Gingrich 2012 Prez Run Now Plausible

Unless or until he announces at some point that he is not running, I am coming out two years early in support of Newt Gingrich for President in 2012. Here is the first of a series of articles regarding this potential Republican hopeful, a true Conservative who, if he really wants it, is the best person for the job in this man's opinion.

Let me first do what some in this business fail to do: Reveal a potential conflict of interest and remind readers that I served as Newt Gingrich's political chairman before and while he was speaker of the House. I've known him 30 years. But those who follow this column, including Gingrich, have not always enjoyed my views on some of his words or actions.


Newt knows I am an independent thinker, and while I'm not on his level of political genius, I might be a bit more in touch with the daily grind that faces most Americans every day.

So what's my take on this week's disclosure from Newt that he might run for president in 2012? First comes an initial, perhaps superficial reaction: Mitt Romney seems more charismatic, better organized and hungrier for the job than any other potential 2012 candidate. Sarah Palin is attractive, also charismatic and an ambitious potential candidate. Even Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is not well known, has a lot of "curb appeal" as a young candidate on the rise.

But I don't discount a Gingrich run. The presidential campaign of 2008 was about style over content. John McCain won GOP the nomination because Mike Huckabee, who shocked the Republicans by winning in Iowa, was viewed as perhaps too socially conservative. Romney seemed stiffer and "slicker" that year. He was too closely aligned with the unpopular George W. Bush camp. The GOP voters went for the image of "the maverick" in John McCain. It didn't work.

As for the Democrats and ultimately the nation, the elegant, charming and oratorically gifted Barack Obama represented a "change" as much in style as in substance. Oh, yes, there ultimately was plenty of substance in the change Obama brought to the nation as president. It just has not been the kind of change that many independent voters who supported him were expecting.

I have seen Newt Gingrich reinvent -- or perhaps better to say, "evolve" -- many times in his career. First, he was the bright new Republican conservative thinker in an overwhelmingly majority Democratic House in the late 1970s and the 1980s. By the early 1990s, he was the bomb-throwing, take-no-prisoners fighter who helped oust Speaker Jim Wright from power. By the mid-1990s, he was still a "revolutionary," but one with a detailed plan of action and a band of Republican "brothers and sisters" in the House willing to follow his lead to a huge 1994 electoral takeover of that chamber.

Then there were the years in the "wilderness," a term once used to describe Winston Churchill after his having led his nation through World War II, only to be later tossed out of power, at least for a while. Gingrich resigned after much internal GOP fighting. Yes, there is always the "he has baggage" argument. But years have passed, and Americans have short memories and forgiving hearts.

Now we see Newt Gingrich the "elder statesman." When Gingrich speaks, not only do cable news, talk radio and conservative popular news and opinion sites take note, so too does the "media establishment" that once ruled the airwaves and print journalism in America.

No, Gingrich will never match a Palin or Romney in a contest of style or youthful appearance. But in 2012, he will be the same age as Ronald Reagan was when he won the presidency for the first time. In that contest, the dashing John Connally and the elegant George H.W. Bush were viewed as the early frontrunners in the GOP race, along with other younger stars like Howard Baker.

Remember how Reagan moved from being viewed as an elder conservative also-ran to frontrunner status. It was one debate held in New Hampshire where the establishment GOP tried to keep Reagan from speaking. "I paid for this microphone," Reagan blasted as the moderator attempted to have him silenced.

And while I often discount the power of debates, it was the CNN/YouTube debate late in 2007 that catapulted Mike Huckabee toward a win in Iowa. And if you really want to reach back in time, I can name several presidential contests in which the debates turned the tide and the outcome of the election.

I can see Gingrich potentially playing roles like these. He is not an unappealing man. His grey hair and the calm manner in which he analyses issues gives those who view him a sense that there is still around at least this one bright, able -- and stable -- statesman. Do you really think any of the Republican contenders -- to say nothing of Barack Obama -- would want to debate Newt Gingrich?

A Gingrich run is more plausible than many think. Depending on an assortment of factors, it could just work for the Republican Party.

WRITTEN BY: Matt Towery at Human Events with the original article available by clicking on the title of this entry

Republican Crazies Are Complaining About The Handling of Times Square Terrorist

I expected that the crazies would start complaining about the Times Square event. It didn't take them long at all. The idiots claim that providing miranda to a citizen is somehow out of step with Federal law and our legal norms. Of course this has been done since Miranda V. Arizona almost half a century ago. But who cares about the facts? Who cares about facts when you are a Republican and you live in a fantasyland where you can make up your own reality - a reality that you can get gullible American voters to buy into?

John McCain, one of the main complainers, is a U.S. Senator and should know the laws in this Country. This man scares the Hell out of me. I always thought he was somewhat of a whackjob. It's amazing that he almost became President. In fact, McCain would probably be President right now if not for Bush's economic crisis. Even with the unpopularity of Bush and the Republican Party, McCain was headed for victory (according to polling) against Obama prior to the economic collapse in the Fall of 2008. We definitely dodged a bullet.

Joe Lieberman took the crazy a step further by suggesting that Shahzad should have his citizenship taken away in order to eliminate the need for miranda or a trial in the Federal Courts.

From Huffpost:

Lieberman argued that if an act of terrorism was coordinated with a group designated as a terrorist organization, then an American involved with such a group would lose citizenship and the constitutional protections that come with it.

Ummm, excuse me Mr. Lieberman, but does that also include the Right wing Christian Conservatives, the Tea Party radicals, and White Supremacist terror groups that have been embraced by the Republican Party, either tacitly or out in the open? What about the members of Congress who are associated with radical extremists on the right and who stoke fear? I wonder how that would work out.

Tea Party Should Not Be A 'Third' Party

There has been a great deal of angst among the Lefty Lib community regarding the emergence over the past year or so of what has become known as the 'Tea Party' movement. The liberals who now control the Democratic Party should be concerned, because they and their political leaders led by President Barrack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have awoken a sleeping giant.

That sleeping giant is the true Conservative movement that the majority of Americans feel a natural affinity towards. The people who make up real main-stream America. Hard-working, family-rearing, tax-paying, God-fearing, America-loving, law-abiding folks who want government out of their lives. Who recognize that low taxation, modest regulation, secure borders, and the teaching of and support for American exceptionalism are the true path to lasting recovery, not the socialist style policies of the Obama administration.

That sleeping giant has been embodied by the Tea Partiers. The term, based on the 'Boston Tea Party' protesters of Revolutionary War days, evolved from those people at the grass roots levels of the Conservative movement who held and/or attended town hall meetings that sprang up across the nation during 2009 in response to the various government takeovers, bail outs, and spending programs enacted and proposed by Obama and the liberal Democrats.

Since those numerous and emotional town hall events, the Tea Partiers have taken to the internet, the radio waves, and the blogosphere to continue to push a return to basic, traditional American values and away from the government entitlements, social programs, and massive spending undertaken by the Dems.

But a problem has cropped up among some within the Tea Party movement itself. They have become so disenchanted, rightly in many cases, with some recent and current Republican politicians that they have floated the possibility of becoming their own 'third party' in American politics. This new formal 'Tea Party' would be wholly conservative in every way.

There is one major flaw to such an idea. It is a loser.

