Had Republicans been conservatives, there would be no need today for them to get back to their roots, to reinvent themselves, to adhere more closely to their core beliefs. You can’t lose something you never had. Had Congressional Republicans been conservatives, they would never have lost sight of their constituency – which is first and foremost, the United States of America and not the Republican Party.

Yes, Republicans were intensely targeted by MoveOn.Org and the Democratic Party. Yes, 3.6 billion dollars was spent nationwide in 2006, much of it orchestrating the defeat of Republicans in general and the few remaining Congressional quasi-conservatives in particular. Yes there was widespread voter fraud. Some things we cannot change and some things politicians clearly don’t want to change. Those Democrats whose vote was motivated by a desire for more socialism, assuming they understood the difference, will deserve what they’re going to get, but in hindsight their children won’t.

How many times have you heard honest, trustworthy, patriotic Democrats (a rare multiple oxymoron) in Congress assert that they “support our troops?” After first voting to go to war ONLY as a political expediency immediately after the carnage of September 11, the Democratic Party’s policies, strategies and tactics have been, from the beginning of the War on Terror, a conscious effort to undermine the Administration’s ability to wage the war and to defend America. Democrats are not so obtuse that they don’t understand exactly what they are doing. They know full well that their behavior ONLY benefits the Islamic terrorists. Incredible as it is, that’s reality. There is nothing naive about a cunning liberal politician.

You would be surprised to learn how many Americans see clearly that the main stream media led by the New York Times (the propaganda arm of the socialist movement) either adopted or originated the anti-war strategy of the Democratic Party. In close concert with Democrats, the print, visual and entertainment media has willfully and recklessly spent (denigrated, demeaned, openly discarded as worthless, wasted) the lives of many young servicemen and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention countless non-combatant civilians, with their intentionally biased and inaccurate reporting, incessant public criticisms of the President, revelations of classified information and open celebration of America’s war dead.

Why, (1) Americans have not risen up in moral outrage, and why (2), Democrats who live only in service to themselves in an intellectual and moral vacuum, have not been tarred and feathered as human defects, is beyond rational comprehension - unless one takes into consideration that liberal (neocon and paleocon) Republicans have behave no differently. Even the Japanese during World War II, renowned for their brutality and inhumanity, didn’t orgasm over the death of every American soldier as do members of the Democratic Party leadership and the United States main stream media. History will someday show, if written by a conservative, that the United States 2006 mid-term Congressional elections were not a competition between moral, ethical and philosophical agendas, but a crass amoral competition for power at the expense of the lives of U.S. servicemen and women.

The inescapable conclusion is that the combination of the American main stream media, the Democratic Party and the Islamic terrorists really did materially influence the outcome of the United States 2006 mid-term elections, just as they did in Spain. Instead of a national outpouring of patriotism and a mandate to President Bush to take it to the bad guys, and in doing so, to orchestrate a quick, decisive and severe end to the madness in the Middle East, the United States electorate instead voted into political office the nation’s most accomplished appeasers, moral and ethical degenerates, and experts on defeat. The United States sent to the world an undeniable and searing message of cowardice with our votes. Thank-you notes from Islamic regimes to the New York and LA Times have likely been mailed, received, framed and displayed in a trophy room with the names of the war dead.

Do Democrats or the main-stream-media really support our troops? In a few words, Democrats and liberal Republicans don’t even support this nation! A conservative’s philosophy is “God, country, and family.” A liberal’s philosophy begins at “self” and it abruptly ends there. Is the Democratic Party dangerous - only in the view of those who were not born brain dead at birth.

Red State Patriot

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.

Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know.
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.

My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.

A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.

Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.

"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out there!

Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"

For barely a moment, I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts,
To the window that danced with a warm fire's light.

Then he sighed and he said, "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."

"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
that separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask me, or beg or implore,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before.

My Gramps died at ' Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers.

"My dad stood his watch in the jungles of ' Nam,'
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.

Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.

I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my wife and my home.

I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.

I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother.

Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."

"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?

It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being far away from your wife and your son."

Then in his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and you’ll never forget.

To fight for our rights back at home, while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.

For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.

It is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.

