America and Iran


University Funding


Clarence Thomas and Liberals


Democrats and Children


Winning a Nobel Prize


Winning the Nobel Prize used to be an accomplishment. Now it's just a political toy.

Democrats and Taxes


Don't forget: in the minds of Democrats, if you work, produce, and earn money legally, you are "the rich."

Bush + The Governator


Who wants to bet that's exactly what he was thinking?

Democrats, Halloween, and Iraq


The Great Conservative Pumpkin


Well it's just not going to happen, freedom-lovers, is it?

US Continues Surrender

We give up. Sorry, but the jihadists have won. It doesn't matter if you, personally, have not surrendered, the United States already has. If you, personally, have not surrendered, welcome to my world -- the world of Don Quixote.

Edwards: I Can Spend MORE!

Wow. In the midst of the election season, the Democrats are trying to outbid one another. Each one says that they can spend more money than the others. And of course, that's money that you earn that they're bidding to spend. And Edwards even admits that he's going to raise taxes -- a LOT.

He wants to force 3-year old children into schools. It's not enough that the government brainwashes children from age 5-18, now he wants to start at age 3. Why? Because the school system NEEDS to take your children from you earlier so they can program them before you do. Seriously. Government schools are evil and they will destroy your children. And adding a couple years at your expense is what Edwards will do as president.

He wants to put banks out of business because he wants to create a new federal bank savings program -- just for "poor" people -- that will give them free cash. Again, he will have to take that money from people who actually work to earn it so he can give it to "the poor." He's calling it "matching savings accounts." I think I want to be poor so I can get a 100% return on my money. In fact, just in case he becomes president, I think I'll start working now on creating two or three new identities (I think I'll be from Mexico) so I can launder money through federal accounts with 100% interest.

He wants a $9.50 minimum wage. Well that makes sense because he needs "poor" people to support with his other various programs and the quickest way to create more poor people is to make the economic market so screwed up that more people will have to be fired -- or work under the table. The more government screws with the capitalist system, the more people will work to find ways around it. Then again, that might be a good thing because then we could all be "poor" and get a 100% return on our savings accounts.

He wants to give away a million houses to "the poor." Don't you want to be poor now? Not only do you get a 100% return on savings investments, you also get a free house! And like other crappy Section 8 programs, if you don't take care of your house and you destroy it, running it into the ground, the government will just give you another one to destroy.

But wait, there's more!

Yes, not to be outdone with his spending, Edwards also wants to disrupt the entire economic system of higher education by giving away college educations for free, too! It's called "College for Everyone." Awwwww. Isn't that special? Yes, Edwards is going to take enough money from working people to force children into school from age 3 to 23 now. Twenty years of your life will be spent in government education buildings. Government will decide what and when you shall learn for twenty years. You WILL go to the government education camps buildings.

Oh, and you'll have socialized medicine "instantly" according to Edwards. Let's vote for this guy and just be done with this experiment we called "Democracy." It will be better if we end it quickly.

Schip. Again.


Well, it's coming back again. Folks, we ARE going to have socialized medicine. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work. It doesn't matter that it will hurt and kill people, just like socialism does every single place on the planet it's ever been tried. You see, socialism works for two reasons: because it's for the "greater good" (even if it kills some people, others will be better off) and because, at least in America, there's many good people.

You see, there's a lot of people in America still left that just won't give up. There's a lot of people who still see the value in hard work, so they're going to work hard, no matter what. There's people who, even if the income tax rises to 75%, are still going to work hard. Of course, that number continues to shrink as more people find out that if they don't work, government will provide, well, everything for them.

But there's still that mass of people who just ignore government, ignore politics, and continue working. There's the mass that doesn't realize that 20-50% of their earnings are being taken from them -- they just don't care because they're going to work hard. As long as there is this mass, socialism and socialist medicine will continue to expand, and will continue to work in America.

Of course, once more students from public schools graduate -- who have not been taught that hard work is good -- and more people retire and simply give up -- it will be harder to sustain the socialist system. The next generation is in serious trouble -- but no one cares about them. And after all, socialized medicine will "help" some people.

So socialism continues. Socialist medicine (SCHIP) will be implemented. And good people will continue to work hard -- at least as long as they can. And freedom will continue to decline until it just simply doesn't exist -- but you won't know, because you'll be working too hard.

Raven has more gory details.

Boxer Politicizes Fire



The nations largest pro-troop organization, Move America Forward (website: is speaking out to condemn Senator Barbara Boxer for politicizing the southern California fires.

Earlier on Tuesday in comments on Capitol Hill, Boxer attacked the mission in Iraq, laying blame on Americas effort to destroy terrorism with the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq for hindering fire-fighting efforts in California.

Shame on Barbara Boxer for trying to take a political shot at the missions and abilities of our troops during a time of crisis in San Diego, said Howard Kaloogian, San Diego County resident and founder of Move America Forward.

Former State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian was part of thousands of people evacuated from their homes in San Diego County on Monday. Kaloogian lives in San Elijo Hills. Move America Forwards Vice Chairman, Lt. Colonel Buzz Patterson (USAF, Ret.) has prepared his family for evacuation in Simi Valley, CA, as the Malibu fire is threatening to come over the mountain into populated parts of Ventura County. The family of Move America Forward Grassroots coordinator, Joe Wierzbicki, was forced to evacuate from their homes in Fallbrook to the ocean after flames approached.

Now is a time for people to come together to help one another during this awful natural disaster. Thousands of Californians have lost their homes, or may lose them in the next 24 hours, and the focus should be on how to help these people, not play petty and pathetic political games, said Colonel Patterson, Move America Forward Vice Chairman.

Patterson also pointed out that if, Senator Boxer was so concerned about insufficient military equipment, she should stop voting against military appropriations.

Besides being shameless, Senator Boxers comments are also inaccurate. As Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Paul McHale declared today:

"I can tell you unequivocally that the ongoing war-fighting activities ... have had no negative effect at all (on) our ability to provide sufficient forces to assist civilian authorities in fighting the wildfires.... There is no manpower shortage, McHale has publicly stated.