The only people who would actually benefit from a third 'Tea Party' made up of conservatives would be the Democratic Party and all of it's ultra-liberal politicians, consituencies and benefactors. Such a party would basically amount to a splitting up of the Republican Party, leaving the Dems to dominate organized politics for the forseeable future, and dooming America to their socialist tendencies, the very programs and ideals that the Tea Partiers stand against.

The 'Tea Party', such as it is, should remain exactly what it is - a movement. It should never try to become a third political party, thus damning itself to the destruction of the very causes for which it was established. What it should do, however, is hold Republican politicians at every level - particularly at the state and national levels - to traditional American and Conservative standards and values.

Remaining organized, active, and vocal will ensure that no longer will the Republican Party nominate a Progressive candidate as it's standard bearer, as it has in recent years with both George W. Bush and John McCain. Instead the Republican Party will have as it's out-front leaders those who support less governmental spending and intervention in our lives, lower taxes, a strong military, secure borders, a judiciary that interprets rather than creates laws, and programs and policies aimed at keeping America strong and independent.

Those on the leading edges of the various groups that make up the most vocal sections of the Conservative movement in America must keep the heat on the politicians and the Republican Party as a whole, while at the same time tempering and better channeling the emotions of those who would sabotage the Party and imperil it's future from within. Only by sticking together and remaining strong will we be able to overcome the Liberals, the Progressives, and the Democrats, elect conservative Republican majorities, and begin to roll back the Obama policies, dismantle the Obama programs, and return America to common sense.

John McCain Laughs Off Wave of Threats Towards Members of Congress

McCain completely laughs off the threats made against members of Congress and their children. He says Palin's actions are no big deal. According to him, the incidents that we have seen over the past week represent normal politics in America. He defends Sarah Palin's behavior (and by extension...he is defending similar behavior by others that is clearly aimed at ginning up followers to take action on their own....while the politicians use plausible deniability).

The coded language of Sarah Palin is really of no concern. It's all a part of our imaginations. Stop worrying. Go back to sleep.

(Of course he desperately needs Sarah Palin because she is the only hope for him if he's going to win re-election).

This guy is COMPLETELY senile and creepy to me. Maybe it's just me.

You have to see it to believe it.



Yeah... tell that to Congressman Periello and all the other members of Congress and their families, "targeted" by these fanatics. Laugh in their faces and tell them that it's no big deal. Of course Periello is a part of the real world and disagrees with the giggling idiot from Arizona.

Something Rotten in America

One thing we can conclude from David Letterman's bad jokes about Sarah Palin: He hasn't flown commercial in a while.

Letterman's "slutty flight attendant" remark about Palin was in poor taste, we can all agree. But it was a joke and Letterman is a comedian. The joke probably would have been shrugged off and forgotten -- Palin proved her humorous good sportsmanship on "Saturday Night Live" during the campaign -- if not for Letterman's sexually suggestive "joke" about her daughter.

Everyone knows by now that Letterman made fun of the Palin family's trip to New York last week. He quipped that Palin's daughter got "knocked up" by Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning. Unable to stop his slide into the gutter, he said the hardest part of the visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter.

Ba-da-bad. Alas, the only daughter with Palin was 14-year-old Willow.

Sorry, Dave, not funny. It was a joke according to stand-up formula -- take two disparate news items and combine them in an unexpected way. No one does this better than humor columnist Andy Borowitz, who has the blogosphere in a snit with his column suggesting that Newt Gingrich accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of faking her broken ankle to get sympathy. It was a JOKE!

The flight attendant line is a grown-up joke that one may or may not think is funny -- though my guess is that many of the offended big brothers out there were happy to participate in the Palin-as-sexy-librarian fantasy. Fess up.

In any case, the joke was about an adult voluntarily in the public arena and, therefore, clearly of a different order than suggesting sexual relations between a child and a man. We call that rape. Letterman's sort-of apology fell short of fixing things. He didn't mean the 14-year-old daughter, he said. He meant the 18-year-old.

Sir, may I offer you a shovel? Or, perchance, a backhoe? Letterman was way off base and should apologize sincerely. But, please, may we stop there?

Calls for censorship or worse are far more dangerous to the land of the free than any inappropriate one-liner. John McCain -- ever the chivalrous warrior -- sallied forth with his own disapproving statement Thursday, saying: "They (the Palins) deserve some kind of protection from being the butt of late-night hosts."

They DO? Are we talking vigilantes -- or just good ol' government censorship?

No, the Palins don't deserve protection from late-night hosts. No one does. But children deserve protection from adults who have lost sight of their responsibility to be wardens of the innocent. And parents are the best guardians of their children. Keeping them out of the limelight seems a good starting point. And, no, I'm not suggesting that anyone "asked for it."

The Palin jokes, for lack of a better term, were merely the latest in a string of recent hostile treatments of women -- conservative women in particular. The Playboy magazine Web site listing conservative women whom men would like to have "hate" sex with was beyond the pale. The harsh treatment of poor Miss Runner-Up California when she expressed her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman was simply unfair.

Opinions don't get punished in this country. Period.

But we do have a problem, don't we? Simply put, the Zeitgeist has become mean and nasty, and we're at a loss as to how to fix it. Here's one thought: The Internet -- which, ironically, contributes to the problem -- may be the best solution possible.

Both gift and curse, the Internet has been so revolutionary and its gifts so immense that we've been like inmates in sudden possession of the keys. Instant access to a bullhorn and the world as one's stage has unleashed a monstrous id, that undisciplined, infant part of the human psyche that wants what it wants when it wants. Multiply that by billions and civilization is one harried nanny.

Thus, we have hate-sex Web pages and millions of others that degrade women, sexualize children and leave man- and womankind to their basest instincts. Such is the profoundly messy, sometimes frightening, part of free expression.

On the other hand, we also have the passionate voices of sensible Americans, who won't let a comedian get away with trivializing rape. Which suggests that the best defense against rude comics is not "some kind of protection," but the rallying cry of people who demand more from their society and themselves.

