The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.

That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.

Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.

An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.

Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."

Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.

So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama -- because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" -- must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.

Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified?

There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking.

Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.

But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.

Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof. Talk about the audacity of hope.

But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.

The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting.

There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate -- if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land.

The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run for President.

If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now.

Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality.

UPDATE 6/26:
Janice Okubo, in response to an Israeli Insider question on Tuesday, would not confirm nor deny whether she had told a St. Petersburg Times reporter whether she had said the birth certificate was "real", citing the statutory stipulation that "Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute." This would, however, seem to negate the propriety of any disclosure by her of confidential information.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review Online, following up on this Israel Insider report, said he had contacted Okubo:

"I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is not genuine."

"The 'embossed seal' in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal."

Geraghty's interpretation of Okubo's comments is inexact and tendentious. First, her observation that "the form is the same" is not contested, here or elsewhere. No one is doubting that the form that appears on the various websites (including this one) is a replica of that used for valid certificates. Therefore Geraght's interpretation that follows "In other words" is clearly his own conclusion, not hers.

Indeed, Okubo confirms to Geraghty that the image is lacking the "embossed seal" (and the official signature) that are required for the certificate to be valid. While "she thinks" that the difference in visibility might be attributed to varying "pressure," she admits that she does not know and has not seen the original.

Contrasting the purported Obama image with the DeCosta sample, it is hard to imagine the embossed seal and signature being of such light pressure that they would become completely invisible. An inked date of June 6, 2007, in reverse, does come through. But in any event, Okubo's confirmation that the premsumptive birth certificate is lacking the required stamps makes it all the more imperative for Obama to release the original paper certification, the only valid kind, and not an easy-to-photoshop electronic facsimile thereof. It should not be hard to produce, since Hawaii provides for family members to request them.

Even though Geraghy notes that Obama "initially refused to provide his birth certificate," he has suggested that it is "rather unlikely" that Obama was born in Kenya, since it would require that the candidate and his family do a lot of lying. In fact, there were reports of Kenyati relatives claiming he was born there, and there is the mysterious disappearance of his grandmother, who may indeed know something about this subject.

After all, being born in Hawaii is part of the "family legend" and it would be unreasonable to expect this to vary from interview to interview, especially when a non-Hawaiian birth would invalidate Obama's run for the presidency.

It is indeed hard to believe that Obama could have gone through his life without having to prove that he was an American citizen. But the credulity with which the mainstream media has automatically accepted as valid the image that appears on the radical left Daily Kos blog and on the Obama campaign's polemical "Fight the Smears" website makes it clear that many have been unwilling, now and in the past, to demand proof of an authentic document. They prefer to accept on faith that the candidate or his campaign would not lie about such a thing, assuming he has nothing to hide and no motive to lie.

But until the certified paper birth document is produced -- either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state -- the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President according to the Constitution.

By Reuven Koret June 24, 2008
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

This sort of tripe should be dismissed out of hand. In the spirit of evenhandedness and fair play, however, I feel it my duty to explain why I'm going to vote Democrat.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the best strategy in war is defeat. It broadens the mind to learn Japanese, German and Arabic. Talk about multiculturalism!

I'm voting Democrat because I'm mad that George W. Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden. That's because Bin Laden is the only Islamic terrorist in the world.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that if I don't have enough money, the solution is for the government to take more of my money. Who needs money when gas is $5 per gallon?

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the ideal family is two homosexual bonobos, a goat and a parrot raising a human baby. Love and compassion is all it takes to make a successful family!

I'm voting Democrat because it's my body, and if I want to kill my baby, I'll do it, even if its head is in the birth canal. If I want to cut out my intestines and feed them to the crocodiles, I'll do that too. That's the freedom our forefathers enshrined in the Constitution.

I'm voting Democrat because our enemies on the battlefield deserve comfy hotel rooms, Pay-Per-View, prostitutes and all the benefits of American citizenship.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need other countries' permission for me to turn down my thermostat.

I'm voting Democrat because I care about the real victims of crime -- criminals.

I'm voting Democrat because the real cure for racism includes preferential policies based on race -- particularly in presidential voting. If you believe that a black candidate ought to be qualified, as well as black, you're worse than Bull Conner.

I'm voting Democrat because everyone deserves crappy healthcare. Sure, you'll have to wait years for that life-saving cancer surgery. But it's first come, first served at the cemetery!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in minority rights (except in Muslim countries), free speech (with regard to pornography but not conservative talk radio), environmentalism (unless we're talking about Al Gore's house) and diplomacy (but never backed by the threat of military force).

I'm voting Democrat because I like the words "hope" and "change." Also "kazoo." That's a funny word.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that America's founders were rich, white, greedy xenophobes, and that America's founding principles are hogwash requiring periodic editing from an unelected group of liberal judges.

Most of all, I'm voting Democrat because I like the ideas they have over in France, but I don't feel like moving there. I'll threaten to move, but I really won't. After all, I have a good job, healthcare, lower taxes, free speech and a social framework that promotes family structure. And all of it is defended by the most effective fighting force on the planet.

