Washington, DC (TLS). Late Wednesday afternoon House Republicans managed to beat back a power-grab by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Stung by a series of embarrassing defeats and approval numbers of Congress reaching a low ebb, the Speaker had attempted to change a rule in place since 1822 that allows the minority Party to block proposed legislation.
Both Parties have benefited from the rule through the years, which serves to keep a balance of power in effect even when one party is in the minority.
Pelosi, however, wished to take away this power from the Republicans in order to ram through tax increase legislation without as much as a serious debate.
So much for her pledge last November to 'work with the Republicans in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation.'
Such a liar.
Read the whole story here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070516d.html
Thursday, May 17, 2007
GOA Issues Urgent Alert on H.R. 297
Washington, DC (TLS). Gun Owners of America (GOA), the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington, has issued an urgent alert concerning the progress of the Dingell-McCarthy Bill (H.R. 297).
GOA says now is the time to contact your Washington representatives to get this bill defeated.
Carolyn McCarthy, the co-sponsor, never saw a gun-grab measure she did not like. And this time, she has managed to bring aboard some unexpected allies, such as a few Republicans and the NRA, which has stated it supports passage of the measure.
However, the bill will prevent millions of law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms and will add yet one more plank of government control over an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Read the full story, along with a sample letter to send to your elected officials here:
http://www.gunowners.org/a051607.htm
GOA says now is the time to contact your Washington representatives to get this bill defeated.
Carolyn McCarthy, the co-sponsor, never saw a gun-grab measure she did not like. And this time, she has managed to bring aboard some unexpected allies, such as a few Republicans and the NRA, which has stated it supports passage of the measure.
However, the bill will prevent millions of law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms and will add yet one more plank of government control over an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Read the full story, along with a sample letter to send to your elected officials here:
http://www.gunowners.org/a051607.htm
Dems Choose Debate Sponsors--Snub Fox
Washington, DC (TLS). The Democrats, continuing with their obvious cowardice at the prospects of facing Fox News, have chosen instead to allow CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC/MSNBC to host their next six debates...an obvious snub of Fox.
What are these bozos afraid of? Being asked the hard questions?
Obviously. They had rather Chris Matthews ask them about sex or about their thoughts on Hillary winning the White House.
What idiots.
CNN will get two out of the next six debates, NBC/MSNBC will also get two, and CBS and ABC will get one a piece.
Way to go, guys. It must be nice to have the reporters who are already in your hip pocket to ask you the soft-ball questions.
Read the full story here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsnbc_59165.asp
What are these bozos afraid of? Being asked the hard questions?
Obviously. They had rather Chris Matthews ask them about sex or about their thoughts on Hillary winning the White House.
What idiots.
CNN will get two out of the next six debates, NBC/MSNBC will also get two, and CBS and ABC will get one a piece.
Way to go, guys. It must be nice to have the reporters who are already in your hip pocket to ask you the soft-ball questions.
Read the full story here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsnbc_59165.asp
Walter Williams--'Things To Think About'
Washington, DC (TLS). The venerable Walter Williams, our favorite intellectual, presents to us some 'things to think about.' This is a must-read!
Click here for the article:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams051607.php3
Click here for the article:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams051607.php3
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
DEMS CRASH AND BURN--APPROVAL RATE AT 29%
Washington, DC (TLS). In less than four months after assuming the majority status in Congress, Democrats are beginning to crash and burn in the court of public opinion. The latest Gallup poll shows that public approval of Congress has sunk to a stunning low of 29%.
Public approval of Congress is now below that of President George W. Bush, which stands at 33%.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone neanderthal in attempting to shut down the minority Party with a procedural rules change--the first of its kind since 1822.
Read the full report of the Gallup organization here:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
Public approval of Congress is now below that of President George W. Bush, which stands at 33%.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone neanderthal in attempting to shut down the minority Party with a procedural rules change--the first of its kind since 1822.
Read the full report of the Gallup organization here:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
LIBERTY ALERT!! PELOSI TO SHUT DOWN HOUSE REPUBLICANS
Washington, DC (TLS). For the first time since 1822, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is attempting to shut down the minority in the House by changing what is known as 'the germaneness rule.' which allows the minority Party to thwart proposed legislation by calling into question the germaneness of a bill and gives the minority the right to the Motion to Recommit.
This would effectively shut down the minority Party on the floor of the House.
Stung by a series of missteps, embarrassing defeats, and a low approval rating among the public, Pelosi and the Democrats are apparently ready to use draconian techniques to silence their detractors.
Wow, what a democracy....
Read the full report here by Matt Drudge:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
This would effectively shut down the minority Party on the floor of the House.
Stung by a series of missteps, embarrassing defeats, and a low approval rating among the public, Pelosi and the Democrats are apparently ready to use draconian techniques to silence their detractors.
Wow, what a democracy....
Read the full report here by Matt Drudge:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Who Is Winning So Far Among the Republicans?
Columbia, SC (TLS). With two televised debates now under their belts, the Republican Presidential candidates have begun to carve out for themselves a certain niche in the minds of the voters. With some of these candidates, initial impressions have been made, for good or ill. Others have had opportunity to re-introduce themselves after years in the public spotlight.
The Liberty Sphere has been rating candidates, both Democrat and Republican, based upon our exclusive 'Liberty Scale.' This scale is based upon eight key issues that we view as being central to the preservation of liberty in our lifetime and beyond--taxes, gun rights, abortion, national defense, border security, immigration control, the War in Iraq, and the broader War on Terror.
Based upon the ratings of the Republican candidates on these issues during the two debates, we can now get a clearer picture as to who is ahead so far, and who is lagging behind.
We have added together each candidates' two scores from their two debates, and divided them by two, in order to get an average score. The following is the average score of each of the 10 Republican candidates, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Jim Gilmore--8
Tom Tancredo--7.5
Sam Brownback--7
Rudy Giuliani--6.5
Mitt Romney--6.5
Tommy Thompson--6.5
Ron Paul--6.5
John McCain--5
You will note that only two candidates have a perfect score on the issues that are key to The Liberty Sphere--Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee. However, our concern at this point is money. Neither Hunter nor Huckabee have shown the ability, at least thus far, to raise the mega-bucks needed to mount a competitive campaign. It will be interesting to see if this changes after last night's debate.
If anyone stands to gain the most in terms of fundraising, it is definitely Rudy Giuliani with his powerful showing in the debate. We look for the candidate to overtake Romney as the Republican who raises the most funds, at least with the present field of candidates.
That looming unknown factor is still very much present, however--how soon will Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich announce, and to what degree with this effect the Giuliani bandwagon.
The Liberty Sphere has been rating candidates, both Democrat and Republican, based upon our exclusive 'Liberty Scale.' This scale is based upon eight key issues that we view as being central to the preservation of liberty in our lifetime and beyond--taxes, gun rights, abortion, national defense, border security, immigration control, the War in Iraq, and the broader War on Terror.
Based upon the ratings of the Republican candidates on these issues during the two debates, we can now get a clearer picture as to who is ahead so far, and who is lagging behind.
We have added together each candidates' two scores from their two debates, and divided them by two, in order to get an average score. The following is the average score of each of the 10 Republican candidates, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Jim Gilmore--8
Tom Tancredo--7.5
Sam Brownback--7
Rudy Giuliani--6.5
Mitt Romney--6.5
Tommy Thompson--6.5
Ron Paul--6.5
John McCain--5
You will note that only two candidates have a perfect score on the issues that are key to The Liberty Sphere--Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee. However, our concern at this point is money. Neither Hunter nor Huckabee have shown the ability, at least thus far, to raise the mega-bucks needed to mount a competitive campaign. It will be interesting to see if this changes after last night's debate.
If anyone stands to gain the most in terms of fundraising, it is definitely Rudy Giuliani with his powerful showing in the debate. We look for the candidate to overtake Romney as the Republican who raises the most funds, at least with the present field of candidates.
That looming unknown factor is still very much present, however--how soon will Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich announce, and to what degree with this effect the Giuliani bandwagon.
Rudy Hits Grand Slam
Columbia, SC (TLS). By anyone's estimation, the decisive moment that occurred in last night's Republican debate was 'the Giuliani response' to Ron Paul. These sorts of things cannot be staged. The fact that the response was a spontaneous emotional reaction only served to lend it credibility.
Giuliani was given a golden moment to shine on an issue that is obviously very dear to his heart--the issue of terrorism and the motivations for terrorists to attack us on our own shores.
As Mayor of New York City, Giuliani dealt first-hand with this very real issue as few are ever called upon to do.
Thus, when candidate Ron Paul implied that the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 was our own fault for being involved in the Middle East in the past, Giuliani spontaneously spoke up without even being prompted or asking permission. It was not part of the script for him to respond. But he seized the moment and made it into the decisive moment.
Giuliani, visibly upset with Paul's misguided suggestion, turned righteously indignant. I would guess that 95% of Americans were right with him, feeling the same thing. Showing little tolerance for such a short-sighted point of view, Giuliani blasted Paul for implying such a thing.
And with good reason. It would be mighty convenient to blame terrorism upon past U.S. failures in foreign policy, or in our justifiable attempt to keep a powder-keg from blowing sky high. But the notion fails to take into consideration fundamentalist Islam, which maintains that the entire world must convert to Islam, or we will be considered infidels who must be killed.
The notion of convert or kill within radical Islam was not created by past U.S. foreign policy.
Giuliani thus turned the moment into a grand opportunity to seize the day and hit one out of the park. Not only did he have the facts on his side, but the gut-wrenching nature of the issue enlivened and humanized a debate, which like all debates, was sorely lacking in basic human emotion.
Thus, Giuliani was able to show America something of his soul...a glimpse into the things he holds dear. And American lives is one of them. The candidate displayed for the nation why he became known after 9/11 as 'America's Mayor.'
These moments are few and far between in debates. And when they present themselves the candidates involved are not always able, for one reason or another, to seize those moments as opportunities. Giuliani reacted spontaneously and showed the nation why he is ready to be President.
Giuliani was given a golden moment to shine on an issue that is obviously very dear to his heart--the issue of terrorism and the motivations for terrorists to attack us on our own shores.
As Mayor of New York City, Giuliani dealt first-hand with this very real issue as few are ever called upon to do.
Thus, when candidate Ron Paul implied that the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 was our own fault for being involved in the Middle East in the past, Giuliani spontaneously spoke up without even being prompted or asking permission. It was not part of the script for him to respond. But he seized the moment and made it into the decisive moment.
Giuliani, visibly upset with Paul's misguided suggestion, turned righteously indignant. I would guess that 95% of Americans were right with him, feeling the same thing. Showing little tolerance for such a short-sighted point of view, Giuliani blasted Paul for implying such a thing.
And with good reason. It would be mighty convenient to blame terrorism upon past U.S. failures in foreign policy, or in our justifiable attempt to keep a powder-keg from blowing sky high. But the notion fails to take into consideration fundamentalist Islam, which maintains that the entire world must convert to Islam, or we will be considered infidels who must be killed.
The notion of convert or kill within radical Islam was not created by past U.S. foreign policy.
Giuliani thus turned the moment into a grand opportunity to seize the day and hit one out of the park. Not only did he have the facts on his side, but the gut-wrenching nature of the issue enlivened and humanized a debate, which like all debates, was sorely lacking in basic human emotion.
Thus, Giuliani was able to show America something of his soul...a glimpse into the things he holds dear. And American lives is one of them. The candidate displayed for the nation why he became known after 9/11 as 'America's Mayor.'
These moments are few and far between in debates. And when they present themselves the candidates involved are not always able, for one reason or another, to seize those moments as opportunities. Giuliani reacted spontaneously and showed the nation why he is ready to be President.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The 2nd Debate--Ratings of the Republican Candidates
Columbia, SC (TLS). The Republican candidates squared off for their second debate here this evening at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. The University, which boasts over 30,000 students here in a metropolitan area of roughly 400,000, became the focus of thousands of news personnel from around the country, some from as far away as Washington State, in order to see these candidates in action.
An estimated crowd of 10,000 gathered for this forum, which was hosted and aired by Fox News. News veteran Britt Hume, Washington bureau chief for Fox News, did his normally admirable job of moderating this debate.
The questions presented to the candidates were reasonable, thoughtful, thorough, sometimes confrontational, and substantive. In fact, Fox News, Britt Hume, and company, can take pride in the fact that tonight they displayed a brilliant presentation of professional journalism.
Tonight's format was decidedly different from what we have seen so far in these gatherings. Fox had stated prior to the debate to expect changes, and they delivered. There was room for interaction between candidates, with Giuliani going head-to-head with Ron Paul on the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. There was even an innovative part of the debate where Britt Hume presented a hypothetical scenario of a terrorist attack on America. The candidates then had to describe what they would do in light of the attack.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will begin by presenting our analysis of the effectiveness of the candidates' presentation, i.e., clarity and style of communication, connection with the audience, logical progression of rhetoric, and ability to answer the questions asked rather than running off on tangents.
In light of these qualities, The Liberty Sphere ranks the candidates as follows, in order of their overall effectiveness of presentation:
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter (3-way tie)
John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback (4-way tie)
Tommy Thompson
Jim Gilmore
Ron Paul
The person showing the most improvement over the first debate was Tom Tancredo, who was engaging, articulate, and powerful. The biggest disappointment was Ron Paul, who implied that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was directly due to our involvement in the Middle East for years. This played right into the hands of Rudy Giuliani, who was visibly outraged at such a suggestion, and displayed the indignation of one personally offended by the mere suggestion that America itself is responsible for the terrorist murders of our citizens.
When we are dealing with radical Islam, no amount of isolationalism would have prevented them from attempting to carry out the will of Allah in slaughtering the infidels. Ron Paul should know this.
In fact, the major gaffe of the evening was by Ron Paul on this issue, who may have just insured his demise as a viable candidate.
Second, The Liberty Sphere will rate the candidates based upon our eight-point 'Liberty Scale.' This is the heart of our ratings system, for the emphasis here is exclusively on the issues alone.
The eight issues we have chosen by which to rate the candidates on the issues are as follows: taxes, gun rights, national defense, abortion, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, border security, and immigration control. These particular issues are at the heart of liberty, and they are consistent with The Liberty Sphere's mission statement.
For a full explanation on our rationale for rating the candidates on these eight issues, see our post on the first Democratic debate here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Based upon The Liberty Sphere's analysis of each of the 10 Republican Presidential candidates and the extent to which they adhere to our eight key indicators of liberty, the candidates in tonight's debate are rated as follows on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Jim Gilmore--7
Rudy Giuliani--7
Mitt Romney--6
Sam Brownback--6
Ron Paul--6
Tommy Thompson--6
John McCain--5
You will note several items of interest. Tom Tancredo significantly helped himself in tonight's debate. So did Rudy Giuliani. Ron Paul lost a great amount of ground due to his more complete explanation of his views on foreign policy and his apparent short-sighted take on the nature of radical Islam. We did not create Muslim terrorists. To merely imply such a thing either deliberately or inadvertently is to insure the end of one's candidacy, for all intents and purposes.
Our rationale on giving significantly higher marks to Rudy this evening revolves, in part, around his eloquent explanation of his views on abortion. Although we disagree on how to deal with a moral issue, we can respect his point of view because he is honest about it, and because he has obviously thought it through very thoroughly. In addition, we believe that his credentials as a player on the world stage against global terrorism were on full display this evening. And it doesn't hurt that he pledges to appoint only strict constructionists to the courts and that he believes in American capitalism and free enterprise as opposed to Hillary Clinton's socialism.
An estimated crowd of 10,000 gathered for this forum, which was hosted and aired by Fox News. News veteran Britt Hume, Washington bureau chief for Fox News, did his normally admirable job of moderating this debate.
The questions presented to the candidates were reasonable, thoughtful, thorough, sometimes confrontational, and substantive. In fact, Fox News, Britt Hume, and company, can take pride in the fact that tonight they displayed a brilliant presentation of professional journalism.
Tonight's format was decidedly different from what we have seen so far in these gatherings. Fox had stated prior to the debate to expect changes, and they delivered. There was room for interaction between candidates, with Giuliani going head-to-head with Ron Paul on the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. There was even an innovative part of the debate where Britt Hume presented a hypothetical scenario of a terrorist attack on America. The candidates then had to describe what they would do in light of the attack.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will begin by presenting our analysis of the effectiveness of the candidates' presentation, i.e., clarity and style of communication, connection with the audience, logical progression of rhetoric, and ability to answer the questions asked rather than running off on tangents.
