It's time again for more quotable quotes from our leaders and intellectuals.

Supply sider - “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now… Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” - John F. Kennedy.

Can you say 'Democrats' ? - "We are the only nation in the world with access to known oil deposits on our own land or off our shores that essentially refuses to tap those resources. The main stumbling block is a lack of political consensus" - Linda Chavez.

Money talks, you-know-what walks - "I support a robust system of public financing of elections" - Barack Obama, speaking as he announced he was opting out of public campaign financing.

Apt description - "[Pinning down Obama's policies] is like trying to nail Jello to a wall" - Republican Senator Lindsay Graham.

A flip-flop you can believe in (offer subject to immediate expiration without further notice) - "the [offshore drilling] moratoria should be lifted” - John McCain, reversing his earlier position.

Don't tell us, tell them - "No government can help the destinies of people who insist in putting sectional and class consciousness ahead of general weal" - Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Who knew this guy was so prescient ?- "Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future" - Adolph Hitler.

Only 2 in 5 voters can name the three branches of the federal government - "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think" - Adolph Hitler.

And who is the leading voice of YOUR politics ? - "The country is not as polarized as our politics would suggest" - Barack Obama

Are we sure this guy was the father of the Democratic party ? - "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government" - Thomas Jefferson

Here's why he's the Republican nominee for president, and you're not - "We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies" - John McCain

But he almost lost the working man's vote with this - "I will veto every single beer, um, bill with earmarks" - John McCain

And now for the classics. Yes, they made him head of the DNC - "I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called" - Howard Dean

Classics part II, don't question his patriotism - "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong" - Howard Dean

Classics part III, God only knows - "Now that we're on dog pee, we can have an interesting conversation about that. I do not recommend drinking urine…but if you drink water straight from the river, you have a greater chance of getting an infection than you do if you drink urine" - Howard Dean

The entire liberal media is telling you the FISA bill passed by the House Of Representatives on friday is the end of civil rights, the death of our Constitution, an example of Democrats caving to the lawless Bush administration, etc, etc. They try to drum this stuff into your head constantly, in the hope that you will forget what happened on 9/11, in the hope that you will forget WHY the Bush administration took the national security actions they took following that tragic attack, the worst ever on our homeland. They don't want you to ponder the REAL reasons for Bush's spying, because then it might look like Bush was only attempting to keep America safe from further attack, which is, after all, the job of the President. No, the liberal media wants you to believe Bush just woke up one day and illogically decided it was time to be a dictator and trample on the citizenry, for no reason really, just because Bush is an evil lawless tyrant and that's what evil lawless tyrants do. The liberal media wants you to know evil has a name, and that name is Bush. Also, the liberal media wants you to know that Bush=McCain=Republicans, just so there won't be any mistake. This IS an election year, after all.

But I assume most of you can see through the liberal media's shallow attempts at deception. Most people have the capacity for rational thought. This post is for you. I'll attempt to tell you what the new FISA update is really about.

In spite of the overblown protestations of the liberal media, many Democrats, most terrorist appeasers, and all outright Al Qaeda members, the new FISA bill is not the death of civil rights. There will be oversight of domestic spying with this new bill. It establishes a measure of balance between monitoring suspected terrorists and privacy concerns. It also attempts to establish limits on the president's executive powers. It spells out areas of domestic and international spying that needed to be spelled out.

The biggest sticking point to passage of the bill had been the provision to shield the telecommunications companies from lawsuits following the telcoms post-9/11 cooperation with the government in tracking terrorists. 40 such lawsuits were in the wings. None of the 40 persons or groups that wanted to sue the telecoms had any idea if their phones were monitored or if their rights were infringed. They just wanted to sue on principle. Democrats were hesitant to bargain away those lawsuits. The new FISA bill will shield the telcoms from lawsuits if the telcoms receive certification from the attorney general that the president ordered them to perform wiretaps to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. I like this provision, because it puts the responsibility for wiretaps on the government where it belongs. It is very troublesome to put the responsibility for making decisions about terrorism on private corporations who are torn between helping their country and treading into questionable legal territory that could cost them millions or billions of dollars.