WRITTEN by Kathleen Parker at TownHall.com on June 14th, 2009

An American Mandate for Change

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future. - John F. Kennedy"
The American people went to their respective polling places yesterday and voted, and when they were done the election result was not even close. In a truly historic victory, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was elected to the Presidency. He was elected by a 53%-47% margin over his Republican challenger John McCain, a far greater margin than this writer believed was likely or even possible. In doing so he becomes the first African-American ever elected to the highest office in the land. That may not be too significant for the younger generation raised in a largely racially integrated society. But to those of us who were alive in the 1960's and '70's, the election of a black man to the Presidency is truly remarkable. Forty years after Martin Luther King was assasinated in Memphis, Tennessee, his dream has taken its largest step forward into becoming reality. Could even the great Dr. King have had the foresight to see this happening in America this quickly, if ever at all? In electing him, the American people have shown unequivocally that we have fully matured beyond the racial prejudices and barriers that previously separated us. In a time of Islamofascist terrorism, the American people overcame fears and elected to the Presidency a man with a Muslim-sounding name and at least a familial Islamic past. In a time where Americans are believed to be divided racially, the American people overcame those perceptions and elected to the Presidency a man whose mother was white, and whose father was a black man who abandoned them. The key factor in the Obama victory was the simple but effective theme of his campaign: Change. After 6 years of war, no matter how necessary, Americans were tired of it. They have grown tired of talk about terrorists, Osama bin Laden, Islamofascism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. They have grown weary of a Bush administration that, though keeping America safe since 9/11, has done little to address any substantive issues beyond security here at home. Liberals wanted Bush impeached, but did not have the power to put him through the type of trial to which Bill Clinton subjected himself. In my opinion, last night's vote by the American people was all about Democrats and dissatisfied centrists ceremonially tossing George W. Bush out of the White House. Unfortunately for John McCain, an obviously good and decent man and a true American hero, he was standing in the shoes that Bush was unable by our laws to stand in himself. It likely would not have mattered in the end who was the Republican nominee for President or Vice-President. This race was certainly not decided by a dissatisfaction with a potential President McCain, or even any real problems with a VP Sarah Palin. This race was a referendum on the Bush administration, highlighted by the Obama campaign's primary message in the closing weeks that a McCain victory would signal a '3rd Bush term' and a continuation of its ideals. Hillary Clinton must really be kicking herself this morning. For years she was seen as the next great Democratic hope. She was not only the clear front-runner just a year ago, but she was the only real candidate in the race on the Dem side. Had Barack Obama never emerged, she would be celebrating her own history-making election today as the first female U.S. President. That is how much the people of America wanted a change. In the end, Republicans across the nation were fighting a battle that they had almost no chance of winning. Yesterday, Barack Obama swept to the Presidency thanks to a mandate for the very change that his campaign brilliantly called for, and he brought along a boat load of U.S. Senators and Congresspersons in his considerable wake. America will be a fundamentally different nation over the next few years. Whether that change is for the better or not is yet to be determined. I personally do not hold out the same hope that Obama's followers feel this morning. But one thing is certain, America will change, because it has been mandated by a clear majority of the people. Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama, to Vice-President-elect Joe Biden, their families and campaign staff, and all those who voted for them. When possible and as best we can, we Republicans will support you as our President. We will also oppose you vocally on issues that we feel are key to our nation and our American culture. And as we all move forward from today, may God bless America as He always has in the past.

The Importance of the Electoral College

One of the most important institutions in America is also one of the least understood. I am talking about the Electoral College, the select group of voters who actually determine the winner in Presidential elections such as those taking place today between Barack Obama and John McCain. There are many who believe that the election should be a simple popularity contest, with the candidate who receives the most votes by the general public declared the winner. In their view, if John McCain receives 50,000,001 votes and Obama receives 50,000,000 then McCain is the winner. Of course simple logic should tell you that is a poor way to choose. After all, we all understand that there is fraud in some voting precincts. Would you want a close election stolen by dozens of votes across the country cast by Mick E. Mouse, among others. Also, America is made up of diverse populations and communities. Why should a few states with large urban city populations such as New York and California determine who the President will be, with smaller rural states such as Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee always at the whim of these cities? So this brings up two important questions. First, why have a popular vote at all? Second, who makes up this Electoral College, and how does it work? Let's take the 2nd question first. The Electoral College is a body of delegates who are elected based on rules set up in each of the respective states. Each state receives a number of delegates based on the number of U.S. Senators and Congresspersons in their state, which in turn is based on the state population. So in the end, states delegate allotments are based on their population size. These delegates/electors are supposed to vote based on the popular vote results, thus the importance of your individual vote. If you vote for Obama today, and if he in turn wins the popular vote in Pennsylvania, then he is supposed to get all of Pennsylvania's votes from our state delegates to the Electoral College, no matter their party affiliation. To win the Presidency, a candidate must receive a majority of votes in the Electoral College, which would currently amount to 270 votes. The number of electors is determined by the population figures that come with the official U.S. Census every ten years, so the specific state numbers can change based on population shifts. The actual Electoral College 'election' comes this year on December 15th, when the electors from each state will meet in their respective state capitals to cast their ballots. The system grew out of the original Constitutional Convention itself when our nation was being formed and its system of government being debated. Its basic philosophy is to protect smaller states from becoming dominated by the population centers of certain key 'swing states'. While a number of proposals have come up to change the system over the decades, none has been found to be a worthy successor. The fact is, there was never a move to make our federal election process a purely popular vote, but the current Electoral College system allows for such a vote as a part of the determining factor for who eventually is elected. So when you cast your ballot today, rather than actually voting for John McCain (which you are doing in spirit), your vote is being cast instead for his electors/delegates. While the vast majority of electors keep to the honor of the rules, in 2004 one elector cast a vote for John Edwards, the Dem candidate for VP, as his Presidential choice. In 48 of the states and the District of Columbia there is a 'winner takes it all' system in which the winner of those states' popular votes get all of that states' delegates. Maine and Nebraska have slightly different systems that in the end usually amount to the same type of result as the others. Candidates who receive the most nationwide total popular votes do not necessarily have to win the Electoral College. It has happened three times that the overall popular vote winner has lost the overall election in the Electoral College: 1876, 1888, and most recently in 2000. That 2000 election for President was extremely close. Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush each received over 50 million votes, and in the end Gore's total was above that of Bush by just one half of one percentage point. The voting in the Electoral College was just as close, as could be expected, and in the end would come down to whomever carried the state of Florida and its 25 electoral votes. As the polls closed, Florida's importance was evident already, and some national media outlets declared Gore the Florida winner, and thus the national winner, based purely on 'exit polling'. As the night drew on, however, it became apparent that Bush had actually carried Florida by a solid margin. That is the reason that there was such a fight in Florida, with voting procedures such as 'hanging chads' making the news, and recounts called for in a number of Florida counties. The fight was so close that neither party was giving in, and with Bush leading in most every count the Supreme Court was finally called on to make a decision as to whether to allow the continued fight via recounts in Floria. With the partisan battle already dragging on for over a month, and with the outcome apparently leaning Bush's way to all but the most ardent Democratic Party faithful, the Court ruled that the recount process was over. Bush received the 25 Florida electoral votes, and won the Electoral College by 271-266, and in turn won the Presidency. While some protested and cried foul, the fact is that the Electoral College system had worked perfectly, reflecting the nationwide vote. The Democrats should have been extremely disappointed by such a narrow defeat, turning over the Presidency to the Republicans after having controlled the White House for eight years under Bill Clinton. But no one should have called the Bush Presidency anything other than the legitimate narrow win that it was. The Electoral College protects small states from big cities, ensures an educated overview before the most major transfer of power in our nation, and effects the protection of our federal system as the Founding Fathers intended, securing Democracy for all Americans.

