I'm not thinking about the Economy!

Those in the Obama camp think all the electorate is thinking about is the economy.

I'm not.

I'm thinking about Obama being weak on national defense. So much so that we may possibly lose a city because our enemies being emboldened. Maybe El Paso because it has a large strategic military base, and the border is so near and very open. Fort Huachuca is also near the border and is of strategic importance.

I'm thinking about an Obama tax plan that cripples small business. the backbone of the US Economy.

I'm thinking about Obama's rich and obvious heritage of Marxist/Socialist philosophy.

I'm thinking about Obama's dubious connections. The ones he used to get ahead and then cast aside when they were not useful any more - Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers. ACORN....etc.

I'm thinking about an Obama health care plan that continues to pay for illegals and conscious slackers.

I'm thinking about an Obama that openly supported his Communist cousin Odingo, whose followers burned Christians alive in a church.

I'm thinking about the sharp left turn the United States will make with a Far Left Democratic Triumverate in the Presidency, the House with Pelosi at the helm and the Senate with Reid reigning proudly. The Supreme Court won't be far behind as Obama will push through far left liberal justices and there won't be a damn thing we can do about it.

I'm NOT thinking about the Economy. I'm thinking about the Future of America.

With Friends Like These.........

Who needs enemies!

Wow! I'm not enamored with McCain, but if this guy is a typical representative of an Obama supporter, his campaign is in a LOT of trouble! I wonder whose koolaid he's been drinking.....there are so many moonbat fountains!




Thanks to Blogs for McCain for sharing that tidbit!

My Sentiments Exactly!

There is a fine article The Catholic Online site that echoes what I'm feeling and adds to my prior posting about feeling disenfranchised.

The Shaking of the Republican Party

This election is shaking the Republican Party and forcing it to reexamine its first principles. It may mark the beginning of a new coalition for life, family, freedom and solidarity.

Thompson in the bag for McCain?

Does Thompson have ANY chance of being a President? No.

A Vice President or cabinet officer of high rank? Yes, with McCain's help. Thompson is the sort of lackluster person who will not outshine McCain. Face it, people go to sleep listening to him talk. Thompson makes Gerald Ford look exciting!

Thompson can be a hero to McCain if he can take enough financial and electoral support from Huckabee to put Huckabee in second place all the time.

Fred Thomson the "Fix" is on! Why did he, all of a sudden, get energized in South Carolina? He had no chance of getting the 1st, 2nd or 3rd slot, but was able to peel off enough votes that McCain, one of the many liberals on the Republican side, was able to barely beat Huckabee (who is a true conservative, by the way).

The question I have for McCain is this: Do you intend to offer Fred Thompson a job should you become the party's nominee? No other explaination is plausible. Now that Thompson has flown home to Mother, maybe he can sit back and wait for his reward should McCain become the nominee.

For all the politics junkies

Here is a good site for you to track the elections this year. Enjoy.

Election Projection 2008 Edition

Republican Party Degeneration?

When I look at the field of presidential candidates on the Republican side, I wonder whose side they are running for. The 'front runner', Rudy Guiliani, has social views that line up with the Democrat front runner, Hillary Clinton. He's not a real conservative. Fred Thompson, seen as the 'great hope' for conservatives, doesn't seem to know how to run a campaign, nor what work to do in order to gain popularity. We wonder if he would be able to debate Clinton. Romney seems to have changed his mind about critical issues when convenient to do so.....like being "pro-choice" until deciding to run for President.

Is the Republican party so diluted that locally a person cannot clearly distinguish the party of a candidate by looking at their stand on issues alone? Why do we have to go to our party headquarters to find out who the candidates are? Are the candidates afraid to make their position clear?

The lack of clarity of position is evidenced by Republican dissatisfaction with the current slate of leading presidential candidates. I happened upon a poll in the sidebar of a random blog today. Here are the results:

Who is your favorite Republican Presidential Candidate?

• None of the above. I want a real Conservative! (38%, 279 Votes)
• Fred Thompson (28%, 207 Votes)
• Rudy Giuliani (16%, 116 Votes)
• Mitt Romney (8%, 59 Votes)
• Newt Gingrich (8%, 57 Votes)
• John McCain (2%, 17 Votes)

Total Voters: 735

There are so few Republican candidates that really exemplify what "conservative" means. The only one that talks the talk and has real world experience that will transfer to the role of President is Mike Huckabee. He would be a natural choice to lead the nation because of his successful experience as governor of Arkansas, and because he is a true conservative. I hope his hard work in Iowa and New Hampshire bears fruit, and that Republicans will not dismiss him as unelectable.

Did I Mention Hillary Is a Socialist?

Here is a shocking list of questions which I shall quote in their entirety. Thanks to Right Truth for posting this eye-opening list.

Who said this? (answers at the bottom, but don't look)

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

These views do not represent the vision of America - the land of the free and the home of the brave. These are overtly communist values which represent redistribution of wealth and complete nationwide entitlement. Communism is a failed system. We've known that for years now. How sad that the Democratic "frontrunner" is so blatantly against the free market system that has been economically successful and has done the most good for this world in motivating people to aspire to be the best they can and work hard to achieve great goals.