I have some personal experience in this area. Following 9/11, I was a computer programmer/analyst for a bank. The government requested anti-terrorist type information from the bank, which I was tasked with providing them. Some of the requests involved the tracking of certain financial transactions and some involved other information, such as the reporting of all account signers who didn't have Social Security numbers. If any of you think this is improper action by the government, I can also tell you that the government has been tracking your financial information for decades. If you think your banking transactions are private, think again. They aren't. Nowadays, there are even sophisticated methodologies to track any type of unusual financial activity, and even methodolgies to predict financial activity, but that is a discussion for another time.

The point is that I certainly wouldn't have wanted to face a lawsuit for attempting to help my government track terrorist activity a few months after 9/11. The new FISA bill addresses that problem.

Some other provisions in the new FISA bill, according to the linked article, are:

- It requires the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

- The government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it.

- It would allow the government to tap a foreigner's overseas calls without FISA court approval.

- Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

- Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.

- Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.

- Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

- Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

- Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.

Is the new FISA bill perfect ? No.

Did the old FISA and spying procedures need to be updated to reflect the modern technological world and the new type of threat the terrorists present ? Absolutely.

Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles

The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others

Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).

As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).

A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).

Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.

There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress. - Mark Twain

As I was watching our distinguished Senators debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, which has been amended into the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, I was wondering why it is that such a group of educated ladies and gentlemen can disagree so profoundly about such an issue. Even more curious is how the disagreement seems to follow so closely along party lines. The disagreement I'm speaking of is not about whether man-made global warming is real or not. Most of the Senators from both sides of the aisle speaking yesterday seemed to agree it is real, with the exception of a couple prehistoric bone-waving Republican heretics who dared question the SCIENCE OF THE CARBON GODS (amen). No, the disagreement I'm speaking of is the disagreement over the remedies for global warming (pardon me, the CARBON GODS inform me I am to use the term "Climate Change" from now on, not "Global Warming". The operative words are "Climate Change". That way, ANY inclement weather AT ALL can be attributed to global warming, er, climate change. My bad). Not only do our educated Senators disagree over the cap-and-trade program, they also disagree over whether the Climate Change bill is the biggest new government bureaucracy since the New Deal, which will raise everyone's energy prices drastically, destroy our economy, and accomplish very little in the way of curbing CO2 emissions (the Republican position) - or whether the Climate Bill will save us from extinction, cost nothing, and create jobs (the Democratic position). Talk about polar opposites (hey, is that a pun ?).

So, who is right ? The title of this post might provide a hint. You'll have to read the link to get all of the info, because there is too much for me to write out here.

Nobody quite knows how much the current Climate Change bill will cost (which is a reason to vote against it right there), but here are some estimates:

A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]

Most independent studies have calculated the costs to be even higher than those estimates.

The Democrats solution to everything is to create a huge new government bureaucracy, impose onerous regulations and restrictions on business and/or society, increase taxes, and increase government spending. I have come to believe it is the liberal Democratic modus operandi to interfere with capitalism and free markets as much as possible in order to later complain that capitalism and free markets don't work (all evidence to the contrary). It's their self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is intentional. They've done it with health care. They've done it with business, jobs, poverty, education, retirement. They've used it to destroy the middle class. They use their philosophy to get as many Americans as possible dependent on the government, which in turn forces those Americans to vote for Democrats to maintain the free flow from the government teat. It's a clever and insidious strategy, and the bigger our government grows, the more irresistible that strategy becomes. You aren't supposed to notice that such a strategy ends with the death of liberty. I actually heard Barbara Boxer (D-CA) say on the Senate floor yesterday that if the Climate Change Bill she's co-sponsoring drives up the cost of energy, that's okay, because then we can just increase the HEAP entitlement program to help people pay their higher energy bills. That is dastardly, folks.

Nevertheless, the cause of diminishing CO2 emissions (if you believe they must be diminished) may be one case where some measure of government interference is unavoidable, but we must exercise extreme vigilance with the system we impose. The considerations of energy, environment, and economy must all be carefully balanced. The current Congressional majority wants to do SOMETHING about climate change just so they can say they did something, but what they are proposing IS a boondoggle. It's a huge tax and regulatory bureaucratic nightmare that will send the prices of gasoline and electricity soaring at a time we can least afford it. The current bill will probably be voted down, but the issue isn't going away. Regardless of which Democrat wins the presidency in november, Obama or McCain, expect the Climate Change bill to return with a vengeance next year, because both Obama and McCain favor cap-and-trade (Bob Dole, will you please send McCain a nasty e-mail ?). We the people had better keep a close eye on Congress and get involved, or we'll soon be looking back on today as the good old days of low energy prices. I don't think anyone wants that.

