading in IA.

@cornpone harry
Dear cornpone,

Are you form NE or something?!

Fred Thompson believes that the courts have generated the marriage assault crisis, and it requires a solution that addresses the activist courts. He supports an amendment that would prohibit courts from fabricating new definitions of marriage.

Could any elected "officiale" you know oppose this? May I remind you that voters reject these cultural disasters by by 70%? May I remind you that Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform, but did not act rashly?

luv, aDNA and fam.





Savage99
For coast range I use an Anschults/Savage K-608 in .223.
To reach out I use a 6.5mm x 06 wildcat that puts out a 140 gr. BT Spitzer @ 3660 fps, 1/2 MOA.
Use a Remington 1100 in 3in. 12 ga for a shotgun.


This is bad news for Huckabee
Huckabee tells a lie a day on the campaign trail.

THis week alone he lied about the Pakistani illegal immigrant problem and lied that he got the numbers from the CIA.

He lied about John Bolton, Frank Gaffney and a handful of others being his national security advisors.

Miquel is lying every time he talks about being tough on Illegal immigrants. There is no way this man would veto an amnesty bill presented to him by a Democrat legilature.

Why are reporters not going to Arkansas to find out what conservatives and Republicans who know him best think about him?

I just saw a poll that suggests Hillary Clinton would win Arkansas over Huckabee 35 to 8 in the general election.

Huckabee is loved in New York but hated in Little Rock.

Iowans can do whatever they want on caucus night but if a man's true character (ethics violations, excessive paroles, gift taken, nepotism, etc) matters, Huckabee can not even be on their short list of acceptable candidates.


Oh, I forgot, he is Baptist Preacher.
Never Mind

@aDNA
aDNA writes: Sunday, December, 30, 2007 9:36 PM
geez cornpone guy,it'd never be that bad
There is a conservative candidate,


love, aDNA

Thompson, o8
----------------------------------------
I had not thought of Fred as being outspoken on pro family values, but I could be wrong. whats his stance on Gay Marriage, Abortion, school prayer,evolution, etc. also whats his position on the second ammendment?

thanks


TruLib
I am a bit better off than you on profitable gun deals. Like real estate, timing, luck and being in the right place at the right time seem to count more than skill or planning.
Never have heard anyone who shot one say bad things about the Thompson. I blew a chance to buy one for just under a grand in 1987. The model with no compensator and the operating handle on the side, not top. They are going for around 8k now. I served with a Brit who carried one in Palestine '46-47. It was the drum model with vertical foregrip. He loved it, though he considered the .45 to be slightly inferior to 9mm as a subgun round. He was unimpressed with the touted extra knockdown power claimed for the .45. Hard to argue with him. He took a .45 round that broke his arm in 2 places and didn't even know it until he tried to use it.

@carol
Carol writes: Sunday, December, 30, 2007 12:33 PM
As much as I like Mike as a person and fellow believer, he's toast when it comes to foreign policy.
============================================

Carol,I understand your concerns, but in practice, once a person becomes POTUS it's amazing how loyal Americans with special foreign affairs knowledge and talent are willing to sign on and pitch in for the good of the nation and accept cabinet postions or otherwise put aside personal differences to help the POTUS

Why? It's simple: Because by doing so, they help themselves and their country.

When Huck is inaugurated he will be surrounded by a large group of competent and tested foreign policy advisors.

None of the presidential candidates this year have any foreign affairs experience

so its egregiously hypocritical for the liberal media to only question Huck's experience, when its' clear *none* of the candidates have any personal experience dealing with foreign leaders.

Moreover, it is always military leaders and experienced expert advisors who largely guide foreign Policy decisions in any administration.

Exactly what FP experience did Governor Reagan have when he was elected POTUS? what about our current president? He also had none.

In fact, the only presidents in recent memory who actually had actual foreign policy experience when first taking office were Vice Presidents Nixon and Ford, and George Herbert Walker Bush, the father of our current President.

The secularists in the MSM are attacking Huck in mass for his uncompromising Christian principles.

geez cornpone guy,it'd never be that bad
What is your problem? There is a conservative candidate, so calm down.


love, aDNA

Thompson, o8

MyOpine
The model 100 was made by Winchester. Mine is in .308. Arguably the best looking selfloader made. I've never fired mine or got around to mounting the receiver sight i bought for it. Like i said, i bang around mostly with my SKS. The Winchester will have collector value long before the SKS and i don't have to worry should i put a ding on it.
What do you shoot now, or has the ol' rocking chair got you?

Liar
For those claiming Romney is a liar for having changed positions, I would point out that we could make a very strong case for both Huck and McCain.

Huck is lying thru his teeth on the fair tax and he knows it. His answers on many of his problems in AR do not add up. He was not a very good governor. He definitely was not a conservative.

McCain lied like a rug trying to get the immigration bill passed. It was obvious to everyone that the "straight talk express" was more talk than straight.
It was not just McCain position on immigration, it was the way he went about trying to ram it down the countries throat.

if mitts the nominee: write in Keyes
cimarrone writes: Sunday, December, 30, 2007 7:24 PM
won't vote romney
the one republican that won't, under any circumstances ,get my vote is romney .the say anything stand by nothing canidate.
--------------------------------------
Amen Cimarrone!, My sentiments exactly.

rich slick mitt is systematically dishonest, and his virulently abusive supporters on this board routinely *personally* attack and name call anyone who doesnt support mitt, or has the nerve to raise questions about the bizarre teachings of the secretive cult to which he belongs.


Their wrath and venom is like nothing I ever witnessed on an internet bulletin board.

has LDS come to mean Livid Demented Slanderers?

If the massachusetts slickster is able to purchase the GOP nomination, I will organize a write in Allen Keyes movement in my state.





Better
Romney is in a much better position than Huckabee to affect a correction in the future course of this nation.

Romney positions from separation of Church and state. His arguments are moral and based in non religious terms.

Huckabee positions as forcing everyone to conform to his understanding of Christianity. That is not going to fly in the general election. If he did somehow win, every time he tried to enact a moral position the MSM would claim his was imposing his religion on everyone. He would not be able to move the country back to a more moral position.

Huckabee has defeated himself as a moral change agent by wrapping himself in his religion.

Further, Huckabee is dangerously naive on both foreign policy and economics. If he were to implement his stated policies he would be a worse than Jimmy Carter on both foreign policy and the economy.