This poem, received from an internet acquaintance, is attributed to:

LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN
30th Naval Construction Regiment
OIC, Logistics Cell One
Al Taqqadum, Iraq

Red State Patriot:

The holiday season is already upon us and some considerable credit is due to our U.S. servicemen and women for our being able to celebrate these festivities. Let's try to return some small measure of what we owe to America’s finest – our nation’s defenders. Let’s you and I, and every true American, make a point to pause on Thanksgiving and Christmas Day, during our family celebrations, to consciously stop what we are doing, if only for a moment, and openly express our gratitude to our American heroes, not only to those on active duty, but our veterans and our dead. With our undying respect and our prayers, Americans across our magnificent nation can proudly give tribute to these patriots, many of whom have unselfishly gone before. Also, throughout the holiday season, try to find a time and a place in your heart to thank any serviceman or woman you meet in public. By their uniform, they are proudly saying that they are unselfishly willing to risk everything for the rest of us. Remember also the nation's first responders who do their best to protect each of us from our own mistakes in judgment, physical accidents and medical misfortunes. We have a great many fine American men and women to be thankful for this holiday season.

The only possible answers are left or right. Look carefully at the picture. Do you know the answer? The Republican leadership (the oxymoron of the decade) should have figured it out – except that they were not conservatives.

Pre-school children were asked the same question and they all answered "left."

They were then asked, "Why do you think the bus is traveling in the left direction?"

They answered, "Because you can't see the door."

Liberal Republicans couldn’t figure it out and never turned the bus around. "Left" was a suitable direction to liberal Republicans. For six years, the nation and courts have been going further and further "Left." Democrats loved every minute of it. They unexpectedly found they had willing accomplices in their socialist agenda. All that was left for them to do was re-take control of the bus, which they accomplished on November 7, 2006.

It’s philosophically safe to say that if you don’t know what your destination is, any direction you travel will get you there. If you don’t know what direction you are going, then you have no compass. If you don’t have a compass, then you don’t have God, country and family, the source of every man and woman’s compass. Without God, country and family, you don’t have morality, ethics or a sense of purpose; all you have is self. If all you have is self, you may be able to rule or administer, but not to lead or govern, because the latter requires a profound degree of selflessness.

Republicans floundered for years and foundered in 2006. Now Democrats have a choice, but their only choice will be to rule since they too have no core values or destination. It is a universal truth that liberals, because of their ideology, are unable to lead or govern. To lead and govern requires striving for individual liberty in a selfless fashion instead of adherence to a national religion of government-imposed socialism and focused self-interest. Until the national electorate understands that national and individual excellence is the antithesis of the Democratic Party's egalitarianism, nothing will change in American politics and culture, and any direction will get us there.

It's hard not to feel sorry for everyone who got on the wrong bus.

Remember, if you don’t have a destination in your own life or business, how can you set goals? How can you govern or lead others? When you go on a vacation, you know well in advance exactly where you are going, how long you will be gone, what mode of travel you will use, who will be with you, what you will see and do, what day you will leave and what day you will return, how much money you will spend, what presents you will bring home, how you will pay your bills while you are gone and after your return home, what clothes you will pack and which luggage you will use for the trip, etc. If we can plan a simple vacation to that level of detail, surely Congess can do more for the nation in six years than simply enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. What about planning the nation's future? Can you articulate one single, specific national goal - except to spend more money on problems that can't be solved with more money?

Now you understand how and why Republicans failed in 2006 - liberalism.

In our November, 2006 trip to the polls, we elected a group of Senators and Representatives whose leadership wants the bus to continue farther and farther to the "Left," i.e., more liberalism (collectivism) for us and more power for themselves. At every opportunnity, let's be sure to ask (demand) from Democrats, who have finally achieved their unhealthy liberal goal to rule the lives of others, to tell us their intended destination and how they propose to get us there. If they have no specific destination (goals to improve the United States within the first 100 days) except to denigrate Republicans, as it currently appears, that speaks for itself. However, if their specific goals (e.g., raise taxes or lower taxes, or amnesty for illegal aliens or enforcement only) turn out to be worthy goals, they will continue to have our votes. If their goals are unworthy, or if the Democrats have no specific goals beyond accummulating power and personal wealth, we need to get off this bus at the very first opportunity.

Perhaps the best definition of 'success' was penned by Earl Nightingale: "Success is the progressive realization of a worthy goal," which is as good an explanation as any for the perpetual failure of the Democratic Party's grand entitlement society. Let's hear the Democratic Party's (1), worthy goals with some specificity, and see (2), their realization in a democratic process without resorting to activist courts. Americans are fully capable of judging if the goals are worthy and in their best interests. Nothing else matters.

