When Huckabee was coming out of nowhere in Iowa, we had numerous pundits on the left, jumping on the Huckabee bandwagon. And then McCain came out of nowhere in New Hampshire, and then they jumped on the McCain bandwagon. Romney wins in Michigan, and they didn’t jump on the Romney bandwagon. They stayed on the McCain bandwagon. Then we go to Wyoming, and Romney won all the delegates there, and they didn’t jump on the Romney bandwagon. They stayed on the McCain bandwagon and hoped for Huckabee. And then we get to South Carolina and Nevada. In Nevada, Romney cleans up, and nobody talks about it. “Romney is nowhere. He’s off the charts. He should quit. Thompson should quit. He should get out of the race!” They remain on the McCain bandwagon. Now the people on the McCain bandwagon are telling those of us who aren’t on the McCain bandwagon, to shut up. Just be quiet…

We are supposedly damaging the Republican Party.

We are supposedly damaging the conservative movement. We should just shut up. Just sit by and watch all this stuff and let it happen and just be quiet. What is the point?

McCain, frankly, has shown conservatives little but contempt over many years.

The point is, McCain got fewer votes — 42% in 2000; 33% of the vote Saturday night, 2008 — and he wasn’t running against his two top challengers, once you get out of these states where independents can go in and vote in the Republican primary.

He should have cleaned up. McCain should have gotten over 50% of the vote if this McCain movement is for real, but he got fewer votes and a much smaller percentage in 2008 than he did in 2000.

It’s humorous, interesting, and a little funny.

I’ve made no secret of my concern about this field of candidates from the get-go, and I have made no secret, here, of my intention to post about their records. If a candidate is concealing their record, I don’t have to go along with that. If a candidate has something to say that I think is great, I will mention it if I choose to. To state the purpose again here within the context of this particular campaign, my purpose is to see conservatism triumph, both in the primary and in the general election.

Senator McCain’s domestic record is not conservative, and we’re being lectured by the media — some who are hostile to conservatism, some who wear the conservative label — to be quiet, to not be too hard on him, or whatever.

We deal in ideas. Why should I be quiet about my ideas? Why should I be quiet, or anybody else who happens to espouse what I believe? Why should we be quiet? The primary is precisely the time to speak! That’s when this stuff gets aired and sorted out.

Governor Huckabee has reversed course on taxes, on illegal immigration. He has reversed course on law and order. Why shouldn’t we discuss this? I mean, he made a major, major flip-flop on immigration. It didn’t help him in South Carolina, and look what happened when he did that. Many of you think Governor Huckabee is very conservative. Put when he did this flip-flop on immigration, what direction did he move? He moved right. His previous position was: tuition, illegals, kids stay, blah, blah, blah. He vowed to send ’em all home, right before the South Carolina primary. Huge, huge flip-flop. Why should we be quiet about that?

Because the media likes the guy and is pulling for him? Is that a reason to be quiet about it? If I think any one or few of these guys might ultimately damage the Republican Party or the conservative movement, should we not talk about that, either?

McCain wants people to shut up. That’s called McCain-Feingold. McCain passed the first successful, major shut-up bill in the history of the country. McCain-Feingold was an abridgement of free speech. McCain wants people to shut up. Why should we shut up? Why don’t they shut up? It would never occur to me to say to Senator McCain, “Shut up about what you’re saying on the campaign trail. It’s not accurate. You’re not being truthful about your past positions on issues.” It would never occur to me tell them to shut up.

It occurs to liberals to tell people that they disagree with to shut up, but it doesn’t occur to me. I’m not afraid. This notion that we should shut up is insulting and offensive.

They all like McCain and Huckabee, so they just want these guys to sail through here without any opposition.

Let me give you a quote, from the great Ronald Reagan, especially since the Media and even some pundits on our side continue to hate hearing references to Reagan. “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.”

Let me translate. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply doing anything to win. And that, I fear, is what’s happening to the Republican Party. Bring in anybody you think can beat Hillary. That’s really what this boils down to.

Conservatives are thinkers, and they’re not fooled. Conservatives don’t buy into liberalism on the touchy-feely emotional side, but if there’s nobody for conservatives to vote for, then that’s fine. So take out Thompson. Take out Rudy. Leave us with McCain and Huckabee, and they think conservatives will stay home — and then the Republican Party will face a realignment.