If only the institution of far-left values resulted in a great country. Oh, well. That won't stop me from voting Democrat, though. After all, I'm voting Democrat because thought isn't one of my strong suits.

Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, June 18, 2008

http://www.townhall.com:80/columnists/BenShapiro/2008/06/18/why_im_voting_democrat

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

On the oil industry itself:

"I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil ... They're making huge profits and that happens, but not to say, 'We're in this so we can over time eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil,' I think is an abrogation of their responsibilities as citizens."

For the record, Big Oil's profit margin has averaged 8.1% over the last five years. Meanwhile, beverage makers -- the industry to which he and his wife owe their fortune -- average 19% margins.

McCain spent what could have been hours -- I blacked out after the first fifteen minutes -- reeling off the names of Democrats he's had high-profile love affairs with over the years. Lieberman, Kennedy, Feingold, it just kept going and going and going. He talked about the good old days when Ronald Reagan held Tip O'Neill's hand and together they they raised Social Security taxes. He hopes to do something similar with Nancy Pelosi.

If I were advising Obama, after seeing last night I would agree to as many townhalls as McCain wants.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

------------------------

Response from David R.:
Waves of nausea overwhelm me. Is there anything I can take to alleviate the feeling of impending doom? I feel like our choice is between Lydon Johnson, and Lyndon LaRouche.

------------------------

Response from Ken D.
This man is senescent, ill advised or both.

------------------------

Response from Fritz B.
I have been of the opinion that he is taking some of these positions regarding big oil, global warming and hugging democrats as a campaign strategy. If both candidates look a lot alike on voters key issues, then only the war and taxes separate them. For me I would want him in office to veto tax increases or we will become the leading socialist country overnight with Obama and Pelosi. The next 10 years are going to be very tough. I would prefer that we plow into the energy problem rather than sit around Washington and blame big oil.

------------------------

Response from Denny S:
FYI: Conservatives are a rare breed in the San Francisco Bay Area. My friend that sent this photo is from Napa, where (at last count) there were 80 possible and 41 confirmed conservatives out of 150,000 people.

Also, this election is not about McCain, it is about Obama mama, as the country still does not know what Obama Hussein is all about. I think that some Democrats will get uncomfortable with Obama after more is known about the guy. But, liberals will vote for Obama no matter what.

Seems like the last election. We are either voting against someone, or voting for the lessor of two evils.

Where are the "energy policy" politicians, when we need them? We have not had "energy policy" for 30 years. The last nuclear plant was built in 1978, and goodness knows when the last refinery was built in the US?

Speaking of that, McCain needs to go to economic and oil school. This country desperately needs to start drilling on both coasts, in Alaska, and start building some nuclear plants while we learn how to switch over to other alternative energies. The Sun (solar) and Hydrogen are the obvious bets, but those energies won't be feasible for decades.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

--------------------
Response from Bob H.:
We have always had an energy policy. Simple—CHEAP ENERGY. As for drilling and building nukes and refineries, the lead time runs from 7 to 20 years. Good luck thinking we could be energy independent any time in our children’s’ lifetimes.

--------------------
Response from Marty D.:
Aside from McCain's obvious inclinations, John McCain is now irrevocably on record favoring ever-increasing government control of the nation's economy. Maybe the most significant revelation in John McCain's townhall rhetoric was confirmation of his profound economic ignorance and dangerous socialist propensities - probably explaining much of the last 20 years of McCain's ill-advised legislation in Congress (which effectively reduced the U.S. Constitution to the status of toilet tissue). Clearly we're witnessing a descending ladder of presidential competency .... Reagan (40), Bush (41), Clinton (42), Bush (43), and in the vernacular, WTF (44).

---------------------
Response from Pam T.:
I am packing up and moving to Pakistan.... or some island somewhere.

« Close It

These are real problems facing every American, yet it is apparently politically incorrect to discuss them. There are no questions concerning these issues during debates, on Sunday morning political talk shows, or anywhere in the news media in relationship to the candidates. It’s not there. Not to be discussed. The powers in charge are picking the issues – no matter how frustrated the electorate is.

Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don’t vote or participate in our nation’s debate because they think it doesn’t matter anyway. The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.

College students, just starting out in the world, wide eyed and ready to make a difference, end up just shrugging their shoulders at the selection of candidates and stay home.

Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.

And the poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world’s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote to the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.

The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.

Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?

So year after year we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right; a valued tradition; the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do over?

Don’t despair. Don’t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won’t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say NO to bad candidates. There is such a way.

Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of candidates offered. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won’t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.

Then you look further down the ballot. Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It’s a final choice after the candidates – after the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?

It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The election will have to be held again and new candidates will have to try to win the public’s support.

Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver’s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want -- or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected.

“NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.

Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door, and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren’t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture Ted Kennedy unable to run for office because he was rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning.

“NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non-partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America’s representative system would be restored.

To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It’s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.