In light of these qualities, The Liberty Sphere ranks the candidates as follows, in order of their overall effectiveness of presentation:
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter (3-way tie)
John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback (4-way tie)
Tommy Thompson
Jim Gilmore
Ron Paul
The person showing the most improvement over the first debate was Tom Tancredo, who was engaging, articulate, and powerful. The biggest disappointment was Ron Paul, who implied that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was directly due to our involvement in the Middle East for years. This played right into the hands of Rudy Giuliani, who was visibly outraged at such a suggestion, and displayed the indignation of one personally offended by the mere suggestion that America itself is responsible for the terrorist murders of our citizens.
When we are dealing with radical Islam, no amount of isolationalism would have prevented them from attempting to carry out the will of Allah in slaughtering the infidels. Ron Paul should know this.
In fact, the major gaffe of the evening was by Ron Paul on this issue, who may have just insured his demise as a viable candidate.
Second, The Liberty Sphere will rate the candidates based upon our eight-point 'Liberty Scale.' This is the heart of our ratings system, for the emphasis here is exclusively on the issues alone.
The eight issues we have chosen by which to rate the candidates on the issues are as follows: taxes, gun rights, national defense, abortion, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, border security, and immigration control. These particular issues are at the heart of liberty, and they are consistent with The Liberty Sphere's mission statement.
For a full explanation on our rationale for rating the candidates on these eight issues, see our post on the first Democratic debate here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Based upon The Liberty Sphere's analysis of each of the 10 Republican Presidential candidates and the extent to which they adhere to our eight key indicators of liberty, the candidates in tonight's debate are rated as follows on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Jim Gilmore--7
Rudy Giuliani--7
Mitt Romney--6
Sam Brownback--6
Ron Paul--6
Tommy Thompson--6
John McCain--5
You will note several items of interest. Tom Tancredo significantly helped himself in tonight's debate. So did Rudy Giuliani. Ron Paul lost a great amount of ground due to his more complete explanation of his views on foreign policy and his apparent short-sighted take on the nature of radical Islam. We did not create Muslim terrorists. To merely imply such a thing either deliberately or inadvertently is to insure the end of one's candidacy, for all intents and purposes.
Our rationale on giving significantly higher marks to Rudy this evening revolves, in part, around his eloquent explanation of his views on abortion. Although we disagree on how to deal with a moral issue, we can respect his point of view because he is honest about it, and because he has obviously thought it through very thoroughly. In addition, we believe that his credentials as a player on the world stage against global terrorism were on full display this evening. And it doesn't hurt that he pledges to appoint only strict constructionists to the courts and that he believes in American capitalism and free enterprise as opposed to Hillary Clinton's socialism.
Fort Dix Six Had Been Granted 'Safe Haven' by New Jersey
Washington, DC (TLS). Word has surfaced that the Fort Dix Six, who were planning on a terrorist attack that would have killed hundreds of American soldiers, could have been easily apprehended in the state of New Jersey.
Three of the main perpetrators had a total of 34 traffic violations between them, yet they were allowed to continue driving--as illegal aliens.
Not only that, but they had been busted for carrying drug paraphernalia. Yet they were still allowed to drive around the state of New Jersey freely--as illegal aliens.
I will give you three guesses as to why these thugs were not handcuffed and hauled to jail, and the first two guesses don't count.
NEW JERSEY IS YET ANOTHER PLACE THAT GRANTS 'SAFE HAVEN' TO ILLEGAL ALIENS!
Way to go. You guys were protecting and harboring the very people who wanted to kill us.
Arrests of N.J. law enforcement officials and politicians should proceed immediately in light of this shocking revelation. They have committed felonies according to the law. And the fact that these bozos were getting ready to stage a terrorist attack on our own soil further implicates the so-called 'safe haven' proponents.
Obviously, you care more about scumbag terrorists than you do your own countrymen. Not only should you be ashamed, but you belong in prison.
Three of the main perpetrators had a total of 34 traffic violations between them, yet they were allowed to continue driving--as illegal aliens.
Not only that, but they had been busted for carrying drug paraphernalia. Yet they were still allowed to drive around the state of New Jersey freely--as illegal aliens.
I will give you three guesses as to why these thugs were not handcuffed and hauled to jail, and the first two guesses don't count.
NEW JERSEY IS YET ANOTHER PLACE THAT GRANTS 'SAFE HAVEN' TO ILLEGAL ALIENS!
Way to go. You guys were protecting and harboring the very people who wanted to kill us.
Arrests of N.J. law enforcement officials and politicians should proceed immediately in light of this shocking revelation. They have committed felonies according to the law. And the fact that these bozos were getting ready to stage a terrorist attack on our own soil further implicates the so-called 'safe haven' proponents.
Obviously, you care more about scumbag terrorists than you do your own countrymen. Not only should you be ashamed, but you belong in prison.
What to Look for in Tonight's Republican Debate
Columbia, SC (TLS). The campus of the University of South Carolina in the state capital of Columbia will be the setting this evening for the second debate of the Republican Presidential candidates.
As a primer for this evening's debate, here are a few things to look for:
1. Fox News will undoubtedly provide a very different format and approach from that of the first Republican debate, which was sponsored by MSNBC. While Fox has not disclosed exactly how this forum will be different, it will be interesting to see if this meeting comes closer to being a real debate than any of the previous candidates' forums this year.
2. With news veteran Britt Hume as the moderator for tonight's debate, look for more questions of substance. Chris Matthews' stint as 'moderator' of the first Republican debate was nothing less than a debacle for two reasons: Matthews is a known partisan who favors Liberal Democrats, and two, many of the questions were downright ridiculous and not even worthy of consideration. It will be hard to imagine this happening tonight with Hume in charge.
3. Ron Paul stands to make major strides in advancing his candidacy if he does well tonight. His first debate appearance set the Internet abuzz. Will he build on that momentum, or will he stall?
4. Tom Tancredo will more than likely stage a very strong appearance this evening, given that he was off his game in the first debate. Look for him to display his characteristic charisma and eloquence, particularly on the issue of border security.
5. The four candidates who helped themselves the most by their performance in the first debate--Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, and Mitt Romney--will be under the gun to pull off the same thing this time. Look for at least one of these to stumble a bit.
6. Giuliani and McCain have a chance to step up to the plate and hit one out of the park this evening. However, anything less than a stellar performance out of each will amount to a net loss, in our opinion. Neither candidate did or said anything in the last debate to separate themselves from the rest of the pack in terms of desirability. Unless they change that perception, and change it soon, you can look for both of these top contenders to begin losing steam in the polls.
7. At this point we do not see either Kansas Senator Sam Brownback nor Tommy Thompson as viable contenders. Brownback could change that with an unusually strong showing this evening. He is a good man who certainly has a bright future worthy of greatness. The question is, is the timing right? With Thompson, his candidacy has had trouble getting off the ground, and we don't see that changing tonight unless a major miracle takes place.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will post our exclusive 'Liberty Rating' on each of the candidates following tonight's debate.
As a primer for this evening's debate, here are a few things to look for:
1. Fox News will undoubtedly provide a very different format and approach from that of the first Republican debate, which was sponsored by MSNBC. While Fox has not disclosed exactly how this forum will be different, it will be interesting to see if this meeting comes closer to being a real debate than any of the previous candidates' forums this year.
2. With news veteran Britt Hume as the moderator for tonight's debate, look for more questions of substance. Chris Matthews' stint as 'moderator' of the first Republican debate was nothing less than a debacle for two reasons: Matthews is a known partisan who favors Liberal Democrats, and two, many of the questions were downright ridiculous and not even worthy of consideration. It will be hard to imagine this happening tonight with Hume in charge.
3. Ron Paul stands to make major strides in advancing his candidacy if he does well tonight. His first debate appearance set the Internet abuzz. Will he build on that momentum, or will he stall?
4. Tom Tancredo will more than likely stage a very strong appearance this evening, given that he was off his game in the first debate. Look for him to display his characteristic charisma and eloquence, particularly on the issue of border security.
5. The four candidates who helped themselves the most by their performance in the first debate--Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, and Mitt Romney--will be under the gun to pull off the same thing this time. Look for at least one of these to stumble a bit.
6. Giuliani and McCain have a chance to step up to the plate and hit one out of the park this evening. However, anything less than a stellar performance out of each will amount to a net loss, in our opinion. Neither candidate did or said anything in the last debate to separate themselves from the rest of the pack in terms of desirability. Unless they change that perception, and change it soon, you can look for both of these top contenders to begin losing steam in the polls.
7. At this point we do not see either Kansas Senator Sam Brownback nor Tommy Thompson as viable contenders. Brownback could change that with an unusually strong showing this evening. He is a good man who certainly has a bright future worthy of greatness. The question is, is the timing right? With Thompson, his candidacy has had trouble getting off the ground, and we don't see that changing tonight unless a major miracle takes place.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will post our exclusive 'Liberty Rating' on each of the candidates following tonight's debate.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Dems Seek to Silence Citizens on Terrorism!
Washington, DC (TLS). Remember the six Muslim imams who were ousted from a U.S. Air flight because they were acting and speaking exactly like the 9/11 terrorists?
It was ordinary citizens like you and me who alerted airport officials about their concerns.
If Congressional Democrats get their way, those ordinary citizens will be subject to civil liability. In short, report your suspicions about potential terrorists, and you will be sued.
Guess who is leading the Democrats' charge in Congress? Senator Russ Feingold and Representative John Conyers.
Behind the effort to get these changes passed into law is CAIR--the infamous Council on America-Islamic Relations. CAIR is also working on a bill with the Democrats to prevent so-called 'racial profiling.' That's just a code word for forbidding you to report your suspicions about terrorism if the ones you suspect happen to be Muslim young men of Middle Eastern descent.
Remember it was CAIR that just last week circulated demands that news organizations refrain from referring to the Fort Dix Six as Muslim terrorists. CAIR said they were not Muslim and that their actions had nothing to do with their religion.
But guess what? It turns out they are Muslim, they are part of the Jihad, and they used Al Qaeda tapes to train for their foiled terrorist plot.
CAIR did not want you to know that.
Frank Gaffney, Jr. has the following must-read over at Jewish World Review. Read the details about how CAIR and Congressional Democrats are working in tandem to silence YOU, the citizen, from reporting your concerns about terrorism:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney050807.php3
It was ordinary citizens like you and me who alerted airport officials about their concerns.
If Congressional Democrats get their way, those ordinary citizens will be subject to civil liability. In short, report your suspicions about potential terrorists, and you will be sued.
Guess who is leading the Democrats' charge in Congress? Senator Russ Feingold and Representative John Conyers.
Behind the effort to get these changes passed into law is CAIR--the infamous Council on America-Islamic Relations. CAIR is also working on a bill with the Democrats to prevent so-called 'racial profiling.' That's just a code word for forbidding you to report your suspicions about terrorism if the ones you suspect happen to be Muslim young men of Middle Eastern descent.
Remember it was CAIR that just last week circulated demands that news organizations refrain from referring to the Fort Dix Six as Muslim terrorists. CAIR said they were not Muslim and that their actions had nothing to do with their religion.
But guess what? It turns out they are Muslim, they are part of the Jihad, and they used Al Qaeda tapes to train for their foiled terrorist plot.
CAIR did not want you to know that.
Frank Gaffney, Jr. has the following must-read over at Jewish World Review. Read the details about how CAIR and Congressional Democrats are working in tandem to silence YOU, the citizen, from reporting your concerns about terrorism:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney050807.php3
Gun Control Idiot in Carolina
Washington, DC (TLS). The idiot of the day is a man down in South Carolina who wrote to his local newspaper on gun control. Here is what he had to say:
'Was the Virginia Tech massacre the price that this country is willing to pay for the Second Amendment?'
Way to go, Einstein.
Let me show you the 'logic' of this question.
Are tens of thousands of highway deaths per year the price this country is willing to pay for the privilege of driving a car?
If freedom results in unintended deaths, do those deaths negate freedom?
Somebody needs to tell Einstein down in South Carolina that if our forefathers held this 'logic' about freedom and rights, we would all still be living under tyranny.
'Was the Virginia Tech massacre the price that this country is willing to pay for the Second Amendment?'
Way to go, Einstein.
Let me show you the 'logic' of this question.
Are tens of thousands of highway deaths per year the price this country is willing to pay for the privilege of driving a car?
If freedom results in unintended deaths, do those deaths negate freedom?
Somebody needs to tell Einstein down in South Carolina that if our forefathers held this 'logic' about freedom and rights, we would all still be living under tyranny.
Ron Paul on Gun Owners of America
Washington, DC (TLS). Today's quote of the day comes from U.S. House Representative Ron Paul, R-TX. Mr. Paul is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President.
Here is what the candidate says about Gun Owners of America:
'The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.'
This is a very important quote, for there are plenty of gun lobby groups in Washington and around the country. However, some are no more than gun control groups attempting to splinter gun owners into factions so that our power as a voting block will be diminished.
Others are sincere in their belief in the Second Amendment but will compromise on some vitally important issues that have the effect of weakening our rights.
As Ron Paul states, Gun Owners of America will not compromise on a Constitutional right. The right to own and carry guns is either a protected right guaranteed by the Constitution or it isn't. There is actually very little middle ground.
If you have not already visited their website, you can click here to go directly to Gun Owners of America:
http://www.gunowners.org/
Here is what the candidate says about Gun Owners of America:
'The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.'
This is a very important quote, for there are plenty of gun lobby groups in Washington and around the country. However, some are no more than gun control groups attempting to splinter gun owners into factions so that our power as a voting block will be diminished.
Others are sincere in their belief in the Second Amendment but will compromise on some vitally important issues that have the effect of weakening our rights.
As Ron Paul states, Gun Owners of America will not compromise on a Constitutional right. The right to own and carry guns is either a protected right guaranteed by the Constitution or it isn't. There is actually very little middle ground.
If you have not already visited their website, you can click here to go directly to Gun Owners of America:
http://www.gunowners.org/
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Ron Paul on the Radio--Illegal Aliens
Washington, DC (TLS). Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul made a guest appearance on late-night talk radio Saturday evening, coast to coast. This gave the candidate the perfect forum for giving some no-nonsense straight talk concerning the nation's problems and how to solve them.
Mr. Paul is perhaps best known for his opposition to the War in Iraq--a rarity among Republicans. But his views on many other issues are worthy of a hearing.
Perhaps the most interesting of Mr. Paul's views concerns the nation's immigration problem. The candidate insists that there is already a path to citizenship for legal immigrants through U.S. law and that the last thing we need is yet another amnesty program.
The so-called 'path to citizenship' for illegal aliens is just another amnesty program. The true path to citizenship, according to Mr. Paul, is the same path that legitimate immigrants follow--the path that is afforded them by following the tenets of the law.
Thus, Mr. Paul would insist that the law be followed. In addition he would remove all present incentives for people to come here illegally--the freebies. Mr. Paul would immediately cut off free medical care, free education, and other incentives for illegal aliens to flood into the country.
When illegal aliens discover that America is not the world's destination for those looking for a handout, the problem of illegals flooding the country will either stop or be greatly diminished.
The Liberty Sphere is in full agreement with Mr. Paul on this issue. Such rational, no-nonsense thinking is sorely needed among American politicians.
Mr. Paul is perhaps best known for his opposition to the War in Iraq--a rarity among Republicans. But his views on many other issues are worthy of a hearing.
Perhaps the most interesting of Mr. Paul's views concerns the nation's immigration problem. The candidate insists that there is already a path to citizenship for legal immigrants through U.S. law and that the last thing we need is yet another amnesty program.
The so-called 'path to citizenship' for illegal aliens is just another amnesty program. The true path to citizenship, according to Mr. Paul, is the same path that legitimate immigrants follow--the path that is afforded them by following the tenets of the law.
Thus, Mr. Paul would insist that the law be followed. In addition he would remove all present incentives for people to come here illegally--the freebies. Mr. Paul would immediately cut off free medical care, free education, and other incentives for illegal aliens to flood into the country.
When illegal aliens discover that America is not the world's destination for those looking for a handout, the problem of illegals flooding the country will either stop or be greatly diminished.
The Liberty Sphere is in full agreement with Mr. Paul on this issue. Such rational, no-nonsense thinking is sorely needed among American politicians.
Mothers' Day, 2007
Today is Mothers' Day, 2007. We wish you all a very happy day.
Donna Lewis, pictured below, wrote a very moving tribute to her Mother, the lyrics of which we have reprinted below.
We also give you a tribute to Mother from The Liberty Sphere's archives. We hope you enjoy.