Election Eve

Well, it's finally here: Election Eve. Just one more night of these incessant commercials that end or begin with: "I'm _______ (insert politician name), and I approve this message." The majority of the opinion polls are calling for a Democratic Party victory across the board for the Presidencey, in Congress, and in the U.S. Senate. The major network news stations and the majority of the print media have been gleefully reporting these results to the public. There is no doubt that the prosecution of the Iraq War and the recent plummet in the stock market have hurt the Republicans most. Congress deserves as much blame as President Bush, if not more, but that just doesn't matter. President George W. Bush has been a target since first being elected back in 2000 in the closest American Presidential vote ever, an election that Dems believe to this day was stolen from them by the Supreme Court. They believe that the entire Bush Presidency has been illegitimate, that he would never have beaten Kerry in 2004 if he had not been handed the 2000 victory over Al Gore, who they believe should be completing his 2nd term in the White House. To even imagine the horror of what the last eight years would have been like under a Gore administration is too frightening a concept on which to waste ones time. Suffice it to say that a President Gore probably would have ceded the Middle East to the Islamofascists by now, and the Supreme Court would be liberal for the next two generations. Thank God that 'W' was elected if only because he kept us safe after 9/11, responded with strength to that Middle East crisis, and appointed two tremendous, originalist SCOTUS justices in John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If John McCain does indeed succumb to Obama tomorrow night, the Republican Party needs to seriously get back to the drawing board from the grass roots on up. People like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin among others need to step up solidly on the national stage, and strategists need to begin to fight back with a plan to take back Congress. Should McCain-Palin eek out a victory, expect the left to cry foul, and cry it loud and long. After all, partisan pollsters and pundits have been telling them for a month that they have an easy win on their hands. My bet is that if it is a win for the Dems, it won't be easy or big. This should be a close election. My call is that neither candidate gets more than 51 or 52 percent of the vote, which means that a significant portion of the nation's citizens will not have supported the next person who would be the President. In any event, it's almost over now. One more night. Soon, the commercials will end, the signs will come down, the rhetoric will ease for a time, and we can look forward to Christmas. But beyond that, we can either be looking at a nightmare or an opportunity. As Hillary Clinton sits home wondering what exactly happened to her dream, anything remains possible here on Election Eve.

Live from New York....

On the most recent Saturday Night Live, McCain appeared in the opening skit where he and running mate Sarah Palin (a.k.a. Tina Fey) sell campaign memorabilia on QVC. His appearance gave him the opportunity to poke a little fun at himself.

In less than 5 minutes, McCain and Fey manage to poke a little Saturday night fun at Obama's 30-minute infomercials, Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, the various Joe's of the campaign (Joe the Plumber, Joe Six-Pack and Joe Biden), McCain's proposed vetoes of pork-barrel spending, Palin's potential run for President in 2012, McCain's maverick status and Obama's many celebrity endorsements. Whew...that's a lot of much needed satire in a presidential race that is becoming more tiresome by the minute.

How Would Jesus Vote ?

'What Would Jesus Do?' is a popular saying sometimes shortened to the simple acronym 'WWJD' on bumper stickers. A new play on that might be 'HWJV', or 'How Would Jesus Vote?' Now some might say that it is more than a bit presumptuous for myself or anyone else to try and get inside the head of Jesus Christ and determine who he likely would vote for in Tuesday's U.S. Presidential election. But I definitely do not think that it is a question that should not be at least thought about and explored. Let's look at the issues, and see how one might interpret Christ's view of them. He was not against taxes, telling us directly that we should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's." What Jesus was about on this issue was excessive taxation, and so we find that He understands the necessity of taxes to support public works, but is against over burdening the taxpayer. On the issue of taxation, Barack Obama claims that he will give a 'middle-class' tax cut, but will raise corporate taxes. Of course as has been proven time and time again, corporations who have their taxes raised will not take on this burden, they will pass it along to their customers in the price of the goods they sell. In addition, if their tax burden gets too high, it has often resulted in businesses laying off workers, even shutting down completely. So as we see, Obama's plan might give that middle-class a tax cut on one hand, and effectively take it away or even worsen the situation on the other hand. With John McCain, the 'Bush tax cuts' due to soon expire, tax cuts that stimulated our economy, will have an advocate to keep them going. Those are very real tax cuts that have already been given to the middle-class. If allowed to expire, as Obama wants, they will result in a tax increase to that middle-class. The fact of the matter is that on taxes, in my opinion, Jesus would be squarely in the McCain camp. Let's move on to the important issues of judicial appointments and the key issue of abortion. This one is almost a no-brainer. Obama supports a woman's perceived 'right' to 'choose' to kill her baby as a method of birth control, even up to the point of not providing medical care to a child that survives the abortion procedure. That is not an exaggeration, that is his actual position. John McCain believes that the abortion procedure should only be a last resort for medical reasons, and would appoint justices who would hopefully overturn the 'Roe vs. Wade' decision that has resulted in a holocaust of millions of American babies begin killed over the past 30+ years. The fact is that without the 'Roe' decision, tens of millions of Americans would have lived, and had their own children. Just imagine what some of these young people might have accomplished had their parents chosen simply to allow them the most basic gift of the life that those parents got to live. Let's move on to the recent issue of war and national protection. Clearly, Jesus would have been against war as an action, because by it's very nature it involves the taking of human life. Just as clearly, Obama would like to end the current war actions in the Middle East and 'bring home the troops'. McCain would just as clearly continue the actions of our military in battling Islamofascism. The fact is that Jesus certainly would not have taken his 'turn the other cheek' teaching, one that he directed towards individuals to seek reconciliation rather than retribution, to apply to nations trying to defend the existence of Christianity. If you don't understand that the radical Islamists in the Middle East fully intend to destroy Western civilization, Judaism, Christianity, and every other 'ism' that stand in the way of their world dominance, then you simply are not educated enough on this issue. If the U.S. pulls its troops out of the Middle East before strong, stable democracies are formed there that can stand up for themselves, then the Islamofascists will overrun the region. If you say 'Who cares?' to that, then you are extremely naive. Jesus Christ was far from naive, and would understand that a war to stop Adolf Hitler from dominating the world and spreading racial and religious hatred, a 'Cold War' to stop Soviet socialism from dominating the world and destroying individual freedoms, and a war to stop Islamofascism from dominating the world and destroying His message would need to be fought. Sometimes making the hard decision in life, and having to roll up your sleeves and fight, is the only way to defend freedom and even life itself. War to save lives? That is exactly right. The Church has always supported the idea of a 'Just' war, and so would Christ. He thus would not support us coming home, turning our back on world responsibilities, and allowing the systematic ethnic and religious cleansing, death, regional conflict, and destruction that would result from our leaving the Middle East. Finally, on the issue of health care for all, would Jesus support the government giving away a poor quality of health care at a burdensome cost to everyone in massive tax increases, or would he support continuing to allow the greatest medical and health care system in the history of the planet to remain the way it is? My belief is that he would keep the current system that allows freedom of choice, opportunities and incentives for research into further advances, advanced care like none other in the world, and that still finds a way to give basic care to the most indigent who walk through emergency room doors. He certainly would not support a socialized system such as the all-inclusive government health care of Canada, where citizens literally die while on a waiting list for operations, and where in desperation they cross the borders to partake of the current American health care system. Jesus certainly would be attracted to the idea that Obama is part African-American, and thus would take that social aspect into consideration. Of course, he would also be attracted to Sarah Palin's candidacy as Vice-President on the Republican side, and the fact that she very well could end up as the first female President. My guess is that Jesus would not in the end be swayed by race, sex, religion, ethnicity, or anything other than who would be better at guiding the nation under a Christian ideal. No matter what campaign rhetoric might say, both candidates would support aid to the truly poor and needy in our country. This election's 'Choice' has perhaps been clearer than any in history. You can choose to vote for Obama: raise taxes, spend ourselves further into debt, embolden terror regimes, kill more babies, trash our Constitution. Or you can choose to vote for McCain: controlled taxation, reduced spending, strong military defense, supportive of traditional American values, and perhaps most importantly an administration that will value human life. Many opinion polls, broadcast news shows, entertainers, and liberal print media are trying to sell the public that this election is already over. Republicans, conservatives, traditional Americans, just stay home because you can't win anyway. I say this election is going to shock the liberal elements with its closeness, and two nights from now they will be wondering what could have happened to those big leads that they were being sold. I also say that, if he were alive today and a U.S. citizen, the answer to the acronym 'WHJV' is that Jesus Christ would be voting for John McCain for President.