Republican Debate

Just a couple notes on the debate from last night. Oh, you didn't see it? Were you too busy watching the Red Sox trounce the Indians? Or perhaps you were watching the football game. No matter, you really didn't miss anything. Actually, it was the same things they've been saying all along. But a couple notes because I did actually watch just about the whole thing.

Rudy: I honestly don't understand how any Republican can vote for this guy. I've previously mentioned that Rudy cannot beat Hillary. He was asked during the debate to describe where Hillary and he disagreed. He did not answer the question AT ALL. He literally could not give ONE single example of an issue upon which he would disagree with Hillary. That's just sickening.

Mitt: I'd been waffling on him. I want to support him. Peter Porcupine has been big in trying to sway Ogre's support for Romney. But after last night, I've got to add him to the short list: the list that Ogre will not vote for, even if it's Mitt vs. Hillary. Sorry, but he outright said last night that he WILL FORCE every person in America to buy health care. It doesn't matter if you want it or not, you WILL buy it, or he will jail you. He said it is absolutely unacceptable to him for anyone to NOT have health care. Sorry, Mitt, but I'd prefer freedom to government-forced, well, anything.

Huckabee: Despite a few questions about Huckabee, and some SERIOUS states' rights issues with him, and with Chuck Norris' endorsement, Huck really looked good. I think he did a great job at the debate and really looked and sounded the best. I can't really throw my support behind him because of a few issues, but I could at least vote for the guy.

Tancredo: Still great, but still just not getting support.

Paul: Consistency, consistency, consistency. He keeps saying the same thing. There's NO question where he stands on anything. He got a lot of boos every time he mentioned getting the US out of, well, ANY foreign entanglement. That's sad because it was Republicans in the audience. People would do well to remember Jefferson's words:

I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.

I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people.

All in all not much excitement. But now there's three Republicans that I won't vote for if they win the primary. Sorry, but I just can't vote for the "lesser" evil.


How true, how true.


Pete Stark on Bush

Pete Stark says:

You don't have the money to fund the war war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.

Yes, that's the position of the Democrat party. They think that President Bush is sending troops to Iraq for his own personal amusement. And the press doesn't care and the Democrat party apparently agrees -- because they're not saying one word to condemn this lunatic.

National "Fly" List

Anyone who knows the history of oppressive governments HAD to see this coming. Anyone who watches the out of control, unrestrained, and irresponsible federal government of America had to know this is where we were going.

The TSA is proposing changing the current "no-fly" list into a "fly" list. In other words, if you want to fly on a commercial flight in America, even a domestic flight, you will have to soon ask permission. You see, that pesky "no fly" list isn't working. So, in order to save you, they're going to only let "approved" people fly.

Does this sound a teensy bit like communist Russia in it's heyday? But hey, you didn't need to have freedom to travel, did you? And after all, you're not doing anything wrong, so why does this bother you? Now shut up and get back to work making money for government to spend.

United States: Islam is Neat

Your United States Congress says:

the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world

They also hold

the deepest respect [for] Muslims

Not ONE member of Congress voted against this. Not ONE member of Congress disagrees with the statement that Islam is great.

Yes, FoeHammer, The United States has submitted to Islam. Can Sharia law in the U.S. be far behind?


So Bush vetoed the SCHIP legislation. Hooray! And no, I don't hate children.

You see, while the supporters of this legislation talk about how great it is, and how many children it will "save," they leave out parts. You only hear the "good" parts of the law, without hearing ALL the details. It's "nice" for all children to have health insurance without having to pay for it (even those whose parents earn up to $80,000 a year -- those "poor" people need help). It's "nice" to get "poor" children to the doctor.

But freedom isn't nice. It isn't evil, either. But freedom IS free. Freedom implies responsiblity. And true freedom is incapable of so-called "compassion."

If you support SCHIP, here is what you support:

You support people with guns, backed by the government, showing up to people's houses. You support midnight raids by the FBI and ATF breaking down people's doors and attacking them in the dead of night. You support people who do an honest day's work only getting paid 1/2 of what their work is worth. You support throwing people in jail and ruining their lives financially -- all so that YOU can feel better about thinking that you're helping poor children.

Government CANNOT "help" anyone without taking from someone else. In a free country, people could help people, but government would not be able to do so. Government produces nothing -- the ONLY way government can provide insurance for children is to break down people's doors and take things away from people who earned it. That's wrong, plain and simple.

Worse, government is SO bad at managing their money, after they break down your door and possibly shoot your or your dog or your family to get that $100 YOU earned, they will end up spending only about $30 of it on the actual insurance for the children.

Here's how it would work in a truly free country:

Anyone would be free to help any child, any where, any time. And no one would be forced at gunpoint to pay to help any other child. I am willing to bet MORE children would be helped in that situation than will ever be helped with this government program.

A Letter From the Founders


Democrats and MoveOn.Org

Today, Sen. Ensign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee released a petition calling on Democrats to return the money they have received from the extremist, liberal organization

Some examples include:

* Tom Allen has received $249,472 in conduit contributions raised through
* Tom Harkin's PAC has received $5,000 from MoveOn's PAC
* Mary Landrieu has received $8,000
* Frank Lautenberg - $5,000
* Mark Pryor - $4,000

Its either campaign contributions from extremist, liberal organizations that claim to have bought and own Democrats or fully supporting our troops. Whatll it be?

You can follow that link yourself and sign the petition. Keep in mind -- this is an organization that supports Michael Moore and actually believes the lies from his movie "Sicko." This is a group that wants PBS and NPR to be funded perpetually and forever -- no matter that fact that they are out of date dinosaurs in the information age. This is a group that wants YOU to pay for healthcare for everyone else -- no exceptions. This is a group that supports fraudulent voting and opposes any attempts to make voting more accurate. This is a group that actually believes algore and "An Inconvenient Truth."

And this is a group that has bought and paid for the Democrat party in government today. If you support this group, you're opposing Democracy -- instead you support a small group of individuals buying a socialist government to replace freedom and Democracy in America.

Want to sign that petition and see if there's any members of the Democrat Party who value freedom more than campaign cash?

