Interesting Facts

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.


The original posting with this information is below at this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337.

Vets for Freedom

On July 9, 2008, Vets for Freedom (VFF) kicked off a nationwide campaign entitled “Four Months For Victory.” This grassroots effort, combined with a $1.5 million media buy, will remind Virginians of the importance of success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror as a whole.

VFF was founded two years ago by combat veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Today, our organization carries membership of 25,000 in all fifty states. The Virginia organization has 350 registered members, as well as countless supporters. We represent the courage, conviction and commitment of the thousands of service members in the Commonwealth, many of whom are still on the front lines working every day to complete their mission-defeating al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias in Iraq, and helping to stand up a stable, democratic, and allied Iraqi government.

Our country’s strategic victory in Iraq is essential to our national security. A premature withdrawal will have severe consequences and endanger-if not completely end-the progress being made by the Iraqi government and military. Evidence of this progress is seen in the following facts:

§ Civilian casualties in Baghdad have decreased by 90% since June 2007
§ Overall attacks in Iraq have dropped by 70% since June 2007
§ The month of May 2008 marked an 86% decrease in American casualties as compared to May of 2007 - the lowest since 2003

We are not advocates for an indefinite military presence in Iraq. We know our brave servicemen and women will return home with the honor befitting their service. However, any withdrawal must be done carefully, and as conditions on the ground in Iraq permit. Our service members understand the grave consequences of a hasty withdrawal based on arbitrary timelines, and Virginia Vets for Freedom is their voice in the Commonwealth.

It is important to note that we are not an attack organization, nor are we affiliated with any political campaign or party. Supporting our troops is not a political or partisan issue. We are advocates on only one issue: our nation’s victory and success in the War on Terror. While we will-and should-question those elected officials who do not support this goal, Virginia Vets for Freedom will stand with anyone who is an advocate for our military and their mission.

Our first television ad, "Finish the Job," is airing in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, and can be viewed at http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/multimedia/details.aspx?id=305. I also invite you to our Virginia webpage, http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/states/VA/. Over the next four months, we will combine additional advertisements with grassroots recruitment and other events. Together, Virginia Vets for Freedom will stand with the people of Virginia to send a clear message to our national leaders: Let Us Win!

Conservatives must act

YankeeMom has a live one over at her place. Jump over and have a go.

From American Thinker
H/T Coby GOE

Today, as in 1776, the biggest battle is once again about our courage and optimism. Conservatism is embedded deep within the American spirit. But it requires constant loving care and outright cheerleading to feel free to express ourselves. You are not alone: Sixty million conservatives can't be wrong. (And that's a lowball estimate.)
Six months before November 2008, many conservatives are down in the dumps. John McCain is behind in the money race.
George Will thinks we are doomed --- an amazing thing to say, half a year before a toss-up election. Even Rush is in a sulk about John McCain.
But the stakes are higher than they have been in the last fifty years. No major US political party has ever nominated a radical Leftist before --- and Obama can't hide his real loyalties. Even Bill Clinton was more of a 'moderate' Democrat. Obama is a True Believer in the Left, like a younger Hillary Clinton after a sex change and a major sun tan.
The last attempt by the radical Left to conquer the US presidency was defeated by Harry Truman in 1948. Well, the Dems have now allowed a true radical to win their nomination, and they seem to be thrilled by their new messiah.
Will the American people be taken in by the Left? That's the crucial question that will decide the historic election of '08.

A Candidate Speaks

SSgt David Bellavia, Medal of Honor Nominee, an honest to God American hero, and candidate for Congress from upstate New York. (Tom Reynolds district) Rochester

"Our patriotism demands the just defense of our nation and the promotion of freedom and liberty in places where there is none," he said. "As a soldier it often appears that our civilian leadership in Congress gravely misunderstand the consequence of victory or defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Their will to win has been replaced by political maneuvering and partisan politics."

From Bob Loonsbury ya gotta go read the whole thing.

H/T to my buddy RV in Rochester.

