Fired US Attorneys & Alberto Gonzales

I figured it was about time to weight in on this whole situation now that all the cards are out on the table.

First off, let me impose a question to you: To what degree may the president exercise authority over the direction of law enforcement?

In my mind, since law enforcement and policy go hand in hand, the President and other legislators have the ability to make decisions that they believe would uphold the law to the best degree in the eyes of the people who elected them.

Clinton did this in 1993 after being elected into the White House. However, he fired all 93 US Attorney's because he believed they did not represent his elected views on law enforcement. He subsequently replaced them with individuals whom he and his administration thought would be the best choice for federal prosecutors of crime in the US.

I would probably not agree with Clinton's choice of Attorney's, and would probably have replaced them had I been elected into office. President Bush did not replace any. He only took action when he was informed of actions that could be deemed reckless in the eyes of the people who voted him into office. Furthermore, of course Gonzales was a part of these firings...he was the individual who oversaw them.

Another example I will jump to takes us back to 1977. President Carter attempted to pass legislation that would make the attorney general an appointed post for a definite term, subject to removal only for cause. His idea was to keep the attorney general independent of presidential direction to ensure that the Justice Department's authority would never again be abused for political purposes, as it had been during the ethically troubled Nixon presidency.

The Attorney General at the time, Griffin Bell, disagreed with the idea and refused to draw up the legislation stating, "because laws are not self-executing, their enforcement obviously cannot be separated from policy considerations." He went on to support his reasoning by citing Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers vs. United States (1926).

"Some laws require close supervision by the president, while others draw upon the expertise found within the specific agencies of government. Much law, however, generally empowers the executive, and when subordinates perform these functions, 'they are exercising not their own but [the president's] discretion,' the court said. 'Each head of a department is and must be the president's alter ego in the matters of that department where the president is required by law to exercise authority.'" (LA Times)

Bell concluded 30 years ago that blunting that presidential direction would make the attorney general "overly responsive to Congress, and this would clearly affect the separation of powers among the three branches that is established by the Constitution." The same holds true today. With that, I look forward to April 17th when Alberto Gonzales takes the stand because, simply put, he has the law on his side. Nothing will come of this other than bad publicity.

What I am getting at here is that there was no wrong done. President Bush, Alberto Gonzales and others did not violate any laws nor did they fire the 8 US Attorneys solely for political purposes. The Democrats are calling this a "scandal" and throwing it all over the news in order to make the current administration look bad again. They figure that the more they can take focus off the War in Iraq and other more important issues, they will be able to stay on top and potentially take back the White House.

This makes for terrible policy simply because one side is being discredited on something they didn't do. What makes this worse is that the high and mighty media is driving the stories of Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales into the minds of the American people, but pushing Clinton scandals, Sandy Berger, Bob Byrd, and others under the carpet.

It all comes down to this: Make the Republicans and conservatives look bad on any little issue possible in order to discredit them when it comes to more important issues and gaining support. Make the Democrats and liberals look good so they win those more important issues and gain more support.

This may spell disaster on the Iraq War, nation security, our borders, and then some.

Senate Approves Withdrawal Timetable from Iraq

Barely. In a 51-47 vote on the most recent budget, the Senate approved a $123 spending bill which includes funds for Iraq War, also providing money for improvements, economy investments and building projects in new Democracy. There is a catch, however, and its going to put the Democratically controlled Congress on a collision course with the President and his Administration.

The budget included a mandate that requires the withdrawal of troops to begin within 120 days. "I will veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq, a bill that doesn't fund our troops, a bill that's got too much spending on it," President Bush stated when he gathered with Senate Republicans following the vote.

Here's the way I see this: We have now voted people into power who are putting together legislation that will spell defeat in our efforts. This bill is nothing more than a white flag to our enemies, and a few good measures to make our allies there feel better about it.