Many Americans are going to be wishing for a bus stop very soon.

Red State Patriot

Although the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been tested in the courts, its provisions have been followed during the Grenada Conflict (Reagan 40), the Panamanian Conflict (Reagan 40), the Somalia Conflict (Clinton 42), the Gulf War (Bush 41), and the Iraq War (Bush 43). In each case, the sitting President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

The "Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the AUMF, The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502), which was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what soon became known as the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush and introduced by House of Representatives leadership as House Joint Resolution 114. It passed the House of Representatives on October 10 by a vote of 296-133 and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The resolution cited many factors to justify military action:
• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
• Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
• Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
• Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
• Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

The Resolution required diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President was to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with United Nation’s Security Council resolutions.

Members of the Senate who voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq Resolution of 2002:
• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Robert Byrd (D-WV)
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
• Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
• Kent Conrad (D-ND)
• Mark Dayton (D-MN)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Russ Feingold (D-WI)
• Bob Graham (D-FL)
• Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
• Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
• Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
• Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Carl Levin (D-MI)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

DECLARATION OF WAR: A declaration of war is a FORMAL declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more other nations.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, neither that passage nor any other passage provides a specific format that legislative text must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War.” Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the phrase, “Declaration of War.” Many have postulated that a "Declaration(s) of War" must at a minimum contain either in the text or in the title the phrase “Declaration of War.” As you would expect, many also oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in the courts. So, for our purposes the term "formal Declaration of War" is any Congressional legislation that specifically uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title or text. That did not occur either in Afghanistan or in Iraq.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily chose to limit its own use of the power to declare war by authorizing force in the resolution of conflicts of national interest but intentionally choosing not to formally declare a war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage even a limited war without the approval of the Congress. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times, the last in 1942 in conjunction with World War II.

Formal Declarations of War

The list below gives the eleven separate times that the United States has formally declared war against foreign nations. The only country against which the United States has declared war more than once is Germany. The United States has declared war against Germany twice (though a case could be made for Hungary as a successor state to Austria-Hungary). Each time the declaration of war was requested by the President either in writing or in person appearing before a joint session of Congress.

War of 1812
Opponent - United Kingdom
Declaration date - Jun. 18, 1812
Senate vote - 19 to 13
House vote - 79 to 49
President - Madison
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Ghent (Dec. 24, 1814)

Mexican-American War
Opponent - Mexico
Declaration date - May 11, 1846
Senate vote - 40 to 2
House vote - 174 to14
President - Polk
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848)

Spanish-American War
Opponent - Spain
Declaration date - Apr. 24, 1898
Senate vote - 42 to 35
House vote - 310 to 6
President - McKinley
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Paris (Dec.10, 1898)

World War I
Opponent - Germany
Declaration date - Apr. 4 and Apr. 6, 1917
Senate vote - 82 to 6
House vote - 373 to 50
President - Wilson
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Berlin (Aug. 25, 1921)

World War I
Opponent - Austria-Hungary
Declaration date - Dec. 7, 1917
Senate vote - 74 to 0
House vote - 365 to 1
President - Wilson
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Trianon (in part)

World War II
Opponent - Japan
Declaration date - Dec. 8, 1941
Senate vote - 82 to 0
House vote - 388 to 1
Presidents - F. D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - San Francisco Peace Treaty (Sep. 8, 1951)

World War II
Opponent - Germany
Declaration date - Dec. 11, 1941
Senate vote - 88 to 0
House vote - 393 to 0
President - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany & Treaty of Vienna with Austria

World War II
Opponent - Italy
Declaration date - Dec. 11, 1941
Senate vote - 90 to 0
House vote - 399 to 0
President - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Paris Peace Treaty (Feb. 10, 1947)

World War II
Opponent - Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
Declaration date - Jun. 5, 1942
Senate vote - 73 to 0
House vote - 357, 360 and 361 to 0 respectively
Presidents - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Paris Peace Treaty (Feb. 10, 1947)

Other Military Engagements Authorized by Congress

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress.