Congratulations to Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) for capturing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. He deserves it, since he did get the second most votes among all the Democratic contenders, and also due to his vast governmental, economic, management, leadership, and military experience and knowledge [assuming "vast" means "imaginary"]. During last night's inspirational victory speech, Obama declared, "America, this is your moment". I don't know what that means exactly, but it sounds good, and I guess I should be happy that America's moment coincides with Barack Obama's moment. I'm nearly breathless with anticipation, knowing America will cease to be the third world, poverty ridden, mean-spirited, unfair hellhole we've all had to endure thus far in our country's history. Maybe, just maybe (dare I dream ?), we will all cease to be so bitter and divisive (assuming you buy into that false Obama construct), and we can spend our days dancing and singing in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness [assuming "unity" means "no dissent from liberal doctrine", and "fairness" means "the government decides who can keep their own money and who can't"].

Liberals have been telling me conservatism is dead, because people "expect more from their government". Somehow, those people never recognize that getting "more from their government" only means that the government must take more from them, so they're not really getting anything, except maybe a bureaucracy, a middle man. Those people also never recognize that handing over ever more power to a centralized government is a really, really bad long term plan, because once the government has absolute power over you, that makes you a SLAVE, subject to the government's whim, begging for scraps from the government table. Our founding fathers knew that over 200 years ago, but liberals have forgotten the lesson. They have forgotten the founding lesson of our country. They have forgotten the founding lesson of the founder of their own Democratic party, Thomas Jefferson, but they have the audacity of dopes and call themselves the intelligentsia. I don't get it. On second thought, maybe I do get it, since the word "intelligentsia" is of Russian origin. If conservatism is dead, so is the American spirit.

It's been said the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship, because a good dictator would have absolute power to do good, which would benefit the people. The problem is, what you consider good might not be what I consider good, or even worse, the dictator could turn out to be, gasp, bad. For all you Bush haters out there, remember, when you vote to give the federal government ever more power over your lives, you are ultimately voting to give the Bush types more power too, because you can't predict who our next leaders will be.

You see, in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness, I'm being a divisive fearmonger RIGHT NOW, merely because I have a different idea about what America should be. That's why Barry And Friends want to implement things like The Fairness Doctrine to stop all those nasty conservatives from saying all those divisive anti-liberal things on talk radio. That's why Barry And Friends want to remove the secret ballot from union voting, so they can intimidate workers and impose their pro-union will. The way Barry And Friends achieve unity is by stifling dissent whenever possible.

Here's a line from Obama's victory speech:

"What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize".

This is a classic Obama statement. He's actually demonizing Republicans at the very same time he's saying he won't demonize them. Hopey McChangerson at his best. It's that false Obama construct again, where the opposition's issues are divisive, the oppositions issues are fearmongering. Only Obama's issues are the important ones.

Bull. Tell me another tall tale. Barack, even the church you attended for 20 years demonizes people. The Left is all about demonizing people. I defy anyone to turn on C-SPAN and listen to Congress for even one hour and not hear the Republican party being demonized by the Democrats. One hour. Demonization is the Democrats game plan. It's their number one tactic. The Democrats play off our fears at EVERY turn. They'll try to get you to believe insanely false ideas, like 'Republicans want to impose a theocracy', or 'tax cuts are bad'. The Democrats spend all day pitting one group against the other - poor against rich, black against white, government against business, union against non-union, blue collar against white collar, secularism against religion, women against men, even people against polar bears. They promote the constant drumbeat of class and racial warfare and division, they endlessly play group and identity politics, and then they have the audacity of dopes to think YOU won't notice. Their pretense of unity is laughable. They don't want unity. THEY WANT POWER.