In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then signed by the governor. And if the effort is successful then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” or the ballot for their re-election. They probably won’t be too excited about the idea.

Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election should it win. Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. The fact is, such a need would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That’s all they really have to do. It’s all we want.

The fact is, the idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn’t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That’s not good enough to make it effective.

One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the quality of candidates running for public office, particularly in the presidential campaign, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.

The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn’t a conservative or liberal idea. It’s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor’s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican’s big business money. However they want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.

So as we sigh and moan over the choices of Obama, Hillary and McCain, let’s start the debate and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “let’s get ‘er done.” Perhaps by the next election cycle we won’t have to take it anymore!

Tom DeWeese
May 30, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom111.htm

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

There's Senator Ted Kennedy from the McCain-Kennedy immigration amnesty bill.

Senator Lindsey Graham who once called those opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens "bigots" at a La Raza conference.

Senator Mel Martinez an open borders proponent who favors amnesty and was a coauthor of the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill prior to the McCain-Kennedy bill. Martinez once called enforcement without amnesty a "harshness only" approach.

Juan Hernandez, a former Mexican government official, a dual citizen and major proponent of rights and amnesty for Hispanic illegal aliens and the end of the sovereignty of America. He currently is working on the McCain campaign as his Hispanic Outreach Director.

Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a good friend of La Raza, who has put forth his own legislation for illegal aliens called the STRIVE act and was involved in formulating the amnesty bills. In addition he personally put forth a bill to give Elvira Arellano permanent residency - this was before she hid out in a church. He also called the police on a group of citizen lobbyists who came to question him on his stance on illegal immigration.

Senator Russ Feingold who was half of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform fiasco.

Joe Lieberman, who together with McCain brought forth the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship bill to fight global warming.

Former Senator John Edwards who along with McCain and Kennedy wrote the McCain-Edwards "Patient's Bill of Rights".

Are you starting to see a pattern here? Lots of Democrats and Republicans (who are really Liberals) working together with McCain. This is the company he keeps and asks us to judge him by.

McCain will state that he is a "Reagan Republican", but nothing could be further from the truth. There's working together and then there is outright "being a member of the other party". Things to watch out for with McCain include the passing and implementation of the "fairness doctrine". Something that would censor and shut down talk radio stations, websites like this one and limit free speech in the United States. You don't think he'd sign it? Just watch him!

Watch the above video and tell me this is someone who really is looking out for the American people and not just some illegal foreigners, big business and future Democrat voters.

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002429.html

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The first involves the old technique of telling a lie over and over until it becomes accepted as true. The lie is that only "they" have the necessary wisdom, knowledge, and experience to govern. The American people have been convinced that there are no other choices, nowhere else to go. If you think about it, you will easily recognize the old lesser of two evils idea, that we must hold our nose and vote for one of them, the Democrat or the Republican. We are constantly told that any other action is a wasted vote.

The second tactic used to keep power among the elites is to divide the nation into opposing camps of liberal and conservative. The divide and conquer technique is probably older than the big lie one. In this case, they have set up the Democrats as being liberal, and the Republicans as being conservative. When writing legislation, the two sides fight each other to enact their version.

What this immense concentration of power in our politics has given us is extreme partisanship rather than leadership that develops creative and innovative thinking. In many cases, a real solution to any problem is not always so one-sided. The partisanship however, has become so severe that neither side is willing to consider the ideas of the other, and the end result is usually ineffective legislation that produces no long term solution and winds up wasting time, money, and resources.

The fact is that government of the people, by the people, for the people, has been usurped by the elites who run the show. Both parties have been infected by the internationalist mindset that sees an eventual new world order, a one world government dedicated to creating the elite version of a socialist utopia. This attitude has become so prevalent that the Democrat Party has moved further left than ever before and now embraces the EU Democratic Socialist model of governing. The GOP has also moved left, now occupying the space formerly held by the "regular" liberal Democrats. One need only look at the positions of the current Presidential candidates being offered to us by the Democrat and Republican parties.

The policies being presented by both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton reflect hard core socialist views, with more taxation and regulation. Their positions on health care and education are only the tip of the iceberg. The Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, is the author of a variety of leftist ideas such as McCain/Feingold, the No Child Left Behind Act, the comprehenisive immigration reform act, along with his other congressional votes. The overt lack of any Constitutional authority to implement these policies is not even a passing thought to any of the elites in both parties.

Our precious birthright, given to us by the founding fathers, envisioned a nation of free men and women. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to give us an inheritance of freedom to make our own choices and to pursue our own personal vision of happiness. They did not guarantee an outcome, only an opportunity. That inheritance has been stolen from us by the elites who now control our government and the two major parties.