Quasi-War
Opponent(s) - France
Initial authorization - 1798
President - John Adams
Conclusion - Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine)

First Barbary War
Opponent - Barbary States
Initial authorization - 1801
President - Jefferson

Second Barbary War
Opponent - Barbary States
Initial authorization - 1815
President - Madison

Raid of Slave Traffic
Opponent - Africa
Initial authorization - 1820

Redress for attack on U.S. Navy vessel
Opponent - Paraguay
Initial authorization - 1859
President - Buchanan

Intervention during the Russian Civil War
Opponent - Bolshevist Russia
Initial authorization - 1918
President - Wilson

Protection of Lebanon
Opponent - Rebels
Initial authorization - 1958
President - Eisenhower

Vietnam War
Opponent - National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Initial authorization - Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Aug. 7, 1964
Senate vote - 88 to 2
House vote - 416 to 0
Presidents - Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon
Peace Treaty - Peace agreement signed in Paris, January 1973

Multinational Force in Lebanon
Opponent - Shia and Druze Islamic militias; Syria
Initial authorization - Sep. 29, 1983
Senate vote - 54 to 46
House vote - 253 to 156
President - Reagan
Peace Treaty - none (Force withdrew in 1984)

Invasion of Panama, also known as Operation Just Cause
Opponent - Panama Defense Force
Initial authorization - Dec. 20, 1989
President - George H.W. Bush
Peace Treaty - none, Manuel Noriega deposed

Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm
Opponent - Iraq
Initial authorization - Jan. 12, 1991
Senate vote - 52 to 47
House vote - 250 to 183
President - George H.W. Bush (41)
Peace Treaty - The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom
Opponent - Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida
Initial authorization - S.J. Res. 23 on Sep. 18, 2001
Senate vote - 98 to 0
House vote - 420 to 1
President - George W. Bush (43)
Peace Treaty - Ongoing

Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom
Opponent - Iraq
Initial authorization - H.J. Res. 114 on Oct. 16, 2002
Senate vote - 77 to 23
House vote - 296 to 133
President - George W. Bush (43)
Peace Treaty - Ongoing

What about the Korean War? The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions. Major U.S. Military involvement began with Task Force Smith on July 5th, 1950. A cease fire agreement was signed on July 27, 1953; however no formal treaty has been signed to this date. There are many other undeclared "wars" missing from this list. For example, the United States fought in Korea in 1870 and in Nicaragua in 1927. If anybody still cares, the United States’ longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of "peace."

Controversy regarding U.S. declarations of war

There are people who philosophically oppose waging any war; and those who oppose a war without a declaration of war in strict compliance with the U.S. Constitution; and there are still others who take the view that a formal declaration of war is not necessary to defend or avenge American lives, property damage or interests. The latter group argues that since the Constitution expressly prohibits individual American states from engaging in war without the consent of Congress, unless they are actually invaded or in imminent danger, which if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to affect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution.

Not only is the term “Declaration of War," not addressed in the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution does it define the form that any such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally-passed authorizations to use military force are constructively “Declarations of War.” However, it is possible that had the administration asked Congress for a Declaration of War against the nation of Iraq, instead of the AUMF for Iraq’s ongoing refusal to comply with numerous United Nation’s Resolutions, Congress might have said “No” for any number of reasons. Secondly, the use of the AUMF may have been Congress’ solution to finding a way to circumvent a valid constitutional process in which they could not prevail (not enough votes) without some sort of compromise shell game for consumption by the public and the media. How else could the United States find itself in a protracted conflict such as Vietnam? Very likely it would not have been possible to convince the Congress and the nation to formally declare war either on North Korea or on North Vietnam. Can a reasonable person argue that neither war, Korea or Vietnam, would have happened if Congress had strictly construed the requirement for a formal declaration of war in the Constitution rather than finding a way to circumvent it? Regardless of your answer, yes or no, understand who really bears the responsibility for our nation’s protracted military conflicts, whether righteous in cause or ill-advised. Congress is responsible, not the President.

There is also a diplomatic reason for not "declaring war" on a country. Diplomat’s claim that by declaring war, we are holding an entire nation’s populace responsible for the actions of only a few of its leaders, whether elected or not. In the case of recent public opposition to the War on Terror (in Afghanistan and Iraq), those who oppose the conflicts claim there was no 'target' for a legal declaration of war except various political groups, religious sects or individuals. Since an invading army does seek to occupy an entire country, such as Iraq, and if victorious actually does occupy Iraq and control an entire population, there could just as easily have been a formal declaration of war against Iraq. If there is a distinction, there isn’t much of a difference.