We lost her in the month of October as the weather grows cooler and the days shorten, as if she were beckoned to heaven by the changing color of autumn leaves. Her struggle with cancer had left her depleted and weary, her relief and permanent healing only provided by her abiding faith in One who would transport her to another realm where suffering is no more.
Welsh singer/writer/poet Donna Lewis speaks of her Mother as the one who showed her the way through 'the chosen words' of everlasting faith and hope. I can fully relate. But more about that a bit later.
My Mother was a woman of unusual strength and determination, buoyed constantly by a faith that would not flinch in the face of seeming insurmountable obstacles. But my most vivid and poignant memories of her are from boyhood, having spent many a day suffering from the frightening plight of childhood asthma.
I remember as a boy feeling as if I were smothering once the lights went out at night. I am not certain of any scientific or medical evidence suggesting that this is common among the victims of childhood asthma, but nonetheless, I remember having the distinct and frightening feeling that my struggle to breath was made worse by the darkness.
Many a night during those days I would get up and go to the den, where there was always a light. Some way, somehow, though she were sound asleep, my Mother would always sense my presence in the den, and before long she would be by my side sitting in the chair as I reclined on the sofa.
Sometimes she would hold my hand, other times she would get me medicine to help me breath. Sometimes she would hold my head as I threw up from the drugs that were given for the asthma.
Eventually, sleep would slowly overtake me unaware. I would awaken in the morning as the light of the sun came through the window. Invariably as I would look to my side, I would find my Mother still there, sometimes sleeping softly in the chair, sometimes watching me as I awakened.
In some indescribable fashion, the terror that the night brought to a small boy who suffered from asthma was always greatly relieved by the presence of my Mother...and the knowledge that she would be there at the dawning of the morning's light.
Her memory forever lives on in my heart, undimmed by the passage of time. And when October comes, I still feel the sadness of the day we lost her to that higher realm of being.
Donna Lewis, the Welsh singer/songwriter, burst onto the music scene in this country in 1996 with the hit single 'I Love You Always, Forever.' On that same recording is a song that also received some acclaim, though it never reached the level of success as her initial release. It is called simply, 'Mother.'
The song is profound. And it bears an uncanny similarity to my own experience and feelings associated with my Mother. In loving tribute of my Mother, I offer you these captivating words from Donna Lewis.
'Mother'
by Donna Lewis
And I can hear you calling my name
Your healing hands smooth away the pain
And I can hear you whispering
'It'll be alright'...you'll stay until the night breaks into day
You are my light ... in the dark
You stand beside me
You take my hand ... show me the way
You're here to guide me
You give me the strength ... that I need
You give me shelter
You gave me life ... you gave me love
You are my mother
And when you hear me calling your name (I hear your voice)
You touch me with your chosen words
Everlasting faith, everlasting love is the greatest gift you have
Believing understanding me
CHORUS
Closer ... closer ... closer to heaven are you
You are my light in the dark
You take my hand and show me the way
You give me the strength that I need
You gave me life you gave me love
Donna Lewis, pictured below, wrote a very moving tribute to her Mother, the lyrics of which we have reprinted below.
We also give you a tribute to Mother from The Liberty Sphere's archives. We hope you enjoy.
We lost her in the month of October as the weather grows cooler and the days shorten, as if she were beckoned to heaven by the changing color of autumn leaves. Her struggle with cancer had left her depleted and weary, her relief and permanent healing only provided by her abiding faith in One who would transport her to another realm where suffering is no more.
Welsh singer/writer/poet Donna Lewis speaks of her Mother as the one who showed her the way through 'the chosen words' of everlasting faith and hope. I can fully relate. But more about that a bit later.
My Mother was a woman of unusual strength and determination, buoyed constantly by a faith that would not flinch in the face of seeming insurmountable obstacles. But my most vivid and poignant memories of her are from boyhood, having spent many a day suffering from the frightening plight of childhood asthma.
I remember as a boy feeling as if I were smothering once the lights went out at night. I am not certain of any scientific or medical evidence suggesting that this is common among the victims of childhood asthma, but nonetheless, I remember having the distinct and frightening feeling that my struggle to breath was made worse by the darkness.
Many a night during those days I would get up and go to the den, where there was always a light. Some way, somehow, though she were sound asleep, my Mother would always sense my presence in the den, and before long she would be by my side sitting in the chair as I reclined on the sofa.
Sometimes she would hold my hand, other times she would get me medicine to help me breath. Sometimes she would hold my head as I threw up from the drugs that were given for the asthma.
Eventually, sleep would slowly overtake me unaware. I would awaken in the morning as the light of the sun came through the window. Invariably as I would look to my side, I would find my Mother still there, sometimes sleeping softly in the chair, sometimes watching me as I awakened.
In some indescribable fashion, the terror that the night brought to a small boy who suffered from asthma was always greatly relieved by the presence of my Mother...and the knowledge that she would be there at the dawning of the morning's light.
Her memory forever lives on in my heart, undimmed by the passage of time. And when October comes, I still feel the sadness of the day we lost her to that higher realm of being.
Donna Lewis, the Welsh singer/songwriter, burst onto the music scene in this country in 1996 with the hit single 'I Love You Always, Forever.' On that same recording is a song that also received some acclaim, though it never reached the level of success as her initial release. It is called simply, 'Mother.'
The song is profound. And it bears an uncanny similarity to my own experience and feelings associated with my Mother. In loving tribute of my Mother, I offer you these captivating words from Donna Lewis.
'Mother'
by Donna Lewis
And I can hear you calling my name
Your healing hands smooth away the pain
And I can hear you whispering
'It'll be alright'...you'll stay until the night breaks into day
You are my light ... in the dark
You stand beside me
You take my hand ... show me the way
You're here to guide me
You give me the strength ... that I need
You give me shelter
You gave me life ... you gave me love
You are my mother
And when you hear me calling your name (I hear your voice)
You touch me with your chosen words
Everlasting faith, everlasting love is the greatest gift you have
Believing understanding me
CHORUS
Closer ... closer ... closer to heaven are you
You are my light in the dark
You take my hand and show me the way
You give me the strength that I need
You gave me life you gave me love
Saturday, May 12, 2007
New Poll--Congress Rates as Low as Bush
Washington, DC (TLS). A brand new poll just released on Friday indicates that public approval of Congress has slipped to equal that of President Bush.
As Bush reels from some of his lowest approval numbers ever, apparently the public has seen enough of the Democratic-controlled Congress to conclude that Congress is just as disappointing as Mr. Bush.
Perhaps Mr. Bush can at least take some comfort in the fact that not only is the public's ire ignited toward him, but they have quickly concluded that this Congress is just as inept as the last one.
This does not bode well for incumbents in either Party.
Read more about this poll here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html
As Bush reels from some of his lowest approval numbers ever, apparently the public has seen enough of the Democratic-controlled Congress to conclude that Congress is just as disappointing as Mr. Bush.
Perhaps Mr. Bush can at least take some comfort in the fact that not only is the public's ire ignited toward him, but they have quickly concluded that this Congress is just as inept as the last one.
This does not bode well for incumbents in either Party.
Read more about this poll here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html
Giuliani: 'Never Again'
Washington, DC (TLS). The quote of the day comes from Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
During a major campaign speech the former New York City Mayor stated, 'Never again will we be caught on the defensive in the fight against terrorism. We must stay on the offensive against those who are seeking to kill us.'
Regardless of what one might think about some of Rudy's views, there is no doubt that he is a natural-born leader. He has proved this time and again in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Giuliani inspires confidence in troubled times. For that we can give him truckloads of credit.
During a major campaign speech the former New York City Mayor stated, 'Never again will we be caught on the defensive in the fight against terrorism. We must stay on the offensive against those who are seeking to kill us.'
Regardless of what one might think about some of Rudy's views, there is no doubt that he is a natural-born leader. He has proved this time and again in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Giuliani inspires confidence in troubled times. For that we can give him truckloads of credit.
Gag Order in Ware Shoals-Jill Moore-Jane Blackwell Case
Ware Shoals, SC (TLS). A Greenwood County court has issued a gag order which will amount to a total news blackout in the Jill Moore-Jane Blackwell-Ware Shoals High School cheerleader sex scandal. The order comes in the wake of the airing of a videotape on a local TV station, showing Jill Moore's interrogation by Greenwood County Sheriff's officials.
The content of the portion of the video that was shown on TV directly involves former Ware Shoals High School principal Jane Blackwell and what she may have known about the activities of former cheerleader coach Jill Moore.
Moore was charged with giving alcohol and cigarettes to minors and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
But it was allegations of sexual misconduct that led to the investigation into Moore's activities, which eventually led to a charge of obstruction brought against Blackwell.
State's attorney Jerry Peace stated that the airing of the video that shows law enforcement interrogation of Moore severely compromises the case and that a change in venue may be necessary. In an effort to drastically reduce the likelihood of further compromises, the Court issued the gag order.
This is not the first time that a local television station became part of this story in Ware Shoals. When Principal Jane Blackwell gave testimony before the Ware Shoals School Board, a local TV station refused to shut off its cameras during the testimony as requested. This led to the meeting going behind closed doors, which angered the 200 or so attendees who were then deprived of hearing Blackwell's testimony.
With today's gag order, a television station or a news source that compromises the integrity of the case will result in legal action by the court.
The content of the portion of the video that was shown on TV directly involves former Ware Shoals High School principal Jane Blackwell and what she may have known about the activities of former cheerleader coach Jill Moore.
Moore was charged with giving alcohol and cigarettes to minors and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
But it was allegations of sexual misconduct that led to the investigation into Moore's activities, which eventually led to a charge of obstruction brought against Blackwell.
State's attorney Jerry Peace stated that the airing of the video that shows law enforcement interrogation of Moore severely compromises the case and that a change in venue may be necessary. In an effort to drastically reduce the likelihood of further compromises, the Court issued the gag order.
This is not the first time that a local television station became part of this story in Ware Shoals. When Principal Jane Blackwell gave testimony before the Ware Shoals School Board, a local TV station refused to shut off its cameras during the testimony as requested. This led to the meeting going behind closed doors, which angered the 200 or so attendees who were then deprived of hearing Blackwell's testimony.
With today's gag order, a television station or a news source that compromises the integrity of the case will result in legal action by the court.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Show Me the Money--Campaign Funds Raised So Far
Washington, DC (TLS). The Liberty Sphere has reported many times that each candidate for President will need a campaign war-chest of at least 100 million dollars by January 1, 2008 in order to mount a competitive campaign.
Let's see who has the most money thus far, in order of their rank in total funds raised:
Over 20 Million, but under 30 Million
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
--Barack Hussein Obama
--Mitt Romney
Over 10 million, but under 20 million
--Rudy Giuliani
--John Edwards
--John McCain
Over 5 million, but under 10 million
--Bill Richardson
Under 5 million
--Chris Dodd
--Joe Biden
--Sam Brownback
--Tom Tancredo
--Ron Paul
--Mike Huckabee
--Duncan Hunter
--Dennis Kucinich
--Tommy Thompson
--Jim Gilmore
--Mike Gravel
As you can see by these official rankings, the three candidates who are well on their way to raising the necessary funds by Jan. 1 are Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and Mitt Romney. Those who are lagging a bit behind but are still easily within reach are Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards, and John McCain.
It is our opinion that anyone who at this point has less than 10 million dollars on hand in campaign cash is going to have a very tough time raising the amount needed by that all-important deadline.
For example, in order for Bill Richardson to have 100 million by Jan. 1 he will have to raise at least 14 million bucks PER MONTH between now and Dec. 31, 2007. That is roughly twice as much per month as the TOTAL he has raised thus far.
By anyone's estimation that is an exceedingly tall order.
This is why with each passing day I am growing more and more pessimistic about the prospects of a viable candidacy out of anyone who has raised less than 5 million by now. This bodes ill for candidates such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee, I am sorry to say.
Yet this is not an entirely impossible scenario. If a dark horse candidate catches on with a large segment of the electorate, the campaign cash will come rolling in in fairly short order.
But the time is growing short. We can thank the almighty intellects at the helm of both Parties for this sorry state of affairs. Jan. 1 is way too early to start primaries. But the Parties all moved up their primary dates in the name of attempting to be 'the very first one.'
As much as I hate the scenario they have created with primaries taking place as early as January, this is the reality we must face. And reality dictates that in this election cycle a candidate is going to need 100 million by January 1 in order to be competitive in those early primaries.
Let's see who has the most money thus far, in order of their rank in total funds raised:
Over 20 Million, but under 30 Million
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
--Barack Hussein Obama
--Mitt Romney
Over 10 million, but under 20 million
--Rudy Giuliani
--John Edwards
--John McCain
Over 5 million, but under 10 million
--Bill Richardson
Under 5 million
--Chris Dodd
--Joe Biden
--Sam Brownback
--Tom Tancredo
--Ron Paul
--Mike Huckabee
--Duncan Hunter
--Dennis Kucinich
--Tommy Thompson
--Jim Gilmore
--Mike Gravel
As you can see by these official rankings, the three candidates who are well on their way to raising the necessary funds by Jan. 1 are Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and Mitt Romney. Those who are lagging a bit behind but are still easily within reach are Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards, and John McCain.
It is our opinion that anyone who at this point has less than 10 million dollars on hand in campaign cash is going to have a very tough time raising the amount needed by that all-important deadline.
For example, in order for Bill Richardson to have 100 million by Jan. 1 he will have to raise at least 14 million bucks PER MONTH between now and Dec. 31, 2007. That is roughly twice as much per month as the TOTAL he has raised thus far.
By anyone's estimation that is an exceedingly tall order.
This is why with each passing day I am growing more and more pessimistic about the prospects of a viable candidacy out of anyone who has raised less than 5 million by now. This bodes ill for candidates such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee, I am sorry to say.
Yet this is not an entirely impossible scenario. If a dark horse candidate catches on with a large segment of the electorate, the campaign cash will come rolling in in fairly short order.
But the time is growing short. We can thank the almighty intellects at the helm of both Parties for this sorry state of affairs. Jan. 1 is way too early to start primaries. But the Parties all moved up their primary dates in the name of attempting to be 'the very first one.'
As much as I hate the scenario they have created with primaries taking place as early as January, this is the reality we must face. And reality dictates that in this election cycle a candidate is going to need 100 million by January 1 in order to be competitive in those early primaries.
CAIR IS NOW THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED
Washington, DC (TLS). Now that the identities and the religious affiliation of the 'Fort Dix Six' terrorists have been thoroughly and irrefutably documented, there is now absolutely no doubt that CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is a disgraced and totally discredited organization.
Most thinking people knew this already. But Democrats in Congress have been playing cozy with them. So have the mainstream media.
When the story broke about the Fort Dix Six, the Muslim terrorists who planned to murder hundreds, if not thousands of U.S. soldiers on our own bases, CAIR launched a major blitz to 'instruct' the media not to refer to the terrorists as Islamic.
In fact, CAIR is on record as stating that the terrorists are not Muslim at all and that their planned attacks had nothing to do with their religious affiliation.
This was in spite of the fact that all six are, indeed, Muslim, and that they used Al Qaeda training tapes to get ready for the attacks. They also referred to Osama bin Laden as their hero.
CAIR has just shown the entire world its true colors.
As we have stated repeatedly here at The Liberty Sphere, CAIR is nothing but a terrorist front organization. The fact that they would attempt to influence the manner in which the foiled terrorist plot was reported, when everyone knows the terrorists are Muslim, only points to their sordid, underhanded mode of operation as an apologist organization for terrorism.
And remember, my friends, the Democrats in Congress consult with these people on a regular basis.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes, if ever, for the Democratic leadership in Congress to totally disavow itself of any connection to CAIR.
Most thinking people knew this already. But Democrats in Congress have been playing cozy with them. So have the mainstream media.
When the story broke about the Fort Dix Six, the Muslim terrorists who planned to murder hundreds, if not thousands of U.S. soldiers on our own bases, CAIR launched a major blitz to 'instruct' the media not to refer to the terrorists as Islamic.
In fact, CAIR is on record as stating that the terrorists are not Muslim at all and that their planned attacks had nothing to do with their religious affiliation.
This was in spite of the fact that all six are, indeed, Muslim, and that they used Al Qaeda training tapes to get ready for the attacks. They also referred to Osama bin Laden as their hero.
CAIR has just shown the entire world its true colors.
