Friday, February 29, 2008

New York Times -- A sad example of a newspaper

The New York Times, not satisfied with its huge failure to "unendorse" John McCain through its totally unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misdeed and lobbyist coddling last week tried once again yesterday to disparage and sabotage McCain's run for the presidency by asserting that because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural citizen of the U.S. and therefore not illegible under the Constitution to run for that office. One might think that it simply time for the Times to "retract" its January "endorsement" of McCain as the only acceptable Republican presidential candidate, but apparently it would sell more papers and create more havoc with the much hated Republican Party if the Times simply "erased" the party's nominee. The Times ombudsman said last week's so-called news story should never have been run. One wonders about yesterday's. For the facts and a good response see Jack Kelly's article:

Bill Buckley, Jr. -- Passing of an Articuale Conservative Warrior

The passing of Bill Buckley, Jr. cannot go uncommented by the Objective Conservative. Buckley was a brilliant conservative warrior at a time when conservatism wasn't in vogue. Yet his influence grew geometrically as did the respect for his eloquently delivered message. He will be missed, but hopefully his message and dedication to it and his country will continue to inspire conservatives for decades to come as his relevance, no doubt, becomes even more fully appreciated.

Some good columns about Buckley:

Rich Lowry: Buckley's Life a Success:
George Will: A Life Athwart History:
Mona Charen: Farewell to a Great Man:

Thursday, February 28, 2008

The Border Fence -- Pie in the sky expectations

In case you haven't seen the article about the "delay" of the border fence, you should check it out: The gist of it is that the fence that congress and the president promise us isn't anywhere near reality. In fact, it looks to the Objective Conservative that reality in closing the southern border is at least a decade away by the time the government and industry agree on something that works and by the time the government condemns the land of property owners along the border that are fighting eminent domain. It's hard not to be cynical when one hears the political rhetoric and compares it with the reality of current performance and realistic expectations. The sad part about the process is that it will continue to allow millions of illegals and perhaps thousands of terrorists to enter our country with little true deterrent over the next decade.

Global Warming, Truth or Swindle

It's been a while since we've discussed the global warming "issue", but the Objective Conservative points today to one of its favorite columnists, Thomas Sowell, and his article about the upcoming global warming conference in New York, which as he indicates, most journalists will choose not to cover..... Check it out:

Congress at Work -- Submitted by the Cue

The Objective Conservative is please to publish this diatribe from a new contributor--The Cue.
If you have an interest in sharing your conservative viewpoint, address your articles and/or opinions to:

"The much maligned Congress in Washington is finally doing something important. They’re now going to put a stop to lies. You know, like the kind that Roger Clemens has allegedly told? The kind that could potentially cripple or endanger our country and therefore the rest of the world? The kind of lies that could make us the laughing stock of our enemies? You know, those kinds of lies. But we can all relax now, because Congress has us covered.

It’s certainly gratifying to know that they are no longer wasting their time on issues like illegal immigration, amnesty, the easily-resolved energy crisis, the global warming lies, the universal-health-care bankruptcy program (aka “one easy step to bankrupting a nation” & its brother, “the destruction of the best health care system in the world”), the pending Social Security brick wall, Medicare, or other similar programs that they were pursuing so diligently and aggressively until this last emergency showed up.

We just HAVE to make sure they get a raise!! They are SO much more deserving of it now!!!"

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Guns, Nebraska's Pseudo-Republican State Senator and the Liberal Media -- Editor

As our friends in the Nebraska legislature and at the U.S. House and Senate continue their daily efforts to fritter away and restrict our rights, guns are once again the target of the liberals and the news media. Example: In Nebraska, liberal, so-called Republican state senator Brad Ashford has taken a bill that started out with the intent of requiring gun locks and the reporting of stolen guns and gutted it in favor of a bill that will create a commission to report to the legislature every two years on which guns should be outlawed for sale or resale in the state. At the national level the efforts by the Interior Department to allow citizens to carry arms in National Parks is now the subject of the liberal medias' efforts to continue to restrict gun owners' rights.
To read pseudo-Republican Ashford's bill go to: and enter LB 958 or:
To read the latest liberal diatribe by the always conservative New York Times, go to:
And to read a great response to the New York Times, check out John Stossel's article, Guns Save Lives at:

Just one final thought from your editor; this nation was built on the notion of personal responsibility. Passing laws to restrict individual rights doesn't create personal responsibility but rather restricts one's freedom. Passing laws to restrict gun ownership only restricts the rights of already responsible citizens not the actions of criminals.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Republicans and Ethics -- Still don't get it

Just another reason why Republicans continue to be their own worst enemy. Let's clean our house first and then maybe we'll have the moral high ground to go after theirs. Until we do, we will be the minority party....

Renzi Vows to Stay in House
From Capitol Briefing -- Ben Pershing
"Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi (R) said late Monday that he would not resign from the House, despite being indicted last week by a federal grand jury in Tucson on 35 counts of money laundering, wire fraud, extortion and other charges related to a land-swap scheme and his alleged embezzlement of money from his own company to fund his first House campaign.
"I will not resign and take on the cloak of guilt because I am innocent. My legal team of Reid Weingarten and Kelly Kramer will handle these legal issues while I continue to serve my constituents," Renzi said in a statement, referring to the two attorneys handling his defense.

After news of Renzi's indictment broke Friday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, "I strongly urge Rep. Renzi to seriously consider whether he can continue to effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances." The GOP leader also said he wants to meet with Renzi "at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss this situation."

Renzi announced last year that he would not run for reelection in 2008, and a race is already underway to replace him."

Voucher Work -- Ask Senator Obama?

The Heritage Foundation has an interest report and response to Senator Obama's apparent openness to consider school vouchers. An interesting read that makes the case why the senator should be less skeptical. See:

The Slipper Slope of Government vs Individual Rights

Our contributor PJM earlier today authored his take on the Nebraska smoking ban, inferring the slippery slope of lost individual rights. One of our friends forwarded the below article that again points out the danger our country faces as more and more of the actions of its citizens become fodder for the scrutiny of government. Again, something to think about.

Artist hit for refusal on beliefs
Article published Feb 25, 2008
By Pete Vere -

An evangelical Christian photographer was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after she declined for religious reasons to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. When Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, N.M., declined in September 2006 an e-mail request from a lesbian couple to photograph their ceremony, one of the lesbians responded by lodging a human rights complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, the state agency charged with enforcing state anti-discrimination laws and sending cases to the commission to be adjudicated.

Vanessa Willock sought an injunction to prohibit Mrs. Huguenin and her business, Elane Photography, from declining any future request to photograph a same-sex ceremony. The agency agreed to hear Miss Willock's complaint, the latest case brought before tribunals in the U.S. and Canada that free-speech advocates say threaten expression across North America.

Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, a "legal ministry" that is representing the Huguenins and defends religious freedom and traditional values, said that "Elane Photography is basically a husband-and-wife small, little commercial photography business" run by "devout Christians who have a variety of things they don't want to take pictures of."

Photography also is a form of artistic expression, Mr. Lorence said, and the First Amendment protects artists like Mrs. Huguenin from being compelled by the state to engage in expression that violates their religious convictions.

The First Amendment "is pretty clear that Christians should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs," Mr. Lorence said.

Carrie Moritomo, a public-information officer with the New Mexico Office of Workforce Solutions, would not say whether she considered the case a violation of the Huguenins' religious freedom.

She would say only that the Human Rights Bureau is a neutral agency created to enforce the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

"The bureau accepts and investigates claims of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, age, physical and mental handicap, serious medical condition, disability, spousal affiliation, sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation," she said.

Thomas Sowell on the New York Times

Thomas Sowell has a great article on the credibility of the New York Times. Like the article from the Left Coast Report noted by the Objective Conservative earlier today, it says even the ombudsman for the Times said the story should not have been published. Whether its the New York Times or the Omaha World-Herald, never believe that the motives for their actions are strictly objective and ethical...... See the article:

Event Announcement -- Ward Connerly

This Thursday, February 28, civil rights leader Ward Connerly will speak at UNO. Mr. Connerly has led the fight to remove race and gender preferences from state governments. His efforts have led to the elimination of affirmative action in the states of California, Washington, and Michigan. His organization (American Civil Rights Institute) will be working with Nebraska this year.

The speech will take place in the Milo Bail Student Center Dodge Room (3rd Floor). A question and answer period will follow. Everyone is welcome.

This is not an event to miss. Many media outlets will be in attendance, and there will definitely be protesters. If you have any questions, please contact Dayton Headlee.

You can bet that the Objective Conservative will have more to say on this issue soon!

New York Times -- Liability in the McCain Article?

From the "Left Coast Report" we read the following regarding the New York Times and their recent allegations regarding Senator McCain. We can only hope Ms. Iseman sues.

New York Times in Legal Hot Water?
It looks as though, in its recent piece on John McCain, The New York Times may have breached more than just journalistic ethics.
The New York Times v. Sullivan is a landmark case that initiated a series of Supreme Court decisions. As a result of the legal precedents that followed, it ultimately became much more difficult for public figures (as opposed to private ones) to sue a newspaper for defamation.
The second paragraph of the Times piece stated: “Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his [McCain’s] top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.”
If the sexual innuendo embodied in the article is indeed false, McCain would have a difficult time bringing a lawsuit because of his public figure status.
Not so when it comes to the woman in the story. Telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman is arguably a private figure whose reputation is at stake in the Times’ tabloid-tongued tale.
The sexually tinged allegations in the piece are based solely on two anonymous sources, both of whom are former campaign aides of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
After the McCain article ran, Clark Hoyt, Ombudsman of The New York Times, determined that the newspaper should not have published the story because it did not properly establish the alleged sexual relationship between McCain and Iseman.
According to Hoyt, most of the readers of the Times saw the report as a story about illicit sex.
If a lawsuit does ensue, Hoyt may find out that, on a list of witnesses for the plaintiff, he’s numero uno.

The Anti-Smoking Law -- PJM

Mike Skinner and Robert Foster make a good case in today's Omaha World-Herald Midlands Voices column as to why the Governor should veto the newly passed smoking ban (an act which will, no doubt, be overridden). But more importantly, this whole anti-smoking regulatory issue is based in total hypocrisy. If smoking and second hand smoke is such an evil, why don't lawmakers simply outlaw the substance as they do any illegal drugs? Why don't lawmakers quit subsidizing the production of the crop and make it illegal to grow just as it is illegal to grow marijuana? Why don't lawmakers quit relying on tobacco taxes to augment their state and federal revenues? Of course, government tried that with another drug called alcohol back in the late 1920's and it didn't work so now folks go to bars and restaurants where alcohol, a legal product, is served. Of course, alcohol fumes don't tend to make other non-drinkers sick although one suspects teetotalers might decide not to patronize those places that serve it. On the other hand, those that drink are responsible for a huge percentage of accidents that kill and injure thousands every year. If one wants to save 40,000 deaths a year, and appease the global warming advocates and Al Gore, why not just outlaw the automobile?

What one should realize is that with each new law that the government passes, more and more of his rights become subject to restriction. Currently, the Nebraska legislature is looking at statewide bans on selling spray paint cans to minors, requiring fingerprints and copies of your drivers license in order to sell junk metal to dealers, setting up a commission to decide what guns can and can't be sold in the state, deciding on whether and how to test home schooled children and it goes on and on. It has already restricted Nebraskans' ability, over the governor's veto, to circulate petitions and place initiatives on the ballot. Some states and cities now ban the serving of certain foods in restaurants and in one state a bill was introduced to prevent restaurants from serving fat people. In a recent case in California, a couple has been ordered to cut down two of their decades-old redwood trees because someone bought a house next door seven years ago and finds they can't get enough light to make their recently installed solar panels work.

The citizen should beware that at a certain point personal responsibility ends, personal rights are diminished and eroded and state regulation governs more and more, if not virtually all, of the activities of his life. Whether it be the right of the state to prevent a business owner from making decisions, as is the case with smoking, or whether it be the right of the state to take away an individual's property so someone can build a higher tax-revenue producing one on the site, it's the rights of an individual, business owner and citizen that are eroded by these laws that rob one of personal responsibility for the benefit of the "collective good". It is frightening and something all would be wise to consider.

(Acknowledgement: The author smokes a few cigars a month at cigar friendly places or outside, but also choose not to go to smokey bars or restaurants--he makes the choice)

Midlands Voices Liberty comes first; veto the smoking ban
BY J. MICHAEL SKINNER AND ROBERT A. FOSTER The writers live in Omaha. Skinner, a smoker, is CEO of a financial planning firm. Foster, a nonsmoker, is president of a prescription-drug management company.

The rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are enshrined not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution of the State of Nebraska. Freedom of assembly and commerce are also important concepts in the founding documents of our country.

We believe these principles apply to the smoking debate. In response to the statewide smoking ban, we respectfully urge a veto by the governor and humbly request that the Legis­lature not override it.

Here’s why: The market works — more slowly than a ban, but it works.

In the two years prior to the partial smoking ban in Omaha, in response to customer de­mand, Shir­ley’s Diner went nonsmok­ing on Sunday mornings, as did Vidlak’s Brookside Ca­fé. Louie M’s Burger Lust moved smok­ing from the larger to the smaller of its rooms, and Mira­cle Hills Café and Coffee banned smoking. Nearly all chains banned it; almost every new restaurant and some bars opened nonsmoking.