....we’re in real danger of entering a Twilight Zone of leftist anti-Americanism and Democratic scorched-earth partisanship. When the Democrats hold all the reins of power, they’re going to bring out the long knives.
And it’s going to take somebody with a pair of brass ones to stand up to them.
No Republican in the House is going to have any legislative power, but David Bellavia can have rhetorical power. He can take his few minutes a day in the well of the House and let freedom ring. He can be a guest on the talk shows, he can be in the debates, he can call a spade a spade.
His demeanor, his verbal skills, his shiny medal, his cockiness will all give him a platform, and he will make sure that platform gets used. No mealy-mouthed go-along to get-along, he’ll go toe-to-toe with anybody of a matter of patriotic principle.
He’s a fighter and a patriot.
And that’s what the Congress needs. That’s what the 26th needs. That’s what America needs.
The problem is, there’s a little bit of foot dragging. It sounds a little bit like some in the Republican Party leadership through the 26th District aren’t that keen on David Bellavia.
Part of the problem is that he hasn’t paid any dues or kissed any backsides. Order is maintained in a political organization by doling out perqs and positions to sycophants. That’s not the way David Bellavia operates.
Some Republican leaders are worried that, at his young age, if they accept him as their candidate, they are possibly giving out a very valuable position that he may hold for decades.
It’s no fun being a king maker if you don’t get to make a king. David Bellavia isn’t beholden to the party’s leaders, and he has skipped the entire process the party uses to groom and produce senior politicians.
And that’s too bad – for them. For people outside the small rooms of the Republican leadership, however, it means nothing.

McCain's Straight Lies

Dr Thomas Sowell, a man whose opinion I respect more than most, and who is always blunt and to the point, has this to say about McCain:
After you read this, go see what David Limbaugh has to say about McCain's conservatism, or lack of it.

We have been hearing for years that Senator John McCain gives "straight talk" and his bus has been endlessly referred to as the "straight talk express."
But endless repetition does not make something true.
The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker.
There are short, blunt lies -- and he told a big one on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Even the Washington Post, which supports McCain, said that the Senator "has distorted the meaning" of what Governor Romney said, that Romney "has never proposed setting 'a date for withdrawal.'"
During Mitt Romney's ABC News interview that Senator McCain twisted, Governor Romney was asked by the interviewer whether he agreed with President Bush's veto of Congressional legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal, and whether Romney as President would veto similar legislation.
"Of course," was Romney's reply. There was no ambiguity.

An Open Letter to LGF Readers By Duncan Hunter

Stop by Little Green Footballs and read a letter sent to Charles Johnson, LGF founder by Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter: Says Charles:
“GOP Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter’s campaign contacted me and asked if I’d be interested in posting a message from him, on the subject of Israel. Just to be clear, this isn’t an LGF endorsement of Congressman Hunter (and no, he isn’t paying me to post it)—but I think the lizard army will really appreciate his straightforward assessment of the situation.”
Here is an excerpt from Duncan Hunter’s open letter:

“… While the United States should do what it can to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it’s simply not possible for the Israelis to make peace with people who refuse to recognize their existence, kidnap their soldiers, and blow themselves up in crowds of Israeli civilians. So, until the Palestinians renounce terrorism and stop their attacks on the Israeli people, peace will be out of reach.” [Emphasis added.]

Read the whole thing.

One can only hope that all of his stances hold true.

Just Wondering… Election ’08 Watch

I have a question: For the Rudy, Romney, and McCain supporters – if a candidate that is farther to the right than either of these men gets the “nod” for the party’s presidential run, will you support that candidate, or will you stay home? Seriously. Now is the time to answer this question.

I seriously find myself leaning toward Duncan Hunter. As of now, he is the candidate that is closest to my own beliefs as a conservative. Huckabee and Tancredo are in the running for my vote but they are farther back, and Fred Thompson still has not officially announced that he will run.

Often, those of us with more conservative views are told that we have to give up our candidate because we need to chase Democrat voters or the mysterious “middle of the road” voter. If the primary gives Duncan Hunter as the Republican candidate, will those “moderate” Republicans follow the advice they have given us over the years, or will they subject their more moderate beliefs in favor of a stronger stance to save us from a “President Hillary” or “President Hussein?”

I need to know.

Thompson Calls Kennedy Immigration Bill A "Pig In Lipstick"

Town Hall has a great article from Fred Thompson about our impending immigration policy implosion at the hands of Ted Kennedy and (unfortunately) the President.

(I didn't know this but it seems Fred Thompson has a blog: The Fred Thompson Report)

"The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens -- securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.

