Palin and the Election in general.

It has been a few months since my last post. School has started again and my classes and research are taking up a large chunk of my time. Since my last post, Palin has been selected as McCain's running mate on the Republican ticket. Despite my silence in the blogosphere, I have been following the "Palin Phenomenon" with much interest. I think it is good that I have waited a few months to form a solid opinion of her before commenting on it.

First of all, I think that McCain's choice of Gov. Palin was successful at shifting some of the attention of the race from Obama. And, I think it maybe McCain's best chance at a victory. It is no secret that McCain is not highly-regarded by the base, and much of his post-primary campaign has been trying to convince Americans that, despite his "mavrick" image, he is a raging conservative. Fortunately for him, the American public has a short memory.

Let's call this what it is folks. Palin is nothing more than an attempt to pander to the conservative vote and true conservatives should be offended at McCain's attempt to win their vote. Let's assume for a moment that Sarah Palin is a strong, capable, and principled leader (a definite possibility, but difficult to discern considering her lack of history). Can anyone honestly picture McCain including Palin in his decision making process? Does anyone really think that McCain is going to consider Palin's opinion when forming policy. We all know McCain. He has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be a bitter, contemptable, miserable, old man with a chip on his shoulder. His performance in every single debate this election has shown his contempt and intollerance of anyone who dares to question or second-guess him. If he can't tolerate being questioned by the media or his opponents, how will he take criticism from his VP? Conservatives need to accept the fact that while Palin's selection is exciting, it will not have any effect on McCain's presidency. Face it folks, she was picked to look pretty, smile for the camera, and appeal to the base.

As an example, Palin has been asked several times to name specific instances on how McCain has pushed to increase government oversight. Repeatedly, Palin has been unable to cite more than a few examples. Here is Palin's dillema. McCain has been a crappy senator! After decades in the Senate, he has done relatively little of substance that is worth bragging about. Most of his pieces of legislation have been dismal failures, for which his name has been villified by conservative pundits and talk-show hosts. Notice that despite all his talk on being tough on pork-barrel spending, he did little to speak against the pork-filled 800-billion bailout package that was passed in the house today. Another good example is McCain/Feingold. You would think that Palin would hold that one up as demonstration of McCain's commitment to governmental oversight. Just one problem...conservatives HATE McCain/Feingold...flashing that one around wouldn't do much to help win over the base now would it.

On the debate the other night, Palin demonstrated her inexperience by passing up a clear opportunity to call Sen. Biden on his various inconsistencies with respect to American military action. Biden defended his support of military action in Bosnia, Somalia, and Darfur, by saying; "When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack's view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all."

I seem to remember another dictator in Iraq who had been gassing is own people. Why didn't Palin call him on that. So it is ok to go to war to defeat a dictator in Bosnia, Somalia, and Darfur, but not in Iraq? Palin didn't call him on that. Rather she ended the conversation by saying essentially that they could agree to disagree. What??? This demonstrates her inexperience folks.

She also kept attacking Biden on his status as a "Washington Insider". I am sorry, but is she suggesting that McCain is not an insider? As far as I can tell, the only difference between McCain and Biden, is that Biden has better teeth.

Another thing about the debate, Palin continued to cite McCain's war record as an example of his qualifications to be our president. I am sorry, but that didn't fly for Kerry and it shouldn't fly for McCain either. I am grateful to him for his service. I realize that he suffered greatly at the hands of the Viet Cong, and that he demonstrated his bravery many times over. Despite all that, it does not qualify him to be president. Move on!

It should be obvious to anyone with an attention span longer than a two-minute commercial break that Palin is a puppet. This leaves two options. 1) either she knows that she is a puppet and is fine with that (bad). Or, she honestly thinks that she will have a say in a McCain administration, which illustrates how naive she is (also bad).

So, back to my old question; "what is a conservative to do?" Honestly, I am still leaning to the free market solution. Let it burn. If the Republican party won't step up and grow the stones necessary to defend our ideals, then we must go shopping for a new party. If conservatives abandoned McCain and the republican party, then not only would Obama definitely win, but the republican party would collapse, making room for a new conservative party.

I think that most conservatives are willing to exchange their desire for a solid leader in order to defeat Obama. I am not convinced that an Obama presidency would be much worse than a McCain one. Look at Bush, while I do not hate him with the vigor that much of the media does, I find that many of his weaknesses stem from his inability to stick to the conservative principles that got him elected. While I disagree with almost every aspect of Obama's platform, at least he is relatively honest about what he plans to do (as honest as you can expect any politician to be). I am not so sure about McCain.

I have gas.

This is written in response to an editorial which appeared in the Daily Iowan on 6/23/08 and in the Daily Universe on 7/22/08. For the original article, click here.

This is in response to the op-ed piece “Offshore drilling: Not a quick fix” from July 22^nd. This farcical essay was yet another attempt by the liberal machine to dissuade the public from believing in those pesky laws of economics.

Of course, why would drilling for more oil bring the cost of oil down? That kind of thinking will get people hurt. The guest author from Iowa rehashes the tired rhetoric that we have been hearing since the seventies. “Even if the project began today…blah, blah, blah. Notice that the amount of time that it will take for drilling to have an effect on gas prices is about the same length of time that Al Gore says it will take for the earth to burn up. The Democrats insist that we can’t wait to take action with respect to global warming, but then they tell us that it would be pointless for us to address the energy crisis because 10 years is such a long time to wait.

Let’s have a look at some facts. The latest scapegoat for high gas prices is the demonic “speculator”. Notice that the very same day Bush ended the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling (and encouraged Congress to do the same) the price of crude dropped by over $5 a barrel. Coincidence? Now, pay attention. Speculators are gambling on what they think the market will do in the future. If they get the crazy idea that oil production will increase (thus decreasing the price of oil) then they will try to sell their shares while the price is still high which will cause the price of oil to decrease, just as it did last week. So, if something else happened that would shake the market, say for example, a massive increase of domestic oil production, what do you think the speculators would do?