What the Media and the Democrats desperately want is for there to be no conservative influence in the Republican Party at all, because they know that if that happens, the Republican Party will never beat them.

Without conservatism in the Republican Party, the Republican Party is finished in terms of having chances, viable chances to win elections — if the conservative base is driven out of it. You can drive the conservative base out of the Republican Party by making sure that none of its candidates get nominated, that none of its candidates win primaries, or if they do win primaries, that big pieces designed to destroy them show up in the Media.

Debate us? That’s beneath them! We’re like Chihuahuas, except the Chihuahuas that were yapping at their heels are up to their throats now, and they want us finished. So when they start touting all these candidates that are not us, and that’s why we get concerned here, and that’s why we’re not going to shut up.

BE BOLD … BE BRAVE… LEAD.

Judicial Watch a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, released records obtained from the Clinton Library related to the national task force on Hillary health care reform, a cabinet-level task force chaired by Mrs. Clinton during the administration.

Specifically, those documents came from the White House health care interdepartmental working group. Here are the highlights of the documents released by Judicial Watch.

“A June 18, 1993 internal memorandum entitled, ‘A Critique of Our Plan,‘ authored by someone with the initials ‘P.S.,’ makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct.“

Now, this is somebody in the White House who has analyzed Hillary’s plan and is offering a critique of it.

“I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy. … Is the public really ready for this? … none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”

This is somebody in the administration, a task force designed to analyze their own plan.

“A ‘Confidential’ May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, ‘Health Care Reform Communications,’ which criticizes the Task Force” — Now, the task force is the group that said, “This is too big.” So Rockefeller, knowing of the memo in the White House, criticizes the task force “as a ‘secret cabal of Washington policy “wonks”‘ that has engaged in ‘choking off information’ from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton ‘use classic opposition research’ to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to ‘expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists’ in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations ‘are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage,'” of the Hillary health care reform plan.

Now, Rockefeller sends this memo to Hillary saying, “Here’s how we’re going to deal with the people trying to stop you. We’re going to expose their lifestyles with opposition research. We’re going to expose their tactics and their motives of lobbyists and so forth.”

It’s bad enough that somebody in the White House suggested, “This plan is so big, I’ve never seen anything like this even in wartime. I don’t know that we could do it, I don’t know if the American people want this.” There are people in the administration that were upset about this.

 

This is massive!

Rockefeller was trying to shut them up. He was going even one better, “All right, you don’t like it, we’re going to go after you, too.”

“A February 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes the development of an ‘interest group data base’ detailing whether or not organizations ‘support(ed) us in the election.’ The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, ‘biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople.'”

What we are treated to — and these are White House documents, that somehow Judicial Watch got from the Clinton Library — what we are discovering is what many of us have long known/suspected that the Clinton, Inc., war room has no boundaries whatsoever and that they will use the full force and the power of the federal government against individuals who are not supporting what they want to do. They’ll do it by exposing lifestyles, threatening to do this, threatening to ruin them, harass them, find their phone numbers, their addresses, get their biographies. Think 700 FBI files.

“These records released by Judicial Watch were obtained from the approximately 13,000 records made publicly available by the Clinton Library. The National Archives admits there may be an additional 3,022,030 textual records, 2,884 pages of electronic records, 1,021 photographs, 3 videotapes and 3 audiotapes related to the Task Force that are being withheld indefinitely from the public. On November 2, 2007 Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit with the US District Court for the District of Columbia against the National Archives to force the release of all the Task Force records.
‘These documents paint a disturbing picture of how Hillary Clinton and the Clinton administration approached health care reform — secrecy, smears, and the misuse of government computers to track private and political information on citizens,’ said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. ‘There are millions more documents that the Library has yet to release. The Clintons continue to play games and pretend they have nothing to do with this delay. The Clintons should get out of the way and authorize the release of these records now.'”

There’s no way, and this is exactly why.

None of this surprises me. The detail is stunning, to have Rockefeller involved here. I guess that shouldn’t surprise me, based on his attempts to sabotage victory in the Iraq war by trying to destroy the intelligence efforts with another famous memo of his.

So the fact is that, this is who Democrats are, this is what liberals do.