Bottom line: If we pull out, Iraq will fall to the terrorist insurgents and Iran. Gas prices will rise tremendously as Iran begins an economic war with the rest of the world from atop their massive quantities of oil. Behind the scenes, as the nations of the world attempt to deal with the economic crisis of Iran controlling the Middle East and its resources, Ahmadinejhad will continue his push forward on the pursuit of nuclear armament. With their pockets lined with oil money and the world afraid to impose harsh measures against them, Iran will make a move against their #1 target: Israel.

Who is #2 you ask? Currently it is the United States, and whether people like it or not, we are fighting Iran on the front lines in Iraq. They fund, support and supply the insurgencies, hoping that it will lead to a loss in Iraq (aka: victory for Iran and the terrorist insurgents). Keep this in mind: The radical Islamics in that region right now believe that the end of the world is near, and it is their job to make ensure its coming by destroying all that is not of their faith and way of living.

Britain, the UN and EU are also making a lot of noise over Iran these days. They will be numbers 3, 4 & 5.

More from Iran...

15 of Britain's sailors and marines are in the custody of Iran after supposedly crossing into Iranian waters.

Tony Blair has brought this case to the UN, stating that he has proof that these people have been detained illegally from Iraqi waters. He will ask for the UN to condemn Iran, which will most likely mean additional sanctions and the possibility of a request to release the soldiers.

Now, I understand that Britain is trying to be delicate with this situation, but going to the UN is not the answer and they will find that out the hard way. Any action taken by the UN will be laughed at, once again, by Iran and it will not deter them in their ways.

What will happen next? Well, that is up to Britain. Will they take the matter into their own hands? Maybe make a move against Iran? If they do nothing, it will only strengthen the momentum that Ahmadinejhad has created in Iran. We are at the point where he needs to be dealt with. If Great Britain is going to do it, then you'd better believe we'd be right beside them supporting their efforts.

Maybe ground troops aren't the way to go right now, but cruise missiles and bombing missions have can be a great way to persuade Iran to knock it off. The way I see it, they aren't at the point where they could strike back with much force...yet. Maybe we should be hitting them before that day comes.

Opening Monologue from the 3/26 RFAR Radio Show

I had a few requests to post my opening monologue onto the site. Here is how it went:

"Khahid Sheikh Mohammed's custody and confessions have halted numerous terror attempts worldwide. The Iraqi people are reporting safety within their neighborhoods, an absence of civil war, show overwhelming support for their current leadership and greatly prefer them over their previous dictator, Saddam Hussein. Violence in Baghdad is in decline by over 30% as citizens return to their once dangerous street markets and daily routines. On the 4th anniversary of the war, demonstrators supporting our troops and their efforts outnumbered anti-war protesters 3-1 in our nations capital. Now, I ask you: Why is it that these victories are never portrayed in the high and mighty media? Why aren't the American people able to see these visions of victory and success in our efforts? We are only shown the negative, which makes the light at the end of the tunnel seem further away than it actually is...and this blame is held solely on the shoulders of the lost liberals and their misguided agendas.

Amidst these images of hope, we have these lost liberal democrats in our nations capital doing everything they can to undermine the vital efforts that could so easily be won. Every ingredient is in play for victory in Iraq and the War on terror, all we need is the support for those in uniform from our congressmen and the people of America.

It is a truth in the world right now that those who are in most fear and danger are the members or leaders of terror organizations...the safest, freest and more secure, however, are the citizens of this great nation, the United States of America..."

Listen to Right for a Reason Radio on 88.7 WNHU Monday's noon to 2pm. Those unable to listen via the FM airwaves can listen live at www.wnhu.net.

Iran Beginning to Flex their Muscles...

"The world must know — and it does — that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands...Suspension is neither an option nor a solution."