The Democrat-led senate is fighting tooth and nail to convince the public that it is “Bush’s failed policies” that have caused the increase in gas prices. Let us not forget that our current energy policy is the Democrat’s brainchild. Domestic oil production is minimal, no new oil refineries have been built in decades. The Republicans have been crying for years to increase drilling, while the Democrats issue the same tired rhetoric. “Stop using, stop driving, stop eating, and stop growing!” Is it any surprise that the net result of an energy policy that refuses to produce energy has resulted in exorbitantly high energy prices?

Now, how about a real solution? We remove the moratoriums, the restrictions and the red tape surrounding domestic oil production. We take advantage of new technologies like oil shale and coal gasification. We build nuclear power plants to generate cheap, clean, virtually limitless energy. Then, while the lower energy costs are busy helping to stimulate the economy, thus allowing companies to expand and create jobs (good) as opposed to downsize and eliminate jobs (bad), we can focus on implementing new technologies and solutions that will help to further decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.

The best thing about these technologies will be that they will succeed or fail based on their merits. Notice that hybrids have started to catch on, not because the government is forcing them on us, but because the technology is finally making them attractive. Notice again how ethanol, which has been subsidized by the government for decades, has yet to have any effect on our oil dependence. If anything, the government subsidy has caused the technology to stagnate. If money is coming in despite how well the product actually works, then there is no incentive to improve the product. Ha! Capitalism wins again!

No more sitting on the sidelines

If you are still reading my blog, then that must mean that you are serious about conservatism. You must realize that conservatism is the only remedy for our nation's ills. The left wants you to belive that the government can solve all of your problems if you will only hand over all of your freedoms. Liberalism is equality at the expense of freedom. Liberals spout off about free health care, free higher education, guaranteed jobs, etc. but in return you must give up your right to spend and donate your income the way you see fit, your right to oppose social measures that you do not agree with, your right to make decisions about your life, from what kind of car to drive, to what doctor you want to see, to what you want to do as a career. Equality always comes at the expense of freedom.

Sound extreme? These things are already happening in Europe, the liberal "land of equality". If the government pays for your healthcare, then shouldn't they be able to say what doctor you go to? If the government pays for your school, then shouldn't they be able to dictate what you do with that degree? See where I am going with this?

Liberals talk about things like houses, cars, jobs, as rights, rather than things that have to be earned. They think that the government should be given absolute power to ensure that everybody has exactly the same things, of course the only way to do that is to take the wealth away from those that earn it, and give it to those who do not.

The reason that they are in power is because the regular people are duped into believing that you can set up this kind of system without any lasting consequences. Ask anyone, "do you want health care for free?" What do you expect people to say? Liberals believe that they can use the government to force a utopia.

Conservatives, on the other hand, don' t necessarily disagree with the ends. Would it be nice for everyone to have free health care? Sure. What about a job? Absolutely. Money? Food? Cars? Boats? Would it be nice if everyone was rich, affluent, educated, and productive? Why not? Conservatives realize that freedom must come at the expense of equality. If you give over all the power to the government, you are no longer free. Republicans realize that you cannot have a state induced utopia without destroying the very elements of society that made this country great.

Rush Limbaugh often asks; "With all of the countries and civilizations around the globe, some of which have been around for thousands of years, how is it that America, in a mere 200 years has risen to the top, and become the dominant superpower in the world?" The answer is in one word. Freedom. People came to this country, and they worked. The knew that they were not owed anything and if they wanted to survive, they had to scratch it out with their fingernails. Imagine where we would be if the waves of immigrants that came to this country in the 1800's and early 1900's had arrived, looked around, and sat down and waited for their government check? Where would our country be now? Yet this is what the liberals want for our immigrants today.

Liberals salivate at the prospect of changing our society, government, and economy to model that of France. France? When has France been at the forefront of anything? Europe criticizes us for being a warmongering nation, but it is our warmongering that preserved their freedom in WWII and the Cold War. Do they think that the USSR stopped at the eastern bloc because they just "didn't feel like going any farther"? No, it was because Ronald Regan showed that he and the rest of America had the onions to stand up to the Evil Empire and play chicken. We won, and Europe is still free to talk about how horrible we are.

The basis of conservatism is to maintain an environment, where the individual can succeed. The government cannot (and should not) ensure success, all the government can do is set the stage. Conservatives realize that in order for people to climb out of poverty, their must be a strong economy that will provide jobs to unskilled workers. When the economy is weak, those jobs are the first to go. When poor people have jobs, and work, they are able to gradually work their way out of poverty. This process sometimes takes generations, but we know that it works. When the economy is strong, we see that poor people are gradually becoming less poor.

Lets look at the alternative. A poor person gets a government check. This check is substantial enough that this person to maintain a standard of living that he otherwise could not afford. Now, that person could go, get some job training, and get a better job, but then he would make too much to qualify for the government assistance, but not enough to maintain the lifestyle that he currently has. So what does he do? Stays where he is, not progressing, not moving forward. The tragedy is that his children learn that rather than work hard and try to be successful, you do the bare minimum and collect your check from the government. In the work that I do, I see this every day.

Liberals see a man who has his needs provided for, and they revel in the fact that this man is completely dependent on the state. Conservatives see a man who is crippled. A man who will never move past this pitiful stipend that he government has given him. A man who has sacrificed his freedom and is enslaved to the government that is paying his rent. Who will that man vote for in the election? Say that the party that supports increasing his stipend, also supports some atrocious act like say...killing unborn babies (this of course is entirely theoretical). Who will this man vote for? Thus his moral conscience is hindered by his dependence on the state. This is what the liberal wants.

Friends, this is a war. A culture war. If you think any less of it, you are deluding yourselves. The liberal movement has gotten where it is, because conservatives are too busy actually contributing to society to be much concerned with the direction society is headed. That time is past. If you agree with the things I say, then you must act. Notice that the first words in the Constitution are "WE THE PEOPLE." If you are tired of the way things are going, then you must get involved. I am not just talking about voting. I am talking about really getting involved. Write to your congressman, get involved in local elections, stay abreast of the issues, and most of all, run for office. I am coming to the realization that if I want something done right, I have to do it myself. The time is coming when you may see my name on a ballot, and even if you don't you can be sure that I will be putting my effort behind someone else who feels the way I do. The time for sitting on the sidelines is past. The coach has called us in. Is anyone going to sit this one out?