It’s much easier to watch Hillary Clinton in a debate or Bill Clinton lose his cool at a campaign event or an interview knowing full well what they’ve got in mind, as Mrs. Clinton tries to portray herself as just a harmless person, a woman who wants the best for the children, who wants the best for the country, power mad.

We keep hearing about bipartisanship and getting rid of the divides that exist in this country. The Clintons don’t care if there are divides. Whoever gets in their way will be destroyed, one way or the other. That’s the game plan. It’s been part of the playbook. It always has been.

These documents at Judicial Watch just happen to give irrefutable evidence of it.
Reference:

Judicial Watch Releases Records Re: Hillary’s Health Care Reform Plan

WorldNetDaily: Shocker: Even Insiders Doubted Hillary’s ‘93 Health Care Coup

The Republican Party matters to me in the sense that it is the vessel — it is the host, if you will — for conservatism.

Now, too many Republicans look at themselves as the host, and conservatives as an infection — as a virus that has been spreading throughout the Republican Party and slowly eating it away.

Wrong.

That’s what will happen if we succeed in having a candidate — I don’t care who it is — who is so enamored with getting independents and moderates and certain liberals, by going out and trying to be like them and telling them that our party is in fact their home. It’s the Invasion of the Body Snatchers all over again in a political sense.

I think a lot of people’s devotion to McCain is. I think a lot of people’s devotion to Governor Huckabee is a cult of personality.

Reagan didn’t invent conservatism. He just showed how to apply it, and he showed how it attracts voters. How can you do better than a 49-state landslide? A fifty-state landslide, but it’s pretty damn close.

Anybody want to tell me that Reagan was campaigning as a moderate, independent?

Anybody want to tell me that Reagan was running around campaigning and telling people how to become dependent on the government?

Come on, folks! It’s time to wake up here.

I understand going out and “expanding the base” and having a chance at electoral victory and so forth, but if it means destroying the Republican Party — and certainly losing, by the way.

Does anybody think that the way to be elected president is to out-liberal liberals, to out-moderate moderates?

Some of this just escapes me, especially when the history is not that long ago. It’s fairly recent; it’s the eighties. Even the Contract with America and the Republicans winning the House of Representatives in 1994, you think we did that with liberalism? You think we did that by attracting moderates? We had a little help there because there’s so much corruption on the House of Representatives on the Democrat side, but how did anybody know about that? Remember the Dead Media – ABC,CBS,NBC.

There’s no magic and there’s nothing valorous about going out and attracting people to our party by being like them, and having them think that our party is a new home for them, because of whatever deficiencies there are with Hillary or Obama or what have you.

That expediency to win is going to set us back.

For those of us that are conservatives first and Republicans second, this is something that matters deeply.

As I said, global warming and campaign finance reform are not just little throwaway issues that McCain made mistakes on and maybe apologized for (which he hasn’t). They’re substantive. They’re crucial. I think this notion that we’ve gotta go out and broaden the base of the party by forsaking our own roots, by forsaking our own base, I’m going to tell you: You talk about this notion, “When you get down to nominations, and you get down to the presidential race, if it’s McCain or Huckabee or any of our guys against Hillary or Obama, you really think that our guys are going to stay home and not vote for our side?”

It depends…

If our nominee spends a whole campaign acting like he’s embarrassed at his own base; like he’s angry at them, wants to diminish them and deemphasize them; and wants to instead build his party and his victory on members of the Democrat Party and liberals and moderates.

Yeah, it’s going to make ’em mad!

There’s already an undertow of real anger at Senator McCain over immigration alone and McCain-Feingold, among the Republican base. It’s just these moderates out there, those that are also in the media. They’re out of touch with the Republican base as well. The Republican base embarrasses them. So these are the people that consider themselves to be the party’s “modernizers.”

Well, hell, I’m all for “modernization,” but not destruction.

McCain says, “I think I’ll match my conservative record up against anybody that’s running.”

Okay, now, see, that’s pretty clever. It’s pretty clever, because one of the laments among a lot of conservatives is that we don’t have a thoroughbred out there, that every one of these guys has some sort of a question mark about them that you can go to in their past. The only guy that doesn’t have to defend a prior liberal governing stance or moderate governing stance, well, and it’s not even totally, is Thompson. But even Thompson went along with McCain on the campaign finance reform thing.