As we have stated repeatedly here at The Liberty Sphere, CAIR is nothing but a terrorist front organization. The fact that they would attempt to influence the manner in which the foiled terrorist plot was reported, when everyone knows the terrorists are Muslim, only points to their sordid, underhanded mode of operation as an apologist organization for terrorism.
And remember, my friends, the Democrats in Congress consult with these people on a regular basis.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes, if ever, for the Democratic leadership in Congress to totally disavow itself of any connection to CAIR.
TWO FOILED TERROR PLOTS IN ONE WEEK
Washington, DC (TLS). Americans should be celebrating right now. Not only that, but they should be singing the praises of the Bush Administration. In less than one week, two major terrorist plots on our own soil have been foiled.
Somebody is obviously doing their job and doing it well.
Earlier in the week a terrorist cell operating in America's heartland, in St. Louis, was busted after information surfaced concerning Muslim Palestinian immigrants who were planning to use grenades, mines, and other heavy fire-power to launch attacks against American citizens.
The Liberty Sphere reported on this thwarted attack this past Sunday.
Then, just days later the FBI announced that it had foiled a major terrorist plot to murder hundreds of U.S. soldiers in major military bases around the country. The Muslim extremists were caught just in time.
My friends, these are major successes that should call forth congratulatory words from citizens all across the country. Had the President and his Administration not been doing their jobs, there is no way to ascertain the mass carnage that these two plots would have produced.
Somebody is obviously doing their job and doing it well.
Earlier in the week a terrorist cell operating in America's heartland, in St. Louis, was busted after information surfaced concerning Muslim Palestinian immigrants who were planning to use grenades, mines, and other heavy fire-power to launch attacks against American citizens.
The Liberty Sphere reported on this thwarted attack this past Sunday.
Then, just days later the FBI announced that it had foiled a major terrorist plot to murder hundreds of U.S. soldiers in major military bases around the country. The Muslim extremists were caught just in time.
My friends, these are major successes that should call forth congratulatory words from citizens all across the country. Had the President and his Administration not been doing their jobs, there is no way to ascertain the mass carnage that these two plots would have produced.
The Battered 'Dubya'
Washington, DC (TLS). President Bush has really taken a beating of late as there has been little good news to celebrate, with the exception of a roaring economy that boasts the strongest stock market in history, the fact that in less than one week the government has foiled two terrorist plots on our own soil, and that since 9/11 there has not been one single terrorist attack of great consequence against Americans.
With all of this terribly bad news it is easy to see why Mr. Bush would be so battered.
Seriously, it is, in fact, easy to understand why 'Dubya' was been taking a beating in the news. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek are all making certain that all you hear is the bad news.
Yes, the Leftwing monopoly on the news is still alive and well--and very powerful.
Thus, in spite of the strongest stock market in history, a unusually low unemployment rate, a very low rate of inflation, no terrorist attacks against Americans, and two foiled attempts at terrorism in one week, the President is still viewed with disdain by the mainstream media, and it does all it can to portray him in derogatory terms.
To show you just how powerful and influential the mainstream media still is, consider this: they have managed to turn Americans against the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, in spite of overwhelming support early-on.
Yet they claim we need to bring back the 'fairness doctrine' because some conservative commentator on the radio hurt their itty-bitty feelings.
So, the Left wants to take it over too. They want it all, not just mainstream TV, but they want conservative talk radio as well.
Granted, Dubya has made some mistakes along the way. All Presidents do. Hindsight is 20/20. And there have been times I have been very angry and disappointed with the President, especially over the Border Patrol debacle and the unfair prosecution and imprisonment of two honorable Border Patrol agents.
Yet, I like Mr. Bush. I always have. I believe that deep inside he is an honest man of honor. He has tried to keep his word, even to a fault. He has stuck to his guns, even when it cost him support. This is called leadership.
If the President has one fatal flaw when it comes to politics, it is in one of his greatest strengths. His ability to be decisive and then stick to his guns come thick or thin can easily turn into stubbornness. And in this business one cannot afford to be bull-headed. Flexibility is sometimes in order.
The President is in dire need of some irrefutable good news....not just the good news one expects to hear from Wall Street or conservative talk radio, but good news that the mainstream media cannot ignore--such as the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden.
It is not simply that Mr. Bush needs the good news for the sake of political fortune, but for his own personal sake. The President has appeared tired of late, a far-off look of sadness and longing in his eyes that one is not accustomed to seeing in Mr. Bush. It is clear that being a 'war-time President' in an era of unprecedented danger has begun to weigh heavily on him.
The President needs to know that many of us out here wish for some good news to come his way every bit as much as he does.
With all of this terribly bad news it is easy to see why Mr. Bush would be so battered.
Seriously, it is, in fact, easy to understand why 'Dubya' was been taking a beating in the news. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek are all making certain that all you hear is the bad news.
Yes, the Leftwing monopoly on the news is still alive and well--and very powerful.
Thus, in spite of the strongest stock market in history, a unusually low unemployment rate, a very low rate of inflation, no terrorist attacks against Americans, and two foiled attempts at terrorism in one week, the President is still viewed with disdain by the mainstream media, and it does all it can to portray him in derogatory terms.
To show you just how powerful and influential the mainstream media still is, consider this: they have managed to turn Americans against the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, in spite of overwhelming support early-on.
Yet they claim we need to bring back the 'fairness doctrine' because some conservative commentator on the radio hurt their itty-bitty feelings.
So, the Left wants to take it over too. They want it all, not just mainstream TV, but they want conservative talk radio as well.
Granted, Dubya has made some mistakes along the way. All Presidents do. Hindsight is 20/20. And there have been times I have been very angry and disappointed with the President, especially over the Border Patrol debacle and the unfair prosecution and imprisonment of two honorable Border Patrol agents.
Yet, I like Mr. Bush. I always have. I believe that deep inside he is an honest man of honor. He has tried to keep his word, even to a fault. He has stuck to his guns, even when it cost him support. This is called leadership.
If the President has one fatal flaw when it comes to politics, it is in one of his greatest strengths. His ability to be decisive and then stick to his guns come thick or thin can easily turn into stubbornness. And in this business one cannot afford to be bull-headed. Flexibility is sometimes in order.
The President is in dire need of some irrefutable good news....not just the good news one expects to hear from Wall Street or conservative talk radio, but good news that the mainstream media cannot ignore--such as the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden.
It is not simply that Mr. Bush needs the good news for the sake of political fortune, but for his own personal sake. The President has appeared tired of late, a far-off look of sadness and longing in his eyes that one is not accustomed to seeing in Mr. Bush. It is clear that being a 'war-time President' in an era of unprecedented danger has begun to weigh heavily on him.
The President needs to know that many of us out here wish for some good news to come his way every bit as much as he does.
Stupid Questions
Washington, DC (TLS). Everyone knows that Chris Matthews of NBC is a partisan, biased, Leftwing nutcase. He has never attempted to hide the fact. He was seen recently on a late-night talk show using expletives to describe Republicans. He has done this before.
But the questions Matthews issued to the Republican candidates during their first debate cannot be described in any other way but 'stupid.'
'How would you feel about Hillary Clinton in the White House?'
'Well, ah, gee whiz there, Chris, I would just LOVE it if Hillary were in the White House! After all, that's why I'm running for President, you IDIOT!'
I wish someone had had the guts to answer the stupid question in that manner.
However, now it is Mike Wallace's turn to ask the stupid questions. In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview on CBS with Mitt Romney, Wallace reportedly asks Romney if he and his wife 'ever had premarital sex.'
Excuse me, Mr. Wallace, but with all due respect this is an IDIOTIC question that demeans your entire distinguished career.
So does it all come down to this? I suppose the start of it all was the question put to Bill Clinton in 1992, 'Boxers or briefs?'
The news business has reached a very low ebb. Not only do they think we want to know what type of underwear the candidates wear, but they have the unmitigated gall to ask an opponent what he/she thinks if their rival wins the White House. DUH!
And who cares if Mitt Romney and his wife had premarital sex!
We can only hope that with Fox News sponsoring the next debate, we will get some questions that are worthy of a serious dialogue concerning the nation's future. It would be hard to imagine Britt Hume or John Gibson asking the candidates such blatantly mindless questions that have nothing to do with their ability to be President.
No wonder none of the Democrats want to face Fox News reporters asking the questions!
But, since apparently the Dems have insisted that only so-called 'mainstream' news organizations sponsor their debates--you know, the ones that want to know about premarital sex--I have come up with a few stupid questions the mighty heavy-weights of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN could ask the Democrats.
'Mrs. Clinton, are you presently taking prescription hormonal therapy for post-menopausal women? And could this medication impair your decision-making?'
'Mr. Obama, which brand of smokes do you prefer? Winstons? Benson and Hedges? Would you offer Hillary a smoke if you were to light up after the debate?'
'Mr. Biden, are you standing there lusting after Hillary while waiting for your next question? And would you describe Hillary as an attractive woman or more of a bulldog?'
'Mr. Dodd, have you ever engaged in cross-dressing?'
'Mr. Edwards, if elected, would you disclose just who it is that does your hair? Chris Matthews and others of us want to know.'
'Mr. Kucinich, how many more times do you think you will have to position yourself to be photographed with President Bush before people remember who you are?'
'Mr. Gravel, do YOU even remember who you are?'
And finally.....
'Mr. Richardson, since you served in the Clinton White House and are friends of Bill (and we all know Bill talks)....tell us what all of America wants to know...does Hillary wear thong panties?'
But the questions Matthews issued to the Republican candidates during their first debate cannot be described in any other way but 'stupid.'
'How would you feel about Hillary Clinton in the White House?'
'Well, ah, gee whiz there, Chris, I would just LOVE it if Hillary were in the White House! After all, that's why I'm running for President, you IDIOT!'
I wish someone had had the guts to answer the stupid question in that manner.
However, now it is Mike Wallace's turn to ask the stupid questions. In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview on CBS with Mitt Romney, Wallace reportedly asks Romney if he and his wife 'ever had premarital sex.'
Excuse me, Mr. Wallace, but with all due respect this is an IDIOTIC question that demeans your entire distinguished career.
So does it all come down to this? I suppose the start of it all was the question put to Bill Clinton in 1992, 'Boxers or briefs?'
The news business has reached a very low ebb. Not only do they think we want to know what type of underwear the candidates wear, but they have the unmitigated gall to ask an opponent what he/she thinks if their rival wins the White House. DUH!
And who cares if Mitt Romney and his wife had premarital sex!
We can only hope that with Fox News sponsoring the next debate, we will get some questions that are worthy of a serious dialogue concerning the nation's future. It would be hard to imagine Britt Hume or John Gibson asking the candidates such blatantly mindless questions that have nothing to do with their ability to be President.
No wonder none of the Democrats want to face Fox News reporters asking the questions!
But, since apparently the Dems have insisted that only so-called 'mainstream' news organizations sponsor their debates--you know, the ones that want to know about premarital sex--I have come up with a few stupid questions the mighty heavy-weights of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN could ask the Democrats.
'Mrs. Clinton, are you presently taking prescription hormonal therapy for post-menopausal women? And could this medication impair your decision-making?'
'Mr. Obama, which brand of smokes do you prefer? Winstons? Benson and Hedges? Would you offer Hillary a smoke if you were to light up after the debate?'
'Mr. Biden, are you standing there lusting after Hillary while waiting for your next question? And would you describe Hillary as an attractive woman or more of a bulldog?'
'Mr. Dodd, have you ever engaged in cross-dressing?'
'Mr. Edwards, if elected, would you disclose just who it is that does your hair? Chris Matthews and others of us want to know.'
'Mr. Kucinich, how many more times do you think you will have to position yourself to be photographed with President Bush before people remember who you are?'
'Mr. Gravel, do YOU even remember who you are?'
And finally.....
'Mr. Richardson, since you served in the Clinton White House and are friends of Bill (and we all know Bill talks)....tell us what all of America wants to know...does Hillary wear thong panties?'
Thursday, May 10, 2007
MAYOR BLOOMBERG COULD BE CHARGED WITH FELONY
Washington, DC (TLS). Virginia Attorney-General Robert McDonnell is warning New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that if he continues to send undercover investigators into Virginia to try to catch gun dealers in illegal sales, he will be charged with a felony.
Bloomberg contends that gun dealers in Virginia are responsible for illegal guns winding up on the streets of NYC.
Thus, the Mayor, ignoring the separation of powers and limitations of jurisdictions, has been sending in the undercover cops to Virginia.
Has Bloomberg ever stopped to notice that he has no power outside New York City?
The fact that Virginia's gun rights laws are more in line with the U.S. Constitution than NYC's bigoted, anti-gun hysteria gives the Mayor no right to ignore the boundaries of jurisdictions. And if he persists in this idiotic practice, he just may wind up in handcuffs.
As a matter of fact, given that Bloomberg has already been engaging in activity that could land him in legal hot water, The Liberty Sphere would encourage the Virginia Attorney-General go to ahead and charge Bloomberg with a felony.
This is the only way we are going to get some of this anti-Constitutional activity in this country stopped.
Bloomberg contends that gun dealers in Virginia are responsible for illegal guns winding up on the streets of NYC.
Thus, the Mayor, ignoring the separation of powers and limitations of jurisdictions, has been sending in the undercover cops to Virginia.
Has Bloomberg ever stopped to notice that he has no power outside New York City?
The fact that Virginia's gun rights laws are more in line with the U.S. Constitution than NYC's bigoted, anti-gun hysteria gives the Mayor no right to ignore the boundaries of jurisdictions. And if he persists in this idiotic practice, he just may wind up in handcuffs.
As a matter of fact, given that Bloomberg has already been engaging in activity that could land him in legal hot water, The Liberty Sphere would encourage the Virginia Attorney-General go to ahead and charge Bloomberg with a felony.
This is the only way we are going to get some of this anti-Constitutional activity in this country stopped.
Ron Paul on the Move
Washington, DC (TLS). A dark horse Republican candidate for the Presidential nomination, Ron Paul, is apparently on the move in the polls. Late-breaking surveys are showing that the U.S. Representative from Texas has surprisingly gained much ground since the Republican debate in California.
The Liberty Sphere had picked Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore as the ones who helped themselves the most by their performance in the debate. Although we did not feel that Ron Paul made a particularly strong showing in the debate itself, his views certainly are attracting quite a bit of attention--and support.
Paul may well turn out to be the dark horse candidate to watch in this race.
The real key is fundraising. Although The Liberty Sphere picked Duncan Hunter early-on as our favorite, we have frankly been worried of late concerning his ability to raise the necessary funds to compete next year. And that goes for most of the candidates.
In order to mount a competitive campaign in the Winter and Spring of 2008, each candidate will need 100 million dollars in their coffers. So far, only Mitt Romney has shown that he can raise that kind of money.
Thus, if Ron Paul or any of the others are going to emerge as strong candidates to go head-to-head against Hillary or Obama, they are going to have to start reeling in the cash.
The Liberty Sphere had picked Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore as the ones who helped themselves the most by their performance in the debate. Although we did not feel that Ron Paul made a particularly strong showing in the debate itself, his views certainly are attracting quite a bit of attention--and support.
Paul may well turn out to be the dark horse candidate to watch in this race.
The real key is fundraising. Although The Liberty Sphere picked Duncan Hunter early-on as our favorite, we have frankly been worried of late concerning his ability to raise the necessary funds to compete next year. And that goes for most of the candidates.
In order to mount a competitive campaign in the Winter and Spring of 2008, each candidate will need 100 million dollars in their coffers. So far, only Mitt Romney has shown that he can raise that kind of money.
Thus, if Ron Paul or any of the others are going to emerge as strong candidates to go head-to-head against Hillary or Obama, they are going to have to start reeling in the cash.
KANSAS GOVERNOR LIED ABOUT NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS
Washington, DC (TLS). According to official statistics of the U.S. military, fully 88% of Kansas' National Guard troops are stateside and capable of being deployed in the aftermath of the Greensburg tornado disaster.
This means that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius lied.
The Kansas Governor has been in a war of words with President Bush ever since she used the tornado disaster as a platform to bash Bush and criticize the war. Sebelius, almost immediately after the disaster, claimed that National Guard troops were not available because 'most of them had been deployed to Iraq.'
This is a complete fabrication and barefaced lie.
In fact, Guard troops are available from a variety of sources, including neighboring states. Only a fraction of National Guard personnel have been deployed to Iraq.
The fact that Governor Sebelius immediately began the blame game after the tornado struck is highly suspicious. But it is a part of a national trend ever since Hurricane Katrina. Blame Bush for all death and injury in the wake of a natural disaster.