Savage99
I was just joking about the "ugly guns".
I know younger vets favor them because they know the "look & feel".
My grandson has one for that reason.
(Yes I do tease him about the "Ugly gun".)

The M100 is a light semi-auto sporter.
I used one in .243 for a few years.

MyOpine
I have 2 additions to "criminals and cowards". Fools and elitist politicians who think they are better than anybody else. The 2nd amendment has been my litmus test for years, with illegal immigration now added. No amnesty/gun grabber will get my vote.

I am not familiar with the Remington M100. Could the designation be a mis-strike? Whatever, clip-fed semi-autos just as capable as the nasty looking military look alikes that scare the ignorant, have been available since 1903(memory) when Winchester put the .32 winchester semi auto on the market, to commpete with the model 8 Remington semi auto. I owned a model 10 in .401 Winchester for a while. Traded it on a Model 12 shotgun i still have.

Savage99
That bull pup Steyr is strange looking. Shot the SKS a good bit in Nam. I had an old Thompson there that was a hoot. Probably been there since WWII. Paid $25 for and sold it for $35. That is the only money I ever made on a gun deal.

TruLib
Never fired an M14 or M1A, butof course i've handled them and can't think they would be much different than the Garand with which i do have experience. I prefer the shotgunny feel of the conventional stock to pistol grip stocks. My new (to me) L1A1 has the best ergonomics of any pistol grip rifle except the Austrian Steyr which looks funny, but has quite surprising handiness. I much prefer wood stocks in general. I haven't fired the L1, give me a break its only been 30 hours. I'll chime in with impressions when i do, since you are interested. I must admit i really like my little SKS paratrooper which due to mild recoil and cheap ammo i do shoot a lot. A terrific value for the money. No home should be without one. There has been a lot of accuracy upgrade work done on the M1A and its being used as a sniper. I wouldn't doubt the Brits have done some good work on the L1, but don't know of anything available here in that way. Did i mention mine has a B-Sauare scope mount installed? It will soon have a scope on it to check its accuracy potential.

You guys with your "ugly guns"
Other than the looks of an ugly stock causing liberals to wet their pants, what can a civilian M16 do that you can't do with a Remington M100?


Only criminals and cowards fear guns in the hands of honest men.

Savage99
I've been running the internal debate for a few years. Swinging back and forth between the L1A1 and the M1A. I went through basic with the M14 and loved it but I enjoy the feel of the other rifle. Never fired an L1A1 though. How would you compare them?

Mountain Rose
Excellent posts.

Nanna sounds good to me.

Carol..same here, I'm sick to death of this
long election that's only long because it feeds the egos and greed for power of some candidates forcing the others to jump in too early. Though
I admire Fred for not following the school of fish. Duncan Hunter has always been my #1, though i've kept my mind open but so far. It's too bad Allen Keyes doesn't get the respect he deserves, it'd be a treat to see him tear Hiliary
into pieces in a debate.

won't vote romney
the one republican that won't, under any circumstances ,get my vote is romney .the say anything stand by nothing canidate.

Mitt Rules
Are Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin in Romney's back pocket too? How about Judge Bork? Last time I checked they didn't have radio gigs, let alone employed by clear channel comm.
Speaking of the clear channel owned by Romney conspiracy thing, could be true I guess, if so big deal, it only testifies to what a stellar business man Romney is. Out here in phoenix, we have a guy named barry young on an AM talk show owned by clear channel and Young definitely is not a Romney supporter and regularly gets his kicks by saying inflamatory things about Mormons so I don't think the clear channel-pro Romney connection means much if anything.

Ha Ha Ha ... Schooled who, about what???


Isn't always the way...those who "think" they know something, when in fact they know NOTHING, are the ones who think they've "schooled" others.

There are those in a coma who are more informed than some...such as boo-hoo









sarah
Okay, so Mitt is a liar and has everyone from HH to Rush to national review to Bob Jones in his back pocket? Well I guess that settles it folks. We're gonna toss over the most accomplished (BREADTH and DEPTH of experience), family-oriented (just look for yourselves), telegenic/presidential candidate (you're lying if you say it doesn't matter, especially in 21st century america) because he's changed position on SOME issues -- for the BETTER. Like a politician's never done that in the history of the world.
Sarah, who's your pick?

Thompson/Hunter 08
Oh yeah :-)

A Great Message Excellent Posts
After the primaries are over and the candidates are chosen, who do you think you will see? The most popular candidates or the most capable and principled candidates?

We are not voting on the AMES Awards. We are electing an executive, CEO, Commander and Chief, a President; a leader of a nation, the largest business in the world. Good intentions are not enough. They say that the road to Hell is built on the cobblestones of good intentions and so is failure.

Experience, education, energy, initiative, private victories, and public victories, in business, social, and political enterprises, of raising the skeletons out of the ashes of failure. That is the person to vote for. Who do you know who fits that profile? That candidate will not be like Peter Pan or Tinker Bell.

When Is Honesty Dishonest?

This is not a paradox. It is a serious question concerning integrity and ethical, veracious communications and actions. It is about honest sincere perceptions and intent of the heart.

Intent is the key. Honesty becomes dishonest when a truth is used to exploit, distort, or used to mislead, or deceive, in order to take advantage.

Mitt did not lie. His ads present the track records and the positions, which Mike Huckabee and John Mc Cain have always defended. Their performance does not come close to Mitt Romney's and that is why his numbers are rising, because everyone is checking things out for themselves, on every candidate.

His ads actually are very kind, because it is helping voters to see that Mitt Romney is very honest, practical and fare, while he is disciplined and organized, giving strong leadership, and he will not make a promise he will not keep, nor will he distort the truth. Be informed, Vote your Conscience.

A Great Message Excellent Posts
After the primaries are over and the candidates are chosen, who do you think you will see? The most popular candidates or the most capable and principled candidates?

We are not voting on the AMES Awards. We are electing an executive, CEO, Commander and Chief, a President; a leader of a nation, the largest business in the world. Good intentions are not enough. They say that the road to Hell is built on the cobblestones of good intentions and so is failure.

Experience, education, energy, initiative, private victories, and public victories, in business, social, and political enterprises, of raising the skeletons out of the ashes of failure. That is the person to vote for. Who do you know who fits that profile? That candidate will not be like Peter Pan or Tinker Bell.

When Is Honesty Dishonest?

This is not a paradox. It is a serious question concerning integrity and ethical, veracious communications and actions. It is about honest sincere perceptions and intent of the heart.