Joe the American Hero?

Words fail me as I try to understand America's obsession with the real "Joe the plumber." Samuel J. Wurzelbacher is his name, and his instant celebrity astounds me. After his first moments in the spotlight, I honestly thought he would slip away into anonymity once again. However, just over two weeks after the third presidential debate, his media presence continues. Wurzelbacher has become a twisted representation of the average American. I fail to see why everyone feels it necessary to broadcast his thoughts and feelings across the nation. Yes, he is "average." He is a single, working father with his own business and some tax problems, but in my world that does not give him the right to represent the "average Joe" the candidates seem so willing to relate to.
I honestly don't care that this man has endorsed John McCain, who Wurzelbacher calls "a real American." He has also hired a public relations team from Nashville to represent him, especially since McCain has now started referring to him as his role model and "an American hero." Will someone please explain to me how an unlicensed plumber from Toledo, Ohio has become and American hero for simply questioning Obama's tax policies? I just don't get it.

John McCain and Usher vs. Barack Obama and Jay-Z

Who are our Presidential Candidates? Obviously, we have been learning more and more about where they stand on the issues but what about how they their spare time? What do their movie choices reveal about them as a person? Do we forget that our candidates are more than issue-bearing robots? While I have stated in previous blogs that I wish pop culture didn’t play such a big role in the decision for our Presidential Candidate, it is interesting to see Obama and McCain’s personality come out in a recent article. Entertainment Weekly Online wrote about the candidates and their favorite movies, superheroes, and music.
Both candidates cam of as men who know how to have fun! His pick for favorite superhero, Spiderman. However, it was John McCain who I agreed with when he picked the mesmerizing Batman as his choice for beloved superhero. McCain also choose to show his love for music groups such as ABBA and Roy Orbison. This is when I realized that McCain is really really old. I did like the fact that he revealed one of his favorite singers is Usher Raymond. Who wouldn’t love such a fine portrayal of a young man though? Obama shared that a more eclectic group made up his picks while throwing out names such as Sheryl Crow, Frank Sinatra, and the best rapper alive Jay-Z. When it came to preferred television programs, I was surprised neither man picked anything up-to-date. Senator Obama cited the classic program M*A*S*H as a choice while Senator McCain went with “Dexter”. The candidates went on to talk about most recent movie viewed and their favorite portrayal of President. What was not cute was that as a 71-year-old, McCain admitted to crying during the movie Bambie. But then again, I could just be insensitive.
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the article. However, as more and more pieces like this are published, I hope citizens remember to look at the issues and not base their decisions on personality based information. The race for President of the United States is not a high school popularity contest.

Don't Believe the Polls

If there is one thing that history has taught anyone who has bothered to pay attention it is that polling lies when it is taken to be looking at results weeks before a national election. From the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman!" headlines right up until the most recent election, when John Kerry was said to hold an 11 point lead in some polls with just weeks to go, polls lie, and I believe that they do it on purpose. Just as there is a quite obvious liberal news media bias that paints Democratic candidate Barack Obama in bright, positive, shining colors and portrays Republican candidate John McCain in a negative light, so are polling results skewed by the political agendas of the groups behind them. In that 1948 example, Harry Truman was seen trailing Thomas Dewey by anywhere from a 5 to 15 point margin, with Truman actually ending up on top by just over 4 points. After that embarrassing result for pollsters, the powers that be within their organizations trashed old systems and rolled out new ones in attempts to ensure that the same problems did not materialize again. David Moore in his 'The Super Pollsters: How They Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion in America' has stated: "Poorly worded questions and unrepresentative samples continually skew polls results. It is important that the validity of survey results be questioned and poll watchers need to always be attentive to the source of the poll and to the methods used in polling." Despite all of their attempts at refining their polling methods, and in spite of the occasional result that was in the end close to their polling samples, the fact remains that public opinion polling is at best an inexact science, and at worst a propaganda tool. Public opinion polls in this current election cycle have regularly shown Obama to hold anywhere from a 5-10 point lead, with John McCain only taking small, short leads and none of those recently. That is pretty incredible when you consider that virtually every reliable source continues to say that the country is divided evenly down the middle between conservative and liberal ideologies, and that the 'undecideds' are generally a myth in any significant numbers. I have a poll up at my own website here which shows McCain ahead by a 76-18 margin, with 6 percent stating support for an 'other' candidate. Anyone who wants to shill for the McCain campaign could easily see my poll and make the truthful statement: "I have seen some polls that show McCain way ahead of Obama." Sure you have, if you looked at mine, but my poll is in no way scientific, as the majority of folks who pass through the site are expected to be conservatives. The fact is that this election is not going to be decided until the voters go to cast their actual ballots on election day in 2 1/2 weeks. Until then the majority of polls, with liberal agendas behind them, will continue to skew the results towards Obama in an attempt to kill enthusiasm among Republicans. They want to plant the thought in Republican minds that "Hey, McCain can't win anyway, so I'm going to stay home." Nothing could be further from the truth, as George W. Bush's 2004 victory over John Kerry clearly showed. As of today, the Gallup poll shows Obama with a slim 2 point lead, basically nothing in an industry that says it's results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3-4 percent. Rasmussen has Obama up by 4, Zogby by 5. In other words, when factoring in their own error margins, the race could be anywhere from a 9 point Obama lead all the way down to a close McCain victory. I once heard someone say that they didn't need a weather man to tell them it was raining, all they needed to do was stick their head out the window. Likewise, I don't need some agenda-driven polling organization to tell me that this election is going to ultimately be decided by 2 points or less, and that it could go either way. The fact is that you need to get up and go out and vote on election day, and the fact is also that in more instances than not you should not believe the polls.