~Manouchehr Mottaki, Iranian Foreign Minister

The United Nations unanimously passed increased sanctions onto Iran for their refusal to halt the enrichment of uranium. The above statement was made today in response to the actions taken by the rest of the world. The tougher sanctions include banning Iranian arms exports, and freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. This will be interesting to monitor over the coming weeks, since it seems that the Iranian leadership is not too happy about it.

Most people heard recently that North Korea agreed to quit their nuclear programs in exchange for looser sanctions and the release of money in frozen accounts. This was a major victory in our efforts to put a strangle hold onto dangerous dictators who threaten our nation and our allies. If you didn't hear about it, you were probably watching CNN.

Iran is going to have to make a decision soon. If they continue their blatant pursuit for nuclear weapons, then they will have to be dealt with...whether the lost liberal Democrats agree or not.

Al Gore: The Prophet

Al Gore spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday on the issue of climate change, stating that our planet is being presented with its Thermopylae moment. There was a certain level of favoritism shown as the committee granted him a 30 minute introduction, which is rarely allowed and restricted to 15 minutes max. Just to sum it up, apparently we're all going to burn up and die...and it's all our fault (Doesn't Al use private jet planes?).

First off, why is the House Committee that concerns itself with climate change hearing from someone whose not a scientist, climatologist, oceanographer, etc? Al Gore is a politician with a Tennessee tobacco farmer back ground. Yes, he gave a riveting presentation via PowerPoint, but how does this qualify him? During his testimony, he compared todays congress to the warriors from "300." He went on to say that those 300 Spartan's did what they knew was right, so our congress is today's "535."

Is he serious? This just goes to show how ridiculous this whole movement has gotten. They talk about standing up for what they believe is right, but they bash the conservatives who support our security here at home and our allied abroad. The Global Warming religion has grown so far and wide that technically, they are the 1 million warriors of the Persian Empire that is descending upon the rest of us.

I will still stand for my belief...one that has no political agenda, does not point the finger at people and their choice of lifestyle, and has the backing of science. The Global Warming movement is a hoax, and we've all been had. Check out the the "Great Global Warming Swindle" by British filmmaker, Martin Durkin (Can be found on YouTube or Google Video). I don't know why he called it a "swindle," but then again, he is British. No worries though, great film and research.

Check back for more to come my friend.

Iraq Protest in DC

This past weekend marked the 4 year anniversary of the Iraq War. As such, as many as 10,000 anti-war protester's descended upon our nations capital for a march on the Capital Building. This was to be a vast demonstration of how many American's are opposed to our war in Iraq and on Terror in general.

However, this is not the big story here...

First off, the organizers of the anti-war movement had promised hundreds of thousands American's that would make a display of epic proportions. This obviously fell far short as around only 10,000 came out...less than previous demonstrations. These people have gained a reputation for not just being passionate, but also vandalizing our war memorials in DC and the steps of the Capital Building.

Now, what most media outlets didn't cover is the big story of the weekend: Over 30,000 people came out to show their support for the troops and the Iraq War effort...3 times that of those protesting against the war. They called themselves the "Gathering of Eagles" (www.gatheringofeagles.org) and their purpose was to protect our monuments and memorials, as well as show American's that there are people who support this effort, they just didn't think they would outnumber the protesters 3 to 1.

“The media have a template that the American people have turned against the war . . . and that’s wrong,” Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for the Gathering of Eagles, told FOX news.

This is sad, but true. On the day of, CSPAN covered a number of the supporters from the Gathering of Eagles who voiced how upset they were that their efforts were receiving little to no coverage.

Lets open our eyes a little bit further than the scope of the high and mighty media.

Iraqi Voices (Finally) Heard in New Poll

The Opinion Research Business (ORB) out of Britain has recently completed the most comprehensive and in depth poll of the civilian population of Iraq. The project aimed to bring forth what the people thought of the US & Coalition efforts, as well as give people like you and I a better look into the life of Iraqi civilians today.