Intent is the key. Honesty becomes dishonest when a truth is used to exploit, distort, or used to mislead, or deceive, in order to take advantage.

Mitt did not lie. His ads present the track records and the positions, which Mike Huckabee and John Mc Cain have always defended. Their performance does not come close to Mitt Romney's and that is why his numbers are rising, because everyone is checking things out for themselves, on every candidate.

His ads actually are very kind, because it is helping voters to see that Mitt Romney is very honest, practical and fare, while he is disciplined and organized, giving strong leadership, and he will not make a promise he will not keep, nor will he distort the truth. Be informed, Vote your Conscience.

dinaz, romney has changed his mind on
ALL SOCIAL ISSUES in the past 2 YEARS - a little too frequently to be taken seriously. Also, Romney is a liar and he makes up stories about his experiences. This means that Romniacs are immoral by association and stupid because they can't read his record, and love Mitt's Money which would explain intelligent men acting like a gang of school kids supporting their leader without taking into consideration his lack of clarity on important social issues!

Beeblebrox
Guess i might as well stay home when you are posting. Illegal immigration and the 2nd amendment are my litmus tests for all candidates all the time.
By the by, picked up a decent British-made L1A1 at a gun show yesterday. Converted to semi-auto long ago by Century Arms. Old type wood stocks. If the Dems DO get in, another gun ban is a certainty. Last time that happened i cleaned up on my collection of civilianized versions of assault rifles. A good excuse for buying a nice rifle i don't really need.

Thanks Knight...
...for the insightful and clever rejoinder.

Have a good day.

We "CREATED" Islamic radicals?
Come now Knight, you know full well that radical Islamism predates Bush. In fact it predates Thomas Jefferson.

I don't need to consult the CIA (whatever that means) in order to know that Christianity and Judaism has been in a war with Islam for the last 1100+ years.



Since we created the guys...
then wouldn't you say that it's our responsibility to fix them? If so, then you should have no problem with what we are doing now... Hind sight is 20/20 whether you like it or not. No one is perfect up to and including the government because guess what? it is made up of imperfect people...

@Savage99
We may even actually agree on WHY we will not be voting for Rudy.

For my part, I can't abide his positions on:

illegal immigration
2nd amendment

His positions on social issues are, of course, anathema to me as well but even if he had the social ideology of James Dobson, I still wouldn't vote for him because of his immigration and gun stands.




How Many States Will Ron Paul
have to lose before you looneys give it up and go back to your looney bin. I can't wait. I am so sick of the Ron Paul spambots that I could scream. So how many, 5 states, 8, Pleeeeeeeeze get a life and move on!

The purpose of government...
... is to protect individual liberty, not to enforce personal morality. There is no "moral clarity" in restricting individual liberty in the name of "conservative" or "progressive" or "Judeo-Christian" or "family" values.

Beeblebrox
I am no Evangelical and find myself in close agreement with you on the action level, to the point i might well vote for Mitt, but can't see Rudy under any likely circumstance. Like a poster above remarked about Huck, it would take a sincere apology and rational explanations on a level never seen in American politics for Rudy to convince me he and his demonstrated track record belong in the WH.

@Jim Bowie
I appreciate your sentiment but methinks you are overstating things a bit much. If you detest Mitt that much, I would dial back the hyperbole a bit. People will take you more seriously.

Comparing Mitt to Kerry is profoundly unfair. Kerry was a traitor from the moment he gave aid to the enemy during the VietNam war. Mitt has never done anything like what Kerry did. As far as we know, he is above reproach in this regard.

As far as the Bush comparison goes, I think it is likely Mitt would govern to the right of W. I can't be sure of that but W never promised to be a conservative and anyone who was disappointed by Bush's sidling up to Kennedy and other Dems in order to push "compassionate conservatism" should not be surprised by his presidency. After all, Bush won because both Gore and Kerry were/are corrupt socialists. Bush has his socialist leanings but he is not corrupt.

Like I said, I'm no Mitt fan but I would vote for him in the general if push comes to shove. OTOH, if Rudy gets the nomination, I, like many evangelicals, will abstain.

I wouldn''t vote for Romney if he wins
I have voted republican since 1980 but I would turn my back on this RINO. I know precinct chairs who would bail on the party for anything but congressional elections rather than campaign for Mitt(read Bush redux) He is John Kerry with a better speaking ability. Thanks but I have had enough betrayal from the Bush family to want to have their surrogate in office.

An ugly thing no one has noticed?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9DF052C 8-A8A4-4D20-8A70-8764BC03E024

Foreign Governments also own a chunk of CNN.

Can we continue to let MSM select the candidates we elect to govern us while MSM is influenced by foreign owners?

Maybe America should buy al-Jazeera?

jdw- if Iowans don't have sense
what does that say about you, since you seem to be from there!!!?

Besides Iowa has lots and lots of former native Californians who have fled the illegal immigrant invasion that is going on here.

I think you will find that the demographic of Iowa has much changed.

Nancy
one more thing.

If Mike Huckabee would turn around and say that he was wrong for supporting the release of dangerous criminals, if he would turn against illegal aliens, and support the war in Iraq, would you then turn on him as lacking character?

Because that is what he will have to do to get my vote.

Better watch out about painting yourself into a corner!

DrBob, a little clarity


"How say you Republicans? Let's double the budget of the Dept of Education again! More Federal Govt intervention in our lives. And while we are at, more US Govt intervention in other people's lives - Invade Iran! Ditto Pakistan! "

Throwing money at the DoE has never been the solution to the education, but it is the solution the LEFT keeps attempting.
The solution, of course, is to bring back the McGuffy readers and spellers, take the computers out of the schools and enforcing the 3-Rs, flunk kids who don't pass, and fire teachers who don't teach.

As for invading Iran and Pakistan, this is where Bush has disappointed me.
After we invaded Iraq, I was excited, thinking Bush "got it". Conquer Iraq, which gives us a foothold on either side of Iran and isolates Syria, then use it and Afghanistan as staging areas for conquering Iran (and then Syria).
Middle east problem solved, and the oil would flow under U.S. control.
But no, Bush had to go and be a liberal and nation-build...


Nancy- the problem with Huckabee
is the same problem we had with Jimmuh Carter, and to a lesser extent with the current President.

There is a creeping liberalism in the churches, and I think it effected Huckabees judgement, when he worked to get dangerous criminals released from jail. While it seemed at the time to be the compassionate thing to do, it was not compassionate to the entire law-abiding public who count on the governmnet to protect them from criminals.