So, nobody is a thoroughbred out there.

We’re not looking for purity. We’re looking for people that want to beat liberals, not join them, and not have them join us. That’s not the future. Do you ever hear liberals say — do you hear Obama and these guys running around saying — “We need to go out and attract conservatives to our party. We need to find out how to broaden or base?”

Do you think if any one of those candidates — be it Obama, be it Mrs. Clinton, be it Edwards — started talking in ways that would attract somebody like me, that their party would put up with it in order to win?

Well, they promised a middle class tax cut, but they don’t deliver the thing. You know, it works when the conservative Democrats run in local, state, House of Representatives elections. That’s how they won the House last time.

That’s another thing that bugs me. When the Democrats do want to win, especially in local House race, they run conservative Democrats, and they win. Our own side wants to bad mouth conservatism; sweep it aside as something that’s an antique, that needs to be modernized and so forth.

It’s patently absurd.

Obama cites Reagan…

This embarrasses me. He’s citing Reagan in great ways. He’s not citing Reagan on policy. He wouldn’t dare do that, and he’s taking a risk doing it anyway. That group over there despises Reagan even more than some of the country club, blue-blood Republicans on our side despised Reagan — make no mistake, they did.

Nevertheless he’s out there citing Reagan, but he’s doing it in the context of attitudes and uplifting sentiments, optimism and hope and inspiration. The kind of things our people ought to be doing, Obama is out there-doing.

Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski (Mika Brzezinski is the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security advisor to Jimmy Carter), and they’re talking about conservatives in the presidential race, and Mika Brzezinski says, “I don’t have any problem with morality in politics.”

You don’t have any problem with morality in politics? And that was somehow big news!

The secularists are all over it. “No, I don’t have any problem with morality.”

It’s like: I can stomach morality.

Pete writes in his piece on Obama and Reagan, the one thing — one of the most fundamental aspects of Ronald Reagan’s success was the morality of everything that he brought into play. He knew the Soviet Union would implode on the basis of its own immorality, if we just gave it the right nudge.

He thought the same thing of liberalism. It’s its own immorality, if you give it the right nudge, it will implode on itself.

Reagan’s morality was a fundamental aspect of who he was and how he took the concepts, the precepts, the contexts and principles of conservatism and applied them to the issues of his day.

MATTHEWS: I think the Hillary appeal has always been somewhat about a mix of toughness and sympathy for her. Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it; she didn’t win on her merits, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,” right? That’s what happened.

He hit the nail on the head, folks. Hillary Clinton is where she is because she is the most cheated on woman in the world, not the most cheated on woman in America, but the most cheated on woman in the world.

MATTHEWS: Concerned people like you who watch this show so faithfully every night, people like me who care about this country think I’ve been disrespectful to Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman. Was it fair to imply that Hillary’s whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that’s what it sounded like I was saying, and it hurt people I’d like to think normally like what I say, in fact, normally like me. If my heart does not always control my words, on those occasions that I have not taken the time to say things right or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I’ll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women, of all people, the full equality and respect for their ambitions. So I get it. Saying that Senator Clinton got where she’s got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive.

Well, this is what happens to you when you want to be liked by the libs and when you don’t want the libs getting mad at you. So Hardball became Suckball last night. He got it right the first time when he was on Scarborough because what else recommends her?

In fact, Krauthammer had an even better line today, I read his column at National Review Online, and he said this whole bid for the presidency is just one giant alimony payment without the divorce.

That is exactly right. A giant alimony payment and we’re the ones paying. She is the most cheated on woman in the world. Where does this sense of entitlement come from, or the sense of inevitability?

Hillary is back to playing the victim again. Monday she was on the Tyra Banks Show. Tyra Banks said, “How did you persevere during the darkest moment in your life?”

HILLARY: Well, because I had tremendous faith, number one, I really had to dig down deep and think hard about what was right for me, what was right for my family, and I never doubted Bill’s love for me, ever, and I never doubted my faith and my commitment to our daughter and our extended family. But I had to decide what I had to do, and I think it’s so important to be able to hear yourself at a moment when it’s hard.

This is smack!