The Bailout and the Bloodbath

The Down Jones Industrial Average, the most popular and famous benchmark to gauge the strength of the American economy, dived down almost 700 points today. The index, which is based on the scaled average of the stock prices on 30 of the largest and most widely held companies here in America, was celebrating the one-year anniversary of closing at it's all-time record high of 14,164. Today it closed at 8,579. Just last Friday, October 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry. US News & World Report stated "A failure to pass the bill would have been devastating for markets." But you can't just pick on one publication, because there were many individuals and media outlets, and quite obviously the Congress and President Bush, who believed the same thing. So despite calls from myself and many like me that they were bastardizing capitalism, they passed the bailout package and signed it into law to keep us from devastating losses and to save our economy. Oops! Here we are a week later, and the Dow has been devastated by a stock market crash. Today's was the 11th-worst percentage loss in Dow history. The Dow has declined by more than 20% over the past week, something that has traditionally defined a 'crash' when it happens close together like this. None of this is to say that the market would have been fine had Congress never passed the bailout bill. It clearly wouldn't have been. But neither has the bill been the panacea that it's proponents, including George Bush who signed it into law and both presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama who voted for it, sold us on it being. What the bailout accomplished was to relieve financial pressures on fat cats at the taxpayers expense. When the government borrows $700 billion dollars, we all borrow that money, because the government is us. We have to pay that money back, with interest, using our tax dollars. That is not simplistic - it's simply the truth. So now we not only have our stock market crash, those 'devastating losses' that we supposedly needed the bailout to avoid, but we are $700 billion in debt on top of it. And perhaps most importantly, the line to get more bailouts is forming. The hard lessons of capitalism, allowed to play out in their fullest, weed out the bad actors and those who take negligent risk over time. Again, if they are allowed to play out naturally. By bailing out many of these bad actors and fool-hardy risk takers, the government sends the horrible message to "go ahead, do whatever you want, and if you lose, we got your back." For U.S. taxpayers, this was not a bailout silver bullet, or even one necessary piece to a financial recovery puzzle. This bailout was just more bullets fired into a wounded economic carcass that each day gets worse in what we can now rightly call the 'bailout bloodbath.' God help us all if Obama wins the election and Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress. The tax increases and spending increases that they initiate over the next few years will deal a further blow to American capitalism and greatness. And that is no over-exaggeration.

President Sarah Palin

The one major thing that came from last night's debate between Vice-Presidential nominees Joseph Biden (D) and Sarah Palin (R) was the stark contrast between them. I am not talking about any of the obvious differences: male vs. female, old vs. young, liberal vs. conservative. No, the contrast that I am speaking about is the difference between the career insider Biden, who came across as the stereo-typical establishment politician that he is, and the relative newcomer Palin, who is quite obviously a woman of the people. Sarah Palin is exactly what many Americans have been looking for these days: real change. Not the generic, all gravy and no meat 'Change' as espoused by the Obama campaign, but real, true change back towards positivism and true conservatism. The contrast began right in their opening remarks, when Biden thanked the moderator and welcomed Palin, then went right into his usual political rhetoric: the current economic 'crisis' has no blame to lay at the door of Washington, per se, because that would, of course, lay blame with Biden and his fellow career pols. No, the blame lay with "the last eight years" of economic policies: the Bush years. What more should one expect, right? On his next opportunity, he painted his old friend, John McCain, as someone "out of touch", as someone who flip-flopped on the state of the economy in just a two-hour span in recent weeks. Well, what we should expect, and what we actually want, became quite clear when Governor Palin began her comments. After thanking the moderator and the commission, Sarah Palin spoke to our hearts when she recognized that it was her "privilege" to be able to speak to Americans on the issues. She then directly answered the moderators question on what got us into this predicament, appealing to 'Joe Six Pack' and to 'hockey moms' to band together to ensure that this never happens again. Palin went on throughout her presentation to state that she would fight as Vice-President to "do what is right for the American people, put government back on the side of the American people..." What Sarah Palin did last night was remind us of the dynamic woman that she is, that she first showed the American people just over a month ago at the Republican National Convention. She is one of us. She has the same experiences that we do. She is not a Washington fat-cat insider pol with tangled allegiances and numerous hands in her pockets. She is her own woman: a strong wife and mother, and a true political conservative who not only talks that talk, but has also walked that walk. This morning, in the aftermath of the debate, I was listening to a conversation on a news media outlet that is a strong supporter of Barrack Obama. The talking heads had one prescient point to make that I found very revealing. The woman speaking said that one thing Palin has ensured, no matter who wins this year, is that she will be a major player four years from now, someone who will pose a legitimate threat to the Democratic Party. She will either be an incumbent VP with four years of national governmental experience under her belt, or she will be a major contender for the Republican Presidential nomination. Personally, I fear an Obama presidency for the long-term damage that it would likely cause to our federal and state judiciaries, and for the implications to our longterm economy thanks to his likely tax policies. But the one thing that would come from such a scenario would definitely include a gathering storm of conservatism, and no one would be more poised to lead that comeback than Sarah Palin. She will be VP for four years, or a crusading Governor with a growing resume and following. Either way, she will only be a stronger candidate, this time not for the 2nd slot (barring a McCain win and his health and desire staying solid), but for the top spot. There are three words that conservatives can take heart in, and that liberals need to fear, and those three words only grow closer and closer to becoming reality after performances like the one she put on in last night's debate: President Sarah Palin.

Voting for Barrack

There surely are reasons to vote for Barrack Obama for President of the United States of America. Perhaps you believe that he really will do the things that his website says he will in the areas of civil rights, the economy, education, the military, energy, health care, homeland security, technology and other issues. But do you really know exactly what those policies are? Do you know or care about the details? Do you know how Senator Obama plans to pay for these programs? Are the answers to these questions even of any importance to you, or are you simply looking for "Change" in the vague, ideological way that the campaign hopes you will? The fact of the matter is that you should be looking into the highlights of Obama's campaign. They are available for anyone who can read this, because they are available right here on the internet by doing a simple Google search and visiting his campaign website. Beyond that, you should look past the rhetoric in speeches and at the website, and get the details on what the specific programs will be, and how they will be paid for, and how the programs and the financing will directly affect you and your family. If after doing all that, you still believe that Barrack Obama is the best choice, then you indeed should vote for him. But there surely are reasons that you should not use to vote for Barrack Obama. One of these would be that he is a black man. Someone that I work with, of the same race as Obama, was pining after him one day, and I asked why they were supporting him. Why in particular? What policies or programs that he was putting forth did they support? Their response: "Just once in my life before I die...just once..." and they walked away not leaving me the chance to ask "Just once...what?" The answer, of course, was obvious. They are hoping to 'just once' see a black person elected to the Presidency. Now, is that so bad? Is it bad to want someone from your own racial, ethnic, religious, sexual persuasion to rise to the highest office in the land? Not a bit, in fact. However, what is wrong is to want that above all other considerations. I personally have always said, and I mean it, that I would vote for anyone for President, for Mayor, for Governor, for the Senate, for whatever office, as long as that person supported programs and policies that reflected my views and would help me and my family. I wouldn't care if that person were black, yellow, red, blue, male, female. I wouldn't care if that person were 25 years old, 45 years, 65 years, 85 years old if that person supported those policies and programs. Voting for Barrack? Go right ahead. But do it because of what he will do for you and your family, not because of the color of his skin, or some vague campaign slogan of "Change." Look into the issues as supported by both candidates, the things that they support and the details of how they would implement those, and how this all would affect you and yours. Then pull whatever lever you like with confidence in your own choice as directed by your own research, not directed by TV commercials, or Oprah Winfrey, or The View, or Barbra Streisand. If his policies and programs are right for you, vote for Barrack. If not, then no matter what your race, you need to look closer at John McCain for President.