Ultimately, most places would have been nonsmoking, with a few left over for smok­ers, business owners and em­ployees to freely pursue their rights to freedom of assembly, commerce, liberty and the pur­suit of happiness.

Believe it or not, it makes some people happy to smoke— particularly on a Sunday morn­ing with breakfast, a cup of cof­fee and The World-Herald on the table.

The public health argument holds water in coerced situa­tions, i.e., the Qwest Center, government offices, etc. We support smoking bans in those types of places. In noncoerced situations, however, we believe the public health argument is negated by freedom of assem­bly and the right to engage in commerce.

A free society is ordered in such a way that people are free to assemble and engage in the commerce they wish. Those who don’t wish, don’t go. For the most part, our society already operates this way; i.e., we all choose not to patronize some businesses for various reasons. We respectfully and humbly submit to our fellow citizens that we have no right to go into a restaurant and be served in the way and environment we wish. If the music is too loud, we can ask management to turn it down so it does not damage our hear­ing.

But if the owner declines, we have no right to force him.

The owner’s right to operate a business as he sees fit and tar­get customers accordingly trumps our right to a quiet ex­perience. We believe the same principle applies to smoking. Exactly the same public health argument can be made about loud music in bars. But we believe nobody wants that banned, because people can generally hear the loud music upon entering and choose accordingly.

Therefore we believe the same approach should be taken with smoking: The only law needed is to make sure that peo­ple know what they are get­ting. Require business to put up a door sign saying “Smok­ing Allowed” or “Smoking Not Allowed.” Then people can choose for themselves. That is the way a free society operates.

If the owner of a restaurant wants to allow smoking, the em­ployees knowingly choose to pursue or keep their employ­ment there and the customers choose to patronize it.

Many will say that we live in a democracy and the majority should rule. But we respect­fully submit that we live in a constitutional republic, which by its very definition protects the minority against what Alexis de Tocqueville called the “tyranny of the majority.”

Indeed, if the conditions of liberty in noncoerced situations are to be determined by the ma­jority rather than the conse­quences of the abuse of that lib­erty, then liberty effectively loses its meaning. This is our most important point.

Securing and preserving in­dividual liberty was of para­mount importance to our found­ers. That liberty has brought us unrivaled prosperity and abun­dance. Our Legislature, gover­nor and courts are privileged to be the guardians of that liberty; so dear a price was paid for it. Protecting it should be their highest principle and utmost duty.

We believe that this legisla­tion and most of its supporters are well-intentioned, but it is imprudent and takes us in a dan­gerous direction. We must al­ways remember that Friedrich Hayek’s “road to serfdom” is paved with good intentions. We have no right to go into a restaurant and be served in the way and environment we wish.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Who Bullies whom? -- A reply to the World-Herald -- PJM

Some of you may have read the Editorial page of the Omaha World-Herald on Friday suggesting the Nebraska GOP quit bullying a poor young candidate and an old U.S. Senator and quit attacking the Nebraska Supreme Court Justices appointed by that old U.S. Senator. In the event you didn't, it is copied below. With that said, your fearless diatribist authored a rebuttal which was quickly dismissed by the editorial page editor as an insult to his integrity. While said diatribist may have been a little aggressive in his assertions, he thought he would share his rebuttal with you. It follows the World-Herald Editorial. For the sake of decorum, the dialogue between said diatribist and the editorial page editor has been omitted. However, as that dialogue did assert on behalf of said editorial page editor his total fairness, said diatribist would recall that his rebuttal to an extremely flowery piece on soon to be declared U.S. Senate candidate Scott Kleeb (see diatribe of November 27, 2007) was never published or acknowledged by said editor. Said diatribist believes "fairness" toward conservative rhetoric continues to defined by he who buys the ink by the barrel.....

"Omaha World-Herald "02/22/2008, Page B06
"No need for bullying"
The Nebraska Republican Party is so dominant statewide that its closest competitor barely causes a blip when it gains 7,000 registrants on a single day and earns national attention in presidential politics.

Nebraska Republicans hold an advantage in registered voters of roughly 200,000 people. That’s why many Democrats change party to pursue power. In the Cornhusker State, at least, strength lies in GOP numbers.

That is why it was so distasteful to see the state GOP take needless shots at a young candidate (an Iraq War veteran) who has shown public mindedness by running as a challenger for an occupied U.S. House seat in the 1st District. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, who has proven himself a capable lawmaker, doesn’t need that kind of help from the state party.

Nor was it necessary to see the GOP so brusquely inject partisan overtones into its criticism of Nebraska’s independent judiciary after the Nebraska Supreme Court overturned a controversial but long-standing method of execution.

Republicans are not unique, of course. The Nebraska Democratic Party sends out snarky press releases poking fun at GOP elected officials all the time. Juvenile rhetoric from political parties is, lamentably, par for the course in America.

But in Nebraska, the GOP is so dominant that it shouldn’t be difficult for the party to show some class and rise above knee-jerk pettiness. A state party with an established power structure and prominent elected officeholders should not stoop to simple knuckle- busting.

Republicans don’t need to amplify the mistake of a young congressional candidate who foolishly posted personal photographs of youthful indiscretions online. But they did, and they should be embarrassed.

As for the State Supreme Court’s decision declaring the electric chair unconstitutional, the ruling certainly was open to criticism on a variety of scores. But the Nebraska GOP instead chose to cast partisan doubt on a respectable, independent court that has acted in an overwhelming majority of its decisions with sound, thoughtful legal judgment.

It might be legitimate to note which Democratic governor appointed all but one member of the current court. Left unsaid, though, was that that former governor, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, supports capital punishment. In fact, as governor he oversaw three executions and supported adding lethal injection as a method of execution, though the Legislature refused to act.

Even Ronald Reagan had judges decide against his preferences. So grow up. Press your own elected officials to pursue the adoption of a legal method of execution. That’s a proactive use of power more worthy of the state’s majority party. State GOP needs to act like mature, majority party, not brawler."

And the Reponse:

"The World-Herald’s editorial “No Need For Bullying”, February 22, 2008, while appearing to be well-intended simply obscures and reflects an overall political bias against the Nebraska Republican Party. The paper has a difficult time dealing with the prominence of the Nebraska Republican Party and its ‘underdog’ Democrat counterpart.