Petition to Increase Offshore Drilling

Click here to sign a petition to support the Gas Price Reduction Act which is being spear headed by Senator Mitch McConnell. It addresses the need to increase offshore drilling, as well as Oil Shale exploration, electric cars, and the stemming of speculation. For more info about this act, click here.

Read This Article:

My last few posts have been about the current oil crisis. The Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor Tuesday and did a bang-up job of setting the record straight. Read this article, and write your local congressman, demanding that the moratorium on off-shore drilling be lifted.

Your Move America.

This week President Bush has lifted a Presidential ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on the U.S. Continental Shelf.

"Today I've taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS," Bush said.

Now, this act is largely symbolic. No change can really happen with the domestic oil situation until Congress lifts its ban on offshore drilling. Bush has just racked up a few more points in my book. What he has done is remove all doubt as to who is responsible for the high gas prices. He has drawn line in the sand and dared Congress to show their true colors and demonstrate if all their talk about "being for the little guy" is just that, talk.

Of course, the democrats are not about to let Bush push them around, and Democratic leaders have already rejected his call to end the moratorium, stating that it would have no effect on prices, and that better options are available.

Once again, I would like to see those better options. Please, please, please, Pelosi and Reid. Tell me. What will have an effect on prices? Taxing the Oil companies? Outlawing SUV's? Subsidizing ethanol? These are the ideas that you have pushed on us for decades, so much that many of the Republicans are finally buying them. There is only one flaw. None of these have had any effect on gas prices except to raise them. And unlike your slick rhetoric, mine is actually based on fact.

Wake up America! The democrats have absolutely no desire to help you out. They are not at all interested in lowering the gas prices. If you elect a democratic congress in the upcoming election, you can only expect more of the same.

The Democratic solution to the energy crisis is this. Stop Consuming! Stop Driving! Stop Breathing! Stop Eating! Obama has said that the only problem that he has with the high gas price is how fast it has risen. The democrats want to impose even heavier taxes on the oil companies to "punish" them for forcing these high prices on the poor American consumer. Of course anyone with half a brain can see that this will only force the oil companies to pass these extra costs onto the consumer in the form of even higher prices. But that is exactly what the Dems want! They want the prices to increase. That is why they refuse to boost energy production. Their plan is to artificially jack up the price so high that Dwight and Duane from the Ozarks won't be able to fill up their pick-up, and thus be prevented from clogging the road.

Of course neither Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid nor any of their other teammates are concerned about the gas prices, none of them have to worry about making a choice between paying for gas and paying rent. Their main tool is class envy, to trick the average American to hate the rich. They thrive on the illusion that all the rich have gotten their money through devious means, and that all the poor are honest hard working people who can't get ahead because of the "BIG EVIL RICH". That is why they spend so much time trying to make Americans hate big companies, executives, CEO's, and rich people in general, hoping that the public will forget that it is the rich people, the CEO's, the big companies, that keep our economy moving, that create more jobs, that motivate innovation.

The key to solving our energy crisis is simple.

1. Boost domestic oil, natural gas, and coal production by opening the continental shelf, and giving States the right to drill on their own lands.

2. Allow the construction new refineries and coal gassification plants to process the raw materials into usable fuels and other products

3. Stop buying oil from the Middle East the second that we are able to meet our own needs.

4. Allow the construction of Nuclear Power plants

5. Focus efforts on innovation and ways that we can reduce our need on gasoline. If the economy is thriving, this innovation will come from the free market.

6. Eliminate ethanol subsidation. Any alternative energy source will have to stand on its own feet if it is to work.

Once again notice, that none of the democrat plans involve producing more energy.

Wake up USA. You have a chance to fix things. It isn't with the presidential election either. If you want lower gas prices, if you want to eliminate our dependence on the Middle East, then you have to vote conservatives into office this election. The democrats have wasted enough of our time and our dollars. Time to send a message and kick these fools out.

Where is McCain???

After watching the dismal display made by John McCain in the past few months, I can't help but think "This is what the Republicans asked for?" On Super Tuesday, McCain gained a vital lead over Romney because the polls showed that he had a better chance of beating Hillary in the general election. With in the next few weeks, the Republican establishment sensing that Romney was doomed, threw in their support with Johnny-boy, thus sealing Mitt's demise.

Who's laughing now?

The republican base is practically pleading with McCain to take Romney as a running mate, because everyone knows, that if we want to prevent an Obama presidency, we will need a candidate that can fully engage the enemy without forgetting what he said 20 minutes ago.

Now that I think of it, I can't recall a single person I know who voted for McCain in the primary. Then again, I live in Utah, the state that gave Romney 95% of the vote. Talk trash about Mormon's all you want, we recognize a good candidate when we see one. One of the Mormon leaders from years past commented once that the time would come when the constitution would dangle by a thread and it would be the members of the LDS Church that would save it. Looking at the results of this election, I can see how that could be fulfilled.

The only thing worse than McCain's refusal to embrace conservative ideals, is his refusal to engage Obama on the issues. Rather than draw a firm line distinguishing himself from his Democrat counterpart, McCain seems resigned to the fact that he will have his rear handed to him in November. This is what you voted for people!!! McCain needs to fire his entire staff and hire Rush Limbaugh to write out his talking points.

The Republicans are so backward that they actually believe the tripe that the left is spouting about them. They are actually buying into the idea that it is the Republican's fault that gas prices have skyrocketed. Never mind, that it has been the Democrats who have blocked increasing domestic oil production time and time again. Never mind, that while ethanol, wind, solar power, and Teddy Kennedy are all praised as viable alternative energy sources; nuclear power, a energy source that actually could reduce our foreign energy dependence, has been cast aside. Never mind that the only problem Obama has with the gas prices is how quickly they have risen. The Democrats want high gas prices. They figure that once the prices gets high enough, they will be the only ones left driving. Finally, a real solution to traffic jams.