There cannot be any real solution to the challenges ahead without a basic, even extreme restructuring of the power base in our politics. The hold that the two major parties have on power must be broken before any substantial improvements and changes can be made. Electing another elite, from either party, will not accomplish what needs to be done.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. How can we hope to have a different result if we once again fall for the lies of the elites and elect one of them? Their goal is power, and every election is to them a chance to increase that power. It is never about real, effective governing, and bi-partisanship is not their intent. In any case, it doesn't really matter which of these parties win the White House.
The elites who run not only our government, but all others around the globe, the elites in the media, academia, education, and NGO's like the United Nations have a very deliberate idea of the future. At every turn, they are squandering our resources, weakening our military, mortgaging our future, and selling out our sovereignty. Their eventual goal is to bring America into line with their vision of a socialist one world government, and the biggest obstacle is the Constitution of the United States.

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once stated that OUR Constitution should be interpreted in light of the laws of other nations. Although now retired, she lectures around the nation at prestigious law schools promoting this very concept. Current legislation in our senate authored by Senator Obama, called the Global Poverty Initiative, seeks to tax the U.S. to provide funds to the U.N., and includes a provision to eliminate small arms from all people. The destruction of the Second Amendment which gives the America people the right to bear arms in their own defense is a highlight of the U.N. agenda. Other legislation, including the Law of the Sea Treaty, will greatly restrict rights to the world's oceans and cede authority and revenues once again to the U.N.

The birthright of the American people is the right to be be free from oppressive government. The founders, in a unique display of real wisdom, understood that a limited national government with most of the decision making residing at the local level where the people have the most influence could be the only guarantor of that freedom. This birthright is being slowly stolen from us, and it is imperative that we do what is necessary to stop that theft.
The only way in which the American people can effectively reclaim their inheritance is to break the hold on power by the two parties. Unless and until we exert the authority given to us to govern ourselves as a free people, we will only see more big government and less personal freedom, and a sad end to this great experiment in freedom and self-governance, the United States of America!

In order to reclaim our inheritance we must, in this election of 2008, deny the elites that which they desire above all else, the Presidency! There is no other effective way to do it. It is impossible to expect the elites to give up their power and forfeit their agenda. They will not do so. Only an independent President, one not tied to any party machines, any PACs, any corporations or unions, not linked to any money grubbing lobbyists, can actually stand up to the elites and represent the American people first. No Democrat or Republican President can or will go against his or her own party. Every decision and every piece of legislation is viewed with the potential political fallout in the next election in mind. Every election is viewed in the context of what effect the result will be regarding their share of the power. Ultimately, the concern is to further the internationalist utopian vision that is in the heart of all the elites.
This quote from Thomas Jefferson perhaps best explains the task ahead.

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."

We all have ideas about what needs to be done in our great country, but in order to bring about any solution, we must first understand the things that are preventing such solutions. What is hampering our beloved nation is not the lack of good ideas. It is not the American people's unwillingness to work hard and make sacrifices. It is not the lack of will or resources.

The lack of real, practical solutions to the challenges we face and the intense partisanship that refuses to give way to leadership is being caused by an elite that seeks power first and foremost with the intention of furthering their own internationalist agenda. If we once again, in this election, give more power to these elites, we will do such great harm that our country may never recover.

We must think and act differently if we intend a different result. It will take courage and faith to do that which we have been taught not to do, elect an independent President. We must take that action. If we fail in that task, how then can we ever reclaim our inheirtance?

Joe Oliva
Marty 15, 2007

http://www.firesociety.com/article/23216/?src=111

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Now, I must give credit here to 50 who cast Nay votes. In all 6 Democratic Representatives and 44 Republican Representatives and Senators cast a Nay vote against paying us off with what amounts to nothing more than a band-aid on an infected wound. 461 voted in favor of covering the economic wounds of our nation while the wound is badly infected. (Clinton and Obama were two of three Senators who did not bother to vote Aye or Nay but instead cast no vote at all!)

This vote may be a gauge ... to at least look into the 50 members of Congress who said no. At least, for whatever reasons, they understood the stimulus package is a bad idea for the long-term health of the economy while offering very little short-term relief for most citizens. The cost of the stimulus package is estimated at $168 billion. This amount will be added to the deficit over the next two years! It's like using a high interest credit card to pay a minimum payment on another high interest credit card. It keeps the bill collector from calling today but does nothing to actually help pay off any debt and actually increases the overall amount owed.

There are a few ... that want real legislation passed that can actually have both an immediate and long-term positive effect on the economy. People seem to forget whenever they ask the government to do more the money is created and added to the deficit, the balance on the credit card just gets higher! But can Congress and the President actually reduce spending in a timely manner? Look how fast they arranged to pay us off and you have your answer.

Oh, and the two most prominent Senators casting no vote at all, want to also be the champions of change. Change in the way YOU live and change in the way OUR future generations live. They hear those demanding their government do more. They are quite willing to take out the people's credit card and charge the gifts of change. They are more than willing to pay us off so they can walk away and boast about how they listened and helped all the little people who needed their government to care for them!

Their train won't be going to Yuma; instead it goes to the poor house, ALL ABOARD!

2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

They want government power used to remake the world into their narcissistic image, to tell others how to live their lives, and to infringe on the rights of others, especially on the right to keep the fruits of their labor. In other words, they want to use coercion against others, not realizing that others will retaliate by using coercion against them.