We have to have law and order eminating from the government, or you will find that the citizens will start taking the law into their own hands.

The thing that President Bush did, among others, was to say complimetary things about Vladimir Putin, in the hopes the Russian leader would live up to the positive image. Now that Vlad the Bad is living up to the KGB he used to belong to, it makes the President look foolish.

But no more foolish than his support for Vicente "The Weasel" Fox, and the corrupt Mexican government. He has allowed that alliance to cloud his judgement, and he has chosen compassion for the Mexican peasantry over the safety and security of the American people, whom he has sworn to protect.

I fear Huckabee will have the same kind of character weakness that will continue in the same frustrating path that we are on now, relative to Immigration and law & order.

BTW- the Russian Bear is trying
to make a comeback under the leadership of Vlad Putin.

I guess that we didn't carry him far enough out into the woods when we tranquilized him.

Kevin
BTW - I saw your attempt to drive a wedge between Romney and the LDS community in Iowa the other night. How Pathetic, Transparent and Lame. And completely ineffective going by the response to that post by LDS themselves. Why Kevin I thought you believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Your post of this gross instance of religion baiting from the LEFT exposes you as just a touch biased, dontcha think.
Looks like someone's afraid of the mormons in iowa who will go to vote and in such a small world like the caucus, could make a difference. They're so small (~22,000) as a total pct. of pop. and quite widely dispersed so they probably to show up on any pollster's radar as far as numbers go. Im not saying they'll all vote for Romney but I bet the lds of iowa are a little irritated about what's been going on the last year or so and will want to make a statement.

Good news for Fred
NewsMax this morning said that the former Chairman for Tancredo in Iowa Has endorsed Fred Thompson, and will be traveling with him.

Hopefully we can say bye bye Huck, and also Hopefully Fred will keep climbing.

McCullough is right again
Most of us became adults by the time we were 25 years old, some younger, some a few year older. But it didn't take us 60 years to figure out what our core values were. In case you missed it, I am talking about Mitt Romney. Frankly, I don't care what he says his religion is. I just a man by his actions. This is not a man whose word I would trust. This is an opportunist who changes his stated values like he changes his suits.

Mike Huckabee is the best candidate Conservatives have had in very long time. The Republican elites don't like him because he isn't one of them. They like to pre-select who the next nominee will be and then allow the Republican consistuency to say "Aye". Mike Huckabee came out of nowhere as far as they are concerned. And they have done everything they can do to destroy his chances. Not because of his qualifications or lack thereof but because he's not a member of their club. He won't follow their lead.

Reagan bucked the Republican party and lost the first time he ran. He came back and against the odds he won, the Heartland won, and I think it's time the Heartland won again.

knight of BS
Ya got me there.

I think that pulling out of Lebanon was a mistake of Reagan's. I think that it was one of the errors that led to the situation we are in now.

Had we gone in there with troops and smashed the Islamic radicals then, we would not be facing them down in Iraq now.

The truth is that President Reagan was more concerned about facing down the Soviets, which were a much larger threat than the Islamie Baloneys.

If we were to make analogies, the Russian Bear was like having a Grizzly in your hot tub, while the Islamies are like having a nest of Fire Ants in your yard.

Both are threats, but if both were back there in my yard, I would consider the bear the more immediate threat, and would have him immediately removed by animal control.

Little did we know that the Islamic radicals would turn into the severe infestation they have, but now is the time to go after them with industrial strength Raid!

I would respect
Huckabee a whole lot more if he would just admit that he's not qualified to be POTUS during these very dangerous times and withdraw from the race and throw his support to McCain. As much as I like Mike as a person and fellow believer, he's toast when it comes to foreign policy.

On another note, does anyone else here think that it is truly absurd that the presidency of the U.S. might just be decided by the winter weather in Iowa? How in the world did Iowa become so important - you'd think it's the center of the universe if you listen to the political talking heads. I mean, if there's a blizzard on Thursday and Obama's young supporters can't make it to the polls, then Hillary wins and she sails to the nomination; however, if the weather is clear and Obama's supporters manage to make it out, then Hillary's candidacy is in danger because Obama will have the momentum going into N.H. There are like scenarios on the Republican side. This is all so silly. I AM EVERLASTING TIRED OF THIS EVERLASTING ELECTION.

Ali - Huckabee is a compromise
for the elites you chastise. They're willing to settle for him, in order to avoid the possibility of Paul, Hunter or Tancredo actually getting the nod. First they tried Rudy, then they tried Mitt, then they tried Huckabee, next they're try for Thompson. If we keep hammering at them, all they'll be left with is Paul, Hunter or Tancredo. And if Paul keeps spouting off, he'll take care of himself, and I won't have to vote for Hillary.


Smile - three equal branches
Smile says "The Reagan Coalition needs to move back towards that perfect triangle where all sides are equal, so that each side can support the others. I won't settle for less than all three branches of the coalition."

Say good bye to those days Smile. President Bushes have blown up your perfect triangle. That triangle existed on a small-government, non-intervention policy. The Republican party no longer stands for small govt and non-interventionism. Indeed war of choices are about as interventionist as it gets.

How say you Republicans? Let's double the budget of the Dept of Education again! More Federal Govt intervention in our lives. And while we are at, more US Govt intervention in other people's lives - Invade Iran! Ditto Pakistan!

And earmarks for all of our corporate friends.






talent scout, answer me!
"Not hardly, he just expects the Constitution to be followed, even by the President."

Then I expect him to obey the Constitution and disband the standing army, returning control of the national guard to the governors. Is that what he's going to do? Is he going to pull our troops out of Korea, Japan, and Germany?
Is he going to ask Congress to raise an army for 2 years PER THE CONSTITUTION, in order to send it to our southern border and kill Mexicans trying to cross, per the Preamble ("...provide for the common defense...")?


I want all of you Paulines to STOP yammering about obeying the Constitution, when you, like Paul, only want him to obey those parts YOU want obeyed.

The last thing the empire needs right now is that prissy schoolteacher at the helm.



We're talking about IOWANS, people!
Reality check;

How many people here know any Iowans? I grew up around them, and the vast majority don't have the sense required to pour urine out of a flip-flop. Their moral compass is generally set on "whatever." A typical Iowan might be able to recite the Constitution from memory (I doubt it), and still wouldn't have a clue as to why it said what it said.

There's no bitterness or hatred here toward the vast majority of Iowans... just contempt.