One overwhelming point that this shed light on was the fact that the people of Iraq prefer the current democracy and leadership they have now rather than the reign of Saddam Hussein. Also, contrary to liberal opinion, most Iraqi's do not believe they are in a civil war. Only 27% stated they believed the nation was at war with itself. There was, however, an overwhelming sense of optimism, faith and hope in the new government.

"We've been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised U.S. was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government," stated Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. "Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism."

These numbers along with the decrease in violence, the troop surge still on the way, 90%+ of Iraqi's outside the Baghdad area reporting feeling "very safe" within their neighborhoods, endless new building projects, booming economy, as well as a democratic government working and a majority of people behind are all reasons for continued support in Iraq and the War on Terror. Lets not strip these victories from our soldiers and the hope from the Iraqi people.

A strong, allied Iraq in the Middle East will only lead to a safer America here in the West.

You can read the full report from the London Times here.

Tragedy on our Border: Part II

Edwards County, Texas is a small community of only 2,162 citizens siting near our southern border. Although this county is the size of Delaware, the police force only has around 3 officers patrolling on duty at any given time. They do not have the population resources or monetary resources for any large force, but they don't really have the need. Although most Americans had never been to, or for that matter ever heard of, Edwards County, TX, it was about to make headlines on an international level.

Deputy Gilmer Hernandez (Right Photo) was patrolling the deserted sands of the county when we spotted a speeding Suburban run a red light. He obviously stopped the truck, and began to walk up to the drivers side window when he noticed multiple people laying on the floor of the truck. He called out for the driver to shut off the engine, but the driver ignored him and sped off, running over Gilmer's foot, then coming back in his direction. He began to fire at the truck's tires, blowing out one, which brought the Suburban to a stop. It was at this point that 8 or 9 illegal immigrants fled in all different directions...but one woman, Marcela Rodriguez Garcia, remained in the back seat. One of the bullets had ricocheted, breaking a couple of her teeth and bloodying her lip. She was treated at the local hospital.

Hernandez reported to his supervisor, and an investigation was called, which is usually what happens following a police shooting (don't ask me why). The Texas Rangers gave the thumbs up to the shooting, calling it clean and clear, and commending Deputy Hernandez.

However, the federal government began it's own investigation after receiving a letter from the Mexican Consulate stating that the rights of this woman, and the others in the truck, had been violated by the Deputy Hernandez. Prosecutors also say that he should not have unholstered his weapon because his life was not in danger. I'm sorry, I didn't know the prosecutors were at the scene when it all went down.

Surprisingly, Deputy Gilmer Hernandez was convicted on December 1, 2006 and will be sentenced later this month. He could serve up to a decade, and (of course) he has lost his job.

The fact of the matter is that Hernandez did have reason to fear for his life, but he DID NOT fire into the Suburban. Instead, he unloaded on the tires in an attempt to stop the vehicle. Even is he did fire into the truck, big whoop...they are illegals who drove off and came back at him after being told to stop. We are talking about a family man from south Texas making $21,000 a year to be a local county police officer. We are also talking about a man who has dedicated his life to the protection of the 2,162 residents of Edwards County and the laws of this country.

Cases like this make it very hard for our protectors to protect us. These prosecutors find rhyme and reason in going after law enforcement officers whose only intent was the protection of themselves, US Citizens, our borders and our laws. It is suspected that international politics is at play here (and in the Compean/Ramos case) since Mexico demanded this "crime" not go unpunished. Attorneys say it is rare for such interest to come about from another country, but it could be a ploy to pressure the US into dialing down it's crackdown on illegal immigration. Members of congress (conservatives) are now stepping up and calling for investigations into these claims, as well as getting these men out of prison and back on the beat.

Want to help? Please contact your representatives. You can see more on how in Part I. You can also contact Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) who has been very active in these cases. Once again, I vow to call our representatives and then some every week on our weekly Monday talk radio show, "Right for a Reason," on 88.7 WNHU (www.wnhu.net).