Recently, one would have concluded that the World-Herald had launched a massive effort to revitalize the Democrat party based on countless news articles and opinion pieces by Robert Nelson, Mike Kelly and the editorial page lauding the Democrats for their caucuses. Could such a barrage of opinion be construed as anything short of promotion for the ‘underdog’ party that has only one state-wide elected individual, Senator Nelson? Certainly as a result, Nebraskans know how a caucus works and how it has apparently created this great sense of rejuvenation among Democrats. On the other hand, one might ask why there has been virtually no information about how the Republican delegate selection works? Since the GOP is so dominant, maybe that doesn’t matter? It might be nice if the World-Herald were to discuss how Nebraska Republicans could participate in the GOP delegate selection process, how they need to file to attend county conventions by March 3rd, how they need to file a notice of intention to be a delegate, how they need to be elected at county convention to be a delegate to their state convention where they run for election as a delegate to their national convention. Maybe the World-Herald should note the May presidential contests for both parties are mere beauty contests? Fairness, thus far, seems to favor the ‘underdog’ Democrats.

The World-Herald editorial page has consistently panned the notion of political parties in the ‘non-partisan’ legislature, inferring that party politics has no basis there. Yet, not all of the paper’s reporters get the message as at least on occasion the paper notes the political affiliation of those who have filed.

Having noted the above biases it is instructive to consider the criticisms of the February 22, editorial. Yes, Congressman Fortenberry is a proven and capable lawmaker whom Nebraska voters in the 1st Congressional District our proud. Because the Nebraska GOP believes in the two-party system, it also recognizes that it has an obligation to its members, candidates and officer holders such as Fortenberry. Consequently, to look hard (not bullyingly) at those who oppose its candidates is its responsibility. Fortenberry’s opponent was certainly not criticized because he is a war veteran. No party supports the military more than the GOP and it is deeply appreciative of the service of Fortenberry’s opponent. On the other hand, if his opponent lacks the maturity to understand what his web and Face Book postings mean and convey, that is certainly relevant for the GOP to share with voters. Having observed the slash and burn election tactics of the Nebraska Democrat party over recent years one wonders what motivates the righteous indignation of the paper’s editorial page in this instance?

As to the party’s comments about Senator Nelson and the Nebraska Supreme Court, the GOP has every right to criticize. The party has consistently criticized Nelson in his re-election to governor and in his senate campaigns for the partisan appointment of Democrats only to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The World-Herald editorial page has never criticized Nelson for such overt partisanship. Judicial appointments are a legacy for both governors and presidents. Those that appoint deserve rightful criticism or praise for the decisions of their appointees.

In the same regard, the GOP has every right to criticize what amounts to legislating from the bench by Nelson’s six liberal Supreme Court appointees. There decision to virtually eliminate the death penalty flies in the face of the opinion of the majority of Nebraskans and the platform of the Republican Party. Oddly, the World-Herald suggests that Republicans press their “own elected officials to pursue the adoption of a legal method of execution.” Does that mean that in this instance there is in fact a role for partisanship in the legislature? In the case of ‘the Nelson six’, you can bet that the Nebraska Republican Party will actively oppose retention of these judges given their activist decision.

The strength of the party system is that it promotes its platform, its candidates and its office holders. While often times the process isn’t pretty, in the end it defines who wins and loses and it promotes the opinions of those it represents. If this is bullying, the Nebraska Republican Party proudly pleads guilty."

Friday, February 22, 2008

McCain the "Flyboy"

The following snippet comes from Rich Galen's Mullings and deals with the New York Times "explosive expose" about McCain and his corporate fly-a-rounds. It again shows the hypocrisy of the Times piece yesterday.

"The Times also dinged McCain for making use of a corporate jet belonging to one of the lobbyist's clients. A client who had also made a donation to one of McCain's campaigns.
News flash. You don't have to go back eight years to find that kind of activity; you only have to go back about five months. Until September of last year it was perfectly legal and within House and Senate rules to borrow a corporate jet and pay what commercial first class air fare would be for anyone travelling with the Congressman or Senator.

"The rules now require that the plane be chartered at market rates, so you can see dozens - perhaps hundreds - of Members of Congress and Senators now standing in the TSA lines at Reagan National Airport on Friday afternoons as they have to fly commercial.
If the Times published a list of every Member of the House and Senate who flew on a jet owned by a corporation which had also donated to his or her campaign committee - whole forests would have to be sacrificed to supply enough paper. "

McCain caught in his own Catch 22

Presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee, John McCain, seems to be caught in a campaign financing problem he helped create. By applying for Federal Financing for his campaign during the darker days when he was being dismissed as a candidate and by apparently borrowing money in January of this year against those yet unreceived funds McCain now finds himself in a real dilemma. Although he can and has asked to give up federal funding, it appears that his borrowing against those funds is a problem. Worse yet, for him to withdraw he needs to have a majority of the folks on the Federal Election Commission vote to allow him to do so. Since the commission consists of six members and there are currently only two members serving, he can't get that majority of six. Of course if he ignores the process, he could be prosecuted and face five years in prison--not exactly where you want your next president to be. On top of that he can only raise about $5 million under the current system between now and September when he becomes the official Republican nominee--while Hillary and or Obama can continue to raise money at well and use them against McCain. WHEN IT COMES TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, ONE SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT ONE WISHES FOR!!!
See the article:

The Supremes Argue -- Conservatives Should Think

An appointment to the Supreme Court is probably the most long-lasting legacy that most presidents will ever leave. The article below is a fair assessment about some of the recent rulings and where Associate Justice Kennedy, in particular, comes down on them. More important to this writer is the difference of opinion on foreign law debated between Associate Justice Kennedy and Scalia. If using foreign law as an adjunct to interpreting our Constitution is of concern to you, perhaps (here we go again) so is the outcome of the fall election. Take a look at the article:

Republican Senator Should Not Run for Re-election -- Editor

Once again, Republicans are proving not only that they didn't learn the lessons of 2006, but that they continue to be their own worst enemy. Take Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who has filed for re-election despite the nasty investigation going on about how a contractor provided free work on his home. It is about time that Republicans live by the same ethics they espouse and start cleaning their own houses before pontificating about the low life of the other party. See the below article:

Illegal Immigration -- Getting the job done but with Impediments

If you want to read a good take on some things that are working to control illegal immigration in the Tucson area, you might want to take a look at the article below. Unfortunately, the article also points out the impediments to making the system work even better. This is an interesting read:

Speaking with TwoTongues -- Or can you say Flip Flop?

Tongues: It is interesting to note that in 2006 both Hillary and Obama voted to build the Boarder Fence of some 700 miles. Yet, they now say they oppose building it. Can you say FLIP FLOP? See the article below:

Judicial Nominations and Politics

There is another reason why any Republican will be better than any Democrat come fall. The current state of dealing with judicial nominations (or rather not dealing with them) reflects the obvious belief that Demcorats will win the White House in November and start populating the courts with their nominees. The brief quote below from today's Patriot Post describes the situation although it doesn't even mention the fact that if the Democrats win in November they will probably appoint at least two very liberal judges to the Supreme Court, virtually negating the progress made by Republican Presidents over the last 20 years...