Donna
Great information, makes sense. Why else are so many conservatives stumping for a liberal?

Rush, National Review, that whole crowd
looks down on values voters when push comes to shove. They expect us to forget Romney's sudden "conversion" to right to life and his long record as an abortion supporter. He even supported putting gays in the military. What day of the week is it, Mitt? That's how he sorts out his positions. By the way: don't get me wrong - I would support most of the Republicans over any of the Democrats - i just happen to prefer Huck and that drives these elitist types crazy since THEY THINK THAT THEY KNOW BEST. They have been engaging in a concerted and coordinated effort to destroy Huckabee and I don't like it one bit!

To Action
I agree with you about McCullough. The Value Voters assumption of McCullough and his cohorts is that those that oppose them don't have values. Therefore, those that oppose him aren't good. Any person or politican who has gone through life without changing a position on some issue isn't worth a grain of salt.

Yeah, Kevin -what is your point
I've been watching this race fairly closely for about a year now but have only read your stuff for the last 2 mos. or so kevin. Could be wrong but it seems about a month ago before the Huck-a-surge you were trying to play it straight and fair as far as Romney/Huckabee was concerned.
But now that it's crunch time, it seems that you've become a self-righteous Bible thumper.
Are you implying w/your snipes at Hugh Hewitt, RUSH, and the rest of the LEADERS of conservative opinion in this country and anyone else who supports Romney, including Romney himself lack a sense of morality? Of course morality matters, duh. What a silly article you've written. In politics everyone looks compromised at some point, even the good pastor Huckabee.
Huckabee and his religiosity per se are not under attack from the right but the left, which dominates the "manhattan/beltway elite" you rightly loathe as we all do on the right. I repeat, the right is not attacking Huckabee b/c he is a deeply devout Christian but b/c he comes off as a goofball from Mayberry who seems to have no awareness of major issues OUTSIDE of social ones.


McCain Lieberman ticket?
That would probably be a winner of a ticket. However, I would like someone who is much stronger in enforcing our borders than McCain or Lieberman.

In 1864 Lincoln changed the name of the Republican Party briefly to the Union Party. And, he put Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat, who did not go along with his state in the rebelling against the United States.

Donna
You actually believe that someone tells Rush Limbaugh what to say? People listen to Rush Limbaugh, not a particular radio network. I don't care who carries Rush and the people he works for know that. He choses not to work for them doesn't cost him a dime but they lose millions and they know it.

confused
most "values voters" I know would also be considered "strong defense" and "fiscal responsibility" voters, too, so is the problem an inclusion difficulty with the "values" crowd or other elements of the GOP?

I am sure that Ken was referring to
National Review and its writers who have devoted themselves to destroying Mike Huckabee. I am a Northeastern GOP member who is voting for the Huck. He will do a good job as president. These elitist types look down on the people who get up early to vote to support right to life candidates - they like our votes, but do not want to do anything for us.

McCullough and Morals
does anyond beside me find it a tad ironic McCullough is writing about "Moral clarity?" What a joke.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Great article.

I am deeply concerned about the apparent conflict of interest of many conservative "media elites". I have come across the following information in pieces. Mitt Romney's company, private equity firm Bain Capital, where he is still a silent partner, just completed after 1 year of pending negotiations a leveraged buyout agreement for $19.5 billion, of Clear Channel Communications. Premiere Radio Networks, which is the largest syndication company in the United States, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel and is home to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, FOX News Radio and many others. Sean Hannity recently signed a large multi-market contract with Clear Channel. Romney's campaign finance chief, Robert F. White, is a partner at Bain Financial. According to CNN/Money magazine's Dec 10, 2007 article "Millionaires in Chief", some 43% of Romney's portfolio is currently invested in Bain Capital.

I think this is why Huckabee is not being supported by them and Romney's false "conservative" claims are being ignored. Romney's record as compiled at http://www.massresistance.org is entitled, "The Mitt Romney Deception". They state "Indeed, this report will demonstrate that Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade." The evidence is overwhelming.

I wonder if they're relunctant to go against their "boss".

Hogwash!
What a total crock.

This election is about getting our country back on track.

This election is about undoing the damage of eight years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice and all the other neo-cons.

This election is NOT about morality.

TAKE BACK THE GOP!

AND YOUR POINT WAS?

.....Kevin ...you have written obtuse articles in the past but this was a humdinger ...

.....If morality trumps all ...can a person that is not a Christian be moral? ...remember Jesus said that his Kingdom was not of this World and to render unto Caesar what was Caesars ...in other words that government and religion are two seperate entities ...

.....This is a simple fact ...as the Evangical or Religious Right influence has risen in the Republican Party our States have become more Blue and more Red ...and all the Blue States are in the Southeast and Southwest so that our Country is evenly divided 50/50 ...

.....If the current demographic trend continues ...the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs ...Conservatives within the GOP cannot write off the Red States in the Northeast and Northwest much longer and expect to win elections ...this is just hard reality ...

.....A man can be a Deist and still be a moral person ...an examination of how he has lived his life will define him ...our Country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and these are univerally ingrained in our Constitution and our Law ...a man does not have to be a born again Christian to be moral or to be the best person to be President .....COLOSSUS

@Inkling
After re-reading my Rudy comment I realize I may have mixed my metaphors a bit.

The three legs of the conservative stool were codified by Reagan when he ran on social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and defense conservatism.

I consider the "defense" leg to be one of Constitutional constructionism (i.e. strict view of the Constitution). Because the constitution requires the Feds to uphold the common defense, and because people who support a strong defense typically do so in order to defend the constitutional principles of the founders, I am using the word "constructionist" to delineate that view from the "living document" philosophy.

Now, I used the term "defense" in my description of Rudy when I should have used "constructionist". I don't see him as that strong on defense. He is weak on the central defense issue of our time, the border. Furthermore, if you run a sanctuary city then your government services are going to go for welfare for illegals. This is FAR from fiscally conservative.

And finally, I think it was Thomos Sowell who argued that one cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Social liberalism is EXPENSIVE and thus, it violates fiscal conservative principles to promote it.

Rudy is socially liberal, fiscally inconsistent, and is weak on constitutional principles like border security. But even if he were strong on fiscal and constitutional principles, his social stands disqualify him from being the GOP nominee. This is a key leg of the stool and without it, the GOP loses the WH.