If unity was really the goal, Barack Obama would be a bipartisan politician. He pretends that he is, but that's an artifice, a mirage. His record reveals exactly the opposite. He's a down-the-line liberal on every single issue. Again, I defy anyone to show me differently. Talk is cheap. Actions are what count. If unity is really the goal (not that I'm saying it should be), then John McCain is the one who has the bipartisan history, not Barack Obama. It's not even a close call.

As I'm writing this, Obama's on television in the background. He's speaking to a Jewish lobbyist group, telling them exactly what they want to hear, as he so often does (Iran's a grave threat in this speech), even when it contradicts what he said previously (Iran is a tiny country and little threat). Obama just displayed the audacity of dopes by saying his Iran policy has been "willfully mischaracterized" by his opposition, when all that REALLY happened was, his opposition reacted to the actual words coming from Obama's mouth about Iran. If there is mischaracterization, Obama mischaracterized himself.

Now I hear Obama blaming Bush for the high price of oil. Bloody hell. The Dems are the ones who've insured that we're helpless and dependent on foreign oil with their decades long braindead restrictions on domestic oil producti…..

Oops, there I go being divisive again. Gosh, I'm such a fearmonger. Sorry.

Obama is love. I love Obama.

There's not much coming from the media about the war these days, is there ? How very curious. The reason is, the war is being won. I guess that's not news.

“Back from the front, Gen. David Petraeus called on Congress Thursday to begin considering a drawdown of U.S. troops after five years of war. Violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest levels since 2004, and al-Qaida is a tattered shadow of its former self—key leaders dead, successors weak and recruiting down. ’My sense’ Petraeus said, ‘is I will be able to make a recommendation (in the autumn) for further reductions.’ This is no Saigon-style exit, but a coming victorious end of a long conflict. U.S. forces have pounded al-Qaida into irrelevance. Using highly disciplined Special Forces strikes, advanced intelligence and communications, and local allies in the right places, 155,000 U.S. troops have been crushing a vicious enemy motivated by no rational forces in a war with no precedent. They are winning against all odds, overcoming not just terrorists, but other obstacles such as a lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy and weak-kneed Western intelligentsia whose media toadies trump every military error and harp on every isolated bad deed. Now proven wrong, these same critics retaliate by ignoring what is a very big story. Worldwide terror attacks have fallen off 40% since 2001, according to a study by Canada’s Human Security Report Project, and support for al-Qaida in the Arab world has collapsed. The study found terror attacks had been over-counted because Iraq War atrocities distorted the figures. Security gains elsewhere included even sub-Saharan Africa, where the improvement was called ‘extraordinary.’ Just as the conflict in Iraq is coming to a close, two related terror wars—in Spain and Colombia—are also seeing signs of victory… From the deserts of Iraq to the villages of Spain to the jungles of Colombia, these victories against terrorist groups are all linked. They are the result of using proven tactics, holding together resolutely, cooperating with other nations to share and deliver intelligence, and forming united fronts. When this happens, terrorists cannot flourish. Recent successes show that these wars are winnable.” —Investor’s Business Daily

This is not the Iraq war of 2006, the one that was spinning out of control, the one that prompted Harry Reid and Barack Obama to declare the war lost. We are winning this war, which liberal Democrats said could not be done. They said there was no military solution, but people like General Petraeus proposed a military solution known as the Surge (with John McCain's backing, speaking of judgement), and it has worked. Liberals like Barack Obama said it couldn't ever work (speaking of judgement). The Iraqi military is taking the lead in many areas now, and Iraqis are turning against the extremists.

Now I propose that liberals get up to speed, because the dynamic under which they are operating is obsolete. Liberals have tried to end the war all along, but what does it say about them if they try to end it when the Iraqi government is close to standing on their own, when Al Qaeda is all but eliminated, and when political reconciliation is moving forward ? Yet still, every day on the stump, Obama tells his supporters he'll end the war, and they applaud. I propose that Obama do something new, something patriotic, and tell his supporters the truth, and that as president he will help to WIN THE WAR, a war that is already being won. As Scott McClellan said in his book, it was Bush's goal to remake the Middle East. I always thought that was Bush's goal as well. It was one heck of an ambitious goal, and I didn't think it could be done, which is why I didn't think the Iraq war was a very hot idea. I still think that goal is quite an overreach, but I would never, ever abandon the Iraqis after the fact, after Saddam was gone and the gap hadn't been filled. After the Iraq invasion, it was simply unthinkable and immoral to abandon that country to the extremists. I can think of nothing more irresponsible than that, yet that was the liberal policy all along. It's time for that policy to shift from one of defeat to one of success. If Obama does become president, by the time he's sworn into office, it may be that the only thing he has to do regarding Iraq is to not screw it up, to not reverse all the progress that has been made, to not pull the rug out, to not make the price we paid in blood worth nothing. That is the least we should expect from any American president.