In this very important sense, the nation is no longer a constitutional republic based on individual rights and liberty. The Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the neoconservative movement have transformed the U.S. to a nation where political might makes right. The individual is now at the mercy of the will of the plurality, or the collective, or marauding special-interest groups--all of whom are backed by the rule of law, which in turn is backed by armed government agents.

Barack Obama wonders why we all can’t get along. Well, it’s because politicians like him want to do things for some people by doing things to other people. And generally, the people he wants to do things to are the good people in society--the people who defer gratification, invest in their future, lead virtuous lives, sacrifice for their children, and help their neighbors without being coerced to do so by the government.

Coercion has become so accepted that the word “coercion” is not mentioned at all in Congress, in the establishment media, in K-12 schools, in universities, or in any other centers of influence. Instead, people speak euphemistically about the common good, volunteerism, social justice, equal opportunity, fairness, income equality, and other platitudes du jour. Of course, history shows that the greater the rhetoric about the collective, the greater the coercion against the individual.

President Bush says he believes in “compassionate conservatism,” but he really believes in coerced compassion. Sen. Clinton says “It takes a village,” but she really believes in coercively taking the village’s output for her political uses. Sen. Obama says that he wants to put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in government job corps, but he doesn’t say that millions of other Americans will be coerced to pick up the tab for something that is economic and social folly. McCain says that he wants to stop money in politics, but he has used coercion to limit political speech.

Politicians embrace coercion because the American people embrace coercion. Farmers embrace it to obtain subsidies that raise the price of groceries for everyone else. The elderly embrace it to get free medicine at the expense of future generations. Spendthrifts embrace it to take the savings of the frugal through the tax code. Cities embrace it to take private property for the benefit of developers. Preservationists embrace it to tell homeowners what color they can paint their homes. Anti-smoking zealots embrace it to tell owners of bars and restaurants what they can do on their private property. Arts aficionados embrace it to have their cultural interests subsidized. Sports fans embrace it to have non-fans build their sports palaces. College students embrace it to get cheaper tuition at the expense of those who don’t go to college. The stupid and greedy embrace it to be bailed out of their bad mortgages by those who are smart and financially conservative.

Examples of the use of coercion in our supposed free country could run for hundreds of pages.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain indeed have what it takes to be the president of the United States. For that matter, so does Vladimir Putin.

By Craig J. Cantoni
Feb. 18, 2008
_________________
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

« Close It

In December 1962, Kennedy offered ablunt summary of the Castro/Che record. "The Cuban people were promised by the revolution political liberty, social justice, intellectual freedom, land for the campesinos, and an end to economic exploitation," he said. "They have received a police state, the elimination of the dignity of land ownership, the destruction of free speech and a free press, and the complete subjugation of individual human welfare." Eleven months later, in aspeech intended for delivery on the day he was assassinated, Kennedy regretted that Castro's "Communist foothold" in Latin America had "not yet been eliminated."

Were he alive today, it's hard to imagine JFK feeling anything but contempt for those who extol a dictatorship that has been crushing freedom and human beings for nearly 50 years. And it would surely pain him that so many of the cheerleaders are members of his own party.

The lionizing of Che, a sociopath who relished killing and acclaimed "the pedagogy of the firing squad," is not just "inappropriate." It is vile. No American in his right mind would be caught dead wearing a David Duke T-shirt or displaying a poster of Pol Pot. A celebrity who was spotted with a swastika-festooned cap or an actress who revealed that she had gotten a tattoo depicting Timothy McVeigh would inspire only repugnance. No presidential campaign would need more than 30 seconds to sever its ties to anyone, paid staffer or volunteer, whose office was adorned with a Ku Klux Klan banner. Yet Che's likeness, which ought to be as loathed as any of those, is instead a trendy bestseller and a cult favorite.

A few years ago the New York Public Library gift shop sold Che wristwatches. These it described as "featuring the classic romantic image of Che Guevara, around which the word 'revolution' revolves." But Che's idea of revolution was anything but romantic. What he cherished was hatred and murder: "Hatred as an element of struggle," he wrote in 1967, "unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine." It was a sentiment he expressed repeatedly - and lived up to.

With Che at his side, Castro toppled Fulgencio Batista in January 1959. "As soon as they had seized power," notes "The Black Book of Communism," a magisterial survey of communist crime in the 20th century, "they began to conduct mass executions inside the two main prisons, La Cabana and Santa Clara." As chief prosecutor of the new regime, Che oversaw the bloodbath, ordering hundreds of executions in the first months of 1959. Those he killed, "The Black Book" records, included "former comrades-in-arms who refused to abandon their democratic beliefs."

Like totalitarians of every stripe, Che didn't scruple at the death of innocents. "Quit the dallying!" he ordered Jose Vilasuso, a conscientious government lawyer who was seeking evidence against several prisoners. "Your job is a very simple one. Judicial evidence is an archaic and secondary bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! We execute from revolutionary conviction."