Too much compassion
has hurt us in, for example, the illegal immigrant situation. We don't need that and because Huckabee also suffers from too much compassion he is eliminated.

I would like a president whose personal and professional life is an example for others. That rules out Guliani.

I would like someone who appears presidential because in this media arena, people don't pay attention to a candidate unless he/she has a show business persona. That rules out Ron Paul.

I would like a president who is strong on foreign affairs because we are living in perilous times, so perilous there is no time for learning on the job. That rules out Huckabee and Romney except I really like Romney's proven problem solving capabilities.

I would like a president who is a good communicator since Bush's failure in the arena has had unfortunate consequences. That rules out Ron Paul.

Finally, it appears we are left with Thompson, McCain and Hunter.

Does a McCain/Liberman ticket sound outrageous? Hard to swallow but it seems to flow with a sense that voters are fed up with the political discourse. These people have proven across the aisle records.Both are considered mavericks by their parties. Both are very experienced and both are admirable in their private and personal lives in respect to values.

Please explain "constructionist"
Beeblebrox analysed the Republican contenders in terms of their adherence to social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and what he called "constructionism."

I've never heard the term "constructionism" before in this context. Would you mind explaining in detail what you mean?

Thanks.

By the way, your analysis of Giuliani is wrong. He easily meets the criterion of fiscal conservatism, and if your "constructionism" includes national defense and the courts, he's got some positive things to offer. I'm not supporting Giuliani in the primaries, but I've long thought that the conservative opposition to him is far overblown and ill-considered. He's got a better record of facing down vicious liberals than any of his opponents, some of whom are excusing their previous anti-conservative stances because they were governing states full of liberals and had to go along.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Huckabee says Romney is ‘dishonest’
Is Huckabee right?

PI-Mike Huckabee called chief rival Mitt Romney “dishonest'’ today for what Huckabee said were gross distortions of his record, and said voters should question whether Romney would tell the truth if he were elected president.

“If a person will become president by being dishonest, just remember, if he becomes president, he likely will not be honest on the job,'’ Huckabee told voters at a restaurant campaign stop.

So apparently distressed at Romney’s criticism, Huckabee refused even to commit to voting for Romney for president if the former Massachusetts governor wins the Republican nomination. “I would never vote for a Democrat in the presidential election next year,'’ Huckabee said. But asked if he would prefer an honest Democrat to a “dishonest'’ Republican, Huckabee refused to answer.

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/huckabee-says-romn ey-is-dishonest

3 legs of the stool
If Republicans want to win, their candidate needs to appeal to all three wings of the party: Constructionist, Socially conservative, Fiscally conservative.

Huckabee and Romney fail, IMO, to meet the Constructionist standard. Their past positions on illegal immigrants, taxation, and the role of government in education are problematic.

Rudy fails to meet the constructionist, social conservative, and national defense standard. Three strikes against him. He ran a sanctuary city, he has a dubious 2nd amendment stand, and I don't think we need to go over his social policy record.

McCain fails to meet the constructionist standard. His gang of 14 scenario, the M/F campaign finance reform debacle, his stand on "torture", and other non-conservative positions disqualify him.

Paul is enigmatic in that it could be argued that he meets all three criteria, sorta. The problem is, defense of the country, as it is currently conceived, is a constitutional mandate and I think Paul's positions in this area are enough out of the mainstream that he falls short.

IMHO, Hunter, Thompson, and Keys all measure up in the three key conservative philosophies. Of these three, which can beat the socialist against whom he will be running?



Is Huck the answer?
Personally, I am not a big Huckabee fan and I don't know that he should be the Christian Right's candidate either. I've listened to the guy and looked at his record. He strikes me as having a philosophy similar to GW's; he sees government as a tool to advance a social gospel.

Huck, like Bush, certainly has a moral compass and both have always shown good intentions (as opposed to the Clintons who have never shown they have any), but we know what the road to hell is paved with.

If I had to choose between the overtly evangelical Huckabee and the more reserved (but still morally principled) Thompson, I would choose Thompson every time. He has all the moral clarity of Huckabee without the do-goodism undercurrent.

As a fundamentalist evangelical, I don't want a guy in the presidency who is going to use the office (like Bush has) to help the poor from across the border or to fund education for anchor babies, or to let criminals off the hook. Huck talks a good game and, absent a couple of better alternatives, maybe he would be the best choice. But there are better options and the Christian Right would do well to consider them.

I see Thompson as the most credible candidate for ALL three legs of the conservative stool. Here is a guy who might actually dismantle the Education Department or maybe even HHS. Can any of you Huckabee supporters see your guy doing that?

Beeblebrox
You do a nice post. McCullough claims values voters, culture warriors, religious right voters, what ever you want to fall them, will be a big factor in Iowa. Huckabee seems to be their boy at present. It will be interesting to see how Paul does. All i want at this stage is for Rudy and McCain to take a pasting. Those RINOs have to be seen as incapable of uniting the right before a uniter can emerge.

A Liar
will steal. That pretty much says it all. Laws estabish behavior. I prefer to have my laws established by representatives who do not lie, and are thus less likely to steal. If this makes me a silly old values voter, so be it.

This is a needle to thread
Most evangelicals whom I know count themselves as part of the "just leave us alone" crowd that form the core of the GOP.

We want government to uphold the law and the constitution first. This is something that all conservatives should be able to get some agreement on.

- Closing the borders is a moral issue and a matter of law, and evangelicals want it closed (BTW, I don't consider Bush an evangelical -- he is a mainline Methodist and thus, believes in a social gospel that tends to see government as a big Christian charity).

- Protecting the lives of the innocent is a moral issue and a constitutional one (c.f. 5th amendment).

- Low taxes is a moral issue (as Kevin reminded us) and is in keeping with the founding principles of the nation.

- Moderate, low intrusive regulation is a moral issue. Balancing the needs of business to operate as free of hinderance as possible while protecting the general welfare is certainly a key American value.

- Reduction of the negative impact of government schools is a moral issue. School choice would free up parents from having to send their children to schools that force feed Al Gore style psuedo-science, evolution, AIDS education, Gaia worship, and general leftist secular humanistic philosphies on their children. We want public schools to get out of the business of indoctrinating our children or alternatively, let us opt out of sending our children to these leftist propaganda mills.

Bottom line, asking people who believe in Biblical morality to give it up in order to avoid electing Hillary is a fool's errand.