Bottom line: This cannot keep happening. More is at stake than most know if it continues, but the lives of the 3 officers between these two cases is enough. Lets get on it and end it.

Tragedy on our Border: Part I

On February 17, 2005, US Border Patrol agents Jose Compean & Ignacio Ramos began their day of patrol as always: Protecting their section of our border.

Later in the shift, Compean investigated a tripped sensor near one section of the river bank. He found footprints and drag marks, which is an indicator of drug smuggling. It was at this point that Compean notices the fleeing van of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, an illegal alien, drug smuggler and admitted felon.

When Aldrete-Davila noticed he had been caught, he turned his van around and headed back towards the river. Once he exited the van, Compean ordered him to stop, which Aldrete-Davila ignored. After a physical struggle which leaves Compean's face bloody, Aldrete-Davila flees for the river and Mexico. It is at this point that the smuggler turns to his side as he flees and points a shiny object at officer Compean, who in turn begins firing his weapon. Ramos now arrives on the scene and orders the fleeing smuggler to stop. After seeing Aldrete-Davila turn once again to his side, this time pointing at Ramos, Ramos unloads one round.

It appears that the officers have missed their target (but they will find out later that one round struck Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks) as Aldrete-Davila disappears down the river bank and into Mexico.

Now, this is where the case gets ridiculous. Aldrete-Davila is able to contact a US Attorney (John Sutton) through another Border Patrol agent (Rene Sanchez) to which members of his family are acquainted with. He is then, for some unknown and ridiculous reason, able to get criminal charges posted against the two officers. In the end, John Sutton believed the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler rather than two veteran law enforcement officers.

On March 8, 2006, a Federal Jury convicted the two agents of assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and civil rights violations. But that verdict is in question as well. They began serving their sentence on January 7, 2007 in El Paso, TX.

Interesting points to note:

• Ramos and Compean are now serving 11 and 12 year sentences.
• 3 of the 12 jurors submitted sworn affidavits stating that they had been "misled into believing that there could be no dissent in the decision of the jury, and that the minority would have to accede to the will of the majority.
• Aldrete-Davila claims he has shot from behind while fleeing, yet his single wound is on the left side of his buttocks with the bullet lodging in his right side. This means his side was to the officers, just like Compean and Ramos claim, not his back.
• In his van, there was over 800 pounds of marijuana, worth about $1 million.
• When asked why the smuggler wasn't being prosecuted, Sutton says that because of Ramos' and Compean's actions...Yet, he admits that Aldrete-Davila's van was found with a that large quantity of marijuana.
• Aldrete-Davila is now suing the US Government (and it's taxpayers) for $5 million to compensate him for the "hardships" he has endured and violation of his "rights."

I'm sorry, but when did illegal drug smugglers get American rights? There is so much wrong with this story, and it has those within our country (who are legal) up in arms. The case is now awaiting appeal, but the now officers sit in prison, waiting and hoping. Ramos was recently brutally beaten in his cell when inmates recognized him as a law enforcement officer.

What do we do? Call your representatives and the White House to have these men pardoned and get the real criminal behind bars. I say we should also get rid of this US Attorney who thought this would be a grand idea. I vow to begin calling every Monday on our radio show, "Right for a Reason," on 88.7 WNHU (www.wnhu.net). You too can call the Capital switchboard at 202-225-3121 to contact your congressman, or email the White House at comments@whitehouse.gov. Lets get them away from debating on whether or not to cut support for our troops overseas and on this important domestic issue that concerns our borders and it's protectors.

As always, I am interested in your viewpoints.

Stay tuned for Part II.

Rosie O'Donnell, Need I say More?

Well, in this case I do.

She apparently doesn't believe that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed's confession over the weekend is valid because we tortured him in order to get the results. Wrong again Rosie. Since his capture, he had already admitted in detail the crimes he had committed and planned to commit through interrogation and "waterboarding" techniques. "Waterboarding," for those of you who do not know, is the process in which prisoner is bound to an inclined board with the head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning and brings about instant pleas to stop. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the waterboarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. This, along with other methods, has become vital to pulling information from known terror operatives.