US Government Loves Mecca

Dhimmitude. Always on Watch has a whole category dedicated just to Dhimmitude. So what is it? It's any one or any thing that lowers itself, or submits to the rule of Islam. If you wish to live in peace with Islam, but do not want to be Muslim, you must live in this condition -- completely and totally subject to all whims of any Muslim.

The US Government is working harder and harder to submit to Islam as well. The "memorial" for 9/11 faces Mecca. The plan for this memorial should be completely and entirely scrapped. The news media, Dhimmis, and Muslims like the current layout -- because it will be the world's largest Mosque. I know this has been reported in the past, but again -- the people (Dhimmis) designing this crescent simply refuse to change the design.

If this design is not scrapped and changed, it will be the largest memorial in the world that was created to celebrate an Islamic terrorist victory over the infidels of the United States -- and it will be bought and paid for with American taxpayer cash. I would suggest that if it continues that I might work as an "American terrorist" and sabotage the construction -- but I think I'd have a lot of competition.

Hillary Care II, Part B: Enforcement

Well, it seems that Hillary won't arrest me for refusing her demand to buy health insurance. At least, not yet. Instead, at least right now, she's planning on making it a requirement for work to show proof of insurance. Keep in mind, however, her words were:

At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed

In other words, she can't sell throwing people in jail and killing them for refusing to buy insurance yet, but she's not ruling out doing that in the future. I still look forward to the day I get arrested and shot for refusing to spend my money as President Hillary Clinton dictates.

But with her requirement for employment, can you see the total chaos coming? Isn't it a "requirement" to have a social security number for employment? How many people are employed without one today? By recent estimates, as many as 30 million! And how many companies are punished for breaking this law today? None! So since companies already get no punishment for breaking one law, what makes anyone think they'll obey another, similar law?

Hillary Clinton, barring some unseen circumstances, is going to be the next president of the United States. And she IS going to bring it to it's knees with her health care plans. Perhaps by that time I'll be in New Hampshire, joining many others in civil disobedience.

Is this What you voted for?

Also related: Just Who Did Democrats Elect?

Republican Debate Transcript

I watched some of the Republican Debate last night. Some of it was interesting, most was not. I know a lot of people didn't watch it, so I'll be glad to help you out with an almost word-for-word transcript. Well, I shortened it a little to give you all the main points:

Moderator/Talking Head #1: Hello and welcome. We're glad you could all come to New Hampshire (off mike: New Hampshire? Make sure my plane is ready so I can get out of this hick town as soon as we're done). First, Mr Mayor, Mr Wonderful, Mr Giuliani, you're great. I like you. You're a Republican, but you're liberal enough for me. What do you say to that?

Giuliani: I agree, I am wonderful. And I want to be president. Then we can all be wonderful. And I fixed New York, so I'm really wonderful.

Moderator/Talking Head #1: Excellent. That's great. Mr Romney, what you think about Mr. Giuliani being wonderful?

Romney: Well I think he's wonderful, too, but I think I'm more wonderful. Really, don't you agree I'm wonderful? I fixed Massachusetts, which is bigger than New York, so I really think I'm more wonderful.

Moderator/Talking Head #1: I agree. Next question is for Mr. McCain. Senator McCain, I think you're pretty great, too. Do you agree or disagree?

McCain: I was in a war, you know, so I'm pretty wonderful, also.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: I think that's great. But over here, we've got Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul, you're a wacko. I don't like you. In fact, I don't want to talk to you. So instead, I'm going to just call you a wacko. Don't you agree?

Ron Paul: Why don't you ask the right questions? I think we should follow the Constitution! Why don't we follow that? I want to be a leader that follows the Constitution.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: See? You're a loony. No one follows that silly old document any more. Forget you, we're going back to Giuliani. Mr Mayor Giuliani, tell us more about how you fixed New York.

Giuliani: Well I banned guns, which made it safer. You see, guns are bad and guns cause crime. You can tell they do because when I banned them, crime decreased. So I'm tough on crime. And I support the second amendment. I just don't support it when I'm in charge.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: Oh, that's just great. Mr. Romney, you disagree?

Romney: Well, I don't know about that. I stand firm on my position. I think my position is clear and I absolutely stand by that position. In Massachusetts, I had to work with Democrats, where I made my position clear. Is that clear?

Moderator/Talking Head #2: Oh, very clear. Senator McCain, do you want to talk about this issue?

McCain: Oh yes. You see, I know war. I was in a war. I've been to Iraq, and I've seen war, so I know about guns.

Moderator/Talking Head #7: Great. Let's go back to Giuliani. Mayor of New York Giuliani, you didn't sign this pledge to raise taxes. Do you like taxes?

Giuliani: I think taxes are something that need to be considered. I don't need to sign any pledge because I know how to raise taxes. Taxes are the engine that drives government, but since I'm running for the Republican nomination, I support lower taxes today.

Moderator/Talking Head #7: How about you, Front-Runner Romney? You claim that you're not going to raise taxes, but you didn't sign this pledge to not raise them. Why is that?

Romney: Well I think my record stands for itself. I know what I did then and I know what I stand for now. So that's clear enough that I don't need to sign any pledge because I did what was then now before I came up here today to New Hampshire.

Moderator/Talking Head #7: What's that? There's someone else on the stage that wants to say something? You there, with the tie, yes?

Senator Brownback: Yes, I'd like to comment on...

Moderator/Talking Head #7: Oh, I'm sorry, it's not your turn yet. We're talking to the front runners, who are much more important than you. I'll ask you a question when I want some answers to make fun of later on. Let's move to immigration. Senator McCain, you supported amnesty in the Senate, and I liked that. Could you comment on that?

McCain: Oh sure, I'd be glad to. We've got some wonderful people that have come to this country to help us work. And I think they should be allowed to help us work. I didn't support amnesty, instead I supported letting them stay here and work without punishment. That's not amnesty, that's just me trying to get them to vote for me. And I like people voting for me, even if they don't know I was in a war.

Moderator/Talking Head #4: Mr Romney, you've been accused of being for illegals, and even had some mowing your lawn. What do you think?

Romney: Look, just because they were mowing my lawn doesn't mean I don't like them or that I'm racist. I didn't hire them, it wasn't my fault. Instead, I'd like to do something about them. I don't really know what, but I'll go with my record on that one.