Moral Clarity, Smarity
Is this EVER the case with Congressional repeat candidates and presidential candidates? Of course, I endorse McCullough's view but finding those traits in the leading presidential candidates and possible final nominees just isn't there. I sure would like to vote for "None of the above" but that wouldn't prevent Hitlery from becoming the worse president, by far. The other candidates are just lying - except for perhaps Obmama and he could be the second worse possibility towards complete socialism.

Government Morality?
I know many are freaked at the possibility of an individual with strong moral convictions entering the White House. Picking someone that views the misuse of government power as immoral will guarantee that the morality they bring to the job is applied in the manner the founders intended. Thinking the government is responsible for fixing every perceived problem leads to the misapplication of the huge power of the government.

Government as it grows becomes untethered from morality. The bigger it is the less soul it has. That is why what it does has to be limited. An unlimited government is unlikely to do unlimited good but very likely to do massive harm. A truly moral person knows this and would work to limit the reach of government.

michael i
"Kevin McCullough doesn't realize that America isn't electing a schoolmarm with a ruler. Come to think of it, neither does Hillary Clinton. And Ron Paul's fan club of spamming kooks don't realize that America's mainstream isn't going to shut down the Federal government and throw open the nation's borders."

Where did you get the idea that Paul wanted to open the borders? Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyway, between the Bush family and Clinton the borders have been open for years.

Enough science fiction already!
There is no "great libertarian mainstream of America" and anyone who believes otherwise is truly lost in the wilderness. Face it, if even the most moderate libertarian views were held by a large percentage of Americans then a much better candidate than the nice-but-a-little-kooky Dr. Ron Paul M.D. would be high in the polls.

Kevin McCullough doesn't realize that America isn't electing a schoolmarm with a ruler. Come to think of it, neither does Hillary Clinton. And Ron Paul's fan club of spamming kooks don't realize that America's mainstream isn't going to shut down the Federal government and throw open the nation's borders.

Right or Left - the Bottom Line
"Morality is a big deal, or it is no deal at all."

The Bible does say that "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, and the heart of the fool (morally deficient person) to the left."

So, never vote for the left !

I would not be surprised if
the E-Fax studios are out of business soon. What comes out of them is more biased than anything I have heard come out of the dinosaur media.

Great post Kevin. Morals and values are far more valuable than the money the Northeastern chattering class and the Club for Greed worship.

Clarity, consistency, character?
Why, you've just described Alan Keyes!

BOLTON DENIES HE IS A HUCKABEE ADVISOR

ARTICLE from Huffington Post....30 December 2007

One day ago on The Politico

... claims. Huckabee said he’d also spoken with former State Department official Richard Haass (now president of the Council on Foreign Relations); military analyst Ken Allard; former National Security Adviser Richard Allen; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich;...


Looks like the CFR is advising Huckabee now !!

JOHN CALVIN/NEOCON EL TORO POOH POOH!!
What Kind of Elitist Nonsense is This?
Kevin, I hope you know you don't have a monopoly on virture? You wasted no time in demurring to Ron Paul supporters as "Paulbots" and yet you mention something about etiquette. You cannot have it both ways.

I will answer your question head on since you apparently have no respect for Dr Ron Paul or any of his supporters.

First of all, from the very outset you and most all of the townhall.com writers have not given any respect to Dr Paul the man who is a Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Most recently, he has been excluded from the New Hampshire debates. In your opinion and most of the Medias opinion he is a non essential candidate.

It is because most of Dr Paul's supporters have seen how you and the others have tried to smear and slander Dr Paul and even prevent him from getting his message out. The media continues to subsidize all of the so called Top Tier candidates with millions of dollars worth of Free air time and we already know that you and some of the other contributors on Townhall.com have been getting together to try and come up with ways that you can use your influence to keep Dr Paul from getting his message out and preventing the American people from hearing what he has to say. You call it narrowing the field.

Just remember that when we see you and your Neocon buddies trying to play dirty we call you on it and you do not like it. We know who and what you are. We are Americans and we will not take marching orders from you or the media.

By the way, we didnt take our marching orders from King George during the Revolution either!!

This is a little bit different though because this is the Ron Paul Revolution!! LOL :O))

Ron Paul most consistently principled.
He's been the same for years.
I disagree with him about WWIII, but on everything else he is spot on. Even his Iraq position is principled.

His anti-abortion stance is moral, principle, and steady.

Integrity from head to toe, for years & years, without flipflop.

Conservative Coalition
It is a scary time we live in. The separate branches of the Conservative Coalition are vying for supremacy. As you say, the social branch seems to be getting hit really hard, but it isn't the only one.

Mike Huckabees new manager Mr. Rollins has declared the end of the Reagan coalition. He is premature, and I hope he stays that way, however that is the direction we head.

The strongest triangle is the perfect triangle where all three sides are equal. The Reagan Coalition needs to move back towards that perfect triangle where all sides are equal, so that each side can support the others. I won't settle for less than all three branches of the coalition.

Morality matters more than money
Sarah and Mt Rose are right: morality matters more than money.

That is why I am voting for Mike Huckanee. He is not a newcomer to the pro family, anti gay marriage, pro-life first ammendment position.

I don't care a whit about some user taxes in Arkansas (neither did Arkansas voters who re-elected him) or some ill advised pardons-or so called "gaffes".

The bottomline is can trust Mike Huckabee to uphold Christian values. He has my vote. And the more the TH heathen rage, the harder I will work for him and pray him.

I will write in Allen Keyes before I will vote for these snooty secularist so-called "economic" conservatives who are more concerned with the Dow than the Savior.

The party eeite are going to receive a message in Iowa. They better get the wax our of their ears before next November.



Any bets made
My bet in on Sam
He knows what he is talking about.

quote:
Crisis may make 1929 look a 'walk in the park'

Last Updated: 11:21pm GMT 29/12/2007


As central banks continue to splash their cash over the system, so far to little effect, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues that things risk spiralling out of their control

Twenty billion dollars here, $20bn there, and a lush half-trillion from the European Central Bank at give-away rates for Christmas. Buckets of liquidity are being splashed over the North Atlantic banking system, so far with meagre or fleeting effects.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007 /12/23/cccrisis123.xml


ONLY Ron Paul has warned of this and made the effort to get it stopped.
Ridding America of the fraudulent banking system called the Federal Reserve.
The biggest thieves the world has ever seen.