There's been a lot of debate among those on the Right about where Conservatism went wrong (even though it's pretty obvious). I'm going to abdicate my soapbox today in order to print something from Ed Morrissey of hotair.com. In my opinion, Morrissey has captured the essence of the problem with the Republican party, and also the essence of my political philosophy. Without further ado, here's Ed:

May 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
With so many people writing about what ails conservatism, and so much disagreement, the basic tenets of conservatism seem to be overlooked. In attaching an ever-broader policy base to the first principles of conservatism, we have not added to our base but have increased our opposition. In fighting on the flanks, we have ignored the center, and as a result, have lost momentum through poor definition and irresponsible governance.
What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution. Henry David Thoreau famously wrote “That government is best which governs least”, and that encapsulates what has been the overarching philosophy of conservatism as applied to governance. Furthermore, it exists in opposition to and as a counterbalance for the competing philosophy of socialism, which postulates that government improves as it governs more.
These days, however, so-called conservatives in government appear more inclined to act on the latter philosophy than the former. Those running as conservatives from either party vote for ever-increasing federal roles in education, agriculture, the arts, and especially health care and retirement planning, despite the increasing deficits that the federal government has racked up. Entitlement programs will have a catastrophic collapse in the future, and instead of hitting the brakes, conservatives and progressives alike keep hitting the accelerator.
One might think that conservatives would at least recognize the perils of corruption in a bloated and overbearing federal government, distant from the oversight of individuals. Think again. The pork-barrel spending increased when so-called conservatives took power, pushed in no small measure by efforts to woo lobbyists who rely on increasing federal power and spending in order to get paid.
How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence. It’s not to say that there aren’t other issues that should concern the citizenry, but it is a matter of priorities, and the first priority of the “conservatives” who ran DC from 2001-2006 was re-election and spoils, not reducing government to a manageable and affordable level.
Take gay marriage as one example. In relation to the first principle of conservatism, why should this even be on the conservative radar screen, especially as a national issue? Instead of drumbeats for federal constitutional amendments, we should have insisted that government get out of the sacrament-recognition business. Let the churches determine the sacramental value of relationships, and let (state) governments enforce partnership contracts.
With every added issue, conservatives gain allies but also opponents. A narrow focus on reducing government would attract many more people than it repels. Most Americans believe that the federal government spends too much money, is too corrupt, is unaccountable to the citizenry, and creates massive inefficiencies. The first principle of conservative governance addresses all of that, and policies based on that principle would return both responsibilities and monies back to the states and local communities where they belong, so that citizens can more effectively oversee the issues in their own neighborhoods.
Trying to advance a broad agenda of issues that contradict the principle of limited government obviously hasn’t worked. All that produced was a spending spree that further bloated government and left the public with the impression that little difference exists between “conservatives” and “progressives” except in who gets the cash. If we tried actual, real conservatism by focusing on a return to smaller, less intrusive federal governance, the side issues will become more manageable in our communities. It would provide credibility to a movement that by its very nature should demand that government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom and treat its citizens like sovereign adults rather than recalcitrant children unable to make their own decisions.

Thanks, Ed. I couldn't have said it better myself. The principles of liberty will never be served by those advocating an ever bigger and more controlling federal government, regardless of whether they come from the Left or the Right, and regardless of their good or bad intentions. When the federal government has grown so enormous as to consume over $3 trillion each year (and STILL run huge deficits), you know we have run off the rails. It's up to the real Conservatives to rise up and restore sanity before it's too late (and it nearly IS too late), because the Liberals sure aren't going to do it. Liberals are consciously leading us towards Marxism. They will deny that, but all you have to do is look at the effect of their policies. They invariably increase government and involve more and more government involvement in every aspect of our lives. I'd like to steal an anti-Bush slogan here, change the meaning, and implore one and all to Take Back America from the collectivists who are engulfing us.