Time magazine once called Che the "brain” of the Cuban Revolution, and saluted his "icy calculation, vast competence, high intelligence, and . . . perceptive sense of humor." A better description comes from journalist Humberto Fontova, who observes in "Exposing The Real Che Guevara" that Che was for Castro what Heinrich Himmer was for Hitler and Lavrenty Beria for Stalin - "the snarling enforcer." Fittingly, a massive drawing of Che adorns the headquarters of Cuba's secret police in Havana.

That this sadistic thug's face also adorns the office of a US presidential candidate's supporters is appalling and disgraceful. That the candidate couldn't bring himself to say so is even worse.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/17/what_would_jfk_do/

Hat tip:
Len S., Prescott, Arizona

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

I remember well the Carter years, with its mind numbing cowardice in the face of dangers from the USSR and Iran, and how it caused us to doubt our greatness. And I remember a man named Ronald Reagan, and how he inspired an entire nation to rendevous with its destiny once again, and in an inconceivable turn of events, won the Cold War and knocked down the Berlin War without firing a single shot. His courage and belief in America inspired policies that freed all of Eastern Europe and kept budding Islamofascism at bay, all the while he was opposed and reviled by the Democrats, the America-haters and the Communists worldwide.

I remember the horror of the Clinton years, when a rapist and abuser of women was the Commander in Chief, aided and abetted by a power hungry woman who hated the military. I remember fighting for his impeachment, only to be betrayed by a Republican Senate that had no courage, or that was compromised by stolen FBI files and failed to discharge its lawful duty to remove a lawbreaking President who brought shame to the Oval Office. I remember recoiling in horror and shame when a six year old boy whose mother drowned in an attempt to bring him to freedom from Cuba was removed from a private home under the force of arms and returned to Fidel Castro.

I remember crying tears of gladness when our current President said the words of his Oath of Office on January 20, 2001, ending my personal nightmare, an eight year long nightmare, of having Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The events of these last seven years are nothing what I expected that cold, clear January morning. The events of September 11, 2001, the invasion of Iraq, the War on Terror, all of them returned me to the patriotic days of my youth. I saw a nation united in purpose for the first time in my adult life, as the nation had been torn since the Vietnam War.

But I saw a Republican President I believed in, and a Republican Party that was my home politically, shift in a slow, determined, unstoppable drift away from its principles, adopting the policies and views of the Democrats, to the point where we now face having as our Presidential candidate, John McCain, an enemy of conservatism, of Republican principles, and of American sovereignty.

As I pondered these things today, February 2, 2008, I have come to a very troubling observation.

We conservatives always had a home in the Republican Party. President Reagan even came here when the Democrat Party became too radical for him in the 1950s. We were the foundation of 12 years of the Reagan Bush era and we fought for the current President to give him eight years, even in the face of a national election being stolen from him.

But when our country was threatened by the prospect of a mass amnesty last May and June, allowing 20 million or more illegal immigrants to become defacto citizens by fiat, we erupted in a display of power that had Washington DC recoiling in terror. We derailed their plan to ensure the Balkanization of America by giving it 20 million more citizens who would not assimilate into the culture, and to ensure a cheap workforce, and to permanently undercut American worker's wages. Together with Global Warming and carbon credits, America could be brought to heel and managed.

We stopped McCain-Kennedy and its cousin, alright. But there was a price to pay for our insolence.

We, the America loving conservatives of the Republican Party, are no longer needed by this party. We are too narrow minded and old school. Flag waving and the supremacy of the American Way are passe. We are not inclusive. We are standing in the way of the elites in Washington DC from making their wet dreams a reality--making America an also-ran, not a super-power. America as a third world country, not as better than anyone else. An America that is afraid to face its Islamic enemies,that worries about what the world thinks about it, strangled in political correctness, surrendering its freedoms on a daily basis in the vain hope for security.

We keepers of the flame of American liberty are now the enemy. When Hillary labelled us the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, we took that has a label of pride. But now the Republican establishment has decreed that we are a conspiracy to be defeated within our own party, as we face the prospect of John McCain being rammed down our throats. John McCain, the Manchurian Candidate, the man who has betrayed every tenet of Republicanism in his quest for power,who has railed against conservatives at every turn, who is bound and determined to grant amnesty to 10% of Mexico's population now within our borders, he is the one being annointed by the elites as our candidate.

His job is not only to become the candidate of choice, but to be the means of the destruction of the power of the conservative base of the Republican Party.

Between McCain, Obama and Hillary, there isn't a dime's worth of difference in their political views. The Republican and Democrat established elites have melded into one entity, and they will win no matter who gets nominated or who wins the general election, especially if McCain is the nominee. All three believe in unlimited amnesty, an open border, cap and trade globaloney, giving rights to Gitmo detainees, and the restriction of free speech and gun rights.

The MSM is their collective cheerleader, actively working to marginalize us as a viable force for the America we visualize.