Kevin - you got it right!
clarity, consistency and character. These three components make up what most conservatives believe to be the bed rock of a firm foundation at a personal and professional level. Any candidate who lacks consistency on major social issues begs the question whether he has the character and clarity required to make challenging presidential decisions. People can disagree on the facts, but the lack of clarity and consistency is to a large extent a deal breaker for many americans. This is why Romney can never be president! ...to much inconsistency and lack of clarity on important issues.

If u intend to vote for a RINO, anyway
You do not have to lie about Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul
"The Best Friend Local Veterans Have"

The Baytown Sun
by Jessica Robertson

August 27, 2006
..

A veteran himself, Paul served as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1968 in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard. Only about 5 percent of congressmen today are veterans, he said.

"The U.S. government tends to ignore veterans," he said. "They're anxious to get us in the military, but they forget about us when we come back."





This year, Paul helped to pass the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006 in Congress. The act is designed to help military veterans cope with the rising cost of living by tying increases in benefits to inflation.

The bill increases rates for veterans' disability compensation and dependent compensation as well as dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children of veterans.

For Vietnam-era veteran Warren Fitts, Paul's experience as a serviceman gives him an edge over other politicians. Fitts served in Korea from 1972 to 1978 and is now vice president of the Baytown chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

"He's been a very good supporter of veterans past and present," he said. "I like his views. He does research on current events overseas, the war on terror, the economy and keeping jobs stateside. He makes policies that are better for our country."






http://www.militaryforpaul.com/article.html
--

Anyone see any Military for the snake oil salesman Romney?
Anyone see a single one of his sons serving in the Military?
Do not slime a better man than you are and then vote for a slimy RINO like Romney.


Cut and run Paul?
Not hardly, he just expects the Constitution to be followed, even by the President.

Ron Paul Receives the Most Military Donations

http://www.militaryforpaul.com/donations.html

Ron Paul received more military donations than any other Republican candidate in the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2007. Larnell Exum, a retired Army lieutenant colonel says it's because Ron Paul is "talking straight to soldiers" and what he says "is resonating" with them. The donation patterns "would suggest that those who wear the uniform want change," said Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Source: USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09- 13-military-donors_N.htm

Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) PAC endorsed Ron Paul for Congress

Congressman Paul's Military & Veterans voting record

Ronald Paul and Ronald Reagan

Ron Paul was one of only 4 Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for President. He led the Texas delegation to nominate Ronald Reagan.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
- Ronald Reagan
http://www.militaryforpaul.com/reagan.html

Some really misinformed people
This is a bump in the road from a recession perspective. There will be no January big reveal. Some banks will post losses. Others will continue to show profits. The dollar will continue to drop as debt and inflation grows. But, the world will not come to an end. We have been here before many times. America will rebound.

As for Ron Paul ... will his supporters please stop spamming when he brings in support at under 10% in Iowa? It doesn't matter how many times you say it or how much you believe it - Ron Paul will not win. HE HAS NO CHANCE. You can't alienate most of your base and expect to have their support. Run as a Libertarian (as you once did) and get them to vote for you. Conservatives aren't interested in isolationism and a blame America first attitude.

Paul is right about Iraq
Ron Paul has been right about the disaster in Iraq, too bad none of the GOP candidates have learned anything from him. The sooner we get out of Iraq the better. Now Bush and his cronies want to expand the war to Pakistan.

So I hope he does well in Iowa. Now if only the Democrats would nominate Dennis Kucinich -- who is right on Iraq as well as reforming healthcare.

The other GOP candidates want to keep us in Iraq and continue to destroy the country as Bush has done. Elect a Republican and we will be a third world country by the end of his first term, if we survive that long!

Freedom and accountability
The reason that "Values Voters" should be courageous to speak up about right and wrong in our culture is BECAUSE we have so much freedom.

Just because we can do anything we want, it does not mean that we SHOULD do anything that enters our head.

Every time I speak out about ethics and morality, some Bozo is likely to come along and tell me that I am trying to control their behavior.

My response to them is this: Do they see me writing any laws? Creating any prisons?

No! I am exercising my Constitutional and God-given right to say what I think. If no one speaks out about values, no one will consider them when they make their life choices.

Even if someone wants to do well, if they don't know what traditional values are, they won't be on their list of life choices.

As the popular culture continues to swirl the bowl, we can no longer expect that members of our society will pick up ethics and morals from the environment. We must actually define them verbally and get them out there where they can be seen and heard.

Sam....Thanks for the Info
I was getting a little pissed off at the fact that Dr Paul and Duncan Hunter would not be allowed to participate in the New Hampshire Debates based on some silly poll.

You would think that all the candidates should be given equal time to express their views but the elitists who control the media and the debates and even the ones here on Townhall.com like Jonah Goldberg and Kevin McCullough have been having discussions on how to narrow the field of candidates when no one has even voted yet.

They have already decided for the American people that it will be one of their boys...i.e. Huckabee, Romney, McCain, or Guiliani.

Its really a sick state of affairs...when Reagan was in New Hampshire they tried to take away his microphone...Remember the line: "Mr Green, I am paying for this Microphone." Now, Fox News will not even let Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter have a Microphone from which to share their views with the American people.

Cut-N-Run Ron Paul
Should start practicing abandonment of national commitments by dropping out of the Presidential race.

Wow Kevin! Couldn't have said it better
I, like you, find that the "Values Voters" have been willing to compromise for the sake of winning, and then discover that the "Finance Voters" often despise us.

You see, if your life is all financial bottom line, then values get in the way of emmassing fortunes.

There are plenty of people who make millions without compromising their values, through study, discipline and sound investments.

But there is always the point where one must choose whether or not to make that slightly shady deal, or do somebody dirt, in order to get a bit richer than the next guy.

Capitalism is the best system there is, because it is based on the natural instinctive behavior that God put into humans to trade freely with one another. But if the population does not have a set of core ethics and values to regulate these behaviors, then the predatory types will take over, and we will live with the law of the jungle.

I am strongly convinced that unbridled capitalism, unrestricted by moral values, will lead to Corporate Feudalism, where management rules labor with an iron fist.

We have arrived at the best system in the world because of a series of checks and balances, and not just the ones written in the Constitution.

The most important checks and balances are written in the human conscience.

Big government enforcing morality
"Future moral direction" is code for using big government to enforce some people's beliefs on everybody else. I want nothing to do with it. This country was made great by great people unburdened by government, but conservatives have joined liberals in using government to push their moral on the rest of us.

Leave me alone. I want government off my back, and so does the great libertarian mainstream of America that the 2 parties have driven out of politics.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.