Many Democratic Party advocates of an omnipotent government (socialists) are ideologically against “formal declarations of war.” They argue that such declarations of war refuse to acknowledge the legitimate sovereignty of another government, and that sovereignty should be more important than any actual or potential human rights abuses by the target government. (If so, consider the scenario of a heavily armed husband beating his wife. Other members of the family are mysteriously missing. Is it your wish that a police officer ignore the brutality in tacit respect for the family’s privacy and sovereignty? Democrats, by their theory of privacy and sovereignty, should argue yes, but have legislated domestic violence law the opposite way in every state. Islamofascists hold the view that the brutality toward a man’s family is the husband’s god-given right. Most Democrats would have the police officer take the husband to jail, but choose instead to leave Saddam Hussein to continue his documented list of human rights abuses, including gassing his own people, brutal torture and imprisonment, killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and disposing of them in mass graves. In 2002, most Republicans and enough Democrats voted to enter the house of Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein, take him to jail and try him in a court of law for his crimes against humanity.

In the case of Iraq, even Iraqis contend that the deposed Hussein government was a regime with a history of incredible human rights abuses. Hence the expression, “regime changes.” Accordingly, the targets of most hostilities are the recognized leaders of the country with which war (or use of force) is declared. Rest assured, there were many other reasons the United States chose to invade Iraq, many of which you already know, but the case for the invasion was made on Saddam Hussein’s non-compliance with numerous United Nation’s resolutions and the threat he posed in the region and to the United States if he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There is still another issue to explore, the liberal ideology of imposing our standards of human rights and nation building. Some people always seem to want to intervene in other people’s business, in this case to liberate people from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime, or a regime of religious oppression and genocide by Muslims on Muslims as in Iraq, and by Muslims on non-Muslims as in Darfur. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Somalia are other recent examples. You can see the mindset in your own community in Arizona where government representatives step in and “save” the children of a particular family from further alleged child abuse or neglect. Save the world, save the children, abort the pregnancy? Ostensibly, we are trying to save the Iraqi citizens from further alleged abuse by a pathological tyrant. Whether we should or should not is an individual’s intellectual, emotional and religious decision. If we don’t agree, in the United States we vote. The anti-war protesters who engage in civil disobedience and crude behavior toward veterans are those who refuse to respect either the democratic process or the outcome of the vote.

Current status of the U.S. debate

Heated debate developed in the United States shortly after September 11, 2001. Opponents of the ‘use of military force’ argued that the Iraq War was patently unconstitutional, because the military action lacked a clear declaration of war. Secondly, opponents claimed the war was being waged over the objection of a significant number of citizens of all demographics in the United States. These same people blindly refuse to acknowledge that it was they who elected their representatives and those representatives chose (voted democratically in Congress) to go to war in Iraq.

Instead of formal war declarations, Congress’ most controversial use of authorizations of force included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that is generally credited with American participation in the Vietnam War, and the resolution that preceded the War in Iraq. Those who question the legality of these authorizations of force say that requiring a precise and formal declaration of war would keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, forcing Congress to honor instead of avoiding its constitutional role.

Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that an "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" not only satisfies constitutional requirements but has an established historical precedent. Furthermore, the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief does vest in him broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

On February 6, 2006 U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in his testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's surveillance authority:

“There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaeda or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.”

The courts have wisely and consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war. Any disagreements are left to the electorate to resolve in a ballot box.

Bottom line:
1. A formal declaration of war by Congress toward another nation has not occurred.
2. An “Authorization of the Use of Military Force” has been passed by Congress authorizing and funding the current military initiatives by the Administration in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. We all support the Commander-in-Chief. We elected him and the decisions are his. Those who agree with the decision to fight a “war on terror” in Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) should give credit to Congress. Those who consider Operation Enduring Freedom a poor decision should recognize that it is Congress that bears the responsibility. It is Congress, your Senators and Representatives, and only them, who bear the blame or deserve the credit for the decision, regardless of what this or any other president may or may not want to do. Once authorized by Congress, the Administration is primarily responsible for the conduct of the war until it ends, and the subsequent administration of the peace.
4. The President has the sole authority to initiate a limited conflict using U.S. Armed Forces, but does not have the sole authority to sustain it on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq, or for an extended length of time, without both authorization and continued funding from Congress, which he received by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502), and numerous subsequent appropriations bills seeking additional funding.