The basic law of economics is supply and demand. The main reason gas prices are so high is that demand is increasing, and the supply either can't or won't keep up. The majority of the public is clamoring for the U.S. to increase the supply. Drill, drill, drill! Increase the supply by drilling domestically, and not only do gas prices go down, but we stop indirectly funding terrorism. It's a win win! The democrats plan is to attack the other side of the equation. Reduce demand by artificially increasing the price. They love that the gas prices are high. They want to make them higher. It is one of those great ideas that would have absolutely no effect except stagnate our economy. Anybody else notice that the housing crisis has escalated proportionately with the price of gasoline? People can't afford gas and houses. One has to go.

So where is McCain, why isn't he addressing these issues and taking on the Dems in their energy policy? Why isn't he putting them on the defensive? You can guarantee that had Romney been nominated he would have Obama tied up in knots right now. If Obama wins this election, it won't be because of Bush's "failed policies" or because of Obama's "magnetic charisma" it will be solely because McCain is a 100 year old hack who doesn't have the balls for a real fight. Congratulations Republicans! You picked him, you keep him.

Attention Readers:

If you would like to be notified when this blog is updated, please send your email address to crobertlee@gmail.com. I will add you to my list.

Morally Bankrupt?

This week the AP reported how a number of animal rights activists have been terrorizing certain UC Berkley who use animals in their research.

You can read the story at the following link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ANIMAL_RIGHTS_VIOLENCE?SITE=OHRAV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Over the past few years "brave" activists, faces covered and clothed in black, have been voicing their concern over animal rights using the common civil methods of spray painting, firebombing, and window-breaking. This is minor though according to Dr. Jerry Vlasak who thinks that killing these researchers would be "morally justifiable". Of course, he also comments that he does not encourage anyone to commit murder. No, of course not.

I seriously wonder if any of these "brave" activists have ever gone to the doctor. I wonder if they have ever taken a Tylenol, or cold medicine, or had a flu shot. I wonder if any of them has ever had a child born with a severe birth defect. If it wasn't for animal testing, our medicine would still be in the dark ages. A visit to the doctor would consist of getting a spoonful of calomel and the application of leaches. Open-heart surgery and countless other procedures wouldn't even exist.

I would love to ask one of these "brave" activists if they are just as passionately against partial birth abortion (0r any form of baby-killing for that matter). I wonder what their views are on human embryo experimentation or stem-cell research. I am willing to venture a guess that these "brave" activists willingly defend a woman's right to have her baby's brain suctioned out. If baby-killing is a legitimate right, then what about my right to be able to take cold medicine that won't make me go blind.

This is another example of useful-idiots doing the dirty work for the left. A normal person, while not feeling excessive glee over the death of animals, realizes that it is a necessary evil, and that the rights of humans supersede the animal's rights. Meanwhile, the left preaches that there is no difference between humans and animals. Some even call for the abolition of "animal slavery" or what we call owning a pet. According to them, animal should be given free reign in our society, beholden to know man, reproducing on a whim, walking the streets as free as a bird. I don't think any of these people have been outside of suburbia. Take a stroll in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where hundreds of thousands of stray dogs wander the streets eating garbage and biting passersby. Definitely a romantic image. All of this goes to prove the saying that "a man is free to be a liberal, until he has to get a job."

LDS Church Fights Gay Marriage in California

As this is primarily a political, and not religious blog, I hesitate to discuss items of a religous nature. Many of you know that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). On June 24th, the AP reported that the LDS church has issued a letter to its California Bishops to be read during church services on Sunday.

The letter addresses the recent debacle perpetrated by the California Supreme court in which the seven justices overturned "Proposition 22". Proposition 22 was an act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It was voted on in the 2000 election and passed with a 61.4% majority which is a staggering victory considering the conservative reputation that California holds. However, why bother with elections when we have the all-wise supreme court to make our policy decisions for us.

Now, an attempt to ammend the California state constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, has been placed on the November ballot for the people to vote on. The LDS church has asked its membership in California to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating your means and time".

As a Latter-day Saint, this letter is significant in a number of ways. First, it absolutely ends the debate as to the churches position regarding gay marriage. Many members of the LDS church still think that the churches position on homosexuality is akin to its position on Blacks and the Priesthood pre-1978. This position is ludicrous in that the Church never stated that being black was a sin, nor did they posit that blacks would never be able to recieve the priesthood. On the other hand, the churches position on homosexuality has never wavered nor offered any inclination that the position as to the sinful nature of homosexuality would ever change.

Despite this there are members of the LDS church who feel that the church's policies (i.e. homosexuality is a sin) are "hurtful" to homosexuals. How is that exactly? Anyone who belives that the LDS church is true, must also believe their claim that the church is divinely led. If that is the case, then no amount of whining is going to change the "hurtful" policy. Do they think that they can change God's mind? On the other hand, if they don't belive that the LDS church is true, then what does our opinion matter anyway?

Regarding the issue of Gay marriage, we have to ask ourselves this question. Why? Why is it necessary for homosexuals to have a state recognized marriage? I'll tell you, it is because they know that their actions are unnatural and wrong, and they are desperately looking for government approval. If they can get the US government to say that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, that a homosexual marriage is just a moral as a heterosexual one, then they feel that they will be justified on their actions. This goes beyond tolerance. This is an attempt to change the very definitions of "right" and "wrong".

If the Gay Rights people are successful in keeping gay marriage legal, then it will only be a matter of time before churches are sued left and right because they "discriminate" against homosexuals. You may think its a stretch, but the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, was almost forced to hire homosexuals as scoutmasters. If the court can force the BSA to do it, why not the LDS or Catholic church?

I applaud the LDS church for taking a clear cut position on this issue.

A vote to start drilling offshore

Rep. Peterson: Congress needs to wake-up and Increase Domestic Energy Production

June 17, 2008 - 11:28 ET

Congressman John E. Peterson is a Republican from Pennsylvania.

For 27 years, Congress and the last three Presidents have imposed ridiculous restrictions on offshore production of oil and natural gas - making America the only country in the world that does not harvest its offshore energy resources.

While some in Congress like to point the finger at OPEC and 'Big Oil' for the price at the pump - the reality is, the buck stops at the front steps of Capitol and the White House.