"As President Bush’s second term draws to a close, we note a lingering problem, persistent for most of his two terms. There are over 180 qualified nominees presented to the Senate by the President that have yet to receive a confirmation vote. The President went after Democrats on the issue once again, saying, “When men and women agree to serve in public office, we should treat them with respect and dignity, and that means giving them a prompt confirmation vote.” What many don’t realize is that there are dozens and dozens of unfilled positions in the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Justice and other important federal agencies because Senate Democrats would rather play partisan politics than fulfill their constitutional duty. Some of the most important vacancies are on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has turned decidedly left as a result. “These delays are irresponsible, they undermine the cause of justice, and I call on the United States Senate to give these nominees the up or down vote they deserve,” the President said. However, with President Bush in his last year in office and Democrats banking on one of their own to win the White House in November, it is unlikely they will fill these vacancies now, hoping to populate the bureaucracy with their fellow travelers next year."

Shame on the Republicans

From our friends at the Patriot Post, these words about Republicans not learning their lesson. The Objective Conservative agrees whole-heartedly.

"Shame on House Republicans for passing over Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona for an open GOP seat on the Appropriations Committee this week, opting instead for Jo Bonner of Alabama. Flake is arguably the most consistent crusader against earmarks in Congress, and he holds a perfect record in voting for amendments to kill earmarked legislation. He has seniority over Bonner, who can claim an almost perfect record in voting against those same amendments. So why Bonner and not Flake? Perhaps because House Republican leaders are afraid that Flake’s commitment to end profligate federal spending is so sincere that it would harm their own greedy pork projects. They should get wise to the reality of the situation. The GOP ended up in the congressional minority because of its spendthrift ways. It’s painfully obvious that most Republicans in Congress have still not learned the lessons of 2006 and are still not committed to their own party’s platform of limited government (editor's emphasis). With “leadership” like this, the GOP is likely to stay in the minority.

Rush Speaks on the Times and McCain

While this site seldom finds need to mention uber conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, we thought that given articles on this site in on The New York Times over the past few days that a quote from Rush regarding the issue might be instructive. Whether one agrees with Rush all the time his words about the latest "smear campaign" from the Times will not fall on deaf ears:

"Well, it seems to be the slug line, "I'm very disappointed in the New York Times." Why? Where are the honest, understood expectations here? The story is not the story. The story is the Drive-By Media turning on it's favorite maverick trying to take him out. The media picked the Republican candidate. The New York Times endorsed that candidate while they sat on this story, and now with utter predictability, they are trying to destroy him. This is what you get when you walk across the aisle and try to make these people your friends. Why should any of us be surprised or even angry at what the New York Times is doing here trying to take out John McCain? Those of you who listen regularly should have been expecting this all along because it's utterly predictable. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. It's as predictable as Ted Kennedy finding a bar at happy hour.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

McCain -- More Conservative than Bush?

A couple of statements today by McCain on why President Bush should veto the torture bill:

"If a president disagrees with legislation, he should veto it", McCain said. He said he disapproves that Bush sometimes signs legislation he dislikes, then issues critical ''signing statements'' outlining his objections.
McCain said he would never issue a critical signing statement: ''If I disagree with a law that's passed, I'll veto it.''
''I think if you disagree with a law, you have a constitutional right to veto that, authority to veto that,'' McCain said.

McCain and the Times -- PJM

A couple of days ago, our friends at the Objective Conservative (click: mentioned Thomas Sowell's article about the New York Times and its obvious bias on discussing the Iraq war (see ). Today's big story from the New York Times is about whether John McCain had an affair and unduly tried to influence a decision by the Federal Communications Commission. Taking its cue from the successes of Dan Rather, no doubt, the Times makes lots of inferences with little substance to their claims. One must wonder whether the Times itself is unduly trying to influence an election. Whether you like Mr. McCain or not, he certainly seems to stack up well against either Hillary or Obama in the fall election and he has certainly demonstrated the ability to attract independent voters (if not conservatives).

While some may suggest that the Times article is not a "smear piece", it certainly seems convenient that they bring up the "Keating Five" scandal which no doubt will be the focus of Democrat attacks come fall. While they do mention that John McCain wasn't indicted, they seem to conveniently not mention the name of fellow U.S. Senator John Glenn who like McCain was not indicted but also part of the "Keating Five". But maybe the Times has no reason to tarnish astronaut Glenn's image....

It's often been noted here and elsewhere that even conservatives need to read the Times and the Post because that is where news seems to be created daily. Once again, the Times seems to be "creating" news. See the articles:
New York Times article:
McCain's response:

One last thought, since the Times seems to be focused on special favors. Maybe the Times should be more critical of the earmark favors, and potential relationships of Senators Obama and Clinton to those who received nearly $200 million and $400 million, respectively, in earmarks from the efforts of those senators. John McCain has never requested an earmark. No doubt the Times will continue to gloss over the backgrounds of Clinton and Obama as it prepares to endorse one of them for president in November. By the way, do you remember the the Time's "non-endorsement endorsement of McCain?

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Obama is the clear choice

Yes, the headline is right. Obama is the clear choice for President by the US-Islamic Forum, an annual conference sposored by the Brookings Institute's Saben Centre for Mideast Pollicy and the government of Qutari. Yes, this forum to "bridge the "US-Muslim" divide created by 9-11 thinks Obama should be your next president. They voted for him over Hillary although McCain for some reason doesn't seem to be mentioned. Read the article and sleep well knowing reconciliation with the Islamic-facist world that want to kill us apparently likes Obama.

The New York Times

Thomas Sowell has an interesting column today on Berkley, the Iraq war and the bias of the New York Times. Worth your read and consideration:

Monday, February 18, 2008

Losing Focus -- Anonymous Contributor

I think GOP Conservativism is losing its way. Goldwater and Reagan knew that limiting government is the key to freedom and that what you do behind closed doors is your business. They tended to view matters like abortion, homosexuality, etc., as non-federal matters to be permitted, outlawed or ignored by state and/or local governments. But today's Republicans, like Democrats, increasingly see every issue as a "federal issue". And that is destroying freedom. Barry and Ron were moral but not moralists. They tried to keep moral decisions closest to the individual and fartherst from federal decisionmakers. They had a strong Libertarian (leave people alone) and Fiscal Conservative (lower taxes, less govt spending) views of governance. And while I personally have strong moral opinions on some issues, I think Barry and Ron had it right. Morality belongs in the pulpit not in politics. Federal government is about defense and tariffs. All other federal meddling turns us into France. --
Today's tax and spend Republicans substitute big Conservative government for big Liberal government. That isn't Barry's or Ron's GOP by a long shot.