Hope this helps in your discussions ….
Love, Dad (Marty)

P.S. Think about the phrase “War on Terror.” Recognize that ‘terror’ is a tactic within a conflict, not a finite enemy. It is pretty hard for Congress to formally declare war on a tactic. Islamic militants are distributed throughout the world (20% of the world population) and the source of the conflict with Islam comes from many nations, sometimes independent of their governments, but not always. So why didn’t Congress declare war on Islam, the only source of the terrorism worldwide for the last 60 years? It is probably safe to say that there will never be a formal declaration of war against Islam in our politically correct society (which history may look back on as a fatal self-emasculation).

History Test – Multiple Choices
The following events are actual incidents from past history. They actually happened! Try hard to discern the correct answer. If you have to cross out two answers and guess between the other two, maybe that will be of some help.

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American Passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems \
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to insure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly Muslims intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, and Caucasian airline pilots with proper identification, not to mention secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors – but for all that is precious in America, to avoid having to listen to the liberals wail in the night, leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 & 40 alone because of ‘profiling’ and accusations of racism.

As the writer of the story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

So, the Democrats did not win this election, the Republicans lost it. Why? A combination of ideological and systemic reasons. I will deal with the systemic reasons first. If you look at the numbers of the seats that actually moved sides, they are fairly typical of the shifts that take place in a second term, off year, election. The only reason it stood out here were that the Republicans had been doing astonishingly well in all elections since '92, far better than any historical model would have projected. The historical pattern should have had the House shift back to the Democrats in '02. Further, the margins by which the Republicans held both houses were relatively slim, so a normal off year seat loss was enough to shift it. A lot of the "ideological" element claimed in the press, such as dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, unhappiness with the "direction the country is going," is all part of what I call "administration fatigue". Even Reagan experienced a similar slide, as did Clinton. His second term showed him with a significant loss in popularity even among Democrats, the "blue dress" thing was less causative than symptomatic. Presidents are guests in our homes, and their welcome wears out over the years.

That said, the Republicans made serious, and growing, mistakes since Bush came to office. While they controlled both houses of Congress and the Executive, they failed to deliver on the Contract with America that had brought them their Renaissance. They had jettisoned Newt over minor issues involving allegations of "if he should be allowed profits from book sales while he was speaker". This was mind boggling in its stupidity, and obvious capriciousness. Newt is a PhD. historian, a good writer, who was going to write and sell books regardless of any office he might hold. The idiocy is highlighted by the fact that the former democratic speaker had published and sold hundred's of thousands of copies of his book, while in office, though he had no qualifications and most of the pages were blank! Crates of the book were found stacked up in lobbyist offices where they had purchased them in bulk. The point of this discussion was that the Republican Party, after winning the 2000 presidential election, failed to deliver on core values when they finally had the opportunity. We do not have a flat tax, or sales tax, and still have the IRS. We still have Affirmative Action Programs, in fact they have been strengthened. We have a raft of new Federal Agencies and Regulations, as well as a giant socialized pharmaceutical program. Social Security has not been reformed in terms of either benefits or the eligibility age. The list is endless.

It is not that the Republicans made zero efforts here, it is that those efforts were desultory, lackluster, and leaderless. The real ideological leaders and speakers were driven from the party's leadership, and the remainder spends their time on the defensive about the ideas, not really understanding them well enough to articulately push them through. Having abandoned the field in the battle of ideas, the debate has devolved to the mainstream news and the Democrats versus the talk radio hosts. One can't remain in power if you refuse to fight for what you believe in. I suspect that many in the Republican leadership are simply cowed by being members of the Baby Boomer generation. For people of that age group, from Cindy Sheehan to George W. Bush, their formative years were dominated by the hippies, who sucked all the oxygen out of the room with the Marijuana smoke. Most conservatives of that age group are still apologetic about their values. They act as though the left truly does have the moral high ground, despite the clear verdict of history. Meanwhile, leftists of that generation continue to believe (erroneously) that the vast majority of Americans agree with their whacked out, Age of Aquarius, ideology. John Kerry's recent statements indicated he still believed that people who get bad grades in college get drafted! Both of their minds are stuck in 1969, and the world is viewed though the purple lens of little "John Lennon" glasses. Therefore, the boomer Democrats act with a wild, unwarranted overconfidence, and the boomer Republicans cower from a non-existent animosity towards their values.