Moderator/Talking Head #4: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: Well I sure had a lot of illegals in New York -- and I supported them. I protected them from one another because they're too stupid (like most of the rest of you) to protect themselves. After all, once I took away everyone's guns, they had to rely on me to protect them anyway, so I thought I'd welcome the illegals and protect them, too, because we need workers.

Moderator/Talking Head #9: Let's go over here to the lunatic fringe and talk to that guy. What's your name? Oh, who cares, you're not going to win and everyone knows it, but you can talk some now if you like.

Tancredo: We need borders. Why can't we have borders? All these guys up here now are claiming they want to secure the borders -- but before they were running for president, none of the bums would do a damn thing for the borders. How come they're only claiming they want a border now? Do you actually believe they're going to do something about the borders? I don't think they will, and I WILL. I will enforce the law, as I'm supposed to, unlike these jokers.

Moderator/Talking Head #2: Are you done yet? Geez. Hey, let's go to some guy in a restaurant or some other place in this hick town.

Remote: Hey, I've found a bunch of socialists here in New Hampshire that don't really know they're socialists. They are government employees, so they'll be as leftist as we can find here. You there, drooling woman, do you think gays should be able to marry?

Random Government Bureaucrat Woman: I think "Live Free or Die" means that government rules! Go Government! Oh, and yes, I think queers should be able to have complete and total approval from all people and anyone who opposes them should be locked away.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: Oh goody. Hey tie-boy over on the left side. Yes, you. You're a far-right wacko, what do you think about men putting their things in other men's things in public?

Senator Brownback: That's just wrong. Every single country that's approved of gay marriage has had a massive increase in out of wedlock births. In every one of those places, there are thousands and thousands of more children that are being raised with one parent. And the results of that are catastrophic. Every single place that's been tried has been an absolute disaster. It's just wrong.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: Weirdo. Let's go back to the front-runners who we in the media want to win. Mayor Giuliani, you're wonderful. We all know that. But what about those pesky personal issues you have like divorce?

Giuliani: That doesn't really matter, does it? Didn't Clinton teach us that personal lives have absolutely nothing to do with the presidency? Just because women don't trust me and I've proven over and over again that I can't keep my word, that doesn't mean I won't do a good job. Just because I claimed to honor my wife "till death do us part," and didn't, doesn't mean I can't be president.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: True, true. So do any of you front-runners have an opinion regarding Senator Craig's resignation? No? You don't know him? Fine, let's let one of the other people who aren't going to win answer it.

Senator Brownback: He said he was going to resign, and I think he should stick by his word.

Congressman Hunger: I agree.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: You people are living in a fantasy land, aren't you? Let's talk to the wacko again. Mr Paul, you love terrorists, is that right?

Ron Paul: Why don't you people listen? The Constitution is the law of the land.

Moderator/Talking Head #0: Yeah, whatever. Hey you, guy with the black shoes, your comment?

Governor Huckabee: Look, we screwed up Iraq, so we're going to fix it.

Ron Paul: No! When you mess something up, you don't keep messing it up more! You STOP messing it up!

Governor Huckabee: No, once you mess it up, you have to send government in to fix it because only government can fix anything.

Ron Paul: Government cannot fix ANYTHING!

Some moderator: Mr. Paul, aren't you the nut job that wants to get rid of the FBI and CIA or something? If we get rid of the FBI, how will you have intelligence?

Ron Paul: Well let's see, how did the billions of dollars worth of intelligence help us on 9/11? We spend how many billions and it did us no good. So explain to me how spending billions MORE will help more.

Moderator: You're just nuts, and I hope no one votes for you because you just scare me with your talk of freedom. Let's get back to the people I want to win this election. Mr Giuliani, do you love Iran more than me?

Giuliani: I think so. I mean, I don't want them to drop any nukes on my house or anything, but I think our position should be clear: they're sponsors of terrorism and we should talk mean to them. I mean, not mean enough to make them mad, but you know, sternly. They'll listen to that.

Moderator: Mr Romney, how about you? Love Iran?

Romney: Once again, I fall back on my record. My record is clear on this issue and I want everyone to know that it's clear. Is that clear?

Moderator: Yes. War hero McCain, your position?

McCain: I've been to war. I've seen Iran on a map. And I think, as Mr Romney does, that our position should be clear. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. And if they do, we should sanction them. And if they use the nuclear weapon, we should severely sanction them. And we might even re-start that League of Nations thing to keep them in line since the UN is doing such a good job of it.

Moderator: Well, I need to get the heck out of this backwards state and back to socialists who love and worship me. Thank you, especially the media-proclaimed front-runners, for being so liberal, but having the courage to run on the Republican ticket. It warms my heart to know that when we have two choices next November, it's highly likely there will be two liberals to choose from. Our next so-called debate will be in a nicer place, so join us then.

Ask Permission to Volunteer

Once again, government shows that it's not interested in anything but government itself. Did you catch this story over the weekend? The headline is: "Feds to Restrict Volunteers at Disasters." How about some key quotes:

Ground zero volunteer Rhonda Shearer and her daughter launched a fast-moving supply system that bypassed regular channels, often infuriating city officials.

So let's see, Rhonda created a system that provided people with life-saving materials and equipment that they needed -- and the government was infuriated! Who is this Rhonda person, going around saving people? That, apparently, is the government's job! And government is going to make DAMN sure that no one saves anyone without asking government first. In fact, they are going to ARREST you (and possibly shoot you) if you attempt to help anyone. Welcome to America today.
Dickinson, the federal fire official, said the government is not trying to discourage volunteers, but he thinks there should come a time, within a few days of a disaster, when civilians step back and let the professionals take control.

The common thread of the socialist government of America today: you're too dumb to do anything, let government handle it. No, it doesn't matter what, you're not equipped to do it, ONLY government and government "professionals" are capable of doing, well, anything. You either give control to government or they will TAKE it from you.
"If California goes ahead and does that, it will flow across the country. This is a really smart idea by someone in the Bush administration to be able to control access to the site and frankly, make sure there are no untrained people," Taylor said. "If somebody goes running down to the site, you have to stop and ask them, wait, are they certified to do this work?"