Hagel off fixing the world -- Editor

Nebraskan's should rest comfortably knowing that their "lame duck", senior U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel is in Pakistan observing the election process. No doubt this will do much good for the his constituents since he is leaving the Senate in less than a year. With a little luck he'll find some "muck" to tell us why we shouldn't be dealing with the Pakistan government and why, once again, George Bush is failing us.

Words of Wisdom From Senator Ernie Chambers

Okay, it's Monday morning, President's Day and the we are safe because the legislature is not in session. BUT, if you want your "fix", here are some words of "wisdom" from Nebraska's senior legislator: (click here) 2008 Jour...mp3 (1816.2 KB)

Friday, February 15, 2008

Arizona and Ilegal Immigration

From The Patriot Post:
"Immigration front: Hasta la vista
In recent days, hard evidence has shown that illegal aliens in Arizona are “self-deporting” in droves, with many thousands more planning to leave soon. Mexican officials in Arizona are being inundated with requests for documents that will let them enroll their children in Mexican schools and return to Mexico without paying taxes on their furniture and other belongings. The mass exodus is in response to a new Arizona law that makes it nearly impossible for illegals to hold a job in the state, which boasts the highest number of illegals in its workforce—a whopping 12 percent. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has gotten in on the fun, of course, establishing a hotline for citizens to report those who hire illegals. Additionally, authority has been given to local law enforcement by Customs and Border Protection for the enforcement of federal immigration law, which should prove valuable. The new law goes into effect on 1 March. Who needs amnesty when simple law enforcement will do? "

Tax Rebates

One could not agreemore with this brief analysis of the tax rebates (manna from D.C.) that we can expect:
"We also understand, as do most economists, that this is little more than an election-year gimmick to save politicians’ jobs. Real solutions to the economy lie in reducing the tax burden, not in income redistribution. It’s high time Congress made the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent. That assurance alone would truly stimulate the economy. " -- From today's Patriot Post

Thursday, February 14, 2008

We agree with a LIBERAL Democrat!!

We at the Objective Conservative never thought we would find anything to much agree with Congressman Waxman of California on, but surpise, he has actually uttered a few words on earmarks that may change our opinion. More precisely, he said that the use of earmarks was “out of control.” He said Congress should “suspend all earmarks for the 2009 appropriations cycle,” and he said he would not request any this year. All this at a time when according to our friends at the New York Times, congressmen and senators are being urged to get their earmark requests in ASAP! See the article:

Time For Senator Craig to Resign -- PJM

Yesterday the Senate Ethics Committee admonished Republican U.S. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho for his "incident" in Minneapolis last June, one to which he plead guilty (See the article at:
They also admonished him for using more than $200,000 of his campaign funds to pay for his legal defenses relative to trying to overturn his guilty plea relative to the incident. With the Senate Ethic's Committee action on this, it is time Craig resigned. He has brought disrespect on his office, his state and his party. If he wasn't guilty, he should never have plead so. When his plea became public knowledge, he said he would resign. Then he didn't. Then he tried to claim that his guilty plea should be thrown out. What is clear is that Senator Craig is not a man of his word. First he said he was guilty, then he said he wasn't. He said he would resign, then he said he wouldn't. Whether Craig committed the crime or not, he has brought more taint on the Republican party and the ethics we would like to believe our candidates stand for. It doesn't matter that he didn't drown a young girl and not report it for 12 hours (Can you say Ted Kennedy?). What matters is that our party deserves not to be associated with him and his behavior (throughout the case). Let's hope that unlike others, he does the right thing. There are others, particularly in the house who will hopefully also get the message.

Romney to Endorse McCain

Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain as the GOP nominee for president, CNN has learned.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

From Rich Galen (Mullings)

A word of wisdom for Senator Obamaha form Political Guru (even if he was a Fred Thompson advisor) Rich Galen:

"Here's something we know: A Clinton cornered is a very, very dangerous political animal. Obama's supporters would be wise not to start celebrating too early."

From the Wall Street Journal Courtesy of the Patriot

The Presidential winner in November will probably appoint no fewer than two Supreme Court Justices. The likeliest vacancies, from an actuarial perspective, will come from the liberal wing of the Court. So a President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has the potential to set back the prolife agenda by 30 years. It could well be a generation before a President would have another opportunity to shift the balance on the Court to the right. [John] McCain’s harshest critics argue that his judicial picks could easily be as bad as anyone tapped by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. This is caricature, but even if it had merit, [they] would be trading the risk that Mr. McCain picks moderates for the court for the certainty that his opponent would appoint liberals. It’s always possible Mr. McCain would make a bad Supreme Court nomination, just as Ronald Reagan picked Anthony Kennedy, who later affirmed Roe v. Wade... The conservative coalition has learned a lot about picking judges since 1987, and especially since the nomination of David Souter by another Republican President. As the Harriet Myers interlude proved, another mystery pick by Mr. McCain or any other GOP President is far less likely than it used to be...[S]ocial conservatives may decide they can’t vote for Mr. McCain for any number of reasons. What they can’t do with any credibility is claim that helping to elect a liberal President will further the causes that these conservatives claim to believe most deeply in.” —The Wall Street Journal

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Ranking the Candidates -- The ACU - Editor

While the editor may seem to have adopted the same "liberal" viewpoint as contributor PJM on John McCain, it may be worth noting that there are some tangible ratings of conservatives available. One is that of the American Conservative Union. You can check out the rankings of all of the senators, including Obama and Clinton, at that site by clicking: An article in the American Thinker further discusses this, but one should note from both that article and the raw data from the ACU that both Clinton and Obama rank an abyssmal 83 and 86th as opposed to McCain's 47th. See the article:

Tom Delay vs. John McCain -- Editor

Gosh, what sounds strange about this? Former Congressman Delay, who let's face it did as much as any one individual to taint the name of Republicans and facilitate their loss of Congress in 2006 is criticizing McCain for voting against a bill that has created an $8.4 TRILLION unfunded liability for your children and grand children--a program that actually exceeds the $6.8 TRILLION unfunded Social Security liability. Well at least you will be taken care of. While many of our congressmen, including those representing Nebraska, have enjoyed lots of compliements and support for their votes in favor of the program, one can certainly find no justification for the passage of same under the Constitution of the United States despite the admittedly compassionate aspect and the value of preventive medicine. Certainly seems to be some blurry lines in liberal verses conservative thought at times. See the article:

Contract with Conservatives -- Editor

PJM's "Let's Get Real" article of last week stirred up lots of responses, some good, some less than compliementary. With that in mind, you might check out Bobby Eberle's "From the Loft" article on "The Contract With Conservatives": Eberle's suggested contract would certainly seem to define those principles that swept Republicans into control in 1994 and by contrast and comparison show how they eschewed much of them when they deservingly lost control in 2006. Certainly, it would be nice, although doubtful, if presumptive nominee McCain would agree to such a contract. On the other hand, Eberle might do well to establish a rating system to evaluate all three of the major contenders on the issues just as most lobbying organizations do prior to giving or withholding support. Your editor would like to buy a new car and his preference would be a Bentley Continental GT (about $200,000) but his budget may necessitate he settle for Ford Focus GT, not his first choice but a new car. Conservatives may be faced with the same difficult, and yes pragmatic, decision and since they can't get the Continental (Reagan), they may HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE between the Ford and Chevy because they are going to have to drive it for the next four years.