With our Canadian friends to the north drilling off the coasts of Maine and Washington, and our not-so-close-friend Cuba drilling 60 miles off the coast of Florida, America remains the laughing stock of the world when it comes to energy production.

Our deep-ocean resources belong to every American citizen, and rightly so.

This Wednesday, June 18, members of the House Appropriations Committee will have an opportunity to lift the Congressional Moratorium on offshore oil and natural gas production. I plan to offer an amendment to the Interior Department spending bill that will modify the ban and allow for environmentally responsible exploration and production to begin 50-200 miles off our coast - leaving the first 50 miles of coastline under moratoria.

Take a look at the column I penned for the New York Post for a complete picture of the national energy crisis:

AMERICA is in an energy crisis - not because of OPEC, but thanks to the policies of Congress and the last three presidents.

Since 1982, Congress has passed laws banning the production of oil and natural gas on our Outer Continental Shelf; the last three presidents went along. But the US Minerals Management Service estimates (conservatively) that the OCS holds 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - the equivalent of 35 years of imported oil from OPEC and an 18-year supply of natural gas.

The United States is the only country in the world that prohibits exploitation of such offshore resources.

A recent Gallup poll found that nearly 60 percent of Americans support increased production of offshore oil and natural gas - but Congress has yet to get that message.

Access to our own energy shouldn't be a partisan issue. Yet last week, when I tried in a House committee to start opening up our vast offshore reserves, I lost on a party-line vote. Nine Democrats on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee voted against the measure; six Republicans backed it.

I'll offer the same amendment when the full committee meets, and again on the House floor, in the weeks ahead. I want every member of Congress on record on the issue.

High energy prices are draining our wallets at an alarming rate. By pushing US companies overseas, where energy costs are lower, they also threaten our jobs.

Make no mistake, this mess is the result of Washington's foolish policy of restricting domestic energy production and discouraging investment in it.

All too often, Washington's energy debate revolves around the notion that support for increased domestic production of oil and natural gas means opposing renewable energy, conservation and sound environmental policy.

In fact, these shouldn't be competing priorities, but complimentary ones: America must produce more, conserve more and invest more in renewables.

For this country to remain a world leader in the global economy, Congress must develop a national energy policy that considers all means - including increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, on and offshore.

America depends on fossil fuels for 86 percent of our energy needs; wind, solar and geothermal power cover less than 1 percent. Renewable energy won't be available in sufficient quantity and at affordable prices for decades - so we have no other choice than to produce more of our own oil and natural gas - or further increase our dependence upon foreign sources.

And producing our own energy will create tens of thousands of jobs - and bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties. That cash can be dedicated to renewable fuels R&D, carbon sequestration and environmental cleanup of our waters - as well as programs such as weatherization and energy assistance for those most in need. Billions more would go to the coastal states for their own use and to the US Treasury.

Gasoline prices now average over $4 a gallon; natural gas is trading at nearly double last year's price. The time for Congress to act is now.
Solving our energy crisis should be the No. 1 priority of Congress and the present and future occupant of the White House. As of today, it is not."

In order for this country to remain competitive, compete in the global economy, ease the bleeding of American jobs, and bring American energy to the market, Congress must act - now.

I encourage all those who read this newsletter to call your Congressman and Senator and demand that they support legislation that increases domestic production of American energy - not increased dependence on unstable foreign nations.

With your help, America can reduce its dependence on OPEC oil, and embark on a road to energy security with American resources.

Congressman John E. Peterson is a Republican from Pennsylvania.

A guest on the Rush Limbaugh program....almost.

Hopefully now that the MCAT and medical school applications are behind me, I will be able to post more often than once a month. Much love for you all, my loyal readers. My hat is off to all six of you. Really, you are the reason I do this. I really do love your comments, and if something I say inspires, angers, or just bores you, please post on the site so others can read it and glean from your vast sources of freedom.

Big news, I was working in my lab crunching some numbers and listening to Rush, and I thought I would try calling in. Lo and behold, I hit it on the first try. Though they had me on hold for a couple of hours. Still I got a chance to voice my opinion on the grand EIB network.

Here is the exerpt from the transcript

"