Voters, if you want a nanny that will take care of your every need without the necessity of you having to work for what you have, then vote for Hillary. I will save my vote for a candidate who will inspire me to work for my dreams because I will achieve them by my own merit and not based on the 'equal share' of what a government will give me.

"What's in Your Wallet?"

That's what I want to know from Democratic candidates in this election cycle. Who's providing them the big bucks to promote their "Progressive" Socialist agenda?

Consider the Democrats who won't speak out against the MoveOn.org ad, including Hillary Clinton. MoveOn is generously supported by George Soros - a man who wants to be a political chessmaster in the world, and who uses his capital to influence elections. This was obvious during the last presidential election and is still continuing.

So, Soros wants to spend money to over throw what he considers 'fascist regimes' and has an obsessively negative view of the United States. Should he be allowed to 'buy' elections? Should he become the defacto King of America (and the world)?

A fair warning to Democratic candidates - What is in your wallet and who is controlling you with their dollars?

Yes, Bill Richardson is just another Liberal but...

Yes, Bill Richardson is just another liberal. What sets him apart is his success as a governor of New Mexico as well as his vast experience as a former cabinet member and his international diplomatic experience, which the other Democratic candidates sorely lack.

Here in New Mexico he has cut taxes and been very pro-business. This has improved living circumstances immensely. I live in one of the cities that is experiencing tremendous growth and a rise in the standard of living (although, admittedly, vast poverty exists south of us due to the swell of illegal immigration.)

I am not a Democrat, but if my values were in agreement with theirs, I would consider Richardson the most qualified candidate of all in the field. Here’s hoping Hillary’s skeletons come out of the closet to haunt her, and that Obama’s charm is a thin veil revealing his shocking lack of experience and extreme views.

GOP Straw Poll

This is an interesting site. Not only does it ask who your first choice of GOP candidate is, but it also asks about which of the GOP candidates would be acceptable to you.

The results are quite interesting, although most of the bloggers are ga ga about Fred Thompson, who is not even running. I'm semi-committed to Giuliani, and only because I think he will keep the country safe and not be a wuss like the democratic candidates.

Here is the Poll:

GOP Straw Polls

While you are at it, cast a vote at the Pajamas Media Poll in the right side column of my blog.

Giuliani is right about this: UPDATE

As might be expected, leading Democrats are wailing and gnashing their teeth over Giuliani's statements. I already commented on this article here. And every time I think about Giuliani's comments, I think about the Iran Hostage crisis that was precipitated by Jimmy Carter's weakness against our enemies during his administration. His administration was so bad he is very close to being considered one of the worst presidents we have ever had. By the way, neither Bush is close to being on this list.

My question for Democrats is this - how will the Democrats deal with an enemy that is hell-bent on destroying our civilization and replacing it with a barbaric, misogynistic, intolerant, and frankly, backward theocratic civilization?? I hope they have a good answer, too, because the future of the United States of America hangs upon how this nation will vote..not just in the presidential election, but in every election.

So, Hillary and Obama have decided that Giuliani has stooped to a new low. (I think Hillary did that already by putting on the fake southern accent and singing "Ah Dohn't Git No Waays Tahrd!" for her black audience) Lets see how low they go in scrambling to give their blind "peace peace (when there is no peace)" constituents some sort of answer to the terrorism issue rather than pushing it aside.

Giuliani is right about this

In an article in the Politico, Giuliani states frankly that "if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001."

He believes if a Democrat wins the highest office, our nation will go on the defensive against those whose sole purpose is to convert us or kill us. In doing that, the war will be extended and there will be more casualties. He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

On the other hand, if a Republican is elected, they are likely to remain on the offensive against a very vicious and religiously motivated enemy. Fewer casualties should ensue, and, in my opinion, there would be greater stability and peace in the world.

Here are some more quotes from the article:

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

I'll be honest. I'm a social conservative, and Giuliani's views on social positions do make me cringe. But at the same time, is there a candidate on the Republican side who is willing to take such a bold stand against a very real enemy? As far as the Democrats are concerned, while there are some skilled in governing (Bill Richardson, who is very experienced, is one of the few examples), but I am totally embarrassed by the hang dog, turn tail, flip-flopping defeatist attitude that Democratic leaders portray.

For us to refuse to be bold against such an aggressive enemy as the radical Islamo-fascists, is to put ourselves in the same position we were in when Jimmy Carter was President. Weak stance was well recognized by our enemies, and Iran held hostages there up to the very day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated because they knew Carter would do nothing, and that Reagan would kick butt and take names.

It's time to kick butt and take names again, and I think the Democrats would let our butt be the one kicked.

My Quandry

This election season is very frustrating for conservatives. I’m disappointed in the choices we have on both sides. It seems the Republicans who are running are really Democrats at heart. Additionally, very few potential candidates have any real experience in statesmanship.

This puts me in the quandary of having to possibly cross party lines to find someone with some experience whom I could trust to do the best for our country. They all say they will, but the only one with the experience necessary to be president is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. As a resident of the state of New Mexico, I’ve seen the progress he’s made in this state in education and economic growth. He has shown he knows how to run a troubled state, and I think he has the skill to run our country.

As a conservative, I know that voting for Richardson will mean a compromise of my social values, but he would do a good job as president while the Republican party finds some real conservative candidates who can communicate well, have proven experience in governance, and who are skilled negotiators who are able to win the trust of those who are of a liberal persuasion.