President Bush has threatened to veto a new G.I. Bill that passed the House and Senate. The Senate version was proposed by Jim Webb (D-VA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). It would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11. Bush and other opponents of the bill, which includes Republican nominee John McCain, argue that with an all-volunteer military, the bill would encourage enlistees to serve only one enlistment period. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new and improved benefits would decrease re-enlistment rates by 16%. Apparent Democratic nominee Barack Obama supports the Webb/Hagel G.I. Bill. Proponents of the bill argue that we owe our veterans the same type of benefits they received following WWII, and that the loss of re-enlistments would be made up by increased numbers of new enlistees seeking the benefits.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times excoriated Bush and McCain in an editorial appearing in it's pages on Memorial Day. The Times editorial board opined:

"[Bush] is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break…So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home… Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put…a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill".

I think I share the opinion of virtually all Americans when I say that our veterans deserve G.I. benefits after serving their country. What the New York Times left out of it's editorial is that the Webb/Hagel G.I. Bill isn't the only G.I. Bill that was proposed. The Times is, of course, doing this intentionally to mislead it's readers and to have the maximum political impact against Bush and McCain, but the Times does it's readers a disservice (as usual), especially when a competing G.I. Bill has been sponsored by McCain himself. In the McCain version of the new G.I. Bill, benefits are improved along with longer periods of military service, and the benefits are transferable to a soldiers spouse and children, an element missing from the Webb Bill (the Times didn't mention transferability either). The Senate Democrats blocked the McCain version of the G.I. bill. Here's a White House statement responding to the NY Times:

[The New York Times is] expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be…[The President] specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children. Secretary Gates has also laid out guidelines requesting transferability as well as “greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force." The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.” Adding, there are many other proposals before the House and Senate and the President “specifically supports” one “proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.”

Under the McCain version of the G.I. Bill, people with longer military service get better G.I. benefits. That sounds reasonable to me, and so does the transferability option. So does the Webb bill provision. I'm not really taking sides here, other than the side of accuracy. I think the correct course is to craft a bill that combines all the necessary elements. There is a legitimate debate here, along with a golden opportunity for a bipartisan compromise, but we don't need the blatant distortion and demagoguery of the New York Times on this issue, nor do we need the unecessary political games that are being played. For once, it would be nice if politics was set aside and our soldiers could be taken care of as they deserve. Instead, our Senators appear to realize all too well that it is an election year, which is why partisan hacks like Harry Reid (D-NV) make statements like this:

This vote [to strike down the McCain bill] is a message to Bush-McCain Republicans that the U.S. Senate will not stand for political games at the expense of our nation's first responders and veterans," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

It's all about political one-upmanship to Dirty Harry. Our soldiers deserve better.

The pollsters and media talking heads tell us the Democrats have a huge advantage in the fall elections, an advantage extending to the 2008 presidential race. I'll up the ante by declaring it to be a 100% certainty that a Democrat will be elected president this year. I guarantee it. Either one of the two liberal Democrats will win (Barack Obama (D-ILL) or Hillary Clinton (D-NYY)), or the Blue Dog Democrat will win (John McCain (R-INO). All the Conservative Republicans have already been eliminated, and it was Republican primary voters who eliminated them (which is a perfect illustration of the confusion within the Republican party these days). McCain the Blue Dog impersonated a Conservative Republican for awhile to get the Republican nomination, but his true nature is slowly leaking out now that he is focusing on winning the general election. McCain has come out in favor of comprehensive immigration reform (a catchphrase for amnesty for illegals), said recently he would consider a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and alluded to the oil companies "obscene profits" (which are about 25% of the profits the government makes on a gallon of gas, which the government does absolutely nothing to earn, speaking of obscene). In the past, McCain has come out against drilling for oil in ANWR, and he also embraces global warming alarmism by endorsing the economically disastrous cap and trade system for carbon dioxide. Here's an excerpt from a january 2008 McCain interview with Weekly Standard's Mike Goldfarb:

Goldfarb: Some people are perplexed by your rhetoric on global warming. Is this one of those ‘no surrender’ issues, or is there room for discussion?