No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier -- at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.

We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty."

Read his whole article. The more I find out about this thing, the more I don't like it. But, what can you expect with Ted Kennedy at the helm.

Reaction to the Second Republican Debates

I watched the Fox News web stream of the Republican presidential debates last night.
Here are some of the things that stood out in my mind.


Ron Paul is an absolute nut!!!!! (IMHO)
His position on Iraq is one that I TOTALLY do not support and want no part of.
It was a shame because some of his positions on the size of government I did like. He might have been a great person to have on tap for a special committee whose task was to downsize a bloated government. As it stands now, I would not come within 10 feet of him. Rudy Giuliani should thank him for opening his mouth; Giuliani’s hard-hitting slam at Paul will, out of all his answers that night, be the one thing that he will be remembered for. They gave him extra time to explain himself, which only made the others want to engage him more on his wrong-headed idea on why America is responsible for what happened on September the 11th.

Jim Gilmore stood out as the only person that I know of that had any kind of a record that would lead me to believe that after they were elected, they would continue to be a strong model of conservativism. He seemed a bit timid answering the question on minorities in the Republican Party -- which if he was, there was no need for.

Duncan Hunter did well. He answered the questions that were put to him in a way that led me to believe he did mean what he was saying. He just has to beat that perception that he is a long shot, and with the cameras in love with “Ruddy McGiuliani” as Gov. Gilmore called him, he has a totally uphill fight going on.

Mitt Romney looks good, but as I have with Rudy, there is something in me that wonders just how conservatively he will govern once all the votes are counted.

Fox news’ handling of the debate blows away anything Chris Matthews and his ilk could have done. The questions were more relevant, and the organization and conduct of the meeting were not appearing to be something “slapped together” at the last minuet as the first debate did. They spent way too much time on abortion for my taste: each person seemed to answer questions on abortion 3 times at least. But other than that, it was good.

Last, but certainly not least: John McCain. I will try not to cuss. With all due respect to the Senator’s former status as a prisoner of war, I DO NOT need him to reach across the aisle to Ted Kennedy and the Democrats! That is not why I would have him there. I would have him there to enact a conservative agenda, and if elected to the White House, I would CERTAINLY want him working on a TRUE conservative agenda, not the self self-aggrandizing, “John the maverick,” “Pirates of the DC Caribbean” follies that I have observed thus far .
Tell me, if you believe that you are on the right side of an argument or cause and your loony liberal left opposition (like Ron Paul) is on the opposite side of that argument, why would you compromise with them? What good would come from it? That’s like trying to create a half-truth. Combine this with the fact that he voted against the tax cuts (both times) and DID nearly nullify my Second Amendment Right with his kooky campaign finance law and you will know why I have a special place that I would like to reserve for our media darling “maverick” Republican RINO.

That is a quick summation of what stood out in my mind, what stood out in yours?

I Think Its A Go

My sources in DC, who are in a position to know, have told me that we can expect an announcement from former Senator Fred Thompson the third week in May.
The key phrase used was "contractual agreements".
In other words, as soon as his contract with L&O is over, he is in.
We all knew this, but I now have solid confirmation.
Look for more over at Conservative Revolution

What soldiers are afraid of

This is a portion of a letter posted on Redstate.com from a soldier in Iraq. Most of the soldiers and Marines that I've talked to are not politically minded and keep their opinions to themselves. Their views are varied and sometimes even liberal. They all have opinions on the campaign in Iraq. But they all agree with this soldier's view:

"With that said, WE believe in our mission. Lord knows I don't want to die in the God-forsaken desert. On the other hand, I accepted that possibility when I raised my right hand and swore an oath.We are succeeding here, it is slow, it is painful, and it is costing the lives of American Soldiers. That is not the standard by which we judge. We do not count the bodies in the way that the media does, because we know they aren't numbers. Each time we hear of one falling, we bow our heads and say a prayer, or we stand at attention and render a crisp salute to their sacrifice. Our standard is victory, and although it is not as easily defined in this conflict as it was in the past, that makes it no less valuable or attainable.

We watch the news. We know what the left thinks of us. Erick has it right, the left wants us to fail, no matter the cost. The President and I want us to succeed, no matter the cost.
If you truly care about the lives of soldiers, then honor the sacrifice they make. A soldier's greatest fear is not of dying, but of having the sacrifices he or she makes rendered meaningless by surrender. "

Fighting pirates

I hope Fred Thompson runs....he gets it.