I wonder how long it will be before people like me are arrested for performing CPR without asking government permission?

The Media and Rove


No further comment needed, eh?

Richard V on Gonzalez

Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed has a few words about the recent resignzation of Gonzalez:

With the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, President Bush has an historic opportunity to recover from some of his self-inflicted injuries. He can do this by nominating a principled conservative to be the next Attorney General. Confront the Democrats, dont reach out to them as liberal commentators are urging.

Confronting the Democrats with a highly qualified, truly conservative nominee for Attorney General is the only way to repair some of this damage.

So, Bush has got a chance to show he's a conservative. But why should he? Seriously, what motivation does Bush have? He's not running again and he doesn't appear to care if conservatives win again. He doesn't appear to be doing things to help even Republicans win again. It appears he's just doing what he wants, when he wants. That would be good -- if he were actually a conservative.

Richard V goes on to list 10 qualified people he thinks would be good for the position:

Chris Cox, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) since 2005. Received his JD from Harvard Law School. Associate Counsel to President Reagan. Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1989-2005.

Miguel Estrada, nominated in 2001 to U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit (D.C.), but filibustered by Democrats.

Jim Gilmore, former Virginia Attorney General (1993-1997) and Virginia Governor (1998-2002). From 1999 to 2003 chaired the Congressional terrorism commission known as the Gilmore Commission. Chairman of the Republican National Committee in 2001-2002.

Edith Jones, nominated by President Reagan and now chief judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The other finalist for the Supreme Court vacancy given instead to David Souter. Had the honor of being named one of five worst judges in Texas by the liberal Texas Observer.

Ed Meese, Ronald Reagans distinguished Attorney General. Though retired, he is active with the Heritage Foundation and would undoubtedly agree to serve his country again for a 17-month interim term.

Ted Olson, U.S. Solicitor General 2001-2004. Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration. Successfully litigated Bush v. Gore. Wife Barbara K. Olson was passenger on hijacked airplane on 9/11.

Priscilla Owen, federal judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Previously a justice on the Texas Supreme Court.

Charles W. Pickering, Sr., appointed by President George H. W. Bush to U.S. District Court for Southern District of Mississippi. In 1976, he chaired the subcommittee of the Republican Platform Committee that called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.

William H. Pryor Jr., Alabama Attorney General from 1997 to 2004. Presently a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Rick Santorum, former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, where he was chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

That's some powerful names there, huh? Therefore I guess the odds of any one of them even being considered is about 1000:1.

People who think Bush is a conservative are just wrong. Then again, Bush does have a chance here to show people that he can do some good things. Do you think he'll nominate a conservative (from the list), or do you think, as I suspect, that Bush will nominate someone that will not raise any objections from the Democrats?

Fat Problem?

And yes, that's "Fat," and not "Phat."

Recent reports (taxpayer paid-for, of course) are suggesting that there's a problem with Americans and fat. The study singles out Mississippi as the state with the largest problem. And oh yes, government is moving in to spend money, err.. "fix" the problem. But that's not really the problem, is it?

Should I, personally, be able to eat a deep fried turkey? What about French fries? Should I be able to buy and eat one of those lovely elephant ears (fried bread)? According to today's government, I should NOT have the freedom to buy and eat those foods. Seriously, that's what this report is suggesting. Why? Because I'm not responsible enough, according to government.

Can someone point to me any section of any Constitution (state or federal) that suggests that the government is my mommy? Can anyone point to a line or phrase that suggests that government is responsible for anything I do? I can, on the other hand, point to various lines and sections that suggest I should be free. Unfortunately, these sections obviously no longer apply.

As the article about the report points out, the real problem is government! It's not fried food, and it's not fat people -- it's GOVERNMENT. And yes, nearly every time there is a problem today, it is government's fault. What the government is worried about is the high cost of treating fat people. They are worried about the high cost of treating diabetes, heart problems, and other health ailments from fat people. As usual, there's a simple problem -- and as usual, there's no way it will happen.

The simple solution: freedom. Allow people freedom. Permit people to be free. Do not punish people who want to be free. That's all. Then there is no problem any more. If we were free, there would be no worries here and no problems regarding government expenses. But you see, that's cruel -- so we're not going to do it. Instead, we are going to continue to punish those who are careful and reward those who are not. We will punish those who are not obese. We will punish those who watch what they eat and take care of their bodies; and we will reward those who eat fatty foods and do not care.

As long as government believes they have the power to "care" and be "compassionate," there is no chance for freedom. Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Government to Monitor Babies

Yes, more news with one purpose: to expand government massively and as quickly as possible. This one really is a two-fer crisis -- it's about health AND "For The Children (TM)."

This new study, paid for with unwilling taxpayer cash, claims that there are 1,500,000 children who have high blood pressure and don't know it -- implying that they will die any minute. One doctor, who wasn't even involved in the study, cried that this was a crisis that could not wait another minute. He actually said that "we" (that's the royal "we," meaning government and agents of the government paid by the government) need to immediately

sit down and go over family history, talk about diet, exercise and other potential treatments including medicine

for three year-olds. He's serious. He wants government to force all 3-year old children to come sit with him and talk about treatments.

America is no longer the land of the free. There are large groups and organizations, like the American Academy of Pediatrics that want to control you because they believe they are smarter than you and that you're too dumb to live without their help. And they're not afraid to use government and government's monopoly on force to get you to do their bidding.

Don't be surprised when they turn up testing your wastewater from your house to attempt to determine if you need help. Gee, don't you wish Hillary would hurry up and be crowned elected queen president so these doctors can have more power to tell us what to do?

More Useless Government

By now I'm sure most people know about the evil Dean, hurricane extrodinaire. Well, since Katrina's Democrat disaster was blamed completely on Bush (since he created the hurricane, after all), Bush is moving quickly. Even though according to all forecasts there's a zero percent chance of the hurriance striking anywhere NEAR Texas, Bush has started giving them billions of dollars.

What total and complete BS. You there, in North Dakota, you now must give money (and if you don't, you'll be jailed or killed) to people in Texas because a hurricane is going to hit Mexico. What's next, giving cash to New York when a thunderstorm hits Kansas?