McCain: There’s always room for discussion. But I don’t know how any conservative can not support cap and trade. We did it with acid rain. The Europeans are putting it into effect. It’s a capitalist process that encourages green technologies. If we’re wrong, all we’ve done is adopt green technologies, in an effort to give our kids a greener planet.

As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.

That's a Democrat talking, not a Republican.

In the past, McCain partnered with Russ Feingold (D-WI) to pass campaign finance reform, which restricted political speech. McCain was part of the infamous "Gang of 14" who betrayed his own party on judicial appointments.

As you can see, McCain holds Democratic views on many issues.

The New York Times used to love John McCain for his "maverick" positions against the Republican Party, but now, John McCain is referred to in the Times and throughout liberaldom as a "Bush third term". They want you to believe there is no difference between George W. Bush and John S. McSame, I mean McCain. Of course that is a total lie, like so much of what the liberal media says regarding politics, but hey, if the media didn't lie, Democrats couldn't stay in power. The media runs sort of an equal opportunity program for the politically challenged, logic deficient Dems. It's an issue of fairness. It's what any Marxist worth his salt would do.

Democrats point to McCain's position of 'let's not destroy the Iraqi government by pulling out too soon' as proof that he is a Bush clone. McCain DID vote for the Iraq war, as did the majority of Democrats, and McCain DOES want to see the Iraqi government stand on it's own before we withdraw, unlike the majority of Democrats who wanted to pull out the second the political winds shifted against the war (but please don't question their patriotism, they all HONESTLY reversed positions the second it was politically advantageous to do so), but McCain was HIGHLY CRITICAL OF THE BUSH IRAQ POLICY for four years. McCain was the one who wanted the surge long before there was a surge, so he was hardly a Bush clone. McCain was also right about that, if it matters to anyone (it doesn't to the NY Times). Also, if it matters to anyone, Iraq keeps moving slowly in the right direction (the NY Times doesn't care about that either, and Democrats get downright testy if you mention it).

The other way Democrats try to equate McCain with Bush is because McCain doesn't want to reverse the Bush tax cuts. The Dems don't want you to think about it beyond that. The Dems want you to condemn those Bush "tax cuts for the rich", they want you to focus on that soundbyte, even though those tax cuts lifted the country out of a recession, and even though reversing them in this shaky economic atmosphere would be STUPID, unless, of course, bringing about a full-blown recession is the goal. Then it makes perfect sense. Put me down as being AGAINST implementing the largest federal tax increase in U.S. history at this particular point in time. You don't raise taxes in a recessionary cycle.

McCain has a history of fiscal conservatism, which you can't say about Bush, under whose watch federal spending increased greatly, with only a small percentage of that due to the war. McCain will attempt to reduce federal government spending. In that, he IS Conservative, but when you add all his positions in total, he fits the Blue Dog Democrat mold. The Blue Dogs are fiscally conservative too. Too bad they are an endangered species within their own party, because the Dems could sure use more of that. The majority of Dems lust after every dollar for themselves, because money is power, er, I mean, because they are benevolent and compassionate.

What's really comical here is how Barack Obama is the candidate being presented as the guy who can work across the aisle for bipartisan change, when Obama's record is down-the-line liberal on every single issue. Never has a politician's rhetoric and image been so removed from his actions and record as has Barack Obama's. There is, however, no truth to the rumor that William Ayers (D-WU) will be Obama's VP pick. That is just a rumor, and I don't want any of you to repeat it. I shouldn't even have mentioned it, the thing about former Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers being Obama's friend. I just shouldn't say anything about it, so I won't. Nor should I mention Obama's racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That's just wrong too. Let's just pretend Obama didn't hang out at that church for 20 years. That's the ticket. I'm sorry.

But anyway….

If you want someone who will reach out to the other side, John McCain's your man, not Barack Obama, or Hillary either. I say this though I'm not a McCain fan. The one thing I know for sure is that whoever wins the presidency in the fall, I won't like him/her.