How does all this relate to the Elections?

The Republicans need to get back to their basics, and clearly enunciate their values, goals, and objectives. They need to stop trying to be "Democrats Lite". The American people know leadership when they see it, and they like it. This even applies to Iraq. We can't go into a war with the idea that we are using the military to do some kind of social engineering and urban renewal. That's what the spooks and the Peace Corp are for. We went into Iraq to topple Saddam's regime, kill him, kill his top people, and any potential heirs. Why? Because he was a dangerous guy, in a dangerous region, and after 9/11 we can't take any chances. We did not go there to teach Iraqi women the finer points of political organizing, that's their business if they want it. As soon as Saddam is dead, we can go, we should admit it. If the Kurds want us to keep some air cover and advisors for them, they can request it, and we probably should. Their success would shame the rest of the region, by showing what people can truly do if they have the stones for it. As to the War on Terror, the same principles apply. While no US citizens are being held at Gitmo, no one in the Bush administration has bothered to point that out. Neither have we done any wiretapping of US citizen to citizen phone calls without a warrant. Our surveillance is the same surveillance of international calls the NSA has always done, but when Bush explains this, he doesn't do it in the loud, confrontational manner he need to use, when he knows the press won't give it honest coverage. We should be up-front with our policies and utterly disregard political correctness. Let the public know that we intend to keep a real close eye on Muslims, Mosques, and foreigners from places that are heavily Muslim, since that is where the Jihad is coming from. We don't need to be strip searching Irish grandmothers in airports, and we don't need to take away EVERYBODY's civil rights "just to be fair". If the Germans and Japanese declare war on us, we have every justification to surveill and investigate the Bund and the Hibachi houses, but we don't have a need to search the Irish Pubs or Mexican Grill's just to treat everybody equally. We wouldn't be at war with them. That would be absurd, as are our current, sweeping laws, which encompass everybody regardless of ideology, background, or even citizenship status. A lot of the Democrat's propaganda would be defused if we did this right. Let them call us "racist", and "unfair" all they want, they will lose the elections. Be straight, be honest, tell folks what we are doing, and don't feel the need to "Democrat-ize" everything.

The Democrats will be unable to keep the overconfident granola-heads who occupy all their leadership, and the leadership of all their co-traveling NGO's from misinterpreting this as a sweeping mandate for the Age of Aquarius, and will very soon begin to try to push through stuff that will be about as popular as HillaryCare. It will remind America what they really stand for, and clear the field for some solid Republican candidates in '08. Had this loss not occurred now, there would have been an overcorrection then, and the country would have been much worse off. In addition, I expect this power shift will embolden the Jihadists (including Iran), who will believe America is reacting like Spain. The loss of Rumsfeld and the placement of Gates (an FBI pinhead) will mean that the entire security apparatus will be headed by overcautious, risk-averse, bureaucrats, and the Jihadi's will get a rest and recoup period to regroup. From that, they too will successfully carry out some action against us that will be even less popular than HillaryCare. This will remind the American public that we really are at war with the same fanatics we have been fighting since we noticed it during the Carter administration.

A plain spoken, direct, unapologetic conservative, will have fertile soil in which to renew the movement in '08.

By David Roth
November 9, 2006

Within minutes of the election returns, and still somewhat in total denial, their tune began to change and became more introspective. The realization began to set in that control of the House and the Senate was irrevocably gone and Republicans had squandered their one chance in a generation. The 2006 mid-term elections will probably become a dramatic example in future political science studies of what can happen when politicians (who have been seeking their own agenda) are thoroughly chastened by the voters.

Defiantly, Republicans refused through the night of the election to acknowledge that their own miserable performance for six years during their majority role in Congress was in any way responsible for the predictable outcome – an outcome for which John McCain personally bears a heavy responsibility. Finally, Rush Limbaugh brought some talk-radio clarity the next day when he said he felt “relieved” that he would no longer be expected to carry the Republican’s water – which is what the conservatives have said for a long time before the election and voters en masse said at the polls.