This was the modus operandi of the Democratic machine in Louisiana after Katrina. The Louisiana Governor, a U.S. Senator, and the Mayor of New Orleans, all in unison, blamed Bush for the aftermath.
In actuality, had the state of Louisiana and local New Orleans officials following official, written protocol and mandatory disaster policies, most of the residents of New Orleans would have been evacuated before the hurricane struck. Official policy states that school buses are to be deployed as evacuation vehicles in the event of a major disaster. Government officials in Louisiana knew several days in advance that New Orleans would take a hit.
Yet the school buses remained parked in the lots.
And when the storm waters rose, thousands of buses were sitting there flooded under several feet of water--buses that could have been used to save thousands of lives.
At present, there are truckloads of lies being perpetrated by Democrats and Leftists on a variety of issues. Yet to date, no source within the mainstream media has taken them to task.
Why?
Barack Hussein Obama claimed this week that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 10,000 American deaths.
Ahem. Senator, actually, it is less than 3000.
Yet the mainstream media grants him a pass as they always do Democrats. If this had been President Bush, the gaffe would have been blared all over the airwaves, complete with endless jokes by the late-night comedians.
But when Obama does it, nary word.
Who, then, is going to confront Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius about her lies?
Don't hold your breath.
This means that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius lied.
The Kansas Governor has been in a war of words with President Bush ever since she used the tornado disaster as a platform to bash Bush and criticize the war. Sebelius, almost immediately after the disaster, claimed that National Guard troops were not available because 'most of them had been deployed to Iraq.'
This is a complete fabrication and barefaced lie.
In fact, Guard troops are available from a variety of sources, including neighboring states. Only a fraction of National Guard personnel have been deployed to Iraq.
The fact that Governor Sebelius immediately began the blame game after the tornado struck is highly suspicious. But it is a part of a national trend ever since Hurricane Katrina. Blame Bush for all death and injury in the wake of a natural disaster.
This was the modus operandi of the Democratic machine in Louisiana after Katrina. The Louisiana Governor, a U.S. Senator, and the Mayor of New Orleans, all in unison, blamed Bush for the aftermath.
In actuality, had the state of Louisiana and local New Orleans officials following official, written protocol and mandatory disaster policies, most of the residents of New Orleans would have been evacuated before the hurricane struck. Official policy states that school buses are to be deployed as evacuation vehicles in the event of a major disaster. Government officials in Louisiana knew several days in advance that New Orleans would take a hit.
Yet the school buses remained parked in the lots.
And when the storm waters rose, thousands of buses were sitting there flooded under several feet of water--buses that could have been used to save thousands of lives.
At present, there are truckloads of lies being perpetrated by Democrats and Leftists on a variety of issues. Yet to date, no source within the mainstream media has taken them to task.
Why?
Barack Hussein Obama claimed this week that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 10,000 American deaths.
Ahem. Senator, actually, it is less than 3000.
Yet the mainstream media grants him a pass as they always do Democrats. If this had been President Bush, the gaffe would have been blared all over the airwaves, complete with endless jokes by the late-night comedians.
But when Obama does it, nary word.
Who, then, is going to confront Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius about her lies?
Don't hold your breath.
Who Is Ron Paul?
Washington, DC (TLS). Although polls show that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came out the winner in the first Republican Presidential debate, another name has surfaced among the eight announced candidates as one who is gaining some support. His name is Ron Paul from Texas.
Ron Paul serves the U.S. House, representing the 14th Congressional district of Texas. Since 1997 he has served the district with distinction as one who never compromises his principles and as an unwavering advocate for upholding the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
Trained as a medical doctor, graduating from the Duke University School of Medicine, Dr. Paul served his country as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He subsequently practiced medicine in Brazoria County, Texas for a number of years as a gynecologist/obstetrician.
Dr. Paul entered politics in the late 1970s and served in the U.S. House until 1984, when he voluntarily relinquished his seat in order to return to his medical practice. He returned to the House in 1997 and has carved out a solid reputation among his colleagues and constituents as a principled man of character who exhibits strong libertarian values. Those values include low taxes, small government, gun rights, strong defense, secure borders and immigration control, and a commitment to the pro-life position.
It is Dr. Paul's views on the Iraq War, however, that is causing the great stir among potential supporters. He has consistently said that the war is illegal according to the U.S. Constitution. His votes have portrayed that conviction. Paul voted against the Iraqi invasion and has repeatedly called for the war's end. He has even been known to say that President Bush should be impeached for sending troops to war.
Polls have shown that many who watched the Republican debate were impressed with Dr. Paul. The reason, I believe, is not simply the Iraq War. Politicians like Ron Paul are rare in America today. He does not jump on anyone's bandwagon, and proposed legislation is always put to the test of the Constitution.
Does the Constitution allow this sort of legislation? Is it consistent with the Founders' original intent?
The sudden interest in the candidacy of Ron Paul may be a signal that a significant portion of the American population is taking a new look at the Constitution as the basis for all law. Perhaps they are tired of big-government socialism AND big-government conservatism.
IF it is really true that the vast majority of the country wants 'change,' as many polls suggest, it is hard to conceive of anyone else in politics today who more fully embodies a complete change in the way government is viewed than Ron Paul.
The majority of candidates in both Parties represent business as usual, the same-old, same-old, a rehashing of old, failed ideas of an ideology that claims big government can solve the nation's ills.
One of the most solidly socialistic nations of Western Europe, France, recently showed the world that European styled Socialism does not work. For the first time in nearly 50 years, a conservative was elected as President of France. This speaks volumes.
To varying degrees ALL of the Democratic candidates are European-styled Socialists. And while the Republicans cannot be lumped together with them, they have their own baggage to carry as purveyors of 'big government conservatism,' which the Bush Administration, I am sorry to say, perfectly portrays.
Ron Paul has been a voice crying in the wilderness in the midst of both Democrats and Republicans, calling them back to the founding principles of small government and fiscal conservatism.
But Paul's philosophy is actually nothing new. It is called 'Constitutional Republicanism,' and it was embraced and espoused by the Founders of a nation called the United States of America.
For more information on Ron Paul, go to his official government website at:
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
Ron Paul serves the U.S. House, representing the 14th Congressional district of Texas. Since 1997 he has served the district with distinction as one who never compromises his principles and as an unwavering advocate for upholding the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
Trained as a medical doctor, graduating from the Duke University School of Medicine, Dr. Paul served his country as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He subsequently practiced medicine in Brazoria County, Texas for a number of years as a gynecologist/obstetrician.
Dr. Paul entered politics in the late 1970s and served in the U.S. House until 1984, when he voluntarily relinquished his seat in order to return to his medical practice. He returned to the House in 1997 and has carved out a solid reputation among his colleagues and constituents as a principled man of character who exhibits strong libertarian values. Those values include low taxes, small government, gun rights, strong defense, secure borders and immigration control, and a commitment to the pro-life position.
It is Dr. Paul's views on the Iraq War, however, that is causing the great stir among potential supporters. He has consistently said that the war is illegal according to the U.S. Constitution. His votes have portrayed that conviction. Paul voted against the Iraqi invasion and has repeatedly called for the war's end. He has even been known to say that President Bush should be impeached for sending troops to war.
Polls have shown that many who watched the Republican debate were impressed with Dr. Paul. The reason, I believe, is not simply the Iraq War. Politicians like Ron Paul are rare in America today. He does not jump on anyone's bandwagon, and proposed legislation is always put to the test of the Constitution.
Does the Constitution allow this sort of legislation? Is it consistent with the Founders' original intent?
The sudden interest in the candidacy of Ron Paul may be a signal that a significant portion of the American population is taking a new look at the Constitution as the basis for all law. Perhaps they are tired of big-government socialism AND big-government conservatism.
IF it is really true that the vast majority of the country wants 'change,' as many polls suggest, it is hard to conceive of anyone else in politics today who more fully embodies a complete change in the way government is viewed than Ron Paul.
The majority of candidates in both Parties represent business as usual, the same-old, same-old, a rehashing of old, failed ideas of an ideology that claims big government can solve the nation's ills.
One of the most solidly socialistic nations of Western Europe, France, recently showed the world that European styled Socialism does not work. For the first time in nearly 50 years, a conservative was elected as President of France. This speaks volumes.
To varying degrees ALL of the Democratic candidates are European-styled Socialists. And while the Republicans cannot be lumped together with them, they have their own baggage to carry as purveyors of 'big government conservatism,' which the Bush Administration, I am sorry to say, perfectly portrays.
Ron Paul has been a voice crying in the wilderness in the midst of both Democrats and Republicans, calling them back to the founding principles of small government and fiscal conservatism.
But Paul's philosophy is actually nothing new. It is called 'Constitutional Republicanism,' and it was embraced and espoused by the Founders of a nation called the United States of America.
For more information on Ron Paul, go to his official government website at:
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Palfrey's List Under Tight Wraps at ABC News
Washington, DC (TLS). Never in the history of tabloid news has a news organization paid so much for exclusive rights to a story for so little in return. ABC News somehow mysteriously became the only recipient of the now-infamous Palfrey's List--the 'DC Madam's' list of high-profile clients--only to report days later that it may not be 'appropriate' to disclose the names to the public.
Now wait just a minute here. There is nothing 'appropriate' about this story in the first place. ABC obviously planned on using the information, or else they would not have made such a public display of the fact that they were in possession of the dreaded 'list.'
This only leads to a few fairly obvious conclusions. ABC News saw that the names on that list are not exclusive to the ones it intended to put on display as examples of the 'culture of corruption' among Republicans. Obviously, there are probably Republicans on the list, but you can bet your sweet box of condoms that there are Democrats on the list as well...some who are very powerful.
Immediately after ABC hinted at who was on the list by claiming that there is another Bush Administration official and the head of a conservative think-tank, suddenly and inexplicably ABC went silent. This can only mean one thing. They found some names on that list that would be very embarrassing to Democrats and Liberals.
Why, GASP!, there may even be some ABC News execs on that list! And what if.....oh my....
What if there are some high profile REPORTERS on the list?
My friends, this is the ONLY plausible reason I can think of as to why ABC News would suddenly get an attack of conscience. Suddenly, out of the blue, they 'want to do the right thing.'
Methinks there's something rotten here, and it sure ain't in Denmark.
At this point, it would be highly problematic to place any credence on any disclosures ABC News made concerning the list, given that they have had plenty of time to cull through it and remove the names of those they wish to protect.
Sorry, guys, but you blew it.
Now wait just a minute here. There is nothing 'appropriate' about this story in the first place. ABC obviously planned on using the information, or else they would not have made such a public display of the fact that they were in possession of the dreaded 'list.'
This only leads to a few fairly obvious conclusions. ABC News saw that the names on that list are not exclusive to the ones it intended to put on display as examples of the 'culture of corruption' among Republicans. Obviously, there are probably Republicans on the list, but you can bet your sweet box of condoms that there are Democrats on the list as well...some who are very powerful.
Immediately after ABC hinted at who was on the list by claiming that there is another Bush Administration official and the head of a conservative think-tank, suddenly and inexplicably ABC went silent. This can only mean one thing. They found some names on that list that would be very embarrassing to Democrats and Liberals.
Why, GASP!, there may even be some ABC News execs on that list! And what if.....oh my....
What if there are some high profile REPORTERS on the list?
My friends, this is the ONLY plausible reason I can think of as to why ABC News would suddenly get an attack of conscience. Suddenly, out of the blue, they 'want to do the right thing.'
Methinks there's something rotten here, and it sure ain't in Denmark.
At this point, it would be highly problematic to place any credence on any disclosures ABC News made concerning the list, given that they have had plenty of time to cull through it and remove the names of those they wish to protect.
Sorry, guys, but you blew it.
SWORN AFFIDAVIT PROVES ISLAMIC JIHADISTS PLANNED TERROR PLOT
Washington, DC (TLS). A sworn affidavit by an FBI informant, who worked on the plan to thwart a terrorist plot in the making against U.S. soldiers on our own soil, shows beyond any doubt that the men who were arrested were, in fact, Muslim extremists intent on carrying out the Jihad.
In spite of CAIR's insistence that Islam had nothing to do with the terrorist plot, including demanding that news outlets avoid connecting the terrorists to Islam, The Smoking Gun has the goods that prove just who these men are.
A link is provided below that will take you to the website of The Smoking Gun. There you will find a 20-page sworn affidavit, provided by the FBI, that shows that the men who planned to kill in cold blood 'as many U.S. soldiers as they could,' are Islamic Jihadists.
It is entirely irrelevant that the men may not be connected directly with Al Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization, as if this makes them any less Muslim or any less terrorists.
In fact, the document you will read below provides details of the six men using Al Qaeda tapes and other materials by Osama bin Laden as sources of training to carry out this particular part of the Jihad. Whether or not they are actual members of Al Qaeda is a moot point. They nonetheless consider themselves as part of the Jihad, and obviously consider Osama bin Laden as a hero who models for them exactly how to conduct terrorist attacks against the West.
Be sure to read the entire document. It is a real eye-opener. And it erases any doubt that the terrorist plot uncovered by the FBI on Tuesday was, in fact, the work of Islamic terrorists.
Click here for the Smoking Gun document:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix1.html
In spite of CAIR's insistence that Islam had nothing to do with the terrorist plot, including demanding that news outlets avoid connecting the terrorists to Islam, The Smoking Gun has the goods that prove just who these men are.
A link is provided below that will take you to the website of The Smoking Gun. There you will find a 20-page sworn affidavit, provided by the FBI, that shows that the men who planned to kill in cold blood 'as many U.S. soldiers as they could,' are Islamic Jihadists.
It is entirely irrelevant that the men may not be connected directly with Al Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization, as if this makes them any less Muslim or any less terrorists.
In fact, the document you will read below provides details of the six men using Al Qaeda tapes and other materials by Osama bin Laden as sources of training to carry out this particular part of the Jihad. Whether or not they are actual members of Al Qaeda is a moot point. They nonetheless consider themselves as part of the Jihad, and obviously consider Osama bin Laden as a hero who models for them exactly how to conduct terrorist attacks against the West.
Be sure to read the entire document. It is a real eye-opener. And it erases any doubt that the terrorist plot uncovered by the FBI on Tuesday was, in fact, the work of Islamic terrorists.
Click here for the Smoking Gun document:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix1.html
CAIR CLAIMS TERROR PLOT NOT CONNECTED TO ISLAM
Washington, DC (TLS). The infamous Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims that the terrorist plot foiled by the FBI on Tuesday was in no way connected to Islam.
CAIR has plenty of influence in American politics with Democrats who control Congress, including helping Muslim Keith Ellison (D-MN) get elected to the House.
But CAIR is known by its detractors as a terrorist-front organization. Many point to the fact that CAIR demanded that the City of Los Angeles remove a billboard naming Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, just after 9/11, because, as CAIR put it, 'The message was offensive to Muslims.'
Here is the complete the story on CAIR's comments concerning the six MUSLIM EXTREMISTS arrested by the FBI on Tuesday:
'(CNSNews.com) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Tuesday said it was pleased that the FBI had foiled a plot to attack U.S. military bases but urged media organizations and public officials not to link the case to Islam. Six men arrested in New Jersey on suspicion of planning to attack military bases in or near New Jersey with the intention of killing service personnel are being described by officials as Islamic radicals. Four are Muslim ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia, and the other two are originally from Turkey and Jordan, according to law enforcement officials. In a statement, CAIR said it was "repeat[ing] the American Muslim community's condemnation and repudiation of all those who would plan or carry out acts of terror while falsely claiming their actions have religious justification." The group also asked "media outlets and public officials [to] refrain from linking this case to the faith of Islam. The council asked mosques and Islamic institutions in New Jersey and nationwide to report any incidents of anti-Muslim backlash." CAIR said in the statement that it has issued "innumerable condemnations of terror." Critics of the organization have long noted its consistent refusal to denounce Hamas and Hizballah, two groups on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. They also point to the involvement of some individuals evidently linked to CAIR in terror-related activities. CAIR denies the accusations.'
CAIR has plenty of influence in American politics with Democrats who control Congress, including helping Muslim Keith Ellison (D-MN) get elected to the House.
But CAIR is known by its detractors as a terrorist-front organization. Many point to the fact that CAIR demanded that the City of Los Angeles remove a billboard naming Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, just after 9/11, because, as CAIR put it, 'The message was offensive to Muslims.'