A Referendum on Barack Obama

June 17, 2008

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Chris in Provo, Utah, you're next, and welcome to the program. CALLER: Hey, Rush, how are you doing today? RUSH: Just fine, sir. CALLER: I wanted to talk -- you know, I agree 100% with everything that you've been talking about with respect to Obama and the danger that he poses for conservatives. But I'm not really 100% convinced that the bigger danger doesn't lie with McCain. Not so much that I support Obama in favor of McCain, but that... Well, let me explain. You know, the Republican establishment -- not the base, but the establishment -- they're moving left. They're moving towards the left and this is just another symptom of the fact that they pushed McCain on us. They're moving in this direction because they have the conservative vote; they know they have the conservative vote. So in order to keep their jobs, in order to consolidate their power, they're wanting to attract voters -- more moderate, more left voters -- and my fear is that if McCain wins this election, McCain will win, and the establishment will know forever that they do not need to appeal to conservatives any longer. Conservatives will be less down the lurch. They'll know that they have the conservative vote. They know the conservatives will vote with them no matter what. RUSH: Yes. This is -- CALLER: We'll never get a conservative elected into office. RUSH: Ohhhh, yes, we will. This is the Limbaugh Echo Syndrome. One of my warnings to people has been that if the Republicans win... Here's the other half of it. In addition to what you said, if things hold as they do now -- and, by the way, there are still many, many, many weeks to go. This is subject to change, because there's a lot of time for all kinds of wacko crazy things to happen, but if things hold as they're projected to now the Democrats are going to end up with a much bigger majority in both the House and the Senate. So no matter who the president is, the Democrats are going to be setting the agenda. If we elect McCain, we're already electing a guy who likes working with Democrats anyway. So that's a second prong of the problem. What you said is exactly right. The establishment country club blueblood Rockefeller types, after a McCain win, will come to all the conservatives -- and they've hated us. Not hated us; they've been embarrassed of us. They've been embarrassed of conservatives in the party because (Southern accent) a lot of us are from the South and a lot of us are pro-life." CALLER: (chuckling) RUSRH: "You know, a lot of us have pickup trucks and guns. It makes it tough to go to the Republican convention, with all the hicks showing up at the same time wanting to get into our parties. You know, we want to go to these black tie things. We want to have refined, sophisticated parties, canapés, Chablis and so forth -- and here come the Clampetts showing up looking at the ce-ment pond at the place we're having our party!" That's how they look at us, these country club blue-blood Republicans, and they do not like it. So they would be more than happy to be able to sweep to victory and say to the conservatives, "See? See? This party doesn't need conservatism to become a winning, broad-based coalition majority party," and they will be dead wrong, because they will have attracted people who are not Republicans to vote for them. The reason that these people will be attracted is because we've got a candidate that's more likable as a liberal than their candidate is. So what's going to happen is that the Republican Party is going to lose big in future elections unless there is a conservative vice presidential running mate for Senator McCain. It is a problem, but this is why I say, Chris, that this election is a referendum on Obama. This is going to be an up or down on Obama. It will be, for the vast majority of people voting here. And they're going to say, "Do I want this country led by Obama?" and as we're now beginning to learn, all of these old-time, time-honored dinosaur party hacks. Do we really want the Clinton administration back in power? Do we want somebody from Clinton administration running NSA? Do we want Jamie Gorelick back at the justice department? She created the wall that prevented us, our intelligence agencies from assuring information on terrorist activities overseas. Do we really want to bring friends of Algore back? Because that's what this is shaping up to be. Do we really want Obama with his friends like Jeremiah Wright and the whole circus that he runs around with? These are gonna be the questions that people vote on. The women that are upset that Hillary didn't get it, they're still going to be upset. So it's going to be a referendum on Obama, pure and simple. The sad thing is McCain has so many opportunities here to shore up the base. He took a step today by going all-in for oil exploration and drilling on the US continental shelf. There are many, many opportunities Senator McCain has here to really draw a distinction between himself and Obama. And he doesn't even have to, you know, cross the aisle and shake the hand of these conservatives that he doesn't like. The next thing is, if he would just peel off on this global warming carbon footprint thing, that would be a huge thing. You know, hang tough on low taxes, making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Hang tough. Stop talking about punishing the oil executives, all that sort of thing. It wouldn't take much and he could really, really draw some distinctions here that would not cause him to lose any independents that he so desperately wants.

END TRANSCRIPT Now that I read it I don't think that I articulated my point as well as I could have. You get a little nervous talking to the big man, and also he didn't really address my point, though he made a good one himself. The main problem that conservatives face is the republican party is steadily moving away from its conservative base, further and further left. The republican establishment, the "blue blood types" need to increase their voting base. They know that they have the conservative vote, that it isn't going anywhere, and that conservatives will vote for the worst republican candidate simply as the lesser of two evils. So, is the Republican establishment going to pander to the conservative base that is with them for the long haul, or are they going to "reach out" to the moderates and leftists. This is exactly why McCain got the nomination. They knew that he would appeal to the moderates, the swing voters, the democrats, and that the conservatives would vote for him just to keep Hillary or Obama out of office. So what is the problem with that? I am telling you all now that if McCain gets elected and wins the conservative vote, the Republican establishment will know that they can put any yahoo, no-talent hack in front of a podium and the conservatives will vote for him. This means that we can kiss our chance of getting a true conservative in office goodbye, because the Republican party establishment will never get behind a hard line conservative if they think that they can win with a middle of the road, moderate, maverick, and that is exactly what will happen if McCain wins. Mark my words, we will never see a conservative presidential candidate on the republican ticket if McCain wins this election. Rush did make a good point though. His point on how this election is a referendum for Obama is right on the money. People are not going to consider whether or not they want McCain, but whether or not they want Obama. That is exactly what makes this situation so bad for conservatives. Conservatives will vote McCain, just to keep Obama and his socialist agenda out of the White house. But what will we get? A "maverick" republican who is for shutting down Guantanamo, is for cap and trade, buys into the Global Warming nonsense, thinks that CEO salaries should be regulated by the government for crying out loud, and views big oil as wicked evil men, not to mention his "non-amnesty" amnesty legislation. The only thing that McCain has stood firm on is the Iraq war (which as I have said before, is of minimal importance when compared to domestic issues), and Bush Tax Cuts, but lets see how long he will last on those things once his buddies "across the aisle" start hammering him. One thing that can be said for Bush is that when Pelosi and Reid have come out swinging, he hasn't backed down. He has not let them push him around with their boneheaded socialist agendas. I really can't picture McCain holding his ground against a democratic senate. Once they put up a fight, McCain is going to fold like a deck of cards and give those folks whatever they want. To tell you the truth, I am not sure which is worse. Having a socialist president who will expand the government's powers so far that we will never see the end of it, or a weak-kneed liberal in disguise who will ignore his base in order to curry favor with the other side. I am almost at the point of saying that it is time for the conservatives to split with the republican party and let them fight over the scraps while we take the reins and move this country in the right direction

Read this.

This is from Ann Coulter's syndicated column. I have to confess that I got my idea from her.

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

Bush's Legacy

I had a pretty interesting discussion with a British friend of mine the other day. It all started when I mentioned that Bush had done a pretty good job as president. My English friend was shocked and responded that Bush was "the worst president in American history" because he "lied to the American people".

I love this argument, mostly because the qualifier is that Bush "lied". I seem to remember another president who lied, I think it had something to do with an intern and a stained dress. However, when the conservatives were up in arms about Clinton's shameful discretions in the oval office, it was England who was asking us what the big deal was.

The "Bush lied" argument might actually be valid if those pesky historical facts getting in the way. Lets just think back to what happened.

Bush recieved "British" intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase enriched uranium from a country in Africa.

The UN sent multiple inspectors to Iraq to check for weapons of mass destruction, none of whom could enter the country until they were detained for a extended period of time. Despite this, the "experts" at the UN did not see sufficient evidence that WMD's existed. Bush didn't buy that, maybe he had knocked on his kid's door a couple of times and heard "Don't come in Dad!" Anyone with half a brain knows that something is fishy.

After giving Saddam multiple chances to comply with UN policies, Bush finally sent in the military (with the full support of congress). After only a few weeks, the Dictator and his rape rooms were sent packing.