Talking about Lewinsky here. It wasn’t a surprise — to act like this was a surprise when everybody knows . She had been in charge of the bimbo eruptions. The only thing she was probably upset about was she was probably angry that he was stupid and he got caught. Now, a bunch of crap about you gotta be able to hear yourself at a moment when it’s hard.

Somebody tell me what that means.

You have to be able to hear yourself. And we know she wasn’t even trying to hear herself. She was channeling Eleanor Roosevelt in the White House. She already admitted that.

Tyra Banks, question: “Were you embarrassed?”

HILLARY: Well, sure. I mean all of that, but I also, I was just praying so hard and thinking so hard about what’s right to do.

BANKS: Do women come up to you and ask for advice, my husband — you know, my husband stepped out on me, and I’m going through hell right now, what do I do? Have they done that?

HILLARY: Yes.

BANKS: What do you say?

HILLARY: All the time.

BANKS: What do you say?

HILLARY: I say you have to be true to yourself. You know, no one story is the same as any other story. I don’t know your reality. I can’t possibly substitute my judgment for yours, but what I can tell you is, you must be true to yourself. You have to do what is right for you.

Now, what does that mean?

In Hillary‘s case, okay, I am the most cheated on woman in the world and I’m going to get something for this. There’s a price, and it’s right for me, and that is being president, because I, the most cheated on woman in the world, not the country, but the world. So she’s telling you that you can’t do that. If you’re a doormat and you’re being cheated on, not as much as Hillary because she’s the most cheated on woman in the world, but if you’re a woman and you’re being cheated on, she’s saying,”Look, I can’t judge for you.”

What that means is, you don’t stand a prayer becoming president like I do, but you might be able to join the culinary workers and endorse Obama, if you really set your sights high.

About a year ago, someone e-mailed this to me … thus, began my Blogging career.

Tears turned to Passion…

I would like to thank the one who sent it for lighting the fire of passion within me, and giving me the courage to express that passion.

I would never have thought of this explanation to give to my son at this age, but am glad that someone did. If more adults could think of Iraq in this way maybe we wouldn’t have soldiers being spit upon once again in this country.

DON’T CLOSE THE BLINDS

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He said “Son, stand there and tell me what you see?” “I see trees and cars and our neighbor’s houses,” he replied. “OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush.”

Our son giggled and said “OK.”

“Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country,” my husband said.

“OK Dad, I’m pretending.”

“Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death.

Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son….what do you do?”

“Dad?”

“What do you do son?”

“I’d call the police, Dad.”

“OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call. They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?”

“Dad………. but the police are supposed to help!” My son starts to whine.

“They don’t want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it,” my husband says.

“But Dad…he killed her!!” my son exclaims.

“I know he did…but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you’re pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children.”

“Daddy…he kills them?”

“Yes son, he does. What do you do?”

“Well, if the police don’t want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him,” our son says.

“Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him,” my husband says.

“But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can’t stop him by myself!!”

“WHAT DO YOU DO SON?” Our son starts to cry.

“OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and

puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?”

“What Daddy?”

“He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then…he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?”

“Daddy…”

“WHAT DO YOU DO?” Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, “I’d close the blinds, Daddy.”

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him. “Why?”

“Because Daddy…..the police are supposed to help people who need them…and they won’t help…. You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won’t help either…they won’t help me stop him…I’m afraid….I can’t do it by myself Daddy…..I can’t look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and…and…..do nothing…so….I’m just going to close the blinds….

so I can’t see what he’s doing……..and I’m going to pretend that it is not happening.”

I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband’s questions and he says…”Son.”

“Yes, Daddy.”

“Open the blinds because that man…. he’s at your front door… WHAT DO YOU DO?”

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: ” I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I’M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I’M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I’M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!”

I see a tear roll down my husband’s cheek and he grabs our son to his chest and hugs him tight, and says… ” It’s too late to fight him, he’s too strong and he’s already at YOUR front door son…..you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady across the way. You have to do what’s right, even if you have to do it alone, before its too late,” my husband whispers.

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen son, THAT is the greatest atrocity in the world.

“YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!”

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! E PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!

SUPPORT THEM!!!

SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS…”

//  This should be printed in every newspaper and posted in every school in America. Of course that won’t happen so we’ll use the internet. If your blinds are closed do nothing with this email. If they are open I do not need to tell you what to do.

GOD BLESS!!!!!! \\