Try to imagine the pilot of an aircraft that crashes (hopefully injuring no one) that attempts to blame bystanders on the ground for his inept piloting skills. Imagine the student who blames his failure on his teacher. Imagine the wing-nut who blames the 9/11 attack that destroyed the World Trade Center on Americans instead of Islam. Imagine the media who blames a brutal homicide on the past molestation of the suspect when she was a child. Imagine the ignorance and racial hatred embedded in the claim that New Orleans was destroyed because the President blew up the levees. Imagine the Republican Party who blames their defeat at the polls on the ignorance of the electorate. You have to wonder who Republicans would blame for the ignorance of the electorate – the Democrats?

One could reasonably argue that Republicans deserved their inglorious defeat. However, a similar argument can be made that conservative Americans really don’t deserve the Democratic Party’s upcoming socialist agenda, an agenda that will entail cultural and economic havoc rendered by Nancy Pelosi with shock and awe, maybe not immediately if she is smart, but certainly after the 2008 national elections when a Democrat will likely to prevail in the ultimate political quest for the Office of the Presidency.

It is hard to envision, stretching the imagination to the limits, that Republicans will be able to reconstitute a creditable image of competency and ethics, and particularly conservatism, by November 2008. Political observers might begrudgingly concede that there are less than five conservatives remaining in all of Congress. What is most impressive is that there will be more conservatives in the freshman class of the Democratic Party than the entire Republican Party. The Democratic Party strategy will be to continue their assault on Republicans alleging political malfeasance, without relenting for a minute, right on through the 2008 elections. While there are viable Republican candidates in 2008, e.g., John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Tancredo, only Tancredo is both socially and fiscally conservative. While a genuine long-shot, don’t rule out the Libertarian Ron Paul from Texas.

Democrats have been waiting a long time for such an opportunity, and if history is a valid predictor, you have never seen a train wreck like this one is going to be. President Bush had better begin sleeping with his “veto pen.” Make no mistake - President Bush's use of the “veto pen” for the next two years will be used by the Democrats to bludgeon Republican candidates in the 2008 elections.

Red State Patriot

The meaning of the grades:

A+ Virtually always supports lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth
C Half the time has acted for lower immigration and half the time has acted for higher numbers
F- Virtually always acts to force higher immigration and U.S. population growth

Congressional actions are weighted based on the best available assessment of their impact or potential impact on the size of the U.S. population. In most cases, points are assigned based on the numeric impact on each category. Actions are assigned to as many of the following categories as applicable. But the points assessed to an action relate to only the numeric part that affects that particular category.

1. Illegal Immigration
2. Chain Migration
3. Anchor Baby Citizenship
4. Amnesties
5. Worker Importation
6. Refugee\Asylees
7. Diversity Lottery

The grading process includes not only floor votes but also committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions such as signing a letter in support of or against particular immigration legislation. The grades are based on a systematic, consistent set of principles that have been evaluated and reviewed by experts in immigration policy (including people from the State Department, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Census Bureau, congressional immigration committee staff, Members of Congress, several think tanks of differing immigration philosophies and a number of universities).

Unlike many congressional scorecards that you will encounter on the internet, this grading system does not pick and choose among actions in a way to skew the results toward a particular party or members of a political party.

For more detailed background information on the grades given, or to view the report cards of Congressmen from any other state, see:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/

If 2nd Amendment rights (right to keep and bear arms) is important to you, you might also want to consider the following NRA supplied information:

Senator: Jon Kyl and Jim Pederson both received a grade of "A"
Governor: Len Munsil (A) and Janel Napolitano (B-)
Attorney General: Bill Montgomery (A) and Terry Goddard (?)
Secretary of State: Jan Brewer (A) and Israel Torres (B-)
State Treasurer: Dean Martin (A+) and Rano Singh (?)
Clerk of the Superior Court: Patti Noland (A)

U.S. House of Representatives:
District 1: Rick Renzi (A), Ellen Simon (?)
District 2: Trent Franks (A), John Thrasher (A)
District 3: Kpjm Sjadegg (A), Herb Paine (?)
District 4: Don Karg (A), Ed Pastor (F)
District 5: J.D. Hayworth (A), Harry Mitchell (F)
District 6: Jeff Flake (A-)
District 7: Ron Drake (A), Raul Grijalva (F)
District 8: Randy Graf (A), Gabrielle Giffords (F)

You may want to reconsider your support of any candidate with a grade less than an "A."

Red State Patriot