Gianna Jessen Survived Modern Holocaust

Gianna Jessen is one of the few survivors of a holocaust that has raged in a war that has been waged across our country for more than 3 1/2 decades, and that continues to be waged around the world every single day. A holocaust that has claimed over a billion human beings worldwide since 1980 alone, more than three times the number killed in any 'conventional' war. Gianna Jessen, you see, is a survivor of the immoral Abortion Wars. She is not a mother who had complications during an abortion and survived. No, Gianna Jessen is an aborted baby! One who survived, lived, and grew despite all prognostications to the contrary. Her mother was 17 years old when she found out that she was pregnant and decided to have a saline abortion. In this abortion procedure, which is now only rarely practiced, a needle is inserted into the abdomen to remove amniotic fluid. A strong salt solution is then injected, poisoning the baby and badly burning its lungs and skin, and resulting in a birth within 24 hours. Gianna was burned in the womb for over 18 hours, but somehow survived, albeit at around 2 pounds of weight, and was born in an L.A. abortion clinic. Doctors gave her little chance of living. She beat the odds, but was born with Cerebral Palsey and was still not accepted by her mother, being put into foster care. She was mercifully rescued through the foster system, eventually being raised by a loving adoptive mother. Gianna has what she likes to call the "blessing of Cerebral Palsey", but she has never quit on herself. Instead, she learned to walk (with a limp) and has even run marathons. She has also recognized that her life was a gift from God, and she is a devout Christian singer, speaker, and writer. Planned Parenthood has been called the 'deadliest abortion institution in America', and their statistical wing is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, whose own numbers state that 46 million babies on average are killed by abortions each year. Like Gianna Jessen, millions and millions of Americans are attacked in the womb each year and lose their lives before they have even been allowed to begin enjoying them. Some are killed due to arguable necessity: it's either them or their mom's life that will be lost, or both, so a difficult choice is made. But the vast majority of these are simply out of convenience. The child was unplanned, and the easiest thing from the parents perspective is to kill the baby, usually in the privacy of an abortion clinic, often without the father ever knowing. No complications, no witnesses. Fee and clear. The only problem is, it's rarely that free and clear. Abortion not only kills the baby, it scars the mother. It is long past time that we stopped accepting the scourge of this holocaust here in America. We are supposed to be a nation founded on Christian ethics and morals, and a leader in the world, not a follower. We are not supposed to care what the rest of an irresponsible world prefers, we are supposed to do what is right. Perhaps the strongest reason to vote for John McCain in November is that he and his VP partner Sarah Palin will ensure that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) appointees will respect our Constitution, and not read into it 'Rights' that were never enumerated or intended, such as a so-called 'right' to abortions. Killing another person is called murder or homicide. You can dress it up anyway you want, put any scientific label on it, but that doesn't change what it is. You can put lipstick on a pig...oh, never mind that one. Stand up for what is right, in both your personal life and in what you express to others publicly. As importantly, stand up and be counted with your vote. Visit the creator of the above picture, milehimama.blogspot.com, for more information. Click into the title of this story to view a video by Gianna Jessen, and continue to check the left-side of my website for a running "abortion ticker" which shows how many babies have been killed since the start of the Iraq War.

Bell Tolling for Jersey Residents

The results of electing a Democrat to a major executive office, especially at the state and federal levels as the Governor or President, can be seen no more clearly than what is happening in the state of New Jersey. The residents of the Garden State elected the bearded hard-core liberal Jon Corzine as their Governor back in 2005 in a virtual landslide. Corzine won by a 53-43 margin over Republican candidate Doug Forrester. This was expected, as New Jersey is generally considered to be one of the strongest Democratic Party states in the nation. That's fine, the residents there can vote for whomever they wish. Problem is, they stick with the Democratic Party over and over and over, the Dems continue to shaft them with tax and toll increases while lessening the actual services delivered, the voters then scream and holler and wring their hands...and then they go back out the next election and vote for more Democrats! It's always amazing to me when people continue to do things that hurt them over and over again. Now comes the news that the toll bridges connecting Philadelphia and South Jersey are going up by a full dollar beginning today. Who will be hurt the most by this? New Jersey residents, who use the bridges far more than their Philly counter-parts. Jersey residents come across into Philly to work every day. They come across to attend sporting and cultural events at places like Lincoln Financial Field, Citizens Bank Park, the Wachovia Center, etc. The toll increase is a de facto tax on New Jersey residents, yet another by the Democrats in charge there. Jersey residents seem to be infatuated with Dems like Corzine who spread their own personal wealth around to get elected (Corzine has spent tens of millions from his own vast personal wealth to overwhelm his political opponents, in effect buying his elections) while hurting the constituents' pocketbooks. During just his first six months in the Governor's office, Corzine raised New Jersey residents taxes by $2 billion dollars. He forced into law a measure to get mandatory health care to Jersey residents, but did so without specifics. His measures are expected to cost at least $1 billion dollars. Where do Jersey residents think the money is going to come from to pay for this program? Corzine shoved a full 1% state sales tax increase down the residents throats, raising the rate from 6% to 7% by shutting down the state government in the summer of 2006. While 1/2 of the tax goes to the state budget directly, further bloating the size of their government that will need repeated tax increases to support, the other half went to 'property tax relief' in the form of checks mailed out to residents. The fact is, the folks who received the checks paid it out of their own pockets. The vast majority of New Jersey sales are to New Jersey residents, and every single purchase that they now make inside their state costs more, funds a bigger government, and will far-oustrip the brief happiness that getting one check in the mail created. Everything they pay for every day costs more. But hey, they got a check last year, right? Fact is, they will continue to pay for that check every single day, and it is only the beginning. Corzine proposed an 800% toll increase earlier this year, and when the public nearly revolted he sunk into the background, now quietly supporting a plan in the state legislature to double tolls in the coming years. New Jersey residents have a chance to begin to make a change in November, when they can vote for Republican Dick Zimmer in the U.S. Senate race over more of the Democratic taxation in the person of Frank Lautenberg. History would suggest that Zimmer has little chance, and that Lautenberg will win with about 50% of the vote or so. New Jersey residents will then assure that there will be at least six more years of Democratic influence over their state, six more years of liberal policies that will severely hurt their households. They will probably vote for Barrack Obama for President as well, and his policies will raise their taxes even more from the federal level. They will then complain yet again. But they never seem to complain when it most matters - at the ballot box. The 'Retirement Living Information Center' recommends good places for folks to retire based on tax policies in that state. Their recommendations can also explain the reasoning that businesses normally use when deciding where to locate. Their website instructs folks that: "If all other things are equal, a state with a lower burden is a more attractive place to retire than a state with a higher one. To get a true sense of which state is less expensive, you need to look at state and local tax burdens. Only then do the low tax states stand out...New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts (as the highest taxation state)." Which state is at the bottom, the best state for residents, the one that taxes the least? Alaska, home state of Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican Veep nominee. John McCain's home of Arizona is in the bottom ten, another great state for residents to keep their own hard-earned money. The bridge tolls are going up, taxes are up, services show no improvement for regular folks, Jersey residents are once again digging deeper into their pockets on a daily basis, but they continue to do nothing about it. For whom does the bell toll? It clearly tolls for the residents of the state of New Jersey.