Here is the complete the story on CAIR's comments concerning the six MUSLIM EXTREMISTS arrested by the FBI on Tuesday:
'(CNSNews.com) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Tuesday said it was pleased that the FBI had foiled a plot to attack U.S. military bases but urged media organizations and public officials not to link the case to Islam. Six men arrested in New Jersey on suspicion of planning to attack military bases in or near New Jersey with the intention of killing service personnel are being described by officials as Islamic radicals. Four are Muslim ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia, and the other two are originally from Turkey and Jordan, according to law enforcement officials. In a statement, CAIR said it was "repeat[ing] the American Muslim community's condemnation and repudiation of all those who would plan or carry out acts of terror while falsely claiming their actions have religious justification." The group also asked "media outlets and public officials [to] refrain from linking this case to the faith of Islam. The council asked mosques and Islamic institutions in New Jersey and nationwide to report any incidents of anti-Muslim backlash." CAIR said in the statement that it has issued "innumerable condemnations of terror." Critics of the organization have long noted its consistent refusal to denounce Hamas and Hizballah, two groups on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. They also point to the involvement of some individuals evidently linked to CAIR in terror-related activities. CAIR denies the accusations.'
FBI Says 'Muslim Extremists' Planned to Kill Hundreds
Washington, DC (TLS). The FBI is reporting today that the men who were arrested on Tuesday for attempting to carry out a terrorist plot to kill hundreds of U.S. soldiers were 'Muslim extremists.'
Using covert surveillance for over a year the FBI tracked the movements and plans of the Islamic Jihadists as they planned a major terrorist attack on our own soil, at some of our largest military bases.
According to the FBI, 'Today we dodged a bullet.'
Read the whole story here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200705/NAT20070508c.html
Using covert surveillance for over a year the FBI tracked the movements and plans of the Islamic Jihadists as they planned a major terrorist attack on our own soil, at some of our largest military bases.
According to the FBI, 'Today we dodged a bullet.'
Read the whole story here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200705/NAT20070508c.html
Feinstein Scandal Won't Go Away Despite Media Blackout
Washington, DC (TLS). The Dianne Feinstein conflict of interest scandal that led to her husband's pocketing of millions of dollars' worth of government contracts is not going away, say government watchdog groups.
In spite of the mainstream media blackout of the story, and the Democrat-controlled Senate's attempt to hide it, this scandal just keeps building steam.
According to California law, the funds that went to the spouse of Senator Feinstein are considered to be hers as well as her husbands, according to a legal statute known as 'community property law,' which maintains that all benefits, assets, and profits accumulated by one partner in a marriage is considered the joint property of both spouses.
This means, in short, that by channeling government contracts to her husband's companies, not only was Feinstein helping her husband's businesses, but she was helping herself...a clear conflict of interest.
To read more about this still-growing scandal, click here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070508a.html
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Fred Thompson Speech to Lincoln Club of Orange County, California
Washington, DC (TLS). Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson chose the setting of The Lincoln Club of Orange County, California, to give a major speech on a variety of issues concerning public policy, in anticipation of his upcoming announcement as a candidate for the Republican nomination for President.
The former Tennessee Senator was unusually low-keyed in this address in comparison to his normally energetic and engaging persona. However, this address was not about fluff. This was heady stuff.
Thompson's 30-minute address touched on everything from the War in Iraq to globalization to immigration control, and everything in between. One might think that nothing of great substance could be conveyed in such a short speech that covered so many topics. However, the Senator proved that a few carefully-chosen words can convey great substance.
Lincoln himself proved the point in the Gettysburg Address.
Rather than recapitulate the speech here, we feel it is best that you read it for yourself. You will see that it was, indeed, a powerful speech of great national significance.
Click here for the complete text of Thompson's address:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/NEWS/70505011
The former Tennessee Senator was unusually low-keyed in this address in comparison to his normally energetic and engaging persona. However, this address was not about fluff. This was heady stuff.
Thompson's 30-minute address touched on everything from the War in Iraq to globalization to immigration control, and everything in between. One might think that nothing of great substance could be conveyed in such a short speech that covered so many topics. However, the Senator proved that a few carefully-chosen words can convey great substance.
Lincoln himself proved the point in the Gettysburg Address.
Rather than recapitulate the speech here, we feel it is best that you read it for yourself. You will see that it was, indeed, a powerful speech of great national significance.
Click here for the complete text of Thompson's address:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/NEWS/70505011
Advocacy Group Tells Illegal Aliens Not To Cooperate with Authorities
Washington, DC (TLS). A Maryland-based illegal alien advocacy group is advising illegals caught in raids not to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement authorities.
This is yet another perfect example of U.S. citizens committing outright felonies, in the open, by the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens, which is designated a felony by the United States Code.
From politicians to businesses to religious denominations to advocacy groups, a certain segment of today's America population is showing the rest of us that it couldn't care less about the rule of law in this country.
The so-called 'path to citizenship' for illegals is a joke. There is ALREADY a path to citizenship in this country. It is called THE LAW. U.S. Law provides the exact guidelines for those wishing to become citizens.
Why are we giving a pass to those who break the law? It simply makes no sense.
And it is clear that those who help them break the law are just as guilty as they are.
Read the story of the Maryland advocacy group's disregard for U.S. law here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070507-120816-5796r.htm
This is yet another perfect example of U.S. citizens committing outright felonies, in the open, by the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens, which is designated a felony by the United States Code.
From politicians to businesses to religious denominations to advocacy groups, a certain segment of today's America population is showing the rest of us that it couldn't care less about the rule of law in this country.
The so-called 'path to citizenship' for illegals is a joke. There is ALREADY a path to citizenship in this country. It is called THE LAW. U.S. Law provides the exact guidelines for those wishing to become citizens.
Why are we giving a pass to those who break the law? It simply makes no sense.
And it is clear that those who help them break the law are just as guilty as they are.
Read the story of the Maryland advocacy group's disregard for U.S. law here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070507-120816-5796r.htm
Monday, May 07, 2007
N.C. Teacher Resigns in Same-Sex Scandal with Student
East Flat Rock, NC (TLS). The Henderson County, North Carolina town of East Flat Rock is the scene for the latest teacher sex scandal to hit the news wires. Julie Culbertson, who had taught at East Henderson High School in this N.C. mountain town, resigned her position after being charged with engaging in sexual activity with an under-age female student at the high school.
Henderson County law enforcement officials state that both the student and her parents are fully cooperating with their investigation.
Meanwhile, a group of students who support the popular Culbertson, staged a rally to urge school officials to rehire the teacher. School officials informed the students that the matter is entirely out of their hands, given that Culbertson resigned and is under investigation.
A court hearing for Culbertson's arraignment is scheduled for June.
The Liberty Sphere will provide updates as needed...
Henderson County law enforcement officials state that both the student and her parents are fully cooperating with their investigation.
Meanwhile, a group of students who support the popular Culbertson, staged a rally to urge school officials to rehire the teacher. School officials informed the students that the matter is entirely out of their hands, given that Culbertson resigned and is under investigation.
A court hearing for Culbertson's arraignment is scheduled for June.
The Liberty Sphere will provide updates as needed...
LEGAL BOMBSHELL! CORRUPTION AMONG N.C. D.A.s
Washington, DC (TLS). Liestoppers is reporting a legal bombshell of a story concerning corruption among North Carolina District Attorneys, which apparently has reached a fever pitch.
The D.A.s publicly scorned Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong several months ago in an apparent attempt to save their own carcasses that were on the line as Nifong exhibited for the entire world what is wrong with the North Carolina system of justice, District Attorneys in particular.
As you will see in the Liestoppers article below, that move was only a ruse. The N.C. D.A.s have now shown their true colors by lobbying the state legislature to make legal the nifonging of innocent citizens! The D.A.s wish to legalize the withholding of vital evidence from defense attorneys, just as Nifong did in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.
The Liberty Sphere has been very concerned for quite a number of months now about the burgeoning corruption that is growing like a cancer within the entirety of North Carolina state government, including the Department of Social Services. If what we are seeing in DSS and among the D.A.s is any indication of the state of North Carolina government, then it is clear the citizens are getting shafted big-time.
Read the entire Liestoppers expose here:
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/05/nc-das-push-for-legalized-nifonging.html
The D.A.s publicly scorned Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong several months ago in an apparent attempt to save their own carcasses that were on the line as Nifong exhibited for the entire world what is wrong with the North Carolina system of justice, District Attorneys in particular.
As you will see in the Liestoppers article below, that move was only a ruse. The N.C. D.A.s have now shown their true colors by lobbying the state legislature to make legal the nifonging of innocent citizens! The D.A.s wish to legalize the withholding of vital evidence from defense attorneys, just as Nifong did in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.
The Liberty Sphere has been very concerned for quite a number of months now about the burgeoning corruption that is growing like a cancer within the entirety of North Carolina state government, including the Department of Social Services. If what we are seeing in DSS and among the D.A.s is any indication of the state of North Carolina government, then it is clear the citizens are getting shafted big-time.
Read the entire Liestoppers expose here:
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/05/nc-das-push-for-legalized-nifonging.html
Liberty Sphere Resources
The Liberty Sphere has a keen interest in helping students of government and politics become familiar with our nation's founding documents, the nature of its form of government and how it works, and those who serve in positions of national leadership.
By scrolling down and taking note of the left column of your screen, you will find a list of resources and links to those resources.
There you will find links to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers (which fully explain the Founders' original intent), and the U.S. Congress.
By clicking on these links you will find an entire array of resources at your fingertips, all free of charge.
We proudly offer these resources as a service to our readers.
By scrolling down and taking note of the left column of your screen, you will find a list of resources and links to those resources.
There you will find links to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers (which fully explain the Founders' original intent), and the U.S. Congress.
By clicking on these links you will find an entire array of resources at your fingertips, all free of charge.
We proudly offer these resources as a service to our readers.
SHOCKER! Liberal Professors Begin to Support Gun Rights
Washington, DC (TLS). As they say, politics often makes for strange bedfellows. Who would have thought that liberal law professors in some of the top law schools in America would now be supporting gun rights?
For years the prevailing wisdom at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other bastions of legal liberalism was that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only preserves a 'collective right' rather than an individual right. In other words, many legal scholars maintained that gun rights refers only to society as a whole in maintaining a militia rather than protecting an individual's right to own a firearm.
Apparently a few significant members of the leftwing intelligentsia have seen the light and taken note of the entirely illogical basis of that position within the context of the Bill of Rights, which specifically protects individual rights.
Professor Lawrence H. Tribe of Harvard, who for years held that the Second Amendment pertained only to a collective right, stated that his earlier views on the subject were shaped by consensus and political preference rather than a serious consideration of the amendment's text, history, and place in the structure of the Constitution.
By considering these key, crucial components of understanding the intent of the Constitution, Tribe states that he came to embrace the Second Amendment as an individual right.
'My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,' said Tribe. 'I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.'
How could a group of men so thoroughly revered be so thoroughly wrong?
The key to understanding the transformation is in Tribe's own words. Earlier in his career, taking a serious look at the text itself, the history of the text, and its place in the construction of the Constitution, was not considered important. The only two issues of utmost importance were consensus of legal opinion in the present, and one's own political bias.
In that one sentence alone, Tribe has shot to bits the contention on the part of many liberal law professors at some of the nation's top schools that they do, in fact, consider original intent as the most significant component of Constitutional interpretation.
Obviously, someone is lying.
Tribe has openly admitted to the fact that his NEGLIGENCE in considering the text itself, its history, and its place in the construction of the Constitution is the thing that led to his earlier conclusion that gun rights do not apply to individuals. Only when he seriously considered original intent did he come to the conclusion that he had been very wrong, and that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun.
Of course, those of us who have studied Constitutional law for years knew all along that Liberal law professors discount original intent. This is the ONLY explanation for their blatant disregard for the words of the Founders on the subject of firearms, and for their propagation of an interpretation of the Second Amendment that was so totally foreign to the mindset and convictions of the men who penned those words.
Professor Tribe, and others like him, are to be heartily commended for having the courage and integrity to admit the errors of their youth and to publicly embrace the fact that the Second Amendment refers to individual rights just as surely as does the First Amendment.
For years the prevailing wisdom at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other bastions of legal liberalism was that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only preserves a 'collective right' rather than an individual right. In other words, many legal scholars maintained that gun rights refers only to society as a whole in maintaining a militia rather than protecting an individual's right to own a firearm.
Apparently a few significant members of the leftwing intelligentsia have seen the light and taken note of the entirely illogical basis of that position within the context of the Bill of Rights, which specifically protects individual rights.
Professor Lawrence H. Tribe of Harvard, who for years held that the Second Amendment pertained only to a collective right, stated that his earlier views on the subject were shaped by consensus and political preference rather than a serious consideration of the amendment's text, history, and place in the structure of the Constitution.
By considering these key, crucial components of understanding the intent of the Constitution, Tribe states that he came to embrace the Second Amendment as an individual right.
'My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,' said Tribe. 'I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.'
How could a group of men so thoroughly revered be so thoroughly wrong?
The key to understanding the transformation is in Tribe's own words. Earlier in his career, taking a serious look at the text itself, the history of the text, and its place in the construction of the Constitution, was not considered important. The only two issues of utmost importance were consensus of legal opinion in the present, and one's own political bias.
In that one sentence alone, Tribe has shot to bits the contention on the part of many liberal law professors at some of the nation's top schools that they do, in fact, consider original intent as the most significant component of Constitutional interpretation.
Obviously, someone is lying.
Tribe has openly admitted to the fact that his NEGLIGENCE in considering the text itself, its history, and its place in the construction of the Constitution is the thing that led to his earlier conclusion that gun rights do not apply to individuals. Only when he seriously considered original intent did he come to the conclusion that he had been very wrong, and that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun.
Of course, those of us who have studied Constitutional law for years knew all along that Liberal law professors discount original intent. This is the ONLY explanation for their blatant disregard for the words of the Founders on the subject of firearms, and for their propagation of an interpretation of the Second Amendment that was so totally foreign to the mindset and convictions of the men who penned those words.
Professor Tribe, and others like him, are to be heartily commended for having the courage and integrity to admit the errors of their youth and to publicly embrace the fact that the Second Amendment refers to individual rights just as surely as does the First Amendment.
LIBERTY ALERT! DEMS TO PUSH RUSH, HANNITY OFF THE AIR
Washington, DC (TLS). This is a major Liberty Alert. For months we have been alert to rumblings among politicos in the Beltway that Democrats may revive the Fairness Doctrine from the 1940s as a means to silence conservative talk radio.
What started as rumor and whispers has now become reality in the form of a bill entitled, 'The Media Ownership Reform Act,' and is sponsored by Leftist Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York.
Hinchey has made no attempt to hide his agenda in sponsoring this bill. At a forum entitled the 'National Conference for Media Reform,' which is funded by atheist Democrat billionaire George Soros, Hinchey blasted Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and other conservatives for being responsible for leading America into war.
Under his bill, he said, their voices would be removed from the airwaves.
'All that stuff will end,' Hinchey stated.
The Democrats and the Leftwing in America have suffered ever since the advent of conservative talk radio. For the very first time since the invention of electronic media, the Left has steadily lost its monopoly on the news. CBS, ABC, and NBC totally dominated the airwaves with a liberal slant on news stories for nearly 50 years.
It is interesting that during this era the Left enjoyed some of its greatest success. The forces that control the media get to determine content as well as which news stories get air time. The Democrats have been exiled from their perch as kings of the hill with the advent of conservative talk radio and Fox News.
They are determined to regain their lost position of power.
The problem is that the left-leaning media did not go away. It is still there in all its glory. ABC, CBS, NBC, and now CNN are all still giving us their leftward spin on news items, as always. But for the Liberals this is not enough, particularly in light of the fact that these news organizations have been losing viewers.
Thus, using the ruse of 'the Fairness Doctrine,' the Democrats want Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and others forced off the air by insisting on equal time for opposing points of view.
Of course, this demand does not apply to CBS, ABC, or NBC news programs, for as always, the Liberals vehemently deny any bias. In their minds it simply does not exist. The Left views ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC as totally fair and unbiased sources of news.
And thus, with the Fairness Doctrine forcing conservative talk radio off the air, once again the Democrats and the Left will hold a complete monopoly on the news.
This is a George Soros-inspired scheme from start to finish. Soros' philosophy is that it is essential to control the news outlets as a prelude to introducing sweeping reforms in society, essentially turning the U.S. into a socialist nation.
My friends, this is a call to action. It is now time to contact your lawmakers in Washington to tell them that you vehemently oppose the Hinchey bill, 'The Media Ownership Reform Act.' And don't let them convince you that this bill is simply aimed at preventing monopolies from forming in the media, as some of them will surely try to do. Actually this bill does exactly the opposite. It will CREATE a leftist monopoly, meaning that Liberals will completely control the dissemination of news.