KSM is probably the most well known and important terror agent we have in custody, so the information he holds is vital and needs to be known in order to secure our safety. Let me repeat myself from my initial posting on this topic: He confessed to more than 30 plots, most of which haven't occurred yet.

Some liberals claim that these methods are not legal under the Geneva Convention, and they are right. What they fail to see is that the Geneva Convention protects soldiers in a war between nations. Yes, there is a war, but these are not soldiers we are dealing with. These are men and women who would gladly sneak up behind you and put a knife across your throat...or worse, strap a bomb to their chest and waltz into your family room. All for "paradise."

Rosie, we do what we do for a reason: To keep you safe and able to talk all you want on your little show (and so I can talk on mine, but at least I'm grateful). BTW, leave Elizabeth alone...shes the only competent person on the show and I feel bad that she has to subject herself to the likes of you daily.

Failed: Senate Resolution to end War by next March

Harry Reid proposed a bill that would require the withdrawal of troops within 120 days, and a full withdrawal by March 2008. It failed in the Senate by 12 votes, 50-48. Thank God. With all the positives we are beginning to see in Iraq and the War on Terror overall, why are liberals in Congress still talking about stripping the funding and support from our soldiers? That doesn't exactly help the moral of our troops or make fighting the insurgents much easier. Harry disagrees. "Five years of war, the president's current approach in Iraq is not working. The country is closer to chaos than stability. U.S. troops are policing a civil war, not hunting and killing the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11."

I guess he wasn't paying attention throughout the past couple months: That is what the surge is aimed at fixing. On top of that, whats wrong with protecting the citizens of Iraq and their new Democracy?

"This is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is constitutionally dubious and it would authorize a scattered band of United States senators to tie the hand of the commander in chief" states Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell. He also calls the measure "absolutely fatal."

He is right, that is exactly what any resolution of this magnitude will produce: fatal results. I am sure our enemies who are plotting and planning right now would love to see the rug pulled out from underneath our soldiers right about now (amidst all the progress).

By the way, a measure like this only continues to undermine the efforts of our intelligence community, military, their leaders and the United States overall. On top of that, isn't it just plain dumb to telegraph our intentions to the enemy? That will only embolden and encourage them to hold out until we are gone.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses

To everything.

Coordination of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, the murder of Jewish reporter Daniel Pearl, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as over 30 additional acts of terrorism and death. He also noted that we was in the works of planning future attacks on the Sears Tower, Empire State Building, Big Ben clock tower, Panama Canal, New York Stock Exchange, multiple airports and then some...none of which have taken place.

Yet.

I am glad we are seeing victories all over the world in the War on Terror, but it isn't over yet. Let us continue the push forward towards total success. Terrorist organizations worldwide have had an extremely difficult time since the initiation of the War on Terror that was held aside for far too long. Lets keep it that way, keep the enemy on the defensive, and keep the pressure on until the world is free from their assault on western culture.

Celebrate the recent victories (which you will always catch here), but it's not time to quit yet.

Baghdad Violence in Decline

And we are yet another step closer to victory. A report has shown that bombings in Baghdad have decreased by 30% since the US led security crackdown in the area. People are returning to street markets, execution style murders are down over 50% and gunfire in the city has declined. On top of that, the murders from Shiite and Sunni terrorist death squads dropped to around 80 per week from the 200 per week they were achieving in December 2006. This is obviously still unacceptable, but the results are in our favor as we are making progress in yet another aspect of the war. Quick question: If we were to pull out, how many civilians do you think the insurgents would be killing every week without protection? Why isn't any of this being discussed on the Senate floor?