Go ahead, try to explain to me government is good. I dare you.

The Emotional Conservative

How about a political game for Saturday?

In politics, emotions always win. That's just the way it is. When you scream "for the children," that's a winner every single time. Don't believe me? Look how much money is spent on education and look at the zero results that money is getting us.

However, Democrats win because they're using emotions. With the Iraq war, look at how the issues are framed. Pro-war people talk about things that are saved and good -- but anti-war people talk about the "innocent" deaths. Anti-war wins. Typically conservatives tend to use logic and facts to present their ideas. Typically socialists and leftists use emotions.

So here's the game:

See how many emotional arguments you can come up with to support genuinely conservative positions. You can't outright lie, but you can really, really, really stretch the truth a lot to play on people's emotions. Who can come up with the most heart-wrenching reason that will convince millions of people to absolutely support your position because to do otherwise would kill babies (or something equally bad)?

Feel free to give it a shot here in the comments or post something on your blog, should you have one. If you post elsewhere, please post a link to your post in the comments here, since the trackbacks aren't working.

Have at it!

Government vs. Government

As usual, when government gets too big, it can only fight against itself. This is in regards to the recent story that the census bureau it trying to tell Homeland Security to "suspend enforcement raids." Oh, they're just doing their job, of course.

Two quick points--

First, why just Homeland Security? The Census Bureau is literally telling a law enforcement agency to stop enforcing the law. Why just that one? Why not tell the sheriffs to stop serving warrants on people because they might not answer the door? Why not tell police departments to stop "bothering" bank robbers because the Census Bureau wants to count them? It seems a little dishonest to tell law enforcement to just stop enforcing one law and not all the others. What about "equal protection under the law?"

Second, aren't they asking Homeland Security to do what they're already doing? Is there anyone left out there that honestly believes that there is ANY attempt at ANY border enforcement at all? Most large cities encourage illegal invaders from Mexico. Bush and his branch of government actively discourage border patrol agents from doing their job. Those who think that Homeland Security is currently conducting "enforcement raids" are living in a fantasy land.

But, this is what you get when government grows too big. And the whole Census Bureau is another game altogether. Just remember -- if the bureacratic bums come to your door, the ONLY answer you are required to give is the number of people in your house. Don't answer any other questions, no matter what they claim. And don't feel sorry for the "poor" census taker who is "only doing his job." So were the Nazi guards (why do I keep hearing about "only doing my job" over and over these days?)

Denounce Jesus or Go To Jail

This is the clear message being sent today, around the world. While you expect such actions from the Muslim world, where they kill you if you don't renounce Jesus and accept Allah, you don't always expect this from the more civilized nations. But it's happening more and more.

First up, here is what Senator Kennedy and 43 of his billionaire buddies (including Obama and Clinton) want to see in America: Police harassment and possible punishment for suggesting you, personally, don't completely and totally approve of everything "gay." This is in relation to Senate Bill 1105, which would basically make you a criminal if you speak out in any way against homosexuality. Me simply printing this:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

or this:
Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Could get me locked up and put away. But the Democrats want what they want and they don't care who they have to jail, hurt, or kill to get their way. 44 United States Senators think that it's just fine to jail me for printing those words.

Next up, how about the East Penn School District. If you dare to say a prayer in school to Jesus, you're tossed out. But if you write a book that says "F- Jesus," then that's not only okay, that's REQUIRED reading for the 10th-graders. In this government school, loving Jesus gets you thrown out; but hating Jesus gets you cash royalties.

Finally, it's off to Canada where the latest massive persecution of Christians is taking place in a more "civilized" way. In Roxton Falls, the government there has told residents that they must force their children to renounce Jesus, or the children will be taken away from the parents. How do you like them apples? The people are doing the only thing they can, they're running from the persecution -- they're moving. However, I'm not sure there's a lot of places left in the world where you can move and be free to raise your children as a Christian.

Just imagine, if you can, being told by armed agents of the government that if you do not FORCE your children to renounce Jesus, then the government agents will use deadly force to take your children away from you so that the government agents can force your children to renounce Jesus. The only real difference between Roxton Falls and ancient Rome is that they're not throwing the believers to the lions. Instead, they're taking their children. I wonder how far behind burning the heretics at the stake will be.

Well, it is written that "all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived." I think we're just seeing it more and more today in countries where it used to not be common.

Jesus did say,

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you

The blessings continue and expand in today's world -- in Canada, Pennsylvania, and in the United States Senate. I just wish more people would be honest and admit they just don't like Christians.

Ron Paul Undercounted?

So, did anyone else notice that the person who "certified" the results of the Iowa Straw Poll was a member of Mitt Romney's Leadership team? How about a little math on the Straw Poll (provided via Steve Watson of

FUZZY MATH #1 So we know from the state Auditor that one problem machine contained 500 votes. Assuming most machines contained a similar pattern of use, then they should also contain about the same number of votes. 60 (machines) x 500 = 30,000 votes. That is more than TWICE as many as the official count. Based on a total vote count of 14,301, if all machines were used about equally, then the average number of votes per machine SHOULD have been 238 {14,301 (total votes) / 60 (machines) = 238 votes per machine}. What are the odds that one of the machines that malfunctioned and actually gave up an audited vote tally would contain TWICE as many votes as the average machine? But it gets worse

State Auditor David Vaudt (who unofficially certified the vote count) said that there were only 2 machines out of the 60 that were inconsistent (paper printout vs. electronic tabulation) and needed to be recounted. Mary Tiffany of the Iowa GOP said that a total of approximately 1500 votes were re-fed into the Diebold machines. Since we know that there were only two machines that were a problem and one of them contained 500 votes, then the second machine must have contained about 1000 ballots, which is more than FOUR TIMES what the average machine should contain based on a total vote of 14,301. It seems more likely that there were actually 3 problem machines, and the true average per machine was about 500 votes, which would have resulted in a total vote of about 30,000 which is twice the official total vote count.

Though it was reported that "there were nothing but Ron Paul signs in the crowd" and that his campaign signs lined the highways and streets leading into Ames, Iowa, Paul came in fifth place behind Romney, Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo.