In the Senate, Leftist, Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the point-person for this bill.
So, don't waste precious time in putting off contacting your representatives in Washington, both in the House AND Senate. We MUST stop this push to silence conservative talk radio!
Read a complete analysis of this dangerous, subversive bill here:
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=346CF94D8F6C442FB25AC38AD486013C
What started as rumor and whispers has now become reality in the form of a bill entitled, 'The Media Ownership Reform Act,' and is sponsored by Leftist Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York.
Hinchey has made no attempt to hide his agenda in sponsoring this bill. At a forum entitled the 'National Conference for Media Reform,' which is funded by atheist Democrat billionaire George Soros, Hinchey blasted Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and other conservatives for being responsible for leading America into war.
Under his bill, he said, their voices would be removed from the airwaves.
'All that stuff will end,' Hinchey stated.
The Democrats and the Leftwing in America have suffered ever since the advent of conservative talk radio. For the very first time since the invention of electronic media, the Left has steadily lost its monopoly on the news. CBS, ABC, and NBC totally dominated the airwaves with a liberal slant on news stories for nearly 50 years.
It is interesting that during this era the Left enjoyed some of its greatest success. The forces that control the media get to determine content as well as which news stories get air time. The Democrats have been exiled from their perch as kings of the hill with the advent of conservative talk radio and Fox News.
They are determined to regain their lost position of power.
The problem is that the left-leaning media did not go away. It is still there in all its glory. ABC, CBS, NBC, and now CNN are all still giving us their leftward spin on news items, as always. But for the Liberals this is not enough, particularly in light of the fact that these news organizations have been losing viewers.
Thus, using the ruse of 'the Fairness Doctrine,' the Democrats want Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and others forced off the air by insisting on equal time for opposing points of view.
Of course, this demand does not apply to CBS, ABC, or NBC news programs, for as always, the Liberals vehemently deny any bias. In their minds it simply does not exist. The Left views ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC as totally fair and unbiased sources of news.
And thus, with the Fairness Doctrine forcing conservative talk radio off the air, once again the Democrats and the Left will hold a complete monopoly on the news.
This is a George Soros-inspired scheme from start to finish. Soros' philosophy is that it is essential to control the news outlets as a prelude to introducing sweeping reforms in society, essentially turning the U.S. into a socialist nation.
My friends, this is a call to action. It is now time to contact your lawmakers in Washington to tell them that you vehemently oppose the Hinchey bill, 'The Media Ownership Reform Act.' And don't let them convince you that this bill is simply aimed at preventing monopolies from forming in the media, as some of them will surely try to do. Actually this bill does exactly the opposite. It will CREATE a leftist monopoly, meaning that Liberals will completely control the dissemination of news.
In the Senate, Leftist, Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the point-person for this bill.
So, don't waste precious time in putting off contacting your representatives in Washington, both in the House AND Senate. We MUST stop this push to silence conservative talk radio!
Read a complete analysis of this dangerous, subversive bill here:
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=346CF94D8F6C442FB25AC38AD486013C
Sunday, May 06, 2007
TERRORIST PLOT IN U.S. HEARTLAND FOILED!
Washington, DC (TLS). A major terrorist operation, based out of St. Louis, Missouri, has been busted by U.S. law enforcement officials who seized massive amounts of fire power, including hand grenades and mines.
The terrorists who have been arrested were described in the local St. Louis press as 'Palestinian immigrants,' which of course is a catch-word for Muslim extremists who are Palestinian.
Atlas Shrugs has the full story here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/05/palestinian_ter.html
The terrorists who have been arrested were described in the local St. Louis press as 'Palestinian immigrants,' which of course is a catch-word for Muslim extremists who are Palestinian.
Atlas Shrugs has the full story here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/05/palestinian_ter.html
Obama Caught Red-Handed
Washington, DC (TLS). On the campaign trail, Barack Hussein Obama has played a game of deftly tweaking his remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian problem to fit the particular audience he happens to be addressing. On the surface this is no great sin, for it is a tenet of public speaking that the speaker address the issues that are of particular interest to the group that is being addressed.
With Obama, however, the problem goes far beyond that.
Obama has clearly taken two opposite positions. When speaking to a Jewish-friendly crowd, he clearly portrays himself as a friend to Israel. But when addressing Arab-Muslim-Palestinian-friendly audiences, he blatantly takes an anti-Israel stance.
Atlas Shrugs has the goods on Obama with a videotape of the candidate, caught red-handed in the midst of outright lies.
Click here for the story and the video:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/05/obama_is_a_liar.html
With Obama, however, the problem goes far beyond that.
Obama has clearly taken two opposite positions. When speaking to a Jewish-friendly crowd, he clearly portrays himself as a friend to Israel. But when addressing Arab-Muslim-Palestinian-friendly audiences, he blatantly takes an anti-Israel stance.
Atlas Shrugs has the goods on Obama with a videotape of the candidate, caught red-handed in the midst of outright lies.
Click here for the story and the video:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/05/obama_is_a_liar.html
Surprise! France to Elect U.S.-Friendly President
Washington, DC (TLS). Last-minute polling in France's important Presidential elections show that the country is set to elect its first admittedly pro-American President in many years. French voters will go to the polls today to elect a successor to Jacques Chirac, who is retiring.
French-American relations have been strained, particularly as a result of the Iraq War. Chirac certainly made no friends in the U.S. by condemning Americans for the war, charging that we were invading Iraq 'only for the oil,' when it was Jacques Chirac himself who had been making under-the-table deals with Saddam Hussein for his oil.
Even more damaging was the revelation that Chirac secured Saddam's oil by giving him the capability of developing nuclear power. France provided Iraq with its very first nuclear reactor under the leadership of Chirac.
All polls indicate that conservative Nicolas Sarkozy will beat Socialist Segolene Royal in a landslide.
This political campaign bears at least some significance for the upcoming U.S. election cycle. Hillary Clinton is a Royal-styled European Socialist who even uses some of the same rhetoric Royal has unleashed on the campaign trail, referring to windfall profits of private enterprise as opportunity for government to pad its coffers.
Royal has, in fact, demonized private enterprise in France. While Hillary Clinton has not used quite the same acerbic terminology of Royal, she has yet repeatedly pointed to the profits of the oil companies, claiming that 'we will take that money and put it into a national resource for funding alternative sources of energy.'
The French, however, have obviously grown weary of Socialism and will for the first time in several generations elect a solid conservative who views close ties to the U.S. as a virtue and not a vice.
In spite of the fact that Socialist candidates in France get the backing of the less popular Communist Party, this will still not be enough to stem the tide that is breaking in Sarkozy's favor.
Perhaps with this encouraging change in Europe, there will finally be some realistic, hard-hitting proposals for dealing with the near-civil-war-like conditions that exist in France at the hands of Muslim extremists.
We can only hope that Mr. Sarkozy will join the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and the Eastern European block in the fight against global terrorism. This would be the best news to come out of Europe in many a day.
French-American relations have been strained, particularly as a result of the Iraq War. Chirac certainly made no friends in the U.S. by condemning Americans for the war, charging that we were invading Iraq 'only for the oil,' when it was Jacques Chirac himself who had been making under-the-table deals with Saddam Hussein for his oil.
Even more damaging was the revelation that Chirac secured Saddam's oil by giving him the capability of developing nuclear power. France provided Iraq with its very first nuclear reactor under the leadership of Chirac.
All polls indicate that conservative Nicolas Sarkozy will beat Socialist Segolene Royal in a landslide.
This political campaign bears at least some significance for the upcoming U.S. election cycle. Hillary Clinton is a Royal-styled European Socialist who even uses some of the same rhetoric Royal has unleashed on the campaign trail, referring to windfall profits of private enterprise as opportunity for government to pad its coffers.
Royal has, in fact, demonized private enterprise in France. While Hillary Clinton has not used quite the same acerbic terminology of Royal, she has yet repeatedly pointed to the profits of the oil companies, claiming that 'we will take that money and put it into a national resource for funding alternative sources of energy.'
The French, however, have obviously grown weary of Socialism and will for the first time in several generations elect a solid conservative who views close ties to the U.S. as a virtue and not a vice.
In spite of the fact that Socialist candidates in France get the backing of the less popular Communist Party, this will still not be enough to stem the tide that is breaking in Sarkozy's favor.
Perhaps with this encouraging change in Europe, there will finally be some realistic, hard-hitting proposals for dealing with the near-civil-war-like conditions that exist in France at the hands of Muslim extremists.
We can only hope that Mr. Sarkozy will join the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and the Eastern European block in the fight against global terrorism. This would be the best news to come out of Europe in many a day.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
New Poll Indicates Hillary In Trouble
Washington, DC (TLS). A new poll is making its rounds in Washington and beyond that shows Hillary Clinton in deep trouble. The poll also has some startling information for the Republican front-runners.
If the election were held today, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat each of the top three Republican candidates in head-to-head races. This shows that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney's support may be very tentative, even among Republicans.
However, when Hillary is matched with Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head encounter, if the election were held today, Giuliani would beat Hillary in some areas that have become known as Democratic strongholds, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Hillary would not win a single Southern state.
The poll suggests that at this particular point in time, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Giuliani is the one who can beat her. However, if either Obama or Edwards are the nominee, the Republicans had better have a strong candidate other than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to step up to the plate.
No doubt this race is still wide open at this point, as it should be this early in the game.
But let's look at trends. Over the past several weeks, Democratic voters have tended to shift away from Hillary and toward Obama to a great degree, and toward Edwards to a somewhat lesser degree.
Republicans, on the other hand, are beginning to indicate that they actually prefer a candidate who is NOT in the top tier, while hanging onto Rudy as their preference should Hillary be the Democratic nominee.
LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: It is still very early and things will certainly change. But at this point don't count out John Edwards as an emerging powerhouse on the Democratic side. Voters are still enamored with Obama's charisma, but that will fade as the campaign moves forward and citizens see just how much of a political lightweight he truly is. The picture on the Republican side is a bit fuzzy but beginning to focus slightly on one major variable--the Fred Thompson-Newt Gingrich factor. If one or both enter the race, it is an entirely new ball game.
If the election were held today, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat each of the top three Republican candidates in head-to-head races. This shows that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney's support may be very tentative, even among Republicans.
However, when Hillary is matched with Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head encounter, if the election were held today, Giuliani would beat Hillary in some areas that have become known as Democratic strongholds, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Hillary would not win a single Southern state.
The poll suggests that at this particular point in time, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Giuliani is the one who can beat her. However, if either Obama or Edwards are the nominee, the Republicans had better have a strong candidate other than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to step up to the plate.
No doubt this race is still wide open at this point, as it should be this early in the game.
But let's look at trends. Over the past several weeks, Democratic voters have tended to shift away from Hillary and toward Obama to a great degree, and toward Edwards to a somewhat lesser degree.
Republicans, on the other hand, are beginning to indicate that they actually prefer a candidate who is NOT in the top tier, while hanging onto Rudy as their preference should Hillary be the Democratic nominee.
LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: It is still very early and things will certainly change. But at this point don't count out John Edwards as an emerging powerhouse on the Democratic side. Voters are still enamored with Obama's charisma, but that will fade as the campaign moves forward and citizens see just how much of a political lightweight he truly is. The picture on the Republican side is a bit fuzzy but beginning to focus slightly on one major variable--the Fred Thompson-Newt Gingrich factor. If one or both enter the race, it is an entirely new ball game.
Ware Shoals' Jane Blackwell in Court Friday
Ware Shoals, SC (TLS). Former Ware Shoals High School principal Jane Blackwell made a court appearance yesterday in Greenwood County. This was an administrative hearing to determine if Blackwell had adequate legal representation and to make sure both the prosecution and the defense were in possession of all evidence.
Blackwell is charged in obstruction in the investigation of former Ware Shoals High School cheerleader coach Jill Moore, who has been charged with several counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
In late April Blackwell appeared before the Ware Shoals School Board at a cumulative 20-hour hearing to make her case for keeping her job as principal of Ware Shoals High School. The Board determined that it was not appropriate for Blackwell to remain as principal of the high school, but decided that she could remain as an employee of the school district.
Blackwell now works in the technology support office of the school district.
Blackwell is charged in obstruction in the investigation of former Ware Shoals High School cheerleader coach Jill Moore, who has been charged with several counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
In late April Blackwell appeared before the Ware Shoals School Board at a cumulative 20-hour hearing to make her case for keeping her job as principal of Ware Shoals High School. The Board determined that it was not appropriate for Blackwell to remain as principal of the high school, but decided that she could remain as an employee of the school district.
Blackwell now works in the technology support office of the school district.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Hate Crimes Bill a Nazi Thought-Police Spree
Washington, DC (TLS). Without allowing real debate or amendments to guard free speech and expression, House Democrats passed the so-called 'hate crimes bill' that is actually a license for government to act as the thought police.
Under the ethically-challenged guidance of Rep. John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, this bill will essentially make it a hate crime for a minister of the Christian gospel to describe homosexual behavior as a sin, even if it is read straight from the pages of the Holy Bible.
Republicans attempted to amend the bill to grant exemptions to religious organizations which by their very nature are charged with the responsibility to speak sometimes uncomfortable truths that fly in the face of the opinions of the masses.
I am sure Conyers, for example, would not have agreed that the fact that slave owners considered the preaching against slavery by America's ministers constituted hate crimes against slave owners and Southerners. These courageous men often took a stance on the issues of the day that were very unpopular.
What right does the U.S. Government have to tell a minister of a congregation that he cannot speak the truth from the Bible as he interprets it?
The Nazis silenced their opposition in Germany by attacking churches and religious bodies. They did this by first determining what form of speech was allowed. And then, since they had already confiscated the citizens' guns, there was no real resistance when the jackbooted thugs came knocking on their doors to haul them off to camps for merely speaking forbidden words.
President Bush has said he will veto this bill, as well he should. And Congress should promptly uphold that veto. This is a bill that attacks freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech.
Under the ethically-challenged guidance of Rep. John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, this bill will essentially make it a hate crime for a minister of the Christian gospel to describe homosexual behavior as a sin, even if it is read straight from the pages of the Holy Bible.
Republicans attempted to amend the bill to grant exemptions to religious organizations which by their very nature are charged with the responsibility to speak sometimes uncomfortable truths that fly in the face of the opinions of the masses.
I am sure Conyers, for example, would not have agreed that the fact that slave owners considered the preaching against slavery by America's ministers constituted hate crimes against slave owners and Southerners. These courageous men often took a stance on the issues of the day that were very unpopular.
What right does the U.S. Government have to tell a minister of a congregation that he cannot speak the truth from the Bible as he interprets it?
The Nazis silenced their opposition in Germany by attacking churches and religious bodies. They did this by first determining what form of speech was allowed. And then, since they had already confiscated the citizens' guns, there was no real resistance when the jackbooted thugs came knocking on their doors to haul them off to camps for merely speaking forbidden words.
President Bush has said he will veto this bill, as well he should. And Congress should promptly uphold that veto. This is a bill that attacks freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech.
FOX ALLOWS ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES IN DEBATE
Washington, DC (TLS). The May 15 Republican debate, which will be held in Columbia, South Carolina and televised on Fox News, will feature ALL 10 of the candidates after all.
Apparently Fox and the S.C. Republican Party heard the outcry from the rank and file Republicans concerning their plan to feature only the three front-runners. Thus, in a joint statement released today by Fox News and the S.C. Republican Party, all 10 Republican candidates will be featured in the May 15 debate.
The Liberty Sphere applauds both Fox and the Republicans for this very wise decision. As we saw in last night's Republican debate in California, allowing ALL candidates makes for some interesting surprises. Who would have known how strong Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee come across on the national stage had they not been allowed to be a part of last night's debate?
In addition, we fully expect there to be some movement in the polls toward Mitt Romney. We cannot be certain at this point exactly how much movement, but the candidate did so well Thursday night that he is sure to gain some supporters who had not yet had the chance to see him in action.
In fact, look for Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore all to gain in the polls.
Neither Rudy Giuliani nor John McCain did or said anything last evening that would sway voters, in our opinion. In short, they neither hurt nor helped themselves. Their support will probably remain steady, but at this point we do not see either candidate picking up widespread new support resulting from last night's debate. But neither candidate lost any ground either.
The public, however, needs to have a second look at all ten of the candidates. The South Carolina debate will give them that opportunity.