L.A. Council and the First Amendment -- PJM

From "The Left Coast Report" today, we read that the L.A. City Council is talking about passing a "Brittany's" Law that would establish a 60 foot personal protection bubble around celebs such as Brittany. Reporters, paparazzi and others who violate the "bubble" would have all profits from their photos "confiscated' by the L.A. City Council. I personally have no interest in any of these sad celebs who for the most part are their own worst enemies. In fact, I religiously turn off Fox News when Greta's face appears as I think America has a totally unhealthy obsession with the rich and famous and Hollyweird stars as well as pretty young blondes who are kidnapped or killed. In the latter case, I frankly believe the celeb attention paid in these cases devalues the lives of thousands of other kidnapping and killing victims (not to mention the unequal treatment to their families) who happen to be less photogenic. But, I digress.

L.A.'s mere consideration of such a law should send shivers down the spine of anyone who has ever heard that this country is governed by a constitution. Can you say First Amendment? While I am sympathetic to neither the paparazzi or these Hollywierd 'stars', it's incredible that the L.A. City Council would provide special protection for special people. But after all, it is the Left Coast where the Marines aren't welcome in Berkley, where an American flag can't be displayed on a fire engine in Berkley, where R.O.T.C. and Military recruiters are not welcome in San Francisco, where San Francisco allows gay pride parades wherein all sorts of normally illegal sexual perversions are openly practiced and tolerated, where.............. My observations would indicate that perhaps a "special strangeness zone bubble" should be established in a 100 mile width running from Los Angles to San Francisco. Caution signs could be put up at the entrances to the zone saying, Only Celebrities, Weirdoes, and America Haters Allowed" For the full Left Coast Report referred to see:

Thursday, February 7, 2008

A little BiPartisan Politial Humor

A cannibal was walking through the Congo jungle and came upon a restaurant operated by a fellow cannibal.
Feeling somewhat hungry, he sat down and looked over the menu.
Tourist: $5
Broiled Missionary: $10.00
Fried Explorer: $15.00
Baked Democrat or Grilled Republican: $100.00
The cannibal called the waiter over and asked, "Why such a price difference for the politicians?"
The cook replied, "Have you ever tried to clean one?They're so full of crap that it takes all morning!"

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

More on McCain -- Editor

Mr. McPherson's editorial, "Let's get Real" touched off lots of response--good and bad. While parsing the various overlooked articles the Objective Conservative found the following one by John Hawkins "Why you are going to vote for McCain in November and Like It". While he may articulate his view with a little hyperbole, it somewhat agrees with Mr. McPherson's. Check it out at:

A New Definition of RINO

A great article by Jack Kelly and a new definition of RINO in support of the eventual nominee of the GOP. See:

Newt Weighs In on the GOP Nominee

Newt weighs in and says he will support the Republican nominee. See this article in Human Events:

McCain -- Another Perspective?

Tony Blankley may offer a slightly different perspective to today's editorial by contributor McPherson. Check it out:

Ronald Reagan's Insight -- From the Patriot Post

A few quotes from Ronald Reagan courtesy of the Patriot Post:
“We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people.”
“We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes.”
“Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation. Families—not government programs—are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved... We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them.”
“Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.”
“We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none.”
“Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people... And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs. Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.”

Now is the Time to Act

Check out the piece by Michael Steele, Chairman of GOPAC as he acknowledges Ronald Reagan and the challenges and opportunities for the Republican Party:

Ronal Reagan -- Editor

Today is the anniversary of Ronald Reagan. Let us all spend a moment reflecting on his love of country, his great wit and the accomplishments and philosphy that drives so many of us today. We were truly blessed by him.

Time to Get Real -- PJM

Because I happen to hold a position as 2nd Congressional District Chairman for the Nebraska Republican Party, some of you may dismiss the following comments as party propaganda. However, as a long time observer of Nebraska and national politics and as a realist I think it is time to talk about the presidential race. First, as a conservative, I am not happy with any of the Republican candidates. My hope had been that Fred Thompson would totally overwhelm the primary process because he seemed to most closely reflect the values of Reagan conservatives such as myself. And it does not go unnoticed that today we, in fact, celebrate the anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, nor should the accomplishment of this great man go unnoticed or unappreciated because he truly change the course of our nation and our world.

Having said the above, it is time to get realistic. While I can find many things that truly bother me about John McCain, it is increasingly evident that he will probably be the nominee of our party and should he, in fact, become the nominee, we are going to have a choice to support him, to stay home or to vote for Hillary or Obama. In my mind there will be no choice--even if it means, as McCain's mother says, holding your nose to cast the vote. Now with several of the talk show hosts, religious leaders and others saying that McCain will be the end of the Republican Party as we know it, or saying they would either not vote, or even consider voting for Hillary, we have to be both realistic and pragmatic. Yes, John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. Yes, John McCain co-sponsored McCain-Feingold. Yes, McCain, supported what most Republicans believe to be amnesty. Yes, he opposed a marriage amendment to the constitution. Yes, he apparently supports some embryonic stem cell research. And, yes I'm sure I missed several more of his bad points.

But, let's put things into perspective. How would John McCain differ from George W. Bush? George W. Bush stood up against terrorism after 9-11. He ran what appears to have been a less than effective campaign of quelling the enemy after winning the battle of Iraq. Certainly, McCain has been a strong supporter of the fight against Islamic fascism and in fact had recognized long before Bush the need to 'surge' in Iraq. George Bush speaks of the fight against terrorism as one of a generation. McCain seems to recognize that it will be with us much longer than that. George promoted tax cuts. While he didn't support them originally, McCain now supports their continuance. George is pro-life, that is against abortion. McCain has a pro-life record, although he is less than satisfactory on embryonic stem cell research. George and John both supported an immigration bill that smacks of amnesty. McCain says he has learned his lesson. George W. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility in controlling spending is one of the major reasons that the Republicans took a beating in 2006 and will not regain power until they truly reform their ways or until a liberal Democrat once again helps us rediscover our values. John McCain has a solid record of fiscal responsibility and opposition to earmarks, pork, etc.