Many of us will vote Republican in November, only because we cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama or Clinton. The Republican establishment knows this, and knows because we are principled, we can not do otherwise. Rather than enlist us to help, they are engaged in a policy of containment and neutering, because we stand in the way of their vision of America.

McCain as a candidate will be a disaster. The Republican establishment knows this. But they don't care, because the goal is not to win this election. It is to remove us from the political table, and for them to join with their Democrat brothers in the march toward an America subsevient to global interests. Sovereignty is treated as a quaint, outmoded concept, even by many Republican governors who are pushing the globaloney nonsense that will cripple this nation.

The perfect storm of American politics is converging in a bid to elect one of three horrible candidates, McCain,Obama, or Clinton, to be our next President. The odds are that the Republicans will not only lose with McCain, but they will lose even more of the House and Senate, enough to relegate Republicans to a minority status for decades to come.

Where are the national Republican leaders speaking out against where our party is heading? As one looks over the events of the last 15 years, since the ascension and improbable election of a no good, draft dodging, lying huckster like Bill Clinton to President, we have witnessed a snowballing reversal of American values and fortunes. With Clinton II on the horizon, we face a complete collapse of American values and soveriegnty and freedom with the "CHANGE" that is being promised for the electorate.

That "change" is starting right now for us. By Tuesday midnight, we will know if the fate the elites have decreed for us will become reality, if McCain is our candidate.

In the past few days, the lenses through which I view politics have changed in prescription. I see now that we are the enemy to our own party's leaders, whose leaders have decreed that our nominee will be the anti-conservative, anti-Republican candidate. The other candidates still open to us, Huckster, Romney and Paul each have their own problems with our values.

There are only a few short days to stop the McCain Screwball express. As we fought the impossible fight against McCain and amnesty last year, we have but a few days to influence our fellow conservatives and Republicans not to allow the predetermined outcome to occur.

I offer this screed in an attempt to understand what is going on today, to explain the inexplicable in what is occurring to our party and our chances for success in November against the second ascension of the corrupt Clinton Machine. I wish not to tell my fellow conservative who they should vote for, but I ask them not to vote for McCain.

Others, including the Republican establishment, have decreed for us who are candidate should be. American loving Republicans should reserve the right to make that choice.

by Exit 82
posted blog commentary at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963918/posts#comment

Hat tip: Connie Foust

« Close It

I can hear you saying, “surely you aren’t saying that South Carolina has gone liberal -- are you?” Are you kidding me? Drive through the Carolinas and count the number of license plates from NJ, NY and Pennsylvania. There is not much Dixie in the Carolinas; it’s more like Trenton and Long Island with fireworks. “But”, you protest, “New Hampshire, is Live Free or Die, it’s been a backbone of conservatism since the 1950’s.” No longer my friends -- NH has become an exurb of Boston, with Boston’s sensibilities and, ugh, their voting tastes. NH hasn’t been reliably conservative since Reagan’s first term. These voters would rather be loved by the Boston Globe, than respected by the Union Leader.

But the evidence continues, you say, “Iowa, that’s America, with small town values and homespun sensibilities.” Wrong again -- Iowa is just a state brimming with farmers on the federal dole, college students and ex hippie professors looking to con, libs in training at Grinnell.

And Florida? As my bubbies would say in Bay Ridge -- puhleeeez. It’s the 6th borough and has been since the mid 1960’s. Liberals have been sliding down the I-95 corridor since Kennedy was elected.

Sadly these 4 states have done more than set the tone for the other 46 -- they’ve dictated terms. Frankly I could extend the analogy to include Nevada, which is down to about 13% native -- but why beat a dead horse.

What we have is the sick and twisted dreams of Pinch Sulzberger, Don Imus, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews come true: the GOP has been forced to choose a nominee designed to cause the base to retch, and thereby not vote. Guaranteeing 4 years of Clinton score settling or Obama socializing entire corporate sectors.

Its time to simultaneously bring back democracy to the GOP and defang the left and her Rockefeller accomplices in the new Axis of Evil. It’s time for the nuclear option -- its time for the GOP to front-load the whole freaking process into one date. Make every state vote on exactly the same day. Make every candidate compete in EVERY state at the exact same time and hold every single GOP primary and caucus on Super Tuesday. When NH and IOWA complain, take a page from the Democrats and refuse to seat their delegates, or better yet, declare renegade states as straw polls.

This would balance our nomination process out. There will be no more “Big Mo”, no more singular precincts in obscure Iowa towns setting the tone for the rest of the country. If liberals from Englewood Cliffs NJ want to vote liberal, it’s going to get cancelled out by conservatives in Chattanooga -- who might actually get to vote for Fred. Its time to let Nebraska count as much as New Hampshire. Let Texas matter as much as South Carolina, let Florida be canceled out by California -- as it should be. The only two groups who have benefit from the current process are the media flacks selling the drama and John McCain establishment hacks. Does anyone think Fred Thompson got a fair hearing? Or Duncan Hunter? John McCain does not speak for me…or frankly for any one else, I know.