Apparently Fox and the S.C. Republican Party heard the outcry from the rank and file Republicans concerning their plan to feature only the three front-runners. Thus, in a joint statement released today by Fox News and the S.C. Republican Party, all 10 Republican candidates will be featured in the May 15 debate.
The Liberty Sphere applauds both Fox and the Republicans for this very wise decision. As we saw in last night's Republican debate in California, allowing ALL candidates makes for some interesting surprises. Who would have known how strong Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee come across on the national stage had they not been allowed to be a part of last night's debate?
In addition, we fully expect there to be some movement in the polls toward Mitt Romney. We cannot be certain at this point exactly how much movement, but the candidate did so well Thursday night that he is sure to gain some supporters who had not yet had the chance to see him in action.
In fact, look for Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore all to gain in the polls.
Neither Rudy Giuliani nor John McCain did or said anything last evening that would sway voters, in our opinion. In short, they neither hurt nor helped themselves. Their support will probably remain steady, but at this point we do not see either candidate picking up widespread new support resulting from last night's debate. But neither candidate lost any ground either.
The public, however, needs to have a second look at all ten of the candidates. The South Carolina debate will give them that opportunity.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Ratings of Republican Presidential Candidates
Washington, DC (TLS). The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California provided the backdrop for this first forum of the Republican Presidential candidates.
As we did with the Democrats, The Liberty Sphere will rate each of the Republican candidates based upon their performance in tonight's debate, as well as their views.
With regard to strength of communication skills, clarity of presentation, answering the questions posed, and ability to connect at an emotional level with voters, the candidates are listed below in order of their overall effectiveness in tonight's forum:
Governor Mitt Romney
Rep. Duncan Hunter and Governor Mike Huckabee (tie)
Governor Jim Gilmore
Senator Sam Brownback
Senator John McCain
Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Rep. Ron Paul
Governor Tommy Thompson
Rep. Tom Tancredo
The surprises of the evening are that Mitt Romney and Jim Gilmore did so incredibly well, and Tom Tancredo did so poorly. We regret the latter, for Rep. Tancredo is a good communicator with ideas that need a hearing in this country. For some reason or another, he was off his game tonight.
Of the three front runners so far, Mitt Romney gained the most from this encounter, allowing a large portion of the population to see how well he handles himself under pressure. If there were to be a declared winner on the basis of communication, presentation, and debate presence, it would be Romney, hands down.
Now for the issues of substance. The Liberty Sphere rates all candidates based upon our mission statement, which is to advocate for human liberty all over the world, and to support those candidates, Parties, and organizations that do the most to propagate human freedom.
We base this 'liberty rating' on eight (8) key issues that are central to liberty: national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
For a complete description and rationale for our view that these issues are key, click here to go to our ratings of the Democratic candidates in their first debate:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Based upon our analysis of the views of each of the Republican candidates on these 8 key critical issues, The Liberty Sphere rates tonight's candidates on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest score):
Rep. Duncan Hunter--10
Governor Mike Huckabee--10
Governor Jim Gilmore--9
Senator Sam Brownback--8
Governor Mitt Romney--7
Governor Tommy Thompson--7
Rep. Tom Tancredo--7
Rep. Ron Paul--7
Mayor Rudy Giuliani--6
Senator John McCain--5
Based upon The Liberty Sphere's total leading indicators, combining effectiveness of presentation with strength of views with regard to liberty, who benefited the most from tonight's forum?
Four candidates stand out as doing a stellar job at presenting their case for why they should be President, and probably helped themselves tremendously by appearing in tonight's debate. They are Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore.
A LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: The man to watch is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has been gaining supporters everywhere he goes. He was terribly underrated going into the campaign, and not only has he far surpassed everyone's expectations but he has proved that he is a major player--a political heavyweight who can stand his ground with the most seasoned veterans.
By the way, Huckabee surprisingly came out as the winner of the first Republican straw poll in South Carolina, the Spartanburg County Republican Party Straw Poll, which not only shows Huckabee's ability to sway voters to his side but which also showed the strength of another dark horse--Duncan Hunter, who came in third.
A FINAL NOTE: A huge absentee who was yet very much present tonight was former Senator Fred Thompson. He is emerging as a star waiting in the wings whose entry into the race could change the entire complexion of the Republican race for the nomination.
As we did with the Democrats, The Liberty Sphere will rate each of the Republican candidates based upon their performance in tonight's debate, as well as their views.
With regard to strength of communication skills, clarity of presentation, answering the questions posed, and ability to connect at an emotional level with voters, the candidates are listed below in order of their overall effectiveness in tonight's forum:
Governor Mitt Romney
Rep. Duncan Hunter and Governor Mike Huckabee (tie)
Governor Jim Gilmore
Senator Sam Brownback
Senator John McCain
Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Rep. Ron Paul
Governor Tommy Thompson
Rep. Tom Tancredo
The surprises of the evening are that Mitt Romney and Jim Gilmore did so incredibly well, and Tom Tancredo did so poorly. We regret the latter, for Rep. Tancredo is a good communicator with ideas that need a hearing in this country. For some reason or another, he was off his game tonight.
Of the three front runners so far, Mitt Romney gained the most from this encounter, allowing a large portion of the population to see how well he handles himself under pressure. If there were to be a declared winner on the basis of communication, presentation, and debate presence, it would be Romney, hands down.
Now for the issues of substance. The Liberty Sphere rates all candidates based upon our mission statement, which is to advocate for human liberty all over the world, and to support those candidates, Parties, and organizations that do the most to propagate human freedom.
We base this 'liberty rating' on eight (8) key issues that are central to liberty: national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
For a complete description and rationale for our view that these issues are key, click here to go to our ratings of the Democratic candidates in their first debate:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Based upon our analysis of the views of each of the Republican candidates on these 8 key critical issues, The Liberty Sphere rates tonight's candidates on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest score):
Rep. Duncan Hunter--10
Governor Mike Huckabee--10
Governor Jim Gilmore--9
Senator Sam Brownback--8
Governor Mitt Romney--7
Governor Tommy Thompson--7
Rep. Tom Tancredo--7
Rep. Ron Paul--7
Mayor Rudy Giuliani--6
Senator John McCain--5
Based upon The Liberty Sphere's total leading indicators, combining effectiveness of presentation with strength of views with regard to liberty, who benefited the most from tonight's forum?
Four candidates stand out as doing a stellar job at presenting their case for why they should be President, and probably helped themselves tremendously by appearing in tonight's debate. They are Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore.
A LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: The man to watch is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has been gaining supporters everywhere he goes. He was terribly underrated going into the campaign, and not only has he far surpassed everyone's expectations but he has proved that he is a major player--a political heavyweight who can stand his ground with the most seasoned veterans.
By the way, Huckabee surprisingly came out as the winner of the first Republican straw poll in South Carolina, the Spartanburg County Republican Party Straw Poll, which not only shows Huckabee's ability to sway voters to his side but which also showed the strength of another dark horse--Duncan Hunter, who came in third.
A FINAL NOTE: A huge absentee who was yet very much present tonight was former Senator Fred Thompson. He is emerging as a star waiting in the wings whose entry into the race could change the entire complexion of the Republican race for the nomination.
What If Bush Gave the Dems What They Want?
Washington, DC (TLS). For just a brief moment in time, cast aside all of your statesmanship in order to play with me a little game of political strategist...not that all political strategists are bereft of statesmanship, but after all, it is not their job to tell candidates what's best for America. Their job is to tell their clients how to get elected.
Regardless of what you or I might think of the grave danger the situation in Iraq poses for the world and for the United States, for a few moments let's consider some harsh political realities.
Americans are increasingly getting very tired of the war, so much so that all of the latest indicators point to a massive Republican blood-fest in 2008. Internal polling numbers suggest that if we stay on the present course, not only will Democrats pick up even more seats in Congress than they did in 2006, but they will gain the White House as well.
The single issue that is driving voters away from the GOP is the war.
Thus, as political strategists our job is to devise a method for our clients, in this case the Republicans, to regain control of Congress and to keep the White House.
How can we best go about this?
Remember, the end game is to win. We must, at least for a season, put our best sensitivities as Americans on the back burner.
Winning in 2008 involves a straightforward two-pronged strategy. First, we cater to the electorate. We tell them that we did, indeed, succeed in Iraq by deposing an evil dictator and providing the means for a totalitarian state to hold its first democratic elections...with a democratically-crafted Constitution to boot. We then admit that we blew it after that. We miscalculated the strength of the insurgency, and we simply did not have the troop strength on the ground to do the rest of the job.
We tell them, 'We heard your voices. You are weary of our continued presence in Iraq, and you want the boys to come home now.'
And then we bring them home. Just like that.
Second, we send a message to Democrats. We are giving you what you said you wanted. The American people obviously agreed with you that our mission in Iraq is finished. So, whatever consequences arise as a result of our withdrawal will be entirely on your shoulders.
If the entirety of the fledgling Iraqi government falls apart, so be it.
If Iran seizes the government in Iraq, so be it.
If there is mass genocide, murder, and carnage, so be it.
If terrorists find a new safe haven, not only in Iran but also in Iraq, so be it.
If terrorists are emboldened around the world, so be it.
If they go on the offensive again, against our embassies, our aircraft carriers, etc, so be it.
If they send a nuclear bomb to Israel, so be it.
If they decide to attack America on our own soil....
A wise man from the past said, 'In a democracy, the people usually get the government they deserve.'
The question is, are the Democrats prepared to accept full responsibility for whatever calamity befalls the region, our nation, and the world as a result of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, there will be nobody left to blame when the chickens come home to roost.
Are Americans willing to accept whatever consequences occur in the wake of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, in a dangerous world full of terrorists and Islamo-fascists who are intent on either converting the whole world to Islam or killing the infidels who refuse to convert, there are no second chances. If we get this wrong, it may be the very last mistake we make as a free society before the oppressive heavy hand of Muslim extremists make the nation over in the image of Allah.
My friends, every ounce of political shrewdness in my body wants to urge the President to pull out and give the Dems what they want. That way, if calamity befalls the world, there will be no one to blame but them. Yet every ounce of common decency and concern for the future of the world in my body wants to urge the President not only to stay in Iraq but drastically increase the military fire power, including air and sea (i.e., bombs...the big ones).
I suppose it all boils down to this: is this war worth losing the Presidency and more seats in Congress? If not, then it is time to bring 'em home and let the chips fall where they may. But if what we are doing is worth that kind of loss, then it is time to fight this war like the super-power we are. We need to stop playing footsies with the enemy like a bunch of wussies. Fighting to win is not a place for the politically correct.
Regardless of what you or I might think of the grave danger the situation in Iraq poses for the world and for the United States, for a few moments let's consider some harsh political realities.
Americans are increasingly getting very tired of the war, so much so that all of the latest indicators point to a massive Republican blood-fest in 2008. Internal polling numbers suggest that if we stay on the present course, not only will Democrats pick up even more seats in Congress than they did in 2006, but they will gain the White House as well.
The single issue that is driving voters away from the GOP is the war.
Thus, as political strategists our job is to devise a method for our clients, in this case the Republicans, to regain control of Congress and to keep the White House.
How can we best go about this?
Remember, the end game is to win. We must, at least for a season, put our best sensitivities as Americans on the back burner.
Winning in 2008 involves a straightforward two-pronged strategy. First, we cater to the electorate. We tell them that we did, indeed, succeed in Iraq by deposing an evil dictator and providing the means for a totalitarian state to hold its first democratic elections...with a democratically-crafted Constitution to boot. We then admit that we blew it after that. We miscalculated the strength of the insurgency, and we simply did not have the troop strength on the ground to do the rest of the job.
We tell them, 'We heard your voices. You are weary of our continued presence in Iraq, and you want the boys to come home now.'
And then we bring them home. Just like that.
Second, we send a message to Democrats. We are giving you what you said you wanted. The American people obviously agreed with you that our mission in Iraq is finished. So, whatever consequences arise as a result of our withdrawal will be entirely on your shoulders.
If the entirety of the fledgling Iraqi government falls apart, so be it.
If Iran seizes the government in Iraq, so be it.
If there is mass genocide, murder, and carnage, so be it.
If terrorists find a new safe haven, not only in Iran but also in Iraq, so be it.
If terrorists are emboldened around the world, so be it.
If they go on the offensive again, against our embassies, our aircraft carriers, etc, so be it.
If they send a nuclear bomb to Israel, so be it.
If they decide to attack America on our own soil....
A wise man from the past said, 'In a democracy, the people usually get the government they deserve.'
The question is, are the Democrats prepared to accept full responsibility for whatever calamity befalls the region, our nation, and the world as a result of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, there will be nobody left to blame when the chickens come home to roost.
Are Americans willing to accept whatever consequences occur in the wake of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, in a dangerous world full of terrorists and Islamo-fascists who are intent on either converting the whole world to Islam or killing the infidels who refuse to convert, there are no second chances. If we get this wrong, it may be the very last mistake we make as a free society before the oppressive heavy hand of Muslim extremists make the nation over in the image of Allah.
My friends, every ounce of political shrewdness in my body wants to urge the President to pull out and give the Dems what they want. That way, if calamity befalls the world, there will be no one to blame but them. Yet every ounce of common decency and concern for the future of the world in my body wants to urge the President not only to stay in Iraq but drastically increase the military fire power, including air and sea (i.e., bombs...the big ones).
I suppose it all boils down to this: is this war worth losing the Presidency and more seats in Congress? If not, then it is time to bring 'em home and let the chips fall where they may. But if what we are doing is worth that kind of loss, then it is time to fight this war like the super-power we are. We need to stop playing footsies with the enemy like a bunch of wussies. Fighting to win is not a place for the politically correct.
The Palfrey Ultimatum
Washington, DC (TLS). 'DC Madam' Deborah Palfrey has obviously cut a deal, or rather it is more an ultimatum. She wants some of her high-profile customers to come forward voluntarily to tell the Court that she operated a legitimate business within the limits of the law.
If they refuse, their names will be published, and they will be subpoenaed.
What seems to be a rather straightforward ultimatum on the surface is actually a deal
prosecutors have brokered with her, i.e., 'give us your list of names in exchange for our going easy on you.'
The deal, which involves not only the infamous 'Palfrey's List' but also a carefully crafted ultimatum designed to send shivers up the spines of who-knows-how-many in Washington, is a no-lose situation for Palfrey. If she can scare up enough customers to testify for her, she may beat the rap. If she can't beat the rap she gets off easy because she gave prosecutors the list of powerful 'johns,' which any law enforcement agency would die for.
Palfrey is obviously playing this game with the deftness of a pro. And so are the prosecutors. Let's see what, if anything, this carefully crafted plan will cough up.
If they refuse, their names will be published, and they will be subpoenaed.
What seems to be a rather straightforward ultimatum on the surface is actually a deal
prosecutors have brokered with her, i.e., 'give us your list of names in exchange for our going easy on you.'
The deal, which involves not only the infamous 'Palfrey's List' but also a carefully crafted ultimatum designed to send shivers up the spines of who-knows-how-many in Washington, is a no-lose situation for Palfrey. If she can scare up enough customers to testify for her, she may beat the rap. If she can't beat the rap she gets off easy because she gave prosecutors the list of powerful 'johns,' which any law enforcement agency would die for.
Palfrey is obviously playing this game with the deftness of a pro. And so are the prosecutors. Let's see what, if anything, this carefully crafted plan will cough up.
Gun-Grabbing Freaks On the Loose
Washington, DC (TLS). A national tragedy such as the Virginia Tech massacre should be a time of sacred, solemn mourning. Instead, the gun control lobby seizes each and every national tragedy as a platform from which to spout their disdain for the rights of citizens to own guns.
Such is the case now. The Brady campaign bunch is hard at work, and so are the gun-grabbers in Congress. Despite their innocent-sounding pleas to the contrary, Congressional Democrats are indeed unleashing massive attacks on the 2nd Amendment, even as they assure voters they are not.
The following article focuses on the Brady gang and their desire to rid the nation of all handguns. Read carefully their words, for they have many allies in the House and Senate under the Democrats.
Click here for the complete story:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070502a.html
Such is the case now. The Brady campaign bunch is hard at work, and so are the gun-grabbers in Congress. Despite their innocent-sounding pleas to the contrary, Congressional Democrats are indeed unleashing massive attacks on the 2nd Amendment, even as they assure voters they are not.
The following article focuses on the Brady gang and their desire to rid the nation of all handguns. Read carefully their words, for they have many allies in the House and Senate under the Democrats.
Click here for the complete story:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070502a.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)