Real American Hero: John McCain

There is no way on God's green Earth that I am going to try to compare my life and it's trials to that of John McCain and the trials and sacrifices that he endured in Vietnam. But I have some small appreciation for what it is like to have to overcome difficulties thrown at you by both life and your own bad decisions and attitudes, including some similar to what John McCain has had to overcome. Last night at the Republican National Convention, a real American hero stepped to the podium to humbly and deservedly accept his Party's nomination to be it's candidate for the office of President of the United States. And in doing so, John McCain spoke as an everyman whose heroism was not always completely altruistic. He said that on the day he was shot down over North Vietnam, and subsequently became a prisoner of war, he prepared in the Gulf of Tonkin for that mission "for my own pleasure; my own pride. I didn’t think there was a cause more important than me." At that point in his life, McCain was a 31-year old who had graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy nearly a decade earlier, whose father and grandfather had each achieved the status of four-star Admiral in the Navy, and who had already cemented a reputation as an independent-thinking maverick who admitted that he thought the "civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn't have the least notion of what it took to win the war." McCain's pride extended into his personal life, where he had the reputation in his 20's as a partying man, even after marrying a Philly model named Carol Shepp, adopting her two small children, and having another with her. 1967 would prove a turning point in McCain's life. In late July, he barely survived a disastrous and deadly fire on board the air craft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal in which he was severely injured trying to rescue a fellow pilot. he would recover, and three months later, on October 26th, 1967 he took off for his 23rd bombing mission over Hanoi. This one would not end as successfully as had the previous 22 missions. McCain's plane was shot down, and he parachuted directly into a mob that beat him and took him captive, beginning a 6-year period as a POW served at the notorious 'Hanoi Hilton'. He was close to death a number of times, surviving at times only thanks to the efforts of his fellow captives and the grace of God. When it was discovered that his father was the head of U.S. Naval operations, his North Vietnamese captors offered to release him, but McCain realized that this was only as a propaganda ploy to demoralize his fellow prisoners and gain points with the American media. The United States military had developed among it's members a tradition of 'first-in, first-out' regarding POW's, and McCain was not about to go home ahead of many others who had been held captive longer than himself. It would not be until 1973 that McCain would finally be released, and he returned home a physically beaten and emotionally drained man. But he was now also one who had gained an overwhelming love and respect for his country during his captivity, finally beginning to appreciate the things that his country represented and offered, things that he had taken for granted during his younger days of freedom. On his return home, he was unable to fully integrate back into his family, and embarked on a series of extra-marital affairs that drove he and Carol, who had herself been seriously injured in an auto accident during his captivity, apart from one another. Professionally, McCain fought his way back to full flight status, and eventually became the Navy's liason to the U.S. Senate, which he credits as beginning his life in politics. In 1979 he met his future and current wife, Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Arizona, and the two fell in love. McCain then finally sought a formal divorce from Carol, and after a settlement granting same the two remained on good terms, allowing John and Cindy to marry in May of 1980. McCain retired from the Navy in 1981 and decided to run for Congress, winning election and becoming what has been described as a 'foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution' of the 1980's, bringing conservative ideals and patriotism back into vogue. In 1986, McCain ran for a Senate seat in his adopted state and his wife's lifelong home of Arizone, winning and going on to serve his state right up until today. During his 2 1/2 decades in politics, John and Cindy McCain had three chidren together and adopted a fourth. During his relationship with Cindy and his post-Navy career, he fully overcame the selfish desires and habits of his youth. He fully healed the relationship with the children of his first marriage as well, to the point where his entire family, including all of his children, is now integrated and close. But in politics, McCain has retained the maverick reputation of his youth. He has frequently battled those in his own party over serious issues, and his record is far more bipartisan than many other conservatives or liberals on either side of the aisle. McCain continued this independent spirit with the selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, a woman whose own maverick and independent spirit and political reputation matches McCain's, and who is far more attractive to the Republican Party base as a woman even more conservative than McCain. A military veteran who sacrificed his body for his country. A political servant who battled through two decades in the House and Senate building consensus while remaining largely true to his conservative roots. A man who grew and learned as a human being, overcame personal difficulties sometimes of his own making, and emerged as a staunch family values man. A maverick who bucked his own party at times, and who had the courage to nominate the first woman to the top ticket of the Republican Party. John McCain wrapped up his emotional acceptance speech by saying: "I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me." John McCain was not my first choice back in primary season to lead my Party, but there is no doubt now that I am fully prepared to happily and proudly fight with and for this real American hero. Just as importantly, I am prepared to give him my vote to become the next President of the United States of America.

Grannie Hits a Granny

Soon-to-be grandmom Sarah Palin stepped to the podium last night at the Republican National Convention as Presidential nominee John McCain's prospective running mate. There was much on the line as the brunette beauty waved off a lengthy standing ovation that very much had the feel of a group protecting a member of it's own family. The chills were palpable as the crowd's applause and cheers continued on and on, and the strength and length of the crowd reaction to her appearance was obviously as much in support of the candidate having come under vicious, personal, liberal media attacks since being announced as for her actual candidacy. It is fairly obvious that the vast majority of the conservative wing of the Party is ecstatic about the pick of Sarah Palin as the Veep nominee due to her character and her positions on the key issues. It is just as obvious that the attacks on her and her family have touched that 'don't talk bout my _____ like that' nerve (fill in the blank with 'mother', 'sister', 'daughter', 'girlfriend', 'wife'...whichever most applies to you) with many, including yours truly. But then Palin began to speak, and proved over the course of the next 36 1/2 minutes that she is plenty tough enough to stand up for herself, to stand in the box and face the hardball's thrown at her from the other side and, as local radio talk show host Michael Smerconish said afterwards "hit a grand slam". The grannie hit a granny, and a new Republican political superstar was born. She began by accepting the nomination and acknowledging the tough campaign to come: "I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country." Her eldest son, Track Palin, will deploy to Iraq on September 11th of all dates, and she related to all the troops and their families: "I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way." She answered the critics of her family life being too much to handle, what with being a new mom of a special-needs child and with her 17-year old daughter Bristol Palin being 5-months pregnant: "From the inside, no family ever seems typical. That's how it is with us. Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys. Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge." She beamed over her husband Todd: "We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy." Her parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, were in attendance and she praised them for teaching her "..one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity." If she didn't win over the Dems' former Hillary Clinton supporting women with that statement, then they don't have the courage of their convictions. She answered the critics who say that she was just the Mayor of some small town: "I grew up with those people. They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town." Did you notice the subtle slap at Michelle Obama there, who claimed that she was only now proud of her country for the first time in her adult lifetime. Sarah's people are "always proud of America." What a tremendous contrast. She laughed off talk that she was just some 'soccer mom' or 'hockey mom' with a joke: "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." Then Palin took the liberal media deep: "Now, here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country." She spoke of today's political partisanship: "No one expects us to agree on everything. But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and a servant's heart. I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States." She talked of how she took on the establishment in Alaska, winning the Governor's office, and then set about making reforms such as selling the Governor's private jet on EBay and getting rid of the office's personal chef. She cut taxes, reduced spending, and left her state with a budget surplus. She showed a grasp of foreign affairs and important issues such as energy and terrorism by relating to Mexico, Russia, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, al Qaeda, and Iraq among others. She was tough politically, taking a swipe at her opponents while pointing out the heroism of her running mate: "...though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain." And then she took one final comparative swing at Obama: "For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds." During this granny's grand-slam speech, she stated that the reason pols should go to Washington is "to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it." After last night, no one doubts that John McCain and Sarah Palin intend to do just that beginning in January of 2009.