Folks, we have let the liberals and RINOS set the agenda. Open Borders, Higher Taxes, and surrender to Kyoto-worshipping technocrats. This is the Republican Party? But hey, the McCainiacs counter, “John McCain is a war hero -- right?” Let me be the first to say it’s not about what you did in the 60’s sir -- it’s about what you will do to America in 2009 and beyond.

This is our party, not John McCain’s or Mel Martinez's, or Lindsay Graham’s. The Republican Party is THE conservative party dammit. Let’s admit it and take it back. RINOS and Liberals have taken the GOP plane hostage, and its time for us passengers to revolt…and do what has to be done -- Let’s Roll.

Brett Winterble
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24726

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Twenty years later, Mbembe was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenage son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked to where Mbembe and his son Tapu were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Mbembe, lifted its front foot off the ground, and then put it down. The elephant did that several times and then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Mbembe couldn't help wondering if this was the same elephant. Mbembe summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Mbembe's legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly. It is probably safe to conclude it wasn't the same elephant....

The lesson we can take away from this interesting and heartwarming story is one of statistical probability, bordering on certainty. A similar sequence of events will likely occur as the current crop of political candidates seek to befriend a nation of injured conservative elephants, many of whose youth have been sacrificed to open borders, drugs and Islamic terrorists. The election outcome experienced by incumbent Republicans and Democrats in the 2008 election at the hands of voters is likely to be painfully similar to Mbembe. At least I hope it is.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

In the second voting category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as unacceptable. In the Unacceptable Category, 427 out of 721 (59%) of the delegates declared McCain as one of their unacceptable candidates. The tallies were:
427 McCain
396 Paul
357 Giuliani (withdrawn)
340 Huckabee
156 Hunter (withdrawn)
152 Thompson (withdrawn)
121 Romney

In the third category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as acceptable. Those results were as follows:
370 Thompson (withdrawn)
358 Hunter (withdrawn)
356 Romney
235 Giuliani (withdrawn)
207 Huckabee
135 McCain
120 Paul

These issues were rated by the delegates as the most important for the presidential candidates to address:

643 STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
552 WIN WAR AGAINST TERROR
518 REDUCE GOV'T SPENDING
406 LOWER TAXES
390 SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
271 PRO-LIFE
226 CITIZEN'S GUN RIGHTS
196 DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION
106 CHOICE OF PRIVATE SS ACCOUNTS

Senator John McCain, you can run from your constituency, but you cannot hide.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Yes, indeed. If only we would elect an alpha male or beta female who cares about each and every one of us, partisan bickering would end, pork barrel spending would end, global competition would end, foreign interventionism would end, global warming would end, increases in the price of gas and healthcare would end, the invasion of brown people would end, radical Islam would end, and in-grown toenails would end.

But what about farm subsidies? Are they going to end? Well, no, not if someone wants to be elected president.

Then if a president is powerless to stop something as uncomplicated as farm subsidies, why would someone think that a candidate would be able to stop, well, anything putting Americans in a funk and feeling the nation is in decline?

Beats me. But I do know that the nation has been transformed into a kleptocracy under majority rule, or mob rule, if you will. Over half of Americans are now either mooching off the minority through the tax code, or working for the government, or working in private-sector jobs that owe their existence and good pay to government regulations.

They might complain about the other guy's rice bowl, but they will do anything to protect their own rice bowl. The result, of course, is the status quo, and the farm bill. The status quo is a kleptocracy and ever-growing government.

These people all depend on force for their jobs, subsidies, entitlements and handouts. For example, if it weren't for farmers banding together to compel the government to give them taxpayers' money, non-farmers would never hand their money to them.

Unfortunately, government force doesn't work well in the other direction. As political science and economic principles explain, it is nearly impossible for citizens to band together, legally speaking, and get government to stop farmers (or any other organized special-interest group) from using force against them. If they can't stop 2.1 million farmers, they certainly can't stop 3 million unionized teachers, 35 million AARP members, or 48 million Social Security recipients.

Well, that's not completely true. They can stop them, but it would require something that I don't advocate: the use of extra-legal force. It would take only about 100,000 men and women marching on the Capitol with torches, pitchforks, feathers and hot tar to convince members of Congress that it is in their best interest to stop taking people's silverware and giving it farmers, teacher unions, wealthy geezers, and other special interests. If it came to a choice between losing an election and being tarred and feathered, they'd pick losing.

Enough fantasy. Back to reality.

The reality is that the nation isn't going to be brought together by Barack, Hillary, Mitt, Rudy, Mike, John, Fred, or anyone else. When government degenerates into a political spoils system as our Congress has, it is impossible for citizens to trust each other or their government.

An author and published columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com. Mr. Cantoni is also a frequent contributor to Alan Korwin's highly informative Page Nine.

Mr. Korwin is the author of "Gun Laws in America" and many other fine 2nd Amendment and firearms-related publications. Please visit www.gunlaws.com where you can subscribe to an Internet version of Page Nine and order your own copy of his highly educational publications.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It