Some exit polls also suggested that Ron Paul had actually WON the poll outright, before the final result was announced.

Sounds pretty shady to me. Just imagine the absolute SHOCK waves that would reverberate around the country if Ron Paul had actually won that poll...

Another detail from Vote in the Sunshine: their exit polling gave quite contradictory results to the "official" voting results. Exit polling showed these results:

Ron Paul 37%
Mike Huckabee 21%
Tom Tancredo 17%
Mitt Romney 10%
Sam Brownback 7%
Tommy Thompson 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
John McCain 1%
Fred Thompson 0%
John Cox 0%
Rudy Giuliani 0%
Hillary Clinton 0% (1 vote)
Dennis Kucinich 0% (1 vote)

That's awful different than the Mitt-Romney Campaign Manager who counted the votes, isn't it?

Go ahead, fit me for the tinfoil hat, but something looks awful fishy here.

Bridge Waste

I suppose it was only a matter of time.


Good thing we're spending billions on welfare and free education, housing, and medicine for illegal criminal aliens, eh?

Viguerie on Rove

Richard Viguerie on Karl Roves Resignation:
Good News for Conservatives

(Manassas, Virginia) The following is a statement from Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006), on the resignation of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove:

Karl Roves departure from the White House is good news for conservatives. We maymayhave a more conservative Bush presidency with Rove back in Texas.

As President Bushs chief political advisor, Karl Rove was a master in the care and feeding of conservative leaders, keeping them mostly silent as the Republican Party moved Left during the Bush presidency.

He used the usual carrot and stick to do this. The carrot was access to the White Houseand conservative leaders proved just as vulnerable as others to the lure of a photo op with the President, lunch in the West Wing, or a returned phone call from Karl Rove. The stick was fearspeak out, and not only will you lose any hope of access, you will be branded as an extremist, or someone whos helping the Democrats by speaking out.

Using both carrot and stick, Karl Rove was able to silence or get the support of most conservative leaders as President Bush and congressional Republicans greatly expanded the size and reach of the federal government, including (but certainly not limited to)

* No Child Left Behind
* McCain-Feingold
* Prescription drug benefits
* Nation-building on a scale never attempted before
* Farm subsidies
* Steel tariffs
* Massive federal deficits

Yes, Karl Rove was a political geniushe was, after all, the successful architect of Bushs election in 2000 and reelection in 2004. But as the Presidents chief policy advisor, Rove was the architect of George W. Bushs betrayal of the conservative cause.

Karl Roves biggest failure was to leave the White House without achieving his stated goal of establishing the Republicans as Americas permanent governing party. To even mention that todayafter the 2006 elections, President Bushs plummeting poll numbers, and the GOPs bleak prospects for 2008brings embarrassment or laughter, depending on your political viewpoint. No wonder Karl Rove wants to forget about those boasts.

Rove failed in that goal primarily because he attempted to advance the Republican Party by using raw, naked political power and bribing voters. He copied the Democrats and was more successful than themfor a while. But then conservatives and independents caught on to his game. We started rebelling, first over Harriet Miers and most recently over the amnesty bill. Meanwhile, the Republican Party had lost its brand as the party of small government.

How do we recover from the Rove Era? We have to reject the bribing of voters and instead build on President Reagans legacy. We must re-establish the conservative movement (and the Republican Party, if it wishes to survive) as the movement and party of ideas, empowering people instead of government, and with a strong national defense but no more nation-building.

Bushs brain will soon be gone. Lets hope that wiser counsel prevails in the White House in the future, but lets not depend on that. We conservatives have work to do.

Voters to NOT pay for free sex!

I wonder how many crap spams I'll get off that title.

I'm not trying to get spam, I'm trying to write the headline more accurately. When you read, "College Students Forced to Pay More," you might think that some price increase has happened that effects college students in a bad way. However, while that is clearly the intent of that headline, it's very (intentionally) misleading!

My headline is much more accurate.

You see, the college students aren't forced to do anything. In this case, they are buying something because they WANT to. There's ZERO health risks of any sort if they don't buy it. So to say they're forced is simply wrong. And then let's look at why they're paying more for this optional thing that they are buying because they WANT to:

Up until now, you and I have been paying the vast majority of the cost for this item. The "poor" college student is just paying a small amount because the government, with our tax dollars, is helping them to pay for this optional item that they want (and do NOT need). So they're going to have to pay more because you and I are not paying as much for this item that we're not getting any benefit from. To say that they're paying more is, again, intentionally deceptive.

And what is this item that they are so upset about paying more for? Why it's birth control! Yes folks, you and I, through the government, have been paying piles of cash to college students so they can have free, irresponsible sex! With our tax money, we've been paying so that women at colleges can have birth control so they can have sex at will without the "worry" about getting pregnant. Don't you love government use of money? Heck, without government, people who have sex might get pregnant! And we simply cannot have people actually be held responsible for their actions, can we?

So until now, the taxpayer has been paying enormous piles of money to ensure that college students can have worry-free sex. After this change, we're simply paying less. We're still letting them have their sex without a purpose, we're just asking them to actually pay for the free sex.

Now read that original headline again and tell me there wasn't an agenda at work there.

Bush Approval Ratings

Harsh, but true:


Patton on Iraq

Now this just darn neat. Hat tip to Always on Watch.

Stop Liberal Censorship

A few semi-Republicans (McCain is still registered Republican?) have gathered together to oppose the liberal morons, err, Democrats who want to force the so-called "fairness doctrine" onto talk radio. Now I don't listen to a lot of talk radio, but I'm quite sure that if they succeed in shutting up opposition on talk radio that they'll very quickly come after the blogs next.

So join with me in supporting the petition to support Republican efforts to stop Democrat censorship of things they don't like, would you?

Iraq War + the US Army

Well, this sure looks pretty accurate to me...


PA Government Saves Money

Have you seen the news about the government in PA? The Democrats and Republicans there have come to an agreement that is reported to be saving taxpayers at least $3.5 million a day. This agreement has been going on for 2 days now, so that's at least $7 million in tax refunds that the citizens of PA should be looking forward to this year.