"I explained to my Brittish friend my belief that any country has the right to preserve its own interests. My friend responded that that is a purely American sentiment, and that Europe does not feel that way.

I responded that he was lucky that the US was willing to defend not only itself but the other free countries of the world. If it was not for our "warmongering", everyone in Europe would be speaking German.

It is funny how Europe has no problem with our military might when we are saving their butts from bloodthirsty dictators, but when we try to do it in the Middle East, they stick their noses up at us."when we defeat another nation,

Lets not forget that every time that the US has defeated another nation, rather than make that nation a tributary, we have essentially handed them back the keys and helped them to rebuild. Germany and Japan are industrial powers now thanks to us. But, nobody is thanking us.

In 50 years Iraq will be a bastion of democracy in an otherwise bleak corner of the world. Though I seriously doubt that Bush will get any of the credit.

Texas Justice Is On A Roll

In another blazing display of blind justice, the Texas government has dusted off their old copy of “1001 ways to violate civil rights” and executed the forced removal of 462 FLDS children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas without any legal cause or justification. Man, right when Texas starts to shake off its reputation as being intolerant right-wing Christian nut-jobs, they have to pull something like this.

Despite the fact that no evidence for sexual or physical abuse has been presented, the CPS maintains that the removal of the children was justified because the children could not be protected from possible future abuse. Based on this impeccable logic, every child in America should be removed from their parents and raised by the state…for their own protection.

By the way, CPS might have neglected to mention that in 2005 the number of children in Texas foster care increased 24% while the number of children who died in Texas foster care increased 60%. Statistically, a child is four times more likely to die in the Texas foster care system than in the general population. It’s good to know that these FLDS children are so safe.

Now the Texas government is flailing its arms trying to justify its Gestapo techniques pointing out that 60% of the underage girls living on the Eldorado ranch either have children or are pregnant. Now that’s just a poor argument. If a high teen pregnancy rate demonstrates anything it is that the FLDS compound is right on par with downtown Houston. The only difference is that the FLDS girls are married to their “baby daddies”.

Maybe the real crime is the dresses that the girls have to wear. It makes me wonder if the girls in the compound were walking around in short-shorts and halter tops, would anyone have noticed that something was amiss? Right now, parents across the country are watching this story unfold in the news, shaking their heads and saying, “if only they had had their babies out of wedlock like everyone else…”

I find it interesting that nobody has tried to prosecute the men for violating polygamy laws, nor has the state been able to produce a single witness that can testify to any of the spurious abuse charges that have been alleged. The entire case boils down to, “well, no young girl would want to engage in a plural marriage right? So, it must be sexual abuse, right?”

Is the FLDS an odd religion that encourages people to do things that clash with the social norm, telling them that their salvation is dependant upon doing certain things that the rest of society thinks is kind of nuts? Absolutely. Is it true that there are people who have left the FLDS church and have gone on record talking about how evil it is? Without a doubt. Is it possible that there are people in the FLDS community who only stay in because they do not want to disappoint family and friends that they have known their entire lives? I am sure that there are. While members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might not agree with the religious beliefs of the FLDS church, surely we can recognize the similarities between their situation and our own. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that we were expelled from our homes and forced across the country to seek refuge in the west, burying our family members along the way.

Last time I checked, we lived in a country that allowed men and women to practice any religion they wanted, and there was this little thing called “burden of proof”. I also seem to remember hearing a phrase “innocent until proven guilty”. In Texas, apparently that has all been swept under the rug so that “justice” can prevail

Thankfully, that kind of justice only applies to you if you are FLDS, so the rest of us do not have to worry about our children being stripped away from us.

Newt wrote a great article

Check out this article from Human Events

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25792

Poor Hillary

I feel so sorry for Hillary. This lady is now experiencing first hand what every conservative politician has become accustomed to...complete opposition by the media.

It must suck for democrats to wake up and find out that they don't get a free pass anymore. Hillary has thrived by not having to explain her actions. Now, all of the sudden, she is not the golden child anymore.

Ever since Bush II was re-elected in 04, she has been told by everyone and their dog that she was a shoe-in for the democratic nomination and probably the presidency. Now here comes one term Obama, who is about to hand Hillary her walking papers.

The media is ready to lynch Mrs. Clinton over these comments she made about landing in Bosnia amid sniper fire while she was first lady. Apparently, Hillary was less than honest about the exact circumstances of her visit. Does this surprise anyone?

What is hilarious, is that this is not the worst, or most damning lie Hillary ever told. Compared to the Watergate scandal, this is nothing.

What makes it even better, is how if Hillary over dramatizes an insignificant event as first lady, the Media shuns her; but Obama receives "spiritual" instruction from a racist anti-American, anti-Semite, for over 20 years, and the media can't stop praising his name. That shouldn't suprise anyone either. The venom that Rev. Wright spouts is music to the ears of the left. This is exactly what they want. I love how they call it church.

What is even better is that the Republican party nominated a no-talent hack because he was "most-likely" to beat Hillary. Hillary getting the Dem nod would have been the best thing in the world for the Republicans. Now they will get exactly what they deserve

Mitt Romney as VEEP???

I have spoken to several Mittheads who are cursing and spitting nails over the "Republican" nomination of John McCain. Like any true conservative, they are upset because the Republican party, rather than nominate a true conservative with the experience and know-how needed at this crucial time, chose to nominate a 120 year old no-talent political hack who's only notable achievement was getting shot down during vietnam. Well...that's not true. He has come out with some pretty good legislation. Everyone is just ablaze about how wonderful McCain-Feingold has been (note my sarcasm). In fact, the only people who don't like McCain's legislation are those darn pesky conservatives. They should learn that just because you vote for someone, doesn't mean that they actually have to do what you want them to do.

So now I have heard several former Mittheads say that they will only vote for McCain if he chooses a good solid conservative to be his running mate, and that wouldn't it be just spectacular if he offered that spot to Mitt himself? This would be great because then Mitt would be able to keep Liberal John under control and have some good influence in the area of economics, an area to which McCain has admitted having no understading for, and he would get the name recognition which would set him up for another bid in four to eight years.