This increase in security came shortly after President Bush's State of the Union Address in which he discussed the crackdown as well as the now famous troop surge. What is interesting here is that the surge hasn't yet come into full force, but we are already seeing results from the stepped up security and enforcement.

And what are liberals on Capital Hill doing right now? Oh, trying to begin a debate and pass legislation that would strip funding from our soldiers who are fighting and protecting us and innocent Iraqi's. I am excited about this debate simply because I know conservatives and Republicans cannot loose. The opposition is just plain lost. However, if liberals really do step up, away from non-binding bull, and propose legislation that would actually restrict our soldiers...then they are truly incompetent.

These new statistics will only add to the movement towards victory. Adding these positive results of President Bush's plan, we only need to unify once again and continue the push forward. Bright days ahead fellow countrymen.

Yes, I am a "Neo-Con"

Which is much better than a lost liberal...

Far left lunatics have made this idea of new age conservatism sound like the next rise of facism and totalitarian government. This can be seen as a lie when one actually looks into the ideas, policies and beliefs of a conservative (wow, research and learn for ourselves? No...).

Let me point out first that Neoconservativism has three main, bedrock beliefs (defined by Irving Kristol):

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.


2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservativism, and disapproval of counterculture.


3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.

Yes, what an evil man I am.

Let me add my two cents: I am an advocate for the War on Terror, or for that matter, war against anyone who threatens the safety and security of our freedoms here at home.

I believe increases in taxes hurt our economy, social standing and welfare. Supporting this point are the thriving years after JFK's tax cuts, Reagan's cut's and most recenty, Bush's cut's. Since 2003, we have seen 42 months of continuous job growth within our country, adding up to over 7.5 million new jobs. Our markets have been on a steady and successful incline, inflation is under control and (even with the drops last week) experts are still predicting a 9% gain this year in the stock market. Conservativism works economically.

I do not understand the idea that our government should be given more and more of what we as citizens and individuals work for in order to take care of us. Aren't we able to take care of ourselves? America is built on the principle of facilitating opportunity, not providing a set amount of whatever for every citizen. I believe that the best social program in our nation today is "We the People" simply because we thrive more when it is the people that dictate our possibilities, not a legislative bill. Conservativism works socially.

Why has the United States been so great in the past? Because we encourage our average citizens to accomplish the impossible through competition, incentive and opportunity. We do not need a large government telling us what we should do, where we should spend and how much we should earn. The beauty of this country is that the sky is the limit...now get this government off my back and let these values move forward.

History has proved it: Conservatism works.

Crossing Lines

Bill Maher and Ann Coulter have turned heads recently with remarks that have sparked controversy:

• "I’m just saying if he did die (Cheney), other people, more people would live. That’s a fact." - Bill Maher
• "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" - Ann Coulter

So, here we are with two quotes that would obviously upset some individuals...but I want to talk about the core of each statements. Coulter uses a word that is a slur for homosexuals in reference to John Edwards. Maher states that the world would be better off if our Vice President were dead.

I was actually in the room when Ann Coulter gave her speech, and I thought her comments (including the one above) were humorous. Although not everyone would find it funny, I myself along with 99% of those in attendance found it to be just that. For those who disagree, enjoy your right to be upset about it...just don't take it away from the other half. She in no way advocated hate speech against gays, and even made one point mentioning that all people, including homosexuals, should have the same rights as any individual in America. Bottom line, just like the Snickers commercial, don't take away what many find humorous. What if she said "guinea" or "mick?" I doubt anyone would care, including myself (that would have been equally hilarious).

Maybe political name-calling is getting out of hand, that is up to personal interpretation. Bill Maher's comments, however, are in no way acceptable. He not only calls the 9/11 hijackers "warriors," spends the end of his show occasionally telling terrorists throughout the world that they have supporters here at home, and then goes and states that had Cheney been killed in the attack at the base he was staying at in Afghanistan last week, less people would die.