Under this new agreement, instigated by the Democrat governor Ed "I'm the King" Rendell, government has stopped all "noncritical" government services and "furloughed" 23 or 24 thousand people who were doing "noncritical" work for the state. There were just over 5 million tax returns filed in PA last year, so everyone should at least get a couple dollars back under this new agreement.

Unless, as usually happens, the government decides to offer back pay to all the "employees" who aren't working right now.

Do you know that if the state continues this agreement for the rest of the year that every single taxpayer in the state would save over $100? Sounds like a good deal, I hope they keep it up.

How much do Democrats Cost?

No, I'm not looking to buy one (although there might be one or two for sale on eBay right now). Instead, were you wondering how much they were costing YOU - in the form of higher taxes and expansive government?

There's a new website up called "Cost of Democrats." Go take a peek and see how much the national Democrats really are costing you in cold, hard cash that you are working to earn.

Democrats to Raise Gas Prices

Once again, Democrats are showing who they really support. Last week I mentioned various North Carolina Democrats who are working very hard to raise the price of gasoline. Now there's Democrats at the national level that apparently also think that gas prices are too low, so they're working to raise the price of gasoline as well. And yes, I'm aware there are Democrats with an "R" after their name who support the increase, too.

In the bill, they also suggest giving away billions of dollars to industries that give them the most money they support, in opposition to the free market. Why? Because the US is the biggest second biggest generator of CO2 (which has zero relationship to global warming, of course).

And this is despite the fact that government is already getting more from every dollar spend on gasoline than ANYONE else -- including the ultra-evil "big oil." Why is it that anyone who has a lot of money is "BIG" and "Evil" -- except the US government who has the MOST money and is actually, in fact, MORE evil than, well just about any business on the planet?

So remember as gas prices rise this summer -- don't blame Bush, he's not the one trying to increase the price of gas -- it's the Democrats who are actively working to make gasoline more expensive for you, the sucker the taxpayer.

el Presidente Bush

When I voted for Bush, it was mostly a vote against alGore. However, the idea of more dead terrorists and lower taxes certainly helped my decision. Now, however, I'm completely done with the man. His non-stop promotion of total amnesty for all illegals is bad enough, but now he's completely outdone himself. Bush now wants to free CONVICTED child murderers who have committed crimes so severe as to merit the death penalty. These evil bastards have killed children and other and been processed through the entire US justice system and have been found guilty.

However, Bush wants them freed because they were illegal alien invaders and they might not have been offered a chance to speak with their Mexican consular after they were arrested. Yes, because these miserable, horrible, evil murderers (convicted in many courts of law) weren't asked, "Gee, Senior, would you like a free pass out of the country?" then Bush is trying to set them free.

Bush actually is supporting Mexico and illegal alien invaders over innocent citizens and children of America.

The state of Texas told Bush what he could do with his demands to set the criminal bastards free. Bush has now gone to the US Supreme Court to attempt to get them to enforce his presidential power. If the court rules against him, I wonder if he'll pardon these evil, deadly criminals. If the court rules for him, I hope the state of Texas tells the Supreme Court where they can stick it.

Either way, Bush is way, way out of line and completely out of control. Well, it is quite often said that "Power Corrupts." No kidding.

A Real Debate

So, are you as unimpressed with the recent "debates" with 10 people? Does it seem wrong to you that these debates always have certain candidates that get most of the questions and do most of the talking? I don't know about you, but I'd love to see a REAL debate -- a discussion where two people take up contrary positions and they discuss the merits of their positions.

How about a debate between Rudy and Ron? That's Giuliani and Paul, for those who were wondering. I'd love to see those two, who obviously have very different opinions on the current war in Iraq, talk and discuss, without others. If you'd like to also, head on over to that site (linked above) and sign the petition. I know, it's an internet petition, but still -- wouldn't that be a great debate (no matter which side you're on)?

Senate Amnesty Bill

I want to rejoice. Really, I do. I want to be happy that the Senate didn't pass this total amnesty bill to destroy American culture. But the reaction from the losers on the bill (Democrats and RINOs) makes me pause.

As soon as the vote failed, Harry Reid (D) said he can't wait to get the bill passed. Mitch McConnell (RINO) said that he wants to bring this issue back up very soon. Lindsey Graham (RINO) said that he is confident that the bill will be back. Kennedy (D) said the bill would be back.

Reid also said, "There are ways this can get done." I suspect it will be back in the middle of one night without announcement, without fanfare -- and it will be crammed down our throats, despite the vast majority of voters being strongly opposed to it. Good may have just won a battle, but the war for America (against the US Senate) is far from over.

Republican Debate Response
(Manassas, Virginia) If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its candidate for either president or vice president, I will personally work to defeat the GOP ticket in 2008, says Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause. Rudy Giuliani is wrong on all of the social issues, is wrong on the Second Amendment, and is pretty much a blank slate on all other issues of importance to conservatives, Viguerie adds. If the Republican Party nominates him, it is saying to the American people that it has lost all purpose except the raw political desire to hold power. It will be time to put the GOP out of its misery. Viguerie made his comments in response to Tuesday nights debate in South Carolina between the Republican presidential candidates. I continue to urge conservatives to withhold their support from all of the present candidates, he said. The leading candidates arent worthy of conservative support, and the few who are truly conservative dont have a realistic chance of getting the nomination. But Rudy Giuliani is a special case, Viguerie continued. In recent days, he has reaffirmed his long-standing support of abortion, and has revealed his numerous contributions to Planned Parenthood, the nations biggest supplier of abortions. His comments in the debate did nothing to diminish his affront to those who believe in the culture of life. Its Rudy or the GOP, Viguerie concluded. Were in a political version of The Survivor, and both cannot survive politically.

Interesting. I have to say, I'm having real trouble trying to support Rudy. In fact, I simply cannot support him in the primary at all. But I've said that if he wins the primary then I might have to hold my nose and vote for him in the general election. If it's Rudy vs. Hillary, I'm not sure I could live with myself knowing that I could have helped get Hillary elected. Then again, while Rudy's an improvement in some areas, he's really in disagreement with me in very critical areas. And with a Democrat Congress, he'll do lots of liberal, freedom-destroying things.

I just wish Tancredo had a better speaking voice and presence. He seemed confused a lot last night.