I want to stop talking about Barack Obama so much, I really do, but the man just won't keep his mouth shut, and every time he opens it lately, garbage pours out. I couldn't ignore this. Listen to this stuff he said about John McCain, from the Associated Press:

"Just look at what he said last week. John McCain gave a whole speech about what he'd do to make Washington work, but he didn't even mention the corporate lobbyists who are the main reason it doesn't work," Obama said. "He says he's against earmarks. Well, who does he think is slipping those pork projects into our laws? He says he's against waste. Well, who does he think is promoting it, waste in government? He says he's for opening up government. Well, who does he think is keeping it closed?"

Obama wants to talk about earmarks ? Fine, let's talk about earmarks.

John McCain requested NO earmarks for the fiscal year 2008. ZERO. I don't know how McCain could do any better than that. John McCain has been the biggest anti-earmark guy in Congress for years.

As for "who is slipping those pork projects into our laws", it's politicians like Barack Obama, that's who. Obama requested 100 earmarks for the fiscal year 2008, totalling $300 million. Obama has requests for $3 million for planetarium equipment, $200,000 for a new theater for plays, $8,500,000 for an asian carp barrier, $500,000 for marina improvements, $1,000,000 for a children's museum, $3,000,000 for a park, $4,000,000 for a reading program (don't schools already teach kids to read ? Just asking), $1,000,000 for expansion of an indigenous people's exhibit, and on and on. Here's the complete list. Obama has also requested earmarks for the hospital where Obama's wife works. An administrator at that hospital said Michelle Obama was "worth her weight in gold". No doubt. Mrs. Obama was promoted and her hospital salary tripled about the same time Barack entered the U.S. Senate. That was all entirely coincidental, I'm sure.

Obama wants to talk about corporate lobbyists ? Fine, let's talk about corporate lobbyists.

Obama is making a dustup about the fact that McCain has two people working for his campaign who were corporate lobbyists in the past. They are no longer corporate lobbyists, having resigned those positions to work for McCain's campaign. Let's not forget it was John McCain who championed lobbying reform and campaign finance reform in an attempt to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests. I can't really even believe Barack Obama is attempting this argument against McCain. If McCain was the Obamanator, he'd say 'this is a debate I'm happy to have', because reducing D.C. corruption and special interest influence has been one of McCain's passions. He has a long record showing that.

In addition, OBAMA ALSO HAS LOBBYISTS ON HIS PAYROLL. According to The Hill:

Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents. The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests.

So Obama is doing the same thing he's criticizing McCain for doing by using former corporate lobbyists. Unbelievable. I wonder why that fact didn't make it into the Associated Press story. No, I don't really wonder. I already know why. It's the same reason so many falsehoods are promoted by the mainstream media. They are in the tank for the Democratic party. Or, maybe I'm wrong and the Associated Press just couldn't locate the information. I know it took me a good 20 seconds to find it.
=========
Next up from the Daily Obamanation is this little nugget of Messianic wisdom:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK” - Barack Obama

Well, there's news. I didn't realize we had to ask other countries for permission to drive, eat, and heat our homes. Boy, life sure sounds rosy in Obama's future world, eh ? We'll be immobile, hungry, and cold, begging the UN for food and energy. Great. Sounds sort of Dickensian, like Oliver Twist.

Change You Can Believe In.
=========
On the bright side, Obama has made some real progress on the Iranian foreign policy issue I wrote about the other day. Last week, Obama said Iran was a tiny country that wasn't a big threat to America, and now, only a few short days later, he realizes Iran is a grave threat to America. Congratulations, Mr. Obama. That must be that HOPE you keep talking about. I HOPE you figure out some more stuff real soon. I knew that 'American Foreign Policy For Dummies' book was a good purchase.
=========
I have one other thing to say about Barack Obama today, and it's regarding Obama's whining about the GOP picking on his wife. If he doesn't want his wife's statements to be used politically, he should GET HER OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. IF SHE'S MAKING STUMP SPEECHES FOR HIM, SHE'S FAIR GAME. What is wrong with this guy ? He's starting to act like he's the Thought Police, telling people what they can and can't discuss. And what did he mean when he told the GOP to "be careful" talking about his wife ???? What's he going to do, put the GOP in the Gulag if he becomes president ?