It also upsets me that everyone knows about what Coulter said, but no one heard of Maher's comments. CNN and MSNBC didn't even cover his comments, but were all over Ann. Weighing the reference to Edwards as a "faggot" and calling the assassination of the VP a positive, I must ask why this is so...but I already know the answer (see The High and Mighty Media).

Quickly, in response to Maher's remarks, I would have to say that more people would die if Cheney were assassinated overseas. American backlash has been known to be strong and swift...I pray to God that, in these times of division, it still is.

Cindy Sheehan and the 9/11 Conspiracy

Believe it or not, Cindy Sheehan is back in the news. Yes, Yes...I thought it was over too.

We all know her story: It began when her son was killed in Iraq fighting with the US Marines. After meeting with the President once, along with many other victims families, she decided his words were not enough and then chose to camp outside of President Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch outside Crawford, Texas for weeks demanding to see him once again. Since then, she has made a name for herself by stating outlandish remarks about our nation, hosting radical demonstrations and getting herself arrested...achieving over $11,000 per appearance at shows and speaking events. Here are some memorable quotes of hers:

• "(Bush is) the biggest terrorist in the world...worse than Osama Bin Laden,"
• "Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state."
• "Our government is run by one party, every level, and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."
• "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East."
• "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."
• "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11."

...and the list goes on. Now she is taking an "open-minded" stance on what occurred on September 11th. She spoke to a number of students at the University of Vermont on Friday, advocating for the implementation of a new investigation into what "really happened" on 9/11 (apparently the 9/11 Commission wasn't enough). She was careful thought, not coming out and fully supporting conspiracy theories, yet she did push for those who had questions to continue their pursuit for "truth."

Now, I already knew Cindy Sheehan was a nut. Looking past the endless, mindless, ranting protests, defacing our war memorials, comparing our soldiers to terrorists, naming Hugo Chavez her choice in a leader, and then some...now she is looking into finding a way to hop on board the "9/11 Conspiracy" bandwagon. Hey, I'd miss making 11g's an appearance too.

The fact of the matter is: 9/11 Conspiracy theories are a joke, albeit an entertaining joke. Since they are so entertaining (to people nationwide and myself), I have taken great interest in these theories and the research behind them. Listen in to the radio show, maybe we'll get into it. Beyond that, we'll just have to wait to see how much more Cindy Sheehan disgraces her son and his heroic efforts.

CPAC 2007 Recap

I apologize to those out there wondering why I haven't written in a few days. From Wednesday (February 28) to last night (March 3), I was in Washington DC with the UNH College Republicans for the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. Quick note: Our chapter brought the largest number of students from Connecticut for the second year in a row.

Speakers such as White House Spokesman Tony Snow, Senator Mitch McConnell, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, Vice President Dick Cheney, radio show host Sean Hannity, author Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich graced us with words of wisdom and new ideas and insight into some of todays issues. We were also able to hear speeches from Presidential hopefuls such as Senator Sam Brownback, House Reps Duncan Hunter & Tom Tancredo, Governors Mitt Romney & Mike Huckabee, as well as the former New York City Mayor, Rudy Giuliani. In addition, CPAC 2007 included presentations, debates, discussion forums and exhibits on topics such as terrorism, media, tax reform, global warming and many social issues. On top of that, there were many book signings that attendees could partake in.

The whole purpose of this conference is to expand the idea of conservative thought, morals and ideas. In it's 34th year, this was the largest CPAC to occur, growing by over 30% from last year to over 6800 attendees.

I, personally, learned much at the conference this year. It wasn't so much a push of new facts, but a new outlook on conservative principles. Conservatism works, and what our nation needs right now is a push back to these values and ideas that has made America the great nation we are today.

Beyond that, check out Right for a Reason Radio this week (Monday, noon to 2pm on www.wnhu.net/88.7fm) and weeks to follow for the conference recap as well as new guests we met that are excited about the idea of conservative talk radio on a college campus. It was great to be able to promote the show at our nations capital.