On the positive side,George Bush appointed two great Supreme Court Justices. McCain would still appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices and it is likely that the next president will appoint at least one if not two in the next four years. I could go on, but frankly, a John McCain presidency would not be any worse than a George H. W. Bush (read my lips/light on pro-life) or George W. Bush presidency. And certainly, Bob Dole would have been no better. NONE OF THESE GUYS ARE OR WOULD HAVE BEEN A RONALD REAGAN. UNFORTUNATELY RONALD REAGAN IS DEAD. If we want another Ronald Reagan, we'd better start finding and promoting him--and there are lots of good Republicans who still fit the mold.

Now for the reality check. What wll Hillary or Obama do? First, they will extract us from Iraq. Our efforts, the lives of 4,000 men and our trustworthiness to our allies will be once again lost. Some say the U.S. has lost respect in the world because of how we handled Iraq. How much more respect will we lose by abandoning it now? Do you remember Viet Nam? Do you remember Jimmy Carter? Do you believe either one of these folks is capable of fighting a war on terrorism? On immigration both of these folks are basically supporters of amnesty, no question about it. On tax cuts, you can bet your last dollar (because they will) that they will go away and your taxes will go up. Let's face it, both Obama and Hillary are Abortion on Demand and embryonic stem cell research without limit. Both WILL appoint liberal (litmus-test-approved) Supreme Court Justices that will reverse the efforts of Reagan and Bush. Both will spend your money on every liberal do-gooder program they can concock. Again, I could go on and on.

The bottom line, my friends, is whomever becomes our nominee--even if it is John McCain--is better for our country and our philosophy of government than Hillary or Obama. To let either be elected because our candidate is not Ronald Reagan incarnate would represent a total lapse of responsibility on our part, an abidication of our values. Staying home on November 4th will be a vote for the unthinkable by the unthinking.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Chuck Hagel -- Still Blaming America -- Editor

Well, there he goes again. Chuck Hagel. Friday, he called Prsident Bush's foreign policy "brutally unilateral" and said that restoring America's international reputation should be high on the agenda of the next president. He said, "President Bush and Vice President Chaney have done tremendous damage to our standing in the world." He went on to say, "One of the biggest issues the next president is going to have is to reintroduce America to the world--the America that most people have known since World War II and trust and had confidence in...." Apparently, Hagel thought the 'you're either with us or you're against us' speech Bush gave after 9-11 set a bad tone. Let's see, we lose 3,000 Americans on American soil and we're suppose to say what? Kumbya? Why don't we just be friends? One can only guess that the esteemed senior Senator from Nebraska will continue his 'blame America first criticism' until he is gone from the Senate for good. However, with Nebraska's luck, he'll just continue to be a Bob Kerrey in our behind.

Friday, February 1, 2008

Note From and Congrats to Lee Terry

The following is a note received from Congressman Terry regarding earmarks. While most of you are tired of hearing about these things, it's nice to know our congressman has taken note of the outrage by many in this regard:

From Congressman Lee Terry:

"This week I joined House Republicans in calling for an immediate moratorium on earmarks. The addiction Congress has to earmarks is a real problem and must be fixed. This last year there were more than 11,000 special member projects, some were to glorify themselves and one member of the Appropriations Committee was able to steer 176 million dollars to his district. That is just wrong. The system is broke and is open to corruption. Until strict rules are in place to make the system transparent and protects against abuses, I support the decision for a moratorium on earmarks. I hope the Speaker and Democrat caucus joins us in fixing the earmark problem. In the interim, until a complete earmark moratorium is in place and a bipartisan panel is formed I along with my House Republican colleagues will proceed with the adoption of a series of earmark standards that each Republican member will honor."

The Liberal viewpoint on McCain

There is just so much out there today about McCain and, again, while disavowing favoritism toward McCain, the Objective Conservative believes he has locked up the nomination and "uber Tuesday" is just the confirmation thereof. With that said, here is a fascinating article by none other than liberal Susan Estrich. While for many, it will take more than holding their nose to vote for McCain, Estrich makes some good points. The question (from the Objective Conservative) is will conservatives be motivated enough to vote for McCain because of the alternative of Hillary (the likely Democrat nominee) or Obama? For conservatives, they should hope that McCain can pick a young, dynamic, passionate conservative running mate who can "restore the Republican order" in 2012. See Susan's article:

"The McCain Calulus"-- Editor

Whether you believe (didn't say support) as the Objective Conservative does that John McCain is now the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, there is an excellent analysis of his and Romney's potential and the need of either to work hard to consolidate their base after it becomes official. Also, reference to mama McCain's comment that Republicans will just have to hold their nose. Check out piece by Kimberley Strassel:

The "Patriot" and Your Editor Agree on State of The Union

From the Patriot:
On Monday night, President George W. Bush gave his seventh and final State of the Union Address. Of course, the Leftmedia were quick to dismiss the speech as that of a lame duck, but then again, they have been calling the President a lame duck since the day after his re-election in 2004. As longtime Patriot readers know, we have often commended President Bush for his leadership in the Long War against Jihadistan. Accordingly, the SOTU contained numerous references to major progress on the warfront, particularly in Iraq, as well as the promise to “stay on the offense... keep up the pressure... [and] deliver justice to our enemies.” President Bush reminded Americans that success in this war is critical to our national interests. Perhaps most important, the President thanked the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families for their sacrifice. As with any war, there have been misjudgments and mistakes, but the President has never wavered from his commitment to meet the challenge head-on, and we believe history will judge him favorably for his resolve to fight terrorists and spread freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq (editor's emphasis).

On the other hand, President Bush is decidedly not conservative when it comes to domestic issues (editor's emphasis). In fact, when one listens closely to the schizophrenic portions of his speech, it’s often hard to tell which party he belongs to. He did warn voters in 2000 that he was a “compassionate” conservative (as if there were any other kind), which in his case has translated into ever-bigger government. The President called for restraint with earmarks and pledged to veto bills that are thusly laden, which he promptly followed with calls for Congress to “double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences,” pay to fight global climate change, bail people out of home foreclosures and expand funding for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research now that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to behave like ESCs. Here we might remind the President that good intentions are not always constitutional.

All in all, the media probably got it right on this address—it was of little consequence. Few things will be accomplished in Washington this year with the election nearing and the two parties fighting tooth and nail for every vote. Come to think of it, that may not be a bad thing.

Pundit Weighs in on McCain

From Rich Galen:
"I am now persuaded that Sen. John McCain will be the Republican nominee. I am neither rooting for nor against him, but that is the way it appears to me......."I gave a speech to a group of donors to the Republican National Committee the other night and told them that the perfect candidate - if there ever was one - no longer existed and they were going to have to get in behind whomever ends up with the nomination."
"The Conservative Talk Radio World has its collective knickers in a twist about McCain but they will have to answer the same question as everyone else: Is a flawed McCain better or worse than President Hillary Clinton? Or President Barack Obama? The answer is obvious."