First of all, remember freshman government. The VP has no real power. His job is to show up at charity dinners and give speaches at the events that the president doesn't want to go to. He is like the looser guy in the rock star's entourage that hangs out to get the left over girls. The only reason Cheney had so much influence over Bush is because Bush valued his opinion. Knowing what we know about McCain's feelings toward Romney, I seriously doubt that McCain would listen to anyone but the voices in his head.

Secondly, if by some magic supernatural event, John McCain is elected president. He will most assuredly be a bad one. Why would any self respecting politician, especially one who wants to appeal to conservative Americans, want to associate himself with someone like John McCain. That is about as smart as boarding a New York to LA flight on a plane that is missing an engine. You can hope that you'll get there in one piece, but chances are your going to find yourself in a horrible fireball of death. Mitt Romney would be smart to keep his distance from McCain, and if he does accept a Veep offer, pray to God that McCain has his 80 year old rear end handed to him in November. At least that way Romney gets the name recognition without having to spend eight years watching McCain flush the economy down the toilet.

The only positive to a VP Romney would be in the event that McCain bought it. This would be the only way this election could turn out positive. However, it is generally poor practice to base your country's future on the possibility of someone dieing. We need a better plan.

Mitt, we love you. We want you to run again. Just stay away from McCain.

What are conservatives to do?

I have said many times, the economy is the number one issue in this election. More important than Iraq, health care, and all the other "toy topics" that the media likes to bring up. That being said, the spot that we are in did not come about simply in the last eight years as the democratic party would love for us to believe. Both parties have failed the American people when it comes to our country's financial security.

The Democrats, since FDR during the great depression, have made it their number one policy to secure elections by convincing voters that it is the government's job to provide for it's citizens and growing government in the process. High school textbooks will never talk about FDR's policies in any critical light because to the liberal, he is bigger that Jesus. No other US president has been as successful in making as many people dependent upon the government as Roosevelt. The worst thing that FDR did was not change the government, it was that he changed the culture. Up to that point, you either worked and saved or you starved. No one else could be blamed or held responsible if you failed to take care of yourself. After FDR, people discovered that they could turn to the government for assistance if they needed. Now as government has expanded, offering more entitlements, people are becoming less inclined to work for an honest day's living, because for many, especially the lower-class, it is more lucrative to be poor and collect a welfare check than to find a way out of poverty. The democrats love to tell people that they are trapped in their situation because of their race, religion, parents, circumstances, what ever. Why do the democrats have the black vote? Because the black community has been convinced that they cannot grow past their station. Now many of them don't even try. And because it is the democratic party that continues to look for new ways to reward poor people for being poor, they will always have the majority of the poor vote. Their tactics are entirely based on class warefare. They convince the poor that the reason they are poor is because the "mean rich white people" are hogging all the money. What is the solution? Tax the rich! Get em! Take their money and give it to the poor (not forgetting to take a chunk along the way, even Robin Hood needed a Lexus).

The left wants you to belive that all rich men are evil swindlers, and all poor people are honest hard workers who can't catch a break 'cause the "man" has got them down. The funny thing is that "redistribution of wealth" sounds nice on paper, but in reality it only acts as incentive for people to stay poor. Why would any poor person who is getting earned income credit, food stamps, free health care, and subsidized housing want to go and get a better job, or encourage their children to get a better job when all that waits for them is Uncle Sam waiting to take a big bite out of their hard earned money. So the poor become dependent upon the government for their livelihoods and are compelled to vote for officials who will increase their entitlements, thus reinforcing a growing population who are fully supported by those citizens who feel it their duty to work for a living despite what the government tells them.

The Republicans have failed us too. While the left is bent on growing government. The Republicans sit by and let it happen. We have not had a truly conservative president in 20 years. Bush was completely content to focus on other less important matters rather than stabilizing our economic situation. Many in the republican party have swallowed the left's rhetoric that corporations are evil and need to be taxed into oblivion. This falls right in line with the whole "class warfare/evil rich men" idea. Those people make too much money, and it is the government's job to take it away and give it to people who "deserve it more". Once again it sounds like a good idea but it only results in companies moving overseas (and taking their jobs with them) where the regulation is not as stringent. Are we suprised though? We say "ha ha rich people! You have to pay for everyone's meal!" The rich person says, "I think not", and goes somewhere else to to eat, and we are left looking around for someone to pick up the bill. None of us can afford to pay it. What do we do now.

The Republicans have been voted into office to combat the policies of the left, and rather than doing what they were hired to do, they embraced the left's polices because they realized that it is easier to stay in power when you have an electorate that is dependent on you. They also realized that the number of governmental dependents is growing exponentially while the number of hard working, contributing citizens is dwindling. Is there any question as to why the republican nominee is John McCain? McCain is the nominee because the Republicans liked how he appealed to moderates and independents. They liked how he appealed to non-conservatives. They knew that the conservatives would vote republican with out thought, so they found a candidate that would shine in the eyes of the left. McCain certainly does that. The man hates conservatives. The only thing that he has maintained a conservative stance on is the war, and who knows how long that will last considering how much he likes to "reach across the aisle". McCain is by far the scariest candidate because not only would he further trash the economy (which he has both admitted in his words and demonstrated by his policy that he knows nothing about) but the Republican's would get the blame, ensuring a Democratic/Socialist government for the next 20 years.

So now what do we do? What can conservatives do? Some have talked about voting Democrat under the mantra that if the country is going to be destroyed, let it happen under a democrat's watch. I can't say that I completely disagree with that. But I would prefer to vote for someone who's policies I can support, even if it means voting for someone who doesn't have a prayer of winning. In the long term situation, conservatives have to send a message to the republican party that they cannot win without us, and that we will not vote for any candidate who will not defend our ideals. The Republicans believe that conservatives will vote for anyone as long as they have an R behind their name. We must annihilate this belief.

If conservatives take a stand and vote for a non-republican. It will send a message to the Republican establishment that they cannot rely on our vote unless they deliver what they have promised. This means of course that the Democrats will win this election. However, it also means that next time around we might actually get a nominee who will fight for conservative values, giving us true leadership and defending our freedoms

1