From Redstate.com

"Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?"

and,

"If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted
again. "

"Right now, the pirate Ahmadinejad is clearly more confident about the outcome of the Global War on Terror than we are. That ought to give us pause."


Why isn't this clearly seen, even by those on the left? As another blogger, Armed Liberal, asks "Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?" One of our nation's first demonstrations of our strength as a nation was the war against the terrorists of the 1700's, the Barbary pirates. Today, that war continues.

Thompson is the one.

Former Senator Fred Thompson is pulling ahead in a race in which he has not yet entered.

With a New York Liberal that supports gay rights, gun control, and, shall we say, has "personal issues"; and an Arizona Senator that has never connected with the GOP base and says such things as "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected"; and another Governor of a liberal Northeast state that usually is shown as example in the South of all things wrong, I think a Thompson candidacy may be the one we want to get behind, IF he runs. Now, we need to convince him. By the way, its being reported that his wife is urging him to run, and as a married man, I know.....the wife is always right.

1 Comments:

ConcreteBob said...

Hey Bro, you doing OK? I guess you and I are on the same page when it comes to Senator Thompson.
There's a link on my page to sign a petition.
March 25, 2007 2:52 PM

Mitt Romney in '08?

Just to make sure I put a post up on the blog to cover it, Mitt Romney announced a few days ago that he would seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008. I don’t know a whole lot about Mitt Romney. He has not been a name that I have covered a lot in my political travels. What I do know from news articles and word of mouth is:

1. He is a former governor of Massachusetts
2. He is “a successful venture capitalist who amassed a fortune”
3. The “ ‘savior’ of the scandal-plagued 2002 Winter Olympic Games”
4. He has been married to his wife Ann since 1969, and have five married sons and 10 grandchildren.
5. “As governor of Massachusetts, Romney was credited with closing a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes and pushing a comprehensive overhaul of health insurance system" in his state.
6. If elected, he would be the first Mormon elected to the presidency.

I know it sounds bad, but this is how I feel; presidential or congressional candidates who calls themselves a “conservative” and come from further north than Virginia sets red flags off in my mind – especially Massachusetts. I think, with the exception of Rick Santorum, I can’t think of very many politicians on the Republican side that would fit the Reagan mold. For clarity, this is what I would consider true conservativism:

-Pro-life
-Anti-Affirmative Action
-Pro-equal rights
-Pro-Second Amendment
-Pro-limited government
-Pro-low taxation
-Pro-military and national defense
-Pro-flag and strong American national identity
-Recognize the Bible as the foundation of American law, government, and society
-Recognize marriage as only between one man and one woman.
-Strong border security and enforcement of immigration laws
-Pro-capitalism
-Anti-trade deficit, Pro-domestic manufacturing
-Fair, strong law enforcement and judicial system

That’s the prism that I look at he world through. And that’s what I am looking for when I look at the votes OVER TIME of a candidate who wants to have my vote. Now I will add that once I get to the state and local level, I can give lee-way on a few items, but I never deviate far from these “rules of thumb.”

Now, a couple of things in this article caught my attention (and caused red flags.) First, was his statement that Abroad, he called on the United States ot “regain its standing in the world and he called for the United States' role to be defined not only in terms of military might but also by its willingness to lead, serve and share.” What does that mean? We are the leader of the free world, already. We serve the world already. We sent military ships with aid to Indonesia and other countries after the tsunami – a partially Islamic country that hated us before our aid and still does after our ships have left. We take the surplus of crops that we grow and sell and/or give them to other countries in the name of “humanitarian aid.” We prop up entire countries with monetary support and military aid, and even house and fund the United Nations, a despotic, anti-American and anti-Semitic organization if there ever was one.

Other areas of concern for me are his letter During his Senate run again Ted Kennedy where he “[promised] a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than Kennedy” and his statement that “regardless of personal beliefs, abortion should be safe and legal.” All of these positions are in contrast to what he is saying now, so I ask, which version do we believe?

Anyone with any more details, answers, or examples, both good and bad post them. We need this information to make a clear decision, and, so far, not a lot by the way of deeds have been forthcoming to give him the benefit of the doubt.